NC0088366_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20100122

VC0086-366
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES Permit Application
Upgrade Discharge from 5 mgd to 15 mgd
January 22, 2010
S --� 15 M G-d
submitted
to LAIL,
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building; 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
Mr. Steve Ward
— Harnett County Dept. of Public Utilities
308 W Duncan Street
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
[e-mail] �\\ \ u I I Ll / //7
Prepared
by
Brian Sexton, P.E.
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
147-A Dublin Square Road
Asheboro, NC 27203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Building innovation. i 01FO

FOM
voiv
' MARZIANO & MCGOUGAN, P.A.
consulting engineers
January 22, 2010
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Archdale Building; 9 h Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mn
RE: South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permit Application to Upgrade Discharge from 5 mgd to 15 mgd
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
M&rM Project No.: 26015
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed please find the following information submitted for the above referenced project:
`�
• A check in the amount of $1030
• Three (3) copies of the application EPA Form-2A
• Three (3) copies of EAA with supporting documents, including the following:
o Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI issued 10-27-09)
o ATC for the South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd (issued 12-4-2009)
Harnett County is in the process of constructing upgrades to the South Harnett Regional
WWTP to serve Fort Bragg and the Town of Spring Lake. This NPDES permit application
requests an increase from the current NPDES Discharge permit of 5 mgd to the new 15 mgd
capacity of the WWTP. All wastewater will be discharged to the Lower Little River (existing
discharge location 001) in Harnett County. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Fort
Bragg will be decommissioned as a result of this project. In the future, it is anticipated that the
existing wastewater treatment facility at Spring Lake will be decommissioned as a result of this
�'
project. A SEPA environmental assessment was prepared on behalf of Harnett County and
received a Finding of No Significant Impact on 10-27-09 (SCH 10-E-4300-0113). A copy of the
FONSI is included in the EAA, Appendix A.
An ATC was issued for the proposed WWTP expansion on 12-4-09 (ATC 088366-A02, see EAA,
Appendix A). The expansion of the WWTP will include the following items: construction of two
5 mgd Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) trains, including piping,
decanting, fine bubble diffusion and blowers, construction of two 5 mgd traveling bridge tertiary
filters including backwash pumping, piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules
Marziano &t
which would allow up to a peak flow of 42.5 mgd with one bank of UV modules out of service
McGougan, P.A.
Modifications to the existing handling system include the installation of a bioset slip
pasteurization system and all necessary site work piping and electrical. The existing head
1300 Second Avenue
and cascade aeration discharge system are adequate for the 15 mgd flow rate peaking ar
Suite 2U
Conway, SC 29526
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]

FAM
MM
MO
MM
MR
MM
M"
FM
MR
no
M
MR
OR
M
MOM
„o Marziano &
McGougan, P.A.
1300 Second Avenue
"q Suite 211
Conway, SC 29526
Phone: [phone]
FM Fax:[phone]
NPDES Unit
January 22, 2010
Page 2
If you have any questions about this EAA or application, please feel free to contact Joseph
McGougan, P.E. or myself at our Conway, South Carolina office.
Project

PAR
Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
am NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
no Harnett County Public Utilities
South Harnett Regional WWTP
ON
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ow NPDES PERMIT - UPGRADE FROM 5 MGD TO 15 MGD
Am
FM
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Speculative NPDES Limits................................................................................................................1
rim 3.0 Harnett County Residential Population Projections....................................................................... 2
3.1 BRAC Commission Report - Regional Population Projections ............................................... 3
rM 3.2 Wastewater Flow Projections......................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Alternatives Analysis........................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Connect to Existing WWTP ............................................................... ............................................ 7
4.1.1 Alternative #1.1 -Maintain Connections with Fort Bragg and Spring Lake WWTPs..... 7
4.1.2 Alternative #1.2 - Connect to Cross Creek WWTP (Fayetteville PWC) ........................... 8
4.2 Alternative #2 - Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River) ....................................... 9
4.2.1 Land Requirements...................................................................................................................10
4.2.2 Effluent Transfer System and Spray Fields...........................................................................11
4.3 Alternative #3 - Reclaimed Water Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Reuse
Effluent to Potential Users (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower Little River)................11
4.4 Alternative #4 - Direct Discharge to Surface Waters - Expand the South Harnett Regional
WWTPfrom 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd..............................................................................................12
4.5 Alternative #5 - Combination of Alternatives...........................................................................13
,m 5.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative & Present Worth Analysis....................................................13
d"
no
Mp
6.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................15
veto TDC-1 Marziano &z McGougan, P.A.
' Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWI P
am NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
MR Report Tables
mm Table 1: Speculative Limits for South Harnett Regional W VI?..............................................................1
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Harnett County Population ......................... 2
Table 3 — Service Area Population Projections............................................................................................. 4
ow
Table 4 - 20-Year Flow Projections for Expanded Sewer Service Area .................................................... 6
......................
Table5: Summary of Alternatives.................................................................................................................. 7
Table 6 — Taxonomic Description of Soils Located Within the Potential Spray Application Area....10
MR Table 7 — Feasibility Matrix for Alternative Selection .................
Table 8 — Summary of Present Worth Analysis..........................................................................................14
Appendices
Appendix A — Supporting Information
• FONSI from NCDENR-DWQ (SCH File# 10-E-4300-0113, DWQ #14096, NCDENR
#1495); South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd; October 27, 2009
• Authorization to Construct (ATC No, 088366-A02); 15.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTI'; December 4, 2009
• Speculative Limits for 15.0 mgd Discharge into the Lower Little River; April 24, 2008
• NPDES Permit for the 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional WWTP; December 1, 2006
PM4 Appendix B - Project Maps
• Project Service Area Overlay on Water Supply Watersheds
• Project Service Area Overlay on Zoning Map (Harnett & Cumberland)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (1 of 2)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (2 of 2)
• 2006 Aerial Photography: WWTP Components and Location
• Detailed Site Plan for Proposed WWTP Upgrade (existing and proposed structures)
Appendix C - Present Worth Analysis
• Alternative #2 - Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Lower Little River)
• Alternative #4 - Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower Little River)
M-9 Appendix D - Sewer Flow & Population Projections
• Table DA — 20 Year Sewer Flow Projections
• Table D.2 — 20-Year County Population Projection Methodologies
• Chart D.3 — Graphical Comparison of 20-Year Population Projection Methodologies
• Table DA — 20-Year Service Area Population Projections
TOC-2 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
' Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
� f

so
FM
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Harnett County Public Utilities
South Harnett Regional WWTP
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NPDES PERMIT - UPGRADE FROM 5 MGD TO 15 MGD
1.0 Introduction
This Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is being prepared as required by the NCDENR-
NPDES Unit because an expansion is proposed to the existing 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTP facility in the amount of 10.0 mgd. The final treatment capacity and NPDES discharge
�+ capacity of the facility will be 15.0 mgd. The existing wastewater treatment facility at Fort Bragg will
be decommissioned as a result of this project. In the future, the existing treatment facility at Spring
Lake will be decommissioned and the Town will connect to the South Harnett Regional WW'I?.
2.0 Speculative NPDES Limits
None of the criteria listed in Item 1 of the EAA guidelines precludes the proposed increase to a 15.0
mgd discharge from being considered by the NPDES Unit. The existing 5.0 mgd South Harnett
Regional WWTP currently operates under NPDES Permit Number NCO088366 and discharges into
the Lower Little River. For the proposed expansion to 15.0 mgd, speculative limits were requested
and obtained on April 2e, 2008 for this increased discharge at the same location as the existing 5.0
mgd NPDES permit. A copy of the 15.0 mgd speculative limits letter and the current 5.0 mgd
NPDES permit are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1: Speculative Limits for South Harnett Regional WWTP
F"
a"
am
MR
M"
Lower Little River
Parameter
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow (mgd)
15.0
BOD, 5-day, 20° C
(April 1 — Oct. 31)
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
BOD, 5-dap, 20°C
(Nov. 1— March 31
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 /L
45.0 m /L
NH3 as N
(April 1 — Oct. 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
NH3 as N
(Nov. 1 — March 31
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
Minimum 5.0 m /L
H
? 6.0 and <— 9.0 standard units
Fecal Coliform
eometric mean
200/100
ml
400/100
ml
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µ /L
' 1 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
I

MW
Harnett County Public Utilities —.South Harnett Regional WWTP
MM NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
3.0 Harnett Comnty Residential Population Projections
Marziano & McGougan, P.A. has performed a detailed examination of the historic population data
for Harnett County. Using the population records from the 1970 through the 2000 U.S. Census,
future population projection models have been developed in an effort to give Harnett County
officials multiple growth scenarios that will suit the County's future infrastructure planning needs.
These population projection methods are as follows: published data available from the North
Carolina Office of State Planning (NCOSPL), linear regression (straight line) model using 1970
through 2000 historic population data, and 2nd order polynomial (parabolic) model using 1970
through 2000 historic population data.
ow
From these three projection models, linear regression projects the lowest population for Harnett
County in the year 2029 (135,846 persons), NCOSPL published data projects the next greatest
so population in the year 2029 (156,986 persons), and the 2nd order polynomial model projects the
highest population in the year 2029 (180,118 persons). The following Table 2 summarizes these
population projection findings. Graphical representations of these modeling techniques, as well as a
chart comparison of the total population projection models, can be found in Appendix D.
fm
Im
fm
rM
FM
Table 2 - Total Population Projection Methodologies for Harnett County Population
Linear Regression
Published NCOSPL Data
2nd Order Polynomial
Year
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
%Growth
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
%Growth
Total
Population
Increase
per Year
%Growth
1970
4%667
-
-
4%667
-
-
499667
-
-
1980
5%570
92903
19.94%
592570
92903
19.94%
599570
92903
19.94%
1990
672833
8,263
13.87%
671,833
81263
13.87%
679833
89263
13.87%
2000
912584
239751
35.01%
91,584
232751
35.01%
919584
232751
35.01%
2007
1061,506
142922
16.29%
1062506
149922
16.29%
106,506
149922
16.29%
2009
1052132
-1,374
-1.29%
1102943
4,437
4.17%
1122412
5,906
5.55%
2014
112,811
72679
7.30%
1225000
11,057
9.97%
1275060
14,648
13.03%
2019
1209489
72679
6.81%
133,504
11,504
9.43%
143,227
162167
12.72%
2024
1282168
7,679
6.37%
145,223
112719
8.78%
1602913
172686
12.35%
2029
135,846
7,678
5.99%
156,986
115763
8.10%
180,118
192205
11.94%
Total
Growth
-
302714
29.21%
-
46,043
41.50%
-
672706
60.23%
For the purposes of this report, the 2nd Order Polynomial model is the best model to project the
future populations and wastewater flows in the South Harnett Regional WWTP sewer service area.
The service area is predominantly located within Harnett County and the 2nd Order Polynomial
model provides the high -range projections that take into account localized growth and economic
stimulation factors driven by Fort Bragg's expansion.
' 2 Marziano &z McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
I

no
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
fne NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Ma 3.1 BRAC Commission Report — Regional Population Projections
For populations at the Fort Bragg and Pope AFB installations, the most reliable document
with regard to the future population growth of military personnel (both on -base and off-
base) is the BRAC Commission Report. Fort Bragg's expansion is expected to bring many
soldiers, as well as civilian jobs and relocations in direct support of the military operations, to
the surrounding region. Total on -base and off -base growth from BRAC is expected to
PM increase the Cumberland County population by 17,249 persons and the Harnett County
population by 7,936 persons through the year 2013. This is a total expected growth of 25,185
persons (on -base and off -base); the majority of these new residents will have access to public
MR sewer service via the South Harnett Regional WWTP.
The BRAC Commission Report predicts that approximately 9,000 soldiers will be
transferred to on -base housing at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB by 2013. The remaining 16,000
persons will be located off -base in areas that are likely to be served by the South Harnett
Regional WWTP. Furthermore, the BRAC Commission's report estimates that the total
increase in population due to BRAC will be approximately 40,000 persons by 2013 for the
eleven -county region surrounding Fort Bragg and Pope AFB.
The regional service area of the South Harnett Regional WWTP has been subdivided into
five (5) distinct regions based on the existing sewer infrastructure in place and the region's
demographics: South Central Phase 1, Carolina Lakes/Hwy 87 corridor, Northern Training
Area (NTA), Fort Bragg/Pope AFB, and the Town of Spring Lake.
Although the BRAC Commission Report ends its population projection analysis in the year
No 2013, a 20-year analysis is required for this E A A . Therefore, M&M builds on the
information in the BRAC report and combines it with the projected population for Harnett
County as a whole to determine the future sewer service area populations in the region. The
MR following Table 3 provides the estimated sewer service population for each of these five (5)
distinct regions.
MR
r"
M
on
3 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
"� I Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January, 2010
Table 3 - Service Area Population Projections
Year
South Central
Phase 1
Carolina
Lakes & Hwy.
87 Corridor
Northern
Training Area
Fort Bragg &
Pope AFB
Installation
Town of Spring
Lake
Total Service
Population
2009
14,000
5,000
5,055
761000
%273
108,328
2010
14,652
510151
5,207
763,450
8,522
109,982
2011
15,335
531301
51360
7650900
8,771
1112667
2012
161049
5,452
5,512
77,350
9,020
113,383
2013
162797
511602
5,664
7700
9,270
1152133
2014
17,580
5,753
5,816
78,250
92519
1169918
2015
18,399
52903
5,969
78,700
951768
118,738
2016
19,256
6,054
6,121
79,150
10,017
120,598
2017
20,153
6205,
6,273
79,600
10,266
1222497
2018
213,092
62355
610425
801050
10,515
1242437
2019
223074
6,506
63578
80,500
10,764
126,422
2020
2330103
6,656
63,730
802950
112014
1282452
2021
24,179
6,807
6,882
8131400
11,263
1302531
2022
253,305
6,957
73,034
813,850
111512
1322659
2023
26,484
7,108
7,187
823300
113,761
1342840
2024
27,718
7,259
7,339
8231750
12,010
137,076
2025
29,010
7,409
72491
8310200
12,259
13%369
2026
30,361
7,560
7,643
833,650
12,508
1419722
2027
31,776
711710
7,796
8431100
1231758
144,139
2028
332256
75861
72948
843550
13,007
1462621
2029
34,805
82011
83100
8531000
132256
1499172
Difference
20M5
3,011
31045
%000
4M3
A844
% Growth
148.6%
60.2%
60.2%
11.8%
60.2%
37.7%
Between 2013 and 2029, additional migration into the region is expected at above -average
rates due to the scale of the BRAC expansion and the economic stability offered because of
the military presence. This translates to a relatively high overall growth rate in the South
Central Phase 1 service area (148.6%) for the 20-year planning period. Over an extended
planning period of 20 years, M&M estimates that approximately 40,844 persons will relocate
to the counties of Cumberland and Harnett due to the proximity to base and the existing
public utility infrastructure.
4 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
IAsheboro, NC - Conway, SC
f

M"
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
am NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
3.2 Wastewater Flow Projections
When projecting future flows to existing wastewater treatment facilities (i.e. Fort Bragg
WWTP, Spring Lake WW'IP), these facilities have existing flow profiles that should be used
as Year-1 data for projection to Year-20 data. Year 2009 is used as the base year of flow
because the historic flow records are in place to substantiate the existing sewer flows
entering the existing Fort Bragg and Spring Lake WWTPs.
Several precedents exist where NCDENR has approved the permitting and construction of a
new WWTP that consolidates multiple discharges into a single, upgraded facility. Depending
upon the current capacity of the partner's respective WWTP discharges, the new facility is
sized to "roll-over" the existing NPDES permits into the capacity of the new facility.
TherMO efore, it is anticipated that Fort BraRg will contribute the capacitV of its current 8.0 mRd
NPDES facility as part of the 10 mgc� upgrade to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. In the
future, it is anticipated that Spring Lake will contribute the capaciq of its current 1.5 mzd
NPDES facility as part of the 10 mgd upgrade to a South Harnett Regional WWTP. No
additional wastewater treatment capacity is anticipated for either of these entities at this time.
The following bullets summarize the procedures used to estimate future flow projections for
the different types of entities tributary to this project:
• South Central Phase 1 is projected to grow at 70 gpdpc residential + 15 gpdpc
commercial
• Carolina Lakes and Hwy. 87 corridor are both tributary to the Carolina Lakes
WWTP and the flows from these service areas will reach the maximum treatment
capacity of this facility (0.8 mgd) in year 2029
• NTA is projected to reach the contract maximum between Harnett County and the
federal government (0.9 mgd) in Year 2029
"�+ • Fort Bragg/Pope AFB will reach the maximum flow permitted for the facility's
existing NPDES discharge (8.0 mgd) in Year 2029
• Spring Lake will reach the maximum flow permitted for the facility's existing
NPDES discharge (1.5 mgM in Year 2029
• Daily I&I estimates are maintained at 10% of total flow over the life of the analysis
f"
am
Table 4 summarizes the flow projections for the sewer service area. Additional supporting
information can be found in Appendix D.
low 5 Marziano &r McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC — Conway, SC
I

Harnett County Public Utilities - South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting - Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Table 4 - 20-Year Flow Projections for Expanded Sewer Service Area
Year
South Central
Phase 1
Carolina
Lakes & Hwy.
87 Corridor
ADF)
Northern
Training Area
(��
Fort Bragg &
Pope AFB
Installation
Town of Sp '
Lake (ADF}
Estimated
Daily I&I
Flows (ADF)
Total Average
Daily Sewer
Flow
2009
980,000
5001V000
2501000
53,000,000
750,000
748,000
8,228,000
2010
1,025,656
515,000
282,500
53,150)000
7873,500
776,066
82536,722
2011
110733440
530,000
3153000
5,3002000
8251000
8042344
828479784
2012
11123,449
5452000
34731500
554502000
8621500
832,845
9,161,294
2013
1,175,789
560,000
3802000
50031000
9001000
861579
99477,368
2014
1,230,566
5753000
412,500
53p750,000
9375500
890,557
%7962123
2015
1,287,896
590,000
4452000
5190031000
975,000
9192,790
102117,686
2016
13,347,897
605,000
4771V500
6105%000
1,012,500
9491290
10,442,187
2017
1,410,693
62%000
5103000
63200,000
1110502000
97931069
1011769,762
2018
1,476,414
635,000
5421,500
6,350,000
1,0872500
13,009,141
11,100,556
2019
12545,198
6505000
5751000
6,500,000
15%125,000
11039,520
11,434,718
2020
110617,186
6652000
6071500
6,6502000
1,1622500
1207031219
115772,404
2021
1,692,527
680,000
64010
6,800,000
1,200,000
1,101,253
12,1132780
2022
15771,379
6951000
6722500
6,9503,000
1,2373,500
12132,638
125459,017
2023
1,8533904
710,000
70511000
7,100,000
1,275,000
1,164,390
12,8082295
2024
129403,274
725,000
737500
7,250,000
1,312,500
1,196,527
13,1615802
2025
2,0303,668
740,000
7703,000
7,400,000
1,350,000
12229,067
132519,735
2026
2,125,273
7551000
802,500
7,55%000
1,387,500
132622027
139882,300
2027
252242285
7703,000
8355000
727005000
1,425,000
1,29510429
1422492714
2028
25273911
7852000
867,500
73185%000
1462500
123293291
149622,202
2029
2,4363,364
800,000
90%000
82000,000
1,500,000
13363,636 1
15,000,000
6 Maraano & McGougan, P.A.
fAsheboro, NC - Conway, SC
f

