NC0074012_PERMIT ISSUANCE_20051205

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIMS COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0074012
Lincoln County/Forney Crk WWTP
Document Type: ,'Permit
Issuance
Wasteload Al `ocal tion
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Rescission
Instream Assessment. (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:,
December 5, 2005
Thin documeat i8 priated oa reuse paper - igraore suy
oonteat on the reverse aide

r
,Ct OF W ATFR
r: \Ot pG
_6
> C1
©fin
NCDENR
Mr. Stephen A. Gilbert, P.E., PLS
Director of Public Utilities
County of Lincoln
115 West Main St.
Lincolnton, North Carolina 28092
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director.
Division of Water Quality
December 5, 2005
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO074012
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer
District —Middle Fomey Creek WWTP
Lincoln County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of
the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge
permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and .
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended).
The permit authorizes the East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District to
discharge 0.750 MGD of treated municipal wastewater from the Middle Forney Creek
WWTP with an expansion phase to 0.975 MGD. The permit includes discharge
requirements and/or limitations for flow, BODS, NH3, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
and total residual chlorine.
The following modification has been made to the permit:
• The addition of an effluent page that includes the limitations for expansion
to 0.975 MGD.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained
in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.slate.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center: 1800 623-7748

Letter to Mr. Gilbert
Page 2
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does
not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits, which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
�
�or // Alan W. Mimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
Construction Grants and Loans/Bobby Blowe
(Permft'File3
Central Files

Permit NCO074012
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Middle Forney Creek WWTP
7533 South Little Egypt Road
Lincoln County
to receiving waters designated as Forney Creek in the Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and W hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2006.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2010.
Signed this day December 5, 2005.
I
�.* A W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Bivision of Water Quality
y Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO0740I
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation. or
discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit issuance, any previously issued
permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority
to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions,
requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.75 MGD wastewater treatment facility with
the following components: .
♦ Influent pump station with dual pumps
♦ Parshall flume with ultrasonic flow recorder
♦ Mechanical bar screen
♦ Manual bypass screen
♦ Aerated grit removal basin
♦ Oxidation ditch with 3 channels
♦ Dual final clarifiers
♦ Dual chlorine contact chambers
♦ Gas dechlorination
♦ Cascade post aeration
♦ Return sludge pumping station with dual pumps
♦ Aerobic sludge digesters
♦ Gravity sludge thickener
♦ Sludge holding tank
This facility is located on South Little Egypt Road at the Middle Forney Creek
WWTP in Lincoln County.
2. Upon receiving an Authorization to Operate from the Division of Water Quality,
facility will be re -rated for a design capacity of 0.975 MGD, and will
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into Forney Creek, classified C waters in the Catawba River Basin.

�50I
all
i
Latitude-35°26'S3" NC0074012 LFacilityLongitude: 81°00'39" law
Quad#: F14NE ocation
Stream Class: C Ltncoln County Utilities
Subbasin: 30833 Middle Fomey Creek
Receiving Stream Forney Creek WWT'P NOrfh �SCAL E t8A1000

I:
Permit NC0074O12
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above
0.75 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
LIMITS :..
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily.
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
T 'e
Sample Locations
Flow
0,75 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (20q 2
14.0 mg/L
21.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
(April 1 -October 31
BOD, 5-day (20°C) 2
28.0 mg/L
42.0 mg/L.
3/Week
Composite
. Influent & Effluent
November 1- March 31
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L '
45.0 mg/L
3Myeek
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
(April 1-October3l
NH3 as N
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
November 1-March 31
Dissolved Oxygens
3/Week
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform
200 / 100ml-
400 / 100ml-
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
(geometric mean
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
25yg/L
3/Week
Grab
Effluent .
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Nitrogen
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
NO2+NO3+TKN
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
H4
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least 1 mile downstream
from the outfall. Instream samples shall be collected three times per week from June 1 -
September 30, then weekly for the remaining months of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids Concentrations shall not exceed
15% of their respective influent values (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0074012
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon expansion above 0.75 MGD permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT. . :.
LIMITS ' .
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS,
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Weekly..
Daily
Measurement
':.Sample .',
.. Sample Locationi .
Average
Average
Maximum
""Fre uenc
Tye '
Flow
0.975 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day (202C) 2
13.0 mg/L
19.5 mg/L
3tWeek
Composite
Influent & Effluent
(April 1 -October 31
BOD, 5-day (202C) 2
26.0 mg/L
39.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
November 1- March 31
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
1.3 mg/L
3.9 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
(April 1 -October 31
NH3 as N(November 1 -
3.2 mg/L
9.6 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
March 31
Dissolved Oxygen3
3Meek
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform
200 / 100ml-
400 / 100mL
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
(geometric mean
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine
23pg/L
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Temperature rC)
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Nitrogen
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
H4
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Footnotes:
1. Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least 1 mile downstream
from the outfall. Instream samples shall be collected three times per week from June I -
September 30, then weeklyfor the remaining months of the.year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids Concentrations shall not exceed
15% of their respective influent values (85% removal). .
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

LINCOLN TIMES -NEWS
P.O. Box 40
Lincolnton, North Carolina 28093-0040
Telephone [phone]
1, Beverly S. Baker, A/R of the Lincoln Times -News, do hereby acknowledge that
the attached advertisement was published in the Lincoln Times -News on the
following dates: October 14, 2005.
This is the 18th day of October, 2005.
WITNESS NOTARY
////// COPY
My Commission Expires: 166_6�)
A/R

I, Beverly S. Baker, A/R of the Lincoln Times -News, do hereby acknowledge that
the attached advertisement was published in the Lincoln Times -News on the
following dates: October 14, 2005.
This is the 18th day of October, 2005.
r � �
W TNESS LI NOTARY
COPY
My Commission Expires: S11yZ)a
A/R

Lincoln County- Forney Creek W WTP Permit Modification jmn
10/10/2005
Facility has requested permit modification from 0.750 MGD to 0.975 MGD. Previous
spec request was for 1.0 MGD (see notes at bottom). With a modification to only 0.975
MGD, there will not be a quarterly chronic toxicity test required. Based on an updated
Level B model, recommended summer and winter limits will be:
BODS 13 mg/l (summer)
26 mg/I (winter)
NI-13 1.3 mg/l (summer)
3.2 mg/I (winter)
DO 5 mg/1 (year round)
Facility submitted an EAA for the permit modification. See following EAA
evaluation by T. Fields of NPDES Unit
Middle Forney Creek EAA
East Lincoln County Water and Sewer District (ELCWSD) submitted an EAA for an
increase in the permitted flow for their Middle Forney Creek WWTP from 0.75 MGD to
0.975 MGD. Rather than build additional treatment units, ELCWSD intends to modify
certain units and apply to Construction Grants and Loans for a re -rating of their current
facility. ELCWSD proposes to make the following upgrades to their facility:
➢ Replacement of influent pumps to provide additional peak flow capacity
➢ Modifications to oxidation ditch aeration system to provide additional oxygen
transfer capacity
Addition of a new chlorine contact chamber
i Replacement of existing chlorine and sulfur dioxide feed systems
Improvements to sodium hydroxide chemical storage and feed system
i Replacement of aeration diffusers
i Addition of a scum skimmer in sludge gravity thickener
➢ New scum numns and wetwell mixer
➢ New thickened sludge transfer pumps and controls
i Improvements at sludge holding tank to provide mechanical mixing and improved
sludge transfer pumping.
In the FAA, ELCWSD was able to demonstrate a need for additional capacity based
on committed flows. In 2004-2005 alone, they had capacity requests/commitments
for several subdivisions that would total an additional 0.2 MGD of flow.
Furthermore, they were able to show that surface water discharge is the most
technically and economically viable alternative at this point. Based on this
information, the EAA was approved. An ATC request was sent to CG&L in March
2005

February 2005
Lincoln County- Forney Creek WWTP Speculative Request
Forney Creek Class C
030833
Lincoln County- is requesting speculative limits for a future expansion to 1.0 MGD. The
existing wasteflow for the facility is 0.750 MGD and currently discharges into Forney
Creek. Existing summer limits are BOD5=14 mg/l, NH3 = 2 mg/1, DO=5 mg/l.
Winter limits are BOD5=28 mg/l, NH3 = 4 mg/l, DO=5 mg/I. The ammonia limits are
for protection against ammonia toxicity instream.
Forney Creek WWTP is located at a discharge point with estimated drainage area and
streamtlows as follows:
DA = 7.8 mi2
QA=9cfs
s7Q10 = 0.6cfs
w7Q10= LAcfs
NH3 Toxicity
The expanded Forney Creek WWTP will also need summer and winter NH3 toxicity
limits to protect against instream toxicity. These limits will be more stringent than those
for protection of the dissolved oxygen standard, and will be applied.
Summer NH3 tox limit = 1.3 mg/I; weekly average limit =3.9 mg/1
Winter NH3 tox limit = 3.2 mg/l; weekly average limit =9.6 mg/I
Chronic Toxicity
A quarterly toxicity limit of 73% will be required upon expansion to 1.0 MGD. The
WWTP will then be categorized as a major municipal facility.
Model results:
Forney Creek is a tributary into the larger Killian Creek. The Level B model for the
expanded WWTP will include the Lincoln Combustion Turbine (0.4 MGD) located on
Killian Creek and a proposed Lincoln County discharger (max. Qw requested - 7 MGD)
also located on Killian Creek, downstream of the Forney Creek confluence. Spec limits
issued for the proposed Killian Creek WWTP (3/18/2004) are 30/1.1/5 (summer) and
30/2.7/5 (winter).
Model results for the Forney Creek WWTP indicate that a summer BOD5 limit of 13
mg/l along with the NH3 toxicity limit of 1.3 mg/1 will protect the instream DO standard
of 5 mg/I. The winter BOD5 limit of 26 mg/l (twice the summer BOD5) along with the
NH3 toxicity limit of 3.2 mg/l will protect the instream DO standard of 5 mg/l. There are
no predicted instream DO violations because of the expansion of this discharger to the
Forney Creek/Killian Creek watershed.

The County should advise DWQ whether the existing Forney Creek WWTP will
stay online if the proposed Lincoln County Regional facility into Killian Creek is
built.

Middle Forney WWTP w/ 0.975 MGD expansion
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NR3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.6
7Q10 (CFS)
0.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.975
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.975
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.51125
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.51125
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
71.58
IWC (%)
71.58
Allowable Concentration (ugj
23.75
Allowable Concentration (m
1.31
Ammonia as NIi3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.4
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.975
Ratio of 0.4 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
1.51125
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
51.91
Allowable Concentration (m
3.26
7/21/2005

WINTER
MODEL AT 0.975 MGD
BOD5=26,NH3=3.2,DO=5
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : LINCOLN COUNTY
Receiving Stream : KILLIAN CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 9.71 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 14.22 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 4.00 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste
Flow
(mg/1)
------
Milepoint
---------
Reach #
-------
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
----------
(mgd)
Segment
1
8.41
0.00
1
Reach
1
90.00
0.00
0.00
0.40000
Segment
2
7.06
0.00
1
Reach
1
39.00
14.40
5.00
0.97500
Segment
3
6.82
0.25
2
Reach
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
2
45.00
12.15
5.00
7.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger :
LINCOLN
COUNTY
Subbasin : 030833
Receiving Stream :
KILLIAN
CREEK
Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 :
2.4
Winter 7Q10
: 6.1
Design Temperature:
14.0
LENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
DEPTH Kd Kd
Ka Ka KN
mile I
ft/mij
fps
ft
design
020°
design @200 design
Segment 1 0.25 10.00 0.272 1.27 1 0.19 1 0.25 1 4.29 4.89 0.19
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 2 1.70 12.00 0.261 0.87 1 0.21 1 0.28 4.95 1 5.64 0.19
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 3 1 0.25 7.00 0.301 1.46 0.18 0.24 3.32 3.79 0.19
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 3 4.00 14.10 0.649 1.46 0.25 0.32 10.45 11.90 0.19
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 3 1 1.00 20.00 0.896 1 1.75 1 0.29 1 0.38 13.83 15.76 0.32
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.620
90.000
0.000
0.000
Headwaters
6.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
Segment 2 Reach 1
Waste
1..511
39.000
14.400
5.000
Headwaters
1400
2.000
1.000
9.280
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff
0.060
2.000
1.000
9.280
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste
0000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Headwaters
0..000
2.000
1.000
9.280
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280

