The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0044717_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018e A4 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor Division of Water Quality Coleen H. Sullins Director August 6, 2010 Mr. Chad L. VonCannon, P.E., Water Operations Manager Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County P. O. Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Subject: Waiver of Monthly Reporting Requirement WSACC — Mt. Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit NCO044717 , Cabarrus County Dear Mr. VonCannon: Dee Freeman Secretary AUG - 9 2010 Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2B, Section .0506 enumerates specific reporting requirements applicable to holders of NPDES permits issued by the State of North Carolina. 15A NCAC 2B .0506 (a)(1)(E) states that permittees must continue to submit monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) to the Division of Water Quality, even when there is no discharge from the facility during the reporting period. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Division of Water Quality (or her designees) during extended periods of no discharge. I have reviewed your correspondence received in our office on August 5, 2010. You stated that since April 2009 the subject facility has conveyed its filter backwash wastewater to WSACC's Rocky River WWTP for treatment. Since that time there has been no direct discharge of treated wastewater form the facility to the receiving stream. Due to the potential for changing wastewater treatment needs in the region and the fact that you may need to avail yourself of the discharge option in the future, you wish to retain the NPDES permit instead of seeking its rescission. Based upon these circumstances, you have requested suspension of the requirements for monitoring, reporting and wastewater operator visitation as required by the NPDES permit. After reviewing your request and considering the recommendation of the staff of the Mooresville Regional Office, I have agreed to waive the requirement to submit monthly DMRs for the subject facility, effective with the August 2010 DMR. Additionally, I hereby waive the requirement for daily operator visitation at this facility. The facility should take all necessary steps to ensure there will be no direct discharge from this system to waters of the state. Please keep the Surface Water Protection Section of the Mooresville Regional Office apprised of any pertinent developments that arise regarding wastewater treatment and disposal from this facility. Please be aware that if the facility exhibits a potential for discharge of wastewater, then visitation, monitoring and reporting must resume as required by the terms of the permit and North Carolina's environmental laws. Conversely, if discharge to the WWTP becomes established as the WTP's permanent wastewater treatment option, rescission of the permit should be considered. 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 One Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarohna Phone: 919-807-6300 \ FAX: 919-807.6492 \ Customer Service: 1.877.623-6748 �%gtkrR��l� Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org An Equal Opporlunity l Attirmative Action Employer Mr. Chad L. VonCannon NC0044717 Monitoring & Reporting Suspension p. 2 Please also be advised that while requirements for operator visitation, monitoring and reporting are being waived during the period of no discharge, WSACC is still required to pay the Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee that is associated with this and all NPDES permits. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact the Surface Water Protection Section staff in our Mooresville Regional Office at (704) 663-1699, or Bob Sledge of our central office staff at (919) 807-6398. You may also reach Mr. Sledge via e-mail at bob.sledge@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Jeffrey O. Poupart, Supervisor Point Source Branch cc: Central Files NPDES Permit File ec: Mooresville Regional Office — SWP Section Technical Assistance & Certification Jeanne Phillips NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Governor Director July 19, 2010 Mr. Ray Furr Operations Director Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Post Office Box 428 Concord, North Carolina 28026-0428 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mt. Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Cabarrus County, N.C. Dear Mr. Furr: Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject facility on July 13, 2010 by Mr. Wes Bell of this Office. The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bell at (704) 663-1699. Sincerely, " Robert B. Krebs Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor Enclosure Inspection Report cc: Cabarrus Health Alliance W. Mooresville Regional Office Dee Freeman Secretary Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 One Phone: (704) 663-16991 Fax: (704) 663-60401 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina Internet: http://portal.nodenr.org/web/wq An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer paper Nahma!!rf Undec States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS) Transaction Code NPDES yr/moiday Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 I NI 2 15I 31 NC0044717 111 121 10/07/13 117 181 CI 191 SI 20III Remarks 21111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111116 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 81 OA -------------------- ------ Reserved---------------------- 67I 1.5 169 701 41 711 NJ 721 NJ 73I I 174 751 I I I I I Li 80 l—L� Section B Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 12:53 PM 10/07/13 09/06/01 Mount Pleasant WTP Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date 8700 Foil St Mount Pleasant NC 28124 01:45 PM 10/07/13 13/10/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative (s)ffitles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Kenneth Fred Black/ORC/704-436-9413/ Ray S Furr//704-786-6195 / Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Coleman M Keeter,PO Box 928 Concord NC 280260428/Executive Director/704-786-1783/7047951564 No Section C Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit Flow Measurement ■ Operations & Maintenance . Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Section D: Summary of Find in/Comments Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) Name(s) and Signature(r ofIInspector(s)� Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date / ��s) v'J Wesley N Bell l_ //i/ MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.2192/ Si nature of Management Q A_ RE iew Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers D�atr� C� Marcia Allocco MRO wQ//704-663-1699 Ext.2204/ EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type 3I NCO044717 I11 12I 10/07/13 1 17 18ICI Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Page # 2 J Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant IATP Inspection Date: 07/13/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? n n ■ n Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ n n n # Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ n ■ n Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ n n n Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ n n n Comment: The subject permit expires on 10/31/13. Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ n n n Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ n n n Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ n n n Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? n n ■ n Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ n n n Dates, times and location of sampling n Name of individual performing the sampling n Results of analysis and calibration 1-1 Dates of analysis n Name of person performing analyses n Transported COCs Are DMRs complete do they include all permit parameters? ■ n n n Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? n ❑ ■ n (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted Flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? n n ■ n Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ n n In Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ n n n Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ■ n n n Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ n n n Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? n n ■ n Comment: The facility's records were organized and well maintained. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) were reviewed for the period May 09 through April 10. No effluent discharges were reported during the entire review period. Laboratory Yes No NA NE Page # 3 N r Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant `MP Inspection Date: 07/13/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ n n n Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ n n n # Is the facility using a contract lab? n n ■ n # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? n n ■ n Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? n n ■ n Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? n n ■ n Comment: Effluent analyses (including field parameters) would be performed by the Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County's (WSACC) Certified Laboratory (#177). Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? n n ■ n Is sample collected below all treatment units? n n ■ n Is proper volume collected? n n ■ n Is the tubing clean? n n ■ n # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? n n ■ n Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? n n ■ n Comment: The subject permit requires effluent grab samples. Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ n n n Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for exMLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ❑ n ■ n Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: The facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained. All filter backwash wastewater has been diverted into the municipal collection system (Town of Mt. Pleasant) since April 09. The Town's wastewater is treated at the WSACC's Rocky River WWTP. Flow Measurement - Effluent # Is flow meter used for reporting? Is flow meter calibrated annually? Is the flow meter operational? (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? Comment: Approximately 6900 gallons of wastewater is generated per filter backwash event. The facility backwashes up to twice per day. Effluent Pipe Page # 4 r F Permit: NC0044717 Inspection Date: 07/13/2010 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant VViP Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Pipe Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? Comment: Yes No NA NE ■ n n n nn■n nn■n Page # 5 WSACC WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF CABARRUS COUNTY March 23, 2009 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Ms. Julie Grzyb NPDES Unit, Western Program I r, Office: 232 Davidson Hwy. Concord, NC 28027 Mail to: P.O. Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Phone:704.786.1783 Fax: 704.795.1564 NCDENR 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617 MG -Su., Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NCO044717 in WSACC-Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility, Cabarrus County Dear Ms. Grzyb: This letter is in response to the subject draft NPDES Permit. The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) requests the following permit revisions: Supplement to the Cover Letter, Number 2 — Add a statement of clarification to read "Monitoring requirements as listed in Section A. (1) are not applicable for reuse water." 2. Section A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitorine Reauirements. Footnote 3 Chronic Toxicity Monitoring — Remove requirement from the permit based on the low discharge flow of this facility and total residual chlorine limitation of 17 ug/L. This flow is a batch discharge of 7,500 gallons discharged twice per day for approximately 60 minutes each. WSACC feels that the chlorine residual limitation and the addition of sodium bisulfite as a dechlorinating agent prevents toxicity in the stream. 3. Section A. (1) Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, Footnote 2 — Remove the co -requisite metals monitoring of aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and manganese as well as fluoride due to the low discharge flow and the minimal impact on the stream. Thank you for your consideration regarding these requests. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704)-788-4164 ext.l 1 or RayFurrgwsacc.org. Sincerel Operations Director RSF/bll cc: Mike Parker-,r?MRQA Chad VonCannon, WSACC \N a rFRq �O G 7 r Michael F. Easley, Govei-eL William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Coleen H. Sullins. Director Division of Water Quality October 9, 2008 Mr. Ray Furr Water Operations Manager Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Post Office Box 428 Concord, North Carolina 28026-0428 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mt. Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Cabarrus County, N.C. Dear Mr. Furr: Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject facility on October 7, 2008 by Mr. Wes Bell of this Office. The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact Mrs. Allocco, Mr. Bell, or me at (704) 663-1699. Enclosure cc: NCDENR Cabarrus Health Alliance Sincerely, 65K Robert B. Krebs Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor .one Carolina rurally Mooresville Regional Office Division of Water Quality Phone 704-663-1699 Customer Service Internet: www.ncwatergaality.ore 610 East Center Ave, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax 704-663-6040 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No, 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS) Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 (NI 2 1I11 121 117 18I20_j1 JL I Remarks 211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 161 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating 61 QA --------------------------- Reserved ---------------------- 671 1.0 169 701 41 71 I N I 721 N I 73I I 174 751 I I I 11 1 180 1_I_I Section B: Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 09:10 AM 08/10/07 05/05/01 Mount Pleasant WTP Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date 8700 Foil St Mount Pleasant NC 28124 10:49 AM 08/10/07 08/10/31 Name(s) of Onsite Rep resentative(s)/Titles(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other'Facility Data Kenneth Fred Black/ORC/704-436-9413/ Ray Furr//704-436-9413 / Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Coleman M Keeter,PO Box 428 Concord NC 280260428/Executive Contacted Director/704-786-1783/7047951564 No Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program Sludge Handling Disposal Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Wesley N Bell q'/,"- , MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.2192/ Signa�tufre of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date t �� MRO MarLia A�llocc��'� WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.2204/ EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 F NPDES yr/mo/day 31 NCO044717 111 121 08/10/07 117 Inspection Type 181 1 Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) Page # 2 Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant WfP Inspection Date: 10/07/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Permit Yes No NA NE (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? ■ n n n Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ n n n # Are there any special conditions for the permit? ■ n n O Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ Cl n n Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ n n n Comment: Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ n n n Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ n n Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ Cl n n Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ n Cl n Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ Cl ❑ Dates, times and location of sampling ■ Name of individual performing the sampling ■ Results of analysis and calibration ■ Dates of analysis ■ Name of person performing analyses ■ Transported COCs ■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ n n n Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? n n ■ (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? n n ■ n Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ n n n Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ n n Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ■ o n n Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ n n n Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? n Cl ■ n Page # 3 Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant wTP Inspection Date: 10/07/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keeping Yes No NA NE Comment: DMRs were reviewed for the period August 07 through July 08. No limit violations were reported and all monitoring frequencies were correct. On several occasions, the Backup ORC visited the facility; however, the visitations were not properly documented. The facility staff must ensure all visitations by the ORC and Backup ORC are documented. In addition, the facility staff must ensure that all dates, times, and personnel involved in the sample tracking system (chain -of -custody forms) are documented. Overall, the facility's records were organized and well maintained. Laboratory Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ fl El Q Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ ❑ El 0 # Is the facility using a contract lab? p fl ■ Ll # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? fl n ■ Q Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? n ❑ ■ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? 0❑ ■ 0 Comment: Effluent analyses (including field analyses) are performed under WSACC's laboratory certification #177. The laboratory instrumentation utilized for the field analyses appeared to be properly calibrated. Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? fl Q ■ Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ Ll n n Is proper volume collected? fl ❑ ■ Is the tubing clean? 0 fl ■ # Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at less than or equal to 6.0 degrees Celsius)? ❑ Q ■ Q Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ Q 0 ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ❑ ❑ ■ Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: The facility appeared to be properly operated and well maintained at the time of the inspection. The filter backwash wastewater (batch discharges) is collected into a tank prior to discharge. The solids in this tank are pumped into the Town of Mt. Pleasant's collection system that ultimately conveys the wastewater to the WSACC's Rocky River Regional WWTP for final treatment/disposal. 17ln-rhIr%An2finn Yes No NA NE Page # 4 Permit: NC0044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant WTP Inspection Date: 10/07/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Type of system ? Liquid Is the feed ratio proportional to chlorine amount (1 to 1)? n ❑ ■ n Is storage appropriate for cylinders? n n ■ n # Is de -chlorination substance stored away from chlorine containers? ■ n n n Comment: Are the tablets the proper size and type? n n ■ n Are tablet de -chlorinators operational? n n ■ n Number of tubes in use? Comment: The facility staff manually feed the liquid sodium bisulfate during each batch discharge event. Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? n n ■ n Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? n n n 0 If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? n n ■ n Comment: The effluent appeared clear with no foam. Flow Measurement- Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? n n ■ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? n n ■ n Is the flow meter operational? n n ■ n (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? n n ■ n Comment: Effluent flows are measured instantaneously by the bucket and stop watch method. The facility staff should document these flow rate measurements on the effluent field sheets. Page # 5 F W ATF (,mil \O�0 RQG Michael F. Easley, Govemo �L William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources O Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality March 27, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Ray Furr 7003 2260 0001 3493 8613 WSACC - Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant 8700 Foil Street Mount Pleasant, North Carolina 28124 Subject: Notice of Violation - Effluent Limitations Tracking #: NOV-2006-LV-0121 WSACC-Mt. Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Cabarrus County Dear Mr. Furr: A review of the January 2006 self -monitoring report for the subject facility revealed a violation of the following parameter: Pipe Parameter Reported Value Permit Limit 001 Total Suspended Residue 80 mg/I 45 mg/I (daily maximum) Remedial actions, if not already implemented, should be taken to correct any problems. The Division of Water Quality may pursue enforcement actions for this and any additional violations. If the violations are of a continuing nature, not related to operation and/or maintenance problems, and you anticipate remedial construction activities, then you may wish to consider applying for a Special Order by Consent. You may contact Mr. John Lesley of this Office for additional information. If you have questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lesley or me at 704/663-1699. Sincerely, D. Rex Gleason, P.E. Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor cc: Point Source Branch Cabarrus County Health Dept. JL T MCDENR Mooresville Regional Office Division of Water Quality Phone 704-663-1699 Internet: www.ncwaterquality.or_ 610 East Center Ave, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax 704-663-6040 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper Nne onhCarolina ,Naturally Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 0�0� W A TF9pG CO o � March 6, 2006 Mr. Ray S. Furr Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County PO Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Dear Mr. Furr: qL Michael F. Easley, Goomoorr �� , William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary `t North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mount Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit NCO044717 Cabarrus County Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject facility on March 1, 2006, by James B. Bealle III of this office. Please inform the facility's Operator -in -Responsible Charge of our findings by forwarding a copy of the enclosed report. The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Mr. Bealle or me at (704) 663-1699. Sincerely, �-� Rex Gleason, P.E. --�� Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor enclosure cc: Central Files Cabarrus County Environmental Health Section jb North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 Phone: 704-663-1699 / Fax: 704-663-6040 / Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled / 10% Post Consumer Paper Nne orthCarolina Naturally United States Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460 OMB No. 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires 8-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS) Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 U 2 U 5� 31 NCO044717 111 121 06/03/01 117 181 rl 191 s 20U `--r '--' lJ LJ Remarks 211IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII116 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA--- ----- ----Reserved----- -- 731 _J I 1I 174 751 I I I I I 80 671 2,0 169 701 4 I 71 N 72 N L L J Section B: Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 12:15 PM 06/03/01 05/05/01 Mount Pleasant WTP Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date 8700 Foil St Mount Pleasant NC 28124 02:30 PM 06/03/01 08/10/31 Name(s) of Onsite Representative (s)lritles(sYPhone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Kenneth Fred Black/ORC/704-436-9413/ Ray Stephen Furr/ORC/704-788-4164/ Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Contacted Pay Furr,8700 Foil St Mount Pleasant NC 28124//704-436-9413/ No Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit 0 Flow Measurement 0 Operations & Maintenance 0 Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program 0 Facility Site Review 0 Effluent/Receiving Waters 0 Laboratory Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date James Bealle MRO WQ//704-663-1699/ Signature of Managemeqt Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date John E Lesle�- .- MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.270/ �j n ( EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Page # 1 Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant WTP Inspection Date: 0310l/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Permit Yes No NA NE (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? D 0 ■ 0 Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ 0 0 0 # Are there any special conditions for the permit? 0 ■ 0 0 Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ Cl D D Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? ■ 0 0 0 Comment: Record Keepinn Yes No NA NE Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ 0 0 0 Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ 0 D D Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ 0 0 0 Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ 0 0 0 Is the chain -of -custody complete? ■ D 0 0 Dates, times and location of sampling ■ Name of individual performing the sampling ■ Results of analysis and calibration ■ Dates of analysis ■ Name of person performing analyses ■ Transported COCs ■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ 0 0 0 Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users and DWQ? 0 0 ■ 0 (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? El 0 ■ 0 Is the ORC visitation log available and current? ■ 0 0 0 Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ■ 0 0 0 Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ■ D 0 0 Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ■ 0 0 0 Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? 0 0 ■ 0 Comment: DMRs were reviewed for January 2005 through December 2005. No violation(s) reported. Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling Flow proportional? 0 0 ■ 0 Page # 3 L7 Permit: NCO044717 Owner - Facility: Mount Pleasant WTP Inspection Date: 03/01/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Effluent Sampling Yes No NA NE Is sample collected below all treatment units? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Laborator Yes No NA NE Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all other parameters(excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ # Is the facility using a contract lab? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Incubator (Fecal Coliform) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Rocky River Regional WWTP (177) provides in-house analytical support. Operations & Maintenance Yes No NA NE Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for ex: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, pH, DO, Sludge ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Judge, and other that are applicable? Comment: Flow Measurement - Effluent Yes No NA NE # Is flow meter used for reporting? 0000 Is flow meter calibrated annually? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is the flow meter operational? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Flow is measured using the bucket and stopwatch method. Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving water free of foam other than trace amounts and other debris? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Page # 4 Office: 232 Davidson Hwy. Concord, NC 28027 WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF CABARRUS COUNTY January 30, 2006 NC DENR Division of Water Quality NPDES Permitting Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617 FEB 0 2 2006 Mail to: P.O. Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Phone: 704.786.1783 Fax: 704.795.1564 Subject: Fast Track Application for Dechlorination at the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility, NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to request "Fast Track" approval of the dechlorination process at the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility, NPDES Permit No. NC0044717. This facility currently batch discharges approximately 8,000 gallons of settled backwash water supernatant twice per day. We request permission to add liquid Sodium Bisulfite at the recommended dosage rate of 1.6 mg/L per each 1.0 mg/L of Chlorine Residual prior to discharge. The addition of this chemical will not require the any construction. Your consideration of this request and the enclosed application is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704)-788-4164 ext.11. Sincerely, yL'-„--- Ray S. Furr Water Operations Manager cc: State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality FAST -TRACK APPLICATION for DECHLORINATION FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT THIS FORM MAY BE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate that you have included the following list of required application package items by signing your initials in the space provided next to each item. Failure to submit all required items will lead to return of the permit application. X A. Application Form - Submit one original and one copy of the completed and appropriately executed application form. Any changes to this form will result in the application being returned. The Division of Water Quality (the Division) will only accept application packages that have been fully completed with all applicable items addressed: You DO NOT need to submit detailed plans and specifications at this time. Plans and svecifications shall be maintained on -site. N/A B. Certification Form - Submit the completed engineers certification form signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the state of North Carolina. X C. Designated Representative - If the application is being filed by a party other than the owner, a letter from the owner designating the applicant as his/her authorized representative must be included. X D. Read, understood, and followed the Dechlorination System Minimum Design Criteria (adopted 4118/03 and as subsequently amended). THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY NPDES PERMITTING UNIT By U.S. Postal Service: By Courier/Special Delivery: 1617 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury St., Suite 925 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Telephone Number: (919) 733-5083 Facsimile Number: (919) 733-0719 For more information, visit our web site at http://`h2o.enr.state.nc.usINPDESl FORM: DCL 4/2003 State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality FAST -TRACK APPLICATION FORM for DECHLORINATION FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT THIS FORM MAY BE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL 1. Facility Name: Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility 2. Facility Permit Number: NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 3. Facility Address: 8700 Foil Street Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124 4. Contact Person: Ray Furr 5. Contact Telephone: 704-788-4164, Ext. 11 6. Project Description: Addition of Sodium Bisulfite, 1.6 mg/L NaHSO, per lmg/L C1 removed to 8,000 batch discharge twice per day. No construction will be required, only the addition of NaHSO,. FORM: DCLb 4/2003 State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality FAST -TRACK APPLICATION for DECHLORINATION FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT THIS FORM MAYBE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate that you have included the following list of required application package items by signing your initials in the space provided next to each item. Failure to submit all required items will lead to return of the permit application. A. Application Form - Submit one original and one copy of the completed and appropriately executed application form Any changes to this form will result in the application being retumed. The Division of Water Quality (the Division) will only accept application packages that have been fully completed with all applicable items addressed: You DO NOT.need to submit detailedplans and .specifications at this time. Plans and specifications shall be maintained on -site. B. Certification Form - Submit the completed engineers certification form signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the state of North Carolina. X C. Designated Representative - If the application is being filed by a party other than the owner, -a letter from the owner designating the applicant as his/her authorized representative must be included. x D. Read, understood, and followed the Dechlorination System Minimum Design Criteria (adopted 4118/03 and as subsequently amended). THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY NPDES PERMITTING UNIT By U.S. Postal Service: By Courier/Special Delivery: 1617 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury St., Suite 925 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Telephone Number: (919) 733-5083 Facsimile Number: (919) 733-0719 For more information, visit our web site at http://`h2o.enr.state.nc.usINPDESl FORM: DCL 4/2003 State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality FAST -TRACK APPLICATION FORM for DECHLORINATION FACILITIES A UTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT THIS FORM MAYBE PHOTOCOPIED FOR USE AS AN ORIGINAL 1. Facility Name: Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility 2. Facility Permit Number: NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 3. Facility Address: 8700 Foil Street Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124 4. Contact Person: Ray Furr S. Contact Telephone: 704-788-4164, Ext. 11 6. Project Description: Addition of Sodium Bisulfite, 1.6 mg/L NaHSO, per 1mg/L Cl-removed to 8,000 batch discharge twice per day. No construction will be required, only the addition of NaHSOV a FORM: DCLb 4/2003 ljw Michael F. Easlc3, Gm-crnor William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary North Carolina Department of Envimnment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director Division of Water Quality February 28, 2005 Mr. Ray Furr WSACC P.O. Box 428 Concord, North Carolina 28026-0428 Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Cabarrus County, NC Dear Mr. Furr: Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject facility on February 18, 2005 by Mr. Barry Love of this Office. Please inform the facility's Operator -in -Responsible Charge of our findings by forwarding a copy of the enclosed report to him. The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Love or me at (704) 66;-1699. Sincerely, k , D. Rex Gleason, P E. Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor T n V J4re cc: Cabarrus County Health Department BT N!o'7 }tCaroWta R441 ,/Naturally "J - E V. N. C. Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office, 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville NC 28115 (704) 663-1699 Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 P77 United Stater: Environmental Protection Agency Form Approved EPA Washington. D.C. 20460 OMB No 2040-0057 Water Compliance Inspection Report Approval expires S-31-98 Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e.. PCS) Transaction Code NPDES yr/mo/day Inspection Type Inspector Fac Type 1 u 2 u 31 NCO044777 1 11 121 o5/02/i6 1 17 18 U 19 U 20 U Remarks 66 21111111111111111111111111IIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I II1 Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Evaluation Rating B1 QA Reserved 671 r 169 70 U 71 U 72 Lj 73 W 74 751 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 80 Section B: Facility Data Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For Industrial Users discharging to POTW, also include Entry Time/Date Permit Effective Date POTW name and NPDES permit Number) 02:00 PM 05/02/lE, 04/06/C- Mount Pleasant WTP Exit Time/Date Permit Expiration Date 8700 Foil St Mount Pleasant NC 28124 02:55 PM 05/02/18 OB!10/3_ Name(s) of Onsite Representative(s)/Tities(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s) Other Facility Data Kenneth Fred Black/ORC/704-436-9413/ Name, Address of Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number Ray Furr,8700 Foil St Mount P]easar.; NC 28124//709-436-9413/ Contacted F: Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection (Check only those areas evaluated) Permit ! Flow Measurement Operations & Maintenance Records/Reports Self -Monitoring Program 0 Facility Site Review Effluent/Receiving Waters Laboratory Section D: Summary of Finding/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrative and checklists as necessary) (See attachment summary) Name(s) and Signature(s) of Inspector(s) Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Barry F love MRO WQ//704-663-1699 Ext.263/ Signature of Management Q A Reviewer Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers Date Richard N Bridgemar. 704-663-1699 Ext.264/ EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete. Permit Yes No NA NF (If the present permit expires in 6 months or less). Has the permittee submitted a new application? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility as described in the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are there any special conditions for the permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Is access to the plant site restricted to the general public? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the inspector granted access to all areas for inspection? Corrvrrerrt: ■ D D ❑ Operations & Maintenance Does the plant have general safety structures in place such as rails around or covers over tanks, pits, or wells? Yes No NA NF ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the plant generally clean with acceptable housekeeping? Comment: ■ D D D Laboratory Are field parameters performed by certified personnel or laboratory? Yes No NA NE ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all other parameters (excluding field parameters) performed by a certified lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility using a contract lab? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Incubator (Fecal Col form) set to 44.5 degrees Celsius+/- 0.2 degrees? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Incubator (BOD) set to 20.0 degrees Celsius +/- 1.0 degrees? ❑^, is u Comment.- The lab records were very well organmed. The WSACC Laboratory (Certification #117) provides analytcal Flow M .asur .m .nt - Effluent Yes Ne NA NF Is flow meter used for reporting? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is flow meter calibrated annually? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Is flow meter operating properly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (If units are separated) Does the chart recorder match the flow meter? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Comment: Flow is measured using the bucket and stopwatch method. Record Kee Yes No NA NF Ina Are records kept and maintained as required by the permit? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is all required information readily available, complete and current? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are all records maintained for 3 years (lab. reg. required 5 years)? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are analytical results consistent with data reported on DMRs? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are sampling and analysis data adequate and include: ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Dates, times and location of sampling ■ Name of individual performing the sampling ■ Results of analysis and calibration ■ Dates of analysis ■ Name of person performing analyses ■ Transported COCs ■ Plant records are adequate, available and include 0 D D D O&M Manual ■ As built Engineering drawings ■ Schedules and dates of equipment maintenance and repairs ■ Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (if the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 2417 with a certified operator on each shift? ❑ 0 0 13 Record Keeping Is the ORC visitation log available and current? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit? ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MLSS, MCRT, Settleable Solids, DO, Sludge ❑ ❑ ❑ Judge, pH, and others that are applicable? Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment- DMR's were reviewed for the period of January 2004 through December 2004. No monitoring or limit violations were reported for the period. AD records were well maintained. Effluent Sampli= Yes No NA NE Is composite sampling flow proportional? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? D ❑ ❑ Comment: Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: A new permit was issued to the facility on August 1. 2004. Instream sampling is no longer required Effluent Pipe Yes No NA NE Is right of way to the outfall properly maintained? M ❑ ❑ ❑ Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris? ❑ ❑ ❑ Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? Comment D D ■ ❑ W,, SACC WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF CABARRUS COUNTY Office: 232 Davidson Hwy Concord, NC 28027 Mail to: P.O. Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Phone: 704.786.1783 m, DEP r. OF ENVI (J 5.1564 July 2, 2004 AND NATURAL RESOURCES NOORES`r i DbigL OFFICE Mr. Charles Weaver JUL 0 9 2004 N.C. Division of Water Quality NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center UVA Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617 ATF "w Subject: Clarification of NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 for the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on Monday, June 28, 2004, regarding NPDES Permit No. NC0044717, for the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Facility. As we discussed, we had requested in the application and the Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) recommended that the backwash supernatant effluent be reused for highway construction dust control and landscape irrigation. The final permit granted permission to reuse up to 100,000 gallons per day for on -site dust control and landscape irrigation activity. During our conversation, you stated that the intention of the permit was to allow for the reuse activities as we had requested and the MRO had recommended. Therefore, our interpretation is that this water can be used for highway construction dust control and landscape irrigation by independent contractors, off -site. If our interpretation is incorrect, please notify me in writing. Otherwise, we will reuse this water for the aforementioned uses. Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704)-788-4164 ext.11. Sincerely, Ray S. urr Water Operations Manager cc: Mike Parker, MRO J y" • xs �g}} t. p'yi ' 7p ° '`v i�',t.YYy` -�y 'r . t t -•'r.F _ - `. ` yam' ,''s' " ° s r- ' r � � ,� ; vr,��a(� '�"��t "e�Vi.s ,�� •r+� ¢'Px'.,q,� `A,�'".'+'f xr �c r "�F4.- :'� ,��''++� e 7 �.e,. " �_--'= �.a+- t2 -� �:s.arp.rf.y�=�'" �` .«{,�. � ,,.i:�y^ -31si, -4�a ss+t-•. s -r � ;.< fl' E � � - x � _ 'i+ 'fix, f; Y + � � � t �1 ��y�� .. '+$�,d �+ •i � �`,� 3 - .t. Zi #) a$yri.. 4iR ys - W i3 �t4 1I �I� e x+.'. ,,xt^% �r' '�� ,6 yt � fix, `r„#. �� .`F `,Fi ��s �y,.oT r. i � •. Cl'#.; ei P. r +zd� ��vs •yS 't�'-.� r ��r, � ��'r'�'� � � � ,�,.�.: `f � � a c JAI r�>ry tw �' ♦ Nx,. �� - °' ��.. � `fq�L. � $do- r� '�' �'-`+�'1k "�i'• ,#ail F�i -'' '"5�+ �r. �.�5 al�,:a + w ``�. •� Y �.y=G .l'V'a -.d .-as. - - ry,}p..i..ay. ...e ♦a y..r-..rt-�s+ 'A'r i,...,. Y - � x �'Y-. ,t,.t t � ,�.r'� 2 -. x. ^y r R y+ 1:. .�-.r. !9 .t !'LS'L Imo. .fe, t +iR ..,..� _ 1.5d �.t •.::d� � �� '�Pa ',( . s. ♦ y, � - +!4 - • �,-. - -r. `fit (?l . }, �p k�7' ,e: 3�' �i �`> _ F _)5 ' ['tly ti 9 1$ _ a,.R• � � �� l hu� kL j. �y '%'"' �'✓9 !' " .t t State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director April 28, 2004 Mr. Ray Furr Water Operations Manager Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County P.O. Box 428 Concord, North Carolina 28026-0428 Dear Mr. Furr: I T 1kTzN;W'J 1 0 • NCDENR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Subject: Draft NPDES Permit Permit NCO044717 Mount Pleasant WTP Cabarrus County Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the draft permit for your facility. Please review the draft very carefully to ensure thorough understanding of the conditions and requirements it contains. The draft permit contains the following significant changes from your current permit: ➢ A total residual chlorine (TRC) limit has been added to this permit. The limit will take effect 18 months after the effective date of the final permit. See the attached TRC policy memo for details. ➢ All references to outfall 002 have been deleted. ➢ The reuse of up to 100,000 GPD for on -site dust control and on -site landscape irrigation has been added to the permit. NOTE: if the landscape irrigation activities will occur near basins containing finished [potable] water, contact the Public Water Supply section for approval before any irrigation activity. Submit any comments to me no later than thirty days following your receipt of the draft. Comments should be sent to the address listed at the bottom of this page. If no adverse comments are received from the public or from you, this permit will likely be issued in June, with an effective date of July 1, 2004. If you have any questions or comments concerning this draft permit, call me at (919) 733-5083, extension 511. Sincerely, Charles H. Weaver, Jr. NPDES Unit cc: NPDFS Unit Mooresville Regional Office / Michael Parker 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 511 (fax) 919 733-0719 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Charfes.Weaver@ ncmail.net Permit NCO044717 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 Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the Mount Pleasant WTP 8700 Foil Street Mount Pleasant Cabarrus County to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Dutch Buffalo Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, 1I,111 and IV hereof. The permit shall become effective This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on October 31, 2008. Signed this day Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission r Permit NCO044717 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. The Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County is hereby authorized to: 1. Continue to operate a drinking -water treatment plant with a discharge of filter - backwash watewater. This facility is located in Mount Pleasant off Foil Street at the Mount Pleasant WTP in Cabarrus County. 2. Discharge up to 100,000 gallons per day of reuse water for o� dust control and landscape irrigation activity. 3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into an unnamed tributary to Dutch Buffalo Creek, currently a class C stream in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. ,p0 0 1 \i 711 N POW � •'� � '' ate. � l � � �i Lin It o � op llJ" i N h i e �1 ^ I $S0 &6 A* io N. c (LOCUST) 952 25' sw n sw Quad: Mount Pleasant, N.C. N CO044 717 Facility Subbasin: 30712 WSACC / Mount Pleasant WTP Latitude: 35'24'42" Location d - x '� .-• Longitude: 80'25'52" Receiving Stream: UT Dutch Buffalo Creek Stream Class: C North SCALE 1-24000 Permit NCO044717 A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning on the effective date of the 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: PARAMETER . LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monthly Average Daily Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type Sample Location1 Flow Weekly Instantaneous Effluent Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L 2/month Grab Effluent Settleable Solids 0.1 ml/L 0.2 ml/L Weekly Grab Effluent Turbidity 2 2 Weekly Grab & D Iron Weekly Grab Effluent Total Residual Chlorine3 17 Ng/L Weekly Grab Effluent Notes: 1. U: at least too feet upstream from the outfall. D: at least 100 feet downstream from the outfall. 2. The discharge shall not cause the turbidity of the receiving water to exceed 50 NTU. If the turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the discharge level cannot cause any increase in the turbidity in the receiving water. 3. Limit takes effect eighteen months after the permit effective date. Until the limit takes effect, the permittee shall monitor TRC (with no effluent limit). All samples collected should be of a representative discharge. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. do O�O� W A TF9OG Michael F_ Easley Governor r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary >_ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Mirnek, P. E., Director Division of Water Quality April 16, 2003 Mr. Ray S. Furr, Water Operations Manager Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Post Office Box 428 Concord, N.C. 28026-0428 Subject: Pilot Study Request Recycle of WTP Effluent Mount Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Cabarrus County Dear Mr. Furr: This Office is in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2003 concerning a request to conduct a pilot study whereby a portion of the backwash supernatant effluent from the subject WTP will be used for highway construction applications (specifically - dust control). Apparently, the Town of Mount Pleasant has received several inquiries from the NCDOT concerning the use of this water for dust control and the reason for this study is to determine the feasibility of such a reuse project. Once completed, the results of the pilot study will help determine whether or not the reuse of the Town's WTP effluent would be acceptable for NCDOT's intended purpose. You also requested that the pilot study be conducted throughout the summer of 2004 when upgrades at the Town's WTP (slated to begin in March 2003) will be completed. Should the resulting data from the pilot study indicate no detrimental effects as a result of the reuse of this water, a request for an amendment to the Town's NPDES Permit will be submitted. Based on our review of your request, this Office has no objection to the Town conducting a pilot study involving the use of backwash supernatant effluent from the Town's WTP as dust control, provided adequate measures are taken to prevent any type of direct discharge to surface waters. It is recommended that a minimum of a 50-foot buffer be maintained between any application of the reuse water and surface waters. This approval is effective from the date of this letter through August 31, 2004, or until upgrades proposed for the Town's WTP are completed. If the results of this pilot study are favorable and if the Town desires to continue the reuse program, then the Town will need to submit a request to have the subject NPDES permit modified to allow for the continued use of the backwash supernatant effluent for dust control. Please note that under no circumstances should this approval be construed as authorization for the Town of Mount Pleasant to exceed any existing NPDES permit limitation or to by-pass any existing wastewater treatment process. NA_ Customer Service 900 623-7748 Mooresville Regional Office, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville, NC 28115 PHONE (704) 663-1699 FAX (704) 563-604C qb Mr. Ray S. Furr April 16, 2003 Page Two The Cabarrus County Health Department should be contacted regarding this request so that any health concerns they may have can be addressed prior to implementation of the pilot study. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Michael Parker or me at 704-663-1699. Sincerely, D. Rex Gleason, P.E. Water Quality Regional Supervisor Cc: Dave Goodrich /mlp h\gen\gltr.doc P t VWSACC WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF CABARRUS COUNTY Mr. Rex Gleason, P.E. Regional Water Quality Supervisor NC DENR 919 North Main Street Mooresville, N.C. 28115 Office: 232 Davidson Hwy. Concord, NC 28027 Mail to: P.O. Box 428 Concord, NC 28026-0428 Phone: 704.786.1783 NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT Fax: 704.795.1564 AND NATURAL RESOURCES NOOK MLE REGIONAL OFFICE RFr, van FEB 10 2003 WATER QUAD Y SjUa Subject: Request for a Pilot Study for the Reuse of Backwash Supernatant Effluent from the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant, NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 Dear Mr. Gleason: This letter is to request permission to conduct a pilot study to determine the feasibility of reusing backwash supernatant effluent, from the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant (MPWTP), for highway construction applications. MPWTP currently discharges an average of 0.030 MGD of backwash supernatant to the receiving stream. The Town of Mt. Pleasant (the Town) has had several inquiries from highway construction companies and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) concerning the use of water for dust control during the recent drought. The Town, who is presently under voluntary water conservation restrictions, has been selling finished water to a local contractor at an adjusted rate. We feel that the backwash water, which is currently discharged, would be better utilized for these purposes, thus saving finished water for more vital uses. We propose to conduct this pilot study to determine the feasibility of this reuse project. We currently monitor this discharge for total suspended residue, total settleable residue, iron, total residual chlorine, and pH. We also monitor the receiving stream for turbidity. We would be willing to perform additional monitoring if deemed necessary by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). During this pilot study, we will evaluate the use of this product on construction areas and the impact on the receiving waters, if any. There is an existing 0.10 MGD standpipe that is scheduled to be taken out of service by the summer of 2004. This tank will be converted to a reuse water storage tank. There is an existing line and pumping system from the backwash sludge basin to the raw water lagoon. This line and pumping system will be connected to the standpipe, which will be disconnected from the potable water system. A reuse water tap and filling station will be located near the standpipe. This project has been included in the water system upgrade project scheduled to begin in March 2003. A temporary filling station and pumping system would be used until the upgrade is. completed in the summer of 2004. We would like to begin this reuse project in April 2003. V,- page 2 Mr. Gleason February 6, 2003 Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (704)-788-4164 ext.11. Sincerely, Ray S. urr Water Operations Manager cc: Mike Parker, DWQ, Mooresville Mayor Troy Barnhardt, Town of Mt. Pleasant John Murdock, WSACC Kenneth Black, Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant P P7 P't A WSACC WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF CABARRUS COUNTY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Richard Bridgeman Division of Water Quality Mooresville Regional Office 919 North Main Street Mooresville, NC 28115 April 13, 2004 J Office: 232 Davidson Hwy. ConcoorV- d, NC 28027 trip 0 7049 ". 704.795.1 AN 14 2014 NATf R ��.>�L1TY E SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION NCGS 143-215.1(a) COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION MT.PLEASANT WTP, NPDES PERMIT No. NC0044717, CABARRUSCOUNTY Dear Mr. Bridgeman, This letter is in response to the Notice of Violation received because of violations of the subject permit as detailed under the Laboratory and Record Keeping headings. We have addressed these violations with the following: • A new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for NPDES compliance, please see enclosed S.O.P. • Training for all plant employees on the NPDES compliance S.O.P. • Storage of S.O.P. and all archived reports in a central location The new S.O.P. and training has been immediately implemented as of the inspection report date. These actions should eliminate errors made in reporting in the future. This will also ease future inspections by having all the required information in a central location. I hope these actions adequately address your concerns. Your consideration concerning this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please contact meat (704)-788-4164 ext. 11. 4-- �I1.�77 Ard ale i.+q 7 1j el- eq %�d N'T 'r�l e b r ✓' v i 44,., Sincerely, YA—Ull Ray Fu Water Operations Manager Standard Operating Procedure — NPDES Permit Compliance All information is to be kept in a centrally -located bound notebook, which will be accessible to all plant personnel and DWQ officials 2. Information included in this centrally -located notebook will include: a. Field Analysis sheets in ascending order b. DMR worksheets to be completed at the time of Field Analysis Sheets and Chains of Custody (DMR worksheets shall be used to complete the official copy of the monthly DMR) to ensure that the results will be consistent with data reported on the DMR c. Chain of Custody sheets in ascending order from the laboratory for the current calendar year d. Completed DMR sheets for the current calendar year e. pH monthly calibration worksheets in ascending order f. Archived Field Analysis sheets (for no less than 3 years) g. Archived DMR sheets (for no less than 3 years) h. Archived Chain of Custody sheets from the certified laboratory (for no less than 3 years) 3. Training for all plant personnel on sampling and reporting, as well as data storage, including the following: a. Calibrate the pH meter. Calibrate with 4.0 and 10.0 standards and read the 7.0 standard. Calibrations MUST be within 0.1 of the standard. If not, recalibrate the meter. Record all readings, along with time, and operator initials on the pH monthly calibration worksheet (found with the daily plant operations forms) b. Open the Supernatant valve to discharge backwash effluent c. Collect samples as required by the NPDES permit: • Upstream and downstream turbidity (100' downstream from the effluent) • Iron (Fe) • Effluent flow (which is monitored with bucket and stopwatch), and recorded as MGD • pH • Total Chlorine residual measured in mg/l on Field Analysis sheet and DMR • Total Suspended Residue (2 per month) • Settleable Matter (measured in Imhoff cone for one hour) d. Fill out information on sample bottles to be sent for analysis at certified lab, including: • Location (001 for backwash effluent; 002 for lagoon discharge; UP for upstream turbidity; DOWN for 100' downstream turbidity) • Date • Time • Operator • Analysis Required (Fe for Iron; TSS for Total Suspended Residue; TURB for turbidity) e. Fill out information on Chain of Custody (to be sent to certified lab with samples) ALL INFORMATION FROM BOTTLES MUST MATCH INFORMATION ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY f. Check chlorine standard #2 (NOTE: the true value of the chlorine standard is listed on the label). Record the true value, and the obtained value (value read when checked) on Field Analysis sheet. g. Run samples that we do at MPWTF including: • Free Chlorine Residual (mg/1) (within 5 minutes of sample collection) • pH (within 5 minutes of sample collection) • Settleable Matter (Settle 1000 ml of sample in Imhoff cone for 45 minutes. Stir. Let settle for 15 additional minutes. Read.) h. Record these results immediately on the Field Analysis sheet AND the DMR worksheet i. Pack samples to be sent to certified laboratory on ice with a sample blank to be tested for temperature (SAMPLES ARE TO BE BELOW 4°C WHEN RECEIVED BY THE CERTIFIED LABORATORY) j. On DMR worksheet, record: • Time onsite • Hours onsite • ORC onsite (Y/NB) ORC: Kenneth Black; B: Steven Yost (as of April 2004) • EFFLUENT FLOW (MGD) • pH • Free Residual Chlorine (mg/1) • Settleable Matter Note: Total Suspended Residue, Iron, and Turbidity will be recorded when the information is received from the lab k. When DMR is completed, make 2 copies, and have the original and 2 copies signed by the permittee before mailing. MAIL THE ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY TO: Division of Water Quality Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 1. Store all Field Analysis sheets, Chain of Custody sheets, Data from certified laboratory, completed DMRs, DMR worksheets, and pH calibration sheets in appropriate sections in the centrally located DMR Compliance workbook m. At the end of the current calendar year, move all forms to the archived sections of the workbook, to be kept no less than 3 years PLEASE NOTE: ALL INFORMATION ON THE DMR MUST MATCH THE INFORMATION ON THE FIELD ANALYSIS SHEETS AND CHAINS OF CUSTODY! OW A �� ' Michael F. Easit Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources r Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director -� Division of Water Quality Coleen H. Sullins. Deputy Director Division of Water Quality April 8, 2004 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mt. Pleasant P.O. Box 787 Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124 Subject: Dear Mayor Barnhardt: 7003 2260 0001 2361 Notice of Violation NCGS 143-215.1(a) Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mt. Pleasant WTP NPDES Permit No. NCO044717 NOV-2004-PC-0026 Cabarrus County, NC Enclosed is a copy of the Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report for the inspection conducted at the subject facility on March 24, 2004 by Mr. Barry Love of this Office. Please inform the facility's Operator -in -Responsible Charge of our findings by forwarding a copy of the enclosed report to him This report is being issued as a Notice of Violation (NOV) because of violations of the subject permit as detailed under the Laboratory and Record Keeping headings. Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A, a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) per violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of any permit issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.1. Should this Office make an enforcement recommendation relative to the violations, you will be advised in writing. It is requested that a written response be submitted to this Office by April 24, 2004 addressing the violations/deficiencies noted under the Laboratory and Record Keeping headings of the report. In responding, please address your comments to the attention of Mr. Richard Bridgeman. Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville NC 28115 (704) 663-1699 Customer Service 1-M-623-6748 The Honorable Troy Barnhardt Notice of Violation Page Two The report should be self-explanatory; however, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Love or me at (704) 663-1699. Sincerely, R L�w-j 41, a D. Rex Gleason, P.E. Water Quality Regional Supervisor Enclosure cc: Cabarrus County Health Department United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 A NPDES Compliance Inspection Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources „ -'J Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office NCDENR Form Approved OMB No. 2040-0003 Approval Expires 7/31/85 Section A: National Data System Coding Transaction Code NPDES Permit No. YR/MO/DAY Inspection Type Inspector Facility Type N 5 NC0044717 04/03/24 C S Inspection Work Days Facility Self -Monitoring Program Evaluation Rating BI QA .........Reserved......... 3.0 2 N N Section B: Facility Data Entry Time: Permit Effective Date: Name and Location of Facility Inspected: 10:00am 00/03/01 Mt. Pleasant WTP Exit Time: 8700 Foil Street 12:20pm Permit Expiration Date: Mount Pleasant, NC 28124 Date: 03/10/31 04/03/24 Name(s) of On -Site Representatives Titie(s)—Phone No(s): Kenneth Fred Black/ORC/704-436-9413 i Name and Address of Responsible Official: Title: The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mt. Pleasant Phone No. Contacted? P.O. Box 787 Mt. Pleasant, NC 28124 704-786-6195 No Section Q Areas Evaluated During Inspection Permit ® Flow Measurement ® Operations & Maintenance ❑ Sewer Overflow ® Records/Reports ® Self -Monitoring Program ® Sludge Handling/Disposal ❑ Pollution Prevention ® Facility Site Review ❑ Compliance Schedules ❑ Pretreatment Program ❑ Multimedia ® Effluent/Receiving Waters ® Laboratory ❑ Stormwater ❑ Other: Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments See Attached Sheet(s) for Summary Signature(s) of Inspector(s): Agency/Office/Telephone: Date: Barry F. Love Z�" MRO WQ / 704-663-1699 / 704-663-6040 Lj-�o '- Signature of Reviewer: Agency/Office Date: Regulatory Office Use Only Action Taken Date: Noncompliance Compliance EPA Form 3560-3 (Revised 3-85) Previous Editions are Obsolete ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o❑❑❑❑ ❑a 00moo ❑❑ ■■o■■ ■■ c _o a a m c c cc B E a w Q) a m m I U1 Q) 0 N r c 0 E w C Ch a x N a C N N a� a N v 0 m O Cl. m C C, O Y C c N o L a IE aai m 12 U Rl T n af0i 't U al c m N 12 O> c •' a m a f0 C a E 0 ELP U Q T ❑oo❑o■■ ❑❑❑oo❑❑ ❑ao■oo❑ ■■■omoo z3mr 2c3a, d l0 L � U7 R1 L C =O p O O £ r a) o a) `h 3 € o C4 R! 1 m oa E N o No i L y y t c % o m m u y ¢ e P - N iL o E m a y m m m v 0 N N 8 L y C R + Ol p N i d of O U O t € E o L r- C + jo-ya�1E a J. L 0)'N E Y v U �i •� � y U o o rn E w y w o ¢ E 4) '0 R7 O H E N IP a' p .� o LL a RI N N a 7) p p Y Y a LL m 0 L C C c O O m m E > > E 0 o o C C O N 0. C) Q N A N p 0 T B m a L c N (n c U cn N _U m m Q 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a■■■ ao❑❑❑ o Mao❑ MEMOS ❑ o❑❑❑ 1000DOMEMMEM Emoo d m E C'. c ^. C, o LL -0~y N 7 o� o 3 0 N �,. -0 E 3 0 w o 0. O rn 5 o d o 3 o N' 3. 0 m 'Q) m u Nj f C)w y aai y 2 E 7 E a o � op E o U d E m ig E c 10 aai w 0 �' Q m ° c E O c'a N c o E o E _T _ 1D N LO � o N ° T 'a) c E N O y - m Q p c aai a ca a N y o> U a coi 5. c m Q 4 5 a m a� Q 49 rn c m = a 0 y Q E C o o c 10 E 6 G a r c o a c o m E z �° c N c o Y 5 N m o N � m E o CL 0 m E z y p U � 0 C C: 0 r- a� = s � cu 0 a ca `� -o $ y m E c 1° i O N 0)O 0) aci c W a Q fL c m a) 10 S E m Ea o cc c (o a ro L in Permit: NCOD44717 Owner - Facility: Town of Mount Pleasant - Mount Pleasant WTP inspection Date: 03/24/04 Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Record Keening Are DMRs complete: do they include all permit parameters? Has the facility submitted its annual compliance report to users? (If the facility is = or > 5 MGD permitted flow) Do they operate 24/7 with a certified operator on each shift? Is the ORC visitation log available and current? Is the ORC certified at grade equal to or higher than the facility classification? Is the backup operator certified at one grade less or greater than the facility classification? Is a copy of the current NPDES permit available on site? Yes No NA NF ❑■❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility description verified as contained in the NPDES permit? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Does the facility analyze process control parameters, for example: MLSS. MCRT, Settleable Solids. DO, Sludge ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Judge, pH, and others that are applicable? Facility has copy of previous year's Annual Report on file for review? Comment:Field results were inconsistant with data reported on DMR's. The ORC stated that the field results were originally written on small notepads which he didn't keep. Sample and analysis times were not always recorded and some field results were missing on the field analysis results form. The decimal point was sometimes in the wrong place (for total residual chlorine)on some DMR's. The Permittee address, phone #, and expiration date were missing from the DMR's for the period of January 2003 - December 2003. Instream sampling times were also missing from the DMR's. The August 2003 DMR was missing Operator Arrival Time, Operator Time on Site and ORC on Site. Amended DMR's should be submitted with accurate and complete information. Effluent Sampling is cornposiie sampling flow prcportional? Yes No ❑ ❑ NA NF E ❑ Is sample collected below all treatment units? E ❑ ❑ ❑ Is proper volume collected? 0❑ ❑ ❑ Is the tubing clean? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Is proper temperature set for sample storage (kept at 1.0 to 4.4 degrees Celsius)? 0❑ ❑ ❑ Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type representative)? E ❑ ❑ ❑ Comment: Unstream / Downstream Sampling Is the facility sampling performed as required by the permit (frequency, sampling type, and sampling location)? Yes No 0 ❑ NA NF ❑ ❑ Comment: Upstream sample is collected at the effluent pipe since no stream exists above this point. Downstream sample is collected from the unnamed tributary (which is actually no more than a wet -weather drainage way) approximately 100 feet downstream from outfall. Effluent Pipe Is right of way to the outfall property maintained? Yes No M ❑ NA NF ❑ ❑ Are receiving water free of solids and floatable wastewater materials? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Are the receiving waters free of solids / debris? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Are the receiving waters free of foam other than a trace? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Are the receiving waters free of sludge worms? ❑ ❑ M ❑ If effluent (diffuser pipes are required) are they operating properly? ❑ ❑ M ❑ Comment:Unnamed tributary is actually a wet -weather ditch OF W A Michael F. Easley TFR V_IX^ Governor /J William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary C') NCDENR 3 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 14 i Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality March 7, 2003 Troy W. Barnhardt Town of Mount Pleasant P.O. Box 787 Mount Pleasant, NC 28124 Subject: Renewal Notice NPDES, Permit NCO044717 Mount Pleasant WIT Cabarnxs County Dear Permittee: The subject permit expires on October 31, 2003. North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 2H.0105(e)) requires that an application for permit renewal be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration of the current permit. If you have already mailed your renewal application, you may disregard this notice. To satisfy this requirement, your renewal package must be sent to the Division postmarked no later than May 4, 2003. Failure to request renewal of the permit by this date may result in a civil assessment of at least $500.00. Larger penalties may be assessed depending upon the delinquency of the request. If any wastewater discharge will occur after October 31, 2003 (or if continuation of the permit is desired), the current permit must be renewed. Discharge of wastewater without a valid permit would violate North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and could result in assessment of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. If all wastewater discharge has ceased at your facility and you wish to rescind this permit, contact Bob Sledge of the Division's Compliance Enforcement Unit at (919) 733-5083, extension 547. You may also contact the Mooresville Regional Office at (704) 663-1699 to begin the rescission process. Use the enclosed checklist to complete your renewal package. The checklist identifies the items you must submit with the permit renewal application. If you have any questions, please contact Valery Stephens at the telephone number or e-mail address listed below. Sincerely, Charles H. Weaver, Jr. NPDES Unit cc: Central Files Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section NPDES File EPT. OF ENWP T AND j � NATl1t 'iiF fr RMOM ^'4AL 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 520 (fax) 919 733-0719 VISIT us ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES e-mail: valery.stephens@ncmail.net OF.�-:F19 0, CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Kenneth F Black Town of Mount Pleasant PO Box 787 Mount Pleasant NC 28124 Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 12/13/2002 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND REVOCATION FOR NON PAYMENT PERMIT NUMBER NCO044717 Mount Pleasant Town/ WTP Cabarrus COUNTY Dear Permittee: Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality a:t t;VIRONMENT +i"SOURCES r� i1•:rICE DEC 1 7 2002 Payment of the required annual administering and compliance monitoring fee of $715.00 for this year has not been received for the subject permit. This fee is required by Title 15 North Carolina Administrative Code 2H.0105, under the authority of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.3(a)(1), (1 a) and (1 b). Because this fee was not fully paid within 30 days after being billed, this letter initiates action to revoke the subject permit, pursuant to 15 ncac 2H.0105(b) (2) (k) (4), and G.S. 143-215.1 (b) (3). Effective 60 days from receipt of this notice, subject permit is hereby revoked unless the required Annual Administering and Compliance Monitoring Fee is received within that time. Discharges without a permit are subject to the enforcement authority of the Division of Water Quality. Your payment should be sent to: N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Budget Office 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you have the right to request an administrative hearing within Thirty (30) days following recipt of this notice, identifying the specific issues to be contended. 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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611-7447. Unless such request for hearing is made or payments received, revocation shall be final and binding. If you have any questions, please contact: Mr. Rex Gleason, Mooresville Water Quality Regional Supervisor, (704) 663-1699. Sincerely, Alan W. Klimek, P.E. cc: Supevisor, Water Quality Permits and Engineering Unit Mooresville Regional Office s County Health Department "J P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-5083 FAX 919-733-9919 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper 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 October 22, 2002 A,I 1' rn j .. OFF! CE The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mt. Pleasant OCT 2 4 2002 Post Office Box 787 Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 .0.g SUBJECT: Town of Mt. Pleasant Approval of Addendum No. Sewer Rehabilitation Project Project No. CS370742-01 Dear Mayor Barnhardt: Reference is made to Addendum No. 1, received October 11, 2002, from the engineer for revisions to the subject project. The proposed addendum, as described in the attachment, has been reviewed by this office and is hereby approved and eligible for Revolving Loan/Grant funding, in accordance with the loan/grant offer and conditions thereof. The approval of this addendum does not constitute any change in the amount of your funding for this project. It is the responsibility of the recipient and the consulting engineer to ensure that the project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N.C.G.S. 133-3 (ratified July 13, 1993). The administrative review and approval of addenda do not imply approval of a restrictive specification for bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive procurement actions. Adequate time must be allowed for the potential bidders and this office to receive and act on addenda prior to the receipt of bids for subject project. A copy of the approved addendum is attached for your files, and one (1) copy retained for our files. AT 'V9,_ bEi'S Construction Grants and I cans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1533 (919) 733-6900 Customer Service E-Mail Address wwma.nccg!.net FAX (919) 715-6229 1 800 623-7748 - 2 - Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E., at (919) 715-6222. Sincerely, � r Cecil . Madden, Jr. P. E., Supervisor Design Management Unit Construction Grants & Loans Section Attachment CGM:dr cc: Frazier Engineering, P.A. (Mark E. Lambert, P.E.) ,f I-egi Amy Simes, P.E. Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. Valerie Lancaster Ishwar Devkota, P.E. SRF O�O� W A T �9pG co 0 � October 21, 2002 The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mt. Pleasant Post Office Box 787 Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 Dear Mayor Barnhardt: Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources SUBJECT: Approval of Plans and Specifications Town of Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Project No. CS370742-01 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality The review for completeness and adequacy of the project construction plans and specifications has been concluded by the Construction Grants and Loans Section of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Therefore, said plan documents are hereby approved. Eligibility for Revolving Loan funding is determined as follows: Eligible Rehabilitation of 42,700 linear feet of collection lines includes inspection prior to rehabilitation, removal of protruding service laterals, re -connecting service laterals, sewer point repairs, six new manholes, abandoning four existing sewers by plugging, and abandoning two existing manholes. Non Eligible Replacement of 6-inch sewer with 8-inch sewer line. Any contingency amount shown on the bid. Issuance of this approval letter does not imply availability of funding. In the event that received bids exceed the amount established through the funding offer, and local funds are not adequate to award contract(s), it will be necessary to consider all alternatives including redesign, re -advertising, and rebidding. vat Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 ml' Servi 9 (919) 733-6900 Customer Service E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715-6229 1 800 623-7748 -I -2- Neither the State nor Federal Government, nor any of its departments, agencies, or employees is or will be a party to the invitation to bids, addenda, and any resulting contracts or contract negotiations/changes. Your project is subject to the one-year performance certification requirements. By this, you are required on the date, one year after the completion of construction and initial operation of the subject treatment facilities, to certify, based on your consulting engineer's advisement, whether or not such treatment works meet the design performance, specifications, and the permit conditions and effluent limitations. In accordance with the Federal Regulations, the Recipient is required to assure compliance with the OSHA safety regulations on the subject project. In complying with this regulatory responsibility, the Recipient should, by letter, invite the Training Officer, Education Training and Technical Assistance Unit, NC OSHA Division, 4 W. Edenton Street, Raleigh, NC 27601, (telephone 919/807-2890), to participate in the Preconstruction Conference, to assure that proper emphasis is given on understanding and adhering to the OSHA regulations. It is the responsibility of the Recipient and the Consulting Engineer to ensure that the project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N. C. G. S. 133-3 (ratified July 13, 1993). The administrative review and approval of these plans and specifications, and any subsequent addenda or change order, do not imply approval of a restrictive specification for bidding purposes; nor are they an authorization for noncompetitive procurement actions. Any addenda to be issued for subject project plans and specifications must be submitted by the Recipient, such that adequate time is allowed for review/approval action by the State, and for subsequent bidder action prior to receipt of bids. It is mandatory for project facilities to be constructed in accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and, when applicable, the North Carolina Dam Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractor's responsibilities shall be in complying with these Acts. Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the Recipient must have obtained all applicable project Permits from the State, including an Authorization to Construct and/or a Non -Discharge Permit. While rejection of all bids is possible, such action may be taken only with prior State concurrence, and only for good cause. -3- A goal of 8% of the contract price is established for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation in this project, and a goal of 5% of the contract price is established for Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) participation in this project. The Recipient and Bidders shall make a "good faith" effort to assure that MBEs and WBEs are utilized, when possible, as sources of goods and services. The "good faith" effort must include the following affirmative steps: (a) including small, minority, and women's businesses on solicitation lists; (b) assuring that small, minority, and women's businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources; (c) dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into small tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by small, minority, and women's businesses; (d) establishing delivery schedules; and (e) using the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Please note that the solicitation efforts should include documentable follow-up phone calls. The Recipient shall comply with the provisions of 40 CFR, Part 7, Subpart C - Discrimination Prohibited on the Basis of Handicap. Attached is one (1) copy of the Project Review and Cost Summary (Authority to Award) which is to be completed within 21 days after bids have been received, and submitted to the State for review. Upon review and approval of this information, the State will authorize the Recipient to make the proposed award. Do not proceed with construction until the Authorization -to -Award package and the EEO and MBE documentation/certification have been reviewed, and you are in receipt of our approval, if a Federal loan is desired for project construction. Two (2) copies of any change order must be promptly submitted by the Recipient to the State. If additional information is requested by the State, a response is required within two (2) weeks, or the change order will be returned without further or final action. One (1) set of the final approved plans and specifications will be forwarded to you. One (1) set of plans and specifications, identical to the approved set, must be available at the project site at all times. Upon completion of the project construction, the Recipient shall submit a letter confirming that the project has been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the State. "As -built" plans will need to be submitted with any changes clearly documented on the plans, if the above confirmation cannot be made. -4- If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P. E. at (919) 715-6203. Sincerely, John R. Blowe, P.E., Chief Construction Grants and Loans Section CGM/dr Attachment cc: Frazier Engineering, P.A. (Mark E. Lambert, P.E.) Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. Amy Simes, P.E. Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E. Valerie Lancaster Ishwar C. Devkota, P.E. OSHA Training Officer, Les Kafel CIU SRF �U -y� wncnaei r. tasiey, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary �i North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director -i Division of Water Quality O ,c August 26, 2002 The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor AUG 2 9 2002 Town of Mt. Pleasant Post office Box 787 DATER QUALITY SECTI Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 SUBJECT: Review Comments on Plans and Specifications Town of Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Project No. CS370742-01 Dear Mayor Barnhardt: A review of the revised plans and specifications for the Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Town of Mt. Pleasant, has been completed by the Construction Grants and Loans Section. The comments resulting from this review are being transmitted directly to your engineer for clarification and resolution; a copy is attached for your reference. Our current goal is to approve the plans and specifications as soon as possible. A thorough and timely response is necessary in order to accomplish this goal. Upon receipt of satisfactory responses from your engineer to our comments, the review of the plan documents will be completed. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E., Project Review Engineer, at (919) 715-6222. Sincerely, fy Cecil . Madden, Jr., P. E., Superv' or Design Management Unit Construction Grants and Loans Section ICD/dr Attachment (To All cc's) cc: Frazier Engineering, P. A. (Aaron M. Frazier, P. E.) Daniel Blaisdell, P. E. Ishwar Devkota, P. E., Project Review Engineer DMU/SRF Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6900 E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715-6229 NCUENR Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 Construction Grants and Loans Section Design Management Unit Review Comments on Plans and Specifications Town of Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Provide SRF number on the first sheet of Plans and on the cover sheet of Specifications. 2. Provide a Scale on the plans. Also, indicate 100-year flood level. 3. Provide four copies of the revised plans and specifications. 4. A copy of DDT's Encroachment Agreements should be included as an appendix to the specifications, and the contractor should be directed by the body of the specifications to comply with the Encroachment Agreements. 5. Mobilization, if allowed, should not exceed 3% total and should not exceed 1 % per month. The measurement and payment section should make this clear to the contractor. 6. Contingency allowance provided on Bid Items 14, 18, and 23 are not eligible for funding. 7. Provide plans and profile for the section where 6-inch sewer line is upgraded to 8-inch sewer line. The pipe -bursting work was not included in the approved 201 Facilities Plan. To be considered eligible, it must first be determined cost effective in an engineering amendment to the Facilities Plan. Under SRF Guidelines, eligible work is not to be done as an add/deduct alternate. If the work is deemed necessary, then it should show up in the base bid. 8. Modify special condition (SC-5) to remove the portion of the statement which allows 200% performance bond being acceptable in lieu of payment bond. Both the performance and payment bonds are required. 9. Remove dispute resolution specifications (SC-16) from the specifications as it is already covered elsewhere in the specifications, to comply with Senate Bill 914. 10. In accordance with N.C.G.S. 133-3, if one manufacturer is listed, then at least three manufacturers are required to be listed in addition to the words, "Or Approved Equal." Accordingly, three manufacturers must be listed for Pipe Bursting (SSR-38). See the attached sheet describing the Construction Grants and Loans Section policy on N.C.G.S.133-3. July 31, 2002 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mount Pleasant P. O. Box 787 Mount Pleasant, NC 28124-0787 SUBJECT Dear Mayor Barnhardt: 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 NC DEPT. OFENVIRONMENT AND r,;, TU'Rv-1 F,` ; ;URCES A U G 0 2 2002 Offer and Acceptance For a State Loan Project No. CS370742-01 Mount Pleasant, North Carolina As you were notified by letter from Governor Easley, the Town of Mount Pleasant has been approved for loan assistance from the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund in the amount of $1,632,000. This loan will assist with infiltration and inflow correction. Enclosed are two (2) copies of an Offer and Acceptance Document extending a State Revolving loan in the amount of $1,632,000. This offer is made subject to the assurances and conditions set forth in the Offer and Acceptance Document. Upon executing the Offer and Acceptance Document, please submit the following items to the Construction Grants and Loans Section, 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633 within forty-five (45) days of receipt. 1. A resolution adopted by the governing body accepting the loan offer and making the applicable assurances contained therein. (Sample copy attached). 2. One (1) copy of the original Offer and Acceptance Document executed by the authorized representative for this project. Retain the other copy for your files. Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6900 E-Mail Address wwVr.nccgl net FAX (919) 715-6229 DL Customer Service 1 800 623-748 Page 2 In accordance with G.S. 159-26(b)(6), a capital project fund is required to account for all debt instrument proceeds used to finance capital projects. It is required that a capital project ordinance, in accordance with G.S. 159-13.2, be adopted by the governing board authorizing all appropriations necessary for the completion of the project. A copy of the approved ordinance must be submitted to this office before submitting the first reimbursement request. In addition, the enclosed pay request form must be used for all reimbursement requests. You may make additional copies as needed. Also, enclosed is a copy of a memorandum requesting your Federal Identification Number. Please contact the State Auditors office for the compliance pertaining to the North Carolina Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program. On behalf of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, I am pleased to make this offer of State Revolving Loan funds made available by the North Carolina Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Act of 1987 and the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. Sincerely, R. Blowe, P.E., Chief traction Grants & Loans Section MH/nw Enclosures cc: Camp, Dresser & McKee Mooresville Regional Office Valerie Lancaster SRF Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources June 11, 2002 The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mount Pleasant Post Office Box 787 Mount Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 Dear Mayor Barnhardt: Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality VC DEPT. OF ENVRONME 0, AND NATURAL RESOURCES MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE �"P r IE 1,rp JUN 1 2 2002 9 i QUALITY SECTION SUBJECT: Town of Mount Pleasant 201 Facilities Plan Amendment Project No. CS370742-01 The Construction Grants and Loans Section of the Division of Water Quality has completed its review of the Mount Pleasant 201 Facilities Plan Amendment. The project consists of the rehabilitation of 42,700 linear feet of collection lines. The subject Amendment to the Mount Pleasant 201 Facilities Plan is hereby approved. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Larry Horton, P.E. of our staff at (919) 715-6225. Sincerely, Z' 01�A51'r Z3�1� John R. Blowe, P.E., Chief Construction Grants & Loans Section cc: Sandra L. Tripp, P.E., Camp Dresser & McKee Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6900 E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715-6229 NCDEN Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 OF �ATF� Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary C North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources CIO r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Acting Director G► �. T Division of Water Quality as, April 26, 2002 MOOR , 11 ,. The Honorable Troy Barnhardt, Mayor Town of Mount Pleasant Post Office Box 787 Mount Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 Dear Mayor Barnhardt: APR 2 9 2002 WATER s i SUBJECT: FNSI Advertisement Rehabilitate Collection Facilities Loan Project No. CS370742-01 This is to inform you that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) and the environmental assessment have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The documents will be advertised for thirty (30) calendar days in the N.C. Environmental Bulletin. Advertising the FNSI is required to comply with the requirements of the State Revolving Fund and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. You will be informed of any significant comment or public objection when the advertisement period is completed. If there are any questions, please contact me at (919) 715-6211. Sincerely, Daniel M. Blaisdell, P.E., Assistant Chief for Engineering Branch Attachment (all cc's) cc: Mooresville Regional Office Camp Dresser & McKee, Sandra L. Trip, P.E. DEE Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. Reginald Sutton, Ph.D. K. Lawrence Horton, P.E. Robert Brown SRF Construction Grants and loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6900 Customer Service E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715-6229 1 800 623-7748 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NC DEPT. OF Epl, OR-AND„1 "��? T N`GoFdES4't rc.t_g APR 2 9 2002 REHABILITATE SEWER COLLECTION FACILITIES'ATEJ ; TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONTACT: JOHN R. BLOWE, P.E., CHIEF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AND LOANS SECTION DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 1633 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1633 (919) 715-6212 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 99-E-4300-0816 APRIL 26, 2002 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FNSI) Title V1 of the amended Clean Water Act requires the review and approval of environmental information prior to the construction of publicly -owned wastewater treatment facilities financed by the State Revolving Fund (SkF). The proposed project has been evaluated for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and determined to be a major agency action which will affect the environment. Project Applicant: Mount Pleasant, North Carolina Loan Project Number: CS370742-01 Project Description: The proposed project consists of rehabilitating approximately 42,700 linear feet (11.) of existing 8- and 10-inch clay pipe with a cured -in - place liner. Total Project Cost: $1,832,000 State Revolving Loan: $1,632,000 Local Share: $ 200,000 The review process did not indicate that significant adverse environmental impacts would result from implementing the proposed project, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required. 'The decision was based on information in the facilities plan. a public hearing document, and reviews by governmental agencies. An environmental assessment supporting this action is attached. This FNSI completes the environmental review record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse_ No administrative action will be taken on the proposed project for at least thirty days after notification that the FNSI has been published in the North Carolina Environmental Bulletin. Sincerely, G Grego rpe, Ph.D. Acting Director Division of eater Quality ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A. Proposed Facilities and Actions Figure 1 identifies the location of the proposed sewer rehabilitation project. Rehabilitate Collection Facilities. Most of the Mount Pleasant sewer collection system was installed approximately sixty years ago. The system has undergone minimal rehabilitation and cleaning, but the deteriorated pipes are still a major source of infiltration and inflow (111). The first phase of the sewer rehabilitation project will consist of rehabilitating approximately 42,700 linear feet (l.f.) of existing 8- and 10-inch clay pipe with a cured -in -place liner. The second phase of the project is planned for 2006, and the work will consist of rehabilitating manholes and replacing service laterals. B. Existing Environment Topography and Soils. The proposed project is located in the central section of Mount Pleasant, which is situated in the eastern section of Cabarrus County. The topography is primarily rolling uplands with elevations from 500 to 600 feet above mean sea level. Most of the soils are well drained with a clayey subsoil. Surface Water. Cabarrus County is located in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The town of Mount Pleasant service area is located in two drainage basins: the Adams Creek basin in the west and the Dutch Buffalo Creek basin in the east. Adams Creek drains into Dutch Buffalo Creek, which flows into the Rocky River. Water Supply. The town of Mount Pleasant obtains its water supply from the Dutch Buffalo Creek. C. Existing Wastewater Facilities The town currently owns and operates a wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 63,000 l.f. of gravity sewers, 259 manholes, and four small pump stations with associated force mains. Most of the town's vitrified clay pipes were installed in the 1930's, and polyvinyl chloride pipes were added to the collection system in the 1970's. Mount Pleasant has 650 sewer customers within the town's boundaries, and approximately six homes are not provided central wastewater collection and treatment service. The unsewered homes are not located within 500 feet of an existing sewer line. These residents utilize septic tanks, and there are no known problems. All of the town's flow is treated at the 24 mgd Rocky River regional wastewater treatment plant, which is currently being upgraded to comply with the NPDES permit. All treated effluent from the regional wastewater plant is discharged into the Rocky River. D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions The'town of Mount Pleasant is one of four utility members of the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC). The town receives wholesale wastewater service from WSACC. Mount Pleasant owns and operates its sewer collection system, which is located in two drainage basins separated by a ridge along Main Street. A Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) was conducted in 1998, and the results indicated that the oldest part of the collection system was in poor condition. Sewer line problems include root intrusions, defected pipe joints, cracked and broken pipes, collapsed pipes, and defected service connections. The town's collection system has 155 brick manholes that are reported to be in fair structural condition, and 104 precast concrete manholes that are in good structural condition. The Mount Pleasant sewer collection facilities have been identified as a major per capita contributor of I/I in the regional treatment system, and the proposed sewer rehabilitation project needs to be implemented to provide reliable sewer collection facilities. E. Alternatives Analysis A facilities plan was prepared, and two options were evaluated. The SSES considered a comprehensive sanitary sewer rehabilitation project and an alternative point repair process. The report concluded that a point repair approach would result in I/I migrating from one rehabilitated area to another. Additionally, a point repair process will not restore the structural integrity of the badly deteriorated pipes. The SSES recommended a comprehensive rehabilitation project that covers approximately 68 percent of the collection system to eliminate approximately 52 percent of the estimated 70,000 gallons per day of III. This is the preferred plan, and it is the selected alternative. F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigative Measures All sewer rehabilitation activities will take place within the town's existing rights -of -way. Sewer rehabilitation work will be performed by cured -in -place lining. This procedure is considered a trenchless technology since it does not involve excavating trenches to install sewer pipes. Access pits will be dug periodically along the existing sewer lines. Service laterals will be replaced as a second phase project. Manholes will also be rehabilitated during a second phase operation, and the method of rehabilitation will be cement mortar coating. Since the proposed project will be within existing sewer easements, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated to floodplains and wetlands. The Department of Cultural Resources reviewed the proposed plan and determined that there were no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission evaluated the proposed project and do not object to the implementation of the sewer rehabilitation work. -2- I N FIGURE I Mt Pleasant Collection System -� Rehabilitation Area Source: USGS Topographical Map Mt Pleasant, N.C. Scale: lin =9nnnff Project includes comprehensive rehabili- tation of 42,700 feet of 8-inch and I 0-inch clay pipe. A Phase 11 project would consist -41 J; of rehabilitation service laterals and brick manholes. . N V T\NR 2417 IT7 L A QC— t It ....... ....... All Nx "at kkk 2 ZC7 it N1- Rehabillitaton Area 7- C R / Michael F. Easley, Governor • William G. Ross Jr., SecretaryQG North Carolina Department Environment Natural ` of and Resources IttGregory Q-A � J. Thorpe, Ph.D. w v/� -.I C �! 1 Acting Director Division of Water Quality "C c Y T . 0DWIROr`rM6.1, October 16, 2001 AND MP UIRA5- RES. h,f10ES ^9 The Honorable L. Scott Barringer, Mayor Town of Mount Pleasant OCT 18 2001 Post Office Box 787 Mount Pleasant, North Carolina 28124-0787 1 SUBJECT: Town of Mount Pleasant 201 Facilities Plan Amendment Project No. CS370742-01 Dear Mayor Barringer: The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its technical review of the subject project. A copy of the comments resulting from this review is attached for your reference. We are also sending these comments directly to your consultant engineer, Camp Dresser & McKee, by copy of this letter. A revised Facility Plan that incorporates responses to these comments should be submitted for our review and approval as soon as possible. Providing thorough and complete responses to these review comments in a timely manner is necessary to avoid delays of the project approval. If there are questions concerning this review, you may contact me at (919) 715-6225, or Mr. Rob Brown at (919) 715-6213. Sincerely, 12c��i 1 BA*""" 3,r K. Lawrence Horton, III, P.E., Supervisor Facilities Evaluation Unit RB:dr Attachment (all cc's) cc: Sandra L. Tripp, P.E., Camp Dresser & McKee Amy Simes, P.E. Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. Reginald Sutton, PhD. Robert Brown DMU/FEU/SRF Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-69M E-Mail Address www.nccgl.net FAX (919) 715-6229 'pit: t1E`,5: Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 TOWN OF MT. PLEASANT Technical Review Comments Town of Mt. Pleasant and The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County 201 Facility Plan Amendment Project Number CS370742-01 October 10, 2001 General The estimated cost of the first phase of the recommended project is $1,600,000. The sources of infiltration/inflow to be removed by this phase should be identified and the cost of eliminating the extraneous flow compared to the cost of continuing to transport and treat it. This analysis should identify the sources to be repaired, estimate flow to be removed (not all infiltration/inflow will be removed hence there will be some cost involved with continuing to transport and treat the residual flow) and project the cost savings of the action. Unless otherwise justified, (e.g. health reasons from overflows) only those sources demonstrated to be cost effective to be rehabilitated are eligible for loan funding. 2. A loan under the SRF program cannot be awarded until the user charge system and the sewer use ordinance have been approved. 3. A loan from the SRF fund is contingent upon the review and approval of the proposed loan by the Local Government Commission. 4. All real property associated with the project must be acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970. 5. The following costs are not eligible for funding under the act: a). The costs of acquisition of sewer right-of-way (i.e., legal, administrative, and engineering). b). Any amount paid by the recipient for eligible land in excess of just compensation based on appraised value, negotiation or condemnation proceedings. Section 3 1. The Current Situation Section should include a history of overflows and bypasses in the collection system. 2. Any unsewered areas within the town limits should be identified and any public health or water quality problems in these areas should be discussed. Section 4 1. Page 15: Table 4.3 uses a discount rate of 7.125%. The current EPA discount rate is 6.375%. Any revisions to this table should reflect this. Section 5 1. Revised page 17: As noted above, the scope of the project has been reduced to $1,600,000. Please provide a breakdown of the items to be included in the first phase of the project and a map clearly delineating these areas to be rehabilitated, including the type rehabilitation recommended. 2. Revised page 17: Please note that our review and subsequent approval will be limited to the first phase of the project at this time. 3. Revised Table 5-4: To demonstrate the effect this project will have on the user charge, the financial burden (loan payback plus any associated O&M increase) should be compared to the estimated billable flow (domestic/industrial/commercial flow, excluding any remaining infiltration/inflow) to determine what the increase in the charge for the typical user of 5000 gallons per day will be. 4. Revised Table 5-3: This table lists annual billable commercial flow as 28,557 and annual billable residential flow as 39,214. Is this in thousands of gallons or is it in gallons per day? Note that Table 4-1 on page 8 of the June 1999 Facility Plan Amendment, expected industrial flow was listed as 40,000 gallons per day or gpd (0.04 millions of gallon per day, or mgd) and residential flow was 140,000 gpd (0.140 mgd). Section 6 1. Page 24: The scope of this project has been revised and the funding source now is SRF loan. A public hearing will be required to inform the public of the changes. Notice of the hearing should be advertised at least 30 days in advance of the hearing and a copy of the revised Facility Plan on display for at 15 days preceding the hearing. 2. A resolution from the Town Commissioners agreeing to implement the revised plan should be provided. ��r v r r C Micnaei r. tastey, tiovernor .+" ,.n William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources I t r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Acting Director Division of Water Quality AND NA 6t0 RESV; August 13, 2001 The Honorable L. Scott Barringer, Mayor AUG 17 2001 Town of Mt. Pleasant P.O. Box 787 Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina 28124 SUBJECT: Review Comments on Plans and Specifications Town of Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Project No. CS370742-01 Dear Mayor Barringer: A review of the plans and specifications for the Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Town of Mt. Pleasant, has been completed by the Construction Grants and Loans Section. The comments resulting from this review are being transmitted directly to your engineer for clarification and resolution; a copy is attached for your reference. Our current goal is to approve the plans and specifications in the month of December 2001. A thorough and timely response is necessary in order to accomplish this goal. Upon receipt of satisfactory responses from your engineer to our comments, the review of the plan documents will be completed. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E., the State Project Review Engineer, at (919) 715-6222. Sincerely, Cecil . Madden, Jr., P.E., Su isor Construction Grants and Loans Section Design Management Unit ICD/dr Attachment (To All cc's) cc: Frazier Engineering, P.A., (Aaron M. Frazier, P.E.) Daniel Blaisdell, P.E. Ishwar Devkota (Project Review Engineer) DMU SRF Construction Grants and Loans Section 1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 (919) 733-6900 E-Mail Address www.nccgi.net FAX (919) 715-6229 A" _* tit C�4`, Customer Service 1 800 623-7748 11 Construction Grants and Loans Section Design Management Unit Comments on Plans and Specifications Review Comments on Plans and Specifications Town of Mt. Pleasant, Sewer Rehabilitation Project GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide completed SRF Plans and Specification Review. Check list attached for this project. 2. Provide a completed Non -Discharge Permit application, with a $400.00 fee. A blank application form is attached. 3. Provide an updated Cost Estimate. 4. Provide a copy of the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit from the Division of Land Quality, or a letter from them stating that no permit is required for this project. 5. The advertisement of bid should read, replacement of "6-inch sewer with 8-inch sewer". Please note that service laterals replacement is not eligible for funding beyond the sewer easement and/or rights -of -way and, therefore, must be broken down in the bids. In addition, contract documents should include the following items: (a) Change Order form; (b) Notice to Award form; (c) Notice to Proceed form; (d) SRF Special Conditions for the sewer lines. A copy is attached. Please note that Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed should have places for the signatures of the Contactor and the Local Government `s Authorized Representative. The Consulting Engineer's signature is not considered an acceptable alternative for the signature of the Authorized Representative. 6. The information from a reasonable subsurface investigation must be made available to the contractor for the line work, as well. If the information is not provided, then the Specifications must advise where a copy of the report can be observed. If the owner chooses not to provide subsurface investigation, then any costs for differing site conditions will likely not be determined eligible for funding. 7. If funding is desired, all addenda should be submitted to our office for review and approval, prior to opening of bids. Contractors should have all addenda at least seven (7) days prior to bid opening. 8. Approval of all "Or Equals" must be by addenda, prior to receipt of bids. 2 9. All construction easements, permanent easements, and rights -of -way must be shown on the Plans. (a) A copy of DOT `s Encroachment Agreements should be included as an appendix to the Specifications, and the contractor should be directed by the body of the Specifications to comply with the Encroachment Agreements; 10. Any private or public water supply source, including wells, any WS-I waters, or Class I or Class 11 impounded reservoirs, used as a source for drinking water within 100 feet of the project, must be shown on the Plans. 11. Any waters classified as WS-II, WS-III, B, SA, ORW, HQW, or SB within 50 feet of the project must be shown on the Plans. 12. Confirm that all mitigative measures required by other permits and environmental assessments have been incorporated in the Plans and Specifications. Provide a summary of those measures in your written response. 13. Advise if there are gas stations in the vicinity of the proposed project. If yes, then an investigation should be performed on the soils and groundwater to determine if they are petroleum contaminated. When the contamination exists, Plans and Specifications must address how the contaminated soils and groundwater must be handled. If the owner chooses not to provide this information, then any costs associated with differing site conditions will not likely be eligible for participation. 14. All materials used in petroleum contaminated soils need to be compatible with petroleum. 15. Mobilization, if allowed, should not exceed 3% total, and should not exceed 1 % per month. 16. Construction of sewers and sewer extensions are prohibited in the following areas, unless specified determinations are made: (a) In a natural area designated on the State Registry of Natural Heritage Areas by a protection agreement between the owner and the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, unless the EMC agrees that no prudent, feasible, or technologically possible alternative exists. (b) In a natural area dedicated as a North Carolina Nature Preserve by mutual agreement between the owner and the State of North Carolina (Governor and Council of State), unless the EMC recommends and the Governor and Council of State agree that no prudent, feasible or technologically possible alternative exists. Confirm that the proposed sewers do not traverse the above -mentioned natural areas. 17. A clear description of the methods of Measurement and Payment (M & P) for each and every bid item should be provided. 18. The Specifications should address how payment for rock excavation will be handled. We prefer that the A/E estimates a rock quantity and provide a bid item for rock excavation. This way, the contractor knows he will get paid for the rock encountered so he can give a better unit price for the pipe. 19. Undercut excavation should be addressed. The payment item for undercut excavation should include removal of the unsuitable material and replacement with stone, select backfill, or other suitable material. 20. The 201 Facilities Plan must be approved prior to issuance of the Plans and Specifications' approval. Plan Review Comments Provide SRF Project No. CS370742-01 on first sheet of Plans and first sheet of Specifications. 2. Provide the phone numbers for all utilities and/or utility locating services in the area. 3. Provide design calculations for gravity sewer line, and profile of all sewer lines, manhole inverts, sections with Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP), if any, and any other relevant information. 4. Gravity sewer work should be broken down in the bid, by unit price, for various ranges of depth. 5. Show pipe installation detail including the bedding requirements. 6. Show all construction and permanent easements on the Plans, including all utility lines, where applicable. Specifications Review Comments 1. A project sign is required for SRF Projects. The sign dimensions should be no greater than 4' X 8" made of plywood, with materials readily available from local supply stores; and with lettering to identify the recipient, brief project description, consulting engineer, contractor, and SRF Project number. The following statements should be placed on the sign: "Financed in part by State and Federal Funds" and "An Equal Employment Opportunity Project." The sign must be placed in a prominent location near the project. El NCDENR DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY March 22, 1999 Memo To: Ryan Scruggs, Construction Grants From: Rex Gleason Prepared By: Michael Parker Subject: Town of Mount Pleasant Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study Preliminary Engineering Report Cabarrus County Per your request, a review has been conducted by the staff of this Office of the subject engineering report. This report details needed collection system improvements in the Town that were identified in the Rocky River Basin 201 Facilities Plan Amendment and a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES). This plan was commissioned by the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) to addresses future Rocky River basin sewer collection needs. In evaluating the results of the 201 plan, it was found that the Town's 63,000 linear feet of sewer collection system was contributing a significant amount of 1/1 (z36,000 gpd) to the WSACC's Rocky River WWTP. As a result, the Town is proposing to rehabilitate z 50,000 linear feet of VCP gravity sewer , service laterals, and associated brick manholes. This rehabilitation will consist of slip - lining the clay lines, coating the manhole with a mortar coating, and replacing service laterals to the property line. This proposed rehab of the existing sewer collection system should not require any additional permitting by the Division since the activity would be considered as maintenance and not new construction. In addition, there is no proposed impact to wetlands and or stream channels, which would require additional approvals under the Division's 401 Certification program and the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. Therefore, based on our review of this project, we have no additional comments to offer. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please advise. mlp h:\gen\consgrnt.mem 3 A. PRESTON HOWARD, JR., P.E. DIRECTOR .t # MEMORANDUM r NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY March 10, 1999 TO: Rex Gleason, Regional Supervisor Mooresville Regional Office FROM: Ryan Scruggs, Project Manager Facilities Evaluation Unit SUBJECT: Town of Mt. Pleasant Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey Preliminary Engineering Report itL MgRh''�� Y99 •=f Transmitted herewith is one copy of the above subject Preliminary Engineering Report for your files. Please return your comments to this office before April 14, 1999. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (919) 715-6209. Attachment =6 cc: FEU SRG CONSTRUCTION GRANTS & LOANS SECTION P.O. BOX 29579, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0579 PHONE 91 9-733-6900 FAX 919-715-6229 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER Town of Mt. Pleasant and The Water and Sewer Authority of Caibarrus County Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey 201 Facility Plan Amendment March 1999 •� +'` y'M`''�, 7 sx ,� • � { ��, '� '`'+'r in �. � '�J r .iD i _ ''1� + ,1. C •4,, r �r�v i}JJ ref $� -v � �i-. f. { �A a ,\ rr .��t, /'\ �i � r. ` �� ,\'! 1•(i4. /^ ,�h '. t �" ��ir 'W� ,a,.{''q '°a -t ��L_' 1``� � rR�, �.�, ` � ,� � , .. �_ 1./ i .. -�• •. 1, r �� _ r -, t al ILI r�Y �' � •v , ' �� ' ; - * �, r , � , r °,� � it , j. % � f `. � I �, I. � ,, '� , � a, J \ � .� i r ` r n• 'j , �. ' I 1 . - _ a J v � � r � , r� � r •t'-. Ji II 6 Y _ _ ` _ � j.• 1 4 ,.,}tea RAVI, Pic err: r,1c Atp I999 Town of Mt. Pleasant and The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey 201 Facility Plan Amendment 03 �%4 S134MI1393 �0mmo4�H CA RO j-' , e� °gam _ Ae •621VI-Ir Q Camp Dresser & McKee March 1999 Contents List of Figures List of Tables Section 1 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ........... 1 Section 2 Previous Rehabilitation ............................... 3 Section 3 Current Situation .................................... 4 3.1 General ....................................... 4 3.2 Collection System .............................. 4 3.3 Treatment System Description r) 3.4 SOC or Sewer Moratoriums ....................... 6 3.5 Present Worth Analysis .......................... 6 Section 4 Methods ........................................... 8 4.1 Mt. Pleasant Flow Data .......................... 8 4.2 Summary of SSES Work ......................... 9 4.2.1 Background ............................. 9 4.2.2 Recommended Repairs ................... 11 4.2.3 Approximate Flow Removal ................ 13 4.2.4 Present Worth Cost Comparison ............ 15 4.3 Future System Plan ............................ 15 Section 5 Funding .......................................... 17 5.1 Project ...................................... 17 5.2 Annual Cost of Capital Improvement Plan ........... 17 5.3 User Charges ................................. 18 5.4 Financial Capability ............................ 18 Section 6 Public Participation ................................. 24 Appendix A Mt. Pleasant Feasibility Study - Water & Sewer FINS Consulting, Inc., January 1999 Appendix B Daily Precipitation for Mt. Pleasant Area CDM Camp Dresser & McKee I List of Figures Figure 3-1 Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System ................. 5 4-1 Mt. Pleasant Pump Station Wastewater Flow ............... 10 4-2 Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation ..... 14 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee List of Tables Table 3-1 Summary of Mt. Pleasant Sewers ......................... 4 3-2 Cost of Transporting and Treating Mt. Pleasant Wastewater .... 7 4-1 Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Flow Analysis ..................... 8 4-2 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Sewer Rehabilitation ........... 13 4-3 Costs for Rehabilitation Sewer System .................... 15 5-1 Project Costs ......................................... 19 5-2 Financing Plan for Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Comparison of SRF to Revenue Bonds .................... 20 5-3 Annual Cost of Selected Plan Including Based on State Grant and SRF Funding ........... 21 5-4 Estimated Rate Summary for FY 1999-2002 and Calculation of Average Residential Customer Monthly Bill ..... 22 5-5 Mt. Pleasant Water and Sewer System Financial Forecasts .... 23 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 1 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations The Town of Mt. Pleasant is one of the four utility members of the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC). The Town currently owns and operates a wastewater collection system consisting of over 63,000 linear feet of gravity sewer, 259 manholes, and four small pump stations and associated force mains. Wastewater from these facilities flows into downstream collection facilities owned by WSACC including the Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor and Mt. Pleasant Pump Stations No. 1 and 2, all located in the Mt. Pleasant area. The two WSACC pump stations transport Mt. Pleasant's wastewater west into another WSACC interceptor. From there it flows to the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) where it is treated and discharged into the Rocky River. The majority of Mt. Pleasant's collection system was installed approximately 60 years ago. The system has undergone minimal rehabilitation or cleaning over the years, and has been identified as a major contributor of infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the regional system (on a per capita basis). In 1998, WSACC and Mt. Pleasant hired ADS to perform a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) to identify defects in the collection system. WSACC then hired RNS Consultants, Inc. (RNS) to evaluate the SSES and recommend a rehabilitation program for correcting I/I defects and improving the structural integrity of the system. In 1999, WSACC retained Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) to prepare a 201 Facility Plan Amendment presenting the results of these two studies. Results of the SSES and subsequent study noted that the oldest part of the system consisting of 50,000 linear feet of 8- and 10-inch clay pipe is in poor condition. Defects include root intrusion, broken and cracked pipes, and leaky joints. The pipe is approximately 60 years old and near the end of its useful life. The study recommended a comprehensive sanitary sewer rehabilitation approach because the alternative point repair approach was not deemed to be cost-effective for the Mt. Pleasant system, which is near the end of its useful life. I/I will tend to migrate from rehabilitated areas to areas that are not rehabilitated with a point repair approach. Additionally, a point repair approach will not restore the structural integrity of the unrepaired pipes. Finally, a comprehensive approach addresses system maintenance concerns by producing an effectively new, unclogged interior sewer lining. A comprehensive rehabilitation approach, including repair of laterals, will reduce approximately 60 to 70 percent of I/I entering the system through corrected defects. The study recommended comprehensive rehabilitation of 50,000 linear feet of clay gravity sewer and associated brick manholes. This represents approximately 80 percent of the entire collection system. This rehabilitation effort should result in elimination of approximately 52 percent of the estimated 70,000 gallon per day CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES (gpd) average I/I that the entire collection system currently is subjected to. This equates to an estimated reduction of 36,400 gpd I/I. This is an average daily flow rate, developed from flow readings over the last two years. I/I seen during rain events can be three to five times higher than the average rate. The total project cost for the rehabilitation of the collection system is estimated to be approximately 3.75 million. This includes construction and engineering costs. Rehabilitation includes lining all of the existing clay pipe with a fold -in -form liner. This type of plastic lining system will correct pipe and joint defects. In addition, the brick manholes will be coated with a cemetitious mortar coating, and service laterals will be replaced to the property line. All rehabilitation will occur within the existing pipe and right-of-way. No additional land is required. In addition to substantially reducing the I/I seen in the Mt. Pleasant collection system, the rehabilitation will increase the life of the facilities to at least 50 years. Mt. Pleasant is seeking a state grant for $3 million under the High -Unit Cost category. Mt. Pleasant is also seeking Federally funded State Revolving Funding for the remaining portion of the costs, or $749,900. The average residential monthly water and sewer bill (using the high -unit cost calculation method) would increase to $52.68. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2 Section 2 Previous Rehabilitation The Town of Mt. Pleasant's wastewater collection system consists of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed approximately 60 years ago, and polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) installed in the 1970s. As reported by RNS Consultants, the Town has not adopted a sewer rehabilitation program to date (see Appendix A). Repairs are done as necessary to correct a service or system failure, usually due to blockage of the sewers. The Town had two reported overflows in 1997, both due to problems with the Summer Street Pump Station. The Town has since re -built the pumps in this station. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 3 Current Situation 3.1 General The Town of Mt. Pleasant owns, operates, and maintains the sewer collection system that serves customers both inside of and immediately surrounding the Town boundaries. The service area is located in two major drainage basins, the Dutch Buffalo Creek and Adams Creek basins. In addition to the collection sewers, the Town owns four pump stations which lift wastewater from the Adams Creek basin to the Dutch Buffalo Creek basin. From there wastewater flows to the Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor which serves as the major interceptor for Mt. Pleasant. The collection system is shown in Figure 3-1. Wastewater flows from the Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor into two pump stations (Mt. Pleasant Pump Station No. 1 and Mt. Pleasant Pump Station No. 2) which operate in series to lift the wastewater through a force main into the Cold Water Creek Interceptor. From there the wastewater flows into the Irish Buffalo Creek Interceptor and then to the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for treatment and discharge into Rocky River. The Town receives wholesale wastewater service from the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC). WSACC owns, operates, and maintains the Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor and all downstream facilities including the Cold Water Creek Interceptor, the Irish Buffalo Creek Interceptor, and the Rocky River Regional WWTP. 3.2 Collection System The Town's collection system consists of over 63,000 lineal feet of sewer, most of which was installed in the 1930s. The sewer system is summarized in Table 3-1. Also included is a summary of WSACC's Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor. Table 3-1 Summary of Mt. Pleasant Sewers Material Diameter, inches Length, feet Comments Vitrified Clay 8 45,752 Installed in 1930s. Pipe is in poor condition. Vitrified Clay 10 4,217 Installed in 1930s. Pipe is in poor condition. PVC 8 13,136 Installed in 1970s. Pipe is in good condition. PVC 15 8,936 WSACC interceptor. Installed in 1981. Pipe is in good condition. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4 Food Lion Pump Station Mt. Pleasant Elementary School Pump Station A II - Legend ■ Mt Pleasant Pump Static WSACC Pump Stations o Manholes Gravity Sewers 8-inch N 10-inch WSACC Interceptor • Force Main • �i Streets Town Boundary • Mt. Pleasant Pump jtion 1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Figure 3-1: Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES Table 3-1 is a summary of information presented in Appendix A. Town records indicate they served an average of 549 wastewater customers (84 businesses) and 699 water customers (94 businesses) in 1998. The Town's collection system has 155 brick manholes and 104 precast concrete manholes. The brick manholes are in fair structural condition. The precast manholes are in good structural condition. WSACC's interceptor has 34 precast concrete manholes, all of which are in good structural condition. Of the Town's 259 manholes, seven are located within the 100-year flood plain and are not protected from flooding. 3.3 Treatment System Description As noted previously, the Town's wastewater is treated by WSACC's Rocky River Regional WWTP. WSACC describes this facility as follows: "The Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is a two stage 24 MGD biological wastewater treatment facility which provides treatment services for the cities of Concord and Kannapolis, the Towns of Harrisburg and Mt. Pleasant and Cabarrus County. It is owned and operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County. Average flow during 1996 was 16.17 mgd. Functions performed by the staff of forty two, consist of plant operations and maintenance and laboratory analysis of plant, industrial, and groundwater monitoring samples. The Plant uses a 95% pure oxygen activated sludge biological process. An upgraded disinfection system was completed in 1994 using sodium hypochlorite for disinfection eliminating gaseous chlorine which has been designated as extremely hazardous by EPA and OSHA. An upgraded sludge processing system was completed in 1995. This system included high solids centrifuges for dewatering, high pressure pumps (originally developed for pumping concrete) for conveying dewatered sludge, and afterburner / wet electrostatic precipitator scrubbing for the incinerator stack gases." (WSACC 1997). Rainfall in this area totaled 55.6 inches in 1997 and 40.0 inches in 1998. The WWTP treated an average of 17.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1997 and 16.5 mgd in 1998. Two years of rainfall data is provided in Appendix B. The Rocky River Regional WWTP flow data is provided in Appendix C. 3.4 SOC or Sewer Moratoriums There have been no sewer moratoriums or SOCs applied to the Town of Mt. Pleasant's wastewater collection system. 3.5 Present Worth Analysis A present worth analysis for transporting and treating Mt. Pleasant's wastewater is presented in Table 3-2. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES Table 3-2 Cost of Transporting and Treating Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Item Annual Cost, $ Present Worth, $/1000 gal Gravity Sewer - Cost for responding to problems, $7,500 $393 repair of pipe Mt. Pleasant Pump Stations - Assume flow Power: $2,450 $338 passes through one station, 100 TDH, 70% motor Labor: $4,000 to water efficiency, labor is four hours per week Total: $6,450 ($40,000 annual salary), power based on $0.075 per kWh WSACC Pump Stations - Flow passes through Power: $6,110 $740 both, total head = 250 TDH, 70% motor to water Labor: $8,000 efficiency, labor is eight hours per week ($40,000 Total: $14,110 annual salary), power based on $0.075 per kWh Rocky River Regional WWTP - Assume $0.85 $62,050 $3,250 per 1,000 for O&M Total Costs $90,110 $4,730 Notes: Costs were developed for assuming Mt. Pleasant average annual flow remains constant at 200,000 gpd Discount rate = 7.125% Present worth is 20-year CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7 Section 4 Methods 4.1 Mt. Pleasant Flow Data The 201 Facility Plan prepared for the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) (dated March 1998) summarized the flow from Mt. Pleasant's wastewater (WW) system. Per this document, Mt. Pleasant contributed over 0.2 mgd average daily flow to WSACC's interceptor system in 1997. The estimate of infiltration and inflow (I/I) was 0.04 mgd. As part of this amendment, CDM has evaluated the Town's wastewater flow for 1998 based upon meter readings taken at WSACC's Mt. Pleasant Pump Station (Appendix C) and the Town's records of water consumption. The data for 1997 and 1998 are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Flow Analysis Item 1997 Data 1998 Data Average WW Flow 0.21 mgd 0.19 mgd Industrial WW Flow 0.04 mgd 0.04 mgd Average WW Flow Excluding Industry 0.17 mgd 0.15 mgd No. Residential Customers 453 465 Equivalent Population Served 1,100 1,130 Per Capita Flow 191 gpcd 168 gpcd Per Capital Flow Excluding Industry 155 gpcd 133 gpcd No. Residential Water Customers 564 605 Billed Residential Water 0.19 mgd 0.17 mgd Adjusted Residential Water 0.15 mgd 0.13 mgd Expected Residential WW Flow 0.14 mgd 0.12 mgd *Total Expected WW Flow 0.18 mgd 0.16 mgd Residential Flow 0.14 mgd 0.12 mgd Industrial Flow 0.04 mgd 0.04 mgd Infiltration/Inflow 0.03 mqd 0.03 mad Total Wastewater Flow 0.21 mgd 0.19 mgd Yearly Rainfall 55.6 Inches 40.0 Inches * Expected Residential Wastewater Flow = (Adjusted Residential Water) x 0.9 - Billed Industrial WW Also shown is the yearly rainfall for Cabarrus County. From Table 4-1, I/I is estimated to average 0.03 mgd over both years. However the data does not represent what is likely to occur within the system. For example, the number of residential water customers increased seven percent in 1998. The billed residential water rate decreased over 10 percent over this same period. This is unlikely to have happened particularly as 1998 was a relatively dry year. Also, we would expect to see more I/I in 1997 which was a wetter year. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES It should be noted that the water rates shown for 1998 were summarized from monthly billing sheets. However, the Town acknowledges that not all meters are functioning correctly. Water data for 1997 was estimated based upon total water usage and the profile of the customer base. The wastewater flow rates were taken from one meter and are assumed to be reliable. Since the data upon which the expected wastewater flow was based is suspect, CDM evaluated the rainfall and wastewater flow data for 1997 and 1998. This data is presented in Figure 4-1, and shows the collection system response to rainfall events. The time period of November 1998 represents the lower flow seen in the system. Assuming this represents minimum I/I results in a base flow of about 0.13 mgd. The value of system flow above the base flow averages to 0.07 mgd. The validity of the 0.13 mgd base flow assumption is checked by comparing this number to the number of people served. The system served an average of 1,115 people over the two year period. The residential flow is equal to the base flow minus the industrial flow, or 0.09 mgd (0.13 - 0.04). The residential flow equates to 81 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which is a typical number for a new (relatively leak -free) system. Therefore a base flow of 0.13 mgd and I/I average flow rate of 0.07 mgd were used in the subsequent analyses. 4.2 Summary of SSES Work 4.2.1 Background Between January and August of 1998, ADS Environmental Services (ADS) performed a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) of the Mt. Pleasant wastewater collection system. This survey included both the Mt. Pleasant sewers and manholes and the Dutch Buffalo Creek Interceptor, owned by WSACC. The results of the survey was presented in Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Mt. Pleasant, North Carolina (ADS, September 1998) and was used as the basis for recommendations presented in the RNS study (Appendix A). The test methods employed by ADS are as follows: Manhole Inspections: Manhole inspections were conducted in order to confirm sewer locations and configurations, confirm sewer sizes, and manhole defects and defects at sewer connections to manholes. ADS also noted the lid, cover, and casting conditions and depth of manholes. A camera was lowered into the manhole in order to more closely inspect the condition of the manhole. ADS inspected 220 of the estimated 293 manholes in the project area. ADS reported that eleven manholes were buried and could not be inspected. ■ Smoke Testing: Smoke testing was conducted on the entire system (over 70,000 feet of pipe). Smoke was introduced into pipe segments and locations where smoke escaped were noted. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Nil 11 , mi. 0.4 3 0 0.3 A a� an M a� 0.2 0.1 ............................................................. Rainfall ........... Pump Station Flow Minimum Flow (Baseflow) 0 ti ti ti ti titi titi Date 0.00 1.00 2.00 d 3.00 .� 4.00 A 5.00 6.00 7.00 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Figure 4-1: Mt. Pleasant Pump Station Wastewater Flow 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES Flow Isolation: Flow isolations were performed throughout the entire system. The system was divided into twenty-six "micro -systems" of 1,000 to 6,000 linear feet of pipe. Weir readings or velocity/depth readings were taken during the early morning of high groundwater days in order to quantify infiltration rates in specific pipe segments. The results of these analyses were used to prioritize micro -systems for television inspection. Television Inspection: A closed-circuit television camera was used to observe the internal condition of selected sewer segments. ADS performed television inspection on 7,000 feet of clay sewer that was constructed in the 1930s. These sewers are located along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street and are assumed to be representative of other sewers of similar age and material. Per ADS, a total of 591 defects were located while conducting the survey. Manhole defects included vented manhole lids subjected to ponding, defective manhole castings, leaks in manhole walls, and leaks at sewer pipe connections. Sewer defects included defective pipe joints, cracked pipe, broken pipe, collapsed pipe, defective service connections, and depressions in the pipe. In addition, ADS noted that grease and debris is present in the collection system. In general, the vitrified clay sewer was in poor shape and in need of rehabilitation. The brick manholes were in fair shape and in need of rehabilitation. The PVC pipe and precast concrete manholes were generally in good shape. ADS assigned leak quantities based on a judgement of the type of defect and severity of defect. They then summarized the I/I entering the system through identified defects and estimated the removable I/I quantity. Per ADS, the system receives approximately 430,000 gpd I/I through the identified defects. Of this amount, they estimate that about 296,000 gpd can be removed. ADS's results are included in Appendix D. It should be noted that the I/I quantities given represent flows generated during high groundwater conditions but not during rain events. 4.2.2 Recommended Repairs Using the results of the SSES performed by ADS, WSACC, Mt. Pleasant and RNS evaluated approaches to rehabilitating the Town's collection system. They evaluated implementing a point repair approach versus a comprehensive approach. A point repair approach would involve correcting each defect identified in the SSES. A comprehensive approach involves rehabilitating every foot of sewer and every manhole identified as needing repair. The features of each are presented below: Point Repair Approach: ■ Only visible and identified defects will be repaired ■ Good for removing large sources of inflow ■ Good for correcting specific structural issues ■ I/I may migrate to another defect not corrected during rehabilitation ■ Lower cost than a comprehensive approach CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES ■ Does not necessarily address maintenance concerns such as pipe sagging and hammer taps Comprehensive Approach: ■ Includes rehabilitation to service laterals ■ Good for significantly reducing infiltration ■ Can restore structural integrity of the system ■ Can correct maintenance problems ■ Minimizes migration of I/I as entire system is rehabilitated ■ Higher cost than a point repair approach The portion of Mt. Pleasant's wastewater collection system that has been identified for rehabilitation includes clay pipes and brick manholes that are 60 years old or more. The structural integrity of these features are questionable, and they are the major contributor to I/I entering the Town's system. In addition, specific defects have been identified in some of the precast concrete manholes. The PVC sewers are in acceptable condition. In order to restore the structural integrity of the clay pipe and brick manholes and to significantly reduce infiltration, RNS has recommended comprehensive rehabilitation of the clay pipe and brick manholes. They also recommend point repair of identified defects in the precast concrete manholes. The specific recommended repair procedures are as follows: Fold -and -Form Pipe Lining (FFP): FFP will be used to rehabilitate the clay pipe. FFP is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high density polyethylene (HPDE). The lining is deformed for insertion into the existing pipe. High pressure steam is introduced causing the liner to reform into a circular shape. This type of rehabilitation is non-destructive and does not require excavation of the pipe. No additional land or right-of-way is required by Mt. Pleasant for performing this work. Coating of Manholes: Brick manholes will be coated with a cementitious mortar to seal all leaks and restore the structural integrity of the manholes. The cementitious mortar will be fiberglass reinforced to increase structural integrity. ■ Point Repairs: Major defects in areas outside of the older clay pipe/brick manhole system will be repaired. ■ Service Lateral Replacement: Defective service laterals will be replaced with PVC pipe to the property line (if money is available). The result of the above improvements will be a comprehensively rehabilitated system located within the existing public right-of-way. The cost of the proposed rehabilitation is presented in Table 6 of Appendix A and is reproduced in Table 4-2. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 12 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES Table 4-2 Preliminary Cost Estimate for Sewer Rehabilitation Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Line 8-inch Clay Sewers 45,752 If $40 $1,830,100 Line 10-inch Clay Sewers 4,217 If $45 $189,800 Replace Service Laterals with PVC to Property Line 521 each $1,500 $781,500 Coat Manholes 1,130 vlf $150 $169,500 Repair Major Defects Lump Sum $26,230 $26,200 Subtotal $2,997,100 15% Contingency $449,600 Total Construction Cost $3,446,700 Engineering $288,500 SRF Closing Cost on Portion over $3 million $14,700 Total Project Costs $3,749,900 Source: Mt. Pleasant Feasibility Study - Water & Sewer, RNS Consulting Inc, January 1999 Please note that Mt. Pleasant has applied for and hopes to receive $3 million in construction grants. A 2-percent closing cost is therefore applied to the portion of the project over $3 million. A map showing the location of the system to be rehabilitated is included as Figure 4-2. 4.2.3 Approximate Flow Removal In order to estimate the amount of I/I to be removed by the proposed project, it is necessary to estimate the amount of I/I entering the system. ADS estimated the expected leakage to be seen at identified defects, but these represents flows under specific conditions. The level of I/I indicated by ADS would not be seen consistently over the entire year. The study area flow is represented by a meter located in the Mt. Pleasant Pump Station. Weekly flows were summarized and are presented in Appendix C. As shown in Table 4-1, this flow averaged 0.21 mgd in 1997 and 0.19 mgd in 1998. The difference in these flows is mainly attributed to increased I/I during the relatively wet year (1997) over the relatively dry year (1998). As shown in Figure 4-1, the I/I for these two years is estimated to be 70,000 gpd. This project will significantly reduce the I/I entering the system through the older part of the system, which physically represents approximately 70 percent of CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 13 Food Lion Pump Station v�ay Q9 V / N 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Mt. Pleasant Pump Station Mt. Pleasant Elementary School Pump Station Sumr ier Street mr Station Pas ure gdmP, S-ation Area to be Rehabilitated •• r • Mt. Pleasant Pump 1 Legend ■ Mt Pleasant Pump Stati, WSACC Pump Stations o Manholes Gravity Sewers N 8-inch N 10-inch d Y% WSACC Interceptor Force Main �/ Streets Town Boundary CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Figure 4-2: Mt. Pleasant Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES the collection system. In addition, the majority of I/I enters the older system. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that 80 percent, or 56,000 gpd of I/I enters the system through defects in the clay pipe and brick manholes. A comprehensive rehabilitation approach can be expected to reduce I/I entering the system by 60 to 70 percent. Assuming a 65 percent reduction of the I/I currently entering the older sections of the system results in a I/I reduction of 36,400 gpd. This reduces the I/I of the entire system by 52 percent. The potential for groundwater and stormwater to migrate through the system once the repairs are made is minimal, since the entire clay pipe and brick manhole section will be comprehensively rehabilitated. 4.2.4 Present Worth Cost Comparison As presented in Section 3, the cost of treating and transporting wastewater is $4,730 per 1,000 gallons. The present worth for removing the I/I is presented below: Table 4-3 Costs for Rehabilitation Sewer System Item Value, $ Present Worth, $ Present Worth, $/1000 gallons Engineering $288,500 $288,500 $7,900 Construction $3,426,700 $3,426,700 $94,100 Salvage - Assume 50 year life $2,056,000 ($519,000) ($14,200) Total Cost $3,069,100 $87,800 Notes: Costs were developed for 1/1 removal of 36,400 gpd Discount rate = 7.125% Present worth is 20-year From the present worth comparison, it is much more costly to rehabilitate the system than to continue to transport and treat the flow. However, the cost analysis does not take into account the ability of the existing system to continue to transport the flow. The pipe identified for rehabilitation is nearing the end of its useful life. It will need to have comprehensive work done or may soon experience failures that might lead to overflows. The Town's options are to rehabilitate or replace the pipe. Replacement will be more costly than rehabilitating the existing system. 4.3 Future System Plan Once the repairs to the system are complete, the effectiveness of the repair should be seen at the Mt. Pleasant Pump Station flow meter. All of Mt. Pleasant's CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 15 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES wastewater is handled by the pump station. The meter in this station contains a chart recorder and measures the pumped flow. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 16 Section 5 Funding This section discusses the financing of the project presented in Section 4. Debt service estimates have been projected for funding through revenue bond financing and through the state assistance of the Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program and the Federally Funded SRF program, and impacts of the debt service on both the financial capabilities and customer rates are estimated. 5.1 Project The current project that Mt. Pleasant is requesting to be financed through the state assistance of the Clean Water Revolving Loan and Grant Program and the Federally Funded SRF program is the Collection System Rehabilitation project discussed in Section 4. Table 5-1 summarizes the project costs and funding sources for the project. Table 5-2 presents a comparison of financing this project through the State grant program and the Federally Funded SRF program to conventional revenue bond financing. It is assumed that under both methods a 20-year debt service period would be used. It is also assumed under both methods that a state grant in the amount of $3,000,000 is awarded. The SRF project includes the 2 percent closing costs assessed by the state for administrative costs. Unlike revenue bonds, the SRF program does not require a debt service reserve nor debt service coverage requirement. The debt service calculation is based on 20-year level principal and 4 percent interest charged on the declining balance. The revenue bond financing plan assumes capitalized interest for 2 years, issuance costs of 2.6 percent insurance costs for the debt service reserve, and 6 percent interest. The bottom line on this table illustrates the total potential savings over the 20-year period from using SRF financing. 5.2 Annual Cost of Capital Improvement Plan The annual debt service for the project financed with the SRF program is summarized in Table 5-3. This table demonstrates the incremental cost of completing the planned project assuming the State grant in the amount of $3,000,000 is awarded. Mt. Pleasant's recent rate increase is designed to cover projected operation and maintenance expenditures, existing debt service, debt service on the SRF loan being applied for, and a reserve. It is assumed that the rates will be adequate for the 3-year period through fiscal year 2002. The residential charge for a 5,000 gallon a month customer was calculated as required. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 17 201 Facility Plan Amendment Mt. Pleasant SSES 5.3 User Charges Table 5-4 summarizes the rates for fixed and variable charges for inside and outside customers between FY 1999 and FY 2002. This table also demonstrates the calculation of the high unit cost calculation. Since the Town had both inside and outside rates this method shows the average cost per month for the average residential user for water and wastewater. As can be seen the average user bill is more than the 1.5 percent of the Town's mean household income of $37,443. The calculated rates rely on the award of the state grant to avoid higher rates than demonstrated here. Should they not receive all of the grant they would want to apply for a larger SRF loan to complete the needed project amount. 5.4 Financial Capability To demonstrate financial capability, a proforma financial was prepared for the FY 1999 through FY 2002. Operating expenses for the sewer system include the charges from WSACC for transporting and treating sewage. These costs were estimated to increase based on projects made in the March 1998 201 Facility Plan reflecting planned capital improvements. There is an existing bond issue outstanding which is reflected on this table. The SRF debt service payments are below the debt service coverage calculation line since no coverage test is required for this debt. Table 5-5 shows a good debt service coverage and net income. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 18 Section 5 Funding Table 5-1 Project Costs Item Project SRF Eligible Grant Costs Costs Application Total Sewer Rehabilitation 2,997,100 Contingency 449,1600 Subtotal $3,446,700 Technical Services $288,500 Administrative 0 Land 0 Total Project Costs $3,735,200 $735,200 $3,000,00o $3,735,200 SRF Closing Costs 2% 14,700 14,700 Totals $3,735,200 $749,900 $3,000,00o $3,749,900 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Table 5-2 Financing Plan for Mt. Pleasant Sewer Rehabilitation Project Comparison of SRF to Revenue Bonds SRF Section 5 Funding Revenue Bonds Borrowina PROJECT COST (a) $735,200 $735,200 Loan Closing Costs-SRF (b) 14,700 Capitalized Interest (c) 0 117,600 Finance Costs -Revenue Bonds (d) 43,900 Par Amount of Loan $749,900 $896,700 Average Annual Principal $37,495 Average Annual Interest 14,998 Total Annual Debt Service (e) 52,493 78,178 SAVINGS OF SRF OVER CONVENTIONAL REVENUE BONDS: Difference in Par Amount of Loan $146,800 Annual Debt Service Reduction $25,685 Debt Service Reduction -Total Term of Borrowing $513,700 (a) Total construction costs including engineering and contingency. (b) SRF loan service fee "closing costs" 2.0% of amount borrowed . (c) Ccapitalized interest based on six month construction schedule. (d) Revenue bond financing costs include 2.5% for insuring debt service reserve, 2.6% for issuance costs. (e) Annual Debt Service for SRF based on 20 years at 4.0 % interest, level principal; annual debt service for revenue bonds based on 20 year bonds at 6.0% interest. SRF interest is calculated as average interest, interest is higher in beginning years and declines as principal is paid. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 5 Funding Table 5-3 Annual Cost of Selected Plan Including Based on State Grant and SRF Funding Project Cost FY 2002 Annual Cost Incremental Debt Service for New Projects: Sewer Rehabilitation SRF Debt Service Portion $749,900 $66,741 Total Incremental Debt Service $66,741 Allocation of Incremental Cost to Residential: Commercial Sector Annual Billed Flow 33,700 Residential Sector Annual Billed Flow 27,300 61,000 44 goo Percentage of Customers Residential (d) Residential Share of Incremental Debt Service 27,300 Total Annual Water and Sewer Bill for 5,000 gl customer. (b) $42.20 (a) First year debt service on project for SRF funded portion of project. First year debt service higher than average annual debt service due to SRF prinicipal plus interest debt schedule based on declining schedule. (b) This cost is lower than the Town's actual residential average bill. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 5 Funding Table 5-4 Estimated Rate Summary for FY 1999-2002 and Calculation of Average Residential Customer Monthly Bill Mt Pleasant Water and Wastewater Charges FY 1999 (a) Inside Customers Outside Customers Fixed Charge Includes 2,000 gl Variable Cost Per Gallon Fixed Charge Includes 2,000 gl Variable Cost Per Gallon Water Wastewater $11.95 $11.95 $0.0024 $0.0037 $23.90 $23.90 $0.0048 $0.0074 Total $23.90 $0.0061 547.80 ---r-$0.0122 (a) Rate projection for FY 1999 through FY 2002 the same Average Residential Monthly Bill for High Unit Cost Calculation Average Number of Residential Monthly Residential Water and Sewer Accounts Bill Total Water Monthly Billing $25,519 Total Water Commercial Billing $9,002 Net Residential Monthly Billing $16,517 612 $26.99 Total Wastewater Monthly Billing $22,391 Total Wastewater Commercial Billing $10,240 Net Residential Monthly Billing $12,151 473 $25.69 Combined Water and Wastewater $52 68 COM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 5 Funding Table 5-5 Mt. Pleasant Water and Sewer System Financial Forecasts FY 1999 Budgeted FY 2000 Projected FY 2001 Projected FY 2002 Projected Operating Revenues Water Service Charges $270,900 $275,668 $278,335 $281,003 Sewer Service Charges 214,000 303,160 306,977 310,793 Other Revenue 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 Total Operating Revenues $495,400 $589,328 $595,812 $602,296 Operating Expenses 359,270 396,800 449,400 468,600 Net Operating Income $136,130 $192,528 $146,412 $133,696 Non -Operating Revenues Interest Income 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 Net Available for Debt Service $136,630 $194,528 $148,412 $135,696 Total Debt Service $58,293 $55,444 $55,371 $55,357 Debt Service Coverage 2.34 3.51 2.68 2.45 Proposed SRF Loan 66,741 65,241 Net Income(Loss) $78,337 $139,084 $26,300 $15,098 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Section 6 Public Participation The rehabilitation of the Towri s wastewater system has been discussed at various Town Board of Commissioners meetings. It was most recently discussed at the February 15, 1999 meeting. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is included in Appendix E. The Town plans to hold a public hearing during April of 1999. Thirty days notice will be given and the SSES will be made available for review by the public at least fifteen days prior to the meeting. A detailed summary of the meeting and an affidavit of publication of the hearing notice will be provided in the future. CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 24 Appendix A Mt. Pleasant Feasibility Study - Water & Sewer RNS Consulting, Inc. January 1999 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Mt. Pleasant Feasibility Study — Water & Sewer Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Client Representative Mark E. Lambert, PE,,smts CAR • � : cE�srii 4" " RNS Consulting, Inc. "VA� Project Manager Richard N. Stalfori P 19 0 Jf, s • w Project Subconsultants:��+fA�P�'�� Swartz Engineering Consultants, Inc. 704/367-0229 Project Manager F. Stephen Swartz, PE Frazier Engineering Project Manager 704/895-5518 Aaron M. Frazier, PE WSACC Participatin_q Consultants: Dewberry & Davis 704/342-0401 Project Manager H.L. Moorefield, Jr., PE ADS Environmental Services Inc. 704/841-8733 Project Manager John Hoynacki CH-W40-106-01 January 1999 (Final Report) 121 Wellinqton Drive, Matthews. North Carolina m n4 Table of Contents List of Sections Introduction...............................................................................................................4 Water......................................................................................................................4 Infrastructure Analysis.......................................................................................5 Hydraulic Considerations...................................................................................7 FireFlow Review...............................................................................................9 Backflow Prevention & Meter Replacement Program.....................................I I Raw Water Facilities Summaryof Quantities....................................................................................13 CostEstimates..................................................................................................17 Sewer....................................................................................................................21 Sewer System Evaluation Survey....................................................................21 Rehabilitation Approach..................................................................................25 Rehabilitation Techniques................................................................................27 MainSewers.....................................................................................................27 ServiceLaterals................................................................................................29 Manholes..........................................................................................................3 0 EstimatedCosts................................................................................................31 FinancialAnalysis....................................................................................................34 Water....................................................................................................................34 Costof Service Study.......................................................................................34 StudyFindings.................................................................................................35 StrandedCosts..................................................................................................36 Sewer....................................................................................................................37 Costof Service Study.......................................................................................37 StudyFindings.................................................................................................38 Eligibility for SRF Grants.....................................................................................39 Conclusions..............................................................................................................40 Water....................................................................................................................40 Sewer....................................................................................................................41 Recommendations.................................................................................................43 List of Tables Table 1 - Pipe Material and Length Totals 6 Table 2 — Summary of Replacement and Non -Replacement Pipes 15 Table 3 - Valve Replacement Summary 15 Table 4 — Preliminary Cost Estimate for Water Rehabilitation 20 Table 5 — Summary of Sewer Facilities 14 Table 6 — Preliminary Cost Estimate for Sewer Rehabilitation 32 Table 7 — Financial Alternatives and Rankings 35 Table 8 — Water Alternative Comparison with & without Stranded Costs 37 Table 9 - Monthly Water and Sewer Costs under a "No Grant " Capital Program (@5, 000 gal. per month usage) 39 Page 2 RNS Consulting, Inc. List of Figures Figure 1 - Mt. Pleasant Fire Flow @ 20 psi Residual 12 Figure 2 - Pipeline and Valve Replacement 16 Figure 3 — Mt. Pleasant Field Investigation 22 List of Appendices Appendix A —Mark Lambert April 17, 1998 (RNS Consulting Memo) Appendix B— Impact to Cost of Service Under Several Alternatives for Providing Water Utility Service in the Town of Mt. Pleasant, NC Appendix C - Impact to Cost of Service Under Several Alternatives for Providing Wastewater Utility Service in the Town of Mt. Pleasant, NC Appendix D — Dewberry & Davis October 3, 1998 Water Supply System Report Cost Estimate Update, Letter to Mr. John Murdock/WSACC. Page 3 RNS Consulting, Inc. Introduction Water Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) engaged RNS Consulting, Inc. to coordinate this Mt. Pleasant water and sewer feasibility study. The Mt. Pleasant water distribution and sewer collection systems and their operation require assessment in terms of potable water sources, sewer collections, system upgrades, and potential changes in operation. This report reviews the facility replacement program and estimated costs involved in upgrading the water distribution and sewer collection systems to acceptable state and local standards. Also included within this report is a financial feasibility review for the Town of Mt. Pleasant to evaluate their future options for providing water distribution and sewer collection services. The sewer system assessment was predominantly conducted by a field investigation by ADS Environmental Services, Inc. (ADS). ADS conducted extensive field work to assess the condition of the sewer collection system within Mt. Pleasant. The system currently discharges sewage into a lift station, which lifts the collected water to a WSACC collection main. From there the water gravity flows to the Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant. In this case, the system improvements have been identified by field inspection of the in -place collection system. RNS Consulting's responsibilities for this portion of the project were to compile data from its previous reports, Dewberry & Davis' reports on the Water Treatment Plant required upgrades, system infrastructure data from the 1995 Water Distribution system study, and recent field investigations performed by Dewberry & Davis. Dewberry & Davis also provided additional infrastructure information. This report is a compilation of data to be used as a resource in the decision -making process. It will focus on the recommended upgrade for the water distribution system and a financial analysis by Swartz Engineering. The financial analysis addresses the costs associated with the possibility of Mt. Pleasant's water distribution system being served by continuing Mt. Pleasant water supply system, WSACC or the City of Concord. The rationale for the water feasibility portion of the study is the system's aging infrastructure and required upgrade. The inventory used for the basis of this report was derived from the 1995 Water Master Plan and upgraded information from field investigations Page 4 