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
00 NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
me
no
OW
rAM
fm
FM
am
4.0 Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis has been prepared in accordance with the Engineering Alternatives Analysis,
as published by NCDENR-DWQ for the NPDES permit application process. The selected
alternative is critical in determining the most environmentally -friendly and cost-effective alternative
for future infrastructure planning. The following Table 5 summarizes the alternatives considered for
this project.
Table 5: Summary of Alternatives
Alternative #
Description
Project Viabili ?
1.1
Upgrade existing Fort Bragg and Spring
Lake WVVTPs
Not Tech Feasible
1.2
Connect to Cross Creek WWTP
(Fayetteville PWC)
Not Tech Feasible
2
Land application of 10 mgd
Cost Prohibitive
3
Reclaimed water application of 10 mgd
Not Tech Feasible
4
Increase NPDES discharge by 10 mgd
Preferred Alternative
5
Combination of alternatives
Not Tech Feasible
4.1 Connect to Existing WWTP
There are two scenarios available under this alternative: Alternative #1.1 considers the
scenario where the two existing facilities at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake are kept operational
through the planning period. Harnett County would maintain the collection system discharge
to the headworks of these facilities, essentially keeping the existing connections to two
ran existing facilities up and running.
Alternative #1.2 considers the scenario where the two existing facilities at Fort Bragg and
Spring Lake are decommissioned and the wastewater from these entities is pumped to the
nearest existing facility which can accept a flow volume of 10 mgd. The nearest facility with
this volume of treatment capacity is the Cross Creek WWTP operated by Fayetteville PWC,
located approximately 17.8 miles to the south through highly urbanized areas of downtown
Fayetteville.
4.1.1 Alternative #1.1 - Maintain Connections with Fort Brae and Spring
Lake WWTPs
The first scenario (Alternative #1.1) would require the wastewater generated in the
region to be treated at the existing facilities of Fort Bragg and Spring Lake.
Maintaining operations at these existing facilities would require a significant capital
investment in aging and dilapidated facilities to upgrade the treatment technology to
tertiary capabilities. This is necessary for an equal comparison to the South Harnett
7 Marziano &t McGougan, P.A.
'Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
f

MR
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Regional WWTP which provides tertiary treatment. Upgrades and modernization of
these facilities would be required to achieve a cost effective means of treating 10
mgd of wastewater to tertiary levels over the mid-term and long-term. Fort Bragg
and Spring Lake have recognized that the useful life of their respective facilities will
be reached in the near term and that no additional upgrades are warranted to
enhance treatment or to increase capacity at these locations.
The location of the new South Harnett Regional WWTP is a strategic regional
location that can easily and logically provide improved tertiary treatment to the
dM wastewater flows generated by Fort Bragg and Spring Lake in the near term.
Therefore, DoD has entered into a long term agreement with Harnett County as the
superior alternative to fixing components at an antiquated facility and Spring Lake
has executed a letter of intent that states the Town's desire to connect to the South
Harnett Regional WWTP to address its future wastewater treatment needs.
am Without further improvements and modifications to the Fort Bragg and Spring Lake
WWTP treatment process, these facilities will continue to treat at secondary limits
indefinitely. Until the treatment capacity of the existing Fort Bragg and Spring Lake
FM WWTP approaches the 80%-90% rule, it is unlikely that enhanced tertiary treatment
will be implemented at either of these facilities and the Lower Little River could
continue to experience water quality impairments related to the continued operation
em of these facilities.
Due to the precedence of the BRAC commissions report, the existing agreement
O, between Fort Bra-az and Harnett County, the aged and dilapidated condition of
multiple components at each of the facilities, and the negative environmental
consequences that would result from continued operation of the Fort Bragg and
MR Spring Lake WWTPs, keeping these facilities operational is not a long-term viable
solution. This alternative is considered "not technoloa c�ally feasible."
M, 4.1.2 Alternative #1.2 - Connect to Cross Creek WWTP (,Fayetteville PWC
Alternative #1.2 considers the scenario where the two existing facilities at Fort Bragg
and Spring Lake are decommissioned and the wastewater from these entities is
pumped to the Cross Creek WWTP operated by Fayetteville PWC. The Cross Creek
WWTP, owned and operated by Fayetteville PWC, has a current treatment capacity
of 25 mgd. This facility currently receives an average daily flow of approximately 11
mgd. However, this facility does not have an additional 10 mgd of treatment capacity
that has not been allocated for use within the Fayetteville city limits or other
commitments to the existing PWC customer base. From this standpoint, this
alternative is considered "not technolo€?aically feasible."
Although the costs of increasing the treatment capacity by 10 mgd would be similar
for the South Harnett Regional WWTP and Cross Creek WWTP, there is a
significantly higher cost for constructing a significantly longer sewer transmission
system to reach the Cross Creek WWTP. A new forcemain would need to be
installed between the South Harnett Regional PS Site and the Cross Creek W 71T
' 8 Marziano &C McGougan, P.A.
fAsheboro, NC - Conway, SC

am
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
through the highly urbanized areas of Spring Lake and Fayetteville along major
highway corridors.
There are approximately 2.4 miles of proposed 30" 0 forcemain between the South
Harnett Regional PS Site and the South Harnett Regional WWTP site with an
elevation range of less than 20 feet. There are approximately 17.8 miles of proposed
36" 0 pipeline between the South Harnett Regional PS Site and the Cross Creek
WWTP site in Fayetteville with an elevation range of 100 feet.
The longer forcemain to Cross Creek WWTP would have to be larger in diameter to
accommodate the additional friction head encountered over longer pumping
distances. The topography changes dramatically along the potential forcemain route,
when compared to the extremely flat route between South Harnett PS and South
Harnett WWTP, which increases the static head the pumps must overcome each
time they are powered on to transfer sewer flows. Energy costs to transfer the flows
over a greater distance and varying topography make this alternative more expensive
initially and over the planning period. Additionally, significantly longer detention
times increase the production of hydrogen sulfide gases and chemical costs to abate
this process. It is evident that a connection to the Cross Creek WWTP is cost
prohibitive and designing a sewage transfer system that is more efficient along this
route is not technologically feasible. In addition to being considered "not
technologicaLiv feasible." this alternative is considered "cost prohibitive" in
all variables of the treatment cost equation.
a, 4.2 Alternative #2 - Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to
Adjacent Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 m—ad Discharge to Little River)
The following narrative discusses the feasibility of the land application disposal of 10.0 mgd
MM of treated wastewater effluent. This alternative includes the expansion to a 15.0 mgd
treatment facility; however, the new 10.0 mgd treatment trains will not have a tertiary
treatment process because the 10.0 mgd flow will be treated to secondary levels and pumped
M, to a nearby (hypothetical) land application area for disposal. The 5.0 mgd facility will
continue to discharge to the Lower Little River as permitted by the NPDES unit. Please
refer to Appendix B for a diagram of this alternative.
mm
MR
A recent analysis of soils in southern Harnett and northern Cumberland County indicated
that the predominant soil types located along the northern and southern banks of the Lower
Little River can be summarized in Table 6. Based upon the information contained within the
Harnett and Cumberland County published soil surveys, the hydraulic conductivity of the
soil types in southern Harnett and northern Cumberland County limits both the viability of
spray application fields and the maximum application rate for wastewater.
9 Marziano &x McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
I

MM
am
MM
MR
RM
rM
M"
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WW'TP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
Table 6 — Taxonomic Description of Soils Located Within the
Potential Spray Application Area
Soil Name
Taxonomic Classification
Al in AnB)
Thermic, coated Typic quartzipsamments
Altavista AaA; At
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive
Blaney aB
Loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Arenic Ha ludults
Gilead (GdB)
Fine, kaolinitic, thermic A uic Ha ludults
Portsmouth s
Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy -skeletal, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic
Umbra uults
Roanoke o
Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoa uults
State StA
Fine -loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Ha ludults
Wa am aB)
Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kandiudults
It is the engineer's opinion, through more than 30 years of experience working with water
and wastewater utilities in Harnett County, Cumberland County, and throughout the Coastal
Plain and Sandhills region of North Carolina, that this alternative is cost prohibitive for the
following reasons:
• Extremely large volume of wastewater being considered (10 mgd)
• Impracticality and cost of acquiring a huge land application site, estimated to be
7,000 acres
• Intensive land use modification/rezoning for a public project of this scale
Von o Limited investigative access or land disturbance permission from current property
owners if a future land application site is the intent of the investigation
,M 4.2.1 Land Requirements
In this analysis, the engineer's opinion that the maximum application rate that could
be conservatively permitted in this region is approximately 0.5 inches per week for
MR the land adjacent to the South Harnett Regional VAVTP. In order to acquire an
adequately sized tract of land for 10.0 mgd of wastewater effluent application,
approximately 5,156 acres are required for spray areas at an irrigation rate of 0.5
FM inches per week. Purchasing an additional 25% of the minimum spray application
area is required in order to account for buffers, wetlands, open space, and setback
requirements. This brings the total spray field requirements to 6,875 acres.
FMR A storage lagoon must be constructed for 40-days of storage during extended wet
periods and emergencies (30-day minimum and an estimated 10-day water balance
requirement). Therefore, the actual size of the storage lagoon is approximately 400
IM million gallons covering 125 acres.
am
' 10 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
�+ fAsheboro, NC — Conway, SC
I

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
It is estimated that a total land acquisition of approximately 7,000 acres will be
required for development of a permissible spray irrigation system. Available parcels
of land this size are difficult to locate in southern Harnett County or northern
•., Cumberland County. For the purposes of this report, a large area of forested land
located immediately north and west of the WWTP site is used to develop cost
estimates for this alternative. However, only 1,500 acres of continuous land is
unoccupied and available for the construction of a spray irrigation system. For the
purposes of this report, it is assumed that additional lands adjacent to this vacant
property can be acquired in sufficient acreage to build the spray irrigation system for
10.0 mgd application. A 2006 tax valuation of the 1,500 acre parcel was
approximately $2.0 million.
A., 4.2.2 Effluent Transfer System and Spray Fields
After the expansion of the existing South Harnett Regional WWTP, a new transfer
pump station must be constructed to pump 10.0 mgd of wastewater (treated to the
secondary level at the expanded treatment facility) to the storage lagoon and spray
field site. This will require the installation of approximately 2,500 feet of
transmission forcemain, associated site piping, additional SCADA capabilities, and
other incidentals. The development of the spray irrigation fields will require the
construction of an irrigation pump station capable of spraying specific zones with
effluent from the storage lagoon, and irrigation lines throughout the 5,156-acre
portion of the forested tract.
While the merits of land application are extensive, future expansion of a land
application facility is dependent on large, undeveloped tracts of land being available.
With the difficulty of finding large undeveloped tracts, the South Harnett Regional
WWTP would not be economically feasible due to the large space requirements for a
relatively small amount of treatment capacity. Therefore, a land application system
for the service area is not viewed as a feasible alternative. This alternative is
considered "costVrobibitive."
4.3 Alternative #3 - Reclaimed Water Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of
Reuse Effluent to Potential Users (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower
Little River)
The following narrative discusses the feasibility of the reclaimed water disposal of 10.0 mgd
of treated wastewater effluent onto areas approved for use of this water. This alternative
includes the expansion of the South Harnett Regional WWTP to a 15.0 mgd treatment
facility. All of the flow treated at this expanded facility will be treated to tertiary levels.
Currently, no wet industries have been identified that can use this volume of water on a daily
basis. In the future, if an opportunity arises to divert some of the flow to a wet industry
(that is currently proposed for discharge into the Lower Little River), this avenue can be
explored further at that time. Unless a wet industry is able to utilize 10.0 mgd of reclaimed
quality effluent, the reclaimed water must be land applied to customers willing to accept this
water, such as turf grass farms, tree farms, golf courses, and reclaimed community projects.
low11 Marziano &t McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

am
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
MM NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
The cost to distribute reclaimed water to individual customers in the region would not be
feasible. This disposal alternative is not viable because the management and control of the
reclaimed disposal system would be spread across the many residents and users that would
�•► have to continually utilize water at a rate of 10 mgd indefinitely, regardless of need, weather
conditions, or aesthetics. Due to the fact that no viable users have been identified for a long-
term commitment to utilize reclaimed water, this alternative is considered "not
technologicallvfeasible."
4.4 Alternative #4 - Direct Dischar—ae to Surface Waters - Exnand the South
Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
This alternative includes all new construction to increase the South Harnett Regional W1WTP
treatment capacity from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd. The expansion of the South Harnett Regional
�, WWTP will include the following items: construction of two 5 mgd Intermittent Cycle
Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) trains, including piping, decanting, fine bubble diffusion
and blowers, construction of two 5 mgd traveling bridge tertiary filters including backwash
pumping, piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules which would allow up to
a peak flow of 42.5 mgd with one bank of UV modules out of service. Modifications to the
existing handling system include the installation of a bioset sludge pasteurization system and
all necessary site work piping and electrical. The existing headworks and cascade aeration
discharge system are adequate for the 15 mgd flow rate peaking at 42.5 mgd.
Additional new construction is required to install the sewer transmission system from Fort
Bragg and Spring Lake WWTPs to the South Harnett Regional WWTP. The pipeline
corridor begins at the Fort Bragg WVVTP and terminates at the South Harnett Regional
WWTP. The following summarizes the work to be completed in this phase of the project.
• 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWTP
• 13,817' of 30" forcemain between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the
existing Spring Lake WWTP site
• 18,089' of 42" gravity sewer interceptor parallel to and along the Lower Little
River between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett
Regional Sewer Pump Station site
• 10 mgd Pump Station Expansion @ South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near
Shady Grove Road and NC-210)
• 12,236' of 30" forcemain from South Regional PS to South Regional WWTP
(parallels existing 24" FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
The proposed project is the regionalization of multiple facilities because the project
consolidates the two existing NPDES discharges from Spring Lake and Fort Bragg into the
MR South Harnett Regional W V71T. The consolidation of two secondary treatment facilities into
a single tertiary treatment facility located downstream of these two plants is a vast
improvement from the current treatment scenario. Additionally, this is the most cost
effective and environmentally sound project for water quality improvements in the Lower
Little River. The Vreferred alternative is to .increase the total .NPDES a ischa&ge in
the Lower Litde River from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mad_
1001 12 Marziano Est McGougan, P.A.
�+ f Asheboro, NC — Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
dft NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
MO 4.5 Alternative #5 - Combination of Alternatives
In the analysis for this project, the combination of more than one of the various alternatives
that considered to be "not technologically feasible" or "cost -prohibitive" does not produce a
am better alterative than the direct discharge of wastewater to the Lower Little River.
• Alternative #1.1 - If the existing facilities at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake were to
rim remain operational, then consideration should be given to the optimization of these
facilities; however, the agreements in place to decommission these secondary
treatment facilities is a better solution from an environmental and cost standpoint.
• Alternative #1.2 - Cross Creek WWTP in Fayetteville is a municipal facility that is
highly unlikely to have an interest in serving rural customers in another county at a
higher rate per user. Additionally, Harnett County intends for the South Harnett
Regional WWTP to serve as the sole treatment source for the southern half of the
County over the long-term.
• Alternative #2 - The large amount of land required to implement the land
application alternative precludes this alternative from serious consideration. The
County is not likely to secure such a large amount of undeveloped land in proximity
to the proposed customer base.
"' • Alternative #3 - No wet industries have been identified that can use 10 mgd of
reclaimed water on a daily basis. Additionally, the cost to distribute reclaimed water
to individual customers in the region would not be feasible. This disposal alternative
is not viable because the management and control of the reclaimed disposal system
would be spread across the many residents and users that would have to continually
utilize water at a rate of 10 mgd indefinitely, regardless of need, weather conditions,
or aesthetics. In the future, if an opportunity arises to divert some of the flow to a
wet industry (that is currently proposed for discharge into the Lower Little River),
this avenue can be explored further at that time. Unless a wet industry is able to
utilize 10.0 mgd of reclaimed quality effluent, the reclaimed water must be land
applied to customers willing to accept this water, such as turf grass farms, tree farms,
golf courses, and reclaimed community projects.
• Alternative #4 - The upgrade of the existing South Harnett Regional WWTP is the
preferred alternative from a cost and environmental standpoint.
5.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative & Present Worth Analysis
A matrix chart is presented below in Table 7 that lists important considerations in selecting the most
advantageous wastewater treatment and disposal method. A point system is used in the matrix that
indicates the alternative that would create the least impact on Harnett County resources: political,
social, and economic. A score of 1 is considered the least adverse impact among the alternatives and
a score of 5 is considered the greatest adverse impact among the alternatives.
' 13 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC
f

me
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WW1 P
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Table 7 — Feasibility Matrix for Alternative Selection
January 2010
Consideration
Alternative #1.1
& #1.2
Alternative #2
Alternative #3
Alternative #4
Alternative #5
Connect to Ex.
WWTP
Land
Application
Reclaimed Use
NPDES
Discharge
Combination
of Alternatives
Capital Cost
3
5
4
1
3
Permitting Time
1
5
4
2
3
System Com atibili
2
5
3
1
4
Environmental Impacts
2
5
1
3
4
Training Required
2
5
3
1
4
Political/Social
2
4
5
1
3
Meets County Goals
2
5
3
1
4
O&M Cost
2
5
4
1
3
Longevity of Action
4
3
5
1
2
trOTAL
20
42
32
12
30
Using a federal discount rate of 4.875% over the 20-year planning period, the preferred alternative is
calculated to be the most economical project to serve the needs of the region. Table 8 summarizes
the Present Worth Analysis. Please refer to the Present Worth Analysis in Appendix C for more
detailed calculations for each alternative.
Table 8 — Summary of Present Worth Analysis
Present
Worth f
present
Present
WoofReplacement
present Worth
Total (Net)
RankAlternative
Initial
Worth of
of Salvage
Present
Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Costs
Value
Worth
1.1
Upgrade existing Fort Bragg and
Not Technologically Feasible
Spring Lake WWTPs
2
1JLand
Connect to Cross Creek W�VTP
Not Technologically Feasible
(Fayetteville PWC
application of 10 mgd
$75,126,330
$18,832,536
$782,800
1-$19,312,3571$75,429,309
3
Reeclaimed water application of
Not Technologically Feasible
1Increase NPDES discharge to
4
15 mgd *PREFERRED
$29,1859330
$181,209,728
$1619530
-$496832048
$4298739540
ALTERNATIVE*
5
Combination of alternatives
Not Technologically Feasible
14
Marziano &t McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
6.0 Conclusions
As can be seen in Table 7, the lowest scoring alternative by a wide margin is Alternative #4: increase
the existing NPDES discharge to 15 mgd. This means that Alternative #4 scores the least adverse
impacts when considering the critical points related to this scope of project. Preferred Alternative
#4 is to construct expansions to the existing 5.0 mgd tertiary WWTP to achieve a total treatment
capacity of 15.0 mgd at the tertiary level.
Another advantage is that Alternative #4 is that it is the lowest -cost technologically feasible
alternative with respect to both annual O&M expenditures and initial capital investment.
Additionally, the design's ability to merge with the existing plant operations provides an advantage
to the operational efficiency of the treatment plant as a whole unit. Harnett County believes that the
site of the existing 5 mgd WWTP is the best suited location for additional wastewater treatment
structures to be built in order to effectively treat 15 mgd of wastewater and discharge to the Lower
Little River. The 5.0 mgd facility has been shown to improve water quality in the Lower Little River
by eliminating the Coopers Ranch WWTP discharge at Jumping Run Creek, as part of the County's
original master plan to consolidate discharges in Anderson Creek and the Lower Little River basin.
It is the opinion of Harnett County and the engineer that the consolidation of the two secondary
RM treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake into the South Harnett Regional WWTP
employing tertiary treatment will result in substantially improved water quality in the Lower Little
River for the cheapest capital cost. The South Harnett Regional WWTP will employ advanced
MM wastewater treatment through the biological removal of nitrogen and phosphorus before entering
the Lower Little River.
MM
MR
am
MR
M"
",
MW
MR
' 15 Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
fm ' I Asheboro, NC — Conway, SC

aft
Harnett County Public Utilities.— South Harnett Regional WWTP
am NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
M" APPENDIX A
MR Supporting Information
• FONSI from NCDENR-DWQ (SCH File# 10-E-4300-0113, DWQ #14096, NCDENR
#1495); South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd; October 27, 2009
• Authorization to Construct (ATC No, 088366-A02); 15.0 mgd South Harnett Regional
WWTP; December 4, 2009
• Speculative Limits for 15.0 mgd Discharge into the Lower Little River; April 24, 2008
• NPDES Permit for the 5.0 mgd South Harnett Regional WWTP; December 1, 2006
IM
RM
rem
rM
no
fm
Marziano &z McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

