NC0060755_Wasteload Allocation_19910612

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0060755
PERMITTEE NAME: Carolina Water Service, Inc. of N.C. /
Facility Status: Existing 5&>0LGUXX-)
F3DIUls10�'�l
Pen -nit Status: Renewal
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Minor -q
Design Capacity: 0.009 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
no compliance data for 1986-1987
Refer : Basinwide / Streamline WLA File
Completed By Permits & Engineering
At Front Of Subbasin
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-08-37
Reference USGS Quad:_G 14 NW
County: Gaston
(please attach)
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 9/30/91 Treatment Plant Class: H
Classification changes within three mules:
none
Requested by: Angela Y. Griffin Date: 2/28/91
Prepared by: Date: _ f�
Reviewed��y: / c LPL— Date: lG lla C
79'5 J- /ate
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
S'en,.1
3 t k t
o
Drainage Area (mi`') ? J.f Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 0. d
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) >, c. 30Q2 (cfs) o, o
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters v:: -� �£ L v
Upstream Location 360 r f, Y ,-t -ft
Downstream Location 7u o F t
Effluent
�
Characteristics
„J,�,yw
�vmnw
(i�N%✓
BODS (m )
/ 7
5'
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
f
TSS (mg/1)
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
PH (SU)
I
U
LIJ
i — -
Co ments:
r

-1-
FACT SHEET FOR WASTEtOAD ALLOCATIONS I
Request
Facility Name :CWS-SADDLEWOOD SUBDIVISION FT IV F D
NPDES No.
:NC0060755
Type of Waste
:100% DOMESTIC
Facility Status
:EXISTING
Permit Status
:RENEWAL
Receiving Stream
:UT CROWDERS CREEK
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin
:030837
County
:GASTON
Regional Office
:MRO Ay-
Requestor
:GRIFFIN
Date of Request
:3/4/91
Topo Quad
:G14NW
,SUN 6 1991
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
# 6104
, ATV"L
ANP
t.1A� 291991
„"p;;�zillt�E l�kNa6EMEN
OIVlS10fl `�F E�`
Stream Characteristics: googswJI ►'
USGS #0214561625
Date 2/90
Drainage
Area:
0.08
sq.mi.
Summer
7Q10:
0.0
cfs
Winter
7Q10:
0.0
cfs
Average
Flow:
0.09
cfs
30Q2:
0.0
cfs
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
FACILITY REQUESTING RENEWAL OF EXISTING PERMIT. LAST WLA DONE IN 3/90 AND
SADDLEWOOD WILL SUBMIT ENGINEERING REPORT ON NONDISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES BY
7/91. REPORT NOT RECEIVED AS YET. TECH SUPPORT RECOMMENDS EXISTING LIMITS.
BECAUSE OF 7Q10=0 AND 30Q2=0, FACILITY MUST REMOVE DISCHARGE OR HAVE 5/1 &
10/1.8 LIMITS ASSIGNED IN JUNE 1993. FACILITY SHOULD CONNECT TO REGIONAL
CROWDERS CREEK WWTP AS SOON AS AVAILABLE.
Special Scheduled Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: Date:_5/14/91_
Reviewed by ,-., '. _,
Instream Assessment: ( Cl/Ll01XJLlJ Date:
Regional Supervisor: G Date• q�
1
Permits & Engineering: Date: LZ 7/ef,
v
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: JUN 18 1991

e
Existing Limits
-2-
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.009 / 0.009
BOD5 (mg/1):
16 /
17
NH3N (mg/1) :
9 /
12
DO (mg/1) :
6 /
6
TSS (mg/1):
30 /
30
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml):
200 /
200
pH (SU) :
6-9 /
6-9
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Toxicity:
mdn;4-or
CA)ori re :
After
3
Years
0.009
/
0.009
5
/
10
1
/
1.8
6
/
6
30
/
30
200
/
200
6-9
/
6-9
Recommended Limits EXISTING LIMITS 11F DISCHARGE NOT
IREMOVED ON 6/93
Summer/Winter I Summer7Winter I
Wasteflow (MGD):0.009 / 0.009 10.009 / 0.009 1
BOD5 (mg/1): 16 / 17 1 5 / 10
NH3N (mg/1): 9 / 12 1 1 1.8 1
DO (mg/1): 6/ 6 1 6 6 1
TSS (mg/1): 30 / 30 1 30 30 1
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml): 200 / 200 1 200 200 1
pH (SU): 6-9 / 6-9 1 6-9 6-9 1
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1) :
TN (mg/1):
Toxicity:
Chlor;ne: n'lon���' 1'� I
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:TEMPERATURE, DO, FECAL COLIFORM,CONDUCTIVITY
Upstream: Y Location: 300 FT. UPSTREAM OF DISCHARGE
Donwstream: Y Location: 300 FT. DOWNSTREAM OF DISCHARGE
Limits Chances Due To:
Instream Data
Ammonia Toxicity
Chlorine
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
HQW
New 7Q10 flow data
Special Modeling Studies
New facility information
Other
Parameter(s) Affected
NH3
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis
including new flows, rates, field data, interacting discharges, etc.)
I

