NC0088498_Permit (Issuance)_20071115

NPDES DOCIMENT $CANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0088498
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision, Well #1
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
November 15, 2007
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re'rerse side

Mr. Gary Moseley
Aqua North Carolina, Inc
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Moseley:
28037
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
November 15, 2007
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
NC0088498
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision,WTP
Surry County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject
permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or
as subsequently amended).
This final permit contains no significant changes from the draft you were sent on August 29, 2007.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such
demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Toya Fields at telephone
number [phone], extension 551.
.74.1)-N
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
cc: Central Files
Winston Salem Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit
J. Thurman Horne, P.E., Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc., 2510 Walker Road, Mt. Pleasant,
NC 28124
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at htt
p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
Onc
Nor hCarolina

Permit #NC0088498
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,
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision - Well # 1
Mitchell Cover Road
Elkin
Surry County
to receiving waters designated as an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River in the Yadkin River
Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions
set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 2007.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2008.
Signed this day November 15, 2007.
70h
c-/K
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit #NC0088498
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to
operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included
herein.
Aqua North Carolina, Inc is hereby authorized to:
1. Upon receipt of an Authorization to Construct (ATC) for the construction of any backwash
treatment units;
2. Treat up to 0.0017 MGD of backwash generated by a green sand filter unit from the Mitchell
Bluff Subdivision Well # 1, Atkins Lane, Mt. Airy, Surry County;
3. After submitting an Engineer's Certification, discharge wastewater from said treatment works
at the location specified on the attached map into an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River,
which is classified C waters in the Yadkin River Basin.

4.1
(•-
::=.....:� •...:,y -r
•
•
err
• M «
f+' •'r
r!
f
-Aarport>
f f
�-°`'`tit
off„ / t�
i ( s, ' ‘ �}‘~
.,+,., �(h, .c. �
r N.,,,. /
Eft ic •
s tt
* r\ ; • €
SS, t
1
ifif
4.04
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision Well #1 - NC0088498
USGS Quad Name: Elkin North
Receiving Stream: UT to Mitchell River
Stream Class: C
Subbasin: Yadkin Pee Dee — 03 07 02
Lat.: 36°17'03"
Long.: 80°47'04"
Not to SCALE I

Permit #NC0088498
A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
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
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
FrequencySample
Type
Sample
Loti
Location
Flow
0.0017 MGD
Instantaneous'
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine2
17 µg/L
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Iron
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Manganese
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 s.0
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. For instantaneous flow monitoring, the duration of the discharge must be reported in addition to the total
flow.
2. The TRC limit shall apply only if the permittee backwashes with chlorinated water.
All samples collected should be of a representative discharge.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.

NORTH CAROLINA
SURRY COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State, duly
commissioned, qualified and authorized by law to administer oaths,
personally appeared Ferris W. Simpson who being first duly
sworn, deposes and says: that he (she) is Business Manager
(Publisher or other officer or employee authorized to make affidavit) of
MOUNT AIRY NEWSPAPERS, INC., engaged in the publication of a
newspaper known as MOUNT AIRY NEWS, published, issued, and
entered as periodicals class mail in the city of Mount Airy in said County
and State; that he (she) is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of
which is attached hereto, was published in MOUNT AIRY NEWS on the
following dates:
5 p4-ern (i.ere, 2, DOo1
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document or
legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and every
such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and
qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina
and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of
the General Statutes of North Carolina.
This I N` day of Oa -job , 2007
Signature of person making affidavit
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 1 a`N` day of
i,
, 2007
—(liCtAc wr4(a_'l
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
`\`��1,�ttt I I Ili f,iii
May 15, 2010 ````\ 4ce_`y,NI`Cp-. ,.
-un •:` ,��
;s'- 14 I C ..... *`4/11111110
CLIPPING OF
LEGAL
ADVERTISEMENT
ATTACHED HERE
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA
27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES
WASTEWATER
PERMIT
On the basis of thor- 1
ough staff review and;
application of NC Gen-t
eral Statute 143.21,
Public law 92-500 and
other lawful standards
and regulations, the
North Carolina Environ-
mental Management
Commission proposes
to issue a National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES)
wastewater discharge
permit to the person(s)
listed below effective 45
days from the publish
date of this notice.
Written comments re-
garding the proposed
permit will be accepted
until 30 days after the
publish date of this no-
tice. All comments re-
ceived prior to that date
are considered in the fi-
nal determinations re-
garding the proposed
permit. The Director of
the NC Division of Wa-
ter Quality may decide
to hold a public meeting
for the proposed permit
should the Division re-
ceive a significant de-
gree of public interest.
Copies o the draft per-
mit and other supporting
information on the file
used to determine con-
ditions present in the
draft permit are avail-
able upon request and
payment of the costs of
reproduction. Mail com-
ments and/or requests
for information to the
NC Division of Water
Quality at the above ad-
dress or call the Dina
Sprinkle (919)
733-5083, extension
363 at the Point Source
Branch. Please include
the NPDES permit num-
ber (attached) in any
communication. I nter-
ested persons may also
visit the Division of Wa-
ter Quality at 512 N.
Salisbury Street, Ral-
eigh, NC 27604-1148
between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
to review information on
file.
Aqua North Carolina,
Inc. (4163 Sinclair
Street, Denver, NC
28037) has applied for a
' new NPDES permit
NC0088498 for the
Mitchell Bluff Subdivi-
sion WTP in Surry
County. This permitted
facility discharges
0.0017 MGD treated
wastewater to an un-
named tributary to
Mitchell Creek in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basin. Currently total
residual chlorine is wa-
ter quality limited. This
discharge may affect fu-
' ture allocations in this
portion of the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
i Basin.
Aqua North Carolina,
' Inc. (4163 Sinclair
Street, Denver, NC
28037) has applied for
renewal of NPDES per-
mit NC0088544 for the
Colonial Woods Well #1
WTP in Surry County.
This permitted facility
discharges 0.002 MGD
treated wastewater to
an unnamed tributary to
Bull Cree in the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basin. Currently total re-
sidual chlorine is water
quality limited. This dis-
charge may affect future
allocations in this por-
lion of the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin,
September 2, 2007

NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Aqua NC, Inc.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision- Well #1
NC0088498
nitai
(1.) Facile Name:
(2.) Permitted Flow MGD):
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision — Well #1
0.0017 (6.) County:
Surry
(3.) Facility Class:
I (7.) Regional Office:
(4.) Pretreatment Program: N/A
(5.) Permit Status: , New
(8.) USGS Topo Quad:
(9.) USGS Quad Name:
Winston-Salem
B15SE
Elkin North
eani �;Chaacteris
(1.) Receiving Stream:
(2.) Sub -basin:
UT to Mitchell River
03-07-02
(7.) Drainage Area (mi2):
(8.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0
(3.) Stream Assessment Unit:
(4.) Stream Classification:
12-62-(12.5)
C
(9.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
(10.) 30Q2 (cfs):
(5.) 303(d) Status: Not listed
(6.) 305(b) Status: j N/A
(11.) Average Flow (cfs):
(12.) IWC %:
100%
I. Summary
Aqua NC currently owns and operates and existing well water system serving the Mitchell Bluff
Subdivision located northeast of Elkin in Surry County. Well #1 of the water system uses an assembly of
green sand filters in the treatment of groundwater prior to distribution to the Mitchell Bluff community.
These filters are backwashed, using potable water, approximately once every three days. This facility is
an existing, unpermitted discharge that falls under the greensand WTP permitting strategy. Based on the
flow schematic, submitted by the permittee, it appears that chlorine is added to the raw water before it is
processed through the greensand filter. Therefore it appears that this facility does have potential to
discharge chlorine and will have a TRC limit.
The applicant did not obtain streamflow data from USGS, however they indicate that the receiving
stream is intermittent and estimate that both 7Q10 and 30Q2 are zero. Since filter backwash is not
considered to be an oxygen consuming wastewater, this discharge is not prohibited by state regulations.
II. Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: August 29, 2007
Permit Scheduled to Issue: November 1, 2007
III. State Contact Information
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Toya Fields at [phone], extension 551.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit development:
• Draft permit

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet - 08/28/07
Page 2
Aqua - Mitchell Bluff Subdivision Well # 1
NC0088498
NPDES Recommendation by:
Signature
Date
Regional Office Comments:
Regional Recommendation by:
Signature
Regional Supervisor:
Date
Signature Date

cc: Central Files
WSRO
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application # NC0088498
To: Point Source Branch - SWP
Attention: Toya Fields
Date: July 5, 2007
County: Surry
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Permittee Address: Aqua NC, Inc.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision — Well #1
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, NC 28037
2. Date of Investigation: July 3, 2007
3. Report Prepared by: Mike Mickey, Environmental Specialist
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: No one present.
5. Directions to Site: The Mitchell Bluff Subdivision is located off C.C. Camp Road just north
of the Elkin Airport. To access the well site, turn onto Mitchell Cove Road and then take the
long gravel drive to the right just before the cul-de-sac.
6. Discharge Points(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 36° 17' 03" Longitude: 80° 47' 04"
U.S.G.S. Quad No. B-15-SE U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Elkin North
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? Aqua does not own any land
around the well, but they have been granted a 100 ft easement.
8. Topography: The well house is situated just above the creek.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Dwellings are located within 200 feet of the well house.

10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: U.T. to Mitchell River.
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-07-02
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The system
discharges via a 2" PVC pipe on the side of a hill in between the well house and the
creek.
Part II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: The system is backwashed approximately
once every three days with an estimated flow of 1,680 GPD.
b. What is the permitted capacity of the well system? The Mitchell Bluff water system
currently serves 23 customers and is approved for 55 gpm (maximum yield) by the
Public Water Supply Section.
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility? See above.
d. Date(s) of AtC's issued in the previous two years. NA.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: There is no treatment. The discharge from Well # 1 is generated
when the green sand filters (2 existing) are backwashed with potable water.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities. N/A
g.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The following chemicals are used:
Potassium Permanganate (for iron and manganese removal), chlorine (for
disinfection) and caustic soda (for pH adjustment).
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): NA
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: None generated.
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds (municipals only)? NA.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: NA.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: NA.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 2

4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: No other disposal options available for this type of
operation.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WSRO recommends issuance of the permit for the de minimis discharge created from
backwashing of the green sand filters at Well # 1 serving the Mitchell Bluff Subdivision.
Report Preparer &
�7A?/ff6742 75-07
SWP Regional Supervisor & Date
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3

/'
X1 44
----t
p(}U� , . ' 00.
CS"
ire
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision
Well#1
,l.
• `�J I.
a
Copyright (C) 1998, Map ech, Inc.