ON
on
MM
am
FM
:F4ss
t!
VAN.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
October 27, 2009
Brian Sexton, P.B.
MARMANO & McGOUGAN, P.A.
1300 Second Avenue, Suite 211
Conway, SC 29526
SUBJECT: Hamett and Cumberland Counties
Expansion of South Harnett WW-fP and Regionalization with Ft. Bragg and Spring Lake
DWQ#14096, DENR#1495
Dee Freeman
Secretary
�' .. Dear I& Sexton:
On October 27, 2009, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act review on the above
project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). it is now acceptable to proceed with your permit
applications through the Division of Water Quality for the proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental
Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
FM
ran
no
i
Sincerely,
Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONS1)
Ece: Lary Horton — CWMTF
Belinda Henson —FRO
Dan Blaisdell — CO&L
1617 Ma9 Service CentM Math, North Cara 27699-1617
Lxaifon: 512 N. &ftwy St Raleigh, Math Camft 27604
Ptrerte: 91SM.= I FAX: [phone]M 1 Cueam Service:1-W42M748
W8Mt wtwv ray 9
Mao►„AY&
r�ffi caa�ro
�tur

PIR
no
amp
N -m f-h * C.r
o
Dep
Of AI-AM.-M-00.0ji
:yerly`�aves P�e�diie; �Qvior
Ocfober•27, 209
fm
�l
FER
an
Btt• Cdbb; •S ecretar,-
Ms 'bTai��•.
Centeir
'�6'7XVi1$icvice.
R�.tei�,I�TC•�?699-16�7
�0 11 ; F 1` nett•-Couniy� Pubil a Ij�Itles E p'aisibn off :
Re: SO$e## 14=Fri. ..
" ation wifh F't: Dra ia1rc pxin;. e
Sbuih ''V�R�T'P sand tegioin�liz gg:
�ear��s.:�talliags:, ... , .... •.... • - .. __ -- ti .
. :�,ct � annatjpA• reyievyed roilgb the State
e're above..refrenced pbyrrQnmeAtajprbliaa Fvlroumon#aoAct.
siifte1�11CeaitQuse nder thy,pigviO.
�'• e�v� iease•seeattaa$ed�:
14o comments were male by any state4pgd •agepcjel i• the:cowge,-of tlb '(l?
Tberefore, jro iher eaviionmental eview •a'ct%n oii"Ybur hart is'requirerl for the oompiianee wl e
Adt.
Best reg.
Sincerely,
V4&�U�
` Aletie W.1Vlc1Vii11an, Director
State E.MrOntnentai Rmat 'Oearingli4use
cc: Region M
llalaiUai Avdresx rdephagc [phone]
AS�
Fmc (919j933t
13ID1 M45 SOM Ccnmr 3fatc:C,+�uridr 051-01-W
Ratcig% IBC 27694.1301 e.-mall�le��iyrtllan(�doaarcgov
An Equal OFppor[wri y 4fflnnadW Action Emploor
[*Cdf#nAddra�
116'We#E Oncs Shut
Ra q*4NC*CgmAna
am

ma
do"
an
mm
MR
mm
MR
FM
MR
em
mm
mm
FUM
-NOSM. Gib, LB-M- STAI
0101 M, 10.0 1 AWI
lcbmmm am&EW- NOZ.- OI&STEWATM TRW MENT
W-
HS'PEIRPS GLEDRILL-EA=Y FSEP 2% S.- 2009
&bxw:,�Oda
006TJ 5E
DIEPT OF 'QMUM PkEISOURCE$
MSPI 4.617 - ARCpJ-VEP IMILO-INa
TOItIGR i9d
em-24" - 6T.V. OF EMM4M--Y M044
btft MGitMnv-E AFFAIRS
D&I?T OF CULTMAL AEPOURP"10
bmia or n W-SPOR-TATION
I
MID WQ4THA- COG.
PROAM *INUOSTION
T-Ip %E.: St.-atir •Envirornnehtal Pd Ut,Y Mir
Environmental Assessmdii-t/,Analft of bIO SiO'f"cdAt mipubt
OESC: Kdfn ---t P anddtt Cbunty pub,-ic. yjtjIttt$.:$fcpaligib# AfOu h
recji6nalizatidn with Ft§. a
g 8ka4d ;gp'ftVg Labe' lfi-fp�b'idri 6,f WW TP fro]h 5 IQD �4
15 g
MGD, decommission ypt-q water tpeapen't fAdiiitieat
0 a incluO-ing. pl. ;Af ..
Ft. Bragg, indtall1 II at,�0SO. W �449.tg VatOr c'011'ecti
pmip station and SeRIA-t lifift
Tho gttaclfed project has been the N. c. hate Clearinghouse for
bm' y Jqhe above
inter§ovia �-etital review. pIA nery t your. F.�gp
jigp- .. IgW and su ...i b
2'7'6§1�43
ifidicated date to 1301 Mail S6'V-*,id6 Gebt-90cir R&4-.Oigh NC
r ce at 1.91:9)-90 -2415.
If aod�t�qnal review time t-s- neckVti� t I
eApe co this o.
--9.96 COMMENT F] COM�ENTS ATTAMMO
THE: -FOLLQ-aG f s 9bAm:ETTzD*-
s REVIEW' AS A AESU!LT OF IS:i EW
I
StGNab BY: DATE: Ib 7,429--
4?
am
GEP 2 4 2QG

am
am
rAlm
ram►
no
MR
go
'5= tMLMA MCGEE
�A36iiQ0'SE CI�I�IA'�'O� �c©Z
=GIS'LATIV.E 1W W 1.601
Migt,G5 NC
dtS •rON
CC&PS = DIV OF EMEkGE13CY -MANAGEMENT n 4
DBNR :L'F;GISLATIVE AFFP,TI�S �'�b� .
pEiT QP COLT69n FMS0ORJ3ES f
DEET OF TMKPORTATY-Q : �A�,'C4
MIt; CAAO��NA C0�
AppLICA IT NCFiE ilk, tnlate dual' c diet .
�, ..
TYFB: Stan Erivl- "'erlta" � . •0. ' No Si' '• jE ,* ' .lit impact
9nvironmen'tal Ub4-S ien �E'inci hg -
�ubYi� 'Ofic :l$ie§ Expansion: of South Nar�ae�•t WW--V a7id
bE5'C: Harnett Ccsunty _ iQu 'f �3WTP• fxota 5 Kau to
regional�.iatiofiWp
h Br.•ag5 and spring bake expa :g
"i'oii: e'x.iigtt� w•ter tr-eam
15 deeoi
ent faciliti' a. Spring La�Ce and
Mob, misia. s
Ft. Bragg, instollat�.on of !"':wae'tte r��ter •collection rrf ast�u tuTe� �.ficl�utlf3ng
pump station and s ,#Or linRs
tag the H. C. State ilea ft9h6ula ft��
The at�aciiod project has 'been s�aliin tted r res onse by, the above
intgrgbve�tpmerrtal review. p.ea§e ,etriiew .ahrl stlbrpit you pS07-.
iedicated 'date to 33.0 . boil Service CeAt6Y, Rate .gh NC ' 7695-
lacontact this office at
(9:9) SST-�2z125.
I atic :tional review time* is fie.adtid, pie se y
�1S Pi RgSuLT O1' THIS RE'VI THE FOLT ? N,G IS SIDBMITTED:'
NO CAt?!NlENTATTACfiE0
' L
SIGNED BY:

on
am
oc
wo
Slum
t6 Z, HAakly 9621 WANT9MM TMTHERT-
Awyf-
C
r, .LSn -0 T .ADPiA
no.op:p L W-. M WT RRWR
ARID.
II-ECEIVED
BATMOlt 139.
am REYXW- DISTR%BM-101T sEp 24 2009
gbMIMC-11 MMOEMENT
Fm O&IT OF C-ULTUM RESOURCES
DEYT OV'M -BE�*`�ON
I M10 CARGLINX. Q0 -
Pwom INFOM.. M-;px
NM- ENR# Water Qixdlttt
4t te. hay.-ixomental Solir-y Act,
ssessSrigpif lqaA-t -Tqpjl.q-i
Efi#j,:�(5bftnta.� A:l0Wftrkd%A.91 ;off 10
of South Adiubte qWTP t6d
DESK:#a3Fn�pftt County iDbblic- Tjt-il't`is-:�
B.Tqqgl OT
nggibJ14(l#�Ation 'With 'Ft. %prjAq. t�-�ja. - egp#F�qi-on ot'W T frOm .5 141G6 to
I Les at 57ti-Dq- Lajkq- 1p-nd
15 MGDj, v�K&te• fa�itp!t ttokmelit fgdlit I
ite Lfifta,-ktructUiee Vftluo- nfl.
insth-Uatioh of fi& *df
pumpand q.t,;pj:i-qm and sewer li-AP5
The attig6blad jjj-dj ett has bodh s-djft-3'.Jtikd td- tho. N, r,-. State Cligarizlghoup% r
intergov&tiiMdntdl t.&*iew. LAeasre eh#:L-* .6" jjn4 srubUit your response by the aboVd,
lam p. NC -27698-1301.
indicatdd date t6 1301 Mail Service aen+Ldk� 'fEj-j-ja&c'j
If aadi-tibrial VkVj-6.w time is needed, joldtM4 414ntn'dtthis 0ffjaeat
Mm
AS -A RESULT DF'THIS REVIEW THE: FoTLoW.pjr. x ]BM so COMMiftA.-CRE-D
$XGNED 13-Y:
f�
elm
am
MR
DAM
flo

on
no
Now
o sm�H r
• D
FAR =Cz HPNETT0$�..�WASTE'jsTAT.RR TSEZ09N' ma'sQ3�QnO-Y}�.3
'�ACIF�IT'IES Dl�'iE •RECEI'i7�ED�: 0�.����5?10A,g.
. .. •XGE't•�(i'R�:�=P:p�tS�x �i���^'1�2A(39' .
' •RIIi�EW�3T�OSEil3': �.�'/'��1�'J
mm
Its' SRC 4L , 't4'i • i
.c�ING�Qvss• CoA�.��T4�: .���� 1� t� �
tDREP t 'OV !§]MwOtATYUN•
'RPlLEIGN NC •� 490§
r� REVIEW 'UISTi218[TTION "' �' C77 •
¢BPS - •DIV n • ' "PRr4E C--? AGCMENT 0 �;
DESK- LEGTSI,ATZVFr•'AEFAIRS '4
,m-R Z�EPT �Ft -c?O T , t&00CE$
,DEPT OF• TRANSMTWIQIT Z
Q' oiii..'
i�io�c� a� •oR��oi�'
ram, P�PPLICANT: N¢DE �R, Water Qgal3.ty�
T Y-BE: State . Engiio'nmefnta}1
ti- .
• Environmeifta1 7i'sseg=Q its/.-rjndjd%- o€ No Signiffcan.t :inpgct' -
' ' DESC: Haxg%tt OQlud:y Pubic Cit l i s> F cpansion of -Seikli Hii'rf6tt %WT-P ••arid
fegiQna3iiatioii wit-�r .F .. BraEgg. Ind Spring Lake; - •[e-mail] ofWoip from 5• MGE' tb
15 MGD; deCOrkWjt9jOh" ,ikidti n'4 wafttw4tet treameht -tWA-Uti' ° at Spring Lake :and
Ft. Bragg;• tnata�j--atjgp- oir new: waste wate�c' collection =astrUdti:te ;:jaCldd�:fig
puiap stbtbbn and sewer lines.
The attached. &616ct has 'been subhi.tt4e`d tb thg N. C. Sta•.te. O]:•O•&3�Xnghp"a for
in e,rgoverrpemtal review. Pledse review and submit your* rA�iQn4O• i�y I*e above
indi.c -ted date. to 1301 Mail tei�vlce• Center, RAI-eigti NC. 2769,9-43:Q1.
if additional 3f6view time ib needed-, please cbntact thi's
� AS A RE$UTiT OE' • 9EVIEI THE FC�t►I;OWENG• IS SUBMITTED: �I�Ek: QI MFi3T.0t
CQI NIE S TT GHEE
f
SIGNED BY: ATE: : r 1 d
^� mod•
r

M"
9M
MM FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC U MIES— SOUTH REGIONAL WAgrEATER TREATMENT
PLANT MANSION TO 15 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY CAPACITY AND
MM REGIONALIZATION WITH FORT BRAGG AND SPRING LAKE
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et seq),
an environmental assessment (RA) has been prepared by Harnett County Public Utilities for the proposed
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion from 5 million gallon per day (MOD) to 15 MGD to provide
a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve the existing service area for the South Regional WWTP, the
Town of Spring Lake, and Fort Bragg. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Spring Labe and Fort
Bragg will be decommissioned, tbemby eliminating their discharges. New wastewater collection
infrastructure necessary to transmit flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the proposed regional WWTP
will include: an 8 MGD Pump Station at Fort Bragg WWTP;14,500 linear feet (11) of 30-inch fmvemain
between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the existing Spring Lake WWTP site; replacement of the influent
pump station at the Spring Lake VRM and pipeline construction to head of gravity sewer interceptor (1.5
MGD capacity); 19,000 11 of 42 inch gravity sewer interceptor parallel to and along the Lower Little River
between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett Regional Sewer Pump Station site; a
10 MGD pump station expansion at the South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NG-210); and 16,0001.E of 30- to 36-inch f'orcemairr from the South Regional Pump Station to the South -:z _ : • • ""
Regional WWTP: `won at the WWTP to allow for the 10 MGD treatment capacity expansion will'
include: two 5 MGD Intemoi1. 1- Cycle Rxtended Aeration System trains, including piping, decanting, fine
bubble diffusion and blowers; two 5 MGD traveling bridge tertiary filters, including backwash pumping,
piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules; and modifications to the existing sludge handling
system which include the installation of a bioset sludge pasteurization system, including all necessary site
MR work piping and electrical conversions.
Three alternatives were considered for wastewater treatment: 1) no action; 2) optimization of existing
�+ WWTP facilities; and 3) expansion of the South Regional WWTP from 5 to 15 MGD. Option 3 was chosen
for wastewater treatment Three effluent disposal alternatives were considered: 1) discharge 15 MGD to the
Lower Little River, 2) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and land apply 10 MGD at a spray field
site; and 3) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and pump 10 MGD to reuse customers. Option 1
was chosen for effluent disposal.
' Direct impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and
design. Noise levels will temporarily increase in the immediate vicinity of construction locations. Nuisance
i noise levels, which currently are not detectable from the existing South Regional VVI TP, are not expected to
I increase or change adversely when the new expansion comes on-line. Any noise levels at the Fort Bragg
WWTP and Spring Lake WWTP sites will cease when they are taken offline, and operation of the pumping
stations to convey flows from. Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the regional WIT should not create excessive
disturbance. Approximately 22 acres of farmland soils in Cumberland County and approximately 0.5 acres
farmland soils in Harnett County will be impacted as a result of the gravity pipeline construction.
FM Topography and soils will be directly impacted by grading activities; however, these impacts will be short
term direct impacts and will not result in permanent impacts to the topography or soil. Therefore, this project
will not impact local flood elevations. While immediate local air quality at the construction sites will be
degraded by stirred dust and emissions from machinery, the upgraded WWTP and wastewater h ansmission
a are not anticipated to produce significantly negatively impact air quality. However, the South
Regional WW P's existing air permit will be reviewed and updated to include additional generators per final
design requirements. While some lowering of the water table during pipeline trench dewatering and
FAM 'on operations may be required, neither groundwater quality nor quantity should be adversely directly
affected by construction or operation of the proposed project. Direct impacts to streams and wetland areas
from installation of the forcemain will largely be avoided by using directional drilling techniques; however,
MM

no
no
MM
am installation of the gravity interceptor will require open -cut crossings with 40• to 60-foot clearings and will
directly impact a total of approximately 13 acres of wetlands. Installation of the gravity interceptor will also
necessitate clearing approximately 25 acres of forested area. Substantial nutrient loading to the Lower Little
me River is not expected, and water quality in the river should be improved through the elimination of the two
existing secondary treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake for the expansion of a single tertiary
discharge. Proper erosion and sedimentation practices will be followed during -construction to protect local -
water quality as well as aquatic habitat and wildlife. There will not be any significant direct negative impacts
"' on existing land uses, public lands, recreational areas, or threatened or endangered species.
Harnett County has worked with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to amend the project so that
on it will not adversely impact local National Register -listed properties. The County has agreed to the following
conditions to attain SHPO's concurrence with this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI):
• All utilities will be buried pipe within existing road rights -of way at Thorbiskope with no means of
creating sewage odors or any other adverse direct impacts. Once construction is complete, virtually no
sign of a sewer system will exist within proximity to Thorbiskope.
• Ellerslie will not have a sewer main located on or adjacent to its property. No appurtenances of the
wastewater treatment or transmission systems will be visible from the Ellershe property.
�+ • The high quality of the tertiary treated effluent discharged into the Lower Little River exceeds the
...,.. ,,, ggaltty of gMuent discharged from either the FortBragg..WW I'P orat a Sgrin -,$e WWTP, both wh}cb ti� . 4
-• currently i liscbarge segondary treated wastewater effluent upstream of the Bllerslie andfihorbiskope
properties. Decommissioning these two plants will benefit environmental quality along the Lower Little
River. '
• Because of the remote WWTP location, treatment technology, and quality of the management, operation,
and maintenance of critical WWTP components, chemical additions at the plant headworks, aluminum
coverings over the raw sewage pump station, and fully contained sludge processing building and storage
facilities, the South Harnett WWTP should not produce nuisance odors that will affect Thorbiskope or
Ellerslie.
Due to the distances involved and the remote downslope location of the WWTP site, no light emitted
from the WWTP lighting fixtures will spill onto the Ellerslie and Thorbiskope tame sites or be
detectable from these home sites. To minimize the amount of sky glow emitted from the WWTP site,
fully shielded pole -mounted fixtures and wall lights will be used that meet the International Dark -Sky '
Advocate (IDA) certification requirements.
Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (SCI) may result from this project and are outlined in the
ON EA. State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area, including local zoning, subdivision
regulations, land use plans, and watershed overlay ordinances, are described in detail within the EA and
include policies that promote orderly growth through proficient use of land and cost-effective provision of
sewer service. Therefore, the proposed project should not result in significant SCL
an
MR
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidancehnitigation measures contained therein, and reviewed
by governmental agencies, the Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not
result in significant impacts to the environment. This EA and FNSI are prerequisites for the issuance of
Division of Water Quality permits necessary for the project's construction. An Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for this project. This PNSI completes the environmental review record,
which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Department of Em ironment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
22 September 2009
am

■q
fee
WA
OEM
• RUDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
�► Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. SuMns Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
December 4, 2009
Mr. Rodney Tart, Director
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
P.O. Box 1119
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
sulmiz T: Authorization to Construct
• A to C No. 088366A02
Harnett County Department of Public Utilities
South Regional wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
Harnett County
Dear Mr. Tart:
A letter of request for an Authorization to Construct was received July 8, 2008, by the
Division, and final plans and specifications for the subject project have been reviewed and found
to be satisfR8%J.''Avtb}biizbtibn•is-hereby grWed -fqi[.aqconstruci3Qn,Pf modifications to the
existing 5 MGD South Regional wastewater -Treatment Plant, with discharge 'oI'trealed -
wastewater into the Little River Iii the Cape Fear River Basin.
FM
This authorization results in no increase in design or permitted capacity and is awarded
for the construction of the following specific modifications:
F' Dual intermittent continuous extended aeration systems (ICEAS No. 2 and No. 3) with
each system including dual 126-ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins providing a total
aeration volume of 5.90 MG, a 1.30 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers, decanter and
F" five (5).25 Hp submersible mixers; four (4) 2,300 scfm blowers; dual tertiary traveling
bridge filters (filter No. 2 and No. 3), with thred (3)12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; dual
channel UV disinfection system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of
12.5 MGD; and a sludge management facility expansion including a 2-meter'gravity belt
thickener rated at 90b dry pounds/hour, a 2.2 meter sludge filter press rated at 2,041 dry
pounds/day with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A residuals heated vessel
rated at 2,000 dry pounds/hour, lime storage silo and delivery system, odor control
system; a 1,000' M emergency generator•, and all site work, yard piping, and electrical
and work; in. conformity with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data
:. _ - subsequently fikd and.approved• by xha D epar"ent o-1,Euvironment and Natural , • -
Resources: '
�. 1s17 Mai Service CeMa, RaEetA Norlh Carolina 209.1617
Locadare 512 N. Sdsb q SL RaldA North Caroina ZM ly V e CarolinaRwme:919.8ST_6; xFAx9imw-64921Crrstc=rsw&e:1-M-62M48 C
�
Internetww=Aterquftor9
M RPM 0Mft V%AltTrt &n Action Frtipl W .

