NC0036277_Permit Modification_20040109

WDES DOCUMENT SCAMMIM& COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0036277
McDowell Creek WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 9, 2004
ThiB document In printed on reuse paper - ig=zore aay
coaitezzt on the re,%rerse aide

�oFwArFq
�U' G
•co 0
w
r NCDENR
o �
Mr. Barry Gullet, Deputy Director
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28216
Dear Mr. Gullet:
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
January 9, 2004
Subject: Major Modification Issuance
NPDES Permit No. NCO036277
CMU McDowell Creek WWI?
Mecklenburg County
The subject individual NPDES permit issued on March 9, 2001 has been modified as per your request.
Please find attached the modified sections of this permit, and replace the old pages with the modified pages. This
permit modification, effective immediately, is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute
143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency dated May 921994 (and as subsequently amended). I .
The following modifications have been made to your permit:
• Addition of phased effluent sheets for 6.6 MGD, 9.0 MGD, and 12.0 MGD. The permittee prepared a
SEPA Environmental Assessment for the proposed expansion to 12 MGD, and the Division issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this proposed expansion on 9/25/2003. Please note that
the facility will still need to obtain an Authorization to Operate at 6.6 MGD (based on a facility re -rating)
and Authorization to Construct permits for upgrades to 9 MGD and 12 MGD. Finally, the facility will
need toIobtain a Non -Discharge permit for the proposed distribution of up to 3 MGD of reuse water
following plant upgrades.
• Development of mass -based nutrient limits for phased flow based on extensive modeling. The model
endpoint was to have 10% or less of model predictions exceed the water quality standard of 40 ug/1 for
chlorophyll -a. The phased nutrient limits represent load reductions from current permitted loads for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus.
• Application of best available technology limits of 4.2 mg/l CBODS and 1 mg/1 NH3-N for phased
flows.
• Application of limits more stringent than secondary requirements for phased flow for TSS and fecal
coliform.
• Effluent limits for mercury, TRC, and chronic toxicity were adjusted at phased flows based on applicable
instream waste concentration.
• Addition of weekly average ammonia limits (in addition to existing monthly average limits) per ammonia
permitting strategy dated 10/15/2002. The weekly average is based on multiplying the monthly average
limit by a factor of 3x. Both limits are an EPA requirement, and will be applied at all permitted flows.
• Specify daily monitoring by grab sample for pH compliance monitoring at all permitted flows.
• Deletion of the mercury footnote on the 6 MGD effluent sheet regarding the quantitation limit, since
this facility is now subject to low level mercury analysis by EPA Method 1631.
• Deletion of Part A(3)- Instream Monitoring, since the instream monitoring requirements were
reformatted and shifted into the individual effluent sheets.
• Change the permit expiration date to December 31, 2008.
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center 1 800 623-7748

PEA
..rage 2 of 2
NCW36277
January 9, 2004
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of
this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain
other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Tom Belnick at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 543.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Tom Beinick
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Cc: Mooresville Regional Office/Water Quality Section.
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Mecklenburg County Health Department
Aquatic Toxicology Unit .,
NPDES Unit
Central Files

z Permit NCO036277
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
r) vl%/f TT
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,
City of Charlotte
(Charlotte-Necklenbvxg Utilities)
is hereby authorized. to discharge wastewater from a facility located. at the
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment. Plant
NCSR 2074
Huntersville
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as McDowell Creek in the Catawba River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 9, 2004.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2008.
Signed this day,January 9, 2004.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Tom BeInick
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO036977 _Y
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this NPDES permit. The
conditions, requirements, terms and provisions of this NPDES permit governs surface water
discharges from this facility. All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility bearing this
permit number, whether for operation or discharge, are hereby revoked.
City of Charlotte (Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities) is hereby authorized
to:
1. Continue to operate the existing 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility
consisting of:
• Mechanical bar screens
• grit removal
• primary clarifiers
• Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) system
• tertiary filtration ; • • .
• final clarifiers
• ; anaerobic sludge digestion
• mechanical sludge thickening and dewatering equipment ,
sand drying beds ;
• 'UV disinfection
This facility is located at McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, on SR
2074, 4901 Neck Road, near the Town* of Huntersville in Mecklenburg County
2. After receiving an Authorization to Operate, operate the existing wastewater .
treatment facility for a permitted flow of 6.6 MGD; and
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct, construct and operate the
wastewater treatment facility for permitted flow expansions to 9.0 MGD and
12.0 MGD; and
4. After receiving a Non -Discharge Permit for reclaimed water use, operate
facilities to distribute up to 3 MGD of reclaimed wastewater in accordance
with the applicable Non -Discharge permit; and
5. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into McDowell Creek, which is classified WS-1V CA waters in the
Catawba River Basin. �;, ; r ; ;_� �•�

NC00036277 - CMU McDowell Creek
1 atdude:
W22'52" Sub -Basin 03-08-33
LongiWde:
60"56'25"
Ouad M:
F15NW/lake Norman South
Shim Class:
WS-IVCA
Remivi Shraim McDowell Creek
Facility:
Location F
Ch
Northe lope nbi NCO03 es
N0003 EC77
77 t
CMU -McDowell Creek W W7'P

Permit NC0036277 '.
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until either 1) receipt of
Authorization to Operate at 6.6 MGD; 2) receipt of Engineer's Certificate of construction completion at expanded
flow; or 3) permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
{
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BODs 20'C 2 Summer
5.0 m
7.5 m L
Daily
Composite
E, I
BODs 202C 2 [Winterl
10.0 m /L
15.0 m /L
Daily
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 m /L
45.0 m L
Daily
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N Summer
2.0 m L
6.0 m I
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N inter
2.5 m
7.5 m
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform(geometric mean
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
20 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature 4C
Dail
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
10.0 m L
MonthlyComposite
E
Total Phosphorus
1.0 ma/L.
Monthlycomposite
site
• . E
Chronic Toxic'QuarterlyComposite..
,
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab"
E
Total Copper
`
2/Month
Composite .'
E
Total Silver
..
2/Month
Composite
.. E
Total Zinc
� �
2/Month
Com aske �
� E
Total Mercury .
0.014 µg/L .
Weekly
Grab
E
PH
Between 6.0 to 9.0 standard
units
Dal
Grab
E
Dissolved oxygen
Tem' erature °C
Conductivi
Chloro h Iba Summer
Veekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Grab
Grab'
Grab
Grab
U, D
U, D
U, D
D
Total Phosphorus [Surnmerl
Monthly
Grab
D
NH3-N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
TKN Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NO2 + NO3 as N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at Beatties Ford Road, D- Downstream at Neck Rd.
2 The monthly average effluent BOD5 and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
9 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4 Limit and monitoring only apply if effluent is chlorinated.
5 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 85 % effluent concentration shall be conducted quarterly (January,
April, July and October). Refer to Part A.(5).
[Summer] = April 1- October 31
[Winter] = November 1- March 31
Total Nitrogen = NOa + NO3 + TKN
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO036277
A. (2) EFFLUENT MUTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning upon receipt of an Authorization to Operate at 6.6 MGD and lasting until either 1)
receipt of an Engineer's Certificate of construction completion at an expanded flow or 2) permit expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
.R ...
MOTORIST ,=
_
MONfi;��t , Q j
Flow
6.6 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBODs 209C 2 Summer
4.2 m L
6.3 m /L
Daily
Composite
E, I
CBODs 209C 2 Winter
8.3 m L
12.4 m
Daily
Com osite
E, I
Total Suspended Re$idue2
15.0 m /L
22.5 m L
Daily
Composite
E,
NH3as N
1.0 m L
3.0 mgA
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved NygeW ;
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform eor0etric mean
100 / 100 ml
200 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlodne4
20 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
-Temperature 'C)
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen Summer
450 lbstday
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen Winter
500 lbs/da
Monthly
Com nsite
E
Total Phos horns Summer-
35. lbs/day
Monthly
Com osita
E
Total Phosphorus DMnterl
40 lbsiday
Monthly
Composite .
E
Chronic Toxicitys
Quarterly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
composite.-.
E
Total Silver..
2/Month
composite : =
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite -
E
Total Mercury
0.014 µg/l
Weekly
Grab
E
PH
Between 6.0 to 9.0 standard
units
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved 0 en .
Weekly
Grab
• U; D
Temperature °C
Weekly
Grab
. U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Chloro h Il-a Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Total Phosphorus Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NH3-N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
TKN Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NO2 + NO3 as N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at Beatties Ford Road, D- Downstream at Neck Rd.
2 The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
8 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4 Limit and monitoring only apply if effluent is chlorinated.
s Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 86 % effluent concentration shall be conducted quarterly (January,
April, July and October). Refer to Part A.(5).
[Summer] = April 1- October 31
[Winter) = November 1- March 31
Total Nitrogen = NO2 + NO3 + TKN
Lbs/day= Pounds/Day
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO036277
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LINIITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS % Y
t
During the period beginning upon receipt of an Engineer's Certificate of construction completion at an expanded
flow of 9.0 MGD and lasting until 1) receipt of an Engineer's Certificate of construction completion at an
expanded flow or 2) permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Cfiisfils
ESP `' it
I _NOT
-
/
r f
_
It
6411.
Flow
9.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBODs 202C 2 Summer
4.2 m L
6.3 m /L
Daily
composite
E, I
CBODs 202C z Winter
8.3 m /L
12.4 m /L
Daily
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended ResiduO
12.0 m L
18.0 m L
Daily
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N
1.0 m /L
3.0 m I
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Dail
Grab
E
Fecal Cordorm(geometric mean
100 / 100 ml
200 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine4
19 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen Summer
450 lbs/day
Monthly
Comp2site
E
Total Nitrogen inter
500 lbstdav
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus [Summer],
22 lbs/day
Monthly
Composite!..
E
Total Phosphorus inter
27 Ibs/da '
Monthly
Composite -
...:; E
Chronic Toxicitys
Quarterly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab.
E
Total Co r
. 2/Month
Com psite
E
Total Silver
. 2/Month
Co m bite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month -
Composite
E
Total Mercury
0.013 µg/L -
Weekly
Grab' .. , :
E
PH
Between 6.0 to 9.0 standard
units
Daily
Grab'
E
Dissolved -.Oxygen
Weekly
Grab`.
:U, D
Temperature 2C
Weekly
Grab -
U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Chloro h II -a Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Total Phosphorus Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NH3-N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
TKN Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NO2 + NO3 as N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at Beatties Ford Road, D- Downstream at Neck Rd.
2The monthly average effluent CBOD.5 and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4 Limit and monitoring only apply if effluent is chlorinated.
s Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 89 % effluent concentration shall be conducted quarterly (January,
April, July and October). Refer to Part A.(5).
[Summer] = April 1- October 31
[Winter] = November 1- March 31
Total Nitrogen = NO2 + NOs + TKN
Lbs/day= Pounds/Day
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

f
Permit NCO036277
A. (4.) EFFLUENT MUTATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
P
During the period beginning upon receipt of an Engineers Certificate of construction completion at an expanded
flow of 12.0 MGD and lasting until permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated
wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified
below:
fit• .-..SIFT
rX
4r��r
uA
= `...J 4
yc �.1, y., !`
j�.
•L
Flow
12.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBODs 20°C 2 Summer
4.2 m /L
6.3 m /L
Daily
Composite
E,
CBODs 20°C 2 Winter
8.3 m /L
12.4 m L
Daily
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Residue2
9.0 m L
13.5 m L
Daily
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N
1.0 m L
3.0 mgA
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3 ;
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform eorWric mean
100 / 100 ml
200 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlortne4
19 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen Summer
450 lbs/day
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen inter
500 lbs/day
Monthly
Composite
E
Total -Phos horus Summer
27 lbs/day
Monthly
Com site:.:
E
Total Phosphorus . inter -
32 (bstday
Monthly
. Composite.....
..E
Chronic ToxiciV
Quarterly
Composite
r E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab.**--. ::
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Com oaite.:
_. E
Total Silver
2/Month
Composite-
E
Total Zinc
21Month
Com oosite
--E
-Total'Mercury .....
0.013 µg/l-
,.Weekly
Grob,
E
H
Between 6.0 to 9.0:Mandard
units.
Daily
Grab
E
Zissolved-Oxygdn
Weekly
Grab .
:: U; D
Temperature 'C
Weekly
Gtab
U, D
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Chlor ' h ll-a Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Total Phosphorus Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
NH3-N[Summer]
Monthly
Grab
D
TKN Summer
Month
Grab
D
NO2 + NO3 as N Summer
Monthly
Grab
D
Footnotes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at Beatties Ford Road, D- Downstream at Neck Rd.
2 The monthly average effluent CBODs and total suspended residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
s The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4 Limit and monitoring only apply if effluent is chlorinated.
s Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90 % effluent concentration shall be conducted quarterly (January,
April, July and October). Refer to Part A.(5).
[Summer] = April 1- October 31
[Winter] = November 1- March 31
Total Nitrogen = NOz + NO3 + TKN
Lbs/day= Pounds/Day
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0036377
A. (5.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LINUTS (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at the following effluent concentration(s):
Pik " -eiio ..
..: _ st Qricentraion
Fs t TC ne
6.0 MGD
85%
6.6 MGD
86%
9.0 MGD
89%
12.0 MGD
90%
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Certodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent
versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of January, April, July and October. Effluent
sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months
as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February
1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that
_ . does. have a detectable irripairmcot of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment;"
collection methods; exposure regimes, and. further statistical methods are specified .in the "North Carolina Phase
II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.*
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring form (MR-1) for the months -in which -tests were performed, using the parameter- Bode TGP3B`-for the
pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is- to be .sent to the.
following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division .of Water Quality
• Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no;later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is
employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the
facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at
the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an
invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month
following the month of the initial monitoring.

I
4((yp S)
The Knight Publishing Co., Inc.
Charlotte, NC
North Carolina ) as Affidavit of Publication
Mecklenburg County)
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
--------------------------------------- ___________+-__
NCDENR/DWO/BUDGET OFFICE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1617
REFERENCE: 30019881
4976583 public notice
.The GN al Ntamerle; NC Iws eppliea la ieirewel N NPDE6 permll
NCtxfl rol br ib llCtenown water Treatment Plant in Slanfy coon.
ty. The Ix ity In peniitlerl to disonon,o treated filter badiJuvash hom
one aumall bpo aw Yedltht R. Crtd loweReserver)intheYaddn-
Poe cee Bier Amin. CuneWn� total leedu3l 0W. n woler
Ilmpad. This discharge may Moot /Wore oll t000 In this patlgt M
,the watsrsheltl...
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of the Knight Publishing Company a
corporation organized and doing business under thel
Laws of the State of Delaware, and publishing a
newspaper known as The Charlotte Observer in the
city of Charlotte, County of Mecklenburg and State
of North Carolina and that as such he/she is
familiar with the books, records, files and
business of said Corporation and by reference to
the files of said publication
the attached advertisement was inserted. The
following is correctly copied from the books and
files of the aforesaid Corporation and
Publication. I
PUBLISHED ON: 11/08
AD SPACE: 220 LINE
FILED ON: 11/11/03
The AMge Power Corl¢r�pq, Ioo (Po. Box 5]a, aztlh, NC 2amm9 has
fcw rr �CNOP�OrE�yS pemia "EMI
for mo High
through mo:kg watermtlre Vadd ft�Cnrs3iarossp
Basin. This tlLVJiaga mayamna hRwe albralbig in Ihie (wrtgn W the
YadMin Peo-cee iBverBaJn.
The CIN of Moivoe, tlbNr CagirvY t�a,applisa for rerrox-d ct NPOES
pem�d 1 mt ps John Clenn WaWr Treahmnt P In unan
CoimN. Tlla fe idy is permMW totl M rgo treamd filler barhwesh
vramrhom one outFWl lnm St." Creek In the Yadkln- s No(iiv;
ersooi.. CurrenHv19 residtul chlorine is water quaply limped. This
dectwgo may aaaKcecctt hdws alboa(bns In N's porporl oI Me watershed.
IP4aTGYiT
�l-I-c-it
NAME: u ,ice TITLE: ff C LF Uw li
DATE: ll�l3 �e3
In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal, the
day and y ar aforesaid. II.� �
Mots r _ vls���y Commission Expires:
i
Cumminkm Exoirns Adw 27

The Charlotte Post Publishing Company INVOICE
P.O.Box 30144
Charlotte, NC 28230
[phone]
IRVOICe N0. ABC•168646-%VZ
Wants. Ending. Dale 11/06/03
ACCOUNT NO. 000001941
I
NC Dept of Natural Resources
Attn: Velery Stephens NOV 12 ZLat3
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
ALL INVOICE BALANCES ARE NET
TERMS
30 days
DATE
Qty,
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
UNITPRICE
EXTENDED
11/06/03
409.00
wits
public notice char -mock utilities
0.70
286.30
COMMENTS
SUBTOTAL
286.30
Thank you for prompt remittance.
To ensure proper credit - please enclosed tap part
of Invoice with payment. Thank you.
EMAIL: business Olhecharlottepost.com
SALES TAX
0.00
misc.
0.00
INVOICE TOTAL
286.30
PURfdC NOTICE
6TATE OF NONfII CAR A
ENYmON ISSION,M Urin'NT
COM 188I06,' G9 UNR
l61] I LSE CECENTER
RA NC 2]6"
'� NanFTunouoFlrvTrxnomTreArvroE9
WA4'ItIVATFJIP9U4T
Da Nn basis of thorough staff mview and
application of NC General Statute 143.21.
public has 92.5W and other Iawfulalandords
and elularmar; the Nonh Carolina
. Environmental Management Convulsion
...pares to. issue . National Puliumm
Discharge Elimination Sysmrn (NPDES)
wsste,ow, dhelce,8e permit to Ne persmi fsl
listed haloes oficerlec 45 daysfrom the.
pubksb date of this notice.
Written. eomthe, nfa regrading the proposed
permitwille of
notice.
liI nfmrthe
publish doe of (his notice. All comments
received t item that dam arc garde nW in
the Gnat. oulL colons regrading the
pmgosed permit. The Director of the NC
Di vision ofWamr Quality maydecide t.hold
a public meeting For the proposed esmut
shoulddegree 0e Division meatus. a rigniticant
Degree of publiv' intemst
Copies of the draft permit and other
supposing infmmauon on file used to
determine conditions pmsemt in the daft
permit are ae.il.ble-upna request and
paymont of she ma[ at ¢production Mail
comment, a.war "main for infomntian to
the NC Division of Water Quality in me
above unions, nr call Ms. Valery Stephens. of
(9191 733.5093. exmn+ion 520. please
include fne NPDPS pecan' number (hmche.D
N any manumtired.m. Imetcaeti'un.np
"may.1. aint the Division of Water Quality
at 512 N. Salisbury' Suec4 Raleigh, NC
27hod.1148 bctw'een the hours of 8:00.aat.
and 5.00 p.m, to review interconnect aq Die.
Chhlotte-Me ldmuntrg Ufiliues, 4000
We nrommf Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217, has
_ applied for «newid of its NPDES permit for
the mallard Creek Water Redamation
facility. This facility is Currently permitted
dimhargeis maximomaf S U MUD o, lmated
was¢wntvm Mallard Creek, a class C water
m the Ym kimP. Dec River Basin. DOD.
aeanomn andmercury ore cunendywater
guant, houted. rd, i iadedge may impact
foram allocation oFro, receiving smeam.
Charlotte Meeklenbmg Utilities. 5810
Bewkshise.Bwlevhd, Chasume, NC'-8216,
has applied for as mndiffieratins m "DES
permit NC003627/, toexpend the discharge
of mated waskwhn hem its McDowell
Creek W WIY. TL"u fuciliry dischatgrs to
MCDowe0 Creek in the Catawba River
Basin...Some pamemters am water gwlity
IimimA
Livingstone Curving Coagulation
(NCW86W2) has applied for maewel of its
permit discharging an an unnamed tributary
Of Lang Creek within Ne Cafawah lure,
Rosin. The pammner, Toml Nickel, is whet
quality limited. This duchmge may strait
hnure aliaeetimw to this 1t¢ivingbtieam.