Segment 3
Reach 2
Waste
10.850
45.000
12.150
5.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff
0.200
2.000
1.000
9.280
Segment 3 Reach
3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
20.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.280
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
MODEL AT
0.975 MGD
BOD5=26,NH3=3.2,DO=5
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
8.41
10.24
0.91
6.62
1
1
0.05
8.48
10.22
0.90
6.62
1
1
0.10
8.54
10.20
0.90
6.62
1
1
0.15
8.60
10.18
0.90
6.62
1
1
0.20
8.66
10.15
0.90
6.62
1
1
0.25
8.71
10.13
0.90
6.62
2
1
0.00
7.06
21.21
7.96
2.91
2
1
0.10
7.29
21.06
7.91
2.92
2
1
0.20
7.49
20.92
7.86
2.92
2
1
0.30
7.67
20.78
7.81
2.93
2
1
0.40
7.84
20.64
7.76
2.94
2
1
0.50
7.98
20.50
7.71
2.94
2
1
0.60
8.11
20.36
7.66
2.95
2
1
0.70
8.23
20.23
7.62
2.95
2
1
0.80
8.33
20.09
7.57
2.96
2
1
0.90
8.43
19.95
7.52
2.97
2
1
1.00
8.51
19.82
7.48
2.97
2
1
1.10
8.59
19.69
7.43
2.98
2
1
1.20
8.65
19.56
7.39
2.98
2
1
1.30
8.71
19.42
7.34
2.99
2
1
1.40
8.77
19.29
7.30
3.00
2
1
1.50
8.82
19.17
7.25
3.00
2
1
1.60
8.86
19.04
7.21
3.01
2
1
1.70
8.91
18.91
7.16
3.01
3
1
0.00
8.77
12.88
2.86
9.63
3
1
0.05
8.80
12.86
2.85
9.63
3
1
0.10
8.82
12.83
2.85
9.63
3
1
0.15
8.84
12.81
2.84
9.63
3
1
0.20
8.86
12.78
2.83
9.63
3
1
0.25
8.88
12.76
2.83
9.63
3
2
0.25
6.82
29.84
7.77
20.48
3
2
0.35
7.07
29.74
7.75
20.50
3
2
0.45
7.30
29.65
7.73
20.52
3
2
0.55
7.51
29.55
7.71
20.54
3
2
0.65
7.69
29.46
7.69
20.56
3
2
0.75
7.86
29.36
7.67
20.58
3
2
0.85
8.01
29.27
7.64
20.60
3
2
0.95
8.15
29.17
7.62
20.62
3
2
1.05
8.28
29.08
7.61
20.64
3
2
1.15
8.39
28.98
7.59
20.66
3
2
1.25
8.50
28.89
7.57
20.68
3
2
1.35
8.59
28.80
7.55
20.70
3
2
1.45
8.67
28.71
7.53
20.72
3
2
1.55
8.75
28.61
7.51
20.74
3
2
1.65
8.82
28.52
7.49
20.76
3
2
1.75
8.89
28.43
7.47
20.78
3
2
1.85
8.95
28.34
7.45
20.80
3
2
1.95
9.00
28.25
7.43
20.82
3
2
2.05
9.05
28.16
7.41
20.84
3
2
2.15
9.09
28.07
7.39
20.86
3
2
2.25
9.13
27.98
7.37
20.88
3
2
2.35
9.17
27.89
7.35
20.90
3
2
2.45
9.20
27.80
7.33
20.92
3
2
2.55
9.23
27.71
7.31
20.94
3
2
2.65
9.26
27.62
7.29
20.96
3
2
2.75
9.28
27.53
7.27
20.98

3
2
2.85
9.31
27.44
7.26
21.00
3
2
2.95
9.33
27.36
7.24
21.02
3
2
3.05
9.35
27.27
7.22
21.04
3
2
3.15
9.36
27.18
7.20
21.06
3
2
3.25
9.38
27.09
7.18
21.08
3
2
3.35
9.40
27.01
7.16
21.10
3
2
3.45
9.41
26.92
7.14
21.12
3
2
3.55
9.42
26.84
7.13
21.14
3
2
3.65
9.43
26.75
7.11
21.16
3
2
3.75
9.45
26.67
7.09
21.18
3
2
3.85
9.46
26.58
7.07
21.20
3
2
3.95
9.46
26.50
7.05
21.22
3
2
4.05
9.47
26.41
7.03
21.24
3
2
4.15
9.48
26.33
7.02
21.26
3
2
4.25
9.49
26.24
7.00
21.28
3
3
4.25
9.39
14.50
4.09
41.28
3
3
4.35
9.44
14.47
4.08
41.28
3
3
4.45
9.48
14.44
4.07
41.28
3
3
4.55
9.52
14.41
4.07
41.28
3
3
4.65
9.55
14.39
4.06
41.28
3
3
4.75
9.59
14.36
4.05
41.28
3
3
4.85
9.62
14.33
4.04
41.28
3
3
4.95
9.64
14.30
4.03
41.28
3
3
5.05
9.67
14.27
4.02
41.28
3
3
5.15
9.69
14.25
4.01
41.28
3
3
5.25
9.71
14.22
4.00
41.28
Seg #
Reach #
I Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

SUMMER
MODEL Q 0.975 MGD
BOD5=131 NH3=1.3, DO=S
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : LINCOLN COUNTY
Receiving Stream : FORNEY CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 7.25 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 18.13 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 2.15 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment
1
------
5.80
---------
0.00
-------
1
----
----
--
----------
Reach
1
90.00
0.00
0.00
0.40000
Segment
2
5.65
0.00
1
Reach
1
19.50
5.85
5.00
0.97500
Segment
3
5.38
0.25
2
Reach
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
2
45.00
4.95
5.00
7.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

Discharger
LINCOLN
COUNTY
Subbasin : 030833
Receiving Stream
FORNEY
CREEK
Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10
2.4
Winter 7Q10 6.1
Design Temperature:
26.0
LENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
DEPTH Kd Kd Ka Ka KN
------------
mile I
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mij
fps
ft
Idesignj
@200
Idesigni
@200
design
Segment 1 1 0.25 10.00 0.151 1 1.16 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 3.09 2.71 0.48
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 2 1 1.70 12.00 0.202 0.83 1 0.35 1 0.26 4.98 1 4.37 0.48
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 3 0.25 .7.00 0.187 1.35 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 2.69 1 2.36 0.48
Reach 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Segment 3 1 4.00 14.10 0.535 1 1.42 0.40 0.31 11.18 9.81 0.48
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 3 1.00 20.00 0.636 1 1.66 0.44 1 0.33 12.76 1 11.20 0.79
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.620
90.000
0.000
0.000
Headwaters
2.400
2.000
1.000
7.300
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
Segment 2 Reach 1
Waste
1.511
19.500
5.850
5.000
Headwaters
0.600
2.000
1.000
7.300
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
Segment 3 Reach 1
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Headwaters
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300

Segment 3
Reach 2
Waste
10.850
45.000
4.950
5.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.075
2.000
1.000
7.300
Segment 3
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
9.900
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL @
0.975 MGD
BOD5=13,
NH3=1.3, DO=5
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
5.80
20.07
0.79
3.02
1
1
0.05
5.82
19.94
0.79
3.02
1
1
0.10
5.83
19.82
0.78
3.02
1
1
0.15
5.84
19.70
0.77
3.02
1
1
0.20
5.86
19.58
0.76
3.02
1
1
0.25
5.87
19.46
0.76
3.02
2
1
0.00
5.65
14.53
4.47
2.11
2
1
0.10
5.80
14.38
4.41
2.11
2
1
0.20
5.92
14.23
4.34
2.11
2
1
0.30
6.03
14.08
4.28
2.11
2
1
0.40
6.13
13.93
4.22
2.11
2
1
0.50
6.22
13.79
4.16
2.11
2
1
0.60
6.29
13.65
4.10
2.11
2
1
0.70
6.36
13.50
4.04
2.11
2
1
0.80
6.42
13.36
3.99
2.11
2
1
0.90
6.48
13.23
3.93
2.11
2
1
1.00
6.53
13.09
3.87
2.11
2
1
1.10
6.57
12.95
3.82
2.11
2
1
1.20
6.61
12.82
3.76
2.11
2
1
1.30
6.65
12.69
3.71
2.11
2
1
1.40
6.68
12.55
3.66
2.11
2
1
1.50
6.71
12.42
3.60
2.11
2
1
1.60
6.74
12.30
3.55
2.11
2
1
1.70
6.76
12.17
3.50
2.11
3
1
0.00
6.24
16.46
1.89
5.13
3
1
0.05
6.23
16.38
1.87
5.13
3
1
0.10
6.22
16.30
1.86
5.13
3
1
0.15
6.21
16.22
1.84
5.13
3
1
0.20
6.20
16.14
1.83
5.13
3
1
0.25
6.19
16.07
1.81
5.13
3
2
0.25
5.38
35.71
3.94
15.98
3
2
0.35
5.54
35.53
3.92
15.99
3
2
0.45
5.67
35.35
3.90
16.00
3
2
0.55
5.79
35.17
3.88
16.00
3
2
0.65
5.90
35.00
3.85
16.01
3
2
0.75
5.99
34.82
3.83
16.02
3
2
0.85
6.08
34.64
3.81
16.03
3
2
0.95
6.15
34.47
3.79
16.03
3
2
1.05
6.22
34.30
3.77
16.04
3
2
1.15
6.28
34.12
3.74
16.05
3
2
1.25
6.33
33.95
3.72
16.06
3
2
1.35
6.38
33.78
3.70
16.06
3
2
1.45
6.42
33.61
3.68
16.07
3
2
1.55
6.46
33.44
3.66
16.08
3
2
1.65
6.50
33.27
3.64
16.09
3
2
1.75
6.53
33.11
3.62
16.09
3
2
1.85
6.56
32.94
3.59
16.10
3
2
1.95
6.58
32.77
3.57
16.11
3
2
2.05
6.61
32.61
3.55
16.12
3
2
2.15
6.63
32.44
3.53
16.12
3
2
2.25
6.65
32.28
3.51
16.13
3
2
2.35
6.67
32.12
3.49
16.14
3
2
2.45
6.68
31.96
3.47
16.15
3
2
2.55
6.70
31.80
3.45
16.15
3
2
2.65
6.71
31.64
3.43
16.16
3
2
2.75
6.73
31.48
3.41
16.17

3'*
2
2.85
6.74
31.32
3.39
16.18
3
2
2.95
6.75
31.16
3.37
16.18
3
2
3.05
6.76
31.01
3.35
16.19
3
2
3.15
6.77
30.85
3.34
16.20
3
2
3.25
6.78
30.69
3.32
16.21
3
2
3.35
6.79
30.54
3.30
16.21
3
2
3.45
6.80
30.39
3.28
16.22
3
2
3.55
6.81
30.23
3.26
16.23
3
2
3.65
6.82
30.08
3.24
16.24
3
2
3.75
6.83
29.93
3.22
16.24
3
2
3.85
6.84
29.78
3.20
16.25
3
2
3.95
6.85
29.63
3.19
16.26
3
2
4.05
6.85
29.48
3.17
16.27
3
2
4.15
6.86
29.33
3.15
16.27
3
2
4.25
6.87
29.19
3.13
16.28
3
3
4.25
7.03
18.91
2.32
26.18
3
3
4.35
7.06
18.83
2.31
26.18
3
3
4.45
7.09
18.75
2.29
26.18
3
3
4.55
7.12
18.67
2.27
26.18
3
3
4.65
7.14
18.59
2.26
26.18
3
3
4.75
7.17
18.51
2.24
26.18
3
3
4.85
7.19
18.43
2.22
26.18
3
3
4.95
7.20
18.36
2.20
26.18
3
3
5.05
7.22
18.28
2.19
26.18
3
3
5.15
7.23
18.20
2.17
26.18
3
3
5.25
7.25
18.13
2.15
26.18
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

