NC0078212_Complete File - Historical_20171231

State of North Carolina
') Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Managemen
James B. Hunt, Jr,, Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Direc
January 14, 1994
Mr. Donald McCarver
3616 Enfield Road
Charlotte, NC 28205
Subject: NPDES Permit Application Return
NPDES Permit No. NC0078212
McCarver Residence
Union County
Dear Mr. McCarver:
In accordance with information received from the Union County Health Department January
13, 1994, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is returning your NPDES Permit
application. A copy of your application has been submitted to our Central Files for future
reference.
Should you desire to reactivate your permit request, please advise the Division of
Environmental Management in writing and resubmit the complete application with the
appropriate application processing fees. Please note that construction or operation of
wastewater discharge facilities without a permit may be considered a violation of the Division of
Environmental Management regulation 15 NCAC 2H .0101 and the North Carolina General
Statutes (GS 143-215.1).
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Charles Alvarez at [phone],
cc: Asti' Wo Regional Office ?
Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Central Files
Technical Support Branch
oerely,
Coleen H.
Permits and
0
Supervisor
ng Unit
P.O. Box 2953.5, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-053,5 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
RO. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

ate of North Caro Ina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P,E„ Director
Mr. Donald B. McCarver
361E Enfield Road
Charlotte, NC 28205
Dear Mr= McCarver
January 4, 1994
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
NPDES Permit No.Nc0078212
Donald B. McCarver Residence
Union
County
This is to acknowledge receipt of the following documents on Deg=ember 13, 1989:
Application Form
Engineering Proposal (for proposed control facilities),
Request for permit renewal,
Application Processing Fee of
S120 00,
Engineering Economics Alternatives Analysis,
Local Government Signoff,
Source Reduction and Recycling,
Interbasin Transfer,
Other Map showing discharge point,,
The items checked below are needed before review can begin:
Application Form,
,Engineering proposal (see attachment),
Application Processing Fee of
Delegation of Authority (see attached)
Biocide Sheet (see attached)
Engineering Economics Alternatives Analysis,
, Local Government Signoff,
Source Reduction and Recycling,
Interbas i n. Transfer,
_ Other Need a letter from Unign
types of ground absorption systems ,
RO. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Cc rosin{a 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] F , 9 M9.73 -2496
An Equal Oppor1unity Affi matsve Action Employer SO% recycled/ iO% post-cor;sumer paper

the appl cat on .s not made complete Rhin thirty ( ) days,
urned to you and may be resubmitted when complete.
hls application has been ace, t
( 1 1733- 3) of our Permits Unit for review. You be advisee. ot any
nomments recommendations, questions r other in
review of the application.
I am, by copy cf this letter, request.
Supervisor prepare a staff report and
discharge. If you have any questions
please contact the review person list
i oore Regional
Charle
Alva rez
can necessary for the
ng that our Regional Of c
i-ecommendatiOns regardingregarddng tt.is
regarding this applications,
d above.
Sincerelyu

Emo
5,7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE SHORT FORM D
to be tiled wily by services, wholesale end retail trade,
end other commercial establishments including vessels
FOR
M NC'I
USE
RITE gamin
YEAR
Do not attempt to complete this form without reeding the accompanying instructions
►lease print or type
facility producing die
A. Mauve,
B. Street address
C. City Charlo
DAt
[, County MP hhilrg
G,. Telephone NO 7 0 4
Area
Code
(Leave blank)
3. h'.mber of employees
4, Mature Of buSinesS
67.0_ re 1
**Property Location:
N . C . 11ig way 218
Union County
C1. Stag Nor1.1i (:ar 1i4s
F. ZIP, .2R2n
—1491 (Cc6°)
y Residence - :3 Bedroom
ngle F°arnil Resi.d
ce
5. (a) Check here if dlschar9e occurs all yeark, or
(b) Check the month(s) dvischat'ge occurs;
1,cJanuary 2.0February 3,D1It1rch CO April 5.004ay
i>.0 June 7. © July E. D Augur t 9.0 September 10.0 October
11, a Novemb,er 12.0 Diecwaber
(c) Mow many days per week;
1,01 2.02-3 3.04-5
6. Types of waste water discharged to surface
cnec
cable)
Discharge per
operating day
A, Sanitary, daily
average
_
6. Cooling',water
Oily average
r discharge
y average;
lfy
-999
999
or
types)
Flow, gallons per operating ray
1000.4999
(2)
Volume tr*ated before
dtICharging (percent)
0.1
299
3-
64.9
(9)
65-
94.9
9)
95-
1 aJ
(10)
XX

1. 1f any of the types of taste identified in item 6, either treated •r we -
treated, are disciserped to places other than surface raters, check below
es appl ieatr1i.
NONE
Waste water is ellschargled to:
it. l -!99
(ll
cystos
If, 11rrik rFlt'riFnrl w,.11
C. Septic tank
U, Evaporation 1
E. Other, specify:
8. number of separate discharge points:
A. ell 8. ©2-3 C.©a-5
D. a 6 or emre
of receiving water or waters jln tarne‘I T
10. Does your discharge contain or is i
one or aore of the following cubit
activities, or processes: aaarxrla, ey
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, Rickel,
grease, and Chlorine (residual).
A.0 yes 8.0 no
Yri
your discharge to contain
result of your operations,
beryllium, cadmium,
c, phenols, oil and
1 certify that 1 am familiar with the information contained In the eppliCatioel and
that to the best of my knowledge and belief such Inforsetion Is true, e•eelete, end
accurate.
r,„��1d b' �taC�rvc�L
Printed Naar of Person Signing
Property ,Owner
Title
°, rt Caroline General, Statute . -2 .5.6(b) 2) lrovidss t 11' t Any pars coxt +1rh, dandy make
any. false statement represents t ort, or cartification in any applicati.on,'rscord, report, p.:.
or other documetat filsa cr required to be maintained under Article 21 or r*Eu1ations of t"e
Envirc mental Mi r igament Contusion implementing that Article, or who fad iifise, tare +ere u'_t`
r knurly renders inaccurate any recording or monitoring *mica or method required to be
,rerated or maintained under Aptiale 21:or reaulatiocsa dof the Environmental Manage Ccr =a
:r p 1e-etst_irg that Article, sha'13 'be`i .U.tv of a >eisdsmaanor punishable by aline not to cxcec
10,n01„ or by inprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 L.S.C. Section 1001 pr
pun:s':z:nent by s fine of -not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or bp:
:•,,r a sir,i'1ar offrrse.)

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality
Permits and Engineering Unit
May 4, 1993
To: Mike Parker, Winto:alem Regional Office
From: Charles Alvarez, lEnv. Engineer, NPDES Permits
Subject: Donald McCarver Res., NC0078212, Spray Irrigation
Union. County
•t"EC .!VF
N.• . Dept
MAC
Winston
Regional
%Y
I have a memo dated 1/8/89 to Mack Wiggins from Mike Parker
stating this facility was looking into non -discharge possiblities and
to hold the permit. Please look into what happened and if I can
remove this permit from the backlog or return the application. If
you need any more information please call me at 733-5083 ext. 537.
1993

PERFORMANCE ANNUAL REPORT
The Town ofMarshville Municipal Waste Water Collection System consist of
approximately 23 miles of sewer lines including gravity and force mains. The Town's sanitary
sewer is transmitted by the Union County System for treatment at the City of Monroe
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
During the fiscal year of 2003-004 (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004) the'town has had
wastewater spills that totaled 827,447 gallons. These spills caused no immediate endangerment
to human health or the environment. Marshville is continuing work on a Sanitary Sewer
Evaluation along with ongoing work on Marshville's Sewer System. This will help to prevent
sewer discharges in the future.
July 2, 2003
July 17, 2003
August 14, 2003
February 12, 2004
February 15, 2004
February 19, 2004
June 4, 2004
41,400 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
4,800 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
8,775 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
8,250 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
2,400 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
2,200 gallons tributary of Lick Branch
759,622 gallons tributary of Salem Creek
Wastewater spills totaling 827,447 gallons during the fiscal year from
July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004.
The public has been notified by the local newspaper that copies of the
Annual Report are available at Town Hall.
I certify that the information contained in this report is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge.
Bivens Steele, Jr.
Public Works Director

Michatl F. Easley. Governor
G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources.
May 1. 2002
HAND DELIVERED
The Honorable Virginia Morgan, Mayor or
Current Collection System Operator, Town Manager or Mayor
Town of Marshville
210 West Main Street
Marshville, North Carolina 28103
Dear Mayor Morgan:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D, Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
ANON RESOURC ES
141),CEE ,
MAY e 3 2002
You are hereby notified that in accordance with the North Carolina Clean Water Act of 1999, S.L. 1999 c, 329, s,
11.2, an application for coverage under a Wastewater Collection System Permit for your Marshville, collection system must be
submitted. Upon receipt of this letter, your facility has sixty. (60) days to submit the attached application and all supporting
documentation (15A NCAC 2H .0227). Failure to submit the application as required may subject your facility to a civil
penalty and other enforcement actions for each day the facility is operated following the due date of the application.
This permit is for the operation and maintenance of your collection system. The person responsible for the
wastewater collection system should review and complete this application and review the permit shell. This application and
draft permit shell are available electronically on our web site at http://h20.enr.state.nc.usindpuindpuappshtml. It is
suggested that the permit shell be reviewed in preparation for completing the permit application as the information requested.
is. used by the Division to determine the current status of the collection system operation and maintenance program and
additional steps that may be necessary to achieve compliance with this permit. The original application .signed by an
authorized signing official., two copies of the signed application arid three copies of any attachments must be returned to
complete the application package (i.e. all application materials submitted in triplicate). Pleas.enote the requirements for an
authorized signing official on the last page of the application. If you are the mayor or manager, you are the authorized signing
official for this application unless otherwise delegated. The completed package should be sent to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh., NC 27699-1617
ATTN: M. Doklovic
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call Marie Doklovic ,at [phone] extension 371 or E-
mail at [e-mail]. You may also contact Rex Gleason with the Mooresville Regional Office at (704) 663-
.1699.
Enclosure
cc:
Permit File (w/o encl.)
Mooresville Regional Office (w/o encl.)
Sincerely,
or Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Non Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Serifice Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.usindpu
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center
An Enual Opportunity Action Employer
Telephone [phone]
509c recycled/10% Post -consumer paper

WEAL -
FRCVS
Performance Annual Report tow
General Information
Facility/System Name: To oA 11.
Responsible Entity: Town
Person in ChaargelCcntact: 8tiv e t S tee .e., VPW $ 04 6 2 4 - 2 515
Applicable Perm't(s):
Description of Collection System or Treatment Process:
The Town o ake
A
wn cottect%on by.5t'em that pnwu de4 aewe/L.
e nceide.n .6 and bt nehme The, .6ewek ,b5 pumped tO UnVc n County and
t6ten treated at City o6 [orx .ae. Wao,tewate,n. Tn.ea-tment P1an-t.
Il Performance
Text Surrnrnary of System Perfonanance for Calendar Year 1999
No Pe rm i t i t i e V-i.o e atio is
No Mon
an Repenting VLo:a o
Sew
List (by month) any violations of permit conditions or other environmental regulations. Monthly
lists should include discussion of any environmental impacts and corrective measures taken to
address violations.
January
No Vio,t atton,5

February
Etc.
i.II. Notification
State how this report has been made available to users or customers of the system and how those
users have been notified of its availability.
Pub i.c Nonce paced in Coca : newdpapen zumrnaA iz.i.ng .thi nepon t and n6anm%ng
.the pubiic that a. copy o6 .th.i.L nepotut can be. obtained at .the. Town Ha.0
IV. Certification
i certify under penalty of law that this report is complete and accurate to the of my
knowledge. I further certify that this report has been made available to the users or customers of
the named system and that those users have been notified of its availability.
ible Person Bivenz Stee,Le
Title PubL.i.c Woitko Vikec tok
Entity Town a6 Matu,hvLe
Sep.emb 12, 2000
Date

JAMES B.I'
GOVERNOR
UNT JR,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
2000
Honorable Virginia Morgan, Mayor
Town of Marshville
201 West Main Street
Marshville, North Carolina 2 103
SUBJECT: High -Unit Cost
Grant Application
Dear Mayor Morgan:
2001
As you are probably aware, the application you submitted for a State High -Unit
Cost Grant was not funded due to an overwhelming number of grant applications and a
limited. amount of funds.
The Rules Governing the State Revolving Loan and Grant Program require the
application to be returned after two review cycles, However, there is a possibility that
some or all of the remaining Bond Loan Funds may be converted to Grant Funds by the
General Assembly.
In the interest of conservving resources, our section plans to hold the applications
pending the additional Grant Funds. However, ifyou would like the application returned,
l le rse notify this office in writing. if you have questions regarding this matter, please
contact Mr. Don Evans at [phone].
We will try° to post any information on potential grant funds on our web page at
v.nccgl.net.
John R. Blowe, P. Chief
Construction Grants & Loans Section
D [mnw
cc: Cavanaugh & Associates
Mooresville Regional Office
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS & LOANS SECTION
6"33 MAIL SERVICE CENYER, RALEUSN, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-16'33
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 1 AFFe NM1AT"1VE ACTION EMs LCYFR SOTS RE CLFC. I1J", . OS€=CCNSUMiER FsAPR

Town of Marshville
201 West Main Street
Marshy.'Ile, North Carolina 28103
Telephone [phone]
Flax 704-624-0175
September 9, 1999
Mr Rex Gleason
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Mr Gleason
Based on my telephone conversation with Mr, Mike Parker, I am writing you to inform you of
some revised personnel responsibilities with the Town of Marshville Due to some personnel
changes, the town has designated Mr Bivens Steele as its primary water distribution and sewer
collection system operator It has also designated Mr, Mike Brower as the town's backup
operator for sewer collection and Mr. Bobby Parker as the town's backup water distribution
operator All other previous designations should be disregarded from this date forward.
I hope this information is helpful and please feel free to contact me with any questions Please
also forward a copy of this letter to any other parties you deem appropriate.
Greg der
Town As ministrator

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 10, 1999
MEMO TO: Jay Lucas
FROM Rex Gleason
Prepared By: Samar Bou-Ghazale SEC;
SUBJECT: Town of Marshville Wastewater
Alternatives Analysis
As requested by your memo dated April 13, 1999, this Office
has reviewed the preliminary engineering report submitted by the
Town of Marshville,
The Town of Marshville is apparently dissatisfied with the
arrangement with Union County, who presently treats their
wastewater. Therefore, the Town of Marshville hired Cavanaugh &
Associates to prepare an Engineering alternative analysis
reports. The report analyses the following four alternatives:
Option 1 Construct a new 1.0 MGD wetlands wastewater treatment
facility and discharge to Salem Creek.
Option 2 Construct 1.0 MGD mechanical treatment Wastewater
treatment and discharge to Salem Creek,
Option 3 Collect and pump sewer to Union County. This
alternative would require Marshville to pay for the
proposed pump station upgrades and keep the status quo.
Option 4 Allow Union County to acquire Marshville's collection
system.
The report selects Option 1 to be the preferred alternative.
Options 1 & 2 are based on the Town acquiring the Salem Creek
pump station form Union County. The proposals (options 1 & 2)
require discharge to Salem Creek. Flow in Salem Creek (7Q10
flow)is near zero.
Prior to approving any alternative, the Division of Water
Quality needs to decide whether a permit could/would be issued
for a discharge from Marshville.
This Office recommends that The Town of Marshville and Union
County work out their differences and an agreement which would
provide the least impact on the environment.

999
TOWN OF MARSHVI I , =NoN 4T
WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
July 1998
PREPARED BY
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
705 Georgetown Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27608
In Partnership with
HIGHLAND ENGINEERING, P.L.C.
Post Office Box 559
Monterey, Virginia 24485

TOWN OF MARSHVILLE
WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
JULY, 1998
isa M. !`"outh, ' .E.
Program ager
Project Manager
PREPARED BY
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
IN PARTNERSHIP FY TH
HIGHLAND ENGINEERING, P.L.C.
Post Office Box 559
Monterey; Virginia 24485

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
TOWN OF MARSHVILLE
WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Table Of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
EXISTING WASTEWATER SITUATION 2
II. REASONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE P.E.R. 4
III. PROJECT PLANNING AREA 5
IV. GROWTH AREAS & POPULATION TRENDS 7
V. EXISTING FACILITIES 9
A. Collection System 9
B. Old Marshville Wastewater Treatment Plant 9
C. Union County/Marshville Wastewater Agreement 10
1. Terms of the Union CountylMarshville Agreement 10
2. What the Agreement Entailed 10
3. Discussion of Recent Changes to the Agreement 11
4. Offer from Union County to Acquire Marshville's System 14
D. Financial status 14
VI. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 15
A. Growth & Development Consideration 15
B. Health & Safety Discussion 16
C. System Operation & Maintenance 16
VII. PRESENTATION OF PRIMARY ALTERNATIVES 17
A. Description of Alternatives 17
B. Design criteria 1 8
C. Construction Problems 20
D. Land Requirements *
34
VIE PRESENTATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 37
A. Summary of the Preferred Alternative 37
B. Environmental Assessment of Preferred Alternative 37
IX. EAST SIDE SCENARIOS 39
X. ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 43
2 1
E. Schematic Layout/Mapping 22
F. Environmental Assessment 23
G. Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Alternatives 25
H. Operation and Maintenance Costs 27
I. Net Present Cost Comparison of Primary Alternatives 3 0
J. Cost Per User Evaluation 31
K. Alternative Selection Matrix
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
XI. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING 45
XII. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 47
APPENDIX A: Union County Future Costs Based on Historical Data 48
APPENDIX B: Spreadsheets 50
I. Net Present Value
2. Option A User Fee Calculations
3. Option B User Fee Calculations
4. Option C User Fee Calculations
5. Scenario 2 User Fee Calculations
6. Scenario 3 User Fee Calculations
Town arshville Wastewater Preliminary Engineering Report

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a result of recent proposed capital improvement plans and inconsistent service by
Union County, Marshville determined that alternative wastewater collection and
treatment systems should be investigated. Marshville's desire for independence, control
of regional growth and cost effective waste treatment alternatives, in conjunction with
large impending capital outlays as dictated by Union County, accelerated the desire for
additional information.
As indicated in the Preliminary Engineering Report, the Regional Constructed Wetland
Wastewater Treatment Facility (CWWTF) was the least costly alternative from a net
present value standpoint by approximately $1,000,000, However, the associated user
costs indicated that Marshville must seriously consider at what cost do they value their
independence, Marshville must consider whether to construct a Regional CWWTF, the
most effective long-term solution, sell their sanitary sewer system to Union County or
remain with the status quo. Constructed Wetland Treatment Technology has been shown
to provide a significant reduction in long term operations and maintenance costs.
The following table sumniarizes the financial comparison of the alternatives:
Alternativ
Option A: Regiona
CWWTF
Option B:
Mechanical WWTP
Option C: Collect &
Pump to Union
County
Option D: Sell
System to Union
County
Year 1 Year .5 Year 110 Year 15 Year 20
User "Fee User .Fee User Fee User -Fee User Fee
Net Present
om ($ (S / (S 01
movar Month)* MonWr MonthMonth)*
4,751,72
39.44 6 $2 .44
7. 2 $13.70
5,752,427
$6,927,799
$45.42 $35.82 $26.88 $20.39 1 siL.64
$37.26 $31.40 $26.02 $22.31
1,782,821
*Based on 5,000 gallons per m
$2535 $27.58 $29.41 $1.24 533M7
The amounts shown in the table above are based on 100% financing by the Town.
The possibility of grant monies, participation from other entities or use of fund
balance are not taken into consideration.
ville
Town o WastewaterPrthminay Report
Executive Suatmaty