•
CHARLOTTE -
December 10, 2003
Mr. Tom Belnick
N.C. Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit NCO036277
Dear Tom:
We have reviewed the DRAFT Major Modification for the subject NPDES permit.
Following are our comments based on our review:
1. On the Permit Cover Sheet and the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet, "Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Utilities" is listed as the permittee. We suggest that this name be listed
as "City of Charlotte (Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities)".
2. On the Permit Cover Sheet, the expiration date is listed as February 28, 2005. This i
permit will therefore only be in effect for about one year, with a required permit k
renewal to be submitted 6 months prior to expiration. We request that the expiration
date for this permit be extended.
On the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet, the listing of equipment operating at the
existing wastewater treatment facility should include "mechanical sludge thickening
and dewatering equipment".
4. On the three separate tables of Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for
the expanded. capacities of 6.6 mgd, 9.0 mgd, and 12.0 mgd, we have the following
comments:
a. In the cover letter to the draft permit, the limit of technology for CBOD5 is
listed as 4.3 mg/L. Based on this, we request the CBOD5 limits be written as
follows:
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Avera e
CBOD5 20°C Summer
4.3 m /L
6.4 m /L
CBODS 20°C Winter
8.6 m /L
12.9 m /L
b. We request that the Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus limits be written as
seasonal, rolling averages similar to other permits written for the City of
Charlotte.
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department

{
a
We appreciate your assistance in preparing this permit modification. Please contact us if
there is any additional information required.
Sincerely,
CHARLGTT�E MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
J ckie Jarrell, P.E.
C: Barry Gullet Y ,
Dave Parker, Black & Veatch '
File

Ja�tEn ST��s
o u
e
z;Fir ` or
1� PflOTE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
DEC 1 6 2003
Mr. Tom Belnick
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
McDowell Creek WWTP
Permit No. NCO036277
Dear Mr. Belnick
o
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft permit
referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional review
opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance or if significant
comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final permit when
issued.
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (UnL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Pdnled wkh Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnknum 30% Posleonsunrer)

Re: comments on NC0036277, McDowell Creek WWTP
Subject: Re: comments on NC0036277, McDowell Creek WWTP
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:25:16 -0500
To: [e-mail]
Hi Marshall. I've provided responses below to your review comments. Let me know if these responses
suffice.
[e-mail] wrote:
hope these are useful. will you be able to respond to these by the end
of next week? thanks Marshall
1. The fact sheet mentions that a priority pollutant analysis was done
in Oct 2003. Are the results available yet? They were not included in
the materials that were sent here.
RESPONSE: Another round of priority pollutant sampling was conducted 10/9/03 and DWQ received
the analytical results on 12/8/2003. There were no detections of volatile or semivolatile compounds. I
mailed a copy of the results to you today (12/15/2003).
2. The permit allows for facility expansion. The fact sheet does
indicate that an alternatives analysis was done and that NC has
determined that the expansion(s) will not result in significant
environmental impacts. However, 40 CFR Part 131.12(a)(2) requires that
a specific determination be made that allowing lower water quality is
necessary to accommodate important social or economic development in the
area in which the waters are located. I cannot tell if that
determination is contained in the SEPA Environmental Assessment. The
fact sheet does not indicate that that determination has been made.
Such a determination has been made in other NC permits regarding
facility expansions. If the fact sheet is not modified to indicate such
a determination, EPA must object under the authority of 40 CFR Parts
123.44(c)(1), (3), and (7) because the requirements of 40 CFR Part
131.12(a)(2) have not been met. Will you amend the fact sheet to
include this determination and send me the proposed revision?
RESPONSE: I will update the Fact Sheet to include the following statement: "The Division has
determined that the proposed expansion is necessary to accomodate social and economic growth in the
area and that it will not result in contravention of surface water quality standards or loss of designated
uses in the receiving stream."
3. In the permit, shouldn't "total suspended residue" be "total
suspended solids"?
RESPONSE: we've used both interchangeably, but I'll change to TSS.
4. Shouldn't "total N" be expressed as "total N as N" and shouldn't
"total P" be expressed as "total P as P"?
RESPONSE: Not necessary. We've had no problems with data when limits are given as TP or TN. Labs
1 of 2 12/ 16/2003 9:26 AM

Re: comments on NC0036277, McDowell Creek WWTP
have been reporting in correct units (as TN or as TP). I don't know of any instances where a lab has
reported TN as NH3 or TKN, or TP as PO4.
5. re the total P limits, it seems strange to me that the mass allowed
for both summer and winter goes up as the facility expands from 9 to 12
MGD. Can you explain why this is so? I do see that the concs allowed
are more stringent.
RESPONSE: The modelers reported that the additional hydraulic loading to the cove was predicted to
have a beneficial effect (less chl-a growth predicted), thus the TP loading could be increased slightly.
6. even though this is a modification, shouldn't the permit also
require the annual testing for all the parameters required by Form 2A?
RESPONSE: I will work this into the final.
2 of 2 12/ 16/2003 9:26 AM

60c- CoAtM"T-
December 12, 2003
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708 Ms. Valery Stephens
COMMISSIONER: NC Division of Water Quality
C. Earl Hunter Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
BOARD: 1617 Mail Service Center
Bradford W. Wyche Chairman Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Mark B. Kent
Vice ChairmanRE:
Notification of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit for
CMUD (NC0036277) dated November 5, 2003
Howard L. Brilliant, MD
Secretary
Dear Ms. Stephens:
Carl L. Brazell
Louisiana W. Wright
We would like to submit comments on the above proposed NPDES
L. Michael Blackmon
permit modification, which would expand the discharge of treated
Lawrence R. Chewning, Jr., DMD
wastewater from the McDowell Creek WWTP.
According to DHEC monitoring data, the Catawba River at South
Carolina Highway 21 is impaired by fecal coliform bacteria. South
Carolina's criteria for fecal coliform in the Catawba River are "not to
exceed a geometric mean of 200/100ml based on five day consecutive
samples during any 30 day period; nor shall more than 10% of the total
samples examined during any 30 day period exceed 400/100ml." Please
ensure that any permitted activities will not contribute to violation of
South Carolina standards.
Thank you for considering these comments when reviewing,
revising, and issuing this permit. If you need more information, please
contact Mark Giffin at [phone] or [e-mail] for
assistance.
Sin erel ,
Kathy Stecker, Manager
Watersheds and Planning Section
cc: Mark Giffin
Rheta Geddings
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Draft Pel•mit Review
Subject: Draft Permit Review
From: John Giorgino <john.giorgino@ncmaiLnet>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:40:45 -0500
To: Tom Belnick <Tom.Bel [e-mail]>
Hi Tom, thanks for forwarding the draft permit for CMU McDowell
Creek WWTP (NC0036277). I have no comments concerning the tox
sections.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
1 of 1 12/1/2003 10:21 AM

PEN CM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment •
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NC WT OF
November 5, 2003 RESWRCES
"WAL OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
NOV 1 9 2003
To: Britt Setzer NOV t 3 2003
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
From: Tom Belnick "NAIran Qi;,; �tC170N
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of NPDES Permit NCO036277
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities- McDowell Creek WWTP
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed permit modification and
return this form by December 12, 2003. If you have any questions on the proposed modification,
please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed at the bottom of this page.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained
bV1 9 properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not
contravene the designated water quality standards.
❑ Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5063, extension 543 (tax) 919 733-0719
VISIT us ON THEINTEANET@htlp:/m2o.enr.stale.nc.us/NPDES [e-mail]

Michaell�ey,1, or� or
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
November 13, 2003
Mr. Barry Gullet
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28216
Alan W. Klimek P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Environmental Assessment; McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion
Dear Mr. Gullet:
The NC Environmental Policy Act review for the subject project is complete. No comments were
received during the course of the State Clearinghouse review (see attached letter from the
Clearinghouse).
Permit applications covering activities associated with this project may now proceed. The
applications should be consistent with the Finding of No Significant Impact issued by the
Division of Water Quality on September 25, 2003 (attached).
1f there is anything else I can assist you with, please give me a call at 919.733.5083 ext. 555.
Sincerely,
NOV 1 3 200 ij 4�f
i_
- j Alex Marks, AICP
L Environmental Specialist
Attachments
cc: Dave Goodrich
John Dorsey
David Parker
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
NCba
Customer service
1-877-623-6748

w►tEd
� r
a`
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 3, 2003
Mr. Alex Marks
DENR, Div of Water Quality
1617 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27616-3175
Dear Mr. Marks:
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 04-E-4300-0079; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact;
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - project proposes to increase the
existing capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) to 12 mgd. The additional treatment
capacity is needed to accomodate increased flows.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
No comments were made by any state/local agencies in the course of this review. Therefore, no further
environmental review action on your part is required for the compliance with the Act.
Best regards.
Y31
Ms. C s Bagge .
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
cc: Region F
Mailing Address: Telephone. [phone] Location Address.
1301 Mail Service Center .Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 state Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

NC DENR/DWQ
NPDES FACT SHEET
MAJOR MODIFICATION OF PERMIT
NPDES No. NCO036277
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities —McDowell Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
5100 Brookshire Blvd.; Charlotte, NC 28216
Facility Address:
NCSR 2074, near the Town of Huntersville
Permitted Flow
6.0 MGD (requesting phased 6.6/9.0/12.0 MGD)
Type of Waste:
85% Domestic
15% Industrial
Pretreatment Program:
Active; 3 SIUs; LTMP Monitoring
Facility/Permit Status:
Class IV/Active; Major Modification
County:
Mecklenburg Count
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
McDowell Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
WS-IV CA
State Grid / USGS Quad:
F15NW/Lake
Norman
303(d) Listed?
Yes
Permit Writer:
Tom Belnick
Subbasin:
03-08-33
Date:
November 1, 2003
Drainage Area (mi):
28.3
Lat. 350 22 52" N Long. 80° 56' 25" W
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
1.8
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
4.2
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs):
31
WC (%):
85
Conditions Incorporated into Permit Major Modification
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis for Condition(s)
Addition of phased effluent
Phased Flows-
The Permiltee is currently
sheets for 6.6 MGD, 9 MGD, and
Effluent Sheets
permitted for 6 MGD. The
12 MGD.
Permittee prepared a SEPA EA in
support of a proposed expansion
to 6.6 MGD (re -rate). 9 MGD.
and 12 MGD. Following EA
review by governmental
agencies. the Division issued a
Finding Of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on 9/25/2003.
concluding that the proposed
expansion will not result in
significant impacts to the
environment. The EA adequately
addressed the need for
additional (low, as well as a
wasLewaLer alternatives
evaluation.
1-L(I Shea
V 003027 Mtlj,n Modilicalun

The currerit peni-iit (6 MGD) has
Phrased Flows-
Nut.ricrit. mass limits for the
concentration -based limits for
TN/1'P limits
phased flows were based on
TN of 10 mg/l. while the phased
DWQ speculative effluent. limits
flows have mass -based limits
dated 3/ 17/2003. Tile nutrient
that equate to 3.1 mg/I (at 6.6
limits were based on a Bathtub
MGD). 6.0 rng/1 (at 9 MGD) and
model of Mountain Island Lake
4.5 rig/l (at 12 MGD) during
and McDowell Creek Cove. The
sumnier. Likewise. the current
modeling endpoint was to have
permit has concentration -based
100io or less of the predictions
limits for TP of 1 mg/l, while the
exceed the chlorophyll -a water
phased flows have mass -based
quality standard of 40 ug/l. The
limits that equate to 0.64 rmg/1
phased mass limits represent
(at 6.6 MGD), 0.29 mg/1 (at 9
reductions from current
MGD). and 0.27 mg/1 (at 12
permitted nutrient loads.
MGD) during summer.
Apply best available technology
Phased Flows-
Based on best available
limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5 (or 4.2
CBOD and Ammonia Limits
technology. BOD5 limits were
mg/1 CBOD5) and 1 mg/1 NH3-
converted to CBOD limits for
N.
phased flows.
Apply limits more stringent than
Phased Flows-
Based on CMU projections of
current secondary requirements.
TSS and fecal coliform limits
future treatment capability, as
shown in the 3/ 17/2003
speculative letter.
Develop limits based on
Phased Flows-
Per NPDES permitting guidance.
applicable instream waste
Mercury. TRC, WET
concentrations.
Weekly average limits were
All flows-
Per Ammonia Permitting
added in addition to monthly
Ammonia limits
Strategy (dated 10/ 15/02).
average limits.
multiply monthly avg. limit by 3
to derive weekly avg limit. Both
limits are required by EPA.
Specify daily monitoring by grab
All flows-
Correction of current permit,
sample.
PH monitoring
which specifies pH limit but does
not specify sample type or
monitoring frequency.
Delete language regarding Current Flow (6 MGD)- Beginning 9/ 1 /2003, the facility
mercury quantitation level of 0.2 is subject to low level mercury
ug/l Mercury Quantitation level analysis (EPA Method 1631),
which measures below the
pen -nit limit.
Move instream monitoring Current Flow (6 MGD)- Formatting improvement.
requirements from Condition
A(3) into separate Effluent instream Monitoring
Requirements
Sheets.
Add condition allowing use of Supplement to Cover Sheet- Facility plans to incorporate
reclaimed water in accordance reuse option reuse of treated water (up to 3
with applicable Non -Discharge MGD) at 9 and 12 MGD. Facility
permit. will need to secure Non -
Discharge permit for this option.
Correct stream class from WS-IV Stream Classification Per BIMS stream classification
to WS-IV CA. I I and MRO staff report.
PROJECT NOTES
SUMMARY
• This plant was constructed in 1980 as a 3.0 MGD activated sludge facility serving the
Charlotte metropolitan area. A facility expansion to 6.0 MGD in 1999 incorporated a 3-
stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. The facility is now proposing future
Fact Sheet
NC003027 - %-hjor -Modi f ication
P�tsc 2

• expansions to 12 MGD to accommodate future growth. The permittee is requesting a major
permit modification to provide for interim phased flow limits at 6.6 MGD (based on a facility
re -rating of current treatment system), with phased construction to 9.0 MGD and 12.0
MGD. The draft permit for this proposed expansion will be subject to a 30-day public
comment period. Following public notice of the draft permit, the applicant will need to
apply for an Authorization to Operate at 6.6 MGD, as well as Authorization to Construct
permits for the phased expansions to 9 and 12 MGD. Expansion plans include a 5-stage
BNR process, as well as a reuse treatment option (up to 3.0 MGD) using membrane
filtration to ensure high -quality reuse water. Construction to 9.0 MGD and 12 MGD is
scheduled for completion in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
• The applicant formed a stakeholder group in 2/2000 to evaluate future wastewater
management options. Using input from this stakeholder group, the permittee prepared a
SEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed expansion to 12 MGD. The Division
has concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the
environment, based on information provided in the EA and review by government agencies.
The EA provided a proper justification of flow, as well as an engineering alternatives
analysis. The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (or FONSI, issued 9/25/2003), are
prerequisites for the issuance of the NPDES permit modification.
• Treated effluent from the plant is discharged into McDowell Creek approximately 0.5 miles
upstream of Mountain Island Lake on the Catawba River. McDowell Creek is listed as an
impaired waterbody on the NC 2002 303(d) list based on biological data for its last 3.7 miles
prior to discharge into Mountain Island Lake; the cause of impairment is listed as
unknown. The lake serves as a drinking water supply for Charlotte. In order to develop
speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansion, extensive water quality modeling was
conducted to evaluate future conditions in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake,
where nutrient enrichment is of primary concern. Using the Bathtub model of Mountain
Island Lake and McDowell Creek Cove developed by CMU's consultant, the Division ran
several model scenarios to develop phased expansion limits for TN and TP. The modeling
endpoint was to have 10% or less of the model predictions exceed the chlorophyll -a water
quality standard of 40 ug/l. As a conservative approach, the Division used model results
that included some increase in nonpoint source nutrient loading. Mass nutrient limits
were developed for each expansion that protects the 10% chlorophyll -a target, and also
represents a reduction from current permitted loadings. The facility currently has nutrient
limits for TN of 10 mg/l, while the expansion TN mass limits (summer) equate to 8.1 mg/l,
6.0 mg/l, and 4.5 mg/1 (at 6.6, 9.0, and 12.0 MGD, respectively). Likewise, the facility
currently has a TP limit of 1 mg/l, while the expansion TP mass limits (summer) equate to
0.64 mg/1, 0.29 mg/l, and 0.27 mg/1 (at 6.6, 9.0, and 12.0 MGD, respectively).
DMR DATA
• Effluent Chemistry: Effluent BOD and TSS concentrations average less than 2 mg/1 and
effluent TN averages 6 mg/l. Effluent TP has averaged less than 0.26 mg/1 from 7/00-
6/01, and less than 0.14 mg/1 from 7/01-6/02.
• Effluent Toxicity: The facility has passed 22 of 24 chronic quarterly toxicity tests conducted
between 1999-2003, thus effluent toxicity has not been a water quality issue.
PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT
• This facility was issued a renewal permit for a 6.0 MGD discharge on 3/9/2001, with an
expiration date of 2/28/05. The current request for an expansion in flow to 12 MGD is
major modification of the permit, and will be subject to Public Notice with a 30-day
comment period.
• Applicant submitted EPA Form 1 + 2A Parts A-E. The application included 1 priority
pollutant analysis (PPA) which showed no detections of volatile/semi-volatile compounds.
An additional PPA was being collected in October 2003. In addition to quarterly chronic
toxicity testing with Ceriodaphnia dubia, the applicant submitted a second species toxicity
test using Pimephales promelas, which showed no chronic toxicity at 100% effluent.
• Expansion limits for TN and TP are based on extensive water quality modeling results, that
were designed to achieve a model target of < 10% of values exceeding the chlorophyll -a water
quality standard of 40 ug/ 1.
• Limits for BOD/CBOD and ammonia were based on best available technology.
• Limits for TSS and fecal coliform were based on CMU's projections of future treatment
capability.
Fact Shc et
tiC00302?7-
I h

• Indicate in Supplement to Cover Sheet that facility will need to obtain a Non -Discharge
permit prior to distributing up to 3 MGD of reclaimed water following plant upgrades.
• Water Quality Based Limits = BOD, NH3, TRC, TN, TP, Mercury.
ADDITIONAL DATA .
• The inspection reports generally reveal a well -run facility with few problems.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/05/2003
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 12/29/2003
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Tom Belnick at (919) 3-5083 ext. 543.
NAME• �mbijDATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME:
DATE:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Tact Sheet
\('00302"- %- -k or Modiiic-.ition
ilau,'C 4

