WQ0004563_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018 (4)

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 27, 1984
,.MEMORANDUM TO: Allen Wahab
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
SUBJECT: Sludge Disposal - Amendment E (Response to Comments)
Hickory -Newton Complex
Project No. C370389-01
The Water Quality Section of this Office has reviewed the "Response to
.Technical Comments" on the subject document.
The list of the dischargers in Catawba County that was furnished in the
response is not up to date. Some of the dischargers listed have ceased discharge.
There are also dischargers listed that have cooling water discharges, thus there
would be no sludge generated from those facilities. Also only limited amounts
of sludge would be generated from residences and schools, plus those facilities
having septic tank -sand filter systems.
The total volume of sludge projected to be.generated may be less than is
presently projected.
If you have questions regarding our comments,.please advise.
DRG:sju

MRMn'R 0TTnTTM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
t
�n� 1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
f�^I
November 15, 1984
Richard Peace, Regional Supervisor
Mooresville Regional Office
Coy Batten, Head
Local Programs Planning Branch
Forrest Westall, Head
Technical Services Branch
Allen Wahab, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
Sludge Disposal - Amendment E
Hickory-lbwton Complex
Project No. C370389-01
�n /
964
.10iV
Transmitted herewith are two copies of the above subject proj ect
for the_Mooresville Regional Office and one py- or the Technical
S vices Branch These are for your fil s. Please return your comments
t this office.
jh
Enclosure
cc: LPMU
GPF

BURMEISTER, WRIGHT
& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
,M
Civil Engineering Consultants
RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL COMMENTS
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
AMENDMENT E
HICKORY - NEWTON COMPLEX
201 FACILITIES PLANNING STUDY
PROJECT NO. C370389-01
OCTOBER 12, 1984
JAc_al Planning Manageme-ni AWt
OEM . DNRCn

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
AMENDMENT E
HICKORY -NEWTON COMPLEX
201 FACILITIES PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER: C370389-01
OCTOBER 12,1984
COMMENT
1. What is the bulking material that is to be used? Where is the nearest
supplier? What is the cost?
RESPONSE
Sawdust will be the primary bulking material used in the mechanical
enclosed system. The primary suppliers will be the numerous furniture
manufacturers in this area. Preliminary conversations with the
officials of the furniture plant indicate that costs will be in the
range of $6.00 to $8.00 per ton. In the analysis, $12.00 was used
for conservative purposes.
COMMENT
2. The Conover Southwest Plant and Fairgrove were to be abandoned but
are still in operation. When will these plants be closed?
RESPONSE
These plants will be abandoned as soon as the construction of -the
Clark Creek Outfall system is completed. A construction contract
has been awarded and completion is anticipated by June, 1985.
COMMENT
3. A review of self -monitoring records (3 plants in Conover, Fairgrove,
Henry Fork, Hickory NE and Clark Creek) indicate total existing flow
during wet months to be in 9.0 - 10.25 mgd range. This is approximately
45-52% of the 20 year flow of 19.4 mgd. Funding will be based on
existing needs, i.e. current flow conditions. All cost calculations
should reflect this.
RESPONSE
The regional composting facility will serve as the means of sludge
disposal for all Catawba County. This includes not only the flows
from the municipalities included in the 201 Amendment, but also from
all other treatment plants that discharge to surface waters as well
as septage from the septic tanks within the County. In addition, an
analysis has been made of the method of transportation of the sludges
to the -regional plant. This will affect the capital cost of the
facility.
- 1 -

WASTEWATER PLANTS
A list of all the discharges to surface waters in the County were
obtained from the Department. This list is attached to this comment.
The list indicated that there are 62 wastewater discharges to surface
waters in the County including the municipalities included in the 201
Amendment. The following table was developed to summarize the flows.
Plant Design
Existing Flows
Projected Flows
Capacity
(1984)
(1987)
Total
County
22,944,000
11,884,000
13,660,000
Flows Shown
201 Amendment
19,400,000
9,100,000
10,465,000
Flows not shown
in 201 Amendment
3,544,000
2,784,000
3,195,000
As can be seen, there is a total plant design capacity of all the
wastewater discharges to surface waters in the County of 22,944,000
gallons. Of this amount, 19,400,000 gallons per day was included in
the study and 3,544,000 gallons was not shown in the study. As shown
in Column 2, "Existing Flows" in 1984, the total flow in the county
is 11,884,000 gallons per day and of this, 9.1 million gallons was
shown in the study and 2,784,000 gallons was not. Projected flows to
1987 (the year in which the composting plant will go on line) is shown
in the third column.
The project flows were derived by assuming that the total plant flow
of 22,944,000 gallons would be realized in 20 years. A straight-line
projection was then made of the existing flows to the plant capacity
in 20 years. This revealed that the total county flow as projected
in 1987 will be 13,660,000 gallons per day. Using the same rationale
for the flows that were shown in the study, the projected flows would
be 10,465,000 gallons per day and the flows that are not shown in the
study would be 3,195,000 gallons.
A total flow of 13.6 million gallons per day can be justified by the
time the compost plant goes on line in 1987. Based on an average of
1.01 tons of dry solids per million gallons of wastewater (from
amendment), a total of 13.79 tons of dry solids per day from all
county wastewater plants can be justified.
SEPTAGE
An analysis was also made to determine the tonage of septage that
could be anticipated at the regional plant. The basis that was used
to develop these numbers is as follows.
- 2 -

QATE
_,TION: F
SELECTION
%ECONDARY KEY %ELECTION
TRANSACTION: NPDE% LIST COUNTY
TRX: 5NC KEY: CATAWBA>
COUNTY
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
PRESS ENTER TO DISPLAY ADDITIONAL
/ABERNETHY
X EXTRUSIONS
&FIBEARD
FACILITY NAME
RETIREMENT CENTER
RESIDENCE
<JERRY V.)
v RO LL-CONQVER
MFG
-LENOJR CHAIR 02
DOGWOOD-%HERRILL%
�bATAWBA
vCATAWBA
1
�CATAWBA
FORD
CO %C%BANDY% HIGH %CH
CO %CH -BUNKER HILL HE
CO- %CH-CLYDE CAMPBELL
CO %CH-FRED T. FOARD
VNTAWBA
� ATAWBA
CO %CH-H M ARNDT MID
CO %CH -MT VIEW ELEM.
ATAWBA
ATAWBA
CO %CH-%HERRILL% FORD
CO SCHIST %TEPHEN% ELE
/ ATAWBA
ATAWBA
CO %CH-%T %TEPHEN% HE
COUNTRY CLUB
�CATAWBA
VALLEY REST HOME, INC.
SELECTIONS
PERMIT TC
NC003Oi63 Oi
NCO048712 Oi
NCO047902 Oi
NCO006742 Oi
NCO006734 Oi
NC0044253
Oi
NCO051608
Oi
NCO044059
01
NC0034657
Oi
NCOO�9297
Oi
NCO034584
Oi
NC0034606
Oi
NC0045438
Oi
NCO034649
Oi
NCO034592
Oi
NC0050920
O1
NCO037494
Oi
DEyGN
CAP.
ISSUE DATE--_
01/O4/84 -_0
12/14/8i 0
07/02/80_30zro
07/02/86
O9/O1/84
06/21/84 <���o4'
06/21/84_HIM
06/21/84 __7Zu�o
O6/2i/84_!!/e90
06/21/84 /OP»o
O6/2i/84'
06/21m_/g,"iq
06/21!84
O6/2i/{]4
04/03/84
O6/3
`
�l
-CATAWBA
/ CATAWBA VILLAGE SHOPPING CTR
NCO041513
Oj
O8/O6/82
5�u�u
i9
CATAWBA
''
` CATAWBA WWTP, TOWN OF
NC0O25542
01
O5/ 8j
-7
�s+*�o
- '_--
2O_
CATAWBA
/ LAREMONT WWTP-NORTH
NC0032662
Oi
/_,
/�fFoo
21
CATAWBA
ACLAREMONT WWTP-%OUTH
NC0026549
Oi
/ /
Q, acm
22
CATAWBA
/COMM/%COPE COMPANY
NCO034754
01
06/18/84
23
��
��-`un/n°""
CONO .�" .=,"."".u»�n" "",
"'
`"^
'
24
CATAWBA
NOVER l�WTP-FAIRGROVE
NC0023264
Oi
O6/2"9/84
25
CATAWBA
^ ONOVER WWTP-NORTHEAST
NCO024252
Oi
08/02/84
AT"'
^
-SOUTHEAST
926
21
CATAWBA
~ ONOVER WWTP-SOUTHWEST
NCO024261
01
06/13/84
2B
CATAWBA
�CONWED CORPORATION - FIBER PLT
NCO045977
Oi
07/01/83
Woo
21
9 CATAWBA
AIN CAROLINA INC.
NC6O2368O
Oi
07/30/82
30
' CATAWBA
O%% COUNTRY CAMPGROUND
21
NCO022497
Oi71
Z2
33 CATAWBA UKE POWER CO., MAR%HALL S.E. NC0004987 Oi
34 CATAWBA ~'DUKE POWER CO., OXFORD HYDRO NC0004537 Oi
O9/Oi/84
O4/O2/84������

%ECONDARY KEY %ELECTION
`DATE TRANSACTION: NPDE% LIST COUNTY
DES/6N
}PTION: F TRX: 5NC KEY: CATAWBA>
`-LECTION- � PRESS ENTER TO DISPLAY ADDITIONAL SELECTIONS CAP.
COUNTY-... FACILITY NAME PERMIT TC ISSUE DATE-------
35 CATAWBA AT BOY'% RESTAURANT NC003709 01 08/31/82 ­0,006
36 CATAWBA of
YGENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,HICKORY NCO005819 Oi O8/1/R3
37 CATAWBA JHICKORY NORTHEAST WWTP NCO020401 Oi 04/02/84
39 CATAWBA �HICKORY SPRINGS MFG. CO. NCO037141 Oi O7/3O/82
39 q�CATAWBA HICKORY SPRINGS MFG. CO. -METAL NCO060313 Oi / , -
4O CATAWBA ICKORY TAVERN FURNITURE CO NCO034525 01 03/31 '82' /9c��
41 CATAWBA HICKORY WTI::' NCO044121 Oi O6/0i/84 ly,amc`
it CATAWBA / ICKORY WWTP' CITY OF NC0040797 01 09/3O/82
43 CATAWBA . P. STEVENS CO. LONGVIEW 01 NCO004901 01
44 CATAWBA /JACK%ON BUFF CORP NCO047473 01 01/13/81
45 0.CATAWBA LATROBE DIE CASTING COMPANY NCO060658 Oi / /
46 CATAWBA A
A CATAWBA MAIDS KNITTING MILLS- INC, NCO006i9O 01
to CATAWBA
52 CATAWBA MID -STATE OIL CO - CATAWBA
57 CATAWBA QNE RIDGE SUBDIVISION NCO050822 01 07/30/82 Wwoo

1980 County Population =
105,208
1980 County UNINC Areas =
64,565
1984 Est. Co. Pop. =
110,000 (from WPCOG)
1984 Est. UNINC Area Pop.
= 67,505
Persons/Household
= 2.75
Households 1984
= 24,547
No. of Septic Tanks
= 24,547
Assume Avg. Tank Size
= 1,500 gallons
Total Septic Tank Volume = 36,821,344 gallons
Assume Pump Tank every 3 years =-12,273,000 gals/year
Total Solids (per EPA Lit.) = 38,800 mg/l(mean)
Solids per year = 3,970,473 #/year
Solids per day (365 days) = 5.4 tons/day
Anticipated quantity of solids from septage pumping on a 365-day per
year basis is 5.4 tons per day.
TOTAL TONAGE
The total amount of solids that can be justified on a county -wide
basis is 19.2 tons per day.
TRANSPORTATION - HAULING VS. DUMPING
The original proposal in the amendment was to pump the sludge from
Clark Creek Plant and from the Henry Fork Plant to the regional
composting facility and haul the remaining in tanker trucks. An
analysis has been made of this as compared to hauling all the sludges
to the plant. The analysis is presented on the following pages.
- 3 -

II. Trucking from all Plants
Capital - Tankers $ 160,000
�■ Annual Cost
Capital 10% for 20 years $ 18,352
0 & M
0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20
■
Trucking
$1.05/mile $101,167 $135,171 $169,177 $202,233
Drivers 60,000 60,000 90,000 90,000
$161,167 $205,171 $259,177 $292,233
Total Annual Cost - Capital and 0 & M
$179,519 $223,523 $27.7,529 $310,585
P.W. Analysis
0 - 5 years $ 680,359
5 -10 525,055
10 -15 404,915
15 -20 282,632
Total P.W. Cost $1,892,961
P.W. Analyses indicates that neither method is preferable to the
other. The local units wish to haul �y tanker truck. The chosen
method of transportation is therefore by tanker trucks.
On the basis of these changes, capital costs along with a basis of
design for the facilities have been updated. These are shown in
the table on the following page.
F-

J
r-�
A
J
J
J�
1'
J

COMMENT
5. Please explain why the 0 & M cost over the next 20 years increased so
drastically and in particular at the Hickory NE plant. The 0 & M is
shown to increase by the following factors over the next 20 years:
Conover
- 2.45
Clark Creek
- 2.00
Henry Fork
- 2.55
Hickory NE
- 6.93
Longview
- 2.05
Justification of these increases should be presented. Inflation is
not permitted. Are these increases due to increased flows?
RESPONSE
The flows from Conover, Clark Creek, Henry Fork and Longview were
increased in proportion to the existing flows to the projected plant
capacities. The 0 & M costs for the Hickory NE plant were projected
on the assumption that the sludge would be dewatered for spreading
rather than spreading liquid sludge, as the case is now. The increased
0 & M costs are results of the dewatering of the sludge.
COMMENT
6. Reference Appendix D of original submittals - Static Pile.
a. Explain what equipment (type and size) is involved with the
$603,000 equipment cost.
b. Explain type/size of super structure that will be built for
$524,000/$624,000.
C. The decision not to treat runoff with a lagoon was a good
one since compost runoff usually has a BOD5 level of 2000 mg/l
and lagoon treatment has been known to create odors. Was the
new solution of pumping supernatant/runoff to the plants
considered for static pile as well as mechanical enclosed?
RESPONSE
a. Appendix D in original submittals reflects costs obtained from
a reference given in the original report, "An Economic Analysis
of the Camden Sludge Composting Facility". In this reference,
static pile with capacities of 3, 13, 26, 50, and 100 tons per
day were compared. Figures and quantities for the 20-ton per
day facility were derived by extrapolation.
mom

b. The $603,000 amount for equipment was derived from the above
reference. This amount includes costs for a blending system,
front end loaders, a screening system, sludge transfer pumps,
temperature monitoring equipment and conveyors. Super structure
costs include buildings to house equipment. Actual building
sizes and components are a function of final design. Published
references were used as a guide for the report.
C. The new selection of treating supernatant from the thickener and
filtrate from the dewatering devices at the regional plant is to
discharge to Clark Creek Outfall, which flows by gravity to Clark
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. No pumping of supernatant or
filtrate is required (only sludge is pumped). This applied to
the mechanical enclosed system which has no leachate or runoff.
The static pile system, however, required runoff and leachate
treatment. The volumes from these sources would be greater than
the treatment plant capacity and, therefore, was not considered.
Several static pile systems have been visited including Camden, N.J.,
Morganton, N.C., and Valdese, N.C. These facilities do not appear to be
able to process sludge on a year round basis, simply because of the
exposure to the weather. There was also an odor problem at these
facilities. The basis for our investigations was to define a facility
that is reliable and not subject to these problems. We chose the
mechanically enclosed system to meet these criteria.
COMMENT
7. Other less expensive methods of dewatering at the individual plants
should be considered. An upgraded process does not have to be
identical to an existing process if a less expensive method is
available.
RESPONSE
Other methods of dewatering at the individual plants were considered.
The plants that would need additional dewatering equipment would be
the Hickory NE plant, the Hickory Henry Fork plant, the Conover at
Northeast plant and the Conover Southeast plant. All the methods
considered were very similar in cost, and what little cost difference
there would have been would not make any difference in the present
worth analysis of dewatering at the individual plants versus dewatering
at the regional plant.
-10-

COMMENT
8. Reference Appendix D of original submittals - Mechanical Enclose.
Explain the type and size of building proposed. Explain the major
difference shown in 0 & M of dewatering of individual plants vs.
dewatering at regional plant.
RESPONSE
Buildings and super structures for the mechanical enclosed system
include supporting structures for the bio and cure reactors, conveyor
systems, blenders, and withdrawal devices. Additional building
requirements are for dewatering equipment administration facilities
including a laboratory. Facilities will also be provided for housing
and servicing the transportation equipment. Actual sizes and details
will be developed in the final design. Cost estimates were based on
cost information from similar facilities. The attached figure provides
some idea as to the arrangement of the building. We do not have a site
plan and consequently cannot provide the orientation of these buildings.
The buildings both interior and exterior will be concrete or precast
concrete.
The cost d
regional p
locally wi
will also
as well as
Henry Fork
costs are
locally
COMMENT
ifferences in 0 & M costs for dewatering locally and at the
lant lies solely in the dewatering portion. Dewatering
11 require continuation of existing practices. This method
require immediate improvements at Hickory's Northeast Plant
additional capital improvements within two years at Hickory's
plant and at Conover. The primary difference in the 0 & M
due to duplication of manpower and energy costs of dewatering
vs. dewatering regionally.
9. Explain the difference in bulking agents used in the static pile and
mechanically enclosed. Provide details on type, amount used, etc.
that would explain the $116,000/year difference.
RESPONSE
There is a significant difference in the bulking material requirements
for the mechanical enclosed system vs. the static pile with regard to
quantity and quality. For instance, the bulking material requirements
for mechanical enclosed system are 0.65 to 1 for bulk material to
sludge versus 2.0-2.5 to 1 for the static pile system. The static
pile requires a coarse material such as bark or wood chips, while the
enclosed system can utilize a wide variety of material including fine
sawdust.
-.11-

PRECAS'f CONC. EXTERIOR
CbNC� -EXTERIOR--
- THICKENERS NOT SHOWN —
BURMEISTER, WRIGHT
& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
C-1 Eng✓ ".g C—'s fw+
wnr..
I pEWA'�ERI N G
I
I
I
I
I Rio -REACTOR _
51 LO
I
I
g'7-Uu
GAI,A6 E
�j10- REAC'(O 12\
- SI LO
I a
I �
I m
i
I
I
I _o
CU F1E REACTOR I _I
51 L O
i
I I
CARBOW STOP OFFICE
_ -PRE AS'r GONC- E`�'(ERlbR
SI LO
I I O
lo
11
45! D" 5z'- oil
I �
PLAIQ
NO SCALE
GON GEpT L4Y0UT
COMPOST FACILITY
AMENDMENT
NOVEMBF-R ) 14 �4

I
_ IL ]
Based on local costs prevalent at Morganton for the static pile, the
first five years of operation at the regional plant would average a
production of 11.08 tons of sludge per day. This would require j
11.08 x 2.25 = 24.93 tons of bulking material at a cost of $16.25 per
ton, this represents $148,000 per annum.
For the mechanical enclosed system, bulking material requirements are
11.08 x 0.65 = 7..20 tons per day. Sawdust costs are estimated
(conservatively) to be $12.00 per ton. This represents annual cost of
7.20 x 365 x 12.00 or approximately $32,000.
COMMENT
10. Why wasn't windrow considered?
+ RESPONSE .
Windrow composting was considered as an alternative to static pile
composting. However, the static pile system was chosen for the
following reasons:
1) Less land area required.
2) Less runoff volume to treat.
-i COMMENT
11. Have design parameters been presented in such a manner as to allow for
l competitive bidding by other types of mechanically enclosed systems to
assure costs will be reduced?
F RESPONSE
�J
As a point of reference, we are still in the study phase of the project
Q and are still essentially in the concept formation stage. Design
parameters will be developed in detail during the design phase of the
project. Other types of mechanically enclosed systems will be considered
(j during the design phase.
COMMENT
12. Sludge characteristics often change. Will the proposed pumping method
have the necessary safeguards to handle this possibility?
C� RESPONSE
r j In consideration of Comment 3, pumping of sludges from Clark Creek and
Henry Fork will probably be eliminated in favor of hauling the sludge
to the regional facility in tankers.
IJ -12-
i

COMMENT
28. A public hearing is required at which the project and user charges
are presented. From this hearing an affidavit of advertisement is
required along w/minutes and a list of attendees.
RFSPnNCF
The tentative schedule for the public hearing is December 18, Hickory
City Council Meeting. There will be no increase in user fees required
as a result of this facility.
COMMENT
29. A complete management plan will be required before Step III. This
plan will have to be adopted by the local residents and governments
and must be approved by the Division of Environmental Management.
RESPONSE
The management plan will be prepared during the design phase of the
project. The development of the management plan will include several
management alternatives and several methods of charging the individual
municipalities for processing of sludge. The complete plan will be
submitted prior to or with the construction plans for approval by DEM.
so

l• _� rf !a9 '� :.'u - ti ;• .._ -- � • ;•. _ • it - �.� - "_'.-' '� :i
•r! t- +"
� �i-' —_ � ra4 . 'l •� _ . a to .. �.. J �' \
900
,\A1
^� • 1 `l /fit- a.,f _ -�
/9J9 `4 J ? \ r, 1 47Y.
flu
go
AN VA
r q . �� � � P" �y—.---r�� ., `i \mac .,_•'i- '' '��d .. ..
property of Finger
Area to which sludge
will be applied
--Buffer Zone
.91
'�'. "� ti �L Y^..�;, ' �'� � rad2 `�`" � i��'' ..r�-� •-s-.�_��11 r... ��.i _v'� � 'Yt�-� r � `
a .,f- aof •ca •�. . 1f c r :a--�Yr -- _ �_ '� ��_ .�_y. is -�� a
�'��- _ �...I-as -� "t act• - _ -'+�? - t
N

i
400'
C-9. UJFL.L
r*x.
K a,
S. R. 2021
'U,
00
c qq r i Of it j'ill.-`, -illy
Zi.{' . Yt fi� f 1� O
-tA
All
9A
I �rP a° - +�, � �: ,�,+��, � '�` �r,�..,,,' > .` .'fit« � ,� �, � .`'� t� `' ._ 'I
4E. AYW
Ij .114 :
4�
N 11.
01
44:
3., 97
v,
All,
7N
i"7 0.9)
13
.74�4
co
0

N . C . DIVISION OF ENV IROr[MENTAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD _ .' • •,:
AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTE SLUDGE ON PRIVATE LAND.
NAME OF WWTP : TT6nry Fork' P1 ant WASTEWATER TREATMENT .PLANT
OWNER OF WWTP: City of Hickory
LOCATION OF WWTP:Sandy Ford Road just south of Hickory
TYPE -OF SLUDGE liquid
- - FARM NO.
FIELD NO..
LOCATION`OF'LAND Twelve miles southeast of Henry Fork Plant :
OWNER OF PROPERTY Dr: Robert Hart III. .l q
LESSEE OF PROPERTY •City. of,Hickory:
LAND USE OR CROPPING PATTERNS
INTENDED USE OR DISPOSITION OF CROPS Fescue
The undersigned land owner or his representative hereby.. permits the
�itv - of Hickory _. -{
hereinafter referred to as the Per_mitt•ee, to apply sludge from the --Henry Fork Plant'
Wastewatet Tteatnent Plant upon the I&hd at the.lodetEbn
as .cleperibed in G e attached documents in -accordance with the restrietjons., stipula-.:'::'.
tions and exceptions shown below. The landowner or his representative receives,•in_:.
consideration, full use of the nutrient valueof the applied sludge while-the-Permittee:
receives, in consideration, 'the use of the land described :above for the' disposal •of ,j: •r:.:�;:•
digested -sludge. This agreement shall remain•in effect for an initial period 'of"'
( ) years. Following the initial
( ) year period, this 'agreement --shall remain -in effect from:one year to the next year:
until cancelled as stipulated below. The undersigned -land owner or his representative.::;.
and the Permittee agree to abide with the following restrictions and stipulations. until':.'-
such time as written notification, given ninety (90) days in advance, .modifies.or;:cancels
--this agreement.
RESTRICTIONS:
Either: party can discontinue service at any. time. .�;�•' - �-