Four (two exist. two
proposed) Potassium
Permanganate
Feed Tanks
(One each to each
green sand filter)
To Mitchell Bluff Subdivision Water System
Four (two exist. two
proposed) Green Sand
Filters
(In parallel)
Chlorine & Caustic
Addition
Well Water
Backwash
Discharge to
unnamed tributary
to UT to Mitchell
River
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision — Well # 1
Existing well System - Process Flow Diagram
Scale: NTS
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
1

03/08/07
17:43 HORIZON ENGINEERING & CONSULTING - 13364018354
NO,776
i
Date 3%�_ �•�
State of_._,•,/ Y , Court Cy of
On this J dal of l% �' ji't !'.%{_. ' "4 ` .
Y 1 1personally appeared before me, the said
name f l .`C / '1 a`.4to me known and known to me to be tau person dcsctibed in
and who executed the foregoing document and lie (or she) acknowledged that he (or she) executed the same and bang duly su„orn
by me, made oath that the statements in the Foregoing document arc true.
fain /
My Commission expires •'7 i A/C.' �1'
(Signarurc of Notary Public) �'L r�i '' ' . ` �{
Attachment A. Local Government Review Form
r4snerr stmrte dvervita. North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 (c)(6) allows input from local governments in this issuance
of NPDES Permits for non -municipal domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) may not act on an application fora new non -municipal domestic wastewater discharge facility undl it has
received a written statement from each city and county government having jurisdiction over any part of the lands on which the
proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be located. The written statement shall document whether the city or county has a
zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect and (if such an ordinance is in effect) whether the proposed facility is consistent with the
ordinance. The EIVIC shall not approve a permit application for any facility which a city or county has determined to be
inconsistent with zoning or subdivision ordinances unless the approval of such application is determined to have statewide
significance and is in the best interest of the State,
nstruegons to tl; Appjicant: Prior to submitting an application for a NPDES Permit for a proposed facility, the applicant
shall cequest that both the nearby city and county government complete this form. The applicant must:
" Submit a copy oldie permit application (with a written request for this form to be completed) to the clerk of the city and
the county by certified mail, return receipt requested.
▪ If either (or both,) local government(s) fail(s) to mail the completed form, as evidenced by the postmark on the certified
mail card(s), within 15 days after receiving and signing for the certified mail, the applicant may submit the application to
the NPDES Unit.
• As evidence to the Commission that the local govem ncnt(s) failed to respond within 15 days, the applicant shall submit n
copy of the certified mail card along with a notarized letter stating that the local government(s) failed to respond within the
15-day period.
Instructions to tiev The nearby city and/or county government which may have or has jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the proposed facility or its appurtenances arc to be located is required to complete and return this
form to the applicant within 15 days of receipt. The forri nnust be signed and notarized.
-/ 1 ^
Nh�
Name of local government �: ✓cam � 1a.%rj;��
A(Cily/county)
Does the cilycounty,have jurisdiction over any past of the land on which the proposed facility and its appurtenances are to be
located? Yes,(.. I No ( ] if no, please sign this form, have it notarized, and return it to the applicant.
Does the city/county have in effect a zoning or subdivisions ordinance? Yes [--) No ( )
If lure is a zoning or subdivision ordinance in effect, is the plan for the proposed,fa consistent with the ordinance? Yes
No[ j
Signature
(City Manager/County IvManag
,.r,r yi/uKrv~.11'a::wr w,, r a,ego. ♦.,Y.
•
tA Nvt ,y P olio -North Carolina
SORRY COUNTY
' My C mnission Expires 1.
:a o,,,,, a>r•a,rtYwr,..-;,,N•;,'w` W+wnahnhaaroa'i
FAA Guidance Do vjnenr Version: June 23, 2005
PtznPRn£R
Notary Public (Offival Seal)

Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Mr. Macon C. Sammons, Jr.
County Manager
Surry County
118 Hamby Road
Dobson, NC 27017
Subject: Request for Local Government Review
NPDES Permit Application
Existing Well Backwash Discharge
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision
Surry County
Dear Mr. Sammons:
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124-8567
704-788-4455
Fax: [phone]
February 28, 2007
Attached is a copy of an application for permit signed by Aqua North Carolina, Inc. This
application is for a permit for the continued discharge of backwash from filters installed on an
existing potable well which serves the Mitchell Bluff Subdivision, located outside Elkin off CC
Camp Road. I have also attached a map to indicate the existing location.
As part of the application process, the state requires that we notify the local government and ask
that they complete the attached form which indicates whether the local government has a zoning
or subdivision ordinance and whether the continued discharge is consistent with that ordinance.
This is an existing groundwater well that filters water through a series of filters before the water
is distributed to the Mitchell Bluff community. The filters are "backwashed" with water
approximately once every three days and approximately 1,680 gallons of water is then discharged
into the nearby stream.
This has been in service for a number of years and we are not aware of any environmental
concerns over this discharge, other than that the state has advised that we must apply for a
permit.
As the state has instructed, we are trying to file this application as soon as possible. If you could
complete, sign and return this form, it will be very helpful.
We apologize for the necessity to ask for this assistance but I hope that you can appreciate our
dilemma. If you have any questions or if there is anything we need to discuss, please call me
(704-788-4455.)
Sincerely,
Thurmin Horne, P. E.
C: Gary Mosely
NC DENR

Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Ms. Susan Wilson
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 - 1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
Existing Well Backwash Discharge
Aqua, North Carolina, Inc.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision
Surry County
Dear Ms. Wilson:
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124-8567
704-788-4455
Fax: [phone]
February 27, 2007
Attached are four (4) copies of an application for permit signed by Aqua North Carolina, Inc.,
four (4) copies of the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) and a check for $ 715
(application fee.) This application is for a permit for the continued discharge of backwash from
existing green sand filters installed on a potable well which serves the Mitchel Bluff Subdivision,
located outside Elkin, N.C. The EAA contains a map which indicates the existing location.
This is an existing groundwater well that filters water through a series of green sand filters before
the water is distributed to the Mitchel Bluff community. The filters are "backwashed" with water
approximately once every three days and approximately 1,680 gallons of water is then discharged
into the nearby stream.
This has been in service for a number of years and we are not aware of any environmental
concerns over this discharge.
We appreciate your consideration of our application for permit. If you have any questions or if
there is anything we need to discuss, please call me (704-788-4455.)
C: Tamara S. Taylor (NC Public Water Supply Section)
Gary Moseley
Mike Melton

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
Mail the complete application to:
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
NPDES Permit Number
NCoo g If q$
If you are completing this form in computer use the TAB key or the up - down arrows to move from one
field to the next. To check the boxes, click your mouse on top of the box. Otherwise, please print or type.
1. Contact Information:
Owner Name
Facility Name
Mailing Address
City
State / Zip Code
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-mail Address
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision - Well # 1
4163 Sinclair Street
Denver
NC/28037
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
2. Location of facility producing discharge:
Check here if same as above 0
Street Address or State Road Mitchell Cove Road
City
State / Zip Code
County
Elkin
NC/28621
Surry
3. Operator Information:
Name of the firm, consultant or other entity that operates the facility. (Note that this is not referring to the
Operator in Responsible Charge or ORC)
Name Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Mailing Address 4163 Sinclair Street
City Denver
State / Zip Code NC/28037
Telephone Number [phone]
Fax Number [phone]
4. Ownership Status:
Federal ❑ State 0
Private ® Public 0
Page 1 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
5. Type of treatment plant:
❑ Conventional (Includes coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, usually followed by
filtration and disinfection)
❑ Ion Exchange (Sodium Cycle Cationic ion exchange)
® Green Sand Filter (No sodium recharge)
❑ Membrane Technology (RO, nanofiltration)
Check here if the treatment process also uses a water softener
6. Description of source water(s) (i.e. groundwater, surface water)
Groundwater well
7. Describe the treatment process(es) for the raw water:
Green sand filtration using potassium permanganate. Chlorine added for disinfection.
Caustic soda added for pH adjustment.
8. Describe the wastewater and the treatment process(es) for wastewater generated by the
facility:
Wastewater discharge is the backwash of the green sand filters. Discharge rate is
approximately 1,680 gallons, once every three days.
9. Number of separate discharge points: 1
Outfall Identification number(s) 001
10. Frequency of discharge:
Continuous 0 Intermittent El
If intermittent:
Days per week discharge occurs: 2 Duration: approx. 20 min.
11. Plant design potable flowrate 0.0792 MGD
Backwash or reject flow 0.00168 MGD
12. Name of receiving stream(s) (Provide a map showing the exact location of each outfall, including
latitude and longitude):
an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River (Yadkin River Basin)
Page 2 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION - SHORT FORM C - WTP
For discharges associated with water treatment plants
13. Please list all water treatment additives, including cleaning chemicals, that have the
potential to be discharged.
potassium permanganate
chlorine
caustic soda
14. Is this facility located on Indian country? (check one)
Yes ❑ No
15. Additional Information:
> Provide a schematic of flow through the facility, include flow volumes at all points in
the treatment process, and point of addition of chemicals.
• Solids Handling Plan
16. NEW Applicants
Information needed in addition to items 1-15:
• New applicants must contact the NCDENR Customer Service Center.
Was the Customer Service Center contacted? ® Yes ❑ No
> Analyses of source water collected
• Engineering Alternative Analysis
> Discharges from Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis plants shall be evaluated using a
water quality model.
17. Applicant Certification
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the
best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Gary Moseley Manager, Western N. C.
Printer name of Person Signing Title
Signaturfof Applicant
44/417
at
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 (b)(2) provides that: Any person who knowingly makes any false
statement representation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document files or
required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission
implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any recording or
monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the
Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable
by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section
1001 provides a punishment by a fine of not more than $25,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both,
for a similar offense.)
Page 3 of 3 C-WTP 03/05

1
FM
Mil
OM
MI
lowl
Existing Wastewater Discharge Alternatives Evaluation
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision
Elkin, N.C.
Surry County
1-1
Applicant : Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
P r4163 Sinclair Street
Denver, N.C. 28037
Ph: 704-489-9404
pm Contact: Gary Moseley
Facility .
•
pm
mm
Prepared by:
im
1.,
Date: February 27, 2007
1.1
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision Well # 1
Aqua North Carolina, Inc.
Mitchell Cove Road
Elkin N.C. 28621
Ph: 704-489-9404
Contact: Gary Moseley
J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124
Ph: 704-788-4455