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary
FACILITY REQUIREMENT
NCW20117/0I B,m.VWW3 Frequency Mar Jun Sep Dec + NonComp Single
County:Sampsnn Region: PRO Subbuin: CPF19
PR 5.0 Special
1QM: 0.0 IWC(%: lug
YEAR )AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
1999 -
- Pass -
- Pass
2000 Pass
>100.>1W Pass -
- Pass
2001 -
- Pass -
- Pass
2002 NW
>1W Pass -
- >W
2W3 —
— Pdsa —
— Pa98
JUL
AUG
SEP
-
-
Pass
—
—
Pore
—
—
Pass
October 14, 2003
OCT NOV DEC
- - Fail
Pass
Fail
CMI lnduseele;Inc.Chetham Div. Or list: 1.9%
1999 -
Pau
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pas.
-
-
Pass
-
NCIIIm531LW1 Bcgan:9/1/1999 Frcqucncy Q P/le + Feb May Aug Nov
+ NmCamF Single
20M -
Pas.
-
-
Pass
-
-
P...
-
-
Pass
-
Countv:Suery Region: WSW Subbndre YAD02
20(y1 -
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
PF: 4.0 S8ceu1
2002 -
Pass
-
Pess
-
-
Pass
-
-
Pass
-
1Q10:314 IWC(%]1.94
2003-
Pass
-
Pass
Pass
-
-
Pass
CMUD-Irvin Croak WWTP car It.: 83%
9 Pages 100
-
-
new
-
-
110)
-
-
List.
>1W
-
NC0024'145100I B.,,11/1/1996 FrcquencyQP/F +hm Apr Jul Oct
Noncomp Single
2000>1W
-
-
>100
>100
-
67.8
>100
>iN
>100
-
-
Conmy:Mecklenbarg Rcgion'. MRO Snhbmin: CTB34
2001 >1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>100
-
-
PF: 15.0 S'o.l
2W2 >1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
7Q10:4.9 IWC(%:83.0
2003 >10
-
-
>1W
-
-
22,3,>100
-100
CMUD-M.IIaN Cr. WWTP P-2 the Bar: 90%
1999-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>IN
-
NC003021JVW1 Been:Wl/199R FrequcncyQ Feb May Aug Nov
+ N..Comp ChV An
20W -
>1W
-
-
-IN
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
County; Mecklenburg Be,,.: MRO Subutior YADII
2001-
Late
>100
-
NR
>1W
-
>100,>100
-
-
>IDo
-
PF; 6.0 Steels,
2002 _
>1W
-
-
>100
-
-
Late
1100.>100
>IW
>IW
-
9QID:D.M IWC(%:94U
2003-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>100
CMUD-M,Alploe W3VTP in, Iim:9D%
Y199D-
-
>100
-
-
>1W
-
-
>1W
-
-
>IW
NC002497010111 BcgimNI2001 Frequency MUNun Sep Dec
+ N.Comp Single
2000 -
-
>1W
-
-
>100
-
-
a1W
-
-
>1W
County: Mecklenburg Rvgaon: MRO Subbasie CTB34
2001 -
-
>1W
-
-
>100
-
-
-IN
-
-
Iunmod 100
PF: 64 Spnial
202 -
_
>100
-
-
a1W
-
-
>100
-
-
>1W
1QI0: 03 IWCI%:W.35
2003 -
-
>1W
-
-
NW
-
-
CMUD-MCD.mcll Ce WSVTP chr list 85%
V 19091
-
-
>%
-
-
>96
-
-
Late
196
-
NCO0362]9/001 Begin'.4/112001 Frequency Jm1 Apr Jul Oct
+ NonComp Single
2000 >95
-
-
as
-
-
>96
-
-
e56
>96.e56
>96.>96
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Suhbersan: CT1333
2001>98
-
-
'as
-
-
>%
-
-
>96
-
- ,/
7
PF: 6.0 Special
2002W 2 >1
-
-
>%
-
-
>95
-
-
-95
-
- �.L
IQM 1.90 IWC(%:85
2003 a95
-
-
a9$?95 -
- >95
-
CMUD-Su0ar Cr. W%VTP chr lint: 90%
1999-
>100
-
- >100
- -
>100
- -
>100
-
NC002J9171001 Begm:I1/1/1998 FmqucnuyQPIF + Feb May Aug Nov
N..Cnmp Single
2000 -
>100
-
- >100
- -
1100
- -
-IN
-
Counly:Meeklenaurg Region: MRO Sublemin: CTB34
201 -
-100
-
- >100
- -
>1W
- -
>1W
-
PF: 20.1) Speeial
2002 -
>100
-
- >IW
- -
92.5
- -
>1W
-
7010:3A IWC(%:W
20D3 -
>100
-
- e45.>1W
>1W>1W >1W.B25
>1W
Coals American.001 24hrp/fac But: 90% Cerioar D.ph(Gnb)
1999-
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Fail
Pass
NC00001114101 Began:5/12001 Frequency Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov
+ NonComp Single
2000 -
Fail
Pass
- Pass
- -
NRIF.H.Fail Pass -
Pa..
-
County:Transylvarim Rcgion: ARO Subbasin: Met
2001 -
Pass
-
- Pas.
- -
Fall
Pass -
Pass
-
PF: NA Special
2002 -
Fail
Pass
- Pa.$
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
-
JQ10:0.43 IWC(%:NA
20W -
Pass
-
- Paa.
- -
Pass
Co.,, American-002 24he. F/flim: 90% Ceno or Dart(Gmb)
19" -
Pass
-
- Puss
- -
Pas.
- -
Fail
Pass
NCOMIOM02 Dep.r5/1200I Frequency Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov
+ NonComp Single
2M -
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
NR/Pass
- -
Pau
-
County:Tnnsylvanin Region: ARO Stillborn Met
2001 -
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
-
PF: NA spnial
2002 _
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pau
- -
Pass
-
1Q10:0.43 IWC(%:NA
2003 -
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pass
Coats Ameriuv-Sevier Plant the lam: 15%
1999 -
Pass
-
- NR/Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
-
NC0004243/901 Begin:,/I2WI FrequcncyQ Feb May Aug Nov
+ NmvComp Single
20W -
Pass
-
- Paa.
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
-
Conniy:McNwcll Region: ARO SuNnem, M30
2001 -
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pass
- -
Pass
-
PF: 2.0 slrihl
2W2 —
Pasa
—
— Pass
— —
Paa.
— —-
7QIQ: IN.Q IWC(%:I4.]
2003 -
Pass
-
- Pass
- -
Pau
Cogental. Essreu Carlhot Corp. 24hr ac refine: 90%
law-
-
,ale
Pass -
Pass -
-
Pa.a -
-
Pass
N'COOSS299.003 Begm:6,1/1996 Frequency Q PIP + Marlun Sep Dec
N..Comp Single
200(1 -
-
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass
Coalay: Biaden Rcgion: PRO Suhhrilm- CPF16
2001 -
-
Pans
- -
Pass -
-
Pass -
-
Pass
PF: NA sryrul
2002 -
-
Pass
- -
Pa.. -
-
Pass -
-
Pass
7010: 740.0 IWC0:;0.03
2003 -
-
Pass
- -
Pass -
-
Y Pre 1999 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM=Permit Requirement LET- Administrative Lener-Torgnt Frequency- Monimdng frequency. 0- Quarterly; M. Monthly; BM. Bimonthly; SA. Sommoun.11y: A.Annually:OWD- Only when discharging;D- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin=Fuvm.mhrequiral 7Ql0-Reccavin1stmam low Dow enterion(efe += quartm
quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon failure orN Months the lasting must ocnrt-ex.lan. Apr.lul.Om NonComp- Currn Compliance Requirement 01.'
PF-PcrmRmd5vw(MGD) IWC%=lnstrcomwaatccemerfliati P/F=Pn Fae test AC=Acute CHR-Chmnic S
Dot. Newton: f- Fathead Mmnuw: > - CeriodliFhmn sp.: my - Mysid shrimp: CMI -Chronic value; P - Mortality of stated percentage at highest Concenwtion; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic To% Unit: bt - Bad rest
Reporting Nontaam---= Datuno, mquimJ: NR- No.,muc Facility Activity Stmum l - marten. N- Newly lssucd(T. mmsmo): H- Active bur nor d'acleargang;e-Mme Jan available for month in quauon: -- ORC signature mcdcd Ay
10 v}

AIm1�I� n I (O �I A CIA w xo l l h /lot i TJ ,
IWC Calculations
CMUD/McDowell Creek
NCO036277
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 6
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 1.7
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 4.2
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
Twes
VS,qC1 8ql 9 7
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
7010 (CFS)
1.7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
84.55
IWC (%)
84.55
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
20
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.2
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
9.3
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.18
PS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
68.89
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.5
INPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
6/28/00

17= D.oly
0
IWC Calculations
CMUD/McDowell Creek
NCO036277
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 6.6
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 1.7
Enter w7Q10 cfs): 4.2
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.6
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.23
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.23
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
85.75
IWC (%)
85.75
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
20
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.2
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
6.6
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
10.23
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
(1.)17UPS
BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
70.89
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.4
INPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
10/27/03

1,M4: 0.012N�11 x I-12- o,,.lI
IWCCalculations
CMUD/McDowell Creek
NCO036277
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 9
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 1.7
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 4.2
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
89.14
IWC (%)
89.14
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
19
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
1.1
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.2
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9
(If DF,>331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
13.95
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.12
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
76.86
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
2.3
INPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
6/28/00

anti Nail x i.o9 = 0.0►3 ud
IWC Calculations
CMUD/McDowell Creek
NC0036277
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 12
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 1.7
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 4.2
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
7Q10 (CFS)
1.7
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
18.6
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
18.6
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
91.63
IWC (%)
91.63
Allowable Cone. (ug/1)
19
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
1.1
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.2
Fecal Umit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
12
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
18.6
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
1.09
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
81.58
Allowable Cone. (mg/1)
2.2
INPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
6/28/00

Mountain Island Lake,
McDowell Creek and Cove Water Quality Indices
June 2001
v
i
McDowell Creek
MC4,,
WWTP
3 M Watershed
McDowell Creek Cove
and Lake
0 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 100
No Data Very Poor Very Poor/ Poor Poor/Fair Fair Fair/Good Good Good/ Excellent
Poor Excellent

Chlorophyll a 1993-2002
McDowell Creek Cove (Ml3)
180

Time Series Data - McDowell Creek and McDowell Creek Cove
Location MC4A
Location MC4
Location MI3
(Cove)
Date
Total P
Nitrate
Date
Total P
Nitrate
Date
Chi a
Total P
Nitrate
(PPm)
(PPm)
(PPm)
(PPm)
(u9/I)
(PPm)
(PPm)
01/19/93
1.03
1.6
05/13/93
0.18
0.49
01/14/93 <
1
1.11
0.89
02/01/93
0.71
2.34
06/10/93
0.19
0.6
02/01/93
3.8
0.32
1.12
03/02/93
0.27
1.03
07/08/93
0.19
0.46
03/01/93
4
0.15
0.56
04/20/93
0.22
1.41
08/12/93
0.17
0.39
04/20/93
8
0.24
1.26
05/03/93
0.9
6.12
09/09/93
0.54
0.52
05/05/93
35
0.54
1.11
05/13/93
0.42
2.03
10/13/93
0.18
0.5
06/10/93
154
0.39
0.66
06/07/93
0.27
2.12
07/08/93
91
0.64
0.14
06/10/93
0.39
2.14
08/09/93
33
0.54
0.18
07/01/93
0.64
3.12
03/11/96
<
0.05
0.59
09/09/93
27
0.13
0.36
07/08/93
1.22
5.93
04/03/96
<
0.05
0.52
10/13/93
16
0.19
0.56
08/03/93
1.36
8.68
05/08/96
0.05
0.7
11/08/93
7
0.27
0.43
08/12/93
1.24
8.15
06/24/96
<
0.05
0.52
12/09/93
4
0.34
0.28
09/09/93
1.5
7.03
07/01/96
<
0.05
0.35
01/10/94
1
0.18
0.5
09/15/93
1.28
6.73
09/10/96
<
0.05
0.7
02/07/94
5
0.3
1.05
10/13/93
2.6
13.5
10/14/96
<
0.05
1.16
03/22/94
2
0.09
0.73
10/20/93
1.99
11.7
11/13/96
<
0.05
0.56
04/11/94
4
0.39
2.06
11/04/93
1.55
8.07
01/15/97
0.2
0.56
05/11/94
7
0.27
0.77
12/02/93
1.32
8.06
02/18/97
<
0.05
0.65
06/09/94
34
0.28
0.38
01/24/94
0.95
6.06
03/11/97
<
0.05
0.58
07/14/94
7
0.08
0.27
02/03/94
0.48
2.3
04/16/97
<
0.05
0.55
08/11/94
6
0.1
0.39
03/08/94
0.72
4.38
05/14/97
<
0.05
0.6
09/08/94
27
0.06
0.2
04/19/94
0.69
3.95
06/11/97
<
0.05
0.59
11/07/94
10 <
0.05
0.42
05/03/94
1.35
4.9
07/09/97
<
0.05
0.49
01/09/95 <
1
0.09
0.68
06/20/94
0.96
4.9
08/14/97
<
0.05
0.33
03/15/95
2
0.18
1.68
08/03/94
1.25
4.03
10/09/97
0.13
0.21
05/09/95
11
0.12
0.78
09/13/94
1.96
6.05
11/10/97
0.03
0.23
06/15/95
2 <
0.05
0.18
10/18/94
2.25
6.01
12/17/97
0.02
0.3
07/10/95
63
0.08
0.11
11/09/94
1.07
7.12
02/02/98
0.03
0.39
08/01/95
15
0.08
0.36
12/17/94
1.11
6.06
03/03/98
0.06
0.52
09/05/95
18
0.05
0.12
01/23/95
0.62
4.32
04/13/98
0.05
. 0.5
11/01/95
10
0.06
0.41
02/02/95
0.84
5.35
05/20/98
0.05
0.58
03/14/96
40
0.06
0.77
03/15/95
0.57
4.08
07/08/98
0.04
0.43
05/07/96
50
0.31
1.91
04/06/95
1.41
7.89
11/02/98
0.035
0.05
06/03/96
100
0.08
0.3
05/08/95
1.2
3.37
11/24/98
0.044
0.2
07/08/96
46
0.14
0.76
07/13/95
0.59
1.68
12/02/98
0.038
0.19
08/05/96
50 <
0.05
0.17
08/07/65
1.32
7.52
12/18/98
0.06
0.52
09/18/96
39
0.05
0.29
09/06/95 <
0.05
3.17
01/07/99
0.05
0.56
10/01/96
12
0.32
0.71
10/02/95
1.14
7.27
01/21/99
0.043
0.51
12/03/96
15 <
0.05
0.41
11/06/95
0.64
5.58
02/03/99
0.07
0.57
05/07/97
6 <
0.05
1.58
12/14/95
1.03
2.26
02/16/99
0.022
0.55
06/10/97
35 <
0.05
0.76
02/07/96
0.44
2.64
03/02/99
0.028
0.46
07/09/97
122
0.09
1.06
03/11/96
0.8
5.17
03/18/99
0.026
0.3
08/25/97
50
0.1
0.39
04/25/96
0.7
4.07
03/23/99
0.041
0.39
09/23/97
29 <
0.05
0.5
05/08/96
1.07
5.49
04/12/99
0.037
0.37
11/03/97
64
0.06
0.4
06/24/96
0.63
4.03
05/05/99
0.044
0.57
01/13/98
3
0.037
0.8
07/01/96
0.74
4.08
06/03/99
0.05
0.46
03/11/98
5
0.08
0.55
08/20/96
0.78
5.94
07/21/99
0.05
0.65
05/04/98
9
0.031
0.46
09/10/96
1.04
5.56
08/12/99
0.048
0.22
06/01/98
32
0.06
0.28
10/14/96
0.39
5.72
09/13/99
0.046
0.19
07/20/98
62
0.1
0.17
11/13/96
0.32
5.33
10/07/99
0.07
0.25
08/12/98
28
0.12
0.51
01/15/97
0.34
3.8
11/08/99
0.034
0.16
09/14/98
43
0.32
0.95
02/18/97 <
0.05
0.82
12/08/99
0.043
0.39
11/02/98
100
0.13
0.11
03/11/97
0.85
4.94
01/26/00
0.06
0.5
12/07/98
3
0.16
0.27
04/16/97
0.14
5.04
02/08/00
0.12
0.5
01/07/99
8
0.013
0.13

05/14/97
0.21
10.9
03/16/00
0.033
0.28
06/11/97
0.18
9.76
05/09/00
0.06
0.54
07/09/97
0.25
9.05
06/02/00
0.06
0.53
08/14/97
0.8
5.41
08/08/00
0.06
0.3
10/09/97
0.47
2.8
09/28/00
0.08
0.39
11/10/97
0.74
4.18
10/17/00
0.06
0.19
12/17/97
0.11
2.11
11/02/00
0.019
0.06
02/02/98
0.02
0.97
01/10/01
0.042
0.43
03/03/98
0.8
4.07
03/12/01
0.032
0.49
04/13/98
0.44
2.73
05/10/01
0.043
0.43
05/20/98
1.12
1.27
06/12/01
0.045
0.24
07/08/98
1.05
6.38
07/18/01
0.036
0.32
11/02/98
0.97
1.27
08/06/01
0.029
0.26
11/24/98
1.47
2.95
09/13/01
0.037
0.23
12/02/98
1.61
3.42
11 /07/01
0.025
0.09
12/18/98
2.31
4.72
02/18/02
0.041
0.54
01/07/99
1.09
3.53
03/25/02
0.05
0.49
01121 /99
0.74
2.36
05/22/02
0.045
0.51
02/03/99
0.11
1.27
06/24/02
0.036
0.31
02/16/99
0.85
2.13
07/22/02
0.029
0.17
03/02/99
0.06
3.02
08/12/02
0.033
0.16
03/18/99
0.035
2.85
09/24/02
0.031
0.17
03/23/99
0.049
3.43
10/21/02
0.07
0.37
04/12/99
0.07
2.93
11/19/02
0.07
0.44
05/05/99
0.08
2.63
06/03/99
0.12
3.7
07/21 /99
0.07
3.03
08/12/99
0.16
3.56
09/13/99
0.11
4.87
10/07/99
0.1
5.13
11/08/99
0.23
0.38
12/08/99
0.05
0.86
01/26/00
0.12
1.5
02/08/00
0.09
3.81
03/16/00
0.11
3.84
05/10/00
0.07
3.37
06/02/00
0.32
3.42
08/08/00
0.16
4.11
09/28/00
0.31
2.8
10/17/00
0.22
3.4
11/02/00
0.11
5.52
01/10/01
0.09
4.88
03/12/01
0.04
2.81
05/10/01
0.05
2.44
06/12/01
0.08
2.69
07/18/01
0.06
0.82
08/06/01
0.06
1.02
09/13/01
0.06
2.5
11/07/01
0.024
4.26
02/18/02
0.05
1.59
03/25/02
0.16
0.89
05/22/02
0.07
2.25
06/24/02
0.05
1.74
07/22/02
0.05
1.69
08/12/02
0.06
1.61
09/24/02
0.12
2.1
10/21/02
0.35
1.83
11/19/02
0.07
1.13
ag, WA IP 803
02/04/99
1
0.031
0.24
03/01/99
3
0.07
1.05
04/06/99
8
0.06
0.72
06/12/99
32
0.06
0.44
06/01/99
26
0.06
0.36
07/01/99
22
0.039
0.3
08/01 /99
17
0.03
0.35
09/01/99
19
0.05
0.52
10/01/99
14
0.031
0.24
11 /01 /99
22
0.031
0.44
12/06/99
14
0.05
1.18
02/03/00
1
0.028
0.24
03/13/00
4
0.025
0.38
05/08/00
14
0.036
0.44
06/01/00
75
0.06
0.28
07/31/00
24
0.04
0.26
08/16/00
28
0.06
0.11
09/13/00
34
0.049
0.11
10/11/00
24
0.036
0.27
11 /01 /00
68
0.1
0.21
01/10/01
2
0.022
0.45
03/07/01
3
0.05
0.49
05/09/01
11
0.034
0.43
06/11/01
68
0.05
0.24
07/10/01
29
0.042
0.12
08/07/01
20
0.036
0.11
09/11/01
18
0.03
0.17
11/06/01
16
0.026
0.47
01/15/02
3
0.012
0.29
03/14/02
4
0.05
0.47
05/28/02
17
0.038
0.29
06/25/02
21
0.036
0.2
07/23/02
26
0.04
0.16
08/14/02
31
0.034
0.1
09/17/02
31
0.021
0.05
11/19/02
2
0.06
0.28

Alf) /,(ribm 6 V-
BLACK & VEATCH
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive
Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269-0019 USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 12 mgd
Mr. David Goodrich
N.C. Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Dave:
Black & Veatch International Company
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
McDowell Creek WWTP
B&V Project 97057.200
B&V File F
NPDES Permit No. NC0036277
Mecklenburg County
September 25, 2003
On behalf of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), we are forwarding three copies of the
NPDES permit application to you for the McDowell Creek W WTP, Expansion to 12 mgd. Also
enclosed is a permit fee check for $860.00. This permit application is for the proposed rerating
of the McDowell Creek W WTP to 6.6 mgd, and then for the proposed expansions to 9 mgd and
12 mgd. This is the same application that we originally sent to you on May 16, 2003, and you
returned to us on July 7, 2003. We previously submitted the application in accordance with the
schedule that was agreed upon at our meeting with Barry Gullet on March 3, 2003. Per
Alex Marks, the draft FONSI for the Environmental Assessment will be issued on Friday,
September 26. Per your directions, we understand you will now accept the NPDES permit
application for processing. Also per our meeting on March 3, you agreed to try to process the
NPDES application and prepare a draft permit within 2 months. We hope that you are still able
to commit to this schedule.
Note that Part D, Effluent Testing Data, and Part E, Toxicity Testing Data, are part of the
supplemental application data. Only one set of pollutant scans is included in this package.
Another set of testing is scheduled in early October to account for seasonal variability, and those
additional pollutant scan results will be forwarded as soon as they are available.
building a world of difference-

Page 2
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit B&V Project 97057.200
Mr. David Goodrich September 25, 2003
We greatly appreciate your continued assistance in keeping this project moving. Please contact
me if you have any questions, or contact Barry Gullet with CMU at 704-391-5098.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
AJ 0 4-
David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager
CMU2/svl
Enclosures
cc: Barry Gullet, CMU
Tom Howard, CMU
Jackie Jarrell, CMU
Mary Bonislawsky, B&V
Chris Reinbold, B&V
Brent Reuss, B&V

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WWTP
NPDES # NCO036277
FORM 2A - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OUTFALL NUMBER: 001
A.11.a Description of Treatment
Treatment after the 6.6 mgd re -rating will consist of coarse and fine mechanical
bar screens; grit removal; three primary clarifiers; two trains in parallel of
activated sludge treatment utilizing three stage biological nutrient removal; two
final clarifiers; effluent denitrifying filters; ultraviolet disinfection; cascade
reaeration; sludge thickening; anaerobic digesters; and sludge dewatering.
Treatment after the 9.0 mgd expansion will consist of coarse and fine mechanical
bar screens; grit removal; four primary clarifiers; two trains in parallel of activated
sludge treatment utilizing three stage biological nutrient removal and one train of
activated sludge treatment utilizing v_e_staQtbiological nutrient removal; three
final clarifiers; effluent denitrifying filters; membrane filtration and reuse
distributions ultraviolet disinfection; sludge thickening; anaerobic digesters; and
sludge dewatering.
Treatment after the 12.0 mgd expansion will consist of coarse and fine
mechanical bar screens; grit removal; odor control in the headworks; five primary
clarifiers; two trains in parallel of activated sludge treatment utilizing three stage
biological nutrient removal and two trains of activated sludge treatment utilizing
five stage biological nutrient removal; four final clarifiers; effluent denitrifying
filters; membrane filtration and reuse distribution; ultraviolet disinfection; sludge
thickening; anaerobic digesters; and sludge dewatering.
A.11.b Design Removal Rates
Process Design Percentages of Removal
Parameter
6.6 mgd
Winter
6.6 mgd
Summer
9.0 mgd
Winter
9.0 mgd
Summer
12.0 mgd
Winter
12.0 mgd
Summer
C130D %
97
98
97
98
97
98
SS %
96
96
97
97
97
97
P %
89
90
95
96
95
96
N %
76
78
82
84
87
88

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WWTP
NPDES # NCO036277
FORM 2A — ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Continued)
B.5.d Implementation Schedule
Implementation Stage
6.6 mgd
Begin Construction
End Construction
Begin Discharge
Attain Operational Level
9.0 mgd
Begin Construction
End Construction
Begin Discharge
Attain Operational Level
12.0 mgd
Begin Construction
End Construction
Begin Discharge
Attain Operational Level
Schedule (MM/DD/YYYY)
NIA (No construction will occur)
NIA
11 /01 /2003
11 /01 /2003
04/16/2004
12/01 /2005 -
12/01 /2005
12/01/2005
04/16/2004
10/01/2006 --
10/01 /2006
10/01 /2006

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WVVTP
NPDES # NCO036277
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Primary sludge is removed from the primary clarifiers and pumped to the anaerobic digesters. Waste
activated sludge (WAS) is removed from the final clarifiers, thickened using gravity belt thickeners, and
then the thickened WAS is also pumped to the anaerobic digesters. The anaerobic digesters are operated to
maintain adequate detention time, heating, and mixing to stabilize to meet the standards for Class B
biosolids per 40 CFR Part 503 (minimum 38% volatile solids destruction). The digested sludge is then
dewatered using belt filter presses to approximately 15 to 20% solids, and then stored in the biosolids
storage facility.
Solids in the biosolids storage facility will be routinely sampled for fecal coliform to show pathogen
reduction, and then land applied. If the biosolids do not meet the Class B requirements, for various
reasons, the residuals are disposed of at various sanitary landfills.