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, F.A.
Consulting Engineers
Dollars per Month
$50.00
$45.00
$40.00
$35,00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00 .
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00y
Comparison of User Fees for 5,000 Gallons
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10 Year 15
Year 20
m.�
♦ Option A: Regional CWWTF
M....____
—a—Option B: Mechanical W W TP
Option C: Collect & Pump to Union County
Option D: Sell System to Union County
Option A was further explored by looking at possible participation by Wampler Longacre
and the Town of Wingate. Participation by Wingate was determined as not feasible
because of what it would cost them to construct transmission lines to connect to
Marshville's system. However, this option has several scenarios involving Wampler
Longacre that merit a brief look. These scenarios are as follows:
1. Only the Town of Marshville participates
2. Wampler Longacre participates at existing usage (600,000 gpd)
3. Wampler Longacre participates at future usage (1.4 mgd)
The following table su
Marshville Only
arizes the fin
$3,550,000
1 compariso:
of these scenarios:
Present
$4.751,723
Plus Existing
Wampler Usage
$5,213,228
201,600
7,134,662
Plus Future
Wampler Usage
$6,851,142
$302,400
$9,742,945
see• Cost
$39.44
$14.06
.0
It is recommended that the Town of Marshville utilize this Preliminary Engineering
Report in propelling the Eastside wastewater concerns to a positive solution. This report
is preliminary, and is not intended to supplement the previous sewer master plans
prepared by Union County,
Town ° ar hville Wa to cater Preliminary Report Executive Summary,

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. COMM ring Engineers
OVERVIEW
As a result of recent proposed capital improvement plans and questionable service by
Union County, Marshville determined that alternative wastewater collection and
treatment systems should be investigated. Marshville's desire for independence, control
of regional growth and cost effective waste treatment alternatives, in conjunction with
large impending capital outlays as dictated by Union County, accelerated the desire for
additional information.
This Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is intended to provide the background, detail
and justification for consideration for alternatives to the existing Union County Sewer
Master Plan prepared by Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Inc. This report is intended to
provide the Town of Marshville with necessary information to determine the most cost
effective, implementable and environmentally sound solution for its wastewater needs.
This report is in no way intended to delay progress toward implementing water quality
initiatives for the municipalities and other unincorporated areas in Union County.
Town lid vil e Wastewater Preliminary Report Page

CAVANAUG: ASSOCIATES, P.A. consulting Engineers
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
EXISTING WASTEWATER SITUATION
Presently the Town of Marshville discharge system consists of lines and pump stations
operated and maintained by Union County, the lead 201 agency. This system consists of
three pump stations (Ray's Fork, Meadow and Salem. Creek), force mains and
interceptor. The system transports wastewater to the City of Monroe's 9.0 MGD
wastewater treatment plant. The County is allocated 1.95 MGD of the Monroe plant's
treatment capacity. This ownership includes capacity to serve Union County, Marshville,
Wingate and Wampler-Longacre.
This system was constructed in the late 1970's with an agreement between Union County
and the Town of Marshville signed in October 1978, The agreement was for Union
County, as the lead 201 agency, to transport wastewater from Marshville to the Monroe
WWTP where the wastewater would be treated under an agreement between. Union
County and Monroe. Marshville agreed to pay Union County for actual costs incurred in
connection with the collecting, transporting, monitoring and treatment of the wastewater.
The peak flow rate was initially 490,000 gallons per day.
Why this relationship is not working
The following are points that have been raised during the development of this alternatives
plan.
Marshville, who serves as an integral partner in the 201 Planning
Area feels they have not received the opportunity to participate in
the planning efforts that effect their future.
2. Marshville was not consulted concerning the upgrades to the pump
stations etc. They were told their share of the upgrades would cost
$613,693.00
Marshville wants control over its future. This control includes a
stronger position as it relates to the Town's ability to provide quality
service for their citizens as well as sustain and promote growth.
4. 1-ow many more expansions/upgrades can be expected and at what
cost?
5. What will be placed on users in a mandatory fashion as this is?
6. Are the municipal participants subsidizing residential growth?
Town of Marshville as rater Pre ,C'mina r} Report Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
7. Does Marshville face a future of continual second guessing Union
County's current operations and future plan?
8. Marshville has experienced overbilling, questionable reliability and
sporatic exchange in information in the past from Union County.
Town of Marshville Wastewater Pre inary Report Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIA
S, P.A. Consulting Engineers
IL REASONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE P.E.R.
The Union County Sewer Master Plan prepared in 1996 was prepared at Union
County's direction without input from the Town of Marshville. While Marshville is
constantly asked to cover its proportionate share of system costs, it has little or no
input in the determination of which capital improvements projects are to be
constructed, when they are to be constructed, and if the proposed improvements rneet
with their approval. Union County recently notified Marshville that the town would
be required to pay $613,278 for pump station improvements. The town was notified
after design was complete, construction was imminent, and without the benefit of any
input on the front end of the matter, In addition, Union County has previously
overbilled Marshville and other users by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
2. As the Highway 74 Bypass corridor continues to take shape, Marshville desires to
proactively plan for the anticipated growth in the area. Without the benefit of input
into the Union County plan, the Town must take steps to control its own future and
determine the focus of growth in its adjacent areas. With the information necessary
to determine how the wastewater needs of its area will be addressed, Marshville can
properly plan its future to avoid significant hidden capital costs in the future, The
growing costs associated with the continued pumping of wastewater to the Monroe
Waste Treatment Plant, with the understanding that additional treatment capacity may
not be readily available in the future, necessitated that collection and treatment
alternatives be investigated
3. With significant, unexpected capital improvement costs thrust upon the Town,
Marshville was unsure if continued expenditures would prevent additional greater
waste treatment costs in the future. While money was spent to improve the
transmission system to the Monroe plant, the Union County Master Plan noted that a
wastewater treatment facility would likely be required in the Eastside district in the
future anyway. Given the Town's indication that it would seriously consider
significant upfront costs to realize a cost savings in the future, the need to evaluate a
regional wastewater treatment facility was imperative. In addition, Union County
offered to acquire Marshville's sewer system in exchange for offsetting the costs of
the pump station upgrades, acquiring additional treatment capacity at Monroe's Plant
and operating and maintaining the collection system. Marshville needed to
adequately determine the cost savings that may be realized through this process.
4. Finally, Marshville must have fimi information upon which to base their future
wastewater decisions. With this information, the citizens of Marshville will be better
prepared to determine which is the most implementable and cost effective solution for
wastewater treatment for their own town and the eastside area.
Town ofMarshville ewater Prelznnnary Repon Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
III. PROJECT PLANNING AREA
The Town of Marshville is located in eastern Union County. Highway 74 from Charlotte
passed through the City of Monroe, the town of Wingate and then goes through the
middle of Marshville before crossing into Anson County.
Figure 1 shows the planning area including town locations, Wampler Longacre, the
proposed wastewater discharge point on Salem Creek and its drainage area. Also shown
are the existing and proposed lines to and from the existing Salem Creek Pump Station,
The Town of Marshville sits on a sub -basin ridge. The Salem Creek Purnp Station which
pumps to the City of Monroe Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in the north sub -
basin. The abandoned Marshville wastewater treatment plant is located on the southeast
side of town in the south sub -basin. This basin is currently being pumped to the north
basin in the existing collection system.
The Town of Marshville is located in the Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, The
Yadkin River Basin is the second largest river basin in North Carolina. Its headwaters
begin in the eastern Blue Ridge Mountains with, part of the upper watershed in Virginia.
The Yadkin flows into the Pee Dee River through South Carolina and into the Atlantic
Ocean.
Marshville is in the 030714 sub -basin of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The
recommended management strategies for the 030714 sub -basin include the following:
• Richardson Creek below Monroe [Use Support Rating = PS (Partially
Supporting)] — no new discharges of oxygen -consuming wastes should be
permitted above the Monroe wastewater treatment plant.
• Lanes Creek [Use Support Rating = NS (Not Supporting) and PS (Partially
Supporting)] — Every alternative to discharge should be thoroughly examined
before a new outfall is considered.
• West Fork Little River may be considered eligible for reclassification to High
Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
These management strategies should have little to no impact to a proposed discharge
located on Salem Creek, a tributary to Richardson Creek, below the Monroe wastewater
treatment plant.
Town of Marshville Wastewater Pre1iminay Report Page

CAVANAUGII ASSOCIAT S, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Figure
Insert basin map here.

CAVV,A► 1"AUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consultin Engineers
IV. GROWTH AREAS & POPULATION TRENDS
According to the Union County Sewer Master Plan, residential growth is not expected in
the Marshville area or the eastern part of the county. However, industrial and
commercial growth is expected to increase significantly with the construction of the
Highway 74 By -Pass. Figure 2 shows the location of the By -Pass in relation to the Town
of Marshville. The area which will likely be most affected is the Austin Branch which
will be just north of the By -Pass.
gure Proposed By -Pass 1 ©cation
Reference: Fsnkbinder, Pettis, & Strout, Inc., Consulting Engineers, "Sewer System Master Plan, Faster Union County
Proposed Sewer, i996.
It is difficult to project the impact of the Highway 74 By -Pass on the population served
by Marshville without comparison to similar situations. An example of growth spurred.
by road constructions is Clayton, North Carolina. Between 1990 and 1996, the
population of Clayton increased by 43% with the completion of 1-40, This works out to
be an average increase in population of 7.12% per year. This population increase is a
direct result of the commercial and industrial growth brought about by 1-40. Another key
factor is the increase in accessibility to Raleigh and RTP, making Clayton a more
desirable location to live. This same influx could be expected by Marshville and the
surrounding area with more people who work in Charlotte finding eastern Union County
an attractive area to call home.
Table 1 shows the population projections for the Town of Marshville based on (1)
county -wide increase and (2) estimated increase due to Highway 74 By -Pass
construction.
Town of, arsh'lle rse Ater Prelirnrnary Report Pa

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Table : Population Projections
Union Count
i arshville
r
Vigure 3: Population Projections
Consulting Engineers
Marshville Population Projections
10,000
5,000
0
1990 1996 2000 2010 2020
arshville • Marshville with Hwy 74 By -Pass
Town o Marshville 1 a teiater Preliminary Report Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
V. EXISTING FACILITIES
A. Collection System
The Town of Marshville owns and operates a sewer collection system consisting of
approximately 23 miles of sewer line. There are approximately 750 service connections
to the system. The sewer system was begun in 1923. The collection system currently
discharges to the City of Monroe wastewater treatment facility.
Union County operates and maintains, as the lead 201 agency, an interceptor system that
serves Marshville, Wingate and Wampler Longacre. This interceptor system discharges
to the Monroe Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City of Monroe's facility has a
capacity of 9.0 mgd and discharges to Richardson Creek, Union County has an allocation
at the Monroe plant of 1.95 mgd. Marshville, Wingate and Wampler Longacre share this
allocation with Union County under separate agreements. Marshville's portion of this
allocation is 376,500 gallons per day based on a monthly average.
Marshville has a transmission allocation of 490,000 gallons per day to discharge into the
Union County interceptor system, Currently, this system is operating near capacity.
Union County has proposed upgrades to the three pump stations owned by Union County
that serve the eastside area. The total cost of the project is $2.2 million. Marshville's
portion of the project cost is $613,278. This includes upgrades to the Salem Creek Pump
Station ($356,243), the Meadow Branch Pump Station ($127,342) and the Rays Branch
Pump Station ($129,692). Reference: McKim & Creed, Proposed Cost Allocation —
Eastside Pump Station Improvements Project, Memo, Decernber 8, 1997.
A The existing interceptor system is in need of upgrading to meet not only future
demands but also present demands. Currently the Union County interceptor system
serving Marshville and others is operating well above design capacity during peak
flow periods.
A According to Union County's Sewer Master Plan, the pump stations, interceptor lines
as well as the treatment capacity reserved at the Monroe WWTP are inadequate to
meet the 20 year projected flows for the eastern Union County area,
B. Old Marshville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Until the early 1980's, the Town of Marshville owned and operated its own wastewater
treatment facility. This plant was located southeast of town and consisted of two waste
stabilization lagoons and chlorination for treatment. Constructed in 1969 (NPDES Permit
Number NC1098 issued in 1966), the old plant had a permit capacity of 0.18 million
gallons per day and the lagoons had a design capacity of 7.2 acres, The discharge point
was Lick Branch, a tributary to the Yadkin River. The wastewater treatment facility had
Town of Marshville Wasiewater Preliminary Report Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
a clear compliance history with no notices of violations. The plant was abandoned.
because the Town of Marshville was required to participate in the present 201 Project.
C. Union C©unty/Marshv erAgreement
Tes of the Union County/Marshville Agreement
This system was put into place in the late 1970's with an agreement between Union
County and the Town of Marshville signed in October 1978. The agreement was for
Union County to transport wastewater from Marshville to the Monroe WWTP where the
wastewater would be treated under an agreement between Union. County and Monroe.
Marshville agreed to pay Union. County for actual costs incurred in connection with the
collecting, transporting, monitoring and treatment of the wastewater. The peak flow rate
was initially 490,000 gallons per day.
What the Agreement Entai
The following is a list of items included in the Contract as written in 1978.
1. Union County agreed to transport Marshville's wastewater through county lines
to the Monroe wastewater treatment plant.
2. Marshville will be charged the actual cost for transporting and treatment by
Union County.
Marshville's peak flow is not to exceed 490,000 gpd. This amount can be
negotiated if more is needed.
4. Union County agreed to provide Marshville with a bill in a timely manner.
Union County has a right to convey waste through Marshville's system. This
right will not affect Marshville's allocation. The county will pay Marshville the
transport cost. (This gives the county the freedom to serve "around"
Marshville.)
6. If the County can not furnish complete service (if they have to restrict flows) the
County can reduce Marshville's services, but no more than it reduces its own.
7. The County will allow inspections of facilities and records,
8. The county is to operate and maintain monitoring stations.
9. The County is to install and maintain master meters.
10. Marshville is to construct, own, and operate its own collection system.
11. Payment to the County is based on 0 & M cost. 0 & M cost equals the 0 & M.
of lines from Marshville to Monroe, plus 0 & M for allocation of Monroe's
wastewater treatment plant assigned to the County plus administrative cost.
12. Marshville is to pay a portion of local and capital financing cost.
13. Marshville will pay part of debt service of any bonds and other obligations.
Town of : arshville Wastewater Preliminary Report
Page 10

CAVANAUGH & ASS©'CIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
14, If Union County received grant monies for any part, Marshville will not have to
pay accordingly.
15. The initial cost of any existing facilities owned by Union County, not paid for
by grant monies, will be determined and Marshvillewill pay the balance of the
initial cost when Union County starts treatment of the Marshville sewage.
Straight line depreciation over a period of 30 years will be used.
16. This contract will continue for 30 years from when the system is ready for
Marshville's use, If Marshville discontinues discharge to the system before debt
incurred by Union County is paid, Marshville will continue to pay Union
County its part of the debt until it is paid, or Union County and Marshville can
negotiate for Union County to assume Marshville's capacity for the county's
own use.
17. The charge for service is Union County's actual cost.
18. Union County and Marshville are to adopt and implement compatible cost
recovery systems and industrial users in Marshville will receive the same
service as Union County industrial users.
19. If Marshville annexes any area where Union County sewer lines or
appurtenances that are owned by Union County, Marshville will within 15
months purchase the Union County lines in appurtenances.
Price and payments are described as below:
A. Total initial cost determined - depreciated over time from initial service to
the time of acquisition (straight-line depreciation with a 40 year life
expectancy). The difference between initial cost and depreciation is the
balance remaining and the sale price. Within 15 months Marshville will
pay 100% of any local funds and 50 % of any grants of the balance
remaining. Within five years, Marshville will pay the remaining 50% of
grant funds balance. Upon payment of the 100% of local funds and 50% of
grant funds, Marshville will take over operation and maintenance.
B. Marshville's Capital allotment will not be diminished as a result of an
annexation,
C. If Union County has to relocate monitoring or metering devices as a result
of Marshville's annexation, then Marshville will pay for the relocation and
all other related costs.
Discussion of Recent Changes to the Agreement.
In October 1994, the agreement was revised. The peak flow allocation remained at
490,00€1 gpd. A monthly average of 376,500 gpd treatment capacity was set. The
revision of the contract came about on the heels of the discovery that Union County had
been overcharging Marshville for some time. There was a legal settlement between
Union County and Marshville concerning the overcharges.
Town o`'nrshvile Wastewater Prellirttnt Report
Page

CAV NAUGII + ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consuming Engineers
The following items are changes from the original agreement.
1. Peak flow at 490,000 gpd is a transmission capacity. The capacity allotted to
Marshville at the Monroe wastewater treatment plant is 376,500 gpd. This is
based on a monthly average. If more than the above is needed by Marshville for
more than three months in any calendar year, Union County and Marshville will
negotiate.
2. Variable charges for treatment are dependent on charges assessed to Union
County by Monroe, the utility cost for pump stations and lab analysis of samples.
When Union County receives the proposed charges from Monroe, Union County
will submit a proposed budged for the Eastside systems to Marshville for the next
fiscal year. If Marshville does not agree, they can dispute.
3. Marshville will regulate flow so is does not exceed the established design flow.
4. In lieu of administrative cost, the cost of one clerk will be paid by the Eastside
participants (1/4 to each participant).
5. All cost associated with Union. County's collection system will be separate from
Eastside transmission system.
6. Costs charged to Marshville are actual cost as follows:
A. Monthly variables sewage charges based on the amount of Marshville's
discharge.
B. Monthly 0 & M charges associated with. Eastside transportation system.
C. Monthly depth service — Marshville's part of Union County's transport
system and improvements at the Monroe wastewater treatment plant.
I. High strength charges — for transport of wastewater of higher strength than
domestic strength wastewater.
7. To allocate cost to each participant:
A. Union County will calculate total wastewater volume for the year for each
participant. Percent for each participant will be determined and used to
split the 0 & M cost. This percent is applied to 0 & M cost paid on a
monthly basis by each used to Union County for the next physical year.
B. Marshville's I & I was determined in the contract to be 1,516 gpd.
Monthly flows are to be Marshville's actual meter reading, plus this I & I.
Monthly volume charge equals:
Flow related test cost.
Flow related utility cost.
Treatment cost.
All of these are multiplied by the adjusted
low
Town of arrhville aste Ater Prelirninar Report Page 12

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
C. Union County operates and maintains Salem Branch pump station,
Meadow Branch pump station and Rays Branch pump station, The 0 &
M cost is broken down as follows:
30% of the 0 & M is allocated to the Salem pump station.
35%© is allocated to Meadow Creek pump station.
35% is allocated to Rays Creek pump station
Since only Marshville and Wampler Longacre use the Salem Creek
pump station, then they split the 30% 0 & M. The other 70% is split
by all participants.
D. The cost of 25% of one clerk is allocated to Marshville, as well as a
percent of two wastewater employees. This is the same percent used to
figure 0 & M cost.
E. Cost of equipment used for 0 & M of the east side system is included.
F. The cost of repairs to flow meters is included.
G. Cost of engineering studies for east side system,
H. Estimated capital replacement cost for eastside transport system.
The flow percent is determined and budget estimate derived. The total divided by
12 months and multiplied by the percent to determine monthly fix charges for
each participant.
8. Marshville is responsible for 33% of the initial local cost associated with
construction of transport lines to Monroe.
Marshville did not participate in the 1993.expansion of the Monroe Wastewater
treatment plant. If the plant expands in the future and Union County gets more
capacity in the plant, Marshville will have the opportunity to participate in the
expansion up to an amount of 50%Q of 490,000 gpd.
10. Marshville is responsible for 25% of Monroe's SOC and will pay its share of
future S0C's.
11. Marshville may have to pretreat their waste. Marshville will have to pay any
fines or penalties incurred by Marshville or Union County because of a higher
strength discharge from Marshville.
12. At the end of the fiscal year, Union County will calculate the actual 0 & M cost
of the eastside system. If this cost is more than what Union County collected
during the year, Marshville will pay their portion of that cost, based on their 0 &
M percentage. If it is less, Marshville will be refunded a portion of the difference
based on their percentage. Any violations of capacity at the Monroe wastewater
treatment plant will be split by each entity based on the percent determined
earlier.
13. There is a procedure set for resolution of disputes. This procedure includes the
creation of a dispute resolution committee. The committee is activated by written
notice and consist is three members and the dispute is solved by majority vote.
Town o Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page

CAV
AUGH
ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Offer from Union County to Acquire Marsbville's System
According to a letter to the Town of Marshville from the Union County Director of
Public Works, if the county were to take over the system, the county would:
1. Fund the necessary upgrades to the pump stations,
2. Provide an additional treatment capacity to the Town of l 'larshville
through the Monroe WWTP proposed expansion,
3 Rehabilititate the Town of Marshville water and sewer systems with the
highest priority equal to the rest of the county system and
4. Maintain a sewer rate equal to what county customers pay.
Not stated in this communication by the County is that the county would be taking the
system from Marshville, not purchasing. There would be no reimbursement for the
system property.
D. Financial status of any generalized facility such as water inclusive
annual O&M costs, tabulation of users by monthly average categories, etc.
The Water and Sewer Operations Budget for 1998-1999 is shown in Table 2.
Table 2• Water & Sewer Operations ,Budget
eserption
$256,800
239,063
To n of Marshville
eater Preliminaxr Report
Page 14

CAVAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
VI. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. Growth & Development Consideration
As was discussed in the population projection section of the report, the Town of
Marshville is located strategically to the new Highway 74 Bypass. Utilizing a projected
growth increase of 7.12 percent per year generates a total planning year population for
the Town of Marshville of 7,342 persons. Without the new bypass and its secondary
impact influences, the population is expected to be 4,011 at year 2020.
To get a better determination of existing gallons per day per capita flow, the 1997
average daily flow of 220,000 gpd was divided by the 1996 population of 2,710 persons.
This generates an effective gallons per day per resident of 81.2 gpd per capita.
Similarly, the wet or high month that was recorded in March of 1998 generated a total
waste flow of 452,223 gpd for a total gpd per capita flow of 166. The following table
summarizes the various flow and growth scenarios.
Table 3r Growth Scenarios
Population Ave, Dai
2,710
220,000
2,710 452,223
7,342 917,750
Recommend using 1.0 mgd for average daily flow.
Note statewide average &5 gpdpc.
166
125
125
Current Average Daily Flow
(ADF)
Cax. Month ADF
Average of 81 & 166 (round up)
.-A
Marshville with By -Pass
For the 2020 planning period, it is recommended that the Town of Marshville accept a
125 gpd per capita flow value. Based on the Marshville with Highway 74 Bypass, it is
expected that this required flow at the design year would be 917,750 gpd. For design.
purposes, a 1.0 mgd facility is recommended to be constructed.
Assuming that the statewide average per capita use is 85 gpd and using 7,342 as the
design population at the year 2020 generates a total residential need of 624,070 gpd. If a
1.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility is constructed, this would, in turn, leave a
residual for non -specified industrial growthof approximately 376,000 gpd.
The 1.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility accounts for an alrnost tripling of the 4"ovn
of Marshville's population over the 20 year design life.
Town of r°arshvtlle Wastewater Preliminary Report
Page 15

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCI
S, P.A. Consulting Engineers
B. Health & Safety Discussion
It is the goal and intent of every community to provide safe and healthy living conditions
for all of its citizens. The Town of Marshville, which has and will continue to experience
significant growth, will continue to be faced with approval of new residential facilities.
With the Growth expanding at a rate that sometimes can exceed the ability for
infrastructure to keep up, the pressure to allow residential communities to be constructed
on septic systems becomes very real.
As growth is expected to continue in the north west portion of town new collection lines
will need to be extended to facilitate this growth. With this new growth new wastewater
discharge will be generated thereby putting a stress on the existing operating
arrangements with Union County and the City of Monroe. The Town of Marshville
needs to keep the options of providing for future growth and development and providing
for safe and healthy living conditions to be left open. Additionally, those existing
customers who are currently on septic systems will most likely begin to experience
negative environmental considerations in the future. It will be the charge of the Town of
Marshville to constantly provide capacity and collection line options for these temporary
septic tank systems.
C. System Operation & Maintenance
The Town of Marshville will continue to have a portion of its annual operating budget to
be consumed by wastewater collection and treatment line items. The current wastewater
collection and treatment expenses include: billing and collection of the Town of
Marshville customers, operation and maintenance of pump station and gravity sewers
within the city limits of Marshville, and coordination and payment of facilities charges to
Union County..
If a new centralized wastewater treatment facility is constructed, which is owned and
operated by the Town of Marshville, the Town can expect several new operation and
maintenance items. These operation and maintenance items are dependent, however, on
the type of treatment that is selected.
Town ©f Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 16

CAVANAUGH & ASSOC
S, P.A. consulting Engi
VII. PRESENTATION OF PRIMARY ALTERNATIVES
Four primary alternatives were considered to address Marshville's wastewater concerns:
Option A: A Regional Constructed Wetland Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Option. B: A Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility;
Option C: Continued collection of sewer with discharge into the Union
County system for treatment at Monroe (status quo); and
Option D: Allowing Union County to acquire Marshville's collection system.
Land application has been considered in previous studies, however, due to the poor soils
in the area it is not being considered as a primary alternative in this report.
A. Description ofAlternati es
Option A: Regional Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatmegt Facility
The Town of Marshville would construct a new 1.0 MGD CWWTF to treat Marshville's
anticipated wastewater flows for a design period of 20 years. The proposed discharge
would be on Salem Creek. Included would be the construction of a new 12" force main
from the existing Salem Creek pump station to the CWWTF site. The alternative is based
on the ability of Marshville to acquire the Salem Creek pump station and any additional
necessary gravity sewer line. The existing pumps could be utilized for the full 1.0 MGD
design flow without the necessary costly upgrades. Speculative discharge limits for the
Salem Creek site have been requested from the N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources, however, costs have been conservatively prepared for tertiary treatment
limits. It has become apparent that 1.0 MGD would be maximum feasible CWWTF for
the area, limiting flow strictly to existing and future Marshville flows.
Option B: Mechanical Treatment Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Town would construct a 1.0 MGD mechanical treatment facility to treat Marshville's
wastewater flows for a design period of 20 years. The components are identical to those
listed for the Regional CWWTF. Long term operations and maintenance costs are
expected to be higher for a mechanical treatment plant versus those for a CWWTF.
Again, the alternative is based on the ability of Marshville to acquire the Salem Creek
pump station and any additional necessary gravity sewer line.
Option C: Collect and i tunp Sewer to Union County (Status Quo)
This alternative would require Marshville to pay the $613,278 for the proposed pump
station upgrades. Currently, Marshville has 378,000 GPD allocated at the Monroe
Town of Marshville ste a er Prelim n rry Report Page 17

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIA I ES, P.A.
facility. In order to appropriately compare alternatives, this alterr
Marshville to acquire up to 1.0 MGD of treatment capacity at the
cost to acquire the necessary treatment capacity was determined to
gallons as proposed in Mike Shalati's Decernber 22, 1997 lf
Marshville would continue with the current billing arrangement
with Union County.
In addition to requiring 1.0 MGD of treatment capacity, Marshville would also need to
increase transport capacity to 1.0 MGD in order to compare alternatives. As the proposed
capital improvements stand currently, these improvements would not upgrade to 1.0
MGD. It is estimated that an additional $1,270,000 will be needed to upgrade
transmission lines.
Union County has indicated its desire to acquire Marshville's collection system. In
return, Union County would offset the entire cost of the purnp station upgrades, acquire
additional treatment capacity at the Monroe facility (although no amount specified), and
operate and maintain the collection system. Union County would offer the identical
sewer rate of $3.30 per thousand gallons plus the base facility charge of $9.25 that it
offers other users in the county.
B. Design criteria
For each of the primary alternative there are some repetitive design characteristics and
elements For those options A & B which involve the construction of a new wastewater
treatment facility, the following elements are anticipated as design element.
1 A r e.e." 1-N -; 1 - T71
Additio:
bar sue
hanical
h.
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 18

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIA
S, P.A. Consulting Engineers
The mechanical bar screen for the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility
would have an effective opening of 3/8 to 1 inch. The facultative lagoon system which
would serve as the primary treatment unit would utilize two lagoons with a retention time
approximately 13 days.
The duckweed phase of the constructed wetland wastewater treatment facility would have
an approximate detention time of 2.0 days. The duckweed collector would have an
effective detention time .005 days. The shallow rooted plant cells, 3.4 days. For a total
retention time in the wastewater treatment facility of approximately 18 days.
Option B: Conventional Mchancai Wastewater Treatment Facility
For the mechanical treatment facility which employees the use of clarifiers for secondary
settling the surface loading rate would be established at 350 gpd per square foot. For the
filters, they would be designed for a loading rate of 3 gpm per square foot. This would be
based on the maximum hydraulic loading of 2.5 mgd. The sludge yield for mechanical
wastewater treatment facility is anticipated to be at 0.75 lbs of total suspended solids per
lb. of BOD that destroyed. For 1.0 mgd this is anticipated to result in 1600 lbs sludge
per day. For sludge return of the mechanical wastewater treatment facility it is
anticipated that the sludge return pump station would be required to provide a return rate
of between 50 and 125% of the average daily flow.
Option C: Collect And Pump Sewer to Union County (Status Quo)
The design criteria for this alternative would essentially be flow driven. That is as the
flow increases the collection system pumping stations and down stream of pertinent
works would need to be upgraded and maintained accordingly.
Option. D: Turnover to Union County
There is no design criteria associated with the abandonment of the Town of Marshvilles
system. The cost associated with the system is dependent upon Union County and the
subsequent rates and rate increases would be subject to Union County and Marshville
negotiated agreements,
Town of Marshvil e Wasiewater Preliminary Report Page 19

CAV
AUG H & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
C. Construction Problems
Each of the four primary alternatives has its
The two alternatives that incorporate new
wastewater treatment facilities would have
problems to occur.
OptA: Regional Co
own characteristic construction technique.
construction by the installation of new
the largest opportunity for construction
cted Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
This option would require approximately 43 acres which would include access roads and
other infrastructure. While the constructed Wetlands wastewater Treatment facility could
be configured to minimize space, it is anticipated that there would still be a large area
required to be under construction. Of course, the larger the construction area, the more
opportunity for construction related problems to occur. It is not anticipated that rock
would be encountered in the areas that are currently under consideration, however, a
further and more detailed geotechnical investigation must be performed. Because the
cuts are fairly shallow and the depth of basins likewise shallow; it is anticipated that the
conflicts with seasonal high groundwater table would be limited.
Option B; Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dependant upon the hydraulic profile associated with the final layout of the mechanical
wastewater treatment facility, it is anticipated that a portion of those structures necessary
for the major process units may need to be buried with a wall height of 42 inches. This
partial burial would require an evaluation of the groundwater conditions and possible
dewatering of high groundwater in the area of construction. The other construction
consideration such as rock are expected to be minimal based upon the minimal footprint
required for mechanical treatment facility.
Option C; Co
ct and Pump Sewer to Union County (Status Quo)
The Town of Marshville is not anticipated to, see any construction problems associated
with this option. This is due to Marshville paying their proportionate share of the cost
associated with pump station upgrades, collection line improvements and discharge line
improvements in the future. It is anticipated that because of continued growth there will
be a need for a wastewater treatment facility toserve eastern Union County in the future.
Town ri `M rs, viiieWastewater Prel rnincu Report Page 20

CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Option D: Turning ovens System to Union. County
No construction problems would be associated with this option. However, Union County
has said the East Side will need to build a wastewater treatment plant in the future.
D. Land Requirements
Option A: Regional Con t 'ucted \% et(nnds 4 astewater Treatment Facility
30-60 acres
Qption B: Con enti
5 — 10 acres
a
chanical Wastewater Tre
Facility
Option : Collect and Pump Sewer tv Unio County (Status Quo)
No new land required in the short term. However, land would be required for a future
East side wastewater treatment facility when the county requires it.
Qption D: Turning over the System to Union County
No new land required. However, land would be required for a future East side wastewater
treatment facility when the county requires it.
Town o, Marshvil e *astewater PreliminaryReport Page 21
w�.

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
E. Schematic Layout/Mapping
Option A: Regional Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Figure 4: CWWTF Plan View & Cross Sections
WASTE ATER TREATMENT PLANT
`Cf_ILMATLC L, T
O1ee E Ss.ca,+spa
NOTES
3 cat aw=e :, r apt+o., o tom .n «no. ram am„ev
Rrc" d+aki.o. 5 a.6.xmR 41ennAp **I On m. 3oY3.33133.
S. FC.en wm�WM.**** *Cerro mo Sr ***,utC; eCdi{i (Cf»n
r..mh,m,e«a�`�ma n x.ow
.a Vim, am a..., mot.aa .tea. na r.., +w, AAA.. :m,o
.34335 a,.c.„ mm:sy a ..t .-r
paw*.
mme woo .x sm..+,t. oho. loom a , .m,wa..,h Ors, za
OW WOOED.
Atv T 1333
CA... C.
Prtnexwva Co�r.,ccsc
rt,,x,+* ac rtt.et,u
N.*'t. a:
f34Y !=isR .,.4333:Rue344.,
S4.34i1.pn3 3? 44 ,.....a nee 3 hn°,nnsH ;n 44 .,c.,
(3 at
3. Eucc+vtgmde ". re,34.413 m .am„m, . donlE t of .,ra.
..e+tv,,.,4333t. to 4.,.3E+3
4, tract. WI r a n, anawaa.a,{ �:, evlertaap cnewac�ewa
vn5
mcie;,dd, ie va-tauo
Town of Marsl v lleWastewater P'relinunar, Report
Page 2

igg CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Option B, Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
Figure 5: Mechanical WWTF Schematic
Iti
RAS
U7
dgc Rccum
.yap Station
tt To Sludge Disposal
To Discharge
Point
F. Environmental Assessment
One of the major focuses of North Carolina Water Quality is the elimination of point
source discharges and provision of adequate wastewater treatment for the communities.
While Constructed Wetland Treatment, in municipal applications, is relatively new to
North Carolina, many states such as Florida,, Mississippi, and Kentucky have been
implementing and yielding positive results from the utilization of Constructed Wetlands
Treatment technology for many years. The extremely long detention times and ability to
buffer the waste is extremely attractive from an environmental perspective. Additionally,
a similar Constructed Wetland Facility is operational and meeting significantly better
than secondary limits in Walnut Cove, North. Carolina, without the use of tertiary
filtration. This plant has been operational since spring 1996. To date, there have been no
exceedences of the permit limits. A review of the effluent performance data reveals that
during the majority of the review period, the facility has been meeting tertiary limitations.
The effluent data is included in the Appendices.
The following is an environmental discussion of the impacts of each of the alternatives.
This section primarily addresses the adverse impacts associated with each option.
Option A: Regional Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility
The constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility will require construction of
approximately 30 acres of property. Counting roadways and appurtenant infrastructure,
this number approaches 43 acres. Because of the large land area required and associated
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 23

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
buffers around the wastewater treatment facility, it is anticipated that the opportunity for
disturbance of habitat, existing wetland areas, and other highly specialized natural areas
is possible. A species survey (both plant and animal) as well as a wetland delineation is
anticipated prior to the final option being exercised on the property. During the course of
construction, machinery such as bulldozers, scrapers, pans, and other trucks and
combustion powered equipment will be on the project site. The project duration is
anticipated to be short (within 6 to 8 months) and the environmental impacts are
considered to be minimal.
The effects on the environment with respect to ultimate system and how it fits in and
balances with the environment is an extreme positive and one of the primary
considerations for this alternative being carefully considered. The approximate 30 acres
of new natural habitat area associated with the constructed wetlands facility are
anticipated to greatly outweigh any potential temporary environmental impacts associated
with construction.
Option B: Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility
The construction of concrete basins and piping and discharge facilities does represent a
temporary impact to a small area. This impact would be in the form of utilization of
combustion engines on the project site, potential for construction noise, and the transport
of new materials to the project site. The temporary construction noise and air quality
effects are minimal as they relate to the overall operation of positive environmental
solutions. There are, however, longterm environmental impacts anticipated such as an
increase in decimal level to the area based on the continual operation of rotary positive
displacement blowers and other rotating equipment.
The mechanical wastewater treatment facility would be designed with sufficient aeration
which would provide for the dampening to reduction of any potential negative odors
associated with the facility.
As mentioned previously, the Union County pumping alternative incorporates the
utilization of three main pumping stations. The three main pump stations are pumping
raw waste; however, they are equipped with standby power facilities. The potential for
negative environmental impact results from the potential failure of these pumping
stations, in the event of pump station, as well as stand-by power failure, then the ability
for raw wastewater to discharge would be possible. The eight miles of forcernain, which
transport raw wastewater, do present conditions for the generation of hydrogen Sulfide
gas (H2S), Hydrogen Sulfide is more commonly referred to as the rotten egg odor or
sewage gas smell. In areas where the forcemains will be discharging to the gravity
collection system, the potential for Hydrogen Sulfide release to the atmosphere is
Town of Marshville Wiz tewater Prelinunary Report Page 24

CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES, P.A. consulting Engineers
extremely prevalent. Special coatings in the receiving manholes, as well as odor control
systems are quite commonly needed in long forcemain situations.
Option D: Turning over the System to Union County
If Union County takes over the Town of Marshville's collection system and provides for
their uninhibited treatment needs based on their growth projections, then the
environmental impacts will be the same as in Option C. If, however, capacity is not
made available to the Town of Marshville to keep up with its growth and septic tank
systems are approved, then the effect on ground -water quality could be somewhat
compromised.
G. Capital Cost Estimates for Primary Alternatit e,
Option A: l.0 MG J Constricted W+ tland, Wa
Floating Aerator
Piping & Weir Boxes
Flow Measurement & Sampling
UV Discharge
Effluent Structure
Control Building
Fine Grading (190,000 SY)
Electrical
Clearing & Grubbing
Lining (1,700,000 SF)
Grading (200,000 CY)
Plants
12" Force Main
Construction. Cost
Land (60 AC)
Legal, Contingency, Engineering
Cost for Wampler Pump Station & Force Main
TOTAL PROJECTED COST
e
Treatment Facili y
$25,000
$25,000
$30,000
$125,000
$30,000
$50,000
$190,000
$25,000
$150,000
$727,000
$600,000
$60,000
$350,000
$2,387,000
$150, 000
$513,000
$500,000
$3, 550, 00©
Town of Mcrsavaile Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 25

CAV AUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consu n Engineers
Option B; 1,0 MGD Conventional Mechanical Wastewater
General Requirements & Mobilization
Sitework & Degrit Facility
Aeration Basins (2)
Clarifiers (2)
Sludge Return & Filter Pump Station
Tertiary Filters
Control Building & Lab Facility
Stand-by Power & Electrical
Chlorination Dechlorination & Reaeration
Sludge Stabilization Basin
Instrumentation
12" Force Main
Construction Cost
Engineering Design
Construction Observation
Land (10 AC) & RJW
Legal
Contingency
Cost of Wampler Pump Station & Force Main
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Treatment Facility
Option C; Collect and Pump Sewer to Union County (Status
Pump Station. Upgrades
Additional Treatment Capacity at ]'Monroe
to achieve 1.0 MGD
Cost to upgrade pump station & force main to 1.0 mgd
transmission capacity
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
Opt on D;Turning over .he System to Union County
No capital. cost
$150,000
$330,000
$500,000
$400,000
$170,000
$180,000
$200,000
$250,000
$175,000
$250,000
$25,000
$350,000
$2,980,000
$180,000
$140,000
$35,000
$10,000
$330,000
$500,000
$4, 1 75, 000
$61.3,278
$1,063,620
$1,270,000
S2,946,898
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preninar Report Page 26

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Cons t ttthg Engineers
IL Operation and Maintenance Costs
Annual operations and maintenance costs are described for each of the primary
alternatives. These costs do not include the operations and maintenance costs associated
with the existing collection system.
If a constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility is selected for the Town of
Marshville, the operation and maintenance is reduced significantly. The constructed
wetlands wastewater treatment concept utilizes the natural approach of biological waste
decomposition through anaerobic, aerobic and facultative microbial life. The influent
waste stream would, of course, need to still undergo a rudimentary screening process
followed by flow measurement. These operation and maintenance aspects were outlined
in the mechanical treatment section.
Following the preliminary screening, the wastewater must undergo primary treatment.
The primary treatment anticipated for the Marshville system would be a small aerobic
lagoon which provides for aeration, then a quiescent zone settling followed by a slight.
reaeration zone prior to entrance into the constructed wetlands marsh facility. This
highly aerobic zone would be accomplished through either floating aerators or course
bubble diffused aeration in an impervious lagoon or tank. The maintenance associated
with a floating -type aerator would be lined periodic observation of the aeration
equipment and turning off and inspecting the equipment for required greasing of fittings,
etc. The aeration equipment that should be designed and installed in the aerobic zone
should be equipment that is expected to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Following the preliminary treatment, the wastewater would flow to the natural sectionof
the constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility. In this section which could be a
duckweed type treatment flow regime, followed by a bulrush or cattail plant section, the
waste is placed in an environment which has an extremely long detention time. The
natural nutrient uptake from the plant species breaks down the waste elements
specifically nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. There is maintenance around this
facility, as it is land intensive. It is, however, only as it relates to mowing and potential
animal depravation if those animals begin to cause problems such as borrowing into
berms, etc. Following the natural marsh facility, the wastewater would flow to a tertiary
treatment facility followed by disinfection. Both of these components would require the
same type of maintenance required as described in the mechanical treatment section.
Town © orshville Wastewater Pre1r°aninary Report Page 27

