NC0028941_Permit (Issuance)_19990929

i
NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0028941
Pine Valley WWTP
�-p
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Complete File - Historical
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: September 29, 1999
Thies document is printed on reuse paper-ignore any
content on the reverse side

- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment ITkT
and Natural Resources 4 a
Division of Water Quality — —
James Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary
7� NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
'f'
Kerr T. Stevens, Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 29. 1999
Mr. Leonard E. Stegner
Rayco Utilities, Inc.
107 Commercial Park Drive
Concord, North Carolina 28027
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit Number NCO028941
Pine Valley Subdivision WWTP
Rowan County
Dear Mr. Stogner:
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on January 22, 1999. the
Division is forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of
Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources,
Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local governmental permits which may be
required.
If you have any questions or comments regarding these speculative limitations, please do not
hesitate to contact Mark McIntire at telephone number [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens
Cc: Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality
EPA, Roosevelt Childress
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER,RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617-TELEPHONE [phone]/FAx [phone]
AN EQUAL 0PPORTUNHYArEIRAUnvr ACTION EMPLOYER-50%RECYCLED/ 10%POST-CONSUMER PAPER

Permit No. NCO028941
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Rayco Utilities, Incorporated
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Pine Valley Subdivision Wastewater Treatment Plant
NCSR 1802
West of Salisbury
Rowan County
to receiving waters designated as Setman Branch in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts 1, 11, Ill and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective November 1, 1999.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2004.
Signed this day September 29, 1999.
Original Signed By
David X Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0028941
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Rayco Utilities, Incorporated
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue operation of an existing 0.025 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
influent bar screening, an aeration basin, clarifier, chlorine contact chamber, and a sludge
holding tank located at the Pine Valley Subdivision Wastewater Treatment Plant off of NCSR
1802, west of Salisbury in Rowan County: and
• 2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into
Setman Branch, a class C stream in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.

u`wl
,(F 1..:'1 ct'! � t 1't�t � �� � •ri. � / (\/�/.._" v4`w. ��` �:`�• •S� � � �� � 7 {/'
�:'�� m �_. F yr' ,r�� � I ����•� '^> � ..` •v '� jr; ! �\i
-may O •. r .�
f,,j�� l�sie ��� st` .y� 's,"' � � �.t/(''^?�.� �..,� ._�o • ty � ; !! ! 3? u. � .'"( ,".1,`�
It
tr (LlYgV"' • •. �� 1 x !tom r <� ' �4 ri � ' ! kWT
a+rti.
it '.r4rS"} .. •-. `\ ! �y, r�.. • • pa ,..Y ter. ;¢'3t i. ! 3 w�
��, Cy I .Y++ • ••r ', . S�jy s`i .•' • '�= .,•.::��35' .v1
11 `:� O £ 1} pyjF ;j,- r f ){' , • • ''*Kv`YY �',N l, z&�� �1 ���
low
��f1 ~,Yal7 / /� y $C'a7"/ �'v ;1,• • •• •.• II 11
`, � � i"Y7 i J r 2�, a '4 L s •i —� ♦-� • ••i �l Il �I ��+ 1 j p
37 �t'f f IN
t ` �
SCALE 1 :24000 Facility
Latitude: 35°42'20" Sub-Basin: 03-07-06
L nigitude. 80`34'00" �lJCat1011
nad#: E16NE -
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream Setman Bmneh 7 �p Rayco Utilities,Inc.
Pemutted Flok' 0.025 MGD �L�ub NC00astew
Pine l alley Svldivision Water Treatment Plan

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING: REQUIREMENTS - FINAL Permit No. NCO028941
During the period beginning upon the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001- Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS ', L !. ".„DISCHARGE'LIMITATIONS. '_'. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS'
thly Effluent Measurement Sample Sample
Av`er age Weekly Average' Daily Maximum Frequency Type Location'
Flow (MGD) 0.025 Weekly Instantaneous I or E
BOD, 5-Day, 20T 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Weekly Grab E
Total Suspended Residue 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Weekly Grab E
NH, as N (April 1 -October 31) 2.0 mg/L Weekly Grab E
NI-I, as N (November 1 -March 31) 4.0 mg/L Weekly Grab E
Dissolved Oxygen Weekly Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 ml 400/100 ml Weekly Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine 2/Week Grab E
Temperature (Effluent) Daily Grab E
Temperature (Upstream, Downstream) Weekly Grab U, D
Conductivity Weekly Grab U, D
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Grab E
Total Nitrogen (NO.+NO,i+'CKN) Quarterly Grab E
pl-l'l Weekly Grab E
NoTes:
I Sample Locations: I - Influent, E-Effluent, U-Upstream at least 100 feet above the outfall, D-Downstream at least 20 feet.
2 The daily average effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
b The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units or greater than 9.0 standard units.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACEAMOUNT5.

3 ° H v n f these locacons during normal
H N n n c n office hours. Copies of the in-I V
'b. v m� m _1 formation on file are available'
- •�1 m H 3 0„ = upon request and payment of
oo s a O the costs of reproduction. All
m m Z such comments or requests re-
m j n N c m a garding a proposed permit
m N m g orm should make reference to the
m`v E y i J y E 0 NPDES permit number listed
m =» 2 m n `m o pelow. .
- m<_ Kerr T.Stevens,Director
z m'01 v HHm .. .
in m n I Division of Environmental
cr m' y n m,'o,� - Management
m a m ; o d O
n m m o 'm F Public notice of intent to issue ' �+
o_ m S 3 a 51 o a State NPDES permit to the f m c CO
X
0
'm m m m or o n following:
2 0 m m 3 in 1. NPDES No. NC0079898. W Z --'�
m F m cri
n O„'-, �-' Hoechst C Box
4. Corpora- ro Q3
1 m rn lion, P.O. Box 4, Salisbury, 1 o no m
�— NC 281" has applied for 1 W
03 permit renewal for a facility r
. . co located at the Needmore i N ��-
Road Landfill on Needmore
Road, north of Woodleaf,
Rowan County. The facility
is permitted to discharge up
-- _ - - ------ - to 0.288 MGD of remediated -
- groundwater from a landfill
through one outfall into the
South Yadkin River,a Class.
WS-IV stream in the Yadkin-
- Pee Dee River-Basin which-
has a 7010 flow of 106 cis.
No parameters are water
quality limited, but this dis-
charge may affect future al.
locations.
2. NPDES No. NC0028941.
Rayco Utilities, Inc., 4200
Highway 29, Harrisburg, NC
28075 has applied for a per-
mil renewal for a facility lo-
cated at Pine Valley Subdivi.
sion Wastewater Treatment
Plant, NCSR 1802, west of
Salisbury, Rowan County.
The facility is permitted to
discharge up to 0,025 MGD
of treated domestic waste-
water from one oudall into
Selman Branch, a Class C
stream in the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin which has a
7010 flow of 0 cls and a
3002 of 0 cis.BOD, ammo-
nia, and dissolved oxygen
are water quality limited. For
some parameters,the avail-
able load capacity of the im.
mediate receiving water will
be consumed. This may af-
fect future water quality
based effluent limitations for
additional dischargers within
this portion.of the water.
.shed..: .'-.i B "
3.NPDES No.NC 0005487.
Color-Tex Finishing Corpo-
rations,P.O.Box 45,Spenc-
er, _
NC 28159 has applied for -
"a permit renewal for a facility
located at North Carolina
Finishing Company WWTP,
on U.S. Highway 29 Rowan
County. The facility dis-
charges 4.25 MGD of treat-
ed domestic and,industrial-
wastewater from one oudall
into Yadkin River, a'Class-
WS-V stream in the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River Basin which'
has a 7010 flow of 1,030
cis. No parameters are wa-
ter quality limited, but this
discharge may affect future-
allocalions.
O