AJO

MEMO
DATE:
TO: I ``
SUBJECT:
c cc)
L In
- l
N,,�-FC �c�- �1'^'�.',,, � w u.u- �o,✓.t/�t1 � � %i.�Jc 'tn � � re✓�a.��J
14
�qel,103 � �-172, 283 .
STATE
o� North Carolina Department of Environment,
��7�;, �. Health, and Natural Resources

CAROLINA WATER SERVICE. INC. of N.C.
AN AFFILIATE OF
U II IU M-95,1NI IC - i
Corporate Offices:
2335 Sanders Road
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Telephone: [phone]
Regional Offices:,. -,?.
.
5701 Westpark Dr., Suite 101
P.O. Box 240705
Charlotte, NO 28224
[phone]
Fax [phone]
j l`,j
June 4 101 1 . ,
Mr. George T. Everett, Director
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 2761 1
Ref Saddlewood Subdivision
N 579 T 5ermit #N,Yr �i�-? 5 5
Engineering Study
Alternatives to Surface Discharge
Dear Mr. Everett,
North Carolina:
Asheville, NO
[phone]
Banner Elk, NO
[phone]
Charlotte, NC
[phone]
Morehead City, NO
[phone]
New Bern, NC [phone]
rt' Whispering Pines, NC [phone]
.Ff
1991
-
� f.. AI jYY
SE" j JON r
Please find the enclosed copy .of the Engineering Study completed for the
above referenced facility by Moore Engineering Associates, as required in
Part III (D) of the NP rmit. Due to the current size of the Wastewater
reatment ant, it would not be economically feasible to utilize any of the
outlined alternatives, other than the current surface discharge at present.
Therefore, the requirements of Part III (D) state that the limits will change on
June 1, 1903 to 5.0 mg �i BOD 5 and 1.0 mg NH3 as N d�!ring the summer, and
10.0 mgil BOD5 and 1.8 mg/1 NH3 as N during the winter. Carolina ,Water
b Service requests that the change in BOD requirements -for the summer be
f1% raised to 10 mg A BOD 5, as opposed to the 5 mg A DOD 5. All other requirements
are acceptable at this time.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Bruce Haas or myself.
Sincerely,
-7 Carl Daniel
Vice President
Enclosures
cc : File
Mr. Bruce Haas

ENGINEERING l..l Srl,U L 1`
FOR
EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT
AT
S ADDLEWn OD SLR BDIVIS ION
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
MAY, 19 91
CAROLINA WATER SERVICE, INC-,/'.
5 701 WEST PARK DRIVE, SUITE 201
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
'N(I�NI�I11lIt
Ye\% =
_ SEAL
7609 d
7506 EAST INDEPENDENC:E BOULEVARD, SUITE 119
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 282-�'27

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................1 PAGE
EVALUATION................................................3 PAGES
GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................I PAGE
ATTACHMENT A, PUMP SEWAGE TO GASTON COUNTY UTILITIES ...... 1 PAGE
ATTACHMENT B, PUMP EFFLUENT TO NEAREST STABLE CREEK ....... 1 PAGE
ATTACHMENT C, SUBSURFACE RECHARGE .........................1 PAGE
ATTACHMENT D, CONSTRUCT LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM ........... I PAGE
ATTACHMENT E, CREATION OF WETLANDS ........................I PAGE
ATTACHMENT
F,
MODIFY EXISTING EXTENDED AERATION PLANT .....
1
PAGE
ATTACHMENT
G,
SOILS MAP...................................1
PAGE
ATTACHMENT
H,
SOILS DESCRIPTION ...........................1
PAGE
ATTACHMENT
J,
SCALED LOCATION MAP.........................1
PAGE
ATTACHMENT
K,
PROCESS SCHEMATIC ............................I
PAGE
ATTACHMENT
L,
GENERAL LOCATION MAP........................1
PAGE.

