NC0020184_Permit Issuance_20100208

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
Mr. Larry Cummings
Division Manager
City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Dear Mr. Cummings:
February 8, 2010
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NCO020184
Long Creek WWTP
Gaston County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued purspant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
This final permit includes no major changes from the draft sent to you on October 7, 2009.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable
to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt
of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 NOfthCa olllla
Internet www.ncwaterquality.arg Natulally
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

I,
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements
to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the
Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit
that may be required. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Sergei Chemikov at
telephone number [phone].
relyA,n ^ sk
H. Sullins
cc: NPDES Files
Central Files
Mooresville Regional Office -Surface Water Protection
Aquatic Toxicology Unit (e-copy)
Marshall Hyatt, EPA Region rV (e-copy)
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877.623-6748 No Carolina
Internet vmv.ncxaterquality.org F�Nn //I ,
An Equal Opportunity\ Arfirmafive Action Employer 6 I�IZ(`iL//

Permit NCO020184
a '
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION. OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
City of Gastonia
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Old Spencer Mountain Road
Gastonia
Gaston County
to receiving waters designated as South Fork Catawba River in the Catawba River Basin in
accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective March 1, 2010.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on January 31, 2015.
Signed this day February 8, 2010.
"01n H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Per4iit NC0020184
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this
permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive
authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and
provisions included herein.
The City of Gastonia is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 16.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility that
includes the following components:
,0 Coarse bar screen
❖ Mechanical bar screens
❖ Mechanical draft tube mixers
❖ Grit removal
❖ Parshall flume
❖ Influent pump station
❖ Splitter box
❖ Primary clarifiers
❖ Raw sludge pumping station
❖ Dual basins for biological nutrient removal
❖ Denitrification basin
❖ Final clarifiers
4o Tertiary filtration
❖ Backwash holding tank
❖ Chlorine contact basin
❖ Chlorination/dechlorination facilities
❖ Static aerators
❖ Dissolved air floatation (DAF) unit
❖ Six anaerobic digesters
❖ Solids contact reactor
❖ Chemical feed facilities
❖ Stand by power generator
This wastewater treatment facility is located on Old Spencer Mountain Road at the
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant near Spencer Mountain in Gaston County.
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into the South Fork Catawba River, classified Class WS-V waters in
the Catawba River Basin.

, t► lA. 1 �\.,.�.\ % 1. \ . -1 `r. I (' f i r �
9 (1 1
IN
644i2
�� r - •, ' f � � ��, - 1. � /I� �� •7 _ � 1 \ - . �� r
00
�%6p t '�
0
,
•�� I / , , Gem,, r` � ,. ' -, r
MobilOenje 4 V % ,� 1 �;,���'�.• i.• •r,� / �f \ r�� ��..
pa
Outfa11001
;e Ong
1sPo�4x�; ,/
qC
„ ♦ t y
31�1
X
+l �.{`' -r• � -.` I � 11���[51+�V � ,
gta h�l .� /�✓'!.r ,f� I,
Long Creek WTP - NCO020184 Faciii "I` ' `
W
Location .'
USGS Quad Name: Mt. Holly Lat.: 35°18'37"
Receiving Stream: S. Fork Catawba River Long.: 81°06'50"
Stream Class: WS-V
Subbasin: Catawba — 03 08 36 North Not to SCALE

Permit NCO020184
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
PARAMETER
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
e
Sample Locationl
Flow
16.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C2
April 1-October 31
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent &Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2
November 1— March 31
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1— March 31
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average > 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable
Grab
U & D
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Variable
Grab
U & D
pH
> 6.0 and < 9.0 standard units
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine
28 Ng/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Variable
Grab
U & D
TN (NO2+ NO3 +TKN)
April 1-October 31
6.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TN (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
November 1- March 31
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
1.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nickel
135 Ng/L
261 Ng/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Color (ADMI)
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity'
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Chloroform
Quarterly
Grab
Effluent
Notes:
1. U: upstream at Highway 275 or 200 feet above the outfall. D: downstream A) Spencer Mountain Pool at dam, B)100
yards downstream at the canoe access point C)1.5 miles below tailrace at power lines. Instream samples shall be grab
samples taken 3/week (June -September) and I/week (October -May).
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. Facility shall report all effluent TRC values reported by a NC certified laboratory including field certified. However,
effluent values below 50 µg /L will be treated as zero for compliance purposes. Compliance with the limit for Total
Residual Chlorine shall be based upon a daily average value.
4. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia), P/F at 19% with testing in March, June, September and December (see A. (2)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO020184
10
A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 191/0.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterl monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North
Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September and December. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit
limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as
described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does
have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection
methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the
pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the
following address:
Attention: NC DENR/ DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, -North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days
after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature.
Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the
permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility
name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the
comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited
above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include
alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such monitoring
shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid
test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the
month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NCO020184
` ' 41 A. (3) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below (in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal (summer,
winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as
"total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as
provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
1,1-dichloroethylene
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite
1,3-dichloropropylene
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosphorus
Methyl chloride
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids
Methylene chloride
Chrysene
Hardness
1,1,2,2-tetraddoroethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony
Tetrachloroethylene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic
Toluene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium
1,1,1-triddoroethane
1,2-diddorobenzene
Cadmium
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid -extractable compounds:
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury
P-chloro-m-cresol
Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile organic gMminds:
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Aerolein
Phenol
Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene
Base -neutral compounds:
Isophorone
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
Benzidine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chlorcethylvinyl ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane
Benzo(ghi)perylene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethoxyl methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

RECEIVEO"a'Place. Great People. Great-Promise.
rtment of Public Works and Utilities
Wastewater Treatment Division
OCT 2 2 2009
DENR • WATER QUALITI'
POINT SOURCE BRANCH October 16, zoo9
Dr. Sergei Chernikov
NC DENR - DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Review of Draft Permit NCO020184 Long Creek WWTP
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
We have reviewed the Draft NPDES Permit sent to us on October 7, 2009 for the Long
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (Permit #NC0020184). We have no concerns or
comments to submit regarding this permit.
We appreciate the prompt response from your department regarding this permit
renewal. If I may be of any assistance, please call me at 704-866-6991 or email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Larry Cummings
Division Manager of Wastewater Treatment
City of Gastonia
cc: Matt Bernhardt - Director of Public Works & Utilities, Gastonia
Stephanie Scheringer- Assistant Division Manager of Operations
David Shellenbarger - Assistant Division Manager of Compliance
David Morgan - Senior Plant Operator
�agaor)NT�
ISO 14001 Certified
Pure and Clean for our Fields and Streaass
PO Box 1748 • Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
www.cityofgastonia.com

Chernikov, Sergei
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: re NC0020184, Gastonia - Long Creek WWTP
EPA has no comments on this draft permit.

,4/ C, 0 2,,) 12
Chernikov, Sergei
From: Setzer, Britt
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:48 AM
To: Chernikov, Sergei
Subject: RE: permit for review
I don't have any objections to this NPDES permit being continued. Could you e-mail one of the usual forms that we
typically fill out? I need something to send to our Central Office for tracking purposes.
From: Chernikov, Sergei
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 1:38 PM
To: Setzer, Britt
Subject: permit for review
Britt,
Please review the attached permit and let me know by November 12 if you have any objections/concerns.
Thank you!
Sergei
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
Environmental Engineer II
NPDES-West
Phone: [phone], fax [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Express mail: 512 North Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27606
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

4-
October 7, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Britt Setzer, Regional Engineer
NC DENR / DEH / Public Water Supply Section
Mooresville Regional Office
From: Sergei Chernikov, Environmental Engineer II, NPDES-West,
Division of Water Quality (fax-919-807-6495)
Subject: Review of the discharge locations for the following:
Long Creek WWTP
NCO020184
Gaston County
Please indicate below by November 12, 2009 your agency's position or viewpoint on the
facility listed above. We cannot issue the permit without your concurrence. Please return
this form at your earliest convenience.
RESPONSE:
cc: file
This agency has reviewed the draft permit and determined that the proposed
discharge will not be sufficiently close to any existing or known proposed
public water supply intake so as to create an adverse effect on water quality.
We concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated
and maintained properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge,
and the discharge does not contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions
are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or
attached:

The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co.
Charlotte, NC
North Carolina ) ss Affidavit of Publication
Mecklenburg County)
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
DINA SPRINKLE
NCDENR/DWO/POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
REFERENCE: 30063432
6396459 Discharge Permit
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said s
County and State, duly authorized to administer i
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared, i
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law, i
doth depose and say that he/she is a i
representative of The Charlotte observer s
Publishing Company, a corporation organized and i
doing business under the laws of the State of i
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The s
Charlotte observer in the city of Charlotte, i
County of Mecklenburg, and State of North Carolinas
and that as such he/she is familiar with the s
books, records, files, and business of said i
Corporation and by reference to the files of said i
publication, the attached advertisement was i
inserted. The following is correctly copied from i
the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation s
and Publication. i
p9396959
......1 W
L
PUBLISHED ON: 10/09
i
i
i
AD SPACE: 64 LINE i
FILED ON: 10/16/09 s
NAME: 7fYV�. TITLE:
DATE:
In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal, the
day and year aforesaid.
1I My Commission Expires May 17, 2011
Not My Commission Expires: _/_/_
CommissogMFDES
ew�i�, pe,mil

i
NPDES/A uifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART: I PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
Check all that
Date of Request 10/5/09 municipal renewal
Re uestor Ser ei Chernikov new industries
Facility Name Gastonia Long Creek WWTP expansion
Permit Number NCO020184 Speculative limits
Re ion MRO stream reclass.
Basin CTB stream relocation
Icheck applicable PERCS staff:
x I CTB, CHO, LUM, NEW, ROA - Dana Folle 523
HIW, LTN, NEU, YAD - Monti Hassan 371
BRD. CPF. FRB. TAR - Sarah Morrison (2081
7Q10 change
■rr■r - Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data we said should
x be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
permit renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
if changes.
Other Comments to PERCS:
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
x 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEW if program still under development)
x 3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below STMP time frame:
Most recent:
Flow, MGD Permitted Actual Time period for Actual Next cycle:
Industrial 2.462
Uncontrollable n/a 6.015 2004
POC In
LTMP/
STMP
Parameter of
Concern (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/ Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required
by EPA*
Required
by 603
Slud a**
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
STMP
Effluent
Freq
LTMP
Effluent
Fre
BOD
-I/
,%
4
Q M
TSS
-I%
-If
4
Q M
NH3
,j
I/
4
Q M
�(
Arsenic
,%
4
Q M
,(
Cadmium
,rr
.�
%f
4
Q M
Chromium:
,%
4
Q M
Copper_ _
,%
,/
4
Q M
,%
lCyanide
4
Q M
Nf
Lead
,�
4
Q M
,%
Mercury
4
-If
4
Q M
,%
Molybdenum
,%
4
Q M
4
Nickel ;
4
,%
-If
%f
4
Q M
4
Silver
,j
4
Q M
- f
Selenium
,f
4
Q M
4
Zinc
\f
4
Q M
Total Nitrogen
4
Q M
Phosphorus
,%
4
Q M
TKN
4
Q M
Organic N
4
Q M
Antimon sb
4
Q M
,j
COD
4
Q M
:1 = Quarterly
A = Monthly
all data on DMRs?
YES I �
NO (attach data)
data in si
YES (email to
NO
*Alvrays.tn the LTMPISTMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
:omments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs: info you have on IU related Investigations into NPDES problems):
P'ergel, thanks for the draft permit you sent on 1015. Here's the Pretreatmet info, in case you care.
gastonialongcreek 20184 PIRF to ser9ei_oct9 09.xIs
Revised: July 24, 2007

NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Long Creek VAWP, City of Gastonia
NCO020184
Facility Information
1. Fa cili Name:
Lon > Creek W WTP
-Co
(2.) Permitted Flow (MGD):
j 16_0
(6.) un
Gaston
(3.) Facility Class:
IV
1 (7.) Regional Office:
Mooresville
(4.) Pretreatment Pro am:
Full with LTMP
(8.) USGS To o Quad:
F14SE
(5.) Permit Status:
Renewal
(9.) USGS Quad Name:
Mount Holly
Stream Characteristics
(1.) Receiving Stream:
i South Fork Catawba River_
_ (7.) Drainage Area (mi2):
1 558 _
(2.) Sub -basin:
03-08-36
(8.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
1109
(3.) Stream Index Number.
(
(9.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
1200
(4.) Stream Classification:
WS-V
(10.) 30Q2 (cfs):
1272
(5.) 303(d) Status:
Not listed
(11.) Avera a Flow cfs):
1653
(6.) 305(b) Status.
N/A
(12.) IWC %:
119
1.0 Proposed Changes Incorporated into Permit Renewal
A monthly average limit for Ni has been added to the permit based on a
statistical analysis of the effluent data.
• The location of the sampling point B was changed in response to the facility�s
request.
• Monitoring for Cu and Zn has been removed from the permit based on a
statistical analysis of the effluent data. The facility will continue monitoring for
these parameters through LTMP.
2.0 Summary
Long Creek W WTP is one of two wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of Gastonia.
The plant has a permitted flow of 16.0 MGD. The facility treats domestic and industrial
wastewater collected from the northern portion of Gastonia and Ranlo and has 16 SIUs. The
town has a full pretreatment program. The permit will continue to require the City to implement
its pretreatment program.
3.0 Compliance Summary
DMRs have been reviewed for the period January 2006 through August 2009. Facility has an
excellent compliance record. During the review period no NOVs (notices of violation) have been
issued. Compliance Evaluation Inspection conducted on 08/12/09 concluded that the facility
"appeared to be well maintained and operated".
4.0 RPA
Reasonable potential analysis was conducted for: As, Sb, Cd, Cr, Cu, CN, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se,
Ag, and Zn (please see attached).

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet — 10/05/09
Page 2
5.0 Toxicity Testin
Long Creek WWTP/NC0020184
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 19%
Recommended Limit: 001: Chronic P/F @ 19%
Monitoring Schedule: March, June, September, December
The facility has been consistently passing its WET tests.
6.0 Instream Data Review
Instream data was reviewed for the period of January 2006 through August 2009. During this
period the DO level never fell below 5.0 mg/L at any of the downstream monitoring stations.
Prior to the previous permit, the Long Creek facility entered into an agreement with the Divison
to install four automated continuous monitoring stations in the South Fork: one at an upstream
location and three at downstream locations. This agreement was reached in part to characterize
instream DO levels along a little -understood portion of the stream. Data is being collected for
temperature, DO, and conductivity. With the exception of conductivity (slightly higher
downstream), the discharge seemed to have little effect on the receiving stream. Instream
monitoring requirements will remain as established in the previous permit
7.0 Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: October 7, 2009 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: November 30, 2009 (est.)
8.0 State Contact Information
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Sergei Chernikov at [phone].
Regional Office Comments:
Date: Name:

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Long Creek WWTP-
NC0020184
Time Period Jun 20*Apr 2005
Ow (MGD) 16
WWTP Class IV
7010S (cfs) 109
1WC (%) @ 7010S 18.535
7010W (cfs) 200
@ 7010W 11.032
3002 (cfs) 272
@ 3002 8.3558
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 653
@ QA 3.6589
Reeving Stream South Fork Catawba River
Stream Class WS-V
Outfall 001
Qw =16 MGD
PARAMETER
TYPE
STANDARDS &
CRITERIA (2)
PQL
Units
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NCWQSI %FAVI
Chronic Acute
n /Dd unProdcw AfbwsbkCw
(1)
Acute: NIA
No limit.
Arsenic
C
10
ug/L
15 0
1.0
__
-_- — --- — — —
.
Chronic: 273
Acute: NIA
No Umit
Antimony
NC
5.6
ug/L
15 2
5.7
Chronic: 30
Acute: 15
No limit
Cadmium
NC
2 15
uglL
15 0
1.0
_ _-_ __
— _— —_—_ --- -----
- --- - — - —
Chronic: 11
Acute: 1,022
No limit
Chromium
NC
50 1.022
ug/L
15 14
30.6
__ __
—_---_— —_—_—_---_-_-_-_-_-_
Chron_ic: 270
Acute: 7
No_tEmit_---_—_—_—_——_—_---_- —_-
Copper
NC
7 AL 7.3
ug/L
26 10
3.7
_ _ _-
Chronic: 38
remove monitoring
Acute: 22
No limit,
Cyanide
NC
5 N 22
10
ug/L
12 1
5.0
----------------------------------
Acute: 34
No limit
Lead
NC
25 N 33.8
ug/L
15 0
1.0
_ __
—_—_---_—_—_—_—_—_—___—_ --
Chronic: 135
Acute: NIA
No limit
Mercury
NC
12
0.2
nglL
12 2
4.8__
_.------- --_ ---.----------
Chronic: 6S
Acute: WA
No limit
Molybdenum
A
170.000
ug/L
12 12
31.4
_ _ __
_—_ —_--_—___—_—_—_—_— —,
Chronic: 2,035
Acute: 261
Keep the limit
Nickel
NC
25 261
ug/L
48 48
276.2
_ __ __
—_—,—_— --- --_—_-------_—_—_--
Chronic: 135
Acute: 56
Selenium
NC
5 56
ug/L
15 0
1.0
_ __ __
No limit__ _ _ --- —---_—_—___—
Chronic: 27
Acute: 1
No limit
Silver
NC
0 AL 1.23
ug/L
15 0
1.0
_ _-_ _-
---------------------------_
Chronic: 0
Acute: 67
No limit
Zinc
NC
SOA AL 67
uglL
26 26
84.9
_ _
—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
Chronic:
firemove
monitoring
Legend: Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcirrogenk
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
20184-rpa-2009.x1s. rpa
9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
Data
BDL=IMDL
Results
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
<
2.0
1.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
< 2
1.0
Sid Dev.
0.6954
2
<
2.0
1.0
Mean
1.0000
2
r' 2
1.0
Mean
1.7733
3
<
2.0
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
2.3
2.3
C.V.
0.3921
4
<
2.0
1.0
n
15
4
2
1.0
n
15
5
<
2.0
1.0
5
21
2.1
6
<
2.0
1.0
Mull Factor=
1.0000
6
2.1
2.1
Mull Factor =
1.9000
7
<
2.0
1.0
Max. Value
1.0 uglL
7
3
3.0
Max. Value
3.0
8
<
2.0
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
1.0 ug/L
8
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.7
9
<
2.0
1.0
9
2.0
1.0
10
<-
2.0
1.0
10
2.0
2.0
11
<
2.0
1.0
11
2.3
2.3
12
<
2.0
1.0
12
- 2.5
2.5
13
<
2.0
1.0
13
2.0
1.0
14
<
2.0
1.0
14
2.0
2.0
15
<
20
1.0
15
2.3
2.3
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
Y8
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
5
54
54
55
55
56
5
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
84
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
20184-rpa-2009.xls, data
_ 1 - 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Data
c
c
Cadmium I Chromium
BDL=1/2DL
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.0
2 1.00
2 1.00
2 1.00
2 1.00
2 1.00
2 1.00
2 1.00
Results
Std Dev.
0.0000
Mean
1.0000
C.V.
a0000
n
15
Mult Factor = 1.0000
Max. Value 1.0
Max. Fred Cw 1.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
fib
67
66
69
70
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
3.4
3.4
4.6
4.6
2
1.0
2
2.0
11.2
11.2
2.6
2.5
4.0
4.0
5.8
6.8
6.0
6.0
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
3.4
3.4
6.8
5.8
Results
Std Dev.
2.5384
Mean
3.9267
C.V.
0.6465
n
15
Mult Factor= 2.7300
Max. Value 11.2
Max Pred Cw 30.6
20184-rpa-2009.x1s, data
-4- 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper
Cyanide
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
2.2
2.2
Std Dev.
0.5584
1
3.2
5.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
2.2
2.2
Mean
1.4308
2
<
10
5.0
Mean
5.0000
3
4<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.3903
3
p
10
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
4
`<.
2
1.0
n
26
4
k
10
5.0
n
12
5
2
1.0
5
4<'
`<
10
5.0
6
c.
2
1.0
Mull Factor =
1.6700
6
10
5.0
Mult Factor =
1.0000
7
1<
2
1.0
Max. Value
2.2 ug4.
7
<
10
6.0
Max. Value
ugiL
g-<
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
3.7 ucyL
e
<
10
5.0
Max. Fred Qv
5.0 ug/L
9
2
1.0
9
<
10
5.000
10
<
2
1.0
10
<
10
5.000
11
<
2
1.0
11
<
10
5.000
12
<
2
1.0
12
<
10
5.000
13
<
2
1.0
13
14
2.1
2.1
14
15
2.2
2.2
15
16
2.1
2.1
16
17
2.0
2.0
17
18
2.0
2.0
18
19
2.2
2.2
19
20
2.2
2.2
20
21
2.0
2.0
21
22
<
2.0
1.0
22
23
<
2.0
1.0
23
24
<.
2.0
1.0
24
25
<
2.0
1.0
25
26
<
2.0
1.0
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
5
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
fib
68
69
69
70
70
20184-rya-2009.x1s, data
7- 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Lead
Mercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
<
2
1.0
Sld Dev.
0.0000
1
<
1
0.5
Std Dev.
0.4121
2
j <
2
1.0
Mean
1.0000
2
1.7
1.7
Mean
0.6742
3
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
'r
1.0
0.5
C.V.
0,6113
4
��<
2
1.0
n
15
4
<
1.0
0.5
n
12
5
<
2
1.0
5
a
1.0
0.5
6
-. <
2
1.0
Mull Factor =
1.0000
6
<
1.0
0.5
Mull Factor =
2.8500
7
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
1.0 u9/L
7
1.4
1.4
Mac Value
1.7 ng/L
8
. <
2
1.0
Max. Fred Cw
1.0 ug/L
8
<
1.0
0.5
Max Fred Cw
4.8 ng/L
9.
<
2
1.0
9
<
1.0
0.5
10
j <
2
1.0
10
<
1.0
0.5
11
-<
2
1.0
11
<
1.0
0.5
12
<
2
1.0
12
<
1.0
0.5
13
<
2
1.0
13
14
<
2
1.0
14
15
<
2
1.0
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
25
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
45
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
r
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
20184-rpa-2009.x1s, data
-10- 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Molybdenum
Nickel
Date
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
Datc Data
BDL-1/2DL
Results
1
5.4 5.4
Std Dev.
2.9187
1
10.2
10.2
Std Dev.
15.4578
2
5.4 5.4
Mean
4.8500
2
10.4
10.4
Mean
12.2575
3
2.6 2.6
C.V.
0.6018
3
5.2
5.2
C.V.
1.2611
4
3.4 3.4
n
12
4
5
5.0
n
48
5
2.5 2.5
5
5.2
5.2
6
2.7 2.7
Mull Factor =
2.8000
6
5.1
5.1
Mult Factor=
2.6300
7
2 2.0
Max. Value
11.2 ug/L
7
'.. 8.1
8.1
Max. Value
105.0 ug/L
8
2 2.0
Max. Pred Cw
31.4 ug/L
8
13
13.0
Max. Pred Cw
276.2 ug/L
9
5.2 5.2
9
7.4
7.4
10
11.2 11.2
10
- 9.0
9.0
11
7.4 7.4
11
5.4
5.4
12
8.4 8.4
12
13.7
13.7
13
13.
19.6
%6
14
14
12.4
12.4
15
15
- 8.4
8.4
16
16
9.1
9.1
17
17
8.2
8.2
18
18
6.6
6.6
19
19
14.5
14.5
20
20
9.0
9.0
21
21
35.0
35.0
22
22
19.6
19.6
23
23
- 10.2
10.2
24
24
8.8
8.8
25
25
10.5
10.5
26
26
14.8
14.8
27
27
Jan-2009 105.0
105.0
28
28
43.6
43.6
29
29
8.1
8.1
30
30
9.2
9.2
31
31
11.8
11.8
32
32
8.7
8.7
33
33
18.9.
18.9
34
34
8.4
8.4
35
35
5.9
5.9
36
36
5.0
5.0
37
37
7.2
7.2
38
38
6.2
6.2
39
39
9.5
9.5
40
40
- 6.6
6.6
41
41
6.2
6.2
42
42
8.8
8.8
43
43
- 6.4
6.4
44
44
5.9
5.9
45
45
7.0
7.0
46
46
4.8
4.8
47
47
5.6
5.6
48
48
5.2
5.2
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
7n
70
20184-rpa-2009.xis, data
-13- 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Selenium
Silver
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
Date
Data
BDL=112DL
Results
1
<-
2
1.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
<
2
1.0
Sid Dev.
0,0000
2
<
2
1.0
Mean
1.0000
2
<
2
1.0
Mean
1.0000
3
<.
2
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
3
<
2
1.0
C.V.
0.0000
4
<
2
1.0
n
15
4
<
2
1.0
n
15
5
<
2
1.0
5
<
2
1.0
6
<
2
1.0
Mult Factor =
1.0000
6
<
2
1.0
Mult Factor=
1.0000
7
<
2
1.0
Maz Value
1.0 ug/L
7
<
2
1.0
Max. Value
1.0 uglL
8
<.
2
1.0
Max. Pred Cw
1.0 ug/L
8
<
2
1.0
Max. Fred Lw
1.0 ug/L
9
1
2
1.0
9
<
2
1.0
10
<
2
1.0
10
<
2
1.0
11
<
2
1.0
11
<
2
1.0
12
<
2
1.0
12
<
2
1.0
13
<
2
1.0
13
<
2
1.0
-
14
<
2
1.0
14
<
2
1.0
15
<.
2
1.0
15
F
2
1.0
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
5
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
67
67
68
68
69
69
70
70
20184-rpa-2009.xis, data
-is- 9/28/2009

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date
Data
BDL-1/2DL
Results
1
41.2
41.2
Std Dev.
8.0619
2
31.5
31.5
Mean
35.2346
3
37
37.0
C.V.
0.2288
4
36.6
36.6
n
26
5
37.2
37.2
6
23.4
23.4
Mult Factor =
1.3600
7
27.8
27.8
Max. Value
62.4
8
62.4
62.4
Max. Fred Cw
84.9
9
34
33.8
10
22
22.0
11
40
40.0
12
41
40.8
13
29
28.6
14
34
34.1
15
31
30.8
16
34
34.2
17
35
35.4
18
46
46.2
19
26
26.4
20
36
36.0
21
36
36.4
22
36
36.2
23
42
41.5
24
26
25.7
25
34
33.9
26.-�
37
37.0
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
fib
67
68
69
70
L«E
20184-rpa-2009.xls. data
19 - 9/28/2009

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No X
To: Western NPDES Program Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Dina Sprinkle
Date: September 3, 2009
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Gaston
Permit No. NC0020184
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility and address: Long Creek W WTP
c/o City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28101
2. Date of investigation: August 19, 2009
3. Report prepared by: Samar Bou-Ghazale, Env. Engineer.H
4. Persons contacted and telephone number: Mr. Larry Cummings, Division Manager, (704)
866-6991.
5. Directions to site: From the junction of I-85 and NC Hwy 279, travel west on New Hope
Road approximately 3.5 miles to Old Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2327). Turn right on Old
Spencer Mountain Road and travel approximately 0.5 mile to fork in road. Proceed down
right fork (Long Creek Disposal Plant Road). The wastewater treatment plant is located at
the end of Long Creek Disposal Plant Road.
6. Discharge point(s). List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 18' 37" Longitude: 810 06' 50"
Attach a U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on
map.
USGS Quad No.: F 14 SE USGS Name: Mount Holly, NC
Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
Yes X No_ If No, explain:
Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Facilities are not located in the 100-year
flood plain. Slopes range from 2- 4%.