3
CM
MP
IMP
f wit
PER
MR
MI
loil
AM
MEI
Section 1: General
1.01 Introduction:
Aqua North Carolina, Inc. (Aqua NC) currently owns and operates an existing well
water system serving Mitchell Bluff Subdivision (Mitchell Bluff), located northeast
of Elkin, N.C. in Surry County. Well #1 of the water system uses an assembly of
green sand filters in the treatment of groundwater prior to distribution to the
Mitchell Bluff community. These filters are backwashed, using potable water,
approximately once every three days. This backwash is a relatively small volume
of approximately 1,680 gallons. The discharge exits the well house via a 1" PVC
pipe and is released into an intermittent stream that is an unnamed tributary to
Mitchell River in the Yadkin River basin.
The well has a good overall history of compliance with water supply regulations,
but is required to obtain an NPDES permit for the continued operation of the
existing backwash discharge.
The Mitchell Bluff water system currently has 23 customers. Well # 1 is approved
for 55 gpm. No expansion of this well is planned and the system is sufficient to
serve the subdivision. Whereas this well is limited by its current yield capacity, the
subdivision is fully developed and since no expansion of the subdivision or service
area is planned, there is no potential for any population increase to affect the
existing rate of water use or backwash discharge flow.
The review of this source and the consideration of alternatives is being made with
inclusion of consideration of the guidance contained in "Permitting Strategy For
Greensand Filtration Water Treatment Plants - January 2004")
1.02 Scope:
Pal
The scope of this project is limited to the investigation and evaluation of
alternatives for treating and/or disposing of the existing green sand filter backwash
,.g from Well # 1 at Mitchell Bluff subdivision. This includes consideration of the
feasibility of continuing the existing discharge and options for eliminating the
existing discharge.
mil
Section 2: Background Information
,..., 2.01 Project Area:
The existing service area is limited to the Mitchell Bluff Subdivision. All homes are
m, single family residences. There are no commercial or industrial customers. All
wastewater is typical backwash from green sand filters.
The existing discharge coordinates are: Longitude: -80.784636111 W
Latitude: 36.284380555 N

4
MI
Mil
PEW
2.02 Site Characteristics:
The subdivision is located in a rural portion of Surry county, outside any municipal
limits and remote from public water and/or sewer. The nearest existing sewer is
approximately 2.4 miles away.
The general area has soil characteristics which are limited to the possibility of on
rim site treatment and disposal.
MR
fali
IR
PM
w
3.01 Public Facilities:
Terrain is generally rolling but has been graded level at the existing well site.
2.03 Receiving Stream Characteristics:
The receiving stream is intermittent in nature and is an unnamed tributary to
Mitchell River, which is C waters. The receiving stream is obviously a zero flow
stream (7Q10 and 30Q2 = 0) but since the wastewater discharge is not oxygen
consuming, discharge into the zero flow stream should be allowable under state
procedures.
This receiving stream has no known outstanding features or characteristics that
should preclude the continuation of the existing discharge. There are no known
endangered or threatened species and these are not threatened or impaired
waters.
Section 3: Existing Utilities
mm The nearest existing public sewer is located approximately 2.4 miles southeast of
the existing well near the junction of 1-77 and CC Camp Road (NCSR 1138.) The
distance that would be required for sewer force mains to be installed would be
mit
approximately 12,700 ft. This would be the route that appears to be the most
practical from an engineering perspective to take advantage of following existing
W, highway right of way and have minimal impact to adjacent property owners.
The City of Elkin, Public Works Department provides sewer services in this area.
,_, Mr. Danny Minton - Collection Systems Supervisor with the department was
consulted and has advised that there are no plans for extension of sewer service
any closer to Mitchell Bluff Subdivision within the next five years or beyond.
wy
Mr. Jack Gardin, Water and Sewer Project Coordinator for Surry County was also
consulted and he has also advised that there are no plans for extension of sewer
a•, service any closer to Mitchell Bluff Subdivision within the next five years or
beyond.
3.02 Private Facilities:

5
There are no known existing private sewer utilities within any reasonable proximity
of Mitchell Bluff Subdivision that would be available for consideration as a possible
alternative. A review of available records did not reveal that there are any private
sewer facilities within a three mile radius.
Section 4: Alternatives For Service
�► 4.01: On site surface and/or subsurface disposal:
Subsurface Disposal:
fan
torn
IsPI
Earl
Appendix E contains portions of soil survey reports that provide insight as to the
suitability of the soils for subsurface disposal. As described in the report, these
soils are mainly Fairview (sandy clay loam) soils with characteristics that are
somewhat limited to very limiting with respect to the potential for subsurface
disposal. Subsurface disposal requires buffers and land for the drainfields as well
as equal areas of suitable soil, be available and maintained as potential
repair/replacement areas.
Aqua North Carolina does not own any lands associated with this well site. The
well has been granted a 100 foot easement as a buffer.
The only practical possibility for subsurface disposal would be to construct a
subsurface disposal system on lands acquired beyond the 100 foot buffer required
to protect the well. This would necessitate that additional lands be acquired that
are not now owned by Aqua NC.
Given the limitations described in the attached soil survey, it is doubtful that this is
a viable option. A full and extensive soils investigation of potential sites would be
necessary to confirm if useable areas are available. In keeping with the state
guidance for alternatives evaluation, the cost effectiveness of this alternative is
further evaluated to determine if a detailed soils analysis is appropriate. The costs
associated with this option are estimated in Appendix A.
This option would require that the existing discharge be conveyed to an acquired
site having sufficient area for subsurface disposal and a suitable reserve area of
equal size, and that these areas include adequate buffers from property lines,
homes, wells, etc.
Surface Irrigation:
Disposal by irrigation requires storage capacity for periods of inclement weather
when application is not allowable. Therefore consideration of this as a possible
alternative must also include the provision of storage of the backwash waters
during periods of inclement weather.