E N G= N E E R= N G S T U D Y
SADDLEWOOD SLJBD=V= S =O1\1
WA S T E WA T E R T R E A T M E N T P LAN T
Conclusions
Surface discharge of treated effluent from an improved wastewater
treatment plant at the Saddlewood Subdivision is the most cost
effective alternative for meeting effluent discharge require-
ments.
Discharge limits set for June 1, 1993 for BOD5 and NH3 as N are
not unrealistic for an extended aeration treatment plant.
With process and operational modifications the Saddlewood waste-
water treatment plant could reach both its winter and summer
effluent limits.
Recommendations
Modify the treatment plant and it's operation in order to meet
the effluent requirements that take effect June 1,1993.

Alternatives Considered
Wastewater treatment disposal methods considered included the
following:
1) PUMP TO EXISTING UTILITIES (GASTON COUNTY)
2) PUMP TO A LARGER MORE STABLE STREAM
3) LAND APPLICATION (IRRIGATION)
4) CREATION OF A WETLANDS AREA
5) GROUNDWATER RECHARGE (SUBSURFACE DRAINFIELDS)
6) MODIFYING EXISTING FACILITY TO MEET DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
BOTH CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS WERE EVALUATED.
EVALUATION
PUMP TO EXISTING UTILITIES (GASTON COUNTY)
Sewerage systems within a 5 mile radius include the Gaston County
Utility System (see Attachment J). Sewerage systems outside this
radius were not considered due to the high cost of connection to
such a facility.
Connection to the Gaston County Utility System would seem to be
an acceptable choice. This would put the burden of treatment on a
larger system with more available financial means.
Such action on the other hand has not always led to an environ-
mentally sound solution. During an upset, a larger system will
put an enormous stress on a sometimes already fragile
environment.
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment A).
PUMP TO A LARGER MORE STABLE STREAM
Transport.of the effluent to a larger stream is also an
alternative that was considered. This would seem acceptable if
the stream was within a short distance. Crowders Creek was the
next closest source for discharge of the effluent that was
considered.
This alternative meets with some protest in that you are only
transferring your problem by piping it from one location to
another. The travel time along a natural water course provides
some additional treatment and safety factor. The effluent will be
in an improved state having traversed the natural channel rather
than being piped directly to a point downstream. The stream
itself becomes a source of treatment.
Treatment of the problem on site seems the more logical solution

rather than transporting it to another environment that may not
be able to handle the added stress.
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment B).
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
A soils map of the treatment plant location (Attachments G and H)
indicates patchy areas of generally suitable soils for
groundwater recharge, specifically subsurface drainfields.
Over time a drainfield of this size with the surrounding soil may
tend to blind. There may also come a time when the drainfield
will not satisfy the water disposal requirements of the entire
subdivision.
The amount of land and utilities required for a central drain
field for a subdivision of this size would cause this alternative
to be economically burdensome.
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment C)
LAND APPLICATION
The cost of spray irrigation will exceed the cost of "secondary"
treatment at least by the cost for pumping and delivery systems,
monitoring, crop maintenance, land agreements, legal fees and
public relations (the latter have been a justifiable concern on
every effluent irrigation system presently known to the preparer,
and should be included in spray irrigation and other land
application system considerations).
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment D)
CREATION OF A WETLANDS AREA
The creation of a wetlands around the wastewater treatment
facility would seem to be an environmentally sound alternative.
Providing a wetland area at discharge will prevent the treated
water from going directly into the stream. This natural buffer
would allow more time for BOD5 and NH3 removal in an environment
designed for this purpose.
The problem with this alternative is the potential of flooding
the wetlands. If a flood were to inundate the wetlands however.,
the flood waters themselves would most likely be carrying higher
levels of BODS and NH3 than the effluent levels of the wastewater
treatment plant.
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment E).

