NC0086070_Issuance of Permit_19971201

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural ResourcesA4
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary � C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director C
December 1, 1997
Mr. James S. Erwin, Jr.
Director of the Henderson County Utilities Department
101 East Allen Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NCO086070
Western NC Justice Academy
Henderson County
Dear Mr. Erwin:
In accordance with the application for a discharge permit received on February 21,
1997, the Division is forwarding herewith 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 December 6, 1983.
In response to concerns raised by members of the public, the Division of Water
Quality held a public hearing regarding the subject permit on September 25. 1997. After
considering the recommendations of the hearing office, the Director has made the decision to
issue the permit with the location amendment as requested. The final NPDES permit
contained herein is issued for the facility to be located in Edneyville, with discharge to Lewis
Creek at a location shown on the attached map.
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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part II, EA. addresses the
requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge. This
permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources or any
other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper
86070 cov Itr

lis
A(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Permit No.
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(
serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MUNITUHINU Mr-Uurncmc1110
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Measurement
Sample
Sample
Location'
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Flow MGD
0.030
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
Continuous
Weekly
Recording
Composite
I or E
E, I
E, I
BOD52 (April 1 - October 31) VJ 30
BOD52 (Novemberl - March 31) 1 <
10.0 mg/I
30.0 m /1
15.0 mg/l
45.0 m /I
Weekly
Weekl
Composite
Composite
E. I
E
Total Suspended Solids2
NH, as N (April 1 - October 31) �G l,� L
2.0 mg/I
4.0 mg/I
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Weekly
WeeklX
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
E
E, U, D
E
NH3,as N (November 1 - March 31)v� uN
FecAf Coliform (geometric mean)5
H3 1 r�
28 /I
Dail
Grab
Grab
IL
TotaPResi al Chlorine° Wa t-IM�
Teerature� °C 5 L,
m
Dissolved x en5 +- M1�
' 6.0 m /
✓
-
WeeklyGrab
WeeklyGrab
Semi -Annual
Semi -Annual
Composite
Com o$ite
U, D
E
E
ivit _' C ('
Total Nitro en V
Total Phosphorus
Notead �
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U- Upstream- 50 ft. upstrearn of discharge point, D - Downstream- 0.5 miles downstream of
discharge point.
1 2 The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5 Instream monitoring for temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and fecal coliform shall be conducted weekly on a year round basis.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
�Lo

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
7 November 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Preston Howard
Director
FROM: Roger Thorpe
Water Quality Supervisor
Washington Regional Office �5��
SUBJECT: Meeting Officer's Report & Recommendations'
NPDES Permit Meeting N0086070
Henderson County Utilities
Western North Carolina Justice Academy
In November 1996 an application for a NPDES permit was submitted by
Henderson County Utilities for a proposed discharge of 40,000 gpd of domestic
wastewater to Lewis Creek, a class C-Trout stream in the French Broad River Basin. The
proposed treatment plant would serve a soon to be constructed Western North Carolina
Justice Academy and the surrounding community. The Western North Carolina Justice
Academy is to be located at an old Edneyville school site and is proposing to train 150
students initially. In addition to the academy, the treatment plant would serve the sewer
needs of 28 residential and commercial customers.
The Permits and Engineering Unit reviewed the application package and
determined that the engineering alternatives analysis was incomplete and the package
was therefore returned. The package was resubmitted in February 1997 and at that time
the Division began its own investigation of disposal alternatives. During the evaluation
process, the applicant twice requested changes in the discharge point location in response
to local community concerns. Based on the Division's investigation it was determined
that only a plant of 30,000 gpd could be justified, but a stream discharge was determined
to be the most cost effective alternative.
Due to much public concern, a public meeting was noticed and as the appointed
meeting officer, I conducted the meeting on 25 September 1997. Four people made
comments. The county's consultant spoke on behalf of the county and explained the
process it had gone through and explained that a site for location of the treatment plant
had not been selected. This apparently has been a major concern of some people in the
community. One community resident spoke in favor of the project. Two other
community residents spoke against the project. They were basically opposed to all
wastewater treatment plants and were afraid of malfunctions, noise and odors. No one

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary WATER QUALITY SECTION
January 13, 1997
Mr. Jon Laughter
Laughter, Austin, and Associates
131 Fourth Avenue East
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Dear Mr- Laughter:
KAA
9-4am
AdEbEdENOWNwMdd
NCDENR
NORTH CARouNA DEPARTMENT or
ENVIRONMENT AND N.uURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Western NC Justice Academy
Plans and Specifications
NPDES Permit No. NCO086070
Henderson County
I have begun a review of the plans and specifications of the above
referenced project and would like to request additional information.
This information is needed for us to complete our review. These comments
have been forwarded to Mr. Steve Pellei in Raleigh. He may have
additional requests when he reviews the project.
GENERAL:
1. If possible, the influent lift station should be avoided by
providing the flow equalization volume in its place. Depending on
the elevation of the flow equalization facility, the backwash
wastewater may be routed to this basin by gravity rather than
providing another basin and another set of pumps and controls to
transfer the wastewater into the equalization basin. The volume
needed for backwash storage would have to be incorporated into the
flow equalization basin. Even if the flow equalization basin had to
be located separate from the treatment plant at a more downhill
position, this would be preferable due to the elimination of up to
two sets of pumps and controls which can malfunction and cause
overflows.
2. The ground elevation in relation to the top of the plant should be
shown. This will determine if steps are needed for access.
3. Either full grating or guard rails are needed, or some combination
of both. Mounting the blowers and controls on the ground would
reduce the amount of grating necessary for access.
4. The lift station piping is shown to be �4-inch. How is this to be
connected to the 6 inch connection on the plant?
5. Where is the water hydrant to be located? A vacuum breaker is not
sufficient for backflow prevention if the plant is higher than the
hydrant.
6. The plans do not show the following required items:
- Dechlorination facilities to meet the chlorine limit.
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Jon Laughter
January 13, 1998
Page 3
be operated in series as well as in parallel. The option of series
operation might be advantageous during low flow periods to minimize
solids loading on the filter.
FILTRATION
1. More detail of the filters is needed including the following
information:
- height of walls.
- overflow conditions.
- filter size and media depth.
- piping for air scour and backwash, including backwash return.
- blowers and controls.
2. Provisions should be made to allow backwashing filters for 10
minutes. The clearwell volume specified would require that the
filters be backwashed individually, with a clearwell refill time
between backwashings. This is an operational concern which should
be considered. If more flexibility in backwashing is desired by the
permittee, additional backwash volume should be provided.
3. The 1060 gal. volume specified for backwash wastewater storage is
inadequate. Additional volume should be provided to allow for
inflow during backwash.
CHLORINATION AND DE -CHLORINATION
1. More detail is needed for the chlorine detention tank showing
dimensions and baffling. The option of disinfecting prior to the
filter should be provided. The 500 gallons specified in 16.33 of
the Specifications does not allow a full 30 minutes of detention.
2. The specifications indicate a 500 gal. basin for dechlorination.
This detention time is unnecessary for dechlorination reactions and
it would be preferable to use much of this volume for additional
chlorine detention,.
If you have any questions, please call -me at 704-251-6208. I would
be glad to meet with you to review these items.
Sincerely,
'A", R UILA�
Paul R. White, P. E.
Environmental Engineer
xc: Jim Erwin
Steve Pellei

