NC0081370_engineering alternatives analysis_20151118

mg
•
As can be observed from Table 3.9 treatment capacity is available for transfer of flow
from the North WWTP to the McLin Creek WWTP. However, doing so leaves little capacity
remaining for future growth without the expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP.
3.5.4 Wet Weather Flow Assessment
• Both treatment plants are subject to infiltration and inflow (I/I). Inflow into a collection
system is usually regarded as stormwater runoff that enters a system through manholes,
• cleanouts, or other above ground openings in direct response to a rainfall event. Infiltration
enters the system as groundwater, through cracked pipes, poor connections, or deteriorating
sections of the sanitary sewer system. Infiltration can also be induced by a rainfall event(s). I/I
has a negative impact on the sanitary sewer system as it utilizes the capacities of the plants,
• collection lines, and pump stations that would otherwise be available to convey wastewater. It
has also the potential to cause sewer overflows during wet weather conditions.
INII
In reviewing I/I contribution to each plant, an analysis was made of daily and monthly
flow records and presented in Table 3.10. From this analysis January thru April 2012 represents
• a dry weather period for the study area with little or no I/I. The total recorded wastewater flow
for April 2012 was 0.187 MGD and is considered to represent Base Dry Weather Daily Average
Flow. During the following month (May 2012) a significant rainfall event occurred with five
inches of rain over a three day period. Wastewater flow resulting from this rainfall event is
considered to represent Peak Day Rainfall Induced I/I and totals 0.474 MGD. Then, the I/1
resulting from this significant rainfall event would be the difference between the Peak Day
'.' Rainfall Induced Flow and the Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow or 0.287 MGD.
The Maximum Monthly Average Base I/I was quantified to be the difference between the
Maximum Monthly Average Flow recorded for the 2012 assessment period as documented in
Table 3.9 and the Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow. Include in the Appendix A is
supporting daily flow data for the period of analysis. Provided in Table 3.10 is summary of this
flow assessment. From this assessment the Maximum Monthly Average Base I/I total expected
• during a wet month is approximately 40,000 gallons per day.
UM
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 121
City of Claremont, NC

PRI
.ro
Table 3.10
°N' Wet Weather Flow Assessment
folq
Inq
Flow Condition
McLin
Flow
North
Flow
Total
Flow
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Base Dry Weather Daily Average Flow
0.122
0.065
0.187
Peak Day Rainfall Induced Flow
0.331
0.143
0.474
Peak Day Rainfall Induced I/1
0.209
0.078
0.287
Maximum Monthly Average Flow
0.151
0.076
0.224
Maximum Monthly Average Base I/1
0.029
0.011
0.040
During the period of July and August of 2013 the region experienced extremely
abnormal rainfall resulting in uncharacteristic amounts of infiltration and inflow. For this reason
this data was not considered representative for purposes of this study.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 122
City of Claremont, NC

NEI
NW
WM
WEI
Section 4.0 — Future Condition
4.1. General
This section will present an assessment of future condition in the planning area that will
establish the need for future wastewater treatment facilities.
4.2 Population Forecast
Presented in Table 4.1 is population data and projections for Catawba County according
to the U.S. Census.
Table 4.1
Population Projections
Catawba County, NC
Year
Population
(%) Increase
2000
141,685
2010(Estimated)
159,125
2010
154,358
8.94 •
2030(Estimated)
196,477
27.28
As was shown in Figure 3.1, the Claremont wastewater service area consists of two Sub -
basins. Wastewater collected in Sub -basin 1 is conveyed to the North Wastewater Treatment
Plant and wastewater collected in Sub -basin 2 is conveyed to the McLin Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Using population data provided by the Western Piedmont Council of
me Government (WPCOG) for these sub -basins, and 27.28% projected increases in County
population, the population of each sub -basin has been projected and presented in Table 4.2.
INN
NW
EMI
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 123
City of Claremont, NC

PIM
Oar
Table 4.2
Planning Area Population Projections
City of Claremont, NC
Sub -Basin
Po 1 ulation
2010
2030
1
921
1172
2
3408
4337
TOTAL
4329
5509
4.3 Projected Wastewater Flow
Wastewater flow for the 20 year planning period has been projected and presented in
Table 4.3 based upon anticipated residential, commercial, and industrial growth within each sub -
basin. Current base flow is projected to increase in proportion to the overall population growth
rate presented in the previous section. In addition, historical growth patterns for the County have
indicated that the percentage of population provided sewer service has increased approximately
0.3% per year. Over a 20 year planning period this would represent an overall increase of
approximately 6.0% in the population served.
"" Future commercial/industrial flow was calculated based on the land area that has been
zoned for industrial and/or commercial development within the service area. Wastewater flow
N. was estimated using a projected development flow of 880 gallons per acre per day as prescribed
by NCDENR standards for non-residential developments where types of use and occupancy are
not known. It is recognized that industrial flow projections are subject to wide variation and
could substantially exceed this projection. The Town of Claremont and Catawaba County are
actively seeking industrial and commercial development within the service area and to
accommodate that development adequate wastewater treatment service is critical.
IMIP
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 124
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.3
'" Planning Area Wastewater Flow Projections
Item
North WWTP
Sub- Basin 1
McLin WWTP
Sub -Basin 2
Total Projected
Flow,
Current Base Flow, MGD
0.065
0.122
0.187
Population Growth Rate
27.28%
27.28%
Service Extension Rate
6%
6%
Projected Base Flow, MGD
0.088
0.165
0.253
Ind./Commercial Site Area, ac.
238
163
Flow / Acre, GPD
880
8880
Projected Ind./Commercial Flow, MGD
0.209
0.143
0.352
Monthly Avg. Base I/I Flow, MGD
0.011
0.029
0.037
Total Projected Flow, MGD
0.308
0.337
0.645
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. Residential,
,., commercial, and industrial growth opportunities could rapidly create the need for capacity
beyond that projected in Table 4.3. To insure adequate wastewater treatment capacity if
MD available to accommodate growth and development opportunities, it is recommended that the
City increase wastewater treatment capacity to 1.2 MGD with provisions for further expansion as
the need arises.
■• 4.4 Projected Wastewater Characteristics
The primary customer base for the City of Claremont is not expected to change materially
during the planning period. From evaluation of historical wastewater characteristics for both the
North and the McLin Creek WWTP's the projected raw wastewater specification is as presented
'� in Table 4.4. This specification will be used in the planning for WWTP upgrade and expansions.
The City's Sewer Use Ordinance will need to be utilized to require industries having wastewater
with high organic loading provide pretreatment of their wastewater prior to discharge to the City
sewer system.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 125
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.4
Projected Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Parameter
Monthly Average
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), mg/1
300
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/1
300
Ammonia, mg/1
30
pH
7
Max. Temperature, C
20
Min. Temperature, C
12
4.5 Speculative Effluent Limits
In anticipation of the adding WWTP capacity to meet future needs of the City of
Claremont, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
was requested to provide Speculative Effluent Limits. These limits describe the expected quality
that the effluent from the WWTP would have to meet prior to its discharge to Mull Creek and
McLin Creek at various future plant discharge flow rates. Presented in Table 4.5 is a summary
of the Speculative Effluent Limits for the most critical parameters. A copy of the NCDENR
Speculative Limits letter for McLin Creek is included in Appendix B.
The rational for the Speculative Effluent for McLin Creek WWTP was supported by the
water quality study of Lyle Creek and McLin Creek performed by HydroAnalysis, Inc.
commissioned by the City of Claremont and the City of Conover in conjunction with NCDENR.
The indicated effluent limits for the North WWTP and McLin Creek WWTP are
obtainable with current treatment technology as evidenced by the current performance of these
treatment plants. Enforcement of the City's Sewer Use Ordinance will continue to be critical to
guard against plant up -sets caused by discharge of non-compliance industrial waste.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 126
City of Claremont, NC

Table 4.5
Speculative Effluent Limits
Parameter
Mull Creek,
Monthly Average
McLin Creek,
Monthly Average
WWTP
North WWTP
McLin Creek WWTP
Flow, MGD
0.25
1.2
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), Summer/Winter, mg/1
8.0/16.0
8.0/12.0
Ammonia, Summer/Winter,
mg/1
2.0/4.0
2.0/4.0
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
5.0
5.0
Ultimate Oxygen Demand,
Summer/Winter , #/d
44/88
52.5/105
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 127
City of Claremont, NC

IND
MO
Section 5.0 — Purpose and Need
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
mi major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. To accommodate
growth and development opportunities it will be essential the City have adequate wastewater
PR treatment infrastructure. Wastewater flow projections indicate a total wastewater treatment
capacity need for the City's service area of approximately 0.64 MGD for the 20 year planning
wR period. However, residential, commercial, and industrial growth opportunities could rapidly
create the need for capacity beyond that projected. Planning for a total wastewater treatment
I-, capacity of 1.2 MGD is proposed with provisions for further expansion as the need arises.
The City of Claremont's participation in the proposed Catawba WWTP being constructed
'_' by the City of Hickory would have been an alternative for meeting its future wastewater
treatment capacity needs. However, negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and
rim conditions for the City of Claremont's participation in the Catawba WWTP were not successful.
Accordingly, the City of Claremont authorized this Engineering Alternative Analysis report to
mil evaluate alternatives for the upgrade and expansion of their existing WWTP's to meet their
future wastewater treatment needs.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 128
City of Claremont, NC

Section 6.0 — Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
In previous sections of this report the need for additional wastewater treatment capacity
was identified. This section will present alternatives available to the City of Claremont.
6.2 Wastewater Treatment Alternative Description
There are several alternatives which are not considered viable as described below:
NMI
Do -Nothing Alternative: As addressed previously in this report the City of Claremont's
existing WWTP's do not have adequate treatment capacity to meet the projected future needs of
the City's service area. Due to its age and condition, the North WWTP cannot continue to
provide reliable and NPDES permit compliant wastewater treatment without upgrade. For these
principal reasons this alternative in not viable.
Regional Alternative: The alternative of connection to the City of Hickory's Catawba
WWTP was actively considered; however, as previously discussed attempts to negotiate
acceptable terms and conditions for the City's of Claremont's participation in this facility have
not been successful. Therefore, this alternative is not viable.
Provided below is a description of each of the available wastewater treatment alternatives
evaluated by this study.
Alternative A
This alternative would provide for the upgrade and expansion of both the North WWTP
and the McLin Creek WWTP. Due to its age and condition it is proposed that the existing North
WWTP be replaced at the same location and would continue to discharge treated effluent to Mull
Creek. It is further proposed that the new North WWTP would provide a capacity of 0.3 MGD
and would utilize the same treatment process as that current utilized at the McLin Creek WWTP
in order to simplify plant operation and maintenance for plant operational staff. The McLin
Creek WWTP would be upgraded and expanded to a capacity of 0.9 MGD utilizing it current
treatment process and continue to discharge to McLin Creek.
Since the initiation of this Engineering Alternative Analysis report, the City of Claremont
has decided to proceed with the decommissioning of the North WWTP. This decision was
based upon the age and condition of the North WWTP, the anticipated costs for its upgrade and
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 129
City of Claremont, NC
IMMI

NMI
WI
expansion, the location of the plant, and the desire to consolidate wastewater treatment at one
location. The City has taken steps to provide for the design and construction of the wastewater
transmission system that would convey the wastewater from the North WWTP to the McLin
WWTP. This alternative will not be further considered.
Alternative B
MR
With the planned decommissioning of the North WWTP and all wastewater treatment
consolidated at the McLin Creek WWTP, the McLin Creek WWTP would be upgraded and
expanded to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing its current ICEAS Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR)
treatment process and continue to discharge treated effluent to McLin Creek. Two additional
wia
SBR treatment cells would be required as well as expansion of the existing effluent filters.
Alternative B is considered a viable alternative and will receive further evaluation. Presented in
N.
Figure 6.1 is a schematic of the proposed upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP
utilizing the ICEAS SBR treatment process.
MIN
Alternative C
This alternative is similar to Alternative B in that all wastewater treatment will be
consolidated at the McLin Creek WWTP. With this alternative the existing McLin Creek
WWTP would be upgraded and expanded to a capacity of 1.2 MGD by converting the existing
ICEAS SBR treatment cells to membrane biological reactors (MBR). No additional treatment
tankage would be needed and the existing tertiary filters would no longer be required. Effluent
1.4
from the MBR would continue to be discharge to McLin Creek. The MBR process would
produce a superior quality effluent giving the City additional assurance of meeting NPDES
permit limits and also provide an effluent quality suitable for reuse. Alternative C is considered
a viable alternative and will receive further evaluation. Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of
the proposed upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP utilizing the MBR treatment
process.
Alternative D
With this alternative the McLin Creek WWTP would be upgraded and expanded as
described in Alternative B to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing its current SBR treatment process
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 130
City of Claremont, NC

NMI
sop
MO
IMP
however treated effluent would be land applied instead of discharged to McLin Creek. Three
methods of land application are available:
• Rapid Infiltration — The use of rapid infiltration system requires the presence of
highly permeable soils. Most soils within Catawba County do not have high
enough infiltration rates to support rapid infiltration. Thus, rapid infiltration was
eliminated as a feasible land application alternative.
• Overland Flow — Overland flow systems are generally comprised of slopes
between 2% and 8%, and require large tracts of land. The slopes of land
surrounding the existing WWTP are excessive . Thus, the overland flow process
is also eliminated.
• Slow Rate Land Application — The slow rate process is normally referred to as
irrigation. Based on the site characteristics criteria for slow rate systems, the
forested and agricultural areas in close vicinity of the existing McLin Creek
WWTP appear to be suitable for this type of land application and thus this
alternative will be further evaluated. At a typical application rate of 2` inches per
week, approximately 280 acres will be required for land application and buffer
areas. Presented in Figure 6.3 is a map showing the location of potential land
application sites. The three sites identified meet the acreage requirement for land
application. Other sites may also be available. For purposes of this preliminary
analysis it was assumed that these sites are suitable and available for acquisition
by the City. It is further assumed that crop revenue will be sufficient to offset
crop management and harvesting cost.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 131
City of Claremont, NC

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PUMP
BLDG
LAB
BLDG
UPGRADE 1
BLOWER BLDG
UPGRADE
TREATMENT
PLANT
SLUDGE
LOADING STA.
TREAlleir
caL
PEW TREVENT
CELL 2
COL 3
• • •-•-Q
DECANTER
NEW
SLUDGE
TANK
FILTER
STORAGE BLDG
UPGRADE
FILTER BLDG
\• NEW FILTER CELLS
FILTER BACKWASH
Q HOLDING
•
a d RIMY RI i
NEW 10" D.I. INFLUENT
FORCE MAIN UPGRADE
INFLUENT
PUMP STA
GENERATOR
HEADWORKS
NEW HEADWORKS
24
NEW GRIT/
SCREENINGS
REMOVAL
INFLUENT
SEWER
FIGURE 6.1- ALTERNATIVE "B"
PROPOSED McLIN CREEK PROCESS SCHEMATIC
POST DISCHARGE
AERATION
HEADWALL
UV DISINFECTION
z .4
0
50' 100'
D ISM 13°51Z3Rica�0
mailde 628-322-2290
FL Dew &T.»y &aka
DATE: 10/6/2014 I PROJECT NO.: 041018.03

J J J I l I I I
PUMP
BLDG
BLDG
1
UPGRADE ZEW SCREEN 1
BLOWER BLDG NEW SCREEN 2
NEW DUMPSTER
NEW CONC PAD
NEW HEAD BOX
nory �..............
7."'Fil................no..........1 \
NEW 10' D.I. INFLUENT
FORCE MAIN
UPGRADE
INFLUENT
PUMP STA.
GENERATOR -- "
BAR SCREEN
NEW W DISINFECTION
•
•
•
• INFLUENT
SEWER
FIGURE 6.2 - ALTERNATIVE "C"
PROPOSED McLIN CREEK PROCESS SCHEMATIC
STORAGE BLDG
POST AERATION
0
DISCHARGE
HEADWALL
Th%)C
50' 100'
N0flIcNIIRsir
D ISM ,. ,� 2�,
FL Dlatramenlal Services
w11.aw11=1•1.w.111,waswa/6/tal
DATE 10/6/2014 1 PROJECT NO.: 041018.03

1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
EFFLUENT 17
DISTRIBUTION
PIPING`
FIGURE 6.3 - ALTERNATIVE "D"
POTENTIAL WASTEWATER LAND APPLICATION SITES
..140,
800
1
600
DAVIS ' '
irdittecture PC28-322-2290
FLCO Y Dr.,r.w t 1.eor,1a, Salim
DATE: 11/10/2014j PROJECT NO,: 041018.03

MI
MO
ON
Section 7.0 — Wastewater Treatment Alternative Evaluation
7.1 Introduction
The various alternatives which have been indentified will now be evaluated with respect
to monetary factors (present worth value) and non -monetary factors such as environmental
effects, implementation capability, treatment reliability, energy consumption, and operational
complexity. The most cost effective alternative is determined by consideration of both the
monetary and non -monetary factors.
7.2 Present Worth Analysis
Present worth value (PWV) is the primary tool for comparing the monetary value of
alternatives. PWV is determined by converting the initial capital costs, annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenses, and future salvage value of an alternative to present day dollars.
Capital cost estimates include costs of contractor mobilization, structures, mechanical
equipment, piping, buildings, electrical work, instrumentation & controls, sitework, and
allowances for construction contingencies and technical services. Capital costs presented in this
report are preliminary, and are based upon information currently available. The cost estimates
were developed from a variety of sources including equipment manufacturers, contractors, and
in-house calculations. Actual construction costs will be influenced by final site conditions,
regulatory requirements, detailed engineering design, market conditions at the time of bidding
for construction services, inflation, time constraints, and other factors outside the scope of this
analysis.
Annual operation and maintenance expenses include both fixed and variable expense
items including labor, power, chemicals, supplies, and minor repairs to equipment. Labor
expense estimates are based upon that currently experienced by the Town of Claremont and other
similar sized WWTP's. Power and chemical usage are variable expense items and have been
estimated considering process requirements. The costs used to estimate power and chemical
costs are based on the current market.
The service life of all proposed equipment included in the various alternatives is assumed
to be 20 years. Therefore, equipment replacement costs are not a part of the cost present worth
calculation. The useful life of concrete structures and piping was estimated at 40 years. Future
salvage values were calculated based upon straight-line depreciation of the initial costs over the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 135
City of Claremont, NC

O M
N MI
NMI
IMII
useful life span of the plant component. The value of land was assumed to have a constant value
throughout the life of the project.
Detail estimates of capital costs, O&M costs, and salvage value were developed for each
wastewater treatment alternative. Construction of each alternative was considered to be
implemented in two phases. The first phase would be implemented immediately and provide for
a treatment capacity of 0.8 MGD. The second phase would be implemented in 10 years and
would provide for the upgrade and expansion to a treatment capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in
Table 7.1 is a summary of those estimates along with the calculated present worth value of each
alternative. The detail estimates are included in the Appendix C to this report.
Table 7.1
Cost Summary and Present Worth Value
Item
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Phase 1 Capital Cost
$4,994,178
$6,011,772
$8,123,164
Phase 2 Capital Cost
$2,118,026
$1,021,487
$3,590,119
Total Capital Cost
$7,112,204
$7,033,259
$11,713,283
Average Annual O&M
$394,588
$415,709
$408,949
Expense
Salvage Value
$1,450,394
$740,480
$3,169,760
Present Worth Value
$11,637,606
$12,546,576
$15,123,666
7.3 Alternative Ranking & Selection
To determine the most cost effective alternative a composite ranking of each alternative
•• was determined based upon monetary factors represented by PWV and non -monetary factors
represented by environmental effects, implementation capability, treatment reliability, energy
consumption, and operational complexity. Presented in Table 7.2 is the composite rankings
assigned to each evaluated alternative. In performing the ranking, possible values ranged from 1
MEI
to 3 with 3 representing the most desirable rank. When alternatives appear to have similar
characteristics, the ranking given would be equal.
• Environmental Effects — Construction of Alternatives B and C would be within
the current plant site which would be an advantage. Construction of Alternative
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 136
City of Claremont, NC
O M

MID
Mal
FAN
D would require acquisition and development of additional property. Alternative
C would provide superior quality effluent for discharge to McLin Creek or reuse
by industry and others. Alternative D would have no discharge. Secondary
environmental impacts of each alternative are considered equal. An
Environmental Alternative Assessment will be prepared that will evaluate the
environmental impact in more detail.
INN• Implementation Capability — Implementation of Alternative C would have the
advantage over the other alternatives since the treatment plant could be expanded
1...1 by retrofitting the existing treatment basin with MBR equipment. Implementation
of Alternative D would be hindered by the acquisition of additional property for
the land application sites.
pm
• Treatment Reliability — The current SBR treatment process has on occasion
rim experienced difficulty producing consistent treatment results that have been
attributed to non -compliant industrial discharge. The MBR treatment process
Pr operates at a much higher biomass concentration that makes the process less
susceptible to biological upset. Also the membrane filtration process eliminates
fiwa the biomass settability issues often experienced by SBR and activated sludge
treatment processes that result in poor treatment performance.
raw
• Energy Consumption — Energy requirements were estimated for each alternative.
Alternative B had the least 20 year energy cost followed by Alternative D and
mi then Alternative C.
• Operational Complexity — The Alternative C utilizing the MBR treatment process
pm
would be less complex to operate due to the elimination of biomass settability as
an operating parameter. In addition tertiary filtration would no longer be
rim
required. Alternative D would have the lowest rank due to the need to operate a
spray field in addition to the WWTP.
Mil
MI
PIEI
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 137
City of Claremont, NC
WI

Table 7.2
Alternative Ranking
Evaluation
Factor
Factor
Weight
Alternative B
SBR
Alternative C
MBR
Alternative D
SBR w/LA
Raul:
Value
Rank
Value
Rank
Value
PWV
25
3
75
2
50
I
25
Environmental
Effects
20
2
40
3
60
2
40
Implementation
Capability
10
2
20
3
30
1
10
Treatment
Reliability
20
I
20
3
60
2
40
Energy
Consumption
10
3
30
I
10
2
20
Operational
Complexity
I 5
2
30
3
45
1
15
Total Value
100
215
255
150
.. Alternative C received the highest ranking and is therefore deemed the most cost effective
alternative considering both monetary and non -monetary cost.
7.4 Selected Plan Description
Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of the McLin Creek WWTP illustrating the scope
of the proposed upgrade and expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in Table 7.2 are the
proposed design criteria for the plant upgrade and expansion. The upgrade and expansion of the
Imp
McLin Creek WWTP would consist of the following major components:
gm
• Course Influent Screening: The existing headworks would be modified to include
two manual bar screens to provide course influent screening to protect the
downstream influent pump station.
• Influent Pump Station: The existing influent pump station would be upgraded
with the installation of new influent pumps, piping, and controls.
le
• Fine Screening: Rotary drum fine screen are proposed to be installed as required
to protect the membrane in the MBR. Drum screen will have two levels of
rep
screening and will remove particles in the wastewater down to 1.6 mm in size.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 138
City of Claremont, NC

• MBR Process: The MBR process will consist of three treatment cells: (1) an
anoxic cell, (2) a preaeration cell, and (3) a membrane reactor cells. The two
existing sludge holding tanks will be retrofitted with the installation of mixing and
diffused aeration systems to create the anoxic and pre aeration cells respectively.
The existing SBR basins will be retrofitted to create the membrane reactor cells
with the installation of a new diffused aeration system and submerged flat plate
membrane filtration units. Pumps will be installed to provide internal recycle of
mixed liquor from the membrane reactor cell back to the anoxic cell. Additional
pumps will be installed to pull treated water or permeate through the membranes
for final treatment and discharge.
• Disinfection: The existing chlorine disinfection system will be replaced with an
ultra -violet (UV) light disinfection system.
• Sludge Holding: A new 300,000 gallons sludge holding tank will be provided to
store and thicken sludge prior to disposal in the County's regional sludge
composting facility.
The upgrade and expansion would be accomplished in two phases. The initial phase
would provide for a capacity of 0.8 MGD. The second phase would increase the capacity to 1.2
MGD. A scope of the first phase would include all those plant components presented in Table
7.2 with the following adjustments:
• Influent Pump Station — Pumps would be installed to accommodate an initial peak
wet weather flow of 2.3 MGD. These pumps would be replaced in the second
phase expansion.
• Membrane Biological Reactor (MBR) — The initial number of MBR filtration
units installed would be 20. With expansion to 1.2 MGD an additional 10 units
would be installed for a total of 30 units.
• UV Disinfection — The initial number of UV lamp modules would be 8. With
expansion to 1.2 MGD an additional 2 units would be installed.
It should be noted that studies have shown that the MBR process has the capability to
remove bacteria and virus to levels equal or better than that achieved by chlorine or UV
•. disinfection. In recognition of this fact, several States no longer require disinfection after the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 139
City of Claremont, NC

MBR process. If NC DENR would approve elimination of the requirement for disinfection,
significant capital and operational cost savings could be realized.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 140
City of Claremont, NC

J 7 J 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
Table 7.3
McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Proposed Design Criteria
1. Design Flow
a. Average Day 1.2 MGD
b. Peak Hour (Dry Weather) 3.0 MGD
c. Peak Hour (Wet Weather) 3.3 MGD
2. Influent Parameters
a. BOD 300 ppm
b. TSS 300 ppm
c. Ammonia 20 ppm
d. pH 7.0
e. Minimum/Maximum Temp. 12°C/20°C
3. Effluent Parameters (WWTP)
a. BOD
b. TSS
c. Ammonia
4. Bar Screen
a. Type Manual
b. Number of Units Two
c. Width 2.5 ft
d. Spacing of Opening 1 Inch
5. Fine Screen
a. Type 2 Stage Drum
b. Number of Units Two
c. Capacity of Unit 1.7 MGD/ea.
d. Mesh Size 3 mm & 1.6 mm
6. Anoxic Treatment Cell
a. Number of Cells One
b. Ce11 Volume 0.064 MG
7. Pre -Aeration Treatment Cell
a. Number of Cells One
b. Cell Volume 0.064 MG
c. Aeration Fine Bubble
8. Membrane Biological Reactor CeII
a. Type Submerged Flat Plate
b. Number of Cells Two
c. Basin Volume 0.39 MG
d. Number of MBR Units 30 ea.
e. Water Depth 15 feet
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
8 ppm
8 ppm
2 ppm Winter, .4 ppm Summer
f. SRT 18.8 days
g. MLSS 12000 mg/L
9. MBR Aeration
a. Type Fine Bubble
b. Blower Horsepower 100 ea.
c. Blower Type Positive Displacement
d. Number Three
10. MBR Sludge Removal
a. Type Submersible
b. Pump Rate 110 gpm
c. Number One per Basin
11. MBR Permeate Pump
a. Type Centrifugal
b. Number 3
c. Pump Rate 887 gpm
12. Disinfection
a. Type UV
b. UV Transmittance
c. Number of 8 Lamp Modules 10
13. Sludge Holding
a. Type Aerobic
b. Number One
c. Volume 0.3 MG
d. Aeration/Tank
i. Type
ii. Horsepower
iii. Number
14. Sludge Processing
a. Type Composting
b. Location Regional Composting Facility
Page 141
75 %
Coarse Bubble, Positive Displacement
62
Two

7.5 Financial Analysis
Presented in Table 7.3 is the estimated operational expense for the first year of operation.
Annual debt service as presented in this table is based upon capital financing at two percent for a
n
r�r
rag
NEI
nal
period of 20 years. Debt service may be less than that indicated depending upon the amount of
any construction grants received by the City or reserve fund contributions made by the City to
help finance construction cost. Currently the City of Claremont contracts with the City of
Hickory for the O&M of the existing WWTP's. Presented in the Appendix D and summarized in
Table 7.3 is an estimate of the first year O&M expense for the upgraded and expanded McLin
Creek WWTP based upon operational cost observed for similar treatment facilities and with the
City providing in-house operation.
Table 7.4
First Year Operational Cost
Item
Alternative A
Annual Debt Service
$367,660
Initial Annual O&M Expense
$362,913
Total Annual Expense
$730,573
Annual Wastewater Billings, MG
62.06
Unit Cost, $/1000 gal.
$11.77
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 142
City of Claremont, NC
api

1 1 1 1 J 1 ] J ] ] J ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Day Flow (MGD) Rain (inches)
1 0.074 0.10
2 0.053 0.00
3 0.069 0.20
4 0.088 0.00
5 0.080 0.00
6 0.094 0.70
7 0.076 0.00
8 0.075 0.00
9 0.060 0.00
10 0.062 0.00
11 0.068 0.00
12 0.056 0.00
13 0.066 0.00
14 0.072 0.00
15 0.063 0.00
16 0.053 0.00
17 0.065 0.00
18 0.062 0.20
19 0.087 0.60
20 0.045 0.00
21 0.079 0.00
22 0.036 0.00
23 0.056 0.00
24 0.057 0.10
25 0.059 0.00
26 0.056 0.00
27 0.056 0.40
28 0.066 0.00
29 0.059 0.00
30 0.050 0.00
Total 1.942 2.30
Min. 0.036 0.00
Max 0.094 0.70
Average 0.065 0.08
Month of April 2012
Claremont - North
0.10
0.09 -
0.08 -
p 0.07
• 0.06
• 0.05
0.04
O 0.03 -
0.02 -
0.01 -
0.00
Month ofApril Flow
i : 1 1 I I 1 1 ! 1 / 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i
2 34 5 6 78 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Claremont - North
Rainfall (inches)
4.00
Month ofApril Rainfall
3.50 -
3.00 -
2.50 -
2.00-
1.50 -
1.00 -
0.50 -
0.00 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I d if I ,N4:)
T
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Claremont - North

J 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
Day Flow (MGD) Rain (Inches)
1 0.118 0.10
2 0.087 0.00
3 0.159 0.20
4 0.152 0:00
5 0.127 0.00
6 0.148 0.70
7 0.121 0.00
8 0.092 0.00
9 0.118 0.00
10 0.096 0.00
11 0.136 0.00
12 0.146 0.00
13 0.105 0,00
14 0.092 0.00
15 0.085 0.00
16 0.143 0.00
17 0.100 0.00
18 0.170 0.20
19 0.113 0.60
20 0.130 0.00
21 0.177 0.00
22 0.063 0.00
23 0.107 0.00
24 0.133 0:10
25 0.162 0.00
26 0.116 0.00
27 0.116 0.40
28 0.139 0.00
29 0.093 0.00
30 0.120 0.00
Total 3.664 2.30
Min. 0.063 0.00
Max 0.177 0.70
Average 0.122 0.08
Month of April 2012
Claremont - McLin
0.30
0.25 -
Q 0.20 -
0.15 -
0 0.10
0.05 -
0.00
Month of April Flow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Claremont - McLin
Month of April Rainfall
Rainfall (Inches)
5.00
4.50 -
4.00 -
3.50 -
3.00 -
2.50 -
2.00 -
1.50 -
1.00 -
0.50- is\
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Claremont - McLin

Day Flow (MGD) Rain (Inches)
1 0.055 0.00
2 0.051 0.00
3 0.050 0.00
4 0.056 0.00
5 0.048 0.00
6 0.054 0.00
7 0.048 0.00
8 0.056 0.00
9 0.039 0.30
10 0.033 0.20
11 0.025 0.00
12 0.042 0.00
13 - 0.023 0.00
14 0.047 3.00
c15 0.143 1.20
16 0.065 0.80
-17 0.048 0.00
18 0.035 0.00
19 0.037 0.00
20 0.032 0.00
21 0.029 0.00
22 0.037 0.10
23 0.039 0.10
24 0.059 0.00
25 0.058 0.00 -
26 0.056 0.00
27 0.075 0.00
28 0.028 0.00
29 0.054 0.00
30 0.057 0.00
31 0.055 0.00
Total 1.534 5.70
Min. 0.023 0.00
Max 0.143 3.00
Average 0.049 0.18
Month of May 2012
Claremont - North
0.16
0.14
0.12 -
n
0.10 -
E 0.08 -
g 0.06
0.04-
0.02 -
0.00
Month of May Flow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Claremont - North
Rainfall (Inches)
11.
4
8:8
Month of May Rainfall
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30 31
Claremont - North

1 1 1 )1 1 1 1 ➢ ] 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
Day Flow (MGD) Rain (inches)
1 0.144 0.00
2 0.123 0.00
3 0.133 0.00
4 0.142 0.00
5 0.123 0.00
6 0.103 0.00
7 0.106 0.00
8 0.124 0.00
9 0.153 0.30
10 0.132 0.20
11 0.121 0.00
12 0.141 0.00
13 0.069 0.00
14 0.135 3.00
15 0.331 1.20
16 0.322 0.80
-17 0.287 0.00
18 0.174 0.00
19 0.180 0.00
20 0.135 0.00
21 0.143 0.00
22 0.155 0.10
23 0.143 0.10
24 0.180 0.00
25 0.113 0.00
26 0.156 0.00
27 0.148 0.00
28 0.058 0.00
29 0.113 0.00
30 0.172 0.00
31 0.124 0.00
Total 4.683 5.700 •
Min. 0.058 0.00
Max 0.331 3.00
Average 0.151 0.18
Month of May 2012
Claremont - McLin
Month of May Flow
0.40
0.35 -
0.30 -
a
C7 0.25 -
M 0.20 -
0 0.15
V" 0.10
0.05
0.00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Claremont - McLin
Rainfall (Inches)
Month of May Rainfall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Claremont M McLin

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWrP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNII
UNIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move In, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Automatic Bar Screen/Wash/Comp (Replacement)
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Handrail (replacement)
Grating (replacement)
Demo
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc.
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Refurb. Existing Wetwell
Force Main
Crane (refurb)
Piping
ValvesNault
Demo
Controls
14
I.s.
I.s.
mo.
I.s.
$25,000
$77,100
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$77,100
$84,000
$15,000
1 1.s. $107,760 $107,760
1 I.s. $9,980 $9,980
1 I.s. $24,940 $24,940
150 1.f. $34 $5,100
96 s.f. $50 $4,800
1 1.s. $10,000 $10,000
3 ea. $27,000 $81,000
1 Ls. $7,500 $7,500
I 1.s. $18,750 $18,750
1 1.s. $25,000 $25,000
00 1.f. $45 $13,500
I I.s. $2,500 $2,500
1 I.s. $15,000 $15,000
I Ls. $50,000 $50,000
I I.s. $5,000 $5,000
I 1.s. $70,000 $70,000
$201,100
SI62,580
S288.25(1
Grit Removal
Grit System w/ Classifier I 1.s. $129,600 $129,600
Contractor Equipment Markup I 1.s. $12,000 $12,000
Installation 1 1.s. $30,000 $30,000
Grit Transfer Pumps I ea. $24,300 $24,300
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 Ls. $2,250 $2,250
Installation 1 1.s. $5,630 $5,630
Concrete, Grit Removal 27 c.y. $500 $13,500
Excavation 31 c.y. $15 $465
Porous Fill 6 c.y. $38 $239
Platform 1 I.s. $15,000 $15,000
Handrail 40 1.f. $34 $1,360
Grating 81 s.f. $50 $4,050 $238,394

1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
1McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT d 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
ICEAS Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Concrete Repair (old Basin)
Excavation
Porous Fill
Blower Building Renovations
Air Piping Replacement
1
465
700
2,710
186
1
Equilization Basin
Equipment(Mixer) (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 229
Excavation 1,857
Porous Fill 124
Filtration
Filtration Renovation 1
Filter Building Renovation 1
Influent Distribution Box Concrete 20
Excavation
Porous Fill 8
44
1.s.
1.s.
I.s.
c.y.
s.y.
c.y.
c.y.
1.s.
1.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
$729,000
$67,500
$ 168,750
$500
$35
$15
$38
$22,550
$30,000
$729,000
$67,500
S168,750
$232,500
$24,500
$40,650
$7,068
$22,550
$30,000 $1,322,518
$500 $114,500
$15 $27,855
$38 $4,712
I.s. $80,000 $80,000
I.s. $24,500 $24,500
c.y. $500 $10,000
c.y. $15 $660
c.y. $38 $304
UV Disinfection
UV Equipment 1 I.s. $226,800 $226,800
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 I.s. $21,000 $21,000
Installation 1 I.s. $52,500 $52,500
Disinfection Chamber Modifications 1 I.s. $25,000 $25,000
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment (Included in 10EAS Equipment)
Decant Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 233 c.y. $500 $116,500
Excavation 788 c.y. $15 $11,820
Porous Fill 135 c.y. $38 $5,130
Stairs I 1.s. $20,000 $20,000
Concrete Pads 1 1.s. $5,000 $5,000
$147,067
$115,464
$325,300
$158,450

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Notc
0.8 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT II 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION7
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
SCADA System
SCADA computer system
Installation
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings
Site Work
Site Work
Roads Repair/Repave
Fencing
Roof Replacement
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1.s.
Ls,
$100,000
$70,000
$100,000
$70,000
$170,000
1 1.s. $200,000 $200,000 S200,000
1
2700
800
3200
I.s.
s.y.
I.f.
s.f,
$55,000 $55,000
$25 $67,500
$20 $16,000
$4.00 $12,800
1 1.s. $262,000 $262,000
1 1.s. $20,000 $20,000
2 ea. $85,000 $170,000
$151,300
$452,000
$3,932,423
$589,864
$471,891
$4,994,178

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Nolo
1.2 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT R 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move In, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Automatic Bar Screen/Wash/Comp
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Manual Bar Screen
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Concrete
Handrail
Grating
Demo
1
1
12
1
I.s.
I.s.
mo.
I.s.
$25,000
$32,200
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$32,200
$72,000
$15,000
0 l.s. $0 $0
0 1.s. $0 $0
o I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 c.y. $0 $0
0 I.f. $0 $0
0 s.f. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc. 3 ea. $37,800 $113,400
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 I.s. $10,500 $10,500
Installation 1 I.s. $26,250 $26,250
Refurb. Existing Wetwell 0 I.s. $0 $0
Force Main 0 I.f. $0 $0
Crane (refurb) 0 I.s. $0 $0
Piping 0 I.s. $0 $0
ValvesNault 0 I.s. $0 $0
Demo 0 I.s. $0 $0
Controls 0 I.s. $0 $0
S144,200
$0
S150,150

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
—
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% QUO% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
DISCIPUNE
All
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST _ TOTAL
Grit Removal
Grit System w/ Classifier
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Grit Transfer Pumps
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete, Grit Removal
Excavation
Porous Fill
Platform
Handrail
Grating
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I.s.
I.s.
Ls.
ea.
Ls.
Ls.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
l.s.
I. f.
s. f.
$129,600
$0
$0
$24,300
$0
$0
$500
$15
$38
$15,000
$34
$50
$o
$0
$0
$o
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
ICEAS Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight 1 I.s. $414,720 $414,720
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 1.s. $38,400 $38,400
Installation 1 I.s. $96,000 $96,000
Concrete 465 c.y. $500 $232,500
Excavation 2,710 c.y. $15 $40,650
Porous Fill 186 c.y. $38 $7,068
Equalization Basin
Equipment(Mixer) (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0
Excavation 0
Porous Fill 0
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
$0 SO
$o $o
$o $o
SO
$829,338
$o

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWfP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWfP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT H 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Filtrati o n
Additional Filtration Cell
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Excavation
Porous Fill
Demo
Hand Rail
Grating
Piping & Valves
UV Disinfection
Additional UV Modules
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
1
1
1
55
103
14
1
40
80
1
I.s.
I.s.
I.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
l.s.
1.f.
s.f.
1.s.
$64,932
$6,010
$15,030
$550
$15
$38
$20,000
$37
$50
$22,464
$64,932
$6,010
$15,030
$30,250
$1,545
$532
$20,000
$ I ,480
$4,000
$22,464
1 l.s. $39,420 $39,420
l l.s. $3,650 $3,650
1 1.s. $9,130 $9,130
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Decant Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0
Excavation 0
Porous Fill 0
Stairs 0
Concrete Pads 0
SCADA System
SCADA computer system
Installation
0
0
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
l.s.
1.s.
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
S166,243
$52,200
SO
I.s. $0 $0
1.s. $0 $0 SO
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings 1 I.s. $80,000 $80,000 S80,000

1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 3
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP _
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT 14 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Site Work
Site Work
Roads Repair/Repave
Fencing
Roof Replacement
Bldg Renovations
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1
1350
0
0
0.
I.s.
s.y.
I.f.
s.f.
l.s.
$75,000
$25
$0
$0.00
$0
$75,000
$33,750
$0
$0
$0
1 1.s. $111,000 $111,000
0 1.s. $0 $0
0 ea. $0 $0
$108,7_50
$111,000
$1,641,881
S246,282
S229,863
$2,118,026

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
PER _PDS% _100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD MBR
DISCIPLINEX
All
D&F PROJECT a 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
[MIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move in, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Demo Existing Equipment
Manual Bar Screen
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc.
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Refurb. Existing Wetwell
Force Main
Crane (refurb)
Piping
Valves/Vault
Demo
Controls
12
1
Ls.
I.s.
mo.
I.s.
$25,000
$92,800
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$92,800
$72,000
$15,000
1 I.s. $10,000 $10,000
1 I.s. $5,400 $5,400
1 I.s. $500 $500
1 I.s. $1,750 $1,750
3 ea. $27,000 $81,000
I 1.s. $7,500 $7,500
1 l.s. $18,750 $18,750
1 l.s. $25,000 $25,000
300 If. $45 $13,500
1 I.s. $2,500 $2,500
1 I.s. $15,000 $15,000
I I.s. $50,000 $50,000
1 1.s. $5,000 $5,000
1 I.s_ $70,000 $70,000
Fine Screen & Grit Removal
Fine Screen w/compactor & tank 1 I.s. $189,000 $189,000
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 l.s. $17,500 $17,500
Installation 1 l.s. $43,750 $43,750
Concrete 8 c.y. $500 $4,000
Excavation 11 c.y. $15 $165
Porous Fill 13 c.y. $38 $494
$204,800
$17,650
$288,250
$254,909

CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD MBR
IIISr'IPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT N 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
MBR Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Concrete Repair (old Basin)
Excavation
Porous Fill
Blower Building Renovations
Air & Process Piping
UV Disinfection
UV Equipment
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Disinfection Chamber Modifications
0
700
0
0
1.s.
I.s.
Ls.
e.y.
s.y.
c.y.
c.y.
I.s.
I.s.
$1,620,000 $1,620,000
$150,000 $150,000
$375,000 $375,000
$500 $0
$35 $24,500
$15 $0
$38 $0
$22,550 $22,550
$120,000 $120,000 $2,312,050
1 l.s. $194,940 $194,940
1 1.s. $18,050 $18,050
1 1.s. $45,130 $45,130
I Ls. $25,000 $25,000
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment l Ls. $113,400 $113,400
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 l.s. $10,500 $10,500
Installation 1 I.s, $26,250 $26,250
Concrete 233 c.y. $500 $116,500
Excavation 788 c.y. $15 $11,820
Porous Fill 135 c.y. $38 $5,130
Stairs 1 l.s. $20,000 $20,000
Concrete Pads 1 1.s. $5,000 $5,000
SCADA System
SCADA computer system
Installation
1
1
$283,120
$308,600
I.s. $100,000 $100,000
Ls. $70,000 $70,000 $170,000
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings 1 Ls. $248,000 $248,000 $248,000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD IVIBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT ft 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Site Work
Site Work
Roads Repair/Repave
Fencing
Roof Replacement
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1
2700
0
3200
Ls.
s.y,
I.f.
s.f.
$55,000
$25
$20
$4.00
$55,000
$67,500
$0
$12,800
1 1.s. $321,000 $321,000
1 I.s. $20,000 $20,000
2 ea. $85,000 $170,000
$135,300
$511,000
$4,733,679
$710,052
$568,041
$6,011,772

CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD NIBR
DISCIPLINE
Al I
D&F PROJECT E 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move In, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Automatic Bar Screen/Wash/Comp
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Manual Bar Screen
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Grit System w/ Classifier
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Grit Transfer Pumps
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Handrail
Grating
Demo
9
Ls.
1.s.
mo.
1.s.
$25,000
$15,500
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$15,500
$54,000
$15,000
$109,500
0 1.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 ea. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 c.y. $0 $0
0 I.f. $0 $0
0 s.f. $0 $0
0 Ls. $0 $0 $0
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc. 3 ea. S37,800 $113,400
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 I.s. $10,500 $10,500
Installation 1 I.s. $26,250 $26,250
Ref rb, Existing Wetwell 0 I.s. $0 $0
Force Main 0 1.f. $0 $0
Crane (refurb) 0 1.s. $0 $0
Piping 0 1.s. $0 $0
Valves/Vault 0 1.s. $0 $0
Demo 0 I.s. $0 $0
Controls 0 I.s. $0 $0
$150,150

CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS%o _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD MBR
I SCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT if 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Fine Screen & Grit Removal
Fine Screen w/compactor & tank
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Excavation
Porous Fill
MBR Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Excavation
Porous Fill
UV Disinfection
Additional UV Modules
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
0
0
0
0
0
0
I.s.
I.s.
I.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
$0
$0
$0
$500
$15
$38
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
I Ls. $324,000 $324,000
1 l.s. $30,000 $30,000
1 I.s. $75,000 $75,000
0 c.y. $500 $0
0 c.y. $15 $0
0 c.y. $38 $0
1 Ls. $39,420 $39,420
1 I.s. $3,650 $3,650
I I.s. $9,130 $9,130
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Decant Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0
Excavation 0
Porous Fill 0
Stairs 0
Concrete Pads 0
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
1.s.
l.s.
$o $o
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0
$429,000
S52,200
$O
SCADA System
SCADA computer system 0 l.s. $0 $0
Installation 0 I.s. $0 $0 SO
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings 0 I.s. $0 $O SO

1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/1 4/1 4
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWfP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% 100% FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD MBR
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT N 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Site Work
Site Work
Roads Repair/Repave
Fencing
Roof Replacement
Bldg Renovations
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
0
0
0
0
0
I.s.
s.y.
I.f.
s.f.
1.s.
$55,000
$25
$0
$0.00
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
$0
I.s. $51,000 $51,000
0 Ls. $0 $0
0 ea. $0 $0
SO
$51,000
$791,850
$118,778
$110,859
$1,021,487

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWfP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINEX
All
D&F PROJECT H 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move In, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Automatic Bar Screen/Wash/Comp (Replacement)
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Handrail (replacement)
Grating (replacement)
Demo
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc.
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Refurb. Existing Wetwell
Force Main
Crane (refurb)
Piping
ValvesNault
Demo
Controls
1.s.
I.s.
mo.
1.s.
$25,000
$125,400
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$125,400
$84,000
$15,000
$249,400
1 I.s. $107,760 $107,760
1 l.s. $9,980 $9,980
1 1.s. $24,940 $24,940
150 l.f. $34 $5,100
96 s.f. $50 $4,800
1 1.s. $10,000 $10,000 S162,580
3 ea. $27,000 $81,000
1 l.s. $7,500 $7,500
1 I.s. $18,750 $18,750
1 l.s. $25,000 $25,000
300 l.f. $45 $13,500
1 I.s. $2,500 $2,500
1 Ls. $15,000 $15,000
I I.s. $50,000 $50,000
1 Ls. $5,000 $5,000
1 1.s. $70,000 $70,000
$288,250

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWfP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
x PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT H 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Grit Removal
Grit System w/ Classifier
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Grit Transfer Pumps
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete, Grit Removal
Excavation
Porous Fill
Platform
Handrail
Grating
1
1
l
1
27
31
6
1
40
81
1.s.
1.s.
1.s.
ea.
1.s.
1.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
Ls.
I. f.
s.f.
$129,600
$12,000
$30,000
$24,300
$2,250
$5,630
$500
$15
$38
$15,000
$34
$50
$129,600
$12,000
$30,000
$24,300
$2,250
$5,630
$13,500
$465
$239
$15,000
$1,360
$4,050
$238,394
ICEAS Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight 1 1.s. $729,000 $729,000
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 I.s. $67,500 $67,500
Installation I I.s. $168,750 $168,750
Concrete 465 c.y. $500 $232,500
Concrete Repair (old Basin) 700 s.y. $35 $24,500
Excavation 2,710 c.y. $15 $40,650
Porous FiII 186 c.y. $38 $7,068
Blower Building Renovations 1 I.s. $22,550 $22,550
Air Piping Replacement 1 I.s. $30,000 $30,000 $1,322,518
Equilization Basin
Equipment(Mixer) (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0
Excavation 0
Porous Fill 0
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
$500 $0
$15 $0
$38 $0
$0

1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
Al l
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIP I ION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER 1 UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Filtration
Filtration Renovation
Filter Building Renovation
Influent Distribution Box Concrete
Excavation
Porous Fill
UV Disinfection
UV Equipment
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Disinfection Chamber Modifications
0
0
0
0
0
l.s.
1.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
$80,000
$24,500
$500
$15
$38
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 1.s. $226,800 $226,800
1 I.s. $21,000 $21,000
1 Ls. $52,500 $52,500
1 I.s. $25,000 $25,000
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Decant Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 233 c.y. $500 $116,500
Excavation 788 c.y. $15 $11,820
Porous Fill 135 c.y. $38 $5,130
Stairs I 1.s. $20,000 $20,000
Concrete Pads 1 l.s. $5,000 $5,000
SCADA System
SCADA computer system
Installation
1 1.s. $100,000 $100,000
$0
S325,300
$158,450
I.s. $70,000 $70,000 $170,000
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings 1 I.s. $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Site Work
Site Work 1 I.s. $55,000 $55,000
Roads Repair/Repave 2700 s.y. $25 $67,500
Fencing 800 1.f. $20 $16,000
Roof Replacement 3200 s.f. $4.00 $12,800 $151,300

1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 J J J
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/3/13
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
x PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
0.8 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
IT[M DESCRIPTION
MANUFACI URER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
L NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Land Application System
Effluent Storage Basin
Effluent Distribution Pumping
Effluent Distribution Piping
Spray Irrigation System
Land Application Site
Monitoring Wells
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
7500
150
185
6
1.s.
1.s.
I.f.
ac
ac
ea.
$496,000
$467,000
$50
$5,870
$2,500
$3,000
$496,000
$467,000
$375,000
$880,500
$462,500
$18,000 $2,699,000
1 1.s. $241,000 $241,000
1 1.s. $20,000 $20,000
2 ea. $85,000 $170,000
$431,000
S6,396,192
S959,429
$767,543
$8,123,164

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ES'IIMA"I'I
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT tt 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Miscellaneous Contractor Expenses
Move In, Licenses & Permits
Bonds and Insurance
Supervision, temp facilities, equipment, living expenses
Cleanup and Move Out
Headworks Structure
Automatic Bar Screen/Wash/Comp
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Manual Bar Screen
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation - Total
Concrete
Handrail
Grating
Demo
12
I.s.
I.s.
mo.
I.s.
$25,000
$54,600
$6,000
$15,000
$25,000
$54,600
$72,000
$15,000
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. SO $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 Ls. $0 $0
0 c.y. $0 $0
0 I.f. $0 $0
0 s.f. $0 $0
0 I.s. $0 $0
Influent Pump Station
Pumps/Rails/Etc. 3 ea. $37,800 $113,400
Contractor Equipment Markup 1 I.s. $10,500 $10,500
Installation I 1.s. $26,250 $26,250
Refurb. Existing Wetwell 0 I.s. $0 $0
Force Main 0 l.f. $0 $0
Crane (refurb) 0 I.s. $0 $0
Piping 0 1.s. $0 $0
ValvesNault 0 1.s. $0 $0
Demo 0 Ls. $0 $0
Controls 0 1.s. $0 $0
$166,600
$0
S150,150

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY.
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT #
41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER [ UNIT
-IITEM
UNIT COST TOTAL
Grit Removal
Grit System w/ Classifier
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Grit Transfer Pumps
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete, Grit Removal
Excavation
Porous Fill
Platform
Handrail
Grating
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I.s.
I.s.
I.s.
ea.
l.s.
I.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
I.s.
1.f.
s.f.
$129,600
$0
$0
$24,300
$0
$0
$500
$15
$38
$15,000
$34
$50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
ICEAS Process System
Equipment, Shop Dwgs, O&M Manuals, Start-up, Freight I I.s. $414,720 $414,720
Contractor Equipment Markup I I.s. $38,400 $38,400
Installation I I.s. $96,000 $96,000
Concrete 465 c.y. $500 $232,500
Excavation 2,710 c.y. $15 $40,650
Porous Fill 186 c.y. $38 $7,068
Equilization Basin
Equipment(Mixer) (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0 c.y. $0 $0
Excavation 0 c.y. $0 $0
Porous Fill 0 c.y. $0 $0
$0
$829,338
$0

1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Claremont
COST ESTIMATECLIENT
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWfP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Nolc
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINIf
All
ME PROJECT H 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER 1
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER I UNIT
UNIT COST l TOTAL
Filtration
Additional Filtration Cell
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
Concrete
Excavation
Porous Fill
Demo
Hand Rail
Grating
Piping & Valves
UV Disinfection
Additional UV Modules
Contractor Equipment Markup
Installation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I.s.
I.s.
I.s.
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
Ls.
1.f.
s.f.
I.s.
$64,932
$0
$0
$550
$15
$38
$20,000
$37
$50
$22,464
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 I.s. $39,420 $39,420
1 I.s. S3,650 $3,650
I I.s. $9,130 $9,130
Sludge Holding Tank
Aeration/Mixing Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Decant Equipment (Included in ICEAS Equipment)
Concrete 0
Excavation 0
Porous Fill 0
Stairs 0
Concrete Pads 0
SCADA System
SCADA computer system
Installation
0
0
c.y.
c.y.
c.y.
I.s.
I.s.
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0
S52,200
$0
I.s. $0 $0
I.s. $0 $0 $0
Piping
Yard Pipe, Valves and Fittings 1 I.s. $80,000 $80,000 S80,000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
CLIENT
Claremont
COST ESTIMATE
DATE PREPARED
7/14/14
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION
McLin Creek WWTP
PROJECT TITLE
McLin WWTP
ESTIMATED BY:
D&F
CATEGORY CODE NUMBER
STATUS OF DESIGN
X PER _PDS% _100% _FINAL _OTHER (Specify)
Note
1.2 MGD SBR w/LA
DISCIPLINE
All
D&F PROJECT # 41018.03
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MANUFACTURER
QUANTITY
ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
NUMBER UNIT
UNIT COST TOTAL
Site Work
Site Work
Roads Repair/Repave
Fencing
Roof Replacement
Bldg Renovations
Land Application System
Effluent Storage Basin
Effluent Distribution Pumping
Effluent Distribution Piping
Spray Irrigation System
Land Application Site
Monitoring Wells
Electrical
Electrical Installation
Site Lighting
Standby Power (Generators)
Estimated Construction Costs
Contingencies
Fees & Services
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1
1350
0
0
0
I.s.
s.y.
I.f.
s.f.
1.s.
$75,000
$25
$0
$0.00
$0
$75,000
$33,750
$0
$0
$0
$108,750
I I.s. $248,000 $248,000
I I.s. $379,000 $379,000
2700 11. $50 $135,000
50 ac $5,870 $293,500
95 ac $2,500 $237,500
2 ea. $2,500 $5,000 $1,298,000
1 I.s. $98,000 $98,000
0 I.s. $0 $0
0 ea. $0 $0
$98,000
$2,783,038
$417,456
$389,625
$3,590,119

MOM
Alternative B
Operation & Maintenance Expense
ICEAS sax
Fixed Operational Expenses
lt`"'
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$37,200
$37,200
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
S223,950
$223,950
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.86
$0.10
Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
installed hp
Design Run
Time/d (hr)
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Bar Screen
2
4
0.83
1.24
3.33
4.97
Washing Press
5
4
0.83
3.11
3.33
12.43
Vortex Grit
6
24
24.00
107.38
24.00
107.38
Grit Pumps
10
4
0.83
6.21
3.33
24.86
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25
275.72
ICEAS Basin Blowers, each
60
12
12.00
1073.81
12.00
1610.71
Sludge Pumps
2.4
5
1.04
1.86
4.17
7.46
Equilization Basin
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Filter Feed Pump
7
16
3.33
17.40
13.33
69.60
Filter Backwash Pumps
15
4
0.83
9.32
3.33
37.28
Filter Other
11.5
4
0.83
7.15
3.33
28.59
UV Disinfection
0.27
24
24.00
4.83
24.00
4.83
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
2554.02
3436.61
Annual Electrical Costs
S93,222
$125,436
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
lbs./DT
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
1.032
16
0
SO
0
SO
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, WT/d
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use Ps)
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6.45
$50.00
490
S24,523
1962
S98,094
'Total Annual O&M Costs II
Initial Year of Operation
$341,695
Design Year of Operation
S447,480

nr
.. c
Alternative C
Operation & Maintenance Expense
MBR
Fixed Operational Expenses
Item
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$35,260
$35,260
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
$222,010
$222,010
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.80
$0.10
Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
Installed hp
Design Run
Timed (hr)
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run lime/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Fine Screen
6
4
0.83
3.73
3.33
14.91
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25,
275.72
MBR Treatment System
2264.00
3064.00
UV Disinfection
0.215
24
24.00
3.85
24.00
3.85
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
3235.35
4253.32
Annual Electrical Costs
$118,090
$155,246
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
Ibs./DT
Annual Use (Ibs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (Ibs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
0.96
16
0
SO
0
SO
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, WT/d
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (Ibs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6
S50.00
456
$22,813
1825
$91,250
Total Annual O&M Costs
Initial Year of Operation
S362,913
Design Year of Operation
5468,506

w
PIM
IMMI
POW
rO
1�1
Alternative D
Operation & Maintenance Expense
ICEAS SBR w/Land Application
Fixed Operational Expenses
Item
Initial Year of
Operation
Final Year of
Operation
Salaries & Benefits
$114,750
$114,750
Repair & Maintenance
$42,200
$42,200
Contract Services
$40,000
$40,000
Miscellanous
$32,000
$32,000
Annual Expense
$228,950
$228,950
Variable Operational Expenses
Inputs
Initial Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Year Wastewater Flow, MGD
Design Flow, MGD
Sludge Production, DT/d/MGD
Chemical Cost
Power Cost, $/kw-h
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.86
$0.10
(Electrical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Equipment Item
Installed hp
Design Run
Time/d (hr)
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Run Time/d (hr)
kW-h/d
Itar Screen
2
4
0.83
1.24
3.33
4.97
Washing Press
5
4
0.83
3.11
3.33
12.43
Vortex Grit
6
24
24.00
107.38
24.00
107.38
Grit Pumps
10
4
0.83
6.21
3.33
24.86
Influent Pump Station
51
8.7
1.81
68.93
7.25
275.72
ICEAS Basin Blowers, each
60
12
12.00
1073.81
12.00
1610.71
Sludge Pumps
2.4
5
1.04
1.86
4.17
7.46
Equilization Basin
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Feed Pump
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Backwash Pumps
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Filter Other
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UV Disinfection
0.27
24
24.00
4.83
24.00
4.83
Sludge Holding Tank
40
18
18.00
536.90
18.00
536.90
Effluent Distribution Pumping
90
20
4.17
279.64
16.67
1118.55
Miscellanous
20
24
24.00
357.94,
24.00
357.94
Total kW-h/d
2441.86
4061.75
Annual Electrical Costs
$89,128
$148,254
Chemical Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, DT/d
Design Usage,
lbs./DT
Annual Use (Ibs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Polymer
1.032
16
0
SO
0
SO
Sludge Disposal Costs
Initial Year of Operation
Design Year of Operation
Item
Design Sludge
Production, Wild
Disposal Cost,
$/ton
Annual
Production, WT's
Operating
Costs/Yr
Annual Use (lbs)
Operating
Costs/Yr
Regional Sludge Disposal
6.45
$50.00
490
$24,523
1962
$98,094
Total Annual O&M Costs 11
Initial Year of Operation
$342,601
Design Year of Operation
$475,298
Wit

APPENDIX D

MIR
POP
RR
NM
r PROJECTED FIRST YEAR O&M BUDGET
McLIN CREEK WWTP (0.8 MGD)
EXPENSE ITEM
AMOUNT
Salaries
Employee Benefits
Repairs & Maintenance
UV Lamp Replacement
Mambrane Replacement
Utilities
Office Expense
Contractual Services (Lab & Engr)
Supplies
Vehiciles
Miscellaneous
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL EXPENSES
$85,000
$29,750
$20,000
$5,000
$10,260
$118,090
$3,000
$40,000
$15,000
$4,000
$10,000
$22,813
$362,913
1

V1� CovIcvi/e44(k SIC
ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Division of Water Resources
March 11, 2015
Dr. Keri B. Cantrell
NC DENR / DWR / Environmental Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
Teresa Rodriguez
919-807-6387
NPDES Unit
Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0081370
McLin Creek WWTP
Catawba County
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by April 11,
2015. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please feel free to contact me at the telephone number shown
above.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Signed
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality
standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Date: 3/18/2015
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ Internet: www.ncdenr.00v
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— Made In part by recycled paper

Pat McCrory
Governor
SEM- FOAIS Veygruitpi 40 1.2/Y11rd
A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Donald van der Vaart
Secretary
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
City of Claremont Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Catawba County, North Carolina
The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. § I I3A) requires that the Division of Water Resources
determine whether a proposed major agency action will significantly affect the environment. The City of Claremont
Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion is such a major action. The proposed action involves upgrading the McLin
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant from existing 0.3 MGD to 1.2 MGD. The upgrade will be phased; Phase 1 will
increase capacity to 0.8 MGD and Phase II will increase capacity to 1.2 MGD. Upgrades include the conversion of
the ICEAS SBR treatment cells to membrane biological reactors (MBR); modifying the headworks to include two
manual screen bars and rotary drum fine screen; and upgrading the pump station to include new pumps, piping and
controls, ultra -violet light disinfection, and new sludge holding tank. As shown in EA in Figures 1 and 4, the
proposed action will take place near the City of Claremont in northeast Catawba County.
In order to deternine whether the City of Claremont Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion will cause significant
environmental impacts, an environmental assessment has been prepared. The environmental assessment is attached.
It contains detailed information on the key issues, including a detailed description of the proposed project, and
probable environmental impacts with proposed mitigations. The following is a summary of the probable
environmental impacts and associated mitigation activities:
There will be minor direct impacts to topography and soils at the construction site due to grading and
other construction activities. These impacts will be controlled through adherence of an approved Sediment
and Erosion Control Plan as well as the use of silt fencing and other erosion control devices. Temporary
impacts to air quality and noise will occur during construction, but no permanent impacts will occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additional discharge to McLin Creek will increase flows by an estimated
seven -percent during average flow periods; however, as the effluent will be treated at a higher level, the
quality of the proposed discharge will be significantly improved over the existing discharge. No direct
introduction of toxic substances will occur. Toxic substances used in the operation of the wastewater
treatment plant will be used in accordance with the wastewater treatment plant Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Manual and will be stored and contained appropriately. No direct or adverse
impacts will occur to forest resources; shellfish or fish and their habitat; wildlife; natural vegetation;
wetlands; prime or unique agricultural lands; public lands and scenic, recreational, State natural areas; or
areas of archeological or historical value.
Indirect and cumulative impacts to topography, soils, shellfish or fish and their habitat, wildlife and
natural vegetation, wetlands, air quality, water resources, and forest resources may occur as a result
potential future development within the service area as a result of the increased capacity and will be
mitigated through Catawba County's adopted Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and other
regulatory requirements.
None of the above impacts are found to be significant due to mitigation activities. Thus, it has been concluded that
the City of Claremont Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion will not have a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the environment. No environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared and this FONSI completes
the environmental review record. The FONSI and Environmental Assessment shall be available for inspection and
comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh. North Carolina, 27604
Phone: [phone]/Fax: [phone]
An Equal ©pportunityWfrmatnvActon Employer

•
Summary of FONSI for publication in the Environmental Bulletin: After completion of an environmental
assessment under G.S. 113A, a FONSI has been made in the case of the City of Claremont Wastewater Treatment
Plant expansion. Information supporting the need for the proposed project was reviewed, along with relative
impacts, other alternative approaches and mitigating measures.
d G i%) 1 274 /.r1
S. Jay Zimmerman (Date)
Acting Director, Division of Water Resources

Exp61/1_301
Davis & Floyd, Inc.
181 E. Evans Street, Suite 23, BTC-105, Florence, South Carolina 29506
T 843.519.1050 F 843.664.2881 www. davisfloyd.com
Summary Of Conference
Date: March 31, 2014
Location: DENR, Raleigh, NC
Present:
Summary:
Project: WWTP ER/SEPA
Project No.: 041018.03 Phase:
DENR: Jackie Roddy, Teresa Rodriguez, Evan Kane, Harold Grady, Melanie, Pam
Behm
City of Claremont: Doug Barrick
Davis & Floyd: Gene Haynes, Guy Slagle
Purpose of the meeting was to discuss with NCDENR staff the requirements for proceeding with the
upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP to an ultimate capacity of 1.2 MGD.
Guy and Doug provided a summary of the actions taken by the City in evaluating its future wastewater
treatment needs. Those actions included the water quality evaluation of the Lyle Creek drainage basin
by HAI and the Engineering Report prepared by Davis & Floyd. Resulting from the HAI study was
the issuance by DENR of a revised Speculative Limits letter dated February 12, 2014 for a capacity of
1.2 MGD. The Engineering Report recommended the decommissioning of the North WWTP and the
consolidation of wastewater treatment at the upgraded and expanded McLin Creek WWTP.
The following is a summary of the key discussion points:
• Doug shared that the City is proposing to expand the McLin Creek WWTP in phases to a
capacity of 1.2 MGD as provided by the Speculative Limits letter. The initial phase could
provide for a capacity of about 0.8 MGD. Teresa stated that DENR can issue a NPDES permit
that would provide for the proposed phased expansion.
• Teresa shared that DENR supports the idea of decommissioning the North WWTP with
consolidation of treatment at the McLin Creek WWTP.
• Teresa stated that for them to issue a phased NPDES permit having an ultimate capacity of 1.2
MGD it would require that the SEPA document be based upon the 1.2 MGD capacity. Unless
the scope of the plant expansion changed from that documented in the approved SEPA, the City
could then proceed with the final expansion phase when deemed appropriate without further
SEPA review.
• It was confirmed that with a planned expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD and SEPA document
and review was required.
11Page

• It was asked if the SEPA document must justify the future capacity needs of the City. Jackie
stated that the SEPA process does not give a lot of scrutiny to capacity justification, but would
want the SEPA document to describe the basis for the projected capacity. The DENR staff did
not express much concern for the proposed expansion to 1.2 MGD and seemed to suggest that
this was good planning on the part of the City. She did state that the Construction Grant &
Loan folks would be more concerned with capacity justification.
• Melanie and Evan pointed out the need to address secondary and cumulative environmental
impacts. Doug shared that the City was part of a regional Lake Norman watershed stormwater
management program which imposes runoff controls on the impact from development.
Melanie suggested that this be discussed the SEPA document and also include in the SEPA
document stormwater ordinances.
• It was discussed that the direct project impacts of the proposed wastewater system
improvements would be confined to the McLin Creek WWTP site and the public ROW.
• Doug shared that an Environmental Survey had been perform a couple of years ago and that
survey would be included in the SEPA.
• Harold asked that the SEPA document discuss how the project was consistent with the Local
Water Supply Plan.
• Jackie emphasized that the SEPA document should provide a detail description of the project
and the service area. She suggested that a Public Hearing would be helpful.
• Harold stated that the SEPA must address connection with other wastewater treatment service
providers. Doug and Gene reviewed the negotiations with the City of Hickory for connection
to the Catawba WWTP and how those negotiations were not successful. Pam indicated that she
was aware of those negotiations, and she seemed to acknowledge that the City of Claremont
was proceeding appropriately. (side note: the SEPA may want to include attempts by the City
to negotiate service with Newton)
• Jackie described the SEPA review process taking 74 days to complete.
• Once the SEPA is approved the NPDES permit application for the 1.2 MGD plant capacity can
be submitted.
• Melanie stated that information in the SEPA document should be easy to find.
• Reuse and land application was mentioned. Doug described his investigation of supplying
wastewater to a local farmer near the WWTP. Doug indicated that the City and the farmer
were not able to figure out how land application would be compatible with the farming
operations. Doug also described attempts to provide reuse water to an industry. It was
suggested that reuse and land application should be discussed in the SEPA.
Prepared by:
Davis & Floyd
Guy E. Slagle, Jr., PE

,t
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Govemor
November 18, 2015
Ms. Catherine Renbarger, City Manager
City of Claremont
PO Box 446
Claremont, North Carolina 28610
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0081370
McLin Creek WWTP
Catawba County
Class II Facility
Dear Ms. Renbarger:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or
as subsequently amended).
The final permit contains the following changes from the draft permit transmitted on September 23,
2015:
• The treatment facility description was updated to reflect existing equipment.
• Monitoring frequencies for the phased flows of 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD were modified to
conform to Grade III requirements as specified in 15A NCAC .0508.
The final permit contains the following changes from your previous permit:
• As a result of a Reasonable Potential Analysis quarterly monitoring for total copper and total
zinc were eliminated from the effluent monitoring requirements. DMR data shows that these
parameters don't have reasonable potential to exceed the action level standards.
• Quarterly sampling for mercury was eliminated from the effluent sampling requirements.
Data for mercury was evaluated according to the Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation
guidance and there is no need for a mercury limit or quarterly monitoring. One sample will
be required during your permit cycle. See Special Condition A.(7)
• A special condition was added to the draft permit to address the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) pending requirement for you to provide electronically -submitted
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet www.ncwaterquatity.orq
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer

Ms. Catherine Redbarger
November 18, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Discharge Monitoring Reports (eDMRs). The Division intends to fully implement the
eDMR program as soon as practicable. See Condition A.(6) in permit. For information on
eDMR, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the
following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/acimin/bogiipuiedmr.
For information on EPA's proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, please visit the
following web site:
http: / /www2.epa.gov/compliance/proposed-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty
(30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless
such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Resources or
any other Federal, State, or Local governmental permits that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone
number [phone] or at email [e-mail].
dole S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G.
Director, Division of Water Resources
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office / Surface Water Protection Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit, Susan Meadows (e-copy)
3

Permit NC0081370
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES)
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,
City of Claremont
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from an outfall located at the
Claremont — McLin Creek WWTP
2310 JB Road, Claremont
Catawba County
to receiving waters designated as McLin Creek within the Catawba River Basin in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III
and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 2016.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2020.
Signed this day November 18, 2015.
JL
S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G.
Director, Division of Water Resources
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 1 of 12

Permit NC0081370
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 described herein.
City of Claremont
Is hereby authorized to:
1. continue operating a 0.300 MGD domestic wastewater treatment plant utilizing a sequencing
batch -reactor type treatment facility consisting of
• Catenary bar screen with manual bar screen bypass
• Flow metering
• Influent pump station with standby power
• Dual intermittent -cycle extended aeration basins
• Three (3) tertiary sand filters
• Gas Chlorination
• Chlorine contact chamber
• Dechlorination
• Two (2) aerated sludge holding tanks
• Cascade post -aeration
located at the City of Claremont - McLin Creek WWTP, at 2310 JB Road near Claremont,
Catawba County,
2. After obtaining an Authorization to Construct from the Division, construct and operate a 0.8
MGD wastewater treatment system which is to be completed in conjuction with connection
and transfer of all wastewaters from the North WWTP to the McLin Creek WWTP and the
rescission of permit NC0032662 (0.1 MGD permitted capacity),
3. After obtaining an Authorization to Construct from the Division construct and operate a 1.2
MGD wastewater treatment system; and
4. Discharge from said wastewater treatment works at a location specified on the attached map
via 4utfall 001, to McLin Creek, a waterbody currently classified WS-IV;CA waters within
the Catawba River Basin.
Page 2 of 12

Permit NC0081370
PART I
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A
NCAC 02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until submittal of an
Engineering Certificate for 0.8 MGD or expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge through
Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
. EFFLUENT
EEFFLUENT LIMITS
L.s .... ___1« :.. .i.:i. ,�. e.
MONITORING
t
REQUIREMENTS
. r
�'1(7L}
TSri ICS
,, n
r[para ietez co es) . , . -. .z
' 'strafly
Weekly
Daily •Measuiremnent
i• -rSa a
Sample
_Avsiage,.,,,Average
Maximum_:...Frequency
-
__`TJ'P
,
,Y ocafroril
,,
[50050] Flow (MGD)
0.300
Continuous
--
Recording
I or E
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C 2
(Apr 1- Oct 31)
8.0 mg/L ,
12.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E, I
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C2
(Nov 1- Mar 31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E, I
[50530] Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) 2
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E, I
[00610] NH3 as N (Apr 1- Oct
31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
[00610] NH3 as N (Nov 1 -
Mar 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
-
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Daily Average >_ 5.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
[31616] Fecal Coliform '
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
[50060] Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) 3
28 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
[00010] Temperature (°C)
Weekly
Grab
E
[00400] pH
Not < 6.0 nor > 9.0 standard units
Weekly
Grab
E '
[00625] Total Nitrogen (NO2 +
NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
[00665] Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
[TGP3B] Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Composite
E
[50010] Temperature, °C
Weekly
Grab
U, D
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E = Effluent; I = Influent; U = Upstream at NCSR 1722 (south of Claremont); D =
Downstream at NCSR 1722 (east of Claremont, see map).
2. Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal required).
3. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50µg/L to
be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported
by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L,
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 9 %; quarterly during January, April, July, October; See Special Condition
A. (4).
5. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge monitoring reports
electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special Condition A. (6).
Units: mg/L = milligrams per liter
ml = milliliter µg/L = micrograms per liter
NH3 as N = ammonia nitrogen BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
Page 3 of 12

•
Permit NC0081370
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC
02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
a. During the period beginning upon submittal of an Engineering Certificate for expansion to 0.8 MGD
and lasting until expansion to 1.2 MGD6 or expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
through Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified
below:
EFFLUENT
CI Al M TERISTICS; '
EFFLUENT LTM11 S:_
....-. ...... _ ._.._ . i
-- i
:O"1 IT0 3INo,REQUIREMENTS
1__ i
•. _ -1
[parameter• codes]
fy._ _
Monthly :.
Average
ayI`E
. wolf- -,
Average '
:...'
Daily
Maximum
.I
. Measurement
Frequency .: '
-r -. �A
Sam'-e
: ,Type _
,
Sample
Location'
[50050] Flow (MGD)
0.80
Continuous
Recording
I or E
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C 2
(Apr 1- Oct 31)
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C2
(Nov 1- Mar 31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[50530] Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) 2
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[00610] NH3 as N (Apr 1 - Oct
31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
[00610] NH3 as N (Nov 1-
Mar 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
•
3/Week
Composite
E
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Daily Average >_ 5.0 mg/L
Weekly
Grab
E
[31616] Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E
[50060] Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) 3
28 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
[00010] Temperature (°C)
Weekly
Grab
E
[00400] pH
Not < 6.0 nor > 9.0 standard units
Weekly
Grab
E
[00625] Total Nitrogen (NO2 +
NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
[00665] Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
[TGP3B] Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Composite
E
[50010] Temperature, °C
Weekly
Grab
U,. D .
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U, D
1. Sample Locations: E = Effluent; I = Influent; U = Upstream at NCSR 1722 (south of Claremont); D =
Downstream at NCSR 1722 (east of Claremont, see map).
2. Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (GODS) and TSS shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal required).
3. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50µg/L to
be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported
by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 19 %; quarterly during January, April, July, October; See Special Condition
A. (4).
5. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge monitoring reports
electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special Condition A. (6).
6. Before submitting an ATC for the expansion to 1.2 MGD the permittee shall submit a flow justification to the
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit describing projected flows for a 20 year planning period. See Special
Condition A. (8).
Page 4 of 12

Permit NC0081370
Units: mg/L = milligrams per liter
m1= milliliter µg/L = micrograms per liter
NH3 as N = ammonia nitrogen BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
b. The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
c. Expansion to a permitted flow of 0.8 MGD at McLin Creek WWTP is contingent upon connection
and transfer of all wastewaters received at the North WWTP to the McLin Creek WWTP, and
rescission of permit NC0032662.
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS [15A NCAC
02B .0400 et seq., 02B .0500 et seq.]
a. During the period beginning upon submittal of an Engineering Certificate for the expansion to 1.2
MGD' and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge through Outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored' by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
[parameter codes]
EFFLUENT LIMITS
1 ..�.._.. _ '.w� _.._.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
_ w__ _...___ _--_ __.�_ :, _;_: __.: - - .
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average :
`Daily
Maximum:.
.
Measurements:
Frequency' `
Sample"
,Tyke _
=Sample
Locationl.
[50050] Flow (MGD)
1.2 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C 2
(Apr 1- Oct 31)
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[00310] BOD, 5day, 20°C2
(Nov 1- Mar 31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[50530] Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) 2
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E, I
[00610] NH3 as N (Apr 1 - Oct
31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
[00610] NH3 as N (Nov 1 -
Mar 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
E
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Daily Average > 5.0 mg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
[31616] Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
3/Week
3/Week
Grab
E
[50060] Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) 3
28 µg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
[00010] Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
E
[00400] pH
Not < 6.0
nor > 9.0 standard units
3/Week
Grab
E
[00625] Total Nitrogen (NO2 +
NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
[00665] Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
[TGP3B] Chronic Toxicity4
Quarterly
Composite
E
[NC01] Effluent Pollutant Scan
Monitor and Report
Footnote 6
Footnote 6
E
[50010] Temperature, °C
Weekly
Grab
U, D
[00300] Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Footnotes:
1. Sample Locations: E = Effluent; I = Influent; U = Upstream at NCSR 1722 (south of Claremont); D =
Downstream at NCSR 1722 (east of Claremont, see map).
2. Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed
15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal required).
Page 5 of 12

Permit NC0081370
3. Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). The Division shall consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50µg/L to
be in compliance with the permit. However, the Permittee shall continue to record and submit all values reported
by a North Carolina certified laboratory (including field certified), even if these values fall below 50 µg/L.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 27 %; quarterly during January, April, July, October; See Special Condition
A. (4).
5. No later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, begin submitting discharge monitoring reports
electronically using NC DWR's eDMR application system. See Special Condition A. (6).
6. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit. See Special Condition
A. (5).
7. Before submitting an ATC for the expansion to 1.2 MGD the permittee shall submit a flow justification to the
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit describing projected flows for a 20 year planning period. See Special
Condition A. (8)
Units: mg/L = milligrams per liter
m1= milliliter µg/L = micrograms per liter
NH3 as N = ammonia nitrogen BOD = biochemical oxygen demand
b. The Permittee shall discharge no floating solids or foam visible in other than trace amounts.
A. (4) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT - (QUARTERLY) [G.S. 143-215.1(b)]
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 9 % (0.3 MGD) / 19 % (0.8 MGD) / 27
% (1.2 MGD).
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the
"North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised December 2010, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised- December 2010) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
January, April, July, and October. These months signify the first month of each three-month toxicity
testing quarter assigned to the facility. Effluent sampling for this testing must be obtained during
representative effluent discharge and shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge
below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase H Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -December 2010) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWR Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the followingaddress:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Water Sciences Section no later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Page 6 of 12

Permit NC0081370
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report
with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the
Water Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month. Assessment of toxicity compliance is based on the toxicity
testing quarter, which is the three month time interval that begins on the first day of the month in which
toxicity testing is required by this permit and continues until the fmal day of the third month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than
the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
Page 7 of 12

Permit NC0081370
A. (5) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN (1.2 MGD) [G.S.143-215.1(b)]
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below. One
scan must be performed once a year for the three years following the expansion to 1.2 MGD. Analytical
methods shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine
whether parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples
should be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do
not sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (EPA Method 1631 E)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
TrichloroethyIene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Page 8 of 12

Permit NC0081370
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form -A MR-PPA1 (or in a form approved by the
Director) byDecember 31st of each designated grated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the
following address: NC DENR / DWR / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.
Additional Toxicity Testing Requirements for Municipal Permit Renewal. Please note that
Municipal facilities that are subject to the Effluent Pollutant Scan requirements listed above are also •
subject to additional toxicity testing requirements specified in Federal Regulation 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5).
The US EPA requires four (4) toxicity tests for a test organism other than the test species currently
required in this permit. The multiple species tests should be conducted either quarterly for a 12-month
period prior to submittal of the permit renewal application, or four tests performed at least annually in the
four and one half year period prior to the application. These tests shall be performed for acute or chronic
toxicity, whichever is specified in this permit. The multiple species toxicity test results shall be filed with
the Aquatic Toxicology Branch at the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section/Aquatic Toxicology Branch
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Contact the Division's Aquatic Toxicology Branch at 919-743-8401 for guidance on conducting the
additional toxicity tests and reporting requirements. Results should also be summarized in Part E
(Toxicity Testing Data) of EPA Municipal Application Form 2A, when submitting the permit renewal
application to the NPDES Permitting Unit.
A. (6) ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS [G.S. 143-
215.1(b)]
Proposed federal regulations require electronic submittal of all discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and
specify that, if a state does not establish a system to receive such submittals, then permittees must submit
DMRs electronically to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Division anticipates that these
regulations will be adopted and is beginning implementation in late 2013.
NOTE: This special condition supplements or supersedes the following sections within Part II of this
permit (Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits):
• Section B. (11.)
• Section D. (2.)
• Section D. (6.)
• Section E. (5.)
Signatory Requirements
Reporting
Records Retention
Monitoring Reports
1. Reporting 'Supersedes Section D. (2.) and Section E. (5.) (a)1
Beginning no later than 270 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall begin
reporting discharge monitoring data electronically using the NC DWR's Electronic Discharge
Monitoring Report (eDMR) internet application.
Monitoring results obtained during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
submitted electronically using eDMR. The eDMR system allows permitted facilities to enter
monitoring data and submit DMRs electronically using the internet. Until such time that the state's
eDMR application is compliant with EPA's Cross -Media Electronic Reporting Regulation
(CROMERR), permittees will be required to submit all discharge monitoring data to the state
Page 9 of 12

Permit NC0081370
electronically using eDMR and will be required to complete the eDMR submission by printing,
signing, and submitting one signed original and a copy of the computer printed eDMR to the
following address:
NC DENR / DWR / Information Processing Unit
ATTENTION: Central Files / eDMR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
If a permittee is unable to use the eDMR system due to a demonstrated hardship or due to the facility
being physically located in an area where less than 10 percent of the households have broadband
access, then a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements may be granted
and discharge monitoring data may be submitted on paper DMR forms (MR 1, 1.1, 2, 3) or alternative
forms approved by the Director. Duplicate signed copies shall be submitted to the mailing address
above.
Requests for temporary waivers from the NPDES electronic reporting requirements must be
submitted in writing to the Division for written approval at least sixty (60) days prior to the date the
facility would be required under this permit to begin using eDMR. Temporary waivers shall be valid
for twelve (12) months and shall thereupon expire. At such time, DMRs shall be submitted
electronically to the Division unless the permittee re -applies for and is granted a new temporary
waiver by the Division.
Information on eDMR and application for a temporary waiver from the NPDES electronic reporting
requirements is found on the following web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Regardless of the submission method, the first DMR is due on the last day of the month following the
issuance of the permit or in the case of a new facility, on the Iast day of the month following the
commencement of discharge.
2. Signatory Requirements [Supplements Section B. (11.) (b) and supersedes Section B. (11.) (d)1
All eDMRs submitted to the permit issuing authority shall be signed by a person described in Part II,
Section B. (11.)(a) or by a duly authorized representative of that person as described in Part II,
Section B. (11.)(b). A person, and not a position, must be delegated signatory authority for eDMR
reporting purposes.
For eDMR submissions, the person signing and submitting the DMR must obtain an eDMR user
account and login credentials to access the eDMR system. For more information on North Carolina's
eDMR system, registering for eDMR and obtaining an eDMR user account, please visit the following
web page:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/admin/bog/ipu/edmr
Certification. Any person submitting an electronic DMR using the state's eDMR system shall make
the following certification [40 CFR 122.22]. NO OTHER STATEMENTS OF CERTIFICATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED:
"1 cert, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person or
Page 10 of 12

Permit NC0081370
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I
am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
3. Records Retention [Supplements Section D. (6.)1
The permittee shall retain records of all Discharge Monitoring Reports, including eDMR submissions.
These records or copies shall be maintained for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the report.
This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time [40 CFR 122.41].
A. (7) MERCURY SAMPLE
The Permittee shall provide one effluent mercury analysis, using EPA Method 1631E, in conjunction with
the next permit renewal application. The analysis should be taken within 12 months prior to the
application date. Any additional effluent mercury measurements conducted from the effective date of this
permit and up to the application date shall also be submitted with the renewal application.
If the results of the mercury analysis is not provided with the application, the application may be returned
as incomplete and the Permittee considered non -compliant.
A. (8) FLOW JUSTIFICATION FOR 1.2 MGD
The Permittee shall submit a flow justification for 1.2 MGD to DWR for review and Division's approval
before submitting an Authorization to Construct for 1.2 MGD. The flow justification must include flow
projections for future commercial, residential or industrial flows for a 20 year planning period. The
justification shall be submitted to the NPDES Complex Permitting Unit at the following address:
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Page 11 of 12

Permit NC0081370
McLin Creek WWTP — NC0081370
City of Claremont - Catawba County
Receiving Stream:
Drainage Basin:
Permitted Flow:
State Grid/USGS Quad:
McLin Creek
Catawba River Basin
0.3 /0.8/1.2 MGD
E14NE / Catawba, N.C.
Stream Class: WS-IV; CA
Sub -Basin: 03-08-32
H UC: 030500101
T
Facility Location (not to scale)
N
Latitude 35* 41' 44" Lon: itude 81' 07' 19"
Page 12 of 12

(FiD
Hickory Daily Record
Advertising Affidavit
PO Box 968
Hickory, NC 28603
NCDENR/DWR-WQROS
ATTN: WREN THEDFORD
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1636
Account Number
3611028
Date
September 30, 2015
Date
Category
Description
Ad Number Ad Size
09/29/2015
Legal Notices
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission/1
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
MARIO of Intent to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes
to issue a NPDES wastewater dis-
charge permit to the person(s) listed
below. Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be accepted
until 30 days after the publish date of
this notice. The Director of the NC Di-
vision of Water Resources (DWR)
may hold a public hearing should
there be a significant degree of pub-
lic interest. Please mail comments
and/or information requests to DWR
at the above address. Interested per-
sons may visit the DWR at 512 N. Sal-
isbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review
information on file- Additional infor-
mation on NPDES permits and this
notice may be found on our website:
http_//portal.ncdenr.orq/web/wo/sw
p/ps/npdes/calendar, or by calling
[phone].
City of Claremont, Catawba County,
applied to renew NPDES permit
NC0081370 to discharge treated
wastewater to McLin Creek, Catawba
River Basin_
City of Claremont, Catawba County,
has applied to renew its NPDES per-
mit (NC0032662) discharging treated
wastewater into Mull Creek, Cata-
wba River Basin.
Publish: September 29, 2015_
Public Notice North Carolina Environmental Management Comi 0000127444
Publisher of
Hickory Daily Record
Catawba County
1 x 53 L
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Catawba County, North Carolina, duly
commissioned, qualified, and authorized by law to administer oaths, in said
County and State; that he/she is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a copy of which is attached
hereto, was published in the Hickory Daily Record on the following dates:
09/29/2015
and that the said newspaper in which such notice, or legal advertisement was
published, was a newspaper meeting all the requirements and qualifications of
Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
Assistant Bookkeeper
Newspaper reference: 0000127444
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this e2..._day of� r{, 2015
,Votary Pu?i7ic
My Commission expires:
THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU
`,•j�Q.MA Mck/' ,
\,,\O T q
a-14, a o o, .ou B\ G U-
`�t' i0 i i i.)N���°.

OMocomM.ov(
Rodriguez, Teresa
From: Bell, Wes
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Rodriguez, Teresa
Cc: Tuvia, Ori A
Subject: Claremont - McLin Creek WWTP Draft Permit
Teresa,
Hope you are doing good. In regards to the McLin Creek and North WWTP facility descriptions, I have the following
comments:
McLin Creek:
there is only one influent pump station (multiple pumps);
standby power for only the influent pump station;
Vortex grit (not in service);
gas chlorination/dechlorination;
chlorine contact chamber;
Claremont North WWTP:
- Add gas chlorination/dechlorination
Let me know if you have any additional questions or comments.
Wes
Wes Bell - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
610 E. Center Ave., Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: 704.235.2192 Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
1

1',¢".,c,t,va0.., °J c p m..1,...tc, ,... -�- - eaQ l a—
DEQ / DWR / NPDES Unit
AMENDED FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit NC0081370
Facility Information.
Applicant/Facility Name
City of Claremont / McLin Creek WWTP
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 446, Claremont, North Carolina 28610
Facility Address
JB Road, SR 1728, Catawba County
Permitted Flow (MGD)
0.3/0.8/1.2
Type of Waste
Domestic and process wastewater. Primary SIC Code 4952;
WW Code Prim. 01; Treatment Unit Code 13103;
(if residuals applied, Land Application Permit WQ0007408)
Facility/Permit Status
Grade II, Minor / Renewal /Expansion
Drainage Basin / County
Catawba / Catawba
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream
McLin Creek
[11-76-5-(3)]
Stream Classification
WS-IV; CA
Subbasin
03-08-32
303(d) Listed?
Yes
HUC
03050101
Latitude:
35° 41' 44"
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
22.6
Longitude:
81° 07' 19"
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
5.0
USGS Topo Quad
Catawba, NC
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
9.0
State Grid
E 14 NE .
30Q2 (cfs)
11
Regional Office
Mooresville
Average Flow (cfs)
26
Permit Writer
Teresa Rodriguez
IWC (%)
9/19/27
Date:
3/6/2015
SUMMARY
Facility Description. McLin Creek WWTP is a 0.300 MGD Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW) utilizing a parallel dual -train activated sludge wastewater treatment system consisting of a
headworks bar screen, influent pump station, Sequencing Batch Reactor with dual aeration basins,
tertiary sand filters, chlorination, dechlorination, aerobic digesters and standby power generator.
McLin Creek WWTP has no Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and no pretreatment program.
City of Claremont / McLin Creek WWTP (also herein referred to as the Permittee or McLin Creek)
requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dispose treated
wastewater to the surface waters of the state. The Permittee's 5-year NPDES permit has expired and
they have requested renewal from the Division of Water Resources (the Division). This Fact Sheet
summarizes background information and rationale used by the Division's NPDES Unit to determine
permit limits and conditions.
DRAFT Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NC0081370
Page 1

Existing Stream Conditions. This facility discharges to McLin Creek [11-76-5-(0.3)], a Class WS-
IV; CA stream within the Catawba River Basin, HUC 03050101, Catawba River headwaters
subbasin. McLin Creek is listed as impaired in the 2014 303(d) list for fair bioclassification.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Division Records and Permittee's Renewal Application. McLin Creek WWTP began operation on
June 26, 1995. This last permit expires on March 31, 2015 and the Division received prompt
documentation to renew (Form 2A) on September 29, 2014.
Waste Load Allocation (WLA). The Division prepared the last WLA in January 1995 and
developed effluent limits and monitoring considering an in -stream waste concentration (IWC) of 9 %
based on the design flow of 0.3 MGD and 7Q10 of 5 cfs. The Division judges these limits and
monitoring requirements to be appropriate for this renewal with the exception of the additions and
deletions listed below.
DMR Data Review. The Division reviewed DMRs for the period of July 2010 to December 2014.
Numerous violations for BOD and ammonia were reported and subsequently assessed by the
Division. The Permittee has identified flows from heavy rains and plant upsets as the causes for the
high values. In recent discussions with the Division the Permittee has indicated that they plan to
expand and upgrade the McLin WWTP to accommodate the flow from the Claremont North WWTP,
consolidating both facilities into one.
Table 1. Summary of DMR data
Parameter
Units
Average
Max
Min
Flow
MGD
0.15
0.768
0.024
BOD (summer)
mg/1
11.5
73
< 2
BOD (winter)
Mg/1
10.1
47
< 2
NH3N (summer)
mg/1
3.1
33.8
< 0.1
NH3N (winter)
mg/I
1.2
24.5
< 0.1
TSS
mg/1
5
23.4
< 1
pH
SU
7.0
8.3
6.0
Dissolved Oxygen
Mg/I
7.8
12.9
6
Temperature
°C
17
28
6
TN
mg/1
15.5
24.4
5.9
TP
mg/1
4.6
9.1
0.43
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
4.2
6000
< 1
Reasonable Potential Analysis
A reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was completed for total copper and total zinc. Results of the
analysis indicate no reasonable potential to exceed the action level standards for these parameters.
The current permit requires monthly monitoring. Monitoring for copper and zinc will be eliminated
from the effluent monitoring requirements.
Fact Sheet 2011
Renewal -- NPDES NC008 1370
Page 2

Mercury Evaluation
A mercury evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Permitting Guidance developed for the
implementation of the statewide Mercury TMDL to determine the need for a limit. Based on dilution
the water quality based effluent limitation (WQBEL) for mercury is 141 ng/I. The technology based
effluent limit (TBEL) is 47 ng/l. The Permittee collected quarterly mercury samples during the past 5
years. Based on the evaluation of the mercury data the permit will not include a mercury limit, it will
include monitoring once every five years.
Table 2. Mercury Data Summary (ng/L)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Average
1.17
1.53
1.38
1.52
1.42
Maximum
1.88
2.39
1.83
1.73
1.65
Toxicity testing:
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 9 %
Monitoring Schedule: January, April, July, October
All test resulted in passing results. No changes recommended.
In -stream Monitoring
Previous Requirements:
Renewal:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Temperature
No changes recommended.
Table 3. Current Conditions and Proposed Changes
Parameters Affected
Change from Previous
Permit
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow I
No changes
T15A 2B .0505
BODS
No changes
Water quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard.
NH3-N
No changes
Water quality based limits based on water
quality model to protect stream DO
standard.
TSS
No changes
Secondary treatment standards/40 CFR
133 / T15A 2B .0406
Fecal coliform, DO, pH
No changes
State WQ standards, T15A 2B .0200
Total Residual Chlorine
No changes
State WQ standards, T15A 2B .0200
Total Zinc
Total Copper
Eliminate monitoring
No reasonable potential to exceed the
action level standards
Total Mercury
Eliminate monitoring
Mercury TMDL implementation guidance
Total Nitrogen/Total
Phosphorus
No changes
T15A 02B .0508
Fact Sheet 2011
Renewal -- NPDES NC0081370
Page 3

SUMMARY OF PERMIT CHANGES
1. As a result of a reasonable potential analysis monitoring for copper and zinc will be
eliminated from monitoring requirements.
2. According to the implementation guidance for the Mercury TMDL quarterly monitoring for
mercury was eliminated after evaluation of mercury data.
3. A special condition was added to the permit with requirements for electronic DMR reporting.
MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT PERMIT:
The City of Claremont submitted a permit modification request on August 4, 2015 to expand the
facility in phases, initially to 0.8 MGD and ultimately to 1.2 MGD. Since the permit was in draft at
the time the Division will not finalize the permit but reissue a second draft permit for public notice
with effluent limitations for 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD. The City owns a second WWTP called the
North WWTP (NC0032662) permitted for 0.1 MGD. Flow from the North WWTP will be diverted to
the expanded McLin Creek WWTP. Once the first expansion is completed the North WWTP will be
decommissioned. A SEPA document for this project was approved by the Division and a FONSI was
issued on 2/ 11 /2015 .
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS (EAA)
An EAA was submitted to the Division evaluating alternatives to the discharge. The following
alternatives were evaluated and its Present Worth Value (PWV) calculated as follows:
1. Upgrade of both North WWTP and McLin Creek WWTP.
2. Consolidation of both WWTPs at McLin Creek WWTP utilizing the same method of treatment
($11,637,606 PWV).
3. Consolidation of both WWTPs at McLin Creek WWTP upgrading treatment to membrane
biological reactor (MBR) ($12,546,576 PWV).
4. Consolidation of both WWTPs at McLin Creek WWTP upgrading treatment of membrane
biological reactor (MBR) with disposal through land application ($15,123,666 PWV).
5. Connection to the City of Hickory.
Althought the cost for alternative 2 was the lowest cost, a ranking methodology that takes into
account environmental effects, treatment reliability, operational complexity and implementation
capabilities determined that the best alternative was the expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP
upgrading treatment to MBR. The City of Hickory did not agree to accepting the wastewater from
Claremont, therefore the connection to Hickory was not further evaluated.
The flow projections for the 20 year planning period were based on anticipated population,
commercial and industrial growth. Total projected flow for the first phase is 0.8 MGD. The projected
flow of 1.2 MGD is based on attracting industrial development. The permit will include phased flow
of 0.8 MGD and 1.2 MGD and will require the permittee to submit a justification for the flow
increase to 1.2 MGD prior to submitting an Authorization to Construct for that phase.
The limits for expanded effluent phases are based on the speculative limits developed for Claremont
in February 2014 which were based on a modeling analysis prepared by HydroAnalysis. The model
predicted DO concentrations above the water quality standard maintaining the same limits for BOD
and ammonia.
Fact Sheet 2011
Renewal -- NPDES NC0081370
Page 4

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
First Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 11, 2015
Second Draft:
Second Draft to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
September 23, 2015
November 16, 2015
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone].
NAME: (.(/' DATE: 9/17/2015
Fact Sheet 2011
Renewal -- NPDES NC0081370
Page 5

E-4 4 coliiii+Airb efmtc
DAVIS & FLOYD
SINCE 1954
August 31, 2015
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NC DENR
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Engineering Alternatives Analysis (NPDES #NC0081370)
City of Claremont McLin Creek WWTP
Claremont, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
In response to your review comments dated August 21, 2015 regarding the referenced EAA, at
our earliest meeting with DENR, the desire to significantly expand treatment capacity at
Claremont was expressed. Initially, Doug Barrick who was the City Manager at the time
indicated that expansion to 0.9 MGD was the City's goal. The water quality evaluation by
performed by HydroAnalysis, Inc. revealed that expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP to a
capacity of 1.2 MGD would be feasible. Accordingly and at the City's request, DENR issued
Speculative Limits for expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP to 1.2 MGD.
As the EAA documents, the City of Claremont is strategically located and has the potential for
growth and development. In the past, development opportunities have not materialized due to
inadequate wastewater treatment capacity. The City wants to make sure that reasonable capacity
is available to realize those opportunities as they may occur in the future. The City recognizes
that a new industry or expansion of an existing industry can make a significant impact upon
wastewater flow and plant capacity.
We met again with DENR on March 31, 2014 to discuss proceeding with the EAA and EA for the
expansion. A copy of the Summary of Conference of that meeting is enclosed. A specific issue
that we discussed with DENR was the requirement to document the need for the proposed
capacity expansion. We affirmed at the meeting that the proposed capacity expansion could not
be fully justified utilizing DENR guidance. As the meeting summary documents, we left the
meeting with the understanding that DENR would have no objection to the proposed expansion
and that justification of the capacity expansion would not be an issue since no state or federal
funding would be used to finance construction. Based upon this understanding, the City
authorized the preparation of the EAA and EA as has been submitted to DENR. Subsequently,
the EA was reviewed and a FONZI was issued for the expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD.
In additional support of the proposed expansion we have updated and enclosed Table 4.3 on the
basis of peak day flow. Under this wet weather condition the capacity requirement would
approach 0.9 MGD.
181 E. Evan Street, Suite 28, BTC-106, Florence, SC 29508
o. [phone] F. [phone]
WWW.DAVISFLOYD.COM

August 31,2015
Page 2
As you are aware the EAA proposes the initial expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP to a
capacity of 0.8 MGD. The exact timing of the subsequent expansion to 1.2 MGD will depend on
future growth and development. Based upon our previous meetings, the City has requested and
anticipates that the issued NPDES permit will provide the ability to expand the plant to 1.2 MGD
when that need arises.
We hope this response is sufficient for you to complete your review on the EAA. If any further
information is needed, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
DAVIS & FLOYD
Guy E. Slagle, Jr., P.
Vice President
Cc
Catherine Renbarger, City Manager, City of Claremont

August 31,2015
Page 3
Table 4.3
Planning Area Wastewater Flow Projections
v Item
North WWTP
Sub- Basin 1
McLin WWTP
Sub -Basin 2
Total Projected
Flow
Current Base Flow, MGD
0.065
0.122
0.187
Population Growth Rate
27.28%
27.28%
Service Extension Rate
6%
6%
Projected Base Flow, MGD
0.088
0.165
0.253
Ind./Commercial Site Area, ac.
238
163
Flow / Acre, GPD
880
880
Projected Ind./Commercial Flow, MGD
0.209
0.143
0.352
Peak Day I/I Flow, MGD
0.078
0.209
0.287
Total Projected Flow, MGD
0.375
0.517
0.892

01-4
A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Mr. Guy E. Slagle, Jr., P.E.
181 E. Evans Street, Suite 23, BTC-105
Florence, South Carolina 29506
Dear Mr. Slagle:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
August 21, 2015
Subject: Engineering alternatives Analysis
Permit NC0081370
McLin.Creek WWTP
The Division has reviewed the Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for the City of Claremont
submitted on August 3, 2015. To enable us to complete our review in accordance with N.C.G.S. 143-
215.1 and 15A NCAC 2H.0105, please provide additional or revised information to address the following
comments:
1. Table 4.3 Planning Area Wastewater Flow Projections shows total projected flow as 0.645 MGD.
The requested permit modification is for a flow 1.2 MGD. Although some additional allowance
for future unplanned industrial expansions will be considered by the Division it is usually limited
to 10% over the projected flow unless it can be justified. Please provide additional justification
for the additional 0.555 MGD.
If no response is received within 60 calendar days, the project will be deactivated and withdrawn from our
review process and the documents recycled. If you have questions please call me at [phone] or
by email at [e-mail].
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwateraualitv.org
Sincerely,
Teresa Rodriguez
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NcOA Carolina
Naturally
An Equal opportunity % Affirmative Action Employer

NP )/40, Aricticivd444/1-(4,6/4.2,/itichi /2do/s
DAVIS & FLOYD
SINCE 1954
August 3, 2015
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NC DENR
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Application (NPDES #NC0081370)
City of Claremont McLin Creek WWTP
Claremont, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
Enclosed please find your review and processing the application for the modification of the
NPDES permit for the City of Claremont's McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
permit modification provides for the phased expansion of the plant from a capacity of 0.3 MGD
to a capacity of 1.2 MGD. The application package includes the following:
• EPA Form 2A with attachments
• Letter describing the sludge management practices for the McLin Creek WWTP.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Alternative Analysis Report for the City of
Claremont dated November 2014.
If any additional information is needed, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
DAVIS & FLOYD
Guy E. Slagle, Jf , P.E.
Vice President
RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
AUG -42015
water Quality
Permitting Section
181 E. Evans Street, Suite 28, BTC-105, Florence, SC 29508
o. [phone] F. [phone]
WWW.OAVIS FLOYO.COM

1893
CITY OF CLAREMONT
July 6, 2015
NC DENR
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Application (NPDES #NC0081370)
City of Claremont McLin Creek WWTP
Claremont, North Carolina
RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
AUG - 4 2015
Water Quality
Permitting Section
The City of Claremont's McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant processes all of its sludge by
composting. Sludge is removed from the biological reactor and conveyed to a aerobic digester for further
stabilization to reduce its volatile solids content and also thicken by decanting. Supernate from the
digester is decanted and returned to the head of the treatment plant. The thickened solids are taken to the
Hickory Regional Compost Facility in Newton, NC for composting. During the composting process, the
sludge is stabilized sufficiently to meet all vector attraction and pathogen reduction requirements. After
drying and curing the compost is distributed to various entities to be used as a soil amendment.
If any additional information is needed, please contact me.
Sincerely,
CakV" Alan?'"
Catherine Renbarger
City Manager
828-466-7255 City Hall • 828-466-7185 Fax
3288 East Main Street • Post Office Box 446 • Claremont, NC 28610

PUMP
BLDG
LAB
BLDG
1
J NEW SCREEN 1
UPGRADE
BLOWER BLDG NEW SCREEN 2
NEW DUMPSTER •\
NEW CONC PAD
NEW HEAD BOX
7--no�
For detail process description see EAA dated November 2014
NEW 10" D.I. INFLUENT
FORCE MAIN
UPGRADE
INFLUENT
PUMP STA.
GENERATOR -"
BAR SCREEN
r STORAGE BLDG
NEW W DISINFECTION
POST AERATION
DISCHARGE
HEADWALL
Influent & Effluent
Current = 0.224 MGD w/ decommissioning of the North VWVTP
Proposed = 0.8 MGD (Phase 1), 1.2 MGD (Phase 2)
2e. \
• INFLUENT
SEWER
FIGURE 6.2 - ALTERNATIVE "C"
PROPOSED McLIN CREEK PROCESS SCHEMATIC
z
0
OD v-
50'
too'
D ISM 'WOK E�
-
navy Dlaviromomatal & 1#Aaaato 7 TIC
DATE: 10/6/2014 I PROJECT NO.: 041018.03

Wastewater Treatment Plant
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Report for
City of Claremont
Final Report — November 2014
Claremont WWTP Expansion
EAA&EA
041018.03
PREPARED FOR:
City of Claremont
PO Box 446
Claremont, NC 28610
PREPARED BY:
Davis & Floyd, Inc.
1305 N. Center Street
Hickory, NC 286oi
[phone]
RECEIVEDIDENRIDWR
����\1\111U114IIIrriou l////
� N CARp� /Gj//
DAVIS &
FLOYD, INC. OM
�� No. F-0244 S o^
I11171fli 1111\
AUG - 4 2015
Water Quality
Permitting Section

NMI
Section 1.0 — Executive Summary
The City of Claremont is ideally located for growth and development in that it is near
p+ major urban centers and has ready access to major transportation systems. To respond to this
growth and development it will be essential that the City have adequate wastewater treatment
p, infrastructure available. The purpose of this Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) is to
project future wastewater treatment needs and then identify and evaluate alternatives that are
,, available to the City that will enable this need to be met.
The City currently owns two wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). The North WWTP
"°' has a capacity of 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and the McLin Creek WWTP has a capacity
of 0.3 MGD for a combined capacity of 0.4 MGD. In assessment of historical and future
rim residential, commercial, and industrial growth trends, it is recommended that the City plan for a
total wastewater treatment capacity of 1.2 MGD with the ability for further expansion as
required.
To provide for this future wastewater treatment capacity need, the City of Claremont
rm
initiated negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and conditions for its participation in
the Catawba WWTP that is currently under construction. Those negotiations were not successful
rgq
leaving the City of Claremont with the potential option of upgrading and expanding their existing
WWTPs. This EAA evaluated the design, physical condition, and performance of both the
m' North WWTP and the McLin Creek WWTP. From this evaluation various alternatives for
upgrade and expansion were identified for evaluation as described below:
• Alternative A provided for the upgrade and expansion of both of the City's
existing WWTPs.
1.1
• Alternative B provided for the consolidation of all wastewater treatment at the
MR upgraded and expanded McLin Creek WWTP utilizing the same method of
wastewater treatment.
1.1 • Alternative C provided for the consolidation of all wastewater treatment at the
McLin Creek WWTP with treatment being provided by a membrane biological
WI reactor (MBR).
nal
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 11
City of Claremont, NC

INN
• Alternative D was the same as Alternative B with effluent disposal by standard
rate land application.
.. The North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) provided
Speculative Effluent Limits describing the allowable mass loading of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and ammonia permissible for discharge to Mull Creek and McLin Creek
respectively by the City's WWTPs. In the case of McLin Creek, these Speculative Effluent
0„ Limits were very restrictive. HydroAnalysis, Inc. was commissioned by the City to perform a
water quality study to determine if the mass loading for BOD and ammonia to McLin Creek
could be increased. This study demonstrated that McLin Creek could receive additional mass
ow
loading without violation of water quality standards. After review and approval of the study
DNER issued revised Speculative Limits that will enable the expansion of the McLin Creek
•
WWTP to a capacity of 1.2 MGD.
.. Upon the evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative C proposing consolidation of all
wastewater treatment at the McLin Creek WWTP with membrane biological reactor treatment,
- was determined to be most cost-effective and is recommended for final consideration by the City
of Claremont.
MOP
NM
IMO
MO
NIP
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 12
City of Claremont, NC
IIMI

Section 2.0 — Proposed Project Description
The selected plan (Alternative C) would provide for the upgrade and expansion of the
McLin Creek WWTP. Due to the age and condition of the North WWTP, the City is currently
proceeding with the design and construction of a new pump station and force main that will
enable the decommissioning of the North WWTP. Flow from the North WWTP will be
conveyed the McLin Creek WWTP for treatment and discharge. The proposed project will
.• upgrade and expand the McLin Creek WWTP to a capacity of 1.2 MGD utilizing the Membrane
Biological Reactor (MBR) treatment process. The expansion would be performed in two phases
with the first phase providing for 0.8 MGD of capacity. Treated wastewater would continue to
discharge to McLin Creek; however, the superior quality of the effluent from the MBR process
may provide opportunities for effluent reuse in the future.
INN
The upgrade and expansion of the McLin Creek WWTP would consist of the following
major components as more fully described in Section 7:
• Course Influent Screening: The existing headworks would be modified to include
two manual bar screens.
• Influent Pump Station: The existing influent pump station would be upgraded
with the installation of new influent pumps, piping, and controls.
• Fine Screening: Rotary drum fine screen are proposed to be installed as required
to protect the membrane in the MBR.
• MBR Process: The existing ICEAS SBR treatment process will be retrofitted to
create the MBR process which will consist of three treatment cells: (1) an anoxic
cell, (2) a preaeration cell, and (3) a membrane reactor cells.
• Disinfection: The existing chlorine disinfection system will be replaced with an
ultra -violet (UV) light disinfection system.
• Sludge Holding: A new 300,000 gallons sludge holding tank would be
constructed.
Presented in Table 2.1 is the estimated probable cost for the implementation of the
selected plan. Presented in Figure 6.2 is a schematic of the McLin Creek WWTP illustrating the
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 13
City of Claremont, NC

MIN
IMMI
scope of the proposed upgrade and expansion to a capacity of 1.2 MGD. Presented in Table 7.2
are the proposed design criteria for the plant upgrade and expansion.
Table 2.1
Estimated Capital Cost Summary
Item
Estimated Cost
Phase 1 Construction , 0.8 MGD
$6,011,772 -
Phase 2 Construction, 1.2 MGD
$1,021,487
—
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$7,033,259 -
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 14
City of Claremont, NC

MI
Ell
Section 3.0 — Current Situation
3.1 Background Information
The City of Claremont needs additional wastewater treatment capacity in response to
anticipated growth and development of the City and adjoining areas. In 2011 a Preliminary
Engineering Report (2011 PER) was commissioned by Catawba County in conjunction with the
City of Hickory, City of Conover, and the City of Claremont to address the total wastewater
treatment needs for the McLin/Lyle Creek drainage basin. Hickory, Conover, and Claremont
each have existing wastewater treatment facilities serving customers within this drainage basin.
The draft 2011 PER evaluated various alternatives for providing wastewater treatment service to
the drainage basin. This draft report determined that the least cost option for Claremont was to
decommission its two existing wastewater treatment plants and convey its wastewater to the new
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) being constructed on Lyle Creek near the Town of Catawba
(referred to as the Catawba WWTP.) . The Catawba WWTP is being constructed by the City of
Hickory in conjunction with Catawba County.
Based upon the findings of the draft 2011 PER, the City of Claremont initiated
negotiations with the City of Hickory on the terms and conditions for their participation in the
Catawba WWTP. Those negotiations were not successful, and as a result the City of Claremont
authorized this Engineering Alternative Analysis report to further evaluate alternatives for the
upgrade and expansion of their existing WWTP's to meet their future wastewater treatment
needs.
3.2 Planning Area
The planning area for this study is show in Figure 3.1 and includes the current wastewater
service area of the Claremont and potential future services areas.
3.3 Planning Period
The period considered reasonable for the planning of wastewater infrastructure is
typically 20 years. Projections of infrastructure needs beyond 20 years begin to become
unreliable. Therefore the planning year for this study will be 2034.
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 15

ON
NMI
IMO
NIP
.r
3.4 Existing Wastewater Collection Facilities
The City of Claremont owns 134,587 LF, or 25.5 miles of gravity and pressurized
sanitary sewer piping, five (5) pump stations, and two (2) Wastewater Treatment Plants. Pump
station data provided by the City of Hickory Public Utilities Department has been summarized in
Table 3.1. Pump draw down tests were performed to determine the actual pumping capacity of
each pump. A map showing the location of the existing sewer collection system is presented in
Figure 3.2.
According to drawdown tests performed by City of Hickory staff, the pump stations do
not currently have excessive run times and therefore should be capable of handling increased
flow if needed. As shown in Figure 3.1, wastewater collected in Sub -basin 1 is conveyed to
Claremont's North Wastewater Treatment Plant and wastewater collected in Sub -basin 2 is
conveyed to Claremont's McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Table 3.1
Pump Station Draw Down Test Results
Station
Name
Wet Well
Size
Pump 1
(t)
Pump 2
(t)
Current
Flow (gpm)
Calculated Flow
Pump 1 / 2 (gpm)
Design Flow
(GPM)
State
6' dia
60 s
60 s
n/a
140.97 / 132.16
n/a
Catawba
Truck
4' dia
60 s
60 s
9.79
45.05 / 33.3
n/a
Smyres
6' x 10'
60 s
60 s
9.35
46.75 / 9.35
n/a
Mom and
Pops
5' dia
60 s
60 s
n/a
61.21 / 6.12
n/a
School
7' dia
60 s
60 s
11.99
59.96 / 59.96
n/a
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 16

3.5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Claremont owns the North and McLin Creek wastewater treatment plants.
Both plants are operated by the City of Hickory under an intergovernmental agreement. The
locations of these plants are shown in Figure 3.2.
3.5.1 North Wastewater Treatment Plant
The North WWTP is a conventional package type extended aeration activated sludge
facility. The plant was originally constructed in 1951 and underwent its most recent
expansion/upgrade in 1975. The plant has a current design
me
capacity of 0.100 million gallons per day with a present
day average flow of 0.060 million gallons per day. The
effluent is chlorinated and then de -chlorinated to remove
residual chlorine with final discharge to Mull Creek which
is a tributary of Lyle Creek. Residual biosolids are
periodically removed and hauled to the Catawba County
regional compost facility.
r
The plant runs below its rated capacity during dry weather periods, however it exceeds
capacity during significant rainfall events. The existing plant is outdated and in poor condition.
The North WWTP currently serves the area included in Sub -basin "1" as shown in Figure 3.1.
Shown in Figure 3.3 is a schematic of the Plant. Presented in Table 3.2 is a description of the
plant's current NPDES permit effluent limitations. Table 3.3 illustrates the plant's current
performance and presented in Table 3.4 is the plant's
NPDES permit compliance history.
improvements
Planned upgrades and maintenance to the
Claremont North WWTP include; a new digester and
new chain and flights in the larger clarifier. Also, the
North WWTP is not equipped with an emergency
generator. Estimated capital cost for these
is approximately $200,000. Although these planned upgrades will address
immediate needs for the WWTP, they will not address its future capacity requirements.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 17
City of Claremont, NC

LEGEND
A PUMP STATION
MPLANNED INDUSTRIAL LAIC USE
PLANNED COMMERCIAL LAND USE
-
FIGURE 3.1
STUDY AREA & SUB -BASIN MAP
- SUB -BASIN BOUNDARY
=MI
c[J CREK
IWTP
k
SCALE: N.T.S.
D
FL
I Smigineering 1305H PI tOKROTiln,1 CE441782 6S0 !rt.
Arc.bitecture B28-322-2290
DEnvironmental & laboratory Services
10111. NO•CNIMINIK 100011111111.10••=1111ZIEle 11:1•1101111;

•
•
•
NORTH WWTP \
LEGEND
>
L_
A CATANIA TAUCM RENTAL PUP MUM
A VIM PIMP STA110M
A Hsi AREA PWN sTLnEN
• NNP OA'RA & POPS> NAP ',LIEN
• 5o.001. IRMCN PAP ETLEEN
■ NORM WASRWLIER IEAneT PUNT
NC (1N CAED( WASTEWATER UTEATNDIT PUNT
O AREA MVO) MY NNN WHIN
fl AREA YRYFD Of NCMTN WHIN
COO 500 0 1000 505C
SCN.Ct T' • T000•
ELJ U1E
Ott 1*01 UTNE
SCSIA LAC
SEREA NAAIKEE
0C9U1 MIOJECT MANE / NUN0N
FIGURE 3.2 n vls "�' "' 0
ee HNORTH, NC 288ST
01
lrchitecture 828-322-2290
CITY OF CLAREMONT SEWER MAP FL DIk: n menu' � og =e

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
RETURN SLUDGE
BLDG
EFFLUENT WEIR
J
SETTLING TANK
AERATION
TANK
CHLORINE CONTACT
CHAMBER
COMMINUTOR &
BAR SCREEN
0.04 MGD
PACKAGE PLANT
(ADDED 1975)
FIGURE 3.3
CLAREMONT NORTH WWTP
INFLUENT
0
20'
40'
DA�JIswim*
1305 � '" `
kchilectare riac«rrHe, zesol
Dh,Ironm®tal k laboratory Scrim

MR
ER
MR
.ir
Table 3.2
Effluent Limitations for the North Wastewater Treatment Plant
(from NPDES Permit No. NC0032662)
Parameters
Effluent Limits
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Dail}
Averac
Flow (mgd)
0.100
BOD, 5 day, 20°C8
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 / 100 1i1 I
400 / 100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
28 µg/L
Notes: a = Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal)
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 111
City of Claremont, NC

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3.3
Performance Summary for the North Wastewater Treatment Plant
Plant Influent
Plant Effluent
Month
Year
Flow
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
Temp
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
January
2013
0.076
725
546
12
12.0
11.6
0.55
7.4
February
2013
0.075
619
503
12
38.0
21.6
0.47
7.8
March
2013
0.069
603
403
10
16.0
11.5
0.03
7.9
April
2013
0.079
547
471
13
11.0
11.6
0.08
8.0
May
2013
0.076
835
1070
18
12.0
13.7
1.02
7.6
June
2013
0.063
1352
1716
22
7.1
17.8
0.21
7.2
July
2013
0.084
1140
1467
23
6.8
10.0
0.19
7.6
August
2013
0.065
705
831
24
7.7
8.5
0.25
7.5
September
2013
0.060
626
641
23
9.3
14.2
0.64
7.5
October
2013
0.061
620
560
18
6.5
10.3
0.28
7.4
November
2013
0.066
878
1385
15
5.7
19.0
0.30
7.2
December
2013
0.077
1124
1735
14
13
20.0
0.14
7.7
Data in bold was during a period that the plant was experiencing Interference.
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 112

Table 3.4
North Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Violations (6/2009 - 6/2010)
Action or Penalty
Date issued
Parameter of concern
Status
Special Order by Consent
None
Judicial Order
None
Civil Penalty Assessment
None
Notice of Violation
Oct-10
Flow
Nov-10
Flow
Dec-10
Flow
3.5.2 McLin Wastewater Treatment Plant
The McLin Creek WWTP was originally constructed in 1992 and currently serves the
area in Sub -basin "2" as shown in Figure 3.1. This WWTP discharges its treated effluent to
McLin Creek which is a tributary to Lyle Creek.
• The McLin Creek WWTP is an activated
sludge treatment facility utilizing the Intermittent
•. Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) process.
OEM
Headworks include a mechanical bar screen and grit
removal. Flow is treated in two separate ICEAS basins
through aeration, settling, and decantation. Effluent
from the ICEAS basins is further treated by tertiary
sand filters followed by chlorine disinfection and dechlorination, with final discharge into
McLin
Creek. The plant has a current design capacity of 0.300
million gallons per day with a present day average
flow of 0.136 million gallons per day. A schematic of
the plant is presented in Figure 3.4. The design criteria
for the plant are presented in Table 3.5. Presented in
Table 3.6 is the NPDES permit discharge limits for the
plant. Presented in Table 3.7 is a summary of the
plant's recent performance. During a portion of this
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 113
City of Claremont, NC

operational period the plant was subject to an unknown non -domestic discharge that resulted in
interference with the biological treatment process. Other than this period of interference, it can
be observed the plant is capable of providing extremely good wastewater treatment.
According to Claremont's Annual Wastewater Quality Report from July 2009 to June
,_, 2010, the plant had 12 Notice of Violations (NOV's) related to BOD and ammonia levels. It is
believed that these violations are primarily associated with non -domestic discharges which are
MEI
MCP
being addressed through more diligent enforcement of the City's Sewer Use Ordinance. A
summary of those violations is presented in Table 3.8.
Planned upgrades and maintenance at the McLin WWTP include; replacing the sand
filter media, refurbishing the tertiary filter pipe gallery; replacing the bar screen and grit removal
system; and installation of a SCADA control system. Also, the McLin WWTP's current
emergency generator only powers the lift station at the head of the plant. An upgrade for an
emergency generator to run the entire plant is proposed.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 1 14
City of Claremont, NC

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PUMP
BLDG
-Q
SLUDGE
LOADING STA. DECANTER
6' D.I. INFLUENT
BLOWER BLDG FORCE MAIN
TREATMENT
PLANT
GENERATOR -f
FILTER BLDG
FILTER CELLS
FILTER BACKWASH
HOLDING
HEADWORKS
GRIT/SCREENINGS
REMOVAL
FIGURE 3.4
McLIN CREEK WWTP
INFLUENT
SEWER
CHEMICAL STORAGE BLDG
CHLORINATION/
DECHL0RINA11ON
CHAMBER
DISCHARGE
HEADWALL
50' 100'

1. Design Flow
a. Average Day
b. Peak Hour
2. Influent Parameters
a. BOD
b. TSS
c. Ammonia
d. pH
e. Minimum Temperature
f. Maximum Temperature
3. Effluent Parameters (WWTP)
a. BOD
b. TSS
c. Ammonia
4. Bar Screen
a.
b.
c.
d.
Type
Manufacturer
Number of Units
Type of Units
g•
h. SRT
i. MLSS
7. SBR Aeration
a. Type
b. Blower Horsepower
c. Blower Type
d. Number
8. SBR Sludge Removal
a. Type
b. Pump Rate
c. Number
9. SBR Effluent Decant
a. Type
b. Number
c. Decant Rate
10. Filtration
a. Type
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Table 3.5
McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria
0.3 MGD
0.75 MGD
280 ppm
250 ppm
30 ppm
7.0
12°C
20°C
10 ppm
10 ppm
1 ppm Winter, 2 ppm Summer
Cantenary
S&L
Two
One mechanically cleaned
17.7 days
4500 mg/L
Coarse Bubble
40 ea.
Positive Displacement
Two
Submersible
50 gpm
One (per Basin)
Floating, Gravity
One (per Basin)
625 gpm
Deep bed
e. Width
f. Spacing of Opening
5. Grit Chamber
a. Type
b. Manufacturer
c. Number of Units
d. Capacity of Unit
e. Aerated
f. Grit Removal
g. Grit Classifier Type
6. Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR)
a. Type
b. Manufacturer
c. Number
d. Basin Volume
e. HRT
f. Water Depth
One manually cleaned
2.5 ft
1/2 Inch
Vortex Grit Removal
S&L
One
UNK
No
Pump
Concentrator w/ gravity screen
SBR
Xylem, Inc.
Two
0.127 MG ea.
18 hours
14.65 feet (Avg.)
b. Number 3
c. Filtration Rate 2.5 gpm/sf (w/one filter out of
service)
11. Disinfection
a. Type Chlorine
b. Retention Time @ Decant Rate 31 min
c. Number of Channels 2
12. Sludge Holding
a. Type Aerobic
b. Number Two
c. Volume 0.13 MG
d. Aeration/Tank
1. Type Coarse Bubble
2. Horsepower 25 hp
3. Number Two
13. Sludge Processing
a. Type Composting
b. Location Regional Composting Facility
Page 116

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3.6
Effluent Limitations for the McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(from NPDES Permit No. NC0081370)
Parameters
Effluent Limits
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Average
Flow (mgd)
0.300
BOD, 5 day, 20°C (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
BOD, 5 day, 20°Ca (Nov 1 thru Mar
31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
N1-13 as N (Apr 1 thru Oct 31)
2.0 mg/L
6 mg/L
NH3 as N (Nov 1 thru Mar 31)
4.0 mg/L
12 mg/L
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 / 100 m]
400 / 100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
28 µg/L
Notes: a = Monthly average effluent concentrations for Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) and TSS shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (i.e. 85% removal)
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 117

l 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 3.7
Performance Summary for the McLin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Plant Influent
Plant Effluent
Month
Year
Flow
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
Temp
BOD
TSS
Ammonia
pj
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(°C)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
January
2013
0.161
149
147
32.1
9.6
4.7
2.9
0.17
7.7
February
2013
0.157
183
200
25.4
9.4
3.4
2.0
0.08
7.4
March
2013
0.132
148
150
29.5
11.0
9.7
7.2
1.36
7.3
April
2013
0.154
166
190
27.6
12.0
15.0`
3.6
2.04
7.2
May
2013
0.135
133
146
23.5
16.0
17.0
1
8.4
2.55
6.9
June
2013
0.141
107
112
22.0
20.0
19.0
6.0
4.99
7.1
July
2013
0.209
234
294
27.8
20.0
18.0
4.8
1.26
7.2
August
2013
0.199
191
238
17.7
20.0
16.0
` 5.6
0.20
7.2
September
2013
0.155
205
264
24.2
19.0
14.0 J
5.0
0.15
7.2
October
2013
0.143
214
295
31.6
16.0
6.7
3.7
0.12
7.1
November
2013
0.153
194
308
29.5
14.0
3.6
2.0
0.13
7.0
December
2013
0.186
202
289
18.0
14.0
2.9
2.0
0.46
6.9
Data in bold was during a period that the plant was experiencing Interference.
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 118

VIII
NMI
Table 3.8
McLin Creek Wastewater Plant Permit Violations (6/2009 - 6/2010)
Action or Penalty
Date issued
Parameter of concern
Status
Special Order by Consent
None
Judicial Order
None
Civil Penalty Assessment
None
Notice of Violation
Feb-10
NH3
Mar-10
NH3
Nov-10
NH3
Jun-09
BOD
Apr-10
BOD
Nov-10
BOD
Dec-10
BOD
Jun-10
Fecal
3.5.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment
As previously mentioned both the North and McLin Creek WWTP's have had periods of
non -compliant treatment due to interference caused by non -domestic wastewater being
discharged to the sewer system. Otherwise, both of these plants are capable of providing
adequate wastewater treatment. From inspection it is apparent that the North WWTP is nearing
the end of its mechanical life and will need to be replaced or decommissioned in the near future.
By comparison the McLin Creek WWTP is about 20 years old and in generally good structural
and mechanical condition. This plant is capable of providing many more years of service to the
City of Claremont.
Provided in Table 3.9 is a summary of the wastewater flow being received by these two
treatment plants for the years 2012 and 2013. Both plants are operating within their design
capacities. Their combined rated capacity and current wastewater flow is 0.4 MGD and 0.214
MGD respectively.
Wastewater Engineering EAA Page 119
City of Claremont, NC

MIR
NMI
NMI
MI
IMBA
MOM
MIR
Table 3.9
Wastewater Flow Summary
Month
Year
McLin
Flow
North
Flow
Total
Flow
Total
Rainfall
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
Inches
January
2012
0.125
0.063
0.188
1.0
February
2012
0.126
0.061
0.187
1.1
March
2012
0.133
0.064
0.197
2.3
April
2012
0.122
0.065
0.187
2.3
May
2012
0.151
0.049
0.200
5.7
June
2012
0.131
0.055
0.186
2.4
July
2012
0.137
0.054
0.191
4.2
August
2012
0.141
0.057
0.198
5.8
September
2012
0.141
0.061
0.202
6.4
October
2012
0.133
0.067
0.200
2.2
November
2012
0.113
0.076
0.189
0.4
December
2012
0.119
0.104*
0.223
4.6
January
2013
0.161
0.076
0.237
7.4
February
2013
0.157
0.075
0.232
3.8
March
2013
0.132
0.069
0.201
2.6
April
2013
0.154
0.079
0.233
7.1
May
2013
0.135
0.076
0.211
4.6
June
2013
0.141
0.063
0.204
6.4
July
2013
0.209
0.084
0.293
10.15
August
2013
0.199
0.065
0.264
3.9
September
2013
0.155
0.060
0.215
2.7
October
2013
0.143
0.061
0.204
1.9
November
2013
0.153
0.066
0.219
4.4
December
2013
0.186
0.077
0.263
7.0
Monthly Average
0.146
0.068
0.214
Peak Month
0.209
0.084
0.293
Plant Capacity
0.300
0.100
0.400
*_High flow due to water line leak to sewer
Wastewater Engineering EAA
City of Claremont, NC
Page 120