NC0089893_Application_20190801

Union County Public Works I Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
Monroe, North CarolinaNPDES Discharge Permit Application
Prepared by:
CDM Smith
4600 Park Rd Suite 240,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
August 2019
Smith

CDM
Smith
4600 Park Road, 5ufte 240
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
cdmsmith.com
August 19, 2019
Ms. Emily DelDuco
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section — NPDES
512 North Salisbury St, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project
Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant— Union County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. DelDuco:
Attached please find the NPDES Permit Application for the proposed Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
discharge of process wastewater to an unnamed tributary of Richardson Creek in Union County.
This application includes the following sections, in triplicate:
■ EPA Application Form 1— General Information
■ EPA Application Form 2D - New Sources and New Dischargers
■ North Carolina NPDES Unit Short Form C - WTP
■ Engineering Alternatives Analysis
A check for the permit fee is also included. Sampling of process wastewater from Norwood Water
Treatment Plant in Stanly County, which is assumed to be similar in characteristic to the discharge
expected from Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant, is underway. The first round of samples was taken on
July 1, 2019 and the second round of samples was taken on July 29, 2019. Available results from both
events are attached to NC Short Form C. A third sampling event is planned for late August. Results of these
efforts will be made available to the NPDES Unit as soon as they are received.
If you have any questions or require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (704) 342-
4546 or at [e-mail].
WATER+ ENVIRONMENT +TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY + FACILITIES
40-

Smith
Ms. Emily DelDuco
August 19, 2019
Page 2
Sincerely,
4L
?nathan Lapsley, P. ., P P
Vice President
CDM Smith Inc.
cc: John Shutak, Union County
Tracy Randazzo, HDR
WATER + ENVIRONMENT +TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY+ FACILITIES

Please print or type in the unshaded areas only
fill-in areas are spaced for elite type, i.e., 12 characters/inch). 1 V1 fJJJJI V VGU. vIVIu INV. GVYV-V VUV. / IJIJI V VQ G P11- V-V I -
FORM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I. EPA I.D. NUMBER
PA GENERAL INFORMATION
T,A p
F
`MWE
Consolidated Permits Program
2 13 1a 1s
GENERAL
Read the "General Instructions" before starting.)1
LABEL ITEMS GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
If a preprinted label has been provided,
I. EPA I.D. NUMBER affix It in the designated space. Review the
information carefully; if any of it is
incorrect cross through it and enter the
correct data in the appropriate fill-in area
III. FACILITY NAME below. Also, if any of the preprinted data is
absent (the area to the left of the label
V. FACILITY PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN THIS SPACE space lists the information that should
appear) please provide it in the proper fill -
MAILING LIST in areas) below. If the label is complete
and correct you need not complete Items
I, III, V, and VI(except VI-B which must be
completed regardless). Complete all items
VI. FACILITY if no label has been roved. Refer to the
LOCATION instructions for detailed item descriptions
and for the legal authorization under which
this data is collected.
II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete A through J to determine whether you need to submit any permit application forms to the EPA. If you answer "yes" to any
questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental from listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "X" in the box in the third column if
the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer "no" if your activity is
excluded from permit requirements; see Section C of the instructions. See also Section D of the instructions for definitions of bold-faced terms.
K
MAR"X
MARK "X
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
YES
NO
FORM
YES
NO
FORM
ATTACHED
ATTACHED
A. Is this facility a publicly owned treatment works
B. Does or will this facility (either existing or
which results in a discharge to waters of the
❑
®
❑
proposed) include a concentrated animal
❑
®
❑
U.S.? (FORM 2A)
feeding operation or aquatic animal
production facility which results in a discharge
to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 2B)
16
17
18
19
20
21
C. Is this facility which currently results in
❑
®
❑
D. Is this proposal facility (other than those described
®
❑
discharges to waters of the U.S. other than
in A or B above) which will result in a discharge
22
23
24
25
26
27
those described in A or B above? FORM 2C
to waters of the U.S.? FORM 2D
E. Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of
F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industrial or
hazardous wastes? (FORM 3)
El®
E]municipal
effluent below the lowermost stratum
❑
®
❑
containing, within one quarter mile of the well
bore, underground sources of drinking water?
28
29
30
31
32
33
FORM 4
�. Do you or will you inject at this facility any
H. Do you or will you inject at this facility fluids for
produced water other fluids which are brought to
the in with conventional oil or
❑
®
❑
special processes such as mining of suffer by the
Frasch solution mining of minerals, in
❑
®
❑
surface connection
natural gas production, inject fluids used for
process,
situ combustion of fossil fuel, or recovery of
enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas, or inject
geothermal energy? (FORM 4)
fluids for storage of liquid hydrocarbons?
34
35
36
37
38
39
FORM 4
I. Is this facility a proposed stationary source J. Is this facility a proposed stationary source
which is one of the 28 industrial categories listed which is NOT one of the 28 industrial categories ❑ ® ❑
El [A El
in the instructions and which will potentially emit listedin the instructions and which will potentially
100 tons per year of any air pollutant regulated emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant
under the Clean Air Act and may affect or be regulated under the Clean Air Act and may affect
located in an attainment area? FORM 51 40 41 1 42 1 or be located in an attainment are? FORM 5 43 1 44 1 45
III. NAME OF FACILITY
c SKIP I Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
1
15 1 16-29 30
69
IV. FACILITY CONTACT
A. NAME & TITLE last, first, & title
B. PHONE area code & no.
2 John Shutak, CIP Program Manager 704 283 3651
15 1 16 45 46 48 1 49 51 1 52 55
V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS
A. STREET OR P.O. BOX
C 500 N. Main St., Ste. 600
15 1 16 45
B. CITY OR TOWN C. STATE D. ZIP CODE
C Monroe NC 28112
4
15 1 16 40 41 42 47 51
VI. FACILITY LOCATION
A. STREET, ROUTE NO. OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER
C 3522 New Salem Rd.
15 1 16 45
B. COUNTY NAME
Jnion
.6 70
C. CITY OR TOWN
D. STATE
E. ZIP CODE
F. COUNTY CODE
C
Monroe
NC
28110
179
6
15
1 16 40
41 42
47 51
52 54
EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90) CONTINUED ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
VII. SIC CODES 4-di it, in order of priorit
A. FIRST B. SECOND
c
4941
(specify)
7 NA
(specify)
s,s
�7
Water Supply
a
17
16 1
C. THIRD D. FOURTH
c NA (specify) � NA (specify)
15 16 17 1 15 1 16 19
VIII. OPERATOR INFORMATION
A. NAME B. Is the name listed in Item
C
Union County Public Works VIII-A also the owner?
® YES [:]NO
18
19 55
C. STATUS OF OPERATOR Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box; if "Other," seci
D. PHONE area code & no.
F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (other than federal or state)
M I
(specify)
c
704
296
4210
A
S =STATE O = OTHER (specify)
56
15
is ,a
,s 21
22 25
P = PRIVATE
1
E. STREET OR PO BOX
500 N. Main St., Ste. 400
26 55
F. CITY OR TOWN
G. STATE H. ZIP CODE
IX. INDIAN LAND
c
Monroe
NC 28112 Is the facility located on Indian lands?
B
42 42 47 51 ❑YES NO
15 16 40
X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
A. NPDES (Discharges to Surface Water
D. PSD Air Emissions from Proposed Sources
c T 8
C
T
9
N
9 P
15 16 1 17 1 18 30
15
16
1 17
1 18 30
B. UIC (Underground Injection of Fluids
E. OTHER (specify)
(Specify)
C
T
I
C
T
1 8
9
U
9
15 1
16
17
1 18 30
15
16
1 17
1 18 30
C. RCRA Hazardous Wastes E. OTHER (specify) (Specify)
C T I C T 8
9 R 9
15 16 17 18 30 15 16 17 18 30
XI. MAP
Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must
show the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of its
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground. Include all springs,
rivers and other surface water bodies in the map area. See instructions for precise requirements.
XII. NATURE OF BUSINESS(provide a brief description)
The Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant will be a 13-mgd conventional water treatment plant consisting of rapid
mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and gravity filtration processes. The plant will supply water to Union County
residents to meet growing demands. There will be two residuals reclamation basins on -site which will be used to
store and treat solids blowdown, filter backwash water, and filter -to -waste flows. Supernatant from these basins
(up to 10% of plant flows) will be recycled to the head of the plant to the extent possible with the NPDES
discharge utilized as needed for plant operations.
XIII. CERTIFICATION see instructions
I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and
all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained in
the application, 1 believe that the information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibft of fine and imprisonment.
A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print) B. SIGNATURE
C. DATE SIGNED
/
John Shutak, CIP Program Manager /�-�
August 05, 2019
COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
c
C
,5
16 55
EPA FORM 3510-1 (8-90)

CDM Feet Topographic Map
0 800 1,600 3,200 4,800 Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
Smith N 1 inch = 1,600 feet Union County, North Caroilna

Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 8-31-98.
Please print or type in the unshaded areas only
EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) _T
Form
2D
NPDES
\-iEPA New Sources and New Dischargers
Application for Permit to Discharge Process Wastewater
I. Outfall Location
For each outfall, list the latitude and longitude of its location to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receiving water.
Outfall Number
(list)
Latitude
Longitude
Receiving Water (name)
Deg.
Min.
Sec.
Deg.
Min.
Sec.
001
35
03
48
-80
26
30
Unnamed Stream on -site, ultimately flows to
Richardson Creek
II. Discharge Date (When do you expect to begin discharging?)
03/01/2022
Ill. Flows, Sources of Pollution, and Treatment Technologies
A. For each outfall, provide a description of: (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater, sanitary
wastewater, cooling water, and storm water runoff; (2) The average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the
wastewater. Continue on additional sheets if necessary.
Outfall
Number
1. Operations Contributing Flow
(List)
2. Average Flow
(Include Units)
3. Treatment
(Description or List codes from Table 2D-1)
001
Residuals Blowdown
0.07 MGD
5-T, 2-E
001
Filter Backwash water
0.12 MGD
5-T, 2-E
001
Filter -to -Waste
0.02 MGD
5-T, 2-E
EPA Form 3510-2D (Rev. 8-90) PAGE 1 of 5

B. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, operations contributing wastewater to the
effluent, and treatment units labeled to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item III -A. Construct a water balance on the line drawing
by showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g., for certain
mining activities), provide a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any sources of water and any collection or treatment measures.
C. Except for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, will any of the discharges described in Items III -A be intermittent or seasonal?
❑ YES (complete the following table) ❑✓ NO (go to Section IV)
1. Frequency
2. Flow
Outfall
a. Days
b. Months
a. Maximum Daily
b. Maximum
Number
Per Week
Per Year
Flow Rate
Total Volume
c. Duration
(specify average)
(specify average)
(in mgd)
(specify with units)
(in days)
IV. Production
If there is an applicable production -based effluent
guideline or NSPS,
for each outfall list
the estimated level
of production (projection
of actual
production level, not design), expressed in the terms
and units used
in the applicable effluent
guideline or NSPS,
for each of the
first 3 years of
operation. If production is likely to vary, you may
also submit alternative
estimates (attach
a separate sheet).
Year
A. Quantity Per Day
B. Units Of Measure
c. Operation, Product, Material, etc. (specify)
N/A - This project produces potable water. There is no prodcution-based
NA
N/A
N/A
effluent guidelines.
EPA Form 3510-2D (Rev. 8-90) Page 2 of 5 CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Outfall Number
V. Effluent Characteristics
A and B: These items require you to report estimated amounts (both concentration and mass) of the pollutants to be discharged from each of your
outfalls. Each part of this item addresses a different set of pollutants and should be completed in accordance with the specific instructions for that
part. Data for each outfall should be on a separate page. Attach additional sheets of paper if necessary.
General Instructions (See table 2D-2 for Pollutants)
Each part of this item requests you to provide an estimated daily maximum and average for certain pollutants and the source of information. Data
for all pollutants in Group A, for all outfalls, must be submitted unless waived by the permitting authority. For all outfalls, data for pollutants in Group
B should be reported only for pollutants which you believe will be present or are limited directly by an effluent limitations guideline or NSPS or
indirectly through limitations on an indicator pollutant.
1. Pollutant
2. Maximum Daily
Value
(include units)
3. Average Daily
Value
(include units)
4. Source (see instructions)
See attached table.
3, Sampled Norw000d WTP Process Wastewater
EPA Form 3510-2D (Rev. 8-90) Page 3 of 5 CONTINUE ON REVERSE

CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1)
C. Use the space below to list any of the pollutants listed in Table 2D-3 of the instructions which you know or have reason to believe will be
discharged from any outfall. For every pollutant you list, briefly describe the reasons you believe it will be present.
1. Pollutant
2. Reason for Discharge
No Table 2D-3 pollutants are
N/A
expected in this discharge.
VI. Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatment
A. If there is any technical evaluation concerning
your wastewater treatment, including engineering reports or pilot plant studies, check the
appropriate box below.
Q Report Available
❑ No Report
B. Provide the name and location of any existing plant(s) which, to the best of your knowledge resembles this production facility with respect to
production processes, wastewater constituents, or wastewater treatments.
Name
Location
Norwood Water Treatement Plant
650 Allenton St., Norwood, NC 28128
Montogmery County Water
724 Hydro Rd., Mt. Gilead, NC 27206
Treatment Plant (Montgomery
County Water System)
EPA Form 3510-2D (Rev. 8-90) Page 4 of 5 CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE

EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1)
VII. Other Information (Optional)
Use the space below to expand upon any of the above questions or to bring to the attention of the reviewer any other information you feel should be
considered in establishing permit limitations for the proposed facility. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Residuals generated by the treatment processes - consisting of residuals blowdown from the
sedimentation basins, filter -to -waste, and filter backwash waters - will be delivered by gravity
to two twin reclamation basins. Basins will alternate between two modes: fill and settle/decant.
Resultant supernatant from the basin in settle/decant mode, up to 100 of plant flow, will be
recycle pumped to the front of the conventional trains. After approximately 6 months of settling,
when sludge layer is anticipated to have a 5% solids concentration, sludge will be dredged by a
third -party contractor. Supernatant from these basins (up to 100 of plant flows) will be recycled
to the head of the plant to the extent possible with the NPDES discharge utilized as needed for
plant operations. Thiosulfate will be added to remove any residual chlorine before any flow from
the reclamation basins is discharged to the NPDES outfall.
The plant will have a design production capacity of 13.0 MGD
Vill. CERTIFICATION
1 certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
A. Name and Official Title (type or print)
B. Phone No.
John Shutak, CIP Program Manager
[phone]
C. Signature
D. Date Signed
� �
08/05/2019
EPA Fgrrii 3510-213 (Rev. 8-90) PAGE 5 of 5

This page intentionally left blank.

Lake Tillery I Raw Water
11.70 MGD Meter Vault
Distribution
12.49 MGD
Rapid Mix (1)
13.00 MGD
Chemical
Injection Vault 12.49 MGD
Flocculation
13.00 MGD Basins (2)
Finished Water
Storage
(1.5 MG) 12.79 MGD
Incidental Losses
0.02 MGD
Recycle
1.30 MGD
Backwash Supply
0.28 MGD
13.00 M G D
12.84 MGD
Sedimentation
Basins (2)
Filters (4)
J Filter -to -
Waste &
Backwash
0.33 MGD
Reclamation
Basins (2)
Outfall 001
0.49 MGD
Schematic of Water Flow at Design Capacity
Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
Monroe, Union County, NC
Blowdown
0.16 MGD

This page intentionally left blank.

Norwood Water Treatment Plant - Process Wastewater Sampling (07/01/19)
Class C Water Quality Criteria
Parameter Aquatic Life & Secondary
Recreation
Conventional Parameters - All units are mg/L, except pH which is in 5. U.
TSS
---
---
3.5
TDS
---
---
83.0
Chloride
230
---
9.3
Sulfate
---
---
19.3
Orthophosphate (as P)
---
---
< 0.05
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3
20
8.0
pH at 26 degC
6.0 - 9.0
---
6.2
TKN
---
---
0.58
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3
---
---
0.35
Nitrogen, Total
---
---
0.93
Nitrogen, Ammonia
< 0.10
Phosphorous, Total
< 0.05
Hardness, Total
19.7
Metals 3 - All units are ug/L
Aluminum
Acute: 620
Chronic: 580
---
519
Arsenic
Acute:340
Chronic: 150
10
< 10.0
Barium
---
---
9.7
Calcium
---
---
4970
Copper
Acute: 3.64
Chronic: 2.74
---
< 5.0
Iron
1000 6
---
< 50.0
Lead
Acute: 13.88
Chronic: 0.54
< 5.0
Magnesium
---
---
1760
Manganese
---
100 6
518
Silica
---
---
5830
Sodium
---
---
13100
Zinc
Acute: 36.20
Chronic: 36.50
---
< 10.0
1. Expected criteria, based on NC -EPA Standards Table, June 2019
2. Water quality criteria for alkalinity is a minimum value, exept where alkalinity is naturally lower. Alkalinity data
not available for unnamed on -site tributary at Outfall 001; raw water alkalinity from Lake Tillery is low: 15-26
mg/L
3. Where necessary, hardness -dependent criteria were calculated uising the minimum applicable instream
hardness of 25 mg/L as no hardness data is available for the proposed discharge location.
4. From EPA Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum, 2018. Assuming DOC of
1.0 mg/L, pH of 7.5, and hardness of 25 mg/L.
5. EPA approved removal of NC aquatic life standard as part of 2007-2016 Triennial review due to high natural
occurrence in NC surface waters. The EPA NRWQC remains here as guidance for instances when toxicity
information is needed.
6. EPA approved removal of NC human health standards as part of 2007-2016 Triennial review due to high natural
occurrence in NC surface waters. The EPA NRWQC remains here as guidance for instances when toxicity
information is needed.

This page intentionally left blank.