SLUDGE APPLICATIM ACC'
(Cbntinued)
LAND 011NER
August 13 1984
DATE
PII3hbITT1;E
NORTH CAROLMA
MAj1'I3A COLMY
I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby certify that
Dr. Robert Hart, III , personally appeared before m this day and acmowledged
the due execution of the forgoing instrument.-
ItiIESS rrV hand and notarial seal this 13th day of August 7 19 84
TN
Eby Commission moires
{gjC1LLE F. SANDERS
NOTARN,n(C[�. C�
CATAMP,
11-22-85
.,
` Y PUBLIC

�w lfAv v
PI or
j
tk
If
I V
m s �'
14
� _` `/ Lt . i l ` - • � � �; ,+ , ,4 } ♦ 2 i oar 7L .----—r� - ,� --�
POPs5~ ro tZ" z
r"'�x r Ai
' -�= _ 4 _ r1 I\.:: l�.s' . s e" ,. _ -�r"' -i c � -ir 'it 1 1 � � =2n '= • k / -
, �Y � �r � ✓- 3 �. 7%'�S 1 ..� � !�� � �' _�A+ .tf �/w%Xr0�4q
if4(�,y
41
w r r 1 t 1 s^ n
fi
26
• � ..+ y 5 .F j �,$. �.,r--r:= ¢.k, r� „�:• 'x �" T. s � "ex r j t a;{ � I 1 GG �; /i b fj' `. S y kU '�.
V.A�7♦ t
19 n - < y - . p s 1 ^ � �".r','�"''�3 ��r �"`': Z� '3 �. r _ `"O £ l• f'1 • d q r 1E y i j' L.
- .� - __ _ � _ �. �� _ '"y ,fig ::f"S��► i _
Qpy
rr z�

_1,r " v -- -. \ - \
'll I
J
Fill
Wei
03
j 9' 11 I "� — -- cto/ • i
`�
eeol, a iI I I I. ;' 1 (. • _ l . l ,�fz/2/
_l.— '„ ( t,� � � \i� "1; I t,fa�(_I`•�I ,I I %, `l�.- - \ � �YfU;;� .i LI � ' I' � -`
l.. � ,' ._� � Rn'Y?` � .��caA'�,\?� '\l 1'•. i �`� _I ;- I� N'\ I I I •/ _"c���`,,]] '_
� �,y ��..a��+tts � -. �-,�/.X' �_l , ,i 9r , • I, ��'-: �r,� � I . �� j • '' - I I / II' I v�1
iI'�a x, y + ,,.r r Y4� • `'' • ladvy.) n\ i'/ r # •A J
\ —' � .{�C ,. 4• * J �fi- dl;�,•Ml ,."� I ! `� f (. b' � is l ' I ,. .. '/ .'/
uiut-
. ^ b t� ,\f ` (. , • i ! �i/ 1 I �t`� p
p' pH ,tAa
,j i� ... i^ �{ ,� ;�'t'.•;:��".• � 11 I _ _ � � I , 1 _ I ` � 1, '% •II r
IS6 Q I i • l \'j
odor
ciob
� �, .I ' �.ilL' il. � ('; .. _. �'.. ` �," I r'r �; ) '! - 1 �--•� I lid -'r• � - ` � �
Leo/�r l t
it
� eE'ol>,i � f .... — , � i \ ,}1,. '� 1 I � i II .l ,' V�!•I. , I'.tJ� : � \'.l It I �.~'

`
MAGUIRE/BEEEP. �
rxsxx��u/nc ----'----�-=' ---'-��������
`
unoup
January 30, 1985
'
Mr. ThermOO Horne
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management
Mooresville, North Carolina
RE: Hickory Land Application Permit
Dear ThermoD:
Attached are three (3) copies of the DEM noDdischarge permit application forms
and supporting data for the referenced project. Also included is a one hundred
dollar ($100.00) check for the application fee from the City of Hickory.
If there are any questions or if further information is required concerning
this application, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
Chuck 3hue, P.E.
cc: Jerry Twiggs
CE3/sw
L^`I /",'/,*` /'.` '' ' ` ,'� '.� ` ^�',p`' '' '/� ''.,. /' � / '`�''`
',w '- n',A^,`

PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA
The City of Hickory currently uses the method of land application for final
disposal of the digested municipal sludge generated at the Henry Fork and
Northeast wastewater treatment plants.
The purpose of this application is to acquire a permit for land application
on seven (7) additional potential sites. The sites are identified as follows:
1. Landfill area, Hickory Airport
2. Baxley/Reeves Property - Alexander County
3. Bowman Property - Alexander County
4. Finger Property - Catawba County
5. Griffin (Moyor) Property - Catawba County
6. Hart Property - Catawba County
7. Sherrill Property (Sherrchew Farms) - Catawba County
The following information is submitted in triplicate for evaluation of the sites:
1. Permit application
2. Site evaluation and addendum prepared by Dr. A. R. Rubin, Extension
Specialist Biological and Agricultural Engineering,.North Carolina
State University
3. Sludge Analysis
4. Soils Analysis for each site
5. Topographic maps for each site
6. Property map indicating buffer zones
7. Location map of monitoring wells per NCDEM for certain sites
8. Permission forms from property owners
Buffer zones and tree lines are indicated in green on maps and are minimums
as stipulated in a paper entitled "Requirement for Wastewater Sludge Disposal in
North Carolina" (The Regulatory -Perspective)" by Dale Crisp.
All known potable water wells, water courses and residences are identified on the
maps with appropriate buffers. The areas to receive digested sludge are highlighted
in yellow.

D F M USE ONLY
North CarolinaI)c•p.+rtmenl of Nawtal Resource:. and (:onuuuuiP\`� Ds•.i�rloF�m��ui
I Permit Number:
I:uvironmental Management Commi�.�iuu - � / _ r
NO\-DISCIIARGE PERMIT APPLICATION*
' in arcnrdancc with N.C. General Statutes Chapter 143, .Article 21
County':
Catawba
Applicant (name of board, individual, or others):
Application Dete:
City of Hickory
1 22 85
Project (name of city, village, town, sanitary district, establishment);
Hickory,North Carolina
FOR:
Non -Discharge Treatment/Disposal Facilities
Brief Project Description:
❑ Pretreatment Facilities
Land Application of digested municipal sludge
❑ Sewer Collection System (private)
frcan the Henry Fork and Northeast Wastewater
❑ Extend Sewer and Se.wet Systems (public)
Treatment Plants.
NATURE OF WASTEWATER:
Catawba County
❑ Sewage
❑ Sludge/Industrial Waste
Other Waste
From (sewers, pretreatment facilities, treatment plants): Serving (city, institution, industry):
Henry Fork, Northeast City of Hickory
In,(q yme of treatment plant): Tributary_I/A q (name of water course):
11VV ffi� 1 j�J
'
At (location of treatment plant):
N/A
Nome and Complete Address of Engineering Firm:
Maguire/Beebe P. 0. Box 2646, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304
Treatment Works Capacity to Serve (name of project): (no, yrs.) Average Daily Gallons Sewage or Waste Flow:
)For
r
NA
Affect Overall Reduction in Pollution (not applicable for sewer projects): N/A
Estimated Costs:
B.O. D. (5-day 20`� C)
Toxic Materials (specify 9 ench, add pages if needed)
p,
%
Sewers S
%
Pumping
Station S
Suspended Solids %
%
Treatment
Plant S
TOTAL, SOLIDS %
Y•. •::; •..{:.;.•.•{.;. °' ;r •�>.•. . f,
Other (s pe c i f y )
Coliform Bacteria %
TOTAL TOXIC MATERIALS%
Estimated Completion Date:
Applicant assures that proposed works will be constructed, supervised, operated and maintained in accordance with approved plans and
specifications or approved changes thereto.
Print Name: fin• Jerry Twiggs Till-Publle, Utilities Mailing Address: cit O Hl9 '
Dfr-ec or P. �, �x
1,
Signature: .", A Ow-t `� �`" Hicko (J r ry, N. C. 28603
I Fill-in ALL spaces. If not applicable, enter N/A.
2, Secure appropriate signature (mayor/city manager for municipality; chairman for sanitary district board; owner/proper official of corporation;
or legally constituted board or commission in charge of proposed works). A letter of authorization is required from proper official if
design engineer or other agent signs application.
3. Submit to N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC, the
original and first copy of application, 2 sets of finalized plans, specifications and other supporting data as required by Commission Rules.
NOTE: Application reviews are scheduled on receipt of COMPLETE information, Generally, 30 days are required for pollution abatement projects; 90 days
for other projects
For Assistance, call the State Central Office 919/733-5083, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. or:
*Asheville [phone] *Mooresville [phone] 'Washington [phone] *Winston-Salem [phone]
159 Woodfin Street 919 North Main Street 1502 North Market Street 8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Asheville, NC 28801 Mooresville, NC 28115 Washington, NC 27889 Winston-Salem, NC 27106
'Fayetteville [phone] *Raleigh [phone] *Wilmington [phone]
Suite 714 Wochovio Building Box 27687 7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Fayetteville, NC 28301 Raleigh, NC 27611 Wilmington, NC 28403

G
0
rry OF HicKoRy
soTJ cLP�I`:JSLJC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
AIRPORT PROPERTY - HICKORY MUNICIPAL
1. Shown on topo map is where sludge will be applied,
property lines, wells, surface water, drainage, and
location of residences.
2. Sludge will be hauled by tanker true]: at the rate of
3500 gal. per tr-ck load and dispersed, site will not
be harvested.
3. Sludge is stored in drying beds.
4. Land to be used 109 acres.
5. N.E. Waste Grater Treatment Plant location is 5 miles
northeast of site.
6. Henry F6rk Waste Water Treatment Plant location is
6 miles southeast of site.
0
P. 0. BOX 39B HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 2BB03 (7041 322 - 2605

�
' kFP
� ro.m�m�
FARM LOCA
WE pp_
'FOP SECOND CROP (On YEAR)
|NO
/
!
/ '^~.
�r! , 21o'
/ co
`

10,75
. . . . . . . . . . .
x
­6
ft�72X
Lu
ti
N 732,000
I -I I C KOR Y
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT

s I y Aj
o:- 5.
Al
Fs
t15S7 72 �s3y,f
i r
v
N• o'`- r F.y ,- n cam.
�. y W ` jrys _•'S`C4.d. f S.GBr3a E. ; ylp• L /' ; �° ;7'C .�
46 1-
4
23 w0/ N
l p
D
v_
N �
U
�Y, V
�0' °
Z�� g' 1o0.6r rl•
G °a 5 a
15°00'• _n.20'' 0 N•
�6�00
2c c.o • 71 0.0,
It77.a g .
r q��S.,\
o aM
? E
o J
0 5.0' ry3.c; , GVR

4755 IV Nk.
2U '70 1 'N�7*0
."71 (ELLENDA
L E*OZ
7
TT
F_- t. Ki, �_c Lf e, e v .5
f
Area. to which sludge
will. be applied.
Buffer Zone
W .44 Drainage area
j!
FL'fiD-$h1P
C"
XV U
rr
(Dy//
to
Qt
Cle
IL
F
j-1
0
�1744 11?, 1
— 4z7_-
1141
Qk'
Iv-
7) .4 ZZI
41
U
jF
Ch
let.
ell, M.
kl�

I, • j�jl 11
it
• 1 U \ t ( It
• �• k .. � -'ice-// � }1�+�`-{ �'.. 1 S •� _"T �/ � 11 {{�l � ��:=_r `•
JAI
if 44
all
,� /, t _ / / // • • ° • • _ 4v1,�'� �rt Ltd ` •� � • • • � �/ \ � .. "� 1
\
�• •�
1 .N
10O'I

RE PORT
10/15/8
TO. 6A
PT
TA
FARM
12
kMPLE
NO I . Mg-% Y; M-1 Yn-! CU-! S-1 Sal NO3N NH4N
0 046.. - ..
i
CROPTO BE�TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) ° •
P205 i K 2 0 i Mr j CU i Yr 6 Mn I !
! I NC
AMPLE PRE\
PoC, p5g,4p. Mn-I Yn-! CU-! 8.1 SSd NO3N NH{Po
I
CROPTOBETREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)
F20F K 2 0 Mp Cu
! 1 1 i t No
SAMPLE PRE\ - - NO pyg-9y. Mn-1 Yn-I Cu-I S-! _BSI - NO3N NHQN I
CROP TOBETREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) "
P2C-5 KZO Mg i Cu 2n $ Mn 6
NO'
SAMPLE. PRE1°
1;
( .'P. , �V',-
-CROP TOE REATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) • °
.- P205 -Ka0 Mg - ,..Cu Mn SE
N01
SAMPLEry PRE0- .. _
NO.
CROP TO BE I
'BEAT
ME(VT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)
P206 KZO Mg Cu 2n B Mn SE
r NOT
I
" TEST R
Soil Classl Unle" SpBC;i}rP;;
• � 7 hUt :.
V - 1b5 7000sG it
, ZG — 11 If
_' -'srr !f h4 ,1_ iYl iaLiBS+'Jfi
WV - W. !i ; t Ofir r.;, N = Pura'
CEC = C� Lt; = G�r,,r�•r
M11=• = Me�lctrnra�
nahle. 600 suPPle-menTat mvteri;I!

A, k
n l+ t
�r
A [
."` �f... -"3 � s, i•�- . x �� �Ii �'ye��Q,fi y _., f 't ?�t� a• .vr
r '°iP+rfd
�.Y�s'�'�' .. 's �'`-• 3 x`8 .rr ..fly "RM, r; 4+ta '� l� d{
MWAy
f i £lt
y? Y t�
" �A � a �.p.. ,�,�, o� '"x, �, A'r.Y}+ M�,�zt.�„ w{yJ.�� �°..�.�n q fed( F•j
Ko
X1.
4,11
V .per
45,
_ l er E mot,
A ��
`y Tsr,
,rr 1,,
'm'.,°`^�'oa'+^.�w.i Yr�d : �'yyr , �+''u3"`a „t`i#• x y/l ..{ q .�s'r�'f�
4 i gip" �fr z fa cz. £ _ <A
.. a. ,�€; ��'u� _: t�,r ��3 •v f" a� v .. s z a r Sri t � ° �'b;
// Jl"L �- rtr `s`^'�2`t,�'' � .s• t � � rs:,. � aa—? .mow �t� �
'»k Lt4 a •�,�Sxry�. c v'' t \` t.SL� u�r ���ri Y�`z-•r
Y
.... • � � I' �'� 4xz���'�`.Sxr.' � �gFrtr k s 'f ` W� %r -:t �-` �. �"z
�r`:C',. _ ('-"r•+cc..r�� a ra R' .a5 r P• lE�
NO,
f Zl�^SY L .'fry; 1. �'i �tt f �M�'^i W /.f��• � d"Y �v�-l;,, iI ri3�'Y Ost
,�-
ti<s
'S� � �.;k,�r � �• �� ' tY� ����'z#.r'r� ��.: y�,s'�..y�2 <'&` " F� :Sy '4 :'F'S sY,�"i r)�? yL'S' a.. r" s� tx'' n
'O`§�s ''z'"Y' i�j r s �, ,�� �3``.�y �e.,rCw"s��' t�> � 4 y � ex �'i '' z ,>< •^ '�s s �
l � x.'
'( (" '2aly'4 iP.
- 3 "`�? : '•'�.`' ..sc .; s r a ' z lt~"z''3J r"h-.4':�.5b'-a'' - A3 t r r :C z• t"
��`q Y a�. >sa 2g' ..:. > �sa'�✓'�'•'my"r�sy2'p..ihi F+T ' .z >.n t4 ^t A t L '�,`s'•"rka,,`r„�
�� i' � � +w �:. � � �r�,,,`�"� ' s, •ewe• �,. �£ .� � �3��s��'rt
5^. "� a i 4,w 8' •f y``'z, f• s- r �� z ,:,� :�'t $k. ..,r 3-d�",�r. ��P"`�-•+k;
�� q,�•24�� � y�'�:�zze,w� '''•i\ _ 't.� � � r7 �.{W � �� J as'l�}�e-i,2 c,,: 4.
,,. � � � _l 5y s '� �� � ;��. �. � '^y �k?i+'ts<<�� ° �-� +,. �a. �� � 'i'-"..'ls.. "2^'�A ,. ��,• +�'a
�` z,,.°�. a"^t '+ e� °✓e4. �'r-ey�, ».A IN
nf
6 f h. ' i >� Y.. e. .: y >`,� '. i i z; hs� r q� z �*^'#� �� �. � � 3 <'`ay. ; sy�,. �: xr."k• j�+ „o a,
�i w H� vl 'y t''�d o5 L �° yr.✓^ ` fw .r ¢ t. a3,''i .1i .<c�,,x+'c.•.;
Mpg,:5�
�% swa ?i',ps' aC1`�'"•- I' 2 Y n F`" "sT��X c � } €' -
723:ftY'' d s4� { Y 3 F -.k 6 ,g �. ,v.,�c• r x
� s�� 4 � � 5 C 2 � sP. u'°� x r .� y.. r >,c � fic ffn ��i'S l s'✓ � C.
34
Aw
< � � 't X R,'.P, K I f o- ,, r't''�� k .w'A. T` „?i`!_'�� {^l •af.: it ?,r �; � r F `�'

-- ---------------------------
SOIL TEST REPORT
REPORT NOo 07113 AGRON:)N{IC DIVISION, N.C. DEPARI MENT OF AGRICUITURE
BLUE RIDGE ROAD CENTER. RALEIGH, N.C.
PHONE: [phone]
10 / 1 S/ 84 COPIES SENT TO:
X COUNTY EXTENSION CHAIRMAN
TO: RE -EYES, W. D.
RT 1 BOX 3290 GENE HANES HICKORY
TAYLORSVILLE NC 28681— HU17T SANDERS HICKORY.
FARM LOCATION (COUNTY):
r• f P �r t of 11 tT^.
12
FIELD INFORMATION
TEST RESULTS `
SAMPLE PREVIOUS CROP —T
APPLIED LIME FERT. LAST CROP
say--t Ht+4% YV;V CEC pS y, A,.--� H I^'- —�`(
I P P-1 K�I Cr,.+A, Ai -'
'!: Mrrl
NO.
CLASS , _.�
. a Zn-1 Cu-r S-I SS-1 NO3N N1i$N
Mc Y• TrA P G K.,O
2 5
....
'k
tt
-
..
I
.,..
;;
1
� �
I (030I :. —
y
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOP, FIRST CROP (OR YEAR) "
I:
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) " •
CROP TO BE GROWN LIME N F O K O M—� C�• Zr. J B
2 5 2 r
Mr. SEE CROP TO BE!� ?OWN
1 Lrhir , N P205 I K20 M CL Zn
I f
NOTE- i'
1 B Mn i S
I NG
i
, 1 { I
FIELD INFORMATION..
_ TS • TEST RESUL
SAMPLE PREVIOUS CROP
NO APPLIED LIME FEQ?. LA$7 CF?P
S;y, HM_gC
4 C_,t;,;• I W.'V I
CEC, I _ SS-'+' i A= i p�-%`-A�;! P-d - K-1.. .{ .:Ce. RM19.%-- MmI i Yn-1 -- `-Cu-t 6 I SS-! .Np3k NH4NT
�_
Mo Yr 7rA P205 I K20
III{ '�
- _
.. •_ •� i .�Yo { 1
4,4.
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR)
SUGGESTED, TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) " •
CROP TO BE GROWN UME T1 P„O K 0 M E S Cc Yn
i
B + Mr. Sc: C^-GP TO BE :cOW4 LVJc N` P205 K20 ( Mg Cu Zr, B Mn
I
NC, _ S
NO
I
.:..
! PLE PREVIOUS CROPNO. - APPLIED LlNIE FEP.T. LAST CROP cLAss HM-" W' V
T;A t P205 K20 )
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR)
CROPTOBEGROWN LIME N_ - P206 I K20 Mg Cu Zn —Is 1 F6 r: SEE
NGTE
_ TEST -RESULTS"' -
PH F-i i li' { Ga;ir: tUS,-".0 tdnt Yr.-I Cu- T• S-I - SS-1 ND�N WHBd D
t 1 .. fz.
_- SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR) • •
TORE 3ROVr'ir LIME j N P�05 K2G M6 Cu Zn 8 Mn Si
I NO'
FIELD INFORRMAiT'40IN ..
SAMPLE PREVIOUS CROP APPLIED LIME FERT. LAST CROP
NO.
PAC
)
60rt HM-%
--CL,►85
WIY
_.._
`CEC ,EIS-%
... ; =. - TESTRESULTS°
Ae '� �- � �K t �'C°-% -' M Cudt103N
_ i 1}5b ' - Mn-1 Zn _
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR) a"
-
-`:CWOR TO t35 OROWM ¢-.: -i.. - N.
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)
._Ltt+� ., .1Z06 .:.lC20 _' .me
L Mn 'SEE
CROP 70 GROWN
LIME N P O
-
" ' -
NOTE
' - 2 5 K20 M® Cu Sn
' B
MnSE
7cluZr
.. ..
_ . .. -..
I
NOT
FIELD INFORMATION -
z -
SAMPLEfry•PREVIOUSCROP ..,. ... ::. :•• ....'
:-SWL
,n
'
c i. i%•-n
,; TEST S� SiiiT Ott rS,';.t?:
$. 'i.C., .. ,.
.+,....: ..,
.._
NO. APPLIED LIME ,HM-%
FERT. LAST CROP C1A6;,
WryY
i �S-%
Act pff ,• i-1 .,. _
K•I r .^Co.�b . :•r: 9b• Mn•I Zn-1 but
Mo. Yr. TIA P205 K20,_V
.. s•1 .. NSA
- NO ro
NH N
4
N,
, ..�
.., t �4r• _ -c- 1�i - -. c;1. �+� _ _ s.�.t. [c- i..�
Jrr
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR) " *
!
r
CROP TOfEG110WN •LIME
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)
_N P205 1S O Me Cu
Yn
'0 Mr. SEL
CRUPTOOEGHUWN
lIM[ N P20F K20
NOTE
Mg Cu Zr,
6
Mn
SEI
i
NOTI
TEST RESULTS IN r fa.t. uu;lt
Soil Class MIN' = Mlnera'
- ,r..'__'
85 S = Ba S3turat
1111-AT KIENT, Ibsis unless Specified
e rr: ti. of C: C
p.q r'c - R4 .;•,et:e^,. }; Uf CFC
NG-, N = Nitratt- N, r:., :;^•'
' M O - M,nera! Organic -
Ac = AC!df*, •r,eo I ,)) crr.'
pr.:, 1 _ r
_ .ti,�n;lanese Ind+•f
NH , r\ = Antrno:;lu7', m u-
i!
_ -
; IP,'j 1 •
Zul
' OHG = Or4,&nl',
HM % = Hwtuc Mahe•. p,I
pfl = Hvd,ope:. ,,:,:
Zinc- 1r;;{.:'
Na = Sndlan;, rnr,.l ';.,.,r..
r.. rv, .:cr. h.' itA';, = Mup:,r•t.:„+" B Born'':
r•nt by vol.
'
P . = Pnc::.p:, Ut u:: tn:Jr.
G. I l_np;r+ir•:7:,,.
=
•-
W`V _ Wt+r ht Dc• Volume a'crn •
a
-
_
A-� F..tal. b.
- �
: - ;• •.,•. ., . _ _
It.; .: C ;' - C.uc•;••
II MI. _ N��;�}r., •,
CEC = Cafi�n E,uh Cap . n:i•1,100 (-
Ct, 9 = f,!. .{I•'. µ..r ' r'
_ �'+c: : uitu: ,nr1P,
,u1uh�. .
S.,`• rip.
1t .,
`v � f+Si L-F:Vf" is Cj LtOS[iOrlBtri t' SE: f' S!JI)�,ICtper7l nl f118TfJrlBi
Ref>,r) SUPPLFN11-fNTAL NIA'TERiA� AND BACK, OF FC)R F..!RlHE,c Di't/;`

AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTE SLUDGE ON PRIVATE LAND
NAME OF WWTP: Northeast.
OWNER OF WWTP: City of Hickory
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LOCATION OF WWTR: Rt 2 Box 990 Hickory N. C. 28601
TYPE OF SLUDGE liquid
FARM NO.
FIELD NO.
LOCATION OF LAND Rt. 1, Box 329E, Taylorsville, N. C. 28681
OWNER OF PROPERTY
LESSEE OF PROPERTY
LAND USE OR CROPPING PATTERNS pasture land
INTENDED USE OR DISPOSITION OF CROPS fescue
The undersigned land owner or his representative hereby permits the City of Hickory
hereinafter referred to as the Permittee, to apply sludge from the' Northeast
Wastewater Treatment Plant upon the land at the location shown
as described in the attached documents in accordance with the restrictions, stipulations
and exceptions shown below. The land owner or his representative receives, in consideration,
full use of the nutrient value of the applied sludge while the Permittee receives, in
consideration, the use of the land described above for the disposal of digested sludge. This
agreement shall remain in effect for an initial period of
( ) years. Following the initial
year period, this agreement shall remain in effect from one year to the next year until
cancelled as stipulated below. The undersigned land owner or his representative and the
Permittee agree to abide with the following restrictions and stipulations until such time as
written notification, given ninety (90) days in advance, modifies or cancels this agreement.
RESTR I CT I ONS : EITHER PARTY HAS THE RI(R1T TO DISOONTINUE THIS AGPUEKM ' AT ANY TBIE.
LAN OWNE .
DATE
PERMITTEE
NORTH CAROLINA
�CATAWBA COUNTY 1
I, the -undersigned Notary Public, do hereby certify that •�, QsC��
, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged thd due
execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this o day of j 1984.
a,
Notary u is
My Comm. expires: /—/r �°

N. C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD
AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTE SLUDGE ON PRIVATE LAND
NAME OF WWTP: Northeast Plant WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OWNER OF WWTP: City of Hickory
LOCATION OF WWTR: Old Cloninger IIill Road
TYPE OF SLUDGE liquid
uI-11,quyl♦iI71
FIELD NO.
LOCATION OF LAND Rt. 1, Box 329D, Taylorsville, Tq. C. 286S1
OWNER OF PROPERTY Ddr. W. D. Reeves
LESSEE OF PROPERTY
LAND USE OR CROPPING PATTERNS
INTENDED USE OR DISPOSITION OF CROPS
The undersigned land owner or his representative hereby permits the City of hickory
hereinafter referred to as the Permittee, to apply sludge from the Northeast Plant
Wastewater Treatment Plant upon the land at the location shown
as described in the attached documents in accordance with the restrictions, stipulations
and exceptions shown below. The land owner or his representative receives, in consideration,
full use of the nutrient value of the applied sludge while the Permittee receives, in
consideration, the use of the land described above for the disposal of digested sludge. This
agreement shall remain in effect for an initial period of
( ) years. Following the initial
year period, this agreement shall remain in effect from one year to the next year until
cancelled as stipulated below. The undersigned land owner or his representative and the
Permittee agree to abide with the following restrictions and stipulations until such time as
written notification, given ninety (90) days in advance, modifies or cancels this agreement.
RESTRICTIONS:
PERMITTEE
NORTH CAROLINA
CATAWBA COUNTY 1 (�
1, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby certify that L(z�z�
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this day of 198jr
LUCII_LE F. SANDERS
NO i r•RY PUBLIC �
CATAWBA COUNTY �°
Notary u c
My Comm. expires:

;N. C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STANDARD.
AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTE SLUDGE ON PRIVATE LAND
4ME OF WWTP• Henry Fork Plant WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WNER OF WWTP: City of Hickory
DCATION OF WWTR: Sandy Ford Road Just south of Hickory
YPE OF SLUDGE liquid
FARM NO. "
FIELD NO.
OCAT I ON OF LAND Off SR 1144 in Catawba County
WNER OF PROPERTY Mr. Kenneth R. Moyer
ESSEE OF PROPERTY
.AND USE OR CROPPING PATTERNS
NTENDED USE OR DISPOSITION OF CROPS
Fhe undersigned land owner or his representative hereby permits the City of Hickory
iereinafter referred to as the Permittee, to apply sludge rom the Henry YorR Pianl
Wastewater Treatment Plant upon the land at the location shown
as described in the attached documents in accordance with the restrictions, stipulations
and exceptions shown below. The land owner or his representative receives, in consideration,
Full use of the nutrient value of the applied sludge while the Permittee receives, in
:onsideration, the use of the land described above for the disposal of digested sludge. This
agreement shall remain in effect for an initial period of
( ) years. Following the initial
year period, this agreement shall remain in effect from one year to the next year until
cancelled as stipulated below. The undersigned land owner or his representative and the
Permittee agree to abide with the following restrictions and stipulations until such time as
written notification, given ninety (90) days in advance, modifies or cancels this agreement.
RESTRICTIONS:
LAND OWNER
li - i -
DATE
PERMITTEE
NORTH CAROLINA
CATAWBA COUNTY
I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby certify that Kenneth R. Moyer
, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing instrument. 1st November
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal', this day of 1984•
LWILLE F. SANDERS
NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public
CATAWBA OOUNTY, N. Q My Comm. expires: 11-22-85

.,
BOWMAN PROPERTY OFF'" SPENCER ROAD STATE NUMBER 1441
1. Shown on topo map is where sludge will be applied,
property lines.,; wells, .surface .water, drainage, ri.and
location of residences.
2. Sludge will be hauled by tanker truck at the rate of
1600 gal. per.truck load and dispersed: Site will not be
harvested.
3. Sludge is stored in digesters.
4. Land to be used 53 acres.
5.'N.E. Waste Water Treatment Plant location is 6:2 miles
.northwest of site.
N
e
P. O. BOX 39B HICKORY. NORTH r'®ROi INIA PRPvnr=t r-7nAl inn ��r,�

Of HICk
CITY OF HICKORY.
A[�A DOA.T[0
POST OFFICE BOX 398 • HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 28603 ® 704/322-2605 ' 2
ia7�.Ts. { -
6q COuN�.
Public Utilities Department
Or NATURAZ
ur�c> s AND \
July 11, 1986
1"
Mr. Thurman Horne
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P. 0. Box 950,
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115-0950
SUBJECT: Analysis of Sludge
Dear Mr. Horne:
Attached you will find a copy of the sludge analysis run in
June, 1986.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
�t�n
Wm. er� Twigs
Public Utilities Director
WJT/bb
Attachment

Bio-Chem Laboratories
Ibst Office Box 40
Granite Falls, North Carolina 28630-0040
Date: 6-30-86
Customer: AMSCO
C/o Mr. Frank Post
P. O. Box 568
Clemmons, NC 27012
Sample I. D.: City of Hickory,
Waste Sludge
Sample Date: June 1986
Parameter Concentration
Units
Solids
99+
%
PH
3.0
S.U.'.s
Chlorine
0
mg/L
T.K.N.
214
mg/Kg
Nitrate -Nitrite
15.1
mg/Kg
Ammonia Nitrogen
0
mg/Kg
Potassium
137.5
mg/Kg
Phosphorus, T.
720
mg/Kg
Cadmium
1.1
mg/Kg
Copper
33.6
mg/Kg
Chromium
18.1
mg/Kg
Lead
1.26
mg/Kg
Zinc
50.0
mg/Kg
Mercury
0.051
mg/Kg
Arsenic
1.03
mg/Kg
Nickel
2.42
mg/Kg
Note: All analyses performed by
a certified
laboratory.
Reported by,
BIO-CHEM LABORATORIES
Signed:
Member Commercial laboratories Association of

CITY OF HICKORY
IROORVO RATED 2
POST OFFICE BOX 398 • HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 28603 • 704/322-2605 1874 y
6q COuN�.
Public Utilities Department
June 20, 1986
Mr. Thurman Horne
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P. 0. Box 950
Mooresville, North.Carolina 28115
Dear Mr. Horne:
Attached you will find a copy of the report submitted by
our sludge haulers. Please check and advise if you have any
changes we need to make.
Should additional information be needed, please advise.
WJT/bb
Attachment
Sincerely,
'1 0 dr
Wm. erry Twi
Public Utilities Director
N C. D p P T 'or, �rArU
C01,1A3U d . ' CES AA,D
JUIV 301986
RIPISf®N OF ENJIPIWRIGITAL 11AtdASEliFyl
196®RESVI(LE REGIONAL �FFIG

{ Lv
STATE 4 North Carolina artrnent of Natural
eye Vices . mmunity Development
James B: Hunt, Jr., over r James A. Summers, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 11, 1984
Mr. Jerry, Twiggs
Pu—Util-i-t-ies-Director
City of Hickot-
Post Office Box
fi���8603
Dear Mr. Twiggs:
Mr. Hueitt-Sanders and I visited several sitesfor sludge disposal in -
Catawba and Alexander Counties on October 4, 1984, The purpose was to locate
sites for monitoring wells. I understand that Dr. Rubin, Soils Scientist, has
evaluated all -of_ -these sites. His comments have _been incorporated_ in. the two
(2) permits that have been issued and will be cited in those sites still to be
permitted.
Mr. Sanders and I did not visit the Airport site. If Hickory still plans
to use this site, I will return and make monitoring well locations. Please
advise.
I have enclosed maps showing well locations on both the permitted sites
(Mauser and Bowman -.Catawba Co.) and the sites yet to be permitted (Finger
and Griffin - Catawba Co. and Baxley and Bowman - Alexander County). Copies
of these maps are being forwarded to the Water Quality and Groundwater Sections
in Raleigh. Therefore, there should be no delay in issuing permits for the new
sites.
If this Office can be of further service to the City of Hickory, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
.���' ,�.
Richard R: Peace, Jr.
Regional Supervisor
RRP:sju
cc: Mr. Hueitt Sanders
Water Quality.Section
Groundwater Section
Mooresville Regional Office P.O. Box 950, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville, N. C. 28115-0950 Telephone.[phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

s �..
CITY OF
INDOR PO HAT C.D
1874-79.
6q COUP\
July 20, 1984
1i1r . - Rex Gleason
N. C. DEPA-CMEN'T OF NATURAL
RESOURCES & 031 1UIL=)' DEVE OPivIENT
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gleason:
Attached you will find an application (in triplicate) for
an additional field for sludge application to be approved on
Application ;rAP\T 003458.
Also, you will find two topographic maps of the Robert
Alauser property which has already been inspected by your
office. A check in the amount of $100.00 is enclosed for
the application fee.
Sincerely,
Wm. ' Jerry Ztviggs
Public Utilities Director
WJT/bb
Attachments
P. ®. BOX 393 HICKORY, NORTH CAROL8g' A 23333 (7043 322 - 2605

APN 003458
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RALEIGH
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE
WASTEWATER FROM PRETREATMENT FACILITIES TO
OTHER WASTE sTER TREA'IIME]Nr FACILITIES, SEWER
SYSTEIVB, SEWER SYSTEM E =SIONS, AND
WASTEWATER TREAT FACILITIES NOT DISCHARGING
TO THE SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE
Filed By:
Name
P. 0. Box 398
Hickory, N. c4Address) 28603
DEM—EO NO. 1
1-17-79

+1 1 M July 19, , 19 84
TO: NORTH CA.ROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COA9MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes
of North Carolina as amended, application is hereby made by Public Utilities Deparlmezit
(Name of board, individual
or others)
of the City of Hickory , in the county
(Name of city, village, town, sanitary district or establishment)
of Catawba , to the North Carolina Environmental Management
(Location of Project)
Commission, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development for the approval of
the accompanying plans, specifications, and other data submitted herewith covering the
MW44t0= of sludge disposal site
and for a "Permit" for the discharge of _s_lidcre
(sewage, industrial waste or other wastes)
from the Henry Fork Plant and the Northeast Plant
(sewers, pretreatment facilities, or treatment plant)
serving City of Hickory into
(Name of municipality,institution or industry, etc.) (Name of treatment plant)
or ground waters, tributary to
at
(Name of water course)
(Location of treatment plant)
The plans for the proposed works have been prepared by City of Hickory
. (Engineering Firm)
of P. O. Box 398, Hickory, N. C. 28603
(Address)
It is estimated that treatment works will provide adequate capacity to serve the
City of Hickory for a period of 2 years, at
which time it is estimated the average daily sewage or waste flow will not exceed
gallons. It is further expected that the treatment works will affect overall
reductions in pollution as follows: B X .D.(5-day 200C) %, suspended solids
total solids %, coliform bacteria %, and toxic materials*. The cost of the
proposed works is estimated to be: sewers $ , pumping station $ ,
treatment plant $ , other $ The works will be completed on or before
. 19
The applicant hereby agrees that the proposed works will be constructed in strict accordance with the approved plans and
specifications or subsequently approved changes therein and further agrees to place its operation under the care of a competent
person and to maintain and operate the plant according to the best accepted practice and in accordance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Commission.
Signature: L
Title: Public Utilities Director
City of Hickory
Mailing Address: P . O. Box 398
Hickory, N. C. 28603
*Specify percentage reduction for each toxic substance, using additional sheet, if necessary.

CKo,,p�. CITY OF HICKORY
NU �lq Ni
G\' j90 e-
~ s
v� INCORPORATED = PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9` 1874-79.
Y y
6q cooN�
July 20, 1984
Mr. Rex Gleason
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gleason:
Attached you will find an application (in triplicate) for
an additional field for sludge application to be approved on
Application #APN 003458.
Also, you will find two topographic maps of the Robert
Mauser property which has already been inspected by your
office. A check in the amount of $100.00 is enclosed for
the application fee.
Sincerely,
Wm. Jerry Twiggs
Public Utilities Director
WJT/bb
Attachments
P. 0. BOX 398 HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 2BB03 C7041 322 - 2605

SOIL TEST REPORT,
AGRONOMIC DIVISION, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
REPORT I40.14160 BLUE RIDGE ROAD CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. .
PHONE: [phone] COPIES SENT TO: "
12100182 X COUNTY EXTENSION CHAIRMAN
TO: T7AUSER, ROOERT s
10 25TH ST NE
H i CKORY NC 28601-
• FARM LOCATION (COUNTY):
J
rATAWAA
12
FIELD INFORMATION
'- - ,,,",TEST
RESULTS
•'• ---
SANOLE
IRE VIOUS CROP
APPLIED LIME
FE RT. LAST CROP
,._C ASS
i HM%
-; ,WN r.
.CEC
„BSX
A?-'r
pN
•.'PI
j,JK.r( 3},
;•` G-%
;r-MP%':'I
"p,Mn-I
iml
Cul
SI
,55.1
NOaN
Ma,
Yr.
T/A
PZOB
KZO
-,;.
,•
..
.•-t1S.1
[r
y at A
.•-
_...l
65+11051'1
.e
T711
l� -..
--1
SOYBEAMS
12
81
2.
19
19
'MYfI
,0.2
1.02
d.0:
93.';
0.4
6.�
009,•
�
0.2
26.8.
166+
051
J55
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR)--
c ° SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)••
CROP TO BE GROWN
LIME
N
PZ05-
KZO
M.
Cu
Zn
'B
Mn
SEE
NOTE
CROPTOBE GROWN -
•:'LIME
H
P O
Z 6
K 0
Z
MP
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
SEE
..
NOTE
ALFALFA E
0.0
10-30
1 L0�230
040-060
0
0
0
3.
0
12
LFALFA; H."..`
;;0:0
`;;I ;0
120-140
030-050
0
C
0
2.0
0:]
12
FIELD INFORMATION
" '' 'a -TEST.
••,!.l
RESULTS:",-
SIMPPLE
APPLIED LIME
FERTNo..LASTCROP
•, SO
HM%
{,Wry
'
::CEC
yBS%?
Ac
pH
`
SS-1
MP.
Vr,
T/A
PZ05
KZO
IPII11005C"OP
•: - .
1
093+ 1103
51
.:
..
- -c'
SOYCEANS
12
81
2.
19
19
MIN
0.3
1 Ll'`
-4.y1.
84.
0.8
b.Q
013
6'6;
5:4
2.1.4
166+
.035
045
0l.
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR).. ` -
•. ;, a>• +' 'rr"'I t SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)** "'•
CROPTOBEGROWN -
'LIME
N
PZ05
KZO
Mp
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
SEE
CROP TO BE'GROWN ,-':
'I, LIME
N
.!t; P205
KZO
MP
Cu
Zn
p
;.Mq'
SEE
.
NOTE
..r :. i'E:+�l
i.:
Ir:. r , .
.� '
NOTE
ALFALFA E
0.6
10-30.:
2,OG-220
Ob0-08C
0,
0''
`0.
3.
0'
.12
LFALFA°'M ' I'-
0.0'
'' ' 0 '"'
110-130
040-060
0
0
0,
2.0
0,
I? -
FIELD INFORMATION '�
t2
--- .,. .. .,,. „a ,�.,a_,TEST..RESULTS!.:.,
�v:.}% � ••• .. .,,' .:.., ;'::-,:
SAIAPLE
NO.
PREVIOUS CROP.
pPPLIEO LIME
FERT. LAST CROP
SOIL
-HMX
WN
CEC •
B&%
Ac
PN #.'.
:!:P1+. _.,
11 x.l.
�°'%.. t1.
,. MTX;.
•, ii Mn.l
Zml
C I
-
SI•.
-...,55.1..'
AN03N; c.
NHAN-
Na
CLASS
_
-
` Q
M IS 'i '
J
_...
Mo.
Y"
T/A
PZOE
KZO
SJ
.�. 1 f
_
t `,�•
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR)'*'
- SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)**
CROP TO BE GROWN
LIME
N,
" PZOB
:KZO
MB
Cu
Zn
B
.:.
Mn.
SEE
CROP TO BE GROWN
•: LIME :
:r N'�'.::t :
:` . ,PZ05
' '-' KZO '-
Mu
Cu
Zn
B 'r
Mn '
SEE
.
..
.. r
•
:.l',. t
.NOTE
r:t r�;..•
' .
{; ,., ,:.
{ _
•-
f
_
NOTE
""FIELD INFORMATION-"'`t"`-'
' " ew '„ T•EST'RESULTS
- -y
9ANOLE
PREVIOUS CROP -
APPLIED LIME.
FERT. LAST COOP
rCSOIL�LA55
OHM-%
WN ,
CEC .,
BS%,,
Ac
f' pH
-�1 ,
Yri K•If
G% f
Mp%
LMn-I
Z 1'
Cut 1
•' 31
SS,
NOGN
NHAN'
N,
�[r
T/A
PZOBN..
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAR)--
.;{�• �:,;;',� SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)••"
CROP TO BE GROWN
LIME
N
P O
Z 6
K 0
Z
MP
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
SEE
CROP TO BE GROWN
• LIME
,F(rN Lt; �,
.P O
Z B
.- K O
2
M P
Cu
Za
, �.p
Mn '
SEE
.
NOTE
-
NOTE
•'t -
_
FIELD INFORMATION , • n
.,; _'. , •..:. �,' ;t `.:�. .. ''- ' :..x NEST
LL
RESULTS."-" . -:
SAMPLE
NO.
IOUSCROP
'APPLIED LIME
FEAT. LASTCgOP
SOIL'
;,HM-y6
WN
CEC `
tA}
"-BSX
[
A
� PH
n}? P I
ti K l Y
, G % .0
! 1 MO % J
1M -I
Zn l
" C 1 '
NOeN
�PFIIV
�.
CLASS
t..,•'Y�.
i.J..
:il.} ld
.fir
P .-T
.
.H:'.
i,
..
.',{i
, R,
fl: 10'
M•,
Yr.
T/A.�
P205
KZO
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP OR YEAR)- .:,. �:?, '..�
SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)**'
CROP TO BE GROWN
LIME
'I
- N
!.I ` i
p.ZOfi •,
'f 'i,.:
KZp,',JJI,..
,_'Me_ ,,
Cu.r:,
j Zn ;.:
)a, •8,iy:
ii Mn
•
I"SEE
'NOTE
CROP TO BE GROWN
LIME
N
_ PZOS
'�:,KZO.„ I:I
MP,�
-� Ca
1' Zn •;
- ��8-Ili
Nn ::
SEE
„ I r-
,, -.
Irfl'1yr
f�
if l,:��- !
�I,-'! (
j:•�.i.
eL•
.-
]
:l!
�.a -
NDTE
2.
'
11 5!%l!
:)'Q , .f1,
rI„
is-.
• TEST RESULT b IN.C. tests Wiu'not compere directly'to numbers obtained by other methods.) ; te;o,t " -TREATMENT, Ibs/a unless specified
Sall Class: MIN - Mineral BS-%- Bose Saturation, %of CEC Mg•% - Magnesium, %of CEC: -: > NO,N - Nitrate N, mg/dm' ' LIME: T - tone/a, M - Ibs./1000 sq, ft. K,O - Potash, M - Ibs./1000 sq. ft.
M-O - Mineml-Organic Ac - Acidity, meq/100 cm, Mn-I - Manganese Index 'NH,N - Ammonium N, mgldm - N - Nitrogen, M - Ibs.11000 sq. ft. Mg - Magnesium
' ORG - Organic PH - Hydrogen -Ion Activity - Zn•I - Zinc Index Na'Scdlum; meq/100 em r' p,0, - Phosphate, M - Ibs./1006 sq. ft. Cu - Copper
HM.%'- Humic Matter, Percent by vol P-1 - Phosphorus Index - Cu.] - Copper' Index \ s - ,
W/V -Weight per Volume, g/em' K I Potassium Index :; S•I Sulfate Sulfur Index I .-
CEC- G11on Exch. Gp meq/100 cm Co-%, Gldum, %of CEC SS•1' Solublo Salt Index '=• $ Test Level is 4 Uestio nab Ia. See supplemental material.
r-. ��
. ..READ SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL AND BACK OF, -REPORT. FOR FURTHER DETAIL
Zn - Zinc '
B - Boron
Mn - Mena..
t "ice_ t _�_ t f n•rh -1 t� it �.A .n't € -xtn'ss,;'�

N
r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t �
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
COMPOSTING FACILITIES & SERVICES
Composting Services
Professional Services Group, Inc. (PSG) has unsurpassed experience in the operations,
maintenance, and management (OM&M) of residuals management and composting
facilities. PSG provides full contract OM&M services for composting the solid wastes,
yard wastes, wastewater biosolids, and industrial residuals found in every community. The
technical complexity, finanical burden, regulatory demands, and public concerns of the
disposal of these wastes make composting using PSG's experience and contract services
an attractive alternative to many local governments.
PSG provides a well -managed and professional approach to composting operations. We
comprehensively and successfully address the various challenges surrounding composting
facilities and at the same time, yield numerous technical and financial advantages to the
participant communities. Under PSG contract OM&M, we take full responsibility for the
composting facilities, guarantee compliance with regulatory agency requirements, ensure
odor control, and promote the beneficial use and marketing of the end products.
The ability to convert organic wastes into a beneficial and marketable soil product using
an "environmentally friendly, safe, and non -odorous" composting operation requires the
special expertise and skills of PSG. Our composting services are grounded in our
unsurpassed practical experience, technical knowledge, comprehensive maintenance,
proactive management and public relations, and proven leadership in the industry. We
provide our composting services at a fixed cost and ensure that we meet the objectives of
the compost facility owner and community and thereby yield the benefits of composting.
PSG provides the owner and/or community the various services necessary for successful
composting, including:
E Compost facility OM&M
Facility start-up and troubleshooting
E Process control and plant optimization
E Odor abatement and management
{ E Community relations and public outreach
M Process and product quality assurance/quality control
2 Compost marketing and beneficial use distribution
I

r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composting Facilities
PSG operates more municipal residuals management and composting facilities than any
other contract OM&M firm in the country. PSG's practical experience and proven 1
success in the implementation of technical knowledge and expertise in composting process 1
and odor control, as well as equipment maintenance and facility management in the United
States in unmatched in the industry. PSG is proud to have successfully refurbished and
revitalized several state-of-the-art composting facilities by effectively controlling/reducing
j offensive odors. Highlights of our composting facilities and OM&M experience include:
I
E PSG operates a biosolids composting facility in Baltimore, Maryland, as part 1
of a design, build and operate project for the Northeast Maryland Waste
Disposal Authority. The Baltimore City Composting Facility (BCCF) processes
210 wet tons (45 dry tons) per day of biosolids generated at the Back River
Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce 18,000 tons of compost a year which is
marketed as Eckology Compost to various customers and utilized for numerous
beneficial end uses. PSG utilizes and thereby recycles wood wastes, including
sawdust and pulverized wood pallets as the carbonaceous amendment and bulking
agent for the in -vessel composting process.
PSG started up and currently operates the 14.3-DTPD in -vessel biosolids
composting facility in Bristol, TennesseeNirginia. PSG was instrumental in
working with the Cities' engineering firm, general contractor and system supplier
to make numerous modifications to improve operational problems discovered
during the start-up period. PSG received, processes, and utilizes yard wastes and
tree trimmings as the carbonaceous amendment and bulking agents in the in -vessel
system. The finished compost product is an "Exceptional Quality" residuals
product and successfully marketed to several customers and beneficial uses as
Bristol ORGROR High Organic Compost. PSG has full marketing and
distribution responsibilities with a guaranteed annual revenue to the Cities from the
sale of compost.
In Hickory, North Carolina, PSG began operating the 20-DTPD Regional
Composting Facility, which is a $8.5 million `state-of-the-art' in -vessel biosolids
system, previously shutdown by EPA in early 1992 because of extreme and chronic
odor problems. PSG provided the expertise for the design and construction of the
$1.5 million odor control systems additions and Modifications, as well as the
successful start-up and continuous operation of the residuals dewatering and in -
vessel composting facilities since start-up in early 1995. The 6,000 tons of
Catawba ORGROR High Organic Compost was successfully distributed to
numerous local farmers as a soil amendment and natural organic fertilizer, and also
the product was marketed to a nearby sod producer and landscapers as mulch. In
the first year of operation, PSG developed and implemented a comprehensive
product marketing and distribution plan to generate a base of customers to
increase revenues, with profit sharing with the RCF's Consortium of owners.
'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------,
Z PSG successfully corrected the mechanical deficiencies, designed, and installed
a comprehensive and effective odor control system at Schenectady, New York's
15-DTPD in -vessel biosolids composting facility. PSG provides OM&M services
at the facility without offensive odors and mechanical problems. The $7.5 million
composting facility has been continuously operating since mid 1992 and produces
11,000 tons of Exceptional Quality" compost which is marketed and distributed
as Schenectady ORGROR High Organic Compost. PSG utilizes and thereby
recycles different wood wastes, including sawdust, pulverized pallets, and high
carbon wood ash as specific ingredients to an amendment recipe for the
wastewater residuals. PSG has full marketing and distribution responsibilities for
the compost product and has a revenue sharing relationship with the City.
IE PSG contracted with Wright County, Minnesota to provide OM&M services for
a new municipal solid waste (MSW) composting and materials recovery facility
(NW) with a capacity of 202-TPD. PSG's services provided start-up, pre -
commissioning, and long-term product marketing and distribution services, with
an incentive, revenue sharing basis with the County. This $15.8 million facility is
typically processing 159 TPD of MS W of which, 78 TPD are composted, 25 TPD
are marketed recyclables, and the 56 TPD of residue is sent to landfill. After the
composting process, 68 TPD of finished compost are marketed by PSG as the
Wright Stuff primarily to the beneficial uses of land reclamation as landfill cover
material and to agriculture and residential horticulture as soil amendment.
The following table summarizes PSG's unequalled and diverse OM&M experience of
large size and high technology composting facilities:
HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPOSTING FACILITIES
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
(TYPE)
CAPACITY
(WTPD)
COST
($1,000)
Baltimore, MD
Paygro
210
14,000
Bristol, TNNA
Taulman
65
7,000
Hickory, NC
A-S-H
80
8,500
Schenectady, NY
American BioTech
75
7,000
Wright Cnty, ;T'T
Buhler
202
15,800
TOTAL
632
52,300

i
Other PSG composting operations and bulk materials processing and marketing include:
E As part of our contract OM&M services as the Southbridge, Massachusett's
wastewater treatment plant, PSG is responsible for the Town's 5-DTPD biosolids
composting facility, which utilizes aerated static pile technology. Wood waste is
used as the bullring agent and wood ash is added as an odor control amendment.
As part of our operations in Cleveland, Tennessee, PSG is responsible for the
dewatering and out -sourcing of industrial residuals to off -site composting from the
wastewater treatment facility at the M&M/Mars plant. PSG prepares the residuals
and coordinates the hauling and composting operations with the sub -contractor.
The 860 tons per year of biosolids from our wastewater operations in Gatlinburg
and Pigeon Forge, Tennessee are prepared for beneficial use and delivered by
PSG to the co -composting facility owned by the Sevierville County Solid Waste
Authority in Sevierville, Tennessee.
As part of our operations in Cleveland, Tennessee, PSG is responsible for the
dewatering and out -sourcing of industrial residuals to off -site composting from the
wastewater treatment facility at the M&M/Mars plant. PSG prepares the residuals
and coordinates the hauling and composting operations with the sub -contractor
0 In Jackson County, Michigan, PSG provides OM&M services solid waste
disposal facilities including a 200-TPD resource recovery facility and disposal of
ash residue produced at the facility.
[] In Puerto Rico, PSG provides composting services of biosolids via static pile
systems as part of our OM&M responsibilities for 69 wastewater treatment plants
for the Puerto Rico Adqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,
i
Provided in the following two tables are summarized 1995 composting operations and
residuals processing information for PSG's five largest compost facilities listed previously.
1995 COMPOSTING OPERATIONS
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
RESIDUALS
(WTPY)
AMENDMENTS
(WTPY)
COMPOST
(WTPY)
Baltimore, MD
47,925
43,830
81,440
Bristol, TNNA
420
250
475
Hickory, NC
10,115
6,980
6,090
Schenectady, NY
12,295
7,525
10,880
Wright Cnty, MN
23,400
0
17,680
TOTAL
94,155
58,585
116,565
1995 COMPOSTED RESIDUALS
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
RESIDUALS
(TYPE)
LOADING
(DTPD)
SOLIDS
(%DS)
Baltimore, MD
AD Biosolids
38
21.5
Bristol, TNNA
Raw Biosolids
5.5
28.5
Hickory, NC
Raw Biosolids
9.5
27.5
Schenectady, NY
AD Biosolids
10.5
22.5
Wright Cnty, MN
MS W
45
TOTAL .1
T-
108.5
25.0
1
'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Composting Approach
PSG's approach to composting is grounded in our technical and management expertise,
odor management, community relations, and productive marketing and distribution. PSG
views a well -managed composting operation offers numerous advantages for providing an
"environmentally friendly" method for handling domestic and industrial residuals and
convert these wastes into marketable product. PSG has unsurpassed experience with
simple and complex composting facilities which have been plagued with a myriad of
problems, including excessive O&M costs, frequent process upsets, regulatory non-
compliance, mechanical breakdowns, odors and environmental nuisances, inability to
market the end product and lack of public support.
Under PSG's contract OM&M, we take full responsibility for the composting facility and
guarantee compliance with regulatory agency requirements. The owner and/or community
continues to own the facility and equipment, and determines the long-term planning and 1
utilization. PSG meets the owner's objectives by providing technical and management
expertise at a fixed cost, which eases management responsibilities and compliance with
environmental regulations. PSG's professionalism and comprehensive approach, ensures
the community will be ensured a beneficial and productive composting operation. PSG
hires and trains the employees, and provides fixed OM&M costs to produce significant
cost savings achieved through operating improvements and innovative process control
procedures. PSG emphasizes residuals quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to
monitor the composting process and ensure reliable operations and desirable product.
PSG implements comprehensive maintenance programs to prevent premature equipment
failures and shutdowns, and thereby preserve the owner's and/or community's substantial
capital investment. Odor management is a top priority at every compost facility PSG
operates. Our odor management programs include atmospheric modeling; laboratory
identification of odor -generating compounds; characterization of fugitive, point -source,
and area odor emissions; fine-tuned air handling; automated odor treatment; and
continuous management of the facility's odor control systems. We are highly experienced
in the design and retrofit of effective odor control systems for existing composting
facilities. We also identify odor generating sources at the facilities and implement
operational procedures to mitigate and/ or eliminate production of foul emissions.

r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided in the following summary table is a summary of PSG's experience with various
complex and large scale odor control systems at our in -vessel compost facilities.
COMPOST ODOR CONTROL
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
(TYPE)
TREATMENT
(STAGES)
CAPACITY
(CFM)
Baltimore, MD
Mist Scrubbers
Two
50,000
Bristol, TNNA
Biofilter Towers
Dual
11,700
Hickory, NC
Wet Scrubbers
Three
72,000
Schenectady, NY
Wet Scrubbers
Two
46,100
rWright Cnty, MN I
Biofilter I
Sin le
24,000
TOTAL
203,800
The success or failure of a composting program often hinges on obtaining and maintaining
public acceptance. PSG places a high emphasis in community outreach and public
relations and we view this OM&M activity as an on -going function. In the communities
we serve, our role as a corporate citizen encourages the implementation of pro -active
communication and positive outreach to the general public about our composting
operations. The involvement, feedback of concerns, participation in educational activities
with neighborhood residents and businesses nearby our composting facilities is vitally
important to the development their acceptance and sustaining thier confidence.
We devote considerable time and efforts in cultivating an atmosphere of trust, reliability,
honesty, and availablility at our composting operations and facilities. We respond with
open and sincere communication and provide accurate information and personalized
involvement to address any misconceptions, concerns, or perceived problem which may ;
exist regarding the composting process. Our public relations and community outreach
programs will result in a beneficial composting operation and public/private partnership.

r--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------,
I
I
Compost Marketing & Distribution
PSG provides compost marketing and beneficial use distribution services for our OM&M
contracts. Most of our contracts have net revenue sharing relationships with our clients,
and some even have guarantees with respect to compost sales and profit. PSG develops a
conceptual compost marketing and distribution plan at each our compost facilities. The
implementation of the plan is based on our development of a strong market foundation
which can achieve productive beneficial use, reliable sales and maximium revenues. The
combination of a winning marketing strategy and flexible distribution plan enables PSG to
achieve reliable product sales and thereby generate revenue for the finished compost
products generated at our facilities. PSG's compost marketing and distribution efforts are
based upon the following activities:
0 Reliable quantity and consistent product quality
0 Characterization and research of product quality and applications
E Product identification, advertisement and promotion
0 Market survey and assessment of targeted customers and beneficial end users
0 Compost utilization trials and demonstrations
E Membership and participation in professional organizations and tradeshows
E Public presentations, community projects, and facility tours
E Technical support and workshops with regulatory agencies
F Compost product availability and education to facility owners and public citizens
PSG takes a comprehensive approach with realistic goals for establishing a year round
demand and revenue stream. The overall program strategy for each of our compost
facilities is based on our success to sell and beneficially distribute the products in a local
and regional bulk market, where the demand for the high organic compost exceeds the
supply at each operation. This winning strategy is achieved through generation of multiple
products, utilizing volume and price discounting, oil site storage, and flexible distribution.
We take full responsibility for the compost production, products development, quality
assurance/quality control, packaging, pricing, advertising, inventory management, product
storage/staging, loading and delivery, technical support to customers, public education,
and training of compost benefits and utilization to stocking dealers and end users.

1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I
I
A key ingredient PSG's success in compost marketing is the identification of the compost
products at each facility, which recognizes the owner and/or community, i.e. Bristol
ORGROR High Organic Compost or Schenectady ORGRORHigh Organic Compost.
PSG has filed a United States Service Mark Application with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office for the mark: ORGRO High Organic Compost & tree design with the
associated description of services (International Class 35) pertaining to the marketing of
compost for others. This federal trademark recognizes ORGRO High Organic Compost
as the products generated and marketed from PSG operated facilities. PSG also registers
a unique product name at each facility with the respective Dapartments of the State and
we obtain Certificates of Trademark Registration for the identification of high organic
compost products derived from the processing of biosolids at our in -vessel facilities.
The following table summarizes PSG's 1995 compost marketing and sales for our five
largest and high technology facilities.
1995 COMPOST MARKETING & SALES
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
PRODUCED
(CY)
MARKETED
(CY)
SALES
(%)
Baltimore, MD
44,665
18,270
40.9
Bristol, TNNA
5,850
8,225
89.0
Hickory, NC
18,745
18,745
5.7
Schenectady, NY
26,420
27,090
100.0
r—Wright Cnty, MN
23,400
16,715
13.5
TOTAL/AVG.
1 119,080
89,045
49.8
PSG guarantees that the compost generated at our facilities fully complies with all
applicable Federal regulations and State standards. The owner and community can have
the highest confidence that the compost products are environmentally safe when used as
directed. The biosolids compost products generated at PSG's operations can be
characterized as dry, stable, mature, non -odorous, and fit'for the market place. The
compost products are humus -like soil material which have the desired appearance of being
dry, friable, consistent particle size, fine textured, and dark, rich in color.

r-----------------
i
i
------------,
i
Our compost product QA/QC programs include extensive testing for various market
driven parameters, including cation exchange capacity, conductivity and soluble salts,
nutrient content (N-P-K), carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio, water holding capacity, organic
matter content, volatile organic acid content, stability, maturity, seed germination rate, and
plant growth. Process monitoring and product QA/QC testing by PSG personnel are
performed routinely at our compost facilities to optimize facility performance and
maximize market revenues. We procure and use state-of-the-art field equipment and
instrumentation, i.e. infrared solids analyzer for moisture content, compost multiplexer for
temperature and oxygen contents, Solvita test kit for maturity, Dewar Vessel for stability,
radish seed for germination, and water cress seed for phytotoxicity and plant growth.
After careful and detailed characterization of the compost quality of each product we
make available to the market, PSG communicates to numerous potential customers and
targeted end users the many benefits of compost, including:
E Slowly releases organic nitrogen as a natural fertilizer for sustained plant growth
IEI Provides essential micro -nutrients, minerals, and trace elements, which are not found
in common fertilizers
0 Conditions soil with increased organic matter and water, and nutrient retention for
vigorous plant growth
IEI Provides a soil environment which is favorable to aeration, root growth, and nutrient
absorption
0 Decreases soil compaction and erosion, and prevents nitrogen loss to ground water
E Provides biological control of soil -borne plant pathogens and suppresses turf diseases
0 Reduces the amount of more expensive soil additives, chemicals, and fertilizers to
topdressing mixes and growing media
We sell and distribute the compost products in bulk as an effective soil conditioner and
natural organic fertilizer for the following beneficial applications:
0 Agriculture and horticulture
1] Landscaping and mulching
Nurseries and greenhouses
1 1] Sod farms and turf management
0 Topsoil production and materials blending
E Athletic fields 'and golf courses
2 Final landfill cover
IEI Land reclamation
IEI Public works and municipal/government projects
'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

r---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
The following table summarizes the 1995 compost markets and beneficial uses for our five
in -vessel facilities, based on a volumetric percentage of customers and distribution.
1995 COMPOST MARKETS & BENEFICIAL USES
MARKETS/
BENEFICIAL USE
BALT.
(%)
BRISTOL
(%)
HICKORY
(%)
SCH'DY
(%)
W. CNTY
(%)
Agriculture
1
20
62
1
34
Horticulture
12
0
2
2
5
Landscape/Mulch
52
74
6
34
0
Land Reclamation
0
0
0
11
40
Municipal/Public Works
5
6
27
5
21
Sod/Turf Management
25
0
3
31
0
Topsoil/Blending
5
0 1
3
16 1
0
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
PSG promotes the utilization of compost as a natural and renewable organic finished soil
product which is suitable for a variety of beneficial applications and end uses. The benefits
of our compost products can be achieved for various uses by the following recommended
application rates and methods of utilization:
Landscaping - For landscaping flower beds, plants and trees, add 1" of compost and
work into the top 3" of existing soil. The optimum soil amendment mix requires the
addition of about 33% by volume of compost to the landscape area; mix thoroughly to at
least 5" depth. For new annuals, perennials, plants, shrubs and trees, add 2" of compost
and mix with the top 5" to increase mixture to 40% by volume. Remove excess soil and
water thoroughly, including entire root zone, for saturation and best results.
IE Mulching - For surface mulching applications around flowers, landscape plants and
trees, apply a 2" layer of compost. Add uniformly on surface around entire beds and trees
and avoid excess buildup to ensure optimal growth and water distribution. Repeat mulch
applications in early spring and in fall to suppress weeds and maximize appearance.
0 Topsoil and Sod Production - Incorporate 2" of compost into the top 4-6" of soil
and mix thoroughly. Use a lower rate of 33% by volume on relatively fertile soil and a
higher rate of 50% by volume on low grade sandy loams or infertile soil. Uniformly apply
3-4 cubic yards (cy) per 1,000 square feet (sf) of surface area to be sodded and irrigate for
germination and sod establishment.
'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '

r------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turfgrass and Topdressing - For establishment of cool season turfgrass (fescue,
bluegrass, ryegrass), incorporate compost by rototilling 3-4 cy per 1,000 sf of lawn into
the top 4-6" of soil. Broadcast uniformly and sow small -seeded grasses (bluegrass) on 1
surface and then top dress with 1 cy per 1,000 sf of seeded area and water thoroughly.
Apply 11/Z cy per 1,000 sf of lawn after sowing larger -seeded grasses (fescues) to cover for
germination and root establishment and water thoroughly. For existing warm season
grasses (bermuda grass, zoysia), apply the same rates in the spring and % cy per 1,000 sf
in midsummer as a top dressing over seeding for best results.
© Nursery Container Media and Potting Mixes - For nursery stock and container
growing media and potting mixes, blend in equal parts of compost with other suitable
materials, (i.e. peat, vermiculite, perlite, bark, sandy loam or pine fines) with a maximum
rate of 33%by volume. Do not over apply compost to prevent excess nitrogen in the
growing media or inhibition of high growth yields. Water thoroughly and drain mixes
several times before planting and after transplanting to prevent any salt injury to plants. If
needed, grind or sift compost to produce fine -textured potting media for optimal growing
contact, seed germination, moisture availability, and organic and nutrients balance.
PSG utilizes independent research laboratories and leading compost scientists in the
product marketing and utilization field, i.e. Woods End Research Laboratory, Composting
Council, Compost America Holding Co., E&A Environmental Consultants, Inc., Organic
Supplements Inc., University of Maryland, North Carolina State University - Cooperative
Extension Service etc. to analyze each aspect of our compost products and utilization
programs to ensure market acceptance and support our growth in the industry. PSG's
network of technical support, coupled with our extensive practical experience in the
production, marketing, and distribution of compost products places us as the largest and
premier practicioner of the biosolids compost industry.
As summarized in the following table, our proven track record over the past five years,
demonstrates our abilities in the marketing, beneficial use and distribution, and revenue
generation of biosolids compost products.
1991-95 BIOSOLIDS COMPOST MARKETING & SALES
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
MARKETED
(CY)
REVENUES
($)
PRICE
($/CY)
Baltimore, MD
116,785
565,635
4.85
Bristol, TN/VA
8,225
23,475
2.85
Hickory, NC
18,745
3,665
0.20
Schenectady, NY
84,915
214,780
2.55
TOTAL/AVG.
228,670
807,555 7-3.55

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
1995 COMPOSTING OPERATIONS
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
RESIDUALS
(WT PY)
AMENDMENTS
(WT PY)
COMPOST
(WT PY)
Baltimore, MD
475925
435830
81,440
Bristol, TN/VA
420
250
475
Hickory, NC
10,115
61980
6,090
Schenectady, NY
12,295
71525
10,880
Wright Cnty, MN
233400
0
17,680
TOTAL 94,155 58,585 116,565

s
0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
1995 COMPOSTED RESIDUALS
COMPOSTING
RESIDUALS
LOADING
SOLIDS
FACILITY
(TYPE)
(DTPD)
(0/oDS)
Baltimore, MD
AD Biosolids
38
21.5
Bristol, TN/VA
Raw Biosolids
5.5
28.5
Hickory, NC
Raw Biosolids
9.5
27.5
Schenectady, NY
AD Biosolids
10.5
22.5
Wright Cnty, MN
MSW
45
TOTAL/AVERAGE
108.5
25.0

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
9995 COMPOST MARKETING & SALES
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
PRODUCED
(CY)
MARKETED
(CY)
SALES
(%)
Baltimore, MD
44,665
18,270
40.9
Bristol, TN/VA
5,850
81225
89.0
Hickory, NC
185745
18,745
5.7
Schenectady, NY
26,420
27,090
100.0
Wright Cnty, MN
23,400
16,715
0.0
TOTAL/AVG.
119,080
89,045
47.2

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
1995 COMPOST CUSTOMERS &END USES
COMPOSTING
FACILITY
BALTIMORE
(%)
BRISTOL
(%)
HICKORY
N
SCHENECTADY
N
Agriculture
1
20
62
1
Horticulture
12
0
2
2
Landscape/Mulch
52
74
6
34
Land Reclamation
0
0
0
11
Municipal/Public Works
5
6
27
5
Sod/Turf Management
25
0
3
31
Topsoil/Blending
5
0
0
16
TOTAL
100
100
100
100

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.-
1995 BALTIMORE COMPOST MARKETING
Beneficial Uses
MULCHING
20%
NURSERY
12%
TOPSOIL PROD
5%
TURF MNGMNT
25%
LANDSCAPING
32%
MUNCIPAL/GOUT
5%
Customers
CONTRACTORS 8%
LANDSCAPERS 42%
NURSERYMEN 14%
DISTRIBUTORS 36%

rl
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
1995 HICKORY COMPOST MARKETING
Compost Markets & Distribution
Agriculture 62%
Landscape/1......,.. - f-
Municipal 27%
Residential 2%
Sod/Topsoil 3%

=19
:bill:
t 4 f n
}
r 1k
:1ej
Vu Ls
1 • 11 1

BURMEISTER, WRIGHT
& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Civil Engineering Consultants
RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL COMMENTS
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
AMENDMENT E
HICKORY - NEWTON COMPLEX
201 FACILITIES PLANNING STUDY
PROJECT NO. C370389-01
OCTOBER 12, 1984
I984

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
AMENDMENT E
HICKORY -NEWTON COMPLEX
201 FACILITIES PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER: C370389-01
OCTOBER 12,1984
COMMENT
1. What is the bulking material that is to be used? Where is the nearest
supplier? What is the cost?
RESPONSE
Sawdust will be the primary bulking material used in the mechanical
enclosed system. The primary suppliers will be the numerous furniture
manufacturers in this area. Preliminary conversations with the
officials of the furniture plant indicate that costs will be in the
range of $6.00 to $8.00 per ton. In the analysis, $12.00 was used
for conservative purposes.
COMMENT
2. The Conover Southwest Plant and Fairgrove were to be abandoned but
are still in operation. When will these plants be closed?
RESPONSE
These plants will be abandoned as soon as the construction of�the
Clark Creek Outfall system is completed. A construction contract
has been awarded and completion is anticipated by June, 1985.
COMMENT
3. A review of self -monitoring records (3 plants in Conover, Fairgrove,
Henry Fork, Hickory NE and Clark Creek) indicate total existing flow
during wet months to be in 9.0 - 10.25 mgd range. This is approximately
45-52% of the 20 year flow of 19.4 mgd. Funding will be based on
existing needs, i.e. current flow conditions. All cost calculations
should reflect this.
RESPONSE
The regional composting facility will serve as the means of sludge
disposal for all Catawba County. This includes not only the flows
from the municipalities included in the 201 Amendment, but also from
all other treatment plants that discharge to surface waters as well
as septage from the septic tanks within the County. In addition, an
analysis has been made of the method of transportation of the sludges
to the regional plant. This.will affect the capital cost of the
facility.