MODIFYING EXISTING FACILITY TO MEET DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
The existing plant nearly meets the June 1, 1993 limits required
in the NPDES Permit with existing equipment and operation. By
addition of other equipment, including fine bubble aeration,
process controllers, an effluent filter and biological selector
modifications to the aeration tank, the plant can be expected to
perform consistently within the limits prescribed in the NPDES
Permit for June 1, 1993.
Fine bubble aeration should be added to insure adequate oxygen
for oxidation of both carbonaceous BOD5 and ammonia nitrogen.
Shallow packaged plants are often fitted with coarse bubble
diffusers and the air supply is sized for tank agitation. Oxygen
transfer is around 2% and as such is seldom sufficient to meet
carbonaceous and ammonia demands with the air supplied. The
installation of fine bubble aeration provides better oxygen
transfer (around 10%) and improved mixing. In addition, the
diffusers will be installed to encourage plug flow in the reactor
vessel.
Utilization of a selector chamber encourages the growth of
desirable organisms and thus assists in bulking control (by not
favoring filamentous organisms) and can, under controlled
conditions, encourage and accomplish nutrient (phosphorus and
nitrogen) removal. In this instance it will be used to provide a
more stable, settleable activated sludge mixed liquor.
A process controller will allow reduction in return streams from
return sludge and skimmers. This will remove a significant amount
of stress on the final clarifier, thus promoting greater removal
of suspended solids, and consequently BOD5. In addition, a higher
quality effluent will reduce filter upset problems and possibly
obviate the need to operate the filters at all.
Effluent filter(s) may be required to meet State approval for the
new final effluent quality. In any case, installation should be
planned to insure the ability of the plant to meet the imposed
standards.
A myth concerning filters has been that when the plant is upset,
the filter can allow continued compliance with effluent permit
limits by removing excess suspended solids. Actually, a filter
can only provide polishing of a good effluent. If effluent
quality deteriorates to any significant degree, the filter will
rapidly plug and will be helplessly bound in backwash cycles.
Rapid fouling of the filter will also create frequent filter
cleaning requirements, and thereby excessive maintenance costs.
A cost estimate for this alternative is attached (Attachment F).

Background Information
The Saddlewood Wastewater Treatment Plant is an existing 0.009
MGD extended aeration steel factory prefabricated package plant
located in and serving part of the Saddlewood Subdivision off of
North Carolina State Road 2416. The treatment works currently
discharges into an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek which is
classified as Class C waters in the Catawba River Basin. The
plant is owned and operated by Carolina Water Service, Inc.
Wastewater received by the existing facility comes directly from
residences in part of the Saddlewood Subdivision by way of
gravity sewer.
The existing process is schematically represented in Attachment K
and consists of coarse screening, extended aeration activated
sludge with final sedimentation and tablet chlorination for dis-
infection. Existing air diffusers in the aeration tank are coarse
bubble type. The return sludge and scum are moved by air lift
pumps.
The aeration compartment has a capacity of 24 hours detention
based on the average daily design flow. The final settling basin
is a hopper -bottomed type structure, the bottom of which is
formed into an inverted pyramidal hopper. All side walls have a
slope of at least 60 degrees. The sludge which settles to the
bottom of the hopper is returned to the aeration tank by means of
an air lift placed in each hopper.
Disinfection follows final settling (clarification) by tablet
chlorination. Effluent flowing past the solid tablets is designed
to dissolve hypochlorite in sufficient amount for effective eff-
luent disinfection.
A general locution map is attached showing the position of the
facility in relation to local roads, streams and other landmarks
(Attachment L).
The above"location map is scaled, in Attachment J, (from USGS
Topographic sources) and shows the existing location of the
treatment works and the discharge point.
***END OF REPORT***

PUMP SEWAGE TO GASTON COUNTY UTILITIES
Attachment A
Item Description
Oty. Units Cost/unit
1
Grinder Pump Equip. & Well
1
LS
$6,500.00
2
Concrete
3
CY
$350.00
3
Building
1
LS
$1,500.00
4
Fittings & valves
1
LS
$750.00
5
Misc. metals & equip.
1
LS
$750.00
6
Force line, 2 in. dia.
4,500
LF
$8.00
7
Electrical work
1
LS
$1,000.00
8
Site work, fencing, etc.
1
LS
$2,500.00
9
Easements
1.4
Ac
$10,000.00
10
Utility Connection Fee
1
LS
$10,000.00
11
Contingencies
15.0%
$64,050.00
Construction
Cost Subtotal
Engineering,
surveying & testing
14.0%
Legal
3.0%
Admin
3. 0 %
Total
Capital Cost
Admin
& Maint.
Power
Estimated
annual operating cost
$22,462
$161
Present
worth, operating cost @
15.0%
10
years
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH COST
Cost
$6,500
$1,050
$1,500
$750
$750
$36, 000
$1, 000
$2,500
$14,000
$1 O , 000
$9,608
$83,658
$11,712
$2, 510
$2,510
$100,389
$94,103
$472,283
$572,672
L