kziz�la- )9
7
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
Permit No.: NCO086070
Permittee Name: Henderson County Utilities
Facility Name:
Western NC Justice Academy
Facility Status:
Proposed
Permit Status:
New
Major:
Minor:
Pipe Number:
001 , 03a
Design Capacity:
0.Q2 'MCA
Domestic Flow:
100 percent
Industrial Flow:
0 percent
Comments: This location -formerly the Edneyville School
The applicant requested limits for flow at 0.04 MGD, however P & E
can only justify flow to 0.022 MGD. The regional office says that
irrigation water is taken upstream of proposed discharge local, but
downstream there is still farmland.
Recving Stream: Lewis Creek
Class:
C - Tr
Sub -Basin:
04-03-02
USGS Quad:
F 9 NE (see attached map)
County:
Henderson
Regional Office:
Asheville
Previous
Treatment
Expiration Date:
00/00/00 Plant Class: II
Classification changes within three miles: None
index:
6-55-1 1-6
Requested by Steve ell i ate:
Prepared by: ✓�' ate:
Reviewed/ C Date:
gq�
07-21-97
Modeler: Date Rec: Number #
-t zz 9 SS
Drainage Area (s* mi.) 'Y-7 Avg. Streamflow (cfs)
7Q10 (cfs) 1,,;2 Winter 7Q10 / t 30Q2 (CFS) ?•G
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute / Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters:Ai U Q �'''4`r�
Upstream Location:
Downstream v Location:
Effluent Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
j
/0
NH3 as N (mg/1)
It
D.O. (mg/1)
6
6
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml)
,boo
Zoo
H (SU)
6-7
(o -9

Western NC Justice Academy jmn
Lewis Creek C-TR 3/14/97
040302
The proposed facility is a 50,000 GPD plant that discharges into Lewis Creek in the French
Broad River Basin. According to Linda Wiggs of ARO, Lewis Creek is a tributary to
upper Clear Creek There has already been some public concern about the discharger
going into this stream.
Forwarded messages via Steve Pellei from Dave Goodrich and Paul White,
ARO
Dave's interpretation of message from Paul: That the farmers are drying up Lewis
Creek by irrigation. He recommends that Steve meet with Ruth and Carla about the stream
being at zero based on the information received from the public. This info should
override USGS flow estimates and he recommends that we give 5&2 limits
with 5 mg/I DO and 17 ug/l chlorine, to ensure the maximum level of
treatment. Also alternatives analysis needs to be completed by the
applicant.
Message from Paul White: ARO has received a number of calls from Henderson Co.
about this permit. Evidently, Preston had agreed to hurry along this project and the County
is asking what additional info is needed to get things going. Paul indicated that 1) there
needs to be a revision of the alternatives analysis that has been submitted.
He received copy of the analysis on Feb. 20th but it is obviously incomplete. He says that
he has not received a request for a staff report from P&E but he intends to go and visit the
site very soon. 2) He also says that there seems to be a problem with the receiving
stream. It is used for irrigation and farmers say that they sandbag the stream and
dry it up to get water during drought conditions. They are concerned that
below this point, the effluent from the Academy plant will comprise 100%
of the stream.
March 17,1997 - Rec'd Staff Report from ARO Paul White has visited site and
there are numerous issues that need to be resolved before permit finalization.
ie -site is located in 100 year flood plain, no flood info provided, this needs to be
considered
-facilities do not meet current regs for a 50,000 gpd extended aeration treatment plant
because of requirements for dual path aeration and clarification and reliablity measures.
-all the non discharge options available have not been evaluated
- (design) flow estimates appear to be higher than needed.
-no present worth comparison of alternatives
-consideration of temporary non discharging system for the Academy
-land cost is high at $22,000/acre
-potential for zero flow during droughts due to up stream irrigation

. a.
Western NC Justice Academy
page 2
jmn
4/9197
Other issues addressed in staff report, not listed here. Evidently, Preston Howard wrote
letter (12/12/96) to facility requesting resolution of several of these issues.
Model Results
Using estimated flows of s7Q10=1.2 cfs, w7Q10=1.8 cfs and QA = 7 cfs
Level B modeling analysis: For summer, effluent limits of BOD5=30 mg/l, N113=13
mg/l (for toxicity) predicts DO min. of 7.19 mg/l, 0.6 mi. downstream of outfall. End DO
= 7.29 at milept. 1.6 mi.
For winter, effluent limits of 30/30 protects w/ DO min. of 9.30 mg/l at outfall.
If assume that s7Q10 = 0.05 cfs, because of irrigation, not quite drying up
the stream completely but with minimal flow enough to consider it with
positive flow.
1) @ BODS=5, NH3=2, DO = 6, DO min. = 6.67 mg/l @ outfall.
2) @ BOD5=17.5, NH3=6.5, DO =6, DO min. = 6.11 mg/l, 0.5 mi below outfall.
3) @ BOD5=13.5, NH3=7.5, DO =6, DO min. = 6.11 mg/l, 0.5 mi below outfall.
4) @ BOD5=27.5, NH3=4, DO =6, DO min. = 6.13 mg/1, 0.5 mi below outfall.
***In order to protect Lewis Creek from any potential DO problems
because of the irrigation practice, will recommend that tertiary limits be
given because of the assumption of 7Q10=0 (or very close to 0 ) and
30Q2>0. The other limits recommended by modeling predict the DO min.
so close to 6 mg/l that I do not think that these limits will give the best
protection for Lewis Creek.
4/29/97
Dave Goodrich says that Western NC Justice will be changing the discharge
location from Lewis Creek to Clear Creek. Preston Howard has promised a
quick turnaround on the new location. Map was submitted and the new site
was Clear Creek at Gilliam Road. There is still some discrepancy about the
amount of wasteflow, does not appear that 50,000 GPD of flow can be
justified. P&E came up with Only 10,000 GPD needed, but Preston has
said that he will allow an additional 11,000 GPD for any future connections
to this plant. Wants to be considered as a regional facility.
Ran two models at the Clear Creek discharge point. 1) Qw=0.025
MGD, P&E can justify 10,000 GPD and Director will allow an
additional 11,000 GPD for future tie-ons that Academy has
indicated will occur, will round up this 22,000 GPD to 25,000
GPD. 2) Previously requested Qw of 0.050 MGD. Level B
model results indicate that secondary treatment of 30/30 limits
will protect DO in Clear Creek. Also recommend fecal limit of
200/100ml and TRC limit of 28 µg/l.