WASTEWATER PLANTS
A list of all the discharges to surface waters in the County were
obtained from the Department. This list is attached to this comment.
The list indicated that there are 62 wastewater discharges to surface
waters in the County including the municipalities included in the 201
Amendment. The following table was developed to summarize the flows.
Plant Design
Existing Flows
Projected Flows
Capacity
(1984)
(1987)
Total
County
22,944,000
11,884,000
13,660,000
Flows Shown
201 Amendment
19,400,000
9,100,000
10,465,000
Flows not shown
in 201 Amendment
3,544,000
2,784,000
3,195,000
As can be seen, there is a total plant design capacity.of all the
wastewater discharges to surface waters in the County of 22,944,000
gallons. Of this amount, 19,400,000 gallons per day was included in
the study and 3,544,000 gallons was not shown in the study. As shown
in Column 2, "Existing Flows" in 1984, the total flow in the county
is 11,884,000 gallons per day and of this, 9.1 million gallons was
shown in the study and 2,784,000 gallons was not. Projected flows to
1987 (the year in which the composting plant will go on line) is shown
in the third column.
The project flows were derived by assuming that the total plant flow
of 22,944,000 gallons would be realized in 20 years. A straight-line
projection was then made of the existing flows to the plant capacity
in 20 years. This revealed that the total county flow as projected.
in 1987 will be 13,660,000 gallons per day. Using the same rationale
for the flows that were shown in the study, the projected flows would
be 10,465,000 gallons per day and the flows that are not shown in the
study would be 3,195,000 gallons.
A total flow of 13.6 million gallons per day can be justified by the
time the compost plant goes on line in 1987. Based on an average of
1.01 tons of dry solids per million gallons of wastewater (from
amendment), a total of 13.79 tons of dry solids per day from all
county wastewater plants can be justified.
SEPTAGE
An analysis was also made to determine the tonage of septage that
could be anticipated at the regional plant. The basis that was used
to develop these numbers is as follows.
- 2 -

`DATE
-`TION: F
SELECTION
A
19
20,
21
22
23
%ECONDARY KEY %ELECTION
TRANSACTION: NPDE% LIST COUNTY
_ �
TRX: 5NC KEY: CATAWBA>
' PRESS ENTER TO DISPLAY ADDITIONAL
COUNTY FACILITY NAME
CATAWBA ABERNETHY RETIREMENT CENTER
CATAWBA ALUMAX EXTRUSIONS
CATAWBA BEARD RESIDENCE (JERRY V.)
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
,CATAWBA
CATAWBA
CATAWBA
BROYHILL-CONOVER MFG
BROYHILL-LENOIR CHAIR 02
CAMP DOGWOOD-%HERRILL% FORD
CATAWBA CO %CH -BANDY% HIGH %CH
CATAWBA CO %CH -BUNKER HILL H%
CATAWBA CO %CH-CLYDE CAMPBELL
CATAWBA CO %CH-FRED T. FOARD
CATAWBA CO %CH-H M ARNDT MID
CATAWBA CO %CH -MT VIEW ELEM.
CATAWBA CO %CH-%HERRILL% FORD
CATAWBA CO %CH-%T %TEPHEN% ELE
CATAWBA CO %CH-%T %TEPHEN% H%
CATAWBA COUNTRY CLUB
CATAWBA VALLEY REST HOME/ INC.
SELECTIONS
PERMIT
NC003Oi63
NCOO48712
NCOO479O2
NCOOO6742
NCOOO6734
NCOO44253
NCOO5i6O8
NCO844O59
NC0034657
NCOO29297
NC0034584
NC00346O6
NCOO45438
NCO034649
NCO034592
NCOO5O92O
NC0037494
DEOGN
CAP.
TC
ISSUE DATE._----
Oi
09/02/88,-"��-
01
01/04/84
0i
12/14/8i
---'
�
- -
Oi
07/02/80
3vomo
Oi
07/02/84mo�o
Oi
09/01/84
/A*oo
Oi
06/21/84
Oi
06/2i/��L-�i����
Oi
06/21/84_:7,oqo
Oi
06/21/84_�����c�
Oi
06/21/84
%p-Q?o
Oi
06/21/84^00�p'
0i
06/21/81
;6005.0
Oi
06/21/84_A&
PoKe
Oi
06/21/84
0i
04/03/84
Oi
O6/3
CATAWBA VILLAGE SHOPPING CTR
NCO041513
Oi
CATAWBA WWTP, TOWN OF
NCO025542
Oi
CLAREMONT WWTP-NORTH
NCO032662
Oi
CLAREMONT WWTP-%OUTH
NCO026549
01
COMM/SCOPE COMPANY
NCO034754
Oi
CONOVER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
NC0034509
Oi
CONOVER WWTP-FAIRGROVE
NC0023264
Oi
CONOVER WWTP-NORTHEAST
NCO024252
Oi
CONOVER WWTP-SOUTHEAST
NCO024279
Oi
CONOVER WWTP-SOUTHWEST
NC002426i
01
CONWED CORPORATION - FIBER PLT
NC0045977
Oi
CRAIN CAROLINA INC.
NCO023680
Oi
CROSS COUNTRY CAMPGROUND
NCO022497
01
DOC - CATAWBA CO. %UBD.
NCO027707
01
DOMINION TEXTILE (USA) INC.
NC0044709
Oi
DUKE POWER CO., MAR%HALL S.E.
NCO004987
01
DUKE POWER CO.' OXFORD HYDRO
NC0004537
Oi
08/06/82 5-,onm
'
05/2 8j-FT�±��
Ooo
06/18/84
Oi/O4/82
06/29/84
O8/O2/8A'-�fj^c=
O6/29/8 6
06/13/84 /mwmoc»
O7/O�' '
/83 Ono-
07/30/82
i0/01/84
_-_
O9/Oi/84

%ECONDARY
KEY %ELECTION
'DATE
TRANSACTION: NPDE% LIST COUNTY
DES /6N
)PTION:
F TRX:
5NC KEY: CATAWBA>
--
PRESS ENTER TO DISPLAY ADDITIONAL
SELECTIONS
�4
CAP.
UNTY
_ FACILITY NAME
PERMIT
TC
ISSUE DATE-------
35
CATAWBA
FAT BOY'% RESTAURANT
NC003709
Oi
08/3
'
36
CATAWBA
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,HICKORY
NC0005819
01
O8/i
37
CATAWBA
HICKORY NORTHEAST WWTP
NCO02048i
Oi
04/02/84
3S
CATAWBA
HICKORY SPRINGS MFG. CO.
NCO037i4i
Oi
07/30/82
6'moo
39
CATAWBA
HICKORY SPRINGS MFG. CO. -METAL
NC006O3i3
Oi
----
!0
CATAWBA
HICKORY TAVERN FURNITURE CO
NCO034525
01
02/31/0
--'1��
4t
CATAWBA
HICKORY WTP
NCO044121
Oi
06/01/84
ly,mrc*
42
CATAWBA
HICKORY WWTP' CITY OF
NCO040797
Oi
09/30/82
&,o—,­
43
CATAWBA
J. P. STEVENS CO. LONGVIEW 01
NCO004901
Oi
/ /
IS, PCp
44
CATAWBA
JACK%ON BUFF CORP
NCO047473
Oi
Oi/i3/8i—
� /,0o0
45
CATAWBA
LATROBE DIE CASTING COMPANY
NCO060658
01
/ /
'1_71�00
46
CATAWBA
LONG VIEW WWTP, TOWN OF 501
nETURN054
Oi
O5/O7/82
47
CATAWBA
LOWE RESIDENCE (DAVIll>
_NCO046132
01
/ /�
48
CATAWBA
MAIDEN KNITTING MILLS,[-
006i9O
Oi
04/15/83
49
CATAWBA
MAIDEN WWTP TOWM
' xr
O39594
Oi
O8/3i/82-/
to
CATAWBA
MARTIN MARIETTA-HI
O54iO
Oi
_�o�����
O7/Oi/83
,q & 0,*co
SOUTH WATER %Y%TEM% i
NC0058742
Oi
10/10/84
52
CATAWBA
MID -STATE OIL CO - CATAWBA
R -''-'8�---�~
- -
��3
CATAWBA
MOBILE LIVING DEVELOPMENT CORP
NCO032972
Oi
----
11/30181-mi000
54
CATAWBA
NEWTON WWTP, TOWN OF
NCO036i96
Oi
09/3O/�i
�'voo
'
55
CATAWBA
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION
NCO035i65
01
-��
'O4/30/82'
56
CATAWBA
PANTA%OTE-LAMCAL-HICKORY �
NC0031216
01
08/25/81
y+`-c
57
CATAWBA
PINE RIDGE SUBDIVISION
NCO050822
Oi
07/30/82
/�oo
58
CATAWBA
PRECEDENT, INC.
NC0036871
01
19
CATAWBA
SHATTERPROOF GLASS CORP.
NC0051705
Oi
05/16/83
60
'CATAWBA
SOUTHERN RAILWAY-OYAMA YARD
NCO02207i
Oi
12/31/80
61
CATAWBA
%PINNAKER BAY CONDOS
NC0060593
01
/ /
�2 __CATAWBA
W CAROLINA TRUCK CT
NC0043541
O
vo

1980 County Population =
1980 County UNINC Areas
1984 Est. Co. Pop. _
1984 Est. UNINC Area Pop.
Persons/Household
Households 1984
No. of Septic Tanks
Assume Avg. Tank Size
105,208
64,565
110,000 (from WPCOG)
= 67,505
= 2.75
= 24,547
= 24,547
= 1,500 gallons
Total Septic Tank Volume = 36,821,344 gallons
Assume Pump Tank every 3 years = 12,273,000 gals/year
Total Solids (per EPA Lit.) = 38,800 mg/l(mean)
Solids per year = 3,970,473 #/year
Solids per day (365 days) = 5.4 tons/day
Anticipated quantity of solids from septage pumping on a 365-day per
year basis is 5.4 tons per day.
TOTAL TONAGE
The total amount of solids that can be justified on a county -wide
basis is 19.2 tons per day.
TRANSPORTATION - HAULING VS. DUMPING
The original proposal in the amendment was to pump the sludge from
Clark Creek Plant and from the Henry Fork Plant to the regional
composting facility and haul the remaining in tanker trucks. An
analysis has been made of this as compared to hauling all the sludges
to the plant. The analysis is presented on the following pages.
- 3 -

;I>IM"
Conover NE
2,400
SE
1,800
Hickory HF
15,200
NE
11,000
Longview
8,000
Newton 6%
20,000
SLUDGE VOLUMES
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
3,200
4,800
4,800
2,400
3,000
3,600
20,300
25,300
30,400
14,700
18,400
22,000
10,700
13,400
16,000
26,700
33,400
40,000
Conover NE
0.60
SE
0.45
Hickory HF
3.80
NE
2.75
Longview
2.00
Newton
5.00
14.60
Mileage/Trip
(Round Trip)
Conover NE
12.3 miles
SE
10.2 miles
Hickory HF
20.0 "
NE
18.0 "
Longview
12.0 "
Newton
20.5 "
TANKER Trips/4,000 gallon trip
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.60
0.75
0.90
5.07
6.34
7.60
3.67
4.59
5.50
2.67
3.34
4.00
6.67
8.34
10.00
19.47
24.34
29.20
ANNUAL MILES
Conover NE
2,694
3,592
4,490
5,388
SE
1,675
2,233
2,791
3,350
Hickory HF
27,740
36,987
46,234
55,480
NE
18,067
24,089
30,111
36,134
Longview
8,760
11,680
14,600
17,520
Newton
37,413
50,154
62,895
74,826
96,349
128,735
161,121
192,698
- 4 -

Cost Comparison
I. Pumping from Newton and Hickory Henry Fork and trucking from rest.
Capital - Pumps $ 25,000
Forcemain 640,000
Tankers 80,000
$745,000
Annual Cost
Capital 10% for 20 years $ 87,463
0 & M
0-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
Pumping
$ 2,500
$ 3,300
$ 4,100
$ 5,000
Trucking
$1.05/mile
31,200
41,600
52,000
64,400
Drivers
60,000
60,000
90,000
90,000
$121,700
$134,600
$146,000
$159,400
Total Annual
Cost - Capital
and 0 & M
$209,163
$222,063
$233,463
$247,063
P.W. Analvsis
0 - 5 years
5 -10 "
10 -15 "
15 -20 "
Total P.W.
$ 792,706
521,626
340,623
224,827
$ 1,879,782
- 5 -

II. Trucking from all Plants
Capital - Tankers $ 160,000
Capital 10% for 20 years $ 18,352
0 & M
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
Trucking
$1.05/mile . $101,167
$135,171
$169,177
$202,233
Drivers 60,000
60,000
90,000
90,000
$161,167
$205,171
$259,177
$292,233
Total Annual Cost - Capital and 0 & M
$179,519 $223,523 $277,529 $310,585
P.W. Analvsis
0 - 5 years $ 680,359
5 -10 525,055
10 -15 404,915
15 -20 282,632
Total. P.W. Cost $1,892,961
P.W. Analyses .indicates that neither method is preferable to the
other. The local units wish to haul by tanker truck. The chosen
method of transportation is therefore by tanker trucks.
On the basis of these changes, capital costs along with a basis of
design for the facilities have been updated. These are shown in
the table on the following page.
- 6 -

Existing
A. Basis of Design
Sludge Volume (tons/day)
19.20
Compost Facility
Bio Reactors
Number
2
Size (each) (cubic meters)
1,800
Cure Reactors
Number
1
Size (cu. meters)
1,200
Carbonaceous Storage
Volume (cu. meters)
600
Capacity (days)
18
Dewatering Equipment
Thickener & Holding Tank
Size (gallons)
250,000
Filter Presses
Number
3
Size ea. (meters)
1.5
Transportation
Tankers 4,000 gallons each
4
B. Capital Costs
Site Development
$ 175,000
Silos
235,000
Materials Handling
1,756,000
Instrumentation & Control
250,000
Buildings & Installation
1,690,000
Blowers
250,000
Dewatering
419,000
Sludge Thickening
100,000
Transportation
4 tankers
160,000
Sub -Total
$5,035,000
Contingencies 10%
500,000
Engineering, Legal & Misc.
600,000
$6,135,000
The original present worth analysis as contained in the amendment
was based on a capital cost of $7,109,000. The updated project cost
of $6,135,000 is based on elimination of pumping of sludges from
Clark Creek and from Henry Fork Plant and also the addition of two
tanker trucks for transportation of sludges. Reduction of the project
cost will not change the outcome of the present worth analysis, but the
reduction in. cost will make this project even more cost. effective.
-7-

The local cost calculations will be affected by the grant amount
received. Under a grant condition of 75% of the $6,135,000, the
following capital costs will be realized.
Total Project Cost $ 6,135,000
Federal Grant 75% of $6,135,000 (4,601,250)
Catawba Co. Share (1,000,000)
Total Local Share $ 533,750
The local shares will be divided on the basis of 50% sludge weight
and 50% community wastewater flow. The following local costs are
anticipated on these bases.
City
% of Local Share
Local Share
Conover
6.3
33,626
Hickory
45.3
241,788
Longview
10.3
54,976
Newton
38.1
203,358
These costs, in combination with the anticipated annual costs, will
not require an increase in user fees over those required now.
Therefore, the project is still considered feasible.
COMMENT
4. Reference Appendix D of original submittals - replacement of hauling
equipment after 10 years is shown as a capital cost. A present worth
factor should be applied to this number if it is going to be shown as
a capital cost.
RFCPnNU
You are correct that we had.shown replacement of the hauling equipment
after 10 years under both the static pile and the mechanically enclosed
capital cost estimates. These capital costs were applied to the present
worth analysis as shown in Appendix E, Page 1 of 1.

COMMENT
5. Please explain why the 0 & M cost over the next 20 years increased so
drastically and in particular at the Hickory NE plant. The 0 & M is
shown to increase by the following factors over the next 20 years:
Conover - 2.45
Clark Creek - 2.00
Henry Fork - 2.55
Hickory NE - 6.93
Longview - 2.05
Justification of these increases should be presented. Inflation is
not permitted. Are these increases due to increased flows?
RESPONSE
The flows from Conover, Clark Creek, Henry Fork and Longview were
increased in proportion to the existing flows to the projected plant
capacities. The 0-& M costs for the Hickory NE plant were projected
on the assumption that the sludge would be dewatered for spreading
rather than spreading liquid sludge, as the case is now. The increased
0 & M costs are results of the dewatering of the sludge.
COMMENT
6. Reference Appendix D of original submittals - Static Pile.
a. Explain what equipment (type and size) is involved with the
$603,000 equipment cost.
b. Explain type/size of super structure that will be built for
$524,000/$624,000.
C. The decision not to treat runoff with a lagoon was a good
one since compost runoff usually has a BOD5 level of 2000 mg/l
and lagoon treatment has been known to create odors. Was the
new solution of pumping supernatant/runoff to the plants
considered for static pile as well as mechanical enclosed?
RESPONSE
a. Appendix D in original submittals reflects costs obtained from
a reference given in the original report, "An Economic Analysis
of the Camden Sludge Composting Facility". In this reference,
static pile with capacities of 3, 13, 26, 50, and 100 tons per
day were compared. Figures and quantities for the 20-ton per
day facility were derived by extrapolation.
m

b. The $603,000 amount for equipment was derived from the above
reference. This amount includes costs for a blending system,
front end loaders, a screening system, sludge transfer pumps,
temperature monitoring equipment and conveyors. Super structure
costs include buildings to house equipment. Actual building
sizes and components are a function of final design. Published
references were used as a guide for the report.
C. The new selection of treating supernatant from the thickener and
filtrate from the dewatering devices at the regional plant is to
discharge to Clark Creek Outfall, which flows by gravity to Clark
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. No pumping of supernatant or
filtrate is required (only sludge is pumped). This applied to
the mechanical enclosed system which has no leachate or runoff.
The static pile system, however, required runoff and leachate
treatment. The volumes from these sources would be greater than
the treatment plant capacity and, therefore, was not considered.
Several static pile systems have been visited including Camden, N.J.,
Morganton, N.C., and Valdese, N.C. These facilities do not appear to be
able to process sludge on a year round basis, simply because of the
exposure to the weather. There was also an odor problem at these
facilities. The basis for our investigations was to define a facility
that is reliable and not subject to these problems. We chose the
mechanically enclosed system to meet these criteria.
COMMENT
7. Other less expensive methods of dewatering at the individual plants
should be considered. An upgraded process does not have to be
identical to an existing process if a less expensive method is
available.
RESPONSE
Other methods of dewatering at the individual plants were considered.
The plants that would need additional dewatering equipment would be
the Hickory NE plant, the Hickory Henry Fork plant, the Conover at
Northeast plant and the Conover Southeast plant. All the methods
considered were very similar in cost, and what little cost difference
there would have been would not make any difference in the present
worth analysis of dewatering at the individual plants versus dewatering
at the regional plant.
-10-

COMMENT
8. Reference Appendix D of original submittals - Mechanical Enclose.
Explain the type and size of building proposed. Explain the major
difference shown in 0 & M of dewatering of individual plants vs.
dewatering at regional plant.
RESPONSE
Buildings and super structures for the mechanical enclosed system
include supporting structures for the bio and cure reactors, conveyor
systems, blenders, and withdrawal devices. Additional building
requirements are for dewatering equipment administration facilities
including a laboratory. Facilities will also be provided for housing
and servicing the transportation equipment. Actual sizes and details
will be developed in the final design. Cost estimates were based on
cost information from similar facilities. The attached figure provides
some idea as to the arrangement of the building. We do not have a site
plan and consequently cannot provide the orientation of these buildings.
The buildings both interior and exterior will be concrete or precast
concrete.
The cost differences in 0 & M costs for dewatering locally and at the
regional plant lies solely in the dewatering portion. Dewatering
locally will require continuation of existing practices. This method
will also require immediate improvements at Hickory's Northeast Plant
as well as additional capital improvements within two years at Hickory's
Henry Fork plant and at Conover. The primary difference in the 0 & M
costs are due to duplication of manpower and energy costs of dewatering
locally vs. dewatering regionally.
COMMENT
9. Explain the difference in bulking agents used in the static pile and
mechanically enclosed. Provide details on type, amount used, etc.
that would explain the $116,000/year difference.
RESPONSE
There is a significant difference in the bulking material requirements
for the mechanical enclosed system vs. the static pile with regard to
quantity and quality. For instance, the bulking material requirements
for mechanical enclosed system are 0.65 to 1 for bulk material to
sludge versus 2.0-2.5 to 1 for the static pile system. The static
pile requires a coarse material such as bark or wood chips, while the
enclosed system can utilize a wide variety of material including fine
sawdust.
-.11-

-PRECAST CONC.
CbNC'' E11'E
— THICKENIERS NOT SHOWP
GON C E `ATE R I bP�
CONCEPT LAYOUT
COMPOST FACI L11Y
AMENDMENT "E `l
BURMEISTER, WRIGHT-
3 ASSOCIATES, P.A.
C-1 Eng.nee g Cons a nn
W
No Y emep-R ) lq SY

Based on local costs prevalent at Morganton for the static pile, the
first five years of operation at the regional plant would average a
production of 11.08 tons of sludge per day. This would require
11.08 x 2.25 = 24.93 tons of bulking material at a cost of $16.25.per
ton, this represents $148,000 per annum.
For the mechanical enclosed system, bulking material requirements are
11.08 x 0.65 = 7.20 tons per day. Sawdust costs are estimated
(conservatively) to be $12.00 per ton. This represents annual cost of
7.20 x 365 x 12.00 or approximately $32,000.
COMMENT
10. Why wasn't windrow considered?
RESPONSE
Windrow composting was considered -as
composting. However, the static pile
following reasons:
1) Less land area required.
2) Less runoff volume to treat.
COMMFNT
an alternative to static pile
system was chosen for the
11. Have design parameters been presented in such a manner as to allow for
competitive bidding by other types of mechanically enclosed systems to
assure costs will be reduced?
RESPONSE
As a point of reference, we are still in the study phase of the project
and are still essentially in the concept formation stage. Design
parameters will be developed in detail during the design phase of the
project. Other types of mechanically enclosed systems will be considered
during the design phase.
COMMENT
12. Sludge characteristics often change. Will the proposed pumping method
have the necessary safeguards to handle this possibility?
RESPONSE
In consideration of Comment 3, pumping
Henry Fork will probably be eliminated
to the regional facility in tankers.
-12-
of sludges from Clark Creek and
in favor of hauling the sludge

COMMENT
13. Provide a material balance with calculations. Will the proposed system
be flexible enough to handle changes such as wet sludge? Give details
on time involved in each process.
RESPONSE
For the materials balance - see attached figure. The system will be
flexible and provide adequate facilities to handle wet sludges. Times
involved in each process are shown in the attached figure.
COMMENT
14. All systems will experience down time. Are parts and labor for proposed
system available locally? What type of back-up is proposed?
RESPONSE
All parts and labor will be available through local suppliers, except
for the complete outfeed device. Components for the outfeed device
are available in the U.S. Back-up will be provided for major units.
Details will be worked out in the final design. If the facility should
become completely inoperable, each municipality would use the existing
dewatering facilities and disposal practices.
COMMENT
15. What type and size of buffer is proposed? How close is the nearest
buildings, etc.
RESPONSE
The facility will be located near the existing Fairgrove Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The closest building according to the USGS map is
more than 2,000 feet from the proposed facility. All composting
operations will be enclosed and subsequently will not require buffer
zones. However, we will have some depending on the site arrangement
developed during final design.
COMMENT
16, Were 2-3 smaller static pile systems, windrow systems or other systems
considered?
RESPONSE
As was stated before, other systems were considered and even smaller
static pile systems located strategically in the County were considered.
However, the 2-3 smaller static pile systems overall would be more
expensive to construct and operate than one of the larger static pile
systems.
-13-

SOLIDS BALANCE - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 12, 1984
AMENDMENT E
(1) 400 dry solids
343,333 wet @ 0.1% SLUDGE
r --
_ — — _ HOLDI N G
l
(1) 3,200 dry solids 1 �—
186,133 wet @ 3,920 dry solids
1,186,133
1,179,920 @ 0.3% (2)
I
1 -DEW4T ER
/�— UNIT5
GI.ARK CK, oUl'eALI.
(2) 51,520 dry solids
206,080 wet @ 25%
3,302 c.f.
(2) 102,804 dry solids
308,721 wet @ 33%
6,526 c.f.
m
12.1 days I REACTOR
(2) 83,330 dry solids
208,281 wet @ 40%
5,207 c.f.
NOTES
(1) 7-day per week basis
(2) 5-day per week basis G U R,E
(3) Units are pounds per day
(4) c.f.-cubic feet per day 16.5 days -REACTOR
CND PRODUC-r -
40,000 dry solids
1,333,333 wet @ 3% (1)
55,440,dry solids
1,386,000 wet @ 4% (2)
19,579 dry solids
26,106 wet @ 75% (2)
�1,305 c.f.
Co R E5 118.2 days
31,704 dry solids
79,261 wet @ 40% (2)
1,981 c.f.
51,619 dry solids
129,020 wet @ 40% (2)
3,225 c.f.
41,897 dry solids
193,088 wet @ 45% (2)
2,515 c.f.
WRIGHT& ASSOCIATES. PAL
w

COMMENT
17. Will compost be bagged or
stored? Is there adequate
resulting in an increased
RESPONSE
sold in bulk? How/where will compost be
storage if sludge characteristics change
production? How will compost be transported?
At present, the proposed method of selling compost is in bulk form.
During the final design phase, a market analysis will be made to
determine the need for bagged compost and if found feasible, such
facilities may be added. 'The primary purpose of the composting
facility is for a disposal method for sludges in the area. The
three methods of "disposing" of the compost in the order of
preference are: 1) selling in either/or bulk/bags, 2) giving away
or 3) landfilling.
COMMENT
18. Lime sludges increase drying time. Has this been considered? It
is stated that composted lime sludge has an added marketability and
is a benefit to composting. Please explain.
RESPONSE
Lime may increase the drying time on drying beds, but will not make a
difference for the proposed belt press system. The composting process
produces carbon dioxide which tends to acidify the.product. Lime will
assist in neutralizing this process.
Compost as a soil conditioner which contains lime will assist in
certain agricultural processes, in particular, golf course turf
growing. Other agricultural needs may require less lime. During
the final design process, composting pilot testing will determine
from blended sludges the exact nutrient levels.
COMMENT
19. EPA publications presented at the recent seminar on sludge composting
indicated that low cake solids 18-24% TS could be achieved using
belt press w/additives on filter press -plate and frame. More specific
information as to the results of the proposed "filter belt presses"
will have on the sludge in the project area is required. A 2-5%
difference in solids can have a very major effect on the composting
process, quantity produced, bulking agent requirements, etc.
-14-

