NC0088501_Permit Issuance_20071126

NPDE!i DOCUHENT !iCANNINC COVER SHEET
NPDES
Permit:
NC0088501
Stonington — Well #1 WTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Denial
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 26, 2007
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse aside

Mr. Gary Moseley
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, North Carolina 28037
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 26, 2007
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit NC0088501
Stonington Subdivision Well #1
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Gary:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for new NPDES permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant
to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
This fmal permit includes the following changes from the draft permit dated September
26, 2007:
> The monthly monitoring requirements for fluoride and zinc have been deleted because Aqua
NorthCarolina, Inc. neither backwashes with fluoridated water nor uses zinc -based additives in
the water treatment process.
> The total residual chlorine limit of 17 ug/L will become effective on June 1, 2009. However,
the 2/month monitoring requirement becomes effective on January 1, 2008.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such
demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required
by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
N Caro a
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] _ Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

If you have any questions conceming this permit, please contact Agyeman Adu-Poku at
telephone number [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
cc: Central Files
NPDES File
Winston-Salem Regional Office / Surface Water Protection
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc./J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, NC 28124-8567

Permit NC0088501
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE BACKWASH WASTEWATER FROM GREENSAND FILTERATION WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM AND SIMILAR WASTEWATERS UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance lwith the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Stonington Subdivision —Well #1
Stonington Way Court, Kemersville
Forsyth County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Abbotts Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts
I, II and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2008.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2009.
Signed this day November 26, 2007.
,iv'Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0088501
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The Aqua North Carolina, Inc. is hereby authorized to:
1. Discharge backwash wastewater from a greensand filtration water treatment system, and similar
wastewaters through outfall 001. This wastewater system is located at the Stonington
Subdivision Well #1, Stonington Way Court, Kemersville in Forsyth County.
2. Discharge from said outfall at the location specified on the attached map into an unnamed
tributary to Abbots Creek, classified WS-M waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.

Stonington Subdivision Well #1
Receiving Stream: UT to Abbots Creek Subbasin: 03-07-07
Drainage Basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Latitude: 36° 02' 5" N
Longitude: 80° 04' 32" W Permitted Flow: 0.0021 MGD
Stream Class: WS-III Grid/Quad: C 18 SE, Kemersville
North
NPDES Permit No. NC0088501
Forsyth County

Permit NC0088501
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (001)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge backwash wastewater from a greensand filtration water treatment system and similar
wastewaters through outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
0.0021 MGD
Instantaneous
E
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
2/Month
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
17.0 ug/L
2/Month
Grab
E
Total Arsenic
Monthly
Grab
E
Calcium
Monthly
Grab
E
,-Chromium
Monthly
Grab
E •
Total Copper
Monthly
Grab
E
Magnesium
Monthly
Grab
E
— Ivfe'rcury
Monthly
Grab
E
Eckel
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Iron
Monthly
Grab
E
lenium
Monthly
Grab
E
Total Manganese
Monthly
Grab
E
pH3
2/Month
Grab
E
Footnotes:
1. Sampling locations: E=Effluent.
2. The total residual chlorine (TRC) limit will become effective on June 1, 2009. However, 2/month monitoring is required
beginning on January 1, 2008.
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

MEMORANDUM
To:
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
September 26, 2007
Lee Spencer
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Winston-Salem Regional Office
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku A-/ °
NPDES Western Program
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0088501
Stonington Subdivision Well# 1
Forsyth County
,.,.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the attached draft permit and
return this form by November 2, 2007. If you have any questions on the draft permit,
please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed at the bottom of this
page.
Coleco H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept of ENR
SEP 2 7 2007
Winston•5alom
Regional Office
RESPONSE: (Check one)
O C T 3 0 2007
ILJ.
FR-7-
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained
properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not
contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed , Z .. 1 Date: �Z G/ O
//Attachment
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwatcrquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

NORTH CAROLINA
FORSYTH COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared D.H. Stanfield, who being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is
Controller of the Winston-Salem Journal, engaged in the publishing of a newspaper
known as Winston-Salem Journal, published, issued and entered as second class mail
in the City of Winston-Salem, in said County and State: that he is authorized to
make this affidavit and sworn statement: that the notice or other legal advertisement,
a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in Winston-Salem Journal on
the following dates:
September 29, 2007
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper document, or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every such publication, a
newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the
meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This 1st day of October, 2007
(signature of
aking affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 1st day of October, 2007
My Commission expires: September 28, 2010
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and applica-
tion of NC General Statute 143.21, Public law 92-500
and other lawful standards and regulations, the
North Carolina Environmental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater
discharge permit to the person(s) listed below ef-
fective 45 days from the publish date of this notice.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days after the publish date
of this notice. All comments received prior to that
date are considered in the final determinations
regarding the proposed permit. The Director of the
NC Division of Water Quality may decide to hold
a public meeting for the proposed permit should
the Division receive, a significant degree of public
interest
Copies of the draft permit and other supporting
information on file used to determine conditions
present in the draft permit are available upon
request and payment of the costs of reproduction.
Mail comments and/or requests for information to
the NC Division of Water Quality at the above ad-
dress or call Dina Sprinkle [phone], extension
363 at the Point Source. Branch. Please include
the NPDES permit number (attached) in any com-
munication. Interested persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review information on file.
Aqua North Carolina ;Inc. (Lois Lane, ML Airy, North
Carolina) has applied for a new NPDES Permit
NC0088625 for the Hollows Subdivision - Well #1 In
Surry .County. This permitted facility discharges
2000 gallons per day of greensand filter backwash
water to an unnamed tributary to Stewarts Creek
within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. Total Sus-
pended Solids (TSS) and total residual chlorine are
currently water quality limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this portion- of the
Stewarts Creek.
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Town Lane, Mt. Airy,
North Carolina) has applied for a new NPDES Per-
mit NC0088536 for the Bannertown Hills Subdivision
- Well #2 in Surry Ceunty. This permitted facility
discharges 1600 gallons per day of greonsand
filter backwash water to an unnamed tributary to
Faulkner Creek within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Ba-
sin. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and total residual
chlorine are currently water quality limited. This
discharge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the Faulkner Creek.