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit Number INCOO
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Facility Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
Union County Public Works
Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
500 N. Main St., Ste. 600
Monroe
NC / 28112
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above ❑
Street Address or State Road 3522 New Salem Rd.
City
State / Zip Code
County
Monroe
NC / 28110
Union
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name Union County Public Works
Mailing Address 500 N. Main St., Ste. 400
City
Monroe
State / Zip Code NC / 28112
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
4. Ownership Status:
Federal ❑ State ❑
Private ❑
Ed gown 013
Page 1 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
5. Type of treatment plant:
® Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
❑ Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
❑ Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener ❑
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Surface Water, from Lake Tillery in Stanly County
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
Treatment of raw water will follow a conventional treatment process - rapid mixing, flocculation,
sedimentation, and gravity filtration. Aluminum sulfate will be added as a coagulant to a single -
train rapid mix. Flocculation will be split into two trains and three stages and will use vertical
turbine mixers. The sedimentation phase will consist of high -rate clarification via plate settlers.
Common settled water will flow into the settled water channel where it will be dosed with filter -
aid polymer, hypochlorite, and caustic soda as needed before being split among four GAC filters.
Filtered water will be dosed with hypochlorite again, prior to the finished water storage tank.
Following storage, finished water will be dosed with an ortho/poly phosphate blend, fluoride,
caustic, hypochlorite, and ammonium sulfate before being sent to the finished water pump
station and the distribution system.
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility:
Residuals generated by the treatment processes - consisting of residuals blowdown from the
sedimentation basins, filter -to -waste, and filter backwash waters - will be delivered by gravity to
two twin reclamation basins. Basins will alternate between two modes: fill and settle/decant.
Resultant supernatant from the basin in settle/decant mode, up to 10% of plant flow, will be
recycle pumped to the front of the conventional trains. After approximately 6 months of settling,
when sludge layer is anticipated to have a 5% solids concentration, sludge will be dredged by a
third -party contractor. Supernatant from these basins (up to 10% of plant flows) will be recycled
to the head of the plant to the extent possible with the NPDES discharge utilized as needed for
plant operations. Thiosulfate will be added to remove any residual chlorine before any flow from
the reclamation basins is discharged to the NPDES outfall.
Number of separate discharge points: I
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
10. Frequency of discharge: Continuous ® Intermittent ❑
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: N/A Duration: N/A
11. Plant design potable flowrate 13 MGD
Backwash or reject flow .49 MGD*
*During startup, tcsting, or plant upset, flow may be up to 4.5 MGD
Page 2 of 4 Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
Unnamed creek tributary to Richardson Creek
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals or disinfection
treatments, that have the potential to be discharged.
Alum / aluminum sulfate
Yes X
No
Iron sulfate / ferrous sulfate
Yes
No X
Fluoride
Yes
No X
Ammonia nitrogen / Chloramines
Yes
No X
Zinc -orthophosphate or sweetwater CP1236
Yes
No X
List any other additives below:
Thiosulfate, filter -aid polymer, hypochlorite, caustic soda
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑
i m
15. Additional Information:
y Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the water treatment process. The plan should show the point[s] of addition for
chemicals and all discharges routed to an outfall [including stormwater].
Solids Handling Plan
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15:
y New applicants are highly encouraged to contact a permit coordinator with the
NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ❑ Yes ®* No
*Customer Service Center was not contacted, but project team met with NPDES Unit staff in May of 2019
y Analyses of source water collected
y Engineering Alternative Analysis
y Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
John Shutak CIP Program Manager
Printed name of Person Signing Title
ture of Applicant
Date
Page 3 of Version 5/2012

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement representation, or certification in any application,
record, report, plan, or other document files or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that
Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21
or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by
imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5
years, or both, for a similar offense.)
Page 4 of 4 Version 5/2012

CDMFeet Proposed Discharge Location - Outfall 001
Smith0 800 1,600 3,200 4,800 Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
N 1 inch = 1,600 feet Union County, North Caroilna

This page intentionally left blank.

Solids Handling Plan
1.1 Overview
Solids produced at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant (YRWTP) will be sent to one of two
reclamation basins to settle and thicken before being hauled offsite. These reclamation basins will
be high density polyethylene (HDPE)-lined, earthen structures with a dividing berm and inlet,
outlet and overflow structures. Flows to the on-line basin will be intermittent and will consist of
residuals "blowdown" (BD) from the sedimentation process; filter backwash water (BVVM; filter -
to -waste (FTW) flows; and other plant operational residual streams (e.g., continuous monitoring
instrumentation). One basin will be filled (i.e., on-line) while the other is settling, decanting or
being cleaned out.
1.2 Projected Solids Production
Residuals are expected to consist of constituents in the raw water (turbidity, total suspended
solids, and dissolved organic carbon) that are removed by the treatment process and sludges
formed from chemicals applied to the raw water for treatment (alum and polymer).
Solids production projections were based on the conventional treatment process that will be
employed at YRWTP and the raw water quality data obtained from the Norwood Water
Treatment Plant (NWTP), which utilizes Lake Tillery as its water source. The residuals
production at the Norwood WTP was calculated for each calendar day from 2013 to 2017 using
the total treated influent, the average daily raw water turbidity, and alum dosage at the Norwood
WTP for that day.
The calculated residuals production (pounds per day) was divided by the total treated influent for
that day to obtain the residuals production per treated flow (pounds per MG). The 90th percentile
residuals production per treated flow was calculated to be 422 lbs/MG, and the average residuals
production was 216 lbs/MG. The ratio of the 90th percentile to the average value (the
90th/average ratio) is therefore 422 lbs/MG divided by 216 lbs/MG, which equals 1.96.
The design period was assumed to begin in 2022 and end in 2041. The design daily residuals
production was calculated by multiplying the average daily residuals production by the
90th/average ratio of 1.96.
Table 1-1 summarizes the anticipated flows to the residuals handling process. The Year 2031
values correspond to the plant design capacity of 13 MGD. At 13 MGD, an estimated 3,200 dry
lbs/day of residuals will be produced in total. Approximately 85 percent of the total YRWTP
residuals production will be generated by solids removed via sedimentation basin "blowdown",
and the filter backwash and filter -to -waste flows are expected to account for approximately 15
percent of the total production.
CSmith 1-1

Solids Handling Plan
Table 1-1 Design Flows and Solids Loads
Flow Rate
LoadingDescription
Solids
• Residuals from
Average day:
Average day:
clarification process
55,000 gal/day (2022);
Approx. 920 Ibs/day (2022);
Sedimentation
' 0.2% solids
84,000 gal/day (2031)
Approx. 1,400 Ibs/day (2031);
Basin Blowdown
concentration
136,000 gal/day (2041)
Approx. 2,300 Ibs/day (2041)
(BD)
• Typically, one
Design:
Design:
blowdown per day' at
108,000 gal/day (2022);
Approx. 1,800 Ibs/day (2022);
200 gpm
164,000 gal/day (2031);
Approx. 2,700 Ibs/day (2031);
266,000 gal/day (2041)
Approx. 4,400 Ibs/day (2041)
Average day:
• Two 570-ft2 filters
Approx. 160 Ibs/day (2022);
Filter Backwash
washed back-to-back
Approx. 250 Ibs/day (2031);
Water
for 11 minutes each at
Up to 276,000 gal/day
Approx. 400 Ibs/day (2041)
(BWW)
max 22 gpm/ft' over a
Design:
24-hour period
Approx. 320 Ibs/day (2022);
Approx. 480 Ibs/day (2031);
Approx. 780 Ibs/day (2041)
• Flows from first 10
minutes after filter is
Filter -to -Waste
placed online
(FTW)
■ Two FTWs per day
Up to 45,600 gal/day
Included in BWW above
• At max day filter
loading of 4 gpm/ft2
' Blowdown frequency is dependent upon raw water quality and sludge compaction characteristics; one blowdown per day is
assumed, but high TOC and raw water turbidity spikes will increase the blowdown frequency to two to three times per day
should these events occur
1.3 Reclamation Basin Conceptual Design
Two equally sized basins will be provided, with one basin filled while the other basin is in settling
and decant mode. BD, BWW, and FTW streams would all be discharged directly to the online
reclamation basin.
Table 1-2 summarizes the dimensions and capacities of the reclamation basins.
Table 1-2 Reclamation Basin Preliminary
Parameter
Design Summary
I Value
Basin Length & Width (each)
307 feet by 173 feet
Side Slope (H:V) Inside and Outside
3 : 1 on all sides
Basin
Length to Width Ratio
1.8 : 1
Minimum Liquid Depth & Volume
2 feet (0.67 MG per basin)
Maximum Sludge Depth & Volume
5.5 feet (1.5 MG per basin)
Minimum Freeboard
2 feet (0.75 MG per basin)
Total Basin Depth & Volume
9.5 feet (2.9 MG per basin)
Year 1: 19 months at average conditions, 9.6 months at
Sludge Storage Capacity
maximum conditions
Year 20: 7.6 months at average conditions, 3.9 months at
maximum conditions
Liquid Storage Capacity
5 filter backwashes at maximum backwash rate and duration
1-2 Spmith

Solids Handling Plan
After approximately 6 months of settling, the sludge layer will have a solids concentration that
averages 5 percent at the bottom. This recommendation will be checked after plant start-up.
When the off-line reclamation basin is cleaned out, the third -party contractor is expected to re -
mix the settled solids and supernatant and pump out the resulting slurry.
To remove possible groundwater infiltration, an underdrain system made of 6" perforated HDPE
pipe would be provided.
A recycle pump station will be installed to continuously recirculate up to 10% of total plant flow
back to a point upstream of an alternate raw water storage tank or rapid mixing.
1.3.1 Influent and Effluent Structures
Sedimentation basin "blowdown" (BD), filter backwash water (BWW), and other residual streams
will be discharged through a 36" pipe, and filter -to -waste water (FTW) will be discharged
through a 24" pipe. Both pipes will lead to a junction box on the northeast side of the basins. This
junction box provides for an air gap on the FTW line. Gates in the junction box will control the
flow of residuals through a 36" pipe to the on-line reclamation basin's influent structure, which
consists of a 4' diameter precast concrete manhole with a precast base and an open top set at an
invert of 507, the top elevation of the sludge layer. The influent pipe connects to the manhole
near the bottom, with a flap valve placed over the opening. Influent will open the flap valve and
flow up and out into the basin. Class B rip rap will be placed around the manhole to
approximately 4" below the top of the structure.
The effluent structure (also known as the decant structure) for each basin will be a concrete -lined
channel leading to a cast -in -place rectangular concrete effluent box, located on the southwest side
of the basin, that drains to the recycle pump station. A manually -operated weir gate in the
channel controls the liquid level in the basin, and 12" gates on the influent and effluent side of the
box remain open while the basin is filling and decanting. Decanted liquid will flow over the weir
gate via a 12" pipe to the recycle pump station.
1.3.2 Underdrain System
A perimeter underdrain system will be provided to remove groundwater. This underdrain system
will consist of a grid of perforated 6" HDPE pipes. The underdrain pipes will be buried in trenches
lined with filter sand and filled with gravel. The underdrain piping from each basin will be sloped
to a common discharge at the emergency overflow discharge point or to a separate point on the
southeast side of the basins. The location of the underdrain discharge will be finalized as the
design develops.
Cleanouts will be provided at each end of straight pipe. The cleanout piping will be made of solid
6" HDPE pipe, and the cleanout plug at grade will be enclosed in a box with a lockable lid, such as
a water meter box cover.
1.3.3 Safety Measures
To prevent overflows and protect personnel, the following safety measures will be provided.
■ An overflow weir will be located on the berm between the two basins to allow overflow
from one basin into the other. The weir elevation will be set at elevation 509.5, or 1.5 feet
SM th 1-3

Solids Handling Plan
below the top of wall. The weir will be covered in 60-mil HDPE, with a 12" layer of filter
sand below it.
■ An emergency overflow will be located at the southeast side of Basin No. 2. The emergency
overflow will be set at elevation S 10, one foot above the maximum water surface elevation
and O.S feet above the overflow weir elevation. The construction of the emergency overflow
will be similar to that of the overflow weir, except that the emergency overflow will be
covered in NCDOT Class 1 rip rap applied over a geotextile layer. The outside surface of the
basin wall below the emergency overflow will be covered in geotextile with a top layer of
rip rap, from the overflow to a tributary of the on -site stream. Liquid discharged from the
emergency overflow will flow to this tributary.
■ Float switches in each basin will trigger alarms at high and high -high liquid levels.
1.3.4 Recycle Pump Station
Table 1-3 below provides a summary of the design parameters for the recycle pump station.
Table 1-3 Recycle Pump Station Design Summary
Parameter
Pump Station Geometry
Circular Precast Structure
Recycle Design Flow (maximum)
1.3 MGD
Pump Type
Submersible
Number of Pumps (Duty/Standby)
1/1
Pump Rated Flow
902 gpm (1.3 MGD)
Pump Station Minimum Flow
506 gpm (0.73 MGD)
Pump Rated Horsepower
30 HP
Pump Rated Head
67 feet
Impeller Material
316 SS or Nickel Aluminum Bronze
Drive
Variable Frequency Drives
The recycle pump station will be a circular precast structure located adjacent to the reclamation
basins. The pump station wet well will receive flow from the decant structure downstream of the
basins via a gravity pipe connection. The pump station will be designed to recirculate flow back to
a point upstream of raw water storage via an 8-inch force main. The flow will be pumped with
one singular submersible pump, rated for 10 percent of the total rated plant flow of 13 MGD. The
structure will include space for the addition of a third future pump to account for future plant
capacity expansions and increasing flows. The future flows will be pumped via a parallel 8-inch
force main to the future plant treatment process trains. A below grade valve and meter vault will
be located adjacent to the pump station for flow isolation and metering. Based upon current
preliminary hydraulic system design, the submersible pump selections are rated at 30
horsepower.
1-4 Smith

Solids Handling Plan
1.3.5 Sludge Removal
Union County currently contracts with Bio-Nomic Services, Inc. to land apply sludge generated at
Union County's wastewater treatment facilities. Sludge from these facilities is land applied in
South Carolina. It is anticipated that the sludge generated at YRWTP will be handled under a
similar, or the same, third -party contract.
See Attachment A for the Nutrient Management Plan submitted by Bio-Nomic Services.
Smith 1-5

Smith A-1

A-2 Smith

Bio-Nomic Services, Inc. adhered to the attached Nutrient Management Plan for all applications
performed on the fields in Chester and Fairfield Counties, South Carolina during the 2017
calendar year. No amendments to the Nutrient Management Plan are needed at this time. If
amendments are needed in the future, they will be dealt with promptly and submitted to SC
DHEC for approval.

V5i6 IO-NOMIC SERVICES, INC.
Specializing in today's needs for environmental protection.
Rountree Road • Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-2133 • (704)-529-0000 • Fax [phone]
Union County Public Works (NC)
ND Permit# ND30089044
Nutrient Management Plan
Biosolids are proposed as an agricultural nutrient supplement for a total of 2 (2) farms. The farms are
located in Fairfield county. The biosolids supplied to these farms will be produced by Union County
Public Works at the 12 Mile WWTP and Crooked Creek WWTP. The biosolids will be applied at
agronomic rates by Bio-Nomic Services, Inc. The proposed biosolids will be in the liquid form at 2% -5%
solids.
The nutritional benefits will be primarily derived by Organic Nitrogen, Organic Phosphorus, and potash,
along with other beneficial trace nutrients contained in the biosolids. Nitrogen will be the limiting factor
in calculating nutrient loading rates on the approved sites.
Prior to the land application events, the nitrogen loading rates will be determined using DHEC's Sludge
Annual Agronomic Loading Rate WorkSheet. In order to fill the sheets out, surface soil samples will be
pulled and tested before each application. Nutrient value of the biosolids will be determined through
testing to determine PAN in the biosolid product.
Biosolid applications will be limited to 50% of the expected Plant Available Nitrogen needs of the
proposed crop to allow subsequent applications in the following years. The PAN rate will be determined
using the recommendations provided in Plant Nutrient Element Management of Agricultural Soils in
South Carolina by Clemson University 2007. The slower mineralization rates of biosolids Vs. chemical
fertilizers will allow a flexible schedule of application within windows of the growing seasons.
The following farms listed below will be applied on. These farms can be found in the Land Application
Permit on page 6 of 19 (ND#0089044).
Matthews Farm
- Site Numbers: FA-01 (01- 12)
- Crop: Fescue (Hay & Pasture)
- Net Acres: 751.5
Bankhead Farm
- Site Numbers: FA-02 (01 - 10)
- Crop: Fescue (Hay & Pasture)
- Net Acres: 271.2
Plan will be amended as needed when changes occur with the Land Application Sites and/or biosolids
analysis.
A Carylon Company

IO-NOMIC SERVICES, INC.
Specialising in today's needs for environmental protection.
516 Rountree Road • Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-2133 • (704)-529-0000 • Fax [phone]
Union County Public Works (NC)
ND Permit# ND30089044
Nutrient Management Plan
Biosolids are proposed as an agricultural nutrient supplement for a total of 3 (3) farms. The farms are
located in Fairfield and Chester county. The biosolids supplied to these farms will be produced by Union
County Public Works at the 12 Mile WWTP and Crooked Creek WWTP. The biosolids will be applied at
agronomic rates by Bio-Nomic Services, Inc. The proposed biosolids will be in the liquid form at 2% -5%
solids.
The nutritional benefits will be primarily derived by Organic Nitrogen, Organic Phosphorus, and potash,
along with other beneficial trace nutrients contained in the biosolids. Nitrogen will be the limiting factor
in calculating nutrient loading rates on the approved sites.
Prior to the land application events, the nitrogen loading rates will be determined using DHEC's Sludge
Annual Agronomic Loading Rate WorkSheet. In order to fill the sheets out, surface soil samples will be
pulled and tested before each application. Nutrient value of the biosolids will be determined through
testing to determine PAN in the biosolid product.
Biosolid applications will typically be limited to 50% of the expected Plant Available Nitrogen needs of
the proposed crops to allow subsequent applications . The PAN rate will be determined using the
recommendations provided in Plant Nutrient Element Management of Agricultural Soils in South
Carolina by Clemson University 2007. The slower mineralization rates of biosolids vs. chemical fertilizers
will allow a flexible schedule of application within windows of the growing seasons.
The following farms listed below will be applied on. These farms can be found in the Land Application
Permit (ND#0089044).
William's Farm
- Site Numbers: CH (1 - 5)
- Crop: Fescue/Bermuda (Hay)
- Net Acres: 165.7
McDonald Farm
- Site Numbers: CH-03 (01- 5) & FA-03 (01-4)
- Crop: Fescue/Bermuda (Hay & Pasture)
- Net Acres: 491.9
A Carylon Company

v516 IO-NOMIC SERVICES, INC.
Specializing in today's needs.for environmental protection.
Rountree Road • Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-2133 • (704)-529-0000 • Fax [phone]
Thrailkill Farm
- Site Numbers: CH-02 (01-12)
-Crop: Fescue/Bermuda (Hay & Pasture)
-Net Acres: 458.9
Plan will be amended as needed when changes occur with the Land Application Sites and/or biosolids
analysis.
A Carylon Company

Smith

1-2 Smith

Eenvironments
P u. Box 1 b414. Greene IIE-. SC 29b06
(E64) 877-6942 . FA)i [phone]
4 Craftsman Court, Graer, SC 29650
Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Test
EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1002
Client: CDM SMITH
Facility: NORWOOD WATER TREATMENT PLANT
NPDES #: NC
Test Date: 02-Jul-19
Laboratory Sample ID #: T54332
Test Reviewed and Approved By:
4�
Robert W. Kelley, Ph.D.
QA/QC Officer
Certification #E87819
Test results presented in this report conform to all requirements of
NELAC, conducted under NELAC Certification Number E87819
Florida Dept. of Health. Included results pertain only to provided samples.
Farhad Rostampour
Laboratory Director
SCDHEC Certification #23104
NCDENR Certification # 022
Page 1 of 4

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form/Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Facility: CDM SMITH - NORWOOD WTP NPDES # NC Pipe# 001 County:
Laboratory Performing Test: Comments:
nature of O.R.C.
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Spec. Cond. (umhos.cm)
Chlorine (ni
Sample temp. at Receipt
Sample 1
07/01 /19
X
re of Lab Supervisor
Test
Info
2 Control
46.0
174
Treatment
pH Init.
pH Final
D.O. Init
D.O. Final
Temp Init
Temp Final
Start Date
07/02/19
Time
3:45
End Date
07/09/19
Time
4:22
Start
Renewal l
Renewa12
Start
Renewal
Renewa12
100 %
100 %
100 %
Control
Control
Control
7.4
7.0
7.6
8.2
7.3
7.8
7.4
8.0
7.6
7.4
8.3
7.8
8.2
8.3
8.91
7.7
8.2
1 8.1
8.4
8.5
7.9
7.8
8.5 1
8.0
25.0
24.6
24.8
24.7
24.5
24.6
25.8
25.3
24.8
25.8
25.3
24.8
Chronic Test Results
Final Cent Mort. % 0.0%
Organism #
% Cent 3rd Brood
90%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Control Repro CV
2 2 %]
Control
# Young
22
24
23
20
11
13
18
19
23
23
none
none
19.6
48 Hour Mortality
(L)ive
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
none
none
Control IWC
0of10 0Of10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Si nificant? No
Effluent %
# Young
24
21
21
12
20
16
22
22
19
22
none
none
19.9
Final Mortality Sign. @
Adult
% Red
6.3%
(L)ive
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
none
none
-1.5%
% or no corl
Reproduction Analyses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Repro LOEC= >100.00% NOEL= 100.0%
# Young
25
22
21
21
22
21
18
21
23
19
21.3
Effluent %
Method: Steel's Test
Normal Dist? no Method Kolmogorov
Adult
%Red
(L)ive
12.5%
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-8.7%
Statistic 1.249 Critical 0.895
Equal Var? NA Method
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Statistic Critical
# Young
24
22
21
19
19
16
20
21
19
20
20A
Effluent %
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable)
Adult
%Red
Method: Steel's Test
(L)ive
25.0%
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-2 6%
Effluent % Rank Sum Critical
6.3% 102.00 75.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
12.5% 109.50 75.00
# Youn
20
22
18
21
15
25
20
20
19
23
20.3
Effluent %
25.0% 101.50 75.00
50.0% 104.50 75.00
Adult
%Red
(L)ive
50.0%
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-3.6%
100.0% 99.00 75.00
Overall Analysis IC25= >100.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Result = PASS/FAIL or
# Young
21
21
21
20
21
14
21
15
22
21
19.7
Effluent %
Test LOEC: >100.00% NOEL= 100.0%
Adult
%Red
(L)ive
100.0%
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
-0.5%
Chronic Value- >100.000i
Environmental Sciences Branch 'Should use highest test concentration or
MAIL Division of Water Quality highest concentration with D.O. >5.0 mg/I
N.C. DENR % Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
TO. 1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 DWQ form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
Page 2 of 4