Western North Carolina Justice Academy page 3
8/15/97
Facility requested another WLA back on Lewis Creek downstream about
0.5 miles from the original site on Lewis Creek. Concerns are still the
same with farmers using Lewis Creek for irrigation during drought seasons
and completely sandbagging the stream. Lewis Creek is also designated as
a trout stream and must be protected for instream DO of 6 mg/l.
Will again recommend tertiary limits for the Justice Academy for protection
of stream during these farming practices. These limits initially
recommended in 4/97 WLA for Lewis Creek discharge. They were never
finalized because the permittee then requested that site be changed for a
discharge point in Clear Creek and the WLA (#8552) for Lewis Creek was
deleted. ME is in agreement with assignment of tertiary limits and will
discuss with Paul White of ARO for their confirmation.

1.'.U11ey V l l lr
NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT C014MISSION
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM APPLICAIION NUMBER
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE SHORT FORM D FOR
AGENCY
USE DATE RECEIVEp
fo be filed only by services. wholesale and retajl trade,
and other coevnercial establishments including vessels YEAR M0. DAY
i
Do not attempt to complete this form without reading the accompanying instructions
Please print or metype)
1. Na. address. and telephone number of facility producing discharge
A. Name Henderson County Utilities Department
B. Street address ass en Street
C. city Henderso D. Stag. N
E. County
Henderson I F. ZIP-
G. Telephone No. 704 697-4818
Area
Code
I
2. SIC
i
(Leave blank)
3. Number of employees
3
4. Nature of business Goverment - County Sewer District _
S. (a) Check here if discharge occurs all yeavya!, or
(b) Check the month({) discharge occurs:
1. a January 2. a February i 3.0 March 4.a Apr)1 5. o Nay
6.13June 7.0July 8.aAugust: 9.0Septemaber 10.aOctober
I I. a November 12. o December
(c) How many days per week: 1.131 2.0 2-3 3.0 4-5 4.66-7
I
A--L-..- -A ... ..."Ars u&tors nn1v (check as applicable)
U. IyFga V. ..Yi •- n--�. �.-�..�.
Y__ __
I
Volume treated before
Flow, gallans per operating day
discharging (percent)
Discharge per
day
0.1-999
1000-4999
6000-5999
10,000-
50.000
None
0.1-
29.9
30-
64.9
65-
94.9
95-
100
operating
49.999
or more
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(S)
(6)
(7)
(B)
(9)
(10)
1 0 C
A. Sanitary, daily
40,000
average
B. Cooling water, etc.,
daily average
Ct Other discharge(s),
daily average;
Specify
D. Maximum per operat--
ing day for combined
discharge (all types)
95-211

'`,, ''''. NPDES FACILITY AND PERMIT DATA 02/21/97 07:27:26
UPDATE OPTION TRXID 5NU KEY NCO086070
PERSONAL DATA FACILITY APPLYING FOR PERMIT REGION
FACILITY NAME> HENDERSON CO. UTIL,-EDNEYVILLE COUNTY> HENDERSON 01
ADDRESS: MAILING (REQUIRED) LOCATION (REQUIRED)
STREET: 101 EAST ALLEN STREET STREET: US 64 SW OF EDNEYVILLE
CITY: HENDERSONVILLE ST NC ZIP 28792 CITY: EDNEYVILLE ST NC ZIP 28792
TELEPHONE [phone] DATE FEE PAID: 02/21/97 AMOUNT: 400.00
STATE CONTACT> PELLEI
PERSON IN
CHARGE
JAMES S. ERWIN, JR.
1=PROPOSED,2=EXIST,3=CLOSED
1 1=MAJOR,2=MINOR
2 1=MUN,2=NON-MUN 2
LAT:
LONG:
N=NEW,M=MODIFICATION,R=REISSUE> N
DATE
APP RCVD
02/21/97
WASTELOAD REQS
/
/
DATE
STAFF REP REQS
/
/
WASTELOAD RCVD
/
/
DATE
STAFF REP RCVD
/
/
SCH TO ISSUE
/
/
DATE
TO P NOTICE
/
/
DATE DRAFT PREPARED
/
/
DATE
OT AG COM REQS
/
/
DATE DENIED
r
/
DATE
OT AG COM RCVD
/
/
DATE RETURNED
/
1
DATE TO EPA / / DATE ISSUED / / ASSIGN/CHANGE PERMIT
DATE FROM EPA / / EXPIRATION DATE
FEE CODE C ) 1=(>10MGD),2=(>1MGD),3=(>0.1MGD),4=(<O.1MGD),5=SF,6=(GP25,64,79),
7=(GP49,73)8=(GP76)9=(GP13,34,30,52)0=(NOFEE) DIS/C CONBILL C )
COMMENTS:
MESSAGE: LATITUDE/LONTITUDE MUST BE ALL NUMERIC

d-Vi.::/1997 13: 51 7042516452
• w
PAGE 01
Post4t- Fax Nute 7071 _ P,ge.► S A F i= �C P� 2T f u �
T6 &rI5,16 " From -
GO.roept. 1-6 �. p i 2ST C;k,) LOW- (- o r J
phone Phone Of
CT: No
1 Paxn
Pax # _7 3�"' %�
�►.�(
J
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
v
WATER QUALITY SECTION cw•
ATTENTION: Steve pellei
DATE: March 13, 1997
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIOiv -o
-
cauNTY Henderson
PERMIT NUMBER NCO086070
-
PART
I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
Facility and Address: Western North Carolina Justice Academy
Mailing: Henderson County Utilities
101 East Allen Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
2.
Date of Investigation: March 12, 1997
3.
Report Prepared By: Paul White
4.
Persons Contacted and Tel. NO.': James S. Erwin, Jr. 704-697-4818
5.
Directions to Site: Site is located in the Edneyville Community
approximately 7 miles east of I-26 on Hwy 64. The proposed
treatment plant site is 1 mile west of Edneyville on Lewis creek.
G.
Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 23, 03" Longitude: 820 21' 27"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.s.G-S. Quad No. F 9 NE u.s.G.S. Quad Name: Bat Cave
7.
Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain -
a.
Topagz-aphy (relationship to flood plain included): Site ie located
in flood plain_ No 100 year flood information was provided in the
application. Soil type indicates frequent flooding is likely.
Flooding would have to be taken into consideration for location of
the plant facilities and access road.
9.
Location of nearest dwelling: 250 feet
10.
Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Lewis Creek
a. Classification: C Trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad 04-03-02
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Receiving stream is approximately 20 - 30 feet wide bank
to bank with a wetted channel of 5 - 15 feet at at average
flow. Stream bed is gravel and sand. stream banks are tree -
Page 1