==SON
community infrastructure consultants
September 2, 2005
Ms. Toya Fields
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Middle Forney Creek WWTP Expansion
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Dear Ms. Fields,
UF_
SEP - 7 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Per our telephone conversation of August 15, 2005, we are submitting the following documents as
justification of the projected flows to the Middle Forney Creek WWTP:
• East Lincoln Sewer District — Flow Evaluation providing a summary of flow commitments to area
subdivision. The current flow commitment to developers for these subdivisions totals 1.93 mgd.
Copy of "Section 3 — Current Situation" of Engineering Report in progress. This section provides
population projections for the Catawba Springs Township area currently served by the Middle Forney
Creek WWTP, historical flows, sewer customers records and an infiltration/inflow analysis of the current
collection system. The Engineering Report is being prepared to satisfy the requirements of the State
Revolving Loan Fund for requested funding supporting the expansion of the existing conveyance system
and a new regional wastewater treatment plant. Population within the Catawba Springs Township is
projected to increase at a rate of approximately 755 capita per year.
As we briefly discussed, the proposed renovations to the Middle Forney Creek WWTP are to allow re -rating
of the plant from 0.75 mgd to 0.975 mgd to meet the short -termed flow demands until completion of a
proposed regional WWTP in late 2008 to 2010. When the new regional plant comes on-line, a portion of
the flow to the Middle Forney Creek WWTP will be diverted to the new facility. Plans and specifications for
the renovations to the Middle Forney Creek WWTP were submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Construction Grants and Loans Section in March, 2005. It is understood approval of these
renovations is pending approval of the NPDES Permit modification to 0.975 mgd.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 704-227-3403.
Sincerely,
LW /4D,cn Co. c.
iA Z_�_�_
Charles R. Froneberger, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Stephen Gilbert, P.E., PLS
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205 L\Pro\LinCol30522Mmsc Gen\Fomey Ck0.975-MGDINPDES Permit Apffiel&090205
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com North Carolina • South Carolina • Georgia • Florida

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (EAA)
FOR
MIDDLE FORNEY CREEK WWTP UPGRADE
JUNE,2005
WKD #30522.00.CL
Prepared for
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District d
115 West Main StreetWLincolnton, North Carolina 280��ot
ova�o", s
Nod �esoo oa\�H 20
�' CART
�`�20Q�'FESSIp l
% 8 2"(
�.,��91F ;NGINEEe.
C-ZI-o5
Report Prepared by
W. K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
704/334-5348
J U L 6 2005 U
L_.
DEHR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH

East Lincoln Sewer District
Flow Evaluation 2005
Date
Subdivision Name
# of Lots
GPD
Type
Discharge Location
Percentage Install
Commulative - GPD
121111987
Middle Forney Creek
2
25,000
Gravity
Outfall
100%- (2)
11/18/1991
Catawba Springs
56
20,160
Gravity
Outfall
100% - (56)
9/19/1994
Hunter's Bluff Phase 1
35
12,600
Gravity
Outfall
100%1, (35)
911911994
Hunter's Bluff Phase II
48
17,280
Gravity
Outfall
89.5% - (43)
10/11/1994
Contract 1 - Outfall
0
Gravity
Outfall
Installed
6/12/1995
Contract 2
942
190,710
LPS
Pmp 7,8,9
24.3% - (229)
6/13/1995
Contract 3 & 4
1,259
255,024
LPS
Pmp 3,4,5,6,10
24.2%- (305)
a
7/18/1995
Contract 5
657
91,346
LPS
Pmp 9, Outfall
20.8% - (137)
8/22/1995
Contract 6
300
41,710
Gravity
Pmp 1,2,11,12
48.3% - (145)
Original
Total
3299
653,830
Forney WWTP
,653 830' ° f'
3/24/1997
Las Brisas Ln
7
2,520
LPS
Pmp 8
100%-(7)
4125/1997
Lucky Creek Phase 111
10
3,600
LPS
Gravity -Unity & 16
80%- (8)
<'
512511997
Triangle Ind. Park
27
9,375
LPS
Outfall-Hwy 16
40.7 - (11)
71211997
Blum Sewer
1
10,000
Gravity
Pmp 13
100%- (1)
nx:P.
10/22/1997
Sailview Phase 1
172
61,920
LPS
Pmp 3
84.3%- (145)
12/511997
Denver Business Pk
31
11,625
Gravity
Pmp 11
45.2%- (14)
1997
Total
248
99,040
Forney WWTP
­752870
3/611998
Waterside Retail Phase 1
140
72,000
Gravity
16 & 73
96.4% - (135)
4/29/1998
Dellinger Apt.
24
8,640
Gravity
Pmp 2
100% - (24)
4/23/1998
Waterside Crossing Phase 1,11
184
77,280
Gravity
Pmp 14
100%- 184
5/4/1998
Verdict Ridge Phase 1
178
64,080
Gravity
Pmp 15
77.5%- (138)
, �
6/25/1998
Windsor Forest
48
17,280
Gravity
Pmp 15
43.*%- (21)
711711998
Killian Ceek - Pmp 15
Gravity
Forney WWTP
Installed
m
918/1998
Oxford Hunt Phase 1
35
12,600
Gravity
Forney WWTP
100%- (35)
'
9/18/1998
Waterside Crossing Phase III
58
20,880
Gravity
Pmp 14
100%- (58)
10/27/1998
Assisted Living Center
1
6,720
LPS
Pmp 1
100%- 0)
10127/1998
Sinclair St.
17
61,920
LPS
Pmp 1
64.7 - (11)
1998
Total
685
341,400
Forney WWTP
1,094,270
,`,;,

East Lincoln Sewer District
Flow Evaluation 2005
Date
Subdivision Name
# of Lots
GPD
Type
Discharge Location
Percentage Install
Commulative. - GPD
4130/1999
Sailview Phase 11
142
51,120
LPS
Pmp 3
54.2%- (77)
6/11/1999
Smithstone Phase I & 11
171
49,920
Gravity
Pmp 16
69.2% - (119)
8/20/1999
Logan's Run
14
5,040
LPS
Pmp 9
85.7% - (12)
+
1/22/1999
Sailview Phase III
161
57,960
LPS
Pmp 3
23.0%- (37)
1999
Total
488
164,040
Forney WWTP
1,258,310
3/13/2000
Oxford Hunt Phase II
72
25,920
Gravity
Forney WWTP
91.&%- (66)
7/21/2000
Denver Ind. Park
7
8,250
Gravity
Pmp 1
14.3%- (1)
11/7/2000
Waterside Retail II
19
15,738
Gravity
16 & 73
100%- 19
w
10127/2000
Verdict Ridge Phase II
190
61,800
Gravity
Pmp 15
11.1%- (21)
2000
Total
288
111,708
Forney WWTP
"1,370,018-
9. xz(
4110/2001
Hill's Chapel Church
1
2,970
FM
Pmp 13
100%- (1)
7/30/2001
Natalie Commons Plaza
4
8,084
Gravity
Outfall
75% - 3
r"
3/27/2001
Mariner's Pointe
164
49,560
Gravity
Pmp 16
50% - (82)
7/23/2001
Denver Shores MHP
130
39,960
Gravity
Pmp 2 - 64 gpm
0%
e µ
7/23/2001
Smithstone Phase III
60
21,850
Gravity
Pmp 16
Pending
A
7/30/2001
Riverwalk Apts
288
78,130
Gravity
16 & 73 - 190gpm
50%- (144)
9/1912001
Cowans Ford Phase III
57
40,920
Gravity
Pmp 10 - 130 gpm
64.9% - (37)
9/28/2001
Denver Business Park II
19
4,750
Gravity
Pmp 11
00/(
1216I2001
Norman Estates
18
8,640
LPS
Pmp 8
16.7% - (3)
11/1/2001
Reynolds Commercial
4
2,750
Gravity
50%-(3)
,
9/1/2001
West Point Retail
3
250
Gravity
100%
2001
Total
744
257,864
Forney WWTP
7- "
1627,882
12/1/2002
Salem Springs
50
18,000
LPS
Pmp 10
75%- (25)
Total
50
18,000
1,645 882^""

East Lincoln Sewer District
Flow Evaluation 2005
Date
Subdivision Name
# of Lots
GPD
Type
Discharge Location
Percentage Install
Cummulative- GIRD
2/1/2003
Cowans Ford Park
21
7,560
Gravity
Pmp20
71%-(15)
4/1/2003
Paradise Cove
8
2,880
LIPS
50% - (4)
7/1/2003
Pinnacle Property
5
2,500
Gravity
60% - (3)
7/1/2003
Saint Andrews
15
5,400
Gravity
Pmp 20
33% - (5)
511/2003
Stillwater
50
18,000
LIPS
Pmp 7
40%- (15)
1011/2003 Waterside
Crossing, Ph. 9 & 1a
123
44,280
Gravity
New
4% - (12)
2003
Total
222-80,260
, , 1,726,142
9/1/2004
Cowans Ford IV - Ph. 1
66
23,670
Gravity
Pmp 20
0%
11/1/04
Lakewood
88
12,960
Gravity
New
0%
1/21/2004
Lighthouse Point
9
3,240
LIPS
0%
11111/2004
Fairfield Forest
173
62,280
LIPS
0%
2004
Total
336
102,150
1,82829Z
5/26/2005
Woodland
6
2,160
LIPS
Pmp 11
0%,
81212005
Villages of Denver
138
49,680
Gravity
New Pmp
0%
<
6/23/2005
Lucky Creek
27
9,720
Gravity/LF
0%
5/11/2005
Eastwind Cove
50
18,000
Gravity
New Pmp
0%
8/30/2005
Cowans Ford IV - Ph. 2
63
22,680
Gravity
Pmp 20
0%
A.
2005
Total
221
102,240

SECTION 3
CURRENT SITUATION .
3.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Wastewater collection service within the planning area is provided by the ELCWSD as shown in
Figure 3.1. The ELCWSD service area covers approximately 17 square miles in the Catawba
Springs Township with service to the developing corridor along State Highway 16,
developments adjacent to Lake Norman and residential areas west of North Egypt Road. The
area around Lake Norman east of State Highway 16 is predominately serviced by low-pressure
sewer system. The area west of Highway 16 is predominately served by gravity sewer, pump
stations and force main. No wastewater collection services are currently provided within Ironton
Township area other than small areas immediately adjacent to Lincolnton City served by the
LSSD.
The current ELCWSD collection system includes the following components:
• 250,111 linear feet of low-pressure sewer
• 23 pumping stations
• 87,771 feet of force mains
• 181,686 linear feet of gravity sewer ( 322.9 inch -diameter miles)
This system served 2491 sewer customers in 2004 with a total daily wastewater flow of
approximately 470,000 gpd. A majority of the collection system was constructed in or after
1996. The collection system continues to expand to meet the residential and commercial
growth within the eastern part of Lincoln County. The overall collection system is in excellent
condition with exception of several areas within the collection system experiencing the effects of
sulfide corrosion in the area of low-pressure sewer system discharges. ELCWSD efforts are
underway to rehabilitate approximately 5 manholes and restore two wet well structures
experiencing severe corrosion.
Other areas within the Catawba Springs and Ironton Townships remain unsewered and are
served by individual septic tank systems. While these areas do not currently have reported
public health issues, they do represent a potential high risk for groundwater contamination
typically experienced with failing septic systems with increasing age and density. There is also
a potential for surface exposure of raw wastewater during heavy rainfall events producing
saturated soil conditions causing flooding of septic tanks and drain fields. Untreated domestic
sewage contains dangerous levels of microorganisms that can cause waterborne and water
related diseases. Infections such as typhoid fever and cholera have been drastically reduced
because of the collection and treatment of wastewater. Many neighborhoods that have been in
existence for twenty or more years may have cases of failing septic systems that the property
owners might not be currently aware. Mr. Scott Snead of the Lincoln County Health Department
indicated that Ironton Station Elementary and East Lincoln Middle School have recently
experienced problems with the drain field systems.
Although the risk of any serious health related problems occurring in subject area is small, that
should not diminish the importance of having a public waste water collection and treatment
facility. The proposed facilities presented with this plan will reduce these risks and will further
increase the quality of both the groundwater and surface water in Lincoln County.
3-1

Campground
Lincoln County, NC
East Lincoln Water and Sewer District
*PS-1 (r,
_
(iP
P
7�
y
PS- 2
0
a
o'
U:
to
a
E
\
_
a
Optimist
Club Rd. ,
z .
�
L
i
r
x
m
m
j
PS-13 1
P►ank Rd
Legend
o�N coo ® Pump Stations
H
Low Pressure Sewer
,:Nd Gravity Sewer
.^/ Forcemain Sewer
__]Lake Norman
2° East Lincoln Water and Sewer District
b�
rN cAao
r ` 81, i
Fairfield Forest I
Unity C
1 0 1 Miles
FIGURE 3.1: EXISTING ELCWSD SERVICE AREA
Source: "20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR WATER
- AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURES, Lincoln County, NC and
the East Lincoln Water and Sewer District", prepared by Olver, Inc.,