RNS Consulting, Inc. conducted by Dewberry & Davis and the Operation and Maintenance staff in Mt. Pleasant. This information was used as the basis for upgrade quantities. The phasing program to upgrade the water distribution system will be based on the different financial options as directed by WSACC. With the use of fire flow information provided by the Town of Mt. Pleasant, RNS Consulting will review some of the distribution system's fire flow issues. Some of the problems associated with low flow may be addressed with water distribution improvement programs. In addition, the water system pressure in the vicinity of the Mt. Pleasant Elevated Tank are low due to the low maximum water level in the tank. Certain low pressure areas can only be addressed by raising the elevated tank. Hydraulically, this improvement has been reviewed in RNS Consulting's "Mt. Pleasant Hydraulic Modeling Study — Phase II", June 1998, and preliminary upgrade costs are included in this report. This report will identify system upgrades that must be handled to bring the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system in compliance with state and local standards, along with the alternatives associated with the acquisition of the system. Other reports will be referenced and materials summarized. Infrastructure Analysis RNS Consulting's inventory investigation organized the data compiled by recent field investigations and infrastructure information from the 1995 Water Distribution system study. A breakdown of the system's pipeline material and lengths are shown in Table 1. Through several meetings with WSACC, Mt. Pleasant, and Dewberry & Davis, it was concluded that the following criteria would be used to upgrade the water distribution system infrastructure: • Replace valves on CIP lines. • Replace galvanized pipelines. Page 5 RNS Consulting, Inc. Table 1 - Pipe Material and Length Totals Surrrary d Pipe IfiasncWm M teriai Darreter Length (ft) AC 6.00 - irch 19,369.14 8.0o - inch 5,680.60 ACS-tda( 4050 ap 4.00 - inch 88205 6.00 - inch 17,941.60 8.00 - inch 7,525.76 1200 - inch 409.69 0P 6.00 - inch 414.31 5PSdda( 414.31 GALV 1.00 - inch 8,635.25 1.25 - inch 3,777.00 1.50 - inch z407.40 200 - inch 14,063.37 4.00 - irch 64294 6.00 - inch 260.78 GkV Sti� 2 797 PE 1.00 - inch 286.35 FES ddaf 286.36 PAC 200 - inch 4,548.36 4.00 - inch 291.71 6.00 -inch 7,159.51 8.00 - inch 12,230.21 10.00 - inch 257.12 12-00 -irch 3,815.88 thkem 1.00 - inch 59a78 2-00 - inch 1,914.30 4.00 - inch 5,669.65 6.00 - irch 745.77 8.00 - inch 327.89 1200 - inch 232-25 L"gX Kn Subtdal g484 valves on UIP lines have been in place since the 1930s. The conditions of these valves have a direct influence on the flow characteristics of water through the water distribution system. Neighboring systems like the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Page 6 RNS Consulting, Inc. Department and systems all over the U.S. have specifically addressed replacement of all CIP lines because of their physical condition. Mt. Pleasant maintenance staff and representatives from Dewberry & Davis indicated the Mt. Pleasant CIP do not need to be replaced at this time. It was concluded the CIP are in acceptable condition, but the valves on the CIP would need to be replaced. Field investigations have not been conducted to verify the CIP condition. The galvanized pipe replacement requires hot taps onto the main transmission lines, some of which are CIP. During the course of the hot tap a coupon is removed from the main line. This coupon can be used to verify the CIP condition. The valve condition, the ability to fully open or close and seal, the knowledge of its position, or if it requires maintenance are all issues associated with aging valves. Since valves have a large number of moving parts, which over time in a submerged environment will deteriorate, it is a challenge to determine the valve's operational condition and its hydraulic effect on the system. Since the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system has very little surplus head or operational variations, any deteriorated infrastructure has significant influence on its operational ability. Therefore, `the valve replacement program for CIP and replacement for galvanized pipelines is recommended. Galvanized pipes in the water distribution system corrode over time, which is a direct function of the pipe material and manufacturing process. This corrosion is mainly due to the long-term interaction between the galvanized line and the submerged environment. All of the galvanized lines, and their associated valves, should be disconnected from the system and replaced or simply abandoned. In some cases, galvanized lines are paralleled by larger diameter lines, which were installed at a later date. Since these lines are already paralleled, abandoning them and moving the service taps from the galvanized to the parallel lines would decrease the system infrastructure and improve service at a significant cost savings. Hydraulic Considerations Mt. Pleasant is currently in a position to evaluate alternative water sources to bring water into the town. The first alternative would be to upgrade Mt. Pleasant's existing water treatment and storage facilities. Page 7 RNS Consulting, Inc. The second is to bring water from the City of Concord into Mt. Pleasant. Both of these alternatives have been individually reviewed in previous studies, but this report will build on those reports and compare the options. These two alternatives have some very different infrastructure needs, but share some of the basic water system upgrades that are required. The basic improvements include specific valve and pipeline replacements, relocation of service taps on identified lines to be abandoned, and modification or replacement of the Mt. Pleasant Elevated Tank as reviewed in previous sections. Improvement and/or replacement of the elevated tank is reviewed in detail in RNS Consulting's "Mt. Pleasant Hydraulic Modeling Study — Phase 2" report. Basically, the tank needs to be at a higher elevation in order to adequately provide the minimum water pressure at the base of the tank and to permit a greater water volume turnover by water level fluctuations to address water quality issues. Hydraulically, these improvements are necessary to adequately provide water service by increased pressure, increased water fluctuations in the tank, and reduced friction headloss through both valves and pipelines. These recommendations improve hydraulics in the system by reducing the headloss and increasing the system utilization. The differences between the two alternatives are: The first alternative, upgrading Mt. Pleasant's existing water treatment facilities, involves renovation of the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant. An investigative report entitled "Water Supply System for the Town of Mt. Pleasant", dated January 1997, written by Frank C. Cockinos & Associates Inc. (now Dewberry & Davis) was submitted March 1997 to the Town of Mt. Pleasant. Cost estimates for renovations of the water treatment plant are summarized in that report and included in Table 4 within this report. The second alternative, bringing water from the Concord water distribution system into the Mt. Pleasant system, was reviewed in RNS Consulting's report entitled "Mt. Pleasant Hydraulic Modeling Study — Phase 2, June 1998". This alternative brings water from the Concord water distribution system from the Page 8 RNS Consulting, Inc. proposed 891 Pressure Zone, and then re -lifts the water into the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system. Concord has plans already in place to build a booster pump station and elevated tank for their proposed 891 Pressure Zone. The June 1998 report recommends a booster pump station to lift water from Concord's proposed 891 Pressure Zone into Mt. Pleasant, Pressure Zone 863. The recommendation for a lift station was based primarily on excessive line loss. Marginal water gravity flow characteristics from the 891 to the 863 Pressure Zone experience excessive line loss because of the distribution system pipeline size of 12-inches and the length of line. Fire Flow Review Improvements to satisfy fire flow requirements are different for the associated alternatives. Results of a fire hydrant flow investigation in Mt. Pleasant are summarized in a memo sent to WSACC on April 17, 1998, which can be found in Appendix A. Graphic representations of the fire flow tests are included in Figure 1. It shows fire flow test results from April 1997, with the flow rates under 1,200 gpm emphasized. The fire flow issue was reviewed in the June 1998 hydraulics report. Mt. Pleasant will need to take steps to ensure adequate fire flow is available. The first step is to establish standard fire flow requirements. Cabarrus County has detailed a fire flow standard that is yet to be approved. The town will need to determine if it wishes to use the county's fire flow standard or establish its own. The aspects and insurance ramifications of establishing another fire flow standard, rather than accepting the county's, is beyond the scope of this project. Some aspects of the infrastructure condition may have an affect on the ability of the water distribution system to satisfy fire flow requirements. Most of the system valves on the main transmission line are very old (1930 and newer) and are included in the valve replacement program. The valve replacement program is limited to valves on CIP and galvanized pipelines. Many of the main transmission mains in Franklin and Main streets are CIP pipelines and therefore are included in the line replacement program. Therefore, a valve exercise program is recommended to ensure key valves in the system are in working order. The suggested program Page 9 RNS Consulting, Inc. should exercise all the valves on the transmission mains and all those valves not on CIP or galvanized pipelines on Main and Franklin streets. This program is suggested to locate any valves on the main transmission lines and others that may be partially closed, closed, or non-functioning. This may increase our valve replacement estimates and have an overall effect on the project economics by finding valves that are in need of replacement but are not included in our projected valve replacement count due to our replacement criteria. Other improvements which may be needed is a secondary 8-inch diameter pipeline loop either around or through the center of Mt. Pleasant to satisfy minimum fire flow requirements. But again, the fire flow requirements must be established in order to conclusively indicate the necessary improvements. This study does not include these additional improvements and therefore are not included in the quantities or cost estimates. Since a standard does not yet exist, it is not possible to determine with certainty what facilities may be required. A safe assumption is a 12,000-foot section of 8-inch pipeline be installed from the Mt. Pleasant Elevated water tank southward to the intersection of Franklin and Main Streets and continue eastward along Franklin Street. This assumption would significantly decrease the line loss between the eastern most section of the water distribution system along Franklin Street. If Cabarrus County approves the pending fire flow requirements, RNS Consulting has been informed that the Town's Council must then decide if they wish to adopt them. RNS Consulting has estimated that 12,000-feet of 8-inch pipeline would be required at an estimated cost of $475,200. This cost has not been included in the Table 4 estimate, but has been included in City of Concord Alternative 4 option as detailed in Appendix B— Impact to Cost of Service Under Several Alternatives for Providing Water Utility Service in the Town of Mt. Pleasant, NC. Alternative 4 is associated with the ownership, operation, and maintenance be turned over to Concord. Concord has indicated that if this alternative were used, the same water system standards inside of Concord would be applied to Mt. Pleasant. Therefore, this estimate cost was included in the financial analysis for Alternative 4. Page 10 RNS Consulting, Inc. Backflow Prevention & Meter Replacement Program Concord has implemented a rather aggressive backflow prevention program, which requires under various conditions and to varying degrees, backflow preventors on each water service. WSACC has indicated the desire to implement the same program should ownership of the Mt. Pleasant Water system be turned over to them. This has been accomplished for the industrial and commercial services in Mt. Pleasant, but not the residential services. For the residential services, a double check valve system is recommended. This program can be implemented during the course of regular meter service or change -out. There are approximately 568 residential services. These meters will require maintenance and the double check valves can be installed during a routine maintenance program. This cost has been included in the cost estimate in Table 4. Page 11 RNS Consulting, Inc. ' I R �L., F,,.,.O3-W':, @ 2 ❑ PSI R E S 17 1000 1 r r 'I _ •� _ 41 ' ;,� 687 371, f 573 5B 1 y �620 1. ; i A N 500 0 500 10001500 Feet Pipes by Material AC %CIP PE DIP DIP /1 / GALV */ PVC ire Flow Tests (gpm) No Fire Test 1 - 500 500 - 1200 • 1200 - 1800 • 1800 - 2350 ,^ / Streets ; Cabmb ;% 457 Al, 392 422 464 451 FIGURE 1 615 �•• \ RNS Consulting, Inc. Raw Water Facilities The major expense associated with the Mt. Pleasant water treatment plant improvement and for Mt. Pleasant to remain autonomous, are issues associated with the improvement necessary for the raw water reservoirs. Although Frank C. Cockinos & Associates, Inc. address some of this issue in their January 1997 report, there were no long term recommendations regarding the raw water maintenance or improvements. Between the two raw water storage facilities, a safe yield of 3.0 MGD was estimated. It was mentioned in the Cockinos report that this number may need to be adjusted and further study may drastically effect this safe yield. It is estimated that additional study of the safe yield would reduce the 3.0-MGD. It was also mentioned in the Cockinos report that extreme drought with a very low reservoir level might very well effect the water quality of the reservoir. Long term solutions to these issues were not included in the Cockinos report. Summary of Quantities Table 1 shows just under 30,000 feet of galvanized line in the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system. All of the galvanized lines to be replaced are less than or equal to 6 inches in diameter and will be replaced with 6-inch diameter pipe. Almost all of the galvanized lines to be replaced are less than 6-inch as shown in Table 1. Title 15A, Subchapter 18C, Section .0901, Water Supplies, North Carolina Administrative Code of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources states that fire hydrants should not be placed on less than 6- inch diameter pipelines. It is expected that if fire hydrants do not exist on the galvanized lines, that one day due to growth they will be required. Also flow characteristics will significantly improve with the larger line size. The only concern is the water quality on these lines, which in most cases is addressed by looping the distribution system pipeline network. Since almost all of these lines are secondary to the main backbone of the distribution system network, larger line sizes are not required. It is recommended that either PVC or DIP pipe should be used in replacing the galvanized lines. Any replacement pipelines and fittings should conform to AWWA standards. There is also 9,484 feet of pipeline where material of the pipes could not be identified. The 9,484 feet of line is referred to as "unknown" Page 13 RNS Consulting, Inc. material. Many of these lines are 6-inch or smaller and are in areas where it is probable that the material is galvanized. Fifty-two percent (4,895 feet of the 9,484 feet) of the unknown material pipe length is a 4-inch abandoned line in Jackson and Washington streets. Another 34 percent has been identified as parallel lines or lines that are probably not galvanized because of size and location. This leaves 14 percent (or 1340-feet) of unknown lines that may need to be replaced, which is included in this report's cost estimates. It is recommended that during the construction of the pipelines and valve replacements already identified, that the contractor in the field verify the material of the unknown pipelines, which are still identified for replacement. If during the course of this material verification additional pipelines are identified for pipe or valve replacement, then unit costs are already established and a change order can be instituted for the additional construction work. Figure 2 shows the location of the unknown and galvanized lines that are identified for replacement. Table 2 is a summary, by material type, of the pipelines to be replaced or not. Sixty-two percent (18,359-feet) of the total length of galvanized lines will be replaced. The remaining galvanized lines are identified as abandoned or parallel lines. Instead of replacing the parallel galvanized or unknown lines, the service taps on these lines should be moved to their parallel counterpart. The number of service taps in Mt. Pleasant was estimated using the length of line that will not be replaced. Table 4 shows one service tap for every 200 linear ft for cost estimating purposes. Lines identified for replacement that feed off the main water distribution lines will be connected to the main line via a hot tap. About 20 hot taps will be needed. There are an estimated 124 valves in the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system. Refer to Table 3 for a summary of the valve counts by material. Thirty-six percent of the system's valves are identified for replacement. Eighteen percent of the total 45 replacement valves will be installed on lines associated with galvanized line replacement and 73 percent of the valves are on CIP lines. The final 9 percent are on lines with unknown material. These valves have been added in the total quantities for this report, however they may not need to be replaced. Page 14 RNS Consulting, Inc. Table 2 — Summary of Replacement and Non -Replacement Pipes Pipeline Type Size Length Unknown Pipe <=6 8,924 8 328 12 232 Subtotal 9,484 Unknown pipe not replaced <=6 7,584 Galy Pipe <=6 29,787 Galy pipe not replaced <=6 11,428 Table 3 gives a breakdown of the valves identified for replacement. The table summarizes the material and diameter of the pipe for each valve. The check marks under the "Located" column indicate if the valve was field verified. Valves not located make up 20 percent of the total valves identified for replacement. Estimated locations of these valves are shown in Figure 2. Table 3 - Valve Replacement Summary Summary of valve replacement Pipe Material and Size Located Valve Count C/P Yes No 6.0 -inch 23 8.0 -inch / 6 12.0 - inch - 1 Subtotal 30 6.0 -inch 2 8.0 -inch - J 1 Subtotal 3 GALV 1.0 -inch 1 1.3 -inch 1 2.0 -inch - 2 4.0 -inch / 1 Subtotal 5 2.0 -inch 1 4.0 -inch - 1 6.0 -inch - 1 Subtotal 3 Unknown Material 6.0 - inch 1 Subtotal 1 6.0 -inch - 1 8.0 -inch 2 Subtotal 3 Total No. of valves to replace 45 Page 15 RNS Consulting; Inc. PIPELINE AND VALVE RE7L�iCEMENT�r��'�fy,1r� 111 , Q N 500 0 500 1000 1500 Feet Replacement Valves - Not Located CIP GALV No Data Replacement Valves - Located + CIP + GALV + No Data Lines to be Replaced / \ / GALV Unknown Material tines to be Abandoned /\/GALV r%.' Unknown Material Water Distribution System Right of Way = CITY OF MT PLEASANT FIGURE Z RNS Consulting, Inc. Another issue to address, along with the infrastructure improvements, is improvements to the elevated tank in Mt. Pleasant. The Mt. Pleasant Modeling Study — Phase 2 explains the reasons for either moving the elevated tank or constructing a new tank near the existing location. Cost estimates concerning the Mt. Pleasant elevated tank will be shown in the next section. The preceding paragraphs talked about basic improvement upgrades to the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system that must be done regardless of the alternative chosen. In summary, the basic upgrades include valve and pipe replacement and a new elevated tank in Mt. Pleasant. The issue surrounding the system upgrades is how water will be fed to Mt. Pleasant. Two feasible solutions to this question have been identified. Alternative I is to upgrade the existing water treatment plant in Mt. Pleasant. All recommended upgrades and their estimated costs in this report were based on the report written and investigated by Dewberry & Davis. The costs from the study are shown in Table 4 in the next section. Alternative II is to connect the Mt. Pleasant water distribution system to the City of Concord. In order to do this, RNS Consulting proposes to build a booster pump station in Mt. Pleasant and to expand the 891 BPS already planned to be built by Concord. Alternative II is explained in detail in RNS Consulting's "Hydraulic Modeling Study - Phase 2". Cost estimates from the study are also shown in Table 4. The purpose of this report is to compare the estimated costs of the two alternatives so that WSACC, Mt. Pleasant, and Concord can use these costs to make their final decision. Cost Estimates Table 4 shows the preliminary cost estimates to upgrade the Mt. Pleasant Water Distribution System. The table summarizes the basic improvement upgrade costs required for either alternative and then compares the total cost of the alternatives. The cost of replacing valves on CIP line versus valves on galvanized line is significantly higher. Replacing these valves involves man-hours associated with digging up the line, cutting the old valve out and Page 17 RNS Consulting, Inc. installing the new one. If the valves are under asphalt, extra man-hours and materials will be needed. Pressure and bacteria tests may also be an issue. Several contractors in the area were contacted to research the installation costs. Our estimates resulted in an approximate $1000 installation cost plus the cost of the valve for CIP valve replacements. Valves on galvanized line would be installed on new PVC line. The cost of installing a valve on new line is significantly lower. Valve improvement costs are shown in the valve replacement section of Table 4. As specified earlier in this report, there are valves on unknown material lines. These valves may or may not need replacement; however, the cost of replacing these lines was added in basic improvement upgrade costs. Only four of the 41 valves that are included in the replacement valve count are on pipelines of unknown material. Galvanized pipeline replacement makes up 32 percent of the total basic improvement upgrade costs. Many of these lines are less than 6- inch but will be replaced with new 6-inch PVC. Several galvanized lines were parallel to larger lines. These lines were identified to not be replaced in order to reduce the cost of replacing galvanized lines and to better utilize the existing infrastructure. Again, there is a small percentage of line that is of unknown material and has been added to the cost of pipe replacement. A cost associated with not replacing parallel galvanized lines is the transfer of service taps over to the parallel lines, usually on the opposite side of the road. The number of service taps were estimated at one for every 200 feet of galvanized line. Fieldwork may be needed for a better estimate of these service taps. The main cost involved for service taps is the length of line that will be bored underneath the asphalt. This is still the less expensive alternative to replacing all galvanized lines in the system. An additional basic improvement upgrade cost is constructing a new Mt. Pleasant Elevated Tank. The total cost of the elevated tank in Table 4 was investigated and included from the "Hydraulic Modeling Study Phase-2" in Table 5 on page 25. The basic improvement upgrade costs were added to the two alternatives for a cost comparison. The cost estimates for Alternative I Page 18 RNS Consulting, Inc. come from page 15-16 of the report submitted by Dewberry & Davis to WSACC on March 7, 1997, entitled "Water Supply System for the Town of Mt. Pleasant" and recently updated by Dewberry & Davis in an October 3, 1998 letter to Mr. John Murdock/WSACC (refer to Appendix D. Costs for Alternative II come from the "Mt. Pleasant Hydraulic Modeling Study — Phase 2". A cost breakdown for the Mt. Pleasant BPS can be found in Table 5 of that report. Another cost associated with Alternative II is the incremental cost between building the 891 BPS for just the City of Concord and the cost of expanding the 891 BPS to feed water to the Town of Mt. Pleasant. This incremental cost is included under Alternative II at $23,100. Page 19 RNS Consulting, Inc. Table 4 — Preliminary Cost Estimate for Water Rehabilitation Preliminary Cost Estimates to Upgrade Mt Pleasant WDS Basic Improvement Upgrade Costs Valve removal and replacement Located Item Size Qty Units Yes No Unit Cost Totals CIP 6" 23 ea. 4 8" 6 ea J 12" 1 ea J $1,280 $1,440 $1,842 $29,440 $8,640 $1,842 CIP 5' 2 ea- q 8 1 ea J $1,280 $1,440 $2,560 $1,440 GALV 5 ea 3 ea J $450 $450 $2,250 $1,350 Unknown 5' 1 ea 8" 2 ea J $450 $610 $450 $1,220 Unknown 6" 1 ea. $450 $450 Subtotal 45 $49. 642 Pipe Replacement GAIN —6 - 18,359 If. 4 $25 $458, 965 Unknown <=6°, 1,340 If. J $25 $33,489 Meter Replacement Program - 600 ea - - $300 $180 000 Hot Taps 20 ea J $2,500 $50,000 Service Taps- 14,118 1/200If. J $1,230 $86,826 Subtotal $809, 280 Mt Pleasant Bevated Tank $584 250 Subtotal $1443 172 15% Contingencies $216,475.83 15% Engineering Cost $248,947.20 Total Basic Improvement Upgrade Cost $1,908,595 Altemative I - WTP Upgrade Basic Improvements Upgrade Costs $1,908,595 Upgrade Existing WTP $100,000 Renovate Old WTP $400 000 Total Alternative I + Basic Improvements Cost $2,408,595 Alternative II - Connect to Concord Basic Improvements Upgrade Costs $1,908,595 Proposed Mt. Pleasant BPS $420,915 Concord Connector $344,000 Expand Proposed 891 BPS for Mt Pleasant $23100 Total Alternative II - Concord Water + Basic Improvements Cost $2,696,610 All quantities under 5' will be replaced with 5' "Line length that will not be replaced, but new service taps will be connected to adjacent lines Page 20 RNS Consulting, Inc. Sewer In contrast to the water system, the sewer collection system has not received much attention over the years. Unless there is a specific issue associated with service or system failure, the collection infrastructure does not receive any attention. Blockage of specific sections between manholes or additions to the system have usually been the main reasons to attend to the system. Refer to Figure 3 for sewer system layout. The wastewater is discharged into a WSACC interceptor and drained to a pump station. The wastewater is pumped to the Cold Water Creek Basin and ultimately terminates at the Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant located on Rocky River. The Mt. Pleasant sewer system is known to be a major contributor of infiltration and inflow (I/I) to the WSACC system. Most of the sewers were installed in the 1930s and are in poor condition. To locate the sources of the I/I, a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) was performed by ADS Environmental Services (ADS). Dewberry & Davis was responsible for overseeing the SSES work. RNS Consulting's responsibilities for this portion of the project were to help coordinate and oversee the financial analysis similar to that conducted on the water and to summarize the SSES information. Sewer System Evaluation Survey The SSES was performed by ADS from January 1998 through August 1998. The main purpose of the SSES was to determine, locate and quantify defects in the system which are allowing infiltration and inflow to enter into the system. Infiltration is defined as water entering into the sewer system by means of ground water seepage through specific defects in a sewer or manhole. Inflow is defined as water entering into the system by some direct means, such as a cross - connection with a storm water collection system, surface runoff entering manhole covers, and missing cleanout covers. Page 21 RNS Consulting, Inc. [MT. PLEAOANT S S ES FFIEL[) I NVEl�l am iGnT,YoW/— //. Y 500 0 500 1000 1500 Feet Sewer Manholes ♦ With Flow Isolation Readings Without Flow Isolation Readings Sewer Lines N Mt. Pleasant Collectors WSACC - Dutch Buffalo Cr Interceptor NNMt. Pleasant Forcemains Mt. Pleasant Collector CTV /\\:/ Right of Way = City of Mt. PleasJint it FIGURE 3 RNS Consulting, Inc. The SSES was performed on the entire Mt. Pleasant sewer system and the WSACC interceptor serving Mt. Pleasant. The SSES work included manhole inspections, smoke testing, flow isolations, and closed circuit television inspection. The work is summarized below. Table 5 summarizes the sewer facilities in the project area. Manhole Inspections: Manhole inspections were performed to confirm manhole locations, sewers sizes and configurations, to obtain as -built information on the manholes, and to identify manhole defects and defects at the pipe connection. Manhole inspections were performed on 220 of the estimated 293 manholes in the project area. Thirty-nine manholes could not be located by ADS. Eleven manholes were reported by ADS to be buried. Twenty-three manholes were apparently located but not inspected by ADS for unknown reasons. The collected data is included in the ADS field books. Smoke Testing: Smoke testing was performed on the entire system to identify inflow sources such as cross -connections, missing cleanout caps, and holes in exposed pipes. ADS developed reports for each identified defect to document its location. Photographs of the leaks are included with the reports. The collected data is included in the ADS field books. Flow Isolations: Flow isolations were performed throughout the entire system. Flow isolations were used to quantify infiltration rates in specific sewer segments and to direct the television efforts. Television Inspections: Television inspections were performed on 7,000 feet of sewer. The sewers selected for television inspection were those that showed the highest rates of infiltration from the flow isolations and those known to be in poor condition. The sewers that were televised are along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street. These sewers are assumed to be representative of the other sewers of similar age and material construction. The SSES was summarized by ADS in a final report delivered to WSACC in September 1998. The report included the following rehabilitation recommendations: 1. Comprehensively rehabilitate the sewers along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street. Page 23 RNS Consulting, Inc. 2. Repair the most severe defects that were identified during the manhole inspections and smoke testing throughout the system. Perform additional television inspections of all other sewers in Mt. Pleasant with a similar age and materials to those being rehabilitated in 1 above. 4. Repair the least severe defects that were identified during the manhole inspections and smoke testing throughout the system as budget permits. Table 5 — Summary of Sewer Facilities Sewer Facility Quantity III. F%asant Sewer Systenr S' Clay Sewer 45,752 ft 10" Clay SeAer 4,217 ft Total Clay Sever 49,969 ft 8" PVC Sever 13,136 ft Total S Aer 63,105 ft Total Custamers (Service Laterals) 658 Number of Brick M wholes 155 Number of Precast Concrete Mari -des 104 WSACC Inferceptcr. 15' PVC Seer 8,936 ft Number of Precast Concrete Ma-t-des 34 In addition to the SSES work, ADS also determined the location of the manholes using a Global Positioning System (GPS). The collection of GPS points was conducted as a pilot program to a larger dataset collection project in hopes of coordinating GPS data for all of WSACC's facilities. Within this project, the GPS portion of the project helped locate sewer manholes and backcheck the sewer system configuration. Several corrections were required to WSACC's sewer dataset to accurately replicate the sewer system inside of WSACC's GIS. No hydraulic modeling of the sewer system was conducted as part of this project. Page 24 RNS Consulting, Inc. Rehabilitation Approach RNS Consulting and WSACC met on November 30, 1998 to review the SSES work, the ADS report and recommendations, and the appropriate approach to rehabilitating the Mt. Pleasant sewer system. The two basic approaches to sewer rehabilitation are a comprehensive approach and a point repair approach. Each approach offers a different level of I/I reduction at different costs. The optimal sewer rehabilitation approach may differ from one sewer system to another based on the specific rehabilitation goals and objectives and sewer age and conditions. A comprehensive rehabilitation approach includes rehabilitation of every foot of sewer and every manhole within the project area. A comprehensive approach includes rehabilitation to service laterals based on the portion the Town owns or desires to maintain (lateral to the property line, lateral on private property, lateral connection only, or no part of the lateral). A comprehensive rehabilitation approach should be followed when the goal is to significantly reduce I/I, restore structural integrity, and correct 'maintenance problems. A point repair approach is defined as repairing each individual defect identified during the SSES. The important factor with this approach is that the defect must be visible and identified during the inspections. A point repair approach should be followed when the goals are to remove inflow only and to correct specific structural issues. A point repair approach will not be effective in removing infiltration as ground water and storm water runoff have been found to migrate from one defect to another. That is, when one defect is repaired, the water migrates to another defect, which may or may not have been identified during the inspections. For example, a pipe joint may have been found to be leaking during the CCTV inspections. The joint is repaired, and the water now begins leaking through a downstream joint, which was not visible at the time of inspection. Thus, the I/I is not eliminated. Based on the results of the SSES work, RNS Consulting and WSACC made the following conclusions and decisions for rehabilitating the sewer system: Page 25 RNS Consulting, Inc. The Mt. Pleasant sewer system is a major contributor of I/I to WSACC. The SSES located many sewer system defects that allow I/I to enter the system. Most of the sewers date back to the 1930s. 2. The goals of sewer rehabilitation are to significantly reduce I/I, to restore the structural integrity of the sewers and manholes, and to bring the oldest sewers up to current standards. The older clay sewers (dating to the 1930s) are in poor condition and are the major contributor of I/I entering the system. The television inspections of the oldest sewers along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street showed significant infiltration entering through the clay pipe joints, offset joints, root intrusions through the joints, broken pipes and leaking service lateral connections. These sewers are considered typical of the other Mt. Pleasant sewers of similar age and materials. The clay sewers need to be comprehensively rehabilitated to reduce I/I and restore structural integrity. 4. The new PVC sewers are in good condition. No rehabilitation is required. 5. The brick manholes are in fair structural condition. However, infiltration through many of the manhole walls was noted during the SSES work. Since infiltration into manholes is dependent on ground water levels, the amount of infiltration into manholes is expected to increase after the sewers are rehabilitated because the ground water table will rise (ground water will no longer be leaking into the sewer). The brick manholes need to be comprehensively rehabilitated to reduce I/I and restore structural integrity. 6. The precast concrete manholes are in good structural condition and do not need to be comprehensively rehabilitated. A point repair approach will be followed to repair the specific defects identified during the SSES. 7. Many defective service lateral connections (commonly called hammertaps) to the main sewer were identified in the televised sewers. These defective connections can be a significant source of Page 26 RNS Consulting, Inc. infiltration. Defective service lateral connections should be repaired. 