CS370560-08-Historical_20050808

Mr. Rick J. Hester, County Manager
Johnston County Courthouse
Box 1049
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Dear Mr. Hester:
A
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 8, 2005D
EhNR RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFIGEt
..
SUBJECT: Johnston County
Permit No. WQ0020634
Transmittal of Approved Plans and Specifications
Project No. CS370560-08
Enclosed is a copy of the plans and specifications, which were approved on August 2,
2005. The subject documents have been stamped "approved" for your records. The Permittee
should retain these documents for the life of the facility.
Should you have questions regarding this matter, call me at [phone].
Sincerely, ,1
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
Supervisor
Design Management Unit
ID: cgm
Enclosures
cc: Bryan Blake, P.E., McKim & Creed, Cary
DWQ Raleigh Regional office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NG 27699-1633
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccgl.net
An Equal OpportunitylAlfirmative Action Employer - 50% RecycledllVo Post Consumer Paper
ose NhCarohna
;Vaturall#

0
i I 14
C

Mr. Rick J. Hester, County Manager
Johnston County Courthouse
Box 1049
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
Dear Mr. Hester:
Michael F Fasley, Govcrnor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P.L. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 2, 2005-�---�
2005
R RAZEIGN REGIONAL �
OFFICE..
SUBJECT: Johnston County
Cleveland Diversion Forcemain
Approval of the Plans and Specifications
Project No. CS370560-08
The review for completeness and adequacy of the project construction plans and
specifications has been concluded by the Construction Grants & Loans Section of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. Therefore, said plan documents are hereby approved.
Eligibility for Revolving Loan funding is determined as follows:
Eligible
Approximately 5,350 linear feet of 8-inch, 4,925 linear feet of 12-inch, and 9,375 linear feet
of 16-inch forcemain to serve the Cleveland area pump stations.
Issuance of this approval letter does not imply availability of funding. In the event that
received bids exceed the amount established through the funding offer, and local funds are not
adequate to award contracts), it will be necessary to consider all alternatives including redesign,
re -advertising, and rebidding.
Neither the State nor Federal Government, nor any of its departments, agencies or
employees is or will be a party to the invitation to bids, addenda, any resulting contracts or
contract negotiations/changes.
If the Recipient does not maintain the court sanctioned schedules which extended the
compliance date for complying with the final effluent limits established in the NPDES Permit,
then project costs incurred will not be eligible for Revolving Loan or State Grant payments.
Your project is subject to the one-year performance certification requirements. By this,
you are required on the date one year after the completion of construction and initial operation of
the subject treatment facilities, to certify, based on your consultant engineer's advisement,
whether or not such treatment works meet the design performance, specifications and the permit
conditions and effluent limitations.
Construction Grants and Loans Section One
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633 NorthCarolina
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccgl.net
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer -- 50% Recycledr10'a Post Consumer Paper Naturally

Mr. Rick J. Hester, County Manager
August 2, 2005
Page 2
In accordance with the Federal Regulations, the Recipient is required to assure compliance
with the OSHA safety regulations on the subject project. In complying with this regulatory
responsibility, the Recipient should, by letter, invite the Training Officer, Education Training and
Technical Assistance Unit, NC OSHA Division, 4 W. Edenton Street, Raleigh, NC 27601 at
[phone], to participate in the Preconstruction Conference to assure that proper emphasis
is given on understanding and adhering to the OSHA regulations.
It is the responsibility of the Recipient and the Consulting Engineer to insure that the
project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N. C. G. S. 133-3 (ratified July 13,
1993). The administrative review and approval of these plans and specifications, and any
subsequent addenda or change order, do not imply approval of a restrictive specification for
bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive procurement actions.
Any addenda to be issued for subject project plans and specifications must be submitted by
the Recipient such that adequate time is allowed for review.'approval action by the State, and for
subsequent bidder action prior to receipt of bids.
It is mandatory for project facilities to be constructed in accordance with the North
Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and, when applicable, the North Carolina Dam
Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractors' responsibilities
shall be in complying with these Acts.
Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the recipient must have obtained all
applicable project Permits from the State, including an Authorization to Construct and:`or Non -
Discharge Permit.
While rejection of all bids is possible, such action may be taken only with prior State
concurrence, and only for good cause.
A goal of 8% of the contract price is established for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)
participation in this project, and a goal of 5°'0 of the contract price is established for Women's
Business Enterprise (WBE) participation in this project. The Recipient and Bidders shall make a
good faith effort to assure that MBE's and WBE's are utilized, when possible, as sources of
goods and services. The good faith effort must include the following affirmative steps: (a)
including small, minority, and women's businesses on solicitation lists; (b) assuring that small,
minority, and women's businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources; (c) dividing
total requirements, when economically feasible, into small tasks or quantities to permit
maximum participation by small, minority, and women's businesses; (d) establishing delivery
schedules, and (e) using the services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority
Business Development Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Please note that the
solicitation efforts should include documentable follow-up phone calls.
The Recipient shall comply with the provisions of 40 CFR, Part 7, Subpart C -
Discrimination Prohibited on the Basis of Handicap.

Mr. Rick J. Hester, County Manager
August 2, 2005
Page 3
Attached is one (1) copy of the Project Review and Cost Summary (Authority to Award)
which is to be completed within 21 days after bids have been received, and submitted to the State
for review. Upon review and approval of this information, the State will authorize the Recipient
to make the proposed award.
Do not proceed with construction until the Authorization -to -Award package and the EEO
and MBE documentation/certification have been reviewed, and you are in receipt of our
approval, if Federal loan is desired for project construction.
Two (2) copies of any change order must be promptly submitted by the Recipient to the
State. If additional information is requested by the State, a response is required within two (2)
weeks, or the change order will be returned without further or final action.
One (1) set of the final approved plans and specifications will be forwarded to you. One
(1) set of plans and specifications identical to the approved set must be available at the project
site at all times.
Upon completion of the project construction, the Recipient shall submit a letter confirming
that the project has been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by
the State. "As -built" plans will need to be submitted with any changes clearly documented on
the plans if the above confirmation cannot be made.
If there are any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P. E. at [phone].
Sincerely, �
; !461 R. Blowe, P.E., Chief
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Attachment "
ID:cgm
cc: Bryan Blake, P.E., McKim & Creed, Cary
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Amy Simes, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Valerie Lancaster
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
OSHA Training Officer, Les Kafel
CIG
SRF

0 0

Michael H_ Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klitnek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 6, 2004
Mr. Rick J. Hester, County Manager
Johnston County
Post Office Box 1048
Smithfield, North Carolina 27577
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Hester:
County of Johnston
Engineering Amendment No. 4
201 Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3
Project No. CS370560-08
r
L:,,.5 5�
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its final technical review of
the subject project. A copy of the comments resulting from this review is attached for your
reference. Also please find attached comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, the Natural Heritage Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that should
be considered in development of the proposed project. A revised Engineering Amendment that
incorporates responses to these comments should be submitted for our review and approval as
soon as possible. Providing thorough and complete responses to these review comments in a
timely manner is necessary to avoid delays of the project approval.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at
[phone], or Mr. Daniel Blaisdell at [phone],
K. LawrerAe Horton, III, P.E., Supervisor
Facilitie valuation Unit
DMB/sd
Attachment (all cc's)
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Hannah Stallings
DMU/FEU/SRF
Construction Grants and Loans Section
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1633 One
Phone: [phone]oo I FAX: [phone]/lntemet: www.nccgi.net NAawrallyorthCarolina
An Equal opportuni! I+Affirmative Action Employer -- 5Q°/, Recycledll o°-e Post Consumer Paper

0 0

ii
Johnston County
201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3
Engineering Amendment No. 4
Cleveland Area Diversion Facilities Alternative Design
Project No. CS370560--08 k�v�
Final Technical Comments
December 3, 2004
1. In response to our previous technical comments 2 and 3 a revised design
memorandum was submitted. Please confirm whether the existing 8-inch effluent
force main will remain in service initially. Please also provide the total lengths of
each size effluent force main in the proposed system.
2. In order to confirm the system total dynamic head please provide the static
discharge head of the proposed system.
3, Based on the most recent environmental comments on the Engineering
Amendment, please confirm whether the 10-inch influent force main will be
installed by open cut or directional bore method in the area of the unnamed
tributary to Swift creek.
4. The revised Engineering Amendment does not appear to include the referenced
updated cost estimates. Please include these costs in a revised report.

