NC0021857_Permit (Modification)_20040607

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0021857
Newland WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification,.
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 7, 2004
Miss document is printed an reuse paper - iactilorie arty
coatent on the re -le -crime side

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 7, 2004
Mr. Cecil L. Lewis, Public Works Administrator
Town of Newland
P.O. Box 429
Newland, North Carolina 28657
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit Number NC0021857
Newland WWTP Modification
Avery County
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for modification of
the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached final NPDES discharge
permit. This permit modification 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 permit modification authorizes the Town to expand the above referenced
wastewater treatment facility to 0.6 MGD upon receipt of an Authorization to Construct from
the Division of Water Quality.
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 permit shall be final
and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. 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 need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact Mark McIntire of my staff at [phone], extension 508.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
Asheville Regional Office
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit NC0021857
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 provisions 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,
Town of Newland
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater and stormwater from a facility located at
Newland Wastewater Treatment Plant
Cow Camp Road
West of Newland
Avery County
to receiving waters designated as the North Toe River in the French Broad River Basin in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and
IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective July 1, 2004.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28, 2006.
Signed this day June 7, 2004.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mark McIntire
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0021857
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked, and as of this 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.
Town of Bridgeton is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.32 MGD wastewater treatment system with the following
components:
• influent pumps;
• two aeration basins;
• two clarifiers;
• sludge return;
• flow measuring & totalizing equipment;
• chlorine contact basin with dual chlorinators;
• two aerobic sludge digesters;
• sludge drying beds; and
• standby power generators.
This facility is located west of Newland on Cow Camp Road in Avery County.
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct permit from the Division of Water Quality,
construct and operate facilities such that the total treatment capacity onsite is 0.6 MGD.
3. Discharge from the treatment works described in item one above through outfall 001 at the
location specified on the attached map into the North Toe River, a class C-Trout water in the
French Broad River Basin.

Outfall 001
Latitude: 36°05'20"
Longitude: 81°56'27"
USGS Quad Name: Newland
Receiving Stream: North Toe River
Stream Class: C Trout
Subbasin: French Broad — 040306

Permit NC0021857
Part I. Section A
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - 0.32 MGD
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 0.32 MGD or permit expiration,
the Permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT MUTATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER
Monthly
Average
Weekly
_ Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow (MGD)
0.32
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD52
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
6.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3-N (Winter)3
17.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µg/L
2/Week
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Weekly
Grab
E
TN (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Semi -
Annually
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Semi-
Annually
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
Weekly
Grab
E
Notes:
1 E - Effluent, I - Influent
2 The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3 Summer is defined as April 1 - October 31 with Winter defined as November 1 - March 31.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
AMOUNTS.

Permit NC0021857
Part I. Section A
2. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - 0.6 MGD
Beginning upon expansion above 0.32 MGD and lasting until permit expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
PARAMETER
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow (MGD)
0.6
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD52
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
3.8 mg/L
11.4 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3-N (Winter)3
10.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
28 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
3/Week
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week
Grab
E
TN (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
3/Week
Grab
E
Notes:
1 E - Effluent, I - Influent
2 The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3 Summer is defined as April 1 - October 31 with Winter defined as November 1 - March 31.
THERE SHALL BE NO DISCHARGE OF FLOATING SOLIDS OR VISIBLE FOAM IN OTHER THAN TRACE
AMOUNTS.

.PUBLICkoTI,CE'
St ELF '
NORTH CAROLiNA
ENVIRONMENTAL
. `MANAGEMENT_ -
' CpyiNl�SU(N�IT
N 617 UI+IIT;
IL,
SER :ICE:CENTER..
BALE GH NC�0.161T
tCATION OF;
INT.E TO•ISS11Ear:;.
NPDE$ pSA EWATER:-
1PERMIT
on
staff. reVie*.and.. tics
lion of NG General -uute
143i1 k ip..iit�izla,i
• of Ni lawfii arld iiatioris, the
• Icarelitidh
Cont
�o National t
DIs�r9e : -. - Eitt iiiiation
System .(NPD : S)..iiXaste,
watei p€3ttnd to
the (s) .listed beta*
effect€ve4 S.dayS.f the
IS held.
ilvrittet corrtments regard-
i• proposed permit
r�it ed. ttnti1.30
Mond -
rift. didvh Us.. date
, f:.mms;;potl
,receiVece d A►II
mthts.Pr
considered 1n
raze.
ill p
a � i�dect te: o hoiii
bl.eS Louie
sig=
th D v�islcil ce of paublic
t d�ree
tritere$t, ..
Ceighs he Cita:P.667dt
and ether 'is itt�i�g;in°
feerrit tioh Okte.file :Med:to
te;i• m ) Ifa e
iti„�, 1� Otte
es
fdit4i ii t
_Mgr:
ai e
IY MS. Vole 4 tep1
(919) f3VA84extensicn
de;.the
N DES it number
rriunl a I '' d t�. corm
f - I tom•
pe nit& v1S t.
ptvislu�.� .......y- -
at 512 Si.lis6vi9 Spree
ROJO. r NC 276044148 be-
tWeeursaf 8:00am
arid 5:0p0p po tv i vk!W .iri-
fdrtxultion on tale.
The fawp
.r a Newtand has
• applied expansion oI
tlie.: ``iN ffor Iis;v
petrel
• facility
d r01n9:,to Nc
Toe Riven; wu-
ter. in;.th0 Freridi Broad
River Basin:;The fecgdY €s
c drtt up to 0 tMOD
.dhd; ,lifter expdpsion, 06
MQo; : anirion.
ip-iritrn
and total residual.4htorine
are. currently water: aual-
itY:Iitnited- This, discharge
„ ay Im fat** idiom
reseivin9
NI bES Permit.`.Huriiber'
Nc0000%75 Vnitntn Gotpo-
•
rat€oru`�
its penrhiT = c t
North l ,,,River to ;the
'Frehch..11 River Bo- .
toWO; Currgh,19.•fIt r1de and
tal sUspeutred saints are
we& goal :ir fled: Thus
di re '
iej
tufe in por
till
flewi eoeivihd
. � o�+''
stream.
NPDE
Ct rPeraFi i
�IfntYr. a�ii � it; di*
renewal_ Of: its:petik ... .
Ctla irlg
t aiona IVottl T04 oe
R€Ver €n. ..B
River:' ih iY
fiuc►ide' and a us-
i
!j
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SS.
NORTH CAROLINA
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified and
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Darryl Rhymes, who, being first duly
sworn, deposes and says: that he is the Legal
Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
engaged in publication of a newspaper known as
The Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued,
and entered as second class mail in the City of
Asheville, in said County and State; that he is
authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
statement; that the notice or other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached
hereto, was published in The Asheville Citizen -
Times on the following date: April 17, 2004. And
that the said newspaper in which said notice, paper,
document or legal advertisement were published
were, at the time of each and every publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and
qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General
Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of
the General Statues of North Carolina.
Signed this 19th day of Ari1 2004
(Signature of perso
ng afridav'
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 19th day of
April 2004
(Notary Pu
. My C
2008.
iic)
A
Y
ma's
`1
1 - w
ission expires the 3rd day of S 41)-10i g1r3L c
il
MBEC0
��iIiIIi1/111111;;,,

Re: [Fw,d: Re: Town of Newland Expansion Request]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Town of Newland Expansion Request]
From: Keith Haynes <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 07:01:37 -0400
To: Mark McIntire <[e-mail]>
Sounds good to me!
Mark McIntire wrote:
Keith,
You have any thoughts on this one before I prepare a draft permit?
Thanks,
Mark
Original Message
Subject: Re: Town of Newland Expansion Request
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:57:37 -0500
From: Roger Edwards <Roger.Edwards(2i,,ncmail.net>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Mark McIntire <mark.mcintireRncmail.net>
CC: Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
References: <406034E2.2040902(ancmail.net>
Mark,
I forwarded this to Keith Haynes. He has Avery Co.
Thanks,
R. Edwards
Mark McIntire wrote:
&;% 'Gvieh 'n 26&;
7 rQ,,.-► J/ O ,$ f✓ f
shCSe7bfi 1'1 fr 4 2/
l� +%c.% ;. 0.6 ft cO
d cor. Gib , 6 leAr
lisc^e,( -4- 49.6, "re
> Wanted to give you guys a heads up. A while back we received an
> expansion request from the Town of Newland (NC0021857). The request was
> for expansion from 0.32 MGD to 0.8 MGD. I returned the package to them
> on the basis of a poor EAA (the biggest problem was flow justification).
> They've sense resubmitted the request with the expansion revised
> downward from 0.8 to 0.6 MGD. I've gone through it and am inclined to
> proceed with development of a draft permit. Any thoughts about this one?
> Thanks,
> Mark
Roger Edwards - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
04
1 of 2
4/7/2004 9:27 AM

1
Permit NC0004952
PART I - SECTION A
5. POLLUTANT ANALYSIS CONDITION
The Permittee shall conduct a test for pollutants once every five years at the effluent from the treatment plant.
The discharge shall be evaluated as follows:
A. A pollutant analysis of the effluent must be completed using EPA approved methods for the following
analytic fractions:
• purgeables (i.e. volatile organic compounds);
• acid extractables;
• base/neutral extractables;
• organochlorine pesticides and PCBs;
• herbicides; and
• metals and other inorganics.
The Pollutant Analysis Monitoring (PAM) Requirement Reporting Form A and accompanying memo, to be
provided to all discharges impacted by this monitoring requirement, describes the sampling and analysis
requirements and lists chemicals to be included in the pollutant analysis.
B. Other significant levels of synthetic organic chemicals must be identified and approximately quantified. For
the purposes of implementing this requirement, the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in the purgeable,
base/neutral extractable, and acid extractable fractions (or fewer than 10 if less than 10 unidentified peaks
occur) for chemicals other than those specified on the PAM reporting form should be identified and
approximately quantified as stated in the aforementioned reporting form. This part (item B) of the PAM
requirement is to be referred to as the "10 significant peaks rule".

Vaughn&Melton
219 West Depot Street
Greeneville, Tennessee 37743
Tel. [phone]
FAX. [phone]
email:[e-mail]
http://www.vaughnmelton.com
November 25, 2003
Mr. Mark McIntire
North Carolina Dept. of Environment &
Natural Resources --Div. of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: NPDES Permit Application for WWTP Upgrade
Town of Newland WWTP (Existing NPDES# NC0021857)
V&M Project No. 30024-01
Dear Mr. McIntire:
DEC 1 2003
We are resubmitting the application for the Town of Newland major modification to NPDES
#NC0021857.
We have addressed the three items outlined in your letter of June 24, 2003. As a result, the
(EAA) has been revised. In summary, the permit request has been reduced from 0.8 MGD to
0.6 MGD based on flow justification methods outlined in your letter Item 1. We have included
three cost analyses for land treatment as requested in Item 2. Also, we have included a
detailed cost analysis for the Surface Water Discharge.
We have incorporated these items in the revised Engineering Alternative Analysis (attached).
We have included the original submittal unchanged except for the (EAA).
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call our office at 423-639-
0271 or Mike Calhoun at 828-253-2796.
Sincerely,
VAUGHN & MEL ON
l ert . Wayne obson, P.E.
Senior Vic President
[e-mail]
MWR/kj
Attachments
Z
Middlesboro, KY • Greeneville, TN • Asheville, NC • Huntington, WV

•
•
INV. EL. 3567.5
CONCRETE HEADWALL
(PUNT OUTFALL)
PROPOSED DIGESTED SLUDGE AND
SUPERNATANT PUMP STATION
(0105RNG CHLORINE BASINS)
•
\ \\\\\ \
\\ \\ \\ \\4s�'C\\\
•
•
\�
\\ \\ \\ \\\ s
\\ \\� \\`_ ;e %4" `\ Pam`\
\\\ \ \\ \� `3.76/ 6\N\\ \\ ` \
\\�\\� J66T60\\\\\\ \\
3fi09 \\ \ \ \\
\\ 1 98
\ 359
INSTALL 6' GATE VALVES SEES
FOR OET (TYP CESj
PROPOSED DIGESTER
NITS)
(DOSING MODULAR UNITS)
KiR
584 \\\\\\\•
\\ \ \\\
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
INV. 3580.
CONNECT TOS a5� Y.H.
3566 (SEEb*TAIL SHT.
\\ 0-2)
12' PIPE
INV. 3553.1
1578.0
N /
SNf� - 3588 - 1 \
E \\ 311:1
"mob ` 1 111 gg
kl P 1 ,..T •��'i
rA • s .
11 ) • frvss' a- Ts! an35914
INV ��5889
r Y� 3P Nva,a9.9
�EL
6N. :Sat// ICPLANS
UTYEN1:>
/M//�T 3.073`�
I \\ PROPOSED REI
PROPOSED EFFLUENT
PARSHALL FLUME
INE
Y eyB' PIPE
so. m 7 :/4 9Nvp4T593.
TOP EL 3599.3
TOP 3593.5 . 2,
CONCRETE
TOP EL 3593.5
B.
TREATMENT INV. •4
LPN. A ur 12" PIPE
cb
INV. 3592.13
—WASTE SLUDGE
HOLDING TANK
/
9N awe.
ti
AILS . 0 3
' 1 \\ \ \ \ \ \ OLD TDB R/4ER /fL J624 ��i
\\\\ \ \ \
INV. 583:U4,,,PE \ ` •\LT\\ ft) (1364-fr
/
CHAIN UN
UMP
3590 HOUSE
12 E
INV ELCOMESSTO cosmic
eIR W\TERUN„
c T EL. 3589.5
90 INV. EL 35"
"i
/
5E0 DMf — f' \I I I I / / //
--
- 357- 0l Hoes /�1ETERIN MAN (
356q
D`RAS /STA CIN/
41*
\\\\\ \\
\\ \\3 9z
7 1 \ \ J5889`_
r `( \ \ \\\\ \`J56J58\��3j86
�358_—��
i--3568----
INV. 36104
NV 361(1.4
I
r.
/
i% //4'\
a
�/
�1
l
36Tz
6,0
J808
100 3607.0
•Seaa3560.3
INSTALL A PLUG
TIE TO EXISTING UNE WTH
RESTRAINED TYPE DJ. ELBOW
AND PIPE. EXTEND RESTRAINED
PIPE TO INFLUENT METERING
M.H. (CONTRACTOR TO HELD
VERIFY ELEVATION).
1 1 . 9 �: 9,a9P
KNA
NS
PROPOSED IAFLUEJAZ maw
'
METERING MANHOLE
3596— —
---3592------
J590—
—3588— — -- — —
35843586_-
-
—
3578—
—3576— -
-357a-
PROPOSED INFLUENT FLOW SPUTTER
BOX
3572-
-3570-
•troeneollle Kentucky 40965
774
(606) 246-680D
•Green0Nl(p, ) Tennessee 37743
rnanc ♦ ] 6
sAsneu
llte.
Crinoline.
(7040 253 279628RO1
TOWN OF NEWLAND WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP EXPANSION
NPDES NC0021857
SCALD NTS DRAWN BY. LCF Ch. 6y:
Sate: 06/08/01 - PROJECT ND 29901-01 NSD
Copyright Q 2002 Vaughn I. Melton NI Rlghts Reservetl
Sheet
FIG. 3

SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
INV. 3580
INV. El.. 3567.
CONCRETE HEADWALL
(PLANT OUTFALL)
12' PIPE
INV. 3563.1
NOTES:
1. THE INFORMATION SHOWN WAS OBTAINED
FROM AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY BY VAUGHN &
MELTON INC, NC ON 3-17-1999.
2. THE EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL 15 TWO (2) FEET.
3. THE BENCHMARK (8M-1) IS A REBAR W/CAP
NEAR OLD TOE RIVER ROAD
13114 AN ELEVATION OF 3625.66'
4. 100 YEAR FL000 ELEVATION a 3574.00.
ir
\\\\
\\\\\
\\�` 36�D6 B7pz\\\\\\
\\\\ ` N
\S\9`\ \\\\ �\
'-3584 \ \ \ \\�\
TOP
T.• _ 577.9
3385� \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\�\\ /
EL 317&Zee. °/, iv a_ �'y■1\�\� \`—=//i% �i�//�� / //// J(I I
510
TOP EL 3599.3
TOP 3593.5
CONCRETE
TOP EL 3593.5 8' PI
TREATMENT INV. 3 . • e
.€LA>
WASTE SLUDGE
HOLDING TANK
.H:• •3500•
INV. EL 3588.9
vreu
el• EL .3335.3
TREATMENT
PLANT /2
\ DLO ros R/Y6'R RD. J62a 17� II
El' PIPE / \.
36513 .MIMW5591/ •.�� /
CHAT
•
31/Y tsng.r
N LINK FENCE
\+ l
/i/�))/ 0/% b —+ +zb/u NV.//,7/4/./(4��/i/y/5T�/�/�/
\
• v / /// /
✓ `/ / /
15915
•
HOUSE _ 3559.
3593.9 �A
1✓- EL 3589.5
INV. EL 3586
7-
s --
5h6h—' /// �/
_
\ i-_ _ _ ,� a, A \ \ III 1 I 35.1..
}570 - / ` I I \\� \\\\ ROCK
``= = / (I 1 \\\\� \ \ \ TOP EL 3595.9 _
r l /v ll 1 \\ \ \\ \\ 590 �4—3588
—3592505.--
\J3,\ / I `\ ` \\\\ \�\'9'j S�Se 3se efio =—
\\\JJ3)N_ —35,87 2— --
I 1`l� \ 1 WJJy?))—3573574-
sg60—---- 0 3572—
ENTRANCE
GATE
/
/
/
RED PIN FLAG
INV. 3610.4
WV 3515.5
/' ct• i'/%n
i% j /� \
./ ,.s. .-/i/ ,l
'S�>.- //ice///- I f
' /r///j/ rrV
//�/ ////
/1 6s..5580.3
—
/7 —\� //)� 4/T
////////
_\//70042#
�\ III I /�/.•
3�
5
—3570.
Bph.dfi07.0
LKGAWO
45.
- FENCE
•O.P'
- BENCHMARK
- POWER POE
(t - LAMP POST
- OUY AN010R
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
▪ ELECTRIC 905
+0"
1555.5
- WATER VALVE
- ELECTRIC MANHOLE
- SANITARY MANHOLE
- CLEAN OUT
- SPOT ELEVATION
• - CATCH BASIN
00.5.
- DOWN SPOUT
- - CONCRETE AREA
- GATE
- SEWER VALVE
a Nitl (rSoDee ) 2K9e2eeuoccoky
•Greenv111eTennessee555505(,
',Asheville.
North Carolina
one.. (704i 253-2755 '
TetroMtwiNatellmaa
40965
37743
28601
TOWN OF NEWLAND WWTP
EXISTING WWTP
NPDES I NC0021857
SCALE. NTS DRAM BY, LEF Ch. er
Date 10/01/01 PROJECT )6 29901-01 I5G
Copyright 0 2002 Vaughn 5 Mellen NI Rights Reserved
Sheet
FIG. 2

RAW WASTEWATER FROM
THE TOWN OF NEWLAND
/7—
EXISTING
Y.N.
NEADWORKS
BAR SCREEN
AND
COY NUTOR
DECHLORINATION I
CHAMBER
AND
EFFLUENT
PWVMETER
CHLORINS
CONTACT
BASIN
HEADWORKS
PUMP
STATION
FLOW
I� . SPUTTER
BOX/METER I
T
MODULAR
TREATMENT
UNIT #1
■ HOLDING
r TANK
MODULAR
TREATMENT
UNIT # 2
EXISTING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
SUPERNATANT
PUMP
STATION
CAKE SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
T
l'J
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1) CONTRACTOR TO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND INFORMATION INCLUDED IN
THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (SEE COPY INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS).
2) INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WAS COLLECTED FROM EXISTING DRAWINGS,
INTERVIEWS AND OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF NEWLAND. CONTRACTOR
SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF ANY WORK.
ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IF LOCATION OR ELEVATION IS DIFFERENT THAN SHOWN
ON THE DRAWINGS.
3) CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 10fe F.M. (AROUND PROPOSE OXIDATOR DITCH) AND CONNECT
TO EXISTING 10" LINE TO ENABLE OPERATORS (AS SHOWN ON SHT. C-5) @ EXISTING
WWTP TO OPERATE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT.
RAW WASTEWATER FROM
THE TOWN OF NEWLAND
EKISTINC
Y.H.
0.25 AVERAGE
CURRENT DAILY
FLOW
0.25 IIIEADWORKB WITH 0.25
NEW - ..~
COMMINUTOR AND
BAR SCREEN
0.01563
MODULAR
TREATMENT`
UNIT #1
TO SEER AS
AEROBIC DIGESTER
TANK #1
0
5
0
UPGRADED
HUMOUR
PUMP
STATION
0.25
NEW
INFLUENT
FLOW METER
Y.H.
0.25
NEW
FLOW
SPUTTER BOX
0.172 INFLUENT
0.17E INFLUENT
r "1
wo
o
PROPOSED
SLUDGE RETURN
FLOW METERING
M.H.
0.03125
WASTED
0.01563
MODULAR
TREATMENT
UNIT #2
TO SEIV6 AS
�ROBIC DIGESTER
TANK #2
n
In
5
0I
PROPOSED
DIGESTED
SLUDGE
AND
SUPERNATANT
PUMP
STATION
(EXISTING
CHLORINE
CONTACT
BASIN)
EXISTING PLOW
METERING A
FLOW SPUTTER
BOX
TO BE USED AS
WASTED SLUDGE
FLOW METERING
M.H
250 CU. FT.
PER WEEK
CAKE SLUDGE TO DISPOSAL
PROPOSED
OXIDATION
DITCH #I
PROPOSED
BENAT2RING
BUILDING
PROPOSED
OXIDATION
DITCH #2
0.172
0.172
0.344
NEW
PLOW
SPUTTER BOX
0.172
0.172
0.125 SLUDGE RETURN
PROPOSED 0.02 ONCE A WEEK
SLUDGE (WHEN BELT PRESS IS RUNNING)
BELT THICKENED SLUDGE
TDLTER
PRESS
0.03125
0.03 ONCE A WEEK
(WHEN BELTPRESSIS RUNNING)
FILTRATE RETURN
PROPOSED
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER /�
PROPOSED
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER #2
0.0468E 0.25 = AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
n 0.125 ---
0.04688
T
n
0
T
0.125
4,
N
0
SUPERNATANT RETURN
PROPOSED
tRAS PUMP
STATION
0.03125
Ink
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
ULTRAVIOLET
RECYCLE WATER
EFFLUENT
DISINFECTION
PUMP
PAR58ALL
SYSTEM
STATION
FLUME
0.25 DISCHARGE TO NORTH TOE RIVER
USING EXISTING OUTFALL LINE T\
•Ge enevIllo. Kentucky •0963
(eae) 24e-eeaa
•Gr•eean= (4. 37743
Ph4Ashe Ille ( Nonth Cne•ollno 28801
vbone (704) 233-270F
ItittaigflmGMallani
TOWN OF NEWLAND WWTP
FLOW DIAGRAM / SCHEMATIC
NPDES #NC0021857
PROPOSED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SCALD N1S
Oatn 8/13/02
IRAYN BY, LCF I Ch M^
PROJECT ILL 29901-01 NSG
Coayriylt O 2002 Veuehn L NNtan All 6501, Reserved
Sheet.
FIG. 4

Additional Information -- Form 2A
Newland WWTP; NPDES Permit # NC0021857; Outfall 001
B.3 Process Flow Diagram or Schematic
The block diagrams on Figure 5 (attached) illustrate the flow process. Wastewater
collected by the regional sewer system will be received at the plant's headworks by a 12"
gravity line. Influent wastewater will go through a proposed comminutor (Muffin
Monster or equal) where solids and other large size material will be ground. The existing
manually cleaned bar screen will remain and serve as an overflow channel. The ground
wastewater will flow into the upgraded headwork's pump station and be transferred to the
new WWTP.
Pumped influent from the headworks pump station will be directed into an oversized
extended activated sludge operation unit (oxidation unit) engineered to remove biological
suspended, colloidal and dissolved matter from the wastewater stream. The oxidation'
unit, which will be operated with long hydraulic detention times, high solids retention
times, and low organic loading rates, will provide low-cost treatment, reliable
performance and operation simplicity. Effluent wastewater from the extended activated
sludge unit will then be processed by two circular center feed secondary clarifiers. All
solids and suspended growth biomass leaving the oxidation ditch with the effluent stream
should be removed at this location prior to effluent discharge.
Sludge withdrawal and return will be employed from the bottom of the clarifiers and
collected at the RAS pump station for visual inspection prior to further treatment. Two
pumps with 400 gpm capacity each (800 gpm total) will be provided. Part of the sludge
will be wasted into the digester while the remaining sludge will be recirculated back into
the oxidation ditch to maintain the desired MLSS concentration. Digested sludge from
the aerobic digester (minimum detention time of 45 days) will be fed into a proposed
sludge filter belt press for additional thickening and dewatering. Supernatant from the
filter belt press and the digester will be recirculated back into the RAS pump station and
eventually into the oxidation ditch. Before the treated wastewater is discharged into the
North Toe River, it will be disinfected using the proposed ultraviolet light disinfection
system. The flow rate of the treated wastewater will be recorded at the proposed effluent
flume prior to its release to North Toe River. Influent and effluent samplers will be
provided next to the flow measuring structures for monitoring and compliance purposes.
V&M # 29901-01

ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
NEWLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
April, 2003
(Revised October, 2003)
- Prepared By -
VAUGHN & MELTON
1318-F Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
V&M Project No. 30024-01

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Provide Basic Identification of the Project:
Name of Facility
County
Facility Address
Facility Telephone Number
EAA Preparer
Town of Newland Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Avery
P.O. Box 429
Newland, NC 28657
[phone]
Vaughn & Melton
1318-F Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact: Mike Calhoun, P.E.
[phone]
M. Wayne Robertson, P.E.
[phone]
B. Project Description & Flow Calculations:
The Town of Newland is planning an upgrade of its Wastewater Treatment Plant
from 0.32 MGD capacity to 0.60 MGD (Please see Appendix for a location map).
As early as 1997, the Town of Newland received a Notice of Violation for having
exceeded 80% of their permitted capacity. In March 1998, the Town of Newland
was cited for overflows which had occurred at its main pump station bar screens.
In March, 2001, the Town received a Notice of Violation for exceeding its
permitted capacity. Please see copies of these Notices in the Appendix.
The Town of Newland's WWTP has exceeded its design capacity on numerous
occasions for several years. As a result, a design was developed to provide the
WWTP with sufficient capacity for the expected growth of the next 20 years.
That design process is outlined in the following sections.
Population:
According to North Carolina State demographic information, the population of
the Town of Newland was 724 in 1998 (See data in Appendix). That population
grew 9.6% from April 1990 to July 1998, which represents an approximate
growth rate of 1.2% per year. If the project is assumed to be completed in 2004,
population figures for 20 years beyond that (2024) are estimated as follows.
Projected Population = 724 (1.012)1\2
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 1

In addition to the growth expected in the Town of Newland, there are other
potential sources of growth. There is a good chance that a new, 300 unit
subdivision will be developed in the area within the next few years. In addition,
the Town of Mt. Glenn has expressed an interest in connecting to the Town of
Newland's system.
Infiltration & Inflow:
Infiltration and inflow were addressed as part of the designed upgrade as well.
An estimated I&I flow of 148,100 GPD was calculated as shown in the Appendix.
To combat the problem of I&I, extensive sewer rehab is underway in a related
project to the WWTP upgrade. This project involves the rehabilitation of
approximately 10,000 feet of sewer lines in the Town of Newland. The
rehabilitation project should be completed prior to plant construction.
Flow:
NCAC T15A: 02H. 0219 stipulates a minimum design flow of 120 gpd per
bedroom, with a minimum flow per dwelling of 240 gpd. Additional bedrooms
se that flow by 120 gpd. To simplify the calculations, an average flow of
d/customer was assumed.
The sewer system currently serves 500 residential and commercial customers.
Assuming that a population growth rate of 1.2% per year will apply to customers
and that the upgrades will be completed in 2004, the number of customers
expected in 2024 is calculated as follows.
Projected customers = 500 (1.012)^2
A summary of the determination of the upgraded plant capacity of 0.600 MGD is
given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Description
Flow (GPD)
Maximum average monthly flow (past 2 years) 380,000
Customer Growth (150 customers @ 270 GPD) 40,500
Reserve (25% of maximum monthly flow) 60,000
Commercial Flow (18% of total future flow) 60,000
Future I&I ((.15) (165,500qpd)) 24,075
Total Required Capacity 564,575
Design Capacity 600,000
Peak Flow Rate (2.5 peaking factor) 1,411,437
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 2