•
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. has applied for a NPDES
permit, number NC0088633, for the Reeves Woods
Subdivision Well #2 WTP near Mount Airy in Surry
County. The facility discharges filter backwash into
an unnamed tributary in the Yadkin River Basin.
The new permit sets TSS, Total Residual Chlorine,
and pH as water quality limited parameters. This
discharge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the Yadkin River Basin. •
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Stonington Way Court,
Kernersville, North Carolina) has applied for a new
NPDES Permit NC0088501 for the Stonington Subdi•
vision - Well #1 in Forsyth County. This permitted
facility discharges 2100 gallons per day of green-
. sand filter backwash water to an unnamed tributa-
ry to Abbotts Creek within the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basin. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and total
residual chlorine are currently water quality limit-
ed. This discharge may affect future allocations in
this portion of the Abbotts Creek.
Q-Huts, Inc. has applied for renewal of NPDES per-
mit NC0036242 for the Woodland Hills Apartments
WWTP in Watauga County. This permitted facility
discharges treated wastewater to Brushy Fork
Creek, class C waters in the Watauga River Basin.
Currently, ammonia and total residual chlorine are
water quality limited. This discharge may affect
future allocations in this portion of the watershed.
Water Quality Utilities, Inc. has applied for renewal
of NPDES permit NC0050610 for The Ponds WWTP in
Watauga County. This permitted facility discharges
treated wastewater to the Watauga River, class B-
Trout waters in the Watauga River Basin. Currently,
biochemical oxygen demand (B0D), total suspend-
ed solids (TSS) and ammonia are water quality lim-
ited. This discharge may affect future allocations in
this portion of the watershed.
Water Quality Services, Inc. has applied for renewal
of NPDES permit NC0061425 for the Willow Valley
Resort WWTP in Watauga County. This permitted
facility discharges treated wastewater to Laurel
Fork, class C-Trout waters in the Watauga River Ba-
sin. Currently, ammonia is water quality limited.
This discharge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the watershed.
The Laurel Seasons WWTP, NC0038041, has applied
for renewal of its permit discharging to Laurel Fork
in the Watauga River Basin. Currently B0D5, TSS,
Fecal Coliform and TRC arc water quality limited.
This discharge may affect future allocations in this
portion of the River basin.
WSJ: September 29, 2007

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(This form is best filled out on computer, rather than hard copy)
Date: 08/15/2007 County: Forsyth
To: NPDES Discharge Permitting Unit Permitee: Aqua North Carolina
Attn. NPDES Reviewer: Agyeman Adu-Poku Application/ Permit No.: NC0088501
Staff Report Prepared By: Rose Pruitt
Project Name: Stonington Subdivision Well #1
SOC Priority Project? (Y/N) N If Yes, SOC No.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): ® New ❑ Renewal
❑ Modification
2. Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? ® Yes or ❑i �I
II i
a. Date of site visit: 06/26/2007
b. Person contacted and telephone number:
c. Site visit conducted by: Rose Pruitt
d. Inspection Report Attached: ❑ Yes or ® No.
{
AUG 2 1 2007 !,
I I
3. Keeping BIMS Accurate: Is the following BIMS information (a. through e. below) correct?
® Yes or ® No. If No, please either indicate that it is correct on the current application or the
existing permit or provide the details. If none can be supplied, please explain:
Discharge Point: (Fill this section only if BIMS or Application Info is incorrect or missing)
(If there is more than one discharge pipe, put the others on the last page of this form.)
a. Location OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit (1, or provide Location:
b. Driving Directions OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit n, or provide Driving Directions (please be accurate):
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide USGS Quadrangle Map name and number:
d. Latitude/Longitude OK on Application ❑, (check at http://www.topozone.com These are often
inaccurate) OK on Existing Permit L. or provide Latitude: Longitude:
e. Receiving Stream OK on Application ❑,
OK on Existing Permit ❑, or provide Receiving Stream or affected waters:
a. Stream Classification:
b. River Basin and Sub basin No.:
c. Describe receiving stream features and downstream uses:
For NEW FACILITIES Proceed to Section C, Evaluation and Recommendations
(For renewals or modifications continue to section B)