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

7
lir
for
fon
not be employed in conjunction with the current method of disposal (surface water
discharge) and yield any reduction in total capital or operating expenditures. The
evaluation of alternatives shows that these alternatives are clearly not viable due
to the overwhelming magnitude of associated cost.
Combining one of these alternatives while continuing the periodic discharge, yields
no reduction in the cost for non -discharge alternatives and merely increases the
overall costs. There would be no reduction in capital costs for any of these
alternatives and the operating costs for combining surface discharge with either of
the other alternatives would be greater than for any single alternative that might be
selected.
In short, whereas the conclusion that continued surface discharge is the only
viable option due to the overwhelming differential in capital and operating costs,
any addition of an additional alternative would merely make the cost differential
worse.
Section 5: Summary and Conclusions:
As can be seen from a comparison of the net present value of the various
alternatives, there is a wide difference between the cost estimate of the option of
continuing discharge and options to eliminate the discharge.
Compared to the cost of the next most cost effective and reliable alternative
(subsurface disposal) the estimated Net Present Value is approximately 995 %
greater. This represents a difference of $6,001 NPV per customer.
In light of the financial impracticality, it is not necessary to further pursue whether
connection is politically acceptable to the POTW, or whether land based disposal
options are workable.
By far, the most practical and cost effective and reasonably practical alternative is
the continued discharge of the relatively benign filter backwash waters.
Section 6: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
Based on the findings of this evaluation, it has been concluded that the most
economical and practical alternative is to continue discharge to surface waters.

9
plq
PM
MIR
gut
1. Surface Water Discharge at 1,680 GPD Flow Rate:
Whereas this is the existing method of disposal and considering that no additional
treatment is expected as a consequence of any forthcoming permit, there are no
estimated additional capital costs.
The only anticipated increase in operation and maintenance costs are those associated
with the collection, analysis and reporting of effluent discharge samples as required by an
NPSES permit.
c, Capital Cost:
ralq
fiml
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Total Capital Cost = $ 0.00
`m (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest):
AIM
iml
flin
Annual Cost
Operation & Maintenance
($ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr)
Total Annual Cost = $ 1,200
PV Annual Cost = $ 13,905
Total Net Present Value = $ 13,905
$ 1,200

10
Firl
..
AM
FM
Mg
Fr
Pr
2. Connection to POTW Sewer System near junction of 1-77 and CC Camp Road:
Install new lift station to collect discharge and convey by force main along existing high
way right of way to junction with existing municipal sewer.
Distance = approx. 12,700 LF
Lowest elev. = approx. 1000.0
Highest elev. = approx. 1110.0
Lift station Avg. flow = 1,680 gpd = 1.2 gpm
Peak flow = 2.5 x 1.2 gpm = 3.0 gpm
Pump Design
Use 1" Sch. 40 PVC, approx. 12,700LF
FH @ 3 gpm = 0.68 ft/100 ft = 86.4 ft.
SH = 110 ft (approx.)
Use TDH = 200 ft.
m' Use dual effluent pumps (rated at 200 ft. TDH at 3.0 gpm) OSI P201012 or approved
equal
f.' Capital Cost:
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
Flol
1" force main sewer 12,700 LF $ 8 $ 101,600
Air release 6 Ea. $ 2,500 $ 15,000
1.1
Pump Station 1 Ea $ 45,000 $ 45,000
Manholes 1 Ea $ 1,800 $ 1,800
�, Tap Fee 1 Ea. $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Road Crossings 3 Ea $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Creek Crossings 2 Ea $ 5,000 $ 10,000
ri.1 Metering Station 1 Ea. $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Tie to exist. MH 1 Ea $ 1,000 $ 1,000
Erosion control LS $ 20,000 $ 20,000
+-i Surveying 4 days $ 1,500 $ 6,000
Easement/Right of Way 800 LF $ 10 $ 8,000
Clearing (approx. 1.5 acre) 1.5 acre $ 6,500 $ 9,750
Electrical LS $ 7,500 $ 7,500
Legal LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
P+ Sub -total $ 281,650
Engineering 15 % 42,247

11
Mg
Operation & Maintenance Cost:
Local government sewer fee
MI
Annual sewer charges
Total Capital Cost = $ 323,897
= $ 2.208/100 CF
= $ 2.208/100 CF x 1,680 gpd/7.48 gal x 122 daylyr
Annual electrical charges = $ 125/month X 12 molyr
MI
Annual sample analysis charges = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr
`'' Annual repair and maintenance = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr
Total annual costs
(Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875% interest)
Present Value Annual Cost
Total Net Present Value
= $ 52,200
= $ 376,097
= $ 605
= $ 1,500
= $ 1,200
= $ 1,200
= $ 4,505

12
3. Land Based Disposal:
3A. Subsurface Disposal:
Based on the soil survey information and the engineers field observations, the soils in this
area appear to be limited to severely limited as a medium for subsurface disposal. In the
event that it was found to be apparently a cost effective alternative, an in depth site
specific soil investigation would need to be done to confirm that the soils could in fact be
used. However, for the purpose of comparing the potential alternatives within the scope
of this evaluation, it will be assumed that a typical low design loading rate would be
workable. Therefore, it will be assumed that a loading rate of 0.2 gpd/sq. ft. is acceptable.
Therefore, based on the design flow, the area required for subsurface disposal is:
1,680 gpd / 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. =
8,400 SF
Whereas it is required to maintain an equal size area as a reserve for future repair, the
required area is 16,800 SF. Appendix D contains a map, which delineates the area that
might be available for subsurface disposal.
Assuming a roughly rectangular field (170 ft x 100 ft. for the initial drain field plus repair
and In order to maintain the required 50 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum
estimated land required is 54,000 SF or 1.2 acres.
Capital Cost:
Item:
4" sewer drain in 3' trenches
Site Clearing
Land
1" FM
Pump Station
Surveying
Soils Investigation
Quantity:
2,800 LF
.6 acre
1.2 acres
350 LF
1 Ea
3 days
1 day
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS
Erosion control LS
Electrical LS
Legal LS
Engineering 15 %
Unit Cost: Cost:
$ 12
$ 6,500
$ 15,000
$ 8
$ 15,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,500
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,500
Sub -total
Total Capital Cost
$ 33,600
$ 3,900
$ 18,000
$ 2,800
$ 15,000
$ 4,500
$ 1,500
$ 2,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 2,500
$ 91,800
13,770
= $105,570