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Salem Creek Pump Station — Powe
Pump Maintenance
Treatment Plant - Power
Treatment Plant - Maintenance
Treatment Plant - Operations
TOTAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ($./Yr.)
Option ventional Mechaq'ea1Wastewater Treatment Facility
$15,330
$8,000
$18,©00
$10,0©0
$75,000
$126,330
If conventional mechanical treatment facilities are constructed, the Town can expect to
provide operation and maintenance to the following process units:
Manual/mechanical bar screen which will require attention raking and screenings
removal and disposal.
Influent wastewater pumping which will require electrical power maintenance at the
pump station and potential odor control.
Influent flowmeasurement through a Parshall flume with an ultrasonic flow meter
recording flow. The output for this flow would most likely go to a circular chart
recorder which would require daily or weekly chart maintenance to switch the charts,
pins, etc.
Aeration basin. In most mechanical wastewater treatment facilities, aeration is
provided as the primary treatment facility in the flow scheme. In any aeration basin
you will have either mechanical surface type aeration or diffused bubble aeration. In
either of these, there are bearings on mechanical rotating equipment or blowers with.
rotating equipment providing aeration. Operation and maintenance would be in the
form of checking grease fittings on bearings, observing the equipment in operation
and a routine maintenance plan.
Clarification. For the liquid/solid separation circular clarifiers are typically utilized.
The circular clarifier is driven by a one to two horsepower worm gear drive unit
which rarely needs extensive maintenance other changing the oil. Periodically, the
clarifiers needto be taken down and the rotating equipment (skimmer arms, scrapper
blades, etc.) need to be touched up and repainted.
Tertiary Filtration. Most likely a mechanical wastewater treatment facility for the
Town of Marshville would be required to utilize a tertiary filtration basin, This third
step in the treatment process will assure high quality effluent, particularly for total
suspended solids and BADS that is captured on the suspended solids, Typical
To o larsiiville T ` tewwaterPreliminary Report Page 28

1.94 CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
operation and maintenance items for tertiary filtration include: periodically coring the
filter media to observe its functionality and uniformity and operating the filters in a
backwash mode to clean and scrub the media to afford a 50% media expansion for
continued filter performance. The equipment necessary to facilitate backwash and
normal operation typically includes a rotary positive displacement blower pumps, etc,
Greasing and observation of this equipment would be a part of the routine.
Disinfection Facilities. While the move in wastewater treatment technology is more
towards ultraviolet disinfection, the characteristics of the waste treated, must be
carefully considered, If UV disinfection is selected, it is anticipated that bulb
cleaning, which involves taking a rack of bulbs out of the wastewater flow stream and
removing the film that builds up over time, would improve the transmissivity of light.
This is a routine maintenance item. Periodic observation of the equipment for other
touch-up paint type items or cleanliness around the facilities is critical. If
chlorinationfdechlorination is suggested based on effluent conditions, then chlorine
storage and handling becomes a major consideration. Chlorine which is a hazardous
chemical, is required to be stored in a safe manner. It is anticipated that this would
include a storage building equipped with evacuation fans, alarms, sensors, and scales,
The operation and maintenance requires a process safety management plan and
training of operators, specifically for work around the facility containing chlorine.
Routine process control test, as well as laboratory and NPDES permitting test are
required, It is anticipated that a portion of these new laboratory procedures would be
"farmed out" to larger facilities or to contract operators. Nonetheless, however, a few
of the basic rudimentary operational test must still be performed by the operators.
These would include total suspended solids, BOD5, residual chlorine, dissolved
oxygen, etc.
Salem Creek Purnp Station - Power
Purnp Maintenance
$15,330
$8,000
Treatment P1ant Power $36,000
Treatment. Plant - Maintenance $10,000
Treatment Plant - Operations $75,000
Treatment Plant - Chemicals $3,000
Treatment Plant - Sludge Disposal $25,000
TOTAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ($/Yr.) $172,330
Town o " arshville Wastewater "reli r inary Report Page 29

[.54
CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
Monthly Fixed Charge
Variable Charge
$6325.60
$0.92 / 1000 gal
[1,000,000 x (30/1000)] x 0°92 + 6325.60 = $33,925 / mo. $407,100 / yr,
TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ($/Yr.) $407,100
Option 0: Turning over the System to Union Count
$3.30 / 1000 gal (per Mike Shalati letter)
[1,000,000 x (30/1000)] x 3.30 = $99,000 / mo. $I,188,000 / yr.
Plus fixed cost at $9.25 x 1,300 customers = $12,025/ mo.
TOTAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ($/Yr.)
L Net Present Cast C©tnparisan of Primary Alternatives
$144,300/yr.
$1,332,300
For the basis of comparing alternatives, a 20-year life cycle cost analysis (net present
cost) was performed for each alternative. A compounding rate of 8% was used for the
analysis. Salvage value was based upon the land cost, and assumed a 50-yr useful life on
piping and other materials, The following summarizes the net present cost analysis:
Table 4: Net Present Costs of Alternatives
native
1.0 MGD CWWTF
1.0 MGD Mech.
Facility
Collect & Pump to
Union County
Union Acquires
Marshville System
$3,550,000
$4,175,000
$2,946,898
$0
$126,330
$172,
0
$407,1.00
2,300
Remaining
al ae• Value
$1.80,000
$534,000
$75,000
$0
Present
Cost
$4,751,723
$5,752,427
$6,927,799
080n7
From an economic position, the Regional. CWWTF yields the lowest Net Present Cost by
over $1,000,000. This analysis indicates that best long term solution (20 years) for the
Town of Marshville is to construct and operate their own wastewater collection and
treatment system. As was discussed with Town officials in initial scoping meetings, a
significant upfront cost can provide Marshville with a long term cost savings, and just as
importantly, their independence.
Town of Marshville Wastewater PreReport Page 30

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consultint Engineers
While a CWWTF is the best long tern solution for Marshville, the associated user fees
were analyzed to determine the effect on the citizens of the Town. The user fees were
analyzed and compared for three of the primary alternatives: Regional. CWWTF, Status
Quo and. Union Acquires Marshville System,
J. Cost Per User Evaluation
This analysis was utilized to evaluate three of the primary alternatives on the basis of cost
to the user. The analysis was prepared assuming a 20 year loan from the State Revolving
Fund, with an interest rate of 3%,
Existing Rate Calculations
For an existing rate of $7.25 + (4)($3.80) = $22.45
Current Marshville O&M costs = $224,000/year
Must add Marshville O&M costs to the user fees for Alternatives A, B and C
($220,000/12) ÷ 1320 (number of users) = $13,89 per month
Option. A; Regional CQnstru edi 'uHands Wastewater Treatment Facility
Principal = $$3,550,000 / 20 years = $177,500 / year
Interest in the first year of payback
= $3,550,000 (F/P, 1
$3,656,500
$3,550,400
$106,500
Debt Service — $1.77,500 + $106,500 = $284,000 / year
=$126.330/year
Total Annual = $410,330 / year
Operations & Maintenance
For this analysis, utilized the average daily flow from the previous FY-2.20,000 GPD
($410,330 / yr) x (1 day / 220,000 gal) x (1 yr / 365 day) x 1000 = $5.11 / 1000 gal
This excludes the O&M costs for the existing collection system.
For avg. use of 5000 gal 1 month, $5.11 x 5 = $25.55 / month
Town o'Marshville 'astewater Preliminary, Report Page

CAVAAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consu rr'ng Engineers
Regional CWWTF
$25.55 + 13.89 = $39.44 / nnonth
Option B; Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Fa+ llal
Principal = $4,175,000 / 20 years = $208,750 / year
Interest in the first year of payback = $4,175,000 (F/P,
= $4,300,250
$4,175,004
$125,250
Debt Service = $208,750 + $125,250
Operations & Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
$334,000 / year
.$172.330 / year
_ $506,330 / year
For this analysis, utilized the average daily flow from the previous FY=220,000 GPD
($506,330 / yr) x (1 day / 220,000 gal) x (1 yr / 365 day) x 1000 = $6.30 / 1000 gal
This excludes the O&M costs for the existing collection system.
For avg, use of 5000 gal / month, $6.30 x 5 = $31.53 / month
Mechanical WWTF $31.51 + 13.89 = $45.42 / month
Option C: Collect and Pu p Sewer to Union County (Status Quo)
$2,946,898 financed at 4.5%0, 20 years
Debt Service = $226,546
Union County Fixed — $6,325
Union County Variable = $0.92/mo
Union County Annual Cost = $148.764
Total Annual Cost = $375,310
This translates into an $4.67 / 1000 gal fee excluding O&M for the existing collection.
system,.
For avg. use of 5000 gal. /rnonth, $4.67 x 5_ $23.37
Added to the existing rate, $23.37 + $13.89 = $37.26 / month
Town o 'Marshvill Wastewater Preliminary Pepon' Page 32

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Gets Marshville 1.0 MGD at the Monroe plant and includes pump station upgrades, and
can increase over time
Option P: Turning over the System to Union County
Union Acquires Marshville's System
$3.30 x 5 = $16.50 / month + $9.25 base facility charge = $25.75
The user fee excluding O&M for the existing collection system = $25.75 / month
** This option only gets Marshville 778,000 GPD at Monroe's plant whereas Options A,
B, and C get. Marshville 1,000,000 GPD.
Table 5: User Cost Summa
Option A: Regional
CWWTF
Option 13:
Mechanical WWTP
Option C: Collect
Pump to Union
County
Option D: Sell
System to Union
County
6,927,799 $37.26 31.40
Town o/` 'arshville
ewater Prelimi.
Report
Page

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, F.A. Consulting Engineers
K. Alternative Selection Matrix
The most preferred alternative is the alternative which satisfies the environmental cost
and long term operation and maintenance considerations for implementation. The
evaluation and presentation of net present cost shows the Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility is the most favorable from a net present cost scenario. In
regards to net present cost, Options A, 13, and C are reasonably close from a capital cost
and operation and maintenance cost perspective. Due the fact that these costs are so close
and that other considerations must be evaluated in the selection of the preferred
alternative, Table 7 has been developed to aid in the decision making process. This
matrix identifies eight selections or parameter waiting criteria. These are described as
below:
1. Expandability - Expandability is the ability for the constructed option to be expanded
upon in the future and allow for additional flow and capacity within the existing site.
Life Span - Life span is the planning window and long term operation and
maintenance window of the facility..
Engineering Concept - Engineering concept is the measure of applicability to normal
engineering practices and assuring the solution is technically capable of meeting the
design constraints.
4. Environmental Impact - Environmental impact identifies those areas which are
potentials for upset and concern.
Independence — Independence is a measure of how much control the Town of
Marshville will have over its own future.
6. Susceptibility to Upset - Susceptibility to upset is the measure of the buffering or
damping affect of the wastewater treatment facility to handle abnormal occurrences
of inflow or slow flows into the waste treatment facility..
7. Ease of Operation - Ease of operation is a measure of how easy it is to operate the
facility and how adaptable and user friendly the facility is to operate or direct
changes.
8. Net Present Cost - Net present cost is simply a measure of the total cost of the project
or life cycle cost. It is calculated by taking the capital cost and associated operation.
and maintenance cost and combining those costs to generate the total net present cost.
The matrix shows the relative importance in weighing each of these eight parameters. It
is most cornrnon the net present cost is the primary decision making tool, and as such, we
have weighted it at 50 percent. The remaining decision making factors are distributed
Town of MaWastewater PreReport Page 34

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
based on their importance to the long term operation and their ability to rneet existing and
proposed conditions.
Upon studying the preferred systems analysis matrix, it can be ascertained that not only is
the Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility the best alternative from a net
present cost standpoint but it is also the preferred alternative overall. The charts
accompanying the matrix shows a definite trend towards the Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Table 6: Matrix Pa a e e
Ability To Expand
System Lifespan (0-2)
Engineering Concept (0-2
Environmental Impact (0-5)
Independence (0-10)
Upset Potential (0-6)
Operational Ease (0-20)
Net Present Cost (0-50)
Total Score
s
2
5
0
6
20
50
100
Option A Option B Option C Option D
0 10
3
15
10
50 40
90 72.5
5
3
6
20
35'
73
20
10
46
Town ofMarshville Wastewater Prelirninary Report Page 35

CAVAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Alternative Evaluation Matrix
50
45
40 _
35 ...
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ability To Expand System Ufespan En ng Em1v. onm nt& Independence Upset Potential Operational Ease N
(0.5) (0-2) culoept (0-2) Impact (0-5) (0-10) (0-6) (0-20)
100
7
0
40
30
2
10
ga
ffl3Eiil; a fr
Constructed Wetland Facility Mechanical WWTP
Status Quo -Union County System Union County Takes Over System
is
Alternative Evaluation Summary
90
constructed Wetland Facility m Mechanical WWTP
us Quo - Union County System p Union County Takes Over System
Present Cos
(0-50)
Town of !arshville 'as ewater Preliminary Report
Page 36

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
VIII. PRESENTATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the evaluation of net present cost, ease of operation and, other related weighing
factors, the construction of a 1,0 mgd Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment
Facility is recommended.
A. Summary of the Preferred Alternative
• Requires 30 to 60 acres of property
• Project duration will be short (6 to 8 months)
• Environmental impact will be minimal during construction
• New natural habitat created will greatly outweigh temporary environmental impacts
• Capital cost = $3,550,000
• Operation & Maintenance Cost = $126,330 per year
• Net Present Cost = $4,751,708
• User Fee = $39.44 per month
B. Environmental Assessment of Preferred Alternative
This section outlines the environmental effects of the preferred alternative,
Surface Water Quality. The proposed construction of the preferred alternative
would necessitate crossing of streams and the disturbance of land at the site of the
Constructed Wetlands facility. Although careful erosion control measures will be
planned and observed, some runoff from the temporary construction into the
surface waters will be inevitable.
2. Groundwater Quality. Septic tanks in the area have a moderate potential for
failure because of the poor soils in the area. The failure of septic systems can
result in the contamination of groundwater. The preferred alternative, which
would reduce the need for new septic tanks in the future, would have a positive
effect on groundwater quality in the area. This should result in an overall net
benefit to ground water quality.
Changes in land use The changes in land use associated with implementation
of the preferred alternative are anticipated to be minimal. Wetlands and
floodplain, with the exception of crossing of streams by the proposed effluent
discharge forcemain, would not be impacted by the project. All construction
related activities in wetlands and floodplains would be handled under a
nationwide permit as issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Towi ofMarshviile Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 37

CAVA AUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ConsuEang Engineers
4. Prime or unique agriculturalland, There should be no detrimental effect to
any prime or unique agricultural land as a result of the construction of the
preferred alternative..
Public land scenic and recreational areas. The project should have no
adverse effect on any public land, scenic or recreational areas.
Areas of archeological or historic value. There should be no adverse impact of
areas of Archaeological or Historic value.
,Air Quality. During construction of the Constructed Wetland Treatment
Facility, a temporary negative impact on air quality will likely arise from dust and
the internal combustion engines of construction equipment. These negative
impacts on air quality should be minimal and temporary.
lloise There will be temporary noise pollution caused by equipment
during the construction of the project. The effluent discharge pump station and
preliminary treatment units will cause some noise after construction, although this
should be very minimal depending on the designs of the stations. In addition, the
proposed location of the effluent pump station and treatment areas will be placed
in an effort to minimize the disturbance to surrounding neighbors.
9. Water suppliest There are no public water supplies on Salem Creek.
10. Shellfish, fish, wildlife and their habitats, The US fish and wildlife service
and habitat conservation program with the NC Wildlife resources commission
will be contacted in relationship to this project. It is anticipated that there will be
no federally endangered species that might be effected by construction of the
project. Any development of the area, which might be enhanced by the
availability of additional wastewater capacity, will certainly result in the claiming
of some areas that are presently forested. The extent of this type of development
cannot be determined. As previously mentioned, the existence of the project may
actually reduce the distraction of wildlife habitat by allowing future population to
more densely settle in the area.
Unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigated measures. Construction of the
proposed project will result in some adverse environmental impacts that cannot be
avoided. There will be expenditures of fossil fuel and building materials that are
permanent in nature. There will be temporary negative effects on air quality and
noise pollution during this construction period. There will be some soil erosion
in spite of the requirements placed on construction activities. The use of proper
control measures and construction practices will minimize the adverse effects of
the construction.
Town of rshville t° Wastewater Preliminary Report
Page 38

CAV. ►NAUG & ASS©CIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
IX. EAST SIDE SCENARIOS
It has been determined that a Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility is the
best option for the Town of Marshville. This option has several scenarios that merit a
brief look. These scenarios involve the participation of Wampler Longacre. Scenarios
including the Town of Wingate were discussed,. It was decided that the possibility of
Wingate being involved in the project was slim because of the cost of tranmission lines to
the Marshville system. However, Wampler-Longacre would from the construction of
Marshville's wastewater treatment facility. Their participation would also be of benefit
to the Town. The scenarios are as follows:
1. Only the Town of Marshville participates
2. Wampler Longacre participates at existing useage (600,00
3. Wampler Longacre participates at future useage (1.4 mgd)
Can a CWWTF handle poultry waste?
d
Ultimately, whether Wampler-Longacre is required to pretreat their waste is up to the
State of North Carolina, Division of Water Quality. The concern of whether a
constructed wetlands wastewater treatment facility can handle the larger amounts of
ammonia in animal waste was voiced, when the possibility of including Wampler
Longacre in this project. Dr. B. C. Wolverton, PhD. was consulted concerning Wampler
Longacre contributing up to 1.4 mgd of poultry waste to a 2.0 mgd CWWTF.
Dr. Wolverton of Wolverton Environmental Service, Inc., Picayune, Mississippi, gained
his experience in constructed wetlands wastewater treatment through over 25 years with
NASA, working on wastewater treatment problems for the Space Station. This and his
many years of private work make him an authority in the field worldwide.
His comments concerning this particular system are quoted below:
"My experience in treating wastewater from chicken processing plants
indicates that initial treatment in anaerobic lagoons dramatically reduces
RODS and TSS, but significantly increases ammonia nitrogen. However,.
when aerated lagoons follow anaerobic digestion, the ammonia nitrogen
can be reduced from an average of 78-80 mg/I to an average of 25-28
mg/1.
With the two -cell, aerated lagoons followed by treatment in our
duckweed/shallow-cell marsh filters, I believe we can reduce ammonia
nitrogen levels well below the required 10 mg/I. The BOD5 and TSS
should also be similar to the Walnut Cove treatment level that averages
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 39

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
less than 5 mg/l. We propose additional retention time in the shallow
marsh filters to assure ammonia nitrogen reduction below 10 mg/1."
Scenario 1: Only the Town of MarshviIle participates
Scenario 1 is the same as the Preferred Alternative described above. List below is the
"statistics" of this scenario.
CWWTF capacity needed = 1.0 mgd
Capital Cost = $3,550,000
O&M Cost = $126,330
Net Present Cost = $4,751,723
User Rate for 5,000 gaiions per month = $39.44
Town of Marshville Wastewater Prelirnina,y Report Page 40