3.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Wastewater treatment within the planning area is currently provided by the ELCWSD Middle
Forney Creek WWTP. This plant has a present permitted capacity of 0.75 mgd and operates
under NPDES Permit NC0074012. In 2004, Middle Forney Creek WWTP average daily flow
was 0.470 mgd or 62.7% of the permitted capacity. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 provide a historical
record of the rapid growth and wastewater treatment demand and sewer customers within the
area. Based upon the historical area growth, it is projected that additional wastewater treatment
capacity will be required by 2007.
ELCWSD currently has capacity requests from area developers for a total of 6,464 sewer
connections with a current service to only 2272 of these connections. Copies of these capacity
request letters and a summary of the status of the respective developments is provided in
Appendix H. A potential wastewater flow of 1.875 mgd is projected upon 100% build -out of the
present capacity requests. To meet the immediate short -termed demand for wastewater
treatment within the present service area, ELCWSD has a pending request to increase the
capacity of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP from 0.75 mgd to 0.975 mgd. The NPDES permit
application, Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) and Authorization to Construct (ATC) have
been submitted and are pending approval by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Construction Grants and Loans Section with construction expected to begin in the 2006.
The current Middle Forney Creek wastewater treatment plant includes the following unit
processes:
Liquid Treatment Train
• Influent Pump Station (Duplex VFD
Pumps)
• Influent Parshall Flume
• Bar Screen
• Aerated Grit Chamber
Oxidation Ditch (3 Channel,
Extended Aeration Activated Sludge)
Solids Processing Train
• Return Activated Sludge Pumps (2)
Waste Activated Sludge Weir
• Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener
• Aerobic Sludge Digester
• Secondary Clarifiers (2)
• Chlorination (Chlorine Gas)
• Chlorine Contact Basin (2)
• Dechlorination (Sulfur Dioxide Gas)
Effluent Reaeration
• Gravity Thickener
• Sludge Transfer Pump (1)
• Holding Tank
• Land Application Sludge Disposal
The pending plant expansion to 0.975 mgd will include the following general modifications to
facilitate the increased permitted plant flow:
• Replacement of influent pumps to provide additional peak flow capacity
• Modifications to oxidation ditch aeration system to provide additional oxygen transfer
capacity
• Addition of a new chlorine contact chamber
• Replacement of existing chlorine and sulfur dioxide feed systems
• Improvements to sodium hydroxide chemical storage and feed system
• Replacement of aeration diffusers in aerobic digester
3-2

FIGURE 3.2: FORNEY CREEK WWTP MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS
1.40
1.20
1.00
E
fi
F°0 0.80
2 0.40
0.20
0.00
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09
�Tv �r•'ry
�E� S'J
Al
i++
S 4 if
"��J y. y
* L L
5
Y
A � T'�
gi�.l.�xry is
Y}k 'T �2•.`'
{4. aY[ S
tfSCfX �
y �
LtM'^L
�1#ty
lyi"LLt
C S3_i
`trS Yx4fiti
} M�
d2 t H.V Y
YS tK{'
�J
Ti"A}r J+rk�
Jti� 'i)
`i..
f F4._+
r ��
dtXH
) •H_4
Y F'Yr.'
.Gn Y' tr�v
�°^S.F �.
iq z.M
�.n A
�`Fu y
z aT
1 112"
V
L
`g^C
.ENr
.L
� .T[` �.,
�`a
T��[
i,Z
.}h✓7r � �
�4i �-
4d.� I^1V'4
"!�•L �
tf_. ;>
'+
.:RfK
Yr
g,��H
rYC��
Y3 L fs
L ski.
-
.,r4�
e ,x+r,
'T� SW
,.,�
-rur
_ �i c
rt" Vy
hN.tS x
v'ti� ✓5-
r}."
yu`�
W
� .�'
"� . f �
"`.g3"' y
{sea
J .. r
� � i`
•.
S
30
b
.rr �
I
t RENT
PDES
ERMIT
075
Q i Cr;
fjl
Ny
J
i'arK
SSf e}..
z�i-is
anNv Y
>I� 'u,} ..
(
p F �i15
T
cl t•
j '.,v
r
'�. i"` T
1
� 3� R
n4'
`•••"i y,i
jam�T
rN ,
WS" 1
y
`�
u!! ! ��[
'"'ii' +i"
}'�'
� X ty
r .r, -
N
1+3
1r4•T
Y
J
t-;
5� `�.j
�
r�>
rrsrrTS..:r
ss
�
;/
Nry
i.',14
}ce ,c�''�
-�
£,r
� �'-,i�'"P.
�'
4
G�
��''.�
�
5
''•
c
��;"
Y i1
�3
>. m
Xr
S
41 1
S �'.e V
CrTi MiJ
PS
Y
1
µ! Y
y
p
P t
ell
2.-Q
a 'K
�-
t�9
«`�'<"^v
t.. ,h rr
a rh.x
r4
l..
,..• ,.
y � Y
,�
.,l
tr b s �°
Y
�' S
i4 <
'`
Y
.'a
4yA
n+k
t
r
� ".x
r
�
••
�
x
ri
y[
xy�
yx•/1
x,•.
a j
'y
'+,.'r
r
�z
r
x
}�
i4<+i+..
Y. �
KA'
T
Xi♦,i°:•Z,
'F'.i
It
p»i I
�ar�
� ��,
:;§.>v
r.3r:
$'.,tit.M1
1996- 2009
Monthly Ave Flow (mgd) NPDES Permit Flow (mgd) — —Poly. (Monthly Ave Flow (mgd))

511P111
2500
K01410]
U)
N
0 1500
w
LA
1000
-IO
A
Figure 3.3: East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District - Sewer Customers
2000 to Present
O O O O O O , � , N N N N N N M M M M M M V V V V V V N N M N 0 N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 Z 0 Z W Z � 2 2 � 0 Z 0 Z W Z
Month & Year

• Addition of a scum skimmer in sludge gravity thickener
• New scum pumps and wet well mixer
• New thickened sludge transfer pumps and controls
• Improvements at sludge holding tank to provide mechanical mixing and improved sludge
transfer pumping
The following supporting information related to the existing Middle Forney Creek WWTP and
requested increase in permitted plant capacity is included within Appendix A:
• Summary of Design Parameters
• NPDES Permit 0074012 Effluent Limits
• Speculative Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements - Forney Creek WWTP @ 1.0
MGD
There are no pending Special Orders by Compliance (SOC's) issued to the ELCSD associated
with the Middle Forney Creek WWTP nor related requirements for construction.
3.3 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The U.S. Census reports the population of Lincoln County to have increased from 50,319 in
1990 to 63,780 in 2000 or a 26.8% increase. Population projections by township areas are
presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Lincoln County Township Population Estimates
Year
Township
Total
County
Population
Households
Catawba
Springs
Ironton
Lincolnton
Howard's
Creek
North
Brook
2000
Census
14,817
17,602
18,412
7,771
5,178
63,780
25,717
2003 *
17,065
18,957
19,377
8,400
5,684
69,483
27,807
2008 *
20,838
21,245
21,045
9,463
6,536
79,130
31,291
2013 *
24,623
23,538
22,671
10,508
7,383
88,723
34,774
2018 *
28,358
25,825
24,343
11,569
8,233
98,328
38,258
2023 *
32,145
28,102
25,995
12,616
9,075
107,933
41,741
2025 **
33,862
29,093
26,101
13,073
9,446
112,150
43,202
% Change
03 -'25
99.4%
53.5%
37.8%
55.6%
66.2%
61.4%
* Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Lincoln County Building and Land Development
Department and County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
(Reported in "20 Year Capital Improvement Plan" prepared by Olver, Inc, May 7,
2003)
** Year 21 5 was extrapolated using a straight line extension of the population change over the
period 2018 to 2023.
As indicated in Table 3.1, the Lincoln County population is expected to increase to
approximately 112,150 people by 2025 representing an approximate 61.4% increase over the
22 year period between 2003 and 2025. The Catawba Springs and Ironton Townships
represent highest growth areas followed by the Lincolnton Township. The combined Howards
3-3

Creek and North Brook Townships represent only 20% of the projected 2025 county population.
These population estimates clearly support the projected greatest allocation of population in the
designated planning area consisting of the Catawba Springs and Ironton Township areas.
3.4 INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS
The ELCWSD currently operates 181,686 If of gravity sewer potentially susceptible to
infiltration/inflow. The remainder of the collection system consists of low pressure sewers and
force mains which are not susceptible to infiltration/inflow. Infiltration is the extraneous water
entering the collection system through defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls
for groundwater. Infiltration is generally continues over a long time period and is directly
associated with high groundwater conditions. Inflow is surface water entering the collection
system through sources other than infiltration such as manhole covers, roof leaders and direct
openings into the system from drain connections such as cellar, yard, area, foundation, storm
sewers cross connections. Inflow typically quickly enters the system in response to rainfall
events. Both inflow and infiltration result in extraneous flows within the collection system taking
up valuable hydraulic capacity available for sewage and producing unnecessary loading on the
wastewater treatment plant impacting the performance and ability to achieve effluent permit
limitations. An evaluation of the ELCWSD for inflow and infiltration is as follows:
3.4.1 Infiltration
Infiltration within the current ELCWSD collection system was evaluated by comparison of
wastewater flows at the Middle Forney Creek plant during the three consecutive wettest months
with the expected flows based upon user unit water billing records minus a consumptive loss of
10%. For the planning area, the months of June, July and August, 2004 were selected as the
wettest months of 2004 based upon NOAA weather records for the Charlotte, NC station.
Infiltration analysis results are as follows:
• ELCWSC average customer units (June — July, 2004)
• Industrial, commercial & institutional units
• Residential units
• Average capita per household unit
• Estimated residential capita (2174 units x 2.63 cap/unit)
• Average WWTP flow of three wettest months in 2004
• Average industrial/commercial water billed
• Average residential water billed
• Average industrial/commercial wastewater *'
• Average residential wastewater *
• Average wastewater produced per capita
• Expected flow based upon water records less 10%
• Excess flow attributed to infiltration (454,667-505,789)
• Total gravity collection system inch -miles
• Estimated infiltration rate
2352 units
178 units
2174 units
2.63 capita/unit
5718 ca
454,667 pd
153,889 gpd
408,099 gpd
138,500 gpd
367,289 gpd
62.2 gpd/ca ita
505,789 gpd
(-51,122) gpd
322.9 inch -miles
(-158) gpd/inch-mile
* Average wastewater flows for months of June.- August, 2004 which experienced total
rainfall of 8.20", 6.84" and 5.43" respectively for Charlotte, NC NOAA Station.
** Estimate of wastewater is based upon water consumption less 10% usage.
3-4

Infiltration is considered to be excessive if greater than 3000 gpd per in -mile. During the wettest
months of 2004, the ELCWSD collection system infiltration evaluation yielded a negative
infiltration rate. This is attributed to the inclusion of commercial and residential customers with
irrigation systems resulting in a greater than 10% consumption loss.
Adjustment of consumption for residential customers with irrigation systems to equal the
average residential non -irrigation customer consumption plus an assumed 70% consumption
loss for commercial customers with irrigation resulted in an estimated infiltration rate of -152
gpd/inch-mile. This is indicative that the consumptive loss during the evaluation period perhaps
exceeded 90%. Regardless of the consumptive loss, the data supports the conclusion that the
estimated infiltration rate is significantly below the 3000 gpd per inch diameter mile guideline
and the Forney Creek WWTP collection system is not subject to excessive infiltration.
3.4.2 Inflow
Inflow within the current ELCWSD collection system was estimated by evaluation of the Middle
Forney Creek WWTP flow records following a rainfall event of one -inch or greater preceded by
five dry weather days. The inflow analysis results are as follows:
• Average daily dry weather flow - January 8 to 12, 2005:
0.499 mgd
• Average daily flow - January 13-14, 2005 with 1.2" rainfall:
0.639 mgd
• Per capita dry weather flow:
78 gpd/capita'
• Per capita wet weather flow:
100 gpd/capita`
Per capita flows include commercial, industrial and institutional flows.
Inflow is considered excessive if the flow exceeds a value of 275 gpd/capita following a 1-inch
rainfall event. Accordingly, it is concluded that the current collection system is not subject to
excessive inflow.
3-5