Test Day
source I rep I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 o a
r . r
_---®-�-
----�-�-
----�-�-
r
----�-�-
®i
LabiV
T54332
Client
CDM SMITH
Sample ID
NORWOOD
NPDES#
County
Month
7
Start & fed Date
02-Jul-19
Start & fed Time
03:45 PM
Started & fed By
FJ
Test Organism
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Neo. born date
01-Jul-19
Neo. born time
1700-2200
Test Type
NCCD
Dilution Water
SSF 6-22-19
Units for Cone.
%3rd BROOD
Test vessels
30 ml
Test volume
15 ml
Incubator#
1
Light
161U8dk
Initial Temp °C
25
Selenastrum
0.05 ml
YAT
0.05 ml
Test method
JEPA B21 R 02-013'1002
tem
N/A -Lost or not used
Page 3 of 4

ETT
PO Box 16414, Greenvi8e, SC 2960fa7414
[phone], [phone] Fwc(864) 877 6938
Shipping Address: 4 Craftsman Ct, Greer, SC 29650
W Ww.ETTEN W PC NM ENTAL.00.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Paae Dr
Client: C-001 �
Program
Containers
Pretcn'atitT
Parameters
Facility: NoYi,;,m ( WaAC.- 7✓eall~lrl
7'PtI41If
R'holc [mucnt Tasicih
0
State: ?\`PD)JS n:
Acute
Chronic
I Test Organisms
-
(Composite only)
(Grab or Composite)
v
_
U
p
=
Z
_
Sign, and Print below
=
m
"
2-HCt
=
=
Z
Z
=
='
>
the dotted line
-
'
C—
u
=linos
"
"
i�
SAMPLE ID
U
Camposilc Sein Date Time
Sample Colleaion Dnte Time
Collected by
U
v
6
V)
z
J
>
;J
—
S-ZnAC
5= Odt^r
J
<
U
<
U
U
u
'=
✓
=
U
5,
G
Chemical Analy is a Other
/jf`✓- A
C,
40
/0ar .0 er
NW TP -
G
97/9 ill
13.1
-------------
-�
-------------
-------------
-------------
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record
Secure
Receipt
Sample
Date Time Relinquished By / Organization Received By / Organization
Area
Temp =C
Preserved"
07dl /ql6.26
09
COMPOSITE SAd/PLING PROCEDURES TEMPERA TURE,I,10MITORING PROCEDURES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between
Time Proportional: I sample each hour for 24 hours. Equal volui 0.0 and 6.0 'C. Samples must not be frozen. Use water ice in sealed bags.
or at minimum I sar•-'--•••:ry 4 hours over 24 hours.
Flow Proportional: I istructions in NPDES oermit-
HOLD TIMEPROCEDURES
For toxicity testing the sample must firs be used t',ithhin 36 hours
of sample collection (completion of composite sample).
Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample --" "on.

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
I
July 22, 2019
Jonathan S. Lapsley
CDM Smith
4600 Park Road
Suite 240
Charlotte, NC 28209
RE: Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Dear Jonathan Lapsley:
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on July 01, 2019. The
results relate only to the samples included in this report. Results reported herein conform to the most
current, applicable TNI/NELAC standards and the laboratory's Quality Assurance Manual, where
applicable, unless otherwise noted in the body of the report.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Matthew Brainard
[e-mail]
[phone]
Project Manager
Enclosures
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 1 of 34

Il w aceAnal tical
J
www.pacelabs.com
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pennsylvania Certification IDs
1638 Roseytown Rd Suites 2,3&4, Greensburg, PA 15601
ANAB DOD-ELAP Rad Accreditation #: L2417
Alabama Certification #: 41590
Arizona Certification #: AZ0734
Arkansas Certification
California Certification #: 04222CA
Colorado Certification #: PA01547
Connecticut Certification #: PH-0694
Delaware Certification
EPA Region 4 DW Rad
Florida/TNI Certification #: E87683
Georgia Certification #: C040
Florida: Cert E871149 SEKS WET
Guam Certification
Hawaii Certification
Idaho Certification
Illinois Certification
Indiana Certification
Iowa Certification #: 391
Kansas/TNI Certification #: E-10358
Kentucky Certification #: KY90133
KY WW Permit #: KY0098221
KY WW Permit #: KY0000221
Louisiana DHH/TNI Certification #: LA180012
Louisiana DEQ/TNI Certification #: 4086
Maine Certification #: 2017020
Maryland Certification #: 308
Massachusetts Certification #: M-PA1457
Michigan/PADEP Certification #: 9991
Asheville Certification IDs
2225 Riverside Drive, Asheville, NC 28804
Florida/NELAP Certification #: E87648
Massachusetts Certification #: M-NC030
North Carolina Drinking Water Certification #: 37712
CERTIFICATIONS
Missouri Certification #: 235
Montana Certification #: Cert0082
Nebraska Certification #: NE-OS-29-14
Nevada Certification #: PAO14572018-1
New Hampshire/TNI Certification #: 297617
New Jersey/TNI Certification #: PA051
New Mexico Certification #: PA01457
New York/TNI Certification #: 10888
North Carolina Certification #: 42706
North Dakota Certification #: R-190
Ohio EPA Rad Approval: #41249
Oregon/TNI Certification #: PA200002-010
Pennsylvania/TNI Certification #: 65-00282
Puerto Rico Certification #: PA01457
Rhode Island Certification #: 65-00282
South Dakota Certification
Tennessee Certification #: 02867
Texas/TNI Certification #: T104704188-17-3
Utah/TNI Certification #: PA014572017-9
USDA Soil Permit #: P330-17-00091
Vermont Dept. of Health: ID# VT-0282
Virgin Island/PADEP Certification
Virginia/VELAP Certification #: 9526
Washington Certification #: C868
West Virginia DEP Certification #: 143
West Virginia DHHR Certification #: 9964C
Wisconsin Approve List for Rad
Wyoming Certification #: 8TMS-L
North Carolina Wastewater Certification #: 40
South Carolina Certification M 99030001
VirginiaNELAP Certification M 460222
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 2 of 34

/�aceAnalyfical'
www.pacelabs.com
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
SAMPLE ANALYTE COUNT
Project:
Pace Project No.:
Wastewater Discharge Permit
92435139
Analytes
Lab ID
Sample ID
Method
Analysts
Reported
Laboratory
92435139001
NWTP-1
SM 2540D-2011
MJP
1
PASI-A
92435139002
NW7P-2
SM 2540C-2011
MJP
1
PASI-A
92435139003
NWTP-3
EPA 300.0 Rev 2.1 1993
BRJ
2
PASI-A
92435139004
NWTP-4
EPA 900.0
NEG
1
PASI-PA
92435139005
NWTP-5
EPA903.1
MK1
1
PASI-PA
92435139006
NWTP-6
EPA904.0
JLW
1
PASI-PA
92435139007
NWTP-7
SM 4500-P E-2011
GC
1
PASI-A
92435139008
NWTP-8
SM 2320E-2011
ECH
1
PASI-A
SM 4500-H+B-2011
ECH
1
PASI-A
92435139009
NWTP-9
EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994
SH1
13
PASI-A
92435139010
NWTP-11
TKN+NO3+NO2 Calculation
EWS
1
PASI-A
EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
MFO
1
PASI-A
EPA 353.2 Rev 2.0 1993
KDF1
1
PASI-A
92435139011
NWTP-10
EPA 350.1 Rev 2.0 1993
NAL
1
PASI-A
EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
MDW
1
PASI-A
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 3 of 34

PaceAnal�/tical
J`
_pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Sample: NWTP-1 Lab ID: 92435139001 Collected: 07/01/19 13:45 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
2540D Total Suspended Solids Analytical Method: SM 254OD-2011
Total Suspended Solids 3.5 mg/L 2.5 1 07/03/19 10:21
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 4 of 34

,1��aceAnalyfical"
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Sample: NWTP-2 Lab ID: 92435139002 Collected: 07/01/19 13:49 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
2540C Total Dissolved Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM
Analytical Method: SM 2540C-2011
83.0 mg/L 25.0 1
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, L-C.
07/03/19 10:35
Page 5 of 34

,�aceAnalyficalo
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-3
Lab ID: 92435139003
Collected: 07/01/19 13:50
Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters
Results Units
Report Limit DF
Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
300.0 IC Anions 28 Days
Analytical Method: EPA 300.0
Rev 2.1 1993
Chloride
9.3 mg/L
1.0 1
07/02/19 04:45 16887-00-6
Sulfate
19.3 mg/L
1.0 1
07/02/19 04:45 14808-79-8
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 6 of 34

ace Analytical
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Sample: NWTP-7 Lab ID: 92435139007 Collected: 07/01/19 14:02 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
SM4500P-E, Phosphate, Ortho Analytical Method: SM 4500-P E-2011
Orthophosphate as P ND mg/L 0.050 1 07/03/19 02:20
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 7 of 34

,�aceAnalXical
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-8 Lab ID: 92435139008 Collected: 07/01/19 14:03 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
2320B Alkalinity Analytical Method: SM 2320B-2011
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 8.0 mg/L 5.0 1 07/03/19 18:44
4500H+ pH, Electrometric Analytical Method: SM 4500-H+B-2011
pH at 25 Degrees C 6.2 Std. Units 1.0 1 07/07/19 15:07 H3
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 8 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pscelabs.crom
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-9 Lab ID: 92435139009 Collected: 07/01/19 14:04 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
200.7 MET ICP Analytical Method: EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994 Preparation Method: EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994
Aluminum
519
ug/L
100
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7429-90-5
Arsenic
ND
ug/L
10.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-38-2
Barium
9.7
ug/L
5.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-39-3
Calcium
4970
ug/L
100
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-70-2
Copper
ND
ug/L
5.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-50-8
Iron
ND
ug/L
50.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7439-89-6
Lead
ND
ug/L
5.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7439-92-1
Magnesium
1760
ug/L
100
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7439-95-4
Manganese
518
ug/L
5.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7439-96-5
Silica
5830
ug/L
210
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7631-86-9
Sodium
13100
ug/L
5000
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-23-5
Hardness, Total(SM 2340B)
19700
ug/L
662
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
Zinc
ND
ug/L
10.0
1
07/03/19 16:01
07/09/19 08:01
7440-66-6
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 9 of 34

,�aceMalXical
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Sample: NWTP-11 Lab ID: 92435139010 Collected: 07/01/19 14:07 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
Total Nitrogen Calculation
Total Nitrogen
351.2 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total
353.2 Nitrogen, NO2/NO3 pres.
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM
Analytical Method: TKN+NO3+NO2 Calculation
0.93 mg/L 0.52 1 07/19/1916:52
Analytical Method: EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993 Preparation Method: EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
0.58 mg/L 0.50 1 07/14/19 16:41 07/16/19 04:28 7727-37-9
Analytical Method: EPA 353.2 Rev 2.0 1993
0.35 mg/L 0.040 1 07/17/1910:38
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 10 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-10 Lab ID: 92435139011 Collected: 07/01/19 14:06 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
Parameters Results Units Report Limit DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. Qual
350.1 Ammonia Analytical Method: EPA 350.1 Rev 2.0 1993
Nitrogen, Ammonia ND mg/L 0.10 1 07/21/19 19:28 7664-41-7
365.1 Phosphorus, Total Analytical Method: EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993 Preparation Method: EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
Phosphorus ND mg/L 0.050 1 07/15/19 20:06 07/15/19 23:15 7723-14-0
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 11 of 34

,�aceAnalyficaf&
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484657 Analysis Method: EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994
QC Batch Method: EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994 Analysis Description: 200.7 MET
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139009
METHOD BLANK: 2618433
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139009
Parameter Units
Aluminum
ug/L
Arsenic
ug/L
Barium
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Hardness, Total(SM 2340B)
ug/L
Iron
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Magnesium
ug/L
Manganese
ug/L
Silica
ug/L
Sodium
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE:
2618434
Parameter
Units
Aluminum
ug/L
Arsenic
ug/L
Barium
ug/L
Calcium
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Hardness, Total(SM 2340B)
ug/L
Iron
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Magnesium
ug/L
Manganese
ug/L
Silica
ug/L
Sodium
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Matrix: Water
Blank
Result
Spike
Conc.
5000
500
500
5000
500
33100
5000
500
5000
500
5350
5000
500
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Reporting
Limit Analyzed
Qualifiers
100
07/09/19 07:21
10.0
07/09/19 07:21
5.0
07/09/19 07:21
100
07/09/19 07:21
5.0
07/09/19 07:21
662
07/09/19 07:21
50.0
07/09/19 07:21
5.0
07/09/19 07:21
100
07/09/19 07:21
5.0
07/09/19 07:21
210
07/09/19 07:21
5000
07/09/19 07:21
10.0
07/09/19 07:21
LCS
Result
5020
493
508
4940
513
32400
4810
494
4880
498
5320
5170
507
LCS
% Rec
100
99
102
99
103
98
96
99
98
100
100
103
101
% Rec
Limits
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
85-115
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Qualifiers
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
2618435
2618436
MS
MSD
92435220001
Spike
Spike
MS
MSD
MS
MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units
Result
Conc.
Conc.
Result
Result
% Rec
% Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Aluminum ug/L
858
5000
5000
6520
6630
113
115
70-130 2
Arsenic ug/L
ND
500
500
500
511
99
102
70-130 2
Barium ug/L
35.4
500
500
538
545
101
102
70-130 1
Results presented on this page are in
the units indicated by the
"Units" column except where
an alternate unit is presented to the right
of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 12 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
2618435
2618436
MS
MSD
92435220001
Spike
Spike
MS
MSD
MS
MSD
% Rec
Parameter
Units
Result
Conc.
Conc.
Result
Result
% Rec
% Rec
Limits
RPD Qual
Calcium
ug/L
13100
5000
5000
18200
18300
101
104
70-130
1
Copper
ug/L
15.3
500
500
518
529
101
103
70-130
2
Hardness, Total(SM 2340B)
ug/L
42700
33100
33100
77300
78300
104
107
70-130
1
Iron
ug/L
722
5000
5000
5870
5950
103
104
70-130
1
Lead
ug/L
ND
500
500
487
499
97
100
70-130
2
Magnesium
ug/L
2440
5000
5000
7760
7900
106
109
70-130
2
Manganese
ug/L
24.9
500
500
518
528
99
101
70-130
2
Silica
ug/L
6450
5350
5350
12300
12400
109
111
70-130
1
Sodium
ug/L
8810
5000
5000
14000
14100
104
106
70-130
1
Zinc
ug/L
39.0
500
500
550
562
102
105
70-130
2
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 13 of 34

111w-PaceAnalytical"
www.pacelabs.com
I
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484720 Analysis Method: SM 2320B-2011
QC Batch Method: SM 2320B-2011 Analysis Description: 2320B Alkalinity
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139008
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
METHOD BLANK: 2618883
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139008
Blank
Reporting
Parameter Units
Result
Limit
Analyzed
Qualifiers
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L
ND 5.0
07/03/19 16:02
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2618884
Spike
LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Cone.
Result
% Rec Limits
Qualifiers
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L
50
51.1
102 80-120
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2618885
2618886
MS
MSD
92434874001
Spike
Spike MS
MSD MS
MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result
Cone.
Cone. Result
Result % Rec
% Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L 147
50
50 192
193 91
93
80-120 1
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2618887
2618888
MS
MSD
92435163022
Spike
Spike MS
MSD MS
MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result
Cone.
Cone. Result
Result % Rec
% Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Alkalinity, Total as CaCO3 mg/L 38.4
50
50 89.7
91.1 103
105
80-120 2
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 14 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelaft corn
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484610
QC Batch Method: SM 2540C-2011
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139002
METHOD BLANK: 2618210
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139002
Parameter Units
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Analysis Method: SM 2540C-2011
Analysis Description: 2540C Total Dissolved Solids
Matrix: Water
Blank Reporting
Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers
ND 25.0 07/03/1910:34
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2618211
Spike LCS LCS % Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 250 250 100 90-110
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 2618212
Parameter
ital Dissolved Solids
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 2618213
Parameter
Total Dissolved Solids
92434872011 Dup
Units Result Result
mg/L 2640 2660
92435150004 Dup
Units Result Result
mg/L 138 135
RPD Qualifiers
0
RPD Qualifiers
2
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 15 of 34

laceAnalytica(
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484604
Analysis Method:
SM 2540D-2011
QC Batch Method: SM 2540D-2011
Analysis Description:
2540D Total Suspended Solids
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139001
METHOD BLANK: 2618184
Matrix:
Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139001
Blank
Reporting
Parameter
Units
Result
Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
ND
2.5 07/03/19 10:17
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2618185
Spike
LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter
Units
Conc.
Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
250
256
102 90-110
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 2618186
92434967001
Dup
Parameter
Units
Result
Result
RPD Qualifiers
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
1100
1110 1
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 2618187
92434970001
Dup
Parameter
Units
Result
Result
RPD Qualifiers
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
290
285 2
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 16 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pnWabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 485064 Analysis Method: SM 4500-H+B-2011
QC Batch Method: SM 4500-H+B-2011 Analysis Description: 4500H+B pH
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139008
SAMPLE DUPLICATE: 2620685
Parameter
pH at 25 Degrees C
92435139008 Dup
Units Result Result
Std. Units 6.2 5.6
RPD Qualifiers
9 H3
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 17 of 34