CAVAUGH ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consultin Engineers
Scenario 2t Wampler Longue participates at exit g seage (600,000gpd)
Scenario 2 involves a "partnership" between the Town of Marshville and Wampler
Longacre where Wampler commits to participating in a Marshville owned and operated
facility that would meets Wampler's existing needs of 600,000 gpd. A 1.6 mgd CWWTF
would be constructed to meet these needs. Table 8 shows the capital cost and O&M cost
of a 1.6 mgd facility.
Table 8: 1.61VMGD Constr t t dd Wastewater Treatment Facilit
Floating Aerator
Piping & Weir Boxes
Flow Measurement & Sampling
UV Discharge
Effluent Structure
Control Building
Fine Grading (190,000 SY)
Electrical
Clearing & Grubbing
Lining (1,700,000 SF)
Grading (200,000 CY)
Plants
14" Force Main
Construction Cost
Land (90 AC)
Legal, Contingency, Engineering
Cost of Wampler Pump Station & Force Main
$40,000
$40,000
$48,000
$180,000
$48,000
$80,000
$304,000
$40,000
5240,000
$1,163,000
$960,000
$96,000
$400,000
$2,400,000
$150,000
$513,000
$500,000
TOTAL PROJECTED COST $5,213,228
C) & M Cost $201,600
With a salvage value of $270,000, the Net Present Cost i $7,134,662.
User Cost = $14.06
Town a, 'arshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 41

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Scenario 3: Wampler Longacre participates at future useage (1.4 ingd)
Scenario 3 would serve the Town of Marshville plus Wampler Longacre's future needs of
1.4 mgd. This would require a 2,4 mgd CWWTF. Table 9 shows the capital cost and
O&M cost of a 2.4 mgd facility.
Table 9: 2.4 MGD Constructed Wetland Wa
ater
Facility
Floating Aerator $60,000
Piping & Weir Boxes $60,000
Flow Measurement & Sampling $72,000
UV Discharge $300,000
Effluent Structure $72,000
Control Building $120,000
Fine Grading (190,000 SY) $456,000
Electrical $60,000
Clearing & Grubbing $360,000
Lining (1,700,000 SF) $1,744,000
Grading (200,000 CY) $1,440,000
Plants $144,000
18" Force Main $450,000
Construction Cost $5,338,000
Land (120 AC) $300,000
Legal, Contingency, Engineering $513,000
TOTAL PROJECTED COST
O&M Cost
With a salvage value of $360,000, the Net Present Cost is $9,742,945.
User Cost = $9.08
$6,851,142
$302,400
Town ofMarshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 42

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
X. ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The Town of Marshville should continue to work closely with their legislators to keep
this project at the front of the list for potential funding. The cost analysis and impact on
user fees has shown that this project carries a tremendous potential for lasting financial
and independence for the Town. Also, as has been pointed out in the Eastside discussion
this projects begins to also surface as a Bi-Regional alternative for the Union County
Eastside. This is probably the most exciting aspect. If the Town of Marshville elects to
construct their own wastewater treatment plant and begin the operation and maintenance,
a multitude of options become available for the other existing users of the Union County
collection system.
Almost immediately, Wampler Longacre gains the opportunity to expand and grow their
business and fully convert to a chicken production operation. This expansion can
leverage economic development financing from the NC Department of Commerce -
Commerce Finance Department. This can come in the form of infrastructure financing
equaling $15,000 per job that is either created or retained. Additionally, the reliability of
wastewater treatment and collection capacity to Wampler Longacre is even more
apparent when you begin to consider the ultimate wastewater need of 1,400,000 gpd.
The existing Wampler to Union collection system capacity will only afford a flow of
approximately 1,000,000 gpd. This alleviation of the flow from the collection system
will delay the need for those lines to be expanded, a benefit for the Union County system.
Additionally, the implementation of the Bi-Regional alternative presents a unique
opportunity for the City of Monroe to extend its useful life on the existing wastewater
treatment plant. To effect the most productive solution we recommend the following
course of action:
„ The Town of Marshville secure a statement of intent from Wampler Longacre based
on the data and information presented in this report and the follow-up meetings and
discussion.
2. If Wampler Longacre agrees to become a part of the Marshville system, then
Marshville's investment shall be protected by a guarantee from Wampler in the form
of a payment or insurance policy for payment if Wampler Longacre goes out of
business. This commitment or insurance is necessary so that the Town of Marshville
is not saddled with the debt of a treatment facility that is sized at three times their
projected need.
When the commitment from Wampler Longacre is secured, the Town of Marshville
should serve as the lead agency to assist Wampler in applying for an Economic
Development Grant for the expansion of their business. This grant can leverage
additional tag on funding.
Town ofMarshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 43

CAVAI'AUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Cons a ing Engineers
4. The Town of Marshville should concurrently apply for infrastructure financing with
both the North Carolina Rural Center, and Construction Grants and Loans program
State Revolving Fund (SRF). Both of these sources have been made aware of the
potential need for funding. The Preliminary Engineering Report has been crafted in.
such a way that these funding sources will require only minor modifications prior to
potential funding commitments.
5. Finally, the Town of Marshville should work closely with their Representative to
secure the excess funding required through the appropriations process of the General
Assembly.
b. Once funding has been preliminarily secured, then an Agreement for Engineering
Services should be executed and the project design work should be initiated. It will
take at least eight months to prepare all of the project documentation and secure a
new NPDES permit. The majority of the time is due to the notice and issuance
procedure timing that is required by the State of North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
Town of Marshville er Preliminary Report Page 44

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
XI. INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
There are essentially three areas where capital funding for this project can be generated.
The first of these sources is from state and federal agencies. The second is directly from
the Legislature, and the third is from the users themselves. It is anticipated that there will
be, in the end, a combination of all three of these areas which will be required to make
the project a reality.
Agencies That Fund Water And Wastewater Prvjeets
The U S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development. The objective of this
agency is to provide safe and sanitary housing, including water, wastewater, storm
water and solid waste facilities to small, rural municipalities serving low and
moderate income persons. This funding objective requires a bond referendum and a
majority support of the affected citizens. This program in North Carolina was
formerly known as the Farmers' Home Administration's program. In 1994-95, the
total grant and loan program equated to $68,000,000.
2. The North Carolina Department of Commerce -Division of Community Assistance.
The Division of Community Assistance is commonly referred to as the Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The Community Development Block
Grants are primarily grants associated with infrastructure improvements for low and
moderate income residents, The funding for fiscal year 1994-95 was $14,778,000..
North Carolina Department of Commerce, Commerce Finance Center. The North
Carolina Department of Commerce, CFC provides grants to municipalities supportive
of industrial growth and development. In Union County, there has been positive
support for Commerce Finance and specifically, the industrial growth that has
occurred. The potential for Wampler Longacre to be utilized as a potential Economic
Development Grant recipient from the Commerce Finance Department could be a
very probable alternative.
4. The North Carolina State Revolving Loan Program Division, Division of Water
Quality. The State Revolving Loan and Grant Program is the state's portion of the
Federal Clean Water Management Loan Program. The State Grant and Loan
Program issued a total of grant and loans of $48,1.85,000 in 1994-95. The objective
of this program is to administer the U. S. EPA State Revolving Loan Program which
provides low interest loans to communities for the construction modification and
maintenance of wastewater treatment and collection systems. The State Grants
program provides the small communities financial assistance and is specifically tied
to those smaller, high -cost grant projects.
5. North Carolina Clean Water Loan and Grant Program. The North Carolina SRF
provides states with up to 4% of the State Revolving Fund allocation to manage their
Town of Marshville
ater Prelitrrinar Report
Page 45

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
programs. North Carolina has traditionally funded approximately $20,000,000 in
Revolving Grant and Loans,
6. North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center. The North Carolina Rural
Center receives its appropriation from the North Carolina General Assembly and has
as its charge to provide distressed communities with grants and loans for funding of
infrastructure projects.
Funding from Legislature
Funding from the Legislature is a very positive reality in the financial climate and
infrastructure improvements climate for the State of North Carolina. The Town of
Marshville should continue to communicate frequently with their Legislators and make
this project and the specific needs available for the Legislators to review. At the time of
this report, the Legislature is in the short session currently evaluating both Senate and
House versions of an approximate 1 billion dollar Water Quality and Infrastructure
Improvements Bill. A portion of this bill would be to make funds more readily available
to communities such as the Town of Marshville for infrastructure improvements.
,Euuding by the Users
The creative use of special assessments offers some unique funding opportunities. The
special assessment is a mechanism whereby the governmental agencies can tax or assess
the property directly for the improvement. By increasing the value of the real estate, the
public agency is granted the privilege of charging the cost of the improvement directly to
the property owners. (Reference WEFTEC 94 — Donald F. Roecker, pg. 1) Special
assessments can also be tied directly to user charges; and on the majority of the loan
payment elements of the federal and state funded program, these are keys to satisfy the
debt concerns.
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 46

pc CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
IX. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Marshville and the surrounding area is expected to experience significant
growth in the future and anticipate needing 1.0 MGD by the year 2018. In this
Preliminary Engineering Report, four alternatives were discussed for Marshville's future
wastewater needs. These options are:
Option A:
Option B:
Option C-:
Option D:
A Regional Constructed Wetland Wastewater Treatment Facility;
A Conventional Mechanical Wastewater Treatment Facility;
Continued collection of sewer with discharge into the Union
County system for treatment at Monroe (status quo); and
Allowing Union County to acquire Marshville's collection system.
Option A, constructing a Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility was
selected as the preferred alternative based on a weighted evaluation matrix. This matrix
considered:
1. Expandability
2. Life Span
3. Engineering Concept
4. Environmental Impact
5. Independence
6. Susceptibility to Upset
7. Ease of Operation
8. Net Present Cost
The construction of a 1.0 MGD Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility is
anticipated to have an initial cost to users of $39.44 per month. It is recommended that
the Town of Marshville pursue applying for funding through the State Revolving Fund
(SRF) as well as through The Rural Center.
The Preferred Alternative was further analyzed by looking at possible scenarios where
Wampler-Longacre participated. The benefit of Wampler Longacre's inclusion is
reflected in the decrease in user cost.
Table 7: Scenario
Scenario
Marshville Only
Plus Existing
Wampler Usage
Plus Future
Wampler Usage
Cost Summaries
C
pit
Cost O
$3,550,000
$5,213,228
$6,851,142
$126,3
Fast Net Preset
$201,600
$302,400
$4,°751,72
$7,134.,662
$9,742,945
User Cost
39.44
$14.06
$9.08
Town o°s4 arshville Waste
r Preliminary Report
Page 47

g CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
APPENDIX A: Union County Future Costs Based on Historical Data
Table A-1: Historical Union County Costs
Initial
'82-83
'83-84
'84-85
'85-86
'86-87
,'87-88
'88-89
Fixed original Treatment CostCost Cost per 1000
$3444.75
$3525.00
$3995.00
$5478.00
$5478.00'
$5478.00
"89-90 $5478.00
$5478.00
'91-92 $6604.00
'92-93 $6604.00 $8697.00
'93-94 $6604.00
'96 97 $6210.00
'90-91
'94-95 $6604.00
'95-96 $5155.00
'97-98 $6325.00
$5765.00
$5910.00
$0.80
$0.655
$0.602
$0.861
$0.92268
Figure A-1 shows the historical fixed costs and the trendline set by this data. This
trendline shows that the fixed cost increases on average $1,000 every 5.5 years ($181.81
per year) and that the fixed cost being paid presently is below the trendline.
10000
9000
8000
7000
8000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Historical Fixed Costs
I n86ai '82.63 '83-84 '84-85 '85.86 '86-87 '87.88 '88-89 `89.90 90-91 '91-92 '92.93 "93-94 91-95 95-96 '96-97 '97.98
Year
Fixed Coen
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report
Page 48

CAVANAUGH 1 ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Figure A-2 shows the historical treatment cost per 1,000 gallons and the trendline set by
this data. This trendline shows that the treatment cost increases on average $0.10 every 5
years ($.02 per year) and that the treatment cost being paid presently is above the
trendline.
1.00
0.90
0,80
0.70
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Htstorical Treatment Cost per MO
Initial '82-83 '83-84 '84-85 '85-86 '86-87 '87-88 '88-89 '89.90 '90-91 '91-92 "92.93 '93-94 "94.95 '95-96 '96-97 '97.95
Year
Using the present fixed cost and treatment cost per 1000 gallons as a base line, the user
cost can be estimated for years 5, 10, 15, and 20 to compare to user costs for Options A,
B, and C.
Fixed cost increases by 181.81 per year.
Treatment cost increases by 0.02 per year.
Existing fixed cost = $6,325/ month total ($9.25/ month per custome
Cttrrertt Customer Treatment Total for
Current Customer Fixed Cost 'Variable Cost 5000
Tear Fixed Cost Fixed Cost Increase Cost Increase Gallons
$6,325.00
$7,2.34.05
$8,143.10
$9,052. 15
$9,961.20
$13.24
$181.81
27.58
29.41
31.24
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report
Page 49

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulhng Engineers
APPENDIX B:
Spreadsheets
I. Net Present Value
2. Option A User Fee Calculations
3. Option B User Fee Calculations
4. Option C User Fee Calculations
5. Scenario 2 User Fee Calculations
6. Scenario 3 User Fee Calculations
Town of Marshville Wastewater Preliminary Report Page 50

O&M Constant
Salvage Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant
Town of Mars -twain Preliminary Engineenng Report
Net Present Value Analysis
Option A.: 1.0 MGD CWWTF
CWWTF Construction Cost $ 3,050,000 00
Pump Station & Force Main to serve Wampler $ 500,000 00
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 3,550,000 00
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Constant
9.8182
Salv-age Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant 0.2145
126,330.00
180,000 00
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&M)constant - (Salvage Valuerconstant
1.0 MGDCWWTF Net Present Value 4,751,723.21
Option 13: 1,0 MGD Mechanical WWTP
WWTP Construction Cost $ 3,675,000.00
Pump Station & Force Main to serve Warnpier 500,000.00
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 4,175,000.00
Operations & Maintenance $ 172,330 00
9.8182
534,000 00
0.2145
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&M)constant - (Salvage Value)'constant
1.0 MGD Mech.WWTP Net Pres
Value
5,752,4.27,41
n Collect & Pumpto UnionCotu u
GO
Cost of Pump Station & treatment capacity upgrades $ 1,676,898.00
Cost to upgrade pump station & force main to $ 1,270,000.00
1,0 MGD transmission cap,
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 2,946,898 00
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Constant
Salvage Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant
9.8182
0.2145
$ 407,100.00
75,000,00
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&Mrconstant (Salvage Value)constant
Collect & Pump to Union Co.
Option D: Union County Acquires System
WWTP Construction Cost
Pump Station & Forte Main to serve Warnpler
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Constant
Salvage Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant
9,8182
0,2145
8,927,799.72
$ 1,332,300 00
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&M)'constant - (Salvage Value)constant
Pion

Scenario 2: 1.6 M © CWWTF
CWWTF Construction Cost $ 4,713,228.00
Pump Station & Force Main to serve Wampler $ 500,000,00
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 5,213,228,00
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Constant
Salvage Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant
9.8182
0.2145
$ 201,600.00
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&M)*constant - (Salvage Value)*constant
270,000.00
1.6 MG© CV N TF Net Present Value 134,662.12
Scenario 3: 2.4 MOD CWWTF
CWWTF Construction Cost $ 6,851,142.00
Pump Station & Force Main to serve Wampler $0.00
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 6,851,142.00
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Constant
Salvage Value at end of design life
Salvage Value Constant
9.8182
0.2145
$ 302,400.00
NPV = Capital Cost + (O&M)*constant - (Salvage Value)*constant
360,000.00

Town of Marshville Estimated Sewer Rate Calculation
Declining Payment
Total Loan Cost 3,550,000
Interest Rate 3.0%
LoariTerm 20 years
Y
4
7
.0
pt
n
7,500 $106,500
177500 $101,175
177,500 895,850
77,500
77,500
77,500
77,500
7,500
0
00
77500
90,525
65,200
79,675
74,550
9,225
00
75
,25
8284,000
$278,675
$273,350
3,025
Option A: 1.0 CWWTF
Cost for wetlands, transmission line: $3,050,000
Cost for Wampier PS & force main: $500,000
Total Capital Cost: $3,550,000
Annual
Operation &
MaIntenanc
$126,330
$130,120
34,02
38,044
2,700 5142,
257,31
$24
2,050
5
241,400
$236,075
2 0,7
4 ,4
150,
0
Annual
Cost
BWable
Flow
(MGD)
$4W.330 0.22
$408,795 0.24
$407,373 0.25
0.27
04, 0,2
03, 26 0,
402,
02,
160,031 1,4
,832 00,
6 ,777
5
O.
0.40
8400,527 0.4
11000 Gal
6
.4
4,1
,5
4
.12
2.12
$2.
12
14
1
00
4
7, 00 $42,60
$177 500
,
7,500
7,
0
225,425 74,870
$220,100
7,275 $214,775
4 0,29
.46
0,116 8400,216 O.
0 5209,450 $191.085
26,625 5204,125
0
,535 7
00,943 0.6
00 $202;723 5401,5230,65
2, 7-
MIn.Sewer
Bill for
000qalmo.
2
523.79
$22,16
Plant Capacity 1.0 MGD
Marshville 1.0 MGD
Wampler 0,0 MGD
TOTAL
Current annual
1.0 MGD
ulv.
Operation & Number of
iaIntertnce Usrs
20,
226,600
$233,398
$20.64 $240,400
19,23
7,93
.72
14.
2, 8
$247,612
55,040
262,692
270,572
278,689
287,050
2 5,662
Cu Total Min.
Monthly Sewer Bill for
O&M Bill 5000oaWmo
2 .77
120
2268
427
2597
O.
.4
4
2
$24,79
$23,44
7
04, 3
277
2,2
.06
$10:34
$9,67
9,05
,47
, 6
$323,077
$332,770
2,7
,03t
2973
3181
3404
20,98
$8-79
$8,46
19.
7, 2
2 $1.84 816.89
97 $7.55 518.02
8
20
77,500 815,
93,475 82 4 8402,219 0,69 .5
7,500- 510,650 8188,150 5215,068 $403,218 0,74
77,500 2 $182,825 $T21 ,520 $404,345 0.80 51.39
1,4
1.
;7,43
$6,96
6 , 26 4170 81.27 815.2
374,53
4462 57.00 $14,42
$385,771 4774 86,73 813,70

Town of Marshvitle Estimated Sewer Rate Calculation
Declining Payment
Total Loan Cost
Interest Rate
Loan Term
4,175,000
3.0%
20 years
Option B: Mechanical WWTP
Cost for WWTP, transmission Vine:
Cost for Wampler PS & force main:
Total Capital Cost:
$3,675,000
$500,000
$4,175,000
Plant Capacity 1.0 MGD
Marshvitle 1,0 MGD
Wampler 0.0 MGD
TOTAL 1.0 MGD
Year Principle
($).
2
3
$208,750
I. $208,750
$208,750
4 $208,750
$208,75
6 5
$208,7
7 $208,750
$208,750
$208,750
10
12
13
14
15
$208,750
$208,750
$208,750
$208,750
$208,750
$208,750
16 $208,750
17
20
20
50
$208,750
$208,750
Vnterest
($)
Total
Debt
Service
125,250 $334,000
$327,738
$321,475
$315,213
$308,950
2,725
106,463
00,200
Annual Total Billable
Operation & Annual Flow
Maintenance Cost _(MGD)
$172,330 5506,330I 0.22 6.31
$177,500 $505,237 0.24 $5.88
$182,825 $504,300 - 0,25 55,49
5188,310 $503,522 0.27 $5.12
$193,959 $502,909 0.29 $4.78
8 $302,688 $199,778 5502,485 0.31
75 $296,425 $205,771 5502,196 0;33
413 5290,163 5211,944 $502,1©7 _0,35
$75,150 $283,900 $218,302 $502,202 0.38
$68,888 $277,638 $224,852 5502,489 0,40
$62,625 $271,375
$56,363 $265,113
$258,850
$252,588
$246,325
50,100
$43,838
,575
,0
$240,
0 $233,800
$245,701
$253,072
$260,665
268,485
$231,597 $502,972 ! 0.43
$238,545 5503,658 0.46
$504,551 0.50
05,660 0.53
506,990 0.57
0
$4.46
$4.17
$3.89
$3.64
$3.40
$3,18
Cost Min.Sewer
0 Gal Bill for
50009allmo. ,
$31.53
$29.40
$27.43
$25.59
$23.89
$22.31
$20.84
$19,47
$18,20
$17.©2
$15,92
$2.98 $14.90
$2.79 $13.95
$2.61 $13,07
$2.45 $12,24
0.61 $2.30
$510,339 0.65
52.15
$18,788 5227,538 $284',835 5512,37
12525 $2212753
$293,380 $514,655. 0,74 $1,90 ,, i,
$6,263 $215,013 '; 5302,182 $517,194 0.80 $1.78
48
Current annual
Operation &
Maintenance
$220,000
$226,600
$233,398
$240,400
$247,612
278,6
$287,050
$295,662
$304,531
$313,667
$323,077
$332,770
$342,753
$10.76 _ $353,035
0,69 $2.02 $10.10
$9.48
$8.90
828
$374,535
Equiv.
Number of
Users
1320
1412
1511
1617
1730
2268
2427
2597
2778
2973
3181
3404
3642
41
0
Current
Monthly
O&M Bill
$13.89
$13.37
$12.87
$12.39
$9,13
$8.79
$8,46
$8,15
$7,84
$7,55
$7.27
4462 $7.00
$385,771 4774 $6.73
Total Min.
Sewer BIII for
5000gal/m©.
$45,42
$42.77
$40,30
$37.98
$30.11
$28..44
$26.88
$25.41
$24,03
$22.74
$20.39
2
$17,37
$16.48
$15.64