J2`° �GMl
2aR�: COUNTY OF LINCOLN, NORTH CAROLINA
CA0.°y`2
115 WEST MAIN STREET, 2N0 FLOOR CITIZENS CENTER, LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28092
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
June 22, 2005
Ms. Susan Wilson
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Permit Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Middle Forney Creek WWTP Expansion
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Dear Ms. Wilson,
Enclosed is a check for $215 and three (3) copies of an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
associated with the NPDES Permit Application submitted in March, 2005.
We have previously submitted an Authorization to Construct (ATC) Application to the Construction
Grants and Loans Section for this project.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bob Froneberger of WK
Dickson & Co., Inc. at 704-227-3403.
Sincerely,
EAST LINCOLN COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
Stephen A. Gilbert, PE, PLS
Director of Public Utilities
Att: Enclosures
L► i J U L 6 2005
CENR - WA OtIA.LiIY
POINT SOURCE BR-2
NCH

Middle Forney Creek WWTP Upgrade
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
WKD# 30522.00.CL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page Number
Section I - Summary ..................................................1
Section II - General Information ................................. 2-7
A. Basic Identification of the Project
B. Project Description
C. Existing Facilities
D. Construction Sequence and Probable Cost
Section III - Evaluate Disposal Alternatives .................8 - 12
A. Connection to Other Treatment Works
B. Land -Based Disposal
C. Wastewater Reuse
D. Disposal Combinations
Section IV - Conclusions and Recommendations ........ 13
Appendices
A. Middle Forney Creek WWTP Information
• Size of Major Components
• Speculative Limits for 1 .0 MGD Discharge
• Summary of Middle Forney Creek WWTP
2004 Effluent Monitoring Data
Middle Forney Creek WWTP Flow Diagram
• Middle Forney Creek Material Balance @ 0.75 mgd
• Middle Forney Creek Material Balance 9 0.975 mgd
B. Land Application Calculations

Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA)
I. SUMMARY
The purpose of this Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) is to support a requested
modification to NPDES Permit No. NC0074012 increasing the permitted flow from 0.75
mgd to 0.975 mgd for the East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District's (ELCWSD)
Middle Forney Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). ELCWSD is seeking to
upgrade the Middle Forney Creek WWTP at the same time they are preparing
preliminary engineering to build a new wastewater treatment plant to serve the district.
This increase in permitted flow for the Middle Forney Creek WWTP will allow sufficient
time to plan, construct and place into operation the new treatment facility and meet needs
for wastewater treatment until that time.
The preliminary engineering currently under way for the new facility involves the
preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER, formerly 201 Facility Plan) and
conducting an Environmental Assessment for the new facility. The PER will evaluate the
needs for the new treatment plant on a site located approximately 2.5 miles downstream
of the Middle Forney Creek Plant site. It is expected the Middle Forney Creek Facility
will continue to be operated at some reduced capacity after the new treatment plant is on
line and operating. The PER for the new facility is approximately 60% complete and is
expected to be submitted for review upon completion. Construction of the new treatment
plant is scheduled to be completed and operational by the Year 2008.
This EAA addresses the disposal alternatives associated with the increased permit
capacity. Alternative evaluated include the continued discharge to the Middle Forney
Creek, connection to other treatment works, land -based disposal and wastewater reuse.
An upgrade of the existing WWTP is required under all disposal alternatives except the
transfer to other treatment works. The conclusions of the evaluations are summarized as
follows:
A. Continued Discharge to Middle Forney Creek
An increase in the current NPDES Permit with continued discharge to the Middle Forney
Creek will require an upgrade of the existing WWTP. The proposed upgrade includes_
improvements to the influent pump station, oxidation ditch aeration capacity and c onne
contact plus eneral plant improvements for improved operation. The probable
construction cost of the plant upgrade is approximately $1,024,300 with an annual
operation and maintenance cost of $350,000 per year. This yields a total present worth
value (6.5%, 20 years) of $4,866,260.
B. Connection to Other Treatment Works
The nearest existing area wastewater treatment facility is the City of Lincolnton with a
permitted capacity of 6.0 mgd. This plant is approximately 13 miles away has a current
/� demand of approximately 4.6 mgd. There is not sufficient capacity within the plant to
Ok accept the proposed flows plus the construction cost for transportation and related
construction schedule requirements make this alternative unfeasible.
C. Land -Based Disposal

A land -based disposal system would still require the proposed upgrade of the WWTP
plus the cost of a land disposal system. Preliminary evaluation of land requirements
estimate approximately 300 acres would be required for land application. Land cost
alone would approach $3,000,000. Development and other site constraints in the area
immediately surrounding the WWTP would also require significant effluent
transportation requirement. This alternative was not considered to be economically
feasible and could not be implemented within a suitable time schedule.
D. Wastewater Reuse
Wastewater reuse was not considered to be economically or technically feasible due to
the costs for additional treatment to meet reuse quality requirements, storage and
transportation and schedule requirements required for implementation.
E. Disposal Combinations
There are no combination of land -based or reuse disposal alternatives economically or
technically achievable to meet the two year area growth demands for additional
wastewater treatment capacity at the Middle Forney Creek WWTP.
F. Conclusion
Upgrade of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP with a modification of the NPDES Permit
to increase the permitted discharge from 0.75 mgd to 0.95 mgd is the most economically
feasible and only technically achievable alternative for meeting the projected area short -
termed wastewater treatments demands.
2

vn�x

II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Basic Identification of the Project:
• Facility Name
• Facility Existing NPDES Permit No.
• County
• Facility Address
• Facility Telephone No.
• EAA Preparer's Name
• EAA Preparer's Address & Telephone No.
B. Project Description:
Middle Forney Creek WWTP
NCO074012
Lincoln County, NC
7533 South Little Egypt Road
Stanley, NC. 28164
704-822-9667
WK Dickson Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
704-334-5348
The proposed project consists of an upgrade of the Middle Forney Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) from 0.75 mgd to 0.975 mgd to meet the short -termed
treatment capacity demands necessitated by the accelerated development and population
growth in the area. The Middle Forney Creek WWTP currently provides treatment
services to approximately 2500 residential and business customers in an approximate 17
square mile area in the eastern portion of Lincoln County near Lake Norman. The
attractiveness of this area and close proximity to Charlotte and Lake Norman has resulted
in an accelerated growth and development. Additionally, NC Highway 16 is currently
being improved to provide four lanes of divided access from the Charlotte area and is
expected to further accelerate the area growth.
Figure No. 1 provides a visual record of the accelerated growth and demand for treatment
plant capacity at the plant since startup in 1996. Based upon monthly average flow
records and continued growth at the present rate, it is projected the WWTP will exceed
the present permitted capacity of 0.75 mgd by January 2007. ELCWSD currently has
requests from area developers for an additional 3964 future sewer connections potentially
increasing future wastewater flow to approximately 1.875 mgd.
Engineering efforts are currently in progress to address the twenty year wastewater
treatment needs of the area. This report is being prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the North Carolina Construction Grants and Loans for possible funding
of construction under the SRF program. Based upon population/flow projections for the
planning area, it is anticipated that the twenty year area growth will require a treatment
capacity of approximately 4.1 mgd by the year 2025. Optimum operation or further
upgrade of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP was evaluated as part of that planning was
not considered and is to be feasible based upon the following factors:
• The plant location on Forney Creek does not afford adequate site area for
significant expansion of the treatment facilities.
, �
c�.0,,t-x iov53t�, �-� ` yO% AYE° �
,�SoO Ctio-P0??�6 (80�o( � J)0�c Gc�

1.00 -
t' i
v 0.70
E
c 0.60
M
d
0.50
0.40
2 0.30
0.20
0.10
-IGURE 1: FORNEY CREEK WWTP MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS
3ie h, x
c' lrFvt°N
t ,f'i°
TF �:w
, df
!' rY�e r
et,`z ,
'
, r
utn�,r3`,t
I�nAcs'
Y t
i
r
"�
.r era
Iti!f-
' r
? �`"
✓
'✓ .�'P d
f i1 >
is ff
t
...}
�,t
xr"{ �'
i]
4 Y
�.#+
r y1SXf
-i✓SM
gt 'y-2
,$� p
ttl i YT II
ti
II .�
{+YS
.q p. d
,F Q.
dAlh P J
l�J
3 SyyX�y
JJ
'�`�}%.LL
^1.-A .��-: aS
/n e4'.4.}
�V ��'z•..
�ik.+a'+ �.
.t1=-.'A �}E+�"
V.��
i t
tyVi+X1'L^�y.
<-n�
v.
✓ <
'I} F
9.-, tY
eY'^eY
r ' n V,u
d.� }
t ESN' 6a
i':61�� ,Y
;)fYl ✓�sj+{
`C e,
.r F kt
ra 1
1 s
44"�R� t
4 t
✓. S
ij�
�5:�1�"'
ae
J.I�M1 lY
e-'
i �c_
f. eSA 4
M1
�Fi ANC%rj
bad
{
'{fie♦�mg
IN
.j{.
'�.u�'ki'
'+
r
i^a biteIAW-Ai
`"hn^vti'MArt�f+
:s
7w�'
A
,2 ,+ct.S A,,
. Y fF�.�
+r)%"4'hh":f
isr� ..'. }�+:
�. M•.h-r,
!A...+..�n.
{��pG..�'+r eY
a"!`.• 9'a}'
t{ •2a+ r5• t
� Y T'L
2 i kl
! ' $
C x"
4 h
] 4 �i�
) a' t
rn. �
t� "3 �>"�
stin�^.SiSn
4'fL r f{:
s>a , /��{,:
A
�+i E(JR
>' J Y ^, x:..
e;v+! Sc ..
_ 4�a S
e.i'v' t
{h��i
i'"J'..Ta
ISt
a" .::i�T
.iV%!'•"'f �Q.\;„�{lilix
t�xlf��t
,�"'�firrY� Ler
*`�` �
�'i•�� �
' 1 `r��N
��� �r`
p
f6 s°s1� ��
Jr �"
�+.� M 'n` 1
� �.+'�
� :4'R.'k:
'"+ "�'§ (
>zw wiz•.
k
+ ,..
}s 9 '€
i h
�k e S. 5
'VFl.2 '�
{vx,+�✓�+,
?Y 7�
r
h e"u �,
4r.
l�rlh`
� 3k Ep
IO
"fY
a
k.r l' ,
> 7
U
`'�
¢ty4f
iv4NmM1'a st'!'.
1 �a--'fit
i#^✓ v
t [' C9 4a
• sB m
a
r
Fi"
t4 vr,��
`Y5�+4Yr�`f
5
lCy w�,1�d
p
§yY¢Sa1
'lIJ
rjtjlx� <�,=
lP$uV
tg
t}.J.F
{
/ iGt w 1
! R t �P+.t..i'
Yx rX 3
�+i r tt + 'i
a
M
ppgg`vb
�^�Y�}'`�ifPi
�'�>5��f
�(�+Yri/YA
V{''f�twaf.J
P54 h1��tY
gMY
.YY 1'J{X'�:
i?�4
>-
T { N" A'
tyy
S MS ✓`, ti!
J
4NSw4.,q
c4 4�
i i L S %
Fv+*
� �`�'
F
nr
4 p1J{ `it
i4 N�'y't
P t
iT A i'y` 11
t [
1
�'P�
r.✓ r
!r —6T
� !'
f�
�^ a
�43"Y
1 i�'C tI(`XYN
iN5'��
i ��1'y.
'4C 5 1���^1:4
i'
'Cla lv�
•4J
','S, �1
"}+ 4
d" f
��1 �
_
; ^�
., ,�t
����
5•Y'Mu h;
i�"
ESN-!
M.•..N'.1h
m
4
-�
>.xti�fk'L
.
1�m.
s
y�+� a41,
t
: a i
F�`5�rdi>
�' ,L
bdt
y'�,r• r3�itt
�
r Y R'ip�i
� �i s
tm' t
�
�� 7 �£ i
S a r
v i ) +s"`
hwh 'fit
P pro-
.+, t
�
S ).
� t s
''$ry ydt:
k�✓
>.{
,.° t�`a�;,p
,c a >Ce'"q
V .�••,.k?`u
. _.rr�'
ut1'�'. �3 '
..:' - `'cT
s Sa
� t"�
! �.
at
0.00
Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98
Jan-99
Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08
1996-2008
—Monthly Ave Flow (mgd) —NPDES Permit Flow (mgd) —Poly. (Monthly Ave Flow (mgd))
TM
nDin CIA
K �r
�/ems : Sl6
.5,23