�---ace Analytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484297
Analysis Method: EPA 300.0 Rev 2.1 1993
QC Batch Method: EPA 300.0 Rev 2.1 1993
Analysis Description: 300.0 IC Anions
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139003
METHOD BLANK: 2616879
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139003
Blank Reporting
Parameter Units
Result Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Chloride mg/L
ND 1.0
07/01/19 23:40
Sulfate mg/L
ND 1.0
07/01/19 23:40
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2616880
Spike LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Conc. Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Chloride mg/L
50 51.8
104 90-110
Sulfate mg/L
50 52.0
104 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2616881 2616882
MS MSD
92435150001
Spike Spike MS
MSD MS MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result
Conc. Conc. Result
Result % Rec % Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Chloride mg/L 15.1
50 50 65.4
65.5 101 101
90-110 0
Sulfate mg/L ND
50 50 50.3
50.5 99 100
90-110 0
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2616883
2616884
MS
MSD
92434954001 Spike
Spike MS
MSD MS
MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result Conc.
Conc. Result
Result % Rec
% Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Chloride mg/L 40.4 50
50 95.8
90.4 111
100
90-110 6 M1
Sulfate mg/L 27.0 50
50 84.1
77.1 114
100
90-110 9 M1
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 18 of 34

aceAnalj&al
www.pecolabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 487600 Analysis Method: EPA 350.1 Rev 2.0 1993
QC Batch Method: EPA 350.1 Rev 2.0 1993 Analysis Description: 350.1 Ammonia
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139011
METHOD BLANK: 2632493
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139011
Parameter Units
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L
Matrix: Water
Blank Reporting
Result Limit Analyzed Qualifiers
ND 0.10 07/21/1918:58
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2632494
Spike LCS LCS % Rec
Parameter Units Conc. Result % Rec Limits Qualifiers
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 5 4.9 98 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2632495 2632496
MS MSD
92437220005 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
trogen, Ammonia mg/L ND 5 5 4.8 4.9 96 97 90-110 0
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2632497 2632498
MS MSD
92437220006 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result Conc. Conc. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L ND 5 5 4.8 4.8 96 96 90-110 0
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 19 of 34

A�acle Analytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 486312
Analysis Method: EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
QC Batch Method: EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
Analysis Description: 351.2
TKN
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139010
METHOD BLANK: 2626394
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139010
Blank Reporting
Parameter Units
Result Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/L
ND 0.50
07/16/19 04:12
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2626395
Spike LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Conc. Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/L
10 9.5
95 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE 8r MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2626396 2626397
MS MSD
92436343004
Spike Spike MS
MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result
Conc. Conc. Result
Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total mg/L 1.2
10 10 11.2
11.0 100 98 90-110 2
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 20 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pwelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 486592
Analysis Method: EPA
353.2 Rev 2.0 1993
QC Batch Method: EPA 353.2 Rev 2.0 1993
Analysis Description: 353.2
Nitrate + Nitrite, preserved
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139010
METHOD BLANK: 2627637
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139010
Blank
Reporting
Parameter Units
Result
Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L
ND 0.040
07/17/19 10:16
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2627638
Spike
LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Conc.
Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L
2.5
2.5
101 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2627639
2627640
MS
MSD
92436335001
Spike
Spike MS
MSD MS MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result
Conc.
Conc. Result
Result % Rec % Rec
Limits RPD Qual
trogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L 81.0
2.5
2.5 83.0
83.6 80 106
90-110 1 M6
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2627641
2627642
MS
MSD
92436478001
Spike
Spike MS
MSD MS MSD
% Rec
Parameter Units Result
Conc.
Conc. Result
Result % Rec % Rec
Limits RPD Qual
Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3 mg/L ND
2.5
2.5 1.5
1.5 59 59
90-110 0 M1
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 21 of 34

.-Face Anall tical
J'
( www.pacelabs.com
I
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 486439
Analysis Method: EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
QC Batch Method: EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
Analysis Description: 365.1 Phosphorus, Total
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139011
METHOD BLANK: 2627213
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139011
Blank Reporting
Parameter Units
Result Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Phosphorus mg/L
ND 0.050
07/15/19 23:01
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2627214
Spike LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Cone. Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Phosphorus mg/L
2.5 2.5
102 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2627215 2627216
MS MSD
92436053003
Spike Spike MS
MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result
Cone. Cone. Result
Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
Phosphorus mg/L ND
2.5 2.5 2.6
2.6 103 102 90-110 0
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2627217 2627218
MS MSD
92436343001 Spike Spike MS MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result Cone. Cone. Result Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
Phosphorus mg/L 0.079 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 105 106 90-110 1
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 22 of 34

,�acmnalyfical"`
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 484545
Analysis Method: SM
4500-P E-2011
QC Batch Method: SM 4500-P E-2011
Analysis Description: SM450OP-E
Phosphorus, Ortho
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139007
METHOD BLANK: 2618025
Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139007
Blank Reporting
Parameter Units
Result Limit
Analyzed Qualifiers
Orthophosphate as P mg/L
ND 0.050
07/03/19 02:19
LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE: 2618026
Spike LCS
LCS % Rec
Parameter Units
Conc. Result
% Rec Limits Qualifiers
Orthophosphate as P mg/L
0.25 0.25
99 90-110
MATRIX SPIKE & MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE: 2618027 2618028
MS MSD
92435139007
Spike Spike MS
MSD MS MSD % Rec
Parameter Units Result
Conc. Conc. Result
Result % Rec % Rec Limits RPD Qual
thophosphate as P mg/L ND
0.25 0.25 0.24
0.25 97 99 90-110 3
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 23 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-4 Lab ID: 92435139004 Collected: 07/01/19 13:52 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
PWS: Site ID: Sample Type:
Parameters Method Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac Units Analyzed CAS No. Qual
Gross Beta EPA 900.0 1.62 ± 0.504 (0.665) pCi/L 07/10/19 18:45 12587-47-2
C:NA T:NA
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 24 of 34

,��alceAnalyficale
www.pacelabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-5 Lab ID: 92435139005 Collected: 07/01/19 13:57 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
PWS: Site ID: Sample Type:
Parameters Method Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac Units Analyzed CAS No. Qual
Radium-226 EPA 903.1 0.324 ± 0.552 (0.974) pCi/L 07/19/19 14:34 13982-63-3
C:NA T:88%
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 25 of 34

,�acmnalyticalo
www.pacwlabs.com
ANALYTICAL RESULTS - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Sample: NWTP-6 Lab ID: 92435139006 Collected: 07/01/19 13:59 Received: 07/01/19 15:45 Matrix: Water
PWS: Site ID: Sample Type:
Parameters Method Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac Units Analyzed CAS No. Qual
Radium-228 EPA 904.0 0.0469 ± 0.293 (0.675) pCi/L 07/12/19 15:46 15262-20-1
C:81 % T:78%
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 26 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 350950 Analysis Method: EPA 900.0
QC Batch Method: EPA 900.0 Analysis Description: 900.0 Gross Alpha/Beta
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139004
METHOD BLANK: 1705491
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139004
Parameter Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac
-0.040 ± 0.484 (0.972) C:NA T:NA
Gross Beta
Matrix: Water
Units Analyzed
pCi/L 07/10/1917:50
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 KinceyAve. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Qualifiers
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 27 of 34

aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 350863 Analysis Method: EPA 903.1
QC Batch Method: EPA 903.1 Analysis Description: 903.1 Radium-226
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139005
METHOD BLANK: 1705165 Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139005
Parameter Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac
Radium-226 0.133 ± 0.303 (0.489) C:NA T.89%
Units Analyzed
pCi/L 07/19/1914:34
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Qualifiers
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 28 of 34

,�aceAnalytical
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL - RADIOCHEMISTRY
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
QC Batch: 350668 Analysis Method: EPA 904.0
QC Batch Method: EPA 904.0 Analysis Description: 904.0 Radium 228
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139006
METHOD BLANK: 1704606 Matrix: Water
Associated Lab Samples: 92435139006
Parameter Act ± Unc (MDC) Carr Trac
Radium-228 0.521 ± 0.372 (0.719) C:83% T:75%
Units Analyzed
pCi/L 07/12/1915:44
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Qualifiers
Results presented on this page are in the units indicated by the "Units" column except where an alternate unit is presented to the right of the result.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 29 of 34

,�aceAnalytical"'
www.pacelabs.com
QUALIFIERS
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
DEFINITIONS
DF - Dilution Factor, if reported, represents the factor applied to the reported data due to dilution of the sample aliquot.
ND - Not Detected at or above adjusted reporting limit.
TNTC - Too Numerous To Count
J - Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
MDL - Adjusted Method Detection Limit.
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit.
RL - Reporting Limit - The lowest concentration value that meets project requirements for quantitative data with known precision and
bias for a specific analyte in a specific matrix.
S - Surrogate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine decomposes to and cannot be separated from Azobenzene using Method 8270. The result for each analyte is
a combined concentration.
Consistent with EPA guidelines, unrounded data are displayed and have been used to calculate % recovery and RPD values.
LCS(D) - Laboratory Control Sample (Duplicate)
MS(D) - Matrix Spike (Duplicate)
DUP - Sample Duplicate
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
NC - Not Calculable.
SG - Silica Gel - Clean -Up
U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for, but not detected.
Acid preservation may not be appropriate for 2 Chloroethylvinyl ether.
A separate vial preserved to a pH of 4-5 is recommended in SW846 Chapter 4 for the analysis of Acrolein and Acrylonitrile by EPA
Method 8260.
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine decomposes and cannot be separated from Diphenylamine using Method 8270. The result reported for
each analyte is a combined concentration.
Act - Activity
Unc - Uncertainty: SDWA = 1.96 sigma count uncertainty, all other matrices = Expanded Uncertainty (95% confidence interval).
Gamma Spec = Expanded Uncertainty (95.4% Confidence Interval)
(MDC) - Minimum Detectable Concentration
Trac - Tracer Recovery (%)
Carr - Carrier Recovery (%)
Pace Analytical is TNI accredited. Contact your Pace PM for the current list of accredited analytes.
TNI -The NELAC Institute.
LABORATORIES
PASI-A Pace Analytical Services - Asheville
PASI-PA Pace Analytical Services - Greensburg
ANALYTE QUALIFIERS
H3 Sample was received or analysis requested beyond the recognized method holding time.
M1 Matrix spike recovery exceeded QC limits. Batch accepted based on laboratory control sample (LCS) recovery.
M6 Matrix spike and Matrix spike duplicate recovery not evaluated against control limits due to sample dilution.
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC. Page 30 of 34

,�aceAnalXical'
www.pacelabs.com
QUALITY CONTROL DATA CROSS REFERENCE TABLE
Project: Wastewater Discharge Permit
Pace Project No.: 92435139
Pace Analytical Services, LLC
9800 Kincey Ave. Suite 100
Huntersville, NC 28078
[phone]
Analytical
Lab ID
Sample ID
QC Batch Method
QC Batch
Analytical Method
Batch
92435139009
NWTP-9
EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994
484657
EPA 200.7 Rev 4.4 1994
484763
92435139004
NWTP-4
EPA 900.0
350950
92435139005
NWTP-5
EPA 903.1
350863
92435139006
NWTP-6
EPA 904.0
350668
92435139008
NWTP-8
SM 2320B-2011
484720
92435139002
NWTP-2
SM 2540C-2011
484610
92435139001
NWTP-1
SM 2540D-2011
484604
92435139008
NWTP-8
SM 4500-H+B-2011
485064
92435139010
NWTP-11
TKN+NO3+NO2
487489
Calculation
92435139003
NWTP-3
EPA 300.0 Rev 2.1 1993
484297
92435139011
NWTP-10
EPA 350.1 Rev 2.0 1993
487600
92435139010
NWTP-11
EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
486312
EPA 351.2 Rev 2.0 1993
486535
-^435139010
NWTP-11
EPA 353.2 Rev 2.0 1993
486592
435139011
NWTP-10
EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
486439
EPA 365.1 Rev 2.0 1993
486501
92435139007
NWTP-7
SM 4500-P E-2011
484545
Date: 07/22/2019 08:14 AM
REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full,
without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, LLC.
Page 31 of 34

Document Name:
Document Revised: February 7, 2018
a
_` , aceAnalyfrcal
Sam le on Upon Receipt(SCUR
Page 1 of 2
Document No.:
Issuing Authority:
l
F-CAR-CS-033-Rev.06
Pace Carolinas Quality Office
Laboratory receiving samples:
Asheville ❑ Eden❑ Greenwood ❑ Huntersville ❑ Raleigh❑ Mechanicsville❑
Sample -Condition Client Name: WQ# : 92435139
• • (�' 9 0 Project $
Courier: ❑Fed Ex ❑UPS ❑USPS MElient II I III II'lll II ("II III
❑ Commercial ❑Pace ❑Other: 924-35139
Custody Seal Present? []Yes ®No Seals Intact? []Yes ONo
Date/Initials Person Examining Contents:
Packing Material: ❑Bubble Wrap ❑Bubble Bags one ❑ Other Biological Tissue FF zen?
Thermometgr� ❑Yes []No
MN/A
IR Gun ID:
92TO48 Type of ice: )]wet ❑slue ❑None
Cooler Temp ('C): 0- Correction Factor: Add/Subtract ('C) 0.0
Cooler Temp Corrected ('C): Temp should be above freezing to VC
[]Samples out of temp criteria. Samples on ice, cooling process
hasbegun
USDA Regulated Soil ( N/A, water sample)
Did samples o,-riigigate in a quarantine zone within the United States: CA, NY, or SC (check maps)? Did samples originate from a foreign source (interne Tonally,
Flyer. I �. . inrindinv Hawaii and PueRn RIrni? 1—IYnc F76n
Comments/Discrepancy:
Chain of Custody Present?
Yes
❑No
❑N/A
1.
Samples Arrived within Hold Time?
es
❑No
❑N/A
2.
Short Hold Time Anal sls <72 hr.)?
Yes
No
N/A
3.
Rush Turn Around Time Requested?
[]Yes
B14o
❑N/A
4,
Sufficient Volume?
Y/es
No
❑N/A
S.
Correct Containers Used?
-Pace Containers Used?
MY/es
Edes
❑No
ONO
❑N/A
[:]N/A
6.
Containers Intact?
i4s
No
7.
Dissolved analysis: Samples Field Filtered? ❑Ye;
❑No
,]NN//A
LJN/A
9.
Sample Labels Match COC?
-Includes Date/Time/ID/Analysis
[Q es
Matrix: LA
[]NO
❑N/A
9.
Heads ace in VOA Vials (>5-6mm)?
OYeS
❑No
i
NIA
10.
Trip Blank Present?
Trip Blank Custody Seals Present?
❑Yes
Yes
[]No
No
® /A
/A
11.
COMMENTS/SAMPLE DISCREPANCY
Lot ID of split containers:
CLIENT NOTIFICATION/RESOLUTION
Person contacted:
Project Manager SCURF Review:
Project Manager SRF Review:
Date/Time:
Field Data Required? ❑Yes [:]No
Date:
r
Date:
Page 32 of 34

Document Name:
Document Revised: February 7, 2018
��aceAnaVicat`
Sample Condition Upon Receipt(SCUR)
Page 1 of 2
Document No.:
Issuing Authority:
F-CAR-CS-033-Rev.06
Pace Carolinas Quality Office
*Check mark top half of box if pH and/or clechlorination is
verified and within the acceptance range for preservation
samples.
Exceptions: VOA, Coliform, TOC, Oil and Grease, DRO/8015 (water) DOC, LLHg
**Bottom half of box is to list number of bottle
Project # WO# : 92435139
PM: MWB Due Date: 07/30/19
CLIENT: 92-CDM_SMITH
E
N
Z
a
a
>
V
a
E
Q
6
m
Z
"O
O!
w
n
>
V
a
E
M
a
m
Z
UQ
El
v
n
>
V
o
a
E
o
N
a
m
Z
v
ej
s
c
V
Y
=
"
a
m
u
a
v
O
S
V
01
a
E
^
N
Q
a.
m
V
v
O
Z
=
n
E
oN
m
a
m
10
a
N
V
a
E
v,
ti
Q
rs
to
U
Q
x
Z
V
a
E
Ln
H
O
d
m
v
z
A
t
5
E
v
3
1
(:
3
-
a
v
n
u
E
=
.-�
.4
0
a
V
=
2
E
`m
_
.i
./
U
a
U
Z
V
a
O
D
E
a
of
n
N
m
LD
a
V
p
a
�_
E
a
=
r1
l7
a
S
n
O
i
V
E
a
E
m
(D
a
2
2
Z
a
a
E
o
N
zf
U
M
to
a
a
'^
z
V
2
a
O>
E
o
M
�
o
<
Z
m0
vN
N
Z
e
O
E
o
v
N
0
>
_
a
z
a
�
a
O
E
0}
I
Q1
U
>
Z
o
a
I
a
O
E
o
9
M
w
o
Z
.,
_1f
m
«
.Y
u`
a
W
a
O
>
YZ
v,
_
>
u
.Y
a
@
>
Lo
>
Z
�,
0
a
d
�n
E
v
.-,
'AN
d
v,
mI
Z
"
a
V
v
'^
E
o
N
6
Ln
r�
kJ
N
z
V
_A
a
of
n
T
m
a
z
'>Z �
Z
a
n
E
<
of
o
~
O
l'1
a
_
!AEI
c
o
,n
E
0Ln
N
0
N
>
Q
>
v -0
V
a
c
v
a
C
E
0
C
Q1
l7
❑
1
2
i
3
4
/
S
6
✓
7
8
10
f
I
11
s'
12
\-\NN-L
pH Adjustment Log for Preserved Samples
Sample ID
Type of Preservative
pH upon receipt
Date preservation adjusted
Time preservation
adjusted
Amount of Preservative
added
Lot h
Note: Whenever there is a discrepancy affecting North Carolina compliance samples, a copy of this form will be sent to the North Carolina DEHNR Certification Office (re.
Out of hold, incorrect preservative, out of temp, incorrect containers.
Page 33 of 34

two iron menta , lnc.
P.O. Box 1 W4 Greenv lle. SC 293606
(E64) B77-6942 . FAX [phone]
4 Craftsman Court, Graer, SC 219650
Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Test
EPA-821-R-02-013 Method 1002
Client: CDM SMITH
Facility: NORWOOD WATER TREATMENT PLANT
NPDES #: NC
Test Date: 30-Jul-19
Laboratory Sample ID #: T54493
Test Reviewed and Approved By:
gib
Robert W. Kelley, Ph.D.
QA/QC Officer
�nela Certification #E87819
Test results presented in this report conform to all requirements of
NELAC, conducted under NEL.AC Certification Number E87819
Farhad Rostamp/our
Laboratory Director
SCDHEC Certification #23104
Florida Dept. of Health. Included results pertain only to provided samples.
Page 1 of 4
NCDENR Certification # 022

Effluent Aquatic Toxicity Report Form/Phase II Chronic Ceriodaphnia
Facility: CDM SMITH - NORWOOD WTP NPDES # NC Pipe# 001 County:
boratory Performing Test: ETT Environmental,Comments:
Signature of O.R.C. Signature of Lab Supervisor
Test Start Date Time End Date Time
Info 07/30/19 3:16 08/06/19 10:36
Renewa12
Sample Information Sample Sample Control Start Renewal Renewal2 Start Renewall
Control
Collection Start Date 07/29/19 Treatment 100 % 100 % 100 % Control Control
1 7.6
Grab X pH Init. 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.8
8.0
Composite (Duration) pH Final 7.7 7.9 7.5 7.8 8.0
8.3
Hardness (mg/L) 46.0 D.O. Init 8.5 8.9 8.8 8.6 7.1
8.9
Spec. Cond. (umhos.cm) 122 179 D.O. Final 8.9 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.5
24.7
Chlorine (mg/L) 0.22 Temp Init 25.0 25.1 25.0 24.7 0.0
1 25.2
Sample temp. at Receipt 0.3 Temp Final 25.5 25.1 25.2 25.5 25.1
Chronic Test Results
Final Cent Mort. %
0.0%
100%
Organism # % Cent 3rd Brood
6%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean Control Repro CV
Control
# Young
22
22
23
22
21
25
23
21
20
23
none
none
22.2
48 Hour Mortality
(L)ive
D ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
none
none
Control IWC
0of10 0of10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean
Si nificant? No
Peluent %
# Young
20
24
22
20
21
22
22
23
23
19
none
none
21.6
Final Mortality Sign. @
Adult
% Red
6.3%
(L)ive
D ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
none
none
2.7 /
% or n0 COn
Reproduction Analyses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Repro LOEC= >100.00% NOEC= 100.0%
# Young
23
23
18
21
21
21
22
20
22
21
21.2
Effluent %
Method: t Test w/ eonferroni Adj.
Normal Dist? yes Method Kolmogorov
Adult
% Red
(L)ive
12.5%
(D)ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
4.5%
Statistic 0.639 Critical 0.895
Equal Var? yes Method Bartletts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Statistic 5.52 Critical 15.10
# Young
26
23
21
19
19
22
22
20
20
18
21.o
Effluent %
Non -Parametric Analysis (if applicable):
Method: t Test w/ Bonferroni Adi.
Adult
% Red
25.0%
(L)ive
D ead
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
5.4 %
1 Effuent % Calc. t Critical
6.3% 0.84 2.30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
12.5% 1.40 2.30
# Younq
20
21
20
19
19
22
21
18
201
19
19.9
Effluent %
25.0% 1.68 2.30
50.0% 3.21 2.30
Adult
%Red
50.0%
(L)ive
(L)ive
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
10A %
100.0% 4.47 2.30
Overall Analysis IC25= >100.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LOEC: >100.00% NOEL= 100.0%
Effluent %
# Young
21
18
18
18
19
19
17
21
19
20
19.0
Adult
% Red
)0.0%(D)ead
(L)ive
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
14.4%
IChronic Value= >100.00%
Environmental Sciences Branch 'Should use highest test concentration or
MAIL Division of Water Quality highest concentration with D.O. >5.0 mg/I
N.C. DENR % Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
TO: 1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 DWQ form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
Page 2 of 4