Flow restriction devices could possibly reduce the total flow. However, as nearly
all of Newland's customers are private residences and businesses, implementation
and enforcement of a flow reduction program and would be extremely difficult.
Any flow reductions would be small at best, and due to the large uncertainties in
forecasting flow, construction economics would dictate that the plant be designed
and constructed for at least a 0.600 MGD capacity.
C. Existing Facilities:
The existing plant has a design flow of 0.32 MGD. Two modular contact
stabilization units consist of an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier and an aerobic
digester. Other components of the existing plant include an influent flow splitter
box and influent flume, a chlorination / dechlorination basin, a sludge holding
tank, sludge drying beds, a filtrate pump station, three positive displacement
blowers and other controls and equipment necessary for the operation. Some of
this equipment is 35 years old and has reached the end of its operational life.
The proposed WWTP upgrade will utilize both existing components and new
construction. The completed plant will consist of two oxidation ditches, two
secondary clarifiers, a RAS pump station, a dewatering building with a belt filter
press, and an ultraviolet disinfection system. The existing modular contact
stabilization units will be modified and utilized as aerobic digester basins. All
construction will occur on the existing site of the WWTP; no new land will be
acquired. See Appendix for diagrams of the process and site plans of the existing
and proposed conditions. A design report will be submitted with the application
for an "Authorization to Construct" permit after an NPDES permit is obtained.
In addition to the proposed upgrade at the WWTP, improvements at the
headworks pump station are also included in the proposed project. A series of 4"
to 12" sewer lines and pump stations convey flow to the headworks pump station,
which is located approximately 0.5 miles away from the WWTP. This pump
station will be upgraded with the addition of a new, 10' diameter wet well and two
new pumps. The new wet well will provide additional storage capacity. See the
Appendix for diagrams of the existing and proposed headworks.
It is anticipated that the work at the WWTP and headworks pump station will be
completed as one project. The existing WWTP and headworks will be kept
operational during construction. No phasing of construction is expected.
D. Phases:
No phasing of work is planned.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 3

II. DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives for disposal of the effluent from the proposed upgraded WWTP were
explored as described in the following sections.
• Connecting to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
• Connecting to a privately owned treatment works
• Feasibility of individual subsurface systems
■ Feasibility of community subsurface systems
• Drip irrigating — both surface and subsurface
• Spray irrigating
• Reuse
■ Surface water discharge through the NPDES program
• Any possible combination of the above options
A. Connection to a Publicly -Owned Sewer -Collection System:
The Town of Newland operates the largest sewer collection and treatment system
in Avery County. Other permitted treatment plants located within approximately
five miles of the Town of Newland and their permitted capacities are listed in
Table 2.
TABLE 2
(Source: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/docs/permits2.xls)
Owner Facility
Avery Development Corporation
GGCC Utility Inc
Linville Land Harbor Prop.
Owners Assoc.
Linville Resorts, Inc
Linville Ridge Country Club
NC DENR
Town of Crossnore
Town of Newland
Mountain Glen Golf Club
GGCC Utility Incorporated
Linville Land Harbor Poa
Linville Resorts Incorporated
Linville Ridge Country Club
Corpening Training Center
Crossnore WWTP
Newland WWTP
Permitted
Capacity
6,000
70,000
225,000
100,000
15,000
18,000
70,000
320,000
The nearby treatment facilities are primarily package treatment plant systems
which are not designed for treating high volumes of residential and commercial
sewage. The largest facility, owned by the Linville Land Harbor Property Owners
Association, has a permitted flow which is only 28% of the required flow to treat
waste streams from Newland.
No known expansions of any of the listed treatment facilities is expected to occur
in the next five years.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 4

B. Land -Based Disposal:
Several types of land disposal systems for treated effluent are available, including
low pressure pipe systems, drip irrigation, and spray irrigation systems. However,
all of these have a similar drawback when being applied to large effluent flows
such as those found in this project: Land disposal requires large areas of suitable
land.
Identification of sites for small systems (<1.0 MGD) is usually much less
complicated than that for larger systems. However, due to the steep slopes of
available land near Newland, available sites are very limited. The search begins
at the point of wastewater collection and radiates outward until one or more
potentially suitable sites have been located. The sites may be identified with the
following desirable features:
1. Fairly large tracts of undeveloped land or farms under a single ownership.
2. Land that is now or has been farmed, or is forested.
3. Location is relatively near point of wastewater collection.
4. Groundwater is more than loft (3m) deep or there is a nearby water body
that could be used to receive the under drainage needed to lower the water
table and to receive the percolated effluent.
5. Land that is already for sale or that can be bought with reasonable
negotiations.
6. Zoning that is compatible with land treatment facilities requirements, such
as areas zoned for greenbelts.
7. Existing irrigated lands (e.g., golf courses, parks, highway landscaping).
8. Access from developed roads and adequate power supply.
At this point in the site investigations neither the land treatment process nor the
total land area is known. In order to make some initial assessment of the sites,
some preliminary estimate of area is needed. Guidelines to land area needs for
preliminary site identification are provided. These values are for estimating
purposes only and must be refined before any final design.
These lands needs come from EPA Design Manual for Land Applications of
Municipal Wastewater.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 5

1) Surface Disposal:
Surface disposal considered was over -land flow and high rate spray
irrigation. Based on the EPA Design Manual, spray irrigation or other
surface disposal option would not be a viable without large holding
lagoons. Cold winters would prevent the systems from -operating during
much of the winter. A temporary pond to contain the flow from the plant
for 60 days could be sized as follows:
600,000 gal/day * (40 days) * (0.133 ft^3/gal) = 3,192,000 ft^3
The above flow would require approximately 10 acres of land with
average pond depth of 10 feet with 1.5 feet of free board.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 6

2) Subsurface Disposal:
Because of their large land requirements, subsurface disposal options such
as drip irrigation are best suited to relatively small flow unless large tracts
of suitable land are available. This land should be level, have good
permeability, and have a fairly large depth of soil above the first
impermeable layer.
The soils found at the WWTP site, as identified in the Environmental
Report, dated August 18, 2002, and prepared by the Region D Council of
Governments and Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers, are Nikwasi
sandy loam, Porters loam, Warne fme sandy loam, and Watauga loam.
A brief description of each of these soils types follows:
Soil description has been included in Appendix I.
Jim Watson, Environmental Engineer with the Tennessee Valley
Authority in Chattanooga, was contacted for information regarding drip
irrigation systems. All information utilized in the following calculations
was provided by him.
An average infiltration rate for silty loam is 0.2 gal/day/ft^2. Based on
that estimate, which would need to be confirmed by detailed soils analysis,
the land required is calculated as follows:
(600,000 gal/day) / (0.2 gal/day/ft^2) = 3,000,000 ft^2 / (43,560
ft^2/acre) = 69 acres
DENR requires a 100% reserve area for subsurface disposal
systems, so the land required is: (69 acres) * 2 = 138 acres
The Town of Newland owns only 7 acres at the WWTP site. The
land surrounding the plant is steeply sloped toward the North Toe
River. As much of this land would be within the flood plain, it
would be unacceptable for subsurface disposal. In addition, since
steeply sloping soil is less suitable to subsurface disposal, even
more land would likely be required.
Even if the land were available, costs of a subsurface disposal
would be prohibitive. In addition to the initial cost of the land, a
subsurface disposal system requires piping for emitters spaced on
2' centers, pumps, valves, and other control systems must be
installed. A typical cost for a subsurface system with a flow on the
order of 0.25 MGD is $4.00 per gallon/day. Economies of scale
could reduce this cost.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 7

However, even if the installed price were $2.00 per gallon, the
resulting cost would be:
600,000 gal/day * ($2.00/gal/day) = $1,200,000
Plus transport cost to nearest suitable site approximately 50,000
linear feet from treatment plant pump station location, at an
estimated cost of $8.00/LF, this would be $400,000.00, plus the
required 3 pump stations @ $80,000/Each or $240,000 making a
total construction cost of $1,840,000, not including primary
treatment plant cost.
This amount represents about 85% of the total expected project
cost of $2,300,000 as estimated in the Preliminary Engineering
Report dated April 28, 2000. Due to this factor and the
unavailability of land, this does not appear to be a viable option.
C. Wastewater Reuse:
Because no other facilities are located at or adjacent to the WWTP, there are no
uses for this amount of effluent on site. The WWTP is located in a rural area with
no large users such as golf courses nearby. The nearest golf course is
approximately 9 miles from the treatment plant site or 50,000 LF. The transport
cost would be the same as in item (B) or $640,000 plus $1,700,000 in facilities
improvement for pretreatment.
D. Surface Water Discharge:
1. The existing WWTP currently is permitted under NPDES Permit
#NC0021857 to discharge up to 0.32 MGD to the North Toe River.
Speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansion to 0.80 MGD were
granted by the NC DENR in a letter dated May 4, 2001 (See Appendix).
In that letter, the summer 7Q10 flow for the river at the location was
estimated as 3.3 cfs.
2. No tertiary filters have been considered due to their high cost and the lack
of a need for tertiary treatment to meet the discharge limits. A detailed
design report will be submitted with the "Authorization to Construct"
application.
3. A diagram of the proposed discharge system including outfall lines is
included in the Appendix. The discharge system includes approximately
400' of 14" gravity sewer line running from the secondary clarifiers to an
existing manhole. From here, the effluent utilizes the existing 12" gravity
discharge line to the North Toe River. Along this line, a new UV system
(Trojan System UV 3000B or equal) will disinfect the effluent, and a new
Parshall flume will monitor and record discharge flows.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 8

4. No additional land acquisition will be required for this option. The
upgrades will require approximately one-half acre of additional land; this
land is already owned by the Town.
No additional staff cost will be incurred. The discharge will not require
that any additional staff be hired.
5. Present Valve Cost Analysis:
The present valve analysis is outlined in the following:
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 9

TABLE 3
Plant Construction Cost Plus Operation & Maintenance for 20 years @ 4.5%
interest.
2,290,000 + $50,000/year
Present Worth Factor =13.0263
Present Worth = $2,941,312.50
Total Capital Cost + Operation & Maintenance
$2,500,000 + $50,000/year
Total Present Wo
Rural Development fundinuments are attached.
E. Disposal Combinations:
Since none of the disposal alternatives except surface water discharge is feasible,
no combination of alternatives will be practical to increase capacity of existing
treatment facilities.
From available information, surface water discharge is the only viable alternative.
No private or public sewer systems of a suitable size are located within five miles
of the Town of Newland's WWTP, and no upgrades of any of the existing
WWTP's have plans for upgrades. Land -based systems would require nearly 60
plus acres of suitable land, but only a few acres of land are available at the site.
No reuse of the effluent is possible because there is no need for that quantity of
effluent at the site of the WWTP or nearby. A combination of these options is not
feasible since none of the individual options are suitable. The most viable
environmental or economic alternative is to provide treatment to meet proposed
limits and use surface water disposal into the North Toe River.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 10

COST COMPARISON SUMMARY
ev
Capital Cost O&M Total
kip oo
Alternate No. 1 $4,140,000 $77,000 � $4,217,000
1° p
Alternate No. 2 $3,890,000 $77,000 0 $3,967,000
Alternate No. 3 $3,290,000 $69,500 $3,359,500
� 0
Surface Discharge $2,567,440 $ZOQ�000 3c1 ! ' $2,767,440
I o1/o°
ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON
$77/Day Slow Rate 6.30 x 106 BTU/MG x .6 = 3.78
$24.62 Rapid Infiltration 2.00 x 106 BTU/MG x .6 = 1.20
S51.08 Overhead Flow 4.15 x 106 BTU/MG x .6 = 2.49
$92.32 *Oxidation Ditch 7.50 x 10613TU/MG x .6 = 4.50
*1.0 KWH/lb. BOD
(@ 2,200 lb. BOD/MG)(0.6 MGD) = 1,320 lb. BOD/Day
= 1,320 KWH/Day
(1,320)(3412) = 4.50 x 106
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 11

COST ESTIMATE INFORMATION
TABLE 3-13
CHECKLIST OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. 1
Type of system: Slow Rate
Average flow 0.6 mgd
Analysis date 11/21/03
Total Amortized
cost, $ cost $/yr
Preapplication treatment
Pumping, screening, sedimentation, $1,200,000
n
Transmission
50,000 LF @ $8.00/LF $400,000
3 pump stations @ $80,000/LF $240,000
Storage 40 days --- 24 Mgal $1,000,000
Field preparation
Distribution --- Sprinkler $600,000
Recovery
Additional costs
SUBTOTAL $3,440,000
Service and
Interest factor at %
SUBTOTAL
*Land at 70 acres @ $10,000 /acre $700.000
TOTAL
a. Check salvage values. Table 3-14 and preceding text.
b. Section 3.7.1.3.
*Allows for storage.
Additional guidelines for service life of irrigation system components are given in
Table 3-14.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 12

COST ESTIMATE INFORMATION
TABLE 3-13
CHECKLIST OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. 2
Type of system: Rapid Infiltration
Average flow 0.6 mgd
Analysis date 11/21/03
Total Amortized
cost, $ cost $/yr
Preapplication treatment
Pumping, screening, sedimentation,
primary
$1,200,000
Transmission
50,000 LF @a, $8.00/LF $400,000
3 pump stations c $80,000/LF $240,000
Storage 40 days --- 24 Mgal $1.000,000
Field preparation
Distribution System $600,000
Recovery
Additional costs
SUBTOTAL $3 440 000
Service and
Interest factor at
SUBTOTAL
*Land at 35 acres @ $10,000 /acre $350.000
TOTAL
a. Check salvage values. Table 3-14 and preceding text.
b. Section 3.7.1.3.
*Allows for storage.
Additional guidelines for service life of irrigation system components are given in
Table 3-14.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 13