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO028941
i A hcant Facrh Name ayco Utilities, Inc. - Fine Valley Subdivision
?A hcanfAddress:gI u i commercialPark rive,Concord,
NC 28027
West oSalisbury
i
®Facilr `A'ddieiii ' � °
P.er0.025 MUD
riiitte'd,FI6 .® ,
-'of Waste i ._� t °domestic
=Fa—ili y rP.erttiit"Status enewa with no modification
Coun w owan
*c•,2 i;_ �;
Receivin"Stream::` ' etman BrancoRe"oriel Office)?F Mooresville
Stream=Glassificafon . ' kUSGS:To `FQuad ;
1303 d tii'sted?:,. t _g PermitWnter;'`, ar c nitre
Subtia`s`iii= w. - " 1?ate v -®a une
Dratria a Aiea mil o.16
Summer�4 10 cfs - rI `
Wtnterr7Q10 (cfs),. ' �
Avera erFI6W cfs
'PWeiq"gloom!
BACKGROUND
Rayco Rayco U[rlriresopoperates this wastewater treatment facility for the Pine Valley Subdivision in Rowan
County. The facility has a permitted flow rate of 0.025 MGD. The NPDES permit was most recently
issued for this facility on December 30, 1994. That issuance followed a four-month settlement period
resulting from a petition for contested case filed by the facility on August 22, 1994. A review of the files
did not indicate why the petition was filed,however the settlement agreement(dated December 14, 1994)
required Rayco to submit plans and specifications within 90 days of permit issuance for Authorization to
Construct an adequate disinfection system. This condition was outlined in Part III, Special Condition F of
the permit issued in 1994.
Plans and specifications for the disinfection system were apparently received on May 25, 1995. Susan
Wilson of the NPDES Unit requested additional information on July 5, 1995 and again on October 16,
1995. There is no indication that the request for additional information was ever answered as there is no
correspondence in the files dated after the second add-info date. Additionally, there is no evidence that
an ATC was issued for these facilities. A request for additional information was forwarded to the
permittee on June 22, 1999. That correspondence requested any documentation regarding authorization
to construct the chlorination facilities.
The existing permit also required submittal of an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). This facility
discharges into a zero flow stream and was asked to evaluate non-discharge alternatives as compared to
the cost of meeting limits of 5.0 mg/L BODS and 2.0 mg/L NH,-N. The EAA was received on June 7,
1999. It evaluated the four alternatives listed below:
• Connection of the facility to a POTW;
• Subsurface disposal;
• Land application; and
• Continued discharge with upgrades to chlorination.
With respect to subsurface disposal, individual septic tank, sand filter systems were ruled out due to the
lack of adequate land per lot. Reuse was not evaluated as it was determined that reuse opportunities were
non-existent. Cost for all four alternatives were provided and clearly indicate that continued discharge is
the most economically viable alternative.
NCO028941 Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

1
TOXICITY TESTING:
None
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Between May 1997 and January 1999 the following permit violation were identified:
• May 15, 1997: Fecal coliform daily maximum violation;
• July 9, 1997: BOD and TSS daily maximum violations;
• August 7: Fecal coliform and TSS daily maximum violations;
• November 20, 1997: Fecal coliform and TSS daily maximum violations;
• November 1997: Monthly average ammonia limit violation;
• April 8, 1998: TSS daily maximum violation;
• April 1998: TSS monthly average violation;
• May 7, 1998: BOD and TSS daily maximum violations;
• June 2, 1998: Fecal coliform daily maximum violation;
• July 22, 1998: TSS daily maximum violation;
• October 27, 1998: Fecal coliform daily maximum violation;
• November 5, 1998: Fecal coliform daily maximum violation;
• January 21, 1999: TSS daily maximum violation;
• January 1999: TSS monthly average violation;
The regional office site inspection conducted on March 31, 1999 indicated that the facility was not being
visited daily by the ORC or the designated back-up operator. A review of DMRs indicates that the
facility is capable of meeting limitations, though consistent, conscientious operation is imperative.
Notices of violation were issued to the facility on July 2, 1998 and April 1, 1999. Regional office staff
are currently attempting to address the non-compliant nature of this facility. Should their efforts to
resolve the situation constructively not succeed, the Division may need to take further action as
necessary.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
pstream an ownstream monitoring is currently conducted for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and conductivity. A review of self-monitoring data suggests that there is no noticeable
downstream dissolved oxygen problem resulting from this discharge. Additionally, downstream
temperature does not appear to be elevated as a result of this discharge. Downstream conductivity levels
do at times appear to be elevated, though no dangerously so. Fecal coliform levels also appear to be
elevated at times, though with the installation of improved chlorine disinfection facilities, instances of
high downstream fecal coliform should be greatly reduced. Although the Division ordinarily curtails
instream conductivity monitoring for 100% domestic facilities, due to the zero flow nature of the
receiving stream and my review of downstream data,I recommend conductivity monitoring continue.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Monitoring Frequencies: Monitoring frequencies appear to be consistent with the .0500 rules
with the exception of instream temperature monitoring. Upstream and downstream temperature
monitoring is currently being conducted daily. The frequency has been changed from daily to
weekly.
• NH3-NLimitations: In accordance with Division policy for discharges to zero flow
streams,a summer ammonia nitrogen limit of 2.0 mg/L will be implemented with this renewal.
• Nutrient Monitoring: In accordance with the Division's policy for discharges into the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, quarterly nutrient monitoring has been installed. The Division is
collecting data from discharging facilities to assist in its effort to develop a nutrient management
strategy for all or portion of the Yadkin-Pee Dee.
NCO028941 Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
ra Permit to Pu is Notice: August 4, 1999
Permit Scheduled to Issue: September 27, 1999
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,please contact Mark
McIntire at(919)733-5038 ext. 553.
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
ti10 add.`�sw! em s , 6rc , 7 13 PY
NAME: Q�1j // � DATE: 7
NCO028941 Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
E.W.S., INC. • PRECISE ANALYTICAL& RESEARCH LABS • RAYCO UTILITIES, INC.
July 9, 1999
Mr. Mark McIntire
NPDES Unit JUL 19 1999
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Re: NPDES Permit Renewal
Pine Valley Subdivision WWTP
NPDES #NCO028941
Dear Mr. McIntire:
As I told you by telephone this week, the information concerning the chloronation system in my
letter for permit renewal for the above referenced facility was erroneous. I certainly did not
intentionally give you inaccurate information, but rather was mistaken about the chloronation
system being approved.
The confusion on my part occurred when we agreed to settle the Contested Case regarding the
permit, on December 14, 1994. As a condition of settlement, we were required to submit plans and
specifications for the modification of the disinfection system to the Division. On May 19, 1995,
Mr. Riley Burgess, P.E. sent a drawing of a suggested modification to the regional office. I did not
follow up on this process as I should have and subsequently forgot about it. Since the disinfection
system had been repaired and was working, and since the modifications requested by the division
had been done, I wrongfully assumed that the required permits were in order.
Mr. Thurman Horne, P.E., has since submitted plans and specifications for a disinfection system,
and as soon as they are approved, we will construct then and hopefully, everything will be correct.
Mr. McIntire, I again apologize for this problem I have caused and hope this response is sufficient,
however, should you require any additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Leon
Rayco Utilities, Inc.
107 COMMERCIAL PARK DRIVE CONCORD. NC 28027 704/788-9497 FAX [phone]