9. Location of nearest dwelling: No dwellings within 500 feet of the WWTP site.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: South Fork Catawba River.
a. Classification: WS-V
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba 03-08-36
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Receiving stream
has substantial flow. General "C" classification uses downstream.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 16.0 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility? 16.0
MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? 16.0
MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct
issued in the previous two years: N/A.
a. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: The existing WWT facilities consist of two mechanical bar
screens, grit removal, parshall flume, five influent pump stations, splitter box,
three primary clarifiers (only one in operation), two raw sludge pump stations,
dual basins for biological nutrient removal each with dual train, denitrification
basin, four final clarifiers, tertiary filtration (8 cells), backwash holding tank,
chlorine contact basin, gaseous chlorination/dechlorination facilities, two static
aerators, dissolved air floatation (DAF) unit, six anaerobic digesters, a waste
lagoon (not in use at this time), chemical feed facilities, and standby power
generator.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: N/A.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The facility serves several industries which
could contribute toxic chemicals to the facility's influent. Chlorine is also added to
the waste stream. It should be noted that the facility is consistently passing toxicity
testing.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): The facility has an approved pretreatment
Page 2

program.
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No. WQ0001793
Residuals Contractor: EMA Resources
Telephone No. (3 3 6) 751-1442
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP
C. Landfill: N/A
d. Other: N/A
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Class IV (no change of
rating, no rating sheet attached). '
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 01
Main Treatment Unit Code: 04513
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? N/A.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: (Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge options
available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated): Discharge to
surface water is the only feasible disposal alternative at this time.
5. Air quality and/or groundwater concerns or hazardous materials utilized at this facility
that may impact water quality, air quality or groundwater? No known air quality,
groundwater or hazardous materials concerns.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Permittee, City of Gastonia, is applying for renewal of the facility's NPDES permit
to discharge treated wastewater. During the meeting with Mr. Larry Cummings, It was learned
that the City of Gastonia and the Town of Dallas hired an Engineering Company to look into
alternative analysis that would benefit both entities (engineering report is attached). This Office
obtained a copy of the Engineering report from the City of Gastonia. This report modeled five
(5) alternatives as follow:
A) Existing operations with entire CIP (Capital Improvement plan) and no expansion.
B) Purchase Gastonia Wastewater Treatment.
Page 3

C) Purchase Gastonia water and Wastewater Treatment.
D) Merge with Gastonia/Maintain Dallas rates.
D1) Merge with Gastonia/Change to Gastonia Rates.
The Engineering report concluded the following: "Given the assumptions outlined
above, merging the two systems under the City of Gastonia will result in Dallas
customers seeing a noticeably lower monthly water and sewer bill in I Oyears, and
Dallas will maintain a healthier fund balance. Gastonia larger size enables it to
spread fixed costs over a greater user base and operate more cost effectively. If this
option is pursued, there is more financial benefit for Gastonia to maintain the Dallas
rate structure until the two meet, to assist Gastonia in funding the needed capital
improvements to the Dallas Utility system, and system interconnects."
It should be noted that the City of Gastonia is permitted for 16 MGD and using only 6
MGD at this time and the Town of Dallas is permitted for 0.6 MGD. Also, given the
existing deficiencies at the Dallas plant and the expenses for repair and future
expansion of the plant, it seems to be more beneficial to the Town to consider
merging with the City of Gastonia.
Based on the above, it is recommended that the Town of Dallas is to pursue with
connections with the Long Creek W WTP if it is more beneficial to the Town and to
the City of Gastonia. Also, it will be more beneficial to the environment to eliminate
one wastewater treatment discharge to the water of the State.
Pending review and approval by the Western NPDES Program Unit, It is recommended
that the NPDES permit be renewed as requested. A
Signature of Report repay
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
,�VfVdy
Date
Page 4
1�� ,am,
NAF S
L:&TA
t r r

r
UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
EMcGiR
Engineering a Planning • Finance
124019th Street Lane NW
Hickm y, North Carolina 28601
Firm License #G0459
AUGUST, 2009
08.01049

10
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 4
SECTION II
EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM.................................................................. 5
SECTIONIII
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS............................................11
SECTION IV
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS...........................................................................17
SECTIONV
RATE COMPARISONS.............................................................................
22
SECTION VI
CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................
27
TABLES
TABLE T-1
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE T-2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE F-2
DALLAS WATER AND SEINER PROGRAM PROPOSED FUTURE DEBT PACKAGES
TABLE F-3
DALLAS WATER AND SEWER PROGRAM FY 2008 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
TABLE R-1
DALLAS WATER AND SEINER FY 2008 MONTHLY RATES
TABLE R-2
GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FY 2008 MONTHLY RATES
TABLE R-3
PROPOSED GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASES
TABLE R-4
PROPOSED DALLAS 10 YEAR WATER AND SEWER BILL
CHART R-1
PROPOSED DALLAS 10-YEAR WATER AND SEINER BILL RATE COMPARISONS
TABLE C-1
DALLAS WATER AND SEINER FUND FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
TABLE C-2
GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FUND FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
APPENDICES
MAP 1— WATER SYSTEM MAP -- TOWN OF DALLAS
MAP 2 — SEINER SYSTEM MAP — TOWN OF DALLAS
Town of Dallas
North Carolina
Page 1
Utility Feasibility Study
August, 2009

A
i'
MAP 3 — WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES MAP — TOWN OF DALLAS
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - INFLUENT OVERFLOW PUMP STATION
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST —RAISE INFLUENT CHANNEL WALLS
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST —MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST— LIME REPLACEMENT SYSTEM
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST —LARGER SLUDGE DIGESTER
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST— WASTEWATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST— WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
TABLE FI-A-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION AI — DO NOTHING
TABLE F1-A-2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION A2 -- DO NOTHING -
EXPAND WATER & WASTEWATER PLANTS
TABLE F I -B-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION B 1 — PURCHASE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TABLE F1-B-2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION B2 — PURCHASE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT — EXPAND WATER PLANT
TABLE F.1-C CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION C — PURCHASE WATER &
WASTEWATER TREATMENT — INSIDE RATES
TABLE FI-D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN — OPTION D — MERGE WITH
GASTONIA
TABLE F4-A-1 TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND — FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS — OPTION A1— DO NOTHING
TABLE F4-A-2 TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND — FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS — OPTION A2 — DO NOTHING — EXPAND WATER &
WASTEWATER PLANTS
TABLE F4-B-1 ToNvN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND — FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS — OPTION B 1 — PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT —
INSIDE RATES
Town of Dallas Page 2 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

TABLE 174-B-2
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND - FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS - OPTION B2 - PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT -
INSIDE RATES - EXPAND WATER PLANT
TABLE F4-C
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND - FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS - OPTION C - PURCHASE WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
TABLE F4-D
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND - FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS - OPTION D - MERGE SYSTEM WITH GASTONIA
TABLE F4-D1
CITY OF GASTONIA 'WATER AND SEWER FUND - FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS - OPTION D-I - MERGE SYSTEM WITH DALLAS - DALLAS
RATES
TABLE F4-D2
CITY OF GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FUND - FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS - OPTION D-2 -MERGE SYSTEM WITH DALLAS -DALLAS
TO GASTONIA RATES IN 5 YRS
7ow►t of Dallas
North Carolina
Page 3 Utility Feasibility Sludj>
August, 2009

SECTION I INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to investigate options for the future operations and maintenance of
the Town of Dallas water and sewer utility system. To consider future situations, an evaluation
of options for regionalizing these systems with the City of Gastonia and comparison of those
with the continued, operation of a stand-alone system must be completed. This report represents
the joint efforts of the Town of Dallas
and the City of Gastonia.
To establish a scope of work for this
evaluation, as well as determine the
alternatives for consideration, several
meetings were held with representatives
from both Dallas and Gastonia. The
alternatives selected for evaluation
include four (4) options:
a Alternative A —Existing Operations with Entire CIP
Continue with the existing operations treatment and management scenario, which
maintains Dallas and Gastonia as separate systems,
• Alternative B —Purchase Gastonia Wastewater Treatment
The Town of Dallas would continue to operate their water treatment plant, but
purchase wastewater treatment services from the City of Gastonia.
• Alternative C — Purchase Gastonia Water and Wastewater Treatment
The Town of Dallas would continue to operate and maintain their water and sewer
systems, but purchase water treatment and wastewater treatment services from the
City of Gastonia.
Town of Dallas Page 4 OHIO, reasibility Study
North Carolina Augast, 2009

• Alternative D — Merge with Gastonia
The Town of Dallas water and sewer systems would merge with the City of
Gastonia water and sewer systems; and, the Town of Dallas water treatment plant
and wastewater treatment plant would be taken out of service.
Two (2) key elements in a study of this nature include: 1) a technical evaluation of the existing
infrastructure to identify needed improvements; and 2) a financial evaluation to determine the
cost effectiveness of each option.
During this process, a number of
meetings have been, held with the
-operations, Itechnical, and
engineering staffs from both the
Town of Dallas and the City of
Gastonia to gain information
needed. Financial information was
also obtained from both
municipalities to develop a
historical background for making
future projections of the cost to
operate and provide service.
Town of Dallas page 5 Utility Feasibility Shiny
North Carolina August, 1009