20 5226,546
Town cf Marshville Estimated Sewer Rate Calculation
Declining Payment
Total Loan Cost 2,946,898
Interes, Rate 4.5%
Loan Term 20 years
n . Total
Debt
Service
$226,546
5226,546
6 5226,
7
226, 6
$226,546
0
2
$226,
2 ,
226,
226,
6
4 $22
5 8226
226,
226,548
226,
226,546
226,546
Union
Monthly
Fixed Cost
86,325
2
2
6,325
6, 25
5226 546 $6 325
$226,546 $6,325
226,546 88,32
226,546
325
226,546 88,325
226,
6,325
226 6,32
226,546 $6,32
Option C: Pump to Union County
Cost for Pomp Station upgrades $1,676,898
Cost to upgrade & obtain 1 0 MOD transmission capacity $1,270,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $2.946,898
Union
Monthly
Var. Cost '
$0.92
o.
.10
20
,24
Union
Annual
Cost
148,76'
,20
73
208,4
$2 4,4 2
250,68
268,530
,27 $2
Thtai
Annual
Cost
375 310
2,7
0
fllabl
(MOD)
0.22
0.24
20.919 O.
3,015 O.
46,346 0.3
$461,038 0.
477,230 0.40
,076 0.4
4,74'
0 , 3 $536,419 ! O.
.4
.74
.2
$3.05
Mylile annualEquiv.
Operation & Number
5000gaUmo. Maintenance Users
J $23,37 - $220,000 1320
22.27 8228,60
6.7
6,
5.67
.2
3 82.90 $ 4,4
2
.0
2 2,692
$270,572
278,
281,050
29 ,662
4 2
51
2120
242
2778
,6 7 2
7 52.83 514.115332,
Mvffle Total MIn.
Monthly Sewer BIll for
O&M Blii 5000gailmo.
$37.26
7
.48
.05
$10.64
0.24
.64
2,72
.40
30,17
2 2
27.
2
6.02
.49 $25.16
9.
.79 $23.62
58.48 822.94
24.
16 8226,546 $226,546,32 1.43 83*105 5515,5510.61 52.783.89 8342,753 3642 $7.84 821.74
7 8226546 $2265466,325 $148 84210834 , 085 82733,03 7. 2 .
8 8226546 226, 55325 52 8456326 $682872 069 828946 5363626 4170 5727 520.
' -
6, 6, 25 8157 84951612 , 4 O. 4 8286 $133074,535 4462 5100 5202
531,975 5764,52 0.80 $2,63 .16 , 5,771 4774 56.73 $19.90
226,546 $6,325

Town of Marshvifle Estimated Sewer Rate Calculation
Declining Payment
Total Loan Cost
Inteaast Rate
Loan Terris
5,213,228
3,0%
20 years.
Year Principle Interest Total
Debt
Service
$2
($) ($)
$156,397 $417,058
2 $260,661 $148,577
$260,661 $140,757
4 $260,661
$260,661
$260,661
7 $260,661
8 $260,661
9 $260,661
10 $260,661
2,937
$409,238
$4
.4
Scenario 2: 1.6 MGD CWWTF
Cost for wetlands, transmission line:
Cost for Wampler PS 8 force main:
Total Capital Cost:
Annual Total Billable
Operation & Annual Flow
Maintenance Cost (MGD1
$201,600 $618,658
$207,648 " $
$213,877
9 _ $220,294
,779
09,478 $370,139
101,658
$93,838
$86,01 8
$362,319
$354,500
$346,680
$2
710
8
6,886
296
2
$612,681
$611,669
$240,721 $610,880
$247,943
$255,381
$263,042
$610,262
$609,880
$609,722
11 5260,661 $78,198 $338,860 $270,934 5609,793
12 5260,661 $70,379 $331,040
13 $260,661 $62,559 $323,220 $287,433 $610,654 1.10
0.82
0.84
$4,713,228
$500,000
$5,213,228
$2.07
$2.02
0,85 51,98
,87
0.89
0.93
0.96
0.98
1.01
$1.84
0
Plant Capacity
Marshville
Wampler
1.6 MG©
1.0 MGD
0,6 MGD
TOTAL
MIn.Sewer Current annual
I Bill for Operation &
50009al/mo. Maintenance
$10.3'4
$10.11
$9.66
7
$8.74
$8.51
$8.28
.04 $1,61 $8.05
$279,062
$610,102 1,07
$1.56 $7.82
$1,52 $7,59
4 $260,661 $54,739 $315,400 $296,056 $611,457 1,14 $1.47 $7.36
15 $260,661,, $46,919
16 $260,661 s. $39,099
17 $260,661 $
18 $260
19 i280,6
$260,661
279
$7,820
$307,580 $304,938
$299,761
$314,086_.
S284«1 2.1 $333 214
276,301 343,211
,481
507
$612,519
$.613,847
$615,450.
2
$621.988
1.18
1,22
1.26
1.41
$1.43
$1.38
5
$1.21
$7.13
$6.91_
.25
$6.03
$220,000
$226,600
$233,398
$240,400
$247
2
2
$270,572
$278,689
$287,050
$295,682
$304,531
$313,667
1.6 MGD
Equiv.
Number of
Users
4920
5014
5115
'5736
5888
6051
6613
$323,077 6828
$$332,770
$342,753
035
2
4,53."
,771
7057
7567
52
8477
Current Total Mln.
Monthly Sewer Bill for
O&M Bill 5000ga11mo.
$3.73
$3.77
$3.80
$3.84
$3.96
$3,95
$3.94
$3.93
$3,91
$3.79
$14.06
9
0
$13,30
0
$12.89
$12.67
$12.46
$12.23
$12.01
0
7

TOWN OF MARSHVILLE
WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
Response to Union County Comments
(to be included in PER as an Appendix)
Revised August 14, 1998
PREPARED BY
CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
8064 North Point Boulevard, Suite 102
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
HIGHLAND ENGINEERING, P.L.C.
Post Office Box 559
Monterey, Virginia 24485

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES,P.A. Consulting Engineers
Points from Mike Shalati's July 16 letter
"The Option D $25,75/month does include O&M for he Town's existing collection
system,"
O&M for Option D is figured as follows:
$3.30 / 1000 gal (per Mike Shalati's letter)
[1,000,000 x (30/1000)] x $3.30 = $99,000 / mo. $ , ,000 yr.
Plus fixed cost charges by county at
$9.25 x 1,300 customers = $12, 2 o. $1 00 / yr.
Total O&M ($/Yr.)
To take out Marshville system O&M:
$1,332,300
To simplify the calculation, we will use the highest O&M cost for the
Marshville system at $385,771 per year.
$1,332,300 - $385,771 = $946,529 Total O&M ($/Yr.)
This O&M cost is still higher than Options A, B or C.
This change also impacts the Net Present Value of Option D. The recalculation
is as follows:
NPV = Capital Cost + O&M (P/A, 8%, 20) - Salvage (P/F, 8 20)
NPV = 0 + $946,529 (9.8182) -
NPV = $9,293,211
Though the Net Present Value lowers considerably for Option D, it is still
higher than Options A, B and C.
Town ofMarshville Preliminary Engineering Report Page

CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
2. "Furthermore, Union County incurred large capital expenditures to build its
existing facilities, those facilities are planned to serve the County's needs for the
next 20 years. Therefore with the large number of customers that we have added
and will be adding in the future due to the County's rapid growth, especially ion the
areas where water and sewer facilities exist, we project that our rates will remain at.
the current rate for a ling period of time and potentially be reduced due to this
projected increase in the customer base."
In other words, Union County does not agree that their rates will increase in the
fitture.
Our calculations are based on historical data and unless there is a guarantee
from. Union County that their rates will not go up, we can not do anything but
base the projected rates on past experiences.
"...1 am willing to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that if the
Town of Marshville is interested in Option D, the Public Works Department will
hold the rates for the Town residence at the current proposed rate for a period of 10
years. Should the rates be reduced below the current rate for the County
customers, the Town of Marshville rates will be reduced accordingly.
In other words, Mike will try to hold rates at the proposed rate for 10 years.
Duly noted.
Sid Riddick of McKim & Creed's c©nnents (Union County 's Engineer)
From a process standpoint, Cavanaugh & Associates suggests that a constructed
wetlands wastewater treatment facility is capable of meeting "tertiary, limits".
While effluent limits may not have been formally defined for the proposed point
of discharge, it is anticipated that a surface water discharge would have summer
ammonia limits of 2.0 mg/I. Our experience on the constructed wetlands facility
designed by McKim & Creed for the Town of Aurora, North Carolina, shows
that effluent ammonia is low; but will not consistently be below 2 mg/I without
some subsequent treatment step.
In other Words: Questions ability to meet tertiary limits of 2.0 mg/1 amrtronia
consistently
Town of arshville Preliminary Engineering Report Page 2

CAVANAUGH ,& ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Attached are the test results for tests conducted at the Walnut Cove WWTP
from April 1996 through June 1998. The tests show that ammonia nitrogen
(N113-N) has not exceeded 2.0 mg/I in that time frame. The average over the
26 months of testing is in the order of 0.37+ mg/I. The Marshville
preliminary design is based on the extraordinarily successful Walnut Cove
design. (Ref.: Tom Atkeson Memo July 31, 1998)
2. There is no mention of waste solids handling associated with the constructed
wetlands facility. In any biological treatment system, waste stabilization
(including removal of carbon and nitrogen) is accomplished in part by converting
soluble BOD and ammonia into cell growth. In conventional wastewater
facilities, this cell growth is in the form of bio-mass, and excess solids are
removed from the process as waste sludge. In a constructed wetlands facility
intended to achieve advanced limits, some method of harvesting the plants and
removing them from the system would seem necessary. There is no description
of how this might be accomplished, or any cost associated with handling the
waste bio-mass which would be produced from the process.
In other words: No description of haw harvesting will occur or the cost incurred.
Questions asked by Lisa Routh to To Atkeson:
LMR: How often has Walnut Cove had to harvest?
TLA: The Walnut Cove plant has had no need to harvest since it went on line
two years ago. None of Dr. W©lverton's multiple WWTPs have had to
harvest in the years that he has worked with them.
LMR: What have they done with it?
TLA: With no harvest required, there has been no pressing need for
disposition methods. Dr. Wolverton is working with a number of
entrepreneurial individuals/companies concerning methods of harvesting
and disposition. He has had some difficulties in those efforts since there
has been so little, if any, requirernents for harvesting.
LMR: How much did it cost?
TLA: There is apparently no data in this area.
LMR: Since the plants harvested are great fertilizer & feed base, isn't there a
possibility of there being virtually no cost because of demand for the
stuff?
TLA: Chemical and biological analysis of the "stuff" indicates that great
potential for sales exists. As noted above, there isn't any data to back
Town of M rsh i1Ce Prrelirninar y Engineering Report
Page 3

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
this position up. While studies (see Duckweed Feed Studies attached)
indicate your premise to be correct, apparently there is no "demand"
data.
We have conducted a preliminary review of the capital cost estimates provided
for the constructed wetlands and conventional wastewater facilities, We have the
following
comments:
a) With respect to each project, it is intended that the Town of Marshville
acquire the Salem. Creek pump station and gravity lines which currently serve
the Town and Wampler-Longacre. A cost of $500,000 is included in the
budget to replace the capacity allocated to Wampler-Longacre with a pump
station and force main, While the estimates from Cavanaugh & Associates
do not provide significant detail, it appears that 12-inch force main, which is
about the size that should be provided to accommodate Wampler's current
and future needs, will cost approximately $41 per lineal foot to construct, In
addition, based on our recent experience with wastewater pumping stations in
the Union County area, we feel that a station capable of handling the flows
from Wampler-Longacre would cost between $500,000 and $750,000. Thus,
it is our opinion that the cost allocated for replacement of the W:ampler-
Longacre capacity will be significantly higher than the $500,000 indicated in
the cost estimates. In addition to the above, it is not clear whether or not
Union County would be willing to transfer its assets in the Salem Creek
station and gravity lines to Marshville at zero cost.
In other words:
1, Thinks cost for° pump station to transfer Wwnpler°-Longacre is too low at
$500,000,
The force main from Wampler-Longacre to the pump station is
approximately 12,000 linear feet. Using a price of $30 per foot, the
cost for the force main is $360,000. A generous cost for a 1 mgd pump
station is $90,000. \Ve are, in our opinion, being conservative stating
the total cost at $500,000.
Questions County s willingness to part with the Salem Creek Pump
Station & gravity lines.
It was fairly clear irr the meeting with Mike Shalati and Sid Riddick
that Union County would not give up the Salem Creek pump station
and if they did, it would cost. This is a subject we must discuss with
Marshville's attorney at the 4:00 meeting Monday, August 3rd.
Town of Marshville Preliminary Engineering Report
Page 4

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
b) The map in the report indicates that the constructed wetlands or conventional
wastewater facilities would be located approximately one mile above the
intended point of discharge. The cost estimates do not appear to include the
cost of a piping system to get from the treatment plant down to this point.
In other words: Cost for piping from the treatment plant to the point of
discharge not included.
Location of the plant on the map is very much approximate.
Negotiations with landowners have not even begun.
This is a preliminary report.
c) The schematic diagram for the constructed wetlands wastewater facility
indicates two aerobic basins piped in series. The cost estimate for this
facility indicates "aerator" (singular?) at a cost of $25,000. It is our opinion
that for a plant rated at 1 mgd, Marshville would be required to have parallel
flow trains, or as a minimum, have at least back up aerators that could be
installed in the existing basins in the event of equipment malfunction. The
cost estimate does not seem to include these.
In other words:
I. Is $25,000 capital cosifor one aerator or two?
2. They think parallel flow trains are needed or at least hack up aerators.
Cost doesn't include that.
$25,000 is for aeration. The aerators themselves are about $7,500 each.
The total price covers materials and installation and back-up aerator.
d) From our review of the cost for the constructed wetlands facility, as well as
the conventional plant, a number of the line items appear to be inadequate
to cover the cost we believe appropriate for the construction of a new grass
roots treatment facility. Examples include allowances for piping and weir
boxes, and other similar planned improvements. In addition, for the
constructed wetlands wastewater facility, there appears to be a minimal
amount of cost allowed for instrumentation. In accordance with our
understanding of DEM requirements, it would be necessary to monitor
flow, effluent DO, and effluent pH on any facility with a capacity of 1 mgd
or greater. There does not appear to be an adequate allowance for the:
instrumentation required in either the estimates for option A or option B.
In other words:
Town of Marshville Prelinzinaty Engineering Report Page 5

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
. Don't think costs are high enough on (a) piping & weir boxes (b)
instrumen(ation.
2. Doesn't think enough instrumentation allowance has been included ,for
required monitoring.
This is a preliminary report. We believe our numbers and believe the
cost is high enough.
e) From an overall point of view, we believe the cost estimates for the
facilities proposed under options A or B are somewhat on the low side. As
an example, the Twelve Mile Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, recently
completed, represents a facility capable of meeting advanced secondary
limits similar to those we believe would be appropriate for a discharge on
Salem Creek, This facility cost approximately $9.6 million to construct,
including allowances for engineering, resulting in a cost per gallon of
$3.83. Although this plant does include some provisions for future
expansion, in general, to meet cost constraints, the facility was intended to
be pretty much self supporting; and I believe it represents a very
economical facility for the degree of treatment provided, particularly in
today's construction market.
By comparison, the cost per gallon of treatment for the 1 mgd conventional
mechanical facility included in option B is significantly lower than the unit
cost the County experienced on Twelve Mile Creek, By eliminating the
cost of the 12-inch force main and the cost of the Wampler pump station
and force main from the project (since these are off -site improvements not
associated with the treatment plant itself, the total estimated project cost for
Option B would be approximately $3,290,000; or $3.29 per gallon. This is
about 20% less than the County experienced an its Twelve Mile Creek
plant. It therefore seems likely that the estimate for the 1 mgd conventional
plant included in the Cavanaugh & Associates report may be substantially
low, taking into account inflation in construction costs, which has occurred
since the Twelve Mile Creek project was bid, and the expected increase in
unit cost per gallon of treatment as plant capacity becomes smaller.
A similar review was made of the constructed wetlands facility. Some
portions of the narrative description for the constructed wetlands plant
suggest that tertiary facilities may be required to meet effluent limits; but the
cost estimate does not appear to include allowances for such tertiary
facilities. It is our opinion that the indicated cost for the 1 mgd constructed
wetlands plant may be low by about the same magnitude as we believe the
costs for the mechanical facility are.
In other words:
Town of Marshville Preliminary Engineering Report Page 6

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
I They think our capital cost is too low for Options A & B.
Again, we stand behind our numbers. Some examples to compare
with the Twelve Mile Creek bid they provide...
4,000,000 gpd Siler City WWTP ^ $8,400,000 or $2.10/gallon
4,870,000 gpd Boone WWTP = $12,800,000 or $2.68/gallon
500,000 gpd Walnut. Cove CWWF = $790,000 or $1.58/gallon
All of these plants were designed for and meet tertiary limits.
2. Don't think costs for tertiary treatment included for
The CWWTF lagoons have been sized for tertiar
f) No financing costs were identified for alternates A, B, or C. As you know,
State SRF requirements call for a 2% line item for closing costs.
The 2% is included under administration cost.
4. We have reviewed the O&M costs associated with each of the alternatives:
Cavanaugh & Associates acknowledges that laboratory sampling and testing
would be ongoing costs of operating either the constructed wetlands or
conventional type plants. It is not clear, however, if the cost associated with
sampling and testing are included in the total operations and maintenance budgets
which are presented.
In other words: Where are lab costs shown in the O&M costs ?
Lab costs are included under `operations".
We have reviewed the net present cost of alternatives presented in Table 4 on.
page 30. Our review suggests a number of inequities in the manner in which the
alternatives have been compared. These are summarized below:
For each alternative, the capital cost is based upon providing an equivalent
capacity of 1 mgd in either the treatment facilities or the pumping and
transportation facilities to maintain the existing arrangement with Union County
and the City of Monroe. Thus, for alternatives A, B, and C, it is assumed that
the Town of Marshville would invest capital in year 1. to increase itsavailable
capacity to 1 rngd. A more reasonable approach, in our opinion, would be to
assume some phasing in the capital cost. For the option of pumping to the City of
Town of Marshville Preliminary Engineering Report
Page 7

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Monroe through the Eastsi'de system, Marshville would not be required to pay for
additional capacity in Monroe's treatment plant until such time as it is needed.
This could affect the present value calculations substantially.
Another significant issue in the Present Cost Comparison relates to the estimated
O&M cost. For each alternative, the information in the Cavanaugh report
assumes that the operating cost over a 20 year period would be equivalent to a
flow of 1 mgd. This is obviously not the case, since according the Cavanaugh &
Associates data, current flows in 1997 averaged 220,000 gallons per day. A
more appropriate manner to compare alternatives on the basis of net present cost
(or present value) would be to estimate the annual O&M for each alternative at
year 1 and year 20, to determine the actual present value of operations and
maintenance over the cost of the project. By making these adjustments in the
alternatives related to pumping to the City of Monroe for treatment, or for Union
County acquiring the Marshville system, the net present cost would be decreased
substantially. For alternate C, pumping to the City of Monroe, we believe the
present cost would be reduced by at least $1.3 million. With the alternative
which proposes Union County acquisition and operation of the Marshville system,
the present value cost would be decreased by about S4.5 million. Using this same
approach for estimating the present value for either of the two treatment facilities
would also reduce their net present cost, but by much smaller amounts.
In other words:
1. Think we should phase the capital costs in Options C because 1 mgd is not
needed in year one.
We looked at splitting the cost into three phases as follows:
Note: These calculations DO NOT include consideration for yearly inflation.
Phase
Capital
Cos
nitial pump station upgrades
Upgrade pump station & force main to 1.0 ,270,000
mgd
Additiona
WWTP
capacity at the Monroe
,063,620
Present Value = Phase I Capital Cost + Phase II Capital Cost (P/F, 8%
5) + Phase HI Capital Cost (RIF, 8% 10) + O&M Cost (P/A, 8%, 20) —
Salvage Value (PIF, 8%, 20)
Tov'n of arsizvi e Preli,ninar Engineering Reporr
Pa