PUMP EFFLUENT TO
NEAREST
STABLE CREEK
Attachment B
Item
Description
oty.
Units
Cost/unit
Cost
1
Pumping equipment & well
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000
2
Concrete
3
Cy
$350.00
$1,050
3
Building
I
LS
$1,500.00
$1,500
4-
Fittings & 'valves
1
LS
$750.00
$750
5
Misc. metals & equip.
1
LS
$750.00
$750
6
Force line, 2 in. dia.
5,000
LF
$8.00
$40,000
7
Electrical work
I
LS
$1,000.00
$1,000
8
Site work, fencing., etc.
1
LS
$1,500.00
$2...500
9
Easements
1.5
AC,
$101000.00
$15,000
10
Contingencies
20.0%
$66,550.00
Construction
Cost Subtotal
$79,860
Engineering,
surveying & testing
24. 0(t
$11.130
Legal
5.0%
$3, 993
Admin
3. 0%
$2,396
Total.
Capital Cost
$97,429
Admin
& Maint.
Power,
Estimated
annual operating cost
$28,474
$811
$94- 10
Present
worth,
operating cost @
15.0%
10
Years
$472,283
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH COST
$569,713

CREATION OF
WETLANDS
Attachment C.
Item Description
oty,
Units
Cost/unit
Cost
1 Land Apuisition
2.75
AC
$10,00.00
$27,500
2 Excay. & backfill
0,437
CY
$10.00
$44,367
3 Grading and planting
2.75
Ac.
$1,500.00
$4,125
4 Contingencies
25.00
$71,866.67
$17,967
Construction Cost Subtotal
$93,958
Engineering, surveying & testing
20.0o
$18,792
Legal
5. 0 %
$". 698
Admin
3. Ora
$2, 819
Total Capital Cost
$120,267
Labor & Admin
Power
Estimated annual operating cost
$25,768
$715
$94,103
Present worth, operating cost
C 15.0%
1.0
years
$472,2 83
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$592.550
ATTACHMENT H

CONSTRUCT LAND
APPLICATION SYSTEM
Attachment D
Item
Description
QtY.
Units
Cost/unit
Cost
1
Pumping eq. & well
1
LS
$8,500.00
$8,500
2
Concrete
10
CY
$350.00
$3,500
3
Building
I
LS
$11500.00
$1,500
4-
Fittings & valves
1
LS
$3,500.00
$3, 500
5
Misc. metals & equip.
I
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000
6
Pipe and fittings
1,500
LF
$8.00
$12,000
7
Electrical work
1
LS
$2,500.00
$2,500
8
Site work, fencing, etc.
1
LS
$2.500.00
$2..500
9
Excay. & backfill
3100
CY
$3.00
$2,400
10
Sprinkler Heads
40
EA
$100.01D
$4- , 000
11
Instrumentation/controls
I
LS
$21,400.00
$2,400
12
Irrigation distribution
3,000
LF
$12.50
$37,500
13
Holding Pond
0.99
Ac.
$52,272.00
$51,979
14
Land Aquisition
4
a c .
$ 101, 000. 00
$4.0, 001D
15
Contingencies
25.0%
$137,279
$34,320
Construction,Cost
Subtotal
$198.098
Engineering,
surveying & testing
20.0%
$39,620
Legal
3.0%
$5,943
Admin
3. 0 511;
$S,943
Total
Capital Cost
1; 24 9. b04.
Labor & Admin
Power
Estimated
annual operating cost $4,3,,093
$100,a87
$94,103
Present
worth, operating cost
@ 15.0%
10
Years
$472,283
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH COST
$721,887