SECTION II EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEM
The Town of Dallas currently owns and operates water and wastewater systems which serve the
Town limits and portions of the neighboring area. Until about 20 years ago, Dallas purchased
water supply and wastewater treatment services from Gastonia. The Town then decided to
develop their own treatment facilities, and subsequently created a stand-alone system, including
water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment facilities.
The original water system interconnections remain in place, though they are only used for
emergency purposes. The following is a summary of the major components and general
conditions of the existing water and sewer systems.
WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
The Town of Dallas receives and transports raw water from the South Fork of the
Catawba River to a ground storage reservoir located at the water treatment plant. The
water treatment plant, which has a permitted capacity of 1.0 million gallons per day
(MGD), was built in 1980 and uses conventional treatment technologies with chemical
mixing, flocculation,
sedimentation, and gravity
filters. Treated water is
stored on site in a 500,000
gallon steel ground storage
tank, from which high
service pumps deliver water
into the distribution system.
For 2006 and 2007, the
water plant had an average
Town of Dallas Page 6 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

daily flow of 0.62 MGD and a peak day flow of 1.0 MGD. The water treatment plant
appears to be in good operating order and well -maintained. The equipment and facilities
were all operational and met regulatory requirements for treatment.
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
A cursory review of the water system was made; however, no hydraulic analysis was
performed at this time. Only visual inspections of fire hydrants and valve boxes were
completed. Based on those visual inspections, it appears that portions of the Town of
Dallas water system date back to the early 1900's with a variety of pipe materials
including lead joint cast iron pipes in the older sections of town (near the central business
area). Refer to Map 1 in the Appendix for locations and construction dates of select fire
hydrants within the system. No repeated repair issues, which would indicate failed
materials or faulty installations, were noted by Town staff.
The water treatment plant pumps water directly into the Town's two (2) elevated water
storage tanks; therefore, the
system contains no booster
pumping stations. The older of
the two elevated tanks has a
capacity of 100,000 gallons, and
is located near West Main Street
and Maple Sheet. The second
tank, which is much newer, has a
capacity of 300,000 gallons and
is located just off the Dallas -
High Shoals Road. The tanks are maintained under contract with Utility Maintenance
Service and are in good condition.
Town of Dallas Page 7 Utility Feasibility Sindy
North Carolina Aagast, 2009

The Town of Dallas currently has three (3) emergency water interconnection points with
the City of Gastonia. These points are located on US 321 south of Gaston College, on
Marietta Street near Long Creek, and on New Hope Road near Long Creek.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
A similar overview of the sewer collection system was completed. Visual inspections of
manholes, in isolated areas of Town, were performed to generally identify the condition
of the system and materials used. From our observations, it appears that many of the
manholes in the central portion of the Town are brick, some in poor condition. Refer to
Map 2 in the Appendix for locations and materials of manholes observed throughout the
system.
The majority of sewer collection
lines in the system are gravity,
with only four (4) pump stations
outside of the influent pump
station at the wastewater plant. Of
those pump stations, only the
Stanley Highway Pump Station
services a significant service area,
including the north side of Town,
and with flows from north of NC 279 in the US 321 area. The Stanley Highway Pump
Station includes a precast concrete wet -well, dry -well pumps in a prefabricated structure,
and an emergency generator. The remaining pump stations are smaller and serve more as
point of use facilities, including the 1) Oak Grove Mobile Home Park, 2) Food Lion
Plaza (on Dallas -High Shoals Road), and 3) Jack in the Box (on Dallas Cherryville
Highway). The Town's pump stations appear to be in good operational condition.
Tou,n of Dallas Page 8 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

Town staff reports that
significant rains often contribute
to high wastewater flows
entering the wastewater
treatment plant. It is assumed
that these extraneous flows are a
result of infiltration of ground
water into faulty facilities
and/or inflow of stormwater
directly into the sewer system. An Inflow/Infiltration Study was prepared for the Town
of Dallas by W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc., in 2001. This study identified a number of minor
recommended repairs such as replacing service cleanout caps, installing manhole lid
sealers, and replacing short sections of sewer lines. The Town is involved in an ongoing
program to address problems identified in the 2001 report.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Town of Dallas' Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) serves the majority of the
Town's wastewater now. The
WWTP has a rated capacity of
600,000 gallons per day (gpd) and
uses a conventional activated sludge
(CAS) process. For 2006 and 2007,
the facility had an average daily
flow of 0.37 MGD and a peak flow
of 1.61 MGD. Wastewater is
screened with a manual bar screen
as it enters the WWTP, prior to
entering the influent pump station. Wastewater is treated in two (2) treatment trains
using aeration basins and clarifiers before flowing to the chlorine contact basin for proper
disinfection. Liquid sludge stored in the small aerobic digesters are periodically removed
Town of Dallas Page 9 Utility Feasibility Stuel
North Carolina August, 2009

and disposed of by a
contract hauler. The
W WTP discharges
treated effluent to
Long Creek tinder
NPDES Permit No.
NC0068888, which
expires on January
31, 2010.
A map showing the
location of the
Dallas treatment
facilities, major
sewer pump stations,
and emergency
water connections
with Gastonia is
included in the
Appendix as Map 3.
Town of Dallas Page 10 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

SECTION III PROPOSED CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
The technical component of this Utility Feasibility Study consisted of the evaluation of the
existing water and sewer infrastructure to assess needed improvements. This evaluation was not
an in depth (by component) analysis, but a broad overview to develop a Capital Improvement
Plait (CIP) for the. Town of Dallas to undertake for the long-term viability of the system. In
preparation of this CIP, population projections from the North Carolina State Data Center were
reviewed, as well as discussions with Town staff, to determine if capacity expansions were
necessary to meet anticipated growth in the next 10 years. From these evaluations, it appears
that the existing water supply and wastewater disposal capacities are sufficient to meet the
Town's needs for the next decade. However, unexpected growth in demand for water supply
and/or wastewater disposal could occur if significant increases in population, industrial
development, commercial growth, etc., occurred during this period. To that end, McGill
Associates has prepared alternate financial analyses (Options A2 and B2), which delineate the
financial impacts: of water and wastewater plant expansions.
WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
The water treatment plant is in good operational condition and has no noticeable
deficiencies in equipment or process components. The only items that were identified at
the water treatment plant for capital improvements were _normal routine maintenance
repair and replacement -type improvements. These items are itemized in Table T-1
below:
Town of Dallas Page 11 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

r�
TABLE T-1
WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Estimated Cost
Filter Media Replacement
$80,000
Drain and Clean Reservoir and Sludge Basin
$30,000
Replace Raw Water Pumps
$70,000
Replace Reservoir Pumps
$100,000
Replace High Service Pumps
$500000
Should an expansion of capacity at the water treatment plant be needed, a practical
incremental increase in capacity would be from 1.0 MGD to 2.0 MGD. Based on current
construction costs, regulations, and replicating the current layout, the anticipated project
cost for this. expansion is approximately $7,000,000. Given financial considerations and
aggressively estimated growth, the expansion is predicted to occur in year 7 of the
financial analysis.
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Given the general health of the water distribution system, yet the older age of many
pipes, we recommend a regular water line replacement program be initiated with a
modest amount of annual funding of $40,000 to support the program.
Should Dallas purchase treated water from Gastonia, or the systems merge, the existing
water interconnects will be revamped to allow for transfer of water. Given the different
pressure gradients that the systems operate at, we recommend installing control valves at
two (2) of these connections to maintain the existing supply and pressures seen in Dallas.
The estimated cost for upgrading these connections, included in Alternatives C and D is
$1002000.
Town of Dallas Page 12 Utility► Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Inflow/Infiltration is a significant problem in the wastewater collection system. A study
prepared by W.K. Dickson & Co., hic., identified a number of minor recommended
improvements. The Town is implementing an ongoing program to address the problems
identified in the Dickson report.
Given the nature and
magnitude of wet weather
flows seen in the Dallas
system, we recommend that a
larger
replacement/rehabilitation
project be undertaken to
address the issue. With the
brevity of this utility
feasibility study, a specific
area could not be identified.
However, we recommend that a project budget of $1,000,000 be established to address
the most critical areas initially, and subsequent annual, smaller projects be undertaken to
help alleviate the excessive sewer flows. These further repairs have been included in the
CIP at an annual budget amount of $50,000. Also, manhole replacement and
rehabilitation have been included with initial amounts of $100,000 per year for years 1
and 2, then $10,000 per year thereafter.
Should Dallas transport wastewater to Gastonia for treatment, or the systems merge, the
original sewer connection should be replaced. The original line was partially used for
discharge from the Dallas wastewater treatment plant to Long Creek. Further, with the
age, and questionable condition of that line, we recommend constructing a new 24-inch
gravity sewer interceptor to carry wastewater from the existing Dallas wastewater
treatment plant influent pump station to the Gastonia Long Creek interceptor. The
Town of Dallas Page 13 Utiliq, Feasibility Snttly
North Carolina August, 2009

estimated cost for this sewer line is $650,000. A detailed preliminary cost estimate for
this sewer interceptor is included in the Appendix.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Through site visits and discussion with operations staff, several deficiencies have been
identified at the WWTP. The following is a list of reconunended wastewater treatment
plant improvements:
• Influent Overflow Pump
Station: Wastewater
currently overflows the
"
influent channel walls
during wet weather and
peak flow. conditions. The
ti"
t
City has installed sandbags,
a temporary pump, and
r
flexible piping to prevent
sanitary sewer overflows. A new influent
"overflow" pump station and wet
well are recommended for permanent installation to handle these peak flows
and to eliminate the temporary set-up.
• Raise Influent Channel Walls: The
walls of the existing influent channel'
should be raised by 24 inches to deter
tl
�'
storm water from entering the channel
t
fiom the access road and to minimize
the overflow of wastewater during wet
weather events.
• Mechanical Bar Screen: The existing
"manual" bar screen is labor intensive
and does not adequately remove
Town of Dallas Page 14
North Carolina

screenings from the wastewater stream. A mechanical fine screen with 1/4-
inch openings is recommended for installation in the existing screen channel.
• Replace Influent Pumps: The two (2) influent Gorman -Rupp pumps should
be included in the CIP for replacement over the next ten years.
• Lime System Replacement: The existing lime addition operation is labor
intensive, creates a poor workplace environment for the operators, and
provides inconsistent lime addition for pH control. It is recommended that a
liquid lime storage and feed system be installed to improve workplace
conditions and plant operations. In addition to the capital cost for installing
the system, liquid lime is
more costly to purchase than
bagged lime.
Replace Blowers: As routine
maintenance, the three (3)
blowers, which provide the
air to the activated sludge
aeration basins, should be
included in the CIP for replacement over the next ten years. Air piping repairs
are also recommended.
• Aerobic Digester: A
small aerobic digester is
provided within each
treatment train. These
digesters, due to their
small capacity, do not
sufficiently store or treat
the sludge before it is
removed for disposal. A
new larger aerobic
digester is recommended to be installed to store and aerate the wasted sludge
generated by the plant.
To mr of Dallas Page 15 Utility Feasibility Snuh,
North Carolina August, 2009