O'N, iV1997 13: 51 7042516452
PAGE 02
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
C. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify) :
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): II
4. SIC Codes(s): 8221
Primary 11 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 0607
PART III - 0R PERTINENT INFOFMATION
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:
none
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate)
none
Date
Submission of plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of
the non -discharge options available. please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated. no
Spray Irrigation: Applicant has not fully evaluated this option.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Due to the required 7 miles of
sewer line, this is likely to be the most costly option, unless the
cost is met by other users as well.
Subsurface: This option has not been fully evaluated.
other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items: it is understood that farmers in the area "dry
up" Lewis Creek upstream of the proposed discharge point by placing
sandbags and pumping for irrigation.
PART IV -- EVALUATION AND RECOMENDATIONS Sufficient information has
not been submitted to make a determination on the issue. The following
items should be addressed hefore a recommendation is be made:
1. Flow estimates appear to be high. Flows generated from different
areas of the facility are added as if the total number of people were at
different locations at the same time. Section 0.10 states that the
dormitory will not be a part of the initial construction project, yet
Section 0.11 lists the 1998 flow at 22,500 gpd, which include dormitory
flows. The source of the 29,915 gpd flow for 1999 is not given. Cost
estimates should be revised based on revised flows.
Page 3

03/'i3,/1997 13:51 7042516452
PAGE 03
2. Flows will depend on whether there is a laundry on site. This should
V be confirmed.
3. Thew is no present worth comparison of alternatives. operational
costs should be included.
4. The alternative of providing a temporary non -discharging system for
the Academy alone should be considered. The statement that the required
land area is not available is not sufficient to disregard this option.
The following options should be considered to decrease the land area
required:
a. As stated in the December 12, 1996 letter from Preston Howard,
spray irrigation does not require an equal area for repair as does
the subsurface option.
b. With additional treatment, land application under the water re-
use rules would allow a very significant reduction in required land
area due to reduced buffers. This option should be considered_
c. The emergency storage lagoon for the spray irrigation option is
v: proposed to be 4 feet deep. A deeper lagoon would reduce the land
area requirement.
S. The cost of the off Site subsurface system in the narrative is not
consistent with the table. In the narrative, the total cost is given at
$594,920, whereas in Figure E the total cost is given as $709,920.
6. The land cost appears to be very high at $22,000 per acre.
Justification for this figure should he provided.
7. Cost of site work for the treatment plant site should be included.
.Protection from flooding and access should be considered.
8. The treatment plant components described in the October 31, 1996 and
January 30, 1997 revision of the Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal
Alternatives do not meet current regulations for a 50,000 gpd extended
aeration treatment plant due to the requirements for dual path aeration
and clarification and reliability measures. The method of sludge
disposal should also be provided.
9. The fact that the receiving stream may be zero flow during dry
periods due to upstream irrigation should be taken into account.
10. Items number 1, 3,
the letter from Preston
1996.
4a and 4b, and 6 were requested or pointed out in
Howard to James S. Erwin, Jr. dated December 12,
AW
Y/ib�B /S�SNT 5
willJ g'Kkn�'l�/ oej
Signature: of Report Prep er
r
ter QUAIILY
Regional Supervisor
Date
Page 4

03113/1997 13:51 7042516452
20.1�•Ll
lined except for areas adjacent to plowed fields. Berms have
been constructed adjacent to the creek to help prevent
flooding. The primary use in the area of the proposed
discharge is for irrigation of adjacent farm land. It is
understood that common practice during drought periods is to
place sandbags in creek to create enough depth to pump from,
and that effluent from the treatment facility could be loot of
the stream flow due to upstream irrigation.
Other downstream uses include aquatic and wildlife propagation,
fishing, and swimming in Clear Creek, less than 2 miles
downstream.
PART 11 - DESCRIPTION OF DISCIMRGB AND TREATMENT WORKS
1.
2.
a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.050 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. what is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? none
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity none
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
none
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: none
t. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: 10,000 gal. flow equalization tank.
40,000 gal. aeration basin
6666 gal. clarifier
2000 gal.. sludge holding tank
These facilities do not meet current regulations for a 50,00o
gpd extended aeration treatment plant due to the requirements
for dual path aeration and clarification and reliability
measures.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: chlorine, ammonia,
janitorial chemicals.
h. pretreatment Pz-Qgram (POTws only) : n/a
in development approved
should be required not needed
Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: none specified
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ Permit
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
Page 2

u
if
f4c oo Ite 0,90
ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
EVALUATION OF
WATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
PROPOSED DISCHARGE
TO
LEWIS CREEK
FOR
CERN NORTH CAROLINA
JUSTICE ACADEMY
HENDERSON COUNTY
EDNEYVILLE, NC
JOB NO. 95-211
REVISED JANUARY 30, 1997
REVISED APRIL 18, 1997
REVISED JUNE 27, 1997
FOR
HENDERSON COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C.
(CLEAR CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT)
PREPARED BY
LAUGHTER, AUSTIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.Q.
131 FOtXTH,ANENUE EAST
HENDERSOI Ogbo�f-l;,AROLINA 28792
'ss;o'- ��''.-
7 J 1
1a SEAL <+�
NO. 4066
¢
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
N.C. REGISTRATION NUMBER 4066
D:\winword\s% r \SDA5211b.doc

ABBREVIATIONS
LAA
Laughter, Austin and Associates, P.A.
WNCJA
Proposed Western North Carolina Justice Academy
NCDEHNR-DEM
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management
MGD
Million gallons per day
GPD
Gallons per day
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
NCDOT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
SR
State Route
ROW
Rights -Of -Way
HCC
Henderson County Commissioners
CCWSD
Clear Creek Water and Sewer District
managed by Henderson County Utilities Department
for Henderson County Board Of Commissioners
MBAJ
Martin, Boal, Anthony & Johnson, Architects
a Charlotte based Architectural Design Firm engaged by the State
HCHD Henderson County Health Department
2

EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
0.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
0.1 Facility/Project Name: WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
JUSTICE ACADEMY
0.2 Location: Henderson County
Edneyville Community
U.S. 64
0.3 Owner: State Of North Carolina
0.4 Prepared For: Henderson County Utilities Department
(Clear Creek Water and Sewer District)
0.5 Prepared By: LAUGHTER, AUSTIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
JON H. LAUGHTER, P.E.
N.C.P.E.4066
131 Fourth Avenue East
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Telephone: [phone]
[phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
0.6 This proposed project will serve:
A) Western North Carolina Justice Academy
Head count/Sanitary Demands:
Sanitary GPD
Total
Number
Requirement
San. GPD
Cafe/Classroom
Meals/Day
500
7
3 500
People/Day
175
20
3500
Administration
People/Day
25
20
500
asium
People/Day 150 25 3 750
4