MIN
Mr. Rodney Tart, Director
December 4, 2009
page 2
This Authorization to Construct is issued in ae fogdance with Part III, Paragraph A of
• NPDES Permit No. NCO088366 issued December 1, 2006, and shall be subject to revocation
unless the wastewater treatment facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions and
limitations specified in Permit No. NC0088366.
Please note this Authorization to Construct does not expressly grant or imply approval of
any additional capacity pursuant to Permit No. NC0088366. Expenditures for the constructi6n of
these facilities shall not be considered in any such request for additional capacity above that
expressly granted in the current NPDES Permit (NC0088366).
It is the responsibility of the Permittee to ensure that all contracts entered into for the
MM construction of these facilities are•issued in accordance with applicable North Carolina General '
Statutes.
The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance
with G.S.143 215.1 and in a manner approved by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may
be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or -replacement wastewater
treatment or disposal facilities.
The Fayetteville Regional Office, telephone number [phone], shall be notified'at
am least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an on site
inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the
normal office hours from 8:00 am. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State
Holidays.
Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a
certification must be received from a professional engineer cerffying that the permitted facility
has been installed in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Authorization to Construct and the
approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to: Construction Grants & Loans,
DWQMENR, 1633 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1633.
Upon classification of the facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall
employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) of the
wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the type and grade at
least equivalent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment
facilities by the Certification Commission.
The Permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and
grade to comply with the conditions of T15A:8G.0202, The ORC of the facility mist visit each
Class I facility at least W661dy and each Class Ili III add IV'fkMtSrat leM daily,' "excluding . .
weekerids and holidays, must properly manage the facility, must document daily operation and
maintenance of the facility, and must comply with all other conditions of T15A:8G.0202.
On
am

4M
-Mr. Rodney Tart, Director
December 4, 2009
Page 3
A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the
M, Permittee for the life of the facility.
During the construction of the proposed additi6ni6iiodifications; the permittee shall
PM continue to properly maintain and operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities at all times,
and in such a manner, as necessary to comply with the effiuent limits specified in the NPDES
Permit.
You are reminded that it is mandatory for the project to be constructed in accordance
with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and when applicable, the North
Carolina Dam • Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractor's
responsibilities shall be in complying with these Adis.
• Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the recipient must have obtained all
applicable permits from the State.
Failure to abide by the requirements contained in this Authorization to Construct may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement'action by the Division of Water Quality in accordance
with North Carolina General Statute 143 215.6A to 143-215.6C.
The issuance of this Authorization to Construct does not preclude the Permittee from
complying with any and •all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be unposed by
other government agencies (local; state,: and federal)• Which have jurisdiction.
One (1) set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to .you. If you have
any.questions or need additional information, please contact Seth Robertson, P.E. at telephone
• number (919) 715-620.6.
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
kp:sr
cc: Joseph W. McGougan, P.E., — Marziano & McGougan, P.A.,1300 Second Avenue,
' Suite 211, Conway, SC 29526
Harnett County Health Department
DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
MR DWQ, Tecbnical Assistance and Certification Unit
DWQ, Point Source Branch, NPDES•Program
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
• Seth Robertson, P.B.
Ken Pohlig, P.E.
ATC File
fm

flm
813688
TO:18434880129 P.2/4
no
MR
April 24, 2W8
fm
Rodney Tart, Director
Harnett County Department Df Public Utilities
Im P.O. Box 1119
Lilxington, North Carolina 27546
Micttad F. Eiday, Governor
State of North Carottn3
Mam G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of ErMronment and Natural Rescuius
Caieen H. SuMna, Director
I)Mslon of Water Quality
Subject: Speculative Limits
Harnett Co. Department of Public iTtiMes
Harnett County
Dear Mr. Tart:
This letter is in response. to your recent request for speculative effluent limits for an
expansion of the South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to 15 MGD, discharging
into the Lower Little River (N 35013.831' & W 780 53,197). The proposed age is for a
regional system consolidating the wastewater treatment facilities of Harnett County, Spring
Lake and Fort Bragg. A Level B model was used to evaluate the effect of the proposed
discharge on the receiving stream. As a result'of this evaluation, it was decided to apply best
available technology limits for BOD-5 and for ammonia nitrogen for this proposed facility.
The Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit will be issued at the proposed
location. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal
permit application for the proposed discharge and after the public has an opportunity to
comment on the project.
,R Speculative E_f'fluentLi its
Speculative limits are presented in the attached effluent sheets and are explain as follows:
MM BM and�Ammonia -- The monthly average limits for BO1-5. and ammonia nitrogen are based
on the best available technology for this proposed expansion.
Total Suspended Solids - TSS limits are standard for secondary treatment of municipal
no wastewater.
Fecal Colifo� - The limits for fecal conform bacteria and pH represent water quality
standards for Class C waters (T15A NCAC 2B .0211).
Total R_,� esidual Chlorine (TR0 - Facilities that use cWorine disinfection receive a total chlorine
limit to protect against chlorine toxicity in the receiving stream.
Total NitrogM and Ic2al rho horns Monitoring for these parameters is required to evaluate
and protect water quality in the receiving stream.
aiviMton of Water Quality, Point Scurce Branch Telephone [phone]
160 Mail Service Gaiter, Raleigh, North Cardlna 27699.1617 FAX [phone] ✓ yw a
912 N. Sallsbwv Street. Ratelah, Math CarcIna 27604 on the Intemet at IItVV1Manrsfa(e aC,&W ✓ y
me

M"
APR-30-2008 09:26A FROM:C-GRIM 813688 T0:18434880129 P.4/4
MW
Mr. Rodney Tart
April 24, 2008
fm Page 2
�, Please be advised that the limits and monitoring frequencies on the attached page were
based on the information presented in the speculative limits request. A complete evaluation of
these limits and monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and
IM other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application.
FEW
As you know, you must evaluate this project for environmental impacts before receiving
a modified permit. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities
using public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA)
when wastewater flows: (1) equal or exceed 0.5 MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of
the receiving stream. The NPDES Unit will not issue a permit for this expansion until the
Division has approved the EA and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state
Clearinghouse for review and comment.'
An Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the proposed
project, It should provide an analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough evaluation
of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives such as spray irrigation, water
conservation, or inflow and infiltration reduction, are considered to be environmentally
preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes,
the preferred alternative mustbe the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with
the least adverse impact on the environment. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result
in a significant adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare an
Environmental impact Statement. Hanna Stallings of the Water Quality Planning Branch can
provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
You may contact Ms. Stallings at 919-733-508% ext. 555.
The Division would be agreeable to meet with representatives of Harnett County to
discuss these limits presented here and the future plans for regionalization. Should you have
any questions or if you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-5083, extension 540.
Sincerely,
M `
Gil Vinzani ��
Supervisor, Eastern NPDES Unit
Enclosure
cc: Central Piles
Fayetteville Regional Office, Belinda Hinson
NPDES Unit'
^* Mr. Hiram J. Marziano — Marziano & McGougan, PA
• P.O. Office Drawer 4428
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204.4428
fm
MM
0M

MM
APR-30-2008 09:26A FROM:C-GOUDA 813688 M iB434880129 P.3/4
M"
fm
on
M
V"
M
Mr. Rodney Tart
April 24, 2008
Page 3
SPECULATIVE LIMITATTONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The following table presents speculative limits and associated monitoring requirements for the
proposed 15.0 MGD Harnett County WWTP. Speculative limits do not guarantee that the
Division will issue a NI'DBS permit. In addition, these limits may change when a permit is
Issued to the Harnett County Department of Public Utilities. A complete evaluation of these
limits and monitoring frequencies, in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants, will. be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application.
EFFLUENT PARAMETM
Row MGD)
BOD, 5 day, 20 00 (April 1-
October 31)
SPECULATIVE L MffS
Monthly Weekly Daily
Average Average MaAmum
15.0 MGD
5 mg/1 7.5 m8/1
SPECULATIVE MONITORING
UYREMENTS
Measurement sample sample
Frequency TS►pe Location'
Continuous Recordul I or B
Daily Composite I, E
BOD, 5 day, 20 °Cs (November 1-
March 31)
10 mg/1
15 mg/1
Daily
Composite
I, E
Suspended Solids
30 mg/l
45 rng/1
Daily
Composite
I, B
pril 1- October 31)
1.0 mg/1
3,0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
E
ovember 1- March 31)
2.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
B
Ox en,
ND
Daft
Daily
Grab
Grab
E, U D
E
duat Chlorines
28 icg/l
Daily
Grab
E
ENNIM
Temperatureoc
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
$
Total Phosphorus
MonthlyComposite
B
Chronic Toxicl a
Quarterly
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I -- Influent, U — Upstream, D — Downstream. Final monitoring
requirements to be determined after NPDES application review.
2. The monthly average effluent BODs and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 85%
FM of the respective influent value (856/6 removal required).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L
4.'The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9D standard units.
S. Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 33 percent; January, April, July, and October.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam to other than trace amounts.
MR
RM 3

�0 WA .F;7
h 7
� r
p T
Mr. Rodney Tart
Harnett County Public: Utilities
P.O. Box 1119
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Dear Asir. Tart:
Michmi P. Easley
Clovernor
William a. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Nortli Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Rosouroes
Alan W. Klimtek. P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
becember 1, 2006
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NCO088366
South Harnett County Regional WWTP
Harnett County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for the subject peraidt,
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum
of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,
1994 (or as subsequently amended). '
if any parts. measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatotsy hearing upon written request within
thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714).
Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Divisions. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuanee of the permit. This pern2t does not affect
the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water
Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act
or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone
number [phone]. extension 553.
Sincerely,
w
• Alan W. Klimek P.E.
Cc: NPDES Files
Fayetteville Regional Office -- Surface Water Protection
�+ USEPA Region 4
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
N°a` Caro 'tta
North Ctroliaa Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Rateigh, NC 276"-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Intemet h%ent sWe mus 512 N. Saiis6urySt. Ratelgh, NC 27604 FAX (9 t9) 733-0719 1-V7-623.6748
Art EWM nanehaiWAffu won Aatim Fmdm of+Rfl°L. PerxrtadAfft PW t`maw w► Pw—

�I
I�
Permit NCO088366
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMff
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NA'I`IO1yTAL POLLU'�`ANT',DISC�RGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina. General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations
promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Harnett Counter Public Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
South Hamett Regional WWTP
Shady Grove Rd. • SR 2050
Spring Lake
Harnett County
to receiving waters designated as the Little River in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2007,
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2011.
Signed this day December 1, 2006,
o •
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Direc r
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO088366
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Harnett County Public Utiiit ies is hereby authorized to:
1..A,fter obtaining an Authorization to Construct, construct and operate a 5.0 MGD
wastewater treatment facility located on Shady Grove Rd, Spring Lake, in Harnett
County.
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
the Little River, classified as C waters in the Cape Bear River Basin.
r.*aQr.RQn Us

am
PW
9108936643 12:19-44 p.m. 10-12-2008 0 /32
< < Permit NCO088366
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMI'T'ATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permitter as specified below:
Effluent
Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Averse
DaUy
.Maximum
Measurement
Fire uen
SamPle
T e
Sample Locationl
Flow
5.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 2K
(April 1- October 31)9
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composhe
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C
(November 1- March 31)2
10.0 mg1L
15.0 mgd.
Daily
Composite
influent and Effluent
Total Suspended SoCds2
30.0 mg1L
45.0 mgd.
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
Will I-October3t)
1,0 mg&
3.0 mg/L
Daily
composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November i - March 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mat
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygens
Daily
Grab
Effluent
FecalCol'�form•
(geometric mean)
200/100ml
400I100mi
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine'
2841.
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKN
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2 + N%
Monthly
Composite
Efluent
Total Nitrogen►
M04Y
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toldew
Quarterly
Composite.
Effluent
pHO
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
See Footnote 1
Grab
Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen
&ee Footnote 1
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
blaT
t• Up tream = at least 50 feet upstream of the dis6arge. Downsueam = at least 500 feet from the discharge.
Stream samples shalt be collected three times per week during the months of June, July, August, and
�a September and weekly during the remainder of the year.
2. • The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective inf leaat value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration as measured in the effluent shall not be less than 5.0
mg/L
' rd
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies a y if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Crrrodptvia) limit at 14 % uith testing in January, April, July, and October (see Special
Conditioa A. (2}).
6. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating sofids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
-0

V-�
OR
Am
9108936643 12:2W28 p.m. 10-12-2006 11 /32
Permit Na088366
A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodapbnia dvbfa at an effluent concentration of 14°/a.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Cededap ok Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The tests md"d be performed during the months of January, April, July, and October. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit,
then muldple-concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival, and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival, The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: NC DENK / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
• 1621 Mal Service Center
Raleigh, NoAh Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature:
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
condiment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
requited during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate enviroamcntal controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the
month of the initial monitoring.

FM
9108036643
fE
12:21:23 p.m. 10-12-2006 13 /32
Permit NC0088366
A. (3) PERMIT RE -OPENER: StWLEMENTARY NUTRIENT MONITORING
EEPursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in T"itle 15A of the North
Carolina Adnninlstrati`e Code, Subchapter 02H s ecifcai3,15A NCAC 02HA112(b)(1) and 02H.01 I4(a), and Part II,
Sections B.12. and B.13. of this Permit, the Director o£DWQ may reopen this permit to require supplemental nuttlent
monitoring of the discharge. The additional monitoring wsU be to support water quality modelipg efforts within the
E Cape Fear River Basin, and shall be consistent with it monitoring plan developed jointly by the Division and affected
stakeholders.
E
f
�I
E
MM
1.
�E
E
�E
E
�E
E ..
�E
�E
E

Ma
9108036643
t
Mli A. (4) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
12:21:45 p.m. 10-12-2006 15 /32
Permit NCO088366
The perrnittec shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below (in
accordance with 40 CPR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal (summer,
^�+ winter, fall, spd4 variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as
"total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as
provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-rhloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chioroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
IA-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-didhloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kf eldahl Nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
' l
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
i (
Total Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4•chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
i
Hardness
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
(
Antimony
TetracHoroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
f
Beryllium
1,1,1-tdchloroethane
12-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromiurn
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid-extractgbtecomggunds:
Dlethylphthalate
t
Mem'Y
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dlmethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-cMorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenbl
2,6-dinitrotoluene
(
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4r6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2 nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
VotaEile gMnic communds:_
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
j
l
Acrolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
t
Acrylon�tr�le
6- ichla o henol
2,4, tr r p
1
lndeno 2 3-cd
(, . )pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone-
'�
Bromofonn
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromoinethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chlbroethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene .
i
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(gh0perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
t
1,1-cltchlorvethane
Benzo k fluorenthene
( }
1,2 dichlaroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DIVfR PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director, within
90 days of sampling A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address: Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
ll
MR

9108936643
,.fit } t r
i
Owl
f
f
i
RM
FW 11
MP
I�
1
12:22:29 p.m. 10-12-2006 17132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 1 of 16
PART H
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SepganA, Definidona
SapSa collected twice pet month with at least ten calendar days between sampling events.
ra
Samples are collected three tunes per week on three separate calendar days.
ct or lithe Act'_'
'The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also !mown as the Clean Waxer Art, as amended, 33 USC 1251, at seq.
The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges" of a pollutant treasured during the calendar year. In the case of fecal
cohfotm, the geometric mean of such discharges.
ne sunumdon of the individualvalues divided by the number ofiniliv'idual values.
nass
The known diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility induding the collection system, which
is not a designed or established or operating mode for the facility
Calendar DaT
The period from midnight -of one day until midnight of- the nest dap. However, for purposeP of this permits any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used for sampling
Calendar- bua�rtet
One of. the following distinct peaods: January through March, April through June; ,July through September, and
October through December.
cm=site Sstng�
A s nple collected over a 24-hour period by continuous suppling or combining grab samples of at least 100 ml in
such a manner as to result in a total sample repiwentative of the wastewater discharge during the sample pe=iod. The
Director may designate the most appropriate method (specific number and size of aliquots necessary, the time
inntervd between grab samples, etc) on it case-byLcase basis. Samples may be collected rnativaily or automatically.
Composite samples may be obtained by the following methods:
(1) Continuous: a single, continuous sample collected over a 24-hour period propot tignal to the rate of flow.
(2) Constant time/variable volume: a seties of grab samples collected at equal time intervals over a 24 hour
period of discharge'and combined proportional to the rate of flow measured at the time of individual sample
collection, or
(3) Variable time/constant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24 hour period
with the time intervals between samples determir:ed by it preset number of gallons passing the sampling
point. Flow measurement between sample intervals shall be determined by use of a flow recorder and
totalizer, and the preset gallon interval between sample collection fired at no greater than 1/24 of the
expected total daily flow at the treatment system, or
(4) Const wt time jconstant volume: a series of grab samples of equal volume collected over a 24-hour period at
a constant time interval. This wedwd may only be used in situations where effluent flow rates vary
less than 15 percent 'The grab samples shall be taken at intervals of no greater than 20 minutes apart
during any 24-hour period and must be of equal size and of no less than 100 mMters. Use of this method
requites prior approval by the Director. '
Velsion 51112006
:.