• The discharge location into Forney Creek does not provide sufficient
assimilative capacity to support the long -termed treatment needs of the
planning area under the current stream quality requirements and associated
NPDES Permit effluent limitations.
• The present WWTP site is not strategically located within the proposed
service area to extend gravity service to the Killian Creek, Leepers Creek
and Hoyle Creek drainage basins where major development is expected to
occur.
The proposed expansion of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP from 0.75 to 0.975 mgd is
expected to maximize the capacity of this facility to meet the short -termed growth
demands until a regional facility can be constructed. When the proposed regional facility
is available, it is anticipated that a portion of the flow to the Middle Forney Creek
WWTP will diverted into the new facility reducing the hydraulic demands upon the
Middle Forney Creek WWTP.
C. Existing Facilities
To meet the anticipated immediate short -termed demand for wastewater treatment within
the present service area, ELCWSD is requesting an increase in the permitted capacity of
the Middle Forney Creek WWTP from 0.75 mgd to 0.975 mgd. The Authorization to
Construct (ATC) for the proposed plant modifications have been submitted for approval
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Construction Grants and Loans Section
with construction planned to begin in 2005.
The current Middle Forney Creek wastewater treatment plant includes the below
listed unit processes:
Liquid
Treatment Train
Solids Processing Train
•
Influent Pump Station (Duplex VFD
Pumps)
•
Return Activated Sludge Pumps (2)
•
Influent Parshall Flume
•
Waste Activated Sludge Weir
•
Bar Screen
•
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener
•
Aerated Grit Chamber
•
Aerobic Sludge Digester
•
Oxidation Ditch (3 Channel, Extended
Aeration Activated Sludge)
•
Gravity Thickener
•
Sodium Hydroxide Feed (Alkalinity
and pH control in Aeration Basin and
Aerobic Digester)
•
Sludge Transfer Pump (1)
•
Secondary Clarifiers 2
•
Sludge Holding Tank
•
Chlorination (Chlorine Gas)
•
Land Application Sludge Disposal
•
Chlorine Contact Basin 2)
•
Dechlorination (Sulfur Dioxide Gas)
•
Effluent Reaeration
5

The pending plant expansion to 0.975 mgd will include the following general
modifications to facilitate the increased plant design flow and provide needed
general operational and maintenance improvements:
• Replacement of influent pumps to provide additional peak flow capacity
• Modifications to oxidation ditch aeration system to provide additional oxygen
transfer capacity
• Addition of a new chlorine contact chamber
• Replacement of existing chlorine and sulfur dioxide feed systems
• Improvements to sodium hydroxide chemical storage and feed system
• Replacement of aeration diffusers in aerobic digester for improved digestion
• Addition of a scum skimmer in sludge gravity thickener
• New scum pumps and wetwell mixer
• New thickened sludge transfer pumps and controls
• Improvements at sludge holding tank to provide mechanical mixing and
improved sludge transfer pumping
The following supporting information related to the existing Middle Forney Creek
WWTP and requested increase in permitted plant capacity is included within
Appendix A:
• Summary of Design Parameters
• Speculative Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements — Forney Creek
WWTP @ 1.0 MGD
• Summary of 2004 Middle Forney Creek Effluent Monitoring Data
• Fomey Creek WWTP Flow Diagram with Narrative
• Forney Creek WWTP Material Balance @ 0.75 mgd
• Forney Creek WWTP Material Balance @ 0.975 mgd
There are no pending Special Orders by Compliance (SOC's) issued to the
ELCSD associated with the Middle Forney Creek WWTP nor related
requirements for construction. The plant is currently achieving compliance within
the speculative permit limits.
D. Construction Sequence and Probable Cost
The proposed construction associated with the plant upgrade form 0.75 mgd to 0.975
mgd will be completed in one phase. A construction schedule of approximately one year
is anticipated.
The probable construction cost, annual operations and maintenance cost, salvage value
and total present worth costs for the proposed upgrade of the Middle Forney Creek
WWTP are summarized in Table 1.
0

•
•
ey. Table No. 1. Middle Forney Creek WWTP Upgrade Estimate of Probable Cost
•
0
e
•
e
e
•
•
•
Q
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item Description Probable Const. Cost ($)
°Influent Pump Station Modifications
$142,500
— Oxidation Ditch Modifications
41,400
— New Chlorine Contact Tank & Static Aerator Repairs
78,600
Upgrade of Chlorine and Sulfur Dioxide Systems *
119,200
Chemical Feed System Improvements *
14,900
Dissolved Air Flotation Thicken Access Platforms *
8,000
Aerobic Digester Area Improvements *
159,500
Sludge Holding Tank Improvements *
67,800
Utility Building Lab and Restroom Improvements *
18,300
Misc. Site and Electrical Work
96,000
Contingency (10%)
74.600
Subtotal:
$820,800
Engineering Design
82,100
Construction Bidding & Contract Award
5,000
Construction Administration
41,000
Construction Observation (90 days)
54,000
Soil & Material Testing
5,000
Owner Project Administration (2%)
16,400
Total Probable Construction Cost:
$1,024,300
* Operational improvements not necessarily required
for upgrade of plant capacity.
Annual Operation & Maintenance Cost
• Power Cost $44,000
• Labor Cost 121,500
• Chemical Costs 39,500
• Sludge Disposal 105,000
• Lab Supplies & Testing 20,000
• Replacement Parts & Materials 20,000
Total Annual Operation & Maintenance Cost: $350,000
Estimated 20 Year Salvage Value of WWTP $51,000
Total Present Worth (6.5%, 20 years) $4,866,260
7

III. EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
The following effluent disposal alternatives were evaluated in compliance with the
requirements of EAA.
A. Connecting to Other Treatment Works
Connection to the City of Lincolmon's WWTP was evaluated. The City of Lincolnton
operates a 6.0 mgd publicly owned wastewater treatment facility discharging to the South
Fork of the Catawba River near State Highway 150. This plant currently serves
approximately 3862 sewer customers within a five (5) square mile service area and has a
current demand of approximately 4.75 mgd. It is located in excess of 13 miles by a direct
straight line route from the Middle Forney Creek WWTP. Transfer of wastewater to the
City of Lincolnton is not considered feasible due to the limited available capacity,
distance required for the transfer, construction cost for pumping and transfer piping and
schedule constraints required to implement this alternative.
There are no known private wastewater treatment facilities in the County of sufficient
capacity to accept the Middle Forney Creek WWTP flows.
B. Land -Based Disposal
ELCWSD does not own land suitable for a surface or subsurface land disposal system or
associated effluent storage facility. Furthermore, area residential development, Forney
Creek flood plain, the Seaboard Coast Railroad and construction of the new Highway No.
16 act as barriers to the purchase of adjacent area property of sufficient size for a land -
based disposal system.
To further assess the preliminary feasibility of a land -based disposal system, preliminary
calculations of land requirements were prepared and are included within Appendix B. A
preliminary water balance was prepared using 30 year average precipitation and
evaportranspiration data from the 2000 to 2004 period for the Charlotte, NC area.
Based upon a moderately permeable soil characteristic of the general area, a
percolation rate of 1.75 inches per week was assumed for the maximum combined
application of wastewater and rainfall. The water balance yielded a projected
maximum annual wastewater application rate of 78.2 inches or an average
hydraulic loading of 1.5 inches per week.
In addition to hydraulic loading, nitrogen loading was evaluated since it is
commonly the limiting nutrient in wastewater irrigation systems. For preliminary
evaluation purposes, the irrigation site requirements were computed assuming
irrigation of southern pine with no understory with an annual nitrogen uptake of
196 lbs/ac-yr (220 kg/ha-yr). Based upon a wastewater effluent with 10 mg/1 total

nitrogen, the annual application rate based upon nitrogen loading was limited to
91.65 inches/year or 1.75 inches per week.
Comparing the hydraulic and nitrogen loadings, the design of a spray irrigation
system would likely be governed by hydraulic loadings with an annual application
rate of approximately 78.2 inches per year. This loading rate would require a
minimum application site of approximately 167 acres plus buffer zone between
adjacent properties and surface waters resulting in a total minimum application
site approaching 281 acres or larger.
Effluent storage would also be required for a land -based disposal system.
Assuming a minimum storage of 30 days per NC Administrative Code
T15A:02H.02190)(9), a 29.2 million gallons effluent storage pond would required
to support a land -based application system. This would require 10 or more
additional acres of land.
Based upon the forgoing preliminary evaluations, the following conclusions were
made regarding a non -discharge land application system:
• Treatment requirements for a non -discharge alternative will closely approach
that of the discharge alternative offering no economic saving to the proposed
plant upgrade for a point source discharge.
• Minimum land requirements for a non -discharge land application system will
approach 300 acres. Actual land requirements could likely be substantially
larger due to unusable site application areas associated with site topography
and drainage areas.
• With the average cost of land in the area approaching $10,000 per acre, the
minimum cost of land alone will approach $3,000,000.
• Additional costs associated with a land application system include site
development, storage pond construction, preparation and planting of the
desired forest ecosystem, site monitoring wells, pumps, distribution piping,
valves and controls plus associated ongoing annual operational costs over and
above the cost of treatment.
• The added cost for a land application non -discharge system for this
application is not economically feasible for this application when compared to
the proposed plant upgrade at a cost of less than 1,000,000.
• The implementation of a land -based disposal system could not be achieved
with the required implementation schedule.
C. Wastewater Reuse
Reuse of treated effluent was evaluated as an alternative to a point source
discharge. Reuse opportunities in the area include possible agricultural purposes
and golf course irrigation. Area golf courses and their respective straight line
distance from the proposed regional wastewater treatment site were identified as
follows:
0

Cowans Ford Country Club
Denver. NC
Lincolnton Country Club
Lincolnton, NC
Verdic Ridge Country Club
Denver, NC
Approximate Distance to
Treatment Facility
2.6 miles — straight line
3.2 miles — along highway R/W
13.1 miles — straight line
18 miles — along highway R/W
3.4 miles — straight line
4.8 miles — along highway R/W
Minimum design requirements for use of reclaimed municipal wastewater are
covered under North Carolina Administrative Code T15A:02H.0219(k). These
requirements include the following key requirements:
• Aerated flow equalization facility (based on diurnal hydrograph or 25% of
design flow).
• All essential treatment units provided in duplicate.
• Tertiary quality effluent to the following discharge limits:
TSS
Fecal Coliform
BOD5
NH4
Monthly Average
< 5 mg/1
< 14/100 ml
< 10 mg/I
< 4 mg/1
Daily Maximum
< 10 mg/1
<25/100 ml
< 15 mg/1
< 6 mg/1
• Continuous on-line monitoring and recording of turbidity or particle count.
• Provision for diversion of effluent to a five-day side -stream detention pond if
turbidity exceeds 10 NTU or if fecal levels can not be met and ability to return
effluent to treatment facility or meet effluent requirements prior to discharge
to irrigation pond.
• Irrigation pond based upon a mass water balance using a recent 25 year period
for monthly average precipitation and evaportranspiration data and
representative soil drainage data.
Based upon the forgoing piping distances and treatment requirements, the
following conclusions were reached regarding the opportunity for effluent reuse:
• Treatment requirements will be more stringent than a surface discharge
system. This will require the addition of tertiary treatment increasing the cost
of treatment.
11

• Effluent storage requirements will be greater than a dedicated land application
system due to the additional 5 day side -stream diversion pond in addition to
the water based hydrograph.
• Golf course irrigation rates typically have lower hydraulic application rates
than a dedicated application site due to restrictions on application periods.
With an application site requirement in excess of 281 acres, it is unlikely that
the three identified golf courses in the area would have sufficient land area for
effluent disposal.
• The reuse system would avoid the cost associated with land for the dedicated
application site, but would add the cost of transportation to reuse sites and the
associated cost of administration of the reuse system.
• The added cost to the proposed treatment plant upgrade for the effluent reuse
system would not be economically feasible.
D. Disposal Combinations
The combination of land -based disposal and wastewater reuse is not economically
feasible due to the added cost of treatment, effluent storage and transportation to
available dedicated land application and/or reuse sites. The added cost over that of the
proposed upgrade of the existing plant would make this option unfeasible from an
economic standpoint.
12