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND WASTE(S) (renewals and modifications only)
1. Describe the existing treatment facility:
2. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ❑ Yes or ❑ No.
Operator in Charge: Certificate # (Available in BIMS or Certification Website)
Back- Operator in Charge: Certificate #
3. Does the facility have operational or compliance problems? Please comment:
Summarize your BIMS review of monitoring data (Notice(s) of violation within the last permit cycle;
Current enforcement action(s)):
Are they currently under SOC, ❑ Currently under JOC, 0 Currently under moratorium ❑? Have
all compliance dates/conditions in the existing permit, SOC, JOC, etc. been complied with? ❑ Yes
or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Residuals Treatment: PSRP ❑ (Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens, Class B) or
PFRP ❑ (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens, Class A)?
Are they liquid or dewatered to a cake?
Land Applied? Yes El No 0 If so, list Non -Discharge Permit No.
Contractor Used:
Landfilled? Yes ❑ No❑ If yes, where?
Other?
Adequate Digester Capacity? Yes ❑ No ❑ Sludge Storage Capacity? Yes ❑ No 0
Please comment on current operational practices:
S. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before issuing this
permit? ❑ Yes or 0 No. If yes, please explain:
C. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. AlternativeAnalysis Evaluation: has the facility evaluated the non -discharge options available? Give
regional perspective for each option evaluated:
Spray Irrigation:
Connect to Regional Sewer System: Not available
Subsurface:
Other Disposal Options:
2. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application: NOI is for an existing
discharge and to bring facility into compliance
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 2

NPDES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3. List any items that you would like NPDES Unit to obtain through an additional information
request. Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Recommended Additional Information Reason
4. List specific Permit requirements that you recommend to be removed from the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each condition:
Recommended Removal Reason
5. List specific special requirements or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in
the permit when issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Recommended Addition
Reason
6. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office;
❑ Hold, pending review and approval of required additional information by NPDES permitting
office; ® Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
Reminder: attach inspection report if Yes was che�ked for 2 d
7. Signature of report preparer:
lox
Signature of WQS regional supervisor:
Date: 5 /Ca 0 7
FORM: NPDES-RRO 06/03, 9/03 3

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit Number
,NCOO1g5Oj
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Facility Name Stonington Subdivision - Well # 1
Mailing Address 4163 Sinclair Street
City Denver
State / Zip Code NC/28037
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
e-mail Address [e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above ❑
Street Address or State Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
Stonington Way Court
Kernersville
NC / 2- 3 a `T 8-z 4.
Forsyth
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
4. Ownership Status:
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver
NC/28037
[phone]
[phone]
Federal ❑ State ❑
Private ® Public ❑
Page 1 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
5. Type of treatment plant:
❑ Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
❑ Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
® Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Groundwater well
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
Green sand filtration using potassium permanganate. Chlorine added for disinfection.
Caustic soda added for pH adjustment.
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility
Wastewater discharge is the backwash of the green sand filters. Discharge rate is
approximately 2,100 gallons, once every two days.
9. Number of separate discharge points: 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
10. Frequency of discharge:
Continuous ❑ Intermittent
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: 3 Duration: approx. 20 min.
11. Plant design potable flowrate 0.0619 MGD
Backwash or reject flow 0.0021 MGD
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact Iocation of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
an unnamed tributary to Abbotts Creek (Yadkin River Basin)
Page 2 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals, that have the
potential to be discharged.
potassium permanganate
chlorine
caustic soda
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑
No
15. Additional Information:
• Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the treatment process, and point of addition of chemicals.
• Solids Handling Plan
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15:
• New applicants must contact the NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ® Yes 0 No
• Analyses of source water collected
• Engineering Alternative Analysis
• Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Gary Mosely
Printe name of Person Signing
Signaturef Applicant
Manager, Western N. C.
Title
Z. LI /07
Date
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that: Any person who knowingly makes any false
statement representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document files or
required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission
implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or
monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the
Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable
by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section
1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both,
for a similar offense.)
Page 3 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Ms. Susan Wilson
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 - 1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Existing Well Backwash Discharge
Aqua, North Carolina, Inc.
Stonington Subdivision
Forsyth County
Dear Ms. Wilson:
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124-8567
704-788-4455
Fax: [phone]
March 15, 2007
0 d 1
MAR 2 6 2007
DER - WATER t U.ALI1Y
POIWT SOiiNCE
Attached are four (4) copies of the signed Local Government Review Form for the subject
NPDES permit application. This was not included with the original submittal package.
We appreciate your consideration of our application for permit. If you have any questions or if
there is anything we need to discuss, please call me (704-788-4455.)
C: Gary Moseley
Mike Melton

Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
General Statute Overview: North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in the issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application for a new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility until it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EMC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State.
Instructions to the Applicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall request that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
• Submit a copy of the permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
• If either (or both) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDESUnit.
• As evidence to the Commission that the local government(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to the Local Government: The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land oa which the proposed facility or its appurtenances are to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The form must be signed and notarized.
Name of local government
Forsyth County
(City/County)
Does the city/cou have jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes [vf No [ ] If no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and
d return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance? Yes [v]Vigo [ ]
Iftherei
• No [vJ'
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed facility consistent with the ordinance? Yes [ ]
Date 3/09/07
Signature 4e) t:
State of N(s r 1-L CQ r o 1 t' h(a� , County of P o r S 1 'f-Lt
On this 41% day of M
(City Manager/County Manage
2 061, personally appeared before me, the said
name J . D vc1 le (oki - to me known and known to me to be the person described in
and who executed th4 foregoing Eldiument and he (or she) acknowledged that he or she) executed the same
by me, made oath that the statements in the foregoing document are true. ( and being duly sworn
MyCommission expires' •
, 1ST 2b o 7 .(Signature of Notary Public) ,�
Notary u 'c (Official Seal)
OFFICIAL SEAL
PATRICIA A. GRIFFIN
NOTARY PUBLIC -NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF FORSYTH
My Commisston Epl<es January 25, 2009
EAA Guidance Document Version: June 23, 2005
Page 8 of 8
4

Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Mr. Dudley Watts
County Manager
Forsyth County
201 N. Chestnut St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
RECEIVED
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124-8567
704-788-4455
Fax: [phone]
FEB 2 7 2007 February 21. 2007
COUNTY MANAGER'S/
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE
Subject: Request for Local Government Review
NPDES Permit Application
Existing Well Backwash Discharge
Stonington Subdivision
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Watts:
Attached is a copy of an application for permit signed by Aqua North Carolina, Inc. This
application is for a permit for the continued discharge of backwash from filters installed on an
existing potable well which serves the Stonington Subdivision, located outside the Kernersville. I
have also attached a map to indicate the existing location.
As part of the application process, the state requires that we notify the local government and ask
that they complete the attached form which indicates whether the local government has a zoning
or subdivision ordinance and whether the continued discharge is consistent with that ordinance.
This is an existing groundwater well that filters water through a series of filters before the water
is distributed to the Stonington community. The filters are "backwashed" with water
approximately once every two days and approximately 2,100 gallons of water is then discharged
into the nearby stream.
This has been in service for a number of years and we are not aware of any concerns over this
discharge, other than that the state has advised that we must apply for a permit.
As the state has instructed, we are trying to file this application as soon as possible. If you could
complete, sign and return this form, it will be very helpful.
We apologize for the necessity to ask for this assistance but I hope that you can appreciate our
dilemma.
If you have any questions or if there is anything we need to discuss, please call me (704-788-
4455.)
Sin
C:
rman orne, P. E.
Gary Mosely
NC DENR

•
Existing Wastewater Discharge Alternatives Evaluation
car
furl
rwl
JUR
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Applicant :
Facility
Prepared by:
Date:
Stonington Subdivision
Kernersville, N.C.
Forsyth County
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, N.C. 28037
Ph: 704-489-9404
Contact: Gary Mosely
Stonington Subdivision Well # 1
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Stonington Way Court
Kernersville N.C. 27073
Ph: 704-489-9404
Contact: Gary Mosely
J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
N.C. 28124
Mt. Pleasant,
Ph: 704-788-4455
February 18, 2007
rya 68t80SS06866

2
Table of Contents
Section 1: General
1.01 Introduction.
Page
3
3
1.02 Scope. 3
1.1
Section 2: Background Information ..3
2.01 Project Area. 3
2.02 Site Characteristics. 4
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics 4
Section 3: Existing Utilities ..4
�► 3.01 Public Facilities. 4
3.02 Private Facilities. 4
1.+ Section4: Alternatives Ite rnatives For Service 5
4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal 5
4.02: Wastewater Reuse. 6
4.03: Surface Water Discharge 6
4.04: Combination of Alternatives 6
Section 5: Summary and Conclusions. 7
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities. 7
Appendix A Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Appendix B USGS Location Map and Aerial Photo
Appendix C Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Appendix D Possible Locations for Subsurface Land Disposal
Appendix E Possible Locations for Surface Land Disposal
Appendix F SCS Soil Maps and Soil Descriptions
Appendix G Summary of Analysis of Well Water Constituents
Appendix H Existing Process Flow Schematic
Appendix I Residuals Management Plan
Appendix J Local Government Review

3
PWI
Section 1: General
1.01 Introduction:
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Aqua NC) currently owns and operates an existing well
water system serving Stonington Subdivision (Stonington), located south of
Kernersville, N.C. in Forsyth County. Well #1 of the water system uses an
assembly of green sand filters in the treatment of groundwater prior to distribution
to the Stonington community. These filters are backwashed, using potable water,
approximately once every two days. This backwash is a relatively small volume of
approximately 2,100 gallons. The discharge exits the well house via a 1-1/2" PVC
pipe and is released into an intermittent stream that is an unnamed tributary to
Abbotts Creek in the Yadkin River basin.
The well has a good overall history of compliance with water supply regulations,
but is required to obtain an NPDES permit for the continued operation of the
existing backwash discharge.
11
The Stonington water system currently has 23 customers. Well # 1 is approved for
43 gpm. No expansion of this well is planned and the system is sufficient to serve
the subdivision. Whereas this well is limited by its current yield capacity, the
subdivision is fully developed and since no expansion of the subdivision or service
area is planned, there is no potential for any population increase to affect the
existing rate of water use or backwash discharge flow.
The review of this source and the consideration of alternatives is being made with
inclusion of consideration of the guidance contained in "Permitting Strategy For
Greensand Filtration Water Treatment Plants - January 2004")
1.02 Scope:
1.1 The scope of this project is limited to the investigation and evaluation of
alternatives for treating and/or disposing of the existing green sand filter backwash
from Well # 1 at Stonington Subdivision. This includes consideration of the
mit feasibility of continuing the existing discharge and options for eliminating the
existing discharge.
Section 2: Background Information
2.01 Project Area:
The existing service area is limited to the Stonington Subdivision. All homes are
single family residences. There are no commercial or industrial customers. All
wastewater is typical backwash from green sand filters.
The existing discharge coordinates are: Longitude: -80.0759532 W
Latitude: 36.0347382 N