13
IMP
Operation & Maintenance Cost (Present Value, 20 year life, 5.875 % interest):
Annual Cost
O&Mofdrain field,
Pump station and force main = $ 2,500/yr $ 2,500
Annual electrical charges = $ 125/month X 12 mo/yr
_ $ 1,500
^om Total Annual Cost = $ 4,000
PV Annual Cost = $ 46,349
Total Net Present Value = $ 151,919
PEI
PEI

14
Mot
3B. Surface Irrigation:
pow
Surface irrigation preliminary design is based on an assumed allowable application rate
of 0.20 gpd/sq. ft. and a required storage basin for 60 days design flow. Based on the
OM design flow of 1,680 gpd, this results in an estimated disposal area of 8,400 SF. Allowing
a recommended 50% repair area, the required total area is 12,600 SF. Assuming a
roughly rectangular field (415 ft x 415 ft. for the initial spray field plus repair and in order
i► to maintain the required 150 foot buffer to property lines), the minimum estimated land
required is 172,225 SF or approximately 4 acres.
fist Capital Cost:
IR
Fog
MI
Item: Quantity: Unit Cost: Cost:
100,800 gal. storage basin (1) $ 19,500
Surface irrigation system 8,400 SF $ 0.35 $ 2,940
Monitoring wells 4 ea $ 4,000 $ 16,000
Land 4 acres $ 20,000 $ 80,000
Fencing 2,000 LF $ 6.00 $ 12,000
2" FM 300 LF $ 8.50 $ 2,550
Manholes 1 Ea $ 1,600 $ 1,600
Pump Station 1 Ea $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Surveying 3 days $ 1,500 $ 4,500
Soils Investigation 3 days $ 1,500 $ 4,500
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment LS $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Erosion control LS $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Electrical LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Legal LS $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Engineering
Sub -total $ 199,590
15 % 29,940
Total Capital Cost = $ 229,530
r-► (1) Storage:
Excavation 625 cu. Yds. @ $ 6.00/yd = $ 3,725
Compaction and Lining 4,500 SF @ $ 3.50/SF = $ 15,750
mg Sub -total = $ 19,500

15
Operation & Maintenance Cost
AM (Present Value, 20 year life, 8% interest):
Annual Cost
O & M of spray field,
Pump station and force main = $ 3,500/yr $ 3,500
Annual electrical charges = $ 250/month X 12 mo/yr = $ 3,000
'e Annual sample analysis charges = $ 100/mo. X 12 mo/yr = $ 1,200
Total Annual Cost = $ 7,700
PV Annual Cost = $ 89,222
Total Net Present Value = $ 318,752

1 r e • �'w.
,,/ Exist Discharge
4 , $ 11 \ \_..„,./P...."'•r- Longitude:-80.784636111 W
-'�1. Latitude:
�,
— — -- �$ ...�- cl r
l1
Exist. Well .\/.0 `
it
)2 )1 .k
•o .s� 000ftJV
-
1:12,000
// 1
Elkin North
7.5-minute Quadrangle
Index map
36.284380555 N
k'�.
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well # 1
USGS Map - Existing Well Location
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
Elkin, N.C. Scale: 1:12,000

North
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well # 1
Aerial Photo
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
Scale: 1" = 450'

fli„
•
•
• -
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well # 1
Possible Route for Connection to POTW
Horizon Engineering & Consultinch Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
Elkin, N.C. Scale: 1" = 2,000'

Prop. Subsurface Disposal
Exist. Well
.� North Carolina
Surly 5r;.
North
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well # 1
Possible Location for Subsurface Disposal
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
Elkin, N.C. Scale: 1" = 175'

, •••
,
, .
irrr - 4
6:1•
v „."1: •
• '"
• Alit' 4
-
4
Imo+
row, irt/i
01010P41
• -.1.41
• • -•.v *ds
;, 11
•-•
4 •
s'. ..:••••, • „
4 4
4"' • ,
Prop. Surface Disposal
Exist. Well
b •
Nortil Carolirla :1S / 1047,. ; •
VP
' •,;
110' N4k. *4. • (•••;',
iv•Y` \ • ••••
10/
'I 0,
k tik/r; r
ti
N
40.
/?••
< '
4,
r:
.4 is •,
1.1111.
North
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well it 1
Possible Location for Surface Disposal
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
Elkin, N.C. Scale: 1"= 350'

Wrier de 2471441i' •
North
Mitchell Bluff Subdivison - Well i l
NRCS Soils Map
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
[Ikin, N.C. Scale: 1" = 700'