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Base upon the foregoing evaluations of this Engineering Alternatives Analysis, the
following conclusions and recommendations were reached:
• Continued discharge to the Middle Forney Creek is the only economically and
technically achievable alternative available to meet the projected 2007 eastern
Lincoln County wastewater treatment demands.
• To provide the additional 0.225 mgd treatment capacity and provide needed
operational improvements, an upgrade of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP is
proposed at a probable construction cost of $1,024,300 with an annual operation and
maintenance cost of $350,000. This provides a present worth (6.5%, 20 year) cost of
$4,866,260 for this upgrade.
• Transfer to existing facilities, land -based disposal or wastewater reuse disposal
alternatives are not economically feasible or technical achievable to meet the
projected wastewater treatment requirements.
• The modification of NPDES Permit NC0074012 will allow a moderate increase in
capacity from 0.75 to 0.975 mgd at an economically feasible cost, enabling time to
plan for area growth and long term wastewater treatment needs in the ELCWSD.
13

FORNEY CREEK WWTP
SIZE OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
Existing 0.75 MGD
WWTP
Proposed 0.975 MGD
WWTP
Influent Pump Station:
No. of pumps
2 w/ lace for 3
2 w/ place for 3
Type of pumps
Submersible —
Variable Speed
Submersible —
Variable Speed
Design capacity
300 -1300gpm/ea
677 -1693gpm/ea
Maximum pumping capacity
1600 gpm-2 pumps
(2.3 mgd)
1693 gpm — 1 pump
(2.44 mgd)
Influent force main
10" DIP
10" DIP
Primary Treatment System:
Influent Parshall Flume (9" throat) peak flow
0.97' @ 1.9 mgd
1.16' @ 2.5 mgd
Influent Screens:
• "Lakeside Raptor" fine screen w/ 0.25" opening
2.97 mgd capacity
2.97 mgd capacity
• Manually cleaned bar screen
I ea — 2' wide
1 ea — 2' wide
Grit Chamber:
• "Lakeside Aeroductor" — 10'x10'x12' SWD
2.5 mgd capacity
2.5 mgd capacity
Secondary Treatment S stem:
Oxidation Ditch- Ext. Aeration Activated Sludge
• Total basin volume
656,300 gallons
656,300
Secondary Clarifiers:
• Number
2
2
• Size
35' dia. X 14' SWD
35' dia. X 14' SWD
Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Pumps:
• Number & Type
2 ea — variable
speed submersible
2 ea — variable speed
submersible
• Capacity
250 — 780 gpm/ea
250 — 780 gpm/ea
Chlorine Contact Chamber:
Number of chambers
2 ea @ 7834 gal.
2 ea @ 7834 gal.
1 ea @ 8840 gal.
Total Contact Volume
15,676 gal.
24,516 gal.
Chlorine Gas Feed System
2 ea P, 100 lb/day
2ea 200 lbs/day
Chlorine Feed System Design Capacity
100 lbs/day
6.3 ppm @ 1.9m d
200 Ibs/day
9.6 ppm @ 2.5m d
Sulfur Dioxide Feed System
2 ea P, 75 lb/day
2 ea P, 751b/day
Sulfur Dioxide Feed System Capacity
75 lbs/day
4.7 ppm @ 1.9 mgd
75 lbs/day
3.6 ppm @ 2.5 mgd
L:\Projects\LINCL\3052200CL\Documents\G_Design CalculationsWajor Component Summary.doc

Existing 0.75 MGD
WWTP
Proposed 0.975
MGD WWTP
Slud a Handling System:
Dissolved Air Flotation DAF) Unit
• Number
1 ea
1 ea
• Size
9.5' x 37'x 9' deep
9.5' x 37'x 9' deep
Aerobic Digester System
• Total Volume (4 tanks)
14,786 cf
110,600 gal
14,786 cf
110,600 gal
• Aeration blowers
2 ea @ 1100 scfrn
2 ea @ 1100 scfm
Sludge Gravity Thickener
12' x 24' w/ 2
hopper bottoms
12x 24' w/ 2
ho er bottoms
Sludge Holding Tank
• Size
56' dia x 20'
56' dia x 20'
• Storage volume w/ 2' freeboard
331,620 gal.
331,620
• Storage @ design solids production
129 days @ 2.5%
100 days @ 3%
• Mixing
500 gpm recir.
2 ea 8.9 Hp
submersible mixers
plus 500 gpm recir.
L:\Projects\LINCL\3052200CL\Documents\G_Design CalculationsWajor Component Summary.doc

\N ATF9
h4ichael F. Easley
Governor
Mr. Stephen A. Gilbert, P.E., PI-S
Director of Public Utilities
County of Lincoln
115 West Main St.
Lincolnton, North Carolina 28092
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
February 22, 2005
Alan VV. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
IRECE FD
WK 10 MAR a �05
.D`N CQ I
Subject: Speculative Limits for Forney Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Lincoln County
This letter is in response to the request for speculative effluent limits from Mr. M.L. Wolfe of
WK Dickson for the expanded Forney Creek WWTP. A wastewater flow of 1.0 MGD was targeted for
discharge into the Forney Creek in the Catawba River Basin.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division will issue an
NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. The County of Lincoln will
be required to complete an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) that must be submitted with the
application for the NPDES permit. The EAA should contain a clear and strong justification for the
expanded facility and an analysis of potential alternatives, which should include a thorough evaluation
of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation, water conservation, or
connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are considered to be environmentally preferable
to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the most
practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is
required to be implemented. (A copy of the EAA guidance is attached with this letter).
This segment of Forney Creek has a stream classification of C. The best usage of these waters is
aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish), wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Using available information, the discharge point has an estimated
drainage area of 7.8 square miles, with an average flow of 9 cfs, a summer 7Q10 of 0.6 cfs and a winter
7Q10 of 1.4 cfs. Please be advised that these are historical flows, however it is preferable that the
County of Lincoln request updated flow estimations from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
to ensure accuracy. You may contact J. Curtis Weaver of USGS at 919-571-4043 concerning your
request.
The tentative effluent limits for oxygen -consuming constituents for the Forney Creek WWTP
discharge at the flow of 1.0 MGD are included on the attached effluent sheet. The Division of Water
Quality is requiring chlorine limits for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of- chlorine
N. C. Division of Water Duality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.slate.nc.us DENR Customer service Center: 1 600 623-7746

01 22 02:24p lincoln county
7047368493
p.2
for disinfection. The process of chlorination/dechlonnation or an alternate fomi of disinfection, such as
ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to comply with this requirement. Additionally, upon
formal permit application, if there are industrial wastewater contributors to your plant, an evaluation of
limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be done.
Final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined if a permit application is submitted
to the Division. If there are any additional questions concerning this matter, please feel flee to
contact Jackie Nowell of my staff at [phone] ext. 512.
Respectfully,
/usA. Wilson, Acting Supervisor
NPDES Western Program
Attachments
cc: M.L. Wolfe, W.K. Dickson & Co. 616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, N.C. 28205
Bob Fomeberger, W.K. Dickson & Co. 616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, N.C. 28205
Mooresville Regional Office/Rex Gleason
Bobbv Blowe, Construction Grants and Loans
Central Files
NPDES Permit File

01 22 02:24p lincoln county 70473GB499 p.3
A. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -
LINCOLN COUNTY — FORNEY CREEK NN'WTP at 1.0 MGD
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Penrlittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittec as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
SampleLocationl
Flow
1.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 209C2 (April 1
- October 31)
13.0 mg/L
19.5 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent, Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 209C2
(November 1 - March 30)
26.0 rrg/L
39.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent, Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg1L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Influent, Effluent
NH3 as N (April 1 - October
31)
1.3 mg/L
3.9 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N (November 1 -
March 30)
3.2 mg/L
9.6 mgrL
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 mi
31Neek
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
3/Week
Grab
Effluent, Upstream,
Downstream
pH4
Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
23NgrL
3/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Quarter)
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, 4C
3Mleek
Grab
Effluent , Upstream,
Downstream
Chronic Toxicity
Quarterly
Corr osite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent, Upstream, Downstream
2. The monthly average effluent.130D5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Limit and monitoring requirement will apply only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6. Chronic Toxiclty (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 73%; Testing months to be determined at later date
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace

•®o•••••••o®••••o••s•0000000000•00000000•oo
EAA - APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF MIDDLE FORNEY CREEK WWTP 2004 EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
Effluent Characteristic
2004 DMR AVERAGE
Monthly Average Daily Maximum
SPECULATIVE PERMIT LIMITS
Monthly Average Weekly Average Daily
Maximum
Flow
0.47 mgd
0.814 mgd
1.0 mgd
BOD5, (April 1 - October 31)
4.8 mg/1
9.9 mg/1
26.0 mg/1
39 mg/1
BOD5, November 1 - March 30)
6.0 mg/I
10.3 mg/1
30.0 mg/I
45 mg/1
TSS
9.2 mg/1
26.2 mg/1
30.0 mg/1
45 mg/I
NH3, (April 1 -October 31)
0.2 mg/I
0.5 mg/1
1.5 mg/I
4.5 mg/1
NH3, (November 1 - March 30)
0.5 mg/1
1.74 me
3.7 mg/I
1 L I mg/1
Fecal coliform (geometric mean)
10/100 ml
470/100 ml
200/100 ml
400/ 100 ml
TRC
< 20 u l
22 u l
26 1

MIDDLE FORNEY CREEK WWTP FLOW DIAGRAM
EAST LINCOLN COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
INFLUENT
PUMP STA.
INFLUENT
P
HEADWORKS
Duplex
Influent
VFD Pumps
OXIDATION
DITCH CLARIFIER
1
RAS PUMPS (2) /
CHLORINE STATIC
CONTACT AERATOR
6 7
TO FORNEY
CREEK
�J CREEK
18 Secondary Clarifier
—� Scum
DISSOLVED AEROBIC GRAVITY SLUDGE
AIR FLOTATION DIGESTION THICKENER
13 14
19
THICKENED
SLUDGE HOLDING TANK P SLUDGE
PUMPS (2)
CONTRACT LAND
APPLICATION
1 Scum Pumps (2)
� p
20
Flow Diaaram Narrative
Wastewater enters the Middle Forney Creek W W TP by gravity and is pumped to the headworks and flows through the primary and secondary
treatment to Forney Creek by gravity flow. The RAS pumps return sludge from the clarifiers to a weir box to split the return and waste sludge.
Waste sludge flows by gravity through the dissolved air flotation to the aerobic digester and sludge thickener. Sludge from the sludge thickener
is pumped to the sludge holding lank. Underflow from the dissolved air flotation system, supernatant from the sludge thickener and decant
from the sludge holding tank flows by gravity to the plant influent pump station. All mass values are based upon the design flow and plant loadings.
The line numbers correspond to the mass balance tabulations. The entire plant is served with emergency backup power provided by an onsite.
diesel fueled generator.

MIDDLE FORNEY CREEK WWTP MATERIAL BALANCE @ 0.75 MGD
EAST LINCOLN COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
W.K. DICKSON PROJECT NO. 30522.00.CL
Inf. Ave Flow (ADF)
Inf. Peak Flow (PDF)
Inf. BODS
Inf. TSS
Inf. NH3
Sludge Yield
MLSS
VSS/TSS
MLVSS
Recycle Rate
Clarifier Sludge Solids
WAS
LINE NO.:
0.750 mgd
1.875 mgd
250 mg/l
250 mg/I
20 mg/l
0.73 Ibs Solids/lb BOD5 Applied
5000 mg/I
0.8
4000 mg/I
0.5
10,000 mg/I
1142 Ibs/day
1 2 3 4
6/15/2005
Solids Capture at DAF 0.85
Solids in DAF Float
25000
VSS Destruction at Aerobic Digester
0.4
Solids Capture at G. Thickener
0.85
Solids in G. Thickener Undertow
25000
Solids to Waste Disposal
25000
Solids in Holding Tank Decant
500
Solids Capture at Sludge Holding Tank
1
5 6 7 10 11
FLOW
MGD
0.750
0.762 0.762 1.137
0.748
0.748
0.748
0.375
0.0137
TSS
mg/I
250
5000
20
20
20
10,000
10,000
TSS
Ibs/day
1564
1,897 1897 47,406
125
125
125
46,077
1,142
VSS
mg/I
200
4000
16
16
16
8,000
8,000
VSS
Ibs/day
1251
37,925
100
100
100
36,862
913
LINE NO.:
11
12
13
14
15 16
17
18
19
20
FLOW
gpd
13688
9255
4432
2585
2562 0
2562
714
554
1268
TSS
mg/I
10000
2218
25000
7493
25000 #DIV/0!
25000
10000
10000
10000
TSS
Ibs/day
1142
171
970
162
561 0
561
62.6
49
111
VSS
mg/I
8000
1200
6800
VSS
Ibs/day
913
137
776
70
396
89