4
rev
Poi
larl
2.02 Site Characteristics:
The subdivision is located in a rural portion of Forsyth county, outside any
municipal limits and remote from public water and/or sewer. The nearest existing
sewer is approximately 1.6 miles away.
The general area has soil characteristics which are limited to the possibility of on
site treatment and disposal.
Terrain is generally rolling but has been graded level at the existing well site.
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics:
The receiving stream is intermittent in nature and is an unnamed tributary to
Abbotts Creek which is WS-III waters. The receiving stream is obviously a zero
flow stream (7Q10 and 30Q2 = 0) but since the wastewater discharge is not
oxygen consuming, discharge into the zero flow stream should be allowable under
state procedures.
This receiving stream has no known outstanding features or characteristics that
should preclude the continuation of the existing discharge. There are no known
endangered or threatened species and these are not threatened or impaired
waters.
Section 3: Existing Utilities
3.01 Public Facilities:
The nearest existing public sewer is located approximately 1.6 miles northwest of
rom
the existing well near the junction of Teague Lane and Watkins Ford Road. The
distance that would be required for sewer force mains to be installed would be
,., approximately 8,200 ft. This would be the route that appears to be the most
practical from an engineering perspective to take advantage of following existing
highway right of way and have minimal impact to adjacent property owners.
The City of Winston-Salem Utilities Department provides engineering for water and
sewer services in the county. Mr. Charles Hendrick with the department was
consulted and has advised that there are no plans for extension of sewer service
any closer to Stonington within the next five years or beyond.
PIO 3.02 Private Facilities:
There are no known existing private sewer utilities within any reasonable proximity
of Stonington Subdivision that would be available for consideration as a possible
alternative. The nearest known existing wastewater treatment system is Lakeview
Mobile Home Park which is located southwest of Stonington and would require
conveying the wastewater a distance of approximately 9,000 feet (1.7 miles.) It is

5
Pol
PEI
not known if this facility is operating in compliance with its permit requirements, if
hydraulic capacity is available for the additional flow or if the owner's would
consider allowing this additional flow into their facility. However, whereas the
distance required to reach this facility is greater than the distance to the nearest
available public sewer and since operating (sewer use, electricity, etc.) should be
expected to be substantially equal, the increased capital costs for conveyance to
this private facility would be clearly greater than the alternative of connection to the
POTW, this alternative does not merit further consideration.
Section 4:Alternatives For Service
4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal:
Pal Subsurface Disposal:
Pill
Appendix E contains portions of soil survey reports that provide insight as to the
suitability of the soils for subsurface disposal. As described in the report, these
soils are mainly Pacolet soils with characteristics that are somewhat limited to very
limiting with respect to the potential for subsurface disposal. Subsurface disposal
requires buffers and land for the drainfields as well as equal areas of suitable soil,
be available and maintained as a repair/replacement areas that are simply not
available for individual on site disposal.
The only practical possibility for subsurface disposal would be to construct a
subsurface disposal system on lands acquired beyond the 100 foot buffer required
to protect the well. This would necessitate that additional lands be acquired that
are not now owned by Aqua NC.
Given the limitations described in the attached soil survey, it is doubtful that this is
a viable option. A full and extensive soils investigation of potential sites would be
necessary to confirm if useable areas are available. In keeping with the state
guidance for alternatives evaluation, the cost effectiveness of this alternative is
further evaluated to determine if a detailed soils analysis is appropriate. The costs
F.' associated with this option are estimated in Appendix A.
This option would require that the existing discharge be conveyed to an acquired
site having sufficient area for subsurface disposal and a suitable reserve area of
equal size, and that these areas include adequate buffers from property lines,
homes, wells, etc.
Surface Irrigation:
1.4 Disposal by irrigation requires storage capacity for periods of inclement weather
when application is not allowable. Therefore consideration of this as a possible
alternative must also include the provision of storage of the backwash waters
""� during periods of inclement weather.

6
PEI
As noted earlier, the soils surveys for this area has determined this to have limited
to severely limited potential for on site subsurface disposal. Consideration of this
alternative is based on an assumed allowable application rate of 0.20 inches per
week which is based on a typical range of 0.15 to 0.25 inches per week for this
geographic area and the soil conditions generally described in the soils survey.
Storage requirements for this area are typically in the range of 45 to 90 days. For
purposes of this assessment, a storage requirement of 60 days will be assumed.
Considering the relatively benign nature of the current discharge it is not expected
that any additional treatment would be required for surface application. Although
the additional cost of conveyance and the additional costs for on site disposal
should readily be recognized as a significant cost increase as compared to the
alternative of continued discharge, an estimate of the costs for this alternative is
included in Appendix A for comparison.
The evaluation is based on a very conservative assumption that the nearest
available lands that could be reasonably used would actually be available. A
comparison of the costs were made first, using the best (lowest cost) reasonable
assumptions. It would obviously be necessary to perform a more detailed site
investigation and ascertain if the property owner would consider allowing these
lands to be acquired for this purpose.
4.02: Wastewater Reuse
Options for reuse of wastewater for this area are essentially nil. Reuse is usually
associated with non -potable uses such as irrigation. This becomes potentially
more viable if there is a need or outlet for reuse such as irrigation of a golf course.
The volume of this discharge is very low and would have little attraction as a
source for recycle purposes. This area does not have a golf course, nor are there
any other viable options for reuse associated with the subdivision or in the
surrounding area.
4.03: Surface Water Discharge
This is the current method of wastewater disposal. There is no anticipated need to
add any new facilities for additional treatment.
An estimate of the costs for the continuation of this alternative is included in
Appendix A for comparison.
4.04: Combination of Alternatives