COST ESTIMATE INFORMATION
TABLE 3-13
CHECKLIST OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [481
Alternative No. 3
Type of system: Over -land flow
Average flow 0.6 mgd
Analysis date 11/21/03
Total Amortized
cost, $ cost $/yr
Preapplication treatment
Pumping, screening, comminution $500,000
Transmission
50,000 LF @ $8.00/LF $400,000
3 pump stations @ $80,000/LF $240,000,
Storage 40 days --- 24 Mgal
Field preparation
Distribution System
Recovery
Additional costs
$1,000,000
$600,000
$100,000
SUBTOTAL $2,840,000
Service and
Interest factor at %
SUBTOTAL
*Land at 45 acres @ $10,000 /acre $450,000
TOTAL
a. Check salvage values. Table 3-14 and preceding text.
b. Section 3.7.1.3.
*Allows for storage.
Additional guidelines for service life of irrigation system components are given in
Table 3-14.
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 14

TABLE 3-15
CHECKLIST OF ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. Surface Discharge Average flow 0.6 Mgal/d
Type of system: Oxid-Ditch Analysis date: 11/21/03
Annual Cost, $
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
1-Operator; 2 Helpers
Transmission
65 000 $22,000 $87,000
$10.000 $12,000 $22,000
Storage Mgal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Revenues
Land lease
SUBTOTAL $109,000
TOTAL
a. Section 3.7.1.4
*Power @ 0.07 KWH
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 15

TABLE 3-15
CHECKLIST OF ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. 1 Average flow 0.6 Mgal/d
Type of system: Analysis date: 11/21/03
Annual Cost, $
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
$35.000 $15,000 $50.000
$10,000 $12,000 --------- $22,000
Storage Mgal $5,000, $0.00 $0.00
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Revenues
Land lease
SUBTOTAL $77,000
TOTAL
•
a. Section 3.7.1.4
*Power @ 0.07 KWH
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 16

TABLE 3-15
CHECKLIST OF ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. 2 Average flow 0.6 MgaI/d
Type of system: Analysis date: 11/21/03
Annual Cost, $
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
$35,000 $15,000 $50,000
$10,000 $12,000--------- $22,000
Storage Mgal $5,000 $0.00 $5,000
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Revenues
Land lease
SUBTOTAL $77,000
TOTAL
.40
a. Section 3.7.1.4
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 17

TABLE 3-15
CHECKLIST OF ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No. 3 Average flow 0.6 Mgal/d
Type of system: Analysis date: 11 /21 /03
Annual Cost, $
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
1— Employee
$35,000 $7,500 $42,500
Transmission
Power $10,000 5.12,001 --------- $22,000
Storage Maintenance
Distribution
Mgal $5.000 $0.00 $5,000
Recovery
Additional costs
Revenues
Land lease
SUBTOTAL $69,500
TOTAL
a. Section 3.7.1.4
PROJECT #30024-01 10/03 PAGE 18

Town of Newland
301 Cranberry St.
P.O. Box 429
Newland, NC 28657
Date: 11/20/2003
V&M Project No: 30024-01
Project: 0.6 MGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OXIDATION DITCH
Item: Description: Unit: Quantity: Unit Price:
1. Bond and Insurance & General Conditions LS 1 $37,600.00
2. Layout LS 1 $3,760.00
3. Site Preparation & Erosion Control LS 1 $11,750.00
4 Storm Drainage LS 1 $11,750.00
5. Demolition LS 1 $9,400.00
6. Strip & Stockpile Topsoil LS 1 $18,800.00
7. Excavate Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $23,500.00
8. Backfill Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $4,700.00
9. Excavate Clarifiers LS 1 $20,680.00
10. Backfill Clarifiers LS 1 $3,760.00
11. Excavate Digesters LS 1 $21,620.00
12. Backfill Digester LS 1 $11,280.00
13. Excavate Pump Station LS 1 $5,640.00
14. Backfill Pump Station LS 1 $2,820.00
15. Excavate Headworks & Grit LS 1 $2,820.00
16. Backfill Headworks & Grit LS 1 $1,880.00
17. Excavate UV Channel LS 1 $2,820.00
18. Backfill UV Channel LS 1 $1,880.00
19. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $23,500.00
20. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, Clarifier LS 1 $28,200.00
21. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, Digester LS 1 $14,100.00
22. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, Pump Station LS 1 $9,400.00
23. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, Headworks LS 1 $18,800.00
24. Process Yard Pipe & Valves, UV LS 1 $18,800.00
25. Process Yard Pioe & Valves, Misc. LS 1 $18,800.00
26. Flushing Water System Yard Piping LS 1 $9,400.00
27. Temporary Yard Piping LS 1 $9,400.00
28. Yard Piping Tie -Ins and Manholes LS 1 $11,280.00
29. Concrete Work, Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $582,800.00
30. Concrete Fillets, Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $14,100.00
31 Concrete Work, Clarifiers LS 1 $245,340.00

Item: Description: Unit: Quantity: Unit Price:
32. Concrete Work, Digester LS 1 $136,300.00
33. Concrete Work, Pump Station LS 1 $56,400.00
34. Concrete Work, Headworks LS 1 $70,500.00
35. Concrete Work, UV LS 1 $12,220.00
36. Concrete Work, Misc. LS 1 $24,440.00
37. Precast Pump Station LS 1 $29,140.00
38. Masonary LS 1 $13,160.00
39. Metals, Oxidation Ditch LS 1 $47,000.00
40. Metals, Clarifiers LS 1 $2,820.00
41. Metals, Digester LS 1 $8,460.00
42. Metals, Pump Station LS 1 $11,280.00
43. Metals, Headworks LS 1 $6,580.00
44. Metals, UV LS 1 $2,820.00
45. Metals, Yard & Misc. Items LS 1 $4,700.00
46. Carpentry LS 1 $9,400.00
47. Damproofmg @ Pump Station LS 1 $2,820.00
48. Roofing and Sheet Metal LS 1 $9,400.00
49. Doors and Walk Thru LS 1 $4,700.00
50. Doors, Overhead LS 1 $4,700.00
51. Windows & Glass LS 1 $2,820.00
52. Painting , LS 1 $29,140.00
53. Specialty Items LS 1 $4,700.00
54. Return Sludge Pumps LS 1 $10,340.00
55. Digester Sludge Pump LS 1 $6,580.00
56. Scum Mixer • LS 1 $3,760.00
57. Rotary Drum Screens LS 1 $49,820.00
58. Spiral Press LS 1 $25,380.00
59. Blowers, Digester (Centrifugal) LS 1 $27,260.00
60. Blowers, Grit LS 1 $10,340.00
61. Clarifiers, Weirs & Baffles LS 1 $74,260.00
62. Oxidation Ditch Rotors LS 1 $170,140.00
63. UV Equipment LS 1 $65,800.00
64. Static Grit Screen LS 1 $10,340.00
65. Air Diffusion Equipment, Digester LS 1 $12,220.00
66. Air Diffusion Equipment, Grit LS 1 $11,280.00
67. Headworks Pumps LS 1 $18,800.00
68. SCADA System LS 1 $43,240.00
69. HVAC in Sludge Building LS 1 $4,700.00
70. Small Process Piping, Interior LS 1 $7,520.00

71. Grit Eduction Piping
Item:
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Description:
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Inside Iron Pipe & Valves,
Electrical
Sludge Building
Totals
Oxidation Ditch
Clarifier
Digester
Pump Station
UV
Headworks
LS 1 $9,400.00
Unit: Quantity: Unit Price:
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
LS 1
$5,640.00
$3,760.00
$9,400.00
$5,640.00
$1,880.00
$3,760.00
$240,000.00
$42,300.00
$2,567,440.00

APPENDIX
Location of Proposed WWTP Upgrades
Notices of Violation
Demographic Data
Infiltration and Inflow Calculations
Process Diagram
Existing WWTP
Proposed WWTP Upgrade
Existing Headworks Pump Station Upgrade
Proposed Headworks Pump Station Upgrade
Speculative Effluent Limits
Cost Estimate Information
Funding Information
EPA Design Manual — Tables and Guidelines

TopoZone - The Web's Topographic Map
wysiwyg://1 Uhttp://www.topozone.com/printasp?z=17&n=3993817&e=4 I 6495
• r
1. C OM
Target
is UTM
kt, ff V* :t‘•*Z4',LX;V:
zonacam.
40% 00 Mais:a
',•••:: A
•
0
meters I
0
mil es 1
, 2000
' ;',1:::',,, ;•.:,n
•
nhilel.lheonstaoro,) 2Kenary 40963
*Greeneville, Tennessee 37743
phoest (42a) 030-0271
*Asheville, North Corollna 29801
Phems. [phone]
Via BM li 1 I galepalliCO
Town of Newland ITTITTP
Facility Location Map (Newland Quad)
NPDES #NC0021857
SCALD Az Katy d
DRAWN 3Yi USG.1
Oka BY'
NA
SHEET'
Fig. 1
DATE 08/13/02
PRILECT NW E9901-01
4000 6000
2.0 4.0
8000
1

State of North Carolina •
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER. QUALITY SECTION
June 18, 2001
The Honorable Beatrice W. Daniels, Mayor
Town of Newland
Post Office Box 586
Newland, North Carolina 28657
Dear Mayor Daniels:
i
v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Effluent Limitations
NPDES Permit Number NC0021857
Town of Newland
Avery County
Review of subject self -monitoring report for the month of March,
2001, revealed a violation(s) of the following parameter (s) :
Reported Limits
Pipe Parameter Value/Unit Value/Unit
001 Flow 0.326 MGD 0.320 MGD
Remedial actions if not already implemented, should be taken to
correct the problem(s). The Division of Water Quality may pursue
enforcement actions for this and any additional violations of State
Law. If you have questions or if you need assistance, please call
Mr. Mike Parker at 828/251-6208.
Sincerely,
orrest R. Westall
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
xc: Avery County Health Department
Mike Parker
CQ I!UI.I.AJ:.. Dt,, ._ • _i._..:*i_ •tnnn•
TO
•
I•41, et alb dm

e .17' 19d3 I G: 23"pp.7
State of North Carolina
Department of nvironrrient
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 22,1999
CERTIFIED MAR.
JETr_mRN RECEIPT REOlg..STED
Mr. Cecil Lewis
P. O, Box 429
Newland, NC 28657
TO
DENFI
Subject: Demonstration of Future Wastewater Treatment Capacities
r ' NPDES Peimit Na: NC0021857 • • _ _ .. _
Town of Newland WWII) •
Avery County
Dear Mr. Lewis :
P.0.2
1 SA NCAC 2H .0223, "Demonstration of Future Wastewater Treatment Capacities," was
adopted by the Environmental Management Commission to ensure that wastewater nutmeat
systems owned or operated by municipalities, counties, sanitary districts or public utilities do not
exceed their hydraulic treatment capacities. This Rule specifies that no permits for sewer line
extensions will to issued by the Division of Water Quality to facilities exceeding 80% of their
hydraulic treatment capacity unless specific evaluations of futiur wastewater treatment needs
have been completed.
A review of your self -monitoring reports has indica±ed that the subject facility exceeded
the 80% value for calendar year 1997. The average flow calculated for this period was 0.2612
MGD, and repitsented 81.62`70 of the current treatment capacity. Therefore, we will be unable
to approve any further sewer line extensions for this facility until such time as you have complied
wide' the requirements.contained in the Rule.
In order to remain in compliance with the Rule., you must submit an approvable
engineering evaluation of future wastewater treatment needs. This evaluation must outline
specific plans for system expansion and including the sources- of funding for the expansion. If
future expansion is not proposed, a detailed justification must be made based on past growth
records and future growth projections and, as appropriate, shall include conservation plans or
other specific measures to achieve waste flow reductions.
To prevent delays in the processing of your future permit applications for sewer Line
extensions, please submit a plan of action containing the -information necessary to comply with
the appropriate demonstrations as described above to the following address:
P.O. Box 29535, Ralkieh, North Carolina 27626' 0535 Tolophone 919.733-7015 FAX [phone] '
An Equal OpportunityAtllrrnative Ac11: n Employer 60% rticyclad/ 10% post -consumer paper
w

GI'I7 1900 16126 FROM
70
DENR-DW Q
Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Per the terms of NCAC 2H. 0223 (3), the Director may, on a case by case basis, allow
permits to be issued to facilities exceeding the 80 percent loading rate if; 1) the additional flow
will not cause the facility to exceed its permitted hydraulic capacity, 2) the facility is in
compliance with all other permit limitations and requirements and 3) it is demonstrates that
adequate progress is being made in developing the required engineering evaluations or plans and -
speci5cations. If you wish to ask for lifting of the moratorium per this provision of the rule,
please send information id support of your request to the address listed above.
As always, the actual plans and specifications for expansion should be submitted to the
NPDES Permit Unit of the Water Quality Section.
-forward"ta Wo I g TAH*"AT verdp t 'oi y5UL:. rt
treatment feeds. if you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the
Water Quality Scction staff of our Asheville Regional Office at [phone] or Mr, Bob
Sledge of the Point Source Compliance/Enforcement Unit,'at [phone], extension 547.
ce: Asheville Regional Office
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
Compliance/Enforcement Files
Central Files
Sincerely,
Ct ecn H. Su114fis,`Chief
Water Quality Section

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
James D. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division
of Water Quality
March 20, 1998
Nonni CmtoutJA Duo ar
etIVU OHM r its Naaurw. Re*ulrtcrs
The Honorable Beatrice Daniels, Mayor
Town of Newland
Post Office Box 429
Newland, North Carolina 28657
Subject: NOTICE OF 'VWL TION
Illegal Discharge of Wastewater
Sewer Line Overflows
Town of Newland
Avery County
Dear Mayor Daniels:
The Division of Water Quality has recently received several
complaints concerning the overflow of wastewater from the Town of
Newland's sewerage system at the bar screen unit at the Town's
main pump station. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Mike Parker,
Environmental Chemist, Division of Water, discussed this matter
with Mr. C. L. Lewis at the Town Hall and asked him to
investigate this matter and to submit information concerning the
overflows on the Sanitary Sewer, Pump Station and WWTP Spill or
Bypass Report Form. In September 1997, the Town of Newland was
sent a letter from Mr. Preston Howard, Director, Division of
Water Quality, outlining.the reporting requirements for
wastewater overflows and bypasses. A copy of the reporting form
was included with Mr. Howard's letter. For your information I am
enclosing another copy of the reporting requirements.
After receiving additional complaints concerning wastewater
overflows from the pump station area, Mr. Parker conducted an
investigation on March 13, 199B. The results of that
investigation found that the concrete structure housing the bar
screens had recently overflowed and there was also evidence of an
overflow from the manhole between the bar screen structure and
the main pump station. It appears that these sewerline overflows
made their way to the North Toe River, Class C--trout waters.
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Epusl Opportunity AtfittnitiVs Action ErrlpiaWar