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT : Yes No X
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
Date : February 4 , 1999
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION �o
�O Cyr;
County: Rowan m
Permit No . : NC0028941 co
MRO No . : 99-012 0,
3 yCp
C
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
co r _
O i
1 . Facility and Address : Pine Valley Subdivision WWTP
Rayco Utilities, Inc .
107 Commercial Park Drive SW
Concord, North Carolina 28027
2 . Date of Investigation: 02-04-99
3 . Report Prepared By: G. T. Chen
4 . Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Mr. Leonard E .
Stogner, [phone]
5 . Directions to Site : From the intersection of Hurley School
Road (SR 1724) and Pine Valley Road (SR 1802) , travel
northwest on SR 1802 approximately 0 . 5 mile to the junction
with a paved road on the left (no name or road number) . The
WWT facility is located at the end of the paved road.
6 . Discharge Point (s) . List for all discharge points :
Latitude : 350 42 ' 20 " Longitude : 800 34 ' 00"
Attach a U. S .G. S . map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No. : E 16 NE USGS Quad Name : Rowan Mills, NC
7 . Site size and expansion are consistent with application?
Yes .
8 . Topography (relationship to flood plain included) : Rolling, 3-
12% slopes . The site is not in a flood plain.
9 . Location of nearest dwelling : Approximately 500 feet .

10 . Receiving stream or affected surface waters : Setman Branch
a . Classification: C
b . River Basin and Subbasin No . : Yadkin and 03-07-06
C . Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses : The receiving water is a small stream
with a good flow. Main water use is for agriculture
and/or secondary recreation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1 . a . Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 0 . 025 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the wastewater
treatment facility? 0 . 025 MGD
C . Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity) ? 0 . 025 MGD
d. Date (s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two
years : None
e . Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities : The existing
facility consists of a bar screen, a 25, 000 GPD aeration
basin, clarifier, sludge holding tank, chlorine contact
chamber, tablet chlorinator, two (2) blowers and motors
with controls .
f . Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities : N/A.
g . Possible toxic impacts to surface waters : Chlorine .
h . Pretreatment Program (POTWs only) : N/A.
2 . Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme :
a . If residuals are being land applied, please specify
DWQ Permit No. : N/A
Residuals Contractor: N/A
Telephone No. : N/A
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 2

b. Residuals Stabilization : PSRP : N/A
RFRP : N/A
Other: N/A
C . Landfill : N/A
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify) : Excess
sludge is collected by Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Drain
Service and disposed at the Rocky River Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Concord, North Carolina .
3 . Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet) : Class II , see attached rating sheet .
4 . SIC Code (s) : 4952
Wastewater Code (s) :
Primary: 05 Secondary:
Main Treatment Unit Code : 06007
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1 . Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved (municipals only) ? No
2 . Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests : None
3 . Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates : (please
indicate) N/A.
4 . Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non-discharge options available . Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated .
Spray Irrigation: Insufficient land
Connection to Regional Sewer System: None available
Subsurface : Insufficient land
Other Disposal Options : Not evaluated
S . Air Quality and/or Groundwater concerns or hazardous materials
utilized at this facility that may impact water quality, air
quality or groundwater? No known air quality, groundwater,
and/or hazardous materials concerns .
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3

6 . Other Special Items : None .
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the permit he renewed as requested.
Signature of Report Preparer
Water Quality Re ' o'nal Supervisor
i
Date
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 4

THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
E W.S., INC. • PRECISE ANALYTICAL& RESEARCH LABS • RAYCO UTILITIES, INC.
January 14, 1999
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NC DENR/DWQ /NPDES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Pine Valley Subdivision WWTP
NPDES NCO028941
Permit Renewal Application
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Please accept this letter as a request for permit renewal for the above referenced
facility.
Since issuance of the last permit, the following changes at the facility have
occurred.
(1) Aeration of the chlorine contact chamber has ceased.
(2) An approved chlorine feed system has been installed.
Sludge generated at this facility is collected by vacuum truck and is disposed of at
the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Concord, N.C.
Mr. Weaver, I trust this renewal package is sufficient, however, should you
require any additional information please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely
Le�St dner
Rayco Utilities, Inc.
LES/Is
107 COMMERCIAL PARK DRIVE • CONCORD, NC 28027 . 704/788-9497 FAX [phone]

9'9 c <;
/n
O
Pine Valley Subdivision
Rowan County, N.C.
NPDES Permit No. NCO028941
< G?
Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Alternatives Evaluations
r� CSC
w
G�
Prepared by: J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
107 Commercial Park Drive
Concord,N.C. 28027
704-788-9497
Fax:[phone]
,o°ptljN �At?o0
?Q�ptESSlp�9 Yy
o�v�.FC1NE c'
rHUP,
3� �y99

Pine Valley Subdivision
Rowan County, N.C.
Wastewater Treatment/Disposal Alternatives Evaluation
I. General Information:
General:
Facility Name: Pine Valley Subdivision
Countv: Rowan
Facility Address: NCSR 1802
® Salisbury, N.C.
Mailing Address: Rayco Utilities, Inc.
107 Commercial Park Drive
Concord, N.C. 28277
Phone: [phone]
Report Preparer. J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering& Consulting, Inc.
107 Commercial Park Drive
Concord, N.C. 28027
704-788-9497
Fax: [phone]
Date: Mav 31, 1999
•