7
GNI
PIP
PEI
PPM
Section 5:
Alternatives to discharge that may be technologically feasible, such as connection
to the nearest public sewer, subsurface disposal and/or surface irrigation, could
not be employed in conjunction with the current method of disposal (surface water
discharge) and yield any reduction in total capital or operating expenditures. The
evaluation of alternatives shows that these alternatives are clearly not viable due
to the overwhelming magnitude of associated cost.
Combining one of these alternatives while continuing the periodic discharge, yields
no reduction in the cost for non -discharge alternatives and merely increases the
overall costs. There would be no reduction in capital costs for any of these
alternatives and the operating costs for combining surface discharge with either of
the other alternatives would be greater than for any single alternative that might be
elected.
In short, whereas the conclusion that continued surface discharge is the only
viable option due to the overwhelming differential in capital and operating costs,
any addition of an additional alternative would merely make the cost differential
worse.
Summary and Conclusions:
As can be seen from a comparison of the net present value of the various
alternatives, there is a wide difference between the cost estimate of the option of
continuing discharge and options to eliminate the discharge.
Compared to the cost of the next most cost effective and reliable alternative
(subsurface disposal) the estimated Net Present Value is approximately 1,078 %
greater. This represents a difference of $5,913 NPV per customer.
In Tight of the financial impracticality, it is not necessary to further pursue whether
connection is politically acceptable to the POTW, or whether land based disposal
options are workable.
By far, the most practical and cost effective and reasonably practical alternative is
the continued discharge of the relatively benign filter backwash waters.
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
fir
Based on the findings of this evaluation, it has been concluded that the most
economical and practical alternative is to continue discharge to surface waters.

9
RINI
fwl
fwl
for
Psi
1. Surface Water Discharge at 2,100 GPD Flow Rate:
Whereas this is the existing method of disposal and considering that no additional
treatment is expected as a consequence of any forthcoming permit, there are no
estimated additional capital costs.
The on!y anticipated increase in operation and maintenance costs are those associated
with the collection, analysis and reporting of effluent discharge samples as required by an
NPSES permit.
Capital Cost:
Total Capital Cost = $ 0.00
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest):
Annual Cost
Operation & Maintenance
($ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr)
Total Annual Cost = $ 1,200
PV Annual Cost = $ 13,905
Total Net Present Value
$ 13,905
$ 1,200

10
PEI
PEI
2. Connection to POTW Sewer System near junction of Teague Lane and Watkins
Ford Road:
Install new lift station to collect discharge and convey by force main along existing high
way right of way to junction with existing municipal sewer.
Distan4e = approx. 8,200 LF
Lowest elev. = approx. 830.0
Highest elev. = approx. 900.0
Lift station Avg. flow = 2,100 gpd1.5 = 15 gpm
Peak flow = 2.5 x 1.5 gpm = 3.75 gpm
Pump Design
Use 1" Sch. 40 PVC, approx. 8,200LF
FH @ 3.75 gpm = 1.05 ft/100 ft =
SH = 70 ft (approx.)
Use TDH = 160 ft.
86.1 ft.
�' Use dual effluent pumps (rated at 160 ft. TDH at 3.75 gpm) OSI P101512 or approved
equal II
1.1
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
1" force main sewer 8,200 LF $ 8 $ 65,600
mi Air release 4 Ea. $ 2,500 $ 10,000
Pump Station 1 Ea $ 40,000 $ 40,000
Manholes 1 Ea $ 1,800 $ 1,800
,., Tap Fee 1 Ea. $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Road Crossings 2 Ea $ 5,000 $ 10,000
Creek Crossings 2 Ea $ 5,000 $ 10,000
p, Metering Station 1 Ea. $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Tie to east. MH 1 Ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Erosion control LS $ 15,000 $ 15,000
fun Surveying 3 days $ 1,500 $ 4,500
Easement/Right of Way 1,100 LF $ 10 $ 11,000
Clearing (approx. 1.5 acre) 1.5 acre $ 6,500 $ 9,750
Electrical LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Legal LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Sub -total $ 221,650
Engineering 15 % 33,247

11
Fir
ROI
PEI
Operation & Maintenance Cost:
Local government sewer fee
Annual sewer charges =
Annual electrical charges =
Annual sample analysis charges =
Annual repair and maintenance =
Total Capital Cost = $ 254,897
$ 2.208/100 CF
$ 2.208/100 CF x 2,100 gpd/7.48 gal x 182 day/yr
_ $ 1,128
$ 125/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,500
$ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
$ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Total annual costs = $ 5,028
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest)
Present ValueAnnual Cost = $ 58,261
Total Net Present Value
_
$ 313,158