Honorable Beatrice Daniels
March 20, 1998
Page Two
These overflows onto the ground and into state surface
waters constitute a violation of N. C.. General Statute 143-215.1
(a)(1), by creating an outlet into waters of the State without a
permit. The Town of Newland is also in violation of NPDES Permit
No. NC0021857, Part II, Section C. 4. c. for failure to notify
the Division of Water Quality of these bypasses. These
violations may result in enforcement actions being taken against
the Town of Newland.
. This is a very -serious situation that could result in health
hazards to persons coming into contact with untreated sewage and
should be considered as an emergency any time a sewerline
overflows. It is requested that the Town of Newland submit a
written response to this office by March 31, 1998, explaining
what caused the overflows, providing records of all sewerline
overflows since October 1, 1997,(en the sewerline overflow
reporting form), an explanation as to why these overflows were
not reported to the Division of Water Quality and the actions the
Town is taking to prevent future overflows.
If you have questions, please contact Mr. Mike Parker at
704/251-6208.
Sincerely,
Roy M. Davis, Regional Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
xc: C. L. Lewis
Don Safrit
Avery County Health Dept.
Mike Parker

'1)9 3 Mun*clpal ropulanon tS11111ates
It ip::iwww.CSp1.statc.nc.us.0 rno2:=I...lzn.ot9�,ni.
d'A" r,rk u,, +r.t..y r. t s.
1998 Municipal
Office of State Planning
opulation Estimates
(to open/download as Excel Spreadsheet, click here)
MUNICIPALITY
abcdefghijk1mn©pgrstuvwx
APR 1990- JUL. 199a
% GROWTH
ABERDEEN 2,717 3,695 36.0
AHOSKIE• 4r535 4r265 -6.0
ALAMANCE 258 292 13.2
ALBEMABLG 14,940 15,828 5.9
ALLIANCE 681 672 -1.3
ANDRETWS 2,551 1, a32 -28.2
ANGIER 2,235 3,027 35.4
AMSONVILLE 630 611 -3.0
APEX 4,789 14,640 205.7
ARAPAHOE 45.4 4 63 2.9
ARCHDALE 6,975 8,652 24.0
ARLIINGTON 795 , 867 p .1
ASHEBORO 16,362 19,144 17.0
ASHEVLLLE . 61,855. 68,234 10.4
ASKEWVILLE 201 201 0.0
ATKINSON. 275 319 1.0
ATLANTIC BEACH 1,938 2,297 18.5
AULANDER . 1 r 209 . 1,1a7 -1. 8
AURORA 654 649 -0.8
IITRYVILLE 177 210 1q.6
AYDEN 4,883 4,430 -9.3
...return to index
BADIN 1,360. 1,390. 2.2
BAILEY 553 553 0.0
BAKERSVIL,LE 332 331 -0.3
BALD HEAD ISLAND 78 138 76.9
BANNER ELK* 933 90? -2.8
BATH 154 196 27.3
BAYBORa ' 733 761 4.8
BEAR GRASS 77 77 0.0
BEAUFORT• 3,008. 3, 99-5• 2.3
BEECH MOUNTAIN 239 273 14.2
BELHAVEN • 2,269. 2,261- -0.4
BELMONT 8,434 8,456 0.3
BELVILLE 66 107 62.1
BELWOOD 631 677 7.3
BENSON. 3,044 3,673 20.9
BERMUDA RUN 1,556 1,802 15.8
BESSEMER CITY 4,698 4,936. 5.1
BETHANIA 347 293 -15.6
BETHEL 1,842 1,731. -6.0
BEULAVILLE 933 1,199 28.5
BILTHORE FOREST 1, 324 1, 32 9 9.3
BISCOE 1,496 1,661 11.0
BLACK. CREEK 669. 711. 6-3
1 of ID 3/11/0012:12 AA'

998 Municipal Population tsnmates
llitl,.' .tivw.I,ikn.a►a:►c.u1..uuaiu141.4. ttlilul70.ii::
' NEWLAND 645 707 9.6
NEWPORT 2,516 3,004 19.4
NEWTON 9,077 12,270 35.2
NEWTON GROVE 511 548 7.2
NORLIMP► 996 1,061 6.5
NORMAN 105 94 -10- 5
NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH 947 1,120 18.3
NORTH WILKESBORO 3,384 3,827 13.1
NORTHWEST 611 806 31.9
NORWOOD 1,617 2,475 53.1
...return to index
OAK CITY 389 377 -3.1
OAK ISLAND 4,550 6,229 36.9
OAK RIDGE 2,322 2,548 9.7
OAKBORO 600 1,360 126.7
OCEAN. ISLE BEACH 523 736 40.7
OLD FORT 732 1,009 37.8
ORIENTAL 786 677 11.6
ORRUM 103 100 -2.9
OXFORD 7,965 8r883 11.5
...return to index
FANTEGO• 171 168 -1.8
PARKTON 367 352 -4.1
PARMELE 321 304 -5.3
PATTERSON SPRINGS 690 747 8.3
PEACHLAND 505 493 -2.4
PELETIER 304 . 342 12.5
PEMBROKE 2,241 2,668 19.1
PIKEVILLE 598 774 29.4
PILOT MOUNTAIN 1,181 1,229 4.1
PINE KNOLL SHORES 1,360 1,635 20.2
PINE LEVEL 1,212. 1,480 21.6
PINEBLUFF 876 980 11.9
PINEHURST 5, 091 8,314 63.3
PINETOPS 1,514 1,531 1.1
PINEVILLE 2,910 3, 632 22.3
PINK HILL 547 567 3.7
PITTSBORO 1,621 2,126 31.2
PLEASANT GARDEN 3,921 4,380 11.7
PLYMOUTH 4,328 3, 86.3 -10.7
POLKTON 662 646 -2.4
POLKVILLE 1,514 501 -66.9
POLLOCKSVILLE 299 283 -5.4
POWELLSVILLE 279 265 -5.0
PRINCETON 1,181 1,561 32.2
PRINCEVILLE 1,652 2,134 29.2
PROCTORVILLE 168 172 2.4
...return to index
RAEFORD 3,469 4,098 18.1
RALEIGH 212,092 269,211 26.9
RAMSEUR 1,186 1,585 33.6
RANDLEMAN 2,612 3,181 21.8
RANLO • 1, 650 2, 09 4 26.9--
RAYNHAM 106 117 10.4
RED OAK 280 2,602 829.3
RED SPRINGS 3,799 3,899 2.6
REIDSVILLE 12r183. 14,307 17.4
RENNERT 217 238 9.7
RHODHISS 638 759 19.0
7 of 10
3/31/00 1:20 AN.

aunicpal rer3011b12 stJUJOHURI
•
Milt., leo ev en, UW.114.1Iz. 111111.11.r14..4.!
Office of State Planning
Municipal Persons/Household Values
Values are from 1990 Census except as noted.
IMUNICIPALITY :1COUNTY
IABERDEEN .
1A.HOSKIE
ALAMANCE
ilMOORE
1HERTFORD i 2.4070!
;IALAMANCE I2.3O36:
!
112 32151
•IALBEMARLE
:iSTANLY 12.37911
iALEXANDER MILLS ,IRUTHERFORD 2.3728:
.rAILIANCE
-IANDREWS
PAMLICO
CHEROKEE
ANGTER
:FANSONVILLE
•IAPEX
t•• HARNETT
.iANSON
;WAKE
2.5129:
: 2.36622.7957
12.4750!
0246!
;ARAPAHOE
PAMLICO 12.4571!
IARCHDALE
..-
.1ARLINGTON
.1ASHEBORO
:16 .
'ASHEVILLE
IASKEWVILLE
ilATLANTIC BEACH
IAULANDER
'rAURORA
AUTRYVILLE
iiGU1LFORD 2.8540:
IRAND-• OLPH -12.4550:
2 '874:
i.11Y.in_91-4'.1-3: • 'il?....?.4.77)
'!BUNCOMBE
;IBERTIE Ft2.48151
,1PENDER • ;12.3109!
:!CARTERET 2.01821
.1IBERTIE .
IBEAUFQRT 6112.5154!
SAMPSON
:IAYDEN
'IBAILEY
iiBAICERSVILLE
IBALD HEADISLAND ilBRUNSWICK J2.0OOO;
!IpANNER ELK
. .
BATH • !IBEAtiFORT
1113.." PAMLICO q2.54421
1 2.2740i
2.6379:
i12.25711
2.2027
jPITT
:571A-SH
MITCHELL
AVERY i 2.0798!
1.9012;
1 of 16
3/31/00 1:33 AM

;e:n�cil:ui rersonw „uu:..moiu
llll�f.'. \tip%fV.v.1.1.s.aww.$n..0 .uIcuusu,aulIijq.u.i:.;.,
iivaNT
]MOCKSVILLE
.IMOMEYER
:IMONROE
•
:IDAV E j2.33I9;
;INASH .. 12.1811:
UNION 2. 673 6.
;IMONTREAT
;IMOORESBORO
: MOORESVILLE-
•!MOREHEAD CITY
.1MORGANTON
:fMORRISVILLE
IMORVEN
;MOUNT AIRY
;1MOUNT GILEAD
:MOUNT HOLLY
tMOUNT OLIVE
•;MOUNT PLEASANT
:MURFREESBORO
:=MURPHY
INAGS BEAD
:INASHVJLLE
NAVASSA
WAKE j2.4627
'IANSON 2 6697
ESUItRY 2.1727i
"IMONTGOMERY j 2.6646
IGASTON 2.4751
ID LIN 1:0000
F'rYAYNEI2.440'
rICABARRUS ••••12.4452
!HERTFORD .2.3337;
. [CHEROKEE t2. 75I 8
!PARE . . .. { 2.2396I
',PASH 12.6159:
[BRUNSWICK =j3.2963
:;NEW BERN
: NNEWLAND
•INEW LONDON
iNEWPORT
1CRAVEN
•AVERY
.ISTANLY
•
2.33011
[2.2430
2.6203
NEWTON
;;NEWTON .GROVE
BUNCOMBE 121768!
ICLEVELAND 12.3333'.
IIR.EDELL 1I2.5i!
:ICARTERET = 2.1480
`IBURKE ...... ...122503i
'IDURHAM2.4627;
1
;4CARTERET JI2.6040I
I.CATAWBA . _ I2.
........ ..
=(SA..,.-.MPSON 2.49271
''WARREN 12.3171
?NOR MAN.. . [R1CHMOND. I2.3 333
:NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH;ION OW i2.0720:
: NO TH i ILK SBORO I[WILKES 12.2148i
INORWOOD STANLY 2.5707
[OAKB0R0 ijSTANLY =12.5862=
FI OAK CITY ...... _ ... .. . RTIN . .. ..2.64.63•
=OCEAN ISLE BEACH :JBRUNSWICK 2.1612
: NORLINA
'IMECKLENBURG:I2.90,12,
•3 !
I 0 a£ l6 3/3 U00 1107 A M.

Graphical determination of 1/I
1. Theoretical wastewater production rate =
Average daily water consumption minus 10% consumptive loss.
Average daily water consumption =125,000 GPD (from 1998 NCLM water and sewer
rates and services survey (see attachments)
125,000 - (10%) (125,000) = .112,500 GPD
2. I/I determination:
The reported daily flowrate to the Newland Wastewater Treatment Plant was plotted
versus time on the attached graph. The theoretical wastewater production rate was
subtracted from all the reported flowrates during the last two years. The number of days
flow exceeded the 112,500 GPD theoretical wastewater production rate was 384. The
difference between the reported daily flowrate and the theoretical wastewater production
rate is the daily I/1 contribution. The total (cumulative flow in excess of 112,500 GPD)
I/1 contribution during those 384 days was 56.863 million gallons.
3. Therefore average daily I/1 contribution = 56.863 million gallons
384 days
Average daily I/1= 148,100 GPD
V&M Project No. 29901-01

1997 Flowrate and Precipitation
Town of Newland
()MC%?r 4610,
r
1.4._
a 1.3
(.91.2_ 11.1 --- _--__----.— i
.—. I .0 L 1 I I.
I .-Al T—
L2 0 9 __ -------11-11-L--------i- ______I_I• ........ I _•____1...__________
- 0 0.8 _..........Frivit.... li_L 1
I I I i
0.6 PdFfh—+rIH--f- iLV..._I7--
1
V i1 s= i• �
, iIi IL;
•
-., ,! I i i i
0.5.�
i . / 7 , 1I 1
r 1t/�� ' 4I ! i ! Jyij i•4 fr{t1v7'-Ii-'rfr-4-
_1— — ;------- -- ---- —. -� LIP ! — --- ---- —•—. —
0.3
it_ir__., ft t__ri_._
ir+. .;
1.
i !r41..l t., Al if VI }�• S ` ,�'� ( 1 1#1 •♦ i� j ' 1iI. 1
4[14-5." t ti Ti --+ : _ 1 1 :! �! •�. # •il . k, t 1 `.1 �, '��i 1 , . P 1 1 t
`.2 0.1 _jiI, ,r_ ,� 1-. f -Tr 1r . r f i ,k ii'l 11_-_ - � it ; - _� _ _ ,..•.t jf . _7_ .f ;▪ II• _. �! :i tt J--IL_- r I �) IJ i 1 ( r ,.-� .r•,� ,.. ,
.?
li
. 41--
-�'1' .1 rrfislt i. r4, nlrN '0:r:"1 a 1�yi:G4�lryiFil�l! rip 'I! l cj i'!!1'P� :rr "_:1* ,,r t1: 1 s ( ► _ ii
!, . , 7..I • ,10E4 401/4:01 P • i P 1 i! •I. I. it !11 •:111 r;1:111?sr 1 r:urr: ' 1• :' 11 a. 13 r
O . 0 1,3ssld lip d.;! ' !JP d °rl!��9 "l.ilss ! . s � " !Pill x iiil:r� " i; I,'I!: �i`:1�1p��..,i��111:,!s,.{{�a �.°•I;ri! rl� ' ::hl :!l�'�, }s.! yt.7tlrtiwLlsa ss•r��ir�7;L' [t: 1.. t,1a _ ill ' I:.I iui1 . , 114-titli >,dl ! is sE. diiEG_llssdlE � 13 t . ! PEI 111111 lPIP11si;,s11C&IIi111i sr i 11110 • alt1 IL Wait M'Miil:I.411ii:iiiidi al•itli1N�11li r.•:rlttili• "'r: ° ~•• ••
1 17 2186 22723925102612281329143016117319.�dl �It:l, 33311=ld�:
Time in days
ir
r j
Daily Precipitation, inches