• Project Description:
The existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) serves a small residential
subdivision of approximately forty-seven (47) existing single family homes. The
total number of lots in the development is fifty-one (51.) The subdivision consists
of moderately rolling land that is divided into individual lots. The existing
wastewater treatment facility is located on a lot that is approximately 0.5 acre.
The property is located in Rowan County but is outside the corporate limits of the
nearest Town or City (Salisbury.) This is in an area that is located beyond the
extent of current municipal sewer service.
Based on the design criteria in NCAC T15, 2H219, the design projected
wastewater flow is 18,360 gpd. Based on past monitoring records, actual flow
averages approximately 18,000 gpd. The permitted design flow is 25,000 gpd
(average.)
Existing Facilities:
The existing WWTP is an extended aeration plant consisting of an aeration basin,
a clarifier, chlorine contact chamber and sludge holding tank-
Project Phasing:
This is an existing facility serving an existing, fully developed subdivision.
Therefore there is no planned expansions or additional phasing.
II.Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives:
A. Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW):
A map depicting the location of the nearest available public sewers was obtained
from Mr. Phillip W. Russell, P.E., Utility Engineering Manager, City of Salisbury.
The nearest existing public sewer is located approximately 15,000 feet northeast
of the existing WWTP. According to Mr. Russell,there are no plans for
extension of sewer service into this area. The distance that would be required for
sewers to be installed would be approximately 15,000 ft and this preliminary
route is shown in Appendix A This would be the route that appears to be the
most practical from an engineering perspective to take advantage of existing right
of ways, minimal impact to adjacent property owners and to avoid traversing
aunreasonable terrain elevations and probable significant rock excavation. This
sewer is operated by the City of Salisbury. The development is located outside of

the corporate limits. Pursuant to conversation with Mr. David Philips,
Development Services Specialist, City of Salisbury, connection of flow from Pine
. Valley would require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. At present
there are no moratoriums in effect that would preclude such service.
Assuming that Board approval could be obtained, the costs associated with this
option are estimated in Appendix B.
B. Land Based Disposal:
B1. Subsurface Disposal:
Appendix A contains portions of a soil survey map that provides insight as to the
suitability of the soils for subsurface disposal. These soils have some limiting
characteristics with respect to the potential for subsurface disposal. From
conversation with the Rowan County Health Department, the general area is
rather mixed with some areas amenable to on site disposal while others are not.
Given the soil limitations, the relatively small size of the individual lots, and the
density of housing, individual onsite subsurface disposal (e.g. individual septic
tanks and drain fields) is not a practical alternative. This was probably the reason
that a centralized wastewater treatment system was built to serve this
development. Subsurface disposal requires buffers and land for the drainfields as
well as equal areas of suitable soil available and maintained as a
® repair/replacement areas that are simply not available for individual on site
disposal.
The only practical possibility for subsurface disposal would be to construct a
centralized subsurface disposal system to serve the subdivision. This would
require the acquisition of additional lands since there is no sufficient or useable
areas available within the subdivision. This option would require the collection of
the effluent from the residences to be conveyed to an acquired site having
sufficient area for subsurface disposal and a suitable reserve area of equal size,
and that these areas include adequate buffers from property lines, homes, wells,
—etc.
A full and extensive soil investigation of potential sites would be necessary to
confirm if useable areas are available. In keeping with the state guidance for
alternatives evaluation, the cost effectiveness of this alternative is further
evaluated to determine if a detailed soils analysis is appropriate. The costs
associated with this option are estimated in Appendix B. A design application rate
of 0.40 gpd/sf is used which is the rate being allowed by the county for lots in the
general area that have been approved for subsurface disposal.
132. Surface Irrigation:
• Disposal by irrigation requires secondary level pretreatment with disinfection
prior to surface application. Storage capacity is also required for periods of
inclement weather when application is not allowable. The existing WWTP

provides adequate pretreatment, but does not provide storage for periods of
inclement weather.
• Consideration of this alternative is based an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.20 inches per week which is based on a typical range of 0.15 to 0.25 inches
per week for this geographic area and the soil conditions generally described in
the soils survev. Storage requirements for this area are typically in the range of 30
to 60 days. For purposes of this assessment, a storage requirement of 45 days will
be assumed.
The costs associated with this option are estimated in Appendix B.
C. Wastewater Reuse:
Options for reuse of wastewater for this area and subdivision are essentially nil.
Reuse is usually associated with non-potable uses such as irrigation. This
becomes potentially more viable if there is a need or outlet for reuse such as
irrigation of a golf course.
This area does not have a golf course nor are there any other viable options for
reuse associated with the subdivision or in the surrounding area-
D. Surface Water Discharge:
® Due to the flow characteristics of the receiving stream, the state has advised that
continued discharge would be required to comply with effluent limitations of 10
mail BOD57 4 mgil NH3-N, and 6 mg/I min. D.O. Appendix D contains a
summary of the results of past effluent monitoring from this facility. Based on the
past performance record, there is no reason to require additional treatment
facilities and/or modifications other than to improve the chlorination facilities.
This has been established as a need to be addressed at this facility.
The estimated costs associated with this option are included in Appendix B.
Summary and Conclusions:
As can be seen from a comparison of the net present value of the various
alternatives, there is a wide difference between the cost estimate of the option of
continuing discharge and options to eliminate the discharge.
Compared to the cost of the next most practical and reliable alternative
(construction of a subsurface disposal system), the estimated Net Present Value is
almost double. This would clearly represent a significant financial obstacle to the
residents in the development, especially considering that the occupants are have
• relatively lower income. In light of the financial impracticality, it is not necessary
to further pursue whether this is technically practical by performing a detailed
soils analysis.

In the future, if there is extension of sewer service to the immediate area, the
• alternative should be reevaluated and most likely it would conclude that the flow
from the wastewater treatment facilities should be connected to the sewer and the
discharge to the receiving stream eliminated. Until this occurs, the most practical
and cost effective alternative is the continued discharge with the addition of
effluent dechlorination.
IV. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
Based on the findings of the wastewater treatment/disposal alternatives
evaluation, it has been concluded that the practical alternative is to construct
improved effluent chlorination facilities and to continue to operate the existing
wastewater treatment facilities. Past performance of the existing facilities
indicates that the effluent should be expected to allow continued discharge to the
receiving waters in compliance with state requirements to protect the water
quality.
•

Appendix A
Site Location Map, USCS Map, Aerial Photograph and Tax Map

�«'
_� ��' �•' — / /i" �` y .t� LK Cry _=Jt
• i'L' N ]= •�� =�° ,° � �� ate, � �..t r/ ' r.
" U+
,1 ` J;� d \ �LV " . " ' I ? ^Pine Valle},
ru.A.. J reW..��a Lr,���„� ;..�C '-a'- '�.' / + � ry '>.' � "1•T
,J J ! ''x'1 r.] ° ua .SAUS3U2Y �';_
a`
,• iv.. C'' � I rJ o 9.awn � , yc '0 �i r,. '.a�/ p �_:
UA
to
IL.
U2
i
rJ�.-LLt 4 WSa Lyl J1111 (� LVC6 ` ' d ),r
Pine Valley Subdivision Horizon Engineering& Consulting, Inc.
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Facility The Environmental Group
Location Map 107 Commercial Park Drive
Concord. N.C. 28027 Mav 31. 1999