0 0

11/19/2004 17:27
11/1812094 11:10
9197153060
NCDENR
PAGE 64/05
PACE 02
9195269u.�
IM"61 North Carolina dd fe Resources Commission KE _
Charles R FuliwoDd, Fxecudve Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Ixntergovermnwual Affairs
Hannah Stallmgs
Construction Chants & .Loans Section
FROM: David Cox, Supervisor
Habitat Conservation Pro �•�`
DATE' October 25, 2004
SUBJECT- Response to our July 23, 2003 comments on the 201 Facilities Platt Amendment
No. 3 for 5mi&field-Selma— Enginaeriag Amendment No. 4 (Cleveland Area
Wastewater Diversion Facilities Alternative Design.), Johnston County, North
Carolina. Origi:=I Project Number: 1062. Current Project Number 1288.
Our review of the project dates back about 4 years now_ Unfortunately, the subject
response bes not alleviated the following concerts:
1. Potential open. Cut or winching of pipeline across the Nanse River was not
addressed in the response. We continue to recommend that pipeline crossing
the Neuse River be installed by directional drilling underneath the riverbed to
avoid adverse impacts to aquatic resources. Directional drilling could be done
at apy time of the year. If directional drilling is not possible for some
justifiable reason,. open cut construction trust avoid the Mauch 1 to October 1
period of anadromous striped bass (Mom ne saxatilis) and American shad
(Aiosa sapidrssima) spawning and out migration in order to miztimize impacts
to aquatic resources.
2. An unmarried tributary of Swift Creak, a nationally sioftcant aquatic habitat
is to be crosavd with pipeline. Dircctionol drilling was to be used for this
crossing udder the 2003 proposal, A mussel survey was performed at the
location of this crossing in September 2004 and no federal and state
Mailing Address:. Division of Inland Fisheries • t 721 Mail Sm vice Cutter • Ralelgh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919' 733-3633 em 291 0 fax: [phone]

0 0

11119/2004 17:27 9197153060 NCDENR PACE 05/05
11/18/2004 11:10 91952896.. PAGE 03
Smithfiel&Seirna 201 Response 2 October 25, 2004
erldmgered dwarfwgtlgetnussels (Adasmidonta heterodon) were found. It is
our understauding the County now proposes to use open cut construction at
this stream crossing, Swift Creek is just dovmstream of the project, however,
and this stream does have records of dwarf wedgemussel as well as numerous
other listed species. Elevated turbidity generated by an open cut on the
tributary could very well impact endangered and threatened mussels
downstream in Swift Creek. Consequently, we recommend that the County
reveCt to its original deoision to use directional drilling at this stream crossing.
We £iirthe r recommend that all fuhn stream crossings in the very sensitive
Swift Deek watershed be done using directional drilling.
Our cumulative and secondary impacts guidance recommends 200 ft. stream
buffers or the entire 100 year floodpIaiu where listed species occur, but we
acknowledge this guidance came out after the subject project was iriidated.
Our interpretation oi'the response is that the project is within Tohnston
County's Environmentally Sensitive Overlay District (ESOD) that requires 100
it. buffers. We would appreciate confirmation that this interpretation is
correct, including a map clearly showing bath the ESOD and the proposed
project.
Provided these remaining issues arc adequately addressed, we will concur with tho
eaviroamental document, Thank you for the opportunity to further c=vnent. if you have
questions, please call Bennett Wynne at [phone].
cc: Sarah McRae, NC Natural Rentage Program
David Rabon, US Piste, and Wildlife Service
pale Suiter, US Fish and Wildlife Service

�m

11/19/2004 17:27 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 02/05
A*
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
20 October 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
FROM: Sarah McRae, Freshwater EcologistAtl-4—
NC Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Response to Comments on Technical Review for Johnston County:
Smithfield -Selma 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3 -
Engineering Amendment No. 4; Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion
Facilities Alternative Design; Project 41288 (formerly #1.062)
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) appreciates Johnston County's thorough response to
agency comments, however some issues remain to be resolved prior to concurrence on a finding
of no significant impact for this project.
NHP is still concerned about impacts to sensitive and rare species. Rare aquatic species likely to
be impacted by this project include the federal and state endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon); the federal, species of special concern and state endangered Yellow
lance (Elliptio laneeolata), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and Green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis); the federal species of special concern and state significantly rare Pinewoods shiner
(Lythrurus matulinus); the state threatened Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulara), Roanoke
slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Creeper (Strophitus undulates), Eastern lampmussel (Lamp,sihs
radiata), and Least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera); the state species of special concern
Notched rainbow (lrllosa constricta), Cape Fear spike (Elliptio marsupiobesa), Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisz), Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), and the North Carolina spiny
crayfish (Orconectes carolinensis).
At this time, NHP would like to raise some issues with the Threatened and Endangered Species
Technical Report prepared by S&ME in February 2004. The information presented in the report
on the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is incorrect. Our previous
comments refer to Swift Creek of the Neuse River basin in Johnston County. The information
reported by S&ME refers to the Tar River basin population. The FWS Recovery Plan for the Tar
spinymussel was published in 1992, prior to the discovery of the Tar spinymussel in the Neuse
River basin. In 1998, biologists with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) confirmed
the existence of the Tar spinymussel in the Little River in Johnston County. Although the Tar
spinymussel has not been found in Swift Creek of the Neuse River basin, several of the species
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 teCarolinPhone: 919-733-49841 FAX: [phone] Intemet: www.enr.state nc.us/ENRI allr�
An Equal Oppartun41 A4rmabe Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 110 % Post Consumer Paper

0 0

11/19/2004 17:27 9197153060
NCDENR
PAGE 03/05
associates have been found in this portion of Swift Creek, and we believe it is possible for the
Tar spinymussel to exist in this portion of the Neuse River basin. We therefore agree with the
biological conclusion that Suitable Habitat is Present for both the federally endangered Dwarf
wedgemussel and the Tar spinymussel, and we encourage intensive surveys at all crossing
locations.
In response to earlier correspondence, the County states that "if no species are present, the
County proposes to cross the stream by open cut method in lieu of the directional drilling
method" (p. 5). NHP strongly discourages the open cut .method because of the direct impacts to
sensitive species. Although the Josephine Road Force Main mussel survey did not locate
mussels at the site, this crossing is very close to the confluence of the unnamed tributary to Swift
Creek, a nationally signficant aquatic habitat where records exist for several of the rare and
endangered species mentioned above, including the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel.
The direct impacts associated with open trenching (especially turbidity) will likely impact the
rare species in Swift Creek. In. accordance with the biological conclusion, Suitable Habitat is
Present, and NHP strongly encourages directional boring for all streams crossed in the project
area. Since directional drilling greatly minimizes impacts, surveys for aquatic species may not
be needed at crossings where drilling is used. Furthermore, NHP recommends that all future
crossings in the Swift Creek watershed of the Neuse River basin be done using directional
boring. If the Neuse River crossing cannot be directionally bored, NHP strongly encourages the
avoidance of construction during 1Vlarch I" through October t" to allow for spawning and
migration of anadromous fish species.
NHP would also like to emphasize the importance of wide buffers because of the likelihood of
this project affecting the federally endangered Dwarf wedgemussel. We do not think the buffers
from the Stormwater Management Ordinance are sufficient to protect endangered aquatic
species. NHP requests consideration of a minimum 200-font buffer for perennial streams and a
100-foot buffer for intermittent streams to maintain the integrity of the buffer or the full extent of
the 100-year floodplain, in accordance with WRC's guidelines.
Given these concerns, NHP cannot concur with the finding of no significant impact for this
project. Please let me know if I can provide more information. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program looks forward to a collaborative effort to help protect the State's natural
diversity. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 919-715-1751.
CC via email: Bennett Wynne, WRC
Dale Suiter, USFWS
David Ration, USFWS

0 0

al, 4J} U4 llh 15. UL l•Al 1 919 856 4556 t7SFWS-RAL.EIGH,NC 002
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Raleigh Feld Ogee
Pas[ Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
November 23, 2004
Ms. Hannah Stallings
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Re: Johnston County — Smithfield -Selma 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment No 3. --
Engineering Amendment No. 4, Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities
Alternative Design (Project No. CS370382-18), Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Stallings:
Thank you for your letter, dated September 23, 2004, requesting comments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the subject wastewater facilities plan in Johnston County, North
Carolina. Our comments are submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act).
Based on the infonmation provided in your September 23, 2004 letter (and specifically the
accompanying letter from S&NM dated September 7, 2004) and other information available, it
appears that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered
or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for
listing under the Act. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been
satisfied. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if-
()) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new Species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action -
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency in protecting federally -listed species. If you
have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. David Rabon at [phone], extension
16, or via email at david [e-mail].
Sincerely,
C- 4, �—"
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor

O CJ

Johnston County
Smithfield — Selma 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan
Amendment No. 3
Engineering Amendment No. 3
pea 40
4Y
a Eary 2003
.�� �FESS/0 • �ti'�
i2 y
' SEAL �
6114
AIK
Prepared By:
Johnston County Department of Utilities
309 East Market Street
Smithfield, N.C. 27577

a
o
� ,.