MR
9108936643 12-23:00 p.m. 10-12-2006 18132
I '
NPD12S Permit Requkbments'
Page 2 of %
In accordance with (4) above, influent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour.
Effluent grab samples shall not be collected more than once per hour except at wastewwater tratineat systems
(� having a detention time of greater than 24 hours. In such cases, effluent grab samples may be collected at
intervals evenly spaced over the 24-hour period that ire equal in number of hours to the detention time of the
system in number of days. However, the internal between effluent grab samples may not exceed six hours not
the number of samples less than four during a 2442ouc sampling period.
Candnuoug emen -
�, Flow monitoring that occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility. Flow shall be
monitored continually except for the infrequeat times When there may be no flow or for infrequent maintenance
I activities on the flow device.
i PjWj Dis— c—ha= . .
i The discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling For pollutants measured in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated is
the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. The "daily discharge" concentration comprises the mean
concentration for a 24-hour sampling period as either a composite sample concentration or the arithmetic mean of all
grab samples collected during that period (40 COL 122.3)
gaily Mawnt.un
The highest "daily discharge" during the calendar month fox conventional and other non -toxicant parameters.
• `� "calculation for dete;.rrri�*++++ corn fiance with 't limits for
NOTE. Pernuttees may not submit a daily. average g p p
toxicants. See the relevant Federal efIIumt guideline(sj for the appropriate calculation interval.
t D&S%Wlina
Parameters requiring daily sampling shall be sampled 5 out of every 7 days per week unless otherwise specified in the
pemmt The Division expects that sampling shall be conducted on weekdays except where holidays or other
f disruptions of normal operations pmvent weekday sampling If sampling is required for all seven days of the week
i for any peaxut parameter(s), that requirement will be so noted on the Effluent limitations and Monitoring Page(s).
DWQ = "the d f
The Division of Water CQutlity, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The North Carolina Environmeatol Management Commission.
Eacilily Closure
The cessation of wastewater treatment at a permitted facility, or the cessation of ell activities that require coverage
under. the NPDES. Completion of facility closure will allow this permit to be rescinded.
Georrsetxic Mean '
f ( The Nth mot of the product of the individual values where N = the number of individual values. For purposes of
l the geometric mean values of "0" or "< detection leve ' shall be considered --1.
calculating ge ( i � �
Individual samples of at least 100 ml collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples can be
collected manually. Grab samples must be representative of the discharge (or the receiving stream, four instrearn
i samples).
Han X id= Substance
( Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
�a E ,
I ow
A measure of flow taken it the time of sampling, when both the sample and flow will be representative of the total
j discharge.
Version 511120f)6 .
� I

M9
9108930643
12:23:32 p.m. 10-12-2006 10132
NPDM Permit Requirements
• Page 3 of 16
it vne (conceaLMdon
�► The arithmetic mean of all "daily discharges, ° of a poIIutat:t measured during the calendar snoath. In the case of fecal
colifosn, the geometric mean of such discharges.
pewma Issyli"MAMthodm
The Director of the Division of Water Quality.
j I Q rr lv Ay - %tconcentratianlimid
The average of all samples taken over a calends quacter.
r .
Severe-epmn s e
Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to became Inoperable,
f or substantial and permanent loss of natutol resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage excludes economic loss caused by delays in production.
rrsr, Toxic _o utaur
{ Any pollutant listed as tonic under Section 307(a)@ of the Clean Water Act.
An inc1clot beyond the reasonable control of the Pemuttee causing unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
r
• pernnit effluent limitations and/or, monitoring requirements. An upset does not include noncompliance caused by
operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, Inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
r�
maintenance, or carekgs or improper operation.
lr
v "daily „ during the calendar week. In the case of fecal
The arithmabic mean of all daily discharges ofa pollutant measured g
coliforsn, the geometric mean of such discharges.
l
Section a. Geueggl Coadidona
FM i L Duty to Qn* .
The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Any pemnir noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance,
or woMcatiotn; or denial of a permit renewal application [40 CFR 122.411.
a. The Permitter shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under section 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with n mdards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under
section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act within the time provided in the regulations that establish these
I standards or P rolubitions or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if the permit Isar not yet been
t
modified to incorporate the requirement.
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the
t Act; or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a pertnit issued under section
4021 or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8)
. f of the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. [40 CFR 122.41 (a)
(2))
Li t~ The Clean Water Act provides that any person who negNSestly violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or
405 of the Act, or any condition or linvtation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
or an requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section
section 402 of the Act, y eq 1? P
402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of S2,5W to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment of not more than I year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction fora
negligent violation, a person shall be subject to crinn21 penalties of not more than 850,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment of not more thin 2 years, or both. [40 CFR 122.41(a) (2))
Version 51112008
i

0108036643 12:24:10 p.m. 10-12-2006 20 /32.
t NPDES Permit Requirements
Page 4 of 16
d. ,Any person who knowiqlj► violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal
penalties of $5,000 to $50.000 per day of violation, or imprisonmeat for not more than 3 years, or both. Yn
the case of a second or subsequent conviction %r a knowing violation, a person shalt be subject to cdminal
penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both.
�I [40 CFR 122.41(a) (2)]
e. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act,
and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in irnasinent danger of death or sadous
bodily, Injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imptisonment of not
I more 15 years, or both. In the case of second or subsequent conviction for a knowing mdaagerm
than ent
i violation, a person shall be subject to a• fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than
30 years, or both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iit) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction
of violating the irrunineat danger provision:, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined
up to $2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. [40 CFR =41(a) (2)]
£. Under state law, a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per violation may be assessed against any person
who violates or fails to act in accordance with the.terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [North
Carolina General Statutes § 143 21S.6A.]
g. Any person may be assessed an admiaistrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation impiementing any of such
sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act Admichtrative penalties for Class I violations ate
not to exceed 110,000 per violation, with the saaamum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$25,000. Penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed $10,000 per day for each d'ay during which the
violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed S125,000- R CFR
122.41(a) (3)]
` 2. JhALyto te
The perauttee shall take all reasonable steps to minfi nine or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable I&elihood of advarsely affecting human health or the envitonment
140 CFR 12241(d)]. .
1
f M-4 3. CH lnd QiadadLia6i 'sy
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part H. C. 4), "Upsets" (Part IF. C. 5) and "Power
Failures" (Pat II. C 7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143 215.3,143-215.6 or Section 309
of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319. Furthermore, the Pernaittee is reesponsible for consequential dunages, such as
fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. 90 and Haordaus SUbstDnce: Liability
Nothing is this permit shy be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Perrnittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under N.CGS 143-
215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the Federal Ac4 33 USG 1321. Furthermore, the Pennittee is responsible for .
' consequential damages, such as fish kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be
temporarily suspended.
5. Emnm
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property tights in either rent or personal property, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations M CFR 12Z.41(g)].
6. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or offshore physical structures or
facilities or the undertaking of any work in any navigable waters.
version 61112006
MM II

9108938643
12:24-40 p.m. 10-12-2006 21 132
• NPDFS Permit Requirements
Page 5 of 16
e� 7. Eve_ W ty
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit, or the application of Any provision of
this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this P ennit, shall not be affected thereby ENCGS 150B-23].
r�r
8. Dal% Provide I forsmnnd infomnation which the
I The Pemnittee shalt, fuunish to the permit issuing Authority, within a reasonable time, any .
Permit issuing Authority may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking ad reissuing, or
terani a gr this Venn it or to determine compliance with this permit. The Peanittee shall also furnish to the
fPernnit Issuing Authority upon request, copies of records required by this permit [40 CFR•41(h)}•
l
9.-to R.eappiv
If the Fermittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Penmuttee must apply for and obtain a new permit (40 QFR 122.41(b)]. -
"a 10.�p�ira tion o£ Perniii
L'The permittee is not authorized- to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive automatic
t Authorization to disch beyond t3ie e*mdo:n date, the Permittee shall, submit such information, forms, and
� � expiration, date.
fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later than 180 days pxlor to the expos on
Any Pew ittee that has not requested renewml at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any PerMittee that does not
' f have a permit after the expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject
i 15.6 and 33 USC 1251 at the k'evmittee to enforctrnent pmcedures as provided in NCGS 143-,2e9.
l All applications, reports, or information submitted to the permit Issuing Authority shall be signed and certified
[40 CFR 122.41(k)).
a. AN permit applications shall be signed as fcsllows:
t (n For a emporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this Section, it responsible
corporate officer means: • (a) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in.
charge of a pr' * al business function, or guy other person who performs similar policy or decision
makingf mcdons for the corporation, or (b) the manager of one or more manufacturing production, or
decisions wbich govern the
operating faclities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management go
operation of the regWated facility including having the -explicit or implicit duty of making major capital
investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long
. term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that
the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for
►� permit application requvements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated
it1 to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures -
t t eCtivel
(2) For a picrwership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, rem p y; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agencp. by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official [40 CFR 122.22].
t
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Pena -it Issuing Authority shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph a. above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representattive only if-
1. The authorization is mnade in v�" g by a person described above;
2• The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or
.. ell fief sir erinteadea a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having
w d, p � P •
• overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may
I thus beesther a named individual or arty individual occupying a named position); and
I 3. The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CFR 122.22] .
Verdon N112008

ran
0108936643
f
c ,
12:25:27 p.m. 10-12-2008 22 W.
NPDES Permit Requirements '
Psge 6 of 16
• section is no lop es accurate
G Changes to authorization: if an authorization under paragraph (b} of this long
ex
a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director
prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized
representative [40 CFR 122.22]
d. Certification. Any person sigtaing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall make the
F" following certification (40 CFR 122.22):
'/ ce*, under penalty of law, that this document and all aiiachmente were prepared under my dlrecfton or
supervislon in accordance with a system designed to assure that quatirled personnel properly gather and evaluate
the informedcn submitted. Based on my fngulty of the parson orpersons who manage the system, or those persons
dlrectly responsible for gatheding the information, the Information submMed Is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, ft,?, accurate, and complete. Ism aware that theta are sIpScant penafiies for submiding false Information,
including the possibility of fines and Imprisonment for knowing violatfons. 6
Latmit Actions j This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. Tfie filing of a request by the
Pesmittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a natificadon of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance doers not stay any permit condition (40 CFR 122.41(i}}.
i 13, Mecinit Nadi catd4n, R evocation ae dRdssuance Or Termination
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from xeopening and modifying the
permit; gavoking and reissuing the permit or tenninating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations
contained in Title 4Q Code of Federal Regulations, Parts Lo,2 and 123; Title ISA of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-2I5.I et aL
was 14, Annual djoUsseiring and Comp ce M-0mitQ601t ee Re mi=enis
The Fermittm must pay the' annual administering and compliance monitoring fee within thirty*ys after being
' billed by the Division. Failure: to pay the fee in a timely mariner in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (b) (2)
may cause this Division to initiate action to revolve the permit:
II '
,Section C ftm ion anti Maingenance of pollution Controls
1. QAfigd 42erator .
• 'on the Perrnittee shall employ a
Upon classification of the peimttted facility by the Certification Commnsss p oy
certified water pollution control treatment system operator in responsible charge (ORC) of the water pollution
control treatment system. Such operator must hold a certification of the grade equivalent to or greater than the
classiftcetson assigned to the water potiution control treatment system by the Certification ConuT fission. The
Penmitt a must also employ one or more certified Back-up ORCs who possess a currently valid certificate of the
type of the system. Back-up ORCs must possess a grade equal to (or no more than one grade less than) the grade
of the system [15A NCAC 8G.0201).
The ORC of each Class Z facility roust~
D 'Visit the facility at least weekly
Comply with all other conditions of 15A NCAC 8G.0204.
The ORC of each Class 11, III and IV facility must±
➢ Visit the facility at least daily, exclueiing weekends and holidays
Properly manage and document daily operation and maintenance of the facility
D Complywith 0 other conditions of 15A NCAC 8G.0204.
Once a faciili is classified, the Permittee shell submit a letter to the Certification Commission designating the
On the facility tI,
operator in responsible charge:
a. Within 60 cale:ndu days prior to wastewater being introduced into a new system
. Verson 5It12008
1

0108936643 12:26:04 P.M. 10-12-2006 23 /32
- ,
. btPDES Permit Requirements
Pqt7of16
b. Within 120 calendar days ofi
> R.ecetving notification of a change in the classification of the systeiu requiring the designation of a
new ORC and back-up ORC
➢ A vacancy in the position of ORC or back-up ORC.
The petmittee shall at au times provide the operation and maintenance resources necessary to operate the existing
facilities at optimum efficiencY• The permittee shall at In times properly operate and maintain all facilities and
a ucten4nccs which ate installed or used by the Permittee to
systems of treatment and control (and related pg }
achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit, Proper operation send maintenance also indudcs adequate
laboratory controls and appropniati quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the Permittee to install
and operate backup or auxiliary fad9ties only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
permit [40 CFR 122.41(e)).
3. Need p Hilt or Rectum not a Defen4l
t It shall not be a defense for a Petmittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitwd activity in order to maintain compliance with the condition of this permit (40 CFR 122.41
• (c})
4. asp of Treatment Faailid�s () (},
a. Bypass not exceeding limitations [40 CPR 122.41 m 2
f'the Prsraittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but
t assure efficient o eration. These bypasses arc not subject m the
only lilt also is for essential masateaance to p
provisions of Plagmphs b, and c. of this section.
b. Notice [40 CFR 122.41(ra) (3)j
(n Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior
notice, if poss&le at least ten clays before the date of the bypass; including an evaluation of the
anticipated quality and effect of die bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of in unanticipated bypass as required in fart
II. E. 6. (24-hour notice).
c, Prohibition of Bypass
(i) Bypass from the treatment facility is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority MW take enforcement
action against a Pecmittee for bypass, unless:
i (�) Bypass was Unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage;
i (B) here were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment iacilities.
• retention of untreated wastes or maititeaatite during no mml periods of equipment downtime- Thus
been installed is the exercise of
condition is not satisfied if adequate barb* equipment should have
reasonable eaSheedag judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(C) The permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph b. of this section. .
(2) Bypass from the collection system is prohibited and the Permit Issuing Authority may take enforcement
action against a P=nittee for a bypass as provided in any current or fuh= system-vnde collection system
permit associated with the treatment facilit7.
(3) The permit Issuing Authority may approve an mumpated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if
the Pe.Fmit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the dree conditions listed above in Nragrapb c.
(!) of this section.
5, et
a. Effect of an upset [40 CFR 122.41- (n) (2)1: An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action
brought for noncompliance with such technology based perrait effluent limitations if the requirements o
paragraph b. of this condition are met. No detemutlation made during administrative review of chums that
version 51112006

RM
0108936643 12:26:38 p.m. 10-12-2006 24 l32
�+ NPDES Permit Rcquirements
• Pip 8of16
' noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action
subject to judicial review.
ib. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset A Petiuittee who wishes to establish the
l shall demonstrate, duou properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or
� aff�mabtve defeense of upset � P P
� other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset oco=ed and that the Petmittee can identify the cause($) of the upset;
(2) The pe rmittee fatuity was at the time being properly operated; and
• set as required in Part II. E. 6. (b) of this permit
� (3) The Perun�.ttee submitted notice of the up q
(4) The Permitteae complied with any remedial measures required under Part 11. B. 2. of this permit.
c. Burden of proof [40 COL 122.41 (n) (4)j: The Permittee seeking to Establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof in any enforcement pracee&o&
{
( 6, R w.t,ape A SubstaaceI
Solids, sludges, fitter backwash, or other removed in the course of treatment or conical of wastewaters
( shalt be utilized/disposed of in accordance with NCGS 143 215.1 and in a manner such as to prevent =y pollutant
from such materials froth, entering waters of the State or navigable waters of the United States. The Pemittee
t shall comply with A existing Federal regulations governing the disposal of sewage sludge. Upon promulgation of
40 CPR Part 503, any permit issued by the Permit Issuing Authority far the utilization/disposal of sludge may be
r reopened and modified, or revoked and reissued, to incorporate applicable requiremeats at 40 CPR 503. The
Pesmittee Shall comply with applicable 40 CFR 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage: Sludge when
{ promulgated) virithia the time provided in the regulation, even if the permit is not modified to incorporate the
requirement: The Permittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority of any signi$cant change in its sludge use
or disposal practices. .
7. Power Fsu'lnuee
The Pennittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards (as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0124 --
f. Reliability) to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastcs during electrical power faalures
i eneyators orretention of inad tely treated effluent.
either by means of alternate power sources, standby g �
j Seetia g sand Rescordo
. Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of the volume and nature of
ed at a frequency less than daily shall be taken on a day sad time that is
the permitted citscbatg� Samples collect gnency Y
characteristic of the discharge over the entire period the sample represents. All samples shall be taken at the
{ mQsaito i points specified in thus permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or Is diluted
by any other wastestream, boy of d or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without
� water,
notifscadoa to and the approval of the Permit Issuing Authority [40 CM 12Z,41(j}J.
2. ReppMK&g .
Monitoring results obtained during the previous months) shall be summarized for each month and reported on a
monthly Discharge Manitoring Report (DMR) Form (IVIIt. 1, 1•l, 2, 3) or alternative forms approved by the
Director, postinatked no htex than the last calendar day of the month following the completed reporting period.
The first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the issuance of the permit or in the case of a new
facility, on the last day of the month following the commencement of discharge. Duplicate signed copies of
these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Ceatral Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Vert 5/19006
MM