G "vv
I A
I \
?3
a 19.>+P 4
10 \
6
/36,
a
36
� ea Z � /
I r, IZ
/ r O-3 44C ` zL ` / .ROCK-CU-
95$ h Z' - BRIDGE
cA a 10-1 ' y2.
10-2 399� o
a�..04 v v 9 17, ey
h
�� II NipL a`�• fJ - 35 x�' 1340 �.
.:a. 31>.aa 3„ y N
n� 12 A w 14 o-
T - 34 2
<Ile
j3j0 o Y 16 n ¢p Pine Valley
HURLEY SCHOOL
` pN`1.✓//' .� �/ /yam,' /4A
15
z1
OiA� o°
9 2. 3 3rPi1 0 le /4 4J SEE Al
Q 3 A �h\ Zi0
/.Z4 e 2.'16��G F4,pCB.
>9S a A LA d
�0 9.74-� /,0� 1io h 'v - yi 00
y%17 c 31 32
164
q sc rye 54 s.ss
46 32JA< Ee ,{.
aj p° V.
'A 2}I 0. ioz LL'I 19q
\ 1i 'T e9 i p' U,A. .SW/CEGOO� Pzs. >
Pine Valley Subdivision Horizon Engineering& Consuiting, Inc.
Tax Map The Environmental Group
107 Commercial Park Drive
1"=400' Concord. N.C. 28027 Mav 31. 1999

' Creek
775
I �/ \
4 /
I\ /
1/
k
o l
` Qy
716.
\
\ eo _
Prop. Pump Stahoo Prop. Subsurface
t
Disposal Field
ate,Tank \�. . ♦ . i (—.
r
• 0 � \ Prop. Force Main
BS6Nl
\ � L
Pine Valley Subdivision Horizon Engineering& Consulting, lnC.
Proposed Subsurface Disposal System The Environmental Group
107 Commercial Park Drive
I"=2000' Concord. N.C. 28027 Mav 31. 1999

Creek
t � 7
l �� - / �• .
a o -
6 V ,•• � � �Bs;:
Q� St,\f u e s Ch 1✓ /
Prop. Pump '
Station Prop. Spray \ \
o _ _ brig. Fteta 8. �
-71
/ 4 � .' y/ \ ,� �1 \ tom/ � ^. i •Viy( r Lank '. '.�
0 Prop. Force ��^
a l
9� Main
w lea' c' J
sh
837
Bm
Pine Valley Subdivision Horizon 5VLrAeerinQ& ConsyNfzq, inc.
Proposed Spray Irrigation System The Environmental Group
107 Commercial Park Drive
I"=2000' Concord. N.C- 28027 Mav 31. 1999

Prop. Connection
I Salisbury Sewer
f
1
9� Prop. Force Main
I
Pine Valley
Exist.WWTP
Pine Valley Subdivision Horizon Engineering& Consulting, Inc.
Proposed Connection to Exist. Sewer System The Environmental Group
107 Commercial Park Drive
1"= 1500' Concord. N.C. 28027 Mav 31. 1999