12
3. Land Based Disposal:
'° 3A. Subsurface Disposal:
Based on the soil survey information and the engineers field observations, the soils in this
area appear to be limited to severely limited as a medium for subsurface disposal. In the
event that it was found to be apparently a cost effective alternative, an in depth site
specific soil investigation would need to be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be
used. However, for the purpose of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope
of this evaluation, it will be assumed that a typical low design loading rate would be
workable. Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. is acceptable.
Therefore, based on the design flow, the area required for subsurface disposal is:
2,100 gpd / 0.20 gpd/sq. ft.= 10,500 SF
Whereas it is required to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair, the
required area is 21,000 SF. Aqua NC currently owns approximately 2.01 acres in land
which surrounds the well. Appendix D contains a map which delineates the portion of
this area that might be available for subsurface disposal. This is the area that is beyond
the 100 foot buffer to the well, is 10 feet off of property lines and which maintains a 50
foot buffer to the intermittent tributary.
It appears that an area of approximately 16,000 square feet might be available. Whereas
a total of 21,000 square feet is needed, an additional area of approximately 5,000 square
feet, plus buffers would be required that would have to be obtained. This area is depicted
on the map in Appendix D. Allowing for buffers, it is estimated that approximately 7,700
square feet or (0.18 acres) would need to be acquired.
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
4" sewer drain in 3' trenches 3,500 LF $ 12 $ 42,000
am Site Clearing 1.5 acre $ 6,500 $ 9,750
Land 0.18acres $ 20,000 $ 3,600
1" FM 150 LF $ 8 $ 1,200
fowl Pump Station 1 Ea $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Surveying 3 days $ 1,500 $ 4,500
Soils Investigation 1 day $ 1,500 $ 1,500
luil Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Erosion I control LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Electrical LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Legal LS $ 2,500 $ 2,500

13
Rol
Engineering
15%
Sub -total
Total Capital Cost
Annual Cost
O & M of drain field,
Pump station and force main = $ 2,500/yr
Annual electrical charges =
PV Annual Cost = $ 46,349
Total Net Present Value =
$ 125/month X 12 mo/yr
$ 149,906
OMB
$ 90,050
13,507
$103,557
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
$ 2,500
_ $ 1,500
Total Annual Cost = $ 4,000

14
3B. Surface Irrigation:
Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.20, gpd/sq. ft. and a required storage basin for 60 days design flow. Based on the
design flow of 2,100 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area'of 10,500 SF.
Allowing a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 15,750 SF.
Aqua NC currently owns approximately 2.01 acres in land which surrounds the well.
However, it would not be possible to utilize any portion of this land for the purposes of
surface disposal, due to the need to maintain buffers of 400 feet from any habitable
residence, 100 feet from any well and 100 feet from WS classified waters.
Assuming a roughly rectangular field (125 ft x 125 ft. for the initial spray field plus repair
and in order to maintain the required 150 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum
estimated land required is 180,625 SF or approximately 4.1 acres.
Appendix E contains a map which delineates an area that might be available for surface
disposal, if this land can be acquired from the current owner.
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost:
Cost:
fag
tag
ina
63,0001 gal. storage basin
Surface irrigation system
Monitoring wells
Land
Fencing
2" FM
Creek Crossing
Manholes
Pump Station
(1) $ 11,295
10,500 SF $ 0.35 $ 3,675
4 ea $ 4,000 $ 16,000
4.1 acres $ 20,000 $ 82,000
2,200 LF $ 6.00 $ 13,200
300 LF $ 8.50 $ 2,550
1 Ea $ 5,000 $ 5,000
1 Ea $ 1,600 $ 1,600
1 Ea $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Surveying 3 days
Soils Investigation 3 days
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
Erosion control LS
Electrical LS
Legal LS
Engineering
$ 1,500 $ 4,500
$ 1,500 $ 4,500
$ 3,000 $ 3,000
$ 8,000 $ 8,000
$ 5,000 $ 5,000
$ 5,000 $ 5,000
Sub -total $ 200,320
15 % 30,048
Total Capital Cost = $ 230,368

r
15
(1) Storage:
Excavation 360 cu. Yds. @ $ 6.00/yd = $ 2,160
Compaction and Lining 2,610 SF @ $ 3.50/SF = $ 9,135
Sub -total = $ 11,295
Operation) & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
Annual Cost
0 & M of spray field,
Pump station and force main = $ 3,500/yr $ 3,500
Pst
Annualelectrical charges = $ 250/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 3,000
Annual (sample analysis charges = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Total Annual Cost = $ 7,700
PV Annual Cost = $ 89,222
1.0
Total Net Present Value = $ 319,590

Map for GIS User
1:11,954
Kernersville
75-minute Quadrangle
Exist Discharge
Longitude: -80.0759532 W
..)Latitude: 36.0347382 N
Index map
North
Stonington Subdivison - Well # 1
USGS Map - Existing Well Location
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1: 11,954
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124
February 19, 2007

i
Map for GIS User
Location of My Location
1:11,954
Kernersville
7.5-minute Quadrangle
Index map
North
Stonington Subdivison - Well #
Aerial Photo
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1: 11,954
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 19, 2007

,,
North
Stonington Subdivison - Well # 1
Possible Route for Connection to POTW Location
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1" = 1,350'
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 19, 2007