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WWTP
NPDES # NCO036277
Scale: I inch = 2000 feel
O = Indicates property with a water well
* Exact well location, according to public record is unknown. However, the properties that are currently served by wells have been
indicated.

r / LEGEND EXISTING FACILITIES
(MAGENTA) PHASE III, C0NTRAC7 2 1. BIOSOLIDS STORAGE
m (GREEN) EXPANSION TO 9 MGD 2. BIOSOLIDS DEWATERING
$
o r, 3. BOILER BUILDING
�. ■ (8R0:&) EXPANSION TO 12 MGD
m 4. HEAT EXCHANGE BUILDING
o � • ■ (RED) EXPANSION TO 15 MGD
,.' ° S.W.I.M. STREAM BUFFER
5. DIGESTER COMPLEX c o
100 YEAR FLOOD 6. OPERATIONS BUILDING
3 0� o �^ WETLANDS 7. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT STRUCTURE
p /fix f _. °
/ 3 8. PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMPING STATION N0. 1 R O --_ ° / y 200•...100' :.0 200' 400'
J • o l 9. LIME STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY N. 1Oo
r�B�B R
\� 2 0 1 ) o o° 10. PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 W
5 8 \ ° m C �% 11. PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 1
55 `I m � r � ° `� 12. PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 4 W } 2
/ 1 � 13. PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3
66 a 6
3 0
67 _ � 0 14. TRICKLING FILTER (TO BE DEMOLISHED)
r
5 'Q 39 0 58 15. TRICKLING FILTER (TO BE DEMOLISHED)
INSTALLED
1 i
VEGETATIVE 16. ANAEROBIC BASIN NO. 1.1
BUFFER 7 11
(TYP) t ° 6 ' 12 17. ANOXIClOXIC BASIN W0. 1.1
• c-� -- 8 ° 9 73 18. WELL HOUSE (ABMmONED)
19. UTILITY BUILDING j� 57
20. BLOWER BUILDING NO. 1 o�
F J� -6 E
40 `1 _ •-� 60 EXPANSION TO 9 MGD 21. STANDBY POWER °� a f
``' r" i
.)18 �, 41 -� 37. FILTRATE EQUALIZATION BASIN 22. LIME STORAGE BUILDING
�oae=
f
- 38. PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMPING STATION NO. 2 23. AERATION BASIN NO. 1.3
0 42 39. LIME STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY N0. 2 24. AERATION BASIN N0. 1.2 '[
I o 43 _
Y9 - I 40. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT BASIN NO. 3 25. ANAEROBIC BASIN NO. 2.2
31 41. BLOWER BUILDING N0. 2 26. ANOXICIOXIC BASIN N0. 1.2
c ` ? 0 44 69 n ' 42. RAS/WAS PUMPING STATION NO. 2 27. FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 2 W
C, v Ica 9 N
y �� • n 43. CHEMICAL STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY N0. 2 28. FINAL CLARIFIER N0. 1 J Q
e _ 20 27 6
0 24 tt 44. FINAL CLARIFIER N0. 3 29. WASTE SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN
21 = Z
45. CASCADE AERATION STRUCTURE 30. AERATION BASIN N0. 2.2
0
46. CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN 31. HEADWORKS/INFLUENT PUMPING STATION Q 4
lls
cok ti
° 22 3447. MEMBRANE FILTRATION BUILDING 32. CHLORINE STORAGE (ABANDONED) W W y
48. STANDBY POWER (BY OTHERS) 33. CHEMICAL STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY No. 1 U �Q
E ❑ 0 29 W
�J, h 49. DETENTION POND 34. EFFLUENT FILTER STRUCTURE N0. 1 W W
50. DETENTION POND 35. CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN (ABANDONED) U O
f / 30
51. DETENTION POND 36. BIOSOLIDS DRYING BEDS p J
EXPANSION TO 12 VGD Q o '`_ _ ICI 4B , <. � 11f '4•< .I� � Q
52. ODOR CONTROL 58. STORM FLOSS' EQUALIZATION BASIN V
47 �^ f 53. ANAEROBIC DIGESTER NO. 5 (PRIMARY) 59, DAY TANKS
e. ''� ! f J rwamL uamr l 54. DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING 60. HEADWORKS/INFLUENT PUMPING STATION �41
VlEffz�.
> I - I--- - .55. ANAEROBIC DIGESTER NO. 8 (PRIMARY) 61. FINAL CLARIFIER NO. 4
ONE;
56. PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 5 62. EFFLUENT FILTER STRUCTTRE NO. 2 PROJECT NO,
INSTALLED �+d __ 57. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT BASIN NO. 4 63. WAS THICKENING BUILDING 97057
1 VEGETATIVE
BUFFER FUTURE EXPANSION TO 15 MGD
4
64. PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMPING STATION NO. 2 (ADDITION) 66. COMPLETE MIX FERMENTER 68. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT BASIN NO. 5
65. FERMENTED SLUDGE THICKENER 67. PRIMARY CLARIFIER N0, 6 69. FINAL CLARIFIER N0. 5 SHEET
II _ j 1 OF 1

0
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WWTP
NPDES # NCO036277
Process Flow Schematics
The flow schematics (SC-1,2,3) show all of the processes of the treatment plant
along with bypasses. The plant is to be upgraded to 6.6 million gallons per day (mgd), 9.0
mgd, 12.0 mgd, and have a future expansion to 15.0 mgd. The following upgrades are
reflected on the schematics via different line types and weights as indicated by the
legend. The 6.6 mgd expansion is to be accomplished by utilizing the full capacity of the
current facilities with no construction, while the upgrades to 9.0 mgd, 12.0 mgd, and 15.0
mgd will require construction.
6.6 mgd
Influent wastewater enters the plant through a 36" gravity fed sewer line and
enters the existing headworks structure. The flow passes through coarse and fine
mechanical bar screens and grit is removed through the headworks and then preliminary
treatment. Following preliminary treatment, the wastewater enters distribution box (DB)
No. 1 and the flow is split to the three existing clarifiers. Bypass routing exists from DB-
1 to DB-3 and continues to D13-10. After primary treatment in the clarifiers, the
wastewater is directed through DB-4, then DB-4A. It continues through DB-4A to DB-5
where it is combined with returned activated sludge (RAS).
An optional RAS routing path exists through DB-13, however, flow typically is
combined with RAS in DB-5. From DB-5, the flow is split into the existing two
biological treatment (BTB) trains. The flow is split equally between the two trains. The
flow passes through an anaerobic zone, an anoxic/oxic zone, and aeration zone with
internal recycle. Following the aeration basins, the flow is combined in DB-9 then split to
final clarifiers (FC) 1 and 2. From FC 1 and 2, the flow is sent to the effluent filter (EF)
building 1 where it is filtered and disinfected with ultraviolet chambers. Finally, the
effluent is discharged from the plant through a 42" line which contracts to a 36" line at
the point of discharge.

9.0 mgd
Treatment through the 9.0 mgd plant is similar to the 6.6 mgd plant through the
headworks and preliminary treatment structures as 9.0 mgd is sent through. DB-1 then
distributes the flow to 4 primary clarifiers. Primary clarifiers (PC) 1, 2 and 3 are part of
the 6.6 mgd facility and PC 4 is added under the 9.0 expansion. Biological treatment
trains 1 and 2 treat the wastewater as before in the 6.6 expansion, however, the flow is
now only 6.0 mgd. The other 3.0 mgd is treated in BTB-3. From BTB-3, the flow is sent
to the new FC-3. Effluent from FC-3 is sent to the chlorine contact basin, then the
microfiltration building. The treated effluent is filtered and if demand exists, sent to the
reuse distribution network.
Flow that does not reach the reuse distribution network is either sent to the plant's
non -potable water system or combined with effluent from EF-I. The combined flow is
sent to the cascade aeration structure, aerated, and then discharged to the creek through a
48" line that contracts to a 36" outfall. Potentially, a total of 9.0 may be discharged from
the plant, although up to 3.0 mgd may be diverted to the reuse distribution network.
12.0 mgd
Under the 12.0 expansion, a new headworks facility and influent pumping station
will be constructed. The existing headworks and preliminary treatment structure is to be
abandoned after the new headworks and influent pumping station are in service.
Wastewater flow from the new facility will be sent to DB-1 and DB-2 where is will be
distributed to 5 primary clarifiers, with the new PC-5. Treatment through the new BTB 4
will be identical to treatment in BTB-3. Effluent from 4 final clarifiers will send flow to
EF-I, new EF-2, and 3.0 mgd to microfiltration. Filtered effluent from the microfiltration
system and the effluent filter structures will be combined and sent to the cascade aeration
structure where aeration will take place. The cascade aeration structure will discharge
through a 48" line into the receiving stream. Again, up to 12.0 mgd could be discharged
to the stream but up to 3.0 mgd may be distributed in the reuse system.

Future 15.0 mgd
As incoming flows govern the need for expansion, the future 15.0 mgd facility will add
one more train of biological treatment. PC-5, BTB-5, and FC-5 will all be added and treat
an additional 3.0 mgd. The facility before PC-5 and after FC-5 will be identical in
structure to the facility in the 12.0 mgd expansion.

INFLUENT PUMPING STATION
l
MECHRNICRL
BAR SCREEN
BS-I
-
INFLUENT
(NOTE 1)
i
i
N'
i I �
N O II 461
mot
°.'!
'-.PLUG (NOTE 2)
i
(ILO.24.0)-3
INFLUENT (15.0,30A)-4
48
(NOTE 1)
DRY WELL
i � 1
(
�-------
-- WET WELL
--
--- - EXISTING
-�1_1/2BAR
SCREEN
EXISTING 12"
PRRSHALL FLUME INSERT
HEADWORKS
(NOTE 1)
NOTES:
1. EXISTING HEROWORKS, INFLUENT PUMPING STATION.
RNO PRELIMINARY TREATMENT STRUCTURE TO BE
ABANDONED AFTER NEW HEADWORKS RND INFLUENT
PUMPING STATION IS IN SERVICE DURING 12 MGO
EXPANSION.
2. PLUG AFTER EXPANSION TO 12 MGD IS COMPLETE.
r
MECHRNICRL
BAR
SCREENS
1 1_ _VORTEX GRIT
I
------------\.`-----U I
J
'--------------------
(9.0.18.0)-2
_ _ r
I
I I
I I
I I.
I I
I r
I
I I
I I
GRIT 8 SCREENINGS
M
BELT
CONVEYOR
SC_
2
_ GRIT SCREWS '\
I M
ilk `
BELT
CONVEYORBC
-2 MECHANICAL BAR
SCREEN B5-2
R )
�--BYPASS CHANNEL
I (
I r
I I
I I
L__________--------------�__. ...-
(0.0,0.0)-1 t-
0.0,0.0)-2 _ 24" OVERFLOW
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
(NOTE 1)
__________________--__-__-----_----____---_--______-__�
30" FM (12.0,24.0)-3
(15.0.30.0)-4 I
I
r----------------------------J��
I I
^------------------------------I-----------------------------I-
C7 i rH-I
b
-----;
I H
1—1
_ ----------- -�- j
I I II
I
-------------0a-4�
4
LEI
-----� o-�
i`- r
-------------o-a 1
i
----� I /—� — — — — — — — — — — — — j I
o-4
Y
-------------0�-o-#
i 1 II
1 r0 Chi r'- - - - - - - - - - - - D4 o- i rH-(
F C�
I I
j+---------------
FIRST STAGE j� �i�_ ? SECONO STAGE
1 PUMPS t
-------------------------------AL-------------------------------
PUMPS
OUMPSTER
GRIT BASIN
TO
SLUM
PRIMARY
RDY
PIPELINE
3b"
BYPASS
TB
PRIMARY
gp%
SCUM
PIPELINE
(12.0,24.0)-3
B OWG
SC-2
4T FUTURE
r TREATMENT
I I i TRAINS
I
I I I
1 I
I �
I
j i I
I I I I
I � I
I I
1
j I I I DAY TANK
i I NO. 2 1
j DT-1 CA
j I I I 1 I II
I
I r----III BI III
I Itj
I
I
I I DRY TANK 1
i
N0. 1 �
l I DT_2 -
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
----------------------------------------
HEADWORKS AND INFLUENT PUMPING STATION
STORM FLOW
EQUALIZATION
BASIN
I
I
I
I
AIR BLOWERS" I 1 11 11141414
@r�
2
G 11
1 SC-2 a
DESIGNED_
FI
f`
Lu
2
3
0
ti
co
U
CL
4
Legend
PROJECT NO,
'-- -' 6.5 MGD RE -RATED FACILITY (1)
9,0 MGD EXPANSION (2)
^7057
l�
----- 12.0 MOD EXPANSION (3)
FUTURE 15.0 MGD EXPANSION (4)
(9.0,18.0)-2—LEGEND REFERENCE NO.
� PEAK DAY FLOW (MGD)
AVG DAY FLOW (MGD)
sc - 1
SHEET
1 OF 3

.,------- — - --- ---- --- - ---- i --- - — ---- s,; , ----- ` --- — -- -- -- —
- —-------- -- ---------- -=mix--z ------ - -----
ZONE 5-1 ZONE
rM� 12Y 1 (3.0,6.0)-4+ZONE 5-9 ZONES ;
V ( 14"i 0— S-12 EI ' ZONE
24" �12" 1 14 24"I -- — - ��---- — Ec
3e- ZONE 5-2 ZONE S-5 5-13
ZONE S-7 `D ZONE •'}----;-'E03•
P@IMHBY15-10 t
k Cj, RIFIER RATE CONTROLElla
, ZONE
yPp i ZONE 5
1 2 6 _-_�5�• ti/" SCUM Ii I �``----J^Y-i� �
; (`-14}KIM STRUCTURE NO, I 5-11DB N0.1r---- ZO-- NE 5-8 ZONE S-3 ZONEIS-4 r
PRIMARY SLUDGE RATE CONTROL !III
I 'R6
STRUCTURE BYPASS i .(6.0.12.0)-3 AND i
i FROM 4
"a_
`BTB NO.SIPS1 SHEET SC-1I /
— — -- — -- ---- -E - —
_ s-----_---1------------
L------ r--T- __ -- J-z-------------- s--_.-�� Fj I
•. i J� H ! I ( )- ZONE 4-1 ZONE 1 1 1 1 r
aj.V\Z�
ZONE 4-9
L III ZONE'A24"J 112" 14F�4"1 r III }-ZONE
I ' aF�J'-- 4-12 I I 1J
I1IIIItw
- - - - - _ -------{tti}4-13ZONE 4-2l ---Z-ONE 4-5
PRIMARZONE
JV ZONE -- I ZONE 4-7L I `.T_
CLARBIERATE CONTR4-10 c
STRUCTURE NO.3 L _J �LL�mmm'
l
r
I v \�----�----20 �� I I I �---7 j ZONE I 4-14L j
t"I I RATE CONTROL J r� I I I L+� 4-11 `�'_TJ
wm STRUCTURE BYPASS i _______ }, __ J-__-_-____J_ _ -
Olo l
4 m I PC _
I EFFLUENT 20 , 1 1 L- -----_ IT-L -------------d1----� 4
LS-----____ --------
- BTB N0.4 (1.5.3.0)-3/4 ..LJ
`------------------1--------------------------------------------- JJ
mz I 3.D.6.0 -2 3 4 I
I N 2 14•'-
3 lJ to r
24" 12" 14"- 14^ 24"
m�24" o
oz J3.0.6.13)-2/3 4 E
PRIMARY W
CLRRIFIER RRTE CONTRO7;"') NO.4 STRUCTURE N0.1
M 4 RATE CONTROL
PASS
STRUCTURE BY
OB NO.2; Q 6 ,
00K,
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
o -yy
6
`g9'.
SLUOGEI ! ^
TYP. I N
� I
ri c
FROM 1 2 'r,•-^ i
PRELIMINARY 38 ' BYPASS '—'-"'-x-- .PRIMRRY
TREflTMENT R - SCUM
STRUCTURE �6.132)-1
ZONE 3-1
NE
6�
�T-
ZONE 3-9
ZONE
3-12
ZONE
3-13
ZONE 3-2
ZONE 3-5
ZONE 3-7
ZONE
3-10
ZONE
ZON
3-14
3-11
ZONE 3-3
ZONE
3-4
ZONE 3-8
(/ X
� I
I
C- 4-�JC-:11
\ i
FINRL f
I
I I
CLRRIFIER/
Q55
1 t
a1 I
a BTB NO .3
!:(
l'l
EFFLUENT
WEIR (TYP)
(1.5.3.0)-2/3/4
M
2a"
CLRRIFIER
N.4 3
36"
�I
ti
-2�•TO PLANT ORRIN
I
-
N
OB N0.11
j (4.5,9.0)-2/3/4
0 o
xS O IMH
` I
.
1 I
a _
30'
-- a I 1 _i
... .T. _
- ,-._..__'..S_"..d• .
- 1 ti VS ! R R8TXON �a
-
LL
fv0.2.2
^a�.
'OB NO 12 " VS , a w
Nf
SHEET SC-1
11-2
(6.0.12.0)-2/�
�„
H I
MH io�
flNOXIC/OXIC
I BASIN0.2.1
!
�L� 1z
BLOWER BUILDING
OB NO.-
N0.1
OB NO.3�
!
OB N0.10
ANAEROBIC N, (3
BASIN N0.2.1
00�
�7
I
ice^
i
t
,
y_BYPASS08
NO,
010/I
fP
_ 30"
- - -- - —
__ .-'•.
MH 6
%ix[
six, ._ ..-- `
--_-_.
`,� `�
MH417
XICRECYCLE
24" O
ma'
-
", M-"
t
a'
MH 15 MH 16
f
_ _
^N 30"
.. -.
v� - DB NO.14
(1.5.3.0)-2/3/4
fczt
1 •( _'. _"- __�._.
t f
:. i
TO PLANT DRAIN
° i I /► , r; -t
a. '._/
I--j
RERRT
VSs BASIN
_-_-t
ION p W
K?.
awls
PRIMARY^
oIw c
m
wui
- _-
NO.1.3 L N
E
CLARIFIER
NO.2
-
;��
I
-----.
OB N0.6
r.
°`
-"'av !M
m,r1'
36' 'i
iOB
NO,7 96 1x.,S♦"'
f�7.
;
MH4 �f
..
48_ l.. �-
_. OB NO,
t _ ,I'-36
012 0)-1
r_S
L
i
BTB 5
SC
I FOAM
5
SCUM
I BTB 4
(FORM
I BTB 3
4
SCUM TO
(FORM
DIGESTERS
SC
I
3
RRS/WAS PUMPING STATION
I
tz
N
i.
0
__-_
O o
BNR SYSTEM 2
EFFLUENT
SHEET SC-3 0
u^ns
36" FLOW DEPENDS N REUSE DEMAND c U 5
Ovhk
IN' -
` 4 (6.6,13.2)-1 *
(6.0,12.0)-2/3/4 'L
{ 36" BNRFFSYSTEM I
-- --- i ELUENT
i-r D SHEET SC-3
6 f FINAL" I P
Sc.
cli
h
LUTi FAIN U
WRS/SCUM TO- ' - i cow
DIGESTER - �IOU
Z
RFO;I
W w
HAS TO I - 1 AFO ..J
PLANT' Y U-
DRAIN
I AFo/
WR WAS To
Lu
BASINLANOG W
BLDG 300E f W
! AFO. i V
` f (1.85,3.1)j-1 I 1 pi
-2/3/4
as ear ,\ I RRS/11AS PUMPING STATION V
•y A ' IN EFFLUENT FILTER BUILDING I
j u°•iNl
i t(
( ,'
�'.. _. Ip"
iI
30,-sr
.�,r"t✓
N RATE Q TROL
STRUCTURE NO. 2 • f`t_aJ',`
-41 24
ANOXIC/OXI[ !
�._:
b
aAI
3.0,8.0-2 3 4
OEflml®:
DO NO, 4
,�y - -
i i
„
BASIN ND 1 1 i t
SJ� IL7 _ '� '� ,a;
AERATION •��
J
M I � ni
oedrt®:
0ea6�®:
sue.
I
_
�. __ _ _ . >
ANAEROBIC
am,
._. tl_ 5 `-S
BFISI
r
APRRo� _
m=!-IF+-
\.
y, yl
tt
DB NO.4A
! t I
OPTIONDALIRAS ROUTING
BASIN NO.1.1 -
w i I _
... - _ -- -
NO.I
•2
-
DAre:
PROJECT NO.
`e y'h.
i3
'._.y. _.._.-.. �- 1 ,�`t ;MI `•,��/l ry n! ! legend
z
I- TRAINS 1 RND 2 -
y�
1 1
!
(1.5,3.0)-2/3/ 4 r . {
_ _ __
_-�- 6.6 MGD RE -RATED FACILITY(1)
705
-!
�
� x!
,- -
9.0 MGD EXPANSION (2)
' TO WAS
PRIMARY
\
""4 ?
RRS,'' _. _I
._..,.._16_RAS - _ __- (1.5,3.0)-2/3/4,t. _y
----- 12.0 MGD EXPANS!ON(3)
OLOING BASIN 1
�,LRRIFIERi�,N.
N0.1
---_`-----
---
: -•
- -- -
(4.95,9.8)-1 I H 14
FUTURE 15.0 MGD EXPANSION (4)
F INRL
CLRRIFIER
O!� _ �]
Ot/ L
r-::-,:3--,�'"• -'
(( 4.5,9.D)-2/3/4
(9.0,18.0)-2—LEGEND REFERENCE N0.
NO 1
De No.s
`PEAK DAY FLOW (MGD)
�AVO
SHEET
DAY FLOW (MGD)
2 OF 3
�o