I
The recommended improvements listed above are intended to assist the Town and
treatment operations by replacing obsolete equipment, improving operations of critical
processes, and improving the workplace environment. The wastewater treatment plant
CIP items are itemized in Table T-2 below. Detailed preliminary cost estimates are
included in the Appendix for all construction project.
TABLE T-2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Estimated Cost
Influent Overflow Pump Station
$200,000
Raise Influent Channel Walls
$40,000
Mechanical_Bar Screen
4100,000
Replace Influent Pumps
$80,000
Lime System Replacement
$275,000
Replace Blowers
$150,000
Aerobic Digester
$620,000
Should an expansion of capacity at the wastewater treatment plant be needed, a practical
incremental increase in capacity would be from 0.6 MGD to 0.9 MGD. Based on current
construction costs, regulations, and replicating the current layout, the anticipated project
cost for this expansion is approximately $5,000,000. This cost assumes that the modified
NPDES permit would contain pollutant discharge limits similar to the existing levels.
Given financial considerations and aggressively estimated growth, the expansion is
predicted to occur in year 9 of the financial analysis.
Town of Dallas
Not -Ili Carolina
Page 16
Utility Feasibility) Study
August, 2009

SECTION IV FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A financial assessment of the Dallas water and sewer program has been conducted to determine
the present status of the program, effect of the latest planned projects in the Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP), and the feasibility of using the water and sewer services of the City of
Gastonia, as described in the alternatives below:
• Alternative A — Existing Operations with Entire CIP
Dallas water and sewer operations continue without treatment by Gastonia.
• Alternative B — Purchase Gastonia Wastewater Treatment
Dallas water and sewer operations continue and wastewater treatment is provided
by Gastonia.
• Alternative C — Purchase Gastonia Water and Wastewater Treatment.
Dallas water and sewer operations continue and water and wastewater treatment is
provided by Gastonia.
• Alternative D — Merge with Gastonia
The operation of the Dallas water and sewer program is transferred to Gastonia.
Alternatives A and B were initially evaluated assuming that no expansion of the existing Dallas
water or wastewater plants would be needed. Subsequently, separate financial evaluations were
prepared which include these capacity expansions, and are included as Alternative A-2 and
Alternative B-2. The financial analysis for these two (2) options is included in the Appendix as
Tables F4-A-2 and F4-B-2, for informational purposes. During comparison of the, four (4)
selected alternatives, these options, which include plant capacity expansion, have not been
further itemized through the remainder of this report.
Town of Dallas _ Page 17 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
With the assistance of the Town staff, as previously outlined, the Dallas water and sewer
program's CIP was updated to reflect the needs inherent to each. alternative. Careful
consideration of the cash flows associated with these projects was also part of this effort. The
resulting cost estimates for capital improvements and equipment under each of the four
alternatives are shown in Tables F1 A-D, found in the Appendix.
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
The Dallas water and sewer fiend had one outstanding debt obligation in FY 2008 issued by
USDA Rural Development. This loan will mature in FY 2010 with annual remaining payments
of $207,000 in FY 2009 and $142,000 in FY 2010. In order to maintain a positive net income
with large capital improvement projects planned, the analysis assumes that Rinds will be
acquired by using capital reserves or by borrowing capital using_ G.S.160A-20 installment
financing. Debt issuance is packaged and spaced over time to avoid debt. service stacking that is
unnecessarily burdensome on the fluid. The planned methods to finance the remaining
improvements in the CIP for each alternative are shown below in Table F-2.
TABLE F-2
DALLAS WATER AND SEWER PROGRAM
PROPOSED FUTURE DEBT PACKAGES
Alternate
Year
Principal
Yearly
Payment
Interest
Rate
Term
ears
A — Existing Operations
2010
$ 1,300,000
$166,783
5%
10
A -- Existing Operations
2013
$ 985,000
$ 85,227
6%
20
B — Purchase Wastewater
2010
$ 1,650,000
$211,686
5%
10
C — Purchase Water & Wastewater
2010
$1,750,000
$2248515
5%
10
D - Merge
2010
$ 1,750,000
$224,515
5%
10
Town .of Dallas Page 18 Unlit), Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

REVENUE RE uiREmENT
The yearly, required revenue for the Dallas program is comprised of all the expenditures
necessary to ensure consistent, quality service to all users. These expenditures ensure proper
operation and maintenance of equipment, development and perpetuation of the system, and
maintenance of the utilities' financial integrity. These cost components can be divided into the
following categories:
• Operation and Maintenance
• Debt Service
• Capital Outlay
The total of all the items listed above is the required revenue for the Town's water and sewer
Rind as shown in the following,table for FY 2008, the year of the latest available audit at the time
t
of this analysis:
TABLE F-3
DALLAS WATER AND SEWER PROGRAM
FY 2008 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
Category
FY 2008 Cost
Operations & Maintenance
$1,629,017
Debt Service
$222,560
Capital Outlay
$166,603
Revenue Requirement
$2,0189080
The revenues generated fiom water and sewer customers should meet or exceed the above
revenue requirements in order to avoid subsidies from other funds. However, FY 2008 water
and sewer revenues and an antenna lease totaled $1,918,718 million, yielding a net loss of
$99,362. This margin must continue to be closely monitored because growth in expenditures due
Town of Dallas Page 19 Utility Feasibility Stud5l
North Carolina August, 2009

to inflation and capital needs can create fiirther operating losses that require the spending of the
program's fund balance or possibly subsidies from other funds.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The Financial Analysis for each of the four alternatives shown in Tables F-4 A-D, found in the
Appendix, provide a summary of projections for the water and sewer program, including the CIP
for each of the alternatives. The Financial Analysis has been developed with audit information
from FY 2006 through FY 2008, estimated figures (prior to audit) for FY 2009, and proposed
budget expenditures for FY 2010. The following assumptions were developed for,the analysis
through the examination of financial trend data and discussions with the Town staff:
A Water and sewer revenues are projected to be $1.845 million in FY 2009 and $1.863
million in FY 2010 maintaining an average annual growth rate of 1% thereafter,
based upon historical growth trends. Total expenditures are projected to be $2.101
million and $2.187 million with salaries and benefits growing at an average annual
rate of 5% and other expenditures growing at an average annual rate of 4%.
0 Gastonia's water and/or sewer volume charges to Dallas will be their lowest volume
charges to inside users, $2.03 and $3.34 per 1000 gallons for water and sewer
respectively as of FY 2008. These rates were projected to increase as shown in Table
R-3, which will follow later in this report.
• If the Dallas system connects to the Gastonia system, the connection will occur so
that flows begin July 1, 2010.
• If the Town of Dallas purchases bulk water or sewer service fiom Gastonia,
administration charges are projected to be 45% of Dallas' FY 2009 treatment charges.
A Dallas' general fiend will retain the water and sewer fund's unallocated fund balance
if the system merges with Gastonia. In addition, the Dallas antenna lease revenue
will remain with Dallas and all related operating expenditures will end.
Town of Dallas Page 20 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

+ Merging operations with Gastonia may have an effect upon the Dallas user rates since
the two providers' schedules differ as shown in Tables R-1 and R-3, which follow
later in this report. The following two (2) Dallas rate alternatives are considered in
this analysis:
Alternative D-1 Dallas water and sewer users remain unchanged until they
match Gastonia's rates, which is projected to be in Year 9..
Alternative D-2 Dallas water and sewer users gradually change to match
Gastonia's rates over five years and increase at the same
rate as Gastonia's rates..
+ - Gastonia's operating costs were estimated based on the following assumptions:
o Administration costs comprise 46% of Gastonia's current operating costs. This -
factor is applied to Dallas' operating costs to determine new administration costs.
o Salaries and benefits are based upon the hiring of four (4) workers with salaries of
t
$35,000 and benefits comprising an additional 40% of salaries. These costs are
then separated into water and sewer, prorated by water and sewer flows.
o Gastonia's water and wastewater treatment costs are based upon projected Dallas
flows and Gastonia's current treatment costs of $1.13 and $1.41 per 1000 gallons,
respectively.
o Maintenance & Repair and Other costs are assumed to be $77,000 and $63,500
for water and sewer, respectively, in FY 2010.
The effect of each of the two merger alternatives upon the City of Gastonia's
operation of the Dallas system are. shown respectively in Tables F4-D-1, and F4-D-2,
found in the Appendix.
For information, Tables F4-A-2 and F4-B-2 are included in the Appendix to indicate
the effect of water and wastewater plant expansions on Alternatives A and B.
Town of Dallas
North Carolina
Page 21
Utility Feasibility Study,
August, 2009