Dormitoa future)
Beds 150 75 11250
Gallons Per Day - Sanitary 22,500
(These numbers were provided by Martin, Boal, Anthony & Johnson, Architects of Charlotte;
the Project Architect hired by the State for the ;VNCJA project.)
B.) Properties/Potential Users for Wastewater Services:
Additional Wastewater Services will be provided to private and public property
owners who adjoin the location/route of the proposed gravity sewer main from the
Academy to WWTP. The WWTP will provide the community with needed sewer
system.
The chart on the next page will provide an overview of the wastewater service
needs/demands proposed for the affected and potential sanitary sewer users:
5

POTENTIAL USERS of a COMMUNITY WASTEWATER SERVICE
PARCELS
OWNER/NAME
CLASSIFICATION
TICIPATED SEWER NEEDS (GPD)
1
0801-44-2828
Boy Scouts
Pubic (domestic)
120
2
1 0801-44-1862
1 Margaret Saltz
CW0WC ai (dw"ic)
360
3
0601-44-003
1 Leon Lamb
Commercial (domestic)
500
4
0601-34-7198
jJarnes McCraw
Commeraal(domestic)
i 400
5
0601-33-6857
Otis Haynes
Residential
420
6
0601-33-3638
Otis Haynes
Residertial
420
7
0601-33-2611
Harold Owenby
Residential
420
8
0601-33-2243
Harold Owenby
ReeK*tW
420
9
0601-23-8365
Henderson County Ubrary
Public (domestic)
400
10
0601-23-4254
lGaylerd Davis
ResdentW
420
11
0601-23-1343
Donald Laughter
Commercial (domestic)
420
12
0601-23-0352
Donald Laughter
Commerclal(domestic)
' 420
13
0601-13-7263
Julianne Thompson
Rmdentid
420
14
0601-13-4187
Terry Rhodes
Cammercial(domestic) 420
15
0601-13-2182
:Terry Rhodes
Canrne6W(domastic) 420
16
0601-12-0935
Stuart Belcher
Residential
420
17
0601-02-9814
Gaylord Davis
Residential
420
18
0601-02-8769
•Martha Donaldson
Residential
420
19
0601-02-8702
Ida Rogers
ReeKWtat
420
20
1 0601-02-7621
G erd Davis
Residential
420
21
1 0601-02-5496
Trinidad Salgado
Residential
420
22
0601-02-4430
Lois Brown
Residerdial
420
23
0601-02-4161
David Coston
Commercial (domestic)
420
24
0601-02-2006
:David Coston
Commercial (domestic)
420
25
9691-91-8703
Rebecca Dalton
Residential
420
26
9691-90-9419
Ida Rogers
ReekWtal
380
27
0601-34-9528
Peter A Thon
Commercial (domestic)
360
28
9691-82-8112
Ail Jones
Commercial domestic
3 600
Total
Anbci aced Sewer Needs in Gallons per Da GPD
14 500
(d:le=e1\Sewer\9321 Ptablels.xlS)
0601-45-2312 WNC Justice Academy Educational 22,500 GPD
Combined Total Required and Anticipated (Potential) Sewer Flow = 37,000 GPD
0.7 Estimated Wastewater Flow (Design): 40,000 gallons per day
WNCJA - 22,500 GPD + Potential Users - 14,500 GPD = 37,000 GPD.
This anticipated peak flow combines the design flow needs for the WNC Justice
Academy with an added amount for potential existing and proposed area
development which would benefit from a community wastewater service (sewer
system) installation.
6

1
0.8 A Wastewater Treatment Package Plant is proposed adjoining Lewis Creek. The
Package Plant consists of a prefabricated steel sewage treatment plant to include
aeration tank, clarifier, air compressors, diffuser, bar screen, chlorine contact
chamber, skimmers, grinder pumps and all necessary appurtenances and electrical
control equipment.
3
0.9 This WWTP will serve the WNCJA and other development in the general area.
Adequate sizing for a WWTP to treat the expected combined wastewater flows
should not be sized to less than 10% of the plant capacity. This requires
the selection of a minimum of 40,000 GPD WWTP capacity whereas 10% of this
volume would be (40,000 x 10% = 4,000 or 40,000 less 4,000 = 36,000 GPD)
4,000 GPD and the 101/6 demand constraint would equal 36,000 GPD.
In order to avoid unnecessary load demands for the first year on the proposed
treatment plant option, it is recommended to select a WWTP capable of treating at
least 40,000 GPD.
0.10 At the WNCJA site, the proposed Dormitory will be delayed and not be a part
of the initial construction project. All other aspects of the project are expected to
be in -place at the start of the 1998 operational period.
0.11 Time Constraints:
• Building construction for the Academy is under construction. Demolition has
already begun on the WNCJA site.
• Sewer system must be "in place" by December 1997 to begin final testing and
inspection prior to start-up and authorization for in-service operation.
• Water must be "in place" by December 1997.
• Classes at the academy will begin in Spring 1998; initially there will be 150
students plus 36 faculty members plus 14 visitors for a total of 200.
• Treatment considerations for WNCJA :
First year (1998)..............................22,500 GPD
(* See General Information, Section 0. 64 of this Evaluation Report)
• Treatment considerations for the Potential Users:
First year(1998)...............................10,900 GPD **
(** See General Information, Section 0.6B of this Evaluation Report)
• Funding for a proposed 150 bed dormitory has not been appropriated to date.
Academy students will likely be housed in motels for the first year.
• Construction of a proposed WWTP and gravity sewers to Lewis Creek will
require approximately 4 months once initial construction has begun.
• In respect to the sewer deadline, several property and business owners in the

,I
I
,3
3
,3
,3
general area that would be affected by the improvements of sewer service (a
service that a majority of property owners have expressed a positive interest)
have stated that the main concern is the affects of the construction and
installation to their business(es).
• The North Carolina General Assembly has enacted legislation and mandated the
WNCJA project.
0.12 Existing on -site well pumps and an existing on -site wastewater treatment are
unserviceable and cannot be considered for temporary or permanent use by
the proposed WNCJA.
0.13 The 22.7 acre WNCJA site has been conveyed to the State of North Carolina.
KiiM". JUK11 [1N1
ENVIRONMENTAL FEASIBILITY of DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
The following non -discharge alternatives have been considered:
1.1 CONNECTION TO EXISTING SEWERAGE SYSTEM
1.1.1 FEASIBILITY
Existing sewer collection mains are located (nearest possible connection)
approximately 7 miles away near I-26.
Proposed WNCJA site is higher in elevation relative to the nearest sanitary sewer
collection system. The City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department owns
and operates the nearest public utility. Rights -of -way and easements would be
necessary to connect to the existing sewer system.
Three methods of connection to the existing City owned collection system have
been studied and are listed below:
A.) Large Diameter Gravity Interceptor
This alternative would be sized and located in accordance with Henderson
County's Wastewater Masterplan.
8