RESPONSE
We are proposing to utilize continuous belt filter presses (not plate
and frame filters). Current indications are that the desired 25% level
can readily be obtained, particularly if the bulking material is added
to the sludge. We intend to thoroughly review the dewatering devices
and select equipment based on performance criteria established from
field testing results. This will be part of the equipment procurement
process undertaken in the final design.
COMMENT
20. What provisions are being made for the disposal of bad compost?
RESPONSE
The compost will be monitored for pathogens, nutrient level, carbon
content, and odor level. Any compost not meeting predetermined
levels of acceptance will be recycled until the desired levels are
met.
COMMENT
21. Again, there must be restitution for sludge stabilization and dewatering
equipment previously funded. This will affect PW and user charge
calculations. A final determination on this issue is being made and
will be conveyed to you as soon as possible.
RESPONSE
Again, we reaffirm our contention that restitution
funded equipment should not -be considered, since we
abandonment of these facilities. No restitution is
for equipment not being utilized 100 percent of the
should be no difference in this case. The previous
required for standby, should it become necessary to
due to breakdown of proposed transportation system.
we again request that no restitution be required.
-15-
for previously
are not advocating
required presently
time and there
equipment will be
dewater locally
Because of this,

COMMENT
22. It is stated that the vacuum filter at the North Hickory Plant needs
to be replaced because it has never worked satisfactorily and has
not been used at all for sludge dewatering since initial operation of
the plant". Provide specific details on why it has not been in service.
RESPONSE
Tried to operate the vacuum filter and did extensive testing. A sludge
cake could be maintained with large quantities of certain polymers, but
because of the polymer quantities required, the dewatering operation
was not feasible. This operation was discontinued and liquid sludges
have been landspread since discontinuing operation of the filter.
COMMENT
23. Local shares of costs are presented in 3 formats: dry weight of
sludge/community; wastewater flow/community; 2 dry weight of sludge
plus 2 flow per community. Which will be used? Will local shares
be paid for by bond sales or money on hand?
RESPONSE
Three formats or alternates for charging the respective municipalities
were shown for consideration -by any management authority. The method
that will be used is 2 dry weight of sludge plus (flow per community.
Local funds are on hand.
COMMENT
24. Since the site is in a floodplain, give details and elevations of
equipment that would be impacted.
RESPONSE
Location of facilities and the relative elevation to the floodplain
will be available after final topographic surveys have been completed
of the site. All such -questions will be resolved during final design
phase. No facilities will be built below floodplain levels unless
adequate protection is provided.
-16-

COMMENT
25. Environmental assessments will be required for all pipeline routes
and for the composting site. Provide a map with proposed pipeline
and composting sites indicated.
RESPONSE
Consideration is being made of elimination of pumping which will
negate this question.
COMMENT
26. It is mentioned that the County of Catawba may become involved. If
so, a resolution adopting the amendment will be required of them.
RESPONSE
The County of Catawba will be involved. When the County does
formally become involved, resolution approving the amended 201 to
that effect will be sent.
COMMENT
27. It is stated that no leachate exists in the mechanically enclosed
system. Will there by any leachate in the mixing process? If so,
how will it be disposed of?
RESPONSE
The mechanical enclosed system is fully contained and no leachate will
be present either in mixing or in the composting process. Filtrate
from the dewatering devices will be returned to Clark Creek Treatment
Plant. Waste discharges to Clark Creek will be required to meet Newton's
Pretreatment Ordinance. Water quality of the filtrate will be tested
and determined during pilot testing in the final design phase. Should
it become necessary to treat the waste to meet pretreatment requirements,
such facilities will be included within the regional plant.
-17-

COMMENT
28. A public hearing is required at which the project and user charges
are presented. From this hearing an affidavit of advertisement is
required along w/minutes and a list of attendees.
RESPONSE
The tentative schedule for the public hearing is December 18, Hickory
City Council Meeting. There will be no increase in user fees required
as a result of this facility.
COMMENT
29. A complete management plan will be required before Step III. This
plan will have to be adopted by the local residents and governments
and must be approved by the Division of Environmental Management.
RESPONSE
The management plan will be prepared during the design phase of the
project. The development of the management plan will include several
management alternatives and several methods of charging the individual
municipalities for processing of sludge. The complete plan will be
submitted prior to or with the construction plans for approval by DEM.

a w STATE a
•n North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor James A. Summers, Secretary
November 15, 1984
Mr. Bob White
Economic Development Coord-inator
f,, . 9I , .:__ _
Western Piedmont Regional. Councrl;•+�
of Governments . , P. 0. Box 3069
Hickory, NC 28601
Dear Mr. White:
DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Robert F. Helms
Director
Telephone [phone]
V
•sfl`�89 SUBJECT: Sludge Disposal - Amendment E
ry Hickory -Newton Complex
S_' ' Project No. C370389-01
This is to acknowledge the receipt of the above subject project.
Review of this report has been initiated and you will be notified upon
completion.
If there are any questions or comments, please contact this office
at [phone].
Sincerely,
T. Allen Wahab, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
jh
cc: Henningson, Durham and Richardson
,urmeis ri ht and Associates
MQd2rrle Sti i T '7 P e.i crn i e
LPMU
GPF
P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

4
l���EN�AONN1F.t'1TP� ��EWf�
aw,
1Y►„� jp
.� P� �ppORESV1Lt,E'
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
_. Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 6, 1989
Mr. B. Gary McGee, City Manager
City of Hickory
P. 0. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
ATTENTION: Mr. Jerry Twiggs
Dear Mr. McGee:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
SUBJECT: City of Hickory
Approval of Specifications
Sludge Equipment
Procurement
EPA Project No, C370398-12
Review has been completed of the subject procurement specifica-
tions and contract documents by the Construction Grants Section of the
Division of Environmental Management. The procurement documents are
hereby approved, and authorization is granted for the purchase of the
equipment listed below as determined eligible for Federal funding.
Eligible
One (1) Front End Loader
One (1) Dump Truck With Dump Body
The procedures listed in the General Statutes of North Carolina,
Chapter 143 and in Federal Regulations 40 CFR 33, shall be used in the
procurement of the subject equipment. Equipment having a value in
excess of $10,000 must be purchased by formal bidding. For equipment
having a value less than $10,000, purchase by informal bidding is
acceptable.
Prior to award of the contracts requiring a formal bid, the names
/ of bidders and bids, the selected lowest responsible, responsive
l/ bidder, and the •respec Uve bid, shall be submitted by the Grantee to
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Tom Fahnestock, Construction Grants Section, Division of Environ-
mental Management, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, for
approval. For informally bid projects, this information should be sub-
mitted after award and should include a written notification of award.
The approval of this equipment purchase does not constitute any
change in the amount of your grant for this project.
One (1) set of the final approved project documents will be for-
warded to you, one (1) set retained for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and one (1) set forwarded to the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Madden, Jr. of our
staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
W. S. Hoffman, Supe isor
Engineering Management Unit
CGM:vk
cc: Hazen & Sawyer
Judy Setzer - City of Hickory
CE - Raleigh
Tom Fahnestock
Brenda Chesson
Don Evans
Allen Wahab /
DEM Mooresville Regional Office
Cecil Madden, Jr.
CIU
EMU
GPF

9
�Y d �STAiF o
t�C;EJ\1
of ENVIRONMENTAL MOADAEO
WoRESVII.LE
JU'A9W& 1
State of North Carolina
Department. of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 2, 1989
Mr. B. Gary McGee, City Manager
City of Hickory
P. 0. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
ATTENTION: Mr. Jerry Twiggs
Dear Mr. McGee:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
SUBJECT: City of Hickory
Approval of Specifications
Sludge Hauling Equipment
Procurement
EPA Project No. C370389-12
Review has been completed of the subject procurement specifica-
tions and contract documents by the Construction Grants Section of the
Division of Environmental Management. The procurement documents are
hereby approved, and authorization is granted for the purchase of the
equipment listed below as determined eligible for Federal funding.
Eligible
Four (4) 6,000 Gallon Sludge Hauling Tankers
The procedures listed in the General Statutes of North Carolina,
Chapter i43 and in Federal Regulations 40 CFR 33, shall be used in the
procurement of the subject equipment. Equipment having a value in
excess of $10,000 must be purchased by formal bidding. For equipment
having a value less than $10,000, purchase by informal bidding is
acceptable.
Prior to award of the contracts requiring a formal bid, the names
of bidders and bids, the selected lowest responsible, responsive
bidder, and the respective bid, shall be submitted by the Grantee to
Mr. Tom Fahnestock, Construction Grants Section, Division of Environ-
mental Management, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, for
approval. For informally bid projects, this information should be sub-
mitted after award and should include a written notification of award.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

The approval of this equipment purchase does not constitute any
change in the amount of your grant for this project.
One (1) set of the final approved project documents will be for-
warded to you, one (1) set retained for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and one (1) set forwarded to the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Madden of our
staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
W: S. Koffman, SuP erv:[Aor
Engineering Management Unit
CGM:vk
cc: Hazen & Sawyer
CE - Raleigh
Judy Setzer - City of Hickory
Tom Fahnestock
Brenda Chesson
Don Evans
Allen Wahab
DEM Mooresville Regional Office
CIU
EMU
GPF

/3 S
f i
C1����
ENV.IRONNEN1Al1dANA6EM
��yysloN � DEPARTMENT -OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
+��► U 1969 Raleigh EPA Reesident Office
P.O.
rptDORESV1l1E Northside, North Carolina 27564
990
IN REPLY REFER TO • May 22, 1989
EPA Inspection Section
SUBJECT: EPA Project No. C370389-12, Town of Hickory, North Carolina,
Interim Inspection
Mr. Gary McGee, City Manager
Attn: Mr. Wm Jerry Twiggs
.City of Hickory
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina-28603-- —
Dear Mr. McGee:
An interim inspection for the federally funded portion of the subject
pollution abatement project was performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on May 17, 1989. Enclosed is a copy of the inspection report
filed. Your particular attention is directed to any comments listed under
Item G of this report. We respectfully request your response to these
comments.
If you have questions regarding this inspection, please contact Mr.
Ramon M. Sundquist, P.E. at telephone [phone]."
Sincerely,
4/�'' Carmine Forcinito
/�' Chief, EPA Inspection Section
Enclosure
Copies Furnished w/Enclosure:
Mr. Recil Wright
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Two Parkway Plaza
Suite 170
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
,--'�Rr. Joe Martin
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

CORPS OF ENGINEERS. GRANT INSPECTION REPORT
GRANT NO. C370389-12
INSPECTION DATE 17 May 1989
Grantee City of Hickory
Project Description Hickory Regional Sludge Composting Facility
A. SCHEDULE (Overall status of Grant) The Budget and Project period for
this grant ends on 15 September 1990.
B. AMENDMENTS (Need and Status) None needed.
C. GRANT PAYMENT> current EPA grant amount $ 4,901,834
A
Request No. 10
Date of Last Request 3 May 1989 Requested to Date $ 1,936,136.23
This request $ 126,894.22 Actual 40
Recommendation and Comment The construction performed and materials
stored on site appear representative of the amount of EPA grant reim-
bursement requested.
D. GRANT ADMINISTRATION (Related to Recordkeeping, Submittals, etc.)
A review of Grant administration was not performed during this
inspection.
SAD Form 3221-R
1 May 80
- 1 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 1
Name Ashebrook - Simon - Hartley Corp.
Address Suite 124 500 Southland Drive Birmingham, AL 35226
Original Contract Amount $ 6,349,500 ($5,418,800 EPA eligible)
Amount based on latest change order $ 5,887,226.58
Current Grant Eligible Contract Amount $ 4,938,795.58
Contract Description General Construction
Superintendent at site Ed Borovsky
Date of NTP 18 September 1987 Contract Time 780 calendar days.
Original Completion Date 6 Nov 89 Current Completion Date 6 Nov 89
Current Grant Eligible Contract Time Period18Sep87 - 6 Nov89(780cd)
Scheduled % Complete 75 Actual %Complete 66
estimated as per SF 271
CHANGE ORDER UPDATE
Action Agency No.
Grantee 1
C 0 E 1
NRCD-DEM 1
Grantee 2
C 0 E 2
NRCD-DEM 2
Grantee 2
NRCD-DEM 2
Response or
Approval Date. Amount Time
6 Apr 88-538,117 0
2 May 88
10 Aug 88-553,240 0
30 Nov 88 75,843.58 0
17 Jan 89
6 Feb 89
3 Apr 89
17 Apr 89 73,235.58
Remarks
drainage/graveing
& misc.
need more info
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions)
1. A monthly construction project meeting was held during this
inspection. The following items were noted:
a. The Contractor's current construction schedule shows the work
being done by mid December 1989. The current contract comple-
tion date is 6 November 1989. It was recommended that any time
extensions to the contractor that are due should be processed
to allow the Contractor to work this additional time into the
schedule. The Contractor was also requested to supply a cash
flow schedule to COE and State for review.
b. The Grantee's Consulting Engineer's Inspector reviewed the
expectations of the Contractor that will be required for
the temporary storage of equipment (including electrical). The
Inspector further requested that prior to equipment arriving to
the project site that the manufacturer's storage instructions be
- 2 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 1
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions) continued.....
1.
b. continued..
submitted. If the instructions can not be submitted in advance of shipment,.
then the instructions must be with the shipment.
c. Plans and Specifications have been submitted to the State for review
and approval for the Ashebrook-Simon (actual on site) system.
d. The Grantee and Contractor will try to work out a storage area for
the amendment (sawdust).
e. A change order is being processed (multiple items, electrical) to be
submitted soon for review. A change order involving equipment is also being
negotiated and prepared for submission of review.
f. COE noted that the Contractor should be reminded again to cover all
store block on site, as required in the specifications.
2. A field inspection was done during this inspection. The following was
noted:
a. The Contractor's block laying sub -contractor (previously noted as
installing several sections of unsatisfactory block wall) has improved in
quality. Several sections of wall have been previously removed and are now
replaced and acceptable. It was further noted that the black grout used for
the trim block has been splashed onto the surrounding grey block wall, causing
an unsightly appearance. The Contractor explained that he is aware of the
problem and that a cleaning procedure from the sub -contractor will remove all
black grout from the grey walls.
b. The COE reminded the Grantee and the Contractor to assure that safety
handrailing is used were required by OSHA guidelines
. c. The reinforcing steel and concrete form work for the west wall of
Reactor No. 1 has been set in place. It was noted that some of the
reinforcing steel was touching the formwork and should be worked back in
place. The project Inspector explained that this wall had not been finally
inspected and that it was to be thoroughly cleaned as well. The State further
recommended that where the reinforcing steel is near or touching the
'dovetail' inserts for the blockwork that the contractor make special efforts
to assure that concrete gets around all of the embedded items without the
resulting honeycombing.
- 3 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 2
Name Anderson Brothers Electrical Contractors
Address 1167 1/2 1st. Ave. S.W. Hickory, NC 28601
Original Contract Amount $ 666,277.50
Amount based on latest change order $ 666,277.50
Current Grant Eligible Contract Amount $ 666,277.50
Contract Description Electrical
Superintendent .. .... Terry Anderson
Date of NTP 18 September 1987 Contract Time 780 calendar days
Original Completion—Dat-e-6 Nov--89—Current Completion Date 6 Nov 89
Current Grant Eligible Contract Time Period18Sep87 — 6 Nov89(780cd)
Scheduled % Complete unknown Actual % Complete 30
as per outlay schedule estimate
CHANGE ORDER UPDATE
Response or 6
Action Agency No. Approval Date Amount Time Remarks
None to date......
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions)
The contractor has installed significant duct bank and has done
some wiring. Recommend that the contractor review his construction
schedule at the same time as the prime contractor and to submit a
revised schedule prior to the next project construction meeting. This
should also include a comprehensive cash flow schedule reflecting
anticipated work.
— 4 —

F. GENERAL COMMENTS (Related to Overall Grant)
1. This was a scheduled interim inspection. The weather was warm and
cloudy.
2. The project Inspector's records were available for review.
3. The next monthly project meeting was scheduled for May 28, 1989.
G. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Related to Overall Grant)
Recommend that the Grantee assure that the Contractors submit
cash flow schedules that would allow review of anticipated progress
based on expenditures. It is further recommended that the Grantee
assure that the General Contractor's construction schedule reflect
accurate anticipated work of the Electrical Contractor.
a
H. INSPECTION PARTICIPANTS
Name
Title
1 SEE ATTACHED LIST OF ATTENDEES
Inspector's Signature
Representing
22 May 1989
Date

T
vl,
I t I i
' 1 1j I '
1
• t

ol
1 Jl �
Xz k
1' R 1gg�
'JON NPDES FACILITY AND PERMIT DATA
UPDATE OPTION TRX I_W,Eiitbu KEY 13254
PERSONAL DATA vjE ` � PING FOR PERMIT APP/PERMIT FEE-$ 100.00 REGION
FACILITY NAME> �8< RY, CITY -COMPOST F. EPA5 COUNTY> CATAWBA 03
ADDRESS: MAILING (REQUIRED) ENGINEER: BURMEISTER,WRIGHT & ASSOC
STREET: P. O. BOX 398 STREET: 4828 PARKWAY PLAZA BL1rD
CITY: HICKORY ST NC ZIP 28603 CITY: CHARLOTTE ST NC ZIP 28210
TELEPHONE 0 0 0 TELEPHONE:
STATE CONTACT> HOFMAN/RH FACILIT`( CONTACT B. GARY MCGEE
TYPE OF PROJECT> SLUDGE DEWATERING FILTRATE LAT: LONG:
DATE APP RCVD 04/02/86 N=NEW,M=MODIFICATION,R=REISSUE> N
DATE ACKNOWLEDGED 04/02/86 DATE REVIEWED 04/02/86 RETURN DATE
REG COMM REQS 04/02/86 DATE DENIED / :` NPDES---------
REG COMM RC VD 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 DATE RETURNED / / TR I B Q .0000 MGD
ADD INFO REDS 04/02/86 OT AG COM REQS 04/02/86 TRIG DATE- /
ADD INFO RCVD 1 1 /1 1 /1 1 OT AG COM RCS}D 1 1 /1 1 /1 1
END STAT APP P 07/01/86 DATE ISSUED 05/29/86 DATE EXPIRE 05/2?/91
FEE CODE( ) 1 = 01 MGD) , 2= 0101<GD) , 3= { > 1 KGD > , 4= C < 1 KGD+SF > , 5= (S> 300A) , 6= { S { =300A) ,
7=(SENDEL),B=(SEDEL),9=(CLREC),0=(NO FEE) DISC: CODES ASN/CHG PRMT
ENG CERT DATE LAST NOV DATE / / CONBILL4 )
COMMENTS: CR
MESSAGE: #*# ENTER DATA FOR UPDATE#

SWE
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary May 29, 1986 Director
Mr. B. Gary McGee, City Manager JUN 3 1986
City of Hickory
P. 0. Box 398 PERMITS & ENGINEERING
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
SUBJECT: Permit No. 13254
City of Hickory
Regional Sludge Compost Facilities
EPA Project No. C370389-12
Catawba County
Dear Mr. McGee:
In accordance with your application received April 2, 1986, we are
forwarding herewith Permit No. 13254 dated May 29, 1986, to the City of Hickory
for the construction and operation of the subject non -discharge type waste
sludge compost disposal system.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until May 29,.
1991, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified
therein.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing before
a hearing officer upon written demand to the Director within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this permit, identifying the specific issues to
be contended. Unless such demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
The composting of sewage sludge for disposal by public distribution is
considered experimental by the Division and this operation shall be subject
to frequent inspection and evaluation by the Division staff. The approval
of this operation does not commit the Division to approval of sludge composting
for public distribution disposal for other facilities.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

r 2 -
I
One (1) set of final approved plans and specifications is being forwarded
to you. If you have any questions or need additional information concening
this matter, please contact Mr. W. S. Hoffman, at [phone].
Sincerely,
R. Paul Wilms
710-
cc: City of Newton
Catawba Co. Health Department
COE-Charlotte
Mooresville Regional Office
Mr. Arthur Mouberry
Walter Taft
Burmeister, Wright & Assoc.
Mr. W. S. Hoffman
EPA
GPF

. N
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RALEIGH
P R P- M T T
For the Discharge of Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143,
General Statutes of North Carolina as amended, and other applicable
Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
City of Hickory
Catawba County
FOR THE
construction and operation of a non -discharge type waste sludge 20 ton compost-
ing facility consisting of three (3) -1.5 meter belt presses, dual DAF (250,000
gallon) thickeners (with optional gravity mode) having an eleven -foot side
water depth and a forty -foot diameter and polymer feed and odor control
system, sludge composting system consisting of a four (4) bin sludge receiving
and mixing station, dual enclosed mechanical bioreactors, two (2) acres of
paved area with aeration equipment for open air curing and carbonaceous
material storage area, odor control. system, and a 150,000 gallon per day
extended aeration type pretreatment facility, with no discharge of waste sludge,
or compost drainage to the surface waters•of the State, pursuant to the
application received April 2, 1986, and in conformity with the project plans,
specifications, and other supporting data, subsequently filed and approved
by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and con-
sidered a part of this Permit.
This Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until May 29,
1991, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limi-
tations:
1. This Permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are
constructed in accordance with the approved plans, specifica-
tions and other supporting data.

- 2 -
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of
wastes described in the application and other supporting data.
3. The facilities shall be properly maintained and operated at all times.
4. The sewage sludge composted and disposed by this system shall be adequately
treated to the accepted federal, state, and local requirements prior to
being released for public digtribution.
5. This permit is not transfers-ble.
6. This Permit shall become voidable in the event of failure of the sludge
compost to adequately protect the assigned water quality standards of
the surface waters, and when properly disposed of by the public. -
7. In the event the compost facilities fail to perform satisfactorily or
cause objectionable odors, the City shall take such immediate corrective
action as may be required by this Department, including the construc-
tion of additional or replacement wastewater treatment or disposal
facilities.
8. Diversion or bypassing of the untreated sludge or compost drainage
wastewater from the compost facilities is prohibited.
9. The sludge composting operation must be conducted under the super-
vision of the certified wastewater treatment plant operator required
by the Certification Commission.
10. The City of Hickory shall maintain records including, but not limited
to the following:
a. volume and analysis of sludge and compost
b. date, duration and temperature during composting
C. name of compost recipient, volume received, and intended use..
These records shall be available at the wastewater treatment facility
for inspection and review.by the Division.
11. The City of Hickory shall present to each recipient of compost
written information that clearly states that compost sludge cannot
be used on areas where root or leaf crops for direct human consumption
are to be grown within one (1) year of the last application of compost
to the site. The City shall also include written recommendations
to the compost recipients for satisfactory uses of material such as
horticulture, silvicultural, and other agricultural uses not specifically
prohibited, etc.
12. An annual summary report shall be submitted by the City of Hickory to
the Division's Mooresville Regional Office which summarizes the
information required for recording.