Process Design @ 0.750 mgd
Grit Chamber Volume 8976 gallons
Hydraulic Detentin Time @ ADF 17.23 minutes
Hydraulic Detentin Time @ ADF 6.89 minutes
Oxidation Ditch
Volume
656000 gallons
Organic Volumetric Loading
17.8 Ibs/d/1000sf
Hydraulic Detention Time
21.0 hours
Food/Mass Ratio
0.071 Ibs BODS/Ib MLVSS
Oxygen Required for BOD @ 1.21 Ibs/lb of BODS Applied
1892 Ibs/day
Oxygen Required for NH3 @ 4.6 Ibs/Ib of NH3 Applied
- 575 Ibs/day
Actual Oxygen Required
103 Ibs/hour
Secondary Clarifiers
Total Surface Area (2 @ 35' Dia.)
1923 SF
SOR @ ADF
389 GPD/SF
SOR @ PDF
975 GPD/SF
Solids Loading @ ADF
24.6 Lbs/Day/SF
Weir Overflow Rate (96.3 If / ea x 2) @ ADF
3884.5 gpd/If
Weir Overflow Rate (96.3 If / ea x 2) @ PDF
9735.2 gpd/If
Chlori nation/Dechlori nation
Total Contact Tank Volume 30750 gallons
Contact Time @ ADF 59.2 minutes
Contact Time @ PDF 23.6
Aerobic Digester
Total Digester Volume
14786 cf
Hydraulic Detention Time
19.4 days
Solids Loading
0.059 Ibs VSS/cf/day
Thickener
Surface Area (12' x 24')
288 sf
Solids Loading
2.5 Ibs TSS/sf/day
Hydraulic Loading
10.9 gpd/sf
Sludge Holding Tank
Maximum Holding Tank Volume
331620 gallons
Hydraulic Detention Time @ Solids = 25000 mg/1
129.4 days

MIDDLE FORNEY CREEK WWTP MATERIAL BALANCE @ 0.975 MGD
EAST LINCOLN COUNTY WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
W.K. DICKSON PROJECT NO. 30522.00.CL
6/15/2005
Inf. Ave Flow (ADF)
0.975 mgd
Solids Capture at DAF
0.85
Inf. Peak Flow (PDF)
2.438 mgd
Inf. BOD5
250 mg/I
Solids in DAF Float
25000
Inf. TSS
250 mg/I
VSS Destruction at Aerobic Digester
0.4
Inf. NH3
20 mg/I
Solids Capture at G. Thickener
0.85
Sludge Yield
0.73 Ibs Solids/lb BOD5 Applied
Solids in G. Thickener Underflow
25000
MLSS
5000 mg/I
Solids to Waste Disposal
30000
VSS/TSS
0.8
Solids in Holding Tank Decant
500
MLVSS
4000 mg/I
Solids Capture at Sludge Holding Tank
0.9
Recycle Rate
0.5
Clarifier Sludge Solids
10,000 mg/I
WAS
1484 Ibs/day
LINE NO.:
1 2 3
4
5 6 7
10
11
FLOW MGD
0.975 0.991 0.991
1.479
0.973 0.973 0.973
0.4875
0.0178
TSS mg/I
250
5000
20 20 20
10,000
10,000
TSS Ibs/day
2033 2,538 2538
61,663
162 162 162
59,935
1,484
VSS mg/I
200
4000
16 16 16
8,000
8,000
VSS Ibs/day
1626
49,330
130 130 130
47,948
1,187
LINE NO.:
11 12 13
14
15 16 17
18
19 20
FLOW
gpd
17794
12032
5762
3360
3330 833 2498 929 720 1649
TSS
mg/I
10000
2218
25000
7493
25000 10500 30000 10000 10000 10000
TSS
Ibs/day
1484
223
1261
210
729 73 656 81.3 63 144
VSS
mg/I
8000
1200
6800
VSS
Ibs/day
1187
178
1009
91
515

Process Design @ 0.975 mgd
Grit Chamber Volume 8976 gallons
Hydraulic Detentin Time @ ADF 13.26 minutes
Hydraulic Detentin Time @ ADF 5.30 minutes
Oxidation Ditch
Volume
656000 gallons
Organic Volumetric Loading
23.2 Ibs/d/1000sf
Hydraulic Detention Time
16.1 hours
Food/Mass Ratio
0.093 Ibs BODS/lb MLVSS
Oxygen Required for BOD @ 1.21 Ibs/lb of BODS Applied
2460 Ibs/day
Oxygen Required for NH3 @ 4.6 Ibsllb of NH3 Applied
748 Ibs/day
Actual Oxygen Required
134 Ibs/hour
Secondary Clarifiers
Total Surface Area (2 @ 35' Dia.)
1923 SF
SOR @ ADF
506 GPD/SF
SOR @ PDF
1267 GPD/SF
Solids Loading @ ADF
32.1 Lbs/Day/SF
Weir Overflow Rate (96.3 If / ea x 2) @ ADF
5054.2 gpd/If
Weir Overflow Rate (96.3 If / ea x 2) @ PDF
12655.8 gpd/If
Chlori nation/Dechlori nation
Total Contact Tank Volume
30750 gallons
Contact Time @ ADF
45.5 minutes
Contact Time @ PDF
18.2
Aerobic Digester
Total Digester Volume
14786 cf
Hydraulic Detention Time
14.9 days
Solids Loading
0.068 Ibs VSS/cf/day
Thickener
Surface Area (12' x 24')
288 sf
Solids Loading
3.5 Ibs TSS/sf/day
Hydraulic Loading
14.2 gpd/sf
Sludge Holding Tank
Maximum Holding Tank Volume
331620 gallons
Hydraulic Detention Time @ Solids = 30000 mg/I
132.8 days
1.34 Lbs/Hr/SF

Land Application Evaluation Calculations
Middle Forney Creek WWTP
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District
WATER BALANCE:
Lw(p) =
ET - Pr + Pw
Where:
Lw(p)
Wastewater hydraulic loading based upon percolation rate
ET
Evaportranspiration (Average for Charlotte, NC - Average for 2000 to 2004
NOAA National Data Center, Ashville, NC
Pr
Precipitation (30 yr average - per State Climate Office of North Carolina, 6/1 /05)
Net ET
ET - Pr
Pw
Percolation (based upon soil profile with moderate permeability @ 1.75 inch/wk)
ET
Pr Net ET Pw Lw(p)
Month
inches
inches inches inches inches
Jan
0.22
3.71 -3.49 7.68 4.09
Feb
0.46
3.84 -3.38 7.58 4.20
Mar
1.28
4.43 -3.15 7.58 4.43
Apr
2.30
2.68 -0.38 7.58 7.20
May
3.77
3.82 -0.05 7.58 7.53
Jun
4.83
3.39 1.44 7.58 9.02
Jul
5.70
3.92 1.78 7.58 9.36
Aug
4.62
3.73 0.89 7.58 8.47
Sep
3.74
3.50 0.24 7.58 7.82
Oct
2.02
3.36 -1.34 7.58 6.24
Nov
1.05
3.23 -2.18 7.58 5.40
Dec
0.30
3.48 -3.18 7.58 4.40
Total Annual:
30.29
43.09 -12.80 91.00 78.20 inches/yr
NITROGEN LOADING:
Lw(n) =
Cp (Pr -ET) + U (10)
(1-f)(Cn) - (Cp)
Where:
Lw(n) =
Allowable annual hyraulic loading rate based upon nitrogen limits,
cm/yr
Cp =
Nitrogen concentration in percolatiing water, mg/I =
10 mg/I
Cn =
Nitrogen in applied wastewater, mg/I =
25 mg/I
Pr =
Precipitation rate, cm/yr = 109.45 cm/yr
43.09 in/yr
ET =
Evaprotranspiration Rate, cm/yr = 76.94
30.29 in/yr
U =
Nitrogen uptake by crop = 220 Kg/ha-yr
(Southern Pine)
f =
fraction of applied nitrogen removed by denit./volatilization =
20%
Lw(n) =
2328.00 = 232.8 cm/yr = 91.65
inches/yr
10
Conclusion: Hydraulic loading based upon percolation rate controls @
78.20 inches/yr
1.50 inches/wk

Land Application Evaluation Calculations
Middle Forney Creek WWTP
East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District
Minimum Design Standards Required by North Carolina DENR:
Maximum Hydraulic Application Rate:
78.20 inches/year
1.50 inches/week
Minimum Storage: 30 days residual holding
(Reference: Administrative Code T15A:02H.02190)(9))
Pond Depth 10 ft
Side Slope - Horizontal : Vertical 3 :1
Pond Freeboard 3 ft
Design Flow: 0.975 mgd
975,000 gpd
Minimum Required Application Site
Application Area = Weekly Flow / Max. Application Rate = 7,280,797 sf = 167.1 acres
[gpd x 7 days/wk x 1 cf/7.48 gal. x wk/Application rate inches x 12 inches/ft]
Application Area if square = 2,698 ft square
Total Site with minimum 400 ft buffer zone = 3,498 ft square
Total Min. Site Area (Assuming all available for irrigation) 12,238,069 sf = 280.9 acres
Minimum Required Storage Volume
Storage = 30 days x ADF = 29,250,000 gallons
Mid -Depth Pond Area Required @ Design Deep = 391,043 sf
Mid -Depth Dimensions Assuming Square Pond Design = 625 ft square
Top Dim. w/ Side Slope plus Freeboard, Surface Area= 673 ft square = 10.4 acres

Michael F. Easley
Governor
W ATF,9
11 !9 1 VN
Mr. Stephen A. Gilbert, P.E., PLS
Director of Public Utilities
County of Lincoln
115 West Main St.
Lincolnton, North Carolina 28092
Dear Mr. Gilbert:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 20, 2005
Subject: Permit Modification for Forney Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
Lincoln County
The Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit received the permit modification request for the
subject facility on March 10, 2005. It was recently discovered that the required modification fee was not
included in the package. Lincoln County needs to submit a check or money order in the amount of
$215.00 for processing. The check should be made payable to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and submitted to our office as soon as possible.
In addition, the permit modification package should have also included an Engineering
Alternatives Analysis (EAA) as noted in our February 22, 2005 letter on the speculative limits for the
WWTP. We have been in contact with your consulting engineers and they have been advised that the
permit modification process cannot move forward until all applicable information is received.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If there are any additional questions
concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at [phone] ext. 512.
Respectfully,
'/Jac `telyn M. Now�ll
V NPDES Western Program
cc: M.L. Wolfe, W.K. Dickson & Co. 616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, N.C. 28205
Bob Fomeberger, W.K. Dickson & Co. 616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, N.C. 28205
Mooresville Regional Office/Rex Gleason
Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants and Loans
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center: 1 800 623-7748

r�w
70=KSON
community Infrastructure consultants
March 8, 2005
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NC Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Middle Forney Creek WWTP Expansion
NPDES Permit No. NCO074012
WKD# 30522.00.CL
Dear Mr. Goodrich,
On behalf of East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District, we are submitting the enclosed NPDES Form
1 and Form 2A application for the proposed expansion of the Middle Forney Creek WWTP from 0.75
mgd to 0.975'mgd.
The East Lincoln County Water & Sewer District (ELCWSD) currently provides sewer service to a
developing corridor adjacent to Lake Norman and along State Highway 16 in eastern Lincoln County.
The Middle Forney Creek WWTP currently serves a customer base of approximately 1700 customer units
with an average daily flow of approximately .470 mgd. ELCWSD currently has capacity requests from
area developers for 6464 lots with a future potential flow of 1.875 mgd. Additionally, a recently
completed "20-Year Capital Improvements Plan" prepared for Lincoln County has identified a potential
2023 average daily flow in the ELCWSD of 4 mgd.
To meet these long term needs, ELCWSD is proceeding with plans for a future WWTP to be located on
Killian Creek. To meet the continued short term area growth demands, we are requesting an increase in
the permitted capacity of the existing Forney Creek WWTP.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
WK Diicck�soo & Co., I
Charles R. Froneberger, P.E.
Project Manager
C: Mr. Stephen A. Gilbert, P.E., PLS
f' MAR 1 0 2005 LJ
_I
L
D r:'i - WVE$ OU,,LITY
POINT SOWiCF ApAuru
616 Colonnade Drive ..
Charlotte, NC 28205 - - -- --
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone] L:\ProjecM\LINCL30522000LDocument\A Geneml\Fomey Ck0.975-MGDDesign\NPDESPemit ApplicationlGoodrich_Ltr.doc
www.wkdickson.com North Carolina • South Carolina • Georgia • Florida