0.8
0.6
0
0
0.4
0
0.2 .
1997 & 1998 Fiowrate vs Time
Q\ecok 0 04 c.fitt,0 ,k y,, . i .t r
10 a 1 . ` it'i t :s v / F i.
•
•
"cr."�+�w.w..�.sr.�e_.rsi. LAM..1�i�.v.wr��.r�.r• v▪ �r��+•��,y.:..+
11Ae.ot (ktcOk. ke�J cult /r
•
Y •
Ps
�j� �3 Wray I n �j ire I • u f a� 11 �� � EM
i !
0 �lflf!Ik !ii! i �1f�l I liil.�ii6l1�I! f�� ' I!�! . rii`Ilil� , i ■ i i ,! ! i _.i �i 413'1
,r �) ! i r ! i1lU )i1) i f�) �� d; . ? 01208271862514221102617522-i-62") )iu>;� 0 9281642314221102917625
13
Time in days

1998 Flowrate and Precipitation
Town of Newland
2.4 2.2
2.0 -
1.8
0 1.6
1.4
2:1.2
g 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4'
0.2
0.0.
4
I
I ' ull"LIFl .i --�1ti ii •
• ii' 1 1
li1 1-\Ii ,I•
._N I \--
1��• 1 1 I 11-- -A--- •
r`
....,...4 4 ri: 1 r------- -i-.- ---- -17-- -- - - r..1....._.•__• ••_....--
4 tl I ;
\ . ..•
I : 1 ti t I
PP
:11_......._.. _.
' •.• : i; I r ....._.,..
,,,,
4 1
i' 1! i t ; I 1, , ,,, ,„ yt j• I �•• • i I ` •`-�!i ., ........ 4, • [ 1 i „.. I••••. \R':
Ste!I -- -�.- �; -.. • L 1«.� .:,,s�;. y..1.� ' —•i �!t 7 J
i v
il _.,
•:m 1p i , i ! II . ! ; 1 •1 I •1 1 . t•: tt'! • 1 1 1 J 1 ••j III t t i ....!i 1 t t 11!•'I:'::l•t Il• ire.•••I..i '•� (11.1• S :.I ih.
iiljit„s i II!•1 11! i iit� !�; !iiiliti�!II jl 11:11'�I lil li +.! t .itl: iillli!I ! iS Itli. !i!1 = t II i' ! t;ji!tiii::,ijtut ill1 IS:l1'I31.l,�::. , I , !i I•!1.1 " 1! , 1 ,!) 1 1 �,.•,;•il+.+;4,
I s. t !I, : t •i1 1i t• 1 : •il ;i'f !! • ` . ! i t'• p t r• , i t 1 : .•!•:.,•.. ,
!•i.tlill:!ili+ilia..1111lii}}tiiji!!�l:it..}illijt I��t Illilll,il.�;ist.�iir:.ltill;�ii!!ilili!!i�!llilii:li�l;il.�il.t. ht !lUil,}ilillll :di uil!tli:..iltuliiiilil.il!!tttfi.Il�ti.!II•I:tStl•i!Iliilllit�� !tip+!li�.l:•ul.!•i.
a)
0
• tnr.
0
1 1223 3 1425 8 19301021 2 1324 4 1526 7 1829 9 2031
Time in days

3.7.1 Cost Estimating
Factors that influence both capital and operation and maintenance costs are discussed in the
following paragraphs. Only a few cost figures are actually presented, but references are made to
specific sources of cost information. Because the cost effectiveness of land treatment is
sensitive to land cost, a separate discussion for estimating this item is included. Methods of
evaluating revenues and a discussion of tradeoffs that are unique to land treatment cost analysis
are also discussed.
3.7.1.1 Capital Costs
Curves for capital costs are available in Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application
[48] .The Stage II curves are recommended in conducting cost estimates. Although the base date
for these curves was February 1973, they should not be arbitrarily updated by conventional
cost indexes. A comparison of unit costs for key items, such as earthwork and continuous -move
sprinkling equipment, may provide a more reasonable estimate of the increase in current local
prices over the prices of February 1973 [49] .
Components that might be used for preapplication treatment include primary sedimentation and
aerated lagoons. Their capital costs can be determined from published cost curves for
conventional treatment systems [50, 51], recent construction bids, and current price quotations,
as necessary. Additional cost estimating data have beer. published for aerated lagoons because
they are commonly used in conjunction with land treatment systems [48, 52]. Costs should
include sludge handling as well as liquid processing components.
A checklist of the items requiring a capital cost estimate is provided in Table 3-13. These should
be completed for each alternative system.
Salvage values at the end of the planning period for structures and equipment should be based on
expected service life. Appendix A of 40 CFR 35 [45] specifies service lives to be used in Section
201 facilities planning (under PL 92-500) as follows:
Land
Structures
Process equipment
Auxiliary equipment
3-45
Permanent
30 to 50 years
15 to 30 years
10 to 15 years

TABLE 3-13
CHECKLIST OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No.
Type of system
Average flow mgd
Analysis date
Total Amortized
cost, $ cost $/yr
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
Storage Mgal
Field preparation
Recovery
Additional costs
SUBTOTAL
Service and
Interest factor at %
SUBTOTAL
Land at /acre
TOTAL
a. Check salvage values. Table 3-14 and preceding text.
b. Section 3,7.1.3.
Additional guidelines for service life of irrigation system components are given in Table 3-14.
3-46

TABLE 3-14
SUGGESTED SERVICE LIFE FOR COMPO—ENTS OF
AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM [53]
Service life
Hours Years
Well can casing
Pump plant housing
Pump,turbine
Bowl (about 50% of cost of pump unit)
Column, etc.
Pump, centrifugal
Power transmission
Gear head
V-belt
Flat belt, rubber and fabric
Flat belt, leather
Power units
Electric motor
Diesel engine
Gasoline or distillate
Air cooled
Water cooled
Propane engine
Open farm ditches (permanent)
Concrete structures
Concrete pipe systems
Wood flumes
Pipe, surface, gated
Pipe, water works class
Pipe, steel, coated, underground
Pipe, aluminum, sprinkler use
Pipe, steel, coated, surface use only
Pipe, steel galvanized, surface only
Pipe, wood buried
Sprinkler heads
Solid set sprinkler system
Center pivot sprinkler system
Side roll traveling system
Traveling gun sprinkler system
Traveling gun hose system
Land grading
Reservoirs
16,000
32,000
32,000
20
20
8
16
16
30,000 15
6,000 3
10,000 5
20,000 10
50,000 25
28,000 14
8,000
18,000
28,000
4
9
14
20
20
20
8
10
40
20
15
10
15
20
8
20
10-14
15-20
10
4
None
None
a. Certain irrigation equipment may have a lesser life when used in a
wastewater treatment system.
b. These hours may be used for year-round operation. The comparable
period in years was based on a seasonal use of 2000 h/yr.
c. Some sources depreciate land leveling in 7 to 15 years. However. if proper
annual maintenance is practiced, figure only interest on the leveling
costs. Use interest on capital invested in water right purchase.
d. Except where silting from watershed above will fill reservoir in an
estimated period of years.
3-47

3.7.1.2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs include labor, materials and supplies, and power costs. They
may be assumed constant for the planning period though many of the costs will vary throughout
the period, particularly those which are flow -dependent, such as power costs for aeration and
pumping, and chemical costs. if flows are expected to increase substantially during the planning
period, varying operation and maintenance costs should be analyzed on a year -by -year basis
(life -cycle cost) or by reducing the total future value of the increasing annual costs to an
equivalent annuity amount.
Preapplication treatment will require operation and maintenance labor, materials including
chemicals, and power costs. These costs can be determined from cost estimating sources for
conventional treatment processes [50, 51, 54]. Additional operation cost data on aerated
lagoons can be obtained from other sources [48]. Operation and maintenance costs for the
remaining categories can be found in reference [48]. A checklist has also been prepared for
operation and maintenance cost estimating purposes and is shown in Table 3-15.
3.7.1.3 Land Costs
3.7.1.3.1 Fee -Simple Purchase
The land category includes the cost of acquiring land for application sites, buffer zones, service
roads, storage reservoirs, preapplication treatment facilities, administrative and laboratory
buildings, and other miscellaneous facilities. Easements for transmission pipelines may also
be included in this category.
Land for preapplication treatment facilities and other permanent structures is usually purchased
outright if it is not already under control of the wastewater management agency. Several options
are potentially available for acquisition or control of the land used for the treatment process.
These include outright purchase (fee -simple acquisition), long-term lease or easement, and
purchase with leaseback of the land with no direct involvement in the management of the land. A
separate option of simply negotiating contracts with private landowners to sell or deliver
wastewater for application would eliminate land acquisition as a capital cost. According to a
recent survey, fee -simple land acquisition is preferred by most states, communities, and federal
agencies [55].
Purchase of the land provides the highest degree of control over the application sites and ensures
uninterrupted land availability for both short-term and long-term planning. In many cases,
3-48

TABLE 3-15
CHECKLIST OF ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS [48]
Alternative No.
Type of system
Average flow • Mgal/d
Analysis date
Annual Cost, $
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
Storage Mgal
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Revenues
SUBTOTAL
Land lease
TOTAL
a. Section 3.7.1.4
purchase will be more economical than leasing or easements. For this option, land acquisition is
treated as a simple capital expenditure.
For projects eligible for PL 92-500 construction grant funding, purchase of land to be used as an
integral part of the treatment process is eligible. Purchase and leaseback of land for agricultural
3-49

or other use involving application of wastewater would require an initial capital expenditure and
annual revenues, or negative operation costs, as discussed in a later section.
Assuming that land is purchased, the capital cost is determined simply by multiplying the total
area required by the prevailing market value. Methods of estimating the total area required have
been discussed in Section 3.3. Because the final altematives usually include specific sites, the
prevailing market value can be estimated from information supplied by a local source, such as
the tax assessor's office. In a few cases, the wastewater management agency may already control
sufficient land and acquisition is therefore eliminated as a capital cost factor.
The costs of relocating residences and other buildings must be included in the estimate of initial
costs and are highly dependent on the location. Agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and state highway departments can assist in the
estimates. For federally funded projects, the acquisition of land and relocation of residents must
be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970. In one case, relocation costs for moving approximately 200 families
averaged about $5 000 per family, plus about $300 000 for administration of the program [42].
EPA guidelines require that the salvage value of land be assumed equal to the initial purchase
price. Land values may, in fact, appreciate considerably during the planning period, particularly
if relatively undeveloped land is purchased initially.
3-50

' V4/ 11 / 1be;i 14: 21 l932669 NEWLAND
PAGE 02
Name of Applicant
TGWU of Newland
GRANT DETERMINATION `.
1rtate
NC
Try OF SERVICE : Sewer Plant Expansion and line Work
1. Median Household Income (MH1) 5 15,240.00 Percent Grunt Eligible: 75%
Source o£Mm;1990 Census Mao[ x .50% — S 76.20
C Project is necessary to alleviate a health or sanitary problem (Checked if true)
2. Interest Rate: 4.500% Number ofvea,z 40
Amoiion Factor*: 54.35
3_ Nmnber of RDU's: 684
4. Source of Funds:
USDA: $3,736,000.00
All Other: S0.00
Total: $3,736,000.00
6. Annual Debt Repayment
Attrembillfa iw l %r
Existing USDA:
Proposed Other:
Existing Other:
TOTAL:
P&I
$0.88
S0.00
S0.88
RESERVE
9. Similar Systems
Town Town orGrimesland
Northaeraptoatiincoln Park Sewer Distrlc
Town of Rutherford College
10. Avenge Annual EDU Cost Based on, Comparison:
11. Gat Based on: Percentage of Eligible inject Cost
Similar Systems:
12. Maxhrtnn USD1X, Grant 52,744,250.00
11 USDA out $2,744,000.00
5. Ineligible Project Costa
Inter $77,000
Initial O&&M:
Othec
Total: 577,000
7. Average Annual Operation
ewe Isar i lH•
O&M; $254.39
ot: sass
Toms: S255.27
S0.00 8. Reserve as s Percent of
Annual fit: 0.00%
MEI Average Annual BDU Cost
S19,500.00 S327.72
$11,042.00 S330.00
$22,700.00 S321.12
$330.00
$2,744,250.00
$2,777,031.83
S"2,795,531.92
14. Average Aanuat EDU User Cost
Based en USDA Grant: 5334.09
15. Debt Service as % of Mff1; 0.52%
Comments: Similar systems cost is the limiting factor. This applicant has *low Median Household
income and doeumeated health and sanitary violations, which must be overcome. It is
recommended that the maximum grant be given and that the borrower be charged the
Poverty Rate of Interest due to income and health and sanitary violations.
Reviewed By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
•
"The amortization Meter is based on a standard formula and may not tasctlymatch the "USDA Green Book"
ZO' d 179817 £5Z 8Z8
uog.Lew '8 ut_privA d9£=ZO co-tt--Adtf