Source Test Day ter) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A n a
+ +
ontrol
H8 7-18
B
+5+8
9
22
Q10 7-18
C
4
+8+11
23
R10 7-18
D
5
+7+10
22
P1 7-18
E
3
+8+10
21
T17-19
F
4
+8+13
25
D4 7-19
G
5
+7+11
23
E4 7-19
H
5
+7+9
21
V3 7-19
I
+4+7
9
20
S5 7-19
J
+4+7
1
1121
1 23
Labg
T54493
Client
CDM SMITH
Sample ID
NORWOOD
NPDES#
County
Month
7
Start & fed Date
30-Jul-19
Start & fed Time
03:16 PM
Started &fed By
JG
Test Organism
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Neo. born date
29-Jul-19
Neo. born time
-560
Test Type
NCCD
Dilution Water
SSF 7-7-19
Units for Conc.
%3rd BROOD
Test vessels
30 ml
Test volume
15 ml
Incubator #
1
Light
161U8dk
Initial Temp'C
25
Selenastrum
0.05 ml
YA
0.05 ml
Test method
ET
PA 321-R-02-013:1002
Page 3 of 4

CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY ! Analytical Request Document
PaCeAnalylica! The Chain -of -Custody is a LEGAL DOCUMENT. All relevant fields must be completed
accurately.
Section A Section B Section C
Required Client Information: Required Project Information: Invoice Information:
Page : 1
Of 1
Company. CDM Smith
Report To. Lapsley. Jonathan
Attention
Address: 4600 Park Road, Suite 240
Copy To:
Company Name:
Charlotte, NC 28209
Address:
Regulatory Agency
Email: lapsleyis@cdmsmith. com
Purchase Order #.
Pace Quote: 00062490
Phone: [phone] JFax
Project Name Wastewater Discharqe Permit
Pace Project Manager: [e-mail],
State I Location
Requested Due Date.
Project #:
Pace Profile #. 9648-1
NC
Requested
Anal
sis
Filtered
YIN
Z
MATRIX CODE-
COLLECTED
Z
Preservatives
>-
-
_d
m
Dnnkmg Wat[, DW
W°ter WT
m
w
m
m
Produd P
SAMPLE ID °°rs°d SL
oil or
C�
U
START
END
O
F
N
°'
F
d°
y
w
o
o
One Character per box. W�Pe WP
V
d
a
L
it
(A-Z. 0-9 I. -) ar AR
other DT
p
V
i
w
f-
Z
Z
M
>`
�
t
m
N
N
[-
l
n
t
U
Sample Ids must be unique T-- TG
,�
a
p
E
O
=
O
m
c
m
E
E
,�
c
_�
z
a
m
I—
?
4
_
¢
O
c
N
U
m
m
t
Q
Y
o
m
m
E
o
t
—
DATE
TIME
DATE
TIME
w
_
=
z
z
O
¢
r>
cD
Z
a
�
o
t-
t-
a:
1
G
7-1 1913:�iS
Ca/E��/
3
iP 3
7%'l�9
�3r.sd
v�cv
4
�wTP-
w
� y
6
P—
w
7
Nw7P-7
NW 8
�
U
7-t-i9
8
:p-;
s
io
l �''l
w
G
7-1-Ip
11
/111.�
jq.
12
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
RELINQUISHED BY I AFFIUA71ON
DATE
TIME
ACCEPTED BY I AFFILIATION
DATE
TIME
SAMP
CONDnIONS
Metals. At, As, Ba, Ca, Cu. Fe, Mq, Mn, Zn, Pb, Na, Hardness, Silica
t 1
1 �
I
SAMPLER NAME AND SIGNATURE
c
PRINT Name of SAMPLER:
S
0
>,
N
SIGNATURE of SAMPLER: DATE Signed:
a
w
F
-
K ami}
o T
Z_ o z
�U }
n
z
u) `a
0
Cl)
CL

""-ETT
... ......
i;,II, T it
PO Box 15414, Greenville, SC 29606-7414
[phone], [phone] Fax:[phone]
Shipping Address: 4 Craftsman Ct, Greer, SC 29650
W W W.ETTEN VIRONM ENTAL.COM
Page of
Client:
Program
Containers
Preservative
Parameters
Facility: 7�Y�Q
/V Q,J`e �eatm� PG
Whole smnent TU[iaR
`
State: �% NPDES f: N
Acute
Chronic
Test Organisms
/ !
-
r
Ey
U(Composite
only)
(Grab or Composite)
<
_
Sign, and Print below
�
o
2=HCL
-
-
`-'
Z
_
-
>
s
U
the dotted line
c
='
n'
U
'
_
s=ttnos
SAMPLE ID
L
Composile St rt Date Time
S—Ple Collcaion Date Time
Collected by
...
U
v
I cn
I z
-
C7
>
—
9=NaOF[
6= ogler
I <
<
v
v
=
T
-
O
U
=
I
Chemical Analysis 8: other
NWTP-1
071Aq/1q
` :
---a---`---
I
I
�q
Mer 4
113
ei-
`��'�
11
II
-------------
-------------
-------------
I
M
T
Special Instructions:
Sample Custody Transfer Record
Secure
Receipt
Sample
Date Time Relinquished By / Organization Received By ! Organization
-krea
Temp °C
Preserved?
D 7b
ova C•Dm S
0
3
F
Er-r
3
CUkLIUSITE S:9d911LING PKUC,LUUR16' TVIPER-ITUPE AIOATITORING PROCL•DUPES HOLD TIME PP.00EDU-RES
Composite samples must be collected over a 24 hour period. Sample temperature during collection and transport must be between For toxicity testing the sample must fist be used within 36 hours
Time Proportional: I sample each (tour for 24 hours. Equal volui 0.0 and 6.0 'C. Samples must not be frozen. Use water ice in sealed bags. of sample collection (completion of composite sample).
or at minimum I sar :ry 4 hours over 24 hours. — Sample may not be used after 72 hours from sample " 'Dn.
Flow Proportional: A istruetions in NTPDES permit.

Table of Contents
Section1 General Information.........................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Identification...............................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Discharge Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2.1 Zero -Flow Streams.....................................................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Classifications...............................................................................................................................1-2
1.2.3 Basinwide Water Quality Plan...............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Impaired Waters and/or TMDLs..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5 Presence of Endangered Species..........................................................................................................1-3
Section2 Population and Flow Projections....................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Projected Population............................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Projected Flow...........................................................................................................................................................
2-2
Section 3 Disposal Alternatives........................................................................................
3-1
3.1 Connecting to a Sewer -Collection System......................................................................................................
3-1
3.1.1 Existing Sewer System.............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Planned Sewer System.............................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2 Land -Based Disposal............................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Wastewater Reuse.................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Surface Water Discharge....................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.1Option 1- Unnamed Tributary 1......................................................................................................... 3-9
3.4.2 Option 2 - Richardson Creek................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.3 Option 2A - Unnamed Tributary 2...................................................................................................... 3-9
3.4.4 Option 3 - Mill Creek................................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.4.1 Pipeline Route................................................................................................................................. 3-9
3.4.5 Recommendation......................................................................................................................................3-10
3.5 Disposal Combinations.........................................................................................................................................3-10
Section 4 Present Value Cost Analysis.............................................................................. 4-1
smith

Table of Contents • Engineering Alternative Analysis for Union County
List of Figures
Figure2-1 Population Projection ................. ................................................................................................................... 2-1
Figure2-2 Demand Projection.........................................................................................................................................2-2
Figure 3-1 Process Flow Diagram...................................................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-2 Site Plan with Outfall Line............................................................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-3 Locations and Routes of All Discharge Options..................................................................................3-8
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Federally Protected Species..........................................................................................................................1-4
Table 2-1 Population and Demand Projection...........................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-2 Anticipated Process Waste Flows Generated........................................................................................2-4
Table 3-1 Summary of Pipeline Route Options...................................................................................................... 3-10
Table3-2 Summary of Feasibility ................................................................................................................................ 3-11
Table4-1 Summary Cost Table........................................................................................................................................4-1
Appendices
Appendix A USGS Zero -Flow Data
HDR Stream Classification
Appendix B Letters from Wastewater Treatment Systems
Appendix C Cost Evaluation for Land Based Disposal
NRCS Union County Soil Map
NRCS Union County Soil Suitability Data
Appendix D Cost Evaluation for Surface Water Discharge
Smith

Section 1
General Information
1.1 Project Identification
Union County Public Works (UCPW) proposes to construct a new surface water treatment plant
as part of the Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project (YRWSP). The Yadkin River Water Treatment
Plant (YRWTP) will be constructed on a 49-acre green -field parcel on New Salem Road at the
intersection with Baucom-Tarleton Road. The WTP will have the capacity to treat 13 MGD and is
conceptually planned to allow for two phased capacity expansions of 26 MGD and 39 MGD in the
future.
YRWTP is designed with conventional treatment trains consisting of rapid mixing, flocculation,
sedimentation, and gravity filtration. There will be a 1.5 mg finished water clearwell and two
residuals reclamation basins. Supporting facilities and infrastructure include and
administration/operations building, chemical storage area and feed building, main electrical and
chemical area electrical buildings, maintenance building, and surge suppression system.
Additional treatment trains and buildings are planned for the future plant expansions.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is requested for the discharge
of decant flow from the residuals reclamation basin to an unnamed, on -site tributary of
Richardson Creek near the south end of the plant property. The following information is
provided as the Basic Identification of the Project as requested in the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) NPDES Unit's Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) Guidance
Document (April 2014):
1.2 Discharge Criteria
Four discharge locations were examined in this alternatives analysis: an on -site, unnamed .
tributary to Richardson Creek (Unnamed Tributary 1); an unnamed tributary to Richardson
Creek (Unnamed Tributary 2); Richardson Creek; and Mill Creek. The on -site, unnamed stream
CDM
Smith 1-1

Section 1 • General Information
flows to the second unnamed tributary, which ultimately flows to Richardson Creek. Per the EAA
Guidance Document (May 1, 2014), potential restrictions for a wastewater discharge to each
surface water have been examined.
1.2.1 Zero -Flow Streams
The USGS South Atlantic Water Science (USGS) in Raleigh, North Carolina was contacted for
assistance in determining the low -flow characteristics for each stream. Zero -flow estimates were
provided for (Unnamed Tributary 1). Zero -flow data and/or estimates for the other three
discharge location options were not received in time for the submittal of this analysis, however.
Correspondence with USGS for the first stream has been provided in Appendix A.
Gauged streamflow data was not available for Unnamed Tributary 1. USGS therefore provided
provisional estimates, based on characteristics of the stream and an examination of available
literature (state-wide and basin -specific reports). USGS concluded that the 7Q10, W7Q10, and
30Q2 low -flow discharges would be zero flow.
A stream delineation survey performed by HDR for the plant site classified the stream as
perennial at the proposed discharge location. This determination was based upon the
geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic characteristics observed, following the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
and Their Origins version 4.11. As the survey was only performed for the plant site, no similar
information is available for the three remaining proposed discharge locations. Supporting
documents have been included as part of Appendix A.
15A NCAC 02B .0206 places restrictions on new or expanding discharges to zero flow streams.
Where 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows are both zero flow, new discharges of oxygen consuming
wastewater to streams which have no flow are disallowed. Preliminary sampling of wastewater
that is assumed to be similar in characteristic to the proposed discharge indicates that the
process waste water will not be oxygen consuming. Samples were analyzed for toxicity using a
chronic WET test and passed at all dilutions. Further, Ammonia (as N) was less than 0.10 mg/L
(non -detect) in samples. Based on these sampling results, the zero flow stream restrictions do not
preclude the proposed discharge at any of the proposed locations, even without the remaining
zero -flow data.
1.2.2 Stream Classifications
Unnamed Tributary 1 has not been assigned a surface water classification by NCDEQ. This
tributary flows into Unnamed Tributary 2, which has also not been assigned a surface water
classification by NCDEQ. Flows from both creeks ultimately go to Richardson Creek, a Class C
Surface water. Mill Creek has also been classified as a Class C Surface water.
The restrictions for Class C surface waters are defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0211 and include limits
for total chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, settleable solids, metals, pH, and turbidity, among
others. Waters must remain suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological
integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. It is not anticipated that the flows
discharged from YRWTP will violate the Class C water quality standard based on aquatic toxicity
and other testing performed on samples comparable to the expected supernatant liquid from the
YRWTP, as well as planned chemical adjustment to the wastewater before discharge.
1-2 Smith

Section 1 • General Information
Thus, receiving stream classification restrictions do not preclude the proposed discharge at any of
these locations.
1.2.3 Basinwide Water Quality Plan
Unnamed Tributary 1has not been assigned an assessment unit (AU) number, and was not
discussed in the Yadkin - Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan dated 2008. Unnamed Tributary
2 has also not been assigned an assessment unit (AU) number, and was not discussed in the
Yadkin - Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan dated 2008. No limit of wastewater discharges to
Richardson Creek, which would receive these flows, was discussed in the 2008 Yadkin - Pee Dee
Basinwide Water Quality Plan due to lack of stream assimilative capacity or for any other reason.
Similarly, Mill Creek, AU no. 13-17-36-10, was not discussed in the 2008 Yadkin - Pee Dee
Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Therefore, no restrictions to the proposed discharge at any of these locations were identified in
the most recent Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
1.2.4 Impaired Waters and/or TMDLs
The unnamed, on -site creek has not been listed on the 303(d) list, nor is it subject to any TMDL.
The unnamed tributary to Richardson Creek has not been listed on the 303(d) list, nor is it subject
to any TMDL. As previously mentioned, these creeks ultimately flow to Richardson Creek.
Per the 2008 Yadkin - Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Richardson Creek (AU 13-17-36-
(5)a1b) had an Aquatic Life Rating of 'Supporting' for water quality standards and aquatic life and
`Impaired' for ecological/biological Integrity and benthos. It had a Recreation Rating of
'Supporting' for fecal coliform. No potential stressors or sources were listed for any of the support
categories, and no criteria were exceeded.
In the 2012 North Carolina Integrated Report (303 (d) list), Richardson Creek was listed as
'Impaired' for Aquatic Life due to a standard violation for copper. As it was given a Category 5
Assessment, it was placed on the 303(d) list. It was listed as 'Supporting' for Aquatic Life with a
Good -Fair Bioclassification for ecological/biological integrity and benthos.
In the 2018 North Carolina Integrated Report (303(d) list), Richardson Creek was given an
Assessment Criteria Status of 'Meeting Criteria' for all parameters of interest, except for Copper
and Iron which had a status of 'Data Inconclusive' and for Fish Tissue Mercury which had a status
of 'Exceeding Criteria'. However, Fish Tissue Mercury was not given a Category 5 assessment, and
thus Richardson Creek is not on the 303(d) list. Richardson Creek is not subject to a TMDL as of
June 2019, according to the DWR Modeling and Assessment Branch website (excepting the
statewide mercury TMDL).
Mill Creek has not been listed on the 303(d) list or the Integrated Reports for 2008, 2012, or
2018, nor is it subject to any TMDL (excepting the statewide mercury TMDL).
1.2.5 Presence of Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists the protected species in Table 1-1 for Union County.
CDM
Smith 1-3

Section 1 • General Information
Table 1-1-Federally Protected Species
Group.
Clams Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorato Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia mosoni
Proposed Threatened
Flowering
Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
Michaux's sumac
Rhus michauxii
Endangered
Ravine sedge
Carex impressinervio
Under Review
Mammals
Tricolored bat
Perimyotis subf1ovus
Under Review
Source: FWS, Species by County Report -Union, North Carolina
https://ecos fwsgov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?frps=37179
Neither Unnamed Tributary 1, Unnamed Tributary 2, nor Richardson Creek itself are within the
regions identified as "critical habitat" for the Carolina heelsplitter, the only species on the list for
which critical habitat has been defined by the FWS. Mill Creek is not within the regions identified
as "critical habitat" for the Carolina heelsplitter. Per the 2008 Yadkin - Pee Dee Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, only the Goose Creek watershed is the primary target focus for water quality
improvements and subject to site -specific management strategies. HDR is in the process of
finalizing the endangered species report for the YRWTP site. The full report will be made
available upon request after finalization.
CDM
1-4 Smith

Section 2
Population and Flow Projections
2.1 Projected Population
Per the EAA Guidance Document (May 1, 2014), population projects are required for new or
expanding domestic wastewater charges. As such, this does not apply to the Yadkin River Water
Treatment Plant. However, planned expansions of the plant, which would correspondingly
increase plant process waste produced, is based in part on anticipated population growth.
The population projection through 2040 is shown in Figure 2-1. Projections were obtained from
the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM), State Demographer's Office.
As specified in EAA Guidance Document, a linear extrapolation was used for years outside the
provided range.
Projected Union County Population Totals, 2020-2040
360,000
340,000
320,000
a 300,000
cc
cc
280,000
a.
0
a' 260,000
240,000
220,000
200,000
2019 2022 2024 2027 2030 2033 2035 2038 2041
Year
--�-- Linear Interpolation — 0 OSBM Projection
Figure 2-1 Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, State Demographer's Office
Population Projection https://www.osbm.nc.govldemog/county-projections
CSPmith 2-1

Section 2 • Population and Flow Projections
2.2 Projected Flow
This NPDES permit application is for a water treatment plant waste stream discharge not for a
municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge, thus process waste flow projections are based
on engineering design considerations rather than municipal wastewater flow projections.
Currently, Union County's primary source of water supply and production is the Catawba River
Water Supply Project (CRWSP) in Lancaster County, SC. The main component of the CRWSP is the
Catawba River Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP) - a shared asset jointly (50-50) owned by Union
County, North Carolina and Lancaster County Water and Sewer District, South Carolina. The
CRWTP is a regional water treatment facility with a permitted finished water operating capacity
of 36 MGD. Anson County delivers additional drinking water to the County from the east through
a 4 MGD wholesale water purchase Agreement. The County serves customers in both the
Catawba River Basin and Yadkin River Basin (Yadkin Service Area).
In December 2011, UCPW completed a Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan which
identified additional water supply needs for the Yadkin Service Area. Union County anticipates
that their supplies described above (i.e., CRWSP and Anson County) will be insufficient to reliably
meet future demands in the Yadkin Service Area. Water demand projections were obtained from
the Union County 2081 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) available through the NCDEQ Division of
Water Resources website. Demand projections were available through 2060, and presented in
Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1.
Projected Water Demand, 2018-2060
50
45
40
35
L1
� 30 !�
-v 25
c
E 20
v
A 15
10
5 --3
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065
Year
Total Demand --$ — Residential —0 Industrial Commercial
Source: NCDEn Division of Water Resources (DWRI 2018 Local Water Sunnly Plan for onion County
Abu n d h s: www.ncwater.or Water_Su 1 _Plannin Local Water_Su 1 _Plan re ort. h wsid=01-90-413& ear=2018
Demand Projection �' �� g� PPY g/ PPY � P P P•P y
2-2 With