PM
9108036043
I •
�r
12:27:14 p.m. 10-12-2006 25132
NPDES Permit Requirements
Pagc 9 of 16
3, Flow Mtasurements ,
Appropriate flow ineasuremeat devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific psactices shall be selected
iand used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The
l Cy of the measurements is consistent
devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to ensure that the accura
. with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a
maximum, deviation of less than 10°!a from the true discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge
volumes. Flow measutemca_t devices shall be accurately calibrated at a minimum of once per y�tand e device.
to ensure that the accuracy of th e measurements is consistent with the accepted cap ty tYF
�
The Director shall approve the flow n msurenent device and monitoring location prior to installation.
Once -through condenses cooling water flow monitored by pump logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I
of this permit and based on the manuFactuaer's pump curves shall not be subject to this requirement;
11
4.
Test ptocedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to
the EMC regulations {published pursuant to
. NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq.), the Water and Air Quality Reporting Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to
Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the Federal Water pollation Control Act (as Amended, and 44 CFR 136; or in
• os approved under 40 CPR 136, unless otherwise specified in 40 CPR 503, unless
t the case of sledge use or dtsp al, pp -
�+ other test procedures have been specified in this permit [40 CFR 122.411•
l To meet the intent of the monitDring required by this permit; all test procedures must produce minimum
t detection and reporting Ievels that are below the permit discharge requirements and all data generated must be
''�► report down to the minlinum detection or lower reporting level
eporof the procedure. If no approved methods are
epor determined capable of achieving minimum detection and reporting levels below permit discharge requirements,
! . ' e method with the lowest possible detection slid reporting level) approved method nsust
i the the most sensiUv ( P ,
be used.
5•' or. knowingly renders inaccsurite, any
• erson who falsifies, tam ers with, g y
The Clean Water Act provides that amp p P
�+ monitoring device or method required to be nuintained under this permit sba% upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than �10,000 pet: violation, or by irnpisonment for not more than two years per violation, or
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first canvictxoa of sucYi person under this
b both. If a P more
Y
paragraph, punishment is s fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment o tint
'�► than 4 years, or both [40 CFR 122.41].
G. Eecoz srsr_cztYen
Rcept for Peen:cis of monitoring information required by this permit related to the Permittee's sewage sludge
p
use and disposal activities which shall be retained for a peuod of at least five years (or longer as required by 40
CFR 303), the Permittee shill retain records of all monitoring information, iizclvding.
p all caliibra6n, and maintenance records
p all 04nal strip chart recordings for Continuous monitoring instrumentation
! A copies of all reports required by this permit
➢• copses of all data used to complete the application for this permit
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years 'from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. This period msy be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR
z�
122.41).
f TOR ; 7, R prnrclina Rrsults
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit; the Permittee shall record
the following information (40 CFR 122.41]:
The date, enact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
.b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. I1ie individual(s) who pecfosmed the analyses;
Uet kn 611/2006

FOR
it 9108936643 12:27:52 p.m. 10-12-2005 28 A2
JNPDES Permit Requirements
* •' Poge10of16
e. The anaiydcal techniques or methods used; and
E. The results of such analyses.
g, TTns -cdo i aid En txv
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (iacluding an authorized contractor actuig
as a representative of the upa Director) , n the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
`( bylaw, to; .
l I regulated faculty or aetivi is located or conducted, or where
MW a. Enter upon the Perrn ittee s premises where a regula ty ty
records must be kept raider the conditions of this permit;
fI b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept undet the conditions of thss
!
1
permit; .
uipment fmcludiag monitoring and control equipment}, practices,
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, eq
or operations regulated or required under -this pemsit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or paramrs eteat any location (40 CPR 122.41
j Section H --RepaWage-$eWWmen-
L Change in DischaM—
t ,All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit The discharge
=1 of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently thin or at a level in excess of that authorized shall
constitute a violation of the permit.
2- PJ= C
(+ The Pexmittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or
FOR additions to the permitted facility p CFR 122-410)]. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for new sources at 40 CFR
122.29 (b), or
b. The alteration or addition could sigtuficandy change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants subject neither to effluent limitations In the permit; nor to
' ca •on pkements under 40 CPR 122.42 (a) M. .
aotnfi a •req• .
C. The alteration, or addition results in a sgnificaat change is the Permittee's sludge use or disposal, practices,
and such alteration, addition or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different
from or absent is the existing pit, i ?ding modficaaon of additional use or disposal sites not reported
during the pew application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.
3. �►n6ri0-N ancornot c
'ttee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes to the permitted facility or other
The Perna g�
activities tint might result !a noncompliance with the permit 140 CPR 122.410 (2)3.
4. Tran
This permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to the Director. The Director may require
modification, or revocation and reissuance of the permit to document the change of ownership. Any such action
may incorporate other requiremeats as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 122.41 @ (3)).
S. Monitoring Rsg= .
Monitoring results shall be reported at the intwals specified elsewhere in this permit (40 CFR 122.41 M (4)J.
a, Monitoring ag results must be reported on a Discharge MonitorReport (D ) (See Put II 3.2) o forms
provided by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices.
b. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this pesnnit, the results of such
e included in the calculation and orting of the data submitted on the Ma
monitoring shall b �.'
g
rr Ver kn 9112006
E(

9108936643 12:28:25 p.m. 10-12-2006 27132
• , NPI)ES Permit Requirements
Pap 11 of of
••� 6. T nr-fott�Hour ep rt n
a. The Permittee shall report to the Director or the appropriate Regional 4fftce may noncompliance that
i potentially tluestens public health or the environment Any information shall be provided OMUY within 24
'tee became aware of the ciratuastances. A written submission shall also be
hours from the time the P=At .
provided vvitWa S days of the time the Permittce becomes aware of 'the cstcumstances. The wuttea
submission shall contain a description of the aoncotmpgance,-and its cause; the period of aoncompiianct,
• including exact dates and times, nand if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
reduc efrsninate, and prevent reocaurence of the
� expected to continue; and steps takes or planned to e, P
noncompliance (40 CFR 122: I @ (6)].
L_ b• 'the Director may waive the written report on Q case-bg case basis for cepods under this section if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
jC. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to the Division's Emergency Response
personnel at ($00) 662-7956, [phone] or [phone].
F
I7, COthe MPHELCA
t The Petmitttee shall report all instances of noncompliance not seported under Part IL E, 5 and 6, of this,pertnit at
„q the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in Part IL E. 6. of
• this permit [40 CFR 122.410 (7)]. .
B. Qtha Infortnatiorr
Where the Patiga ee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts In a permit application, or
submitted incorrect information in ai permit application os in may report to the Director, it shall promptly submit
f 8)J.
l such facts or information [40 CFR 122.41�) (
9. NQncPq^q%
The Pennittee shall report by telephone to either the central off ice or the appropriate regional Office g the
• ore than 24 hours or on the neat working day following the
Division as soon as posss6le, but to no case rn
occurrence or first knowledge of the occ=ence of any of the following ,
ence at the water pollution control facility which results in the discharge of ssgntficant amounts of
A. An occurr P • a sludge
dge
wastes which are abnormal in 9uarititp or characteristic, such as the dumping of the contents of
digester; the known passage of a slug of hazardous substance through the facility; or any other unusual
riscutastaaces.
' 't .l�.w nr, 1rnr eYn� nr tinknemm rPasannst. that render the fSG111ty iacaoable of adequate
�. ewN MrAwAP! \\A\� �1\ •7�I\
,p
e�ftj�
i� N

MM
' I 9108036643 12:36:56 p.m. 10-12-20t36 28 /32
NPDES P=mh Requird men is '
• ' ' Page 12 of 16
• not more than $25,000 per violation, or by impsssonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both
••. (40 CPR 122.41].
12. Agmal Pqd=R0QLR§RQ)d5
P�aaitteeu: who own or operate facilities that collect or treat municipal or domestic waste shall provide an annual
report to the Permit issuing Authority and to the users/customers served by the -Permittee the ex 143-215 which
The report shall suunmarize the performance of the collection or treatment system, as well as the exterht to which
the facility was compliant with applicable Federal or State laws, regulations and s:ules pertainws to water quality.
The report ch-all be provided no later than silty days after the end of the calendar or fiscal year, depending upon
which annual period is used for evaluation.
PART III
O'I'IMR. REQ UM NTS
,SSection & Con9 cds�
The Peadttee shall not comcneace construction of wastewater treatment facilities, nor add to the planes treatment
i or char the treatment roeess ea utilized at the treatment plant unless the Division hits issued an
capacity, n change p ( )
Authorization to Construct (AtC) permit Issuance of an AtC will not occur until Final Plans and Specifications for
the proposed construction have been submitted by the Percnidit and approved by the Division.
ern d o
The Petmittee shall, upon written notice from the Director of the Division of Water Quality, conduct groundwater
monitoring as may be required to determine the complimce of this NPDES permitted facility with the current
ground
water standards.
eS cam. Changa in c� a stanaes
The Petmittee shall notify the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as it knows or has reason to believe (40 CFR 122.42):
a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent
basis, of sty toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge, will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels` ;
M One hundred aicrograms per liter (I00 µg/L);
(2) 'Pwo hundred microgrgms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and sctyionitrile; five hundred micrograms
per liter (500 µg/L) for 2.4-d iinirrophenol and for 2•xnethyl 4.6-dioitropheaol; and one milligram per liter
(l mglL) for antimotT,
(3) Five times the maximum concentration value repotted for that pollutant in the permit application.
i b. 71 any activity has occurred or wsl occur Which would result in any discharge, on a non -routine or
• infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not iirnited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the
highest of the following "notification levels`;
Q) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 µg/L);
(2) One milldam per liter (l mg/L) for antimony;
(5) e'en times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant m the permit applicatfoa.
iD. RysluxtiQa-after Mchmc A to as 'v
The Permittee shall evaluate all wastewater disposal alternatives rid pursue the most environmentally sound
alternative of the reasonably cost effecdve -alternatives. If the facility is in substantial non-compliance with the terms
` ' ( and conditions of the NPDES permit or governing totes, regulations or laws, the Permittee shall submit a report in
.. within 60 days of
such Form and detail. as regwxcd by cite Division evaluating these alternatives and a plait of action thin y
notification by the Division.
S=tipn a. aaslrix Gigiure e
The Permittee must notify the Division at least 90 days Prior to the closure of any wastewatrs treatment system
covered by this permit. The Division may require specific measures during deactivation of the system to prevent
Version 51112006
t

M M 08038643 12:36:30 p.m. W-12-2008 28132
t -
M" . t „ , ' , , NPDES PeWdt Requirements
Pap 13 of 16
adverse impacts to waters of the State. Ties permit cm mot be rescinded while any activities requiring this permit
continue at the permitted facility.
PART IV
Motto SpEcLk , CONpMONS FOR MUNCIPAL FACILITIES
' �ectAon .A�._�ulsti (awn Tzent�e�Wort,s fI�OTWsl
All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of the following:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect dlscitarger which would be subject to
�. section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directly d'tschatging those pollutants; and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced by an indirect discharger
as influent to that POTW at the time of issuance of the permit
3. For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (1) the quality and quantity of
effluent introduced into the POTW, and (2) any anticipated iatpact of the change on the quantity or quality
of effluent to be discharged from the POTW.
f
S. utidgo C-Ontrol of PPJWI= fWM b&gdal Users
f1. Effluent iimitatipas are listed in Put I of this permit; Orher pollutants attributable to inputs from
tndustaes using the municipal system may be present in the Peimittee's discharge. At such time as
sufficient Wommdon becomes available to establish limitations fot such pollutants, this peaait may be
revised to specify effluent limitations for any or all of such other pollumats in accordance with best
P
ractkable tecSi
haolo or water quality standards.
"" 2. Under no circumstances shall the Perrnittee allow introduction of the following wastes in the waste
f � treatment system: '
a. pollutants which create s fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to,
wastestreams with a dosed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees
mail Centigtade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR. 261.21;
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case Discharges
with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such Discharges;
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW
. resulting in Interference;
• is OD etc. released in a Dischargeat a flow
d. Any pollutant; including oxygen demanding pollutants QB )
rate and/or pollutant concentration which will came Interference with the POW;
e. Heat in amounts which wM inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in Interference, but in
so case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW Treatment Plant exceeds 400C
(1041) unless the Division, upon request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
f. Petroleum od, nonbiodegeadible cutting oil, or products of mineral c d origin in amounts that will
''�' l cause interference or pass through;
l g. Pollutants which result in the presence of. toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a
quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be necessary for the
Permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CM Part 403) to
ensure compliance by the Pwaittee with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the Permittee
may be necessary rW&g some or all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.
a•e 4. The Peanittee shall require any industrial discharges sending influent to the permitted system to meet
t Federal Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act: Prior to accepting
wastewater, from any significant industrial uses the Permittee shall either develop and submit to the
version 51112006 -

no
0108036643 12:37:42 p.m. 10-12-2008 31 132
•� 4
Oni - �• fly , NPDES Permit Requirements
Page is of 16
• 6, Aurhari�atnn to Construct � to Gi
The Peaanittee shall ensuz+e that an Authorization to Construct permit (AtG) is issued to all applicable
= industrial men for the construction or modif c: d6fL of any faaiity. Prior to the issuance of
an AtC, the proposed ptetcestment facility and treatment process :gust be ewluated•for its capacity to
Comply with au Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (RM limitations.
7. P[YM Imecton & kl2onito ' of th& SATs
The Pmmittee shall conduct inspection, surveillance, and monitoring activities as described in its Division
approved pretreatment program in order to determine, independent of information supplied by industrial
users, complimce with applicable grctreatmait standarris. The Femoittee must:
a. Inspect dl Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) at least once per, caleextdar pear and
b. Sample all Scant Industrial Users (SUN) at least Mice per calendar year for all petnmit-
limited pollutants, once during the pedod from January 1 through Juae 30 and once during the
period from July 1 fluough December 31, except for organic compounds which shall be sampled
once per calendar year;
• 8. 8 rlf i .
' 'The Permittee shalt wvire all industrial users to comply with the applicable monitoring and reporting
cats outlined is the Division approved gr+etreatmcnt pt SMIZ, the industry s pretreatment peenit;
or in 15A NCAC 2H .0908.
9.
The Permittee sill enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for violations of all pretreatment snindards
psomulgq d purswmt to section 3O7(b) and (c) of the C.lzan Water Act (40 CFR 405 et seq.), prob1itive
dischaW standards as Bet forth in 40 CPR 403.5 and 15A NCAC 2H .0909, and specific local limitations.
All enforcement actions shall be consistent with the Enforcement Response Plan PP) approved by the
Divisionm.
10. Prcft_ea= pt Annual Rog= =
The Permittee shA report to the Dwism in scwtdaence with 15A NCAC 2H .0905. In lieu of submitting
annual reports, Modified Pretreatment Programs developed under 15A NCAC 2H .M4 (b) may be'
required to meet with Division personnel pedodic:4 to discuss enforcement of pretreatramtrequirements
and other pretreatment implementation issues.
For all other active pretreatment pis, the Pe nittee shall submit two copies of a Preb=tmentAnnual
P.eport (PAR) describing its pretreatment activities over the previous twe n months to the Division at the
following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Pretreatment Unit.
1617 Mad Servicc Center
Raley, NC 27699-1617
These reports shall be submitted according to a schedule established by the Director and shall contain the
EolIowiV.. .
R brief discussion of reasons for, status o4 mad actions taken for all Signnificant Indust
Users (SIUs) in Significant Non-Compli=ce (SNC);
b) �'t�txtmant Pr vmraa . -
• A pretreatment pugmm s=tmary (PPS) on specific forms approved by the Division;
0
The nature of the violations and the actions taken or proposed to correct the violations on
Off" specific focan approved by the Division;
d,) Thdusftid Darn S =MW Fozms
t Vert bn 0202003
fm

RM
9108936643 12:38:15 p.m. 10-12-2006 32 W
NPDES Permit is
,- Pale 16 of 15
l Monitoring cats. from samples, collected by both the POTW and the Significant Iadusteial
l User . These simlytical results must be zVorted on Industdd Dam Sumukay Fomrs
(MSF) or other sped& format appto and by the Division;
i c) Qther Iafom orlon
Copies of the POTWs allocation fiablc, new or modified enforcement compliance schedules,
public notice of STUs in SNC, and • any other infom ion, upon request, which in the
^� opinion of the Director is needed to determine compliance with the ptet watment
implementation requirements o€tide peemit
11. NWT
MM
The Permittee shall publish annually a list of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) that mere in Significant
Nba-Compliance (SN Q as defined in the PemvtteA; Division approved Seaver Use Ordinance with
• s previous elve d. This
applicable pretreatment xequssetneats and tandasds dus�ag the: pteazo tw month pca�o Est
shaU be published within four months of the applicable twelve-month period.
12. -
Record Ifeeli -
ne PermiCtee Shan Own for a minimum of thtee years records of monitoring activities and results, along
Vith support info=wdon including genad retards, water quality records, toad retards of indusWal impact
on the POM
13. Eunnala�d Financ' Inv
The Pertnium shall maintain sdeT=te funding and swag levels to a ccomapfish the objectives of its
1I approved pr--- - resent progt um
14. Wod_lfica 'oe to PtetmMent PM=s
l Modifications to tyre approved pretreatment pro pm including but not limited to local limits
modifications, POTW monitoring of their Significant Indust Users (BTUs), and Monitaritg Phm
madi&cador�s, shall be considered a petmit modification and shall be governed by 15 NCAC 2H .0114 and
ISA NCAC 2H .M7.
Vemtn WQi2M

Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
M, NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis
IM
January 2010
MEN APPENDIX B
Project Maps
• Project Service Area Overlay on Water Supply Watersheds
• Project Service Area Overlay on Zoning Map (Harnett & Cumberland)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (1 of 2)
• Overall Project Overlay on USGS Topographic Map (2 of 2)
• 2006 Aerial Photography: WWTP Components and Location
• Detailed Site Plan for Proposed WWTP Upgrade (existing and proposed structures)
FM
FEM
em
M
fm
fm
Marziano &z McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Miles `- South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd
0 Cumberland -Spring ke ervice ea a4 4y Q d Project Service Area
0
Wastewater Treaty ent 1 t , p P p . 0 �6 a Overlaid on Current Zoning Map
° Environmental Assessment 2-4-2009
South Regiona ewer P' A -
Existing S er Pump Stag-
s o a Upper Little River
Propos Forcema' p a
f
mPro used Gra /I7 o a 4 ,
I xistin 1io mairu Sewer ° _
a f
o Y p a 9 Q' •
Existing vity Sewe - 4a o y •
X'Q Sub -basins `NI
`=
lit
3-06-07 pu - ;• e
0 03-06-13
03-06-14 ; n a lq , . ° :d n
• a aa
03-06-18 ° a Q
i��ur11C1p�i1 Limits_ _ - Coopers Ranch WWTP Lower Little River
■ ,,' 4 (to be shut down)
Harnett -Cumberland Zoning (general) CON ---
Carolina Lakes WW Lagoons r a
to be shut down c:..sT �- - ' It1 ( ) tP
Will CONS/AG N
TJ Anderson Creek Sewer Project a �c
South Central Phase 1A-1D
I (Currently Under Construction)
p S a
1
Nonei' L -
1 , • yr
�
RA -fit ; -
L S `
V. tiv
RA-20R
.... _
Upgrade South Harnett WWTP I
Existing 8.0 mgd from 5 mgd to 15 mgd
Fort Bragg WWTP
(to be shut down)
I
prn.g # Upgrade South Harnett
MARZIANO & MCGouGAN, P.A. r , Spring Lakemgd Regional Pump Station to 15 mgd
consulting engineers j
UMSF.COMANIM. F - NRF. ]I1 • C(1NWAY, SC 295M f l p g
A— M3.4N.0124 F¢ 84i4a'AOI -
`' � � (to be shut down)