h i ig'gt^'_"`•+'wT't�+ fi .ltinF r ys8_. -ti+. K (� vv.•[p;`va 1 i-h]'?may '�y
7, 4.,g< rt'tl'` x,". ro'�..��}�. .5'1,-��t•/*3t� � F �.""YJ}.�?�,u.'e` i d'o q s
F 4r>•'�d��A•����G"��•J �'7�} ��.a �� #r,�C'F
a1 rFl r J ru y4r' !—k i"#.` t NF1i` t
•s '.R. ,5,. i K,r s. •c sh.... . {atd.�'` Y� >Fw 7.u"}+,�g •. e i <at. ( t t th -t L 3 n 7 a
¢'� f{y\ �C SySBip/ � d R• i,
i 9• i r JN+> p •. `w.rt ..`�etPk d _•'4 x .F '} u1[l `t`',lE...
� G _1�.a._+=Ty ^'{".. r • it"'-`i `r} ��ll. u `1k1w'-�t,� a,
y�
:T=" ^I a tom, j� �y M "7K� �t 4 U�r.+�'la- �•ira "-�_ yAr
:t'y..•," an`$?i.i"Va'Jr KF#�j��i.'�2i.�i•^'a 'S..r2• <q � p �l 7a.x +��1��R� w ry���" ♦ "ttt{t '� `}�'+ +"it�J•,
'ti.,iT � t +P d .4 ^ 7 X S. R 1 ; 1di i ` Lfi . ' .`'�.v'�°Y� "�' w a• Ott r^�' -�f:
.°W-r• ,� nyiF 7 'r !�r-fu°t,,# i s.;.." '�'� �3 S "y�t:'v "aattr•'S=ixY4i 2$tu #'SF-f '�, >`' lam``- =J
!# r ik'o� te1 ,�r � �,F:F � asG•i. - t r i ` F �>r. {{ t Y 4 k 7 i •.,,� 2 spr`
4r�L.. ti Jr. X .• a �,£a .4 SY•i 4 Y Ta. i Y yir, 1 +:} a'tyt ;ff r< 4 t. �4 £ �.
R`'s.ti�l�,tyS��..',y'�r�'��d�'
'' t t>,• , .l Yy„� Y �$•y, �t� �JV 4 hit i��♦ A�� 5,�:r.: i��J i't t u� Yy�'�'z�,rY C::.nY Ft'F.r�{c� � ic. Lyj F'Y�+�
Pj�y} .+� P 1 # t•ti •S+ .{tU. �'4k$.�' .YRJ T ).p f-.. �p.'- yF '� `+ .C' E} ! i L rye.+."
,.��r '••✓r3+��a.1� 47 i4 9sf �_
♦s 4 4tl; � 'C a`
S ttFf4 Ti `£! 3 SjtS•Kj
w"w ^{
t+" 1 a<Y'IaIF'3y' � "J 3 rµ'gFrww14 G
t� ' S 9 Z• i4 c,�ft t;. q L is=ryrt h' y-5ti Fj�� �1 < 1 c�:g' S1a�"'lr4
�t i 2 i A��. •? r�" d L
x4 t U�aF ar t x yx t+Ys°!'t '�SF�1
, cYf e CV 1 1 It. l.n� }�'y,
nr` �4�•y ^` .. r�.1:+2d
..ts. J t4 ly •} n ak
s +s t C Lc' •k,. dS� A �'F^' ) s t CSi, a't•
#, t-�e<i a'.� s �ti��• ' -�tG t 4 9 J .tt
�FiY "»r- ` �`y�,}k��. "�ki' ,'a
�- .� 7.,C
Wy j .7
•�1" .' 1`�o_Yl.
��S �-�Y '1 3Y tY( F••+}Y.^.��`ti �� �H-3h+��.tJS��+Tn..`.�_ <.P}���aaa...���Wpt�s.0 .,
1�l/tiktt t ,..Yj -r�' q^.��£,ip .rim :Ft +µs � y=t {v-f S 7itst r' a a F v .�M �r.
tt m'� .f" 1•-.3y- `�"i Y7"dii L�tf..tz r t".f C x"+ ;qet X -t y1n. av
+J• - c `yy /, ,'^<0"i k r"T ..g cr �. g q 's y+�ita F `• 1 r' iSi a
a .,;j J7 1 'Ha� _� +` ;y�' l A. 9 �Y�... f �7' •�e�r�� B �-1 1#� � �
X t' a •� 'J �rimq tY • ,i r417
-{i '< t "llar if `�trt5 '�+�'"�y �r ar 4 •i' � .,� ''.�" tsb A''�t z+.
ti' p au w,� '+a>, „„2 yY zti"'aflK" a` t F.•w ,< gya {K�a' .,<'t �. . J jt a s =}'ik♦f• a t ` +:?'.r
4� f. r+V '� ,�.�'Y:a'i¢ t r 155 • 9 .1�, 9fj 4{ �'c �i re 1 �s..� .ie•Y F
y. A \ ie � .•w.. t.y.i•�'a'✓'t4T¢ .`� -.� 'r h S S �t�i'k rJG � SiP eY } k.`,�y
+t#i . lcy
i...F ;e C,}ip��lYjt l'.'�. '�h'�/ S 2 ,�i, �j. Ye r 4y'i•t s r,t .i a S��} c
.�
i c*+ � '•dr �4 Yr�� ��£'#Ys ay vy btu ', ".s =� y �" "� * :t R.
4_ ��+'�;� �'`' ii,;t- {i¢r" 3i7,.y,y&i .t.�ti`7'�a"'��,t�i'+`'}.t�4 .,r{rFJS s.+�,'•, a �S.*5+'F 'oak�� y �"S{'
� r a� y t f sJ�4 r ! • lT�.S °�-"*t' - .�j rx� c `u' r-"Z:
'pl; .• 'z;�y^*�.J,,�t '�Q�,,S�`" a 4n�� } •[/
Ei�`tt{x'� s��a�8a6 ' rsyG7�'r.�F «}T 3'�"a L�:t#x:C.e*l�'r� ""fps 3 r� ' n by.r iTi'•' �il,�-,v
II
as i,it
y l't �t�f•L1+ T tt,�s�a < �ns � cent t o a ✓ '-rsd-t t,���y""" ��.
+,V' tzk ..i£ L,,y/ t5. }` rQ i+t { '�.';♦i',a �•�h;'.'+�7
/ WIN
i7, Ft` •�T't'{h • ��3t� "V#`
t ` Ms n.,`+.j.,.•2 ;s r -�-t-a 4 -' Y'y +£r�. •R �.: r <'f c: v � '- K'{r"-,J a1\e g`t. �R it,a rya
:rw�x as r(��°§, 7..Vy ..'�'vr J} I' k �,�,� r.
m.[ Sit ' .y > .J3x C�. r �^. t tt" i s k' ��v}Y
i'lxay,.'.tY " �inta.fuS#Can,ts�fi �F '-h �,.✓� R' Y'LYk><`c' 7. ,41�.'��r4'Ma ~ ,R�pt •� t�. x 4 x� *�J Y+A�y♦ .\ Y( � �yi.`�'s }, i 1 s .. '�• 5�{•��u4�: <�i<:i S��a11't.S�/�•(r
�'M� a�tF 5.+•" y..�c t L t< 1 '�S
h: 3 � > xY'ss1;•,t £h>. r � hl i'4.a a 3�' i '� ..� �`�. �� r� q {e t ti'.✓ rt t"T.�l,. ¢ 1 .r• at e d+ n.Tu •}�q L'° f/� f.e Av Y +t"
^r• L`y yl tt 5..� .� �` RfL tt h 1 i 1•st + J- \K {��{a" .Si S u _4�'l 4 �� ( 3
��,a a a `�r�gq �.� t-� � �)°FY y t .K v��llp : F .?1P_aiVp•�"rr� �4`yl,�t
�• PP , r+ s R drt `.. �Fµ r• _y••.rigw -55,,,,,,. i -c$ Si•' i � i ,M� i rl Cam ;•'j� n'• �' J +'aT,=f
.•.. t.., `Q".a �rcy• C 4 t. 'a �.¢CAA. .,+^Ty Y r\ �tiY1 l; lti,•r ,y J
y1t�ay' Nr�,atiyxlCY t �.r ^'aF' T t0. }�..T rlP 4'i4.r� 's3 t __ •l.I�.s" {;Wn3.L\ 'ts �}��>
Yit -y . r v iEla { ra+.w %fyfyT c. �� 'C''4 it,tn rfY{ ern. •.� •4' G 'b +4:^
z`y'Yc 4 '# °-k'�§ �'g 6tFttt�. ` "t'4. '. y�SFf ,
^((�J" t4T'n`+liii � 1•� ,yi5ay�,t• { . �Sr^, rY n"Y�>'F .xS � 'tl �`n7
M 7 'k!r{iTi` `•+ 4 t 11Y i Y' 'V 4 1 J �• 'ft}f t.;F'•J! �'RT
Y
i S �
' i���� i����}n�� .y Y '� Sk � �1���� q'syrly�{ �M�1�)YT<T�' r•.'�.+''�+]'�i+..+.r�'�,»� s�J`fI J�r�1I:
.Y.+ ,�{v�t��[}[c 1 f="6 if l�"(((((( •it`Y1 !�4✓1�
'
4y%'t1kNv' 1'.#�.g °J iV ` ;' A"77Tk�.,yc'L' '' 4'? �tx -rs�i.` .(r •.N._ `1�ay3 :,ftrFK!5TT
.':J. !tf ��.4} 'Y�}gyYB tih �,N'eA•4YtC;1. f ":t ega +{Y Yk LIR�L r 2 ' J# }r r. f0.j1y y+'M
e. fax ^''�*f .r,+, �g'..fn<'t'e' } .._ d'•rt5.- 't'.Es ;J.+ga �.i., i. r# ✓a'as sir " `:w ` y
3 t•.er t M i+'eSc
Ht''n '-f" ••:^ �¢1Y� ,y�.y�r" y 3Lsr 'iS si�J �i �-�v}„ � J_' As�'l +.7 •x, [ i i �,.•T.�l(� i`'`6'��'d a'F"`f v'y-.•yr3,"i fj4'1
b t •°•xyW .��}_;` :1-�+" 'e-c { .,rK.F`.•Ya,51 rYr ! ''jv a£i vi'f,,,J.y�p�la✓s r; P,p1z?raA" 'yn'. t,x,
� c�
���f`A7 A� @�R t` !�i `.i''�` fr �aY d �x�� il�i�' E•}i�r r�trt '�� tS Rri� �gs� i� {�'�1
t- j 'CN s a =Ix' � i e s : 3a'r'� J .' "t a..1't •. .Y �.:
� £ i �a +t �"t3.{� �£ r TM ��7� }� .c �c t � � .�y �t? "hRt tr,�,y a tt -P`^ .� f' ++r �•
.. �"r'ti�dil�. �+.ir,�ia"3.��7 W'�'.�•5':.$..+..5`7��v'�'i..t- 'vie o � i:s#. ���Ixk.�...3v-..�..:m... 1:.r. '�7.�.r�..�.,. tt
oncordC . N.C. 28027