C
k.
Johnston County
Smithfield — Selma 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan
Amendment No. 3
Engineering Amendment No. 3
0
February 2003 �o
o� d
�
� d
Z
Index
1. Cleveland Area Diversion Facilities Alternative Design.
2. Additional Storage for the Selma Equalization & Pumping Facilities
3. Buffalo Creek Parallel Force Main
4. Reclaimed Water Main Alternative Alignment

C

Johnston County
Smithfield - Selma
201 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3 - Engineering Amendment No. 3
Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities Alternative Design
Februaury 2003
A. Summary, Conclusion & Recommendations:
The Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities Improvements (CAWWDFI) were planned
and presented in detail in Chapters 4 and 5 of the Johnston County/Smithfield-Selma 201
Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3. The original plan provided for construction of a wastewater
flow equalization and pumping facility on the Old Cleveland School campus on SR 1010, in
addition to wastewater force main improvements to direct flow into the equalization site and a
12" force main from the site to a new transfer wastewater pump station in the Johnston County
Landfill. The landfill station will deliver wastewater through a 12" force main to the Central
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Please refer to Figure 5.1 in Amendment No. 3. Since the 201
Facilities Plan Amendment No. 3 was approved and the FONSI published, certain changes have
occurred. Due to a problem in communication, another County Department authorized the
construction of other facilities on the site of the proposed equalization and pump station.
Sufficient area is not available on the County -owned Old Cleveland School site to construct the
proposed facilities with the necessary road access and perimeter buffers.
An alternative, essentially comparable plan has been conceived which involves effective use of
existing gravity sewers, a force main segment, and a local pump station which have been
constructed and commissioned since the original CAWWDFI program was drafted. The
principal physical differences, in addition to alternative pump station and equalization basin
sites, is deferring construction of the flow equalization basin and appurtenances until the second
10 year phase of the 201 planning period. Please refer to Figure 5.1(Revised) which is attached.
The total present worth cost of the original program and revised program are virtually equal. No
adjustments are required in the user fees projected in 201 Amendment No. 3.
All new facilities, with the exception of the future equalization tank site, are located within the
original environmental corridor. All facilities within the first phase of construction lie within
existing utility easements and public road rights -of -way.
Construction of the alternative CAWWDFI program, as presented herein, is recommended.
B. Project Description:
k
Page 1 of 4

x
Fou

The Johnston County Utilities Department engineering staff has conceived an alternative plan for
the CAWWDFI. Construction of pumping and equalization facilities and tributary force mains
will be accomplished in two phases. The first phase will serve the area for ten years. The
second phase will consist of project facility additions to accommodate projected flows over the
second ten year phase of the 201 Amendment No. 3 planning period. Please refer to Figure
5.1A for a schematic of the existing wastewater collection and pumping facilities in the area for
background information.
The first phase of improvements will consist of:
Upgrading the County's existing Broadmoor wastewater pump station to serve as the
principal forward flow pumping facility. Improvements include two 700 gpm pumps, a
fine screen, a magnetic flow meter, and a magnesium hydroxide feed system
2. Siting (but not construction) of an equalization tank and associated piping. The site will
be situated in the vicinity of the Broadmoor wastewater pumping station.
3. Installation of approximately 1,700 of 8" force main connecting segment from the
existing 6" force main on Cornwallis Road to an existing 8" gravity sewer line on
Cambridge Elm Drive in the Weston Woods Development. (The 8" gravity sewer line is
tributary to the Broadmoor pump station.)
4. Modification of existing 6" and 4" force main piping in the vicinity of the existing
Cleveland K-5 School wastewater pump station. The modifications will facilitate the
Cleveland K-5 station pumping through an existing 4" force main to the existing Old
Cleveland School wastewater pump station, and pumping through an existing 6" force
main and the proposed 8" force main segment to the 8" gravity sewer line in the Weston
Woods Development, consistent with Item #3 above.
5. Modifications to existing 4" and 8" force main piping in the vicinity of the Old Cleveland
School wastewater pump station, and installation of a diversion connection between the
existing 8" force main on Broadmoor Way and the existing 8" gravity sewer line on
Broadmoor Way which is tributary to the Broadmoor pump station. These modifications
will allow wastewater pumped from the Cleveland K-5 wastewater pump station through
the existing 4" force main to be conveyed to the Broadmoor pump station using a portion
of an existing 8" force main; and additionally, diversion of wastewater from the 8" force
main on NC 42 to the Broadmoor wastewater pump station in the second phase of the
program.
6. Installation of approximately 2,2001.f. of 12" force main from the existing 8" force main
near the manhole/force main connection on Broadmoor Way to SR 1010.
Please refer to Figure 51B which is a schematic of the proposed first phase improvements and
to Figure 5.1(Revised) which is a vicinity map illustrating the improvements.
The second phase of construction will consist of:
Page 2 of 4

O O

1. Construction of a 150,000 gallon aerated equalization tank and related connecting
piping, valves, and controls.
2. Construction of a new 8" force main from the existing 8" force main on NC 42 to the
Broadmoor wastewater pump station, approximately 27,000 l.f in length.
Please refer to Figure 5.1C which is a schematic of the proposed first and second phase
improvements and to Figure 5.1 (Revised) for a vicinity map of all improvements.
C. Justification:
A parking lot and soccer field have been constructed on the Old Cleveland Middle School site in
the location of the planned Cleveland area wastewater equalization and pumping facilities.
Sufficient area is not available on site for construction of the originally proposed facilities with
suitable road access and perimeter buffers. Requiring the local community athletic association to
remove the recreation facilities and construct on another private site would cause significant
financial hardship and possibly public outrage. The alternative program is functionally
equivalent to the original program and can be constructed and operated for virtually the same
cost.
D. Cost Effectiveness:
The estimated total project cost for the first phase of improvements is $782,000 and for the
second phase of improvements, $1,105,000. Detailed breakdowns of the costs are presented in
Table 4.9 (Revised). The capital costs may be compared to the capital cost of the corresponding
elements under the original 20-year program presented in the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment No.
3 in the amount of $1,235,000.
By postponing construction of the flow equalization tank and the 27,000 l.f., 8" force main
segment, annual OM&R costs over the twenty year planning period are slightly reduced in
comparison to the original program. The present worth cost of the proposed elements is
$1,988,000. The present worth cost of the corresponding elements of the original project is
$1,981,000. Present worth cost calculations are included as an attachment to this engineering
amendment.
User Fee Anal:
The changes in scope for the CAWWDFI will result in essentially the same total annual cost as
for the original program. Thus, the impact on user charges is insignificant. No further user
charge adjustments will be necessary for the revised CAWWDFI program.
Page 3 of 4

X
x
AMEM=w

r-
Environmental Corridor:
All improvements in the first phase of the CAWWDFI are located clearly within the original
environmental corridor. Further, all construction lies within the existing County -owned land
parcel, existing utility easements, and public road rights -of -way. All construction elements are
located within previously, and recently disturbed areas. With the exception of the flow
equalization tank, all improvements in the second phase of the CAWWDFI are also located
within the original environmental corridor. With the exception of the future flow equalization
tank site, all construction sites were environmentally assessed and included under the original
FONSL
The 15 acre flow equalization tank and access drive site will be located outside flood plains,
wetlands, and riparian buffers in a recent growth, hardwood forest. An access road between the
existing Broadmoor pump station and the equalization tank site will cross a small intermittent
stream and a riparian buffer encroachment permit will be required. A total of approximately
0.75 acres of clearing will be required. Improvements will not directly affect any threatened or
endangered plant or animal species, prime or unique agricultural lands, or areas of archaeological
or historic value.
No additional wastewater pumping or transmission capacity will be provided by the alternative
CAWWDFI program beyond the capacity of the original program. Thus, nohanges in secondary
and cumulative impacts will result.
No changes in impacts on air quality, noise levels, or forest resources will result from the revised
CAWWDFI program
Page 4 of 4

Lel
x
C

w
m
x
x

I
b
G
G
C
O
c
O
w o
C w
9
W
i
N
N
4
42
06
�7
IL
c
e
e
bc
po
po
d
d
d
d E
1
m
O
e
m
�
O
E
a
�
m
w
�
m
O
m
N
O¢1
N
N{
e
9
d
m N
my Y
Y �
v
L
4
ph
H
am
V
41 W6
C C
Q O am
r
• •—
�p ID X
OY � al
3 `
d � •tf
d �
R �
v
O
r
so

E
6
'L
O
H
M
i
V
d
e
a
a
i
0
0
0
}
0
I-
N
W
..
C
O
C
;r
�� .a
.
.0
d
a
E
N6
d
a
h
a
$
8&
N
a y
LL.
H
� O �
E
O C N m
O d
CL
e eo
16
e
N
r

■
. e
§ ` ;I
2 � $ ■
© $ # & M ■
t f 2
rj IL
§ e IL
.
e C CD 2
� O
I 2 2 IL a a s § O
■■ � � � �
. lo ƒ I o �p ■ ■ p ■
■ ® ®
� e ■ � � � �
i76
■ � § �
0 ■ 2
■ ECL
k ®
4c # $
& �
vi
. M CL
CIL
2 e . 0.IL
� . �| k 7 �■. k w
■ �C6 L
§| ■ ■ & �
IL ] o
■ �� &
� & ° §& % ■| o a
§ o 96
cm, V
�§ ƒ
■ � &
/ e
L - |
e jE
k �fct
� C
c 0
_
��k
> & . ©
§8 C © §'
N JC
�E� 2§
w�$
o©
�

Feb-03
TABLE 4.9 (REVISED) rov ments
►version Facilities lmp
Area Wastewater Phase A
Revised Program
Cleveland
Fstimato of Cost
d K 5 Sehp
ol and DCleveland Middle ClevelanMiddle School
to piping at Existing C{eve{an Unit Unit Price Total
A. Modifications Station Quantity
Wastewater Pum Description
item 5 Schoot Station: „al
1 LS
$7 ,006.00 $7 , 000.00
Cleveland 4C" connections, three 6 p1P, rnisc.
i . i e cutAn 50 if of s
Two P P ate v alv e,
valves, S and site restoration
DI fittin s, chooi Station: $g,00O.O0 $8,000.00
Middle S one g" gate valve, LS
2 Old Cleveland-nnections, 40 if of 6"
Two Pipe cut -in one 4" gate valve, $15,OOOA0
• alevalvas, a restorationUWNO
it
c.
6 s r
9
d
n y� s, -
is
Jv,Af.,:>:>>«<::tir_«; <: :r...�.... 8„ Gravity Sewer on
to Existing
Road
subtotal item
.... ' :.v,.;:.t Cornwaiv
tat M T:..::..
Su ponce Main on
born Ex{sting 6" Unit Unit Price Total
1" n 'Force Main ds Quantity
B. a Elm Drive in Weston WO°
t{on •i,2oo LF $16.0° $19,200.00
Cambrid pescrip 500 LF $25.00 $12.500.00
item
1 8" PVC Pie pavement 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,p00.00
$" D•1. pie 6" force main i Chiding P i LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00
2
Connection to 150 SY $40.00 $6,000.00
3• re lacement " SS
4. a lace t+on to s as halt avement 1 LS $3,300.00 $3,300.00
Remove and re lace t baciefI Prolection
5• edding and se{ec
1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Stone b $49,000.00
concrete, etc. 1nuol
s+on :,W:?: jrf:: :.:[f : •a:gJzf,- :{nv{:j:
Sedimentation an
:::............
7 nh<<,v.<: �:. ,, or
Way to Existing 12" Force Main
Subtotal item B :; ; : h.« .... oe Main on BroadmO°r
:C.:.:_ 211 Force Main from Existing Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
$e rnent or SR lion 1,700 LF $18.00 $30,g00.00
i010
Descrip 540 LF $30.00 $15,000.00
Item 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
PVC P+ e 1 LS $5,010 to $5,000,00
D.1. Pi e °force main $30.00 $12,000.00
2• Colin Onto 8 400 SY •
3. 12" force halt avemenlilint
4. Connection to lace as lion i LS $4,000.00 $4,000.0�
5 Remov a and re rotec
select baciefill, P 1 LS $3,000.00 $3.400.0
Stone bedding, i LS $2,400.00 $2,400.0
ncrete, etc.III IIIIIIII
6 co
:11e restor li er s+ Go tot $.TE000.0
7 Lae sce talion an
on of -
8.
S +m
Subtotal item C
Page i of 2

x
K

Page 2 of 2

Es

r-
Feb-03
Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities Improvements
Revised Program - Phase 2
Estimate of Cost
Page 3 of 6

W
Ee

A
Electrical work i LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Subtotal - E ualization Tank L $306, 000.00
Subtotal Item B $365,000.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $881,000.00
Contingency $88,000.00
Technical Services $85,000.00
Land - 1.5 Acres at $20,000 per acre $30,000.00
SRF Loan osin Cost $21,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST - PHASE 2 $1,105,00JI
0.00
Page 4 of 6

0
U

Q,
r
Feb-03
Excerpt from TABLE 4-9
Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities Improvements
Cleveland Area Facilities - Original Program
Estimate of Cost
0" Force Main from NC 42 to SR 1010 on Cornwallis Road and 12" Force Main on SR 1010 from
:ornwallis Road to Old Cleveland Middle School Pump Station
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
1. PVC pipe
a 10" 12,000 LF $16.00 $192,000.
8 400 LF $18.00 $151,200.
b. 12"
2. DI pipe
i 0°
2,000 LF
$22.00
$44,000.1
a.
b. 1"
1,000 LF
$27.00
$27,000.1
3. 16" stl. caring piee bored and jacked
100 LF
$150.00
$15,000.1
a. DI fittings
6,000 LF
$3.00
$i8,000.i
5. Restrained joint pipe
1 LS
$3,800.00
$3,800.1
6. Swift Creek Crossin
1 LS
$60,000.00
$60,000.+
7. Valves
1 LS
$6,000.00
$6,000-'
8. Air release valves
3 EA
$3,000.00
$9,000.
9. Pavement replacement
1 LS
$1,000.00
$1,000.
a. Asphalt
1 LS
$3,000.00
$3,000.
b. Concrete
i LS
$3,000.00
$3,000.
10. Seedin
11. Misc. surface restoration
1 LS
$2,000.00
$2,000.
12. Rock excava., stone bedding, seiect borrow, etc
1 LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.
13. Sedimentation and erosion control
1 LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.
Replace existing Old Cleveland Middle School
14. with bar screen, 240,000 gal. flow equalization
1 LS
$450,000.00
$450,000
basin and pump station rated 700 gpm
ubtotal Construction
$1,,000
$101ol,00a
ontingency
$100,000
echnical Services
$24,000
RF Loan Closing
OTAL PROJECT COST
$1,235,0M
Page 5 of 6

N

A
r
February 6, 2003
Cleveland Area Wastewater Diversion Facilities
Modified Program
Present Worth Cost Comparison:
Original Program Elements vs.
Modified Program Elements
Note: Modified program elements involve wastewater force mains tributary to the pumping and
equalization facilities. The 12" force main from the pumping and equalization facilities
to the landfill is essentially unchanged.
Original Program:
Capital Cost $1,235,000
Avg. Annual OM&R Cost = $65,000
Present Worth Value (20 years, i = 6%)
P.W. Value = $1,235,000 + 65,000 x USPWF
$1,235,000 + 65,000 x 11.47
$1,235,000 + 746,000
$1,981,000
Amended Program:
Capital Costs: Phase 1 $782,000
Phase 2 $1,105,000
Avg. Annual OM&R Cost: 0-10 years $45,000
11-20 years $65,000
P. W. Value = $782,000 + ($1,105,000 x SPPWF) + ($65,000 x USPWF)
+ ($65,000 x USPWF) x SPPWF) — (land cost x SPPWF)
= $782,000 + ($1,105,000 x 0.5584) + ($45,000 x 7.36)
+ ($65,000 x 7.36 x 0.5584) — ($30,000 x 0.3118)
= $782,000 + $617,000 + $331,000 + $267,000 - $9,000
. = $1,988,000

rel
Eo
x

]b
r-,
Johnston County 0
Department of Public Utilities c
(919) 9 9-5075 ID
qMP (919) 934--7174 FAx
-DAT9. I ZAI D2.
A n4 A"k. Liu tq
�-ilj .31:["
E.
FA
L5
z
3 r j
3 1
3 E
3 1 3 IL 57 F2k I
2 1
I I
I I
.... ... . ...
.......... .......
L I4- ....... J - - - - - -
2 3.
F
z
E
z
r r
. L
ri
3
1 3
2
2 L
3
F
.... ........
2
Ikk
P #jl U
t
++
3
F
COPY. 0.
+*
4-

x

i
Cleveleand Area Diversion Facilities
System Curve
REVISED - BROADMOOR STATION
UPGRADE
Static Head
Length
48000 ft
2250 ft
High Point 297 ft
Diameter
12 in
8 in
Pump Off E 181
C Coeff
120
120
Static Heac 116
Flow
Fric. Loss
Fric Loss
TDH
gpm
ft.
ft.
ft
0
0.00
0.00
116.00
100
2.01
0.68
118.68
200
7.23
2.44
125.67
300
15.30
5.17
136.47
400
26.06
8.80
150.86
500
39.38
13.30
168.67
600
55.17
18.63
189.81
700
73.38
24.78
214.16
800
93.94
31.72
241.67
900
116.82
39.45
272.26
1000
141.96
47.94
305.89
1100
169.33
57.18
342.51

Hughes Supply, Inc.
Hughes Supply, Inc.
PUMP DATA SHEET
Curve: 3404048
Fairbanks Morse Pump, 60 Hz
Deslpn Polnt; Flaw: 700 US gpm
Head: 214 It
Pump: 5430-NONCLOO -1800
Sloe: 4" 5434M&W
Speed, 1780 rpm
Dle: 14.5625 in
Llmlts: Temperature: 104'F
Sphere size:3 In
Pressure:100 psi
Power: -- bhp
Specific Speed: Ns:1311
Nas: 5504
Dimenslons: Suction: 6 in
Discharge: 4 In
Motor. 125 hp Speed; 18W
Frsme: 300
SUBMRGD StandardXPLPROF
Enciosure
sized for Max Power on Design Curve
-••- Data Point --
Flow: 700 US gpm
Hoed; 216 it
Eff. 00%
Power: 63.3 bhp
NPSHr; 24 If
Design Curve —
Shutoff Heed: 251 It
Shutoff dP:109 psi
Min Flow: 260 US gpm
BEP: 72% off
40 1627 US gpm
NOL Pwr:116 bhp
@ 2143 US gpm
-- Max Curve
Max Pwr. 156 bhp
Q 2395 US gpm
tie
H2Optimize ver: 6.041
01/26/03
Selection file: (untitled)
Catalog: FMSU860.MPC v 2.0
Fluid: Water Temperature: 60'F
SG:1
Viscosity: 1.122 cP
Vapor pressure: 0.2568 psia
Alm pressure: 14.7 psia
Piping: System: --
Suction: — in
Discharge: --- in
ft
1
0 Oslo
410 60
i
i
s
p
S— -- -- _ . ._......_._ __......_..........._.,
H
US gpm a00
Flow
Speed
Head
Pump
US gpm
rpm
0
%eff
840
1780
210
64
700
1780
216
60
5e0
1750
220
55
420
1780
226
48
280
1780
232
36
8Q0 1000 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3800
--- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION —
Power
NPSHr Motor Motor Hrslyr Cost
bhp
ft %off kW lkWh
70
24
63.3
24
56.2
24
40.8
24
45.6
24
b
P
d Z699'ON
99D-W-M HHA £OOZ 'Wue£

x
C

f
JOHNSTON COUNTY
SMITHFIELD-SELMA
201 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.3 - ENGINEERING AMENDMENT No. 3
Additional Storage for the Selma Equalization and Pumping Facilities
FEBRUARY 2003
A. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
More storage capacity is needed at the Selma Equalization & Pumping Facility to handle
peak wet weather flow events and to prevent bypasses and overflows of untreated
wastewater. Constructing a 1.5 MG pre -stressed concrete tank and adding a second
magnetic meter to measure flow diverted to the basins will meet that need. Adding
storage volume with a cylindrical concrete tank is the most cost effective alternative
available to prevent sanitary sewer overflows. The estimated project cost is $695,000.
All work is located within a previously disturbed site owned by the County, a former
wastewater treatment plant converted to a pumping and equalization facility. An
environmental assessment was previously completed under a State Clean Water Bond
Grant project in 1999-2000.
Construction of the improvements detailed herein is recommended.
B. Project Description
The proposed project is intended to increase the flow equalization storage capacity of the
Selma Equalization & Pumping Facility. It includes the construction of a 1.5 MG pre-

EO
w

stressed, open top concrete storage tank, water cannons for tank wash down,
interconnecting piping and a magnetic flow meter. The proposed work is shown as
Figure 5-2A of the attached exhibits. All proposed work would be executed on the
existing site.
The project is estimated to cost approximately $695,000. A detailed cost opinion is
included as new Exhibit 4-15.
C. Justification
All wastewater spills in the Johnston County collection system during the past 2'/2 years
have occurred in the Buffalo Creek interceptor area of the Central Johnston County
Regional Wastewater Facilities (Exhibit 4-14). Under current conditions, significant to
extreme rainfall events force the staff of Johnston County Department of Utilities to
choose whether to overflow the Selma Equalization and Pumping Facility or the
downstream Buffalo Creek Pumping station. The Buffalo Creek wastewater
transmission/interceptor system cannot hydraulically accommodate the peak wet weather
flows from the Selma service area.
While Selma has taken measures to repair its infiltration/inflow problems (appendix D of
Amendment No. 3), the anticipated positive effects have not materialized, at least as far
as wet weather flows into the Selma Pumping and Equalization Facility are concerned.
In fact, an increase in hydraulic capacity in the Selma collection system has apparently
resulted from upgrading several existing wastewater pump stations. Consequently, peak
wet weather flows into the County receiving facility have increased in magnitude.

K
m
x

During and after any significant rain event (>l= 1.5" of rainfall in 24 hours), the incoming
18-inch gravity sewer line is surcharged. Flow calculations show that under maximum
surcharged conditions, this sewer line carves approximately 3,000 gpm into this facility.
This surcharge condition can last for 24 hours after a major rain event.
With 3,000 gpm entering the facility for 24 hours and approximately 1,700 gpm of
pumping capacity, at least 1.9 mg of storage capacity is required on site. The current
total storage capacity is 0.6 million gallons. The proposed additional storage will
increase the available storage to 2.1 million gallons, which should be sufficient to handle
peak flows.
An additional magnetic flow meter is required on site to measure the amount of flow
diverted to the storage facilities. Currently, only flow leaving the facility is measured.
The addition of three manually operated water cannons will facilitate wash down and
thorough cleaning of the two existing basins as well as the proposed new tank. Potable
water will be used for basin/tank cleaning.
Adding more storage at the Selma Equalization and Pumping Facility will give the
County the ability to manage peak flows from the Town of Selma collection system
safely and effectively and without overflows.

101
m
M
101

1
D. Cost Effectiveness
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost approximately $695,000. Alternatives
to the cylindrical prestressed concrete storage tank include: a cast in place square or
cylindrical concrete tank, a cylindrical steel tank, a lined earth basin, or providing higher
forward flow pumping capacity. Cast in place concrete structures are more expensive
than the cylindrical prestressed concrete structure, A steel tank has less first cost, but
much higher life cycle cost due to painting on 5 to 8 year intervals. A lined earth basin is
comparable in cost to a prestressed concrete tank, but would require purchase of
additional land. Increasing effluent pumping capacity to 3,000 gpm would require new,
larger pumps, a 4,0001..f. parallel 16" force main, and a 2,000 l.f. parallel 24" segment of
downstream interceptor, thus rendering this option prohibitively costly.
Therefore, the most cost effective alternative is construction and operation of a 1.5
million gallon prestressed concrete tank
D. User Fee Analysis
The cost of this project is minimal compared to the original amount of the SRF Loan.
This increase spread over the duration of the loan will not cause a significant increase in
user fees (less than $0.02/1000 gallon).
E. Environmental Corridor
The proposed work will be contained entirely within the existing Selma Pumping &
Equalization Station site. The site is already cleared and maintained by the County. A

m
m
X
x

50-foot buffer on an existing stream will be maintained. An environmental assessment of
the site was prepared for a Clean Water Bond Grant in 1999-2000.
This project will not increase the overall capacity of the facility, and therefore will not
facilitate, or encourage growth in the tributary service area. There are no secondary or
cumulative impacts due to growth associated with this project.

9
Lel

m
Me
_J
m

r
Feb-03
TABLE 4-15
Selma Equalization and Pumping Facilities improvements
Estimate of Cost

n
0
x

EXHIBIT 4-14
JOHNSTON COUNTY COLLECTION SYSTEM
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS — JULY 01, 1999 TO DECEMBER 31, 2002
Date
Location
Spill Volume
08/23/99
Buffalo Creek P.S.
15,000 gallons
09/16/99
Selma P.S.
50,000 gallons
09/28/99
Selma P.S.
5,000 gallons
10/18/99
Selma P.S.
7,500 gallons
04/18/00
Buffalo Creek P.S.
750 gallons
07/26/00
Buffalo Creek Interceptor
<1,000 gallons
08/01/00
Buffalo Creek Interceptor
<1,000 gallons
12/18/00
Selma P.S.
5,000 gallons
05/05/01
Buffalo Creek F.M.
< 50 gallons
06/02/01
Selma P.S.
125,000 gallons
10/02/02
Selma P.S.
10,000 gallons
12/24/02
Selma P.S.
< 1,000 gallons

JOHNSTON COUNTY
SMITHFIELD-SELMA
201 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.3 - ENGINEERING AMENDMENT NO.3
BUFFALO CREEK PARALLEL FORCE MAIN
FEBRUARY 2003
A. Summary, Conclusions Recommendations
An additional force main is needed to convey flows from the Buffalo Creek Pump Station
to the Neuse River Interceptor. The addition of the force main at this time will increase
the capacity of the Buffalo Creek Pump Station, which receives flow from the Selma
Pump Station and Equalization Facility. Augmented capacity is required to prevent
sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's) during significant wet weather events.
B. Project Description
The proposed project changes involve the Phase 2 Force Mains as described in Section
4.11 of the 201 Facilities Plan Amendment. The proposed change will involve the
construction of a 12-inch line that would parallel the existing 6-inch and 10-inch force
mains from the Buffalo Creek Pump Station to the Neuse River Interceptor as part of the
SRF loan funding of first phase construction under this 201 Plan Amendment, as opposed
to constructing this line in a future phase. The proposed change is shown on a revised
Figure 5-2 and Figure G-1 from the 201 Amendment.
Revised costs for the proposed project changes are included in revised Tables 4-10 and 4-
13 that are attached. The revised costs include the effects of the proposed project
changes, as well as the updated costs based on a detailed cost estimate prepared during
engineering design. The cost for the Neuse River Parallel Force Mains, including the
12-inch line, will increase 33 percent from the January 2002 estimate, not including
engineering costs and the two percent closing fee for SRF funding. The cost for the
original project increased 16 percent. The increased cost for the original force main is

Al
Eo

Engineering Amendment
February 2003
Page 2
+ primarily due to design modifications because of issues that arose during easement
acquisition and adjustment to the cost of the river crossing.
C. Justification
The additional parallel force main is needed at this time because of the need for
additional capacity in the Buffalo Creek Pump Station to prevent surcharging of the
tributary gravity interceptor and SSO's during significant wet weather events. The
gravity line occasionally surcharges during peak flows and frequently charges during wet
weather. SSO's have occurred on several occasions. This segment is the missing piece
in the rehabilitation of the Buffalo Creek Interceptor to the new proposed 16-inch parallel
force main and 24-inch Neuse River Parallel Force Main. Calculations for the Buffalo
Creek pump station are attached as Exhibit 1.
D. Cost Effectiveness
The alternatives evaluated in the 201 Amendment for the Neuse River Interceptor
Paralleling are not affected by the addition of the costs for the 12-inch parallel force
main. This force main was identified as a future need in the 201 Plan Amendment No. 3.
E. User Fee Analysis
The proposed user fees will not change as a result of the proposed changes to the
Amendment. The modest capital cost of this project element, together with the low
interest SRF loan will not require an appreciable increase in user fees.
F. Environmental Corridor
The proposed work is within an existing sanitary sewer easement. The total pipeline
length for the Neuse River Parallel Force Mains would increase by 1,620 feet.
The proposed route is already cleared and maintained as a condition of the county's
sewer collection permit. A revised description of the physical environmental for the
proposed parallel Neuse River Force Mains is included in the attached revised Table 7-4.

w
m

A
R�
a ausm�s
J
_o
o9
LL R
C
I
2 a
F=
lien
T
•
7 �
ffo
IWWW-1
1
r
r_
0
N
✓�i
D
a
a
a
c
c
D
o
CL
a
u
v
u
a
c
LL
Li
"i
LL
N
N
E
>
pNp
o
CV
a'
0
i°
a
a
a
u�
d
�
LLI
•
1
'
ILL
w
J
rh�

1#1
XF
x

r
x
� m
m n
LL W
I
ma
I
N
E v
I
I
h i
I
c
H
N I
1
C
Itl
�
7 L
1
I
u
U.
v I
1
(ALL-
o
o
LL
r
to
— 1
C
C
yp
a
N
C L
to a
w
I
1
X
W
.x
W
LL
cm
jy
�.
L
I
i
w
I
I
k
C
I
I
�
k
k
O r
U L
L- --- - - - - --
I
I
auEi
I
LL
E m� I
T
LLm I
I
1
N
_
a> '- H k
oL�' I
dw
I
I
a I
O�
I
li
T
I
I----
T
v
}
� a
� `
C
O
Z
T
c
I
a
a
F
7
_
CL
N ai
L �
LL
C N
�_toY
3 2"
o n
� O
`
O O
M
A
I
LL N LL
rN
�c
C O
OLL
w
Z C
k:
0 lK 2
LLss]] E
m
eCD
�
13
a
U C3
c
°'

x
X
N

C
Table 4-10
Johnston County, North Carolina
Parallel Neuse River Force Mains
Cost Summary
2-Jan-0
;ltefrik:....
¢w
Nf kes r3Pf on
i,,Qp€entity.
Uttllt
Uni:�: prfce
Total.
1
Mobilization max. 2% of bid
1
LS
$8,500.00
$8,500.00
2
16" Force Main CL 50 DIP
1,400
LF
$28.00
$39,200.00
3
24" Force Main CL 50 DIP
4,245
LF
$38.00
$161,310.00
412411
Force Main DIP restrained joint
205
LF
$600.00
$123,000.00
5
Testing, Cleanup, and Seeding for 16" Pipe
min. 20%of line item #2
1,400
LF
$5.00
$7,000.00
6
Testing, Cleanup, and Seeding for 24" Pipe
min. 20% of line item #3
4,450
LF
$6.00
$26,700.00
7
16" Gate Valve with Box
2
EA
$4,000.00
$8,000,00
8
12" Gate Valve with Box
3
EA
$1,400.00
$4,200.00
9
10" Gate Valve with Box
1
EA
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
10
8" Gate Valve with Box
2
EA
$600.00
$1,200.00
11
6" Gate Valve with Box
1
EA
$500.00
$500.00
12
D.I. M.J. Fittings
20.000
LB
$2.00
$40,000.00
13
Air/Vacuum Valve with Manhole (complete)
3
EA
$3,000.00
$9,000.00
14
Protection Concrete
20
CY
$150.00
$3,000.00
15
Asphalt Cut and Replacement (6" ABC, 2" 12)
1,100
SY
$20.00
$22,000.00
16
Trench Stabilization Stone min. 6" depth)
1,000
LF
$3.00
$3,000.00
17
Undercut Excavation and Replacement with
Select Borrow
500
CY
$12.00
$6,000.00
18
DropInlet Protection
4
EA
$100.00
$400.00
19
Silt Fence
1,000
LF
$4.00
$4,000.00
20
Straw with Net Liner
100
LF
$5.00
$500.00
21
Class 1 Rip Rap min 18" thick
300
SY
$45.00
$13,500.00
22
Anti -Seep Collars
4
EA
$400.00
$1,600.00
23
Rock Excavation
100
CY
$5.00
$500.00
24
Concrete Drive Removal and Replacement
100
SY
$40.00
$4,000.00
ncies @ 10% $48,000.00
$536,000.00
rSEnungineeringand Design $38,000.00
Residential Inspection and Engineering Services $38,000.00
Subtotal $612,000.00
2% SRF Closing Cost $12,000.00

n
x

2Wan-03
Table 4-13
Johnston County, North Carolina
Parallel Form Uain from B u ffa I o Creek Pump Station to Neuse River lntercept*r
Cost Summary
E
1
Mobilization (max. 2% of bid)
I
LS
$8,500.00
$8,500.00
2
12" Force Main (CL 50 DIP)
1,620
LF
$25.00
$40,500.00
Testing, Cleanup, and Seeding for 12" Pipe
3
(min. 20% of line item #2)
1,620
LF
$5.00
$8,100.00
—
4,12"
Gate Valve with Box
Z
EA
$1,400.00
$2,800.00
5
10" Gate Valve with Box
1
EA
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
6
6" Gate Valve with Box
1:
EA
$500.00
$600.00
7
D.I. M.J. Fittings
7501:,
LB
$2.00
$1,500.00
8
AirNacuum Valve with Manhole (complete)
1
EA
$3,000-00
$3,000.00
9.Protection
Concrete
10
CY
$150.00
$1,500.00
10
Trench Stabilization Stone (min. 6" depth)
500
LF
$3.00
$1,500.00
11
Undercut Excavation and Replacement With
100
CY
$12.00
$1,200.00
Select Borrow
12
Silt Fence
800
LF
$4.00
$3,200.00
13
Straw with Net Liner
100
LF
$5.00
$500.00
14
Class i Rip Hap (min 18" thick)
20
SY
$900.00
15
Rock Excavation
100
CY
—$45.00,
$5.001
$500.00
m ................ .
. ........ I I ... ....
Contingencies @ 10% $7,520.00
Subtotal $83,000.00
Engineering and Design $6,000.00
Residential Inspection and Engineering Services $6,000.00
ISubtotal $95,000.00
% SRF Closing Cost $2,000.00

x
x
n
K

r
BUFFALO CREEK PARALLEL FORCE MAIN
11:
c CALCULATIONS FOR THE BUFFALO CREEK PUMP STATION

w
U
101

0LONr
MLOMr0LOn
U)0)0
70
r
j-
r-�CrjNn
LO
M
Or
LOr
Op0O00
;t0
NMLD
�
LQ"t'r
LDOUIr
0C')
•�
3
CDLSLD��00�rC�
Cr)MMC9m
Cl)
mvv
VwMC3Nwlp
Itv
tOtOLato(DLD0(Dn
0
m
Dm0w0r�
nMMr
r
0
y
0r
N
1C1Q)C*!0�[7N00000p0)OMCD0�0lf?N
0�t
r-
O
Ncltf:tiOtG
Ugf,�
CnO(Dn
c
o
o
o
000
0
00
0
0
0
o
o
o
O`�-
U
LL
�
0
a
O
I-
d
T
CO
LO
M
0
I—v
Co
LO
N
CD
to
Co
CO
to
N
M
W
N
V)
Ncm0
orNNM"tLgUq
(q
;nLOM
Mar
N
NC?�
It
W?r`
r
0
v
00000000000000
rt=
rrww
r
r
CN
O
m
c�
0000L�a0a0a8o000oa0a00o0o0
a00000000000ao
p
O
000
r
N
Md'LOLDncoMOrNMtt
00000
U)
LQ
n
0000r
Lao
C)
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
N
N
N
N
M
U
a
Li
Co
dUJ
O
o000It0CDNMLOrn
NnOM
'4t
MrnN
con
Nn
O
O
M
CD
r
CD
Cr?
0
0
0:
LA
r
M
n
r
N
0)
n
to
lO
1O
0
La
tO
C
OOOGr.-CV
C7L'i4ui1-:60;
rCV
�L[j�Oa*-0LoN
Lo
O
r
r
r+r
r.rNNNMLq
C
�+
'L
co00
ON
o
corLOMCJ')Nr�}OpNfDOd
N�LOrOO
'wfrnMOCD
n
r
LO0MtD0'�t
COIO
•O
Orr
NCr
mVL[7W(CIht+Mwm
Cr10
LC)N
oo
r
M'crrn�
r
r
ci
r
(Ni
r
C
466
0r
r
r
r
r
m
o0o00a
o
oaaa00000
o
0000000
00000�0o0oo0a00000000000
O_
(�
r-
m
t
E
*-NM'�tLamnOOMOrNC')�t[7LDnL»0)OrNLf10
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r-
N
N
N
N
C")
m
�}
C
U.
cx
cc
aUc
OC70rCpLaI�NrCrJMOON
O)Q)MCACOM�
v-
N
LL
y
C70rN
MMt`oC?CO
C7)M
CI-
N0
r
n
N00v
W
Lnn
r
m
O
O
O
GGGOoL�OT'rr-rC4C46
644
66w
n000
N
(D r
LL.
'-
(A
0
OOC
o
LO
O
r
OOMMCD
Orrd
Nr
to00
(o
OD
Nn
r
co
CIO
CD
r
O
OON
NOOORnOO
Iq
C0
t-
O3
-
.Cr
[3OC�C7SC�DL0h0I0
CNN
Cc)
Cr)
0v
LO
°
�
w
r
s
0
C
i
LL
N
0
N0
0
0coNwcoNaMI-
LO
NOmrnw
tl
N+-
C'i
0
1'-
co
�tr
m
r
T
M
V)
NLOODr�t.
000.r
r.NN
gNtta00.-
N
Cr)C7N)C7�'ty
�t
tDON
LA
rC�?CDONGLO
wtotoinwN
0
10
O
m
h
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
ir
00000
rNM'1LOC17ntm
0
0
0
00MOrNC')�
0
0
0
0
a
0
p
LaCOn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
ODMOrN
Lao
m
(�
C
LL
C
a
Q
U
-1
Eto
O
Or-to0N0nM
000.�s�CLIM�(Dn
OOO
m
tp.-CDMrr
r
v
nCOM
0
Mrco
r-t
NLa00r
etN
0
N
00000000r9-rrN
NNNi7ComV
W)N
C
O
-
V)
CO
C7
(000
OCDNOONrOLDN00
0
(De-nCr)M
Lf)r
OC8)
0)LC)
0)M
rN0
rT
rtC9it(DM0rN
WN0oNC?
LO1�
COO
r
MLa0)t•
0
OOC�C�CiCirrrrr�-cvNcmNNNCOCr)ce)ce)c)et
W
j
mWLL
m
m
0000000000000000000o00000
U
O
m
0
.-
Lcf
_
0
r"
0
N
0
M'V
0
0
tO
0
(D
0
n
0
00
00
M
o
a
w
o
N
0
M
0
v
0
LOW
0
CD
0
n
Cl
M
0
M
o
0
o
0
N
0
Ln
0
o
`
"'
3
E
.
r
r
r•
r
N
N
M
O
O
O
m
w
O
r
r
r
r
r
N
N
m
ca
.
Q�2
V)V
!n
LL
CL
aU�
U

101
*1
x

Hughes Supply, Inc,
H2Optlmlze ver: 6.041
Hughes Supply, Inc.
01/28/03
PUMP DATA SHEET
Selection file: (untitled)
.:urve: 330604C Fairbanks Morse Pump, 60 Hz
Catalog: FMSVBBO.MPC v 2,0
Design Point: Flow, ISW US opm
Fluld: Water Temperature: 60'F
Hand:100 ft
$G:1
Pump: 543"ONCLOG • 1800 Etta: 6"5433M&W
Viscosity! 1.122 cP
Vapor pressure: 0.2668 pale
Speed: 1770 rpm DI9:11.5 in
Atm pressure: 14.7 pale
omits: Temperature:104 OF Sphere size: 3 in
NPSHs: -- ft
Pressure: 86 psio Power, --- bhp
Specifrc Speed: Ns: 2604 Nas: 7480
Piping., System: —
Suction: — in
Din"ions: Suction: 8 in Discharge: 6 In
Discharge: -- in
Motor. 75 hp Speed:1800 Frame: 320
SUBMRGD StanderdXPLPROF Enclosure }
sized for Max Power on Design Curve �� �� D/4 cer-(
---- Data Polnt ---
Flow: 1500 US opm
Head: 101 ft
Eff: 78%
Power. 40.6 bhp
NPSHr. 21.3 !t
-- Design Curve --
Slwtoff Head: 140 ft
Shutoff 0; $0.7 psi
Min Fkyw: 500 US gpm
BEP: 81% off
®1004 US gpm
NOL Pwr. 60.7 bhp
® 3003 US gpm
-- Max Curve --
Max Pwr. 71.9 bhp
® 3200 US gpm
2 !a� q-f' c 7C�.SQ
.$ WW1
6065 o ,A Afa ri>Q,l>r
120
so
170
40
. H
-0
US gpm 400 Soo 1200 1600 2000 2400 2100 3200 3600
Flow
Speed
Head
Pump
VS gpm
rpm
R
%off
1800
1770
e3
81
1500
1770
101
78
1200
1770
108
74
900
1770
119
6s
600
1770
•124
51
? d 16SN
— PERFORMANCE EVALUATION —
Power NPSHr Motor Motor Hrs/yr Cost
bhp it %off kW /kWh
$2.3 22,9
48.6 21.3
44.5 20
40.3 20
38.8 20
SW-M-M wM:q £40l AZ•uer
b
P

91
�I
y b
V
�
�
L
i�
C?
�
O
�
.>
�
a
w
H
O
i
.r
o
[�
W
,.ci
�
Cti
Ci
XF
�' 4r
>,
�a
t
41)o
zE
zG
I.,-
C CL
N p,
'G
'C7
O •E O
•>— O
00
tr; i i
O
1�
O
O
at
O y
O
�P4
C
N
"z
'0 W
2 O
N C
O �
w a
N
O
O
M
dF
O
Io
�
o
�
°•off
° o
o
ow°
C>
oa:
�, cc
rx�w
rxV
O
rxU�
O
� °C6
>+
w�a�a�
4. V U
05�w
W
zUz
zrowV. °
zg,z

x

JOHNSTON COUNTY
SMITHFIELD-SELMA
201 WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.3 - ENGINEERING AMENDMENT NO.3
ALTERNATE RECLAIMED WATER MAIN
FEBRUARY 2003
A. Summary, Conclusions Recommendations
The original 8-inch reclaimed water main along Black Creek Road was designed to
supply reclaimed water to a 35-acre farm. In order to allow the reclaimed water main to
serve the farm and the newly acquired County property adjacent to the existing County
landfill, an alternate alignment has been proposed. The proposed alignment is entirely on
County property. The main will increase in size from 8-inch to 12-inch, and the length
will increase from approximately 2,930 LF to approximately 6,500 LF. The total project
cost will increase by approximately $50,000.
The revised alignment will facilitate irrigation on approximately 160 acres of County
property, irrigation of turf and ornamental vegetation on a proposed county -state -federal
agricultural service complex, which is under design, as well as irrigation of the farm.
No adverse environmental impacts will result from the alternate alignment.
Construction of the 12-inch main in the alternate alignment is recommended.
B. Project Description
The proposed changes are to Phase 1 of the wastewater reuse program as described in
Section 5.5 of the 201 wastewater Facilities PIan Amendment No. 3. The changes consist
of relocation of the reclaimed water main to serve a 35-acre farm from a route along
Black Creek Road to a route within County -owned property. The main will be upsized

U
Al

Engineering Amenw, lent
February 2003
Page 2
from 8-inch to 12-inch. The proposed changed route is shown on revised Figure 5-5 from
the 201 Amendment.
The costs for the proposed force maim alignment are included in Table 5-5a, which is
attached. The total cost for the upsizing and relocation of the Black Creek main will
increase the cost of the project by 60 percent.
C. Justification
The proposed pipeline realignment is needed to move the pipeline onto County -owned
property instead of public right-of-way. By relocating and upsizing the line, the
projected wetted acres for Phase I of the Reuse program could potentially increase by 160
acres. Approximately 140 acres will be coastal Bermuda, cropland, and mixed forest,
and approximately 20 acres will consist of turf and ornamental vegetation on a planned
local -state -federal agricultural services complex. A soils evaluation has been performed
for the County -owned property by GreenVest, Inc. The report recommends an annual
application of 75 inches on 140 acres, which totals 285 MG. This will reduce the amount
of nitrogen discharged to the Neuse River.
The line will also serve the farm property as originally designed. A letter of intent from
the property owner is attached as Exhibit A.
D. Cost Effectiveness
The alternatives evaluated in the 201 Amendment for the water reuse program are not
affected by the addition of the costs for the new alignment of the reclaimed water main.
E. User Fee Analysis
The proposed user fees will not change as a result of the proposed changes to the
Amendment. The additional costs will be offset by under runs in the reclaimed water
project contracts.

Op 00
C
x

Engineering Amenwaent
February 2003
Page 3
F. Environmental Corridor
The proposed work is within the original environmental corridor between Black Creek
Road and County Home Road. The proposed changed route is shown on revised Figure
7-3 from the 201 Amendment.
The total pipeline length would change form 2,930 LF to 6,500 LF. The area to be
cleared along the proposed route would be approximately 2.06 acres. There are
approximately 130 LF of jurisdictional wetlands within the alignment that will be crossed
with a directional bore to minimize disturbance. A revised description of the physical
environment along the proposed 12" reclaimed water main is included on the attached
revised Table 7-2. The alternate route is entirely on County owned property and is
outside riparian buffers and wetlands. No threatened or endangered plant or animal
species will be affected. No archeological or historical resources will be affected.
2-4

00 00
O
m

m kl/
N u5�
-J
JS 1� 0U5"�esy
oar
y C O0
C
o cs 'a
`o
0
o�
1 �
5
40.A
•
s
OR
+�
I
r'FAM; '•`�:
,
fiqw
�-
c
w
�a Y
'r
�
c o
o
z
a R
;0-
a
�
U �' U
0
a �9�
oCJ�
dS
vy
�
U
U
in

00 00
x
w

r
Table 5-5a
C Johnston County, North Carolina
Water Reuse Land Application
12-inch Declaimed Water Main on County Property
Description
Unit
Quantily
Unit Cost
Total
12-in PVC
LF
4500
$
14
$
63,000
10-in PVC
LF
1200
$
12
$
14,400
8-in PVC
LF
800
$
9
$
7,200
Clearing
AC
2
$
4,000
$
8,000
Fittings
LBS
2000
$
3
$
5,000
10" Gate Valve with Box
EA
2
$
1,200
$
2,400
8" Gate Valve with Box
EA
2
$
1,000
$
2,000
6" Gate Valve with Box
EA
5
$
700
$
3,500
20" x 12" tapping sleeve and valve
EA
1
$
5,000
$
5,000
Erosion Control
LS
1
$
2,000
$
2,000
Hydrants
EA
1
$
2,000
$
2,000
Subtotal
$
115,000
Contingencies @ 10%
$
12,000
Subtotal
$
127,000
Engineering and Design
$
6,000
Resident Inspection and Engineering Services
$
6,000
Subtotal
$
139,000
2% SRF Closing Cost
$
2,780
Total
$
142,000