�,_�°f V.: r•; f=f -" l+ _. ,k,-� r : - '-'�•..� l .. f; -;�� 5 1 �'- a! - ..._� r7r •. ' + a Wastewater Treatment Plant 411f,
f 1 f ---� � t �;�^-.,�`Y ,�`'��'-� �t,�_ �' �',=._y! ��-._� -IC _;Iizo, f t '' •, _
te
South Regional Sewer PS e�~
��� ---=� s -...�} �•>..,�� '— � son �: •+ . -1. � •� r• 1 � ,
Proposed Forcemain - _ An e�• _ _ _: ` e , _ ��
S .
Existing Forcemain Sewer
Existing Gravity Sewer �'}
Oid Beth af * `� 1 sD.� ' ♦ 3 n
rem°'- z t, ,' 1,r - 1 (�
Impacted Wetlands 25' Corridor 3 _5
p \ /!%
Surveyed WetlandsNX ,�� �1` 1 I �., ri • - r ' Y72 f':` �ri F f % /r
Proposed GravityeT
;�° . , ' • ; 4,. -
Munici al Limits 12 f - , _ .r - �, • jay z N,4 F _ — �-
ri
', Federal Property
df 11 �ym4 (SO
Wetland Ma Inset Boundaries
_ -� ���� 16,000 feet of 30 -36li Forcemain L /
fir, O- Laid Parallel to Exisimg 24 Forcemain ,,� Upgrade South Harnett WWTP�
' }�" `= ti�,j 1, '� ''• - from South PS to South Harnett WWTP fro / o
--- ' V-°F m 5 d to 15 d
f? a Anderson Creek Sewer Project
Central Phase 1A-1D
�.� Currentl Under Construction
`"'� • �rlr— FF � �OQ � • 2/0' a � �: - -7 Aef.� 'r - il,� x`. ��� f+ • ���� _ i
..
J_�f
4 ,j per/ I __.,t ',jar- •'1 y 15 7r'.i ..•'-'i f t — �..,a",l
-y� . -^. �� o-�_ � i � _J'• : Effluent Discharge Point
27� - -� �.--'.� - \"\fit ✓ r~-_'Y-1` ', - <<�
19,000 feet of 2" _
4 Gravity Main from , r � �. �-�• � � �"�r j wI __
Spring Lake
South Harnett Regional Pump Station - ` °\ ���� ! ~- �• '� `{ rL J j ri j �. }
: �� _ �� e�c �Itr b. Upgrade South Harnett �� r, �' 1y`
s ram. Regional Pump Station to 15 mgd
J � �" v'�� � D! � ' - ��� }� � � I•\' `mil i� -.� , ft'"� /'_
11 .-♦ - 1i87�- • �:j = = i-. r: C� r-
i
�} .�' t�0. � � i . trade A y� � O � ■ a_ - $ r'. � � -fj,i `'l. ���.� rf
-$•- _ _ �__ South Harnett WWTP Upgrade to 15 mgd
I • O Jf �f -A - .
C
* �Rz�o & MCGOUGA, P.A. §' -- ,- '��_ Yi_ _ Overall Project on USGS Ma 2 of 2
consulting engineers , p
r V.-W4Q,'%?4 ,F.F n, T S, �Q 1 r� 1,��0 2,00� 4,��� 6,0�� 8,000 10,000 -
_ . �,� r Feet Environmental Assessment 2 4-2009
i 1. 1t�. j.. f� .,f

Wastewater Treatment Plant
South Regional Sewer PS 16,000 feet of 30"-36" Forcemain
Anderson Creek S1
ewer Project +.'i r Lai Parallel to Exisi 24" Forcemain -
1 4e
— Proposed Forcemain G _. - W ti , South Central Phase 1A 1D from South PS to South Harnett WWTP
(Currently Under Construction)
` k r.
Existing Forcemain Sewer
Existing Gravity Sewer
j72
' r
2! r
Impacted Wetlands (25' Corridor)
Surveyed Wetlands
!i 19,000 feet of 42" Gravity Main from
Proposed Gravity , � �- � �, �
Spring Lake WWTP to
_ P��y J South Regional Pump Station ,�
Municipal Limits Sh H
���'.; •� ' �� ���t—:1�- ,{ram - �{ �- . r�.
�Upgrade South Harnett
Federal Property F�.� �� =� Regional Pump Station to 15 mgd
" � �
�- 2I0 sgo- r8
Wetland Ma _Inset Boundaries -
. s� _
At
Nzr,(j
14,500 feet of 30" Forcemain from
W'�� ? .;a�;
g
-J •��F��� , Fort Bragg WI'P to Spring Lake WWTP � �� _ � '" % ,� � �" •, �� i'
re
e
.? Existing 8.0 mgd ' ;
a ,
- I. Fort Bragg WWTP _••. 116c
to be shut down ' sa. ,,j i• (� �"`-=
i 1' `l. �'-'�. r{ „yr.,:� �`-i::. % SS • it /'I - 3 _�^' iM_.r R\ f ! .:.'�f• f •F_ ,'F f .r .%'J
Existing 1.5 mgd
Spring Lake W W 1 P
"
be shut down) �. v
r
�r
Stri
.. W5
, •r r ,r"•-t. y ,* , ,1. �' ; ....I• !+� . a' `'SO '.j�• ',.' •-�..' /`.aD . \ - Y - ?1
� 7^� J., . ... r k ? b4 1 - '�% +! t •■ �� 1 I,Y � ,-•}{{Tj J3
. Spring Lake
_ : _ { t.•,%
_
k !_ ■ r
South Harnett WWTP Upgrade g rade to 15 mgd
MARZLANe7 engineers MCGOUGAN, P.A. °. k �-` Overall Project on USGS Ma 1 of 2
consulting rngineers r E' t ... .... 1.
,_� W „ .1W: Wi,a,'- . 0 000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
✓ l p
101,_gi:ti••9 V» Fia WWI" - '�" / ! 1 1 1 •
;M1• -Feet �` Environmental Assessment 2-4-2009

0
fl
0
0
T
H
K
u
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

an
fm
IM
am
ran
rw
M
RM
am
fim
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
APPENDIX C
Present Worth Analysis
• Alternative #2 - Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Lower Little River)
• Alternative #4 -Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Lower Little River)
OR
Marziano & McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC - Conway, SC

I 1 1 J I 1 i J 1 1 d 1 1 J 1 1 l 1 I
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Present Worth of
Present Worth of
Present Worth of
Present Worth of
Total (Net)
Alternative
Initial Capital Cost
Annual O&M
Replacement Costs
Salvage Value
Present Worth
Alternative #1: Expand the South Harnett
L
Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
$29,1853330
$18220%728
$161,530
-$42683,048
$4228732540
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0
mgd Discharged to Little River)
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative -
Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent Land
2'
Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd
$75,126$30
$18,832,536
$782,800
-$19,312,357
$75,429,309
Discharge to Little River)
Page 1 of 20

MR
F,
MR
Mm
Mn
MR
MM
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWI EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent Land
Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
EVALUATION PERIOD
20 Years
DISCOUNT RATE
4.875%
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (YEAR 20)
$250135000
PRESENT WORTH OF INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
$7551265330
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Fixed O&M * (P/A,i,n)
$1451499627
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Variable O&M * (P/G,i n)
$41,6822908
PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS = (P/F,i n)
$782,800
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE VALUE = (P/F,i,n)
-$1%312,357
NET PRESENT WORTH = PW of Capital Costs + PW of O&M Costs + PW of
Replacement Costs - PW of Salvage =
$7594295309
Page 2 of 20

rM
MR
E�
MMM
M
MR
fm
RMP
FM
On
em
FM
IM
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part A - Expansion to 15.0 MGD WWTP
PW of
Wastewater Plant Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization
-$330,000
-$127,372
$0
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
-$135,000
-$523,107
$0
3. Regional Pump Station
-$193,000
-$741,493
$0
4. Regional Pump Station Screen
-$78,000
-$30,106
$0
5. Splitter Box
-$35,833
-$13,831
$0
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -Sequential Batch
6'
-$2,820,667
-$1,088,710
$0
Reactor Units
7. New UV Disinfection (10 MGD)
$0
$0
$62,127
8. Backwash Pump Station
$0
$0
$0
9. Sludge Treatment Facility
$0
$0
$0
10. Lime Feed Area
$0
$0
$0
11. Blower Building
-$14031000
-$541,037
$0
12. Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
-$487,667
-$188,228
$0
13. Electrical Allowance
-$66,667
-$25,732
$0
14. Site Work
-$201,000
-$77,581
$0
15. Yard Piping
-$2101,000
-$81,055
$0
16. Precast Concrete Structures
-$15,300
-$5,905
$0
17. Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
$0
$0
$99,403
Sub-Total
-$427139133
-$128192157
$1612530
ME
Page 3 of 20

.w
0M
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
PW of
Collection System Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization-$150,000-$57,896 $0
2. Bond & Insurance Fees-$75,000-$28,948 $0
3. 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWVTP $0 $0 $0
4' 30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity Interceptor located
-$870,000-$335,799 $0
on Spring Lake WWTP s property (Capacity 15 mgd)
5. 42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg. Depth)-$1,596,000 4616,018 $0
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional Sewer Pump
6'
Station (near Shady Grove Road and NC-210) $0 $0 $0
7' 'P (p 30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional WNVIarallels
-$960,000-$370,537 $0
existing 24" FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
8. Little River Crossing (major)-$723000-$27,790 $0
9. Creek Crossing (minor)-$36,000-$13,895 $0
10. Highway Crossing (major)-$60,000-$23,159 $0
11. 24" Plug Valves-$31,500-$12,158 $0
12. Ductile Iron Fittings-$14,400-$5,558 $0
13. 6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole-$266,667-$102,927 $0
14. Concrete Blocking-$243,000-$9,263 $0
15. Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances $0 $0 $0
16. Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing-$60,000-$23,159 $0
Sub-Total-$492153567-$196272108 $0
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part C - Construction of New Land Application System
PW of
Collection System Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
MA
r"
r"
1.
Pump Station from WNVTP to Storage Lagoon
$0
$0
$0
2.
30" PVC Forcemain to proposed Land Application tracts
-$150,000
-$57,896
$0
3.
Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon
-$5,943,000
-$2,293,857
$0
4.
Irrigation Pumps (Zone Application)
-$300,000
-$115,793
$0
5.
Private property for spray irrigation fields
-$2%62531000
-$7,960,759
$0
6.
Development of spray irrigation fields
-$8,249,600
-$3,1843,149
$621,270
Sub-Total
-$3592679600
-$13,6129454
$621,270
Sub -Total of Construction Costs
-$442196,300
-$172058,720
$7822800
Page 4 of 20

om
fm
r�
AM
a"
MR
OR
ra
MR
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part D - Engineering & Construction Administration
PW of
Component Description
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
1. Geotechnical-$603,000-$23,159 $0
2. Design 41,0402113-$4013,459 $0
3. Construction Administration & Observation-$588,485-$2273,141 $0
4. O&M Manual-$131P200-$5,095 $0
5. Startup-$15,000-$5,790 $0
Sub -Total of Engineering Costs-$127169798-$662,643 $0
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part E - Other Costs
PW of
Component Description
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
1. Contingency (10% of total construction)-$3,924,000-$1,514,571 $0
2. Legal / Administrative Costs-$198,000-$76,423 $0
Sub -Total of Other Costs-$491222000 41,590,994 $0
Total Project CostsL -$50,035,098-$19,312,357 1 $7822800
ow
Page 5 of 20

no
fm
0"
FIM
F"
Ma
W4
FM
M
F,
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent Land
Application Site (Maintain 5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
Part A - WWTP Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.
Contractor Mobilization
1
LS
$5502000.00
$5503,000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees
1
LS
$2252000.00
$2252000
3.
Regional Pump Station
1
LS
$5792000.00
$579,000
4.
Regional Pump Station Screen
1
LS
$2342000.00
$2342000
5.
Splitter Box
1
LS
$1072500.00
$1072500
6.
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -
Sequential Batch Reactor Units
1
LS
$8,4622000.00
$8,462,000
7.
New LTV Disinfection (10 MGD)
1
LS
$712,250.00
$712,250
8.
Backwash Pump Station
1
LS
$972000.00
$972000
9.
Sludge Treatment Facility
1
LS
$6783750.00
$6782750
10.
Lime Feed Area
1
LS
$742000.00
$743,000
11.
Blower Building
1
LS
$4202000.00
$4202000
12.
Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
1
LS
$124633000.00
$13,4632000
13.
Electrical Allowance
1
LS
$2002000.00
$200,000
14.
Site Work
1
LS
$3352000.00
$3352000
15.
Yard Piping
1
LS
$3503,000.00
$3502000
16.
Precast Concrete Structures
1
LS
$252500.00
$252500
17.
Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
1
LS
$1602000.00
$1602000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$1426732000
MR
Page 6 of 20

OEM
Im
s
FWR
MR
FAM
on
PM
0-9
M
an
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.
Contractor Mobilization
1
LS
$2502000.00
$2502000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees
1
LS
$1252000.00
$1252000
3'
8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg
WWTP
1
LS
$5002000.00
$5002000
4.
30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity
Interceptor located on Spring Lake WWTP's
property (Capacity 15 mgd)
142500
LF
$100.00
$124502000
5'
42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg.
Depth)
19,000
LF
$140.00
$226602000
6.
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional
Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NC-210)
1
LS
$5002000.00
$5003,000
7.
30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional
WW'I'P (parallels existing 24" FM serving SCWSD
Phase 1 & SWWSD)
162000
LF
$100.00
$1)6002000
8.
Little River Crossing (major)
1
EA
$120,000.00
$1202000
9.
Creek Crossing (minor)
3
EA
$20,000.00
$602000
10.
Highway Crossing (major)
2
EA
$502000.00
$1003,000
11.
24" Plug Valves
7
EA
$72500.00
$522500
12.
Ductile Iron Fittings
16'
122000
LBS
$2.00
$242000
13.
Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
100
EA
$8,000.00
$8002000
14.
Concrete Blocldng
100
CY
$400.00
$403,000
15.
Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances
492500
LF
$2.00
$992000
16.
Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
1
LS
$1002000.00
$1003,000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$824801,500
MR
Page 7 of 20

MR Part C - Construction of New Land Application System (3.3 MGD)
as
FM
FM
Im
��
FM
R,
MR
f"
MR
M
E-A
am
1.
Desired Daily Effluent Disposal Rate
1020002000
gallons
2.
Minimum Lagoon Storage for Inclement Weather (from Water Balance
Worksheet)
40020002000
gallons
3.
Total Recommended Acreage for Purchase
62875
acres
4.
Minimum Acreage Required for Land Application of Effluent
52156
acres
5'
Minimum Acreage for Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon (on property
adjacent to existing WWTP)
123.00
acres
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1'
Pump Station from WW'TP to Storage Lagoon,
1
LS
$650,000.00
$6502000
130"
including all SCADA and appurtenances
PVC Sewer Transmission Forcemain from
2.
Harnett County WW'I'P to proposed Land
2,500
LF
$100.00
$250,000
Application tracts
3'
Inclement Weather Storage Lagoon (on property
12981,000
CY
$5.00
$%9053'000
adjacent to existing WWI P)
4.
Irrigation Pumps (Zone Application), Metering
1
LS
$5002000.00
$5002000
Station & other appurtenances
5'
Purchase private property to develop spray
62875
Acres
$12500.00
$103312,500
irrigation fields to accept effluent
6'
Development of spray irrigation fields to accept
5,156
Acres
$42000.00
$20,624,000
effluent (all related appurtenances)
SUB -TOTAL
$4222412500
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS $653,395$000
Page 8 of 20

ow
am Part D - Engineering & Construction Administration
MR
FM
p"
FM
MR
Im
ew
MR
FM
AN"
FM
fm
FW
am
1.
Geotechnical
$1003,000
2.
Design
$1,7332522
3.
Construction Administration & Observation
$9802808
4.
O&M Manual
$222000
5.
Startup
$252000
SUB -TOTAL OF ENGINEERING COSTS
$2,8612330
Part E - Other Costs
1.
Contingency (10% of total construction)
$625402000
2.
Legal / Administrative Costs
$3302000
SUB -TOTAL OF OTHER COSTS
$63870,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $75J262330
fm
Page 9 of 20

_
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
ANNUAL OPERATING &
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Alternative #2: Land Application Alternative - Pump 10.0 mgd of Effluent to Adjacent
Land Application Site (Maintain
5.0 mgd Discharge to Little River)
EXISTING BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
WWTP OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES
(OPERATING @ 5.0
(OPERATING @
MGD)
15.0
MGD)
1. Salaries
$
300,000
$
300,000
_
2.Overtime
$
14,800
$
14,800
3. Longevity
$
3,900
$
3,900
.�
4. Salaries/Resource
$
11,000
$
11000
5. Social Security
$
25,300
$
25,300
6. Retirement
$
14,300
$
14,300
7. Deferred Compensation
$
7,600
$
7,600
8. Health Insurance
$
63,200
$
63,200
9. Life Insurance
$
2,900
$
2,900
10. Workers Compensation
$
8,800
$
8,800
11. Uniforms
$
6,000
$
6,000
12. Vehicle Assessment
$
26,000
$
26,000
13. Telephone
$
7,800
$
7,800
14. Professional Services
$
50,000
$
120,400
15. Professional Liability
$
5,000
$
12,000
16. Office/Janitorial Supplies
$
5,500
$
13,200
17. Travel/Training
$
5,000
$
12,000
18. Permits
$
6,500
$
15,700
19.Insurance
$
40,000
$
96,300
20. Dues/Subscriptions
$
1,000
$
2,400
21. Service/Maintenance Contracts
$
7,000
$
16,900
22. Safety Supplies
$
6,000
$
14,400
23. Maintenance Supplies
$
7,000
$
16,900
24. Laboratory Supplies
$
20,000
$
48,200
25. Operational Supplies
$
10,000
$
24,100
26. Equipment/Tools
$
5,000
$
12,000
27. Diesel Fuel
$
5,000
$
12,000
a
28. Scheduled Repairs/Maintenance
$
100,000
$
240,800
29. Unanticipated Repairs/Maintenance
$
10,000
$
24,100
30. W VTP Capital Outlay Expenditures
$
24,900
$
60,000
31. Utilities
$
166,100
$
400,000
32. Chemicals
$
41,500
$
100,000
33. Sludge Costs
$
116,300
$
280,000
TOTAL WWTP O&M EXPENDITURES
$
1,123,400
$
2,013,000
Page 10 of 20

m
Sm
FM
rim
MR
mm
Omm
am
mm
mm
mm
mm
Discount Rate 4.875%
Years in PW Analysis 20
PW of Fixed O&M Costs = (P/A,i,n) $14,1491627
PW of Variable O&M Costs = (P/G,i,n) $4,682,908
Annual Increase in Variable O&M Costs = $469821
Year
Total Annual O&M
Cost ($/year)
1
$1,123,400
2
$13,1703,221
3
$1,217,042
4
$1,263,863
5
$1$10,684
6
$111357,505
7
$1,404,326
8
$1,451,147
9
$1,497,968
10
$1,5443,789
11
$1,591,611
12
$1,638,432
13
$1,685,253
14
$1,732,074
15
$1,778,895
16
$1,825,716
17
$1,872,537
18
$1,919,358
19
$1,966,179
20
$2,013,000
Subtotal
$3123642000
P"
Page 11 of 20