8. The condition of the service laterals has not been investigated. However, the service laterals are of similar age to the main sewers and can be expected to be in similar condition. Clay and cast iron service laterals should be rehabilitated. PVC laterals do not need to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation Techniques At the November 30, 1998 meeting, RNS Consulting and WSACC discussed acceptable techniques for comprehensively rehabilitating the older clay sewers, brick manholes and defective service laterals, and repairing individual defects identified by ADS. This section presents alternate rehabilitation techniques and provides detailed descriptions of each technique. The selected techniques for this project are noted. Main Sewers There are a variety of techniques available for rehabilitating the main sewers. The techniques include installation without excavation (trenchless techniques), with minimal excavation (semi-trenchless techniques), and with excavation (non-trenchless techniques). The rehabilitation techniques include the following: • Fold -and -Form Pipe Lining: Fold -and -form pipe lining (FFP) is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high density polyethylene (HDPE) and is deformed in some manner to aid in insertion into the existing sewer pipe. FFP is a trenchless technology as it is inserted into the sewer from manhole to manhole without excavation. Once inserted, high-pressure steam is introduced into the deformed liner, and the FFP reforms into a circular shape. Service laterals are reconnected to the sewer via a remote - controlled internal cutter. • Cured -in -Place Pipe Lining: Cured -in -place pipe lining (CIPP) consists of a fabric lining that is impregnated with a resin that becomes rigid once it is thermally activated or cured. CIPP is a trenchless technology as it is inserted into the sewer from manhole Page 27 RNS Consulting, Inc. to manhole without excavation using water. The lining is cured using hot water. Service laterals are reconnected to the sewer via a remote -controlled internal cutter. Short sections of CIPP can also be installed to repair individual defects without excavation. CIPP is generally $5 more per foot than FFP. Sliplining: Sliplining is a "semi-trenchless" technology as it requires excavation for inserting the liner and to connect service laterals to the liner. Sliplining involves inserting a circular pipe of smaller diameter into the existing sewer from an insertion pit. For sewers under 15 inches in diameter, the liner is made of HDPE. Laterals are typically connected to the liner with a saddle. The main disadvantage of sliplining is that the sewer diameter is significantly reduced. For example, if an existing 8-inch-diameter sewer is sliplined, the inside diameter of the liner pipe will be a maximum of 6.6 inches in diameter, representing a reduction in diameter of 1.4 inches. Many municipalities do not want this small diameter due to decreased capacity and to difficulty in performing routine maintenance. Sliplining is often cost -competitive with FFP and CIPP. Pipe Bursting: Pipe bursting is also a "semi-trenchless" technology. Excavation is required for an insertion pit and a retrieval pit, and all service lateral connections must be removed prior to pipe bursting and reconnected to the liner with a saddle. Pipe bursting is performed with a cone -shaped tool, usually pneumatically driven, and pulled or pushed through the existing pipe. The tool simultaneously pulls a fused plastic replacement pipe behind the bursting tool. Pipe bursting is most suited for increasing the size of the existing sewer. Pipe bursting is generally more expensive than FFP and CIPP. Grouting: Grouting involves injection of a chemical grout into the voids of a defective pipe joint to seal the joint and reduce the amount of I/I entering the sewer. The grout is installed with a remote -controlled device called a packer that operates in conjunction with a closed circuit television camera. The packer is a cylindrical device with inflatable rubber sleeves on each end that will isolate the joint to be grouted from the remainder of the pipe. Page 28 RNS Consulting, Inc. The main disadvantage of grouting is its relatively short design life (reported by municipalities to be between 1 and 10 years). The liners discussed above are considered to have a design life of 50 years. In addition, grouting does not restore the structural integrity of the sewers. Pipe Replacement: Replacement of the sewers via open -cut construction is a proven rehabilitation technique that is sometimes cost -competitive with the pipe liners. The main disadvantage of open -cut pipe replacement is the disruption to homes, businesses and traffic; restoration requirements; and costs. Pipe replacement is the most viable technique for repairing individual sewer system defects. FFP, CIPP, pipe bursting and pipe replacement are considered acceptable techniques for comprehensively rehabilitating the Mt. Pleasant sewers. These techniques have been widely used and have demonstrated success in restoring structural integrity and removing I/I.Of these techniques, FFP is the most cost-effective. Thus, RNS Consulting and WSACC selected FFP as the technique to be used for estimating costs in this project. It should be noted that the ADS report recommends grouting for the majority of the comprehensive rehabilitation of the sewers along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street. Grouting is not an acceptable technique to WSACC because it has a much shorter design life than the other techniques and does not restore the structural integrity of the sewers. Grouting is also not as effective in reducing I/I. Furthermore, grouting is not effective in permanently blocking roots from entering the sewers (roots are a known problem in the Mt. Pleasant sewers). The costs presented by ADS are not life cycle costs to account for the shorter design life. Service Laterals Currently, pipe replacement is the most feasible and cost-effective technique available for rehabilitating service laterals. Pipe bursting is appropriate in some circumstances but is generally too costly. CIPP can sometimes be used for lining laterals 6 inches in diameter and larger. The costs presented in this report are based on pipe replacement. Page 29 RNS Consulting, Inc. Manholes There are a variety of techniques available for comprehensively rehabilitating manholes. The techniques include the following: Cementitious Coating: Manhole walls, benches and invert channels can be coated with a cementitious mortar product to seal all leaks and restore structural integrity. The cementitious mortar is spray - applied under low-pressure conditions to the desired thickness. The minimum recommended thickness is one inch. The cementitious products are fiber -reinforced to provide high compressive and flexural strengths, excellent bonding characteristics, and preventing shrinkage. Products are available to resist hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Cementitious coatings are the most cost-effective method of manhole rehabilitation. Epoxy Coating: Manhole walls and benches can be coated with a 100% solids epoxy product to seal all leaks and prevent hydrogen sulfide corrosion. The epoxy coatings are spray -applied to the desired thickness. The epoxy coatings are more expensive than the cementitious coatings and are generally used when hydrogen sulfide corrosion is a concern: Cured -in -Place Liner: Cured -in -place manhole liners are composed of multiple layers of structural fiberglass with a nonporous inner membrane between the layers. The fiberglass is then saturated with an epoxy resin. The manhole liner is lowered into the manhole and cured in place under high pressure and steam heat. Cured -in -place liners are very expensive and generally used only when other techniques are not feasible. • Poured -in -Place Liner: A new concrete wall can be poured inside the existing manhole. Collapsible forms are inserted into the manhole and erected 3 to 4 inches from the existing manhole wall. Concrete is poured between the forms and the existing wall to provide a new wall 3 to 4 inches thick. The top section of the manhole often has to be removed for this installation. The poured - in -place liners are very expensive and generally used only when other techniques are not feasible. Manhole Replacement: Often, the most economical and appropriate rehabilitation technique is to replace the manhole with a new precast concrete manhole. Page 30 RNS Consulting, Inc. For comprehensively rehabilitating the manhole walls, benches and invert channels, RNS Consulting and WSACC selected cementitious coating as the appropriate technique. Cementitious coatings are the most cost-effective technique for rehabilitating the brick manholes in the Mt. Pleasant system. Cementitious coatings have a proven track record of reducing I/I and restoring structural integrity of manholes. The SSES work identified other manhole defects that need to be repaired. The recommended repairs and costs provided in the ADS report are acceptable to WSACC. The recommended repairs include: • Resetting frames and covers • Replacing covers with watertight covers • Installing cover inserts • Plugging holes in covers • Pouring new invert channels and benches • Repairing frame -chimney seal Estimated Costs The estimated costs for rehabilitating the Mt. Pleasant sewer system are presented in Table 6. The total costs are based on the rehabilitation approach and techniques discussed herein. Note that these costs are not the costs presented in the ADS SSES report. Significant changes were made to the ADS recommendations by RNS Consulting and WSACC after the report was complete. The length of main sewers used in the estimate represents the clay sewers listed in Table 5. The number of service laterals to be replaced was estimated by assuming that 80% of the laterals connect to the clay sewers (the clay sewers make up 80% of the Mt. Pleasant system). The total vertical feet of manholes to be coated includes all brick manholes in the system and was estimated using manhole depths obtained by ADS during the SSES. Page 31 RNS Consulting, Inc. Table 6 — Preliminary Cost Estimate for Sewer Rehabilitation Item (Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Line Clay Sewers with FFP 8" Sewers 45,752 ft $40 $1,830,080 10' Sewers 4,217 ft $45 $189,765 Replace Service Laterals with PVC 521 each $1,500 $781,500 Coat Mari -des with Cementitious Mortar 1,130 VF $150 $169,500 Repair Major Defects Identified in SSES - LS - $26,230 Subtotal $2,997,075 1b% Gontngency $449,561 Engineering Cost $403,364 Total $3850 000 The cost for repairing the major defects identified in the SSES is based on the recommendations presented in the ADS report as Priority #2 repairs. Note that some of the defects included in ADS's Priority 92 repairs will be corrected by the comprehensive rehabilitation work (sewer lining, service lateral replacement, manhole coating). In this case, the defect was deleted from ADS's recommendations and costs. The unit cost for rehabilitating the main sewers are based on lining the sewers with fold -and -form lining. The unit costs include sewer cleaning and television inspection prior to lining and after lining, reconnecting the service laterals internally via a remote -controlled cutter, and performing other acceptance tests such as product tests. The unit cost also includes repairing major sewer defects prior to lining. These major defects will not be known until the television inspection is complete. If the repairs are minimal, the unit cost for lining the sewers will be lower. The unit cost for service lateral rehabilitation is based on replacing the laterals with new PVC pipe. The cost includes replacement of laterals up to 20 feet long, restoration, installation of a cleanout, and acceptance testing. The unit cost is an expected average cost as some service laterals will be shorter than others and some will require pavement replacement whereas others will only require grass restoration. Service laterals will also be at varying depths. The unit cost for manhole rehabilitation is based on coating the manhole walls, benches and invert channels with a 1-inch thick cementitious mortar. The cost includes cleaning the manhole and Page 32 RNS Consulting, Inc. sealing active leaks prior to coating and performing all acceptance tests such as vacuum and product tests. For estimating purposes, RNS Consulting has assumed that sewer rehabilitation will occur in multiple phases. If WSACC chooses to bid each portion of the sewer rehabilitation in one phase, cost savings will be realized. For example, if the sewers are lined in a single project, the unit cost for installing a fold -and -form liner may be reduced by $5 to $10 per foot. Likewise, if the manholes are coated in a single project, the unit cost for installing the cementitious product may be reduced by $25 to $35 per vertical foot. Page 33 RNS Consulting, Inc. . Financial Analysis water The following section is a summary of the analysis conducted by Swartz Engineering Consultant (Swartz) regarding the economic feasibility of various alternatives for water and sewer service to Mt. Pleasant. A complete water and sewer report provided by Swartz can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C. The summary for water and sewer economic analysis are submitted here in a separate section. The report in Appendix B contains both analyses for water and sewer. Cost of Service Study Continued provision of water utility service to the Town of Mount Pleasant ("Town") service area customers is evaluated under four alternative scenarios: Town continues to operate its water treatment facilities and distribution system 2. Town decommissions its water supply, pumping and treatment facilities, and connects to the City of Concord's ("City") water system. The Town then purchases treated water wholesale through a master meter, and continues to operate its distribution system 3. Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its water utility system over to WSACC, which will provide both wholesale and retail water service to the Town's existing service area 4. Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its water utility system over to the City, which will provide both wholesale and retail water service to the Town's existing service area The evaluation examines the impact to overall cost of water service per 1000 gallons under these four scenarios, and includes projected operating, maintenance, and debt service costs. Debt service costs include current debt service of the Town and projected debt service on the estimated costs of capital improvements. For comparison purposes, projected debt service is calculated under both Revenue Bond ("RB") financing (20-year life at 7% interest) and State Revolving Fund ("SRF") loans (20-year life at 3% interest). Capital improvements are grouped into two major areas — 1) necessary improvements to the basic water system infrastructure to bring service levels up to current standards, and 2) necessary upgrading or changes Page 34 RNS Consulting, Inc. to water supply and treatment facilities. The improvements to the basic water system infrastructure are necessary under all four Alternatives. Upgrading the current water supply and treatment facilities is necessary under Alternative 1. Construction of new interconnecting pipeline and booster pumping facilities is necessary under Alternatives 2, 3, & 4. Also under Alternative 4 is the upgrading of the Town's water system to provide fire protection service at a level equal to the City's. Town costs of water service are calculated based on audited financial and operating information provided by the Town. Projected operating and maintenance costs under alternative service providers are based on extrapolation of Town costs and information about personnel utilization provided by WSACC. The City did not provide personnel utilization information, but did provide water rate projections. Study Findings The relative ranking of Alternatives is the same under both methods of financing considered. The estimated overall cost per 1000 gallons is less under SRF loans than under RB financing. This ranking, and the estimated overall costs per 1000 gallons of water service are displayed in Table 7. Table 7 — Financial Alternatives and Rankings Rank Alternative RB SRF IA 3: Turn utility over to WSACC $ 7.005 $ 5.612 2nd 1: Status quo $ 7.241 $ 5.990 3`d 2: Town buy treated water from City $ 8.237 $ 6.845 4d' 4: Turn utility over to City $ 11.497 $ 10.611 Rural Development (formerly Farmers Home Administration) ("RD") grants and loans may be available under Alternatives 1, 2, & 3. Calculation of overall cost of water service is not examined under RD grants and loans because eligibility for this financing can not be determined at this preliminary stage. However, relative rankings of Alternatives will not change if these financing vehicles are used. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. Page 35 RNS Consulting, Inc. Grants can be available under the SRF program. Each $500,000 in grant funds reduces the debt service by approximately $41,880 per year, which translates to a reduction in cost of service of $0.60 per 1000 gallons. However, eligibility for these grants can not be determined at this preliminary stage. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. Stranded Costs The term "stranded costs", for the purpose of these comments, refer to the costs of the 2.5 full time water plant operator positions at the Mt. Pleasant Water Treatment Plant. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 these positions will no longer be needed. The financial analysis and resulting unit cost of water per 1000 gallons includes these stranded costs as part of the total `costs' of the alternative being analyzed. Ranking of Alternatives by calculated unit cost of water service is also affected by including these costs. The stranded costs of current water treatment plant personnel have an economic impact in Alternatives 2 and 4. In the financial analysis presented in this report the personnel are 'stranded' without a position, and assumed to be transferred to other Town positions (and the cost absorbed by other Town cost centers). In Alternative 3 these personnel are assumed transferred to WSACC to fill vacant positions due to attrition, and therefore are treated as resulting in no added costs to WSACC (and are not included the analysis). Should these stranded costs not be considered in the analysis of alternatives the followings are the results: • Alternative 1 shows no change from the original analysis. • Alternatives 2 and 3 become identical. This is due to the fact that WSACC in Alt. 3 "absorbed" these personnel into its pool to fill vacant positions (i.e., there were no stranded costs in Alt. 3 and now there are none in Alt. 2 also). • Alternative 4 unit costs go down with no stranded costs considered, but these unit costs still remain the highest. How stranded costs are considered can affect the comparative ranking of Alternatives. If eliminated, positions are considered to be a Page 36 RNS Consulting, Inc. Sewer continued `responsibility' of the Town, then the costs are material to the analysis and rankings. If, however, the eliminated positions are not considered to be a continued responsibility of the Town (i.e., current employees are released) then stranded costs thereof are not material to the analysis and rankings. Table 8 demonstrates the effect on the comparative rankings of alternatives (lowest to highest cost) with and without the consideration of stranded costs. Table 8 — Water Alternative Comparison with & without Stranded Costs Ranking Considering Stranded Costs Not Considering Stranded Costs I SL Alternative 3 Alternative 2 & 3 (tied) 2nd Alternative 1 - 3rd Alternative 2 Alternative 1 4t' Alternative 4 Alternative 4 Cost of Service Study Continued provision of wastewater utility service to the Town of Mount Pleasant ("Town") service area customers is evaluated under three alternative scenarios: 1. Town continues to operate its wastewater collection system 2. Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its wastewater utility system over to WSACC, which will provide retail wastewater service in addition to wholesale wastewater service to the Town's existing service area 3. Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its water utility system over to the City of Concord ("City"), which will provide retail wastewater service to the Town's existing service area The evaluation examines the impact to overall cost of wastewater service per 1000 gallons under these three scenarios, and includes projected operating, maintenance, and debt service costs. Debt service costs include any current debt service of the Town and the projected debt service on the estimated costs of capital improvements. For Page 37 RNS Consulting, Inc. comparison purposes, projected debt service is calculated under both RB financing (20-year life at 7% interest) and SRF loans (20-year life at 3% interest). Capital improvements to the basic wastewater system infrastructure are necessary to bring service levels up to current standards. These improvements to the wastewater system infrastructure are necessary under all Alternatives. Town costs of wastewater service are calculated based on audited financial and operating information provided by the Town. Projected operating and maintenance costs under alternative service providers are based on extrapolation of Town costs and information about personnel utilization provided by WSACC. The City did not provide personnel utilization information, and could not be considered in the rankings. Study Findings 1. There is no practical difference to cost of service under Alternatives 1 and 2. 2. Rural Development (formerly Farmers Home Administration) ("RD") grants and loans may be available under both Alternatives. Calculation of overall cost of wastewater service is not examined under RD grants and loans because eligibility for this financing can not be determined at this preliminary stage. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. 3. Grants can be available under the SRF program. Each $500,000 in grant funds reduces the debt service by approximately $41,880 per year, which translates to a reduction in cost of service of approximately $0.69 per 1000 gallons. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. 4. The unit cost of debt service alone for bringing the Town's wastewater utility infrastructure up to the condition to provide efficient service under current standards is between $4.55 and $6.85 per thousand gallons of billable wastewater service, depending on the type of financing. Page 38 RNS Consulting, Inc. Eligibility for SRF Grants Through the SRF program, municipal utilities may be eligible for construction grants under certain circumstances. If the system customer's combined water and sewer bills after construction of the projects exceed 1.5% of the area's median household income the program's eligibility criteria provide for a grant in an amount that would cause the customer's bill to be lowered to the 1.5% threshold. According to statistics provided by the State of North Carolina, the median annual household income in the Mount Pleasant service area is $27,411 (or $2,284 per month). One and one-half percent of this amount is $34.26 per month. Table 9 provides a calculation for the water and sewer bills for an average customer using 5,000 gallons of service per month. Table 9 - Monthly Water and Sewer Costs under a "No Grant" Capital Program* (@5,000 gal. per month usage) FY 1998-99 Water Costs * * FY 1998-99 Sewer Costs: Combined Water & Sewer Costs 5x$5.612= $28.06 5x$7.749= $38.74 $ 66.80 * Assumes SRF financing of capital debt ** Water Scenario 3: Turn Water System over to WSACC (lowest cost option) Table 9 shows that proposed capital improvements to the Town of Mount Pleasant water and sewer systems will cause the cost of service to exceed the threshold for grant eligibility. Therefore, the Town or the surviving operating entity will be eligible for a grant under the SRF program in such an amount that will reduce the monthly customer water and sewer costs to $34.26. Page 39 RNS Consulting, Inc. Conclusions Water This report is a summary of a collective effort from many contributors, including, WSACC, Town of Mt. Pleasant, City of Concord, Dewberry & Davis, ADS, Swartz Engineering Consultants, Inc. and RNS Consulting, Inc. A portion of the information included in this report originated from other reports. This feasibility study compiles the available information into a single report and financial analysis. This report summarizes data submitted from Dewberry & Davis regarding the infrastructure inventory and their experience with the water distribution system. Included in this report is information that reviews the inventory of the water distribution system in Mt. Pleasant. The main interest for this report is the water distribution system improvement necessary to bring it up to local and state standards. There has been significant interest in examining the water source for Mt. Pleasant. Currently, the water treatment facilities are in need of attention which will require a healthy inflow of funds which will in turn have an effect on the water,rates. An alternative to upgrading the water treatment facilities within the Mt. Pleasant water system is to purchase water from Concord under various political arrangements. Between the two water source alternatives, I - Water Treatment Plant Upgrades and II - Connecting to Concord, a financial analysis conducted by Swartz has been summarized in the Financial Analysis section. It reviews the two alternative options for water source to Mt. Pleasant under four alternative WSACC agency member ownership scenarios. In the final analysis, the conclusion of that financial study was for WSACC to take ownership of the towns water facilities and provide water to Mt. Pleasant by contracting with Concord for water service. As can be seen in Table 4, the basic system improvements will require approximately $1.9M. The basic improvements are required to address an aging infrastructure and specific hydraulic issues which need attention regardless of the selected water source. These improvements are due to specific hydraulic issues or wear and tear on the system due to pipe and materials aging. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, these basic improvements will need to be implemented. Page 40 RNS Consulting, Inc. Sewer There is one improvement to the water distribution system which is not included within cost estimate, but is included in Alternative 4 of the Swartz financial analysis. It is the improvements necessary to meet fire flow requirements. The fire flow improvement could not, at this time, be estimated in detail because fire flow requirements have not yet been quantified. A preliminary estimate was prepared to ensure some effect of fire flow improvements for Alternative 4 in the financial analysis. Customer services improvements will be required in terms of meter replacement and backflow prevention installations. The backflow prevention improvement program is only required for the residential services, since the industrial and commercial services have already been addressed. The actual cost of the meter change -outs and backflow preventor installations is dependent on the original installations, age, and condition. A system wide average unit cost was used in Table 4. The issue of raw water source for the Mt. Pleasant water treatment plant may need some long term attention with regard the quantity and quality of water. Solutions for these issues were not addressed in previous reports, but should be kept in mind when reviewing alternatives. The most unfortunate aspect of this study is the estimated final cost of water is over $5.00 per 1000 gallons. This is very high, and is mainly due to the aging water system infrastructure, which is reflected in the $1.9M basic improvement requirement. If these basic improvements were not required (using Swartz Engineering's statement that grant money of $500,000 units would reduce the cost of water by $0.60 per 1000 gallons) a savings of $2.28 per 1000 gallons would be realized. The Mt. Pleasant sewer system is known to be a major contributor of infiltration and inflow (I/I) to the WSACC system. To locate the sources of the I/I, a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) was performed by ADS Environmental Services (ADS). Dewberry & Davis was responsible for overseeing the SSES work. The main purpose of the SSES was to determine, locate and quantify defects in the system which are allowing I/I to enter into the system. The SSES was performed on the entire Mt. Pleasant sewer system and Page 41 RNS Consulting, Inc. the WSACC interceptor serving Mt. Pleasant. The SSES work included inspection of 220 manholes, smoke testing of 72,000 feet of sewer, flow isolations throughout the system, and closed circuit television inspection of 7,000 feet of sewer. The SSES was summarized by ADS in a final report delivered to WSACC in September 1998. The SSES located many sewer system defects that allow I/I to enter the system. The television inspections of the oldest sewers along Highway 73 and Lee Street east of Main Street showed significant infiltration entering through the clay pipe joints, offset joints, root intrusions through the joints, broken pipes and leaking service lateral connections. These sewers are considered typical of the other Mt. Pleasant sewers of similar age and materials. The limited inspections of the PVC sewers indicated that they are in good condition. The brick manholes were found to be in fair structural condition. However, ground water infiltration was visible in many of the brick manholes. The precast concrete manholes were found to be in good structural condition with few visible leaks. The goals of rehabilitating the Mt. Pleasant sewer system and repairing the identified defects are to significantly reduce I/I, to restore the structural integrity of the sewers and manholes, and to bring the oldest sewers up to current standards. To achieve these goals, RNS Consulting and WSACC established the following rehabilitation approach: 1. The older clay sewers (dating to the 1930s) need to be comprehensively rehabilitated. The comprehensive rehabilitation will be accomplished by lining the sewers with a fold -and -form pipe lining. 2. No rehabilitation work is required to the PVC sewers. 3. The brick manholes need to be comprehensively rehabilitated. The comprehensive rehabilitation will be accomplished by coating the manhole walls, benches and invert channels with a cementitious mortar product. 4. The precast concrete manholes are in good structural condition and do not need to be comprehensively rehabilitated. Page 42 RNS Consulting, Inc. Recommendations 5. Defective service lateral connections (commonly called hammertaps) should be repaired. 6. Clay and cast iron service laterals are expected to be in similar condition to the clay sewers and, thus, should be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation will be accomplished by replacing the service laterals. PVC laterals are expected to be in good condition and should not need to be rehabilitated. 7. Point repairs will be performed throughout the system to repair defects identified during the SSES that will not be corrected by the rehabilitation work defined above. The estimated costs for rehabilitating the Mt. Pleasant sewer system are presented in Table 6. As shown, the total costs are estimated to be $3.8M. The costs are based on the assumption that sewer rehabilitation will occur in multiple phases. If WSACC chooses to bid each portion of the sewer rehabilitation in one phase, cost savings will be realized. For example, if the sewers are lined in a single project, the unit cost for installing fold -and -form liner may be reduced by $5 to $10 per foot. Likewise, if the manholes are coated in a single project, the unit cost for installing the cementitious product may be reduced by $25 to $35 per vertical foot. Due to the high estimate of rehabilitation cost for the sewer system, the expected cost per 1000 gallons of sewer service ranges from $7.75 to $10.05 depending on the funding source. Again grant funds will help reduce this cost. For each $500,000 grant acquired, a reduction of $0.69 per 1000 gallons of service can be realized. This feasibility study analyzes the condition and estimates the cost of bring both the water and sewer facilities with the Town of Mt. Pleasant up to state and local utility standards. The question now becomes with this knowledge where do we go from here? This study does not address the issue regarding ownership and/or the politics involved other than to indicate the service cost differences between alternatives. In one fashion or another the Mt. Pleasant water and sewer facilities will need attention to adequately continue to supply water and sewer Page 43 RNS Consulting, Inc. service to their customers. RNS Consulting recommends the following: • Seek out grant funds to offset the cost of water and sewer service. • Determine the phasing of improvement necessary to match the funding source availability and politics. • Enter in a contract with a consulting engineering firm to prepare contract documents for upgrading of the water and sewer facilities. Water facilities can be upgraded without any additional field investigation except to finally determine the condition of the CIP, if so desired. Sewer facilities will need additional field investigation, such as additional TV inspection, to adequately determine which facilities to be rehabilitated. The period of time to conduct the additional field investigations for the sewer system will have an impact on the completion period for the contract documents. RNS Consulting is prepared to continue with the design phase of this project. Frazier Engineering has, in the latter stages of this project, provided valuable support for the'sewer analysis portion of this feasibility study. RNS Consulting proposes to address the design project utilizing Frazier Engineering as subconsultant on portions of the sewer contract document preparation project. Page 44 RNS Consulting, Inc. Appendix A —Mark Lambert April 17, 1998 (RNS Consulting Memo) RNS Consulting, Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Nfark Lambert, PEAVSACC April 17, 1998 FROM: Richard N. Stalford.RNS Consulting SUBJECT: 'fit. Pleasant Feasibility Study - Fire Hydrant Flow Investigations During the course of compiling the data for the cost estimates for the Mt. Pleasant Feasibility Study, we have reviewed the Mt. Pleasant Fire Flow tests, which were conducted by .Mt. Pleasant's Fire Department. From the table of fire floe' results, which have location by intersection, Nve located the fire hydrants in our GIS. The location of each of the fire hydrants is currently under review by Tim Hurlocker, Mt. Pleasant Fire Chief, to Verify their location. \Vith the knowledge that the fire hydrant location still under review and could in effect move our interpretation of the location of the fire floe- results, we have prepared the attached map showing field test results. The attached map shows the fire fle,,\' results in test flo\vs for 2'0-psi residual pressures. To be frank, the map does not show what we expected. We had expected that the fire flow results would show low floe- in one area so we could concentrate our efforts in some field investications to determine if a croup of val% es »-ere the cause of the flow problems. As you can see from the test results, the higher flows are at the higher ground elevations on the \Vest Side of to%�n and the lower flows are on the East Side of to%»i where the ground elevations are lower. Therefore, the problems on the East Side of town are definitely associated with pipeline and valve conditions. The flow test results are not grouped together as we anticipated but there is a general floNv quantity pattern from the .vest to the East Side of the system. Some of the low flow has to do with small diameter pipelines feeding specific areas, but the majority of the fire hydrants are fed with 6-inch and 8-inch pipelines. During the course of our Mt. Pleasant Modeling Study, recommendations will be made that the Mt. Pleasant Elevated Tank be raised or replaced with a taller tank. This NA ill increase the available head to deliver more water with the 20-psi residual, but it is not clear at this point if additional distribution system issues are partially the cause of the low fire flows. The map also shows pipe material to give some indication Nvhich lines will be replaced by this study's recommendations. The map basically shows that pipeline replacements will have very little effect on fire flow, but that valve replacement on the CIP pipelines may. Since our current data gather efforts have counted only 125 valves on the system, it may be prudent at this point to think about a valve exercise program to ensure all the valves on the system are operational and in working order. Results from this field investigation may increase our valve replacement estimates and have an overall effect on the project economics. There is a possibility that valves in Main Street just north the intersection of Main and W. Franklin Streets could be the cause of the low fire flows. Therefore, it is recommended that if any field investigation is conducted it start in this area. The low fire flows on the �k7est End of town maybe due to the high ground elevation and the only way to address that issue is to raise the tank. Please review this information and comment. Copy to: Bo Moore fie I d/Dewberry & Davis CHA1'40.106-01/RNS/Firc Flow Summary doe RNS Consulting, Inc. Appendix B— Impact to Cost of Service Under Several Alternatives for Providing Water Utility Service in the Town of Mt Pleasant, NC RNS Consulting, Inc. IMPACT TO COST OF SERVICE UNDER SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVIDING WATER UTILITY SERVICE IN THE TOWN OF MT. PLEASANT, NC 1. Introduction & Background a. Description of the situation. The Town of Mt. Pleasant ("Town") is evaluating how best to provide water and wastewater utility services to customers in its service area. Currently the Town's water and sewer systems are independent, stand-alone systems, wholly owned and operated by the Town. The age of the systems and growth in the service area is stressing the systems to be able to continue to provide the level of service that the Town desires. In order to evaluate how best to upgrade its systems to provide service into the future, the Town is considering several alternatives to continuing operations under is current structure. b. Purpose of the study. This study is undertaken to calculate the potential impact on the cost of providing water service to the Town's current service area under alternative capital improvement and service provider scenarios. This study considers relevant operating and maintenance costs, as well as alternative funding costs under these alternative scenarios to determine the comparative total costs of service expressed in dollars per thousand gallons of service. Alternative scenarios include: 1) Town continues to operate its water treatment facilities and distribution system 2) Town decommissions its water supply, pumping and treatment facilities, connects to the City of Concord's water system, purchases treated water wholesale through a master meter, and continues to operate its distribution system 3) Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its water utility system over to WSACC, which will provide both wholesale and retail water service to the Town's existing service area 4) Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its water utility system over to the City of Concord, which will provide both wholesale and retail water service to the Town's existing service area 2. Utility Services Currently Provided by Mt. Pleasant a. Water Supply & Pumping. Currently the Town owns and operates a raw water reservoir which serves as the source of supply for the service area. Raw water is pumped from the reservoir to treatment facilities for treatment. b. Water Treatment. The Town currently owns and operates water treatment facility. This facility pumps an average of 0.23 million gallons per day finished water into the distribution system for sale to customers and for use in fire fighting. Backwash water from filter cleaning operations is discharged into the sewer system, and averages 0.8 million gallons per month. c. Water Distribution. The existing water distribution pipe system consists of approximately 119,000 lineal feet of pressure pipe ranging in diameter from 2-inches to 12 inches. Currently the Town serves approximately 650 water customers, of which 36 (or 5.5%) are commercial or industrial accounts, and the rest (or 94.5%) are residential accounts. d Wastewater Collection. The Town also provides wastewater collection service to approximately 500 customers. This service is provided through a network of gravity flow sewer pipe and pumping stations. 3. Utility Services Currently Purchased by Mt. Pleasant Wastewater treatment and disposal. The Town purchases wastewater transportation, treatment, and disposal service from WSACC. Collected wastewater from the Town's service area is metered and pumped to the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Note: See Table 16 for historic data on volumes of water and wastewater service for the Mt. Pleasant service area. 4. Mt. Pleasant Costs of Providing Services a. Accounting for Town costs of service. The Town accounts for its utility service costs through one budget center called "Water & Sewer". This budget center accounts for all costs of the water and sewer utilities, and includes: • Water supply & treatment • Water distribution • Wastewater collection • Purchased wastewater treatment • Allocated costs of Public Service employees providing operation and maintenance services on the water distribution pipe network and the wastewater collection pipe network plus meter reading (50 man-hours per week) • Customer services (100% of Assistant Town Clerk) b. Allocation of costs to water and wastewater utilities. Because the Town accounts for all water and wastewater utility costs in one cost center it is necessary to allocate these costs to the various utility functions provided. This allocation is necessary in order to examine the impacts to costs of service under the various alternatives, several of which involve eliminating one or more functions from Mount Pleasant responsibility. Tables 1 shows the historic cost of water and sewer service for the Town, and the annual growth of each expense category. Costs for Fiscal Years 93-94 through 96-97 are provided by the Towns audited annual financial statements by Sherrill & Smith, LLP, Certified Public Accountants. The Town's budget for FY 97-98 was also used to provide five years of record. Table 2 shows the allocation of these overalls costs to the four Town -provided utility functions of 1) water supply, pumping and treatment, 2) water distribution, 3), wastewater collection, and 2 Figure A: Organizational Responsibilities Under Each Alternative Alternative/Utility Function Town Concord WSACC I. Current Situation Supply & Pumping ✓ - - Treatment ✓ - - Distribution ✓ - - Billing/Collection ✓ - - Extension of Service ✓ - - 2. Buy Wholesale from City - Supply & Pumping - ✓ - Treatment - ✓ - Distribution ✓ - - Billing/Collection ✓ - - Extension of Service ✓ - - I Turn Over Utility to WSACC Supply & Pumping - - ✓ Treatment - - ✓ Distribution - - ✓ Billing/Collection - - ✓ Extension of Service - - ✓ 4. Turn Over Utility to City Supply & Pumping - ✓ _ Treatment - ✓ - Distribution - ✓ - Billing/Collection - ✓ - Extension of Service - ✓ - The City of Concord advises that its current policy is to sell water wholesale to other utilities at a rate that applies specifically to that customer class. This rate is called a municipal rate, and currently is set at $1.30 per 1000 gallons. Concord also advises that its water rates are likely to increase by 5% per year over the next several years in order to achieve rate sufficiency. Under Alternative 4, Concord takes over operation and maintenance responsibilities of the existing Town water distribution system. Concord would charge outside city rates at $3.63 per 1000 gallons to the Town system customers, which is also expected to increase 5% per year to the town's customers the next several years. b. Costs of Service. Figure B displays graphically which costs of service are involved under each alternative. More detailed discussion of two types of cost, Personnel and Debt, are provided below for clarification. 