:a t
4,2 I
r ( tiEi:r1 1 t
I Exist. property line
IW*: Axly'iiiY"
Prop. Subsurface Disposal •
T.
Prop. Subsurface Disposal
(Property must be acquired)
i-„ r , mak
STONING TON {NAY CT
North
Ijjk
Stonington Subdivison - Well # 1
Possible Subsurface Disposal Location
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1" = 95'
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 19, 2007

Exist. Well
Prop. Surface Disposal
(Property must be acquired)
North
Stonington Subdivison - Well # 1
Possible Surface Disposal Location
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1" = 587'
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 19, 2007

North
Stonington Subdivison - Well # 1
SCS Soils Map
Kernersville, N.C. Scale: 1" = 200'
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 19, 2007

4
3
"' Sewage Disposal
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
PaB:
Pacolet
85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited
Slow water 0.50 Seepage 0.50
movement Slope 0.32
PaC:
Pacolet 80 Somewhat limited
Slow water
movement
Slope
Very limited
0.50 Slope
Seepage
0.01
PaF:
Pacolet 75 Very limited Very limited
Slope 1.00 Slope
Slow water 0.50 Seepage
movement
PcC2:
Pacolet, moderately eroded 85 Somewhat limited
Slow water
movement
Slope
PcC3:
r+BI Pacolet, severely eroded 85 Somewhat limited
PcF2:
Pacolet, moderately eroded
raw WeC:
Wedo>f+e
von
rim
IUNI
Louisburg
Slow water
movement
Slope
Very limited
0.50 Slope
Seepage
0.01
Very limited
0.50 Slope
Seepage
0.37
85 Very limited Very limited
Slope 1.00 Slope
Slow water 0.50 Seepage
movement
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
55 Somewhat limited Very limited
Slow water 0.50 Slope 1.00
movement Seepage 0.50
Slope 0.01
30 Very limited Very limited
Seepage, bottom 1.00 Seepage 1.00
layer Slope 1.00
Depth to bedrock 0.99 Depth to hard 0.99
Slope 0.01 bedrock
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 8
Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007 Page 2 of 4

a•i
Sewage Disposal
Forsyth County, North Carolina
[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the
potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Cc13:
Cecil
CcC:
Cecil
Ch:
Chewacla
Wehadkee, undrained
Gu:
Gullied land
LwE:
Louisburg
Wedowee
90 Somewhat limited
Slow water
movement
85 Somewhat limited
Slow water
movement
Slope
85 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
Seepage, bottom
layer
Slow water
movement
5 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
Slow water
movement
100 Not rated
65 Very limited
Slope
Seepage, bottom
layer
Depth to bedrock
25 Very limited
Slope
Slow water
movement
Somewhat limited
0.50 Seepage
Slope
Very limited
0.50 Slope
Seepage
0.01
1.00
1.00
Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
1.00 Seepage
0.50
0.50
0.32
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
Very limited
1.00 Flooding 1.00
1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00
zone
0.50 Seepage 0.50
Not rated
Very limited
1.00 Slope
1.00 Seepage
Depth to hard
0.99 bedrock
Very limited
1.00 Slope
0.50 Seepage
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.50
USDA Natural Resources
alai Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 8
Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007
Page 1 of 4

3
SIM
Sewage Disposal
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
WeD:
Wedowee
Louisburg
45 Somewhat limited
Slope
Slow water
movement
40 Very limited
Seepage, bottom
layer
Depth to bedrock
Slope
Very limited
0.84 Slope
0.50 Seepage
Very limited
1.00 Slope
Seepage
0.99 Depth to hard
0.84 bedrock
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.99
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 8
Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007 Page 3 of 4

Sewage Disposal
This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank absorption fields and sewage
lagoons. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are
limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited"
indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be
overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance
can be expected. 'Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the
specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal
fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the
greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
"Septic tank absorption fields" are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through
subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 72 inches or between a
depth of 24 inches and a restrictive layer is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect
absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect
absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation.
Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing
of the effluent in downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the
distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the
system is new. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated.
"Sewage lagoons" are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic bacteria decompose the solid
and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of
compacted soil. Nearly impervious soil material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and
contamination of ground water. Considered in the ratings are slope, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth
to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic
matter.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is a critical property affecting the suitability for sewage lagoons. Most
porous soils eventually become sealed when they are used as sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs,
however, the hazard of pollution is severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per second are
too porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils, seepage of the effluent can result in
contamination of the ground water. Ground -water contamination is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a
depth of 40 inches, if the water table is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon, or if floodwater
overtop, the lagoon.
A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic
activity.', Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder
compaction of the lagoon floor. If the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough
and the�,soil material must be thick enough over bedrock or a cemented pan to make land smoothing practical.
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning
site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example,
estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet.
Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for
testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works.
Govemment ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were
not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in
planning, in site selection, and in design.
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 8
Tabular Data Version Date: 01/19/2007 Page 4 of 4

All
24
Residuals Management Plan
Prepared by: J. Thurman Home, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Residuals Management Plan:
The proposed continued surface water discharge will have no impact on existing residuals management.
There are no wastewater treatment facilities.
The nature of the operation (backwashing of green sand filters) is such that only minor amounts of solids
(less than 30 mg 11) are released with the discharge.
There is no generation of any grits, sludges or residuals for removal or disposal.
This project does not increase or alter the amounts of sludge produced or impact the current methods of
disposition.