B.) Smaller Gravity Main
This alternative would be a smaller sized gravity sewer main, located along
Lewis Creek.
C.) Force Main System
This alternative would require the installation of a pump station on the
WNCJA site and force main along US 64 to serve just the Academy.
1.1.2 COST
Cost Estimate for Large Diameter Gravity Interceptor, which would connect to
City Of Hendersonville at Interstate 26, follows:
ork Item Descrinti
Unit I Estimated I Unit
Quantity
Price
Total
Acre
18
$5,000.00
$90,000.00
LF
4800
$85.00
$408,000.00
LF
6800
w........._..................._
$77.00
w.� ._.....__w......._......_..
$523,600.00
w..._._._.....
w..._._.._
IF
14,800
$69.00
$1,021,200.00
..............................................................................................................................................................
LF
3500
$62.00
$217,000.00
..............................................................................................................................................................
LF
1400
$58.00
$81,200.00
LF..................6800
...............:::...........$3
8.00........$25
8,400.00 ..
LSum 1 1--$655,400.00 1
$655,400.00 {
Total Estimated Cost = $3,648,040.00
Figure .4
9
& 4imvord'rdjusts. doc

Cost Estimate for Smaller Size Gravity Sewer Main, which would connect to City
of Hendersonville at Interstate 26, follows:
Work Item Description
Unit
Estimated
Unit
Quantity
Price
Total
Land for Easements
ACRE
18
$5,000.00
$90,000.00
12" PVC Gravity Sewer
LF
31,300
$58.00
$1,815,400.00
8" PVC Gravity Sewer
LF
6,800
$38.00
$258,400.00
Engineering & Construction
Management
LSum
1
$324,570.00
$324,570.00
25% Contingency
LSum
1
$540,950.00
$540,950.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST = I 1 1 $3,029,320.00
Figure B
c: exce1'1ab1e4s.x1s
Cost Estimate for Pump Station and Force Main, which would connect to City Of
Hendersonville at Howard Gap Road and US 64, follows:
Work Item Description
Unit
Estimated
Unit
Quantity
Price
Total
Pump Station
LS
1
$85,000.00
$85,000.00
6" PVC Force Main
LF
34,320
$18.00
$617,760.00
Engineering & Construction
Management
LS
1
$105,414.00
$105,414.00
25% Contingency
LS
1
$175,690.00
$175,690.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST =
$983,864.00
Figure C c: lexcettableSs.xls
Approximately 21 to 23 months to construct approximately 7 miles of gravity
sewer line. Approximately 18 months to construct a sewer pump station and force
main. Therefore these options are not considered at the present time as viable
sewer service options in order to provide sewer service to the WNCJA site which
10

has a limited time constraint to meet the required date for the facility to be in
operation. Time schedules for the project demands other options be considered.
Water and sewer must be "in place" by December 1997.
Postponement of the opening of the WNCJA is not an option.
1.2 SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
1.2.1 FEASIBILITY
The existing school facility was operated for years on a package waste water
treatment plant. The necessity for a WWTP to serve the former school was
due to the fact that the area containing soil satisfactory for installing a
subsurface system was not sufficient to accommodate the former school's needs.
The expanded waste water disposal capacity needed by the WNCJA greatly
exceeds area available for an on -site subsurface disposal system.
It has been determined by local agencies the existing wastewater system is not
serviceable and cannot be considered for temporary or permanent use by WNCJA.
Other options have been considered to include:
A.} On -Site Septic Tank and Sub -surface drain field
Existing Treatment System:
' Henderson County Planning Board has stated that existing on -site well
pumps and existing on -site wastewater treatment are deemed unserviceable
and cannot be considered for temporary or permanent use by the proposed
WNCJA.
The Henderson County Health Department has evaluated the WNCJA site
3 in the past for alternative educational uses. At that time, there was limited
space on the property due to existing wells on the property, fill material, and
soil wetness conditions in various areas of the property. HCHD was able to
3 find a small area on the property that could accommodate a 700-gallon per
day system. At 700 GPD divided by 74 GPD/person recommended by
DEHNR, this area could only meet the wastewater demands of 9.5 people.
3 Soil conditions on -site are far from being acceptable according to HCHD.
The WNCJA will require a 22,500 GPD system. A 22,500 GPD system
3 would require approximately 12 acres to accommodate this system and
repair area. There is currently not sufficient area to accommodate this system
at the WNCJA site. In addition, there is fill material on the property and soil
3 wetness conditions at various depths. Some area even contain saprolite
requiring further investigation. Adequate space to install a 22,500 GPD
11

system is the number one problem. HCHD will not permit this size system
on -site. If an on -site sewage system is to be built to serve the WNCJA, it
would require the acquisition by the State of additional land.
HCHD recommends proceeding with permitting process to install a WWTP
or connection to the City sewer which is approximately seven miles from the
WNCJA site.
This option would require construction of approximately 22,500 gpd soil
absorption drain field on 50 acres with septic system. Approximated time to
construct would be 9 months at an estimated cost of $1.1 million. On -site
no available space for a drain field this size. This option would only provide
wastewater service for the first year and would not provide any long-term
benefits. This option is not feasible because of the lack of sufficient land area
on -site to install this system and should not be considered as an option.
B.) Off -Site Septic Tank and Sub -surface drain field (Permanent service)
This option would require adjacent land(s) to be acquired to provide
the required area needed for this method of wastewater treatment due to lack
of available land/space on -site as discussed above.
For the initial start-up of the WNCJA facility, treatment considerations are
expected to be 22,500 GPD. This would require acquisition of approximately
50 acres off -site to accommodate a soil absorption treatment system.
It has been determined that only one tract of land is available for purchase in
the general vicinity of the WNCJA. This is a 3.2 acre parcel of land and is
fisted on the real estate market at $135,000 dollars. This finding establishes
the fact of the land cost as advertised is too costly to consider realistically.
A 22,500 gpd soil absorption drain field would be required in order to provide
adequate wastewater treatment for the WNCJA which is approximately 50
acres of land needed off -site. Approximately 2 years to construct at an
estimated cost of $1.1 million dollars, land purchase cost estimate at $22,000
dollars per acre would be $220,000 dollars. Total estimated cost at $1.3
million dollars. There are no short-term benefits and the long-term would
only serve the WNCJA site with no benefits to any surrounding land
owners for improved wastewater treatment services. See Figure E.
12