SUBSURFACE RECHARGE
Attachment E
Item
Description oty. Units Cost/unit
I Pumps, contr., well, elec.
I
LS
$8,000.00
2 Concrete
3
Cy
$300.00
Building
1
LS
$1,500.00
3 Fittings & valves
1
L
$750.00
4 Misc. metals & equip.
1
LS
$750.DO
5 Land Aquisition
4
Ac
$10.000.�0
6 P i p i n �:,'j
1.500
L F
$5. --10
7 Site work, fencing, etc.
I
LS
$1,250.00
8 Excay. & backfill
.1500
CY
9 Distribution Pipe
10000
LF
10 Gravel
1200
CY
$16. o
11 Distribution Box
1
LS
1; 8 0 0. 0, ID
12 Contingencies
20.0%
$122,650.�0
Construction Cost Subtotal
Engineering, surveying & testing
15.0%
Legal
3.0%
Admin
3.0%
Total Capital Cost
Labor
& Admin
Power
Estimated annual operating cost
$23,106
$871
Present worth, operating cost @
15.0%
10
Years
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
Cost
$.8'000
$900
$1,500
$750
$750
$ 40 , 000
$7, 500
$ 1, 2-5 0
$12,000
$30,000
$19,200
$800
$24,530
$147,180
$29,715
$519413
$5,943
$188,781
$94,103
$472,283
$661,064

MODIFY EXISTING EXTENDED AERATION PLANT
Attachment F
Item Description
Qty. Units Cost/unit
Cost
1 Fine Bubble Diffusers
5
EA
$100.00
$500
2 Pipe work & fittings
1
LS
$1, 500.00
$1, 500
3 Timer for Air Lift Skimmer
1
EA
$200.00
$200
4. Electrical Work
1
LS
$2,000.00
$2,000
5 Addition of Selector
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000
6 Addition Of Filter
1
LS
$27,000.00
$27,000
7 Contingencies
25.0%
$361200.00
$9.050
Construction Cost Subtotal
$4.5,250
Engineering, surveying & testing
20.0%
$9,050
Legal
3.0,
$1,358
Admin
3.00
$1,358
Total Capital Cost
$57.015
Labor
& Admi.n
Power
Estimated annual operating cost
$40,699
$74.2
$94,103
Present worth, operating cost @
15.0o
10
years
$472,283
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$529,298
Capital CostTotal PW Cost
PUMP SEWAGE TO GASTON COUNTY UTILITIES $100,389 $572,672
PUMP EFFLUENT TO NEAREST STABLE CREEK $97,a29 $569,713
CREATION OF WETLANDS $120,267 $5921550
CONSTRUCT LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM $24.9,604. $721,887
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE $188,781 $661,064.
MODIFY EXISTING EXTENDED AERATION PLANT $57.015 $529,298