CAVANAUGH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Consulting Engineers
Present Value = $613,278 + ($1,270,000 x 0.6806) +
+ ($407,100 x 9.8182) ($75,000 x 0.2145)
Present Value = $5,951,210
,063,620 x 0.4632)
We also looked at splitting into two phases as follows since there no real
benefit in upgrading the transmission lines when there is no additional
capacity at the plant. If we do not consider he impact of the 74 By -Pass,
Phase II would need to be initiated no later than Year 10. If the By -Pass is
taken into consideration, phasing would not be a possibility.
pump station upg
Upgrade all to 1.0 mgd
0
Cost
$2,333,620
Present Value = Phase I Capital Cost + Phase 11 Capital Cost (PIF, 8%,
100) + O&M Cost (P/A, 8%©, 20) - Salvage Value (P/F, 8%, 20)
Present Value = $613,278 + ($2,333,620 x 0.4632) + ($407,100 x 9.8182)
($75,000 x 0.2145)
Present Value = $5,675,113
The Present Value of Option A: CWWTF is $4,751,723. Option A is still
the preferred option based on Present Value even if Option C is phased.
2. Thinks we should estimate O&M cost using present flows not 1 mgd.
During our Meeting with Union County we showed Mr. Riddick the
spreadsheets in the back of the report where O&M costs are, indeed, based
on actual usage not 1 mgd. He concurred.
Another significant issue that should be addressed in the evaluation of alternatives
concerns the Town of Marshville's requirements to make capital improvements in
its wastewater collection system. Under section I on page 31, the cost per user
was estimated by adding the appropriate costs for debt service and O&M for any
improvement to the current base rate to determine what the resulting user fees
would be. For alternates A, B, or C, it is implied that there would be no capital
cost associated with repair and replacement, or major renovation of any of the
collection or trunk sewers within the Town of Marshville. If one assumes that the
Town of ,arshvil'le Preliminary Engineering Report Page 9

CAVANAUGH ASSOCIATES, F.A. Consulting Engineers
same repairs would be made regardless of whether the Town selects alternates A,
B, or C, then the relative difference between these alternatives is appropriate.
However, comparing any one of these choices to alternate D presents a misleading
result, since under alternate D, Union County has offered to acquire and upgrade
the Town's system as appropriate, while maintaining the same rate of charge as
other County customers pay.
In other words: A, B & C do not ittelude repair costs for the Town 's collection
system which would not be a factor in Option D.
There is approximately $60,000 for yearly repairs included in the $220,000
O&M cost per year. Allowance for extensions is also included in the $220,000.
Town ofi arshville Prelimiinaring Report Page 10

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
April 30, 1999
Honorable Virginia Morgan, Mayor
Town of Marshville
201 W. Main Street
Marshville, North Carolina 28103
SUBJECT: Town of Marshville
Proposed Constructed Wetlands
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Preliminary Engineering Report
Project CS370796-01
Dear Mayor Morgan:
The Construction Grants & Loans Section has completed its review of the srrbject
Preliminary Engineering Report and has the attached comments. Responses to these
comments should be submitted for our review and approval as soon as possible.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Cecil G.
Madden, Jr., P.E. at (919) '715-6203.
CG
Pe
Att.achnient (all ccc's)
Cavanaugh and Associates
Mooresville Regional Office
Allen Wahab
DMU/FELL/SRG/SRF
Sincerely,
CL)
T. Allen Wahab, P.E.,
Assistant Chief for Engineering Branch
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS a LOANS SECTION
P..O. 60x 29579, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0579
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EN PLOVER - 50% RECYCLED/1 ON POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Review Comments
for
Town of Marshville
Preliminary Engineering Report
Proposed Constructed Wetland
WWTP
April 30, 1999
The subject PER is presented to support a High Unit Cost Grant application. Legislation
associated with this funding also requires an environmental assessment (EA) be
submitted. Paragraph .B of the presentation of the preferred alternative is not considered a
complete EA. Please see the attached outline for an EA. The proposed project does not
qualify as a minimum criteria project. Therefore 19 copies of the PER/EA will be
required for departmental review; Once the Division is satisfied with the proposal, a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) must be circulated by the Division through the
State Clearinghouse.
2. It appears that the subject project will also require a loan of approximately $550,000.
Both the SRF and Bond Loan Programs require a Facilities Plan to be completed and
approved. Please see the attached outline for a Facilities Plan. Nineteen copies of the
Facilities Plan should be submitted if SRF Funding is intended.
3. When a FNSI is required, funding commitments for the High Unit Cost Grant program
are not made until issuance of the FNSI.
The remainingcomments on the PER are provided to
assist the engineer in generating a Facilities Plan,
4. A copy of the speculative limits must be included in the document. Speculative limits in
our file indicate that the facility must meet 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 1 mg/1 NI3-N„
5. The report indicates the facility is designed very similar to the Walnut Cove WWTP
which meets tertiary limits. In the last 1.2 .months, (March 98 through February 99) the
Walnut Cove WWTP would have violated the monthly averages three times on BOD5 and
twice on NH3-N.
6. In a previous meeting the Consultant suggested that he was willing to add a tertiary filter
after the wetlands treatment to provide additional assurance of the facilities ability to
comply with the effluent limits. Cost of the filter does not appear in the document. It.
appears the filters would assist in reducing potential BOD5 violations; however, it is not
clear how the filters would. reduce NH5-N violations.

7. Provide preliminary design calculations for each unit process of the selected alternative.
Support design assumptions with documentation from the industry's publications.
8. Provide daily monitoring data from a similar facilities that consistently achieve the
proposed effluent limits.
9. Advise how standby power is provided.
10. The eligible cost of technical services will be limited to an allowance established by a fee
curve and the actual bid amount for construction contracts.
11. Advise how duck weed is harvested, how much is produced and what method of ultimate
disposal is used. This cost should be reflected in the annual O&M cost.
12. As shown in the Monroe 201 Facilities Plan at year 1, the cost of 5000 gallons of
treatment would be $17.53 which is $8.22 less than the Marshville Option D.
13. Using S
a
Planning numbers population projections for Marshville would be as follows:
Union Co.
Marshville
% of County
klenburg
1990.
84,210
2160
.0257
511,481
1997.
106,119
2770
.0261
608,567
Projected
Annual
Growth
2.64%
2000 1 2010.
115,095 1 142,446
3020
.0262
648,305
3926
.0276
776,521
2020
170,660
5100
.030
909,800
Population projections associated with the By -Pass appear to be quite aggressive. A
comparison to the City of Clayton was offered, It is noted that The 1-40 / NC 42
intersection is less than 10 miles from Raleigh, while Marshville is 22 miles from
Charlotte.

14. Using Construction Grants and Loan's typical method of flow projection we would
suggest the following Numbers:
Existing
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Growth
Total
452,223 Max month ADF' provided by A/E
(5100-2770) x 70
(51 00.2770) x 15
(220,000-1.5001/1) x 0.10 10"
0
g Non 1/1 Flow
452,223 GPD
163,100 GPD
34,950 GPD
21,850 GPD
672,123 GPD
Existing
452,223 Mar month ADP' proled by A/E
452,223 GPD
Residential.
Commercial
industrial
Growth
Total
(7350-2770) x 70
(7350-2770) x 15
(220,000-15001/0.10 14T of Existing Non I/"I.F1ow
320,600 GPD
68,700 GPD
21,850 GPD
863,373 GPD
15. Assuming population growth to 7350, it would appear that without sewer rehabilitation a
1 MGD facility will only allow approximately 136,600 GPD for Warnpler Foods. If
growth is only to a population of 5100 then a 1 MGD facility would only support
approximately 327,900 GPD from Wampler Foods.
16. Based on the difference between the Current Max Month ADF of 452,223 GPD and the
Current ADF of 220,000 GPD presented in the PER, it appears that the town has
significant I/1 problems. The town of Marshville will be required to conduct an
evaluation of the I/I using the following screening criteria:
a. infiltration is the average daily flow of the three wettest consecutive months
minus the expected flow. Expected flow is based on water billing records minus a
consumptive loss of 10 to 15 percent. Infiltration greater than 3000 gallons per
day per inch -mile (gpdim) of pipe is considered excessive.

b. Inflow is typically estimated from flow records following a one -inch rain event.
The rain event used for the analysis should be preceded by at least five dry
weather days. Inflow is considered excessive if non -industrial instantaneous
peak flows at the wastewater treatment plant, following a one -inch rain, exceed
275 gpd. per capita served. This figure represents total flow; do not subtract the
baseline or dry weather flow.
17. Where Inflow or Infiltration are determined excessive the town should make
commitments to reduce them. Additionally, it is prudent to eliminate these excessive
flows prior to placing a new WWTP into service.
It should be determined if the County is going to "give" the pump station to Marshville.
If not, the cost should be reflected in the cost effective analysis.
19. It appears that the O&M costs for options C and D are based on 1,000,000 from the
start. (See Page 30 of PER) It also appears that the $407,100 used in option C also
includes capital cost of proposed system.
Regarding Appendix B. We suggest the following corrections:
Option A:
Option C:
1 MGD CWWTF
Capital Cost
O&M yr 10 $164,832 x 9.8182
Salvage Value $180,000 x .2145
Net Present Worth
Collect and Pump to Union County
Capital Cost PS & Treatment
Upgrade PS & FM
O&M yr 10 (no debt) x 9.8182
Salvage Value $75,000 x .2145
Net Present Worth
$3,550,000
$1,618,353
$ 38.610
$5,1. 29,743
$1,676, 898
$1,270,000
$2,461,265
16.088
$5,392.075

Option 0: Turning over System to Uni n'County
It appears to be based on an annual O&M of
20 years. Debt service should be broken out
Assume 20 year average flow of 0.5 MGD
Assume first year at 0.22 2
User fee = $412,236
This alternative includes O&M b shvil]e'' yste y
It appears that alternatives A & C do not.
00 of
1
Assume: 1320 users x 9,25 x 12 14 a, 0 yr Marshy
Year 10 O&M by Union County 250,684 x 9.8182
Capital cost
Net Present Worth
I for
le System
$2,461,215
$2,946.898
$5,408,114

Environmmnental Assessment (EA)
An EA must be included as a separate section of the PER.
Contact the Army Corps of Engineers regarding 404 permit requirements if necessary, An
environmental assessment is a concise but accurate document which describes the following
items:
,Existing Environment - Describe in concise terms the demographics, topography,
land use, soils, geology, surface waters, and groundwater in the project area.
Need - Describe the need for the proposed project.
Alternative Analysis - Discuss alternatives to the proposed action including the
alternative of doing nothing to meet the need.
Environrne tal o uence _ State clearly but concisely the environmental
impacts of the selected alternative on the project service area. Impacts to be
addressed should include at least a brief discussion of the following categories:
a) Changes in land use
b) Wetlands and floodpiains
c) Prime or unique agricultural lands
d) Public lands such as parks (state, federal, or local)
e) Scenic and recreational areas
l� Areas of archeological or historical value
g) Air quality
h) Groundwater quality
1) Nuisance conditions (i.e., odor, noise, etc.)
J) Water supplies
k) Shellfish or fish and their habitats
1) Wildlife and their habitats (identify any threatened or endangered species
m.) Introduction of toxic or hazardous substances
t) Receiving waters
o) Indirect or secondary impacts
Mitigative 1"+!Ceasures - Describe methods proposed to mitigate or avoid significant
adverse environmental impacts.
Map - Provide a reproducible 8 1/2x 11 °" site location map showing the site of the
proposed project, and any significant features such as wetlands, parks, historic sites,
etc.

General 201 Facilities Plan Outline
A. Summary, Conclusion, Recommendation
Summarize the problem and the solution. The facilities plan is considered an
engineering report; therefore, the front page or cover should be signed and
sealed by an engineer licensed to practice in North Carolina.
. Current Situation
Collection system description
1. Identify the inch -miles of gravity sewersloutfalls.
2. Identify the age and condition of sewers and pump stations.
3. Provide a history of overflows and bypasses.
4. Identify unsewered areas within the set -vice area that require service due to
public health or water quality problems.
5. Identifyall unsewered areas within the city or town limits.
Treatment system description
1. Describe the size and type of each unit within the existing treatment
process.
Identify the capabilities and deficiencies of each unit process, in both the
liquid and the sludge trains.
Provide a copy of the NPDES limits pages and advise of the ability to
comply with the existing limitations.
4. Provide a copy of any SOC which .applies to the facility and summarize
any construction requirements with the appropriate schedules.
Population and Demographics
1. Identify the current service population (or the population at the time the
proposed facility will start operation) for the subject project area,
2. If .m.ultiple treatment facilities are involved, the populations should be
broken down by tributary service area..
3. Compare service population with total population.
Infiltration/Inflow (1/1) Analysis
Evaluate Infiltration/inflow to determine if they are excessive using the
following screening criteria:
. Infiltration is the average daily flow of the three wettest consecutive
months minus the expected flow. Expected flow is based on water billing
records minus a consumptive loss of 10 to 15 percent. Infiltration greater
than 3000 gallons per day per inch -mile (gpdim) of pipe is considered
excessive.

2. Inflow is typically estimated from flow records following a one -inch rain event. The
rain event used for the analysis should be preceded by at least five dry weather days..
Inflow is considered excessive if non -industrial instantaneous peak flows at the
wastewater treatment plant, following a one -inch rain, exceed 275 gpd per capita
served. This figure represents total flow; do not subtract the baseline or dry weather
flow.
Rainfall data can be obtained from the State Climate Office through e-mail at
[e-mail] or by calling (919) .51.5-3056.
Two flow values are of interest: A high peak instantaneous flow can result in a washout
of any clarifiers. A high total flow can affect compliance with NPDES flow limits,
If excessive is small, provide a schedule for identification and removal and their
cost. Removal of excessive should occur prior to placing the new facilities on line. If
excessive is large, provide a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey (SSES) prior to
completion of the facilities plan. Some sections of the collection system may need
repair even if the calculations show I/I is not excessive.
Provide a description of current flows as follows:
Residential flow should be based on water billing records minus a 10% consumptive
loss.
2. Commercial flow should be based on water billing records :minus a 10%
consumptive loss.
3. Industrial flow should be based on dual metering to determine consumptive losses.
Flow commitments should be taken into consideration as current flows.
4. Non -Excessive as defined above.
C. Future Situation
Provide 20-year population projections. The Office of State Planning provides
population data for each county and municipality which can be accessed on the Internet
at: http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog
Provide flow projections using the following SRF criteria for eligibility:
. Provide current flows including non -excessive I/Iand any planned industrial flows
with a letter of intent as justification.
201 Plan Outline Page 2

2. Provide 20-year flows and residential growth based on population projections.
Typically, this flow value is based on 70 gpd per capita of projected growth in
residential population.
Provide 20-year commercial growth based on population projections. Typically, tI
flow value is based on 1.5 gpd per capita of projected growth in residential
population.
4. 10% industrial Reserve (based on 10of current flows excluding I./I).
Provide speculative or actual effluent limitations, When applicable, to support the design
assumptions. Speculative limits can be obtained from DWQ's Water Quality Section.
If a recipient desires to construct a facility larger than necessary for the 20-year planning
needs, two items must be provided.
Demonstrate that the facility is capable of operating properly at both the current and
design flows.
Provide a detailed cost estimate for the proposed design and the 20-year design,
These cost estimates will be used to develop a Reserve Capacity Cost Ratio (RCCR)
factor which is applied to the total project cost to determine the total eligible cost.
If a recipient desires to construct a facility smaller than necessary for the 20-year
planning needs, four items must be provided.
Identify a schedule for construction of each phase.
2. Demonstrate that phased construction is more cost effective than completing the
entire project in one phase.
Demonstrate that the facility can be operated properly during the transition between
phases,
4. Provide a detailed cost estimate for the proposed design and the 20-year design.
1J. Alternatives
The applicant must evaluate the following alternatives:
1. No action
2 Optimum operation of existing facilities
201 Plan Outline Page 3

3. Land application
4. Regional System
5. Water Reuse System
All other feasible alternatives should also be evaluated, such as upgrading existing
facilities, upgrading and expanding existing facilities, and constructing new facilities.
Although alternatives to a discharging system may not be the most cost effective, they
may be selected on a case -by -case basis due to their environmental desirability.
Evaluate sludge disposal alternatives, when applicable. Show how sludge management
will comply with the 40 CFR 503 regulations, Provide sludge production calculations
and advise what methods will be used to comply with, pathogen and vector attraction
reduction.
Provide descriptions and preliminary design criteria for treatment plant unit processes
and interceptor sewers, when applicable.
If total construction cost for the selected alternative exceeds 0 million, the recipient
must provide a value engineering study.
Provide an analysis of the potential open space and recreational opportunities associated
with the project.
Typically, participation in a loan program is limited to transport and treatment of
wastewater. Funds from the small community set -asides can be used for sewer
collection. In order for collection facilities to be eligible for funding, a majority of the
flow must be from a community in existence prior to October 18, 1972.
If wastewater interceptors are being considered for funding, address the following
alternatives:
1. Gravity collection
2. Alternative routes
3. On -site treatment systems
4.. Septic Tank Effluent Purnp (STEP) collection
Please note that approval of the facilities plan does not constitute approval of sole source
procurement. Plans and specifications must comply with N.C. General Statute Chapter
133, Section 3, prior to their approval.
201 Plan Outline Page 4

E. Present Worth Analysis
Demonstrate by present worth analysis the cost effectiveness of the selected alternative,.
Base the analysis on a 20-year planning period and use a curreni discount rate of 6.875%
with the appropriate compound interest factors.
Each feasible alternative and land application must be included in the present worth
analysis.
The analysis should include the following items:
Detailed breakdown of capital costs, include the costs associated with patent fees.
2. Costs for engineering, start-up services, operation & maintenance manual, land and
easements, etc. Itemize these costs and include them in the present worth analysis.
Currently, the cost of land is generally not eligible under the SRF program..
Exceptions are made for land application of wastewater, land application of sludge,
and ,storage of wastewater.
. Annual operation and maintenance costs and present worth of those costs.
4. Present worth of replacement costs.
5. Present worth of salvage value.
6. .2% closing fee (SRF projects).
F. User Charges and Financial Capability
Provide both current and expected user charges for the typical residential customer using
5,000 gallons per month. The user charges must be sufficient to repay the loan. General
funds may not be used for repayment.
Expected revenue from user charges should be based on the first year's billable llow
Anticipated disbursements should include the first year's principal and interest
payments, and the first year's operation and maintenance cost. Itemize these costs and
provide a basis for the expected user costs.
Identify the other sources of funding if the total project cost exceeds the projected SRF
loan amount.
201 Plan Outline Page 5

Utile expected user charge exceeds 1.5% of the County's median household income,
then the project is considered a high cost project. Therefore, options to reduce the total
project cost and annual O&M cost should be considered. Other options could include a
High Unit Cost Grant, contributions from other agencies, reduction in service area to
include only the most densely populated areas, reduction in scope, etc.
A loan under the SRF program cannot be awarded until the user charge system and
sewer use ordinance have been approved.
A loan from the North Carolina Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund is
contingent on the review and approval of the proposed loan by the Local Government
Commission.
The SRF loan is simple interest. with declining annual payment
The interest rate will be < 4%.
All real property associated with the project must be acquired in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970.
The following costs are not eligible for funding under the Act:
The costs of acquisition of sewer rights -of -way e., legal, administrative, and
engineering).
2. Any amount paid by the recipient for eligible land in excess of just compensation
based on appraised value, negotiation or condemnation proceedings.
Removal, relocation, or replacement of utilities located on land by privilege.
G. Public Participation
Public meetings in early stages of the project development are encouraged, These
meetings can be regular town board meetings in which the project is discussed. Include
a summary of these meetings as part of the facilities plan.
One public hearing, with 30-day notification, is required. A copy of the .facility plan
should be made available for review by the public at least 15 days prior to the public
hearing.
The hearing should:
I. Identify the problem.
2. Discuss the selected alternative.
3. Identify the size of the projected loan.
201 Plan Outline Page 6