Ws
FM
MM
Fma
am
M"
am
am
am
FM
FM
MM
o,
fim
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWI P from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WW'I'P Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Little River)
EVALUATION PERIOD
20 Years
DISCOUNT RATE
4.875%
ANNUAL O&M COSTS (YEAR 20)
$1,938,000
PRESENT WORTH OF INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
$29,1852330
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Fixed O&M * (P/A,i,n)
$132757,912
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS = Variable O&M * (P/G,i,n)
$43,4512816
PRESENT WORTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS = (P/F,i,n)
$1612530
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE VALUE = (P/F,i n)
-$426832048
NET PRESENT WORTH = PW of Capital Costs + PW of O&M Costs + PW of
$4228739540
Replacement Costs - PW of Salvage =
Mw
Page 12 of 20

am
MM
FM
M
am
RM
FAR
MR
FM
RM
M
am
MW
MR
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part A - Expansion to 15.0 MGD WWTP
PW of
Wastewater Plant Component
Salvage Value
PW of Salvage
Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization
-$330,000
-$1271,372
$0
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
-$135,000
-$52,107
$0
3. Regional Pump Station
-$193,000
-$74,493
$0
4. Regional Pump Station Screen
-$78,000
-$30,106
$0
5. Splitter Box
-$35,833
-$13,831
$0
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -Sequential Batch
6'
-$2,820,667
-$1,088,710
$0
Reactor Units
7. New Tertiary Filter (10 MGD)
-$518,500
-$200,129
$0
8. New LTV Disinfection (10 MGD)
$0
$0
$62,127
9. Backwash Pump Station
$0
$0
$0
10. Sludge Treatment Facility
$0
$0
$0
11. Lime Feed Area
$0
$0
$0
12. Blower Building
-$140,000
-$54,037
$0
13. Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
-$4873,667
-$188,228
$0
14. Electrical Allowance
-$66,667
-$25,732
$0
15. Site Work
-$201,000
-$77,581
$0
16. Yard Piping
-$210,000
-$81,055
$0
17. Precast Concrete Structures
-$15,300
-$5,905
$0
18. Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
$0
$0
$99,403
Sub-Total
-$5,231,633
-$2,0191286
$1612530
MR
Page 13 of 20

no
am
M
r'"
go
R"
FAM
em
fm
FM
Fim
f"
foo
MM
RM
a.
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
PW of
Collection System Component Salvage Value PW of Salvage Replacement
Cost
1. Contractor Mobilization
2. Bond & Insurance Fees
3. 8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg WWTP
4. 30" FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg VAN P to Gravity Interceptor located
on Spring Lake WWIP's property (Capacity 15 mgd)
5. 42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete;l0' Avg. Depth)
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional Sewer Pump
6' Station (near Shady Grove Road and NC-210)
7. 30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional WWI? (parallels
existing 24" FM serving SCWSD Phase 1 & SWWSD)
8. Little River Crossing (major)
9. Creek Crossing (minor)
10. Highway Crossing (major)
11. 30" Plug Valves
12. Ductile Iron Fittings
13. 6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
14. Concrete Blocking
15. Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances
16. Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
Sub -Total
-$1505P000
-$57,896
$0
-$75,000
-$28,948
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$870,000
-$335,799
$0
41,596,000
-$616,018
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$960,000
-$370,537
$0
-$72,000
-$27,790
$0
-$36,000
-$13,895
$0
-$60,000
-$23,159
$0
-$313,500
-$12,158
$0
-$14,400
-$5,558
$0
-$266,667
-$102,927
$0
-$24,000
-$9,263
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$60,000
-$23,159
$0
44,215,567
-$1,6271,108
$0
Sub -Total of Construction Costs 492447,200 43,646,394 $1612530
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part C - Engineering & Construction Administration
PW of
Component Description Salvage Value PW of Salvage Replacement
Cost
1. Geotechnical
2. Design
3. Construction Administration & Observation
4. O&M Manual
5. Startup
Sub -Total of Engineering Costs
-$9,000
-$3,474
$0
41,040,113
-$401,459
$0
-$588,485
-$2273,141
$0
-$13,200
-$5,095
$0
-$15,000
-$5,790
$0
-$1,665,798
-$642,958
$0
Page 14 of 20

.n
am
f"
no
o,
rw
am
FM
rM
AM
M
Ma
rim
FM
PRESENT WORTH OF SALVAGE ANALYSIS
Part D - Other Costs
Component Description
1. Contingency (10% of total construction)
2. Legal / Administrative Costs
Sub -Total of Other Costs
Total Project Costs
PW of
Salvage Value PW of Salvage Replacement
Cost
-$972,000-$375,169 $0
448,000-$18,527 $0
-$120202000-$3939696 $0
-$12,132,9981 -$49683,048 $1612530
am
Page 15 of 20

MIN
am HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
MN
MM
so
M
M
M
R,
M
r"
FM
0"
ow
FM
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd to 15.0 mgd
(Total WW'TP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Little River)
Part A - WWTP Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
I.
Contractor Mobilization
1
LS
$5502000.00
$5502000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees
1
LS
$225,000.00
$225,000
3.
Regional Pump Station
1
LS
$5792000.00
$57%000
4.
Regional Pump Station Screen
1
LS
$2342000.00
$2342000
5.
Splitter Box
1
LS
$1072500.00
$107,500
6.
Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System -
Sequential Batch Reactor Units
1
LS
$82462,000.00
$824622000
7.
New Tertiary Filter (10 MGD)
1
LS
$12555,500.00
$125552500
8.
New UV Disinfection (10 MGD)
1
LS
$7122250.00
$7122250
9.
Backwash Pump Station
1
LS
$97,000.00
$972000
10.
Sludge Treatment Facility
1
LS
$6782750.00
$6789750
11.
Lime Feed Area
1
LS
$74,000.00
$742000
12.
Blower Building
1
LS
$4202000.00
$4202000
13.
Electrical (includes Standby Power Upgrades)
1
LS
$124632000.00
$124632000
14.
Electrical Allowance
1
LS
$200,000.00
$2002000
15.
Site Work
1
LS
$3352000.00
$3352000
16.
Yard Piping
1
LS
$35%000.00
$3502000
17.
Precast Concrete Structures
1
LS
$252500.00
$252500
18.
Odor Control & Chemical Feed Allowance
1
LS
$1602000.00
$1602000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$16,2282500
me
Page 16 of 20

ma
sn
��
fam
fm
me
M
M"
RM
me
me
em
FM
FM
me
ow
am
fm
Part B - Pipeline & Pump Station Construction Costs
Project Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extended Cost
1.
Contractor Mobilization
1
LS
$2502000.00
$2502000
2.
Bond & Insurance Fees
1
LS
$1252000.00
$1252000
3.
8 mgd Pump Station Construction @ Fort Bragg
WWTP
1
LS
$5002000.00
$50%000
130"
4.
FM (C900) from Ft. Bragg WWTP to Gravity
Interceptor located on Spring Lake WWTP's
property (Capacity 15 mgd)
142500
LF
$100.00
$1,450,000
5'
42" Gravity Sewer Interceptor (Concrete; 10' Avg.
Depth)
192000
LF
$140.00
$2,66%000
6.
10 mgd Pump Station Upgrade @ South Regional
Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NC-210)
1
LS
$50%000.00
$5002000
7.
30" FM (C900) from Regional PS to South Regional
WWTP (parallels existing 24" FM serving SCWSD
Phase 1 & SWWSD)
162000
LF
$100.00
$1,6002000
8.
Little River Crossing (major)
1
EA
$1202000.00
$1202000
9.
Creek Crossing (minor)
3
EA
$202000.00
$602000
10.
Highway Crossing (major)
2
EA
$502000.00
$100,000
11.
30" Plug Valves
7
EA
$73500.00
$52,500
12.
Ductile Iron Fittings
122000
LBS
$2.00
$242000
13.
6' Diameter Precast Concrete Manhole
100
EA
$82000.00
$8002000
14.
Concrete Blocking
100
CY
$400.00
$4%000
15.
Miscellaneous Pipeline Appurtenances
492500
LF
$2.00
$9%000
16.
Erosion Control and Installed Materials Testing
1
LS
$1002000.00
$1002000
SUB -TOTAL OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$82480,500
Page 17 of 20

fm
am
FM
FM
IPM
M
M
FM
F�,
me
PM
M,
em
Pb
ISO
o,
Part C - Engineering & Construction Administration
1. 1
Geotechnical
$15,000
2.
Design
$127332522
3.
Construction Administration & Observation
$9802808
4.
O&M Manual
$222000
5.
Startup
$252000
SUB -TOTAL OF ENGINEERING COSTS
$22776,330
Part D - Other Costs
1.
Contingency (10% of total construction)
$1,G20,000
2.
Legal / Administrative Costs
$802000
SUB -TOTAL OF OTHER COSTS
$1270%000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $2921852330
Page 18 of 20

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - WWTP EXPANSION
_
ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Alternative #4: Expand the South Harnett Regional WWTP from 5.0 mgd
to 15.0 mgd
(Total WWTP Treatment Capacity of 15.0 mgd Discharged to Little River)
EXISTING BUDGET
PROPOSED
BUDGET
W WiP OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES
(OPERATING @ 5.0
(OPERATING @
MGD)
15.0 MGD)
1. Salaries
$
300,000
$
300,000
2.Overtime
$
14,800
$
14,800
3. Longevity
$
3,900
$
3,900
4. Salaries/Resource
$
11,000
$
11,000
5. Social Security
$
25,300
$
25,300
6. Retirement
$
14,300
$
14,300
r
7. Deferred Compensation
$
7,600
$
7,600
8. Health Insurance
$
63,200
$
63,200
9. Life Insurance
$
2,900
$
2,900
10. Workers Compensation
$
8,800
$
8,800
11. Uniforms
$
6,000
$
6,000
12. Vehicle Assessment
$
26,000
$
26,000
13. Telephone
$
7,800
$
7,800
14. Professional Services
$
50,000
$
120,400
15. Professional Liability
$
5,000
$
12,000
16. Office/Janitorial Supplies
$
5,500
$
13,200
17. Travel/Training
$
5,000
$
12,000
18. Permits
$
6,500
$
15,700
19.Insurance
$
40,000
$
96,300
20. Dues/Subscriptions
$
1,000
$
2,400
21. Service/Maintenance Contracts
$
7,000
$
16,900
22. Safety Supplies
$
6,000
$
14,400
23. Maintenance Supplies
$
7,000
$
16,900
24. Laboratory Supplies
$
20,000
$
48,200
25. Operational Supplies
$
10,000
$
24,100
26. Equipment/Tools
$
5,000
$
12,000
27. Diesel Fuel
$
5,000
$
12,000
28. Scheduled Repairs/Maintenance
$
100,000
$
240,800
29. Unanticipated Repairs/Maintenance
$
10,000
$
24,100
30. WWTP Capital Outlay Expenditures
$
24,900
$
60,000
31. Utilities
$
135,000
$
325,000
32. Chemicals
$
41,500
$
100,000
33. Sludge Costs
$
116,300
S
280,000
TOTAL WWTP O&M EXPENDITURES
$
1,092,300
$
1,938,000
Page 19 of 20

no
Discount Rate 4.875%
Years in PW Analysis 20
PW of Fixed O&M Costs = (P/A,i,n) $13,757,912
PW of Variable O&M Costs = (P/G,i,n) $4,4513,816
�+ Annual Increase in Variable O&M Costs = $44,511
em
FM
m
m"
ma
MR
fFm
mm
MR
FM
m
MR
MR
mm
am
Year
Total Annual O&M
Cost ($/year)
1
$1,092,300
2
$13,136,811
3
$15,181,321
4
$1,225,832
5
$1,270,342
6
$1,314,853
7
$1,359,363
8
$13,403,874
9
$1,448,384
10
$1,4924895
11
$1,537,405
12
$1,581,916
13
$1,626,426
14
$1,670,937
15
$1,715,447
16
$1,759,958
17
$13,8042468
18
$1,848,979
19
$1,893,489
20
$1,938,000
Subtotal
$30,303,000
Page 20 of 20

mm
Harnett County Public Utilities — South Harnett Regional WWTP
NPDES Permitting — Engineering Alternatives Analysis January 2010
rm
rm
MR
am
APPENDIX D
Sewer Flow & Population Projections
• Table D.1 — 20-Year Sewer Flow Projections
"" • Table D.2 — 20-Year County Population Projection Methodologies
• Chart D.3 — Graphical Comparison of 20 Year Population Projection Methodologies
• Table DA — 20-Year Service Area Population Projections
l
no
m
m,
em
MR
am
am
Marziano &z McGougan, P.A.
Asheboro, NC — Conway, SC

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WWTP UPGRADE
TABLE DA (Revised 9-17-2009) - ESTIMATED SEWER FLOWS TO THE PROPOSED WWTP
BASED ON EXISTING WWTP FLOWS AND I&I ESTIMATES
Year
Sewer Customer
Base (South
Central Phase 1)
Sewer Service
Population (South
Central Phase 1)
GPD per
Capita
South Central
Phase 1 Areas
(ADF)
Carolina Lakes
& Hwy. 87
Corridor (ADF)
Northern
Training Area
(ADF)
Fort Bragg
Installation
(ADF)
Town of Spring
Lake (ADF)
Estimated Daily
I&I Flows
(ADF)
Total Average
Daily Sewer
Flow
2009
5,072
14,000
70.0
980,000
500,000
250,000
5,000,000
750,000
749,000
8,228,000
2010
5,309
14,652
70.0
1,025,656
515,000
282,500
5,150,000
787,500
776,066
8,536,722
2011
5,556
15,335
70.0
1,073,440
530,000
315,000
5,300,000
825,000
804,344
8,847,784
2012
5,815
16,049
70.0
1,123,449
545,000
347,500
5,450,000
862,500
832,845
9,161,294
2013
6,086
16,797
70.0
1,175,789
560,000
380,000
5,600,000
900,000
861,579
9,477,368
2014
6,369
17,580
70.0
1,230,566
575,000
412,500
5,750,000
937,500
890,557
9,796,123
2015
6,666
18,399
70.0
1,287,896
590,000
445,000
5,900,000
975,000
919,790
10,117,686
2016
6,977
19,256
70.0
1,347,897
605,000
477,500
6,050,000
1,012,500
949,290
10,442,187
2017
7,302
20,153
70.0
1,410,693
620,000
510,000
6,200,000
1,050,000
979,069
10,769,762
2018
7,642
21,092
70.0
1,476,414
635,000
542,500
6,350,000
1,087,500
1,009,141
11,100,556
2019
7,998
22,074
70.0
1,545,198
650,000
575,000
6,500,000
1,125,000
1,039,520
11,434,718
2020
8,371
23,103
70.0
1,617,186
665,000
607,500
6,650,000
1,162,500
1,0705219
11,772,404
2021
8,760
24,179
70.0
1,692,527
680,000
640,000
6,800,000
15200,000
1,101,253
12,113,780
2022
9,169
25,305
70.0
1,771,379
695,000
672,500
6,950,000
1,237,500
1,132,638
12,459,017
2023
9,596
26,484
70.0
1,853,904
7105000
705,000
7,100,000
1,275,000
1,164,390
12,808,295
2024
10,043
27,718
70.0
1,940,274
725,000
737,500
7,250,000
1,312,500
1,196,527
13,161,802
2025
10,511
29,010
70.0
2,030,668
740,000
770,000
7,400,000
1,350,000
1,229,067
13,519,735
2026
11,000
30,361
70.0 1
2,125,273
755,000
802,500
7,550,000
1,387,500
1,262,027
13,882,300
2027
11,513
31,776
70.0
2,224,285
770,000
835,000
7,700,000
1,425,000
1,295,429
14,249,714
2028
12,049
33,256
70.0
2,327,911
785,000
867,500
73850,000
1,462,500
1,329,291
14,622,202
2029
12,611
34,805
70.0
2,436,364
800,000
900,000
8,000,000
1,500,000
1,363,636
15,000,000
PHASE 2 WWTP FLOWS TRIBUTARY TO 15 MGD SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WWTP 15,000,000
Appendix D - Harnett County WWTP Flow Projections
Page 1 of 4

M
M
TABLE D.2
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES - SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WIMP UPGRADE
POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGIES
Linear Regression
Hunen County (NCOSPL)
2nd Order Polynomial (Parabola)
Year
Total
Population
Increase per
Yeu
% Growrh
Total
Population
Increase per
Year
'/.Growth
Total
Population
Inereax per
Year
%Growth
1970
49,667
49,667
_
_
49,667
-
1980
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
59,570
9,903
19.94%
1990
67,833
8,263
13.87%
67,933
8,263
13.87%
67,933
8,263
13.87%
2000
91,584
23,751
35.01%
91,584
23,731
35.01%
91,584
23,751
35.01%
2007
106,506
14,922
16.29%
106,506
14,922
16.29%
1062506
14,922
1629%
2009
105,132
-1,374
-L29%
110,943
4,437
4.17%
112,412
5,906
5.55%
2014
112,8U
7,679
1 730%
1224000
11,057
9.97%
1 127,060
14,648
13.03%
2019
120,489
7,679
6.81%
133,504
IU04
9.43•/r
143,227
16,167
12.72%
2024
128,168
7,679
637%
145,273
11,719
8.78%
160,913
17,686
1235%
2029
135'846
7,678
5.99Ya
156,986
I1,763
8.10%
180,118
19,205
1L%%
A TOW
Growth
-
30,714
29.219/.
-
46,043
41.50%
67,706
60.23%
Linear Regression Model
12 y = 1535.7x + 91311
11
06
10
9
6
7
6
5
4
3
2lm�-1970
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
2nd Order Polynomial Model
y = 30.381 x2 + 2230.8x + 89874
120,000
110,000 506
100,000
91,5
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000 49,667
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Appends D - Hamer County Population projections
Page 2 of 4

I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
Chart D.3 - Harnett County
Population Projection Methods
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
Population
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
■ Linear Regression 105,132 112,811 120,489 128,168 135,846
■ NCOSPL Published Data 110,943 122,000 133,504 145,223 156,986
O2nd Order Polynomial 112,412 127,060 143,227 160,913 180,118
Year
Appendix D - Harnett County Population Projections
Page 3 of 4

HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
SOUTH HARNETT REGIONAL WWTP UPGRADE
TABLE DA (Revised 9-17-2009) - ESTIMATED SEWER SERVICE POPULATION
Year
South Central
Phase 1
Carolina Lakes
& Hwy.
Corridorr
Northern
Training Area
Fort Bragg &
Pope AFB
Installation
Town of Spring
Lake
Total Service
Population
2009
14,000
5,000
5,055
76,000
8,273
108,328
2010
14,652
5,151
5,207
76,450
8,522
109,982
2011
15,335
5,301
5,360
76,900
8,771
111,667
2012
16,049
5,452
5,512
77,350
9,020
113,383
2013
16,797
5,602
5,664
77,800
9,270
115,133
2014
17,580
5,753
5,816
78,250
9,519
116,918
2015
18,399
5,903
5,969
78,700
9,768
118,738
2016
19,256
6,054
6,121
79,150
10,017
120,598
2017
20,153
6,205
6,273
79,600
10,266
122,497
2018
21,092
6,355
6,425
80,050
10,515
124,437
2019
22,074
6,506
6,578
80,500
10,764
126,422
2020
23,103
6,656
6,730
80,950
11,014
128,452
2021
24,179
6,807
6,882
81,400
11,263
130,531
2022
25,305
6,957
7,034
81,850
11,512
132,659
2023
26,484
7,108
7,187
82,300
11,761
134,840
2024
27,718
7,259
7,339
82,750
12,010
137,076
2025
29,010
7,409
7,491
83,200
12,259
139,369
2026
30,361
7,560
7,643
83,650
12,508
141,722
2027
31,776
7,710
7,796
84,100
12,758
144,139
2028
33,256
7,861
7,948
84,550
13,007
14G,621
2029
34,805
8,011
8,100
85,000
13,256
149,172
Difference 20 805 3,01-1--1 3,045 9,000 4 983 40,844
Appendix D - Harnett County W WTP Flow Projections
Page 4 of 4