ATTAC IDES T G
PAGE OF
11.7 Ii . { " r�l '� , • .{. '� � {r ,� tia,,K. '�J�C:i{.-f.'�hC✓f �.%j` 1 5 �A 6�1{ r :rY IY�y'i�Vi •, h
{ ''+'r Z ''�fi r' -. � .�n4.. " I � N � s ilk. a , � ?•-y ,5 N c �0 r YS 1 F: .,,. >t ry
/
. �.� �, J r ! �! t"V ' ^� t 1 J •T k V+:''� ".li 1 •.. J d. �' �:, �L3 J _ �. '� :'� :7 . �1 ,�
.�i.t ��1!1.��.:$ ��tn�'. �,x •w'� i�L t't` 'ti.�r``sji,,: 5 - /7- � .t,� '�'�
,t�•a`-{,:T Ihf J u, +Y �4�lC: '.,�s �t�l f ':!�° • N 4�% L��•�, � : �' 1•� J _ fir. $ DD��'��''''"'PPPPPP ' 1 {f /•, �;
�• �t Ir Ir �1+ t 1, may;, s Nf7! � '�f,J'�F-w'N I - � ri . T!'�� � ,11' T
1, J E �ti rl ,'�J. Y ` L � �`r �VY•�+, �� r+. T�+�•.�c`:K•q�i.; .,,, I'�• � �_� �,e' � �'.''•��'ti .� a•f•r�:'� .�
r >:^ , '�, �. ems„ :• � �. + yty, .v= , r•' ;;, � .
tttggqY' �y. • �• tE1L, 4 � t1s,��r'r�'� Ih11 �.��'ry! .�,: _ 2•�G 'Lr ' � _ I• i '.r�L.!•I,�
I• f •.�I.f yJ 1 '#i, -Sr 1� i{rir •.i�,�l�,.. .Z.: •• i J' ,, Y�+ ,kr�`'�t*ply; yi•, ,'� m . +t✓..r .Ji •./ �' •N nRt.C'.
i, �•,+ _ 1��'�� iJ' �u�Y{r,'f�, ..��„ ��tJ, , +�,.;'^ tr�,� .fir t. n. J, �
.b ` � , ^/ (�,.! �, D� . .•d1�B��i J'. � d-ri}3�c�' �. t /,
':xr,l':��'.� � t,,: � j � '� � �. •�"'J I' .t . •�!�Y� fie , r _ J ssf�it'"u �j. �I ' i% � 1' � ,�
j��c t 1 is 5 Y� 1 �I .f .a1 � ',....•.' 'i w � a R `r r4S' i
jih?',�1t 1� �'%' ri � ' f � r§ i �.�i ,. '+�• • ~ t{ , �� H :` ��AF ': •F{, °"�i!<,1-f" a' �, ti•.t�� ..} • ,S.'Kr :1 ,fir *•` .�`r
r �)4 �• � S : , ��•�. A ...�.5�,� J '.'pa:�: 2 1 ix ��y9-fi. .aa! �Ls , .��
.� ' +..+i i 5 �yi •S �. 1rr'i�i}'„ <^�•-�,f i'�" r�z��'' ^�r.c st c �� s Fry:.J.�'. ,�f 3 '' is
'�Y�� r�nj � i . f��t�t 7 t �`� ,, �' �: � B. � .� .n �� �� rC t ?� �,� f• <rrS3` ••
1 •i1.{ , ,� .� i' ➢�' 1e 4 � 'fir, ti�.,� fi 1 7 ,lt.�h7'! ^'}r��t'au. °i't.. r ', .y?.�, . r 31 ° t.
1 y;r� �+s :SyV/ M'1 1 7!' •{ ){ �ti< �rI'rS"Aa, I Yt* .i f'•^'f i I: wp } J
Y QSJ• r' r. , ' r � E 1• lsl J lwl' s"M' . La ` �" ` •r j•
��� ;4 - ' t = 1• � •{.'4`�.' .,' ?`P � ' y', r �" i k',r�'s�.'����r' "�,f�° � � i r .�, .� s ,� f 1
y. •',(,}tom.'] ♦ N°• � ..s ° •" l't.�- �•'� a r _ ! ��i}:I. r,;-},�'G�1y%,�M"S,r{;�r^ { :� t' , r.
' 't' { �r� �. 1 �•,•{ ,,i• . • � 1 S':' � 1. ' 1 .�1 Fb - � .'. , ', :l / �' 1� Y • � .l. 1-: r; .
t ' `�'. ' 1. , i )yam 'e., Ji} . �;•.:r � , F.
� . r '' ,� q �' :*� t1,'L` *� J' 1'Di. � r s ten^ Y � J..- t ,� ,T•; .� ."
tj t..4. ti' � IKSL. et Y I Tt'. t}� �!y � �• f � • � '1" ��� `:� 1°l'���, .r.- -°I }. �y ,�} ' f :� �: J r
� ''itir�l V . t ;' tt ... Sits'.' ' � .r�f'.. .,i r.. •i':1 ,. 5 .•j�' .:3!,'' /'' , N
^� I�y`w a� '�•5 37 ,ys i 1 �' .1 ��� y` 1 ,.. .�Jy �t �r .� � 4' .B' V ••n�f S
'iti �.'rtY y �� �'�. 1•�l}1�°�t•V '�!��iM'., '�1� r1�.3 �,.. 4•�~ _P�,W.vf ��r 'S� r 1+i ,^ '' �; .l`V
• ! k.r .. • Ss.� fit. a6�: 3 r�{�,'�!� •, ,lit •��` y � .2s"j 'f `�z' 'Z• +" �,.�w i' t f �
- 'r•.• .Pe,.` �L��''� �j N :�.�19' �ll �� !r �+f •r �;�o� .L r t.�? '��rJ'�'T4 5+ 1�`� ' � 1 ? ' �� •�'3 V*^ _� �(
.,1,,f 1,��, a• ��' } � 4r •�� � •�?�E, .� •r�~x� ~' 1 � ,w �'' 1� °ti° jam' �_. •�. .�. �•
(� r a. V "� � � � 31 *' �," J ` fy � X - K+ .c •fiF'F'%.r� - ,Fi• $ - _ 1 C'�.. �� . r C .•,
.* .,� � s�`s °'�D 1 I � s,. .•-.,,�'y�r ► � ,,'Si ' '`� �'x" 'a-rG?�`� .t,,�,� D _3.1 r:�
Y.' ••� .`� ` �,, t ',~ter �`r� � �y�;V I 1 �, ,•��� '�'�t ,JF
� 1 "•. +' :tiy : "+' �!' � P -Zia ` ft', �: � `m7'�
f;r." y. .f r' �F'J .t a • j''$P,J '111 �f€: s<�., ` ++ ,�jrA.• .+�• .y{f.
v� e !•}' `� I _ vty. jw • e�, L �! .9+ �' .tY� VQ .., 5�`�'.
31
7 � ,, ��f�i �� • . f • 7 ''P : filmttr . \i ' � `
',r. �:' ..'� •, ' ,',�%.-sue` "`�. a '�/ i+• • '' `h . ,`,� �,
J _ f
■