Web Soil Survey
Page 1 of 4
J
J
J
J
Summary by Map Unit - Surry County, North Carolina
Soil Survey Map Unit Rating
Area Map Unit Name
Symbol
CsA Colvard and Very limited
Suches soils, 0
to 3 percent
slopes,
occasionally
flooded
DeF
FeB2
FeC2
Component
Name
(Percent)
Colvard (49%)
Suches (39%)
Devotion- Very limited Devotion, very
Rhodhiss- rocky (32%)
Bannertown
complex, 40 to
95 percent
slopes, very
rocky Rhodhiss, very
rocky (26%)
Fairview sandy Somewhat
clay loam, 2 to 8 limited
percent slopes,
moderately
eroded
Fairview sandy Somewhat
clay loam, 8 to limited
15 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Bannertown,
very rocky
(21%)
Rhodhiss, deep
(8%)
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (83%)
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (78%)
Westfield,
moderately
eroded (7%)
Rating
Reasons
Flooding
Seepage,
bottom layer
Flooding
Depth to
saturated zone
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slow water
movement
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Slow water
movement
Total Acres in Per
AOI of
AO]
10.5 1.9
19.2 3.5
74.1 13.z
137.5 24.c.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
02/25/2007

Web Soil Survey Page 2 of 4
J
FeD2
FfD
FnB2
FnC2
FsE
Fairview sandy Very limited
clay loam, 15 to
25 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Fairview cobbly Very limited
fine sandy loam,
15 to 25 percent
slopes, stony
Fairview cobbly Somewhat
sandy clay loam, limited
2 to 8 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded, stony
Fairview cobbly Somewhat
sandy clay loam, limited
8 to 15 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded, stony
Fairview -Stott Very limited
Knob complex,
25 to 45 percent
slopes
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (72%)
Woolwine,
moderately
eroded (13%)
Slope
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Westfield (5%) Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slope
Slow water
movement
Slope
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Woolwine, stony Slope
Fairview, stony
(87%)
Tate, stony
(7%)
(5%)
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (90%)
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (93%)
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slow water
movement
Slow water
movement
Slope
Fairview (60%) Slope
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Arkaqua, Flooding
Stott Knob
(28%)
31.7 5.7
28.7 5.2
9.7 1.8
28.5 5.2
56.9 10.:
undrained (5%)
Depth to
_http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 02/25/2007

al"
Veb Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
1
J
J
J
FuB2
FuC2
Ud
W
WfC2
WoD
Fairview -Urban
land complex, 2
to 8 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Fairview -Urban
land complex, 8
to 15 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Udorthents,
loamy
Water
Woolwine-
Fairview-
Westfield
complex, 8 to 15
percent slopes,
moderately
eroded
Woolwine-
Fairview-
Westfield
complex, 15 to
25 percent
slopes, stony
Somewhat
limited
Somewhat
limited
Very limited
Not rated
Very limited
Very limited
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (57%)
Westfield,
moderately
eroded (6%)
Fairview,
moderately
eroded (54%)
Westfield,
moderately
eroded (5%)
Udorthents,
loamy (85%)
Water (100%)
Woolwine,
moderately
eroded (50%)
Woolwine, stony
(53%)
Fairview, stony
(26%)
Westfield, stony
(13%)
Meadowfield,
stony (8%)
saturated zone
Seepage,
bottom layer
Slow water
movement
Slow water
movement
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slope
Slow water
movement
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Slow water
movement
Seepage,
bottom layer
Depth to
bedrock
Slope
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slope
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Slope
Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
8.3 1.5
6.7 1.2
21.9 4.0
9.0 1.6
13.1 2.4
6.0 1.1
WoE
Woolwine-
Very limited
Woolwine, stony
(47%)
Slope
89.6 16.;
Ditto://websoilsurvev.nres.usda.2ov/app/WebSoilSurvev.aspx 02/25/2007

'Veb Soil Survey
Page 4 of 4
I
r•Pl
nmi
rag
Par
cm
,,R
'"
Pm
Imill
Fairview- Depth to
Westfield bedrock
complex, 25 to Slow water
45 percent movement
slopes, stony
Fairview, stony Slope
(24%) Slow water
movement
Westfield, stony Slope
(10%) Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Meadowfield, Slope
stony (6%) Depth to
bedrock
Slow water
movement
Summary by Rating Value 0
Rating Total Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Very limited 277.6 50.3
Somewhat limited 264.7 48.0
Not rated 9.0 1.6
Description - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through
subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is
evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and
maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water
table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones
and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with
installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in
downslope areas.
Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below
the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly
when the system is new. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated.
Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these
uses. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good
performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has
features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very
limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The
limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Rating Options - Septic Tank Absorption Fields
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff:
Tie -break Rule: Higher
htto://websoilsurvev.nres.usda. eov/app/WebSoilSurvev.aspx
02/25/2007

Four (two exist. two
proposed) Potassium
Permanganate
Feed Tanks
(One each to each
green sand filter)
To Mitchell Bluff Subdivision Water System
I>.
Four (two exist. two
proposed) Green Sand
Filters
(In parallel)
fi
Chlorine & Caustic
Addition
fi
Well Water
Backwash
Discharge to
unnamed tributary
to UT to Mitchell
River
Mitchell Bluff Subdivision — Well # 1
Existing well System - Process Flow Diagram
Scale: NTS
Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
2510 Walker Road
Mt. Pleasant, N.C. 28124 February 27, 2007
1

24
MI
MI
Residuals Management Plan
Prepared by: J. Thurman Horne, P.E.
PEI Horizon Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
ran
Residuals Management Plan:
(WI The proposed continued surface water discharge will have no impact on existing residuals management.
There are no wastewater treatment facilities.
The nature of the operation (backwashing of green sand filters) is such that only minor amounts of solids
(less than 30 mg/1) are released with the discharge.
There is no generation of any grits, sludges or residuals for removal or disposal.
This project does not increase or alter the amounts of sludge produced or impact the current methods of
disposition.