8NR SYSTEM
EFFLUENT NO.1
SHEET SC-2
(5.6,13.2)-1
(6,0,2
7.5)-
36" INFLUENT
(6.0,13.5)-4
' 20" BACKWASH WASTE
BACKWASH
0" 5 SH WASTE
Y
-
T '•
�! -j /�
sI
-'"
12" BACKWASH
I I 36" FILTER _ tf
..P
T " SUPPLY
p' EFFLUENT '�• 1
-_.":, iti .�.• O
' pT_.; : p i _-
0
tN -
• p'•., 0
Lam._ I
1 �� `. V
�'p F� r
.. i
12" i i
NI
m
.., r,- p. N(I P'i l:. IP;. 1:
_ .• a
1-P,- N`'P::': IP"�,: t�P •_,• N�y Phi jP N''
I
r• i
�.P I.P LI p_.
j1
w
p _ .
_, ..- ,_r__ __f.. ...�__—..s._"r
.—_.. :--.T �__. ._ I L..:., ._.
-
I
FILTER FILTER
FILTER FILTER
FILTER
' MUOWELL
( NO.1 NO.2
NO.3 N0.4
No.5
i
CLERRWELL '
UV NO.3
MH 20
42"
UV NO.2
UV NO.1
'j UV EFFLUENT CHAMBER
t UV EFFLUENT TROUGH (TYP) EFFLUENT FILTER BUILDING NO. 1
FILTER EFFLUENT NPW
TO PLAN
FROM PLANT
PH SYSTEM
AIR GAP
ABOVE
METWELL-
N
�a
LL
i
�
r P� PP
F�
T
I
I
1
J_
RFO'
AFD AFD
RFD
flF0
14"
flF0 flF0 RFD
I RFD 1 RFD
NPW WETWELL
T----1-•i
r' •' 24 r
REUSE WETWELL
r
" NPN SUPPLY
SUPPLY
24^ REUSE
TRANSMISSION MAIN (3.0,3.0)-2/3/4*
CHLORINE
CONTACT BRSIN
MEMBRANE FILTRATION BUILDING FIR \�"otsiRIeuriow• OVERFLOW NEI
14" NPN FM 1j-41 NPN TO PLANT- DISTRIBUTION
REUSE METERING VAULT BOX NO. 18
RNA
MH 29
(4.5,7.5)-3
(6.0,13,5)-4 42"
42" FILTER INFLUENT 30" I
i-------- ----------� 1-�I`-----�---�
i-i----�_----i- L_ 20^ BACKWASH WASTE _I._ T-._---_--_-- L------____
I 20"
BACKWASH WASTE
11
r r f / / r
T T T T T T T T T T
T
12" BACKWASH
SUPPLY
FILTER 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I
1 I 42'EFFLUENT
Lp-L� I EFFLUENT LPye I Q LP7� I `.* Lpp I `a Lpy- i =
WI Ir T �N 12" r IN IN
1 �'
LPR 1
12" 7 I
I
JI` -- T-_"_--: --'�----7 -�I`--Nr-------�-�1`---�--
--------=-r------- I
w I Nr F- I Nr S- I
I
N
I 1 1N x I
NI n1
T T
i� I T T I { T T I T T I I T T I I T
aml 1 J. 1 I _L 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1
rp rP rp I rP rP rP1 J I rP, l rP'1 ,, rPL I r p_ rp rP'I_, Iry rP
LYZ-L
I.
T I '�Ia
L I LLlm
rP'I_� I 1
I I
I {
of LY L Z- LYT I L� I LP LYZ- L S { LY L�..0 L 7 I LY LYZ- L S (
-- _c --- -1--------L -1--------1 rr------1"
l" T
+.•rl (JTl I 1
I FILTER I FILTER 1 FILTER I FILTER I FILTER
I N0.6 I NO.7 1 NO.8 I N0.9 I NO.10
1
{
I MUDWELL 1
I 1
I I I I I
I 1I�F-CLEARNELLI
j
I I 1 1 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------I ---------1------------- 1-----------
--I -�-tt.�----���--T-�
1-------------a'—�----------_
I
ti_1---------- UV NO.6
',�� F
I
I
I
1-------------1`--�'------------s,}
r------------------------
1-------------4-1-----------
1 I
�-
-L_1------------ ^�
I�
1
rJ-----�-----
I UV No.$
I-------------"'""1----------- � `V
Ir-------------_r-----------
- - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 4__ 1------------
r-----------�-r-----^�----} I
-I
1
I_ UV EFFLUENT CHAMBERLy
_-----_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - 1-�----------
J II
Im
N=
UV EFFLUENT TROUGH (TYP) EFFLUENT FILTER
j BUILDING N0..2
M
46" FILTER EFFLUENT __ _ _ _ _
L-------------------------------------------------------------------------y--
(6.0,12.0)-4 ec
MH
q2"
24" SECONDRRY EFFLUENT
(3.0,3.0)-2/3/4
NOTES:
• FLOW DEPENDS ON DEMAND.
3.0 MOD MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW.
TO MICROFILIRATION
TRRTION
PLUG EXISTING
PLANT EFFLUENT
DURING EXPANSION
TO 9.0 MGO
(9.0.18.0)-2—LEGEND REFERENCE NO.
�_�PEAK DAY FLOW (MGD)
AVG DAY FLOW (MGD)
m
METER VAULT
EMERGENCY BYPASS
�i
N'
} WEIR
te; (TYP) -�
i
i
PLUG EXISTING
PLANT EFFLUENT
MH 21
(9.0,18.1
MH 22
OB 15 s
Legend
6.6 MOD RE -RATED FACILITY (1)
9.0 MGD EXPANSION(2)
----- 12.0 MGD EXPANSION (3)
FUTURE MO MGD EXPANSION (4)
- PLANT EFFLUENT
48" PLANT EFFLUENT�1(12.0.24.0)-3
(15.0.30.0)-4
MCDOWELL CREEK
PLUG FOR
FUTURE
CONNECTION
PLANT EFFLUENT
METERING VAULT
CASCADE
AERATION
STRUCTURE
CHEMICAL FEED
O ALUM O METHANOL
O LIME O SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
O ACETIC ACID © SODIUM BISULFITE
�14
it
6
y
U
Dazalm.
DETAIL®:
DNEf7GA:
APPIgM:
DATE:
PROJECT NO.
97057
SC-3
SHEET
3 OF 3

EA ee�mvwl'i
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT FOR THE MCDOWELL CREEK
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
01313l ' " JGt ll i ,�'100i l fIVi ept � beerr �, 2003
Project Applicant: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Project Number: DWQ # 13203
Responsible Agency: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section (Division)
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-
1, et seq.), an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the expansion of the existing
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (W WTP). The proposed project will expand the
plant's existing permitted capacity of 6.0 million gallons per day (mgd) to 12mgd. The additional
treatment capacity is needed to accommodate increased flows projected to occur as result of new
growth and development within the service area.
The plant, owned and operated by the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), provides service
to customers within the towns of Huntersville and Cornelius and their extra territorial
jurisdictions. The plant is located on Neck Road in northern Mecklenburg County within
CHuntersville's extra -territorial jurisdiction. Effluent from the plant is discharged into McDowell
Creek approximately one half mile upstream of Mountain Island Lake on the Catawba River.
Approximately 21,500 acres in Huntersville and 8,200 acres in Cornelius will be served by the
project.
Several alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed for the EA. Options discussed
included diverting wastewater to Cabarrus County, to other CMU treatment plants, constructing
smaller package treatment plants, and taking no action. The selected project was chosen because
by expanding the existing facility no new land will need to be disturbed, the existing discharge
can be utilized, and treatment consistent with NPDES discharge permits can be assured.
All construction activity related to the expansion of the McDowell Creek W WTP will occur at
the existing 100-acre plant site. The project will add an additional 14 acres of new facilities. All
construction will take place above the 100-year flood plain elevation on McDowell Creek and
Mountain Island Lake. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be submitted to the
DENR Raleigh office for approval before construction commences. Permanent stormwater
detention ponds will be constructed to improve runoff quality from the site. A 100 foot
vegetated buffer around the site on Neck Road will be provided.
The land suiTounding the plant is generally rural. A majority of the land use throughout the
service area is designated as single family residential. There are no prime or unique agricultural

lands at the project location. No critical habitat, significant, rare, or unique terrestrial wildlife
habitat was identified nor will be impacted.
Secondary and cumulative impacts to the environment associated with new development could
result from the increase in capacity. Various town ordinances and land development regulations
of Huntersville and Cornelius will mitigate many of the adverse effects from such development.
These include riparian buffer, stormwater management, and open space protection programs.
Application of Huntersville's low impact development ordinance will provide further mitigation
for potential water quality impacts. Additionally, the Town of Cornelius requires delineation of
jurisdictional waters as part of its site plan review process. These and other mitigation measures
to be utilized by both jurisdictions are described in further detail within the EA.
The Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to the environment. This decision is based upon information provided in the
EA and review by governmental agencies. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of a NPDES Discharge Permit and 401 Water Quality
Certification by the Division of Water Quality. An environmental impact statement will not be
prepared for this project. This FONSI completes the environmental review record, which is
available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
September 25, 2003

Re: [Fwd: RE: EA]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: EA]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:06:41 -0400
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
Hello Alex, I have reviewed the revised EA and have no additional comments.
Jackie
Alex Marks wrote:
> Jackie,
> Another email from Dave Parker. Please let me know if you have any
> comments. Otherwise I will consider your email of 9116 adequate.
> Thanks,
> Alex
> Alex
>-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: EA
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:17:51 -0500
> From: "Parker, David M. (Dave) " <parkerdm@bv. com>
> To: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
> CC: "Reinbold, Chris T. " <ReinboldCT@bv. com>
> Alex - I made a final review of what we sent you yesterday, and I made
> one
> edit that I want to pass on to you. The paragraph below follows Table
't 14 in
a the section on Flow Projections. One of Jackie Nowell's questions at
> one
> point related to the change in population indicated in the table that
> results from a portion of the service area being diverted out. I added
> the
> sentences beginning "As stated previously, the population. . " I just
> wanted to make sure that her previous question was clearly answered.
> I hope this makes sense. Please call if you have any questions.
> Thanks.
> Wastewater flows from portions of Davidson, Cornelius, and
> Huntersville in the Rocky River Drainage Basin are also pumped into the
> McDowell basin. These flows are scheduled for diversion out of the
> McDowell
> Creek basin in late 2003 or 2004 when gravity interceptors from the
> adjacent
> Rocky River basin are extended to these stations and eliminate the need
> for
> pumping. As stated previously, the population in the basin is reduced
> by
> 7,000 for the area to be diverted, thus changing the year 2000
> population
> figure from 36,476 to 29,476 in Table 13. Exhibit 6B shows the areas to
> be
> diverted to the Rocky River basin. It is anticipated that the flows
> that
> are to be diverted out of the McDowell basin when the gravity
> in terceptors
> are completed will be approximately 0.75 mgd. The June 1999 CMU
1 of 2 9/23/03 2:08 PM

Re: [Fwd: RE: EA]
• > Sanitary
> Sewer Collection System Evaluation and Remedial Action Plan describes
> these
> as Phase I and Phase II improvements. The reduction of these flows is
> accounted for in the flow projections.
>
> > -----Original Message -----
> > From: Parker, David M. (Dave)
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 4:15 PM
> > To: Alex Marks
> > Cc: 'Gullet, Barry'; 'Jarrell, Jackie'; 'Howard, Tom'; Reuss, Brent M.;
> > Reinbold, Chris T.; Bonislawsky, Mary P.
> > Subject: FW: EA
> > Alex,
> > Attached is a zip file containing four files: The final (latest version)
> > EA, and exhibits 6A, 6B, and 8. As we discussed, these exhibits were
> > included because they have been updated since the previous submittal. The
> > remaining exhibits have not changed significantly.
> > We have not included the appendices, which will include the Natural
> > Wildlife surveys, agency correspondence, and additional details on
> > Mecklenburg Co. SWIM program and Huntersville Water Quality Regulations.
> > We are standing by until we get your final blessing, then will submit 11
> > copies to you no later than Friday next week. We understand this will
> > allow you to meet the schedule for submitting to the Clearinghouse on
> > Friday.
> > Please contact me with any comments or questions.
> > Thanks for your help on this. We look forward to moving on to the next
> > step in the process!
> > David M. Parker, P.E.
> > Black & Veatch
> > 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> > Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> > Phone: [phone]
> > Fax: [phone]
> > Mobile: [phone]
> > E-mail: ParkerDM@bv. com
> > << File: McDowell EA FINALREVIEW 091703.zip >>
2 of 2 9/23/03 2:08 PM

McDowell Creek WWTP Expansion EA
1. 1
Subject: McDowell Creek WWTP Expansion EA
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:09:55 -0400
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Alex Marks <[e-mail]>
CC: "Parker, David M. (Dave)" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Alex,
On September 15th, the NPDES Unit received final correspondence
from Black & Veatch regarding the subject EA. Our primary concern with
the assessment was the inclusion of a complete engineering alternatives
analysis for the proposed WWTP expansion. After additional review and
discussion, the NPDES Unit is satisfied that the engineering
alternatives analysis for the McDowell Creek expansion have been
adequately addressed for our criteria.
It is our understanding that all NPDES comments that were addressed in
both the June 18, 2003 and September 12, 2003 letters from Dave Parker
of Black & Veatch will be completely incorporated into the revised
McDowell Creek expansion EA that will be submitted. These letters
included updated flow justification and population projections, as well
as, the alternatives analysis and other information pertinent to the
assessment. As stated in the May 23rd memo to you, we recommend that a
FONSI be issued for wasteflow up to 12 MGD for the McDowell Creek WWTP.
Thank you and please contact me if there are any questions.
1 of 1 9/16/03 11:29 AM

o,
BLACK & VEATCH
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive
Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269-0019 USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 12 mgd
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
N.C. Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit — Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject:
Dear Ms. Nowell:
Black &
SEP 15 2003
International Connparny-
Y
B&V Project 97057.200
B&V File F
September 12, 2003
Environmental Assessment
McDowell Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
DWQ #13203
NPDES Permit No. NCO036277
This letter is in response to comments on the subject Environmental Assessment, transmitted by
you to Mr. Alex Marks on May 23, 2003, and comments you expressed directly to me in
conversations over the phone.
We sent you an initial response to your comments with our letter dated June 18, 2003. This
initial response included capital costs for the alternatives included in the EA. We have since
talked with you and received clarification on the requirements for preparing cost analyses for an
engineering alternatives analysis (EAA). We now understand that a present -worth cost analysis
must be provided. We have therefore revised and updated the costs to meet these requirements.
Let me start by summing up the modifications that have been made to the cost analyses since the
letter we sent to you on June 18, 2003:
The costs that were provided did not include operating costs associated with the
treatment facilities. Annual operating costs have now been provided for each
alternative, along with a present value cost analysis for comparison of the combined
present -worth and annual costs between alternatives.
building a world of difference^

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 2
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
The capital costs presented in the June 18 letter were generated during the
McDowell Basin study and presented to the stakeholders group in 2001. These costs
have now been updated to reflect 2004 costs, by applying an inflation factor based on
the construction cost indices published by Engineering News -Record (ENR). The
total inflation factor for this period is 6.84 percent based on these indices.
■ The capital costs developed in 2001 did not take into account the recent requirements
for phosphorus removal for the alternatives of expanded Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities (CMU) plants discharging into the Catawba River system. The capital costs
for the alternative of expanding the Irwin Creek WWTP has been increased to
account for this.
The original costs did not include contingency, easement acquisition, or engineering
costs. These costs are to be included with each alternative as described in the EAA
guidelines to help reflect the total cost of each alternative. Therefore, factors of
15 percent for contingency, 15 percent for engineering, and 10 percent for easements
and land acquisition (where appropriate) are now included.
Based on the modifications listed above, the following table was generated to reflect the overall
present -worth cost analysis for the different alternatives.
PRESENT -WORTH COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY
All costs in million $)
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
Total PW
Total PW
Pumping
Total Cost PW
Station
Total
Annual
with
and
WWTP
Capital
Operating
Operating
Total Cost
Microfiltration
Alternative
Pipelines
Expansion
Cost
Cost
Cost PW
PW
and Reuse
Diversion of Wastewater to
Cabarrus County (Rocky
River WWTP)
90.3
44.2
134.5
0.14
24.77
159.3
175.2
Diversion of Wastewater to
CMU - Irwin Creek WWTP
28.8
58.0
86.9
0.12
22.32
109.2
125.1
Diversion of Wastewater to
CMU - Mallard Creek WRF
33.7
44.2
77.9
0.12
22.44
100.3
116.2
Small Package Plants
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
No Build
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Expand McDowell Creek
WWTP, Non -Discharge with
Spray Irrigation
72.7
44.2
116.9
0.20
23.44
140.4
156.3
Expand McDowell Creek
WWTP, Discharge to
McDowell Creek
0.0
66.3
66.3
0.05
21.54
87.9
103.8

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 3
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
General Notes:
■ Bold Text indicates selected alternative.
■ Average Annual Design Flow (Increase) = 6.0 mgd
■ Power cost = $0.05/kw-hr
■ Present -worth analysis based on 20-year period and 5 percent annual interest rate.
■ Alternatives for microfiltration and reuse may be included with any alternative and, thus,
are shown as an added cost to each alternative for cost comparison purposes. The cost
of membrane microfiltration for any of the plants is $7.5 million and the cost for
reuse facilities is $8.4 million.
Eight complete alternatives were identified and detailed cost analyses performed. Key aspects of
each of the alternatives may be found below and the alternative may be referenced to the table
above for the detailed cost.
1. Divert Raw Wastewater to Cabarrus County, Rocky River Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, for Treatment.
■ Pumping station to pump an average of 6 mgd from McDowell Creek WWTP to the
Rocky River, and a second pumping station near the confluence of Coddle Creek to
reach the Rocky River Regional WWTP.
■ Approximately 53,000 feet of 36-inch force main for the first lift station, 25,000 feet
of 36-inch force main for the second lift station, 25,000 feet of 42-inch gravity sewer,
and 125,000 feet of 48-inch gravity sewer are required.
■ A 6-mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs for
this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment, including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations include power costs to pump an average of
6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion include labor, power,
chemicals, and administrative costs, plus a surcharge for probable fee from the
operating utility to CMU to treat this waste.
■ Diversion of this flow to the Mallard Creek WRF would require an interbasin
transfer, which would require extensive permitting and approvals.
2. Divert Raw Wastewater to CMU Irwin Creek WWTP for Treatment.
■ Pumping station to pump an average of 6 mgd past the Long Creek basin to the
Stewart Creek basin.
■ Approximately 74,000 feet of 36-inch force main and 57,000 feet of 36-inch gravity
sewer are required.
■ A 6-mgd expansion of the Irwin Creek WWTP would be required. Costs for this
expansion would include treatment basins (including phosphorus removal), related
equipment, including pumping stations, blowers, solids handling facilities, electrical
work, and instrumentation.

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 4
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
Operating costs for the pumping stations include power costs to pump an average of
6 mgd continuously.
Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion include labor, power,
chemicals, and administrative costs.
Alternatives to divert wastewater to either the CMU Sugar Creek or McAlpine Creek
WWTPs would include all of the above, plus additional gravity sewer lines. Thus the
capital and present -worth cost would increase further over the Irwin Creek
alternative.
3. Divert Raw Wastewater to the CMU Mallard Creek WWTP.
■ Pumping station to pump an average of 6 mgd from the McDowell Creek basin to the
Mallard Creek basin.
■ Approximately 57,000 feet of 36-inch diameter force main and 49,000 feet of 36-inch
gravity sewer are required.
■ A 6-mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs for
this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment, including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average of
6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor, power,
chemicals, and administrative costs.
■ Diversion of this flow to the Mallard Creek WRF would require an interbasin
transfer, which would require extensive permitting and approvals.
4. Small Package Plants.
■ Because small package plants are prohibited by local regulations, this alternative was
eliminated from consideration.
5. No Build.
■ The no -build option has a capital cost of $0. However, the economic cost to the
community would be very significant.
6. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP with Non -Discharge Spray Irrigation as the Means
for Disposal.
■ Approximately 1,800 acres of land will be required for spray irrigation, or
approximately 3 square miles. No single site or contiguous sites are available.
Analysis was performed assuming multiple sites would be purchased to accommodate
this requirement. However, this amount of land would most likely not be attainable.
■ Land cost is estimated at $20,000 per acre, $36 million total.