SECTION V RATE COMPARISONS
As part of the financial analysis, rate considerations are very important to modeling of future
revenues. Given the magnitude of effect on the cumulative fiend balance to changes in rates, this
portion of the analysis is very important to the ending result.
EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE
Both Dallas and Gastonia have structures of rates for water and sewer customers, distinguished
by whether customers are located inside or outside the municipal limits. A summary of the
respective current rates are included in Tables .R-.1 and R-2 below:
TABLE R-1
DALLAS WATER AND SEWER
Fly 2008 MONTHLY RATES
Water Inside
0 —1,000 gallons
$8.53 minimum
1,001 — 3,000 gallons
$15.28 minimum
3,001 + gallons
$5.09 per 1,000 gallon
Water Outside
0 —1,000 gallons
$17.05 minimum
1,001— 3,000 gallons
$30.56 minimum
3,001 + gallons
$10.19 per 1,000 gallon
Sewer Inside
0 —1,000 gallons
$8.53 minimum
1,001— 3,000 gallons
$15.28 minimum
3,001 + gallons
$5.09 per 1,000 gallon
Sewer Outside
0 —1,000 gallons
$8.53 minimum
1,001— 3,000 gallons
$15.28 minimum
3,001 + gallons
$5.09 per 1,000 gallon
Town of Dallas Page 22 Uliliry feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

The resulting sample monthly water and sewer charge for a Dallas in -town residence using 7,000
gallons per month is $88.34.
TABLE R-2
GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER
FY 2008 MONTHLY RATES
Water Inside
Customer Charge
$3.59
Availability Charge (314-in)*
$5.97
0 — 500,000 gallons
$2.72 per 1,000 gallon
500,001 —10 million gallons
$2.55 per 1,000 gallon
10 million + gallons
$2.03 per 1,000 gallon
Water Outside
Customer Charge
$3.59
Availability Charge (314-in)*
$11.89
0 — 500,000 gallons
$5.44 per 1,000 gallon
500,001-10 million gallons
$5.12 per 1,000 gallon
10 million + gallons
$4.09 per 1,000 gallon
Sewer Inside
Customer Charge
$3.91
Availability Charge (314-1n)*
$7.53
Volumetric Charge
$3.34 per 1,000 gallon
Sewer Outside
Customer Charge
$3.91
Availability Charge (314-in)*
$13.09
Volumetric Charge
$5.82 per 1,000 gallon
Availability charge varies with meter size
Other charges apply to customers with high strength discharges to the system
The resulting sample monthly water and sewer charge for a Gastonia in -town customer using
7,000 gallons per month is $65.39.
Town of Dallas Page 23 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

Gastonia recently completed a water and sewer utility rate.study, which included projected rate
increases during this ten year study period. These increases are planned as shown in Table R 3
below:
TABLE R-3
PROPOSED GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASES
Year
Percent Increase
2010/2011
5.50%
2011 /2012
5.56%
2012/2013
5.61 %
2013/2014
2.66%
2014/2015 thru 2018/2019
3.00% per year
PROJECTED RATE STRUCTURES
As a result of our analysis, we have modeled the following water and sewer avenue increases
for each of the Dallas alternatives and the two Gastonia merger alternatives. The proposed rate
increases only affect base and volume charges but not tap, connection, or other miscellaneous
charges. Below are recommendations specific to each alternative:
Alternate A Existing Operations with Entire CIP (No Expansion)
5% water and .sewer rate increases in FY 2011-2014
4% water and sewer rate increases in FY 2016 & 2017.
3% water and sewer rate -increases in FY 2018 & 2019.
Alternate B Purchase Gastonia Wastewater Treatment
7% water and sewer rate increases in FY 2011-2015.
6% water and sewer rate increases in FY 2016-2019.
Alternate C Purchase Gastonia Water and Wastewater Treatment
10% water and sewer rate increases in FY 2011-2013.
Town of Dallas Page 24 UU1101 Feasibility Suit)
North Carolina August, 2009

6% water and sewer rate increases in FY 2014-2017.
• Alternate D-1 Merge with Gastonia / Maintain Dallas Rates
No water and sewer rate increases through FY 2018, then same rate as
Gastonia, with 3% per year increase.
• Alternate D-2 Merge with Gastonia / Change to Gastonia Rates
Dallas water and sewer users gradually change to match Gastonia's rates over
five years and increase by 3% per year as Gastonia's rates increase.
Examples of potential monthly water and sewer bills at the end of the 10-year study period are
proposed on Table R 4 below for, -cm in -town customer in Dallas using 7,000 gallons per month:
TABLE R-4
PROPOSED DALLAS i O-YEAR WATER AND SEWER BILL
Alternative
Projected Monthly Bill
Percent Increase
A — Existing Operations
$123.21
39%
B — Purchase WW
$156.42
77%
C — Purchase Water & WW
$148.44
68%
D-1 — Merge with and keep Dallas Rates
$91.53
3.6%
D-2 — Merge -transition to Gastonia Rates
$91.63
3.6%
Town of Dallas Page 25 Utility Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

To summarize the trend of water and sewer projected billing under givers the four (4) alternatives
evaluated, refer to Chart R- I below.
CHART R-1
PROPOSED DALLAS 1 O-YEAR WATER AND SEWER BILL RATE COMPARISONS
$160.00
$150.00
$140.00
v� $130.00
0
$120.00
0 $110.00
0
$100.00
0) $90.00
cl� $80.00
$70.00
1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10
Years
Alternative A ---Alternative B—Aiternative C Alternative D-1—Altemative l)
Alternative
Projected Monthly Bill
Percent Increase
A — Existing Operations
$123.21
39%
B — Purchase WW
$156.42
77%
C — Purchase Water & WW
$148.44
68%
D-1— Merge with and keep Dallas Rates
$91.53
3.6%
D-2 — Merge -transition to Gastonia Rates
$91.53
3.6%
Town of Dallas Page 26 Utility Feasibility Study
Not -Ili Carolina August, 2009

SECTION VI CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate several options for operation of the Dallas water and
sewer systems. Those options include continuing with the status quo, or developing a regional
partnership with the City of Gastonia.
To adequately compare the options, a financial analysis was completed for each one, with
consistent CIP programs for each. The results of this analysis outline the revenues and
expenditures for each alternative, as well as an assumed rate for Dallas customers.. These results
translate into a cumulative fiend balance and net present value for each alternative.
Our evaluation of merger only considers the transfer of the system from Dallas to Gastonia and
does not consider transfer of personnel or equipment and vehicles used by the staff. We assume
that the system would be transferred to Gastonia at no cost (other than construction of the CIP),
and that Dallas would pay no cost for treatment capacity in either the water or wastewater plants.
Our work also assumes that no expansion of capacity is needed to serve Dallas for the near
future, as indicated by Town staff. Should an expansion be needed, cost for continuing to
operate as a stand-alone system wotild only be higher for Dallas customers, as shown in
.Alternatives A-2 and B-2.
A summary of the rates, capital outlay, debt, fiend balances, and net present value for the Dallas
Water and Sewer Fund for each alternative is shown in Table C-1. Dallas water and sewer users
are affected by each alternative but only Alternatives A-D affect the enterprise fund for the Town
of Dallas and only Alternatives D-1 and D-2, apply to the enterprise fund for the City of
Gastonia. A similar summary for the Gastonia Water and Sewer Fund has been prepared for the
two (2) rate options of Alternative D, and is shown below in Table C-2.
Town of Dallas Page 27 Utiliop Feasibility Study
Not -lit Carolina August, 2009

TABLE C-1
DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
10-year User Rate Increase
39%
77%
68%
3.6%
7,000 gal. Monthly User Charge
$123.21
$156.42
$148.44
$91.53
10-year Capital Outlay
$1,943,200
$1,688,200
$1,358,200
$0
-Total New Debt
$2,285,000
$1,650,000
$1,750,000
$0
Unrestricted Net Assets, in Year 10
$957,810
$883,425
$929,288
$1,619,907
Net Present Vaiue.at 5%
($298,517)
($549,290)
($504,565)
$196,798
Net Assets Less New Debt in Year 10
$95,475
$780,163
$819,769
$1,619,907
TABLE C-2
GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Alternative
0-1
Alternative
D-2
10-year User Rate Increase
3.6%
3.6%
7,000 gal. Monthly User Charge
$91.53
$91.53
10-year Capital Outlay
$1,398,200
$1,398,200
Total New Debt
$1,892,155
$1,892,155
Unrestricted Net Assets in Year 10
$4,436,410
$5,855,816
Net Present Value at 5%
$3,446,402
$4,418,112
Net Assets Less New Debt in Year 10
$3,453,925
$4,873,331
Each of the proposed alternatives yields a fiend balance that is necessary in order to meet the
capital requirements of the Dallas program for the next ten years. The targeted fund balance for
Alternatives A-C following year 10 was $900,000, or approximately 30% of annual expenses.
Should a higher balance be desired to accommodate other capital projects, steeper rate increases
would be necessary.
Town of Dallas Page 28 Utillt}, Feasibility Study
North Carolina August, 2009