• 04/11/2003 14:21
7332069
NEWLAND
GA...clti'T DETERMINATION C dculatik
PACE 03
APP cant
Town of Newland
Grant Based on Percentage of Eligible Project Cost;
(Project Cost - Indigibie Projcct Cost) * (Percent Gratlt Eligible) = Grant Amount
( 3 3,736,000
S 77,000 ) 0.75
• • $ 2,744,250.00
Grant Based on 1:
(U'SoA►nuids * *Amort Factor * ?sy ncnts/1►r) + Existing debt Service (EDVi " Debt Service Per EDU)
*Assort Factor • Paymeatelyr •
( 5 3,736.000 • 0.05435 * 1
+ 038 - ( 684 * 76.20 )
0.05435 " 1
Grant Based on S' System:
USDA Funds ((EDV Cost - O&M) * BDU) - Existing DS - Existing Reserve
rAntort Factor * Paymontelyr) * (1 + Reserve Perce tom)
(( 330.00 . 255.27 ) • . 684 ) - S 0.88 - 0.00
S 3,736,000.00 - -----• .....
( 0.03435 * 1) * (1 + 0.00 )
11:177;031.83
Smaller of the Following:
Amount of USDA
Maximum USDA Grant;
Maxnmam Percentage of Simflsr Systems Calculated Amount
Fundiaa Eligible Project Cost
3 3,736,000.00
3 Z.744,250.03 s 2095,331.92
Maximum Grant $ 2,744,250.00
* The 'morizetion factor fie based on a standard formals and m>ty not acidly match the "USDA Greco Book"
EO'd V9817 ESZ 8E8
uoq.Lew T uy6neA d9E:ZO EO-tt-..eddy

e4/11/2ee3 14:21
vvv. a-avr
• 'Farm RA 1940-1
(Automated B-97)
7332069 NEWLAND
RP 'VEST FOR OBLIGATION OF FUF"S
/NSTRUCI'IONS-TYPE IN CAPITALIZED ELITE TYPE IN SPACES MARKED
Complete Items a through 30 and applicable Item 31 through 43. See FMi.
1. CASir N'vMBER
ST CO BORROWER ID
38 J 06 0566020987
2. BORROWER NAME
TJOIWIN'4 J J 1 ilsizikiwuP1
6. RACE/ETHNIC 7. TYPE OF
CIASE/FICATION APPLICANT s.:AswBLICom Bw 8, COLLATERAL CODE 9. EMPLOYEE
FARMERS I . R .EST/11E 4. MACI RY ONL REid'iTONSiII? CODE
id CK d- MP AMC S- ORa o.
Z• BUCK S _/'• saeu s. unrrocx Crrl.
3 • MAW2-t RiRaDhMitttOf vAL FARM2 • MI - ESTATE S. =CS O BY
NLY
7 1 i • NOIR ONLYAs. ROM'S
c iKITELOM.Y
LOAN NUMBER
FISCAL YEAR
3. NUMBER NAME FIELDS
I(I, 2, or3/r mJlcng z)
4. STATE NAME
I 1 S. ofRCOUN ['YRNAMEC�RIO1LLX j2 �
I l ,..1_1. 11 1 Li A 1 v i$ I z: J 1 1 J
I1 I
GENERAL QRRO WE1uL a AN INFORMApON
21. PURPOSE CODE
I.MIRYtrove I-A1013E ATS
3-LOW 4- MOVE RtaDPAATE
34. R.EANSURANCE 3E R.E,TAXES
1st year
3& TYPE OFVNIT
. NRMVVRACT
2 • wv 7l� aAcr
COMP
39. PROFIT TYPE
3
A. DISASTER DESIGNATION NUMBER
Om PM
OR COMMUNITY PRO e� t _ „ _ CERTAIN MULTIPLE -FAMILY HOUSING OANS
Mow
w *ROM
C e MPLETE PO EM � g t7N�Y CO PLE FOR CREDIT S E-A SUM 4X. TYPE OF SALE ON
2 • MEMBER OP FAMILY
3 - most iunATNL "
`• •
30. SEX CODE s- FARELYCEVF •
II. MARITAL STATUS 12. VETERAN CODE 13. CREDIT REPORT
.$ s _ wax °� t • htAtleletE) 7-tJNMARRlE37�
6 1-eta 4R:L=Caoo? =awn:war own, I w10G�►xb+Olv�OhtC®j i
! . yss 14. DIRECTPAYMENT 15. TYPE OF PAYMENT INSPECTION ILL _ - �o
3 16. FEE INSPECTION 17. REST CREDIT
I i • O•Y �. SFaa,�rNaur � -ris t - YES Ito stxcxLvt
IT 2 3 • RIAlS.Y I. a1n trizI nLY 2 I 9. }iip -IUD
1 . COMMUNITY SIZE
PAGE 04
1 • Moo Olt LESS Mk SFIf AND
• l3VRIt IObOb
20. TYPE OFASSISTANCE 22. SOURCE OF FUNDS f 23. TL'PE OF ACTION
! • o ucoannranr
2 I y 1 2 - 1313I101MONCREcrO
24► TYPE OF SUBMISSION
7.5. AMOUNT OF LOAN
INITIALa,INITIALIt R• r $ 992,000.00 '
27. AMOU F l� LATE 28. , A 0
ADVANCE
068 I
APPROVAL
MD I • 1-i-1 Irl
_
oNt ETE FOR Swam FLAY HOUSING ONLY
3a. INCOME CATEGORY EGORY CODES r 32. LOW INCOME
LiMJT-MAC
4.5000% 40
1E AMOUNT OF GRANT
S 2,744,000.00
29. INTEREST RA2'E 30. REPAYMENT TERMS
33. AD•TUSTED FAMILY INCOME
36. R.E. TA7tTS 37. NOTE INSTALLMENT INELIGIBLE
lad year
-ASSOMPTJONONLY ••
ONL yy�•M
FINAF�GE • I - MUCKY 3-c MLE W}T}i'w suasaw Nttom
U- ""'
CO !' _ ETE kOR FP LOAN t r
43. 8EGINNING PARMERMANCHER
ram
�*chive eewlQrn awe in 4v eJ
yaw may* iv err a prim In Jim Vs
n• denial maim e, c naillsfior pf USDA as
Vs Ac.,Nv Neale use r/6e finm nanny bickered for At paper+
ORYGINAL - Bcrrow r a Cue Folder COPY 1 • Finan ceition Otfi a COPY2 - A
FFIicant/Lc rider Copy 3 -State 08iee
Pos2.
deaMSawl*NW .A°trugo' -
•b0-d
t79817 ESZ 8Z8
uoa.Lew 'g uy5nRA d9E = ZO EO-LL-.Add

.
• 04/11/2663 14:21 7332669
NEWLAND
CERTIr [CATION APPROV/
PAGE 65
For All Fanner Programs EM, OL, F0, and SW I.oar4s
This loan it approved subject to the avallablity of find&. If this loan does not close for any reason within 90 days from the
date of approval on this document, the approval offical will request updated eligibility information. The undersigned loan
applicant agrees that the approval official will have 14 working days to review any updated information prior to submitting
this document for obligation of funds. Ifthere have been significant changes, that may affect eligibility, a decision as to
eligibility and feasibility will be made within 30 days from the time the applicant provides the neccssasy information.
if thin is a loan aproval for which a lien usdfor tide search is necessary,thc undersigned applicant ;agrees that thc
IS -working -day loan closing requirement may be exceeded for the purposes of the applicant's legal rives
completing title work and completing loan dosing
44. COMMENTS AM REQUIREMENTS OF CERTIFYING OFFICAL
Loan and grant approved subject to Letter of Conditions. The loan and grout may be dosed when Ioati closing conditions can be fulfilled by the time of loan closing. Requirements of the Processing Checklist
and RVS Instructions 178d applicable to this project must be met,
45. HEREBY CERTIFY that I am unable to obtain sufficient cie nt credit elsewhere to finance ray actual needs at reasonable rates
and tame, taking into consideration prevailing private and cooperative rates and teens in or near my toms:unity for loans
for similar purposes and periods of time. I agree to use the sum specified.
regulations applicable to the type of assistance indicated above, d subject to and a sum. 1 agree
with
m4 payment of such I agree to report to
USDA anymattrial adverse changes, financial or otherwise, that occur prior to Ioan closing. I certify that no of the
sum specified hem has been received, I have reviewed the loan dpimoval requirements and comments associpart ad with
this loan request and agree to comply with these provisions.
(For Sal & FT' loans at eligible terms only) If this loan is approved. I elect rho interest rate to be
loan to be
the lower of the interest rate in effect at the time ofapproval or loan closing. If I check "NO". the interest rate on my
harged on
my loan will be the rate specified in hart 29 of this for
YES NO
WARNING: Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdication of any department or agency of the United
States knowingly and validly falsifies, conceals tar covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent state*u nta or representations, tit .tions, or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the satire to contain any false, fictitious
or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this tide or imprisoned not more five
years, or bout."
1p--.-.._
Die.
46. I' HEREBY CgR 'Y that all of the committee and adtsunistsativ+a determinations and certifications
reregulations prerequisite tog required by
dolt, all requirements assistofpaance
incm of the indicated above have been made and that evidence thereof is in
above -described assistance in the regulatiens have been complied with. I hereby approve the
GO�t agrees to advances such amount � �0� and by this docutncat, subject to the availability of funds, the
by regulations applicable applicant for the moose of and subject to the:vat'tsbilityptrsenbod
pP cabIa to this type of assistance.
yowl of env and
.19 Bys
Honorable Beatrice W. Daniels, Mayor
Approved:Date
Title (SYgruuure a1'Approv rig tell
aT' � T� APPLICANT: As of this date
Froth the US PLIC been approved, this is notice that to application for financial assistance
by the USDA. If yeti havenpP d, as ' 'cat eve, subject to the availability off funds and other conditions
required
any qucutions contact the County Supervisor or District for.
SO'd
179817 £SZ 828
uoa.Law V uyL5neA dL£: ZO £O-IT-„tdty

EPA DESIGN MANUAL TABLES
AND GUIDELINES
TOTAL LAND AREA GUIDELINES FOR
PRELIMINARY SITE IDENTIFICATION
Avg design
flow, gall/d
100 000
200 000
300 000
500 000
750 000
1 000 000
Land area, acres
Slow rate
6 mo/yr
15-30
30-50
40-80
60-150
100-200
150-300
12 mo/yr
7.5-20
15-40
20-60
30-100
50-150
75-200
Rapid infiltration
12 mo/yr
0.5-6
1-12
1.5-20
2.5-30
4-45
5-60
Overland flow
10.5 mo/yr
3-10
5-20
10-30
15-50
25-75
35-100
100 000 gal/d = 4.38 L/s
1 acre = 0.405 ha
6.2.3 Site Characterization
Having identified the potential sites, the next step is to systematically describe the site
characteristics. These characteristics and the required effluent quality requirements will combine
to suggest the type of land treatment process that should be used.
*EPA Publication — 625/1-77-008
6-6

Site characteristics that should be noted include the following:
1 Soils --type, distribution, permeability of most restrictive layers, physical and
chemical characteristics, and depth to groundwater
2. Available land area, both gross and net areas (i.e., excluding roads, rights -of -way
encroachments, stream channels, and unusable soils)
3. Distance from source of wastewater to site, including elevation differential
4. Topography, including relief and slopes
5. Proximity of site to industrial, commercial, residential developments; surface
water streams; potable water wells; public use areas such as parks, cemeteries, or
wildlife sanctuaries
6. Present and future land uses
7. Present vegetative cover
6.2.4 Select Land Treatment Process
The selection of the appropriate unit process depends primarily on the following two conditions:
1. Soil characteristics at the prospective site
2. The requirements of the discharge permit or groundwater quality
Obviously, other conditions such as other site features, total land area, operating personnel, and
related economic and environmental factors, combine to help form the final conclusion. A
decision matrix for forming preliminary conclusions on the land treatment process based on
technical considerations only is presented in Table 6-6. Other related conditions can then be used
to finalize the decision.
The preferred land treatment options for small systems are, in order: slow rate, rapid infiltration,
and overland flow. Other treatment processes have been used to treat wastewater in research and
demonstration projects but applicable design criteria are not generally available. Slow rate
systems are the first design choice because of the similarity to normal agricultural practices, and
their performance is the least sensitive to operational changes so that treatment reliability under
variable conditions is greatest Rapid infiltration systems are
6-7

PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF LAND
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Levels of
effluent
quality
(NPDES
permit),
mg/L
Range of soil permeability, in./ h
<0.06 0.06-0.2 0.2-0.6 0.6-2.0 2.0-6.0 6.0-20.0 >20.0
g3OD=4
<SS = 2
<N = 4
<P = 0.1
Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate
g3OD = 5 . Rapid Rapid Rapid
<SS =5 infiltration infiltration infiltration
<N =15
<P =1
<BOD= 10
<SS = 10 Overland Overland
<N = 3 flow flow
<P = 5
No surface Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate Slow rate
discharge Rapid Rapid Rapid
infiltration infiltration infiltration
a. Discharge to groundwater or indirect discharge to surface water.
1 in./h = 2.54 cm/h
the second choice in small scale systems because removals of most wastewater components are
excellent with low operation and maintenance requirements. A consistent level of nitrogen
removal, however, is more difficult to obtain than with other systems. In some groundwater
aquifers nitrogen content is of little concern, greatly enhancing the use of rapid infiltration
systems. Overland flow systems require the greatest level of on -site management to maintain
high levels of treatment so extra operator training is required, particularly for proper maintenance
of the terraces.
After selecting the unit process, the required "wetted" or application land area can be computed.
In general, this calculation requires development of the hydraulic application rate and the
duration of application during the year. It also requires consideration of additional applied water
in the form of precipitation and the lost water due to percolation and evapotranspiration. This
computation is usually combined with a water balance computation for determining storage
requirements. For each treatment system this procedure is somewhat different. Therefore,
computations of wetted land area are discussed separately for each process and summarized in
Table 6-7.
6-8