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 5
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
■ Thirty days of storage are required at irrigation sites, 180 million gallons total. At
10 feet average depth, this would require a total of 55 acres of storage ponds.
Estimated capital cost of storage ponds is approximately $28.6 million. This cost was
derived assuming that six ponds at 30-million gallon capacity each will need to be
constructed along with associated facilities at multiple sites. The cost per site would
be approximately $4.8 million. It was assumed that land acquisition costs were
included in land acquisition for spray irrigation sites. The costs for each pond include
clearing, grading, earthwork, concrete lining for ponds, irrigation system, pumping
equipment, and related items.
■ Approximately 39,000 feet of 24-inch diameter force main would be required to
pump the treated wastewater through the main part of the basin along
McDowell Creek. Additional piping would be required to reach individual sites
along this force main.
■ A 12-mgd pumping station was assumed for pumping the treated wastewater from the
McDowell Creek WWTP. Average pumping of 6 mgd was used for the operating
costs.
■ The annual operating costs increase by $200,000 over the other alternatives for costs
associated with irrigation system operation, maintenance, analytical testing, and
record keeping.
■ A 6-mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs for
this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation. This capital cost was estimated to be lower than for the option of
discharging to McDowell Creek, assuming that nitrogen and phosphorus removal
facilities would not be required.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average of
6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion include labor, power,
chemicals, and administrative costs.
7. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP with a Discharge Permitted to the Creek.
■ A 6-mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs for
this expansion include treatment basins (including nitrogen and phosphorus removal),
related equipment, including pumping stations, blower buildings, solids handling
facilities, electrical work, and instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion include labor, power,
chemicals, and administrative costs.
8. Add Reuse Facilities and Membrane Microfiltration.
■ Microfiltration will be provided to ensure reuse quality water can be provided at all
times. Excess effluent from microfiltration system may be discharged to the
receiving stream to improve the final effluent discharged to the stream.

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 6
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
■ Capital costs for membrane microfiltration include membrane modules, feed pumps
and backwash pumps, chemical cleaning equipment, and related facilities, electrical
work, and instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for membrane microfiltration include power usage for pumping
through membranes, chemicals for cleaning, and waste disposal costs.
■ Reuse pumping station sized to pump an average of 3 mgd, expandable to 6 mgd.
■ Costs for reuse pipeline based on 39,000 feet of 18-inch and 24-inch diameter force
main, plus an elevated storage tank, based on McDowell Creek Basin and assumed
typical for all alternatives.
■ Operating costs for reuse pumping include power costs to pump an average of 2 mgd
continuously, plus chemical costs and labor for administration of these facilities.
Conclusions:
Based on the present -worth cost analysis, the lowest cost alternative is to expand the
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, with effluent discharged to McDowell Creek.
CMU has also opted to include the alternatives of providing membrane microfiltration and reuse
pumping with the expansion of the McDowell plant. The total present -worth cost of these
selected alternatives is $103.8 million. The present -worth cost of the other alternatives ranges
from $116 to $175 million, thus confirming that expanding the McDowell Creek WWTP is the
lowest cost alternative.
Information that was obtained to perform the cost estimates is cited below:
References:
■ Land Acquisition Costs: The public records indicate that land in the area costs on
average $20,000 an acre. Therefore, the average cost of $20,000 per acre was used since
over 1,800 acres would need to be purchased. Eighteen hundred acres at $20,000 per
acre totals the listed $36 million.
■ Pumping Station and Pipeline Costs: The pumping station and pipeline costs were
derived from actual construction costs for projects based on records compiled over the
past 5 years. The costs are not job specific but are appropriate for the Charlotte region.
■ Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Costs: These costs were based on historical data
on treatment plant expansions, on a cost-per-mgd capacity basis, with costs varied based
on the level of treatment to be provided.
We hope these additional responses are adequate to address your comments and concerns.

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 7
B&V Project 97057.200
September 12, 2003
Please contact me with any additional comments or questions regarding this project. I can be
reached at [phone], or by email at [e-mail].
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
Lff(F�41-
David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager
CMU-2/CTR/dmp/svl
cc: Barry Gullet, CMU
Tom Howard, CMU
Jackie Jarrell, CMU
Alex Marks, NCDWQ
Mary Bonislawsky, B&V
Brent Reuss, B&V

i
RE: Mcpowell Expansion EA
Subject: RE: McDowell Expansion EA
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:32:22 -0500
From: "Parker, David A (Dave)" <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: "Reinhold, Chris T." <[e-mail]>
Thanks, Jackie. I will send out the official letter today.
-----Original Message -----
From: Jackie Nowell[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 8:21 AM
To: Parker, David M. (Dave)
Subject: Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Hello Dave, thanks for the attached letter. I have done a quick review and
everything looks good however I would like the opportunity to let Dave
review it before sending an official response. He
is out of the office until Monday. If you want to go ahead and forward the
letter to me that would
be fine. Thanks.
"Parker, David M. (Dave)" wrote:
> Jackie,
> The attached letter is as discussed by you and Chris Reinbold
> yesterday. This letter includes the final data on the present worth
> cost analysis prepared for the alternatives for the McDowell
> expansion. Please take a look and see if this answers all of your
> questions. We would like to send this letter out officially today,
> and then include this information in a
> (hopefully) final EA to be submitted to Alex later this week.
> Please call either me or Chris Reinbold if you have any more comments
> or questions. My contact info is below, and Chris can be reached at
> 704-510-8437. Thanks for your help on this.
> «NPDES Response Letter formal.doc>>
> David M. Parker, P.E.
> Black & Veatch
> 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> E-mail: ParkerDM@bv. com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: NPDES Response
Letter_formal.doc
> NPDES_Response Letter formal.doc Type: Microsoft Word
Document (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded
> with message
1 of 1 9/12/03 11:46 AM

Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Subject: Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:37:25 -0400
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: "Parker, David M. (Dave)" <[e-mail]>
Hello Dave,
Just a brief note to let you know I have taken a quick look at the revisions. They
look good and appear to have
addressed my questions from July 18th, but I do have a comment or two. I am out of
the office until Tuesday the
26th and will call you next week when I return.
Jackie
"Parker, David M. (Dave)" wrote:
> Jackie - sorry to be so long in responding to your questions. We are still
> trying to work out some issues with Wildlife Resources, but I want to wrap
> up the alternatives analysis questions if I can. I am attaching a document
> with answers to your questions below.
> I would like to. try to discuss this with you once you have had a chance to
> review. Please call me when you can. Thanks.
> David M. Parker, P.E.
> Black & Veatch
> 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> E-mail: ParkerDM@bv. com
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Jackie Nowell jmailto:[e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: Parker, David M. (Dave)
> Cc: Dave Goodrich
> Subject: Re: McDowell Expansion EA
> Hello Dave, Thanks for sending this and I did give this a quick look. It
> looks good and I did have a couple of questions that may be clarified in
> your final analysis.
> In Alternate 5, the expansion with Non discharge spray - you noted that the
> "annual operating costs increase by $200,000 over the other alternatives".
> However, on the table XX, you show no annual operating cost for that
> alternative. Is the $200K included in another cost area?
> Also in alternative 5, the cost of the storage ponds is indicated as $28.6M.
> This may need to broken down a little more. If 55 acres of land for storage
> ponds costs $11M, what does the additional $17M cover?
> In alternative 6, the cost of expansion of the McDowell Creek plant is $22M
> more that the expansion cost in alternative 5. Why such a large difference
> in cost? Is it based solely on N and P removal? This comes into play when
> adding the cost of expanding and discharging at McDowell Creek plus the
> microfiltration and reuse facilities. The total is $103.8M, which is
> comparable to the costs for diversion to the Irwin or Mallard Creek plants.
I of 2 9/3/03 2:16 PM

Re: McDowell Expansion EA
> (We understand that diversion of wasteflow out of the basin is not
> recommended by the Stakeholders Group).
> Also, please include your source of information, ie for estimate of land
> acreage cost, costs for pump stations, piping, etc.
> Thanks for the opportunity to review.
> "Parker, David M. (Dave) " wrote:
> > Jackie - attached is a DRAFT of our present worth analysis write-up
> > for the McDowell Expansion EA. We would appreciate your comments on
> > this before we finalize this analysis. We will then follow up with a
> > formal response and indicate the information will be included in the
> > EA.
> > <<Summary of Alternatives. doc>>
> > Please call or e-mail with any comments. Thanks for your help.
> > David M. Parker, P.E.
> > Black & Veatch
> > 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> > Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> > Phone: [phone]
> > Fax: [phone]
> > Mobile: [phone]
> > E-mail: [e-mail]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Name: Summary of Alternatives.doc
> > Summary of Alternatives.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
> (application/msword)
> > Encoding: Dase64
> > Download Status: Not downloaded with
> > message
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Clarification to
Summary of Alternatives.doc
> Clarification to Summary of Alternatives.doc Type: Microsoft Word
Document (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded
with message
2 of 2 9/3/03 2:16 PM

i
RE: Mcpowell Expansion EA
Subject: RE: McDowell Expansion EA
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:23:39 -0500
From: "Parker, David M. (Dave)" <[e-mail]>
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>,
"Reinhold, Chris T." <[e-mail]>
Jackie - sorry to be so long in responding to your questions. We are still
trying to work out some issues with Wildlife Resources, but I want to wrap
up the alternatives analysis questions if I can. I am attaching a document
with answers to your questions below.
I would like to try to discuss this with you once you have had a chance to
review. Please call me when you can. Thanks.
David M. Parker, P.E.
Black & Veatch
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Jackie Nowell[mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:00 PM
To: Parker, David M. jDave)
Cc: Dave Goodrich
Subject: Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Hello Dave, Thanks for sending this and I did give this a quick look. It
looks good and I did have a couple of questions that may be clarified in
your final analysis.
In Alternate 5, the expansion with Non discharge spray - you noted that the
"annual operating costs increase by $200,000 over the other alternatives".
However, on the table XX, you show no annual operating cost for that
alternative. Is the $200K included in another cost area?
Also in alternative 5, the cost of the storage ponds is indicated as $28.6M.
This may need to broken down a little more. If 55 acres of land for storage
ponds costs $11M, what does the additional $17M cover?
In alternative 6, the cost of expansion of the McDowell Creek plant is $22M
more that the expansion cost in alternative 5. Why such a large difference
in cost? Is it based solely on N and P removal? This comes into play when
adding the cost of expanding and discharging at McDowell Creek plus the
microfiltration and reuse facilities. The total is $103.8M, which is
comparable to the costs for diversion to the Irwin or Mallard Creek plants.
(We understand that diversion of wasteflow out of the basin is not
recommended by the Stakeholders Group).
Also, please include your source of information, ie for estimate of land
acreage cost, costs for pump stations, piping, etc.
Thanks for the opportunity to review.
1 of 2 8/21 /03 8:04 AM

RE: McDowell Expansion EA
"Parker, David M. (Dave)" wrote:
> Jackie - attached is a DRAFT of our present worth analysis write-up
> for the McDowell Expansion EA. We would appreciate your comments on
> this before we finalize this analysis. We will then follow up with a
> formal response and indicate the information will be included in the
> EA.
> <<Summary of Alternatives. doc>>
> Please call or e-mail with any comments. Thanks for your help.
> David M. Parker, P.E.
> Black & Veatch
> 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> E-mail: ParkerDM@bv. com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Summary of Alternatives.doc
> Summary of Alternatives.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Download Status: Not downloaded with
> message
Name: Clarification to Summary of
Alternatives.doc
Fj Clarification to Summary of Alternatives.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 8/21/03 8:04 AM

**DRAFT**
8-18-2003
McDowell Creek WWTP Expansion to 12 MGD
Present Worth Cost Analysis for the Environmental Assessment
Responses to Comments from Jackie Nowell dated July 18.
1. Where is the $200,000 operating cost included for the spray irrigation
option?
The $200,000 operating cost was included in the annual operating cost in the
calculations. However, when the summary table was generated it was inadvertently left
out, but the final cost still included it. The table has been changed to reflect a $200,000
operating cost; the corrected table is included below.
TABLE XX
Present Worth Cost Analysis Summary
(All costs in Million $)
Total
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
PW
Pump
Total
Annual
Total
Station &
WWTP
Capital
Operating
Operating
Cost
Alternative
Pipelines
Expansion
Cost
Cost
Cost PW
PW
Diversion of Wastewater
to Cabarrus County
(Rocky River WWTP)
90.3
44.2
134.5
0.14
24.77
159.3
Diversion of Wastewater
to CMU - Irwin Creek
WWTP
28.8
1 58.0
86.9
0.12
22.32
109.2
Diversion of Wastewater
to CMU - Mallard Creek
WRF
33.7
44.2
77.9
0.12
22.44
100.3
Small Package Plants
na
na
na
na
na
na
No Build
na
na
na
na
na
na
Expand McDowell Creek
WWTP, Non -Discharge
with Spray Irrigation
72.7
44.2
116.9
0.20
23.44
140.4
Expand McDowell
Creek WWTP,
Discharge to McDowell
Creek
0.0
66.3
66.3
0.05
21.54
87.9
Add Membrane
Microfiltration to
McDowell Creek WWTP
0.0
4.5
4.5
0.24
3.03
74
Add Reuse Facilities to
McDowell Creek WWTP
7.8
0.0
7.8
0.04
0.52
8.4
*Note: Bold Text indicates selected alternatives.
£,14 � `

2. The cost of the storage pond is $28.6 Million, what does this cover?
As we indicated, approximately 1,800 acres of land would be required for spray
irrigation, with a total estimated cost of $36 million. We have not included any
additional land acquisition for storage ponds, because of our assumption that some
portions of the land to be purchased would not be well suited for spray irrigation but
could be used for holding ponds. The $28.6 Million cost for the storage ponds is based
on constructing six, 30 million gallon ponds with associated facilities, assuming these
ponds would be located at multiple sites along with spray irrigation sites. Cost per site
would be approximately $4.8 million. Costs for each pond include clearing, grading,
earthwork, concrete lining for ponds, irrigation system, pumping equipment, and related
items.
3. The cost of expanding the McDowell plant is $22 Million different
between alternatives 5 and 6, is this because of the difference in the
Nitrogen and Phosphorus limits?
You may note that the cost for expanding the various wastewater treatment plants
varies. The costs for expanding the Mallard Creek and Rocky River plants,. and for
expanding the McDowell Creek plant for spray irrigation, ($44.2 million) assumes
comparable treatment with no nutrient limits imposed. The costs for expanding.the Irwin
Creek plant ($58.0 million) assumes a higher level of treatment to include phosphorus
limits. The costs for expanding the McDowell Creek plant ($66.3 million) assumes that
nitrogen and phosphorus limits would apply, with further increased costs due to extra
measures for operational flexibility, reliability, and redundancy that are proposed. These
extra measures are to assure protection of McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake,
and to as compliance with the local ordinance of no increase in pollutant load.
4. The cost of the McDowell plant with membrane filtration and reuse is
more than the cost to simply upgrade the Mallard plant.
Please note the statement in the General Notes following the table of costs that says
"The alternative for Reuse Facilities is not a stand-alone option for treating and disposing
of the wastewater. Reuse is an option considered for inclusion in the overall project, and
could be a component of any of the considered alternatives." This statement should have
also included the membrane filtration equipment. This equipment is being provided for
two purposes, to serve the reuse system and to improve the effluent to the creek.
However, if reuse was not included as a selected option in the proposed expansion, the
membrane equipment also would likely not be included. Therefore, a fair comparison
should not include the cost of membrane filtration or reuse. The present worth cost
comparison for expanding McDowell vs. expanding Mallard is $87.9 million vs. $100.3
million, a difference of 14%.
S. Please include references for land acreage costs, pumping station
costs, piping, etc.

Land Acquisition Costs:
The public records indicate that land in the area costs on average $20,000 an acre.
Therefore, the average cost of $20,000 per acre was used since over 1,800 acres would
need to be purchased. 1800 acres at $20,000 per acre totals the listed $36 Million.
Pumping Station and Pipeline Costs:
The pump station and pipeline costs were derived from actual construction costs for
projects based on records compiled over the past 5 years. The costs are not job specific
but are appropriate for the Charlotte region.

Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Subject: Re: McDowell Expansion EA
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:00:10 -0400
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: "Parker, David M. (Dave)" <[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Hello Dave, Thanks for sending this and I did give this a quick look. It looks good
and I did
have a couple of questions that may be clarified in your final analysis.
In Alternate 5, the expansion with Non discharge spray - you noted that the "annual
operating
costs increase by $200,000 over the other alternatives". However, on the table XX,
you show no
annual operating cost for that alternative. Is the $200K included in another cost
area?
Also in alternative 5, the cost of the storage ponds is indicated as $28.6M. This
may need to
broken down a little more. If 55 acres of land for storage ponds costs $11M, what
does the
additional $17M cover?
In alternative 6, the cost of expansion of the McDowell Creek plant is $22M more that
the
expansion cost in alternative 5. Why such a large difference in cost? Is it based
solely on N
and P removal? This comes into play when adding the cost of expanding and
discharging at
McDowell Creek plus the microfiltration and reuse facilities. The total is $103.8M,
which is
comparable to the costs for diversion to the Irwin or Mallard Creek plants. (We
understand that
diversion of wasteflow out of the basin is not recommended by the Stakeholders
Group).
Also, please include your source of information, ie for estimate of land acreage
cost, costs
for pump stations, piping, etc.
Thanks for the opportunity to review.
"Parker, David M. (Dave)" wrote:
> Jackie - attached is a DRAFT of our present worth analysis write-up for the
> McDowell Expansion EA. We would appreciate your comments on this before we
> finalize this analysis. We will then follow up with a formal response and
> indicate the information will be included in the EA.
> <<Summary of Alternatives.doc>>
> Please call or e-mail with any comments. Thanks for your help.
> David M. Parker, P. E.
> Black & Veatch
> 8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
> Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
1 of 2 7/30/03 10:29 AM

**DRAFT**
7-15-2003
McDowell Creek WWTP Expansion to 12 MGD
Present Worth Cost Analysis for the Environmental Assessment
A present worth analysis was conducted to compare the projected capital and operating
costs of the different alternatives. A summary of the costs is included in Table XX.
General notes regarding the cost analysis, and specific information on the items included
in each alternative is included below.
Table XX
Present Worth Cost Analysis Summary
(All costs in Million $)
Total
Ca ital Cost
Operating Cost
PW
Pumpr44.2
Total
Annual
Station&
Capital
Operating
Operating
Total
Alternative
Pipelines
Cost
Cost
Cost PW
Cost PW
Diversion of Wastewater to
Cabarrus County (Rocky River
15
WWTP)
90.3134.5
0.14
24.77
159.3
Diversion of Wastewater to
--
CMU - Irwin Creek WWTP
28.8
58.0
1 86.9
0.12
22.32
109.2
Diversion of Wastewater to
t;,
CMU - Mallard Creek WRF
33.7
44.2
77.9
0.12
1 22.44
100.3
Small Package Plants
na
na
na
na
na
na
No Build
na
na
na
na
na
na
Expand McDowell Creek
WWTP, Non -Discharge with
Spray Irrigation
72.7
44.2
116.9
(0.00
1 23.44
140.4
Expand McDowell Creek
WWTP, Discharge to
McDowell Creek
0.0
66.3
66.3
0.05
21.54
87.9
Add Membrane
--
Microfiltration to McDowell
Creek WWTP
0.0
4.5
4.5
0.
F 3.03
7.5
Add Reuse Facilities to
McDowell Creek WWTP
1 7.8
0.0
7.8
0.04
0.52
8.4
_
Notes: Bold Text indicates selected alternatives
General Notes:
■ Average Annual Design Flow = 6.0 mgd
• Power cost = $0.05/kw-hr
• Present worth analysis based on 20-yr period and 5% annual interest rate.
%1� ■ The alternative for Reuse Facilities is not a stand-alone option for treating and
disposing of the wastewater. Reuse is an option considered for inclusion in the
overall project, and could be a component of any of the considered alternatives.
• Capital and operating costs may not be all inclusive, but are consistent among
alternatives and are a valid representation of costs for comparison between

**DRAFT**
7-15-2003
alternatives. Costs include land and/or easement acquisition, labor, equipment,
installation, and engineering, as appropriate.
1. Divert Raw Wastewater to Cabarrus County, Rocky River Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, for treatment
• Pump station to pump an average of 6 mgd from McDowell Creek WWTP to the
Rocky River, and a second pump station near the confluence of Coddle Creek to
reach the Rocky River Regional WWTP.
■ Approximately 53,000 feet of 36 inch force main for the first lift station, 25,000
feet of 36 inch force main for the second lift station, 25,000 feet of 42 inch gravity
sewer, and 125,000 feet of 48 inch gravity sewer are required.
■ A 6 mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs
for this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average
of 6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor,
power, chemicals, and administrative costs, plus a surcharge for probable fee from
the operating utility to CMU to treat this waste.
■ Diversion of this flow to the Mallard Creek WRF would require an interbasin
transfer, which would require extensive permitting and approvals.
2. Divert Raw Wastewater to CMU Irwin Creek WWTP for Treatment
■ Pump station to pump an average of 6 mgd past the Long Creek basin to the
Stewart Creek basin.
■ Approximately 74,000 feet of 36-inch force main and 57,000 feet of 36-inch
gravity sewer are required.
■ A 6 mgd expansion of the Irwin Creek WWTP would be required. Costs for this
expansion would include treatment basins (including phosphorus removal),
related equipment including pumping stations, blowers, solids handling facilities,
electrical work, and instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average
of 6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor,
power, chemicals, and administrative costs.
■ Alternatives to divert wastewater to either the CMU Sugar Creek or McAlpine
Creek WWTPs would include all of the above, plus additional gravity sewer lines.
Thus the capital and present worth cost would increase further over the Irwin
Creek alternative.
3. Divert Raw Wastewater to the CMU Mallard Creek WWTP
■ Pump station to pump an average of 6 mgd from the McDowell Creek basin to the
Mallard Creek basin.
■ Approximately 57,000 feet of 36 inch diameter force main and 49,000 feet of 36-
inch gravity sewer is required.
■ A 6 mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs
for this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average
of 6 mgd continuously.