� T I
- 3 -
13. Compost sludge should not be used in areas of intense public use
(school, playgrounds, etc.)
14. It is the permittee's responsibility to assure that the program is
carried out in accordance with the approved documents and conditions
of this Permit and as such the permittee is directly responsible
for any damages incurred.
Permit issued this the 29th day of May, 1986.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
R.-Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental
Management Commission
Permit No. 13254

RECEIVE
0mf& 0 ENVIAOmIENTAI NAWFftIPARTM ENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JaL 31 1989 Raleigh EPA Resident Office
P.O. Box 13
MOOREswiLE. Northslde, North Carolina 27564
REGIONAL GEMS
IN REPLY REFER TO -
July 27, 1989
EPA Inspection Section
/ SUBJECT: EPA Project No. C370389-12, City of Hickory, North Carolina,
Interim Inspection
Mr. Gary McGee, City Manager
Attn: Mr. Wm Jerry Twiggs
City of Hickory
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Dear Mr. McGee:
An interim inspection for the federally funded portion of the subject
pollution abatement project was performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on July 19, 1989. Enclosed is a copy of the inspection report
filed. Your particular attention is directed to any comments listed under
Item G of this report. We respectfully request your response to these
comments.
If you have questions regarding this inspection, please contact Mr.
Ramon M. Sundquist, P.E. at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Carmine Forcinito
Chief, EPA Inspection Section
Enclosure
Copies Furnished w/Enclosure:
Mr. Recil Wright
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C.
Two Parkway Plaza
Suite 170
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
A�. Joe Martin
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

F1
CORPS OF ENGINEERS GRANT INSPECTION REPORT
GRANT NO. C370389-12
Grantee City of Hicko
INSPECTION DATE 19 July 1989
Project Description Hickory Regional Sludge Composting Facility
A. SCHEDULE (Overall status of Grant) The Budget and Project period for
this grant ends on 15 September 1990.
B. AMENDMENTS (Need and Status) None needed.
C. GRANT PAYMENT> current EPA grunt ctuiount $ 40011834
Request No. 12
Date of Last Request 10 July 1989 Requested to Date $ 2,232,762.75
This request $ 348,322.75 Actual 48
Recommendation and Comment The construction performed and materials
stored on site appear representative of the amount of EPA grant reim-
bursement requested.
D. GRANT ADMINISTRATION (Related to Recordkeeping, Submittals, etc.)
A review of Grant administration was not performed during this
inspection.
SAD Form 3221-R
1 May 80
- 1 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 1
Name Ashebrook - Simon - Hartley Corp.
Address Suite 124 500 Southland Drive Birmingham, AL 35226
Original Contract Amount $ 6,349,500 ($5,418,800 EPA eligible)
Amount based on latest change order $ 5,887,226.58
Current Grant Eligible Contract Amount $ 4,938,795.58
Contract Description General Construction
Superintendent at site Ed Borovsky
Date of NTP 18 September 1987 Contract Time 780 calendar days
Original Completion Date 6 Nov 89 Current Completion Date 6 Nov 89
Current Grant Eligible Contract Time Period18Sep87 - 6 Nov89(780cd)
Scheduled % Complete 80 Actual % Complete 50
est. time expired as per inspector
CHANGE ORDER UPDATE
Response
or
Action Agency
No.
Approval
Date
Amount Time
Grantee
1
6 Apr
88
-538,117 0
C 0 E
1
2 May
88
NRCD-DEM
1
10 Aug
88
-553,240 0
Grantee
2
30 Nov
88
75,843.58 0
C 0 E
2
17 Jan
89
NRCD-DEM
2
6 Feb
89
Grantee
2
3 Apr
89
NRCD-DEM
2
17 Apr
89
73,235.58
Remarks
drainage/graveing
& misc.
need more info
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions)
1. A monthly construction project meeting was held during this
inspection. The following items were noted:
a. The Contractor submitted a current construction schedule and
work presented was discussed. However, the cash flow schedule
was not attached. The Contractor explained that this informa-
tion was being assembled and would be submitted in the next
scheduled meeting.
b. The Grantee advised that a Consortium Tour would be held prior
to the 2:00 p.m. September 27, 1989 construction meeting. The
Tour would probably be near lunchtime or just after.
c. The Professional Engineer's Seal for all plan sheets is still
outstanding. The State review department of NRCD-DEM received
some plans to review from the Contractor, but these were stamped
with an outdated PE seal and were judged to be unacceptable.
- 2 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 1
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions) continued.....
1.
c. The Contractor explained that an employee of this firm was still
waiting to get reciprocity with North Carolina. The NRCD-DEM representative
advised that it appeared that the Contractor's engineer had not continued his
seal in this home state, and that that was holding up the NC seal. Until his
home state seal was reinstated and current, he did not feel that North
Carolina was going to continue with the reciprocation application.
COE noted that the plans in use, the lack of proper PE sealing, and
the pursuit of a PE seal by Ashbrook has been an ongoing item that appears to
be dragging along much longer than necessary. It is noted that without
properly sealed drawings, and then a review by NRCD-DEM for current EPA grant
eligibility, that the Grantee is in jeopardy of having some items constructed
that will not be eligible. It is also noted that comprehensive inspections by
reviewing agencies is compromised by there not being an "approved by NRCD-DEM"
set of drawings that represent actual construction.
Therefore, it is recommended that NRCD-DEM investigate the necessity
of withholding additional EPA grant reimbursements for this Grant until
properly sealed plans, in conformance with the North Carolina State Board of
Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, is submitted to
NRCD-DEM for review.
2. A field inspection was done during this inspection. The following was
noted:
a. The Contractor has begun to install the hydraulic ram support
brackets for the horizontal silos. The Contractor continues with block wall
construction for the Administration Building.
b. The Inspector explained that the steel beam support bracket of the
W12 x 14 beam in the north corner of the Receiving Station that had been cut
and the bolt hole modified would be removed and replaced.
- 3 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 2
Name Anderson Brothers Electrical Contractors
Address 1167 1/2 1st. Ave. S.W. Hickory, NC 28601
Original Contract Amount $ 666,277.50
Amount based on latest change order $ 666,277.50
Current Grant Eligible Contract Amount $ 666,277.50
Contract Description Electrical
Superintendent .. ... Terry Anderson
Date of NTP 18 September 1987 Contract Time 780 calendar days
Original Completion Date 6 Nov 89 Current Completion Date 6 Nov 89
Current Grant Eligible Contract Time Period18Sep87 - 6 Nov89(780cd)
Scheduled % Complete 80 Actual % Complete 50
time expired estimate
CHANGE ORDER UPDATE
Response or
Action Agency No. Approval Date Amount Time
None to date......
Remarks
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions)
1. A monthly construction project meeting was held during this
inspection. The following items were noted:
The Contractor still has not gotten all of the information
(prices from Square 'D') concerning the change orders previously
submitted to the A/E. He explained that the information is expected
immediately and that it will be submitted upon receipt. The Con-
tractor further noted that he has ordered all of the electrical panel
units with the changes incorporated and that many of the changed units
have been delivered to the jobsite. COE noted that until the changes
for the electrical items are approved for EPA participation, that
payment for the changes can not be recommended for reimbursement.
It is requested that the Grantee assure that eligible and
potentially non -eligible costs be clearly documented. A recommended
procedure would be to list each electrical component that is to be
changed, listing the original unit's cost and then the units current
modified cost. It should also be stressed in the documentation that
the additional cost is for modifying the unit only, not for a new unit
in place of the original.
- 4 -

E. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTRACT No. 2
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONTRACT INSPECTION (Status, Deficiencies, Comments
and Recommended Actions) continued....
2. The Contractor is installing electrical outlets and switches, in
coordination with the CMU block placement, in the Administration Building.
However, it appeared that the number of electrical outlets may not conform to
NEC standards. Recommend that the Grantee's Consulting Engineer review the
minimum number of outlets requirement set forth in NEC in conjunction with the
actual installation.
3. It would appear that the Contractor could be installing more conduit
than is currently being done. The construction schedule provided by the
General Contractor is of inadequate detail to afford close scrutiny of the
Electrical Contractor's progress. Recommend that the Electrical Contractor be
required to submit a detailed schedule that would allow progress monitoring.
This could include a general work activity breakdown similar to that already
shown by the General, but broken down for each major structure. It would also
be helpful to identify critical activities that have a tight time frame of
installation.
- 5 -

F. GENERAL COMMENTS (Related to Overall Grant)
1. This was a scheduled interim inspection. The weather was warm and
cloudy.
2. The project Inspector's records were available for review.
G. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Related to Overall Grant)
Request that the Grantee respond in writing to the following listed
comments:
Page 2&3, Para. E.l.c.; Page 4, Para. E.1.; and Page 5, Para. E.2&3.
H. INSPECTION PARTICIPANTS
Name
Title
Representing
1.
Ramon Sundquist
General Engineer
U.S. Army
Corps of Eng.
2.
Michael Wicker
Environmental Eng.
N R C D
- D E M
3.
Recil Wright
Project Engineer
Hazen and
Sawyer
4.
Mike LaBlanc
Project Inspector
Hazen and
Sawyer
5.
Earl Capp
Ashbrook
- Simon - Hartle,
6. Jerry Twiggs
Inspi ctor's Sitnat
Public Util. Dir.
- 6 -
City of Hickory
27 July 1989
Date

4 V
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Date: January 31, 1991
NON -DISCHARGE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Catawba
Permit No. WQ 0004563 (formerly 13254)
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: City of Hickory Compost Facility
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
2. Date of Investigation: January 31, 1991
3. Report Prepared By: Michael L. Parker, Environmental
Engineer II
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Mr. Keith Buff,
Plant Superintendent; 704/465-1.401
5. Directions to Site: From the junction of Highway 321/70 and
S. R. 1283 southeast of the City of Hickory, travel south on
S. R. 1283 approximately 0.15 mile and turn right onto S. R.
2541. The compost facility is located at the end of this
road.
6. Disposal Site(s), List for all disposal sites:
Latitude: 350 41' 26"
Longitude: 810.15' 48"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site
and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: E 13 NE
7. Size (land available for expansion and upgrading): Area is
available for expansion if necessary.
8. Topography (location map or topographic indicating
relationship to 100.year flood plain included): Facility
appears to be above the 100 year flood plain elevation.
Site has been graded to a relatively flat slope.
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling and Water Supply Well:
approximately 400 feet.
10. Watershed Stream Basin Information:
a. Watershed Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba; 030832

Page Two
C. Distance to surface water from disposal system:
150-200 yards
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Type of sludge:
100% Municipal
0% Industrial
a. Volume: 20 tons/day (Design Capacity)
b. Types and quantities of industrial wastewater: The
sludges processed at this facility are from municipal
wastewater treatment plants which receive a variety of
different types of industrial wastewater.
c. Prevalent toxic constituents in sludge: Analytical
results as submitted by Hickory did not reflect any
waste constituents which appear to be present in toxic
levels.
d. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved X
should be required not needed
2. Production Rates (industrial discharges only) in Pounds Per
Day: N/A
3. Description of Industrial Process (for industries only) and
Applicable CFR Part and Subpart: N/A
4. Type of Treatment (specify whether proposed or existing):
The existing facilities consist of three (3) 1.5 meter belt
filter presses, dual DAF sludge thickeners (250,000 gallon
capacity), polymer feed and odor control system, a
composting system consisting of a four bin receiving and
mixing station, dual enclosed mechanical bioreactors, a two
(2) acre curing area; and a 0.150 MGD extended aeration
wastewater pretreatment facility.
5. Sludge Handling and Disposal Scheme: Upon completion of the
composting activity, the compost will be loaded onto tractor
trailers for transport to the receiver site. A minor amount
of local public distribution may be available:
6. Treatment Plant Classification: Less Than 5 Points; No
Rating (include rating sheet).
7. SIC Code(s): N/A
Wastewater Code(s):
Primary: N/A
Secondary:

Page Three
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds (municipals only)? No
2. Special monitoring requests: None at this time.
3. Air Quality and/or Groundwater concerns or hazardous waste
utilized at this facility that may impact water quality, air
quality, or groundwater? No groundwater concerns nor is
hazardous waste utilized at this facility. Due to the
existence of an air scrubber device, an Air Quality Permit
has been issued to the City. Odor complaints received by
this Office have been addressed by both Air Quality and
Water Quality staff.
4. Other: N/A
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of recent operational changes, the composting
facility had only recently returned to.production. These changes
were brought about as a result of an attempt to control/eliminate
objectionable odors generated during compost production. Shortly
after initial start-up, a rash of odor complaints were received
and as a result, operations were halted until.changes/
modifications could be implemented. Although operations were not
entirely back to normal, odors were minimal and limited to the
compost curing site. It appeared, judging from past reports,
that much improvement has been made in odor control since these
facilities began production during the past year.
Although the City has the option to distribute the compost
locally, it appears that the primary compost receiver will be a
mountain tree nursery. Very little, if any, general public
distribution is planned at the present time.
Pending a final review by the SERG, it is recommended that
the Permit be renewed.
>GiY ezf(lf
Signature of Repprt Preparer Date
Water Quality,;Supervisor Date

/oao. � V 'I _ —II--r r� •: %1 Disposal-.,-�.; I• \ \ /� ��
`Fairgrove li
Cehir4ugustma MW�\`_-
�: I'v -r\ 99/
3"51
Dnv 'n Fairbrookl)
Tfea er '1 _�` II
,\ C
__ � 1 l •t(rttnW�A �iJlry i _ �• I•
• oI\ !'� I.J -- I ' .. .. T'-1'e\hnicnl•Iristttyte� if41
- �J I� ( t• _ f_.\,`�\
l '1 1 �' •/ \ '! i \ WT'-� li � Ir�..� � � � ��. �i�:� lam. .l `'�;
Catawbaf( �- 967 ♦
1 Me orial Park 1 //--
/oJ m \� Hickory
S.Peedway 39SO
10- )) •/," New J1erua1e�n
C h'
'Gem
�00
996
SM
J /
!' Z �/_;11 % �) � ', \ •II /. �Al ,! I ���/ \ ; /j/'_i .ii _. >.l. C�; , I Si�E
J� ,j --
I
�'_ � u• � i � i __� , II \'•. =ice✓ -. \,' _ � ___—
��' ?It
lt-_ 3948
�J \•
)'\\
•v._84p. `\92/ I�/ \� �� //' �\ 'III - \ !�\! ,� I.•1 ,•_-_--
__ l .� ^,i. •,—i I r. �,C r� I, ail �•,� �'_ �� .'�J-
it
it
99/�1-�_�
\� Cam

srntpo- 0�
`i tV
JAN 8 -
1991
DIVISIN OF EVV1PnH!i E:ir:l MAIIAGC:RIT
Unfl uN it OrPNI 1AL QFFIC1
State of North Carolina
Department. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury. Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
i -
Dear
_ George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Date: o a' 19 Director
r ( 4 SUBJECT . Application No. WQ
The Divisions Permits and Engineering Unit acknowledges receipt of your permit application and supporting
materials on ! , 19 . This application has been assigned the number shown above. Please
refer to this number when making inquiries on this project.
Your project has been assigned to for a detailed engineering
review. A technical acknowledgement will be forthcoming. If this acknowledgement is not received within thirty (30)
days, please contact the engineer listed above.
Be aware that the Divisions regional office, copied below, must provide recommendations from the Regional Super-
visor or a Procedure Four Evaluation for this project, prior to final action by the Division.
If you have any questions, please call the review engineer listed above at [phone].
Sincerely
Donald Safrit, -P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering
CC: J Regional Supervisor
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

of H/e�O
CITY OF HICKORY
POST OFFICE BOX 398 • HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 28603 • 704-322-2603 y°9ry1070
cAao�`�P
N. C. DEPT. QE NA'ETUR"
Public Utilities DepartmRESOUTZ,,.`^c. ; ANDent COMMUNITY _: t3PMEN1°
JAN 8 4991,
CERTIFIED MAIL;;,;
OFFICE
December 20, 1990
Ms. Carolyn McCaskill, Supervisor
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
SUBJECT: Permit No. 13254/City of Hickory Compost Facility.
Catawba County
Dear Ms. McCaskill:
The City of Hickory is hereby requesting a renewal for the
above referenced permit. Please find attached, in triplicate, a
completed Non —Discharge Permit Application and a check in the
amount of $250.00. As per your December 3, 1990, letter we also
have' included TCLP results in triplicate, and for your information
the EP Toxicity test results.
Should we need to provide any additional information, please
do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
isoc? � � ,,r� r
Sincerely,
Keith S. Buff
PU Plants Superintendent
bb
Attachments

r'NortL-Carolina Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resourees
t
Environmental Management Commission DEM USE ONLY
Permit Number:
NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION'
`in accordance with NC General Statutes Chapter 143, Article 21 County:
Applicant (name of board, individual, or others): ('at 2147,12
Regional Compost Facility Application Date:
Nov. 23, 1990--
Project (name of city, village, town, sanitary district. eatabliahment):
TlijakQXY CitV Com ost Facilit
FOR:
Brief Project Description:
❑ Non -Discharge Treatment/Disposal Facilities Receive sludge from waste treatment
❑ Pretreatment Facilities Plants, septic tanks
❑ Sewer Collection System (private)
❑
stir O Extension of Sewer Systems (public) r V 2
Sludge Disposal
❑ Spray Irrigation
rr:rr
NATURE OF WASTEWATER:
0 Domestic Sewage
❑. Sludge/Industrial Waste
❑ Other Waste Estimated Completion Date:
From (sewers, pretreatment plant):
Serving (city, institution, industry):
Wastewater plants IH:ickory, Newton,Conover, Catawba Co.
Into (name of treatment plant):
Regional Com oat Facility I Average Daily Gallons Sewage or Waste Flow:
At (location of plant):- I
3200 - 20th Ave., SE Hickory, NC 28602 N-00 N3
Name and Complete __
C1254
Address of Engineering Firm: Hazen and Sawyer 27607
4000 - West Chase Blvd. ZIP Code:
Ra elg Telephone No. (919)-833-7152
Applicant assures that proposed works will be constructed, supervised, operated and maintained in accordance
with approved plans and specifications or ap
proved changes thereto.
Print Name:ldlm— Torrc� Mailing
riN.7i ggS_ Address: PO Rnx 298
Title: Public Utilities Director Hickory, NC - 28603
Signature; ' vCf/y
` � ZIP Code:
/
Telephone No. / 704 323-7427
TIONS:
INSTRUC
1-Fill-in All Spaces. If not applicable, enter N/A.
2.Secure appropriate signature (mayor/city manager for municipality, chairman for sanitary district board, owner/proper official of
corporation, or legally constituted board or commission in charge of proposed works). A letter of authorization is required from
proper official If design engineer or other agent signs application,
3.Sabmit to Division of Environmental Management, Permits and Engineering Unit, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611 the original
and ALL carbon copies of the application, 3 sets of finalized plans, specifications and other supporting data as required by Com-
mission Rules. and permit fee. plans and specifications mast be signed- and sealed by a registered North Carolina engineer:
FOR ASSISTANCE, CALL THE STATE CENTRAL OFFICE [phone], PERMITS & ENG Asheville [phone] Fayetteville [phone] Mooresville [phone] Winstonem'(gg 762351
59 Woodfnna Place 4
Suite 714 Wachovia Bldg. 919 North Main Street 8025 North Point Boulevard
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
Mooresville, NC 28115 GC'
Raleigh [phone] Washington [phone] Suite 100 ) _ L
Wilmington [phone] Winston-Salem, NC 27306
3800 Barrrett Drive 1424 Carolina Avenue
P-O. Box 27687 7225 Wrightsville Avenue
P.O. Box 1507 Wilmington, NC 28403
Raleigh. NC 27611
Washington.
NC 27889

. -- - _
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PERMIT -ATTACHMENT A
This information will be used by the Division to determine whether a waste is (1) hazardous
as defined by 10 NCAC 10F, and (2) suitable for disposal at a waste management facility permitted
by the Division of Environmental Management.
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources reserves the right to request
additional information or waive some of the requirements based on the type of waste if it deems -
necessary. 'The Department may also require some wastes to be treated or altered to render the
wastes environmentally immobile prior to disposal.
The following information is required for an evaluation. Incomplete forms will subject the
Non -discharge permit application to being returned as incomplete.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
L ' What is the waste:
Sludges generated by Hickory, Newton Conover
and Catawba Countv
2. What volume, on an annual basis, is generated by the source (gallons & percent solids or dry
tons pLr year
7020 dry tons composted sludge
3. What frequency of disposal or land application will there be (daily, monthly, quarterly, etc.):
Daily
How much sludge storage capacity does the treatment facility contain (in days):
200,000 gallons
4. For industrial residuals, please explain either the manufacturing process or how the waste
wash e nnerated (Please provide full and complete details of .the entire process):
5. What process is utilized for stabilization of the residuals? All residuals must be stabilized by
a process to significantly reduce pathogens (as described in 40 CFR Part 257, Appendix H)
prior to application or incorporation.
Meet 10' , for more than �i rla� anri exncari 55°C fnr more
than 4 hours

4b _
b. Will the handling and disposal of this waste create dust emissions which may cause a health
hazard or nuisance to surrounding persons?
7. Specify how the waste will be delivered to the disposal site (in leak proof trucks to a
terragator, etc.) and what t}rpe of equipment will be utilized for disposal:
Leak proof trucks deliver to Com ost Facility
8. Do you intend to utilize a contractor who specializes in Residual Management or do you
intend to manage the program. If a contractor is utilized, please provide the name of the
firm, a contact, address, and telephone number.
B. INFORMATION FOR HAZARDOUS (RCRA) DETERMINATION (10 NCAC 10F .0029)
1. Is the waste Iis ec under .0029(e) (i.e., 40 CFR 261.31-261.33): If yes, list the number:
2: Does the waste exhibit any of the four characteristics as defined by .0029(d) (i.e., 40 CFR
261.21-261.24): Attach laboratory results for EP Toxicity, Reactivity, Ignitability,
Corrosivit,r):
C. INFORMATION FOR LAND APPLICATION DETERMINATION
Note: The following are established maximum leachable (EP Toxicity) contamination levels
and pH established for land application. Chemical analyses should be made at Minimum
Detection Limits permitting assessment below the maximum levels. (The pH range shown is
for individual data points. The average values accepted are normally 4.0-10.0).
METALS: (PPm) PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES: (ppm)
.Arsenic 5.0 Lindane 0.40
Barium 100.0 Endrin 0.02
Cadmium 1.0 Methoxvchlor 10.0
Chromium 5.0 Toxaphene 0.50
Lead 5.0 2, 4-D
Mercury 0.2 - 10.0
2,4,5-TP Silvex 1,00
Selenium -1.0
Silver 5.0 pH (2:1 vol/wt.) >2.0-<12.5 s.u.
1. Attach E.P. Toxicity results; sampling should be in accordance with standard procedures (10
NCAC 10F .0029; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes -Part 261.20 et.al.). Are
any of the above parameters' concentration limitations exceeded? one
2- Does the= waste contain any hazardouswaste constituents listed in :0029(e); Appendix VIII
(i.e., 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII): If yes, what constituents and what concentration (Attach
laboratory results):
N/A

"I hereby certify that the information submitted in regard to RPg;,,,,a i Compost Facility
(name of waste) is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
- / Wm. Jerry Twiggs
Public Utilities irec or (print me)
Nvember 2 1990 (ttitle))
,
(date)
"` (signature)
All questions concerning this form s ld be directed to the Division of Environmental
Management, Permits and Engineering Unit at 919%733-5083. Answer specific questions in space
provided. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Complete all information, sign, and submit with the land application permit package:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing . • Reporting & Data Handling Services
III I PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 •615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
- -ANALYTICAL REPORT
CUSTOMER: City of Hickory
FACILITY: Regional ComPoste Facility
SAMPLE:
July Sludge
Monitoring
Conover S.E
WORK ORDER #: 90-07-235-01
Grab 7/25/90
SAMPLE REC'D: 07/26/90,
REPORT DATE: 08/30/90
REPORT TO: Mr. Michael
Smith -
PARAMETER
UNITS
RESULTS
EP TOX Pest/Herbicides
ug/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
g
mg/Kg
Attached
Arsenic, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
7,535
Barium; EP TOXICITY -
- --
mg/L
<0.01
Cadmium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.063
Chromium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.005
Lead, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.05
Mercury, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
.<0.05
Selenium, EP TOXICITY
Silver, EP
mg/L
<0.0002
<0.005
TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.005

4
Burlington
Research
AnaAATCC Services
- AquaticBioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
Testing Services NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road •
(91 9) 584-5564 • Burlington. NC 771-1 �
- - ANALYTICAL -'REPORT
CUSTOMER: City of Hickory
FACILITY: Regional Composte Facility
SAMPLE: July Sludge Monitoring
Newton Grab 7/25/90
WORK ORDER #: 90-07-235-02
SAMPLE REC'D: 07/26/90
REPORT DATE: 08/30/90
REPORT TO: Mr. Michael Smith -
EP TOX Pest/Herbicide:-
Total Kjeldahl N._trogen
Arsenic, EP TOXICITY
Barium,_E 'TOXICITY
Cadmium, TOXICITY
a's Chromiu .. ; E'P TOXICITY
Lead, EP � 0XICITY
Mercury, :;P TOXICITY
Selenium, EP TOXICITY
Silver, EP TOXICITY
ug/L
mg/Kg
mg/L
= mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Attached
6,761
<0.01
0.012
<0.005
<0.05
<0.05
<0.0002
<0.005
<0.005