1.2.2 COST
Cost Estimate For Off Site Sub -Surface System:
ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
1
Clearing, Stumping, Hauling & Grading
AC
25
$ 2,400.00
$ 60,000.00
2
Package Duplex Pump Station
EA
5
$ 25,000.00
$ 125,000.00
3
Concrete Septic Tank
EA
1
$ 60,000.00
$ 60,000.00
4
lConventional Drain Field
LF
24,600
$ 12.00
$ 295,200.00
5
1 D-Boxes
EA
20
$ 1,550.00
$ 31,000.00
6
IManifold
EA
10
$ 2,200.00
$ 22,000.00
7
1 Fin. Grade, Mulch, & Reseed
AC
5
$ 1,200.00
$ 6,000.00
8
30% Contingency
LS
LS
LS
$ 179,760.00
SUBTOTAL
$ 778,960.00
9
Land Purchase off -site)
AC
50
$ 4,550.00
$ 227,500.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST
I
I
$ 1,006 460.00
Figure E
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS
Cost incurred in the present year
Cost incurred in time
Period of time
Ending year of facility
Discount rate (1997)
PV = $7,108,347.00
13
d: l excell figE5211. x!s
$1,006,460.00
$724,000.00
present year 0
20 years
0.08

1.3 SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
1.3.1 FEASIBILITY
The expanded waste water disposal capacity needed by the WNCJA greatly
exceeds the capacity for an on -site spray irrigation system.
The Spray Irrigation area needed to treat the wastewater demands of the WNCJA
will require an application area of an estimated 295,000 square feet with proper
setbacks for the primary disposal area, and an equal amount dedicated for reserve,
or repair area. An additional dedicated area will be required for the installation of
the tanks/pumps/spray unit at or near the Irrigation area.
7 A 30-day storage requirement would mean an area to facilitate a holding pond
approximately 4 ft. deep with a capacity of approximately 900,000 gallons.
3 This is not a feasible option and should not be considered.
The WNCJA (land owner) does not own land that is suitable to meet spray
irrigation requirements. Additional land, which would meet the spray irrigation
3 requirements is not available to WNCJA for acquisition to facilitate this disposal
method.
This alternative has been considered to provide a treatment process for WNCJA
3 only and was not evaluated as a means of wastewater treatment for any of the
surrounding properties or land owners.
3
14

• 4 0
1.3.2 COST
Cost Estimate for Off -Site Spray Irrigation System
ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
QTY./UNIT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
1
LAND PURCHASE/COST
20
AC
$6,400.00
$128,000.00
2
PUMP STATION ON -SITE)
1
EA
$60,000.00
$60,000.00
3
PVC FORCE MAIN TO
OFF -SITE LOCATION
3000
LF
$10.00
$30,000.00
4
WWTP 35,000 gpd
On -Site
1
EA
$170,000.00
$170,000.00
5
RETENTION POND
LS
LS
$80,000.00
$80,000.00
6
EQUIPMENT: PERC UNIT,
SPRAY HEADS, PUMPS,
TUBING, ADAPTERS,
CONNECTORS, AIR VALVES,
SOLENOID VALVES, FOOT
VALVES, FLOAT SWITCHES,
AUXILLARY HIGH WATER
ALARM, AUTO DIALER UNIT
LS
LS
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
7
START-UP SUPPORT
LS
LS
$17,500.00
$17,500.00
8
INSTALLATION:
SPRAYLINE, MANIFOLDS,
SUPPLY MAIN, RETURN MAIN,
CONTROL WIRING, PLUMBING &
ELECTRICAL, AIR RELEASE &
VALVE BOXES, 2 PUMP
TANKS
I LS
LS
$444,398.00
$444,398.00
9
10% CONTINGENCY (INST)
LS
LS
$107,990.00
$107,990.00
10
CONSULTING ENGINEERING
SERVICE
LS
LS
$118,000.00
$118,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED SYSTEM COST INSTALLED
$1,305,888.00
Figure F
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS
Cost incurred in the present year
Cost incurred in time
Period of time
Ending year of facility
Discount rate (1997)
PV = $14,226,586.00
15
c: I msoffice lexce1 L frgF5211.x1s
$1,305,888.00
$1,316,000.00
present year 0
20 years
0.08

1.4 PROPOSED DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS
1.4.1 FEASIBILITY
Discharge to Lewis Creek which is a Class "C" stream indexed at 6-55-11-(5).
Procurement of rights -of -way and easements will be necessary to transmit
flows from point of origin to the WWTP, and will require Encroachment
Application and approval from NCDOT along US 64. A land parcel
acquisition or lease will be necessary for WWTP installation.
The nearest known residence is approximately 300 feet in distance. The
proposed location of the WWTP is situated along the bank (off -sets
considered) of Lewis Creek and surrounded by farmland.
1.4.2 COST
The following is a detailed cost estimate of an installed wastewater treatment
facility (WWTP). Outlined in the estimate is a cost breakdown for these items.
WWTP, installed; effluent outfall to the discharge location (materials and labor);
pump station(s) if applicable (materials and labor); estimated operating expenses
of the WWTP (materials, utilities, maintenance and operator costs) for the design
period.
Also provided is a cost/environmental benefit statement.
16

. 1 1
1.4.2.1 COST ESTIMATE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT and GRAV. SEWE►R�+ MAINS
r
1
' WWTP, Prefab., 40,000 GPD
EA
1
$ 120,000.00
$ 120,000.00
2
Installation: Materials/Labor
LS
LS
$ 60,000.00
$ 60,000.00
3
8" Dia. Sch35 PVC Gray. Swr.Pi a
LF
6,000
$ 30.00
$ 180,000.00
4
Precast 4' Dia. Manholes w/cvrs.
EA
20
$1,500.00
$ 30,000.00
5
Mulch & Reseed along Swr. line
SY
20,000
$ 0.35
$ 7,000.00
6
Access Road
LS
1
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
7
En ineedn
LS
1
$ 51,240.00
$ 51,240.00
8
Administrative/Legal
LS
1
$ 17,080.00
$ 17,080.00
9
20% Contingency
LS
LS
LS
$ 75,800.00
10
Land Lease
AC
0.5
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
TOTAL
Estimated System COST =
$ 571,121.00
Figure G
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS
Cost incurred in the present year
Cost incurred in time
Period of time
Ending year of facility
Discount rate (1997)
PV = $5,269,385.00
1.4.2.2 Cost/Environmental Benefit Statement
d: [excel)figG5211.xls
$571,121.00
$400,000.00
present year 0
20 years
0.08
In regards to the information obtained and collected for this project, Laughter,
Austin and Associates, PA recommends the installation of a new 40,000 GPD Wastewater
Treatment Plant to serve the Academy and others within the Clear Creek Basin.
Henderson County Utilities Department (agents/managers for Clear Creek Water & Sewer
District) must proceed with the method of Wastewater Pretreatment and Discharge (a
Discharge Permit is required) by means of an Extended Aeration Package Sewage
Treatment Plant and controlled discharge into Lewis Creek.
17

f+ r
The plant shall be capable of treating 40,000 gallons per day of raw sanitary
sewage or waste with a 5-day BOD not to exceed 240 ppm. This treatment capacity shall
be provided in one (1) sewage treatment unit.
END OF EVALUATION.
Sincerely,
Laughter, Austin and Associates, PA
Jon H. Laughter
..........................................................................................................................................
References: A.) NCDEHNR-DEM Admin. Code 15A NCAC 2H .0105(c)
B.) "Engineering Economic Analysis Wastewater Treatment Options
- Proposed Discharges".
C.) "Preliminary Engineering Report" - Wastewater Service to
Proposed Western North Carolina Justice Academy, dated
April 22, 1996 by Jon H. Laughter, P.E.; Laughter, Austin and
Associates, P.A.
D.) Martin, Boal, Anthony & Johnson, Architects
18