**DRAFT**
7-15-2003
■ A 6 mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs
for this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average
of 6 mgd continuously.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor,
power, chemicals, and administrative costs.
■ Diversion of this flow to the Mallard Creek WRF would require an interbasin
transfer, which would require extensive permitting and approvals.
4. Small Package Plants
■ Because small package plants are prohibited by local regulations, this alternative
was eliminated from consideration.
5. No Build
■ The no -build option has a capital cost of $0. However, the economic cost to the
community would be very significant.
6. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP with Non -Discharge Spray Irrigation as the
means for Disposal
■ Approximately 1,800 acres of land will be required for spray irrigation, or
approximately 3 square miles. No single site or contiguous sites are available.
Analysis was performed assuming multiple sites would be purchased to
accommodate this requirement. However, this amount of land would not be
attainable.
■ Land cost is estimated at $20,000 per acre, $36 Million total.
■ 30 days of storage is required at irrigation sites, 180 million gallons total. At 10
feet average depth, this would require a total of 55 acres of storage ponds.
Estimated capital cost of storage ponds is approximately $28.6 million.
■ Approximately 39,000 feet of 24-inch diameter force main would be required to
pump the treated wastewater through the main part of the basin along McDowell
Creek. Additional piping would be required to reach individual sites along this
force main.
■ 2V�Kwell
emd pump station was assumed for pumping the treated wastewater from
Creek WWTP. Average pumping of 6 mgd was used for the
operating costs.
■ The annual operating costs increase by $200,000 over the other alternatives for
man -power associated with irrigation system operation, maintenance, analytical
testing, and record keeping.
■ A 6 mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs
for this expansion include treatment basins, related equipment including pumping
stations, blower buildings, solids handling facilities, electrical work, and
instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the pumping stations includes power costs to pump an average
of 6 mgd continuously.

**DRAFT**
7-15-2003
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor,
power, chemicals, and administrative costs.
7. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP with a Discharge Permitted to the Creek
■ A b mgd expansion of the wastewater treatment plant would be required. Costs
for this expansion include treatment basins (including nitrogen and phosphorus
removal), related equipment including pumping stations, blower buildings, solids
handling facilities, electrical work, and instrumentation.
■ Operating costs for the wastewater treatment plant expansion includes labor,
power, chemicals, and administrative costs.
8. Add Membrane Microfiltration to the McDowell Creek WWTP
■ Microfiltration will improve the treated wastewater quality for either discharge to
McDowell Creek, or for reuse applications.
■ Capital costs include membrane microfiltration modules, feed pumps and
backwash pumps, chemical cleaning equipment, and related facilities, electrical
work, and instrumentation.
■ Operating costs include power usage for pumping through membranes, chemicals
for cleaning, and waste disposal costs.
9. Add Reuse Facilities to the McDowell Creek WWTP
Pump station to pump an average of 3 mgd from the McDowell Creek WWTP to
the central part of the basin.
Approximately 39,000 feet of I8-inch and 24-inch diameter force main, plus an
elevated storage tank, were assumed.
Operating costs include power costs to pump an average of 2 mgd continuously,
plus chemical costs and labor for administration of these facilities.

Ae.,AQ4 64cl 914-
14
6S

__Ucr�u�,e�zw _ ��✓_�iue s - - - -- -Zoe
tie
/41
��� � � �,.�,=✓mil �, s� . �( ���,�as.�

IN
uaw
U41,
6611h ---1 4et 1001-
.......................................

flu
94414�
�- -- f/SMhry{ N "L6Z•q,s

Review of Black & Veatch response letter to my may 23, 2003 memo on EA for
McDowell Creek WWTP
#1 - Will clarify that the revised EA is to expand the McDowell Creek WWTP to 12
MGD not 15 MGD.
#2 - Flow justification for future wastewater expansiions. Inidcated that they have
perfromerd flow prijections as indicated in Exhibiti 7. Orignally proepared as part of the
McDowell Creek Brainage Basin Flow Study.
Excerpt from study to be added to the EA:
Metered water sales expamined a 90 percernt reutryn of metered water to the sanitary
sewer estimated and resulting in a ww production of 103 gpcd for the population
equivalent.
If 103 gpcd —
Also included a Table of McDowell Creek Basin Flow Projection Factors
2000 — Total population —36476
2000 population reduced to 29476 (-7000 people that will be removed from service area
in 2003-04. However this the first time that this population number (36476) appears.
Not found in EA. Map Exhibit 6B in the appendix, shows that the area to be removed
from the service area, it is assumed that the population in these area was included in the
29476. If 7000 are to be removed, shouldn't the poputlation, go down to 22,476. ? Is
there an error in the EA when it states that the currnet population in the McDowell Creek
Basin is established as 29476 people and not th e36476 shown in the EA.
Comparison of Pop. Projections for 1995 to 2025
Year 2010
Projection 1 37868
Projection 2 53344
Projection 3 61876
Table 7 72505
Year 2020
Projection 1 52951
Projection 2 77212
Projection 3 94276
Table 7 111500
103 gpcd * 72505 persons = 7,468,015 gallons — 7.5 MGD
103 gpcd * 111500 persons = 11484500 gallons — 11.5 MGD

The request for 12 MGD seems to be justified with the use of 103 gpcd.
Be sure to provide explanation of abbreviations used such as ADDF ? ADF? execution
of flow 1 and flow 2 routines?
DWQ currently only requires a 20 year projection for wastewater expansions, the
inclusion of data for 2050 is not necessary at this time. Any projections or predictions for
these dates are extremely speculative.
Land Use
Table 8 - Total acreage does not total 27908 acres. I get 27959 acres; a difference of 51
acres. * *
Single family
20284 table 8
Single faimily
4236 table 9
Difference —
16048 acres
Vacant and Uncoded land uses are removed from Table 9. Total acres in Table 8 — 2249
Single family difference + vacant and uncoded = 18297 acres
Table 9 new uses of historic, public preserves, approved dev, and owner development
potential = 18246 acres
Difference 18297 —18246 = 51 acres * *
Where is Table 10 acreage of environmentally sensitive land included in the land use
table for MCDowwell Creek basin? If not included does this change the land use
acreage from 27959, or 27908 to over 30000 acres. Should it be subtracted? The
inclusion of this land use information is not clear.
Cost of alternatives
Phase "ultimately up to 18 MGD would have to be diverted. If this phase is included, it
suggests that intimates that McDowell Creek basin if expansion to 12 MGD is allowed
would eventually expand to 30 MGD. Using the highest population o 163942 predicted_
in 2050 (which we have already indicated is extremely speculative. Using 103 gpcd,
Diversion to Cabarrus County - $54 - $60M
Diversion to other CMU WWTPs - $50 —60 M for 6 MGD of capacity
Small Package Plants — prohibited by watershed ordinances
Expansion of existing plant - includes expansion to 15 MGD - $54 M for additional 6
MGD of capacity

c
Cost of 3 MGD reuse pumping station, 39000 feet of piping - $5.6 M
Membrane filtration- included in the expansion of existing plant no cost included
P. 4 and p.5 of the EA include proposed improvements and components for 6.6 to 9
MGD, and 9 to 12 MGD. The costs for each of these components would have to be
included in an EAA submitted to DWQ.
From the costs provided, all the alternatives are comparable in price, with other factors
making them undesirable to CMU. Why not divert to other WWTPs if it going to cost
the same amount as expanding at the existing site. B&V is going to have to provide more
info on the costs of alternatives.
The estimations provided are really not adequate, they are too general and do not
specifically tell how the cost was determined.
If an individual EAA was submitted to DWQ with these totals alone, more specific costs
telling exactly what would be paid for would have to be included.
Called Dave Parker, and told him more information would probably be needed. Specific
costs for components. If already working on for permit application, please submitt that
with EA information.

-1-/ biv, CW;w vs ro,
ovArrce nit a
14C7-
w Li
u t, L�i1.6+tJ NI�+V Div, /dc-z,!
l�z �,✓af � C,ttJ �„� C'iislC,
— 99/C A" Ms,�
5-71< aG ,� .w tdre✓
�fc roa �� LO% Af
Anyfir--
S�K 76 Id - a "OW4
t( SL�I/\
//
l —
/�ii14

Al ow a/ el w"krl ? ! i `ri w s
/hrrrr T"' UiS osa'
/600m,,Fs 42 /£. �t,� .r t ✓ /�/r 7r w✓
3 S �s rti��w
Lr�d c,yr eat, @ o/ovd �.✓c 3GM �ik,l
3� d J/'^' C� �//r rfis.- !r%! .S'.s'a.c✓cr /aK.� `�// �z e. 6 i 7-
a C£ M.�-j
31 X Z Y , rJ
-�/
ov ti s �Lo� r�•iN.. ✓cJ _ e,i //r ,,af c—+

i
E—
Vn
V

lun-18-03 20:57 From -Black & Veatch
704 5488640 T-414 P.001 F-186
BLACK & VEATCH
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350, Charlotte, North Carolina 28269
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM No. of Pages: ____..-„7.................
(including cover)
To:.... Mi-.. JaH
c m e� ......! once ��.......
L)�,
FaxNo.: ------ ................................................
.
From: .....�/�!1.�...... .��r.:�'......................
Date:
............. .g'...............
B&V Project:.- 705,E„2oC.
B&V File:
4Subject:.... NeDewell...._.�2%....WW7P.'...�!�.....�.�.C4�rr.�....I.:.e.7.1.�:.......................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
...........
�....._�......�.�{:.�.P-L....L-........ t+�-e...._�y..._.,,r!__
..... . All ...... &� ....... rK. . . .................................................................................. o ............... o ...................
_....................................................................................................................................................................
ELC_.... ............ .P4 ..... sra.-.as3.g.................
... 41. " ... I * i'5' .* " * " * " * * ... .... *"'* ... ** ......... * ......... ...... ­* ... * .... **"* ... * ....
..........................................................././L.........(././ ..._ ..............r.......................................................................
........................................................ .................. ...................................................................... _.......................
................................................� 1...'.....s...----.............................. ........ij .:v,... .!... -- r%_ ........
.............................................................. ......................... .... o`'�.....................
................................................... s£�:..............---................................-----......------------------------.........
cc:

Jun-18-03 20:57
From —Black & Veatch
704 5488640 T-414 P.002/007 F-186
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive
Suite 350
Chadotte, North Carolina 28269-0019 USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
RIO
BLACK & VEATCH
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek WWTP
Expansion to 12 mgd
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
N.C. Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit — Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Nowell:
Black & Veatch International Company
B&V Project 97057.200
B&V File F
June 18, 2003
Subject: Environmental Assessment
McDowell Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
DWQ #13203
NPDES Permit No. NCO036277
This letter is in response to comments on the subject Environmental Assessment,
transmitted by you to Mr. Alex Marks on April 21, 2003. We appreciate your input to
this project.
Following are responses and clarifications to some of the statements and comments from
your letter:
1. The first paragraph of your memo states that the NPDES Unit recommends a
FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) be issued only for waste flow up to 12
mgd. We understand and accept this, and will clarify in the revised EA that the
current project is to expand the McDowell Creek WWTP to 12 mgd, not 15 mgd.
2. Also in the first paragraph of your memo, it is recommended that concrete flow
justification be provided for future wastewater expansions. We have performed
flow projections for this project, as indicated in Exhibit 7 of the EA. These flow
projections were originally prepared as part of the McDowell Creek Drainage
Basin Flow Study (Black & Veatch, June 2002).
building a world of ditlerencelm

Jun-18-03 20:57 From -Black & Veatch
e
704 5488640 T-414 P.003/007 F-186
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 2
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
Following is an excerpt from the referenced flow study. This information will be
added to the EA in Section II1, Part C.
"Existing metered water sales were examined in the planning and land use
portion of the study. A 90 percent return of metered water to the sanitary
sewer was estimated resulting in a_ er_production_of I h
population equivalent.
Previous flow monitoring conducted in 1995 was used to develop the rate of
infiltration (54 gpad) and the inflow coefficient "K" (0.0075). Since more
watertight materials are utilized to construct the present and future collection
system, a lower "K" value of 0.0040 was used for projecting the rate of
inflow from future development. Developed acreage across the basin is basis
for the infiltration and inflow extrapolations. Time of concentration and the
diurnal peaks are taken from the execution of Flow 1 and Flow 2 routines
within the Black & Veatch Sanitary Sewer Management System (SSMS)
database developed for the McDowell Creek basin. Population, water
de d, and wastewater production estimates are used to develop the future
ADDF.
The summary of key projection factors and the wastewater flows projected
for design years are shown in the tables below."
TABLE
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Pro'ection Factors
Year
Total
Population
2000
Population
Cumulative
Growth
Population
2000
Acres
Cumulative
Growth
Acres
Total
Acres
2000
36,476
36,476
0
8,852
0
8,852
2010
729505
29,476
43,029
7,352
6,864
14,216
2020
111,500
29,476
82,024
7,352
11,231
18,583
-63;942�
—29;74?l�6—
�7;33
1 27
22;579

Jun 98-03 20:57 From -Black & Veatch
a •
704 5488640 T-414 P-004/007 F-186
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 3
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
TABLE
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Projections
Year
ADF
mgd
ADF
gped
Peak Hour
mgd
Peak
Hr/ADF
Peak
Month
mgd
Peak
Month
gpcd
Peak
Day
an d
Peak Day
gpcd
2000
4.49
123.2
28.8
6.4
5.39
148
9.0
247
2010
8.31
114.6
36.9
4.4
9.97
138
16.6
229
2020
12.42
111.4
45.4
3.7
14.90
134
24.8
222
MO-1
i 7.
1
55:0 —
—3:1—
21.4
--�-31
--.3-5�.8_
--_21_8-.
3. In the second paragraph it is recommended that all the capital costs of engineering
alternative analyses in the EA be included for comparison. Costs for the proposed
reuse portion of the expansion were requested, and consideration of land based
disposal options were requested in the alternatives. We will include the requested
information in the Alternatives Analysis section (Section IV) of the EA as
follows:
A. Stakeholders Group: "The alternatives presented to the stakeholders group are
discussed below. It is worth noting that, while some general cost evaluation
information was presented, the stakeholders' final recommendations were
based on the alternatives that were deemed to best meet the community's
needs independent of the cost differences. Therefore, the costs for the
different alternatives were not developed in great detail."
B. Diversion of Wastewater to Cabarrus County: "As an alternative-to-treat-th
increasing flows in the McDowell Creek basin, 6 mgd of wastewater flo or
this project, and ultimately up to 18 mgd, would have to be diverted�A new
"--inter-ceptor-sewer-pipeline and pumping station would be required to divert the
flow to the Rocky River facility. Easements would need to be acquired for the
pipeline. This alternative would also likgly m ur re an expansion of the Rocky
River plant, utilizing conventional treatment technology. For 6 mgd of
additional treatment capacity, the capital cost for this alternative is estimated
to be in the range of $54 to $60 million."
C. Diversion to Other CMU WWTPs: "As with alternative B above, 6 mgd of
wastewater flow for this project, and ultimately up to 18 mgd, would have to

Jun;18-03 20:58 From -Black & !Veatch
704 5488640 T-414 P.005/007 F-186
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 4
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
be diverted. Pipeline and pumping station improvements, and easement
acquisition for these improvements, would also be required. And this
alternative would also require an expansion of one of these other CMU
facilities, utilizing conventional treatment and possibly nutrient removal as
well. The capital costs for this alternative are estimated to range from 50 to
$60 million for 6 mgd pLcapac44
D. Small Package Plants: "Because small package plants are prohibited by local
regulations, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. As a result, no
costs were developed."
E. No Build: "The no -build option has a capital cost of $0. However, the
economic cost to the community would be very significant.
F. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP: "Expanding the McDowell Creek
WWTP at the current site will require advanced water technologies to protect
water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake. The advanced
technology will include 5-stage biological nutrient removal facilities, chemical
feed systems for back-up or supplemental nutrient removal, storm flow
equalization basins, and an even greater degree of control, reliability and
redundancy features than otherwise provided. With these provisions, the level
of treatment will be greater than that currently provided at this facility, and
will also be greater than that which would be required for any of the other
alternatives discussed above. However, the added expense in the other
alternatives of construction pumping stations and pipelines to divert a
significant amount of flow out of the basin will not be needed. The capital
cost of increasing the c�apac_ity at t_I�e current te is at $54 million for
an additional 6 mgd of capacity. �-'
Another alternative associated with expanding the existing plant is to provide
reuse pumping capability to allow treated effluent, or reclaimed water, to be
pumped to irrigation customers within the basin. Implementing this
alternative would complement the advanced treatment provided, as it is
necessary to maintain a high quality effluent in order to reuse this water as
described. The capital cost for a 3.0 mgd reuse pumping station, and an
estimated 391,000 feet of piping, is estimated to be approximately $5.6 million.
Along with the new advanced treatment facilities, an additional treatment
process of membrane filtration was considered. Membrane filtration, would

Jun-H-03 20:58 From -Black & Veatch
4.
704 5488640 T-414 P.006/007 F-186
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 5
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
provide solids removal for particles 0.1 micron and larger. Providing this high
level of solids removal would help assure that pollutants associated with the
solids, including BOD, phosphorus, nitrogen, particulates, and fecal coliforms,
will be removed with the solids. Membrane filtration facilities for 3.0 million
gallons per day may be used, to provide a consistent high quality effluent for
the reclaimed water. Any excess membrane filtered effluent could be blended
with the effluent from the advanced treatment process facilities described
above, to further improve the quality of the effluent discharged to McDowell
Creek.
A final alternative related to expanding the existing plant is for an alternate
disposal option in lieu of discharging to McDowell Creek. However, a non -
discharge option would require dedicated land for spray irrigation/land
application to dispose of the water. This alternative was not considered
because the. available land for disposal of b mgd or more of effluent is not
available on site or within the vicinity of the site."
"G. Recommended Alternatives: The recommended alternatives are to expand
the existing plant with the necessary advanced treatment, provide reuse facilities
for pumping reclaimed water, and provide membrane filtration to serve the
reclaimed water system and to blend the remainder with the plant effluent."
We hope these responses are adequate to address your comments. We appreciate your
input to this project, and hope to complete it in such a way as to mitigate any
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Very truly yours,
BL CK & VEATCH
1: . F,- J>,_ , -
David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager

Jun­%118-03 20:58 From -Black & !Veatch
s
r �
I
Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
dp
cc: Barry Gullet, CMU
Jackie Jarrell, CMU
Torn Howard, CMU
Mary Bonislawsky, B&V
Brent Reuss, B&V
Alex Marks, NCDWQ
704 5488640 T-414 P.007/007 F-186
Page b
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003

00
BLACK & VEATCH
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive
Suite 350
Charlotte, North Carolina 28269-0019 USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 12 mgd
Mr. B. Keith Overcash, P.E.
Director
North Carolina Division of Air Quality
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641
Dear Mr. Overcash:
Black & Veatch International Company
B&V Project 97057.200
B&V File F
June 19, 2003
Subject: Environmental Assessment
McDowell Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
State Clearinghouse Project No. 1228
This letter is in response to comments on the subject Environmental Assessment, transmitted by
you to Melba McGee on April 15, 2003. We appreciate your input to this project.
Following are responses and clarifications to some of the -statements and comments from your
letter:
1. It was mentioned that if emergency generators or peak shaving generators are to be installed,
then an air permit may be required. Black & Veatch concurs and an air permit application is
in the preparation process. No generators will be constructed or operated prior to receiving
an air permit from the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection.
?. It was also mentioned that contractors constructing the components of the wastewater system
should take care to comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. We would
like to clarify this concern by stating that there will be no open burning allowed.
building s World of difference-

N.C. Division of Air Quality
Mr. B. Keith Overcash, P. E., Director
Page 2
B&V Project 97057.200
June 19, 2003
We hope these responses are adequate to address your comments. We appreciate your input to
this project, and hope to complete it in such a way as to mitigate any environmental impacts to
the maximum extent practicable.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
4 ieyw--
David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager
cc: Barry Gullet, CMU
Tom Howard, CMU
Jackie Jarrell, CMU
Mary Bonislawsky, B&V
Alex Marks, NCDWQ
Brent Reuss, B&V