7F "'Tt.
NF7
Cl)
CL 00
6 1NWd,
0) C
RN` N; 7� :
254
g hL a
I ."MIX
Z5
.41

3
• ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - -Continued
Field Field map Publi - Approved map
symbols unit name cation unit name
symbol
'31B2 Cecil sandy clay CeB2 Cecil sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded slopes , eroded
31D2 Cecil sandy clay CeC2 Cecil sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes , percent slopes,
eroded f` eroded
3B, 2B , 2D, Cecil -Urban land C',B Cecil -Urban land
3D complex, 2 to 8 complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes percent slopes
4 Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes , percent slopes,
frequently flooded frequently flooded
® 168 Cid-Lignum complex, 1 CmB Cid-Lignum complex, 1
to 6 percent slopes to 6 percent slopes
17A, 15A Doaue fine sandy DoA Dogue fine sandy
loam, 0 to 2 percent loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, rarely slopes , rarely
flooded flooded
17B, 15B Doaue fine sandy DoB Dogue fine sandy
loam, 2 to 6 percent loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes, rarely slopes , rarely
flooded flooded
508 Enon fine sandy loam, EnB Enon fine sandy loam,
2 to 8 percent 2 to 8 percent
slopes slopes
50D Enon fine sandy loam, EnC Enon fine sandy loam,
8 to 15 percent 8 to 15 percent
slopes slopes
75D Enon very cobbly EsC Enon very cobbly
loam, 4 to 15 loam, 4 to 15
percent slopes , very percent slopes, very
stony stony
•

5
• ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - -Continued
Field Field map Publi - Approved map
symbols unit name cation unit name
symbol
55D2 Mecklenburg clay McC2 Mecklenburg clay
loam, 8 to 15 loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, percent slopes,
eroded eroded
14 Misenheimer-Kirksey MkB Misenheimer-Kirksey
complex, 0 to 5 complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes percent slopes
8 Oakboro silt loam, 0 OkA Oakboro silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, to 2 percent slopes ,
frequently flooded frequently flooded
32B Pacolet sandy loam, 2 PaB Pacolet sandy loam, 2
to 8 percent slopes to 8 percent slopes
® 32D Pacolet sandy loam, 8 PaC Pacolet sandy loam, 8
to 15 percent slopes to 15 percent slopes
v132E, 38E Pacolet sandy loam, PaD Pacolet sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent 15 to 25 percent
slopes slopes
32F Pacolet sandy loam, PaE Pacolet sandy loam,
25 to 45 percent 25 to 45 percent
slopes slopes
✓1'2B2 Pacolet sandy clay PcB2 Pacolet sandy clay
loam, 2 to 8 percent loam, 2 to 8 percent
y slopes, eroded- slopes, eroded
v32D2 Pacolet sandy clay PcC2 Pacolet sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, percent slopes,
eroded eroded
Q Pits, quarries Pt Pits , quarries
63B Poindexter-Mocksville Px6 Poindexter-Mocksville
complex, 2 to 8 complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes percent slopes
• 63D Poindexter-Mocksville PxC Poindexter-Mocksville
complex, 8 to 15 complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes percent slopes

Appendix B
Cost Analysis of Alternatives
Note: Cost estimates based on, National Construction Estimator, 46'b Edition,
Means Building Construction Cost Data, 56'h Annual Edition and the engineers
experience.
•

Alternative A: Connection to POTW Sewer System:
• Capital Cost:
Item: uantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
2.5" force main sewer 15,000 LF $ 9 $ 135,000
Pump Station I Ea $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Clearing (approx. 5 ac.) 5 acre $ 6,500 $ 32,500
Tap and Impact Fee 47 Ea. S 11250 $ 5,237
Road Crossings 3 Ea $ 10,000 $ 3000
Railroad Crossing 1 Ea $ 25,000 S 25,000
Tie to exist_ MH 1 Ea S 3,000 $ 3,000
Easements/Right of way 10,000 LF $ 3 $ 30,000
Surveying 5 days S 1,500 $ 7,500
Engineering 10 % $ 28,800
Total Cost = $ 317,037
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 8%
interest):
Annual Cost
® Pump Station/Force Main/Gravity Sewer O&M 5,000 ,t
Salisbury Sewer Fees($ 1.90/748 gal. x 18,000 gpd x 365 day/yr) 16,6
Total Annual Cost = $ 21,688
PV Annual Cost = $ 212,935
Total Net Present Value = $ 5299972
Alternative B. Land Based Disposal:
Bl. Subsurface Disposal:
Based on the soil survey information, discussions with the health department and
the engineers field observations, the soils in this area appear to be limited as a
medium for subsurface disposal. In the event that it was found to be apparently a
cost effective alternative, an in depth site specific soil investigation would need to
• be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be used. However, for the purpose
of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope of this evaluation, it will
be assumed that a typical moderate design loading rate would be workable.

Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.40 gpd/sq. ft. is acceptable.
• Therefore, based on the projected flow, the area required for subsurface disposal
is:
18,000 gpd /0.40 LTd/sq. ft. = 45,000 SF
Whereas it is required to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair,
the required area is 90,000 SF. Assuming a loss of approximately 20% useable
land due to requirements for buffers to property lines, wells, streams, etc, the
estimated land required is 108,000 SF or 2.5 acres.
Capital Cost:
Item: uantitv: Unit Cost: Cost:
4@ sewer drain in 3' trenches 15.000 LF S 7.00 S 105,000
Site Clearing 1.25 acre S 6,500 S 8,125
Septic tanks '� , 31—'t� $ 1,420 S 72,420
Land 2.5 acres S 10,000 $ 25,000
® 2@ FM 1,200 LF S 8 S 9,600
Easements/Riehtof way 500LF S 3 S 1,500
Manholes 1 Ea S 1.,600 S 11600
Pump Station 1 Ea S 15,000 S 15,000
Surveying 5 days S 1,500 S 7,500
Soils Investieation 20 hrs. S 70.00 S 14,000
Engineeringv 10 % S 25,900
Total Cost = $ 285,645
Operation & Maintenance Cost-(Present Value, 20 year life, 8%
interest):
Annual Cost
O & M of individual septic tanks, centralized drain field,
Pump station and force main $ 8,000
Total Annual Cost= $ 8,000
PV Annual Cost = S 78,544
• Total Net Present Value = $ 3649189

132. Surface Irrigation:
• Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. and a required storage basin for 45 days design flow. Based on the
projected flow of 18,000 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area of 90,000 SF.
Allowinu a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 145,000 SF. To
allow for buffers to property lines, highways, holding basin, etc. it will be assumed that
the actual area required should be increased 25 %. Therefore an area of 168,750 SF or
3.9 acres would be required for surface irrigation. The estimate includes the cost of
continuing to provide secondary pretreatment, storage and disinfection.
Capital Cost:
Item: uantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
810,000 gal. storage basin (1) S 84,325
Surface irrigation system 90,000 SF $ 025 S 22,500
Monitoring wells 4 ea S 3,000 $ 12,000
Land 3.9 acres S 10,000 S 39,000
Fencing 1,800 LF S 5.50 S 9,900
2@ FM 1300 LF S 8 S 10,400
Easements/Right of way 500 LF S 3 $ 1,500
Manholes 1 Ea S 1,600 S 1,600
® Pump Station 1 Ea S 20,000 S 20,000
Surveying 5 days $ 1,500 S 7,500
Soils Investigation 20 hrs. $ 70.00 S 1,400
Engineering 10 % S 21,000
Total Cost = $ 231125
(1) Storage basin:
Excavation 6,233 cu. Yds. @ S 4.00/yd = S 24,930
Lining 22,930 SF @ $ 1.50/SF = $ 34,395
Aeration = $ 25,000
Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
Annual Cost
O & M, exist WWTP plus pump station and spray field $ 15,000
Groundwater monitoring 4,000
Total Annual Cost= $ 19,000
PV Annual Cost = S 186,543
• Total Net Present Value = $ 4179668

C. Wastewater Reuse:
No cost estimate. Not a viable option for this location.
D. Surface Water Discharge:
Whereas the only improvement to the facilities that is needed is the addition of improvement
of chlorination facilities, the only additional capital costs are those associated with the
addition of these facilities. As discussed earlier in this report, the facility has demonstrated
that it is capable of continuing to meet limits of 10 mg/1 BOD5, 4 mg/1 NH3-N, 6 mg/l min-
D.O.
Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
Improve chlorination 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Engineering 15 % $ 300
Total Cost = $ 2,300
® Operation & Maintenance Cost
(Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
Annual Cost
Operation & Maintenance $ 19,740
($35/m1o./connect. X 47 connect. X 12 mo/yr)
�a Total Annual Cost = S 19,740
PV Annual Cost =S 193,807
Total Net Present-Value = $ 1969107

• FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 6613
w. C. DEYr. of YATIIRAG
Facility Name: Pine Valley Subd. RFSOURCE5 A
NPDES No.: NCO028941 CpN`t L..I7Y DEVELOPNCVM
Type of Waste: Domestic - 10090
Facility Status: Existing JAIN 1 6 1992
Permit Status: Renewal
Receiving Stream: Setman Branch r wilt MABAGNE4
Stream Classification: C INISIA
Subbasin: 030706 Hpp�Er';I'u f 1i=1�11 l OFFICE
County: Rowan Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office: MRO USGS # 0212078402
Requestor: 1. Shanklin Date: 1987
Date of Request: 11/20/90 Drainage Area(mi2): 0.16
Topo Quad: E16NE Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.0
Average Flow (cfs): 0.2
30Q2 (cfs): 0.0
IWC (%): 100.0
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA,etc.)
Facility discharges to stream with 7Q10/30Q2 =0. Removal of discharge is recommended in
three years or new limits (page 2) will apply at that time. Facility must submit an engineering
report within 12 months of the effective date of this permit showing no alternative to surface water
discharge.
The facility has had 1 fecal coli violation in the past year. Instream data shows up and downstream
flow, but the facility did not indicate where the up and downstream flows were taken. Instream
DO's during the winter months are not much greater than those in summer (could be suspect).
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: /aA 1��,�r Date: %z 3
Reviewed by /�
Instream.Assessment:_/' L 51104.c dUvL&n Date: I 3 L& 4
Regional Supervisor. Dater
• Permits &Engineering: t' Date:
FEB
Rc-t,LL To IF"WcAt- 5;uPP02-r 0 #
t _
t

i 3
PARAME=RS
• F:cisdna Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL,
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.025 0.025
BOD5 (mg/1): 10 10
NH3N (mg/1): 4 4
DO(mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 1000 1000
pH (Sin: 6-9 6-9
Recommended Limits: For three years: After three years:
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
BOD5 (mg/1): 10 10 WQ 5.0 10.0 WQ
N113N (mg/1): 4 4 WQ 1.0 1.8 WQ
DO(mg4): 6 6 WQ 6.0 6.0 WQ
TSS (mo): 30 30 30.0 30.0 WQ
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200 200.0 200.0 WQ
pH (Sin: 6-9 6-9 6.0 - 9.0 6.0 - 9.0 WQ
Residual Chlorine (µg/l): 17.0 17.0 WQ
Oil &Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
® TN(mg/1):
Limits Chanties Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
New procedures (zero flow policy) BOD5, NH3-N
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed
OR
Nsiparameters are water quality limited,but this discharge may affect future allocations.
•

EFFLUENT EVALUATION REPORT
PINE VALLEY S/D
•
PERMIT NO. N00028941 PIPE 001
MONTH Q/MGD BOD TSS NH3 FECAL DO
Apr-99 0.019 4.95 30.7 0.379 3.02 7.6
Mar-99 0.019 3.98 15.7 0.377 3.72 8.0
Fetr99 0.017 3.31 7.46 0.288 <2.0 7.85
Jan-99 0.018 5.38 32.9 1.76 <2.0 7.9
Dec-98 0.018 4.38 13.9 0.161 <2.0 7.9
Nov-98 0.017 3.64 10.6 0.123 8.94 7.1
Oct-98 0.019 5.69 16 2.79 11.4 7
Sep-98 0.019 2.45 9 0.335 5.31 7.6
Aug-98 0.018 5.94 9.25 0.968 <2.0 7.4
Jul-98 0.013 3.07 19.7 0.497 7.44 7.8
® Jun-98 0.017 <2.0 3 0.122 8.17 6.7
�] May-98 0.02 7.43 18 1.93 <2.0 8.2
AVG. 0.018 4.35 15.51 0.81 4.83 7.5
•