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Steve Pellei
DATE: August 18, 1997
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECON14ENDATION
COUNTY Henderson
PERMIT NUMBER NC0086070
No
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Western North Carolina Justice Academy
Mailing: Henderson County Utilities
101 East Allen Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
2. Date of Investigation: July 7 & 18, 1997
3. Report Prepared By: Paul White
tiq
4. Persons Contacted and Tel. No.: James S. Erwin, Jr. 704-697-4818
Utilities Director
Jon Laughter 704-692-9089 Engineer
5. Directions to Site: Site is located in the Edneyville Community
approximately 7 miles east of I-26 on Hwy 64. The proposed
treatment plant site is 1 mile west of Edneyville on Lewis Creek,
approximately 1200 feet north of Hwy 64.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 23' 10" Longitude: 820 21' 35"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. F 9 NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Bat Cave
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X_ Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Site is located
in a flood plain. No 100 year flood information was provided in the
application to indicate if the site is in the 100 year flood plain.
Soil mapping indicates frequent flooding in the general vicinity.
Flooding would have to be taken into consideration for location of
the plant facilities and access road.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 250 feet
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Lewis Creek
a. Classification: C Trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad 04-03-02
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
Page 1

uses: Receiving stream is approximately 20-- 30 feet wide bank
to bank with a wetted channel of 5 - 15 feet at average flow.
Stream bed is gravel and sand. Stream banks are tree -lined
except for areas adjacent to plowed fields and pastures. Berms
have been constructed adjacent to the creek in some areas to
help prevent flooding. A primary use in the area of the
proposed discharge is for irrigation of adjacent farm land. It
is understood that common practice during drought periods is to
place sandbags in creek to create enough depth to pump from,
essentially drying up the creek immediately downstream.
Other uses include aquatic and wildlife propagation, fishing,
and swimming in Clear Creek, less than 2 miles downstream.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: Requested: 0.040 MGD
(Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current .permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? none
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity none
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by Authorizations
to Construct issued in the previous two years: none
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: none
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: The description in the engineering report is
limited to a package plant for activated sludge.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: chlorine, ammonia,
janitorial chemicals.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): n/a
in development approved
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: none specified
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ Permit
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
C . Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): II
4. SIC Codes(s): 8221
Primary 11 Secondary
Page 2

Main Treatment Unit Code: 0607
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: none
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: none
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
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: Applicant has not fully evaluated this option.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Due to the required 7 miles of
sewer line, this is not likely to be the least costly option, unless
the cost is met by other users as well.
Subsurface: This option has not been fully evaluated by the
applicant. work by staff indicated that this option is not
competitive is cost.
Other disposal options:
An alternatives analysis was completed by staff which indicated that
surface discharge is the most cost effective alternative.
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This staff report is in response to an application by Henderson County
Utilities, revised to a requested discharge location on Lewis Creek
approximately 1200 ft. north (downstream) of Hwy 64. Insufficient
information was submitted to make a determination on the issue. Division
staff completed an alternatives analysis based on information supplied by
the applicant and gathered by staff.
The following items concerning the application were of concern and were
addressed before a recommendation was made:
1. Flow estimates in the application appear to be high. Flows
generated from different areas of the facility are added as if the
total number of people were at different locations at the same time.
Section 0.10 states that the dormitory will not be a part of the
initial construction project, yet Section 0.11 lists the 1998 flow
at 22,500 gpd, which includes dormitory flows. Flows from the
proposed justice academy are estimated to be approximately 13,000
gpd, including the.dormitory. This assumes that no commercial
laundry facility will be on site. The total including anticipated
community sewer connections would be 27,500 gpd. Cost estimates
Page 3

• t .1 0
werebased on a revised flow of 30,000 gpd.
2. The proposed land requirement of 50 acres in the application appears
to be high even for a flow of 40,000 gpd. Cost estimates by staff
for on -site disposal were based on 26 - 27 acres.
3. A cost of $60,000 for septic tankage in the application appears to
be high. This was addressed in the cost estimates completed by
staff.
4. A 30% contingency cost in the application adds significantly to the
total cost without indicating what this covers. A contingency of
15% was reserved in staff cost estimates.
5. The present value of costs in the application does not provide a
breakdown of the recurring costs and is erroneous. This was
completed by staff.
6. As stated in the December 12, 1996 letter from Preston Howard, spray
irrigation does not require an equal area for repair as does the
subsurface option. This was addressed by the analysis comleted by
staff.
7. With additional treatment, land application under the water re -use
rules would allow a significant reduction in required land area due
to reduced buffers. This option was not addressed by the applicant.
This option was discussed by staff, but was not estimated to
significantly change the viability of spray irrigation as an option.
8. The emergency storage lagoon for the spray irrigation option is
proposed by the applicant to be 4 feet deep. A deeper lagoon would
reduce the land area requirement. A deeper, more compact lagoon
configuration was considered by staff.
9. The cost of the off site spray irrigation system in the application
appears to be high, specifically item No. 5 Retention Pond and item
No. 8 Installation. These items were addressed in the analysis
completed by staff.
10. The wastewater treatment plant cost estimate list in the application
does not include an influent lift station or auxiliary generator.
These were included by staff.
11. It is not logical to assume no land cost associated with the
discharging option. A land cost was included by staff.
12. Cost of site work for the treatment plant site should be included.
Protection from flooding and access should be considered. It was
concluded that for the purpose of comparing alternatives, this cost
could be avoided and was not included in the alternatives analysis.
13. The treatment plant described on pages 17 and 18 does not meet
current regulations due to the requirements for dual path aeration
and clarification and reliability measures. The method of sludge
disposal should also be provided. These issues were addressed by
Page 4

• IJt
the alternatives analysis completed by staff.
The alternatives analysis completed by staff indicates that surface
discharge is the least costly option, including annual recurring costs.
It was discussed with the Point Source Branch and recommended that the
project be sent to public notice with the intent to issue. Due to local
public involvement, a public hearing should be noticed simultaneously.
Signature of Report Preparer
I G F.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Date
Page 5