TABLE 6-7
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION PERIODS FOR LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Unit process Crop
management
Slow rate Annual crop
Double crop
or perennials
Rapid NA
Application
Description
Growing season only
All year unless restricted
by weather or planting
and harvesting
All year-round, if in free
infiltration draining materials
Overland
flow
Perennial All year unless restricted
grasses by weather
Estimated period
3-5 months
6-12 months(also
see Figure 6-2)
12 months
See Figure 6-2
NA = not applicable.
a.
This period is maximum in semiarid areas. The lower values should
be used where winters are severe.
6.2.4.1 Application Area For Slow Rate Systems
The application area for slow rate systems is based on a weekly application rate and the length of
the application season. The permeability of the predominant soil types combined with crop water
use determine a weekly application rate, as shown in Table 6-8. Water use requirements of most
crops will be met using the rates presented in Table 6-8.
TABLE 6-8
DESIGN APPLICATION RATES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS
SCS permeability class
Very slow
slow
Moderately slow
Moderate
Moderately rapid
Rapid
Very rapid
SCS permeability
range, in./h
<0.06
0.06-0.2
0.2-0.6
0.6-2.0
2.0-6.0
6.0-20
>20
Application rate, in./wk
Slow rate Rapid infiltration Overland flow
4-8
0.5-1.0 4-8
1.0-1.5
1.5-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0
4-20
8-30
12-40
a.
b.
c.
Application during growing season.
Year-round application
Volume applied equally during 5 to 7 days per week; low value for screened effluent and
higher rates for primary and biological treatment effluent.
1 in./wk = 2.54 cm/wk
6-9

The length of the application season should be computed on the basis of intended management.
Two management techniques are commonly practiced:
1. Grow single, annual crop
2. Grow perennial forage grasses, practice double -cropping, or use the no -till
management system
For a single annual crop, the application period will be the growing season plus any preplanting
or after harvest irrigation and could result in an application period as short as 3 months. For this
reason, the second management technique is generally used.
For the second case, the application season is determined from climatic data given in a county
soil surveyor other local source, for the proposed vegetation. The mean growing season, Le., the
number of weeks between the last 32°F (0°C) occurrence in the spring and the first 32°F
(0°C) occurrence in the fall, is used for all annual crops. Typical annual crops used in the United
States with land treatment systems are corn, wheat, barley, cotton, and soybeans. To extend the
application period for annual crops, they may be double -cropped, or winter or spring cover crops
may be planted after harvesting. Perennial crops are typically forage grasses such as Bermuda
grass, orchard grass, tall fescue, Reed canary grass, and alfalfa. Wastewater can be applied
between occurrences of 26°F (-3.3°C) temperatures in the spring and fall. The application period
should be reduced by 30 to 45 days to allow for planting (annual crops only) and harvesting
periods. The annual application volume is determined by multiplying the weekly rates from
Table 6-8 by the length of the application season in weeks. The annual application rate
determines the required application area according to the following equation:
F = 36.8 0^
LR
where F = field area, acres (ha)
Q = annual flow, Mgal/yr (m3 /yr)
L = period of application wk/yr
R = rate of application, in./wk (cm/wk)
36.8 (0.01) = conversion factor = 3.06 acre-ft x 12 in.
Mgal ft
(6-1)
6-10

6.2.4.2 Application Area For Rapid Infiltration Systems
Where application of wastewater to an infiltration basin is by flooding, the period of application
is the entire year. An exception may occur under one of the following conditions:
1. The soil is fine textured or not free draining so freezing of water within the soil
pores renders it impermeable.
2. The water is applied by sprinkler methods, and the droplets freeze and coat the
surface with ice.
3. There is a severe low temperature resulting in freezing of water in the distribution
piping or as it exits.
Although some provision is recommended for storage to account for one of the above events, the
application period can be assumed as 12 months. The application rate can be selected from
Table 6-8 based on soil permeability. Then, using Equation 6-1 and an application period of 52
weeks, the application area can be computed.
6.2.4.3 Application Area For Overland Flow Systems
This process requires an effluent discharge to either a surface water body or another unit process.
Consequently, application rates are not dependent on soil permeability but rather on biological
activity. Experience has indicated that an application rate of 4 in./wk (10 cm/wk) will easily
match biological activity on the prepared slopes. The application period is usually determined
by climatic conditions. These conditions are similar to those for perennial grasses with slow
rate systems. in general, Figure 6-2 can be used to esiimate the number of days that overland
flow cannot operate. Subtracting this period in weeks from 52 wk/yr will result in the application
period. Using Equation 6-1, the wetted area can be computed.
6.2.5 Preapplication Treatment
Preapplication treatment is desirable for small scale systems to control nuisance: and odor
conditions during storage with slow rate and overland flow systems, and to lessen bed
maintenance on rapid infiltration systems. Biological treatment is often employed with many
forms of land treatment but may be avoided with overland flow. Also, rapid infiltration may be
used with only primary level treatment but the application rate must be reduced somewhat over
that of secondary level because of the clogging effect of suspended solids. The use of primary
6-11

FIGURE 6-2
ESTIMATED WASTEWATER STORAGE DAYS BASED ONLY ON CLIMATIC FACTORS [6]
SHADING DENOTES REGIONS WHERE
THE PRINCIPAL CLIMATIC CONSTRAINT
TO APPLICATION OF 1ASTEKATER
15 PROLONGED WEE SPELLS
grg
n ion S 0 0
;LrLE MILES
BASED ON 32°F (0°C)
MEAN TEMPERATURE
0.5 in./0 PRECIPITATION.
1 In. OF SNOKCOVER
1 in.- 2.51 i$

effluent is recommended, but if land area is limited it may be necessary to provide a higher level
of preapplication treatment. A suggested guide to the selection of preapplication treatment levels
for each land treatment process is presented in Table 6-9.
TABLE 6-9
MINIMUM.
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT PRACTICE
Process Preapplication treatment
Slow rate
Surface application Primary sedimentation
Sprinkler application Primary or biological
Rapid infiltration Primary
Overland flow Bar screens and
comminution
a. Typically oxidation ponds or aerated lagoons.
6.2.6 Storage Requirements
Storage volume estimates must include consideration of the total water balance for the year.
However. the designer can approximate this storage by referring to Figure 6-2 and selecting the
proper values for the geographical location in question. The values taken from the figure
represent days of storage for the worst year in 20, based on severity of winter conditions. Storage
requirements may be further reduced by seasonal discharges to surface waters if permitted by the
state. Storage volume guidelines are summarized in Table 6-10.
TABLE 6-10
GUIDELINES FOR STORAGE VOLUMES
Land treatment
process
Storage volume guidelines
Slow rate
Annual crops
Perennial crops
Rapid infiltration
Overland flow
Up to 9 months of flow
0.5-6 months of flow, see Figure 6.2
7-30 days of flow
See Figure 6-2
6-13

6.2.7 Selection of Application Systems
In preliminary design for slow rate, the method of applying the water must be decided. Surface
application is preferred where the site topography is quite flat or is suitable for application with a
minimum amount of leveling. This method of application offers the least capital cost and the
least operation and maintenance cost for most systems. Also, there should be no problems with
aerosol transport or need for buffer zones.
Sprinkler application may be used for almost any topography, but preferably one having slopes
of less than 15% to minimize difficulties with effluent runoff and erosion control. For small
systems, the use of surface application systems is preferred for both rapid infiltration and
overland flow treatment.
6.2.8 Postapplication Treatment
In those cases where effluent is collected for discharge to surface waters, discharge requirements
must be met. Systems with overland flow may require postdisinfection. Disinfection may be
accomplished using hypochlorinators or, in some cases, an erosion feeder type of chlorinator
may be used. The latter units have not been widely accepted but may offer suitable reliability for
very small systems.
6.3 Facilities Design
As in other parts of this manual, no attempt will be made to discuss the detailed design of
preapplication treatment and storage facilities. The discussion is limited to the distribution and
application systems. In addition to the comments contained in this chapter, the reader is
directed to Section 5.8 for detailed design guidance. -Distribution and application systems will be
discussed for each land treatment process in the following section.
6.3.1 Slow Rate System
A schematic diagram showing the typical elements of a slow rate system
is presented in Figure 6-3.
6.3.1.1 Surface Application Systems
Surface application systems require site -specific design, while sprinkler system design should be
based on consultation with the
6-14

September 15, 2003
Mr. Cecil L. Lewis, Public Works Administrator
Town of Newland
P.O. Box 429
Newland, North Carolina 28657
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Return of NPDES Modification
Newland WWTP - NC0021857
Avery County
Return # 2201
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The Division is returning your NPDES permit application request for expansion of the above referenced
wastewater treatment facility. The Division forwarded a request for additional information to you dated June
24, 2003 (attached). That correspondence requested additional information by July 31, 2003. To date, no
response has been received addressing these comments.
You may resubmit this modification request within six months without submittal of additional fee. However,
any resubmittal must address all comments present in the June 24, 2003 comment letter.
If you have any comments, questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Mark McIntire at (919)
733-5083, extension 508.
enclosure Oune 24, 2003 correspondence, application package)
cc: Central Files (letter only)
NPDES File (letter only)
Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality (letter only)
Sincerely,
/ff
de,c.
,avid A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

June 24, 2003
Mr. Cecil L. Lewis, Public Works Administrator
Town of Newland
P.O. Box 429
Newland, North Carolina 28657
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: Additional Information Request
NPDES Application for Expansion
Newland WWTP - NC0021857
Avery County
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The Division has completed its first review of the application package submitted on your behalf by Vaughn &
Melton. During our review, a number of questions were raised that necessitate additional information. Items
requiring attention are detailed below..
1. Insufficient Flow Justification. The Division recognizes that growth in Newland is likely. However, the
justification for flow in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) is insufficient. It is evident that the
Town has struggled with inflow/infiltration in recent years. In justifying the requested expanded flow of
0.8 MGD, the aforementioned EAA used the maximum monthly flow as a baseline for existing treatment
need. It further incorporates 20% above "total future flow" to accommodate for inflow/infiltration (I/I).
This appears to constitute double -counting for I/I. The maximum monthly flow of 380,000 gpd
undoubtedly includes a substantial quantity of I/I. Based on the I/I determination provided later in the
EAA, as much as 250,000 gpd or more of the maximum monthly flow can be attributed to I/I. Inclusion
of an additional 20% is inappropriate. The 25% reserve flow offered in the EAA is also not an
appropriate figure. The 25% was based on the maximum monthly flow (substantially higher than
necessary given the I/I situation). As I'm sure you are aware, the Division does not grant expansion of
NPDES permits, and thus wastewater treatment needs, to accommodate excessive I/I. The Town must
have its engineering consultant, to the extent possible, accurately quantify existing I/I to determine an
appropriate flow for permitting purposes. Additionally, items such as future commercial flow (18% of
total) need to be justified.
2. Land -Disposal Alternatives. For the purposes of the EAA, assume a best -case soil loading rate,
calculate the necessary land for each non -discharge alternative, and assume that sufficient land is available
for purchase. A detailed cost analysis is required for each alternative. Such an analysis should include
capital costs for construction of the treatment system (including land acquisition) and a 20-year present
value analysis articulating the impact of annual operation and maintenance costs (including labor,
analytical, etc.) on the true cost -to -operate each system.
3. Surface Water Discharge Alternative. Costs for the surface water discharge alternative have not been
sufficiently itemized in the EAA. The analysis must detail the various component costs to establish, with
reasonable accuracy, an estimation of capital costs for construction. While these costs were provided in
general in the back of the EAA, they were not referenced and unit costs were not provided for items
such as yard piping, etc. Furthermore, a reasonable estimation of electrical load should be determined
with an annual electrical cost incorporated into the recurring costs (labor, operation and maintenance,
analytical, etc.). All costs must be documented with sources clearly referenced.
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617 - TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
VISIT US ON THE WEB AT http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit No. NC0021857
Town of Newland WWTP
Page 2
Please provide the additional information requested herein by July 31, 2003. This project will be returned to
you as incomplete if the necessary information has not been received by then. If you have any questions
about this project or permit application requirements, please contact me at [phone], extension 508.
Mark McIntire, P.E.
NPDES Permitting Unit
cc: NPDES File
Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality
Edythe Mckinney, NC DENR
M. Wayne Robertson, P.E., Vaughn & Melton, 219 West Depot Street, Greenville, Tennessee, 37743

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
October 22. 2002
Mr. Jim Whitbeck
Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 16339
1318-F. Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Dear Mr. Whitbeck:
AVA
NCDENR
Subject: Permit Modification Request
Return #2179
Town of Newland WWTP
Avery County
With this letter, the Division of Water Quality is hereby returning the request for Permit
Modification and all supporting documentation (including check #22820) for the above
referenced project. This request was received on September 26, 2002. After a preliminary
review, it has been determined that the package does not include an Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA). A guidance document to evaluate wastewater disposal alternatives has been
enclosed for your review. You are free to resubmit this package with the completed EAA at any
time.
If you have any questions regarding the Engineering Alternatives Analysis or the Permit
Modification process, feel free to contact Christie Jackson at [phone], extension 538.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
cc: Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
Asheville Regional Office
Mr. Cecil Lewis -Town of Newland
P.O. Box 429
Newland, NC 28657
Mayor Beatrice W. Daniels - Town of Newland
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper

Ci f`� rClfii
To
Date / /7/-* Time /l/.'—X_)
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M�1
of VLLiq1'7I7 lr1 / '6! /
Phone
Area Code
Number
Extensio
TELEPHONED
% PLEASE CALL
7
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
Re' &la 6-vid'/'7 e
-1 Jt /4 (I o (-ef(1 ' a14
Operator

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Acting Director
May 29, 2002
Ms. Lynn Mann
Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 16339
1318-F. Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
AVA
NCDENR
Subject Authorization to Construct Request
Return #2158
Town of Newland WWTP
Avery County
Dear Ms. Mann:
With this letter, the Division of Water Quality is hereby returning the request for Authorization to
Construct and all supporting documentation for the above referenced project This request was
received on May 7, 2002. After a preliminary review, it has been determined that the facility is
not permitted for this expansion. The Division of Water Quality must issue speculative limits and
a permit modification before this Authorization to Construct Request can be approved.
If you have any questions regarding the Authorization to Construct process or the Permit
Modification process, feel free to contact Christie Jackson at [phone], extension 538.
Sincerely,
��David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
cc: Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
Asheville Regional Office
Mr. Cecil Lewis -Town of Newland
P.O. Box 429
Newland, NC 28657
Mayor Beatrice W. Daniels - Town of Newland
Mr. Michael A. Calhoun, P.E. - Vaughn & Melton
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper