NC0025461_Permit (Issuance)_20020725

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0025461
Bakersville WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Correspondence
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment
(67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
July 25, 2002
Thin document Asa printed on reuuse paper - ignore a ny
content on the reYerse gide

Mayor Charles E. Vines
Town of Bakersville
P.O. Box 53
Bakersville, North Carolina 28705
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 25, 2002
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0025461
Bakersville WWTP
Mitchell County
Dear Mayor Vines:
Division staff have reviewed and approved your renewal application for an NPDES discharge permit.
Accordingly, the Division is forwarding the subject 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 May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended).
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 a demand is made, this permit shall be final and
binding. .
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division
of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 595.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
®avid ,\. Goodrich
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality
Central Files
J. Vance McGougan — Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone] NCDENR
FAX [phone] Customer service
On the Internet at htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ 1 800 623-7748

Permit NC0025461
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Town of Bakersville
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Town of Bakersville WWTP
Intersection of NC Highway 226 and NCSR 1278 west of Bakersville
Mitchell County
to receiving waters designated as Cane Creek in the French Broad River Basin in accordance
with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective September 1, 2002.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 28,
2006.
Signed this day July 25, 2002.
original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0025461
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The Town of Bakersville is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.075 MGD wastewater treatment
facility located at the intersection of NC Highway 226 and NCSR 1278
west of Bakersville in Mitchell County, discharging through outfall
001 and consisting of the following wastewater treatment components:
• Influent pump station
• Bar screen
• Flow splitter
• Flow equalization basin
• Three 0.025 MGD extended aeration package plants, each with clarifier and
sludge return, two with sludge holding tanks
• Effluent chlorination
• Effluent dechlorination
• Post aeration
• Flow measuring
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of
Water Quality, construct and operate wastewater treatment facilities
with an ultimate capacity of 0.20 MGD. These subsequent facilities
shall be permitted to discharge 0.156 MGD initially. Following
additional approval from the Division, the facility may discharge up to
0.20 MGD.
3. Discharge from said treatment works into Cane Creek, a Class C-
Trout water in the French Broad River Basin, at the location specified
on the attached map.

State Grid/Ouad: Bakersville
CIOSW
Receiving Stream: Cane$ Creek
Stream Class: C-Tr
NPDES Permit No. NC0025461
Mitchell County

Permit NC0025461
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (0.2 MGD)
Beginning upon Authorization to Operate and discharge over 0.156 MGD (see A. (4.)) and lasting until
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
•
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT
Monthly
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Average
Row
0.2 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C '
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
i
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 ig/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (4.) FLOW EXPANSION REQUEST
Prior to the average annual flow exceeding 0.156 MGD, the facility shall submit to the
Division a flow justification to obtain an Authorization to Operate the treatment facilities at
the increased flow of 0.20 MGD.
The wastewater flows should be determined and justified based on accurate wastewater flow
records, agency guidance on flow estimates (15A NCAC 2H .0219), good engineering
practices and realistic projections of future projected flow additions. The justification must
be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
A copy of the flow justification shall be sent to:
NC DENR / Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
• Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Permit NC0025461
A. (2.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (0.156 MGD)
Beginning upon expansion beyond 0.075 MGD and lasting until expiration. the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Row .
0.156 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 1
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 pglL
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0025461
A. (3.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (0.2 MGD)
Beginning upon Authorization to Operate and discharge over 0.156 MGD (see A. (4.)) and lasting until
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
• EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
EFFLUENT
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Flow
0.2 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C '
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 pg/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
pH2
_
2/Month
Grab
• Effluent
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
A. (4.) FLOW EXPANSION REQUEST
Prior to the average annual flow exceeding 0.156 MGD, the facility shall submit to the
Division a flow justification to obtain an Authorization to Operate the treatment facilities at
the increased flow of 0.20 MGD.
The wastewater flows should be determined and justified based on accurate wastewater flow
records, agency guidance on flow estimates (15A NCAC 2H .0219), good engineering
practices and realistic projections of future projected flow additions. The justification must
be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
A copy of the flow justification shall be sent to:
NC DENR / Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
• Asheville, North Carolina 28801

C>Et`IR •Dv $ k\ 105
E 00
�
C • � 1 Iry � c es a-�r.
KOAQ h ni_C _ ..Z1 rH (p_11
On , 19_
Certification
of publication of legal notice in
MITCHELL NEWS -JOURNAL
Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, NC / weeks
SfzZ/oz $ 105.00
s
$
yul\tLc 0-1,cc
1�1`�l ES
Paid
19
MITCHELWSL `" "\
E-JOURNAI
Cost of Advertisment
Cost of Affidavit
Total $ 105,(
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MbTCHELL
1, Nathaniel A. Ashurst, Publisher of the Mitchell News -Jo
newspaper published in Mitchell County, North Carolina.
compliance with statutes G.S. 1-597 of North Carolina, as a
1947 session of General Assembly, being duly sworn, cert
attached advertisement of
mil,-t):c�
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONM T MAN-
AGEMENT COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES WASTEWATER
PERMIT
On the basis of thorough re-
view and application of NC
General Statute 143.21, Pub-
lic Law 92-500 and other law-
ful standards and regulations,
the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
,,, Elimination System (NPDES)
was duly published in the aforesaid paper on wastewater discharge permit
ILA -
to the person(s) listed below
consecutive weeks, beginning with the effective 45 days from the
publish date of this notice.
N E3-
(signed)
Ot
NPDES Permit Number
NC0025461. Town of
(Owner,Partner, Publisher or other Bakersville, P.O. Box 53,
Employee Authorized to makc the affidavit Bakersville, NC 28705 has
applied for a modification for
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1U a facility located in Mitchell
County discharging treated
wastewater into Cane Creek
-in the French Broad River
Basin. Currently no param-
eters are water quality lim-
Bited. This discharge may af-
fect future allocations in this
Notary Public for M portion of the receiving
"Lon I stream.
My Commission expires 2 \ () t I 4
20 0 9/
Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of this notice.
All comments received prior
to that dat rsldetect in
tti final cil?tarminatinna re-
garding the proposed permit.
The Director of the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality may
decide to hold a public meet-
ing for the proposed permit
should the Division receive a
significant degree of public
interest.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information
on file used to determine con-
ditions present in the draft
permit are available upon re-
quest and payment of the
costs of reproduction: Mail
comments and/or requests for
information to the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality at the
above address or call Ms.
Christie Jackson at (919) 733-
5083, extension 538. Please
include the NPDES permit
number (#NC0025461) in any
communication. Interested
persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Ra-
leigh, NC 27604-1148 be-
tween the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. to review infor-
mation on file.
#4900 - 5/22/02
No.

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NC00025461
(Amended Fact Sheet -expansion to 0.156 MGD)
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Town of Bakersville
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 53, Bakersville, NC 28705
Facility Address
Intersection of Hwy 226 & NCSR 1278
Permitted Flow (MGD)
0.075
Type of Waste
Domestic
Facility Class
II
County
Mitchell
Facility Status
Expansion
Regional Office
Asheville
Stream Characteristics
Receiving Stream
Cane Creek
Stream Classification
C-Tr
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
22.4
Drainage basin
French Broad
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
3.6
Subbasin
04-03-06
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
5.0
Use Support
NR
30Q2 (cfs) .
8.0
303(d) Listed
No
Average Flow (cfs)
34.0
State Grid
C10SW
IWC (%)
3.1
USGS Topo Quad
Bakersville
Summary The Town of Bakersville has applied for an expansion of the WWTP from 0.075
MGD to 0.20 MGD.
Permit Issues The Town of Bakersville submitted an Engineering Alternative Analysis to
expand the plant to 0.20 MGD. The facility has been experiencing high flows over the past
three years. They entered into an SOC with the Division on February 2000. Excess flows in
the past and fines by the state have prompted the town to consider an expansion of the
treatment system. Infiltration and inflow contribute to the high flow and causes operational
problems at the facility. They completed a project for I/1 corrections. More work is needed
to reduce I/1. The EAA requested a flow expansion to 0.20 MGD. The information
presented justified a flow of 0.156 MGD. This flow projection includes existing flow, existing
I/1, proposed projects that have been allocated flow and future growth. The permit will
authorize an increase in flow to 0.159 MGD. Additionally, the permit will have an effluent
page for 0.20 MGD subject to approval by the Division of the flow expansion. The permit
allows the Town to construct at 0.20 MGD ultimate capacity, but requires approval to go
beyond 0.156 MGD actual flow.
The following alternatives were evaluated:
Upgrade and expand — construction of a new facility with a capacity of 0.2 MGD. The new
plant will be a sequencing batch reactor. The present value cost of this alternative is
$1,823,062.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NC0025461
Page 1

Pump to Spruce Pine — The Town of Spruce Pine is nine miles away from Bakersville. The
present value cost of this alternative is $3,596,489.
Land Application — The area required for spray irrigation is 33 acres. The present value cost
of this alternative is $7,871,427.
Onsite subsurface disposal — The area needed for this option is 114 acres. The present
value cost of this alternative is $11,083,832.
Facility Description The actual facility consists of influent equalization structure with
screening and duplex submersible influent pumps, flow splitter, three 0.025 MGD extended
aeration package plants in parallel, each with a calrifier and sludge return, sludge holding
tanks, effluent chlorination, post aeration, flow measuring and totalizing equipment.
The proposed facility is a sequencing batch reactor. The existing equalization basin will
remain in use and the existing aeration basins will be converted to sludge holding tanks.
Level B Modeling A level B model was run for 0.156 MGD and 0.20 MGD. The results of
the model indicate that secondary limits are adequate at the expanded flows. The limits for
BOD, TSS, TRC and fecal coliform remain unchanged from the current permit.
Waste Load Allocation (WLA) The last WLA was done in 1994. Limits were developed
based on secondary treatment standards.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test The permit does not have toxicity test requirements.
DMR Instream and Effluent Data Review Data was reviewed for the period of January 1,
1999 to October 31, 2001. In 1999 the facility exceeded the monthly average flow limit 7
times. The SOC effective on February 2000, raised the flow limit to 0.150 MGD. The
average flow during 2000 was 0.0813 MGD and for 2001 the average flow was 0.0659
MGD.
Fecal Coliform was exceeded once in 1999. All other parameters were below permit limits.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
• Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for 0.156 MGD and 0.20 MGD.
• Special condition requesting that the facility obtains approval to increase the permitted
flow from 0.156 MGD to 0.20 MGD.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0025461
Page 2

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
May 15, 2002
July 5, 2002
NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 595.
NAME:
i ..
/slit
/V)
Regional Office Comments
DATE: S�3/eyZ
NAME: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0025461
Page 3

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes X No
IF YES, SOC NUMBER 99-08
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Susan Wilson
DATE: December 13, 2001
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Mitchell
PERMIT NUMBER NC0025461
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
O
Nrul
O
O
CO
U
u J
1. Facility and Address: Town of Bakersville
Post Office Box 53
Bakersville, North Carolina 28705
2. Date of Investigation: May 23, 2001
3. Report Prepared By: Michael R. Parker, Env. Chemist
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Mayor Charles Vines
828/688-2113
5. Directions to Site: The wastewater treatment plant is located six
hundred feet east of the intersection of North Carolina Highway
226 and North Carolina Secondary Road 1278 behind the Taylor Togs
Plant.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 36° 00'49" Longitude: 82° 09'53"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. C1OSW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Bakersville, N.C.
7 Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Plant is
located adjacent to Cane Creek and is 6-8 feet above stream level.
It could probably be flooded in extreme flood conditions.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 350 feet to the south.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Cane Creek
a. Classification: C-trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: FBR 06
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: fishing, wading, fish and wildlife propagation and
irrigation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.200
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity
Treatment facility? 0.075 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current
design capacity 0.075 MGD
MGD (Ultimate
of the Wastewater
facility (current
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: The existing
wastewater treatment facilities consist of an influent pump
station, bar screen, flow splitter box, three, 0.025 MGD
extended aeration package plants, operated in parallel, each
with clarifier and sludge return facilities, two of the units
have sludge holding tanks. These units are followed by
effluent chlorination facilities, post aeration and flow
measuring and totalizing equipment.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: It is proposed to construct an new 0.200 mgd
extended aeration wastewater treatment plant with tertiary
filters and new disinfection facilities. The existing
treatment units (3) 25,000 gpd ext. aeration plant will be
converted to sludge digestion and storage.
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Chlorine
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved
should be required not needed X

2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):Solids are pumped
from the facility and taken to the Town's of Morganton and
Burnsville for disposal.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Class II
4. SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities
i.e., non -contact cooling water discharge from a metal plating
company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 06003
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any
public monies involved. (municipals only)? Yes
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate)
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Date
December 2001
April 1, 2002
January 1, 2003
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -
discharge options available. Please provide regional perspective for each
option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Review of AA in submittal appears to
adequate for all of the types of
Connection to Regional Sewer System: alternatives.
Subsurface:
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:

PART IV - EVALUATION MID RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Bakersville has requested renewal of NPDES Permit No.
NC0025461 and expansion of the facility from 0.075 mgd to 0.200
mgd. The expansion is needed for long term infrastructure needs
of the Town and the high amount of I/I getting into the collection
system. Monthly monitoring data consistently show the facility
flows to be in excess of the 0.075 permitted flow and sometimes
exceed 0.100 mgd for the monthly average. Basically the facility
is in compliance with the other NPDES Permit and SOC limits.
Since the Town has no industry and the wastewater is only domestic
it is recommended that the requirements for toxicity be removed.
It is recommended that the permit be issued for expansion.
Signature of Report Preparer
Water ality Reg onal Supervisor
lL\31oi
Date

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
April 22, 2002
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Amendment to Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Town of Bakersville, Mitchell County
NDPES Permit #NC0025461,
HUA No.: BA0001
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
APR 2 5 2002
IV!R - t',ATER QUALITY
SOURCE BRANCH
I appreciate you taking time to meet with me regarding the referenced application for the Town of
Bakersville. As we discussed, our position regarding the requested 0.20 mgd flow allocation is that it is
not an unreasonable or unpermittable request given the proposed improvements will eliminate an outdated
package treatment facility and provide treatment capable of maintaining discharges with BOD, NH3 and
TSS mass loadings at current levels with no effective increase in pollutants than is currently permitted at
0.075 mgd. However, I cannot dispute the recent census information regarding population trends for the
area. We would ask that consideration of the positive economic impact that new wastewater infrastructure
will have on this area of low median income and high unemployment be given when making the final
decision regarding flow allocation.
I believe we both understand the importance of moving forward with this application given the time
constraints for the CDBG grant. You indicated that the permit has been drafted and will go to public
notice by the first week of May. For your use, I have attached the corrected summary of present worth
calculations and a revised cost estimate for the WWTP Expansion alternative. Please include this
information as an amendment to the EAA document.
Once again, we appreciate your cooperation with this effort. If you have any questions or need additional
information regarding this permit modification, please feel free to contact this office.
Respectfully,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
lia..hqgouteu-t-
J. Vance McGougan, P.E.
Project Manager
Attachments
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office (w/ attachments)
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte • Beaufort

Altcost.xls
HOBBS , UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
BAKERSVILLE
WWTP Apr-01
- PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
Alternative
Captial Cost
Annual O&M
Present Worth
New 0.20 MGD WWTP
$883,750.00
$ 88,664.50
$ 1,823,062.98
Regionalization
$2,241,441.00
$ 127,907.00
$ 3,596,489.58
Land Application (0.125 mgd)
$3,814,715.33
$ 104,861.33
$ 4,925,617.75
Land Application (0.20 mgd)
$6,760,525.38
$ 104,861.33
$ 7,871,427.80
1
1
On -Site Wastewater Disposal
$10,345,562.57
$ 69,687.50
$ 11,083,832.94
PV=Co + Ct*((1+i)An)-1)/((i)*(1+i)An)
Co= construction cost
i=interest rate
7
0/0
Ct= O&M cost
n=design life
20
yrs
A/P factor
10.59401
Page 1

Est. (rev.)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
FOR THE TOWN OF BAKERSVILLE
CBGG NO.
Construction Cost Estimate
1. New 0.20 MGD WWTP
5. New Ultra -Violet Disinfection
8. New Parshall Flume (Effluent Flow Monitoring)
9. New Plant Piping and Modifications
10. Walkways, Grating, Handrails, Stairs
12. Electrical Modifications
14. Excavation and Site Work
Total Estimated Construction
Total Project Capital Budget
$450,000.00
$30,500.00
$25,000.00
$50,000.00
$40,000.00
$82,500.00
$82.500.00
$760,500.00
Estimated Construction $760,500.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $38,025.00
Engineering Planning and Design $52,852.50
Construction Inspection $31,972.50
Permits $400.00
Estimated Total Project Cost $883,750.00
Page 1

O�\ IV
„ A„,-yn Date 4 of pages
�s« 1lw6. Fax N/Z1T/oi I (
�`r i r
0 1 �C Fax#
i14 - 6acl°1
From r 4&L - no do u4.2„
Phone# /33 -So y3 Y AL/
Tobcvn8IQ43d
Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor
Town of Bakersville
P.O. Box 53
Bakersville, NC 28705
Dear Mr. Vines:
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
December 13, 2001
Subject: Additional Information Request
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Permit No. NC0025461
Town of Bakersville
The NPDES Unit has completed a preliminary review of the subject Engineering Alternatives Analysis.
Additional information is required before we may continue our review. Please provide the following
information before January 18, 2002:
• The flow of 77,325 gpd presented as the allowable flow for I/I was based on an upper boundary for non -
excessive I/I. The Division recommends that the proposed I/I flow is estimated based on actual data for
dry -weather and wet weather flows or based on historic data at the facility. This estimate shall take into
consideration the abatement program being pursued by the town or actual dry -weather and wet flow
estimates. Please provide the Division with a summary of the I/I evaluation study and the status of the
projects identified by the town to address I/I.
• The total flow for the proposed expansion include a flow of 33,500 gpd based on a 50 % growth factor.
The historic population growth was given as 8.7 % for the past ten years. The expected population for
2020 is 14 % more than the actual population. Please explain why the 50 % growth factor was applied
and revise the expected flow allocated to growth as appropriate.
• The alternative to reuse all or part of the effluent was not included in the alternatives. Please explain if
the reuse option was considered and if it is not a possible alternative briefly explain why.
• A present -value -of -cost analysis evaluation was not presented. This is a required element of an
Engineering Alternative Analysis. A present value methodology shall be used to evaluate the cost
associated for the different alternatives for the life of the project (20 years).
If you have any questions concerning this request, please call me at [phone], extension 595.
Sincerely,
i:y—s.
Teresa Rodriguez
NPDES Unit
cc: NPDES Files
Mr. J. Vance McGougan, P.E. - P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, NC 28388
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Bakersville WWTP Expansion
Subject: Bakersville WWTP Expansion
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:16:03 -0400
From: Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
CC: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>,
Mike Parker <[e-mail]>
I have reviewed the additional information letter from
Hobbs -Upchurch on the additional flow for this facility.
While the "likelyhood" of Bakersville "growing" under
current situations to produce this much additional
wastewater flow is not high, without the capability to treat
this much wastewater, the town cannot "attract" new sources.
The town is on SOC and the little community has been ravaged
by flooding, loss of jobs and a poor economy. With federal
funding they have made great progress in addressing some of
their worse I/I problems and they have, by the grace of God,
gotten CDBG funding to build an expansion. They "turned
down" Construction Grants funding because they got this
money. This community needs this new WWTP facility and the
wastewater infrastructure that it will provide. "Normal" or
"existing" growth (and this is misleading term for this part
of Mitchell County) rates have "developed" the way they have
because of limited ability to handle wastewater. No one
knows what real growth will be possible for this community
unless they have the capability to treat the wastewater that
they have and to provide significant additional capacity for
new sources so that the community can "attract" them to
locate there. That is why they have got Federal grant money
through "development block grants" to provide additional
capacity to help the community grow.
Can there be more work in Barersville on reducing I/I? Yes,
without a doubt. Should we "hold up" or even "deny" this
requested flow increase due to the "fuzzy" nature of
expected flow increase? No is my recommendation. There is
no other public sewer service in this part of Mitchell
County (Spruce Pine is the only other public sewer service
in the County and is many miles away from the Bakersville
area) and providing sewage treatement infrastructure here
will be an environmental benefit to the community and this
part of the French Broad River Basin. "Limiting" the
design/permitted flow for this expansion below that which is
requested isn't going to provide any environmental
benefits. In fact, due to the delay on being able to move
forward with this project places the grant monies in
jeopardy. Currently, the grant requires that this WWTP
project be "closed out" by March 2003 which means that by
the end of this year construction needs to be completed. At
this point no extension of the grant has been requested, but
with federal budget woes being what they are today, I
wouldn't want to try and "sit" on this money. Bakersville
is in terrible budget shape and its tax revenue/water and
sewer service fund situation in no way could support a WWTP
project without these CDBG funds. DWQ has rightly
questioned the flow increase request and has asked for more
information. The response is as good as it can be today.
Bakersville is not a "growth" community like much of NC
(particularly places like Raleigh, Charlotte, or even
Hendersonville) and its current growth rate is a function of
1 of 2 4/17/02 8:19 AM

Bakersville WWTP Expansion
its lack of water and sewer service. The increase requested
will give Bakersville a WWTP system that can help this
community be more economically self-supporting and provide
an opportunity to grow. Building this plant will be good
for the community and will give DWQ better opportunity to
"direct" any potential nearby developements in the future to
the town (something we cannot do today).
Please move forward with this permit at the requested
wastewater flow. If you have any questions about this
recommendation, please give me a call. Thanks. Forrest
Forrest Westall - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2 of 2
4/17/02 8:19 AM

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
March 29, 2002
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Town of Bakersville. Mitchell County
NDPES Permit #NC0025461,
HUA No.: BA0001
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
PR 10 2n9.2
t:• ER C
The following information is offered for your review in support of the Town of Bakersville's
request for additional flow allocation from 0.075 up to 0.20 million gallons per day.
Documented wastewater flows at the Bakersville WWTP according to the Discharge
Monitoring Reports for the calendar year 2001 are summarized in the following table.
Year 2001 Average Daily Flow (mqd) Peak Daily Flow (mqd)
January 0.087 0.093
February 0.060 0.080
March 0.090 0.200
April 0.078 e�� 0.150 6*'
May 0.063 vt PI
0.096�j
June 0.062 U 0.121 c�,,'
July 0.064 kP 00.136
August 0.058 0.132
September 0.064 0.097
October 0.051 0.077
November 0.046 0.064
December 0.046 0.064.
Average
0.070 0.117
Peak flows for the period noted above are in excess of 0.115 mgd and occurred for the
most part after 38% of the original terra cotta pipe sewer collection system was either
demolished and replaced or internally reconstructed with Cured -in -Place Pipe. This project
described in our letter dated February 5th was begun in the fall of 2000 with practically all of
the line replacements and CIPP installations were complete by February of 2001. The
average daily flows are consistent with reported water supply production that averaged
66,175 gallons per day for the year 2001, less consumptive losses and inclusive of system
/I.
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte • Beaufort

Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
March 29, 2002
Page 2
Further justification for the requested flow allocation is exemplified in the percentage of
undeveloped property within the existing Town Limits. The present city boundary is a circle
of �/2 mile radius with the approximate geographical center located near the old Mitchell
County Courthouse. The total incorporated area is approximately 500 acres with roughly
40% of this land currently being used primarily for residential or commercial use. Large
undevelopedtracts are in the extreme southern and northern ends of the town limits.
Residential development began in these areas in the late 1980's andrequired the most
recent extension of public sewers. The present situation is that growth in Bakersville is
halted until the WWTP can be expanded. The potential build -out of 200 of the remaining
300 acres in the town limits at the current modest density level of 1.8 persons per acre
would effectively double the town's population to 700 persons. Assuming 85 gpdpc, flow to ,4, 6
the WWTP from an additional 350 persons would produce 30,000-gpd flow to the WWTP.
.n 20-T• p( _ 4Ltd zOzo o�Jati v L +s - 31.2 . WWO% , ,
The potential for development within the Town Limits is illustrated by the recent projects to
construct new Mitchell County Governmental facilities and low-income housing sponsored
by the Northwest Housing Authority. The housing project is complete but not fully inhabited
and the Governmental Complex that is still being constructed. These projects were allowed
to proceed based on reallocation of flow under the present SOC Agreement with DENR.
The projected flows from these projects are 8,750 gpd combined. Additionally, the Town
has been recently petitioned for extension of sewers to serve a proposed 25-lot subdivision.
Assuming, 2'/2 bedrooms per lot, the projected flow from this extension of Bakersville sewer
according to DENR requirements (120 gpd / bedroom) would be 7,500 gpd. .
Extension of public sewers outside the town limits should also be considered as a potential
source of future wastewater flows, particularly in the sewer sheds along Honeycutt Branch
and Cane Creek flowing from the north and east of the town limits. The current percentage
of Mitchell County population residing within municipalities is only 15.21 percent, one of the
lowest statewide. Extension of public sewers from the Town of Bakersville could serve
portions of this existing population where straight piping to creeks is prevalent as well as
attracting new development. b r ut/J
Based on the existing average daily flow of 0 70l gd, the permitted additional SOC flow of
-5,8 750 the potential build -out flow of 0. d and the peak extraneous flows of 0.047
mgd, we do not see that a NPDES permit -increase to 0.20 mgd is an unreasonable or
unpermittable request. The proposed treatment plant will eliminate an outdated package
treatment facility and provide treatment capable of maintaining discharges with BOD, NH3
3
and TSS mass loadings at current levels with no effective increase in pollutants than is
currently permitted at 0.075 mgd.
We appreciate your attention to this request. Our CDBG schedule requires that grant funds
for this project be expended by March of 2003 so time is a critical factor. Please don't

Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
March 29, 2002
Page 3
hesitate to contact the undersigned at [phone] if you have any questions or need
additional information regarding this modification.
Respectfully,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
J. Vai!ce McGn gan P E_
Project Manager
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office (w/ attachments)

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
February 5, 2007'
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Town of Bakersville, Mitchell County
NDPES Permit #NC0025461,
HUA No.: BA0001
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
FEB 14 2002
CE;a - wATEA? I Y
PC61- SOURCE
We appreciate your response to the referenced modification request submitted on behalf of
the Town of Bakersville. The comments from your review of the EAA are addressed as
follows:
• Summary of Ill Projects: The sewer system evaluation study was performed in 1999 and
included a one -month period of flow monitoring, smoke testing for inflow sources,
manhole surveys and a partial CCTV survey of selected portions of the collection system.
The results and conclusions of that work are summarized below.
System flow monitoring included installation of four (4) area x velocity type flow meters
for an approximate one -month period beginning in late February of 1999. These type
meters are not known for being particularly accurate and are more often used for trending
information in flow streams over long periods than for specific flow information. We had
hoped that a short term installation during the winter when ground water tables tend to be
at their highest would point to a particular area of the collection system where infiltration
was the most pervasive. Further investigations would concentrate in that area.
Unfortunately, the data retrieved was inconclusive in this regard.
Smoke testing of the entire system was also performed to locate possible cross
connections and other sources of system inflow. At this point in time, the Town of
Bakersville had already performed smoke testing of their own and had separated roof
drains and other cross connections at the Gouge Elementary School. The Town had also
begun a program for sealing manhole covers in streets and other locations where surface
water could enter the system. Our smoke testing the system found no cross connections
with roof drains, and only one possible cross connection with a storm drain. We later
determined through internal CCTV inspection that there was no cross connection. The
storm drain was installed directly above the existing sewer main for 150-feet with
minimal vertical separation. This sewer main was internally reconstructed with Cured -in -
place pipe during a subsequent I/I repair project.
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte • Beaufort

(I--s OP Lo,�f -� I/I abatement is an ongoing process ant that additional work is needed. The town has
T pursued additional funding from various sources for the second phase of this Inflow /
Infiltration project. Mr. Gene Johnson of the DENR, Construction Grants & Loans
Section is presently performing a collection system evaluation that includes some long
term flow monitoring that may provide the basis for the next project.
Average Month
I
Year Maximum (mgd)
1998 \ .204,
2001 )' 113 .;
dam�
" ,'13.1 These figures for last year indicate the maximum I/1 flow into the Bakersville WWTP for
0 allons per a given month at arou 74 00P day. The Town of Bakersville recognizes that
The best information gathered was from visual manhole inspections and CCTV -internal
inspections of sewer mains. Manhole surveys are a valuable tool in that they provide
ample opportunities for flow observation. Based on those observations and our best
judgment, CCTV inspection of a portion of the system was initiated. The area(s) selected
for video inspection were the older vitrified clay pipe sewer mains that were part of the
original system construction (circa 1968) located along Cane Creek, Honeycutt Branch
and a smaller unnamed tributary south of Cane Creek. Moderate to severe groundwater
infiltration was noted in all areas that were videoed.
A project to make repairs to the collection system based primarily on the CCTV
inspection was begun in the fall of 2000 and completed in the spring of 2001) The project
was titled Inflow / Infiltration Repairs, Phase I and was funded through the Division of
Community Assistance (CDBG No.: 99-B-0595). The work was a combination of sewer
main demolition / replacement and trenchless reconstruction summarized as follows:
10-inch Sewer Main Demolition / Replacement
8-inch Sewer Main Demolition / Replacement
8-inch.Sewer Main Rehabilitation w/ C.I.P.P.
Manhole Demo./ Repl.
Manhole Rehabilitation w/ FRP Inserts
485 if
3,068 if - ,Z 90
2,126 lf- 'fa `'/°
26 ea. -23 00
85 vf•
In all, approximately 38%_of the original collection system construction was either
replaced or internally reconstructed at a total cost of $419,990.65.
The I/I abatement program has reduced the total flows to the treatment works. The
following table summarizes the WWTP effluent flows for the year 2.0.01 (through
November) versus the flow from the calendar year 1998. The initial work on I/I
abatement was begun in the summer of that year., These f gores are derived from the daily
average, the daily maximum and the daily minimum flows recorded for each month as
indicated on the facility discharge monitoring reports::
Daily Average
(mgd)
.129.
.066.
Average -Won -dill —
Minimum (mgd)
.097
.039
•
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
February 5, 2002
Page 2
'l\

Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
February 5, 2002
Page 3
• Total Projected Flows: We will concede the 50% growth factor applied in the flow
compilation is inflated beyond the 20-year population projection. However, there is
significant potential for growth in and around Bakersville that is exhibited by the two
recent development projects for low-cost housing and a new Mitchell County
Governmental Complex. Improvements to the Town's infrastructure will only enhance
new development.
Regardless of the recent and possible future repairs to the collection system, the
consensus of opinion among all parties involved; town officials, consultants and
regulatory officials is that expansion of the existing treatment works is needed to best
serve the long term infrastructure needs of Bakersville. The existing treatment works
have been undersized for some time resulting in numerous fines for flow violations and
the resulting SOC. We believe and have the concurrence of the DENR, Asheville
Regional Office that the minimum hydraulic capacity of the expanded treatment facilities
should be 0.20 mgd.
• Effluent Reuse: The option for reuse of the treated effluent was considered but
disregarded due to the lack of suitable end user. Presently there are no known facilities,
commercial, industrial or otherwise in the vicinity of Bakersville that could be relied
upon for reuse of effluent from improved treatment works.
• Present Worth Analysis: Calculation for the present worth based on estimated operation
and maintenance costs for each alternative presented have been prepared and are attached
for your review
Please don't hesitate to contact the undersigned at [phone] if you have any questions
or need additional information regarding this modification.
Respectfully,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
J. Vance,McGougan, P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, and Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office (w/ attachments)

• Altcost.xls
HOBBS , UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
BAKERSVILLE
WWTP Apr-01
- PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
7
0:tr.
Alternative
`)
aptial Cost
Annual O&M
Present Worth
,cP'
/'$
New 0.20 MGD WWTP j
500i00
7$,u494 g
$ 63,17.00
$ 1,811,586.16
Regionalization
$2,241,441.00
a-4 co
).),5071-50
$ 2,511,667.82
f ni'tG!
<
Land Application (0.125 mgd)
$3,814,715.33,'
3
$
25,
.50
$ 4,084,942.15
Land Application (0.20 mgd)
$6,760,525.38'
2.5
$ 7,030,752.19
J
On -Site Wastewater Disposal
$10,345,562.57'
6.p{0c '
$ -
-
$ 10,345,562.57
617
PV=Co + Ct*((1 +i)An)-1)/((i)*(1 +i)An)
Co= construction cost
i=interest rate
7
Ct= O&M cost
n=design life
20
yrs
,A/P factor
10.59401
Page 1

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
FOR THE TOWN OF BAKERSVILLE
Apr-01
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
1. New 0.125 mgd Package Treatment Plant $400,000.00 ,
2. New Chlorine / Sulfur Dioxide Contact Basin $35,000.00 1.
3. New Tertiary Filters $100,000.00
4. New Post Aeration Facility $25,000.00
7. Modifications to Existing Flow Splitter $35,000.00
8. Plant Piping Modifications $22,500.00
9. Chemical Feed Modifications $15,000.00
10. Demolition and Site Work $20,000.00
Total Estimated Construction $652,500.00
Total Project Capital Budget
Estimated Construction $652,500.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $32,625.00
Engineering Planning and Design (8.10%) $52,852.50
Construction Inspection (4.90%) $31,972.50
Permits $400.00
Estimated Total Project Cost $770,350.00

O&M
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
FOR THE TOWN OF BAKERSVILLE
Operation and Maintenance Budget for Completed Facility
Salary
Payroll Tax
Retirement Expense
Contract (Testing)
Contract (Operation)
Utilities (Electrical)
Maintenance & Repairs
DENR Fees
Insurance
Telephone & Alarm
Sludge Removal
Workmans Comp.
Supplies
Laundry
Gasoline & Oil
Miscellaneous Expense
subtotal expenses
Existing Debt Service
Current 01-02
$ 6,352.00
$ 486.00
$ 420.00
$ 1,920.00
$ 18,120.00
$ 8,073.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,150.00
$ 10,470.00
$ 389.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 300.00
New Facility
$ 6,352.00
$ 486.00
$ 420.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 18,120.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,150.00
$ 10,470.00
$ 389.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 300.00
$ 370.00 $
$ 58,650.00 $
$ 25,507.50 $
$ 84,157.50 $
370.00
63,157.00
25,507.50
88,664.50
Page 1

BAKERSVILLE WASTEWATER PUMPING SYSTEM Apr-01
REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE
Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
Pay Item
1. Duplex Non -Clog Pump Station (50 HP)
2. Duplex Non -Clog Pump Station (30 HP)
3. Flow Metering Station (Parshall Flume)
4. 8" PVC (C-900, DR-18) Force Main
5. 8" D.I.P. (Pressure Class 350) Force Main
6. 12" Steel Casing Pipe (bored and jacked)
7. Mechanical Joint Fittings
8. Air / Vacuum Release Valve Assembly
9. Solid Rock Excavation
10. Site Work Allowance
11. Temporary Erosion Control Measures
12. Permanent Seeding
Total Estimated Construction
Project Capital Budget
Estimated Construction
Contingency on Construction (5%)
Engineering Design (7.00%)
Construction Management and Inspection (3.60%)
Land and Rights of Way
Permits
Total Estimated Project
Est. Est.
Quantity Unit Unit -Cost
3 ea. $150,000.00
1 $115,000.00
1 $50,000.00
45,000 if $12.00
5,000 if $18.00
750 if $125.00
8,000 lb. $2.00
30 ea. $2,500.00
7,500 cy $45.00
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
15 ac. $2,500.00
Extension
$450,000.00
$115,000.00
$50,000.00
$540,000.00
$90,000.00
$93,750.00
$16,000.00
$75,000.00
$337,500.00
$50,000.00
$75,000.00
$37,500.00
$1,929 750.00
$1,929,750.00
$96,487.50
$135,082.50
$69,471.00
$10,000.00
$650.00
$2,241,441.00

BAKERSVILLE WASTEWATER PUMPING SYSTEM Apr-01
REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Completed Facility
1. Bulk Sewer Rate Charges from Town of Spruce Pine
0
3,000 gal.
20,000 gal.
50,000 gal.
100,000 gal.
150,000 gal.
All over
to 3,000 gal.
to 20,000 gal.
to 50,000 gal.
to 100,000 gal.
to 150,000 gal.
to 200,000 gal.
200,000 gal.
Charge for Year 1 (ADF = 0.070 gpd)
2. Utilities (Electrical)
50 HP Pump Stations (3 each @ 4 hrs. run time per day)
450 kwh / day @
30 HP Pump Station (@ 4 hrs. run time per day)
90 kwh / day @
3. Annual Budget
Salary
Payroll Tax
Retirement Expense
Contract (Testing)
Contract (Operation)
Utilities
Maintenance & Repairs
DENR Fees
Insurance
Telephone & Alarm
Sludge Removal
Workmans Comp.
Supplies
Laundry
Gasoline & Oil
Miscellaneous Expense
Bulk Treatment Charges
subtotal expenses
Existing Debt Service`
$22.50
$2.30
$2.53
$2.65
$2.76
$2.88
$2.99
Minimum
per 1,000 gal.
per 1,000 gal.
per 1,000 gal.
per 1,000 gal.
per 1,000 gal.
per 1,000 gal.
$190.50 per day
$450.00
$0.07 / kwh
$0.07 / kwh
Current 01-02 New Facility
$ 6,352.00 $ 6,352.00
$ 486.00 $ 486.00
$ 420.00 $ 420.00
$ 1,920.00
$ 18,120.00
$ 8,073.00 $ 13,800.00
$ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
$ 600.00 $ 600.00
$ 1,150.00 $ 1,150.00
$ 10,470.00
$ 389.00 $ 389.00
$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
$ 300.00 $ 300.00
$ 370.00 $ 370.00
$ 69,532.50 `
$ 58,650.00 $ 102,399.50 7
$ 25,507.50 $ 25,507.50
$ 84,157.50 $ 127,907.00
$31.50 / day
$6.30 / day

Costland0.125.XLS
HOBBS , UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
BAKERSVILLE WWTP Apr-01
LAND APPLICATION COST ANALYSIS - .125 MGD
ALTERNATIVE
I
DESIGN CRITERIA
FLOW
125,000
GPD
WETTED ACRES
22
AC
LAGOON
STORAGE
30
DAYS
TREATMENT
30
DAYS
TOTAL LAGOON VOLUME
11764972
GALLONS
1572857.2
CF
TOTAL LAGOON AREA
4.36
AC
LENGTH
534
FT
TYPE OF LINER
CLAY
WIDTH
356
FT
THICKNESS OF LINER
1
FT
DEPTH
9.5
FT
AREA OF LINER
240724
SQFT
VOLUME OF LINER
8915.704
NOZZLES
160
SPRAY PIPE
3" pvc
IN LF
11520
IRRIGATION PUMP STATION
450
FORCE M
6" pvc
IN LF
10560
COST ESTIMATES
Item
Qty
Unit
$/unit
Total
General -Bonds, Ins.
1
Is
$ 20,000.00
$ 20,000.00
Land acquistion
73
acres
$ 2,500.00
$ 182,500.00
Land clearing,grading
22
acres
$ 4,500.00
$ 99,000.00
Crop planting, coastal
22
acres
$ 2,000.00
$ 44,000.00
barbed wire fencing
4316
If
$ 2.50
$ 10,790.00
spraypipe 3" pvc
11520
If
$ 3.50
$ 40,320.00
3" pipe excavation
1067
cy
$ 45.00
$ 48,015.00
nozzles
1/4"
160
ea
$ 200.00
$ 32,000.00
valves
3" pvc
10
ea
$ 175.00
$ 1,750.00
lagoon excavation
58253.97108
cy
$ 45.00
$ 2,621,428.70
lagoon liner
8915.703704
cy
$ 5.00
$ 44,578.52
lagoon effluent box
1
ea
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
influent 6 " dip
50
ft
$ 20.00
$ 1,000.00
woven wire fence
1840
ft
$ 4.00
$ 7,360.00
pump stat
450gpm
1
lump sum
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
force main
6" pvc
10560
ft
$ 6.50
$ 68,640.00
6" fm excavation
2054
cy
$ 45.00
$ 92,430.00
irrigation pump sta
1
Is
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000.00
header
6" pvc
500
ft
$ 6.50
$ 3,250.00
tractor
50hp
1
ea
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
mower
1
ea
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
rake
1
ea
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
baler
1
ea
$ 7,000.00
$ 7,000.00
monitoring wells
4
ea
$ 5,000.00
$ 20,000.00
subtotal
$ 3,633,062.22
Construction Contingency
5%
$ 181,653.11
Engineering
8.10%
$ 294,278.04
Inspection (
4.90%
$ 178,020.05
Total estimated construction cost
3,81j,715.33
D
Page 1

Costland0.125.XLS
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Personnel
$ 14,025.70
Electrical
$ 4,098.13
Analytical
$ 2,765.00
Maintenance
$ 2,000.00
Permit Fees
$ 600.00
Total
$ 23,488.83 "
Personnel
#
Annual $
$/hr &
0
Hrs/d
hrs/yr
Annual $
d/yr
ORC I
1
$ 30,000.00
19.56
239
1
239
$ 4,675.23
Labor II
1
$ 15,000.00
9.781
239
4
956
$ 9,350.47
Total
2
$ 45,000.00
$ 14,025.70•
Electrical
motor HP
efficiency
kw
hr/d
d/yr
kwhr/yr
rate
Annual $
30
0.8
27.975
6
239
40116.15
0.07
$ 2,808.13
3
0.5
4.476
11.28
365
18428.5872
0.07
$ 1,290.00
total
$ 4,098.13
Analytical
$ 2,765.00
.
Page 2

O&M
LAND APPLICATION COST ANALYSIS - .125 MGD ALTERNATIVE
Operation and Maintenance Budget for Completed Facility
Current 01-02 New Facility
20,377.70
486.00
420.00
2,500.00
18,120.00
12,171.13
8,000.00
1,000.00 —
600.00
1,150.00
10,470.00
389.00
3,000.00
300.00
Salary $
Payroll Tax $
Retirement Expense $
Contract (Testing) $
Contract (Operation) $
Utilities (Electrical) $
Maintenance & Repairs $
DENR Fees $
Insurance $
Telephone & Alarm $
Sludge Removal $
Workmans Comp. $
Supplies $
Laundry $
Gasoline & Oil
Miscellaneous Expense $
subtotal expenses $
Existing Debt Service $
6,352.00 $
486.00 $
420.00 $
1,920.00 $
18,120.00 $
8,073.00 $
6,000.00 $
1,000.00 $
600.00 $
1,150.00 $
10,470.00 $
389.00 $
3,000.00 $
300.00 $
370.00 $ 370.00,
58,650.00 $ 79,353.83
25,507.50 �$� ( 25,507.50
$ 84,157.50 $ 104,86133
Page 1

Costland0.20.xls
HOBBS , UPCHURCH AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
BAKERSVILLE WWTP Apr-01
LAND APPLICATION COST ANALYSIS - 0.20
MGD ALTERNATIVE
DESIGN CRITERIA
FLOW
200,000
GPD
WETTED ACRES
35
AC
LAGOON
STORAGE
30
DAYS
TREATMENT
30
DAYS
TOTAL LAGOON VOLUME
19912877
GALLONS
2662149.3
CF
TOTAL LAGOON AREA
7.16
AC
LENGTH
684
FT
TYPE OF LINER
CLAY
WIDTH
456
FT
THICKNESS OF LINER
1
FT
DEPTH
9.5
FT
AREA OF LINER
377545
SQFT
VOLUME OF LINER
13983.15
NOZZLES
240
SPRAY PIPE
3" pvc
IN LF
17280
IRRIGATION PUMP STATION
700
FORCE MAIN
6" pvc
IN LF
10560
COST ESTIMATES
Item
Qty
Unit
$/unit
Total
General -Bonds, Ins.
1
Is
$ 20,000.00
$ 20,000.00
Land acquistion
95
acres
$ 2,500.00
$ 237,500.00
Land clearing,grading
35
acres
$ 4,500.00
$ 157,500.00
Crop planting
35
acres
$ 2,000.00
$ 70,000.00
barbed wire fencing
5339
If
$ 2.50
$ 13,347.50
spraypipe
3" pvc
17280
If
$ 3.50
$ 60,480.00
nozzles
1/4"
240
ea
$ 200.00
$ 48,000.00
valves
3" pvc
10
ea
$ 175.00
$ 1,750.00
3" pipe excavation
1600
cy
$ 45.00
$ 72,000.00
lagoon excavation
98598.12339
cy
$ 45.00
$ 4,436,915.55
lagoon liner
13983.14815
cy
$ 5.00
$ 69,915.74
lagoon effluent box
1
ea
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
influent 6 " dip
50
ft
$ 20.00
$ 1,000.00
woven wire fence
2340
ft
$ 4.50
$ 10,530.00
pump stat
700gpm
1
lump sum
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000.00
force main
6" pvc
10560
ft
$ 6.50
$ 68,640.00
6" fm excavation
2054
cy
$ 45.00
$ 92,430.00
irrigation pump sta
1
Is
$ 150,000.00
$ 150,000.00
header
6" pvc
500
ft
$ 6.50
$ 3,250.00
tractor
50hp
1
ea
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
mower
1
ea
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
rake
1
ea
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
baler
1
ea
$ 7,000.00
$ 7,000.00
monitoring wells
4
ea
$ 5,000.00
$ 20,000.00
subtotal
$ 5,729,258.79
Construction Contingency
5%
$ 286,462.94
Engineering
8.10%
$ 464,069.96
Inspection
(
4.90%
$ 280.733,..68___
Total estimated construction cost
$ 6,760,525.38—'
Page 1

Costland0.20.xls
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Personnel
$ 14,025.70
Electrical
$ 4,098.13
Analytical
$ 2,765.00
Maintenance
$ 2,000.00
Permit Fees
$ 600.00
Total
$ 23,488.83
Personnel
#
Annual $
$/hr &
0
Hrs/d
hrs/yr
Annual $
d/yr
ORC I
1
$ 30,000.00
19.56
239
1
239
$ 4,675.23
Labor II
1
$ 15,000.00
9.781
239
4
956
$ 9,350.47
Total
2
$ 45,000.00
$ 14,025.70
Electrical
motor HP
efficiency
kw
hr/d
d/yr
kwhr/yr
rate
Annual $
30
0.8
27.975
6
239
40116.15
0.07
$ 2,808.13
3
0.5
4.476
11.28
365
18428.5872
0.07
$ 1,290.00
total
$ 4,098.13
Analytical
$ 2,765.00
Page 2

O&M
LAND APPLICATION COST ANALYSIS - 0.20 MGD ALTERNATIVE
Operation and Maintenance Budget for Completed Facility
Salary
Payroll Tax
Retirement Expense
Contract (Testing)
Contract (Operation)
Utilities (Electrical)
Maintenance & Repairs
DENR Fees
Insurance
Telephone & Alarm
Sludge Removal
Workmans Comp.
Supplies
Laundry
Gasoline & Oil
Miscellaneous Expense
subtotal expenses
Existing Debt Service
Current 01-02
$ 6,352.00
$ 486.00
$ 420.00
$ 1,920.00
$ 18,120.00
$ 8,073.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,150.00
$ 10,470.00
$ 389.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 300.00
New Facility
$ 20,377.70
$ 486.00
$ 420.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 18,120.00
$ 12,171.13
$ 8,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,150.00
$ 10,470.00
$ 389.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 300.00
$ 370.00 $
370.00
$ 58,650.00 $
$ 25,507.50 $
$ 84,157.50 $
79,353.83
25,507.50
104,861.33
Page 1

Onsite.xls
HOBBS, UPCHURCH& ASSOCIATES, P.A.
SOUTHERN PINES, NC
Bakersville WWTP Apr-01
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Onsite Disposal
125,000gpd
Item
Description
Quantity
unit
Cost/unit
Total
1
General -Bonds , Insurance
1
LS
30,000
$ 30,000.00
2
Land Acquisition
229.5684
Acres
2,500
$ 573,921.00
3
Clearing , Grading
229.5684
Acres
4,500
$ 1,033,057.85
4
Grassing I
229.5684
Acres
1000
$ 229,568.41
5
Lateral Piping
625000
If
2.5
$ 1,562,500.00
6
Manifold Piping
50000
If
3
$ 150,000.00
7
Dual 220 GPM Pumps
2
each
40,000
$ 80,000.00
8
Grease Trap
1
each
7500
$ 7,500.00
9
Pump Tank
1
each
18800
$ 18,800.00
10
Septic Tank
1
each
28350
$ 28,350.00
11
Lateral Cleanouts
6250
each
400
$ 2,500,000.00
12
Manifold Cleanouts
2
each
400
$ 800.00
13
Gate Valves
313
each
250
$ 78,125.00
14
Excavation -piping
44151.23
cy
45
$ 1,986,805.56
14
Excavation - tanks
1371.481
cy
45
$ 61,716.67
15
Stone bedding- piping
38595.68
cy
10
$ 385,956.79
16
Stone bedding- tanks
82.46296
cy
10
$ 824.63
17
Installation - tanks
3
each
5000
$ 15,000.00
18
Electrical I
1
LS
5000
$ 5,000.00
19
Force Main
2500
If
6
$ 15,000.00
20
Monitoring Wells
3
each
1500
$ 4,500.00
Subtotal I
$ 8,767,425.90
21
Construction Contingency
5%
$ 438,371.30
22
Engineerin
8.10%
$ 710,161.50
23
Inspection
4.90%
$ • 429,603.87
$ 10,345,562.57
Page 4

• O&M
BAKERSVILLE ON -SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
1. Additionl Labor
Personnel # Annual $
Labor I 1 $15,000.00
2. Analytical Costs
Cost/test frequency # #/yr Annual $
Nitrate $ 12.00 quarterly 3 12 $ 144.00
TOC $ 20.00 quarterly 3 12 $ 240.00
Chloride $ 12.00 quarterly 3 12 $ 144.00
pH $ 3.00 quarterly 3 12 $ 36.00
TDS $ 10.00 quarterly 3 12 $ 120.00
Fecal $ 12.50 quarterly 3 12 $ 150.00
Total $ 834.00
3. Utilities (Electrical)
30 HP Pump Station (@ 5 hrs. run time per day - 260 days / yr.)
112 kwh / day @ 260 days / yr. $0.07 / kwh
$2,038.40 / yr.
4. Additional Maintenance
Septic Tank Cleaning 125000 gal
Grease Trap Cleaning 0
Pump Repairs
Site Work
0.05 0.33 $ 2,062.50
0.05 1 $ -
$ 500.00
$ 500.00
Total $ 3,062.50
Page 1

O&M
5. Operation and Maintenance Budget for Completed Facility
Current 01-02 New Facility
Salary $ 6,352.00 $ 21,352.00
Payroll Tax $ 486.00 $ 1,634.00
Retirement Expense $ 420.00 $ 420.00
Contract (Testing) $ 1,920.00 $ 850.00
Contract (Operation) $ 18,120.00 -
Utilities $ 8,073.00 $ 2,050.00
Maintenance & Repairs $ 6,000.00 $ 9,065.00
DENR Fees $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Insurance $ 600.00 $ 600.00
Telephone & Alarm $ 1,150.00 $ 1,150.00
Sludge Removal $ 10,470.00
Workman Comp. $ 389.00 $ 389.00
Supplies $ 3,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Laundry $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Gasoline & Oil
Miscellaneous Expense $ 370.00 $ 370.00
Bulk Treatment Charges
subtotal expenses $ 58,650.00 $ 44,180.00
Existing Debt Service $ 25,507.50 $ 25,507.50
$ 84,157.50 $ 69,687.50
Page 2

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
file:Bakersv
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Bakesville WWTP
Topo Quad
Bakersville/C10SW
NPDES No.
NC0025461
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
1989
Facility status
renewal/expansion
Drainage Area (mil)
22.4
Receiving stream
Cane Creek
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
3.6
Stream class
C Trout
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
5
Subbasin
04-03-06
Average flow (cfs)
34
County
Mitchell
3002 (cfs)
8
Regional Office
ARO
IWC at discharge (%)
7.9
Sketch of discharge location
e
e
Hwy 'go
0
ct
1r
e.
r-,
/
N4--
Crec
eakersolie
klw119
/
\
!-IoneY�U{i' 3i•
ie.
/(K
nay..
/
Model Input Information
Segment/Reach
1
Length of reach (mi)
2
Incremental length
0.1
Waste characteristics
Flow (MGD)
0.2
CBOD (mg/I)
45
NBOD (mg/I)
90
DO (mg/I)
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.2
QA (cfs/mi)
2.3
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/I)
DO (mg/I)
Tributary characteristics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
QA (cfs/mi)
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/I)
DO (mg/I)
Slope
43.3

IWC Calculations
Owner Harnett County Public Utilities
Facility Coopers Ranch MHP
Prepared By: Teresa Rodriguez, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.2
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 3.6
Enter w7Q10 (cfs): 5
Residual Chlorine
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF <331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
3.6 7010 (CFS)
0.2 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.31 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
7.93 IWC (%)
214 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
200/100mI
12.61
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
3.6
0.2
0.31
1.0
0.22
7.93
10.1
5
0.2
0.31
1.8
0.22
5.84
27.3
12/13/01

SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : BAKERSVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream : CANE RIVER
The End D.O. is 8.35 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 4.29 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 5.75 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.11 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00 90.00 0.00 0.20000

SUMMER
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD
1 1 0.00 7.11 5.41
1 1 0.10 7.58 5.35
1 1 0.20 7.87 5.28
1 1 0.30 8.04 5.22
1 1 0.40 8.14 5.16
1 1 0.50 8.21 5.10
1 1 0.60 8.25 5.04
1 1 0.70 8.27 4.98
1 1 0.80 8.29 4.92
1 1 0.90 8.30 4.87
1 1 1.00 8.31 4.81
1 1 1.10 8.32 4.76
1 1 1.20 8.32 4.70
1 1 1.30 8.33 4.65
1 1 1.40 8.33 4.60
1 1 1.50 8.33 4.54
1 1 1.60 8.34 4.49
1 1 1.70 8.34 4.44
1 1 1.80 8.35 4.39
1 1 1.90 8.35 4.34
1 1 2.00 8.35 4.29
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD
NBOD
8.06
7.92
7.79
7.65
7.52
7.40
7.27
7.15
7.03
6.91
6.80
6.68
6.57
6.46
6.36
6.25
6.15
6.05
5.95
5.85
5.75
NBOD
Flow I
3.91
3.93
3.95
3.97
3.99
4.01
4.03
4.05
4.07
4.09
4.11
4.13
4.15
4.17
4.19
4.21
4.23
4.25
4.27
4.29
4.31
Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
Receiving Stream :
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature:
BAKERSVILLE WWTP
CANE RIVER
3.6
23.0
Subbasin : 040306
Stream Class: C TR
Winter 7Q10 : 5.0
LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY DEPTH Kd Kd Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @20° design @20° design
Segment 1
Reach 1
2.00
43.30
0.304
0.95
0.43
0.38
25.27
23.67
0.63
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste
Headwaters
Tributary
* Runoff
0.310
3.600
0.000
0.200
CBOD NBOD D.O.
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
45.000 90.000 0.000
2.000 1.000 7.720
2.000 1.000 7.720
2.000 1.000 7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : BAKERSVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream : CANE RIVER
The End D.O. is 8.39 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 3.75 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 4.71 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.23 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00 90.00 0.00 0.15600

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BAKERSVILLE WWTP Subbasin : 040306
Receiving Stream : CANE RIVER Stream Class: C TR
Summer 7Q10 : 3.6 Winter 7Q10 : 5.0
Design Temperature: 23.0
LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY DEPTH Kd Kd Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @20° design @20° design
Segment 1
Reach 1
2.00
43.30
0.300
0.95
0.43
0.37
24.95
23.37
0.63
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste
Headwaters
Tributary
* Runoff
0.242
3.600
0.000
0.200
CBOD NBOD D.O.
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
45.000 90.000 0.000
2.000 1.000 7.720
2.000 1.000 7.720
2.000 1.000 7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
I Seg # I Reach #
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I Seg # I Reach #
Seg Mi
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Seg Mi
D.O.
7.23
7.67
7.94
8.10
8.20
8.26
8.29
8.32
8.33
8.34
8.35
8.36
8.36
8.36
8.37
8.37
8.37
8.38
8.38
8.38
8.39
D.O.
CBOD
4.71
4.65
4.60
4.54
4.49
4.44
4.39
4.34
4.29
4.24
4.19
4.15
4.10
4.05
4.01
3.96
3.92
3.88
3.83
3.79
3.75
CBOD
NBOD I Flow I
6.60 3.84
6.49 3.86
6.38 3.88
6.27 3.90
6.16 3.92
6.06 3.94
5.96 3.96
5.86 3.98
5.76 4.00
5.66 4.02
5.57 4.04
5.47 4.06
5.38 4.08
5.29 4.10
5.20 4.12
5.12 4.14
5.03 4.16
4.95 4.18
4.87 4.20
4.79 4.22
4.71 4.24
NBOD I Flow I

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
June 18, 2001
Ms. Susan Wilson
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Town of Bakersville, Mitchell County
NDPES Permit #NC0025461, HUA No.: BA0001
Dear Ms. Wilson:
For your consideration, we offer a minor revision to the Engineering Alternatives Analysis
submitted in support of the referenced NPDES Permit Modification Request. Specifically, the
recommended alternative of expansion of the existing Town of Bakersville WWTP facilities
will be implemented in a different fashion than that described in the report. This modification
is a direct result of ongoing design efforts and are briefly described as follows:
The preliminary design for the Bakersville WWTP expansion called for augmenting the
existing 0.075 MGD treatment facility with an additional 0.125 MGD extended aeration
package type treatment plant. In its place, we now propose design of a new extended air plant
rated at 0.20 MGD to provide treatment of 100% of the influent flow. The three (3) existing
basins (0.025 MGD / each) would be converted for sludge storage and digestion. The
remaining components of the recommended alternative including tertiary filtration and new
disinfection equipment would remain as described in the EAA report. Attached with this
correspondence, please find revised design calculations and the preliminary plant layout
drawing for your use.
Please don't hesitate to contact the undersigned at [phone] if you have any questions
or need additional information regarding this modification.
Respectfully,
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
,vim/'
J. Vance McGougan, P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office (w/ attachments)
I
CAD
N
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte

Job Name: Bakersville
HUA No.
Date:
19-Jun-01
Description: Aeration Basin Sizing and Parameter Calculation Worksheet
Formulas:
Sludge Age (days) = Suspended Solids In Aeration
Suspended Solids To Aeration
MLSS (mg/I) =
Desired Suspended Solids In Aeration
Weight Of Water In Aeration
MCRT (days) =
Suspended Solids In Aeration
SS In WAS + SS In Effluent
Food To Microorganism Ratio = BOD To Aeration
MLVSS in Aeration
Input Parameters:
Wastewater Flow & Influent Conditions:
Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd) =
Design Year Flow, ADF (mgd) =
Start•Up Anticipated Flow (mgd) =
Design Sludge Return Rate (mgd) =
Influent BOD5 (mg/I) =
Influent TSS (mg/1) =
Influent TKN (mg/I) =
Effluent BOD5 Required (mg/I) =
Effluent TSS Required (mg/I) =
Effluent NH3-N (mg/I) =
Max Temperature (deg C) =
Site Elevation =
Temperature Correction Theta =
Saturation D.O. at Temp, Elev Cst (mg/I) =
Design Assumptions
Design MLSS (mg/1) =
Yr.1 MLSS (mg/I) =
RAS and WAS Concentration (mg/I) =
Transfer Alpha Value =
Transfer Beta Value =
Mean Cell Residence Time (days) _
Operating Dissolved Oxygen, Co (mg/I) =
Ib BOD5/1000 cu ft Aeration Vol =
Sludge Yield (Ib TSS/Ib BOD5 Destroyed) =
Volatile SS Fraction (MLVSS/MLSS)=
Rate Coefficients
lb Oxygen/lb BOD5 Applied =
Ib Oxygen/Ib NH3•N Applied =
HP Coefficients
Ib 02/BHP•Hr =
BHP/1000 Cu Ft =
0.250
0.200
0.100
0.200
250
250
35
10
10
2
27
1,250
1.024
7.99
4,000 -
3,000
8,000
0.80
0.95
15
2.00
15
0.65
0.65
1.50
4.60
3.00
0.5
[10
�
iJ LJ
JUN 2 6 2t,.;,I
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Calculated Parameters:
Calculated Parameters:
ADF BOD5 Destroyed (Ib/day) =>
ADF Ammonia -Nitrogen Destroyed (Ib/day)=>
Yr.1 BOD5 Destroyed (Ib/day) =>
Yr.1 Ammonia -Nitrogen Destroyed (Ib/day) =>
Oxygen Rates
ADF Actual Oxygen Transfer Rate, AOTR (Ib/day) =>
ADF Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate. SOTR (Ib/day) _>
Yr.1 Actual Oxygen Transfer Rate, AOTR (Ib/day) _>
Yr.1 Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate, SOTR (Ib/day) =>
HP Required
HP At Average Daily Flow =>
HP At Year 1 Flow =>
Reactor Basin Volume (Based on IbBOD/1000 cult)
Volume Required (gals) =>
Detention Time (hrs) _>
System Mass Requirements
System Mass - BOD x MCRT x yield (Ib) _>
Volume Required (gal) _>
Detention Time (hrs) =>
Selected Volume - Input Value (gals)
Selected Basin Evaluation
ADF Detention Time (hrs) =>
Yr. 1 Detention Time (hrs) _>
Mixing HP Required =>
ADF Process HP Required =>
ADF Food To Mass (Ib BOD/Ib MLSS) =>
Yr. 1 Food To Mass (Ib BOD/Ib MLSS) _>
ADF Sludge Wasting Rate (gpd) _>
I . 1 oruuKe rraauiiK n❑ c lK� I
3.903
117.000
id0•4
�L3{L
2400
43 00
13
10
0 09
05
5417
4A75
c:\excel\rb9304\design\BakersvilleDESIGN 1:03 PM 6/19/01

Job Name: Bakersville
HUA No. 0
Date: 19-Jun-01
Description: Clarifier evaluation
Formulas:
Surface Loading Rate (GPD/SF) = Flow Rate (GPD)
Surface Area (SF)
Hydraulic Detention Time (Hrs) = Tank Volume (GALS) x 24 Hr/Day
Flow (GPD)
Solids Loading Rate (Lbs/Day/SF) = Solids Applied (Lb/Day)
Surface Area (SF)
Weir Overflow Rate (GPD/FT of Weir) = Flow Rate (GPD)
Weir Length (FT)
Input Parameters:
Calculated Parameters:
Wastewater Flow:
Calculated Diameter:
Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd) = 0.250
Surface Loading Basis (FT) _>
17 8-1
Design Year Flow, ADF (mgd) = 0.200
Solids Loading Basis (FT) =>
11 9G
Start -Up Anticipated Flow (mgd) = 0.100
Weir overflow Basis (FT) =>
3 18
Design Sludge Return Rate (mgd) = 0.200
Detention Time Basis (FT) =>
15 33
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Concentration:
Minimum Diameter Required (FT) =>
1 / S'1
ADF MLSS (mg/I) = 4,000
Selected Diameter (FT) =>
20 ._' i
Yr.1 MLSS (mg/I) = 3,000
Calculated Conditions:
Clarifier Parameters:
Surface Loading Rate:
Number Of Units = 2
Peak Wet Weather (GPD/SF) _>
--
Sidewater Depth (ft) = 12
Design Year. ADF (GPD/SF) _>
Design Surface Loading Rate (GPD/SF) = 400
Design Solids Loading Rate (Lb/Day/SF) = 30
Design Weir Overflow Rate (GPD/LF) = 10,000
Design Detention Time (Hrs) = 4
Solids Loading Rate:
Peak Flow. ADF MLSS (Lb/Day/SF) _>
ADF+RAS, ADF MLSS (Lb/Day/SF) _>
ADF+RAS, Yr.1 MLSS (Lb/Day/SF) =>
-.
Weir Overflow Rate:
Peak Wet Weather (GPD/LF) _>
1.592
Design Year. ADF (GPD/LF) _>
1.273
Detention Time:
Peak Wet Weather (Hrs) _>
8.46
Design Year. ADF (Hrs) =>
10.57
c:\excel\rb9304\design\BakersvilleDESIGN
1:03 PM 6/19/01

Job Name: Bakersville
HUA No. 0
Date: 19•Jun•01
Description: Disinfection, Cascade Post Aeration, and Sludge Digestor Calculations
Formulas:
Cascade Aerator Deficit Ratio, r = Cs • Co
Cs•C
Total Cascade Vertical Drop Rqd = (r - 1)
(0.11)(a)(b)(1+0.046)(T)
Pounds Of Solids Wasted Per Day = (Q Was)(8.34)(MLSS Was)
Volume Of Thickened Sludge (gpd) = Pounds Of Solids Wasted Per Day
(Thickened Conc . Decant Conc)(8.34)
Input Parameters:
Calculated Parameters:
Wastewater Flow:
Chlorine Contact Calculated Parameters
Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd) = 0.250
Peak Volume Required (gal) =>
Design Year Flow, ADF (mgd) = 0.200
ADF Volume Required (gal) =>
.1 '. >
Start -Up Anticipated Flow (mgd) = 0.100
Yr.1 Volume Required (gal) =>
Number Of Chamber Trains =>
Chlorine Contact Basin Parameters
Required Channel Length (ft) =>
1.3 , '
Design Channel Length (ft) =>
20 00
Required Detention Time (min) = 30
Design Channel Width (ft) =>
5 00
Number Of Chamber Trains = 1
Design Channel Depth (ft) =>
.. )i1
Design Sidewater Depth in Chamber (ft) = 6
Detention Time At Peak (min) =>
2--: ' 5
Design Width of Chamber (ft) = 5
Cascade Aerator Input Parameters
Detention Time At Yr. 1 (min) =>
Cascade Aerator Calculated Parameters
•,
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Cs (mg/1) = 9.1392
Height Of Vertical Drop Required (ft) =>
D.O. Before Cascade Co (mg/I) = 0
Required Effluent D.O. C (mg/1) = 5
Sludge Digestion & Storage Calculated Parameters
Coeff a (1.0 For BOD<=15mg/I) = 1.00
Coeff b (Assume 0.8 For a Step Weir) = 0.80
ADF Pounds Of Soilids Per Day =>
WasteWater Temperature (deg C) = 20
Yr.1 Pounds Of Soilids Per Day =>
_.!.
ADF Thickened Sludge Volume (gpd) =>
2.06
Sludge Digestion & Storage Input Parameters
Yr.1 Thickened Sludge Volume (gpd) =>
1. 5• ,
ADF Annual Sludge Disposal Cost ($/Yr) =>
i..< -3_: =
ADF Sludge Wasting Rate (gpd) = 6,417
Yr. 1 Annual Sludge Disposal Cost ($/Yr) _>
$28.56.1
Yr. 1 Sludge Wasting Rate (gpd) = 4,875
Target Percent Solids After Thickening = 2.50%
Aerobic Digestion 503 Sludge Digestion & Storage Requirements
Target Decant Solids Concentration (mg/I) = 100
Sludge Disposal Cost ($/Gal) = $0.05
ADF Volume Required At 20 Dec C (40 Days)=>
82.463
Yr. 1 Volume Required At 20 Dec C (40 Days)=>
62,651
ADF Volume Required At 15 Dec C (60 Days)=>
123.695
Yr. 1 Volume Required At 15 Dec C (60 Days)=>
93.976
123,695 no. of basin 2
61.847
SWD 10 ft
Diam 32.4545102 ft
Width 12. ft
Length 68.9030632
c:\excel\rb9304\design\BakersvilleDESIGN
1:03 PM 6/19/01

Aeration Volume in circular basins w/ interior clarifier
Use entire outer ring for Aeration
SWD
Diameter
outer ring
15 45 25 123308
Diameter Volume mgd/DT mgd/DT
clarifier gallons 24 18
No. Basins 2 246616 0.246616 0.328821
c:\excel\rb9304\design\BakersvilleDESIGN 1:03 PM 6/19/01

Bakersville Aeration Basin/Clarifier New
19-Jun-01
Hobbs, Upchurch & Assoc. Layout
Item Symbol Quantity Unit
Number Of Basins N 2
Diameter DIA 40.00 ft
Wall Height WH 17.50 ft
Wall Thickness OT 14.00 in
Slab Thickness FT 12.00 in
Slab Overhang SO 18.00 in
Launder Width LW 0.00 ft
Launder Perimeter Height LH 0.00 ft
Launder Thickness LT 0.00 in
Sidewater Depth SWD 15.00 ft VOLUME 140990.5 GALS
Concrete In Floor Slab
=((((((DIA+((2*OT)/ 12+(2*SO)/ 12))^ 2)*PI)*0.25)*(FT/ 12))/27)*N
119.6 CY
Concrete In Curved Wall
=((((((DIA+((2*OT)/ 12))" 2-(DIA) ^ 2)* P I)*0.2 5)*W H) / 27 )* N
195.6 CY
Concrete In Launder Slab
=((((((DIA+((2*OT)/ 12)+(2*LW))"2-(DIA+((2*OT)/ 12))^2)*PI)*0.25)*(LT/ 12))/27)x N
0.0 CY
Concrete In Launder Walls
=((((((DIA+((2*OT)/12)+(2*LW)+((2*LT)/12))^2-(DIA+((2*OT)/12)+ (2xLW))"2)TI)x0.25)xLH)/27)XN
0.0 CY
Total Slab Concrete 119.6 x $230/CY $27,499
Total Curved Wall Concrete 195.6 x $500/CY $97,795
Total Concrete 315.2 CY $125,294
Clarifier Portion
Number Of Basins N 2
Diameter DIA 25.00 ft
Wall Height WH 17.50 ft
Wall Thickness OT 14.00 in
Slab Thickness FT 0.00 in
Slab Overhang SO 0.00 in
Launder Width LW 2.50 ft
Launder Perimeter Height LH 3.00 ft
Launder Thickness LT 10.00 in

Sidewater Depth SWD 15.00 ft VOLUME 55074.42 GALS
Concrete In Floor Slab
_((((((DIA+((2x-OT)/12+(2xS0)/12)12)*PI)x0.25)x(FT/12))/27)xN
0.0 CY
Concrete In Curved Wall
_((((((DIA+((2x"OT)/12))"2.(DIA)"2)xPl)x0.25)xWH)/27)xN
124.3 CY
Concrete In Launder Slab
_((((((DIA+((2'0T)/ 12)+(2x LW))"2-(DIA+((2xOT)/ 12))"2)xP I)x0.25)x(LT/ 12))/27)x N
0.0 CY
Concrete In Launder Walls
_((((((DIA+((2x0T)/12)+(2xLW)+((2)(LT)/12))"2.(DIA+((2xOT)/12)+ (2»LW))'2)xPl)x0.25yLH)/27)^N
0.0 CY
Total Slab Concrete 0.0 x $230/CY $0
Total Curved Wall Concrete 124.3 x $500/CY $62,161
Total Concrete 124.3 CY $62,161
Excavation
Blower
Aeration
Clarifier
Installation
subTotal
Total Construction
2355 $40.00
2 $20,000.00
2 $40,000.00
2 $50,000.00
2 $50,000.00
$94,200.00
$40,000.00
$80,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$414,200.00
$601,655.34

Town of Bakersville WWTP
Flow
200,000.00
gpd
Hobbs, Upchurch & Assoc. Layout
24-Mar-01
Sequencing Batch Reactor ---
r
Item
Symbol
Quantity
Unit
Number Of Trains
N
2
Wall Height
WH
18
ft
Length of Chamber
LC
58
ft
Width of Chamber
WC
16
ft
Outer Wall Thickness
OT
18
in
Center Wall Thickness
CT
18
in
Floor Thickness
FT
18
in
Footing Over Hang
FO
24
in
Sidewater Depth
SWD
16.5
ft
Vol =>
229,068
GALS
Concrete In Slab
DT=>
1.1453376
Days
CY=1.5*40.5*65/27
146.25
CY
Concrete In Straight Walls
CY=((3*1.5*18*58)+(3*1.5*18*36.5))/27
283.5
CY
Concrete in Flumes, Boxes, Walkways
CY=((1*4*36.5)+(2*.67*5*36.5)+(1*4*1*58)+(4*1*36.5))/27
28.46481
CY
Total Slab Concrete
146
x $300/CY
$43,875
Total Straight Wall Concrete
284
x $600/CY
$170.100
Total Concrete in Flumes, Boxes, Walkways
28
x $900/CY
$ 25,618
Total Concrete
458
CY
$239,593
Blowers
$ 20,000.00
Diffused Aeration Equipment
$ 40,000.00
Decanter Assemblies
$ 30,000.00
Sludge Pumps
$ 10,000.00
Submersible Mixers
$ 10,000.00
SBR control equipment
$50,000.00
_-
Gates
$ 25,000.00
Valves
$ 20,000.00
Excavation
1,200
x$45.00/cy
$54,000.00
Stone Bedding
$20,000.00
Walkways, grating, handrails, stairs
$40,000.00
Hoists
$10,000.00
Total Cost Estimate
$ 329,000.00
H::1MT010116001HUC Grant\Bakersv,IIe SBR SBR
Page 1 of 1

Alt. PS
11.1
1Hobbs, Upchurch
& Associates, P.A.
ConsultingEngineers
Project: BA0001
Description:
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Date:
Bakersville Equalization Basin Pump Station
P.O. Bay 1-)-
290 S. JJ. Broad SireL-ez
Southern Pines, .North Carolina 283S-
[phone] Fox (910) 692 -342
June 19, 2001
This pump station will pump effluent from SBR to filters. Equalization will reduce flow from 700 gpm to 350 gpm.
Pump Station Design:
A. Wastewater Flows
B. Target Pumping Rate
Peak Decant Rate is 1,000,000
Total = 1,000,000 gpd
IQ, Start-up. 694 gpm
The force main will be 8 - inch diameter. The minimum pumping rate to achieve two (2) feet per second is
three hundred twenty gallons (320) per minute. Therefore,
C. Piping
Station Piping
Force Main
Total Force Main Length
Target Pumping Rate
Velocity at Target Pumping Rate
Friction Coefficient
Headloss in FM per 1,000 ft.
D. Dimensions and Elevations
1. Wet Well
Pump Station Rim Elevation
Invert of 12" Influent
High / High Level Alarm
High Level Alarm
Lag Pump On
6 " D.I.P.
8 " Ductile Iron Pipe
25 ft.
350 gpm
2.24 fps
C = 120
3.06 ft.
7.00 ft. wide
Start-up
17.00 ft. MSL
9.50 ft. MSL
10.00 ft. MSL
9.50 ft. MSL
9.00 ft. MSL
34 ft long 238.00 sf
Full Capacity
17.00 ft. MSL
9.50 ft. MSL
10.00 ft. MSL
9.50 ft. MSL
9.00 ft. MSL
Page 1

Alt. PS
Lead Pump On 8.50 ft. MSL 8.50 ft. MSL
Pump Off 4.00 ft. MSL 4.00 ft. MSL
Bottom Wet Well 0.00 ft. MSL 0.00 ft. MSL
Detention Volume 8011.08 gal. 8011.08 gal.
Force Main High Point 17.00 ft. MSL
Force Main Discharge Elevation 17.00 ft. MSL
E. System Works
1. Static Head:
Force Main Max. Elev. 17.00 ft.
Pump Off Elev. 4.00 ft.
Total Static Lift 13.00 ft.
2. Friction Losses:
a. Station Losses
4" Ductile Iron Pipe 20.00 It.
4" Gate Valve 1 ea. @ 4.00 ft. / ea. 4.00 ft
4" Swing CheckValve 1 ea. @ 40.00 ft. / ea. 40.00 ft.
4" 90 degree bend 2 ea. @ 12.00 ft. / ea. 24.00 ft.
Total Equivalent Length 88.00 ft.
b. Force Main Losses:
8" PVC and Ductile Iron Pipe
4" x8" Enlargement
8" Gate Valve
8" 45 degree bend
8" 22 1/2 degree bend
3. System Curves
a. With One Pump Running
1 ea.
3 ea.
0 ea.
25.00 It.
4.00 ft.
4.30 ft. / ea. 4.30 ft.
9.40 ft./ea. 28.20 ft.
8.30 ft./ea. 0.00 ft.
Total Equivalent Length 61.50 It
(Q)
Static
Station
Force Main
Velocity
Total
Fluid
Flow
Headloss
Headloss
Headloss
Headloss
Head
Hp
(gpm)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(70% eff.)
Page 2

Alt. PS
0
13.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.00
13.04
13.13
0.00
50
13.00
0.03
0.01
0.24
100
13.00
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.47
150
13.00
0.23
0.04
0.01
13.28
13.48
0.72
200
13.00
0.39
0.07
0.03
0.97
250
13.00
0.59
0.10
0.04
13.73
1.24
300
13.00
0.82
0.14
0.06
14.02
14.36
14.74
15.17
1.52
350
13.00
1.09
0.19
0.08
1.81
400
13.00
' 1.40
0.24
0.10
2.13
450
13.00
1.74
0.30
0.13
2.46
500
13.00
2.12
0.36
0.16
15.64
16.15
16.71
17.30
17.94
2.82
550
13.00
2.53
0.43
0.19
3.20
600
13.00
2.97
0.51
0.23
0.27
3.62
650
13.00
3.44
0.59
4.06
700
13.00
3.95
0.68
0.31
4.53 .
b. With Two Pumps Running
(Q)
Flow
(gpm/ea)
Total
Flow
(gpm)
Static
Headloss
(ft.)
Station
Headloss
(ft.)
Force Main
Headloss
(ft.)
Velocity
Headloss
(ft.)
Total
Head
(ft.)
175
350
13.00
0.30
0.19
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.23
0.27
0.31
0.36
0.41
0.46
0.51
0.57
0.63
0.70
13.57
13.73
13.91
14.11
14.33
14.56
14.81
15.08
15.37
15.68
16.00
16.34
16.69
17.06
17.45
200
400
13.00
0.39
0.24
225
450
13.00
0.48
0.30
250
500
13.00
0.59
0.36
275
550
13.00
0.70
0.43
300
600
13.00
0.82
0.51
0.59
325
650
13.00
0.95
350
700
13.00
1.09
0.68
375
750
13.00
1.24
0.77
400
800
13.00
1.40
0.87
425
850
13.00
1.57
0.97
450
900
13.00
1.74
1.08
475
950
13.00
1.93
1.20
500
1000
13.00
2.12
1.31
1.44
525
1050
13.00
2.32
c. Selected Pump Curve -Fairbanks Model 4"5432
(Q) Flow
(gpm)
0
Total Head
(ft.)
22.00
Page 3

Alt. PS
100
19.00
_
200
17.00
300
15.00
400
13.00
500
11.00
600
7.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
x
A
H
30.00
20.00
■ ---i---11
10.00
0.00 x
0
System Curves
- Target Pumping
Rate: 350 gpm
@14.5'
100 200 300
400
GPM
500
600
700
�•1•Meyers Model 4V: Q - Head —■ System Curve: One Pump Running
--A—System Curve: Two Pumps Running - - -x - - Horsepower @ 50% Eff.
F. Pump Selection
1. Duplex Submersible Sewage Pumps
Selected Pump
Pump Discharge
Fairbanks 4" 5432
6 inches
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
800
Page 4

Alt. PS
Motor Horsepower 2 HP
RPM 855
Electrical Service 480 volt 3 Phase
Impeller Diameter 9 inches
Solids 3 inches
Target Pumping Rate: 350 gpm @ 14.36 ft. TDH
2. Pumping Rate with One Pump Running
Pump Capacity: 350 gpm @ 14.36 ft. TDH
3. Pumping Rate with Two Pumps Running
Pump Capacity: 235 gpm/ea. @ 43 ft. TDH
Page 5

$
I �� -50 MITCHELL
Fledwith tnv1ron ne I MS0.COrn(r) NEWS -JOURNAL
Ls .s_ . CA-r.
) N C
On , 19
Certification
of publication of legal notice in
MITCHELL NEWS -JOURNAL
Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, NC weeks
o2p-i)09_. $_L21•50
$
flo*Miciy-N
Paid _
19_
No. 4 $49
opyg.2
Cost of Advcnisntent
Cost of Aflidavn
Total
s i -1 .5n
$
$127.50
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF MhTCH'ELL
1, Nathaniel A. Ashurst. Publisher of the Mitchell News -Journal. a
newspaper published in Mitchell County, North Carolina. in
compliance with statutes G.5.1-597 of North Carolina, as amen mad in
1947 session of General Assembly, being duly sworn, ccrtify that the
attached advertisement of
1f C o Ern s
N-PD 5' Q4AJr
was duly published in the aforesaid paper once a week f
consecutive weeks, beginning with the issue date
(signed)
wner,Partner, Publisher or other
Employee Authorized to make the affidavit)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 215 day o
,20 1,,
Notary Public for
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE AN
NPDES WASTEWATER
PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff
review and application of NC
General Statute 143.21, Pub-
lic Law 92-500 and other law-
ful standards and regulations,
the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
wastewater discharge permit
to the person(s) listed below
effective 45 days from the
publish date of this notice.
Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of this notice.
All comments received prior
to that date are considered in
the final determinations re-
garding the proposed permit.
The Director of the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality may
decide to hold a public meet-
ing for the proposed permit
ditchell Cou should the Division receive a
` North Caroi Significant degree of public
1
My Commission expires 11- O 1 \i_o4
No.
interest.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information
on file used to determine con-
ditions present in the draft
permit are available updn re-
quest and payment of the
costs of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or requests for
information to the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality at the
above address or call Ms.
Christie Jackson at (919) 733-
5083, extension 538. Please
include tlie,NPDES permit
number (atta'rad) in any
communication. Interested
persons may also visit the
Division of Water Quality at
512 N. Salisbury Street, Ra-
leigh, NC 27604-1148 be-
tween the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. to review infor-
mation on file.
NPDES Permit Number
NC0066737, Mitchell County
Schools - Mitchell High
School, 115 School Road,•
Bakersville, NC 28705 has
applied for a permit renewal
fora facility located in Mitchell
County discharging treated
wastewater into an unnamed
Tributary to Raccoon Creek
in the French Broad River
Basin. Currently ammonia
and total residual chlorine are
water quality limited. Thisdis-
charge may affect future allo-
cations in this portion of the
receiving stream.
r: IJTY
NPDES Permit Number
NC0025461, Town of
Bakersville, P.O. Box 53,
Bakersville, NC 28705 has
applied for a permit renewal
lorafacitity located in Mitchell
County discharging treated
wastewater into Cane Creek
in the French Broad River
Basin. Currently no param-
eters are water quality lim-
ited. This discharge may af-
fect future allocations in this
portion of the receiving
stream.
#4849 - 2/27/02

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes X No
IF YES, SOC NUMBER 99-08
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Susan Wilson
DATE: December 13, 2001
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Mitchell
PERMIT NUMBER NC0025461
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
CO
U
W
1. Facility and Address: Town of Bakersville
Post Office Box 53
Bakersville, North Carolina 28705
2. Date of Investigation: May 23, 2001
3. Report Prepared By: Michael R. Parker, Env. Chemist
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
Mayor Charles Vines
828/688-2113
5. Directions to Site: The wastewater treatment plant is located six
hundred feet east of the intersection of North Carolina Highway
226 and North Carolina Secondary Road 1278 behind the Taylor Togs
Plant.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 36° 00'49" Longitude: 82° 09'53"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. C1OSW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Bakersville, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:

.8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Plant is
located adjacent to Cane Creek and is 6-8 feet above stream level.
It could probably be flooded in extreme flood conditions.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 350 feet to the south.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Cane Creek
a. Classification: C-trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: FBR 06
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: fishing, wading, fish and wildlife propagation and
irrigation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.200 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? 0.075 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity 0.075 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: The existing
wastewater treatment facilities consist of an influent pump
station, bar screen, flow splitter box, three, 0.025 MGD
extended aeration package plants, operated in parallel, each
with clarifier and sludge return facilities, two of the units
have sludge holding tanks. These units are followed by
effluent chlorination facilities, post aeration and flow
measuring and totalizing equipment.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: It is proposed to construct an new 0.200 mgd
extended aeration wastewater treatment plant with tertiary
filters and new disinfection facilities. The existing
treatment units (3) 25,000 gpd ext. aeration plant will be
converted to sludge digestion and storage.
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Chlorine
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved
should be required not needed X

2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):Solids are pumped
from the facility and taken to the Town's of Morganton and
Burnsville for disposal.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Class II
4. SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities
i.e., non -contact cooling water discharge from a metal plating
company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 06003
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any
public monies involved. (municipals only)? Yes
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate)
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Date
December 2001
April 1, 2002
January 1, 2003
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -
discharge options available. Please provide regional perspective for each
option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Review of AA in submittal appears to
adequate for all of the types of
Connection to Regional Sewer System: alternatives.
Subsurface:
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Bakersville has requested renewal of NPDES Permit No.
NC0025461 and expansion of the facility from 0.075 mgd to 0.200
mgd. The expansion is needed for long term infrastructure needs
of the Town and the high amount of I/I getting into the collection
system. Monthly monitoring data consistently show the facility
flows to be in excess of the 0.075 permitted flow and sometimes
exceed 0.100 mgd for the monthly average. Basically the facility
is in compliance with the other NPDES Permit and SOC limits.
Since the Town has no industry and the wastewater is only domestic
it is recommended that the requirements for toxicity be removed.
It is recommended that the permit be issued for expansion.
Signature of Report Preparer
Water
uality Reg onal Supervisor
3 \GI
Date

$215740
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A. V a°N
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
May 4, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Dave Goodrich, Unit Supervisor
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality — NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Town of Bakersville
NDPES Permit #NC0025461
Mitchell County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
In accordance with NCDENR-DWQ correspondence dated April 24, 2001, enclosed,
please find the resubmittal of the NPDES Permit Application, three (3) copies of the
Engineering Alternatives Analysis, and check #28133 in the amount of $215.00 for the
necessary permit modification fee. As previously stated, this request is being made on
behalf of the Town of Bakersville in order to increase the permitted flow at their
wastewater treatment plant from 0.075 MGD to 0.20 MGD.
Please don't hesitate to contact Vance McGougan, P.E. or myself at [phone] if
you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you in advance for your
expedited review of this NPDES permit modification request.
Sincerely,
HO : BS,
RCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Ang- . ettl n
Water/ • stewater Division
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office
Vance McGougan, P.E., HUA
HUA File BA0001
Ckolo
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte

Michael F. Easley
Governor
f_
r NCDENR William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
t vw�Y� North Carolina Departure t of ninent aryiNatural Resources
April 24, 2001
Ms. Angela G. Mettlen
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
P.O. Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
0 o Ker T. Stevens, Director
Di 'sion of Water Quality
CI CO
rn
APR 2 7 2001
Subject: NPDES Permit modification request
Bakersville WW'I'P
Mitchell County
Return # 2114
Dear Ms. Mettlen:
In accordance with Division policy, we must hereby return the attached permit modification request
received on April 20, 2001. After a preliminary review by the NPDES staff, the Division has determined that
the application package lacks the following items:
• Correct fee. The fee for this type of modification is $215.00, payable by check to NC DENR.
• Submission in triplicate. Only one copy of the application and EAA was submitted. Applications for
new permits and modifications must be submitted in triplicate per 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (a) and .0114 (b).
Two additional copies of the application and EAA are required (in addition to the original). The
additional copies are used by Regional Office and other DWQ personnel (as necessary) to simultaneous?,-
review the package being reviewed by the permit writer.
If you wish to resubmit the modification request, submit the items listed above and the items returned to you
in one package. The Division's fee schedule has been enclosed with this letter.
If you have any questions about the NPDES permitting process, contact me at the telephone number or
address listed at the bottom of this page. Questions about permitting restrictions unique to your area should
be directed to Mike Parker of the Asheville Regional Office at [phone].
cc: NPDES File
Asheville Regional Office / Mike Parker
Mayor Charles E. Vines
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Sincerely,
Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit
Phone: [phone], extension 511
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
300 S.W. Broad Street • Post Office Box 1737 • Southern Pines, NC 28388
April 18, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Dave Goodrich, Unit Supervisor
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality —NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Permit Modification Request — Minor Municipal
Town of Bakersville
NDPES Permit #NC0025461
Mitchell County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
,A
A R 2 0 2001
DE - WATER DU`,LITY
P0;:: T SOURCE BRANCH
Enclosed with this correspondence, please find an NPDES Permit Application and an
Engineering Alternatives Analysis for a permit modification request on behalf of the
Town of Bakersville. This request is being made in order to increase the permitted flow
at the wastewater treatment plant from 0.075 MGD to 0.20 MGD.
The need for this increase stems from numerous NPDES permit violations resulting in
$16,000.00 worth of fines issued by the NCDENR-Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
since May of 1998. The NCDENR-DWQ has taken the further step of instituting a
moratorium on flow additions, effectively freezing development within the Town. This
suspension of new connections to the Bakersville sewer system has put two planned
development projects, one for construction of low-cost housing and another to build a
new Mitchell County Courthouse on hold until these problems are rectified.
The referenced NPDES permit violations have been a direct consequence of influent
wastewater flows surpassing the 0.075 MGD capacity of the existing treatment works. In
an attempt to reduce flow into the wastewater plant, Bakersville has pursued an
aggressive program aimed at mitigating inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the collection
system. The Town has also contracted with our firm to perform a detailed system analysis
aimed at making recommendations for I/I repairs. However, the consensus of opinion of
all parties involved, including town officials, consultants and regulatory officials, is that
expansion of the existing treatment works is also needed to best serve the long term
infrastructure needs of Bakersville.
Southern Pines, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • e-mail: [e-mail]
Myrtle Beach • Nags Head • Raleigh • Charlotte

Page Two
April 18, 2001
Within the enclosed Engineering Alternatives Analysis, numerous options in lieu of
expanding the current WWTP and increasing the discharge to Cane Creek were explored
and evaluated. As the analysis of options details, none of the alternatives were as
economically or environmentally feasible as the recommended alternative of upgrading
the existing plant. The location of the Town within the mountains of North Carolina
makes many of the normally feasible non -discharge options practically impossible for
Bakersville.
Although this project does not fall within SEPA guidelines requiring an Environmental
Assessment to be completed, one was completed and is included as a part of the
Engineering Alternative Analysis. As all of the construction for the expansion and
upgrade of the WWTP will take place on the existing plant site, no environmental
impacts will be realized as a result of construction. In addition, the existing WWTP
currently meets all NPDES limits with exception of the permitted flow and, therefore, the
expansion will not be detrimental to the receiving waters, Cane Creek. In addition, the
upgrades to the plant include new disinfection facilities and tertiary filters that will
further increase the wastewater treatment, thereby providing additional protection to
Cane Creek. Bakersville's NPDES limits for an expanded discharge are not anticipated to
be any more stringent than the existing 30 BOD/ 30 TSS limits. Currently, this equates to
18.8 lbs/day of BOD/TSS allowed. An expanded flow permit to 0.20 MGD will result in
an increase to 50 lbs/d of BOD and TSS. Since the 7Q10 of Cane Creek is 2.4 MGD, the
IWC of the discharge will increase from 3.12% to 8.32%. This increase is not a
significant increase in pollutant loading to this Creek or subbasin.
Please don't hesitate to contact Vance McGougan, P.E. or myself at (911)) 692-5616 if
you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you in advance for your
expedited review of this NPDES permit modification request.
Sincerely,
HOBBS, UPC
H & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Anger G ettln
Water/Wastewater Division
Enclosures
cc: The Honorable Charles E. Vines, Mayor, Town of Bakersville
Mike Parker, NCDENR — Asheville Regional Office
Vance McGougan, P.E., HUA
HUA File BA0001

8
Id) 114
8
+ 8
3
N 1+50
•q• +8
Id Id Id La 1.1
N 0+50
0+00 1-
5 0+25
•
•
PROPER* LINE
S 1+00
S1+25
5 1+50
5 2+00
7
. :
1
; 1
, ,
1 ;
1 ; I
I I ,
1 ;
. ,
. ;
: .
I :
, .
1 1
11 ;
. i
, 1
1 :
; ;
;
1 . .
; :
, ,
I
1
,_ i , .
, :
. ,
1 ; , 1 -. ,
1;
,
;
c4ECYK -------1----_____!, ------1.
t 1
I : i I
I ; I
i
1 F----- !
_,_. i
.1.--:---Eysrou , —61 LK0--
, EFFLUENT UNE
t .
I :
• ;
EXISTING
SAMPLER pEX.I.ISTPIrEs6" 1 TII
EXISTING 1.
STILLER
• •
I EXISTING 13"
I PVC OVERFLOW
•
lEX1511NG14
/T D.I. FORE MAIN
1 1 1
1
i 1 I i i
, I :
r
; f I
i .
t GRA HIC SCALE
i
iI i 20 0 10 20 40 !
t ; I
i 2
1 i
1 .
. .
; ! I • .
. .
1 ; .
i •
•
; t
+ 0
8
+ DI
Is
0
+ 0
0
0
+ 0
N
0
+ 8
+ el
CY
0
+ 0
DI
0
+
0
0
Is
+ 8
+ ::::
.
+ Fil
+ to
N.
0
0
! I
3 3 3 3 3 3 .... . W LA ILI W LA 41 ! W W
NOTE:
TICS DRAWING OF EXISTING
STRUCTURE 15 PROVIOE0
FOR CONTRACTOR REFERENCE.
"L. 'I 20 IL
MDEE
.11 S 2+25
PRELIMINARY
.__
___IEXIiTING 8" VCP11 , I
I i ' ISANITARY SEWER.' I
1 .••
•
. •
...a............... ; ., .1..,
I ‘ I EXISTING 8" D.I. ,
1 1 INFLUENT TINE ‘ \ . . !
• ,
. I k I • .•
-A •A- j --t
I \ I
I k I
1 I TB IFIVCP .
I ; • i EXISTING 1"I PVC
I:RANT-NAM
...i..."
•
EXISTING 2" PVC
WATER MAIN
I
1
i
;
E I I
i -I
11: :
•
•
1
1 EXISTING I
; HEADWALL • I
: I
i
: :
;
i i :
:
:
SI +25
: 1 1
: i 1
[ 1
r + : 1
S 1 +5D
8
613
• N 1+50
•
•
•
N 1+25
N 1+00
N 0+75
N 0+50
N 0+25
0+00
S 0+25
5 0+50
S 0+75
S 1+0D
S 1+75
5 2+00
61,
0
Eti
0
0
5
w
— J
— 1 I—
Z
ce
w
le
co< ce
o
Z cc
0
MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE:
JUNE. 2001
DESIGNED:
Jai
DRAWN-
GER
CHECKED:
MCW
SCALE:
N.T.S.
'SHEET NO.
G-6
05
??