1) Personnel Costs. Under Alternative 1, the Town will experience no difference to the way it currently operates. Under all other alternatives, the Town will be subject to financial impacts because of changes to personnel requirements and debt service requirements. Under Alternative 2, the Town will not need its current staff that operates and maintains the water supply, pumping, and treatment facilities. Decisions must be made about these employees. Alternatives include, a) transferring all personnel to the distribution system staff, 4 b) transferring all or some to other Town positions (such as Public Works), c) eliminating these positions altogether, and d) combinations of all these. For this study, it is assumed that all treatment plant employees are transferred and assigned other duties in the water system. The cost of these personnel will remain as a cost of operating the water distribution system, and as such, the total personnel costs of the water system will remain the same as under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 3 & 4, in which the Town turns over its existing water facilities to another entity, all current water utility personnel will no longer be employees of the Town, unless in another capacity. Fundamentally, these employees could become employees of the new operating entity. However, this occurrence will need to be negotiated with the new operating entity. WSACC has indicated its willingness to assume these personnel as its own. The City did not return phone call attempts to discuss its position in this matter, therefore, this issue is unresolved at the present. For this study it is assumed that under Alternative 3 current Town water system employees will become employees of WSACC. Under Alternative 4 it is Figure B: Town's Customer Cost of Service Elements Alternative Cost Element 1 2 3 4 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment ✓ - - - Water Distribution ✓ ✓ (a) (b) Wastewater Collection ✓ ✓ (a) (b) Wholesale Purchases Water Supply & Treatment - ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Capital Costs Current Town Debt Service ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Basic System Improvements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ WTP Improvements ✓ - - - Connection to Concord & PS - ✓ ✓ ✓ (a) Provided by WSACC (b) Provided by City of Concord assumed that current water system employees must be assigned other duties in the Town, and these personnel costs will remain with the Town (or, in other words, will be `stranded' costs). 2) Debt Under all scenarios, the same amount of new debt is required to implement necessary basic system improvements. Additionally, each alternative involves debt to fund other capital improvements. Alternative 1 requires additional debt to finance upgrading the current treatment facilities and renovating the `old' WTP. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 do not require additional water treatment facility debt (as these facilities will be decommissioned) but do involve additional debt above the basic system improvements to construct a pipeline connection to the City water system and booster pumping facilities. The City of Concord has stated that if it assumes debt payment responsibility for facilities to serve the Town (under any scenario) the current wholesale rate to another utility will not apply and a negotiated individual rate structure will be necessary. Furthermore, this individual rate structure is subject to approval by City Council before it can be implemented. For this analysis the current outside City rate is used. In addition, the City has stated that it will only take over the Town's system if it provides fire service capabilities similar to its own water system. RNS has estimated the preliminary cost of upgrade the Mt. Pleasant system for fire protection to be $475,200. WSACC has stated is willingness to consider participating in debt for facilities constructed to serve current customers of the Town under Alternative 3 through a loan to be repaid with interest calculated at a competitive market interest rate. 3) Funding Alternatives. Several alternatives for securing funding exist for these various debt scenarios. These alternatives include grants and/or loans through the State Revolving Fund program (SRF), NC Infrastructure Bonds (IB) discussed below, General Obligation Bonds (GO), Revenue Bonds (RB), Rural Development (RD), and WSACC financing. Each alternative can include combinations of different funding sources. Figure C displays the availability of funding sources under the alternative scenarios. Figure C: Funding Source Potential Alternative SRF IB GO RB RD WSACC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 (b) ✓ ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ 4(a) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - - (a) Could involve combination of debt of Town and City (b) Could involve combination of debt of Town and WSACC Loans under the SRF are administered by the Local Governments Commission, and can be for as long a term as 20 years (but usually are for shorter lengths). Loans are usually structured for repayment as equal principal — declining interest loans. However, it is possible for loans to be structured with equal payments over its life. SRF loans also require a one-time administrative fee of 2% of the loan amount. For this analysis, it is assumed that this fee will be financed by the system owner at 7% over five years. In order to qualify for grants under the SRF projected combined water and sewer rates needed to support the project must exceed 1-1/2% of the average median household income. Any grant or loan funding for wastewater facilities under the SRF program requires that an updated 201 Facilities Plan be prepared. Currently, the state legislature intends to place a $1 billion infrastructure bond referendum on the 1998 ballot. However, until approved by the voters, its availability cannot be predicted. The fund created by this bond, if approved, is to be administered similarly to the current SRF loan program, with interest set at the State borrowing rate (about 5.5% currently). Grants can be available under the SRF program. Each $500,000 in grant funds reduces the debt service by approximately $41,880 per year, which translates to a reduction in cost of service of approximately $0.60 per 1000 gallons. However, eligibility for these grants can not be determined at this preliminary stage. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. 9 Rural Development (formerly Farmers Home Administration) ("RD") grants and loans may be available under Alternatives 1, 2, & 3. Calculation of overall cost of water service is not examined under RD grants and loans because eligibility for this financing can not be determined at this preliminary stage. However, relative rankings of Alternatives will not change if these financing vehicles are used. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. For this study, funding through two debt instruments is used for comparison purposes. Since they can apply under all Alternatives, impacts to cost of water service are calculated under both SRF loans (20-years @ 3.0% interest) and Revenue Bonds (20-years @ 7% interest). 9. Cost Impacts a. Necessary facilities improvements. The costs of funding basic improvements to the system will cause an increase to the cost of water service under all alternatives. This common cost is calculated to be between $1.83 and $2.95 per 1000 gallons, depending on the type of financing secured. b. Alternatives Scenarios. Tables 8 through 15 provide cost detail and calculate the unit cost of billable water under each scenario and for two types of financing as discussed above. Total calculated unit cost of water service under each alternative is summarized in Figure D. Figure D: Comparative Unit Cost of Water Service for each Alternative for Fiscal Year 1998-99 (in $ per 1000 gallons) ALTERNATIVE REVENUE BONDS SRF LOANS 1 $ 7.241 $ 5.990 2 $ 8.237 $ 6.845 3 $7.005 $5.612 4 $ 11.497 $ 10.611 10. Conclusions Based on this study and the calculations presented herein the following conclusions can be drawn: a. The unit cost of bringing the Town of Mount Pleasant service area water utility infrastructure up to the condition needed to continue to provide water service under current standards, i.e., of making the basic system improvements, is between $1.83 and $2.95 per thousand gallons of billable water service. b. Funding of capital improvements is most attractive under State Revolving Fund Loans and least attractive under Revenue Bond financing. C. SRF grants may be available, and could significantly reduce debt service and cost of service. 7 d. Based on the data provided by the Town, and on information provided by the City of Concord and WSACC, the alternatives discussed above are ranked below in order of least to most costly, in terms of cost per 1000 gallons of service in Fiscal Year 1998-99: Rank Alternative RB SRF 1 St 3: Turn utility over to WSACC $ 7.005 $ 5.612 2nd 1: Status Quo $ 7.241 $ 5.990 3rd 2: Town buy treated water from City $ 8.237 $ 6.845 4th 4: Turn utility over to City $ 11.497 $ 10.611 8 costo TABLE 1: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Combined Water and Sewer Cost Category Fiscal Year Annual Growth Budget 1997-98 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Direct s & w overhead Utilities & telephone Maintenance & repairs Vehicle supplies Chemicals Contracted services Professional fees Dept. supplies and materials Miscellaneous Subtotal Direct 85,328 15,753 33,915 32,447 980 20,889 4,590 9,427 4,187 2,516 75,799 12,553 33,151 12,673 545 17,463 3,883 6,479 5,240 2,513 78,438 12,551 34,020 20,690 595 15,428 2,207 21,341 6,388 1,508 116,065 16,700 34,277 19,983 579 17,823 2,595 23,106 6,346 5,218 10.80% 1.96% 0.35% -14.92% -16.09% -5.15% -17.31% 34.83% 14.87% 27.52% 4.94% 121,060 20,800 35,480 34,640 870 22,200 1,740 24,480 7,600 3,600 210,032 170,299 193,166 242,692 272,470 Indirect personnel Indirect personnel overhead Subtotal Indirect - _ Wastewater treatment cost 86,196 -92,216 92,637 92,902 2.53% 97,000 Total Operating Costs 296,228 262,515 285,803 335,594 369,470 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I 148,821 _ 146,605 - 113,825 _ 55,382 55,430 Cash capital projects/assets Equipment 2,800 2,242 9,588 7,130 - 2,862 21,336 6,890 _ _ 153,863 163,323 116,687 83,608 55,430 Total Capital Costs Total Operating & Capital Costs 450,091 425,838 402,490 419,202 424,900 fsvc.xls 10/21/98 TABLE 2: Mount Pleasant, NC Allocation of Combined Water & Sewer Costs to Utility Functions Allocation Percentage to Function Water Supply Water Wastewater Cost Category & Treatment Distribution Collection Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Direct s & w overhead Utilities & telephone Maintenance & repairs Vehicle supplies Chemicals Contracted services Professional fees Dept. supplies and materials Miscellaneous Purchased Services Wastewater treatment cost Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Wastewater I Check Treatment Total 57.92% 23.57% 18.52% 0.00% 100.00% 57.92% 23.57% 18.52% 0.00% 100.00%, 72.79% 0.00% 27.21 % 0.00% 100.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 33.33% - 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 33.33% 33.33`%„ 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% costofsvc.As 10/21 /98 costofsvc.xis 10121 /98 Table 3: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Combined Water and Sewer Budget Projected Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages 121,060 127,113 133,469 140,142 147,149 154,507 Direct s & w overlead 20,800 21,840 22,932 24,079 25,283 26,547 Utilities & telephone 35,480 37,254 39,117 41,073 43,126 45,282 Maintenance & repairs 34,640 36,372 38,191 40,100 42,105 44,210 Vehicle supplies 870 914 959 1,007 1,057 1,110 Chemicals Contracted services 22,200 23,310 24,476 25,699 26,984 28,333 Professional fees 1,740 24,480 1,827 25,704 1,918 26,989 2,014 28,339 2,115 29,756 2,221 31,243 Dept. supplies and materials 7,600 7,980 8,379 8,798 9,238 9,700 Miscellaneous 3,600 3,780 3,969 4,167 4,376 4,595 272,470 286,094 300,398 315,418 331,189 347,748 Subtotal Direct Indirect personnel Indirect personnel overhead Subtotal Indirect Wastewater treatment cost 97,000 99,910 102,907 105,995 109,174 112,450 Total Operating Costs 369,470 386,004 403,305 421,413 440,363 460,198 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I 55,430 55,386 55,444 55,371 55,356 55,369 Proposed debt service - P&I _ Cash capital projects/assets _ Equipment - Total Capital Costs 55,430 55,386 55,444 55,371 55,356 55,369 Total Operating & Capital Costs 424,900 441,390 458,749 476,784 495,719 515,567 Table 4: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Water Supply and Treatment Budget Projected 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 FCostCateg�ory1997-98 peration & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Directs & w overhead 70,114 73,620 77,301 81,166 85,224 89,485 Utilities & telephone 12,047 12,649 13,281 13,946 14,643 15,375 25,826 27,117 28,473 29,897 31,392 32,961 Maintenance & repairs Vehicle supplies 11,547 12,124 12,730 13,367 14,035 14,737 Chemicals 870 914 959 1,007 1,057 1,110 Contracted services 22,200 23,310 24,476 25,699 26,984 28,333 Professional fees 870 914 959 1,007 1,057 1,110 Dept. supplies and materials Miscellaneous 2,533 2,660 2,793 2,933 3,079 3,233 1,200 1,260 1,323 1,389 1,459 1,532 147,206 154,567 162,295 170,410 178,930 187,877 Subtotal Direct Wastewater treatment cost - _ Total Operating Costs 147,206 154,567 162,295 170,410 178,930 187,877 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I Cash capital projects/assets- Equipment Total Capital Costs _ _ _ Total Operating & Capital Costs 147,206 154,567 162,295 170,410 178,930 187,877 costotsYCAS 10/21 /98 Table 5: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Water Distribution Budget Projected 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Cost Category 1997-98 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages 28,530 29,956 31,454 33,027 34,678 36,412 Direct s & w overhead 4,902 5,147 5,404 5,675 5,958 6,256 Utilities & telephone - - - - - - Maintenance & repairs 11,546 12,123 12,729 13,365 14,034 14,735 Vehicle supplies - - - - - - Chemicals Contracted services - - - - - - Professional fees 12,240 12,852 13,495 14,169 14,878 15,622 Dept. supplies and materials 2,533 2,660 2,793 2,933 3,079 3,233 Miscellaneous 1,200 1,260 1,323 1,389 1,459 1,532 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 Subtotal Direct Wastewater treatment cost - - - - - Total Operating Costs 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Proposed debt service - P&I - - - - _ _ Cash capital projects/assets Equipment - - - - - _ 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,685 Total Capital Costs Total Operating & Capital Costs 88,665 91,691 94,920 98,243 74,086 105,474 costofsvcxls 10121 /98 coslofsvc 10/21/98 Table 6: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Sewage Collection and Treatment Cost Category Budget Projected 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Direct s & w overhead 22,416 23,537 24,714 25,950 27,247 28,609 Utilities & teleplione 3,851 4,044 4,246 4,459 4,681 4,916 Maintenance & repairs 9,654 11,547 10,137 12,124 10,644 11,176 11,735 12,321 Vehicle supplies 12,730 13,367 14,035 14,737 Chenicals - - Contracted services Professional fees 870 914 959 1,007 1,057 1,110 Dept. supplies and materials 12,240 12,852 13,495 14,169 14,878 15,622 Miscellaneous 2,533 2,660 2,793 2,932 3,079 3,233 1,200 1,260 1,323 1,389 1,458 1,531 Subtotal Direct 64,311 67,527 70,903 74,448 78,171 82,079 Wastewater treatment cost 97,000 99,910 102,907 105,995 109,174 112,450 Total Operating Costs 161,311 167,437 173,811 180,443 187,345 194,529 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Cash capital projects/assets- _ Equipment - - - Total Capital Costs 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Total Operating & Capital Costs 189,026 195,130 201,533 208,128 215,023 222,213 AS Table 7: Mpunt Pleasant, NC • Costs`of Water and Wastewater Service Revenue Bonds - 20 years - 7% interest Proiects Amount basic System Upgrade Project costs 1,908,595 Debt Service Reserve Fund 182,000 Issuance Costs (2%) 38,172 Insurance (3%) 57,258 Total Project Costs 2,186,025 Projected Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 206,339 Project costs 500,000 Debt Service Reserve Fund 50,000 Issuance Costs (2%) 10,000 Insurance (3%) 15,000 Total Project Costs 575,000 Projected Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 54,274 Project costs 788,015 Debt Service Reserve Fund 78,800 Issuance Costs (2%) 15,760 Insurance (3%) 23,640 Total Project Costs 906,216 Projected Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 85,538 upgraae �ivstem for Tire Protection Svc Project costs 475,200 Debt Service Reserve Fund 47,500 Issuance Costs (2%) 9,504 Insurance (3%) 14,256 Total Project Costs 546,460 Projected Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 51,580 Capital Costs - Annual Debt Service Payments SRF Loans - 20 Years - 3.0% interest 1. Basic Svstem Upgrade Project costs 1,908,595 Debt Service Reserve Fund Issuance Costs (2%) _ Insurance (3%) Total Project Costs 1,908,595 Projected Debt Service - SRF 128,288 Additional Admin. Fee (2%) 38,172 Annual Costa) 91310 Project costs 500,000 Debt Service Reserve Fund Issuance Costs (2%) _ Insurance (3%) _ Total Project Costs 500,000 Projected Debt Service - SRF 33,608 Additional Admin. Fee (2%) 10,000 Annual Costa) 2,439 Project costs 788,015 Debt Service Reserve Fund Issuance Costs (2%) _ Insurance (3%) - Total Project Costs 788,015 Projected Debt Service - SRF 52,967 Additional Admin. Fee (2%) 15,760 Annual Cost(a) 3,844 4. Upgrade System for Fire Protection Svc. Project costs 475,200 Debt Service Reserve Fund Issuance Costs (2%) _ Insurance (3%) - Total Project Costs 475,200 Projected Debt Service - SRF 31,941 Additional Admin. Fee (2%) 9,504 Annual Costal 2,318 (a) Assumes that fee is financed over 5 years at 7% eostafsvexls . 1/13/99 Table 8: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Projected Annual Costs Alternative 1 - Revenue Bond Status Quo Budget Projected Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 154,567 162,295 170,410 178,930 187,877 Water Distribution 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Basic System Improvements 0 206,339 206,339 206,339 206,339 206,339 WTP Improvements 0 54,274 54,274 54,274 54,274 54,274 Connection to Concord System 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Purchased Water (b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Annual Costs 235,872 506,871 517,828 529,266 541,307 553,964 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 7.241 7.398 7.561 7.733 7.914 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less filter backwash (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons costofsvc.xis 1/13/99 Table 9: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Budget Cost Category 1997-98 19 88-99 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 0 WTP salary costs stranded 0 86,269 Water Distribution 60,950 63,998 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 27,693 Basic System Improvements 0 206,339 WTP Improvements Connection to Concord System 0 0 0 85,538 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 -7,889 Purchased Water (b) _ 0- 114,660 Total Annual Costs 235,872 576,607 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 8.237 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less filter backwash (@ municipal rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons Projected Annual Costs Alternative 2 - Revenue Bond Purchase Treated Water from Concord Projected 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 20 22-03 0 0 0 0 903582 95,111 99,867 104,860 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 206,339 206,339 206,339 206,339 0 0 0 0 85,538 85,538 85,538 85,538 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 120,393 126,413 132,733 139,370 589,883 603,755 618,351 633,692 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 8.427 8.625 8.834 9.053 costofsvc.As 1113/99 Table 10: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Proiected Annual Costs Alternative 3 - Revenue Bond Turn Utility over to WSACC Cost Category Budget 1997-98 Projected 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment Water Distribution (same as Town) 147,206 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 Debt Service Current Town Debt Basic System Improvements WTP Improvements Connection to Concord System 27,715 0 0 0 27,693 206,339 0 85,538 27,722 206,339 85,538 27,686 206,339 85,538 27,678 206,339 85,538 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 Purchased Water (b) 0 114,660 120,393 126,413 132,733 Total Annual Costs 235,872 490,339 499,300 508,643 518,484 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 7.005 7.133 7.266 7.407 * Assumes WTP salary costs transferred into WSACC wastewater treatment budget at no rate impact due to attrition (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less filter backwash (@ municipal rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons 2002-03 * 77,790 27,685 206,339 85,538 -7,889 139,370 528,832 70,000 7.555 coslofsvc.As 1/13/99 Table 11: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Budget Cost Category 1997-98 19 88-99 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 0 WTP Salary Costs Stranded 0 86,269 Water Distribution 60,950 0 Wat. Dist. Salary Costs Stranded 0 35,103 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 27,693 Basic System Improvements 0 206,339 WTP Improvements 0 0 Connection to Concord System 0 85,538 Upgrade system for fire service 0 51580 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 -7,889 Purchased Water (b) 0 320,166 Total Annual Costs 235,872 804,799 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 11.497 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less filter backwash (@ outside rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons Projected Annual Costs Alternative 4 - Revenue Bond Turn Utility over to Concord Projected 1999-00 1 2000-01 1 2001-02 20 22-03 0 0 0 0 90,582 95,111 99,867 104,860 0 0 0 0 36,858 38,701 40,636 42,668 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 206,339 206,339 206,339 206,339 0 0 0 0 85,538 85,538 85,538 85,538 51,580 51,580 51,580 51,580 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 336,174 352,983 370,632 389,164 826,905 850,049 874,381 899,945 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 11.813 12.144 12.491 12.856 costofsvcxis 1/13/99 Table 12: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Proiected Annual Costs Alternative 1 - SRF Loan Status Quo Budget Projected Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 1999- 00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 154,567 162,295 170,410 178,930 187,877 Water Distribution 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Basic System Improvements 0 128,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 WTP Improvements Connection to Concord System 0 0 33,608 0 33,608 0 33,608 0 33,608 0 33,608 0 SRF Loan Administrative Fee (2%) 11,749 11,749 11,749 11,749 11,749 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Purchased Water (b) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Annual Costs 235,872 419,902 430,859 442,297 454,338 466,995 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 5.999 6.155 6.319 6.491 6.671 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less backwash (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons costofsvcxls 1/13199 Table 13: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Budget Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 WTP salary costs stranded 0 Water Distribution 60,950 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 Basic System Improvements 0 1 WTI' Improvements 0 Connection to Concord System 0 SRF Loan Administrative Fee (2%) _ Wastewater Savings (a) 0 Purchased Water (b) 0 1 Total Annual Costs 235,872 4 Billable Water (c) 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less backwash (@ municipal rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons Projected Annual Costs Alternative 2 - SRr Loan . Y Purchase Treated Water from Concord Projected 1999-00 12000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 86,269 90,582 95,111 99,867 104,860 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 28,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 0 0 0 0 0 52,967 52,967 52,967 52,967 52,967 13,154 13,154 13,154 13,154 13,154 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 14,660 120,393 126,413 132,733 139,370 79,139 492,414 506,286 520,883 536,224 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 6.845 7.034 7.233 7.441 7.660 costofsvc.As 1113199 Table 14: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Projected Annual Costs Alternative 3 - SRr Loan Turn Utility over to WSACC Budget Projected Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment 147,206 Water Distribution (same as Town) 60,950 63,998 67,198 70,558 74,086 77,790 Debt Service Current Town Debt 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Basic System Improvements 0 128,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 128,288 WTP Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connection to Concord System 0 52,967 52,967 52,967 52,967 52,967 SRF Loan Administrative Fee (2%) - 13,154 13,154 13,154 13,154 13,154 Wastewater Savings (a) 0 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 Purchased Water (b) _ 0 114,660 120,393 126,413 132,733 139,370 Total Annual Costs 235,872 392,870 401,832 411,175 421,016 431,363 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 5.612 5.740 5.874 6.015 6.162 * Assumes WTP salary costs transferred into WSACC wastewater treatment budget at no rate impact due to attrition (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less backwash (@ municipal rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons costofsvc.As 1/13/99 costofsvcxls 1/13/99 Table 15: Proiected Annual Costs Mount Pleasant, NC Alternative 4 - SRF Loan Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Turn Utility over to Concord Cost Category Budget 1997-98 Projected 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Water Supply & Treatment WTP Salary Costs Stranded Water Distribution Wat. Dist. Salary Costs Stranded 147,206 0 60,950 0 0 86,269 0 85,538 0 90,582 0 85,538 0 95,111 0 85,538 0 99,867 0 85,538 0 104,860 0 85,538 Debt Service Current Town Debt Basic System Improvements WTP Improvements Upgrade system for fire service Connection to Concord System 27,715 0 0 0 0 273693 128,288 0 31,941 52,967 27,722 128,288 0 31,941 52,967 27,686 128,288 0 31,941 52,967 27,678 128,288 0 31,941 52,967 27,685 128,288 0 31,941 52,967 SRF Loan Administrative Fee (2%) - 17,789 17,789 17,789 17,789 17,789 Wastewater Savings (a) _ 0 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 -7,889 Purchased Water (b) 0 320,166 336,174 352,983 370,632 389,164 Total Annual Costs 235,872 .742,761 763,112 784,413 806,811 830,342 Billable Water (c) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Unit Cost of Billable Water (d) 3.370 10.611 10.902 11.206 11.526 11.862 (a) WTP backwash water no longer discharged to sewer for treatment (b) Based on total water produced less backwash (@ outside rates) (c) In thousands of gallons (d) Expressed in dollars per 1,000 gallons Table 16: Mount Pleasant, NC Water Volume Data (in 1000 gallons) Treated water gallons Backwash water gallons Water delivered into distribution system tag Metered water gallons Water unaccounted for (as % of treated) Unbilled Water gallons Billed water gallons Billed sewer gallons to Town customers Used for FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 Projections 102,466.0 99,644.0 97,856.0 98,000.0 9,300.0 10,050.0 9,800.0 90,344.0 87,806.0 88,200.0 75,909.5 73,296.7 14.49% 14.83% 4,224.6 3,987.3 71,684.9 69,309.4 70,000.0 60,873.2 61,000.0 Sewer gallons billed by WSACC 70,000.0 Difference in gallons 9,126.8 Diference as percent of billed gallons 14.99% ca) For projections, this is the volume to be purchased # water customers 600 600 610 620 650 # sewer customers 470 470 470 475 500 # sewer, as % of water 78.33% 78.33% 77.05% 76.61 % 76.92% costotsVC.As 1 o/21 /ga Appendix C - Impact to Cost of Service Under Several Alternatives for Providing Wastewater Utility Service in the Town of Mt. Pleasant, NC RNS Consulting, Inc. IMPACT TO COST OF SERVICE UNDER SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVIDING WASTEWATER UTILITY SERVICE IN THE TOWN OF MT. PLEASANT, NC 1. Introduction & Background a. Description of the situation. The To Am of Mt. Pleasant ("Town") is evaluating how best to provide water and wastewater utility services to customers in its service area. Currently the Town's water and sewer systems are independent, stand-alone systems, wholly owned and operated by the Town. The age of the systems and growth in the service area is stressing the systems to be able to continue to provide the level of service that the Town desires. In order to evaluate how best to upgrade its systems to provide service into the future, the Town is considering several alternatives to continuing operations under is current structure. b. Purpose of the study. This study is undertaken to calculate the potential impact on the cost of providing wastewater service to the To-,An's current service area under alternative capital improvement and service provider scenarios. This study considers relevant operating and maintenance costs, as well as alternative funding costs under these alternative scenarios to determine the comparative total costs of service expressed in dollars per thousand gallons of service. Alternative scenarios include: 1) Status Quo - Town continues to operate its wastewater collection facilities and purchase treatment from WSACC 2) Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its wastewater utility system over to the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County ("WSACC"), which will provide both wholesale and retail wastewater service to the Town's existing service area 3) Town turns ownership, operation and maintenance of its wastewater utility system over to the City of Concord ("CITY"), which will provide retail wastewater service to the Town's existing service area, and provide wholesale wastewater treatment through a purchase agreement with WSACC. 2. Wastewater Utility Services Currently Provided by Mt. Pleasant The Town currently provides wastewater collection service to approximately 500 customers. This service is provided through a network of gravity flow sewer pipe and pumping stations. 3. Wastewater Utility Services Currently Purchased by Mt. Pleasant -1- The Town purchases wastewater transportation, treatment, and disposal service from WSACC Collected wastewater from the Town's service area is metered and pumped through WSACC facilities to its Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, where it is treated and discharged in to the Rocky River. 4. Mt. Pleasant Costs of Providing Services a. Accounting for Town costs of service. The Town accounts for its utility service costs through one budget center called "Water & Sewer". This budget center accounts for all costs of the water and sewer utilities, and includes: • Water supply & treatment • Water distribution • Wastewater collection • Purchased wastewater treatment • Allocated costs of Public Service employees providing operation and maintenance services on the water distribution pipe network and the wastewater collection pipe network plus meter reading (50 man-hours per week) • Customer services (100% of Assistant Town Clerk) b. Allocation of costs to water and wastewater utilities. Because the Town accounts for all water and wastewater utility costs in one cost center it is necessary to allocate these costs to the various utility functions provided. This allocation is necessary in order to examine the impacts to costs of service under the various alternatives, several of which involve eliminating one or more functions from Mount Pleasant responsibility. Tables 1 shows the historic cost of water and sewer service for the Town, and the annual growth of each expense category. Costs for Fiscal Years 93-94 through 96-97 are provided in the Town's audited annual financial statements by Sherrill & Smith, LLP, Certified Public Accountants. The Town's budget for FY 97-98 was also used to provide five years of record. Table 2 shows the allocation of these overalls costs to the four Town -provided utility functions of 1) water supply, pumping and treatment, 2) water distribution, 3), wastewater collection, and 4) wastewater treatment. Allocation of each cost is based upon information from interviews with, and upon data supplied by the Town staff. 5. Capital Improvements to the Current Wastewater System Facilities Engineering studies conducted under the auspices of RNS Consulting, Inc. ("RNS") indicate that the current system of collection sewer pipes are incurring significant infiltration and inflow into the system during rainfall events. This is due to several causes. Loose or offset pipe joints have likely been caused by differential settlement in the pipe trenches over the years, as well as cracked sections of the pipes. This allows root intrusion into the pipes and causes groundwater da to leak into the system. This extraneous water in the system is termed infiltration, and represents a nearly constant additional flow that must be transported by the system. Direct connections of stormwater facilities to the sanitary sewer system have also been discovered by smoke testing of the system. These inappropriate connections allow stormwater to directly enter the system during rainfall events, and this extraneous water is termed inflow, and manifests itself in sudden increases to the flow in the sanitary sewer system immediately during and after a rainfall event. Table 3 shows that over 9.1 million gallons (or approximately 15% more wastewater than was billed to customers) was sent to WSACC for treatment in Fiscal Year 1996-97. In effect, this represents a 15% surcharge to the treatment portion of sewer customers' sanitary sewer service bills. In order to provide efficient wastewater collection and treatment services into the future, it will be necessary for the Town to upgrade its existing collection sewer system. Cost estimates of sewer improvements provided by RNS indicate that $3,850,000 of capital improvements are necessary regardless of which alternative governmental entity operates the wastewater collection system. 6. Operating and Management Alternatives a. Responsibility for Providing Utility Functions. The three alternative scenarios being considered provide for various combinations of ownership and operational responsibilities of the wastewater utility facilities. Figure A provides a graphic display of these responsibilities and to whom they belong under each alternative. Figure A: Utility Service Responsibilities Under Each Organizational Alternative Alternative/Utility Function Town City WSACC 1. Current Situation Collection ✓ _ _ Treatment ✓ _ _ Billing/Collection ✓ - Extension of Service ✓ - 2. Turn Over Utility to WSACC Collection _ _ ✓ Treatment - _ ✓ Billing/Collection - _ ✓ Extension of Service _ _ ✓ 3. Turn Over Utility to City Collection _ ✓ _ Treatment _ ✓ _ Billing/Collection - ✓ Extension of Service - ✓ -3 b. Costs of Service. Figure B displays graphically which costs of service are involved under each utility service alternative. More detailed discussion of two types of cost, Personnel and Debt, are provided below for clarification. 1) Personnel Costs. Currently, collection system operating and maintenance costs are provided by Public Works Department ("PWD") personnel. The direct salary costs associated with these services are billed to the sewer system. Also, a percentage of the direct payroll costs of the Assistant Clerk is billed to the sewer utility. Under Alternative 1, the Town will experience no difference to the way it currently operates. Under all other alternatives, the Town will be subject to financial impacts because of changes to personnel requirements and debt service requirements. PWD personnel costs currently billed to the Sewer Department will become the full burden of the PWD. Assistant Clerk costs could also be "stranded" with the Town. Alternatives include, a) leaving all these costs with the Town, b) contracting these services to the surviving operating entity, or c) a combination of these. For this study, it is assumed that PWD costs will remain the costs of the PWD. This amount of stranded cost is approximately $9,945 per year. Further, it is assumed that the cost of the Assistant Clerk will become a cost of the surviving operating entity. WSACC has indicated its willingness to assume the cost of the Asst. Clerk as its own. The City did not return phone call attempts to discuss its position in this matter, therefore, this issue is unresolved at the present. Figure B: Cost of Service Elements Alternative Cost Element 1 2 3 Operation & Maintenance - Wastewater Collection ✓ ✓ ✓ Wholesale Purchases Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ Capital Costs Current Town Debt Service ✓ ✓ ✓ Basic System Improvements ✓ ✓ ✓ Since the City's position is not known, no further examination of Alternative 3 can be made. 2) Debt. Under both remaining operating scenarios, the same amount of new debt will be required to implement system repairs and improvements. 7. Funding Alternatives Several alternatives exist for securing funding for the necessary wastewater system infrastructure. These alternatives include loans and/or grants through the State Revolving Fund -4-� program (SRF), NC Infrastructure Bonds (IB) discussed below, General Obligation Bonds (GO), Revenue Bonds (RB), Rural Development (RD), and WSACC financing. a. SRFLoans and Grants. Loans under the SRF program are administered by the Local Governments Commission, and can be for as long a term as 20 years (but usually are for shorter lengths). Loans are normally structured for repayment as equal principal — declining interest loans. However, it is possible for loans to be structured with equal payments over its life. SRF loans also require a one-time, up front administrative fee of 2% of the loan amount. For this analysis, it is assumed that this fee will be financed by the system owner at 7% over five years. In order to qualify for grants under the SRF program, projected combined water and sewer rates needed to support the project must result in a combined water and sewer bill that exceeds 1-1/2% of the median household income in the service area. Each $500,000 in grant funding reduces the debt service by approximately $41,880 per year, which translates to a reduction in cost of service of approximately $0.69 per 1000 gallons. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. It should be noted that any grant or loan funding for wastewater facilities under the SRF program requires that an updated 201 Facilities Plan be prepared. b. IB Funding. The $1 billion infrastructure bond referendum on the 1998 ballot was passed. The fund created by this bond is to be administered similarly to the current SRF loan program, with the interest rate tied to the State borrowing rate (about 5.5% currently). c. RD Funding Rural Development (formerly Farmers Home Administration) grants and loans may be available. Calculation of overall cost of water service is not examined under RD grants and loans because eligibility for this financing can not be determined at this preliminary stage. However, relative rankings of Alternatives will not change if these financing vehicles are used. This financing option should be examined when a final decision is reached on the Alternative approach to be taken. d. Basis for Analysis. For this study, funding through two debt instruments is used for comparison purposes. Since they can apply under both alternatives, impacts to the cost of wastewater service are calculated under both SRF loans (20-years @ 3.0% interest) and Revenue Bonds (20-years @ 7.0% interest). S. Financial Impact to the Cost of Sanitary Sewer Service Table 4 calculates the annual debt service required to fund the sewer system repairs under two funding scenarios — 20-year Revenue Bonds at 7% interest, and State Revolving Fund ("SRF") Loans (20-year instruments at 3% interest). Table 5.1 shows the total costs of sewage collection and treatment services including the proposed annual debt service under these two funding scenarios. Table 5.2 projects the units cost of wastewater service under both funding scenarios. -5- Figure C, below, summarizes the total unit cost of wastewater collection and treatment for the wastewater customers of the Town. Figure C: Unit Cost of Wastewater Service (in $ per 1000 gallons) Fiscal Year Financing Method 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Revenue Bond 10.050 10.155 10.263 10.376 10.494 SRF Loan 7.749 7.854 7.962 8.075 8.193 9. Conclusions Based on this study and the results of the calculations presented herein, the following conclusions can be drawn: a. The unit debt service cost of bringing the Town's wastewater utility infrastructure up to the condition needed to provide efficient service under current standards is between $4.55 and $6.85 per thousand gallons of billable wastewater service, depending on the type of financing. b. Funding of capital improvements is most attractive under State Revolving Fund Loans and least attractive under Revenue Bond financing. C. SRF grants for both the water and sewer capital improvements may be available, and could significantly reduce debt service, and thereby cost of service. d. There is no practical difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 from a cost of service perspective. An unresolved question under Alternative 2 remains at this time — what will the Town do with approximately $9,900 of PWD labor currently charged to the sewer utility? One option is for WSACC to contract for this labor. The other option is for the PWD to absorb these costs. PM Table 1: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Combined Water and Sewer Cost Category Fiscal Year Annual Growth Budget 1997-98 1993 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Direct s & w overhead Utilities & telephone Maintenance & repairs Vehicle supplies Chemicals Contracted services Professional fees Dept. supplies and materials 85,328 15,753 33,915 32,447 980 20,889 4,590 9,427 4,187 75,799 12,553 33,151 12,673 545 17,463 3,883 6,479 5,240 78,438 12,551 34,020 20,690 595 15,428 2,207 21,341 6,388 116,065 16,700 34,277 19,983 579 17,823 2,595 23,106 6,346 10.80% 1.96% 0.35% -14.92% -16.09% -5.15% -17.31% 34.83% 14.87% 121,060 20,800 35,480 34,640 870 22,200 1,740 24,480 7,600 Miscellaneous 2.516 2,513 1,508 5,218 27.52% 3,600 210,032 170,299 193,166 242,692 272,470 Subtotal Direct 4.94% Indirect personnel Indirect personnel overhead Subtotal Indirect - - Wastewater treatment cost 86,196 92,216 92,637 92,902 2.53% 97,000 Total Operating Costs 296,228 262,515 285,803 335,594 369,470 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I 148,821 _ 146,605 _ 113,825 _ 55,382 - 55,430 _ Cash capital projects/assets 2,800 9,588 - 21,336 _ Equipment 2,242 7,130 2,862 6,890 _ Total Capital Costs 153,863 163,323 116,687 83,608 55,430 Total Operating & Capital Costs 450,091 425,838 402,490 419,202 424,900 costofsvcaxls 11/22/98 Table 2: Mount Pleasant, NC Allocation of Combined Water & Sewer Costs to Utility Functions Cost Category Allocation Percentage to Function Water Supply Water Wastewater & Treatment Distribution Collection Wastewater Treatment Clieck Total Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages 57.92% 23.57% 18.52% 0.00% 100.00% Direct s & w overlicad 57.92% 23.57% 18.52% 0.00% 100.00% Utilities & telephone 72.79% 0.001% 27.21 % 0.00% 100.00% Maintenance & repairs 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% Vehicle supplies 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Chemicals 100.00% 0.00% ° 0.00 /° ° 0.00 /° 100.00% Contracted services 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% Professional fees 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% Dept. supplies and materials 33.33%-- 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% Miscellaneous 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% Purchased Services Wastewater treatment cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% costofsvcsxls 11 /22/98 costo(sves.As 11/22/98 Table 3: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Combined Water and Sewer Cost Category Budget 1997-98 Projected 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 20111-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance Direct salaries & wages Direct s & w overhead Utilities & telephone 121,060 20,800 35,480 127,113 21,840 37,254 133,469 22,932 39,117 140,142 24,079 41,073 147,149 25,283 43,126 154,507 26,547 45,282 Maintenance & repairs Vehicle supplies 34,640 870 36,372 914 38,191 959 40,100 1,007 42,105 1,057 44,210 1,110 Chemicals Contracted services Professional fees Dept. supplies and materials 22,200 1,740 24,480 7,600 23,310 1,827 25,704 7,980 24,476 1,918 26,989 8,379 25,699 2014, 28,339 8,798 26,984 21115 29,756 9,238 28,333 2,221 31,243 9,700 Miscellaneous 3,600 3,780 3,969 4,167 4,376 4,595 272,470 286,094 300,398 315,418 331,189 347,748 Subtotal Direct Lndirect personnel Indirect personnel overhead Subtotal Indirect Wastewater treatment cost 97,000 99,910 102,907 105,995 109,174 112,450 Total Operating Costs 369,470 386,004 403,305 421,413 440,363 460,198 Capital Costs Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I 55,430 - 55,386 55,444 55,371 55,356 55,369 Cash capital projects/assets _ Equipment - Total Capital Costs 55,430 55,386 55,444 55,371 55,356 55,369 Total Operating & Capital Costs 424,900 441,390 458,749 476,784 495,719 515,567 Table 4: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Revenue Bonds - 20 years - 7.0% interest R Project costs Debt Service Reserve Fund Issuance Costs (2%) Insurance (3%) Total Project Costs Projected Debt Service - Revenue Bonds Amount 3,850,000 385,000 77,000 115,500 4,427,500 417,912 Wastewater Collection System Capital Costs - Annual Debt Service Payments SRF Loans - 20 years - 3.0°/) interest Proiects Amount 1. Basic System Upgrade Project costs 3,850,000 Debt Service Reserve Fund _ Issuance Costs (2%) _ Insurance (3%) _ Total Project Costs 3,850,000 Projected Debt Service - SRF 258,780 Additional Adiniin. Fee (2%) 77,000 Annual Cost(a) 18,780 `a' Assumes that fee is financed over 5 years at 7% costofsvcsxls 12/11 /98 Table 5.1: Mount Pleasant, NC Costs of Water and Wastewater Service Sewage Collection and Treatment Budget Projected Cost Category 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Operation & Maintenance i Direct salaries & wages 22,416 23,537 24,714 25,950 27,247 28,609 Direct s & w overhead 3,851 4,044 4,246 4,459 4,681 4,916 Utilities & telephone 9,654 10,137 10,644 11,176 11,735 12,321 Maintenance & repairs 11,547 12,124 12,730 13,367 14,035 14,737 Vehicle supplies - - _ _ _ Chemicals Contracted services Professional fees 870 1 914 12,240 12,852 959 13,495 1,007 14,169 1,057 14,878 1,110 15,622 Dept. supplies and materials 2,533 2,660 2,793 2,932 3,079 3,233 Miscellaneous 1,200 1,260 1,323 1,389 1,458 1,531 70,903 74,448 78,171 82,079 Subtotal Direct 64,311 j 67,527 Wastewater treatment cost 97,000 99,910 102,907 105,995 109,174 112,450 173,811 180,443 187,345 194,529 Total Operating Costs 161,311 167,437 Capital Costs under Revenue Bond Financing 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I - 1 417,912 417,912 417,912 417,912 417,912 Cash capital projects/assets - - - _ _ _ Equipment _ _ _ - - Total Capital Costs 27,715 445,605 445,634 445,597 445,590 445,596 Total Operating & Capital Costs - RB 189,026 613,042 619,444 626,040 632,935 640,125 Capital Costs under SRF Loan Financing 27,715 27,693 27,722 27,686 27,678 27,685 Existing debt service - P&I Proposed debt service - P&I 277,560 277,560 277,560 277,560 277,560 277,560 Cash capital projects/assets - - _ _ _ Equipment _ _ _ _ _ _ Total Capital Costs 305,275 305,253 305,282 305,246 305,238 305,245 Total Operating & Capital Costs - SRF 466,586 472,690 479,093 485,688 492,583 499,773 costofsVC&As tmss Table 5.2: Mount Pleasant, NC Unit Costs of Wastewater Service Projected Category 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Billable Wastewater Gallons (1000s) 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000 61,000 Total Operating & Capital Costs (in $) 613,042 619,444 626,040 632,935 640,125 Revenue Bond Financing SRF Financing 472,690 479,093 485,688 492,583 499,773 Unit Cost of Wastewater Service (in $ per 1000gallons) 10.155 10.263 10.376 10.494 Revenue Bond Financing 10.050 SRF Financing 7.749 7.854 7.962 8.075 8.193 costofsvcs.As 12/10/98 Appendix D — Dewberry & Davis October 3,1998 Water Supply System Report Cost Estimate Update, Letter to Mr. John Murdock/WSACC. RNS Consulting, Inc. r. 4 V Dawberry & Davis October 3, 1998 Mr. John Murdock Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County PO$ 428 232 Davidson Hwy Concord, NC 28026 }: nab,enrm Conarlrfng �+gina:rA Vlun„w+,. Gno L:xinglon Ave, Sierveyon CbArinlle, NC 2rt20.1 704 342-0401 Fux 704 332-5468 Re: Rev4ow — Frank C. Coekinos & Associates 1997 Preliminary Engine,-ing Report (PER) Town of Mount Pleasant Water Supple System D&D Project No. C7141 Dear Mr. Murdock: As requested and discussed with you verbally, a revitw of the referenced PER relative to capital costs for the water treatment system has been made, As you romecmber a separate "draft" PER for the water transmission ark sewer collector lines, dated 2t28/97 was also proparod by Frank C. Cook nos & Amclatts in early 1997. Currea* the WSACC, with the help of RNS Consulting, is investigating in more depth the feasibillty of assuming owmemhhip of the Town's existing water and sewer systems, This also includes a determination of the most cost effective option for providing potable water, i.e., continue to operate existing WTP or provide for bulk purchase from the City of Concord. It is our understanding that RNS Consulting is addressing from a cost standpoint the roconunendations noted in the =9/9 PER relating to the water and sewer lines. It is Frill our opinion that the needed capital improvernents for the Town's water supply system rt mA.m essentially the game as noted in the two 1997 Frank C. Cockdnos & Associates PER's. These impmvements include tho following: • =8/97 PER- WfItqf & Sewer Lines - Section 2,03 — Major Maintenance for the three (3) metal water storage tanks. Current estimated costs = S100,000 - $120,000, These costs as noted in the PER are for exterior and interior painting sad assumes no structural or lead paint abatement are required, VIZQ7 PER — Wator Sgpply System - So lion 3.01 —Major Maintenance (should be considered capital upgrade) to tho existing WTP- Current cstirr►atcd costs are $90,000 - $100,000. These costs are for complete media and tube settler replacements, and replacement of the raw water holding basin Baer. Section 3.02 - Upgrade of old WTP (taken out of operation in early 1994). Current estimated costs are $375,000 - $4001000, These costs are for complete renovation of the filters, piping, valves, chemie4 feed, and other equipment. These costs assume that no major structural repairs will be required. Y:rK;116 M,o71- 1 Nd, C'mX4U1 rr IFAuj N.•w 1••rw,v NA-0 ywk 4v�r..��1r•ul Mn, arlp�-ru- !y nr�+rlvnnla hunt Ullnlwwnq Mr. John Murdock October S, 1998 Pogo 2 As noted in the Water Supply System PER, these upgrades should provide sufficient capacity for epproximately is --20 yun, If any addhional ir6rrmtion is needed relative to our review of the previous PER's, ple-_Se let me know. Bost regards„ DEWBERRY 4 DAVIS Evrndar K Rowoll, P.E. Amciate/$luo4 8er EHR\bsw cn.tcoa�wucrimDoc C; H.L. Mooip4cld, Jr,, P.E., Dewberry & Davis DeWbeM & Davis •*-END•** Appendix B Daily Precipitation for Mt. Pleasant Area CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Summary of Rainfall for Cabarrus County, NC Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Month No. Days of Rain Total ain a , inches Jan-97 10 3.5 Feb-97 10 3.57 Mar-97 11 4.33 Apr-97 9 7.23 May-97 6 1.43 Jun-97 15 3.31 Jul-97 12 11.82 Au -97 6 1.02 Sep-97 8 6.25 Oct-97 8 4.91 Nov-97 9 4.19 Dec-97 13 4.08 1997 Total 117 55.64 Jan-98 14 7.08 Feb-98 11 4.04 Mar-98 7 3.26 A r-98 10 5.4 May-98 12 2.23 Jun-98 9 2.57 Jul-98 8 2.58 Au -98 8 1.32 Sep-98 6 5.31 Oct-98 5 1.09 Nov-98 7 1.13 Dec-98 9 3.67 1998 Total 106 39.68 C D M Camp Dresser & McKee 3/3/99 �► J J J J J �► J J J �.1 ......... J..J.... 1 J ...1 ... ...1J ...1 J �► ...► J � ...i � ... (D (O (D cD (D (D (D tD fD cD (D (D (D tD c0 0 co w w (D (D co w (D w co w w co (D (D w co co (D co co co (D (D co (D (D (D (D co (D co (D co(D CD co(D co coCC) co co co(D co co co co co CD co(D co CC) (D co co co(D co co co(D co w(0 co co co(D co CD co(DCC) co co(Dco D) 4 14 -1 -1 -I J -1 V v v v v v -1 -1 -! -1 -1 -I -I V -I -! -I v v v v v v v V V -1 r7 -! V -1 -I v v v v v v v v v 1 y m_ 3uo N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N — -► s -+ — — -► — — — — — — — — — — 3 W V -I O (n A W N p CO W v O N A W N O (ND ONO -4 W L" A W N O W M -I O Cn A W N O CO W -4 O) Cn A W M 2 0 -►o O o0 00 000 0 o O o� o �� 2 0 0 -4co 0 0 O Ip IW O O N 0 0 0 0 N? 0 0 O (p O O O O O O � 0 0 0 0� jV � 0 0 Ca O O O O O � o A -4 C 66/£/£ 91;o L abed oo:joW W jossaiQ duiuD Wad 0 LL Z L661 0 91 Z L661 LO' L S L Z L66 L 86'0 IVL Z L661 0 £L Z L66L 0 ZL Z L66L L'0 L l Z L66 L 0 OL Z L66L ZO'O 6 Z L66 L Z£'O 8 Z L66 L 0 L Z L66L 0 9 Z L661 Z'0 S Z L66 L 60'0 Z L66L 0 £ Z L66L 0 Z Z L66L 0 L Z L66L 0 L£ L L66L Z L'0 0£ l L661 L'0 6Z L L66L v0'0 8Z L L661 0 LZ L L661 0 9Z L L66L 99'0 SZ L L66 L 0 17Z L L661 £0'O £Z L L66 L 0 ZZ L L66L 0 LZ L L66L 0 OZ L L66L 0 6L L L66L 0 8L L L66L 0 LL L L66L SL'O 9L L L66L 0 Sl L L661 0 til l L66L 0 £L L L66L 0 ZL L L66L L'0 l L L L66 L 17Z'0 0 L L L661 L' L 6 L L66 L 0 8 L L66L 0 L L L66L L£'O 9 L L66 L 0 S l L66L 0 L L661 0 £ L L66L 0 Z L L66L 0 L L L66L (ur) uo►;e;rdlaa.rd ASO u;uow JeaA NO uor;eVc0aad :;uawa13 ON`O800NOO NL6Gkd :uor;e;S aoigo alewilO alels :a:)jnos 866L PUB L66L - elea Ile;uiea AlunoO snaaegeO Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1997 2 18 0 1997 2 19 0 1997 2 20 0 1997 2 21 0 1997 2 22 0.29 1997 2 23 0 1997 2 24 0 1997 2 25 0 1997 2 26 0 1997 2 27 0.1 1997 2 28 0.4 1997 3 1 1.18 1997 3 2 0 1997 3 3 0.05 1997 3 4 0 1997 3 5 0 1997 3 6 0.35 1997 3 7 0 1997 3 8 0 1997 3 9 0 1997 3 10 0 1997 3 11 0 1997 3 12 0 1997 3 13 0 1997 3 14 0.27 1997 3 15 0.63 1997 3 16 0 1997 3 17 0 1997 3 18 0 1997 3 19 0.23 1997 3 20 0.54 1997 3 21 0 1997 3 22 0 1997 3 23 0 1997 3 24 0 1997 3 25 0 1997 3 26 0.63 1997 3 27 0.01 1997 3 28 0 1997 3 29 0.33 1997 3 30 0 1997 3 31 0.11 1997 4 1 0 1997 4 2 0 1997 4 3 0 1997 4 4 0 1997 4 5 0 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 2 of 16 3/3/99 00 a) C1 T L' D O nM(D (Ong U O M 0 0 0 0� CD Cl O O O O O O O O r 0 0 C)It O O O O T T O O T N (n 0 .4 a O n 0 0 T N CO LO 0 n M M O T N CM "44- LO (p n M M O v v R �ornrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrna>rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rn rn rn rn------------ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn T T T r T T r T r T T T T T T T r T r T r T r T T U LO 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T N M"t to 0 n 00 O O r N M�t to (p n M O O r N T T r T T T T T N N N LO LO LO LO to LO LO LO LO LO Lo 0 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO n n n n n n n r n n n n n n n n n n n n n n rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn T T T r — T T T r T T T T r T T T r T r T r rn rn Cl) Cl) IN 0 O) O) C Tr- O T T T 1- 00 to to Cl) LO `MI T (D � M Cl) (D :(� � LO T O O O O O CD CO (D N O 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 (D a' 0 0 0 0 0 0— `- 'It T (DO T LO O m U , O O O CD O CD O CD O O V Z O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CD O CD O 06 0 O O a)O ,4 O oa m E U M'It to (D 1- W O O T O T N M LO 1�- 'It ,;i 10 T N M-t N (D f- oo O et 0 M O CDT N M LO (D 1- W O CD� T T T T T T T T T - N N N N N N N N N N M T N Mto CO 1-- m a` w Cj U c �O to to to LO to to t') to to CO (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (O (D (D (O (D (D 0 (D (D (D (O 0 0 (D (D (O (D 0 1-- 1` 1` 11- r` t-- t` r- O O =' U O y � *� W w 7 � L m fp O O O 0) O 0) O O 0) O O O O O O Q) Q) O O O O O O) O Q) O O) 0) O O 0) 0) O O O O O O Q) O 0) Q) O O O) O O m T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T P" T T T T T T >- - - - - - - - - - - - rn - - - - - - - - - rn rn rn rn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T T T T T T T T U PC Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1997 7 9 0 1997 7 10 0.35 1997 7 11 0 1997 7 12 0 1997 7 13 0 1997 7 14 0 1997 7 15 0 1997 7 16 1.02 1997 7 17 0.04 1997 7 18 0.01 1997 7 19 0 1997 7 20 0 1997 7 21 0.06 1997 7 22 0 1997 7 23 6.4 1997 7 24 2.43 1997 7 25 0.13 1997 7 26 0 1997 7 27 0 1997 7 28 0 1997 7 29 0 1997 7 30 0.47 1997 7 31 0.55 1997 8 1 0 1997 8 2 0 1997 8 3 0 1997 8 4 0 1997 8 5 0.01 1997 8 6 0.01 1997 8 7 0 1997 8 8 0 1997 8 9 0 1997 8 10 0 1997 8 11 0.18 1997 8 12 0 1997 8 13 0 1997 8 14 0 1997 8 15 0 1997 8 16 0 1997 8 17 0 1997 8 18 0 1997 8 19 0 1997 8 20 0 1997 8 21 0.65 1997 8 22 0 1997 8 23 0 1997 8 24 0 1997 8 25 0 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 5 of 16 3/3/99 m n v 3 c� I ..J ...i J J J J ...► J J J J �.i >> J J J J J J ...� J J-- J— —— J —— J '� d V V V -! V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V -! 1 � Cl) = CA ch 3� o o n C O CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cD cD CD cD cD cD cD co cD cD cD cD co cD cD cD CD cD cD cD CD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD 00 0D OD Cp OD OD �D .t N N N -w p cD m V m Cn A W N — — — — — — —— V N N N NO CD Cb V A n A W N O CD Cb V A CrAW N" O i w O J 0000000000a O O A O O 0 0 0 O O� Z O W L. 00000000000000 41 n CD A 000000000C 0c) C) - V W N W 00 (n O N cn O n CD W W tD 00 C e- C r M O T r � (D N 00 T N N N M T C (q O O O` O O r M O` O O O O r 0 0 0 0 M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r(D 0 00 0 0(D 0 0 0 0 0 0 - V �" O O r o O O O r O O O O O O T O cy) E O cx O C O a o E "o V .q N Co U) (D 1- 00 O) O r (N M "t U) (D 1� 00 0) CDr r CV CO� U7 (D 1-- 00 0) O r' N M � U) (D 1- CO 0) CDr N M � U7 (D 1- 00 � T r T T T T N N N N N N N N N N M M r r r r r r r r r T N N N N N N N N N Y 0) a "C C O = O CD CD CD CD (D CD O (D CD CD O CD CD CD CD CDr T T r r r r r T T r r r r r r T T r r � �� r r r r r r r r r r r r r T T T T r r r r r r T r T T r r r r T r r r r T T r r r r r r T T T T O U W 3 � �r�r r�r�rrrr�rrrrrrr�r�r�rr`r�r-r�r�r�rr�r�r�r�rrr�rrrr�rr�r�r�r�rrr�r�r�rr� cv c� rn rn am rn rn am rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn M rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 0) 0) 0) (Y) 0) 0) 0) 0) a) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0') (Y) CT) 0) CD (3) CY) 0) 0) a) 0) CY) a) (3) CT) G) a) 0) (3) CY) 0) (Y) 0) 0) CY) 0) 0') 0) 0) (Y) CY) 0') r r r r T r r r r r r r r r T r r T T T T r r r r r r T T T T r T r T T r r r r r r r r T r r T U M rn Cl) T G t! c R A ti CD y y (D P nMM CD N lD N (D O O CIO w co J J . . J . . J J . J . . ...► . J . . . J J J . J . J . . O 0 cow cD cD coo cD cD w cD c0 cD cD c0 w cD 0 ow cD cD c0 cD co co cD cD coo co co 1D d Q p� cD O cD co cD cD w to cD co cO co cD co cD co cD cD to co cD 0 co cD cD (0 co co cD co co co 4 -I -I -I -I -! -I -I -I —1 -! -I -I -I -I -J -! —1 -! -I —1 -I -! -! —1 V -! —1 -! -I -I -I co 01 v 03 p� CO) C m� 300 0cCA — J J J J J 1 J J —— J J— J J J J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J O � 0a o ? to M �' O W W N NN NN NNNNN-—+--— —— — ——— V ,wr 7 � W O c0 M v O (n -IN- W N O cD W V O Cn i+ W N O (O W v O (n J� W N O K3 (O CD C CL r�i Z 3 O p1 .w► d Z W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O` O W O IV � O pp O O 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 N O O O O O O W� O d �% 4) O 0)cn N co 0 N �'� CO C a N 3 � � co w � 66/£/£ 91;0 6 abed =NoW W jossoiQ dumb Wa0 0 £L Z 866L LO'O ZL Z 866E 0 LL Z 866L 0 OL Z 866L 0 6 Z 866L 0 8 Z 866E 0 L Z 866L ZO'O 9 Z 866E SZ'O S Z 866L 90' L V Z 866 L SZ'O £ Z 866 L 0 Z Z 9661 0 L Z 866L 0 L£ L 866L 0 0£ L 866L LO'0 6Z L 966L ZO'Z 8Z L 866 L £O'O LZ 1 866 L 0 9Z L 866L ZO'O SZ L 866E 8 L '0 VZ 1 866 L £L'O £Z 1 866 L 0 ZZ L 9664 0 LZ L 866E ZZ"O OZ L 866 L 6£'O 6 L L 8661 0 8L 1 866L L LL L 866L 8L'0 9 L L 8661 9£,0 SL L 866L 0 tiL L 866L 0 £l L 866E 0 ZL L 866E 0 LL L 866L 0 OL L 866L LTO 6 L 8661 LL'O 8 L 866 L £9'0 L L 866L 0 9 L 866E 0 S L 866L 0 V L 8661 0 £ L 866L 0 Z L 866L 0 L L 866L (ui) uoije}idioajd Acci gluon je@A (ui) uoilelidioajd ON'a2J0ONOO (9L6 L L£) :uo4e1g (W) uol;e;Id►oaad Aeo t/;uo{N JeaA (u►) uol;epddp ad :;uaural3 ON`(7800N00 (SL6kkd :uoge;S aotMo a;euallO a;e;s :aoanos 966 L PUe L661 - WO Ile;uieN R;unoO snaaegeO Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1998 2 14 0 1998 2 15 0 1998 2 16 0.05 1998 2 17 1.55 1998 2 18 0.05 1998 2 19 0 1998 2 20 0 1998 2 21 0 1998 2 22 0 1998 2 23 0.41 1998 2 24 0.1 1998 2 25 0 1998 2 26 0 1998 2 27 0 1998 2 28 0.24 1998 3 1 0 1998 3 2 0 1998 3 3 0 1998 3 4 0 1998 3 5 0 1998 3 6 0 1998 3 7 0 1998 3 8 0.97 1998 3 9 1.02 1998 3 10 0 1998 3 11 0 1998 3 12 0.05 1998 3 13 0 1998 3 14 0 1998 3 15 0 1998 3 16 0 1998 3 17 0 1998 3 18 0.1 1998 3 19 0.97 1998 3 20 0 1998 3 21 0.08 1998 3 22 0.07 1998 3 23 0 1998 3 24 0 1998 3 25 0 1998 3 26 0 1998 3 27 0 1998 3 28 0 1998 3 29 0 1998 3 30 0 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 10 of 16 3/3/99 Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1998 3 31 0 1998 4 1 0 1998 4 2 0.16 1998 4 3 0 1998 4 4 0.47 1998 4 5 0 1998 4 6 0 1998 4 7 0 1998 4 8 0 1998 4 9 1.53 1998 4 10 0 1998 4 11 0 1998 4 12 0 1998 4 13 0 1998 4 14 0 1998 4 15 0.12 1998 4 16 0 1998 4 17 0.28 1998 4 18 0.83 1998 4 19 0 1998 4 20 0.79 1998 4 21 0 1998 4 22 0 1998 4 23 0.47 1998 4 24 0.13 1998 4 25 0 1998 4 26 0 1998 4 27 0 1998 4 28 0.62 1998 4 29 0 1998 4 30 0 1998 5 1 0.25 1998 5 2 0.2 1998 5 3 0.06 1998 5 4 0.03 1998 5 5 0.07 1998 5 6 0 1998 5 7 0.37 1998 5 8 0.2 1998 5 9 0.28 1998 5 10 0 1998 5 11 0.5 1998 5 12 0 1998 5 13 0 1998 5 14 0 1998 5 15 0 1998 5 16 0 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 11 of 16 3/3/99 v 3 n w El b d .y rA CA N n C (D (D m N O m W w cD cD J J (D (D 8 8 ( 8D 8 .J J 1 .J 8 8 — — — — 1 J — — — � � J � �..� J � � � � cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD (D 0 (D (D (D (O (D (O (D (O (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D 8 0 00 00 (D (D (D cD (D (D (D (O (D (D (D M^, 00 DO 00 03 DO 03 DO OD 00 Do 00 00 00 OD co 03 00 co OD DO 00 00 00 00 03 03 co 00 00 00 00 co DO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 03 00 OD co , 1 II^^ v/ .r, rn 1 C N 0 3 n o 0 �� rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrncncnv,v,u,a,cnU,u,(nc,u,C,LnCn 3 _ 0 N 4 n W N N N N N N N N j-�� ::4 �� O M V O (n � W N� (� (� N N N N N N N N N N � —� � � O (D W —1 O N W N O (O Oo �I O C l W N _. () O • O CO M -I O Cn Pa W N O (D 00 v n b 0 p 0 O OD Cl 0 0 -� o0000 0 0 0 2- O O O O OO p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O p O 0 0 p .p N O O O O O O O jV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 N (D O co (n (n -rl- v — N a O cn 00 Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1998 7 3 0 1998 7 4 0 1998 7 5 0 1998 7 6 0 1998 7 7 0 1998 7 8 0 1998 7 9 0 1998 7 10 0 1998 7 11 0 1998 7 12 0 1998 7 13 0 1998 7 14 0 1998 7 15 0 1998 7 16 0 1998 7 17 0.28 1998 7 18 0.01 1998 7 19 0 1998 7 20 0 1998 7 21 1.03 1998 7 22 0 1998 7 23 0 1998 7 24 0 1998 7 25 0.05 1998 7 26 0.02 1998 7 27 0.08 1998 7 28 0.83 1998 7 29 0 1998 7 30 0 1998 7 31 0 1998 8 1 0.08 1998 8 2 0 1998 8 3 0 1998 8 4 0 1998 8 5 0 1998 8 6 0 1998 8 7 0 1998 8 8 0 1998 8 9 0.01 1998 8 10 0.07 1998 8 11 0.02 1998 8 12 0 1998 8 13 0 1998 8 14 0.1 1998 8 15 0.01 1998 8 16 0.56 1998 8 17 0.47 1998 8 18 0 1998 8 19 0 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 13 of 16 3/3/99 Cabarrus County Rainfall Data - 1997 and 1998 Source: State Climate Office Station: (311975) CONCORD,NC Element: Precipitation (in) Year Month Day Precipitation (in) 1998 8 20 0 1998 8 21 0 1998 8 22 0 1998 8 23 0 1998 8 24 0 1998 8 25 0 1998 8 26 0 1998 8 27 0 1998 8 28 0 1998 8 29 0 1998 8 30 0 1998 8 31 0 1998 9 1 0 1998 9 2 0 1998 9 3 0 1998 9 4 2.97 1998 9 5 0.01 1998 9 6 0 1998 9 7 0 1998 9 8 0 1998 9 9 0.16 1998 9 10 0 1998 9 11 0 1998 9 12 0 1998 9 13 0 1998 9 14 0 1998 9 15 0 1998 9 16 0 1998 9 17 0 1998 9 18 0 1998 9 19 0 1998 9 20 0 1998 9 21 0 1998 9 22 1.1 1998 9 23 0 1998 9 24 0 1998 9 25 0 1998 9 26 0 1998 9 27 0 1998 9 28 0 1998 9 29 0.02 1998 9 30 1.05 1998 10 1 0.01 1998 10 2 0 1998 10 3 0 1998 10 4 0.15 1998 10 5 0.6 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Page 14 of 16 3/3/99 66/£/£ 9 L )o S L abed x)NoW W iassaiQ dum:) wad 0 ZZ lL 866L 0 LZ LL 866L 0 OZ LL 866L 0 6L LL 866L 0 8L lL 866L i7£,0 LL 11 866L 0 9L 11 866L t'S'0 S L L L 866 L 90,0 t, l L L 866 L 0 £L LL 866L 90'0 Z L L L 866 L 90,0 LL LL 866E 0 0L LL 866L 0 6 LL 866L 0 8 LL 866L 0 L LL 866L 0 9 LL 866L 0 S LL 866L 0 t LL 866L 0 £ LL 866L 0 Z Ll 866E 0 L LL 866L 0 L£ 0L 866L 0 0£ 0L 866L 0 6Z 0L 866E 0 8Z 0L 866L 0 LZ 0L 866E 0 9Z 0L 866L 0 SZ 0L 866L 0 tlz 0 l 9661 0 £Z 0L 9661 0 ZZ 0L 866L 0 LZ 0L 866L 0 OZ 0L 866L 0 6L 0L 866E 0 8L 0L 866L 0 LL 0L 866L 0 9L 0L 866L 0 SL OL 866L 0 t, L 0 l 866 L 0 £L 0L 866L 0 ZL 0L 866L 0 LL 0L 866L 0 0L 0L 866L 0 6 0L 866L Z£'0 8 OL 866L 0 L 0L 866E L0'0 9 0L 866E (u!) uoge;►droaJd Aeo LIMO N aeOA (ur) uorle;!dioaad :Iuawa13 ON`(7?JOONOO (SL6k6C) :uoI;e;S 9:)!j4p alewilO a;e;s :aoanos 866 L PUe L66 L - e;ed IlejuieN AlunoO snaaegeO 0 v 3 n 9 b t) m ------------------------------- 0 v c0 (O cD (D (0 (D (D (D (0 (0 (D (D (D (D (D (D (D cD (D (D (D (D (D 0 (D (D 0 W 0 (D (D D) W 0 0 (D (D W (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (0 (D (D (D (D (0 (D 00 00 00 QD co 00 00 00 00 OD 03CC) 03 00 DO 00 co 00 00 00 co co OD 00 00 co 00 DD co 00 00 a) m C =T(D N C O (p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (n o (D ::E O • (C1 A n) O C W W N N N N N N N N Ni N — -- — — 1— 1— — W W v O Ln A (,.W N� O (D W J O Ln A W N O W M �l O Ln A W N O In O O CD O a � cp ((DD � O O O O O O O Cl N (D (D 0 0 pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn (Jt M O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 co (D .A N N N N A 3 (D 0 (D cD (D (D 0 (0 CD (D UD (D CD N rw /^ V' 3 (D o o c0 o 0 0 CD � ? � W M V co 0 2 V n � �• (D O (ND 0ND v w (Nn A w �, n n v Z 0> m 0 ca CD V O (D 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 C) 4 o a to (D co Appendix C Two Years of Flow Data Rocky River Regional WWTP Mt. Pleasant Pump Station Meter CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Rocky River Regional WWTP Monthly Plant Flows Source: Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Meter Readings from Flume 3 less recycle flow C D M Camp Dresser & McKee 2/24/99 Mt. Pleasant Flow Meter Weekly Flow in mgd 1/1/97 1.273 1/1/98 no data 1.716 2/1/98 2.505 1.549 1.577 1.34 2.242 1.413 1.713 2/1 /97 1.432 3/1 /98 1.935 2.522 1.749 1.615 2.237 2.145 1.446 3/1 /97 1.657 0.403 1.578 4/1 /98 0.896 1.58 1.662 1.295 1.916 4/1 /97 1.138 1.831 1.229 0.848 1.27 5/1/98 0.564 1.645 1.644 1.544 1.463 5/1 /97 0.924 1.429 1.27 1.098 1.311 6/1 /98 1.253 1.324 1.154 1.022 1.144 6/1 /97 1.183 0.985 1.302 0.2736 1.015 7/1/98 0.796 1.379 1.087 7/1 /97 0.913 1.205 1.258 1.279 1.17 0.792 1.346 8/1/98 0.421 0.836 1.134 8/1 /97 0.482 1.216 1.275 1.173 1.224 1.206 1.312 0.1547 1.375 9/1 /98 1.396 9/1 /97 1.005 0.982 1.363 1.253 1.239 1.253 1.641 0.6646 10/1/97 1.257 10/1/98 0.679 1.185 1.333 1.625 1.258 1.556 1.218 1.504 1.215 11 /1 /97 1.397 11 /1 /98 1.337 1.574 1.206 1.659 1.24 1.348 1.051 12/1/97 1.439 12/1/98 1.247 1.539 1.179 1.296 1.267 2.215 1.493 0.464 Appendix D Results of SSES Study Section III - Final Report ADS, September 1998 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee SECTION III RESULTS OF THE STUDY A. GENERAL RESULTS A total of 591 defects were located while conducting this study. These defects can be divided into four groups as follows: Service Defects Service defects are typically inflow sources that are rather inexpensive to repair. Service defects are not significant within the Mt. Pleasant system. Two types of service line defects were more dominant than others. Cleanouts can normally be repaired by replacing cleanout caps. Broken or cracked pipe can be repaired by digging up a section of pipe and replacing it. Manhole Defects Manhole defects are significant in the collection system. These defects are typically a combination of infiltration and inflow and are also fairly inexpensive to repair. Several types of manhole defects were noted: Manhole Lids - About one-third of the manholes inspected were observed to be vented and subject to sheeting, runoff or ponding. Manhole inserts should be installed in these manholes. Defective Manhole Castings - The manhole casting is the metal portion of a manhole in which the lid is seated. A frequent problem is this casting separating, in some way, from the manhole cone. This separation can be severe, requiring realignment, or less severe, only needing to be sealed. Manhole Wall - Most of the manhole walls in the collection system are precast. A minority of the walls are brick. Leaks develop in riser connections between precast sections and in the mortar space between bricks . If these leaks are isolated then they can be individually plugged. If they are more widespread then they should be plugged and the entire wall grouted. An additional problem noticed at precast manholes is that the plugs at lift holes are defective (or non-existent) and should be replaced. Manhole/Line Connections - Some leaks were observed at the point where the sewer pipe connects to the manhole wall. Many of these are located inside the manhole and can be repaired by hand grouting. Many are also located outside of the manhole and require the line connection to be excavated and point -repaired. Main Line Defects Main line defects are typically infiltration sources that are usually expensive to repair. Most of those defects were located in the older portion of the system east of Main Street identified by WSACC as being in potentially poor condition. This is the area in which TV inspection was concentrated. Several typical types of mainline defects were observed: Defective Joints - The joints between main line pipe sections (usually 3-4 LF) are high stress points. These joints can become misaligned or the joint sealing material can deteriorate. If separation or misalignment does not exceed 1" then this type of problem can be corrected by air testing, by III-1 which joints are tested for potential leaking, and grouting, by which joints are actually sealed. If roots are present, then a de -rooting agent should be included with the grout. Cracked/Broken/Collapsed Pipe - These types of defects can typically be repaired by excavating a section of pipe and replacing it (point repair). In a standard length pipe (250-400 LF), up to three point repairs should be conducted. If more than three point repairs are required, then full pipe rehabilitation should be conducted such as total replacement or lining. Pipe is considered to be cracked if the cracks are present but all of the pipe is still intact. Pipe is broken if the pipe remains structurally sound but sections of pipe are missing. Pipe is collapsed if the pipe is no longer round or structural integrity no longer exists. Cracked and broken pipe can generally be lined. Collapsed pipe usually must be point repaired or replaced. In deciding whether to install liners, the number of service line connections was considered since each service/line connection can be quite expensive. • Defective Service Connections - Most defective service connections are the result of "hammer service taps." It was standard practice in the past to break a hole in the main line and tap a service line into place. It was thought that groundwater entering the pipe would help keep a minimum flow in the pipe and thus help keep the pipe clean. This has created obvious problems with infiltration. However, the resulting protruding service line is also a problem whether or not leakage occurs. It reduces hydraulic efficiency and, therefore, capacity, and should be excavated and replaced with a "factory" connection. Incidents of root intrusion were noted to occur at service connections. These connections should also be excavated and replaced. The existence of defective service connections is the primary reason for some line segments being recommended for replacement. • Swag - A depression or belly in the mainline segment. Swags reduce the capacity of the segment. Maintenance Problems Grease and/or debris has been noted in this collection system. While this does not contribute any 1/I, it does reduce hydraulic efficiency. The net effect on capacity can be more than a large inflow source. Affected pipe should be systematically cleaned. The SSES has been completed and each leaking defect has been assigned an 1/1 quantification. These values form the basis for all individual leak quantifications. The rehabilitation cost analysis conducted as a part of this study utilizes these quantifications. It results in a ranking which compares one leak with another leak and how mini - systems compare with each other. These rankings should be used to aid the City in developing a rehabilitation program. The 1/1 removal rates are useful for comparison purposes but should be used with discretion if for any other purpose. W MT. PLEASANT SSES Rehab Method Occurrence Summary Total Project 4 September 1998 14:24:29 Page 1 Rehabilitation Method Total 1/1 1/1 Rehab Rank Occurrences Quantified Removable Cost (GPD) (GPD) MANHOLE DEFECTS 25 Plug Lift Holes In Precast MH Sections 2 5,184 4,147 550 7.54 9 Realign & Seal MH Frame 11 9,720 8,747 5,530 1.58 21 Repair Leaks MH Cone Joints 1 1,152 864 550 1.57 1 Install Inflow Dish @ MH Cover 74 25,166 22,663 16,280 1.39 13 Plug & Waterproof -Coat MH Chimney 10 5,760 4,320 3,132 1.38 31 Repair Leaks - MH Bench 1 576 432 330 1.31 12 Seal Casting -To -Cone 17 6,624 5,957 5,610 1.06 6 Install MH Frame & Cover - Std 3 1,555 1,400 1,320 1.06 392 Plug & Waterproof Coat Entire Manhole 38 41,616 31,212 30,744 1.02 11 Seal Casting -To -Chimney 8 2,880 2,590 2,640 0.98 27 Seal Precast MH Joints 5 1,584 1,188 1,925 0.62 28 Remove MH Steps & Seal Holes 1 288 230 385 0.60 18 Plug & Waterproof -Coat MH Cone 16 7,488 5,990 10,980 0.55 24 Plug & Waterproof -Coat MH Walls 3 864 648 1,500 0.43 26 Repair Leaks - MH Wall 1 288 216 550 0.39 5 Replace Missing MH Cover Bolts 10 0 0 1,650 0.00 29 Replace MH Steps 49 0 0 26,950 0.00 Subtotals 250 110,745 90,604 110,626 0.82 MAINLINE DEFECTS 47 Repair MH/Pipe Connection - Internal 4 4,608 3,456 2,200 1.57 49 Repair Storm/Mainline Cross -Connection 4 11,520 10,368 9,450 1.10 43 Mainline Point Repair 7 8,352 5,846 7,875 0.74 696 Replace Entire Mainline 7 66,240 52,992 94,404 0.56 46 Repair MH/Pipe Connection - External 11 9,216 6,912 12,400 0.56 45 Repair Faulty Mainline Tap 11 6,048 4,232 9,875 0.43 693 Install Cured -In -Place Liner 3 22,320 17,855 42,855 0.42 73 Point Repair Service Line 2 1,008 562 1,850 0.30 41 De -root, Test, & Grout Mainline 56 84,960 42,480 144,758 0.29 ,40 Clean, Test, & Grout Mainline 116 82,728 41,364 169,642 0.24 Subtotals 221 297,000 186,067 495,309 0.38 MUNICIPAL SERVICE DEFECTS ,47 Repair MH/Pipe Connection - Internal 4 2,880 2,160 2,200 0,98 80 Replace Clean Cap/Cover 1 101 91 110 0.83 1146 Repair MH/Pipe Connection - External 2 1,440 1,080 2,125 0.51 73 Point Repair Service Line 6 2,016 1,816 6,300 0.29 MT. PLEASANT SSES Rehab Method Occurrence Summary Total Project 4 September 1998 14:24:29 Page 2 Rehabilitation Method Total 1/1 1/1 Rehab Rank Occurrences quantified Removable Cost (GPD) (GPD) MUNICIPAL SERVICE DEFECTS Subtotals PRIVATE SERVICE DEFECTS 80 Replace Clean Cap/Cover 73 Point Repair Service Line 78 Repair, Replace, Install Cleanout 72 Plug Abandoned Service @ Property Line 75 Point Repair Storm/Svc Cross Connection Subtotals Totals 13 6,437 5,147 10,735 0.48 5 1,743 1,569 550 2.85 4 4,666 4,200 2,200 1.91 4 2,981 2,981 1,760 1.69 8 5,616 5,054 3,520 1.44 1 720 720 825 0.87 22 15,726 14,524 8,855 1.64 506 429,908 296,342 625,525 0.47 B. SPECIFIC RESULTS MT. PLEASANT COLLECTION SYSTEM INVENTORY Total Footage: 72,041 If Vitrified Clay & PVC Pipe Diameter Range: 6 to 14 inches Total Manholes: 293 Unlocated: 39 Buried: 11 Surcharged: 1 Did not inspect: 23 WORK PERFORMED Physical Inspection: 220 Manholes Wet weather inspection: 0 Hours Smoke Testing: 72041 If Flow isolation: 26 Micro -Systems Dye Tests: 0 Line Cleaning: 6948 If TV Inspection: 6948 If RESULTS Total # of VI Producing Defects: 447 Inflow Infil Number GGPPDj GPD Main Line: 219 10024 2a5768 Manhole: 191 60069 50676 Service Line: 37 83053 10512 Total # of Structural & Main Line: 14 Maintenance Defects: 144 Manhole: 130 Service: 0 COMMENTS The older section of sewer located in the downtown area in the vicinity of the intersection of Hwy 73 and Main Street is thought to be defective. TV inspection was conducted within this area east of Main Street. This area did reveal considerable defective sewer. Almost every joint was either offset or contained roots. Most line segments contained defective service connections. Open holes were also observed. Other significant defects are scattered throughout the system. Most involve manholes. Over half of the manholes had a defective frame, chimney, cone or wall. Many of these had more than one defect. Manhole lids were also observed to contribute inflow. Seventy-four (74) vented lids were noted as being subject to sheeting, runoff or ponding. Fifty (50) manholes were either buried or could not be located. This limits the opportunity to evaluate the condition of the system. RECOMMENDATIONS • Priority #1 - Conduct comprehensive rehabilitation in the older areas of sewer east of Main Street • Priority #2 - Conduct prioritized rehabilitation on remaining defects with a ranking greater than 1.0 • Priority #3 - Conduct flow isolation and TV inspection on the older areas of sewer west of Main Street • Priority #4 — Conduct prioritized rehabilitation on remaining defects with a ranking less than 1.0 C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mt. Pleasant is thought to be a major contributor of 1/I. In order to determine when this 1/1 is most significant, flow isolation was conducted throughout the system. While this isolation was not conclusive, due to low groundwater conditions, the older section of sewer in the downtown area was noted to contribute more infiltration than other areas. This was as expected. For this reason, the area of sewer east of Main Street, along Highway 73 and Lee Street, was selected for TV inspection. It is believed to be representative of other older sewers. TV inspection did reveal considerable defective sewers in this area. Therefore, this area is recommended for Priority #1 rehabilitation. Rehabilitation should be comprehensive. The remaining older sewer is also believed to be defective. Additional flow isolation and TV inspection should be conducted to confirm the condition of this pipe. Other significant defects were noted throughout the system. The Priority #2 summary which follows lists those defects with a ranking greater than 1.0. Remaining defects should be repaired as budgets permit. BE Appendix E Minutes of Mt. Pleasant Board of Commissioners Meeting February 15, 1999 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee L Scott Barringer Mayor P. O. BOX 7 MOUNT PLEEASQ>'T;iAlO -C LINA 28124 TOWN OF MT. PLEASANT CALLED MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1999 7:00 PM — TOWN HALL Phone (704) 436-9803 Fax (704)436-2921 Visitors present: John Murdock, Shelley Williamson, Dianne Mills, Sandy Tripp, Matt Goad Commissioner present: Kay Scott, Bobo Allmon, A. L. Kluttz, Cindy Cook, Whit Moose Staff Present: Scott Barringer — Mayor Cathy Whittington — Clerk to the Board Mayor Barringer opened the meeting and led in prayer. The minutes of the January 26, 1999 special called meeting were approved with the correction of the word "negotiations" in the last paragraph. Commissioner Scott made a motion to approve with the correction. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Dianne Mills, with Camp Dresser & McKee, gave an update on the water and sewer grant applications. The deadline to have the applications submitted is March 31, 1999 and the plans and specifications are due by June 1, 1999. Mt. Pleasant has set a target date of March 1, 1999 to have the applications ready to submit. Commissioner Moose made the motion to approve a resolution to reimburse the Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County for application and related engineering costs not to exceed $29,500.00. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Commissioner Cook made the motion to approve a resolution to reimburse the Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County for design engineering costs not to exceed $361,700.00 when the grant funds are available. Commissioner Moose seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Commissioner Scott made the motion to approve a resolution to apply for grant funds for renovation and improvements to the WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Commissioner Kluttz made the motion to approve a resolution to apply for grant funds for renovation and improvements to the WASTE WATER SYSTEM. Commissioner Allmon seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Commissioner Scott made a motion to increase the water and sewer rates effective February 1, 1999 as follows. The base rate for water and sewer will be $11.95 for the first 2000 gallons. After the first 2000 gallons, water rates will be calculated at 2.40 per thousand gallons. The sewer rates will be calculated at $3.70 per thousand gallons after the first 2000 gallons. The outside water rates will be double the inside rates ($23.90 for first 2000 gallons and $4.80 per thousand gallons after the first 2000 gallons) with the sewer rates being the same as inside rates. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion with all board members in favor. (5-0) Mayor Barringer reported to the board that he was on the agenda for the Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County to ask their board to consider consolidation of the town's collection and distribution system with WSACC's. This meeting is February 18, 1999 at Northwest Cabarrus High School at 5:00 PM. He encouraged all board members that could to attend this meeting. With no other business the meeting was adjourned until March 1, 1999. Scott Barringer, Mayor Cathy Whittington, Clerk to the Board DRAFT COPY ONLY