00 00
m
w

ALTERNATE RECLAIMED WATER MAIN
LETTER OF INTENT FROM PROPERTY OWNER

00 00
Al

r- �- (- r,
February 3, 2003
Tim Broome
Director of Infrastructure and Engineering
Johnston County Dept. of Public Utilities
P.O. Box 2263
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Mr. Broome:
I am very interested in obtaining recycled water for irrigation on Tract 8376 ( NC Pin No.
1673 59 6343), my home tract. I have more than 35 acres of cleared land on this tract. I
am interested in irrigating as much of this tract as possible immediately. I also farm more
than 400 acres on other tracts along Galilee Road, Black Creek Road, Long Branch Road,
and NC 210 in the vicinity of existing lines where I would like to use this water. I farm
even more tracts in other parts of the county if this water becomes available in the future.
Based on the soil types and my experience irrigating this land, I can use at least four
inches of water per acre during the growing season in wet years. In dry years like this
past year I could probably use three times that amount.
I am familiar with the restrictions for recycled water use. I have worked closely with
Kenneth York, Johnston County's Reclaimed Water Specialist, in the past, and I will
work closely with him in the future to assure that all requirements are met.
I would love to have this water available by the summer of 2003 if possible.
I would appreciate any assistance you could give.
Sincer ,
�— L"
mes W. McKenzie
k-

00 00

pum�-. ,-N
or
41,
fl ' 1. � � `* r � 1,S '��{�i �'• S• �'J �
N
s r Elevated ;}k
Storage Tank
4 ��-
i f . y
—/ Elevated
Storage Tank ' x ,, roposed Aiignmen Ground Storage
Tank and Reuse
Pump Station
Phase 11
Typical r I Central John to
h e x i4 44 r
County Regional
WWTF "w , �. `X.
1 A Ung Alignment n�
i Phase 2 = {}
Typical.
r ''I
v1
WOO
�.
_ Figure 7-3
Central Johnston County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility
Proposed Reclaimed Water System Phase 1 and 2
From Portions of Powhatan, Four Oaks, Four Oaks NE, and Selma USGS Quads
Not to Scale

00 00
w

m
E
U
v
� c
a
a 2
C LL
0
� � 3
H. E E
o
� m
c �
W
v m
fA
A t
r a
a
6
L
o
c
0
0 1 1 1
1 1 I E�..
� i
mU
O N
e
cC
m
z
3
NN�
Y! CO
YJ
cp I 1 1 C4 I I
O O
o I I I I I I I I I I
a
3
c 3
L2L
o�
o�
=
C�
LOL
1L
fi
$
c
m
c
c
�
coaa
U
C)
LLL, l�l. LPL LLL LUL LLLL LLLL LLLL LPL l�l. LL
L
N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N CV CV .�-
Y r r r r r r ~ r
co a c OD co
to 00
O O
ti C
0pp N LLO
e! r d Q0
LLO
N
N r
O
r N r
r
�
CD
r fC
�cr.
Cl)LL
Cry
C w
@ U .-
LL
C
Sac
¢N
c�m�
r N
m
2
V N
Y
W ♦�
V/
rnb
O p
Q cc

00 00
x

b
r
c
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
C
w
r
m
r
a
W
U
y
O �
G
s
m
I
I
I
I
I
N
H
0
m
o�
m
�a
m
m
7
m
O
E
o
c
V a
Q
o
0
0
m
s
r
m
3
C
So:;v
'C
c
i a p
�„
m
as
ci
a►
rn
� -G
�
'
m..
mS.
r
L_
L
Qi
rAct
3:
L
**
C
G
N
N
N
N
eS
O
m
N
nt
N
N
N
r
CO
T
u0
T
CD
r
co
m
C
m
y
18
s
v
rn
a
c
m
ti
r•
L
N
r
h
N
c+�
(G
r
'�
C
= y
.CO
4
J
E
$
E
+"
�[
m
2
(�
.a
a
�.
.—
ro ao
U
m L
a:
QCM
E
0
0
mo
d
0T
aaC
r
0rc
V�
act
A�
CpQQ
C�
U-
0
C)
z
vn
zn
0-CO
co.-
N
ID
YN
U
pm
C
CM-0
cco
M-0
c0
df-0
c0
CAN
0
r
E
C
j
mt?
mZ
o
4
00
Qcc
00
<a:
00
Q[C
o0U
<a:z
• i
d

00 as
m
w

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
August 3, 2000
To; Milt Rhodes
Local Government Assistance Unit
From: Susan A. Wilson, Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
Subject: Johnston County Smithfield - Selma EA
(Central Johnston County WWTF 201 Plan)
Rehab/ Expansion Issues
NPDES No. NCO030716
Johnston County
-
1 1,R R �C,L.EI�I
p
I have reviewed portions of the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan submitted by Hazen and
Sawyer on behalf of Central Johnston County. The proposed project includes
expansion of the Central Johnston County Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) to
meet future growth needs and provide biological nutrient removal, expansion and
rehabilitation of the collection system, and reuse of a portion of the wastewater for
irrigation.
Due to the Division's time delay with the revised nitrogen allocation for dischargers in
the Neuse River Basin and EPA's approval of the total maximum daily load (TMDL),
there may have been some confusion with regard to permitted flows at the county. The
Division originally drafted and noticed the renewal for Central Johnston County on
June 2, 1998. The draft permit included phased limits for 4.5 MGD and 4.99 MGD,
with the provision that an Authorization to Construct (ATC) permit be issued prior to
expansion to the 4.99 MGD flow. No final permit was issued following this draft due to
the previously stated reasons. Central Johnston County received an Authorization to
Construct permit March 20, 1997 for plant modifications for the addition of an oxic and
anoxic zone to assist with nutrient removal. This ATC never approved an expansion in
flow to 4.99 MGD. The 201 Wastewater Facility Plan indicates that Central Johnston
County WWTF is in the process of increasing the capacity of the plant to 4.99 MGD.
This is also reflected in Table 2-2 of the plan [p. 2 41. The plan should reflect that the
permitted flow is currently at 4.5 MGD. The Division has not yet finalized a permit for
4.99 MGD and the county is not authorized to discharge flow in exceedance of 4.5 MGD
monthly average flow.
The 201 plan correctly states that the Division has received a request for speculative
permit limits at a flow of 6.5 MGD. The Division has completed a preliminary review of
limits for a flow of 6.5 MGD and offers those with this document (an official letter to the
County will be offered in follow-up to this documentation). Because the projected flow
for the county is 7.0 MGD, the county should clarify at what flow speculative limits are
requested.

0 0

The NPDES Unit supports the proposed wastewater reuse project, as a long-term effect
may be the reduction in effluent discharge as the County's population continues to
grow. The County should be aware that tertiary quality effluent is required for reuse
water [ref. 15A NCAC 2H .0219(k)l. In addition to treated wastewater reuse, other
alternatives to discharge must be documented prior to the issuance of a permit (for
example, spray irrigation of remaining wastewater - not specifically for reuse). The
county should refer to the NPDES Unit's Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance
document that is available on the Division's website:
[http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.htmll.
Based on the Division's revised allocation of total nitrogen load, Central Johnston
County was allocated a total load of 56,200 lbs/year at the flow of 4.99 MGD.
The Neuse Nutrient Management Strategy rule establishes additional requirements for
facilities planning to expand beyond their 1995 permitted flows. An expanding facility
must acquire any nitrogen allocation it needs for the added discharge before it can
apply for the necessary NPDES permit modification. The facility can (1) provide
additional treatment in order to meet its original allocation, (2) acquire additional
allocation from existing point sources, or (3) acquire additional allocation from nonpoint
sources through the Wetlands Restoration Fund. In the last case, the facility must
obtain 30 years' allocation prior to permit application. In any event, the facility's total
allocation cannot be greater than the annual mass limit equivalent to 3.5 mg/L TN at
the expanded flow. Facilities joining a group compliance association are not subject to
individual limits but will be responsible as a group for meeting their collective
allocation. Central Johnston County has expressed its intent to join such an
association, so much of this explanation does not apply directly to its discharge
requirements. However, the discussion is still relevant to the County's nitrogen
allocation and the Iimit the association must meet.
Note that the Division expects to complete a more comprehensive modeling effort in
early 2001 and will use those results to better define the nitrogen reduction target for
the Neuse River estuary. It is not clear from preliminary results whether the target will
need to be changed. Be aware that if the target level is lowered, it could lead to further
reductions in the point source allocations.
To reiterate. design considerations must include the ability to achieve an annual TN
load based on a concentration of 3.5 mg/1 at 6.5 (or 7) MGD, regardless of the County's
chosen route of compliance. /Please refer to I5A NCAC 2B .0234J
cc: Central Files
NPDES Files
RRO/ Water Quality Section

x
SPECULATIVE LIBUTS
CENTRAL JOHNSTON COUNTY WWTF
Parameter
Summer
Winter
Flow (MGD)
6.5
6.5
BOD5 ( /1)
5
10
NH3-N (mg/1)
1
2
DO ( /l) daily avg.
6 minimum
6 minimum
Fecal cola orm (#/ 100ml)
200
200
TSS
30
130
TN
56,200 lbs/year (annual compliance load effective
January 2003)
TP
1 mg/1 (monthly average) - or - 2 mg/1 (per defined
quarter if an association member)
Monthly averages are presented above unless stated otherwise.