Section 2 • Population and Flow Projections
Table 2-1 Population and Demand Projection
040 2050�.�
Year -Round Population 137,428 145,228 191,880 251,251 319,760 406,930
Seasonal Population
Residential
0
8.8200
0 0
Water Demand (MGD)
10.1630 13.4380
0
17.5860
0
22.3960
0
28.4920
Commercial
1.3260
1.3710
1.8750
2.7960
3.9800
5.6330
Industrial
0.8590
0.9140
1.3540
2.1250
2.9310
4.0370
Institutional
0.2880
0.3050
0.4170
0.5590
0.7240
1.0330
System Process
0.0173
0.5030
1.1460
1.5380
1.9900
2.5820
Unaccounted-for
2.1854
1.9810
2.6040
3.3550
4.1610
5.1630
Total
13.4957
15.2370
20.8340
27.9590
36.1820
46.9400
Source: NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR) 2018 Local Water Supply Plan for Union County
https://www.ncwater.org/Water-Supply_Planning/Local-Water-Supply-Plan/report.php?pwsid=01-90-413&year=2018
Please note that the population projections obtained from the LWSP differ from those obtained
from the OSBM. Population projections from the LWSP were developed in UCPW's
Comprehensive Water & Wastewater Master Plan, December 2011. These projections were
updated during the Yadkin River Water Supply Project Inter -Basin Transfer permitting process in
2013 for the certificate granted in May 2017 and to differentiate between customers in each river
basin (Catawba and Yadkin).
Because Union County obtains water from multiple sources, population and water demand
projections also do not directly correlate to the anticipated process waste generated at the
YRWTP. Information from the Raw Water Transmission Main Supply Criteria Technical
Memorandum (February 2019) by HDR and calculations from CDM Smith's Basis of Design
Report for the YRWTP were used to generate projections for these flows. This is displayed in
Table 2-2.
CDM
Smith 2-3

Section 2 • Population and Flow Projections
Table 2-2 Anticipated Process Waste Flows Generated
CapacityFinished Water Raw Water Plant Process Waste Process Waste
(from YRWTP) (to YRWTP)
ADF MDF ADF MDF --- ADF MDF Average Max
MG) MG
2022
5.8
7.3
6.5
8.1
13
0.22
0.29
6.65
8.71
2023
6.1
9.1
6.8
10.1
13
0.23
0.36
6.99
10.86
2024
6.5
10.0
7.2
11.1
13
0.25
0.39
7.45
11.93
2025
6.8
10.9
7.6
12.1
13
0.26
0.43
7.80
13.01
2026
7.2
11.9
8.0
13.2
13
0.27
0.47
8.25
14.20
2027
7.6
12.6
8.4
14.0
13
0.29
0.49
8.71
15.04
2028
8.0
10.9
8.8
12.1
13
0.30
0.43
9.17
13.01
2029
9.4
12.6
10.4
14.0
13
0.35
0.49
10.78
15.04
2030
9.8
12.6
10.9
14.0
13
0.37
0.49
11.24
15.04
2031
10.2
12.6
11.3
14.0
13
0.38
0.49
11.69
15.04
2032
10.6
14.7
11.8
16.3
26
0.40
0.58
12.15
17.54
2033
11.0
15.4
12.2
17.1
26
0.41
0.60
12.61
18.38
2034
11.4
16.2
12.7
18.0
26
0.43
0.64
13.07
19.33
2035
11.9
16.9
13.2
18.8
26
0.45
0.66
13.64
20.17
2036
12.4
17.7
13.7
19.7
26
0.47
0.69
14.22
21.12
2037
12.9
18.6
14.3
20.6
26
0.49
0.73
14.79
22.19
2038
13.4
19.4
14.8
21.6
26
0.51
0.76
15.36
23.15
2039 1
13.9
20.3
15.4
22.5
26
0.52
0.80
15.94
24.22
2040
14.4
21.2
16.0
23.6
26
0.54
0.83
16.51
25.30
2041
14.9
22.4
16.5
24.9
26
0.56
0.88
17.08
26.73
2042
15.3
23.7
17.0
26.3
26
0.58
0.93
17.54
28.28
Notes: 1. All Flows are MGD except where otherwise noted.
2. MDF requirements are affected by external sources, including the Anson contract, end of the Waste Water Interbasin
Transfer, and the expansion at the CRWTP.
The values in the two rightmost columns represent the anticipated process waste generated
monthly in millions of gallons (MG). However, as detailed in Section 3.3 of this document, it is
anticipated that these flows will be reclaimed and recycled back into the plant. Discharge of these
flows would occur during upsets to the plant recycle process or at start-up. Preliminary
estimates of process waste flow from the YRWTP are 6.65 MG per month with ADF (0.22 MGD)
and 8.71 MG per month at MDF (0.29 MGD), and potentially up to 4.5 MGD.
2-4 Smith

Section 3
Disposal Alternatives
The NCDWR NPDES Unit's EAA Guidance Document (May 1, 2014) requires new NPDES permit
applicants to evaluate alternative disposal methods. The following alternatives must be
considered:
■ Connecting to Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility
■ Land -Based Disposal
■ Wastewater Reuse
■ Surface Water Discharge
■ Disposal Combinations
Preliminary estimates of process waste flow from the WTP are 6.65 MG per month on average
(0.22 MGD) and 8.71 MG per month at maximum flow (0.29 MGD). Within 5 years, the maximum
flow is anticipated to increase to 14.20 MG per month (0.47 MGD).
3.1 Connecting to a Sewer -Collection System
3.1.1 Existing Sewer System
Two collections systems are within a 5-mile radius of the WTP: the City of Monroe and Union
County Public Works.
The City of Monroe collects and conveys wastewater to the City of Monroe Wastewater Treatment
Plant (CMWWTP). CMWWTP also serves the towns of Marshville and Wingate, who each maintain
their own collection systems. CMWWTP is located approximately 7.5 miles from YRWTP.
CMWWTP is permitted for 10.4 MGD, but it is not capable of accepting the maximum flow of 0.47
MGD expected within five years of YRWTP startup (see Appendix B).
Union County Public Works owns and operates five treatment plants throughout the county, with
additional purchased capacity from Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities and CMWWTP. There are
potential two connection points to the UCPW collection system within 5 miles of the YRWTP.
The first is located northwest of the WTP, near Unionville, within the UCPW service area
designated as Lake Twitty. The flows from this service area are served by the Grassy Branch
Water Reclamation Facility (GBWRF). The closest available system connection point is located 4
miles from YRWTP. GBWRF is permitted for 0.05 MGD, and is not capable of accepting the
maximum flow of 0.49 MGD within the next 5 years (see Appendix B).
The second connection point is to the south of the YRWTP, near Marshville and Wingate, within
their service area designated as Eastside. The flows from this service area are served by
CMWWTP. The acceptance of flows by CMWWTP has been discussed previously in this section.
CSmith 3-1

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
As neither CMWWTP nor GBWRF are capable of accepting the maximum flow expected within
five years of YRWTP startup at present and as neither CMWWTP nor GBWRF have expansions
planned that would allow them to accept the flow within this time frame, it was determined that
discharge by connection to an existing sewer system is not viable. As such, no cost evaluation was
performed.
3.1.2 Planned Sewer System
Sewer systems that could potentially accommodate the by-product wastewater from the facility
are not planned in the vicinity of the YRWTP.
3.2 Land -Based Disposal
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
rates soil characteristics on a 0.01 to 1.00 scale to represent limitations of the use of land -based
application (0.01 being most applicable, 1.00 being least applicable). Soils are then assigned a
rating class to indicate how favorable or unfavorable for use they are, taking into account their
rated characteristics. Properties evaluated include depth -to -water -table, hydraulic conductivity,
depth -to -bedrock, salinity, density, and erodibility, among others.
The soils in 32 acres surrounding the YRWTP were evaluated to determine their suitability for
land -based application of wastewater. Soils rated as "very limited" were dominant in the region,
making up 80% of the evaluated area, and indicating that soils are unfavorable for this
application of waste management. Based on this rating, a lower application rate of 1 inch per
week was assumed for calculations of required land.
Based on calculations for low rate wastewater land application in the area at and adjacent to the
YRWTP, approximately 120 acres would be required to apply the maximum waste concentrate of
0.47 MGD that is expected within 5 years of plant startup. Considering the two planned
expansions of the YRWTP, there are approximately 23 acres available on -site for the application
of the process waste water and associated equipment, required storage, etc. Thus, on -site land
application is not feasible, and it would be necessary to purchase land from the surrounding area.
Based on the current local land price of approximately $40,000 per rural acre, estimated from
current and recent land for sale, the cost to purchase the required land would be $5.0 million.
The present value of land application for this waste stream, which considers land acquisition,
equipment, and 0&M costs, is $12.8 million. The required acreage and capital and operating costs
to implement a slow rate treatment of the waste stream renders this alternative infeasible. The
cost evaluation for land -based disposal is included in Appendix C.
3.3 Wastewater Reuse
Subchapter 18C of 15A NCAC states that water treatment plants may recycle supernatant or
filtrate, provided that the water recycled is less than 10 percent by volume of the raw water
entering the water treatment plant. Due to the high cost associated with pumping water from the
plant's raw water intake at Lake Tillery, the plant has been designed to continuously recirculate
up to 10 percent of total plant flow - the maximum allowable under state law.
3-2 Smith

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
Solids produced at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant (YRWTP) will be sent to one of two
reclamation basins to settle and thicken before being hauled offsite. These reclamation basins will
be high density polyethylene (HDPE)-lined, earthen structures with a dividing berm and inlet,
outlet, and overflow structures. Basins will alternate between two modes: fill and settle/decant.
Flows to the on-line basin will be intermittent and will consist of residuals "blowdown" (BD) from
the sedimentation process; filter backwash water (BVM; filter-to-waste(FTW) flows; and other
plant operational residual streams (e.g., continuous monitoring instrumentation). One basin will
be filled (i.e., on-line) while the other is settling, decanting or being cleaned out.
The recycle pump station will be a circular precast structure located adjacent to the reclamation
basins. The pump station wet well will receive flow from the decant structure downstream of the
basins via a gravity pipe connection. The pump station will be designed to recirculate flow back to
a point upstream of raw water storage via an 8-inch force main. The flow will be pumped with
one singular submersible pump, rated for 10 percent of the total rated plant flow of 13 MGD.
It is anticipated that the resulting sludge layer will have a solids concentration that averages 5
percent at the bottom after six months of settling. Once at maximum capacity, the basin will be
considered off-line, and undergo dredging and cleaning. A solids/residuals handling plan has
been included as an attachment to the NPDES Short Form C.
No PVCA was performed for this option as the plant is designed to recycle water regardless of
whether permission to discharge to surface water is obtained. It thus represents no additional
cost to the current design of plant.
3.4 Surface Water Discharge
Disposal of the concentrate into surface water is a viable alternative that will be regulated by a
NPDES permit. There are 187 water treatment plant facilities that hold NPDES discharge permits
to surface water throughout the state. Within Union County, there are 11 facilities with discharge
permits - primarily municipal and/or domestic wastewater treatment plants.
Treatment of raw water at YRWTP will follow a conventional treatment process - rapid mixing,
flocculation, sedimentation, and gravity filtration. Aluminum sulfate will be added as a coagulant
to a single -train rapid mix. Flocculation will be split into two trains and three stages and will use
vertical turbine mixers. The sedimentation phase will consist of high -rate clarification via plate
settlers. Common settled water will flow into the settled water channel where it will be dosed
with filter -aid polymer, hypochlorite, and caustic soda as needed before being split among four
GAC filters. Filtered water will be dosed with hypochlorite again, prior to the finished water
storage tank. Following storage, finished water will be dosed with an ortho/poly phosphate
blend, fluoride, caustic, hypochlorite, and ammonium sulfate before being sent to the finished
water pump station and the distribution system.
As described in Section 3.3, process wastewater and solids will be sent to one of two reclamation
basins. Solids will be allowed to settle, while the supernatant (up to 10% of plant flow) will be
recycle pumped to the front of the conventional trains. See Figure 3-1 for a schematic of flows
through the plant.
CDM
Smith 3-3

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
Each reclamation basin will have a decant structure. From these, flow will be routed either to the
recycle pump station or to the NPDES discharge outfall. Flow will be conveyed by gravity to the
discharge location, which will consist of an outlet with protective riprap. A flow meter will be
located upstream of the discharge location. Sodium thiosulfate and caustic soda will be injected at
the decant structures, based upon this flow measurement, to neutralize any remaining chlorine
residual and increase pH in flow going to the outfall as needed to meet permitting standards. See
Figure 3-2 for proposed outfall location and site plan. As designed, YRWTP will be compliant
with the Reliability Requirements specified in 15A NCAC 2H.0124.
Four discharge points were examined - two to unnamed streams, one to Richardson Creek, and
one to Mill Creek. The County's preliminary proposed location for discharging the concentrate
would be into one of the unnamed streams that is on the YRWTP site. See Figure 3-3 for an
overview of all four options.
Potential restrictions to wastewater discharge to surface waters, as outlined in EAA Guidance
Document (May 1, 2014), were presented in Section 1.2. This section will consist of a pipeline and
cost evaluation for each option.
CDM
3-4 Smith

_
ALUM
CAUSTIC
HYPOCHLORITE
SPARE
RAW WATER L
METER VAULT
RAW WATER
RAW WATER
CAUSTIC
BY OTHERS PUMP STATION
STORAGE TANK
(ALTERNATE)
ALUM
HYPOCHLORITE
SPARE
M
YADKIN 11.70
MGD
M
RIVER
0
FROM RECYCLE
0.16 MGD
PUMP STATION
12.84 MGD
OTHER
HYPOCHLORITE
INCIDENTAL
CAUSTIC
HYPOCHLORITE
LOSSES
POLYMER
FLUORIDE
smith
0.28 MGD— FILTERS
(4)
C)
CD
d
0
t_L0.49 MG
JUNCTION BOX
12.79 MGD
SEDIMENTATION
BASINS
(2 TRAINS OF
1 BASIN, EACH)
13.00 MGD 13.00 MGD 12.84 MGD
� OZONE
FLOCCULATION BASIN (FUTURE)
RAPID MIX (2 TRAINS OF 3 MIXERS, EACH) BLOW- F_
(1 TRAIN) DRAIN DOWN
0.16 MGD
(OVERFLOW)
o CAUSTIC
0 HYPOCHLORITE
N FLUORIDE
o CORROSION INHIBITOR
1.5 MG
FINISHED 12.77 MGD
WATER 7
STORAGE
17
TRANSFER PUMP STATION
(2 DUTY, 1 STAND-BY) lm 0.28 MGD
BACKWASH SUPPLY
0.05 MGD THIOSULFATE
FILTER -TO -WASTE CAUSTIC
RECLAMATION BASINS
(2)
12.49 MGD
FINISHED WATER
PUMP STATION
(2 DUTY, 1 STAND-BY)
POST FW STORAGE TANK
CHEMICAL INJECTION VAULT
I RECYCLE FLOW
METER VAULT
M 0.49 MGD TO NPDES DISCHARGE LOCATION
1.30 MGD
�qTO PLANT INFLUENT
RECYCLE PUMP STATION
TO
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
Figure 3-1 Process Flow Diagram
Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant
Union County, NC
JULY 2019

Legend N
Outfall 001
YRWTP Outline W E
•
s
0.1 0.05 0
Figure 3-2
Site Plan with Out -fall Line
Union County, NC
July 2019
COM
0.1 S ith
■ Miles

Legend
* YRWTP
Option 1 - Unnamed Creek
Option 2 - Richardson Creek
------ Option 2A- Unnamed Creek
Option 3 - Mill Creek
N
W E
S
0.25 0.125 0
Figure 3-3
Evaluated Discharge Locations
Union County, NC
July 2019
CDM= •
0.25 smith
= Miles

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
3.4.1 Option 1- Unnamed Tributary 1
The outfall for this option is located directly adjacent to the reclamation basins, on the site of
YRWTP. It is thus the closest and least expensive option, requiring only a small length of pipe and
no purchase of additional easements.
The discharge point for Option 1 is at an unnamed perennial stream adjacent to the reclamation
basins near the southern end of the plant site. Both the stream and the proposed outfall are
within the boundaries of the YRWTP parcel.
The present value of surface water discharge for this waste stream, which considers land
acquisition, equipment, and 0&M costs, is $1.6 million. As the discharge location for this option is
on -site, no additional easements must be obtained and there are not costs associated with
easement maintenance. The small length - 320 feet - of the proposed pipeline also drives down
cost. The full cost evaluation for this pipeline route is included in Appendix D.
3.4.2 Option 2 - Richardson Creek
The outfall for this option is located at the intersection of Lawyers Road with Richardson Creek.
Flow would leave plant site at its western edge, straddling two property boundaries, until it
reaches Lawyers Road. From there, the pipeline would turn south, running along the eastern edge
of Lawyers Road until it reaches Richardson Creek. The estimated length of pipe required for this
option is 5800 feet. Easements would be required for an estimated 5100 feet of this route.
The present value of surface water discharge for this waste stream, which considers land
acquisition, equipment, and 0&M costs, is $4.0 million. This route requires the purchase of
several easements and is the second longest route presented, driving up the cost. It was also
assumed that a pump station would be necessary to convey flow, rather than relying on gravity.
The full cost evaluation for this pipeline route is included in Appendix D.
3.4.3 Option 2A - Unnamed Tributary 2
The outfall for this option is located to the west of Lawyers Road, at an unnamed creek which
flows south to Richardson Creek. Flow would leave plant site at its western edge, following the
same route as Option 2. Instead of turning south, the pipeline would cross under Lawyers Road,
to meet the unnamed creek flowing along the western edge of Lawyers Road. The estimated
length of pipe required for this option is 2400 feet. Easements would be required for
approximately 1600 feet of this route.
This option is less expensive than Option 2, while discharging to a creek that has higher
presumed flow than the stream presented in Option 1. The present value of surface water
discharge for this waste stream, which considers land acquisition, equipment, and 0&M costs, is
$2.1 million. Like Option 2, it would be necessary to purchase easements. The small length of the
proposed pipeline drives down cost, as does the assumption that the flow could be conveyed via
gravity. The full cost evaluation for this pipeline route is included in Appendix D.
3.4.4 Option 3 - Mill Creek
3.4.4.1 Pipeline Route
The outfall for this option is located at the intersection of New Salem Road with Mill Creek.
CDM
Smith 3-9

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
Pipe would be routed from the reclamation basins to leave the plant site at its northern edge and
meet New Salem Road. From there, the pipeline would turn west, running along New Salem Road
until it reaches Mill Creek. The estimated length of pipe required for this option is 10,000 feet.
This route would follow existing easements, purchased for the transmission line leaving YRWTP.
This option is most expensive of the four options presented, driven primarily by length of pipe
and necessity of a pump station. The present value of surface water discharge for this waste
stream, which considers land acquisition, equipment, and 0&M costs, is $4.1 million. As this route
was designed to follow pre -purchased easements, no additional easements must be obtained and
there are not costs associated with easement maintenance. The full cost evaluation for this
pipeline route is included in Appendix D.
3.4.5 Recommendation
In terms of potential discharge restrictions, all proposed outfall locations have similar
characteristics and are subject to the same requirements. On this basis, none of the outfall
locations are cost prohibitive. Pipeline route is thus the differentiator between the four options
presented.
A summary of the estimated length for each option is provided in Table 3-1. Based on the
estimated lengths, Options 1 and 2A provide the shortest distance requirements. Option 1 does
not require additional easements to be purchased near the YRWTP, in comparison to Option 2A.
Option 2A, while one of the lowest length options presented, is approximately 7 times longer than
Option 1. Option 2 is not as desirable as an option, as it is a much longer distance than either
Option 1 or 2A and requires the purchase of easements and the use of a pump station to convey
flow. Option 3 is also much longer than Options 1 and 2A, and although it would follow easements
planned for purchase for the installation of the transmission main leaving the plant, its length and
the necessity to use a pump station make it the most expensive option presented.
Table 3-1 Summary of Pipeline Route Options
Route Total Length Pump Station
Option (feet) I Required
Present Value Cost
I (Millions of Dollars)
Based on this analysis, Option 1 is the preferred route for the concentrate pipeline route. Present
value cost analysis for this alternative demonstrate that design, construction, and 0&M over a 20
year period would be the most cost effective at $1.6 million.
3.5 Disposal Combinations
Disposal to an existing wastewater treatment facility and via land based application have been
determined to be fiscally unfeasible. CDM Smith thus recommends that a combination of
wastewater reuse and surface water discharge be implemented. It is expected that the disposal of
process waste to the surface water outfall will occur during plant startup and during upsets when
recycling would not be possible. Process waste recycling will be utilized as much as possible to
3-10 :iR1ith

Section 3 • Disposal Alternatives
reduce costs associated with pumping from the raw water intake at Lake Tillery. Table 3-2
summarize the feasibility of each option
presented.
Table 3-2 Summary of Feasibilit
�.Feasible?
Discussion
Connection to WWTP N
Both WWTPs identified are incapable of accepting expected flows
High cost associated with construction and purchase of equipment and
Land Based Disposal
N
land
Wastewater Reuse
Y
YRWTP designed to recycle up to 10% of plant flows
Low cost associated with discharge options 1 and 2A; discharge not
Surface Water Discharge
Y
precluded by identified criteria
Combination of Wastewater Reuse and Surface Water Discharge; see
Combination
Y
discussion above
Smith 3-11

Section 4
Present Value Cost Analysis
As outlined in the EAA Guidance Document (May 1, 2014), a 20-year Present Value Cost Analysis
(PVCA) was performed for all technologically feasible wastewater alternatives. The full cost
analyses for each option are presented in Appendices C - D. The 2019 EPA discount rate was
2.875%. Table 4-1 summarizes present worth costs developed for all technologically feasible
wastewater alternatives, broken down by capital and recurring costs in millions of dollars.
Connection to an Existing Wastewater Treatment System, Land Application, Wastewater Reuse,
and Direct Discharge to Surface Waters are referred to as Alternatives A, B, C, and D, respectively.
Each option presented for Direct Discharge to Surface Waters (Alternative D) reflects the
assignments given in Section 3.4.
Table 4-1 Summary Cost Table
Capital
19.95
1-- 0.04
11.82
10.35
11.98
Recurring
0.19
-- 0.11
1 0.14
1 0.12
0.14
14.10
Present Worth
112.80
1 --- 11.60
14.00
12.10
Smith 4-1

4-2 Smith

A-2 Smith

Leger, Morgan E.
From: Weaver, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:SS PM
To: Leger, Morgan E.
Cc: Grzyb, Julie; DWR USGS Low Flows; Albertin, Klaus P; Hill, David A; Kebede, Adugna;
Fine, Jason M; Fransen, Tom; John C Weaver
Subject: USGS response to DWR USGS Low Flows request # 2019-11 (dated 2019/06/12) for
unnamed tributary Union County... Re: [EXTERNAL] Low -Flow Request - Approved &
Sent to USGS
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Morgan Leger,
In response to your inquiry about the low -flow characteristics for an unnamed tributary within the Richardson Creek basin
(adjacent to East Lawyers Road) in the vicinity of Watson in northern Union County, the following information is provided:
A check of the low -flow files here at the USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center (Raleigh office) does not indicate a previous
low -flow determination for the point of interest, identified by the lat/long coordinates (35.06220,-80.44256 NAD83) provided via
your email dated June 10, 2019. No USGS discharge records are likewise known to exist for the point of interest.
In the absence of site -specific discharge records sufficient for a low -flow analysis, estimates of low -flow characteristics at
-angaged locations are determined by assessing a range in the low -flow yields (expressed as flow per square mile drainage area,
)r cfsm) at nearby sites where estimates have been determined.
For streams in Union County, low -flow characteristics published by the USGS are provided in the following reports:
(1) The first is a statewide report completed in the early 1990's. It is USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403, "Low -flow characteristics
of streams in North Carolina" (Giese and Mason, 1993). An online version of the report is available
athttp://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2403/report.odf. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 1988) via
regional relations and at -site values for sites with drainage basins between 1 and 400 sgmi and not considered or known to be
affected by regulation and/or diversions.
(2) The second is a basin -wide report for the Rocky River basin published in 2003. It is USGS Water -Resources Investigations
Report 03-4147, "Low -Flow Characteristics and Profiles for the Rocky River in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, North Carolina,
through 2002" (Weaver and Fine, 2003). An online version of the report is available
through http://oubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034147/. The report provides the low -flow characteristics (based on data through 2002) for
continuous -record gaging stations and partial -record sites within the Rocky River basin. The report also provides low -flow
discharge profiles (7Q10, 30Q2, winter 7Q10, and 7Q2) for the Rocky River from its headwaters in Mecklenburg County to its
mouth.
(3) The third is a statewide report published in March 2015. It is USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5001, "Low -flow
characteristics and flow -duration statistics for selected USGS continuous -record streamgaging stations in North Carolina through
?012" (Weaver, 2015). The report is available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5001/. The report provides updated low -
low characteristics and flow -duration statistics for 266 active (as of 2012 water year) and discontinued streamgages across the
state where a minimum of 10 climatic years discharge records were available for flow analyses.

Visual inspection of the stream location on a topographical map suggests a very small basin area upstream from the point
of interest. A drainage -area delineation completed for the point of interest (35.06221,-80.44254 NAD83) using the USGS
StreamStats application for North Carolina (https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/) indicates the drainage area is about 0.05 sgmi.
On pages 26-27 of the Rocky basin -wide low -flow report (second reference above) is information about the Occurrence of Zero
or Minimal 7Q10 Discharges that are likely to occur for a stream within the major basin, contingent on the size of the upstream
drainage basin. The discussion on page 27 in this section states:
"The area of the Rocky River basin where 18 of the 19 occurrences of zero or minimal 7Q 10
discharges were noted is underlain by the geologic rock units of the Carolina Slate Belt. Rocks in this
area include metamorphosed mudstone, argillite, and graywacke, and metavolcanic flows and tuffs.
All sites in the basin downstream from the gaging station near Stanfield (site 85) were arranged in
ascending order by drainage area to determine if there was a maximum drainage area below which
7Q 10 discharges generally are zero. Within this area, drainage areas for sites having zero or minimal
7Q10 discharges ranged from 1.44 (site 147) to 87.7 mi2 (site 165). Of the 18 sites in this area,
15 had drainage areas less than or equal to 23.6 mi2 (site 151), suggesting that ungaged sites in the
Carolina Slate Belt having drainage areas less than about 25 mi2 likely will have zero or minimal
7Q 10 discharges.
Consideration of the above information results in a conclusion the 7Q10 discharge for the point of interest is zero
flow. Visual inspection of the unit low -flow yields at 4 nearby USGS partial -record sites (02125462, 02125464, 02125588,
and 02125557) with drainage areas not more than 1 order of magnitude above the drainage area for the point of interest
(0.05 sgmi) also suggest the 30Q2 and W7Q10 low -flow discharges will be zero flow at the point of interest.
Please understand the information provided in this message is based on a preliminary assessment and considered
provisional, subject to revision pending further analyses.
Hope this information is helpful.
Thank you.
Curtis Weaver
J. Curtis Weaver, Hydrologist, PE Email: jcweaverftusgs.aov
USGS South Atlantic Water Science Center Online: httns://www.usgs.gov/centers/sa-water
North Carolina - South Carolina - Georgia
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: [phone] // Fax: [phone]
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:31 PM Fransen, Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:
Your request has been approved and sent to USGS.
Request for USGS to provide low -flow statistics.
Request details:
Request ID: 11
Date of request: 6/12/2019 7:47:08 PM
Requestor: Morgan Leger
Phone Number: 727.543.0454
Program:
Email: (anonymous)
Agency: A Consultant or DEQ for a Counsultant
Have you spoken with someone from DWR?:

Reason for request: Permit
Whom did you speak with?:
Local Government:
Consultanting Company/Organization:
Contact Name: CDM Smith
Contact Phone Number:
Contact Email:
Reason for request: Permit
Permit Number:
Public Water Supply ID:
Site Information:
River/Stream: unnamed
Latitude - Longitude: 35.06220 Other location Information:
Statistics being requested: ["7Q10","7Q10 - Winter","30U',"Average Annual"]
Other information:l'm writing the Engineering Alternatives Analysis for the NPDES permit for a new water treatment
plant in Union County. DEQ is requiring that we submit low flow data (including drainage area, summer and winter
7Q10, average flow and 30Q2 flow statistics) for our proposed discharge location, and some folks I'm working with
referred me to you.
Our discharge location is the un-named stream at lat,long 35.06220,-80.44256. 1 got the drainage area from the USGS
StreamStats tool, but I'm looking for the remaining information if you have it.
Approved by: Grzyb, Julie ([e-mail])
Comments:
9

This page intentionally left blank.

v V "1 H_
NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Wd" r\tir/1 cam_,...... ra _s:a:..a; _ ILI_ A 11
Pt r2n Vl i Q C1ou.rtS hr� Gu.rvi ���
- 1\t. 1/ ♦♦ •761 GRlll 14GL1111G411V11 r Vl LLl
♦ Ol 31V11 Y.A I
Date: 10 L Y 1 5
Project/Site: V P' Y V se Latitude: 3S � ou 2q
Evaluator: L ; d1
County: umon
Longitude:_ I Ll Li 0
Total Points:
Stream Is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
ifa 19 or erennial ift 30` S
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
e.g. Quad Name: ,, 2
1 -i r-r
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = I q
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2O
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
0
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = -1.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
U
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
11
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = J_ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2D
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
LQ0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 7
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
they = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: _ L-
r1 L
Sketch:
1
n
41
Iqb}
Pd

This page intentionally left blank.

LEGEND
Study Area
Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. ,.
Photograph Location
Delineated Stream - Intermittent
Stream 21A-Potential Non -
Upland Data Point
Delineated Stream - Perennial
wetland Waters of the U.S.
228 linear feet
Wetland Data Point
Delineated Stream - Perennial
T�
Culverts
Delineated Wetlands
Stream 21A-A- Potential Non -
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Topographic Contours
0
Delineated Ponds
110 linear feet -
Stream 20A- Potential Non -
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
131 linear feet
Stream 19A-P - Potential Non -
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
590 linear feet
I
Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 33,858 linear feet (6.65 acres)
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 11.57 acres
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 3.45 acres
Approximate Total Uplands: 1,084.47 acres
L Approximate Total Site Acreage: 1106.14 acres
Index
Stanly
Cabarrus
Stream 19A-1 - Potential Non -
Wetland Waters of the U.S.
246 linear feet
DRAFT
\V% Name: Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project
r Applicant: Union County Public Works and the Town
15 of Norwood
1 i s Location: Stanly and Union Counties North Carolina
�""�`'� Union Anson Date: 07/18/2019
I
j Study Area: 1106.14 acres
A1�,1 oC�± w'A ,AIw C �+ p o C�+
DISCLAIMER:FEATURESSHOWNOUTSIDEOFSTUDYAREAAREINTENDEDTO YADKIN REGIONAL ATER SUPPLY PROJECT
GIVEAMORECOMPLETEDEPICTIONANDARENOTINCLUDEDINANYLENGTH DELINEATED WATERS OF THE U.S.
ryd k i n 0 Feet 200 OR AREA CALCULATIONS.
DATA SOURCE: Aerial Imagery Bing Maps Hybrid GIS Service FIGURE 5 - SHEET 15 of 54
MTH:7cLTSMAINIGI5_DATAIGM%PROJECTS13OM-UNIONCO110051TN_YRWSP-PROGRAM_MANAGEMENT7.1 WOKK_IN_PROGRESSU P DOCSIMKDWJDIWOUS105A_YADKIN WOUS-1S.MKD - USER: EKOCH - DATE:TI1Wn1S JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REQUEST

Appendix B
Letters from Wastewater Treatment Systems
CDM
Smith R-1

B-2 Smith

Public Works
500 North Main Street
Suite 600
Monroe, NC 28112
T. 704.296.4240
www.unioncountync.gov
June 17, 2019
Dear Mr. Colbath
Union County is actively planning for the construction of a new conventional water treatment
plant as part of the Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project (YRWSP). The YRWSP will allow
Union County to develop a long-term, sustainable water supply for its current and future
customers in the Yadkin Service Area. The treatment plant will include two reclamation basins
for collecting residuals from the treatment process. Solids will settle in these basins resulting in
a supernatant that will need to be occasionally decanted and disposed of appropriately. The
plant will have the ability to recycle the supernatant back to the plant however, it may be
occasionally required to instead dispose of this liquid waste stream.
Several options for disposal of the decant are being considered, including conveyance to an
existing local wastewater treatment facility. We would like to inquire about the availability of your
facility. At the water plant startup your facility will need to treat the supernatant at a peak rate of
approximately 0.29 million gallons per day (MGD) without causing any upsets or pass through at
the treatment facility. This flow is expected to increase to 0.47 MGD within the next five years.
Please provide answers to the following questions pertaining to your wastewater treatment
facility:
1. What is the current permitted capacity? MGD
2. Do you have 0.47 MGD available capacity? Yes ❑ No ❑
3. If an expansion is planned, will you have 0.47 MGD Yes ❑ No ❑
capacity in the expanded plant within the next 5 years?
4. Are there any known regulatory or legal Yes ❑ No ❑
requirements/constraints that would prevent expansion of
your facilities?
5. Are there locations, other than at the treatment facility, Yes ❑ No ❑
where the decant transmission main can be connected to
your wastewater transmission system?

Q1-0— A/"&Y�44VVastewater Treatment Facility Name)
(Signature)
(Title)
Please fill in the blanks, check the appropriate boxes, sign, and return on, or before June 28,
2019.This may be emailed to john.shutak(a�unioncountync.gov. Thank you for your assistance in
helping us to better serve the residents, businesses, and industries of Union County.
Sincerely,
j John Shutak, PE
CIP Program Manager
cc: Jonathan Lapsley, CDM Smith

Russell Colbath
prom: Russell Colbath
ent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:14 PM
o: 'John Shutak'
Cc: Lapsley, Jonathan; Kyle Ketchum
Subject: RE: WP101 - YRWSP WTP and Finished Water Infrastructure - NPDES Permitting for
Residuals Basin Discharge
Good afternoon John and Jon,
Here are our responses to your questionnaire:
1. Union County currently has an allocated capacity of 2.65 MGD in the Monroe WWTP, based on monthly average
of daily flow. Based on current data, UC has an available surplus of 0.55 MGD. Also, UC currently has an
allocated capacity for peak instantaneous discharge flow to the Monroe WWTP of 6.625 MGD. Based on current
data, flow equalization and storage will be needed to accommodate acceptance of the supernatant to avoid
exceeding the instantaneous flow allocated capacity.
2. Union County can elect to use their available 0.55 MGD to accommodate the 0.47 MGD supernatant subject to
permitting conditions listed below in #4, and subject to flow equalization and storage noted in #1.
3. No expansion is planned in the next 5 years.
4. The proposed supernatant discharge will require the new Union County Water Plant to be permitted as a
Significant Industrial User due to the discharge flow being more than 25,000 GPD. Speculative permit limits for
all pollutant parameters can be developed once additional information on the supernatant is provided and
considering the headwork's allocation table for the WWTP. There are no regulatory or legal constraints
preventing expansion, only affordability and timing constraints.
5. Given the location of the proposed WTP, there are no realistic locations where capacity in the Monroe
collections system could accommodate the supernatant flow. We suggest you evaluate direct discharge to the
WWTP or the UC Eastside system, subject to the constraints listed above.
We would be happy to discuss this information in greater detail as needed. Thanks
From: John Shutak[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Russell Colbath
Cc: Lapsley, Jonathan
Subject: WP101 - YRWSP WTP and Finished Water Infrastructure -NPDES Permitting for Residuals Basin
Discharge
Mr. Colbath,
Please complete the attached questionnaire regarding NPDES permitting for supernatant discharge from the
Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project Water Treatment Plant residuals basins and return to me no later than
June 28, 2019.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
John Shutak, P.E.

CIP Program Manager
N C0
1842 * ,
r �- .4
Union County Public Works
500 N. Main Street
Suite #500
Monroe, NC 28112
704.283.3651
704.993.0365
iohn.shutak(&un� ncountync gov
www.unioncountync.gov

Public Works
500 North Main Street
Suite 600
Monroe, NC 28112
T. 704.296.4240
www.unioncountync.gov
June 17, 2019
Dear Mr. Neff
Union County is actively planning for the construction of a new conventional water treatment
plant as part of the Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project (YRWSP). The YRWSP will allow
Union County to develop a long-term, sustainable water supply for its current and future
customers in the Yadkin Service Area. The treatment plant will include two reclamation basins
for collecting residuals from the treatment process. Solids will settle in these basins resulting in
a supernatant that will need to be occasionally decanted and disposed of appropriately. The
plant will have the ability to recycle the supernatant back to the plant however, it may be
occasionally required to instead dispose of this liquid waste stream.
Several options for disposal of the decant are being considered, including conveyance to an
existing local wastewater treatment facility. We would like to inquire about the availability of your
facility. At the water plant startup your facility will need to treat the supernatant at a peak rate of
approximately 0.29 million gallons per day (MGD) without causing any upsets or pass through at
the treatment facility. This flow is expected to increase to 0.47 MGD within the next five years.
Please provide answers to the following questions pertaining to your wastewater treatment
facility:
1. What is the current permitted capacity?
0.050 MGD
2. Do you have 0.47 MGD available capacity?
Yes ❑ Nov
3. If an expansion is planned, will you have 0.47 MGD
Yes ❑ Nov
capacity in the expanded plant within the next 5 years?
4. Are there any known regulatory or legal
Yes ❑ No
requirements/constraints that would prevent expansion of
your facilities?
5. Are there locations, other than at the treatment facility,
Yes VNo ❑
where the decant transmission main can be connected to
your wastewater transmission system?

Grassy Branch WRF (Wastewater Treatment Facility Name)
(Signature)
Water & Wastewater Division Director (Title)
Please fill in the blanks, check the appropriate boxes, sign, and return on, or before June 28,
2019.This may be emailed tolohn.shutak(c)unioncountync.gov. Thank you for your assistance in
helping us to better serve the residents, businesses, and industries of Union County.
Sincerely,
John Shutak, PE
CIP Program Manager
cc: Jonathan Lapsley, CDM Smith
Page 2

CDM
Smith c I

c-a_ Smith

Yadkin Regional Water Treatment Plant
NPDES Application for Discharge Associated with Process Waste
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Land Application
Assumptions:
Low Rate Land Application
Application Rate:'
1.0
in./wk
Maximum Discharge Rate:
0.47
mgd
Average Discharge Rate:
0.28
mgd
Land Cost:Z
$ 41,500
/ac.
Capital Costs:
Land Required (acres)
0.47 mgd x 1.547 ft3/sec x 1 week
x 7 days x
24 hours x
3600 secx x 12 inches x 1 acre =
mgd 1 inch
week
day
hr foot 43,560 ft2
Land Cost @ $41500/ac
Equipment3
Pump Station 0.28 mgd
x 2.5
= 0.7 mgd
Piping (6")
= 10,000 LF
Land Application equipment4
122 acres x
7 sprayers
= 854 sprayers
acre
Construction CostS5 Cost = 1.71(0.47 mgd)^0.999
Permit Fees (Non -discharge Major)
Operations and Maintenance Cost:
Laboratory Costs
Permit Fees (Non -discharge Major)
O&M per years Cost = 0.205*(0.47 mgd)10.5228*1016
Present Value Cost Analysis (PVCA): Pl'= C + ♦
Life of facility, n:
Discount rates, r:
Capital Cost, Co:
Recurring cost, C:
PIA = ((1+r)^n - 1)/(r(1+r)"n)
PV = $9955021 + $187000*((1+2.8750%)20 - 1)/(2.875%(1+2.875%)20)
PV = $9955021 + $187000*15.05
122
$5,060,000
$700,000
$88/If $886,000
$600/ea $512,400
Subtotal
Contingency (25%)
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal
Contingency (25%)
Total O&M Cost
$804,307
$1,310
$7,964,017
$1,991,004
$9,955,021
$10,000
$1,310
$138,142
$149,452
$37,363
$187,000
20
2.875%
$9,955,021
$187,000
15.05
$12,800,000

Notes:
1. Typically slow rate wastewater land application is applied at a rate between 1 /2 inch - 4 inch per week. Based on soils info from
USDA web soils survey, the area is dominated by soils with a very limited filtering capacity. A 1-inch per week application rate will be used.
2. Based on median cost per acre of rural land for sale in Union County from Lands of America land prices.
3. Equipment cost estimate provided by CDM Constructors as an Opinon of Probable Cost from a similar project.
4. Spacing based on typical sprinkler spacing of 80' x 80', from the NC Surface Irrigation System Operators Training Manual
5. Construction costs and O&M calculations for Slow Rate, Sprinklers, Not Underdrained from EPA Wastewater Fact Sheet Slow Rate
Land Treatment Document. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sloratre.pdf
6. Discount Rate https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/10/2018-00251/change-in-discount-rate-for-water-resources-planning

"# BdB2BaC BaBGsC GsB. ChA GsrC-
ScBdB2�
B2 " �,r.. . *BaB" " GsC
TbB2 �~ BaB BaG " BdB2` MhA GoE TaB
BdB2.BdB2;,.
"' BdB2 '� BaB BdB2 . TaB
r CmB BaC �.. C'mB BaBGsC
GsE GsB �c'�Gs6�'Gs'B
�BaC' CmB TbB2 .'I,-
BdB2 r, :fir.
TbB2 B C f. BdB2 TbB2 GsC CmB GsCBdB2
t GoE
BaB �BaC .'
e .. I r
\ TbB2 i. TbB2 ; �BdC2�� BdC2 C-hA GsC c
BdB2U GoE TbB2/ B'dC2ChA'
cgs �\
BaB ,
B1C " , �- BaUB,1GsC ChAGsE-
ie
T,b82
BdC28 t' BaC rChA GsCBidR
GhA
CmB BdB G'sC GsCr
BaB, BdB2 ChA -' `
�BdC2` - GsB G"sC GsE
,.. BaC , R ! r,, °r.' �/GsB GsC
t BdB2 i' - BdC2aB BdBBaC GsCBaB tr BaB BdB2 GsC
r dN, BaB .�G" _ a <GsEChA t GsC c--
„ r J� BcIB2 TaBW s Wr Gs
r aB
J Ba,'C �. i < / \ Bd6r2 GsB\
TbB2BaB CmB' `'" BaC `` GsC BdC2`,k �P GsB GsC TbB J 711 ` BaCh h
C-� r i ChA GsC�TbB2
`.,:. BaC. GsEBdB2:; BaB r C�mB^ t ChA B.aBBdC2 Gs6
GsE Bd62 BaB g GSC BaB
b62 W y t C °'
BdB2 BdC2 tGsC_�N E BaC �. BaB r F
BaC , GoE ,ChA Bd62 Bd62 BaB' BdAC2
r. TbB2 Bd62 B2 ChA" GSC BaB W .
� s
TbB2 GsC�I B } Bd62; .. ChA BaC BdB2r
GSE
)ChA—Bd62 + mB
Ba6
�BdB2 dC2 Ba�.�B:dB2'BdC2
62 "'CaBdB
`BdBB2 rBdC2 1BdcZBdC2 BaCB2.Ba�BdBBdC
-- \ x; - _ems

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
F7
Area of Interest (AOI)
Solis
Soil Map Unit Polygons
.y
Soil Map Unit Lines
®
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
(off
Blowout
0
Borrow Pit
X
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
+F4
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Q
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
e
Sandy Spot
.e.
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
jT,
Slide or Slip
0
Sodic Spot
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP INFORMATION
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
br
Wet Spot
measurements.
Other
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
.-
Special Line Features
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Transportation
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
3-f-►
Rails
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
Interstate Highways
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
-_
US Routes
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Major Roads
of the version date(s) listed below.
Local Roads
Soil Survey Area: Union County, North Carolina
Background
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2018
-
Aerial Photography
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 18, 2011—Nov
25, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BaB Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 1,319.5
24.2%
percent slopes
BaC
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to
364.5
6.7%
15 percent slopes
BdB2
Badin channery silty clay loam,
1,534.2
28.2%
2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
BdC2 Badin channery silty clay loam, 362.6
6.7%
8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
ChA Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 130.9
2.4%
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
CmB
Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 291.1
5.3%
percent slopes
GoC
Goldston very channery silt
7.7
0.1 %
loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
GoE
Goldston very channery silt
86.6
1.6%
loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
GsB
Goldston-Badin complex, 2 to 8
131.7
2.4%
percent slopes
GsC
Goldston-Badin complex, 8 to
395.5
7.3%
15 percent slopes
GsE
Goldston-Badin complex, 15 to 134.0
2.5%
45 percent slopes
MhA
Misenheimer-Cid complex, 0 to
9.1
0.2%
3 percent slopes
TaB Tarrus gravelly silt loam, 2 to 8
145.7
2.7%
percent slopes
TbB2 Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 2
484.1
8.9%
to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
W Water
48.8
0.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
5,445.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
11

Custom Soil Resource Report
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
12

Custom Soil Resource Report
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
13

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina 3
(Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding the Yadkin River WTP) b
ffi
35° 6' 44" N
20
3P 1' 1S N
544000 545000 546000 547000 548(= W) 00 550000 551000 5sm
3
Map Scale: 1:71,400 if printed on A landscape (i l" x 8.5") sheet.
Meters
N
N 0 1000 2000 4000 6000
Feet
A
0 3000 6000 12000 18000
Map pro] : Web Mercator Comer 000rdi. o : WGS84 Edge tics: UtM Zone 17N WGS84
cUS atural Resources Web qm&rvey
onservation Service National Coop Soil Survey
35° 6' YP' N
r�!
35' 1' 15' N
559000
3
b
N
6110 Page

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
(Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding the Yadkin River WTP)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Background
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest (AOI) . Aerial Photography
1:24,000.
Soils
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Soil Rating
Polygons
measurements.
EJ
Very limited
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
0
Somewhat limited
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Not limited
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
0
Not rated or not available
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Soil Rating
Lines
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
~
Very limited
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
r
Somewhat limited
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
„y
Not limited
of the version date(s) listed below.
r r
Not rated or not available
Soil Survey Area: Union County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 10, 2018
Soil Rating
Points
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
Very limited
1:50,000 or larger.
0
Somewhat limited
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 18, 2011—Nov
0
Not limited
25, 2017
E3
Not rated or not available
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Water Features
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
Streams and Canals
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Transportation
+44
Rails
Interstate Highways
- .
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
BaB
Badin channery
Very limited
Badin (90%)
Depth to bedrock
4,620.0
22.4%
silt loam, 2 to
(1.00)
8 percent
slopes
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
j
Cobble content
(0.05)
Tatum (5%)
Too acid (1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(0.89)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Goldston (5%)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Large stones on
the surface
(0.56)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Cobble content
(0.13)
BaC
Badin channery
Very limited
Badin (85%)
Too steep for
980.4
4.8%
silt loam, 8 to
surface
15 percent
application
slopes
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
BdB2
Badin channery
Very limited
Badin,
Depth to bedrock
3,607.2
17.5%
silty clay loam,
moderately
(1.00)
2 to 8 percent
slopes,
eroded (85%)
Too acid (1.00)
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit Map unit name Rating Component Rating reasons
symbol name (percent) (numeric
values)
Too steep for
Acres in AOI I Percent of AOI
eroded
surface
application
Badin,
(0.32)
BdC2
Badin channery
Very limited
Too steep for
982.6
4.8%
silty clay loam,
moderately
surface
8 to 15
eroded (85%)
application
percent
(1.00)
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
BuB
Badin-Urban
Very limited
Badin (60%)
Depth to bedrock
48.8
0.2%
land complex,
(1.00)
2 to 8 percent
slopes
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
CeB2
Cecil gravelly
Somewhat
Cecil,
Too acid (0.92)
29.9
0.1%
sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8
percent
limited
moderately
eroded (85%)
Low adsorption
(0.43)
Too steep for
surface
slopes,
moderately
eroded
application
(0.32)
ChA
Chewacla silt
Very limited
Chewacla (87%)
Depth to
660.9
3.2%
loam, 0 to 2
saturated zone
percent
(1.00)
slopes,
frequently
Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
flooded
Congaree (8%)
Flooding (1.00)
Depth to
saturated zone
(0.24)
Too acid (0.21)
Wehadkee,
Depth to
undrained
saturated zone
(5%)
(1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Too acid (0.77)
CmB
Cid channery silt
Very limited
Cid (85%)
Depth to bedrock
2,504.3
12.1
loam, 1 to 5
(1.00)
percent slopes
Too acid (1.00)
UsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(0.94)
DAM
Dam
Not rated
Dam (95%)
5.2
0.0%
GoC
Goldston very
Very limited
Goldston (85%)
Depth to bedrock
191.1
0.9%
channery silt
(1.00)
loam, 4 to 15
percent slopes
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(0.78)
Cobble content
(0.50)
GoE
Goldston very
Very limited
Goldston (85%)
Depth to bedrock
529.2
2.6%
channery silt
(1.00)
loam, 15 to 45
percent slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Cobble content
(0.50)
GsB Goldston-Badin Very limited Goldston (45%)
Depth to bedrock
594.6
2.9%
complex, 2 to
(1.00)
8 percent
slopes
Too acid (1.00)
Cobble content
(0.50)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Badin (40%)
Too acid (1.00)
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.68)
1,099.4 5.3%
GsC
Goldston-Badin
Very limited
Goldston (55%)
Depth to bedrock
complex, 8 to
(1.00)
15 percent
slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Cobble content
(1.00)
Badin (30%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
i
(1.00)
Cobble content
(0.82)
GsE
Goldston-Badin
Very limited
Goldston (55%)
Depth to bedrock
232.8
1.1 %
complex, 15 to
(1.00)
45 percent
slopes
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Cobble content
(1.00)
Badin (30%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 6 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit Map unit name Rating Component Rating reasons Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
symbol name (percent) (numeric
values)
Tnn ctaan fnr
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Cobble content
(0.82)
Tarrus (5%)
Too steep for
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
� II
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Depth to bedrock
i
(0.89)
Low adsorption
(0.55)
MhA
Misenheimer-Cid
Very limited
Misenheimer
Depth to
188.5
0.9%
complex, 0 to
(60%)
saturated zone
3 percent
(1.00)
slopes
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Cid (25%)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too acid (1.00)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Slow water
movement
(0.94)
PaE2
Pacolet sandy
Very limited
Pacolet,
Too steep for
72.3
0.4%
clay loam, 15
moderately
surface
to 40 percent
eroded (85%)
application
slopes,
(1.00)
moderately
eroded
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Low adsorption
(0.61)
Too acid (0.08)
UsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 7 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
ScA
Secrest-Cid Somewhat Secrest (65%)
Depth to
229.1 1.1 %
complex, 0 to limited
saturated zone
3 percent
(1.00)
slopes
j
Slow water
movement
(0.94)
Too acid (0.77)
Depth to bedrock
(0.14)
1,209.9 5.9%
TaB
Tarrus gravelly
Somewhat
Tarrus (85%)
Depth to bedrock
silt loam, 2 to
limited
(0.89)
8 percent
slopes
Too acid (0.77)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
TaC
Tarrus gravelly
Very limited
Tarrus (85%)
Too steep for
58.0
0.3%
silt loam, 8 to
surface
15 percent
application
slopes
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(0.89)
Too acid (0.77)
TaD
Tarrus gravelly
Very limited
Tarrus (85%)
Too steep for
18.1
0.1 %
silt loam, 15 to
surface
35 percent
application
slopes
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(0.89)
Too acid (0.77)
TbB2
Tarrus gravelly
Somewhat
Tarrus,
Depth to bedrock
2,048.4
9.9%
silty clay loam,
limited
moderately
(0.84)
2 to 8 percent
slopes,
eroded (85%)
Too acid (0.77)
Too steep for
surface
moderately
eroded
application
(0.32)
TbC2
Tarrus gravelly
Very limited
Tarrus,
Too steep for
123.3
0.6%
silty clay loam,
moderately
surface
8 to 15
eroded (85%)
application
percent
(1.00)
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 8 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit
Map unit name
Rating
Component
Rating reasons
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
symbol
name (percent)
(numeric
values)
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(0.84)
Too acid (0.77)
TuB
Tarrus-Urban
Very limited
Tarrus (60%)
Too acid (1.00)
25.3
0.1%
land complex,
2 to 8 percent
slopes
Depth to bedrock
(0.96)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
Ud
Udorthents,
Very limited
Udorthents,
Too steep for
66.4
0.3%
loamy
loamy (92%)
surface
application
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(0.22)
Slow water
movement
(0.15)
Too acid (0.08)
W
Water
Not rated
Water (100%)
448.3
2.2%
WyB
Wynott gravelly
Very limited
Wynott (85%)
Depth to bedrock
34.3
0.2%
loam, 2 to 8
(1.00)
percent slopes
Slow water
movement
(0.96)
Too acid (0.77)
Too steep for
surface
application
(0.32)
WyC
Wynott gravelly
Very limited
Wynott (85%)
Too steep for
30.9
0.1 %
loam, 8 to 15
surface
percent slopes
application
(1.00)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Too steep for
sprinkler
irrigation
(1.00)
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 9 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Slow water
movement
(0.96)
Too acid (0.77)
Totals for Area of Interest
20,639.2 I 100.0%
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Very limited
16,668.4
80.8%
Somewhat limited
3,517.3
17.0%
Null or Not Rated
453.5
2.2%
Totals for Area of Interest
20,639.2
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
�� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 10 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
Description
Slow rate treatment of wastewater is a process in which wastewater is applied to
land at a rate normally between 0.5 inch and 4.0 inches per week. The
application rate commonly exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The
applied wastewater is treated as it moves through the soil. Much of the treated
water may percolate to the ground water, and some enters the atmosphere
through evapotranspiration. The applied water generally is not allowed to run off
the surface. Waterlogging is prevented either through control of the application
rate or through the use of tile drains, or both.
Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as
sites for the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection
of soils with properties that favor waste management can help to prevent
environmental damage.
Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a municipality. It contains
domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have received primary
or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food -processing
wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, and
meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and
chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to treat
or store food -processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic and
food -processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities that
treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and nitrogenous
material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30 milligrams per
liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage ponds,
however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because the
manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of
nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter.
When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen,
heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.
The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant growth,
microbial activity, erodibility, and the application of waste. The properties that
affect absorption include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table,
ponding, available water capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth
to bedrock or a cemented pan, reaction, the cation -exchange capacity, and
slope. Reaction, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, and bulk density affect plant
growth and microbial activity. The wind erodibility group, soil erosion factor K, and
slope are considered in estimating the likelihood of wind erosion or water
erosion. Stones, cobbles, a water table, ponding, and flooding can hinder the
application of waste. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural
waste management. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance
can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 11 of 12

Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater —Union County, North Carolina
Evaluation of the Soils Surrounding
the Yadkin River WTP
moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can
be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying
Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil
Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated
rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit
are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The
percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to
help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the
rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given
site.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/14/2019
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 12 of 12

This page intentionally left blank.

CDM
Smith D-1

CDM
0-2 Smith

Yadkin Regional Water Treatment Plant
NPDES Application for Discharge Associated with Process Waste
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Direct Discharge to Surface Waters
Capital Costs:
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2A
Option 3
Length(LF)
320
5800
2300
10000
Pipe Construction Costs' @ $88/LF $
28,160
$ 510,400
$ 202,400
$ 880,000
Length of Pipe in Easement (LF)
0
5000
1500
N/A
Land Required for Easement (acres)
0.0
5.7
1.7
0.0 '(LF x 50 ft Width x 1 ac/43540 ft2)
Land Cost2 @ $41,500/ac $
-
$ 239,000
$ 72,000
$ -
Pump Station' (0.7 MGD) $
-
$ 700,000
$ -
$ 700,000
Permit Fees (Major NPDES Permit) $
3,440
$ 3,440
$ 3,440
$ 3,440
Subtotal $
31,600
$ 1,452,840
$ 277,840
$ 1,583,440
Contingency (25%) $
7,900
$ 363,210
$ 69,460
$ 395,860
Total Capital Cost $
39,500
$ 1,816,050
$ 347,300
$ 1,979,300
Operations and Maintenance Cost:
Costs Per Year
Option 1
Option 2
Option 2A
Option 3
Staff $
70,000
$ 70,000
$ 70,000
$ 70,000
Pipeline Testing $
10,000
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
O&M (2% of Capital Cost) $
632
$ 29,057
$ 5,557
$ 31,669
Easement Maintenance $
-
$ 1,750
$ 3,500
$ -
Permit Fees (Major NPDES Permit) $
3,440
$ 3,440
$ 3,440
$ 3,440
Subtotal $
84,072
$ 114,247
$ 92,497
$ 115,109
Contingency (25%) $
21,018
$ 28,562
$ 23,124
$ 28,777
Total O&M Cost $
105,090
$ 142,809
$ 115,621
$ 143,886
Present Value Cost Analysis (PVCA):
Life of facility, n:
Discount rate 3, r:
P/A = ((1+r)An - 1)/(r(1+r)An)
Notes:
20
2.875%
15.05
Option 1 Option 2 Option 2A Option 3
Capital Cost, Co $ 39,500 $ 1,816,050 $ 347,300 $ 1,979,300
Recurring cost, C $ 105,090 $ 142,809 $ 115,621 $ 143,886
PV $1,600,000 $4,000,000 $2,100,000 $4,100,000
1. Based on CDM Constructors cost estimate.
2. Based on median cost per acre of rural land for sale in Union County from Lands of America land prices.
3. Discount Rate Discount Rate https://www.federairegister.gov/documents/2018/01/10/2018-00251/change-in-discount-rate-for-water-resources-planning

This page intentionally left blank.