Burlington
Research
Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman -Mill Road • [phone] • R��rli.,,. _
EP TOXICITY PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
PER NC-DEHNR LANDFILL REG. (FORM 3151)
Work Order #: 90-07-235-02
Parameter Maximum Allowable
Concentration u L Result*
u L
Endrin
2
Lindane <0.2
40
Methoxychlor <0.2
1,000 -
Toxaphene _
50
2,4-D <0.2
-1,000
<0.2
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
100
<0.2
*Results expressed as ug/L (ppb) of EP TOX extract.
o/f/gc/eptoxp h

A
Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
.7111 PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 0615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
_ � .:.-ANALYTICAL' REPORT
CUSTOMER: City of Hickory
FACILITY: Regional Composte Facility
SAMPLE: July Sludge Monitoring
Conover Grab 7/25/90
WORK ORDER #: 90-07-235-03
SAMPLE REC'D: 07/26/90
REPORT DATE: 08/30/90
REPORT -TO: Mr. -Michael Smith - -
PARAMETER
UNITS
RESULTS
EP TOX Pest/Herbicides
ug/L
Attached
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
mg/Kg
12,647
Arsenic, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.01
Barium, EP TOXICITY
mg%L'
0.014
Cadmium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.005
Chromium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.05
Lead, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.05
Mercury, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.0017
Selenium, EP TOXICITY
Silver, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.005
mg/L
<0.005
-. "990

Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 •615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CUSTOMER: City of
Hickory
FACILITY: Regional
Composte Facility
SAMPLE: Special
Study C orjjo O S t-
Sludge Grab
7/9/90
-
WORK ORDER #: 90-07-031-01
SAMPLE REC'D: 07/10/90
REPORT DATE: 08/08/90
REPORT TO: Mr. Michael Smith
PARAMETER
UNITS
RESULTS
EP TOX Pest/Herbicides
ug/L
Attached
Arsenic, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.03
Barium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L_
1.75
Cadmium,.EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0:005
Chromium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
Lead, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
.<0.05
<0.05
Mercury, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.0006
Selenium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
-<0.005
Silver, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.01

Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Buffington
Research Post Office Box 2481 •615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
EP TOXICITY PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
PER NC-DEHNR LANDFILL REG. (FORM 3151)
Work Order #: 90-07-031-01
Maximum Allowable Result*
Parameter Concentration (ua/L) u L
Endrin 2 <0.4
Lindane 40 <0.4
Methoxychlor 1,000
<0.4
Toxaphene 50
<0.4
2,4-D 1,000 <0.4
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 100 <0.4
*Results expressed as ug/L (ppb) of EP TOX extract.
ept-ph

IvN31
c01'rt0
� ts• 1•�. H
N• w �
rt N• x
�ft l<
O
N
R. o
U1
-
` J
CD
Z
0�
INPO
MHo0
3-3
""I' OF!.
N 00I-j (D
�N
M oartoi-
NV
l< O
g
U
iD N 4
1�
tr ( ft
H
H
hi
(7
FJ
W
�C
y
0
4
O
D
N
co
w
W
><
o
> ^
r) W
N
.•� �
1 01
ti
< D
=
n �
7 Z to
L m u
S
V. a
O
a n
w
oo
LZ
�
R •
kDD
c a
A^_
—
ID
F A n
O pe
03
w
D
N x
IJi
Ln
•
o, c
1
— n
N
�, rn
z
n
NJ
N
Ln

rC7111
Burlington
Research
Anelytica! Services • .Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Avucrc Toxicity Reduction, Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reuorting $ Data dandling Services
PMN Aquatic B'oassav Fvaltiations
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] . Burlington, NC 27215
- - REACTIVITY, SOLID
WORK ORDER #: 9@-11-2].S-01
Parameter
Result (mg-Rgl
Reactivity, Cyanide
<1. 0
Reactivity, Sulfide
<1 79

Analytical Services 0 Aquatic Bioassay Testing 0 Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
e Reporting & Data Handling Service 4
AATCC Testing Services a NPDES Testing �1 "/
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Al
Burlington Research 0V 2j i�q
Post office Box 2481 a 615 Huffman Mill Road 9 [phone] 9 Burlington, NC 27215
REACTIVITY1 SOLID
WORK ORDER #: 89-03-190-02
Parameter Result LmqLKSL
Reactivity, Cyanide <.022
Reactivity, Sulfide 25.8

i
Analytical Services • Aquatic BioassayTesting•
^,l ' �� AATCC Testing Services • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
g NPDES Testing •- Reporting &Data Handling Services
�� PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 0615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
EP TOXICITY PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
Work Order #: 89-03-190-02
Maximum Allowable Result
Parameter Concentration (uq/L) u L
Endrin 20
<20
Lindane 400
<400
Methoxychlor 10,000
<10,000
Toxaphene 500
<500
2,4-D 10,000
<10,000
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1,000 <1,000
i£.;

Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Bhdington
Research Post Office Box 2481 0615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
CUSTOMER:
FACILITY:
SAMPLE:
WORK ORDER #:
SAMPLE REC'D:
REPORT DATE:
REPORT TO:
ANALYTICAL REPORT
CITY OF HICKORY
POTW
Wastewater Analysis
HenryFork Treated Sludge
89-03-190-01
03/31/89
06/12/89
Ms. Susan McNeeley
PARAMETER
UNITS
RESULTS
Corrosivity, Aqueous
SU
EP TOX Pest/Herbicides
NonCorros
Ignitability
Attached
P H
Degrees
Degrees F
>140
Arsenic, EP TOXICITY
SU
mg/L
3.12
Barium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L.
<0.01
Cadmium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.71
Chromium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.007
Lead, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.05
Mercury, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
0.07
Selenium, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.002
Silver, EP TOXICITY
mg/L
<0.005
<0. 01
a:

Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 0615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
EP TOXICITY PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
Work Order #: 89-03-190-01
Parameter
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (u /L)
20
400
10,000
500
10,000
1,000
Result
u L
<20
<400
<10,000
<500
<10,000
<1,000
i 11 Q f
�� L V :J `I •J V �J

+t Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • NPDES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
r,971 I I PMN Aquatic Bioassay Evaluations
Burlington
Research Post Office Box 2481 0615 Huffman Mill Road • (919) 584=5564 • Burlington, NC 27215
REACTIVITY, SOLID
WORK ORDER #: 89-03-190-01
Parameter
Reactivity, Cyanide
Reactivity, Sulfide
Result (mg/Kg)
<0.022
<0.42

Z/buz
Zo' 0
daom 'ZOATTS
Z/bul
SOo ' 0>
d'IOI 'MnTuaTaS
'i/bm
Z000' 0>
d'IOS 'A«Xnoaax
Z/bm
So ' 0>
drips ' pEaZ
'I/buz
50 ' 0>
ff7oL 'uznituo�g0
z/bM
S00'0>
d'IJ,l 'tuntutpEO
z /bul
s c • o
azos
'I/b
ZO' 0
d'Iox
PauOEq,4`d
sozuabzco aTTWETon azos
Pau3l,44v
s0tu-uba0 aTTWETonTUMS d'lol
PauaLl"44V
d'IOS
OCT
spTToS /45ay a94TTJ d'IOS
lansau uasaFl
g4TUIS Ta2x�oTX -aid :OS, maodau
06/61/ZZ : alva laoclau
06/01/ZT :Q,oad ndxvs
TO-060-ZT-06 : # ?daa'dO x1doM
06/9/ZT geav -4soclmoo
dZOs/APn4s TazoadS
A-4TTTos3 agsodmoJ TLuoTba'd
Aa07(0TH 30 A-4ZO :233InIOSSfio
suodzu groisaflyNy
SLZLZ JN 'uol8uijjng • b9SS•b9S (6W • p*021 lMN' uew4anH 5L9 • LStq )cog aD!;�p IS04
uollbuilm8
suoiRvlljo 3 At Buig �genbV NYYd
sa�inJa5 RuiIOUPt{ R3F(j Rvil�ocfay . $u!liJl S3odN'' • sa>'»aS `utlsal :)Jlvv
SUO1vFl1jen3 uOiunpaS A7p±xVl DgpnbV • ruilsal Ameota :inenbv S le:01J,tIeuv 1

�. cr ♦ i a �. uurta. a li Vl 1 V 1'1 IC C.�GF7R l,.n P . 04
S �
Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Services • N°DES Testing a Reporting 8 Data Handling $ervices
RMN Aquatic Bioassay Fvaluations
Burliligfon
Research Post Office box 2481 •615 Huffman Mill Road • [phone] • Burlington, NC 27215
EPA TCLP VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS BY GC/Ms (METHOD 8260)
WORK ORDER NUMBER(S): 90-12-090-01
METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL); See below
Federal
Regulatory
ANALYTE
MDL
Level ( rig / L )
1
CHLOROFORM
16
ug/L
6.0
2
CARBON .TET_RACHLORIDE
28
ug/L
0.5
3
TETRACHLOROETHENE
41
ug/L
0.7
.4
CHLOROBENZENE. -
60
ug/L
100.0
5
112—DICHLOROETHANE
28
ug/L
0.5
6
BENZENE
60
ug/L
0.5
7
VINYL CHLORIDE
65
ug/L
0.2
8
1,1—DICHLOROETHENE
28
ug/L
0.7
9
TRICHLOROETHENE
19
ug/L
0.5
10
114—DICHLOROBENZENE
100
ug/L
7.5
11
2—BUTANONE (MEK)
300
ug/L
200.0
12
PYRIDINE
250
ug/L
5.0
*BELOW DETECTION LIMITS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED
RESULTS REPORTED AS mg/L OF TCLP/ZHE EXTRACT
tclpvoal.sca
CONC. (mgL)-

t
IFBu lin�ton
1111
RE st rch
Analytical Services • Aquatic 8%0assav Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
AATCC Testing Service" • NPDES T"ting • Reporting 3 Data Handling Services
P,MN Aquavit Bioassay Evaluations
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman Mill Road ! [phone] • Burlinvtnn me,
TCLP SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
(EPA METHOD 8270)
WORK ORDER: 90-12-090-01
Method Quantitation
Limit
(MQL) in mg/L
: see
below
Federal
Anai=z
Regulatory
o-Cresol
�_
Conc (m
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
200.0
200.0
0.010
0.010
Cresol (total)'
200.0
0.010
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
200.0
0.010
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
7•5
0.010
Hexachlorobenzene
0.13
0.010
Hexachloro-113-butadiene
Hexachloroethane
0.13
0.5
0.010
0.010
It
*
Nitrobenzene
3.0
0.010
Pentachlorophenol
2.0
0.010
Pyridine
100.0
0.010
2,415-Trichlorophenol
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol
5.0
400.0
0.010
0.010
2.0
0.010
*Compound below Method Quantitation Limit
Results are
amounts found
in the TCLP extract.
tclpsv.fed

Ic
111,
B r�.y• u ngton
Research
P.06
Analytical Services • Aquatic Bioassay Testing • Aquatic Toxicity Redur.tion Evaluations
AATC.0 Testing Se
rvicPt • NPOES Testing • Reporting & Data Handling Services
PMN Aquat,C Bioassay Evaluations
Post Office Box 2481 • 615 Huffman NUN Road • [phone] 9 Burlington. NC 27215
TCLP PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
(EPA METHOD 8080 AND 8150)
Work Order #: 90-12-090-01
Method Detection Limit
(MDL) in mg/L •
see below
Federal
An_alv,te
Regulatory
Level (mq/L)
MDL
Chlordane
Endrin
0.03
0.0002
Heptachlor
0.02
0.008
0.0002
0.0002
Lindane
.Methoxychlor
0.4
0.0002
Toxaphene
10.0
0.0002
2,4-D -
0.5
0.0002
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
10.0
1.0
0.0002
0.0002
*Compound below Method
Detection Limit
Results are amounts found in the TCLP
extract.
tclpphex.fed
Conc. tmcr/L)

1 , C. nZp7. OF NATURAL
.'
®r))
�ESQBJIZCES AN��U1�IYTg' UEVELOPD4E. JAN 3 1 1992
�i�illSl(1@1 OF E12V4�OPts?E?;jAi ?!Qil'G;i:�;i�
State of North Carolina rowllli, 11E�t�tll+t ®6ffGE
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 29, 1992
Mr. Wm. Jerry Twiggs,
Public Utilities Director
City of Hickory
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Subject: Application No. WQ0004563
Additional Information Request
City of Hickory
Compost Facility
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Twiggs:
On March 26, 1991 an additional information was forwarded to your attention as a result of the
Permits and Engineering Units preliminary review of the City of Hickory's renewal of the subject permit.
The return date for the requested information was on May 26, 1991. The Division is in receipt of a letter
dated May 22, 1991 indicating the City's response to the additional information letter. The letter also
indicated that continuing efforts are being made to demonstrate the Process to Further Reduce Pathogens
(PFRP). To date, the Division has not received any further information in reference to the compost facility
meeting PFRP. Please be advised that Non -Discharge permit applications must be processed in a timely
manner. When responding to the outstanding concerns with PFRP, please indicate where the sludge
which is generated from the wastewater treatment plants that are usually served by the compost facility
have been disposed of during the past six (6) months.
If the City feels that the efforts to demonstrate PFRP can not be completed within the allotted thiry
day time frame, the package will be returned as incomplete. In order for the City to operate the compost
facilty the City must hold a valid permit.
Refer to the subject permit application number when providing the requested information. Please
submit four copies of all information to Ms. Angela Y. Griffin's attention at the address
below. Also, please note that failure to provide this additional information on or before March 2, 1992
will subject your application to being returned as incomplete, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0208.
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

y Page 2
1 Permit No. WQ0004563
January 29, 1992
5083.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call Ms. Angela Y. Griffin or myself at 919/ 733-
Sincerely,
C &. Q,��-
Carolyn .McCaskill, Supervisor
State Engineering Review Group
cc: o e lc gion�C-�)O-
Groundwater Section
Permit File WQ0004563
Hazen and Sawyer

Lb IL trw T. OF NAT[
/ RESOURCES AND
COMMUNITY D&ELOPMENT,
.V
11 aG 1 1 1992
$, '
• �1pyF,GEhiFliI State of North Carolina
tlt!��" of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
l� Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Wm. Jerry Twiggs,
Public Utilities Director
City of Hickory
Post Office Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
Dear Mr. Twiggs:
George T. Evere
March 10, 1992
Subject: Permit No. WQ0004563
City of Hickory
Regional Compost Facility
Catawba County
In accordance with your application received December 27, 1990, we are forwarding herewith
Permit No. WQ0004563, dated March 10, 1992, to the City of Hickory for the construction and operation
of the subject facilities.
This permit shall void Permit No. 13254 and shall be effective from the date of issuance until
February 28, 1997, and shall be subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein. Please pay
particular attention to the monitoring requirements in this permit. Failure to establish an adequate system
for collecting and maintaining the required operational information will result in future compliance
problems.
If any Pam, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have
the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days following receipt of this
Permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447,
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville
Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733 2314 9 9/946-6481 9 9/395 3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Twiggs
March 10, 1992
Page Two
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact Ms. Angela Y. Griffin at
919/ 733-5083.
cc: Catawba County Health Department
Mooresville Re oral "Office '.• µ�1-�y.-
Groundwater Section, Jack Floydunciwater
Facilities Assessment Unit
Training and Certification Unit

NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION .
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH
COMPOST PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina
amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMIISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
City of Hickory
Catawba County
FOR THE
continued operation of a wastewater treatment plant sludge composting facility consisting of the
composting of the sludge for the sources listed in Condition II 3. on a 1.5 meter belt filter press, dual
DAF sludge thickeners (250,000 gallon capacity), polymer feed and odor control system, sludge
composting consists of a four (4) bin receiving and mixing station, dual enclosed mechanical bioreactors, a
two (2) acre curing area and a 0.150 MGD extended aeration wastewater pretreatment facility to serve the
City of Hickory with no discharge of wastes to the surface waters, pursuant to the application received
December 27, 1990 and in conformity with the project plan, specifications, and other supporting data
subsequently filed and approved by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and
considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall void Permit No. 13254 and shall be effective from the date of issuance until
February 28, 1997, and shall be subject to the following specified conditions and limitations:
I. PERFORMANt`F gTANneunc
1 • The Mooresville Regional Office, phone no. [phone] shall be notified at least forty-
eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an in -place
inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during
the normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday,
excluding State Holidays.
Z.- 'This permit shall become voidable in the event of failure of the sludge composting facility
to adequately protect the assigned water quality standards of the surface waters and
groundwaters.
M

3. The sludge composting program shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non -
discharge system to prevent discharge of any wastes resulting from the operation of this
program.
4. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the Permittee of the responsibility for damages
to surface or groundwaters resulting from the operation of this facility.
5. In the event that the sludge composting program is not operated satisfactorily, including the
creation of nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take such immediate corrective action as
may be required by this Department, including the construction of additional or replacement
wastewater treatment or disposal facilities.
6. Diversion or bypassing of the untreated sludge or compost drainage wastewater from the
compost facilities is prohibited
7. Compost sludge should not be used in areas of intense public use (schools, playgrounds,
etc.).
1. The facilities and disposal sites shall be properly maintained and operated at all times.
2. The sludge composting operation must be conducted under the supervision of the certified
wastewater treatment plant operator required by the Certification Commission for operation
of the City of Hickory's Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plants, NPDES Permit No.
NCO020401 and the City of Hickory's Henry Fork Wastewater Treatment Plants, NPDES
Permit No. NC0040797.
3. No sludges other than the following are hereby approved for composting in accordance
with this permit:
Source
Pemut
` city or Hickory NE
"City
ou
nty
Catawba
NCO020401
of Hickory HF
Town of Newton
Catawba
NCO040797
City of Conover NE
Catawba
Catawba
NCO036196
NCO024252
"City of Conover SW
(,City of Conover SE
Catawba
NCO024261
Catawba
NCO024279
4. All compost shall be stored on the concrete composting pad during composting and until
such time as it is distributed to the buyer. If an alternate storage site is to be used, approval
must be obtained from the Division of Environmental Management.
5� - No compost shall be marketed that does not meet the criteria for the Process to Further
Reduce Pathogens, which for a static aerated pile the compost pile must be maintained at
operating temperatures of 550 C (1310 F) or greater for three (3) days. The use of any
other composting method shall require a permit amendment prior to the distribution of any
such compost.
2

1. Any monitoring (including groundwater, surface water, sludge, soil, or plant tissue
analyses) deemed necessary by the Division of Environmental Management to insure
protection of the environment will be established and an acceptable sampling and reporting
schedule shall be followed.
- - - 2• The City of Hickory shall maintain records including, but not limited to the following:
a. volume, source, and analysis of sludge and compost
b. date, duration and temperature during composting
c. name of compost recipient, volume received, and intended use
An annual summary report (three copies) of the records required above shall be submitted
on or before March 1 of the following year by City of Hickory, to the following address:
NC Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Facility Assessment Unit
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
3 • The City of Hickory shall present to each recipient of compost written information that
clearly states that compost sludge cannot be used on areas where root or leaf crops for
direct human consumption are to be grown within one (1) year of the last application of
compost to the site. The City of Hickory shall also include written recommendations to the
compost recipients for satisfactory uses of compost material such as horticulture,
silvicultural, other agricultural uses not specifically prohibited, etc.
4. Noncompliance Notification:
The Pernuttee shall report by telephone to the Mooresville Regional Office, telephone no.
[phone], as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next
working day following the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the
following:
a. Any occurrence with the composting program which results in the composting of
significant amounts of wastes which are abnormal in quantity or characteristic.
b. Any failure of the composting program resulting in a discharge of wastes to
receiving waters.
C. Any time that self -monitoring information indicates that the facility has gone out of
compliance with the conditions and limitations of this permit or the parameters on
which the system was designed.
d. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility
incapable of adequate sludge treatment.

e. Any leakage or spillage that occurs during the transfer or transport of the compost
material.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter
form within 15 days following first knowledge of the occurrence. This report must outline
the actions taken or proposed to be taken to ensure that the problem does not recur.
IV. GROUNDWATER REQUERF TENTS
l• Any groundwater quality monitoring as deemed necessary by the Division of
Environmental Management shall be provided.
V. INSPECTIONS
1 • The Permittee or his designee shall inspect the sludge storage, transport, and composting
facilities to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors and discharges which
may cause or lead to the release of wastes to the environment, a threat to human health, or a
nuisance. The Permittee shall keep an inspection log or summary including at least the date
and time of inspection, observations made, and any maintenance, repairs, or corrective
actions taken by the Permittee. This log of inspections shall be maintained by the Permittee
for a period of three years from the date of the inspection and shall be made available upon
request by the Division of Environmental Management or other permitting authority.
2. Any duly authorized officer, employee, or representative of the Division of Environmental
Management may, upon presentation of credentials, enter and inspect any property,
premises or place on or related to the composting facility and facility at any reasonable tie�
for the purpose of determining compliance with this permit; may inspect or copy any
records that must be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; or may obtain
samples of groundwater, surface water, or leachate.
VI• GENERAL nNT)TTTQNS
1 • This permit shall become voidable unless the land application activities are carried out in
accordance with the conditions of this permit and in the manner approved by this Division.
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in
the application and other supporting data.
3. This permit is not transferable. In the event there is a desire for the facilities to change
ownership or a name change of the Penmittee a formal
the Division of Environmental Management accompanierrrdt d b request anusat b 1 submitted
documentation from the parties involved, and other supporting materials as ion fee,
be
appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits and may or may
not be approved.
4• Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this
Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Environmental altManagementtiin
accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6.
4

5. The annual administering and compliance fee must be paid by the Permittee within thirty
(30) days after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee accordingly may cause
the Division to initiate action to revoke this permit as specified by 15 NCAC 2H .0205
(c)(4).
6. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and
all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government
agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
- - T. A set of approved documents for the subject project must be retained by the applicant for
the life of the project.
8. The Permittee, at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of this permit, shall request its
extension. Upon receipt of the request, the Commission will review the adequacy of the
facilities described therein, and if warranted, will extend the permit for such period of time
and under such conditions and limitations as it may deem appropriate.
9. This permit may be modified or reissued to incorporate any conditions, limitations and
monitoring requirements the Division of Environmental Management deems necessary in
order to adequately protect the environment and public health.
Permit issued this the 10th day of March, 1992
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
`Ueorge Everett, Dyc�
Division of Environ�n
By Authority of the E
Permit No. WQ0004563
Management Commission
5

Disposal. It'
l� .-.I c` _ J• � j \ ,' \� ,�.-�— t 41 �� • I�. •` � -- 2 30
Ceit1'/(u�eteT,a c � f- ° J \1'rairgrove ; yore , 4 r ,
+ .Ch �• \` ` ��/ \^" (r
/ III 1 �1 \ •••\ / / , `.�\ + 1 . �f •. tii .'(.. 't I •\
sk
91
II \)
I� l u �< 1\ i' 11 Driv 'ri:; `y Fairb,00 k i '1 l� j; I' `, I , • ���, i 3951
r �I, ri er:; .." •a i. r % Imo. I l
g I U _ • 1F } 1%\ � ' ..% • , �„� Y J �;IJ64 I�•� (i'-:�\{�\ • •.1 �� ' 11 � �•1'I' �i' // _
Mica ns
'° \ I1 \. `\,__ziJ, i ! �%. •,\•('nU, n. nIL•y t' p •I i 111 `-�`��,//� .. �- `•
�l -�• \�� • / 11 ` � '• I __•
'l %� %�\_ • i/,• t `. =� '��, `,� ��;: 1 � Catawla !` 1 •, ! •C� 6 ;�lli' �!a�
roJ \ Memorial Park' \�t l n 967
Hickory
lt�•, 1, \` tt - '''Speedway 39
50
Ch
Cem
1-7
/%'�/ ,•' •\ �(' % ���( �' � ' • /�lI• I 't ',J % ,, l � _ i' •.'` ;r!' tea• � � � 3
99
Oil
rr
987
Ng
FM,�j
IF A
3948
6146
991
3947
u 1 00• •,1 •, .
� }//�-;. �' l \ �./� _ !i. •i II \`' -_ice//_-1,'�
1 40'

DIVIS•I&(& ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Ca
'wv' GROUNDWATER SECTION
March 4, 1987
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reginald Sutton
Construction Grants
FROM: Bob Cheek f,��
SUBJECT: Amendment to Hickory -Newton 201 Plan, Catawba County
The Groundwater Section has reviewed the amended plan, as
revised January, 1987.
We would recommend project approval with the provision
that --sludge, while stored at the composting site be isolated
from the groundwater environment.
BC/ls
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Rick Klingel•,
Central Files
Groundwater Files