E OOFE- ENGINEEFM ASSOCIATES
75M M wOfPf MENCE BOUT YARD • SM 119
c%{AR1DiTF, NORTH CWMM 2a227
PAGE 1. car- U.
DF
CALIMTM aY DATE
CHtLIOilD BY DATE
,ECT So 1L_ D CSCA I P'f'10 r15
3
:....:....:....:....:.ZE .. Pr�Gb.�-4�'r. .. ..
..SAN DY � LEA M .. . .
s
S E� C :.TANK
OF. .. .. . .
...
. E A4 ..
:....a .. �y.-o�!....
NDY
SK�r..6... �� SiF�i►� ?"A�/iiG
............................................ . .6.ay.�. A..y.. .. aS.. �
°?a� DES
.............. .. .. 2. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .
:. .. ..43P.. ...4. 5.....N
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
!T�kA! �C..� SojL:
:.
j41 &A1 : CkAY . rd�V' EW. r., C.A.....!�u.... ..
...�....k.A ✓C-. p .. q 1 a . .
Y./N6.:otT .o?�. A$SoePrl.4...IEL.?v..

AI R F R".01'vi
BLOWERS
INFLUENT
RETURN SLUDGE
. o
AERATION
COMPARTMENT
0� 0,, 02
CHLORINE
TAI\] K -�
— i n
SETTLING
TAN K
CONTA;"'T
WASTE SLUDGE
TO DISPOSAL
EFFLUENT
p El, u
,� . ~� v ,rya ClAl
M.Al
T
C
N rr S
1 `� 0
Nx

:J1
St.
7.11
b'b
Country JU151
it-
1 \ � M (!;``•`� \,1 �� ./,��` ��=\-`, /�'\1� �"..i 1��4_i,� ( '�_,//._�``J��:";i��ll,�/\oU-�' i,II /.�/ �-I ��.•� r l �\� \ ����� � /
i� N��s
W11
V. M
v
`� :� �750` \(-�.;,,� (��� ;� lam' �; -``. •, , ��{, %' \��J° /' - ��''�'..I- ;1
_7TO
al.,h
(CC
e
c)
,17 WV42" EXISTING MUNICIPAL SEWER LINE
"o-018" EXISTING GRAVITY LINE
�j 24" EXISTING GRAVITY LINE
DRAINAGE BASIN LINE (621 ACRES/ .97 SQ.MI.)
DRAINAGE BASIN LINE (76 ACRES/.12 SQ.MI.)
SCALE
1" 2000'
75
10

624 12
IN
1 -:2-2
u \ � � .-c \ r ( Aso - Oy C : � s+1 ,•' -��: ,1 . ..�.�
750
:. \, � �� �� ! � �l � -. � .. ,; �.,; air , �� \
u -u� �� \�-'`' % L / �� �. . �., ^Fly
4 2 " EXISTIN
18 " EXISTIN
00' 24" EXISTIN
DRAINAGE BA
DRAINAGE BA
o — o� ���� r l s c
S
jo)