4. Discuss any associated interlocal agreements.
5. Identify the effect this project will have on the monthly sewer bill for a typical
residential user.
Place an advertisement for the hearing in the local newspaper:
I. Identify the timeand location of the public hearing.
2. Advise when and where a copy of the facility plan can be observed.
3. Provide a brief description of the proposed project,
4. Advise how much funding is required and identify the source of 'funding.
Provide a transcript or detailed summary of the hearing.
Provide an affidavit of publication of the hearing notice.
Provide a copy of the resolution from the governmental unit agreeing to implement the
selected alternative.
H. Environmental Assessment
An environmental assessment should be included as a separate section of the facility.
plan. Contact the Army Corps of Engineers regarding 404 permit requirements if
necessary. An environmental assessment is a concise but accurate document which
describes the following items:
1. Existing Environment - Describe in concise terms the demographics, topography,
land use, soils, geolog.y, surface waters, and groundwater in the project service area.
2. Need - Describe the need for the proposed project.
Alternative Analysis - Discuss alternatives to the proposed action including the
alternative of doing nothing to meet the need.
4. Environmental Consequences - State clearly but concisely the environmental, impacts
of the selected treatment and disposal alternative on the project service area. Impacts
to be addressed should include at least a brief discussion of the following. categories:
a) Changes in land use
b) Wetlands and floodplains
c) Prime or unique agriculturai lands
d) Public lands such as parks (state, federal, or local)
e) Scenic and .recreational areas
f) Areas of archeological or historical value
201 Plan Outline Page 7

g) Air quality
h) Groundwater quality
i) Nuisance conditions (Le., odor, noise, etc.)
j) Water supplies
k) Shellfish or fish and their habitats
I) Wildlife and their habitats (identify an threatened or endangered species)
Introduction of toxic substances
ri) Receiving waters
o) Indirect or secondary impacts
5. Mitigative Measures - Describe methods proposed to mitigate or avoid significant
adverse environmental impacts,
6. Map - Provide a reproducible 8 Vs" x 11" site location map showing the site of the
proposed project, and any significant features such as wetlands, parks, historic sites,
etc.
NOTE: Applications for any required permits such as an NPDES permit, land application
sludge permit, or non -discharge permit should be submitted early in the 201 planning
process. NPDES permit applications Will not be accepted until departmental review
of the Environmental Assessment is complete and the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FNSI) is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation.
Provide nineteen (19) copies of the 201 Facilities Plan upon submittal.
201 Plan Outline Page 8

PP7tate of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr,, Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Gregory A. Wilder
Town Administrator
Town of Marshville
201 North E1m. Street
Marshville, North Carolina 28103
Dear r, 'Wilder:
July 24, 1998
JUL
L
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Town of Marshville Proposed Wv'"I"P
Union County
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for a proposed
wastewater discharge just south of the point where Salem Creek crosses under State Road 1002.
The Division has prepared a response to your request for speculative limits at 1.0 and 4.0 MGD.
The speculative limits were developed based on our understanding of the proposal in
addition to our understanding of present environmental conditions at the proposed discharge
location. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) can not guarantee that an NPDES permit will
be issued at the proposed location. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives
and evaluates a formal permit application for the Town's proposed discharge.
Enlvironmental Assessments of New Projects
Please be aware that you will be required to evaluate this project for environmental
impacts before a permit can be issued. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste
treatment facilities using public funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental
assessment (EA) when wastewater flows (1) equal or exceed 0.5 MGD or (2) exceed one-third of
the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream.. DWQ will not accept a permit application for a project
requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and
comment.
If an Environmental Assessment is required, it should contain a clear justification for the
proposed facility. It should provide an analysis of potential alternatives, including a thorough
evaluation of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives or alternatives to expansion,
such as spray irrigation, water conservation, inflow and infiltration reduction or connection to a
regional treatment and disposal system, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a
surface water discharge. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred
alternative must be the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse
P.Q. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX (919) 73 -Q7
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper

Speculative Effluent Limits
Town of Marshville Proposed WWTP
Page 2 of 2
impact on the environment. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant
adverse effect on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement. Mary Kiesau of the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide additional
information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act. You can contact
Ms. Kiesau directly at [phone], ext. 567.
Speculative Effluent Limits
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the proposed discharge to Salem
Creek at flows of 1.0 and 4.0 MGD are attached. As a result of the complexities of estimating
low stream flows in Union County, the Division requested that the US Geological Survey
(USGS) calculate a low -flow estimate at the point just south of where Salem Creek crosses under
State Road 1002. The USGS reported the following information:
Average Flow
Annual 7Qw
Winter 7Q,o
Annual 30 92
13.5 cfs
0 cfs
0.06 cfs
0.14 cfs
This information was used in conjunction with the proposed effluent characteristics to
develop tentative limits. Please be advised that the limits and monitoring frequencies on the
attached pages were based on the information presented in the speculative limits request. In
addition, it was assumed that the proposed WWTP will be a class II facility. This assumption
was used to develop an estimate of the monitoring frequencies that would be required for each
parameter. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring frequencies in addition to
monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a
formal NPDES permit application.
Should you have any questions or if you need any additional information, please feel free
to contact Jeff Myhra at [phone], extension 597.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
cc: Mresville Regis
Central. Files
NPDES Unit Files

A. (I) SPECULATIVE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Permit No. NCOOXXXXX
TP at the Town of
Marshville. Preparation of these limits does not guarantee that the Division will issue a NPDES permit In addition, it does not guarantee
that these limits will remain unchanged if a permit is issued to the Town of Marshville. A complete evaluation of these limits and
monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal
NPDES permit application.
The foliowing table presents speculative limits and associated monitoring requirements for the proposed`
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiratl
serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as s
Flow IMGD)
B0D, 5 day, 20 C (April 1 Octobe
2
B0D, 5 day, 20 °C (November 1 - March
Total Suspended Residue2
NH13-N (April 1. October
NH3-N (November 1 - March t. a�
Dissolved 0
PH4
en3
Total Residual Chlodi
Temperaturm
decal Colifo brr
Total t ifrogert "(N0
Total Phosphorus
1.0
0
2©0 / 1CI0
Chronic Toxicity
Notes:
Avera
7.5 mg/l
15.0 mg/I
4
0 mg/I
4001100 ml
Sample Locations: E Effluent, I Influent, U — Upstream, D Doi
application receipt.
The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 85% of the respective influent value (85%
removal required).
e Perini
led Selo
rized to discharge fromoutfall s
rsurerrrerrt < damp
Frequency r. Type
Continuous
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
17 pg/L 2 / Week
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Recording
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
G
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Beata, Instream monitoring requirements
o be determined upon

A. (1) SPECULATIVE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQ'UTREMENTS (Continued) Permit No. NCOOXXXXX
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard u
Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) PIF at 90 percent; February, May{August, and November.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in

A. (Ij SPECULATIVE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Permit. No. NCOOXXXXX
The following table presents speculative limits and associated monitoring requirements for the proposed WWTP at the Town of
Marshville. Preparation of these limits does not guarantee that the Division will issue a NPDES permit, In addition, it does not guarantee
that these limits will remain unchanged if a permit is issued to the Town of Marshville. A complete evaluation of these limits and
monitoring frequencies in addition to monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed upon receipt of a formal
NPDES permit application.
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s)
serial number 001, Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS.
Row (MGD)
BOD, 5 day, 29 °C (April 1 -
BOD, 5 day, 20 °C (November 1 -
Total us ended Residue
2
N
Cpril 1 October 31
NH3-N (November 1 - March
D ssolv+ed Oxygen3-111
PH4
Total Residual ChIorine5..
Temperature,ac
Fecal Coliifprm (geometric
Total i#roger% (NO2+NCI3+
To
Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity
tes:
2
0
Sample Locations: E - Eu=
application receipt.
The monthly average effluen
removal required),
arch
tt
Ave
4.0
5,0
Q
mg/1
2.0 mgll
240/100r
fitly
Average
15,0 mg/I
45.g
460/
© ml
17 pg/L
MONITOENTS
uretnent'
quency
Continuous
mpte
Type.
Re
rding
Weekly Composite
Weekly Composite
Weekly Composite
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
2/Week
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly_
Quarterly
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Sample
Locattort1
I or E
1, E
I, E
I, E
nt, I — Influent, U — Upstream, D — Downstream. Instrearn monitoring requirements to be determined upon
BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 85% of the respective influent value (85%

A. (l) SPECULATIVE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Per °nit No. NCOOXXXXX
3
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
S Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90 percent; February, May, August, and November.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible fo
ther than trace amounts.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Gregory Wilder, Town Admini5
Town of Marshville
201 North Elrn Street
Marshville, NC 28103
In refislornse to your left:
hay c alculate;d speculative liI
that due to the complexities of
Division requested the US Geo
Creek at NCSR. 1901. The Div
are sumrnanzed below.
Since th.
.02[)6 (d) c;
That
130D5 fin
N1"13-N
D. O. (a
TSS (m'
Fecal col,
Residual eh
pil (nS. U.)
mberl8,11
Speculative lin
Union County
June,. 3, 199 7 tire. Division of Water Quality
a proposed 3.0 '1GD discharge to Lanes Creek.
;irrrating low stream flows in the Union County area tl
al Survey to calculate a low flow estimate for Lanes
ion has received these estimates from the USGS and they
Drainage area (ri - 87
Summer 7Q10 (cfsi = 0
Winter 7Q 10 (c
30Q2 (cis) =[7.
ed to be positive a discharg
conventional constiu
H)r r
(tigiL)
posii.
ent i
Sumner
3,()
5.0
2,0 4J1
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
17.0 17.0
6-9 f-9
owed la'
nts are:
'0 naw re00111 1nn
nine.
pri)toct]()
3 A NCAC 2B
hmille
fection. An acceptable
) is 1(10% A ehroi
pC
Box 29535, Rai :icgh. North 0ara9in: 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An E ,,u; I Opp .rtunity° .A!'irrnativ Act . Employer ,w v}.'c Irec,y'cled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Please he advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the. I ivision
will issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wast -water into these receiving waters. It
should he noted that a new facility involving an expenditure of public funds or use of
public (state) lands and having a design capacity of 0.5 MGD or greater (or a facility
proposing an expansion of 0.5 MGD or greater), or exceeding one-third of the 7Q:10 of the
receiving stream will require the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) by the
applicant. D\\rQ will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an EA until the
document has been approved by the Department. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources and a Finding of No Significant. Irrmpact (F(")NSI) has been sent, to the state
Clearinghouse for review and continent.
I'he EA should contain a clear ju:
of potential alternatives which should inc
alternatives. In a.ddit.ion, an EA should s
for it
addre
restore
may be al
technolo',
county the
connecting to regi
de a tl.R.
aw how water'
inflow/infiltration reductions have been considered. Nondisc
spray irrigation, water conservation inflow and infiltration reductie:
regional treatment and disposal system, are considered to he environm.enu
surface: rvater discharge. As mentioned in previous correspondence, the LI
:master plan document includes Marshville as part of the serviced area. Theme
Town is encouraged to communicate with Union County on these endeavors. In
accordance with the North. Carolina General Statutes„ the practicable waste treatment and
disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environnmcnt is required to he
implemented. If the, EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significaarmt. adverse
affect on the quality of the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement would he
required. Michelle Suverkruhhe of the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide, further
information regarding the gee uirement.s of the. NC' Environmental ntal Policy
l
DVVQ is planning a basin vide water quality rmmanagement initiettive. Our schedu]e
le rricntation. in the Yadkin River basin is set famr I` 98. The plan will attempt to
e es of point. and nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to protect or
quality standards. In addressing interaction of sources, wa.steload allocations
d. Those facilities that ,already have committed to high levels of treatment
likely to he affecley.d. Due tem time rmttttmerota,s zero flow streams in the
;ontinuc:s to urge all dischargers irm ilrmiorm (caurm.ty to consider
I facilities or seek other nondischar e altcrrmaativcs
SrS
If there are an
Andy McDan
ad
cc: I1=looresviIlc I e< acmnal Office
Ce.rifK [nit
rnmrts anrt
rmtr`,rC Files
n
733-5083 ext
1 facility and an an
n of non-discharg
and
preferab
n County
the
please feel free. to

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 24, 1996
Gregory Wilder, Town Adrn
Town of Marshville
201 North Elm Street
Marshville, NC 28103
Subject: Speculative limits
7Q10 flow request -Lanes Ck.
Town of Marshville, NC
Union County
Dear Mr. Wilder:
Thank you for your letter dated July 15, 1996 which clarifies the proposed
WWTP's discharge location on Lanes Creek. As I discussed with you over the phone,
many streams in Union County including Lanes Creek flow through a geologically unique
area of North Carolina which is noted for its low stream flow. In fact some streams in this
area actually lose flow as the area drained increases. Due to the complexities involved in
estimating low flows in this area of the state, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has
requested the assistance of the US Geological Survey (USGS) in calculating a 7Q10 flow
statistic for the point where NCSR 1901 crosses Lanes Creek.
As you mentioned in your letter the Town has a water supply impoundment on
Lanes Creek upstream of the proposed discharge. Although the Town is currently not
withdrawing water, the DWQ must consider the possibly that the Town may reactivate the
water intake facilities went assessing the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream.
After the USGS provides the Division with information on the natural stream flow of Lanes
Creek we will evaluate the need, if any, for a minimum release from the impoundment.
If the USGS provides the DWQ with a positive (?.0.45 cfs) 7Q10 flow, a model for
a proposed 3.0 MGD discharge of treated effluent to Lanes Creek will be developed. A
7Q10 estimate less than 0.05 cfs will involve incorporating the DWQ's regulation for zero
flow streams (NCAC 2B .0206 (d)). Please note that the USGS may require up to four
weeks before returning a low flow estimate to the Division.
As you may be aware, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout Consulting Engineers has
prepared a sewer system master plan for Union County. A draft plan was submitted to
Mike Shalati, Union. County Public Works Director, and to the Division on April 2, 1996
for comments. The plan details a regional approach towards handling the County's waste-
water treatment needs through the year 2015. Marshville and Wingate were considered in
the plan as part of the eastern Union County service area. The Town of Marshville is
strongly encouraged to work with the County towards the goal of developing regional
solutions to wastewater treatment and disposal in order to avoid the proliferation of new
wastewater treatment plants.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

ei f toon t t i you have yquestions or 1733-
M illRegional ice
Pempits .a d EngineeringUnit
Central Files
Andrew McDaniel
Environmental Model

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Direc
1u4
&
July 5, 1995
Jo_ A'ii)
Hugh Montgomery, Administrator
Town of Marshville
201 North Elm Street
C;i1.0.4
Marshville, North Carolina 28103-1116
Dear Hugh:
I'm writing to follow up our meeting last week in Marshville. As always it was a pleasure to
see you and discuss the nitty-gritty of .small community issues* Since we met, 1 have looked
into your best course for pursuing advice and assistance from the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) concerning Marshville's need for wastewater capacity.
I spoke first with Rex Gleason, Water Quality Supervisor in our Mooresville Regional Office,
because he is really on the front lines in terms of awareness of wastewater problems in Union
County. Rex and I discussed the three options you outlined: possible new discharge at Lane's
Creek, possible new land application system, or increasing capacity in Union County's
transmission lines to Monroe. He suggested that the town's best direction would be to work
things out with the county because costs for land application appear to be high, and chances
for a new discharge anywhere in your area are very slim. I asked if it would be useful to
request new speculative lirnits on Lane's Creek in light of the fact that it is no longer a water
supply. He was doubtful, but he referred me to other staff in the central office for more
information about your questions.
I spoke next with Don Safrit, who directs permitting efforts in the Water Quality Section here
in Raleigh. Don is very familiar with the overall situation in Union County, and he reiterated
Rex's opinion that Marshville's best option will be to work things out with the county; When
I asked him about new speculative limits he indicated that although results are unlikely to
change because of the stream's reclassification, the town is .welcome to request new
speculative limits,
Both Rex and Don are of the opinion that our hands are tied in terms of regulating Union
County's flow conditions. Union County holds a DEM permit to operate a collection and
transmission system, and as long as their operation of that system is not causing harm to the
environment or public health (or is otherwise not in violation of that operating perrnit) then
DEM has no grounds to get involved. If Union County's flow were causing problems at
Monroe's treatment plant, Monroe would have grounds for complaint to the county, but that
would still be an issue of intergovernmental business and not an issue for DEM.
P,O, Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunrfy Affirmative Action Employer ark recycled/ 101 post -consumer paper

Hugh Montgomery
July 5, 1995
page 2
As far as the Construction Grants and Loans Section is concerned, we would gladly discuss
financing any viable wastewater facility project with you and town officials. However, at this
point it appears that any facilities you could build would only be more expensive than
facilities considered two years ago -- and which were found to be financially unviable at that
time.
-Unfortunately, as long as there is no dramatic evidence of pollution problems being caused by
Union .County's transmission system, DEM's ability to address Marshville's concerns seems to
be limited, .At this point, it appears that the town has few options other than to reopen
negotiations with Union County officials. If your good faith efforts fail (or have failed), the
town may need to consider taking legal action. You may wish to consider assistance through
a dispute settlement service, as a less costly option to litigation.
In summary, DEM staff feel that the best longterm option for M.arshville is to continue
treating wastewater at Monroe, via Union County's transmission system. They agree with
your assessment that a land application system is probably too expensive to meet your needs
and they suspect that a new discharge point on Lane's Creek would only be possible with
very strict treatment and flow limits, Don Safrit has offered to meet with you, Mayor Griffin,
and any other appropriate officials if you would like to hold further discussion on these
points.
I hope this infomiation will be helpful as you pursue discussion of Marshville's wastewater
concerns. If anyone has any questions, please let me know by calling 919-733-6900 x 611.
Yours truly,
Eric Stockton, Manager
Small Cornrnunity Outreach
cc: Bobby Blowe
j.ex GleasEL
Don Safrit
a: \marshy litr

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
Jarnes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 21, 1995
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Charles H. Griffin, Mayor
Town of Marshville
201 North Elm Street
Marshville, North Carolina 28103-1116
Subject: Notice of Violation and
Recommendation of
Enforcement
Illegal Construction of
Sewer Line Extension
Town of Marshville
Union County, NC
Dear Mayor Griffin:
This letter is to inform you that the Town of Marshville is in
violation of North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.1(a)(2)
by constructing a sewer line extension prior to obtaining a permit
from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management. Please be advised that this
Office is preparing a recommendation for enforcement for the
violat4=
The Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Section staff
has contacted Mr. Hugh Montgomery, Administrator of the Town of
Marchville, and learned that the Town has constructed approximately
1,500 feet of force main to serve Bakery Feeds, Inc. Mr.
Montgomery was advised to cease all sewer construction activities
until a permit is issued to the Town.
Please be advised that NCGS 143-215.6A provides for a civil
penalty assessment of not more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00), or ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per day when the
violation is of a continuing nature, against any person who is
required but fails to apply for or to secure a permit required by
NCGS 143-215.1.
If you have an explanation for this violation that you wish to
present, please respond in writing within ten (10) days following
receipt of this Notice. Your explanation will be reviewed and if
an enforcement action is still deemed appropriate, your explanation
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-cOnsumer paper

The Honorable Charles H. Griffin
Page Twe
December 1, 1995
will be forwerded to the Directorwith the enforcement package for
his consideration. Please address your response to Mr. D. Rex
Gleason, Water Quality Regional ional u vi c , at the address shown
below.
Should you have any questions regardingthis matter, Please do
not hesitate to contact either Mr G. T. Chen, Mrs Gleason, or me
at(704) -16
Sincerely,
B. Keith vereasn,
Regional Supervisor'
cc: Union County Health Department.
Sob Sledge, Compliance Group, DEM
gtc