8520 Cliff Cameron Drive
Suite 350
Charlotte, Nonh Carolina 28269-0019 USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
0m
BLACK & VEATCH
Black & Veatch International Company
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities B&V Project 97057.200
McDowell Creek WWTP B&V File F
Expansion to 12 mgd June 18, 2003
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
N.C. Division of Water Quality �'L, JUN 2 0 2003 -
NPDES Unit — Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617---
Subject: Environmental Assessment
McDowell Creek WWTP
Mecklenburg County
DWQ #13203
NPDES Permit No. NCO036277
Dear Ms. Nowell:
This letter is in response to comments on the subject Environmental Assessment,
transmitted by you to Mr. Alex Marks on April 21, 2003. We appreciate your input to
this project.
Following are responses and clarifications to some of the statements and comments from
your letter:
The first paragraph of your memo states that the NPDES Unit recommends a
FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) be issued only for waste flow up to 12
mgd. We understand and accept this, and will clarify in the revised EA that the
current project is to expand the McDowell Creek WWTP to 12 mgd, not 15 mgd.
2. Also in the first paragraph of your memo, it is recommended that concrete flow
justification be provided for future wastewater expansions. We have performed
flow projections for this project, as indicated in Exhibit 7 of the EA. These flow
projections were originally prepared as part of the McDowell Creek Drainage
Basin Flow Study (Black & Veatch, June 2002).
building a world of difference-

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 2
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
Following is an excerpt from the referenced flow study. This information will be
added to the EA in Section III, Part C.
"Existing metered water sales were examined in the planning and land use
portion of the study. A 90 percent return of metered water to the sanitary
sewer was estimated resulting in a wastewater production of 103 gpcd for the
population equivalent.
Previous flow monitoring conducted in 1995 was used to develop the rate of
infiltration (54 gpad) and the inflow coefficient "K" (0.0075). Since more
watertight materials are utilized to construct the present and future collection
system, a lower "K" value of 0.0040 was used for projecting the rate of
inflow from future development. Developed acreage across the basin is basis
for the infiltration and inflow extrapolations. Time of concentration and the
diurnal peaks are taken from the execution of Flow I and Flow 2 routines
within the Black & Veatch Sanitary Sewer Management System (SSMS)
database developed for the McDowell Creek basin. Population, water
demand, and wastewater production estimates are used to develop the future
ADDF.
The summary of key projection factors and the wastewater flows projected
for design years are shown in the tables below."
TABLE
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Pro'ection Factors
Year
Total
Population
2000
Population
Cumulative
Growth
Population
2000
Acres
Cumulative
Growth
Acres
Total
Acres
2000
36,476
36,476
0
8,852
0
8,852
2010
72,505
29,476
43,029
7,352
6,864
14,216
2020
111,500
29,476
82,024
7,352
11,231
18,583
2050
163,942
29,476
134,466
7,352
15,227
22,579

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 3
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
TABLE
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Projections
Year
ADF
mgd
ADF
gpcd
Peak Hour
mgd
Peak
Hr/ADF
Peak
Month
mgd
Peak
Month
gpcd
Peak
Day
mgd
Peak Day
gpcd
2000
4.49
123.2
28.8
6.4
5.39
148
9.0
247
2010
8.31
114.6
36.9
4.4
9.97
138
16.6
229
2020
12.42
111.4
45.4
3.7
14.90
134
24.8
222
2050
17.89
109.1
55.0
3.1
21.47
131
35.8
218
3. In the second paragraph it is recommended that all the capital costs of engineering
alternative analyses in the EA be included for comparison. Costs for the proposed
reuse portion of the expansion were requested, and consideration of land based
disposal options were requested in the alternatives. We will include the requested
information in the Alternatives Analysis section (Section IV) of the EA as
follows:
A. Stakeholders Group: "The alternatives presented to the stakeholders group are
discussed below. It is worth noting that, while some general cost evaluation
information was presented, the stakeholders' final recommendations were
based on the alternatives that were deemed to best meet the community's
needs independent of the cost differences. Therefore, the costs for the
different alternatives were not developed in great detail."
B. Diversion of Wastewater to Cabarrus County: "As an alternative to treat the
increasing flows in the McDowell Creek basin, 6 mgd of wastewater flow for
this project, and ultimately up to 18 mgd, would have to be diverted. A new
interceptor sewer pipeline and pumping station would be required to divert the
flow to the Rocky River facility. Easements would need to be acquired for the
pipeline. This alternative would also likely require an expansion of the Rocky
River plant, utilizing conventional treatment technology. For 6 mgd of
additional treatment capacity, the capital cost for this alternative is estimated
to be in the range of $54 to $60 million."
C. Diversion to Other CMU WWTPs: "As with alternative B above, 6 mgd of
wastewater flow for this project, and ultimately up to 18 mgd, would have to

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 4
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
be diverted. Pipeline and pumping station improvements, and easement
acquisition for these improvements, would also be required. And this
alternative would also require an expansion of one of these other CMU
facilities, utilizing conventional treatment and possibly nutrient removal as
well. The capital costs for this alternative are estimated to range from $50 to
$60 million for 6 mgd of capacity."
D. Small Package Plants: "Because small package plants are prohibited by local
regulations, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. As a result, no
costs were developed."
E. No Build: "The no -build option has a capital cost of $0. However, the
economic cost to the community would be very significant.
F. Expand the McDowell Creek WWTP: "Expanding the McDowell Creek
WWTP at the current site will require advanced water technologies to protect
water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake. The advanced
technology will include 5-stage biological nutrient removal facilities, chemical
feed systems for back-up or supplemental nutrient removal, storm flow
equalization basins, and an even greater degree of control, reliability and
redundancy features than otherwise provided. With these provisions, the level
of treatment will be greater than that currently provided at this facility, and
will also be greater than that which would be required for any of the other
alternatives discussed above. However, the added expense in the other
alternatives of construction pumping stations and pipelines to divert a
significant amount of flow out of the basin will not be needed. The capital
cost of increasing the capacity at the current site is estimated at $54 million for
an additional 6 mgd of capacity.
Another alternative associated with expanding the existing plant is to provide
reuse pumping capability to allow treated effluent, or reclaimed water, to be
pumped to irrigation customers within the basin. Implementing this
alternative would complement the advanced treatment provided, as it is
necessary to maintain a high quality effluent in order to reuse this water as
described. The capital cost for a 3.0 mgd reuse pumping station, and an
estimated 39,000 feet of piping, is estimated to be approximately $5.6 million.
Along with the new advanced treatment facilities, an additional treatment
process of membrane filtration was considered. Membrane filtration, would

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
Page 5
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003
provide solids removal for particles 0.1 micron and larger. Providing this high
level of solids removal would help assure that pollutants associated with the
solids, including BOD, phosphorus, nitrogen, particulates, and fecal coliforms,
will be removed with the solids. Membrane filtration facilities for 3.0 million
gallons per day may be used, to provide a consistent high quality effluent for
the reclaimed water. Any excess membrane filtered effluent could be blended
with the effluent from the advanced treatment process facilities described
above, to further improve the quality of the effluent discharged to McDowell
Creek.
A final alternative related to expanding the existing plant is for an alternate
disposal option in lieu of discharging to McDowell Creek. However, a non -
discharge option would require dedicated land for spray irrigation/land
application to dispose of the water. This alternative was not considered
because the available land for disposal of 6 mgd or more of effluent is not
available on site or within the vicinity of the site."
"G. Recommended Alternatives: The recommended alternatives are to expand
the existing plant with the necessary advanced treatment, provide reuse facilities
for pumping reclaimed water, and provide membrane filtration to serve the
reclaimed water system and to blend the remainder with the plant effluent."
We hope these responses are adequate to address your comments. We appreciate your
input to this project, and hope to complete it in such a way as to mitigate any
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Very truly yours,
BL CK ;.A;CH
David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager

Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell
dp
cc: Barry Gullet, CMU
Jackie Jarrell, CMU
Tom Howard, CMU
Mary Bonislawsky, B&V
Brent Reuss, B&V
Alex Marks, NCDWQ
Page b
B&V Project 97057.200
June 18, 2003

May 30, 2003
Ms. Mary Bonislawsky
Black and Veatch International Company
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28269
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
Subject: Environmental Assessment for McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Ms. Bonislawkky:
Comments from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's NPDES Unit (Unit) regarding
the subject environmental document are attached. Please contact Ms. Jacquelyn Nowell at (919)
733-5083 ext. 512 to resolve the Unit's concerns. Please provide me with a copy me of any
written correspondence that is generated in response to her comments. All correspondence,
including Ms. Nowell's 23 May 2003 memorandum needs to be included in the document's
appendix.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 555 or by email at
[e-mail] if you need any further assistance or have questions.
'Alex Marks. AICP
Environmental Specialist
Attachment
cc: Jacquelyn Nowell (w/o att.)
2003
I
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Point Source Branch
NPDES Unit
May 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alex Marks
THROUGH: Dave Goodrich
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell
SUBJECT: Comments on Environmental Assessment for McDowell Creek WWTP
Expansion and Facility Improvements
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Staff of the NPDES Unit has done a review of the subject document and has the
following comments.
The NPDES Unit recommends that a FONSI be issued only for wasteflow up to
12 MGD, at this point. DWQ has provided speculative limits for 6.6, 9 and 12 MGD and
because of the uncertainty of impacts regarding non point source loading, no additional
expansion flow limitations have been included. It recommended that concrete flow
justification must be provided for future wastewater expansions. Several population
projections were included however the justification or basis of design flows requested
was not clearly denoted in the document.
It is recommended that all the capital costs of engineering alternative analyses in
the EA be included for comparison. Several alternatives were listed, including diversion
of wastewater to Cabarrus County, diversion to other CMU WWTPs, and the expansion
of the McDowell Creek WWTP, however no costs or list of components for the
alternative were given. No costs or estimates were provided for the proposed reuse
portion of the WWTP expansion. In addition, any land based disposal options (i.e. spray
irrigation, etc.) that are feasible must be listed, in addition to costs. If these options are
infeasible, they must at least be noted as having been reviewed in the alternative process.
In order for the alternatives analysis section of the EA to be complete, this information
must be provided.
cc: Central Files
Rex Gleason/ MRO

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
May 8, 2003
Mr. David M. Parker, P.E.
Project Manager
Black and Veatch International Company
8520 Cliff Cameron Drive, Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28269
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Environmental Assessment for McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (March 2003)
DWQ #13203)
Dear Mr. Parker:
The Water Quality Section in the Divisiorf of Water Quality (Division), agencies within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have
completed a review of the subject environmental assessment (EA). Please review the attached comments
from WRC and the Divisions of Air Quality and Environmental Health. Concerns regarding stream buffers
and stormwater runoff have been raised by the WRC. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has also
reviewed the project, indicating their concurrence with WRC's comments pertaining to stream buffers and
raising issues regarding biological surveys.
The Division recommends that you contact the WRC and FWS directly regarding their comments. Please
copy me on any written correspondence generated in response to their comments. Resolution of issues raised
by these agencies will be needed to proceed to the State Clearinghouse. In addition, please address the issues
below in a revised EA.
Section II. Proposed Project Description
i. The first paragraph in Section II -A contains a statement that the plant serves the City of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County; however, this is followed by one stating that the northern portion of Mecklenburg
County, including the towns of Huntersville, Davidson, and Cornelius are also part of plant's service
area. Clearly state which jurisdictions are served by the project and provide a complete description of
each, including size.
2. Issues pertaining to Section II-C, Schedule for Four -Phased Expansion were raised in the Division's 10
December 2002 completeness review correspondence. Particularly, the fact that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) issued for this EA will likely not apply to the project's fourth phase, based
on the timetable provided in the document. The current draft has not been amended to address this issue.
Section V. Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area
1. The majority of Section V focuses on the existing environmental characteristics of the immediate project
area. This too was mentioned in the Division's prior correspondence. This section needs to include
material describing the entire service area, at a minimum for the following sub -sections: wetlands, water
resources, forest resources, fish and their habitats and wildlife and natural vegetation.
2. For those; characteristics that will not be affected (E and F) by the project, clearly state applicability to
either project and/or service area.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
6V7,
OPA
E R
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

McDowell Creek EA
Page - 2 -
3. The land use section contains material that may be better suited for the project impact or mitigation
sections. In this section the focus must be on the actual land use at the project site and within the entire
service area.
4. Provide stream classification information in Sub -section J.
Section VI. Environmental Consequences and Mitigative Measures
1. B, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures:
a. The title for this sub -section should clearly state that it considers only the direct environmental
impacts of the project.
b. Elaborate on the third sentence, "Other possible environmental consequences..." and the methods of
minimization and mitigation to be utilized.
c. The fourth sentence states that table 11 summarizes "some" of the consequences as a direct result of
the improvements. If there are other direct impacts where are they discussed?
d. The final sentence regarding Section C is not necessary.
e. Regarding table 11, what is the amount of soil area disturbance required for construction?
f. Discuss and quantify changes in impervious surface coverage as result of construction activities.
g. What is the actual use of the land to be directly impacted, not the zoning or ownership of the
property?
h. Include a copy of the endangered or threatened aquatic species field survey (also raised by FWS).
i. Discussion categories in Table I I should follow the same order as the topic -heading pattern as the
discussion in Section V.
2. C, Secondary and cumulative impacts (CSI) and mitigative measures:
a. Remove the first sentence at the top of page 44.
b. Impacts within the town of Davidson's jurisdiction have not been addressed.
c. In several cases it can't be determined to which jurisdiction the mitigative measures provided apply.
Discuss the mitigative measures of each governmental jurisdiction separately and provide summaries
of applicable codes and regulations. Code sections and policies cited can be provided in the
appendix.
d. Mitigation measures must be demonstrated by each jurisdiction for all impacts in order to satisfy the
requirements for a FONSI.
3. Table 12 comments:
a. Under topography, are any regulations currently in place that require contractors to control runoff?
The language implies that it is optional for a contractor to utilize such measures.
b. Under forest resources, how will the recovery of bottomland hardwood forest occur? Does the
mention of preserved open spaces refer to conservation areas in existence or are there plans to
conserve more areas?
4. CSI discussion on pages 46-47:
a. Amend the paragraph at the bottom of page 46 by replacing the following language, "the impacts
listed in Section VI..." with "the project's CSIs..."
b. The Huntersville water quality protection regulation excludes properties included on a valid
preliminary subdivision plan or sketch plan as of February 17, 2003. What is the amount of land not
subject to the regulation? Is the regulation a part of another town ordinance or a stand-alone piece of
legislation? Clarify that the ordinance is included in the Appendix. The ordinance mentions a
section 8.17.6, in what town document is this section? Two water quality design manuals are
described in the ordinance, what is the difference between the Huntersville and Mecklenburg County
water quality design manuals? Why is Huntersville relying on the County?
c. SWIM stream buffer plan: Nowhere in the paragraph is the acronym spelled out, what does SWIM
stand for? Isn't the first paragraph unnecessary, as according to other sections of the EA the service
area does not include areas under Mecklenburg County jurisdiction? Although Exhibit 8 illustrates
buffers on streams throughout the service area, the discussion on page 48 focuses on those located at
the project construction site.
d. Storm water management plan: What is meant by the first sentence regarding FEMA regulated
streams? The discussion in the first paragraph seems more applicable to the mitigation of direct
impacts. Information about local efforts to implement NPDES Phase II requirements is in the
appendix. The material is too important to be included only in the appendix and should be expanded

i McDowell Creek EA
Page - 3 -
upon in the main body of the EA. What are the drainage areas for the wetland and pond construction
projects? Illustrate these areas on an exhibit. Describe how these projects will mitigate/minimize
the effects of CSIs associated with the project. There are no exhibits clearly identifying Torrence
Creek.
e. Water quality monitoring: How will the water quality -monitoring program for Mountain Island Lake
be used to mitigate the CSI of this project?
f. The initiative for Mountain Island Lake/Conserving Mountain Island Lake: Provide more
information about how the Initiative for Mountain Island Lake will provide mitigation for the
cumulative and secondary impacts related to the project. Will additional lands be purchased for
conservation within the service area? Describe the funding outlook for these land conservation
programs and as much as possible identify future acquisition areas. Do the local government codes
include other tools to conserve land as natural open space? This discussion should be combined with
the discussion on page 50 pertaining to land preservation/conservation.
Section VIII. Exhibits
1. Exhibit 6A: The exhibit does not indicate the systems that convey wastewater to each facility as the text
indicates at the bottom of page 23. The area shown as the study area is not consistent with the same area
shown on other exhibits.
2. Exhibit 8: Open space areas outside the project's service area will not suffice as mitigation for the
project. Provide boundaries for ead governmental jurisdiction and label water bodies described in the
EA. The area that is shown as the McDowell basin does not match the area identified on Exhibit 6B as
the project's service area? Is their difference between the two? Are they supposed to be the same areas?
Section X. Apnea
1. A large amount of material is included that if presented in either the CSI or direct impact discussion may
help mitigate or minimize the effects of the project and further the case that a FONSI is warranted.;
especially, language on pages 74 and 75
Once these items have been addressed and revisions completed please submit one copy to myself and another
to WRC for review. Additionally, include a copy of this and attached correspondence in the Appendix.
Please contact me at 919-733-5083 ext. 555 or by email at [e-mail] if you need any further
assistance or have questions.
Sincerely,
Alex Marks, AICP
Environmental Specialist
Attachments

VAL
l -p
cJt
7'�"

Ak'

f
u
ce.0
4f6

/ale %I
d
j54
Alv-te 397A,71i�yny,
BS`ZO f r (ysH 4/a+� r7✓ • �i/ F jf U
64t//o#T AfC 7-SZG9
/ �fsnLlw % �/r�lGf� to IS/�iwT� f�✓vbu.�/%7l Zolf
`✓ /
r O
�Ciasc l — 6 G {llrp.r1ro 7 /
z�y.fj 6.KGn l�slt�.. (p�Iiru�j
f/✓ 7o .47-- !r< 791 /_ J8�676.11✓J h'/,S%'co�v�^
v f�
v
GGkt � ��vr..r I - � /LfG✓/
1Y7�
J f�
mk�is oft &I Bcc�v d /J� c
- /kiiUO-kf!✓�r ihnJ

Q
v � � ,� � ✓ � ,� . fz-
/ "� 5 ��
/
— *�--� � �!�'/�"*�1 ��',�r<�, — cC�2 v wrw-�T /.✓a£,yt,{ `�r��7'`+�
Y ✓4'wi- �<iw-e.2 - ! v U�1!/w y 4 Clrf C- - / Mr( (4 �!lvl t (/N� w'���•'
�'/uih if-i �r 2/ V• SiJ 2i36 'LG.orr wY� - s a�.,fi, � (/,✓/G....... ��.
0,7
017
�G� , �o. � �� IfitPl✓s�..,r �a,...._ � plc il�. 5;

/f ,� {1�� �py� �r�t✓��vrv� , I /was
,�� ��er'�x.fj�:./�'•� l!n%3
/N"/lO�� w�l/
' �vvv �,/aTci hew /GvfL p{rfI%r`o� cv,.. Sc�.i.A ,
r l✓r�-�e� re"L�vfv�+� wl" �..!/f��/ems -� rlr2�t oz-E.�-, f,�%tifii'� �r�/^�r/�/ . � S .�'iG�,�
(nl�✓ f°f///�f�' p°':•�/ �f f�iri'�t. - -�w,:. � �+t�., L.-,� Oi� Y1Y��----.
�I7+JU/(/� %'!^!M,/1�-``y� %z/ �L✓y.ds �a�6v,�1 /2 c�lvli� �b ✓F-6�t�c£
yyJ �i:�tl'�yM %a �¢! �,31i �uI ✓l (E3I !1`� tlY1 ""P / �7! J� �9'� y • ---�,.v
pewcl l.t�/ i /iJ `qG ,
G„ c�lir(6�/ /E✓ E/I c /f f !+£/3 w/ �.

.np�/� N�•. /"t�.�r'n,./L�l �E.C.�� w,2,�f��,Q
O
//rhr>�j, /lU�✓lt,:l�/�.w.� �triy�7�n•,�-i%^' �'!�—t-r�C li%S, ��(�'�T
//j � /J N ✓ct l / a ! J vc
� Y I
zy
t-"'lii•�£ /n �-vt �.�(/�i��N� 4 £�O,n lt-� t �/ �✓•�,t `/LvJ 1'G7 ,�"'3 Lro G'NS.77+r
,�j,✓ cl�/YTlt c LCJ✓(/�'wl %zM(% /fir f/� � n f-'�{,. �i,�c` / i. /�o'ey /� /vw d I J 4iJr
�ll/i�it cvlJ,/✓vlln,c-.�irl (..��t�uc+,ctf '` (�i,ij�4 E�,lrt J;l
-----------------------------------------------------
!/
w�

PUy(,� �£ jY �-� j� 17
zoo--374,
_ U
Lzz,4,��
mc
w ,s9vs �4,.1,1- &V 4i 5
�,✓
0
� w, e 4c at '.«.4j / --
(/j/zv-cjGU1 70-61) jY<�

J�l�a�l £�Avtcw - N /S 4Ge n„�S �U 1 �✓d£� !l�,rzc����. C
ZO7-
61 UM ��rr �✓ 7�`� ///��jv1 f-r.0 �K//�ivlr9.� � h c�-�:v�.0--
L� p.,
6441 / 7
4141,11. Pam= G✓�- Rh .,
zo /o g, Swcw
Zo;o %5'l�v
Zo 2 3 13,
u
ZoaU �J
a�' ,r'4� ���a�--�fjJ�ci E.! w 7�t��v��-�' �,✓�ic I�uu� :�_� �.✓ fry/a/ t�'�1