9
Regardless of the selected alternative, future Dallas revenues should be closely monitored due to
the current economic climate. Trending of the fund balance for the Dallas Water and Sewer Rind
has been steadily downward over the past four (4) fiscal years, falling from just over $2,000,000
at the end of the 2005-2006 fiscal year, to an unaudited amount of approximately $1,300,000 as
of June 30, 2009. If Dallas revenues continue to trail expenditures, rate increases are inevitable,
whether the proposed CIP is followed or not. Therefore, it is recommended that the status of the
Dallas water and sewer program be re -assessed in 12 months to ensure all assumptions for the
implemented alternative are being realized.
As you can conclude from the financial analysis, given the assumptions outlined above, merging
the two systems under the City of Gastonia will result in Dallas customers seeing a noticeably
lower monthly water and sewer .bill in 10 years, and Dallas will maintain a healthier fund
balance. Gastonia's larger size enables it to spread fixed costs over a greater user base and
operate more cost effectively. If this option is pursued, there is more financial benefit for
Gastonia to maintain the Dallas rate structure until the two meet, to assist Gastonia in fiinding the
needed capital improvements to the Dallas utility system, and system interconnects.
Town of Dallas Page 29 Utility Feasibilil)) Sludy
North Carolina August, 2009

INFLUENT OVERFLOW PUMP STATION
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (3%)
LS
1
3.0%
$
4,000
2
Wet Well
LS
1
$
20,000
$
20,000
3
Pumps
EA
2
$
15,000
$
30,000
4
Force Main Piping
LF
1,000
$
75
$
75,000
5
Electrical Construction
LS
1
$
24,000
$
241000
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
163,000
10% Contingency
$
15,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W1 CONTINGENCY
$
168,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
16,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
111.000
LegaVAdministrative
$
58000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
1 $
2009000

RAISE INFLUENT CHANNEL WALLS
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (3%)
LS
1
3.0%
$
1,000
2
Concrete Wall Extension
LS
1
$ 12,000
$
12,000
3
Hand Rails
LS
1
$ 18,000
$
18,000
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
31,000
10% Contingency
$
3,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W/ CONTINGENCY
$
34,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
3,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
2,000
Legal/Administrative
$
1,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
40,000

MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRI L 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (3%)
LS
1
3.0%
$
2,200
2
Fine Screen Equipment & Installation
LS
1
$ 60,000
$
60,000
3
Misc. Items
LS
1
$ 4,500
$
4,500
4
Electrical Construction
LS
1
$ 9,700
$
9,700
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
76,400
10% Contingency
$
7,600
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS WI CONTINGENCY
$
84,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
9,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
6,000
Legal/Administrative
$
1,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
100,000

LIME SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (3%)
LS
1
3.0%
$
6,000
2
Lime Feed Equipment
LS
1
$
150,000
$
150,000
3
Flow S litter with Weir Gates
LS
1
$
10,000
$
10,000
4
Installation
LS
1
$
13,500
$
13,500
5
Foundations, Site Piping, & Drainage
LS
1
$
10,000
$
10,000
6
Electrical Service
LS
1
$
10,000
$
10,000
7
Water Service
LS
1
$'
3,000
$
3,000
8
jTank Painting
LS
1
$
7,500
$
7,500
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
210,000
10% Contingency
$.
21,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W1 CONTINGENCY
$
231,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
22,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
15,000
LegallAdministrative
-
$
7,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
276,000

LARGER SLUDGE DIGESTER
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (30/6)
LS
1
3.0%
$
14,000
2
Base Slab
LS
1
$
55,000
$
55,000
3
Walls
LS
1
$
245,000
$
245,000
4
Walkways
LS
1
$
85,000
$
85,000
5
Miscellaneous Metals
LS
1
$
50,000
$
60,000
6
Miscellaneous Construction
LS
1
$
25,000
$
25,000
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
474,000
10% Contingency
$
47,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W/ CONTINGENCY
$
621,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
49,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
34,000
Legal/Administrative
$
16,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
620,000

WASTEWATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (3%)
LS
1
3.0%
$
15,000
2
24-Inch Diameter Sewer Line
LF
4,150
$ 110
$
456,500
3
Meter Vault
LS
1
$ 29,500
$
29,500
4
Connect to Existing Line
LS
1
$ 5,000
$
5,000
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
506,000
10% Contingency
$
51,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W/ CONTINGENCY
$
657,000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
45,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
31,000
LegaMdministrative
$
17,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
1 $
650,000

WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 2009
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
QUANTITY
UNIT PRICE
ESTIMATED
COST
1
Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization (31/4)
LS
1
3.0%
$
2,000
2
12" Control Valve and Vault
EA
2
$ 33,500
$
67,000
3
Connect to Existing Line
EA
4
$ 2,000
$
8,000
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS SUBTOTAL
$
771000
10% Contingency
$
8,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS W/ CONTINGENCY
$
859000
Planning, Design Engineering, Permitting & Bidding
$
7,000
Construction Administration/Observation
$
5,000
Legal/Administrative
$
3,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$
100,000

TABLE Fl-A-1
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION Al - DO NOTHING
2010
201t
1 2012
2013
2014
2013
2016
2017
201E
2019
PROJECT LOCATION COST
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR S
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATER MPROVeMENTS
TER LINE REPLAMCNTI RCPAIRS
400.000
40.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
40,000
40,009
40,000
40,000
40.000
40.000
VELOCLES I EQUIPMENT
114.100
10.000
10.300
10.600
10.900
11.200
11.500
11,800
12.200
12.600
13.000
F:L,M MWA REPIACEMI NT
80,0001
40,000
DRAM AND CLEAN RESERVOOR AND SLUDGE DAMN
30.000
30.080
REPLAC9 P"WATIR PUMP
70.000
70,000
REPLACE RESERVOIR PUMPS
1 AO*
50.000
50.000
REPLACE t4GN SERVICE PUMP_
50,000
50,000
WATER MSPROVEMENTS SUBTOT&
3"'lool
50,0001
50 00
$0.600
so.9001
S1.2001
121.5001
131.8001
102.200
102.600
103.000
WASTEWATER 0"ROVEMEIM
MAMME Rfi1tARIL UCH
280,000
100.000
100.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
%coo
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
30 ER LfME R"LACEMENT! REPAMS
1A.S0.000
1.000.000
SO.000
50.000
50.000
50 000
50.000
50.000
50,000
30.000
50.000
SAUMARY SV !Rt:VALUA11ONSYUDY
75000
75000
VOLUVROVERFLOWPUMpsm7m
200.000
200.000
RAISE WLUCNT CHANNEL WALLS
40 000
40.000
UML: sysTEM REPLACEMENT
27S.000
275.000
MECKANICAL.DARSCREEN
100000
10o.000
LARGER SLUDGE DIGESTER
620.000
620A00
REPLACE BLOWMA3
150.000
1
$0.000
50.0001
$0.000
REPtACCOYfLUCNTPUMPS
30.000
1
401060
40.000
VE►ECLES t E UMMENT
114100
10.000
10,300
10.600
10,900
11,200
11,500
114800
t2.200
12.600
13,000
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL.
3.384.100
1.32S.000
360,30
345.600
190.900
691.200
71,500
121.800
72.200
112.600
123.000
TOM 1 4=.2001 1.375.0001 410,6001 426.2001 211.9001 742,4001 193,0001 253,6001 174AOO 215.2001
226,000
DEBT PACKAGES
ANNUAL DEB I / RESERVES
ANNUAL. CAPITAL OUTLAY
DEBT PKG 1 DEBT PK 12
1.300.0001 1 1 oss ooc
s1.10000o I $=co0 I s275�w $90.0001 $620.000Sol Sol Sol so I so
$275.040 S210.9001 $151.2001 $121.800$122.4001 S193.0001 $253.600 1 S174AD0 I $21S.200 $226.000

TABLE F1 A-2
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION A2 - DO NOTHING - EXPAND WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANTS
2010
2011
2012
2011
1 2014
2015
2016 1
2017
201E
2019
PROJECT LOCATION COST
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR t
I YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
1 YEAR a
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATER NPROVEMEM
TERLlNERE1'LACEYtLENT1REPAtRs
400.000
40.000
40000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
VOUCLPS I ECUIPMERT
114.100
10.000
10.300
10.600
10.900
11.200
11.S00
11.800
12.200
12.600
13.000
WATER PLANT EXPANSION
7,000.000
7.000.000
RETER MEDIA REPLACEUNT
80im
90.000
ORAIN AND CLEAN REMWOR AND St LOGE BASIN
30AN
30.000
REPLACE RAW WATER PUMP
70AN
70.000
REPLACE RESERVOM PUMPS
100.000
50,000
SO 000
RUTACE WON SERVICE PUMP
50.000
$0.000
WATER IMPROVEMENTS SUET T
ts".1001
s00000l
$0 300
90.6001
50.9001
5I.M1
121.5ml
7.131.3001
1042001
102.600
103.000
WASTEWATER tMPROMIENTS
MANUOLE RENAOritTATION
230.000
100.000
100.000
10,900
10.000
10400
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10,000
SEINER LINE REPLACEAIENTI REPAIRS
1AS0 000
1.000.000
$0.000
50.000
30,000
SO.000
SO.000
SO.000
50.000
50.000
50,000
WUTTWATER PLANT EXPANSION
5.000,000
6.000.000
SANITARY SEWER EVALUATION STUOY
7S.000
75.000
INFLUENT OVERFLOWPUMP STATION
200,000
200.000
RAISEtNFLUENTCNANNELWA.13
40.000
40.000
LW E SYSTEM REPLACEMlNT
275.000
275.000
MECHANICAL. DAR 3CRM
100.000
100.000
LARGER SLUDGE CIGPd1ER
620A00
1
620.000
REPLACE BLOVVEIq
150.000
50.000
50.0001
$0.000
REPLACE INFLUENT PUMPS
80.000
40.005
40 000
VEHICLESIEAULLMLENT
114,100
10000
10,300
10600
10900
11.200
11.500
11800
12,200
12600
13.000
AS A UAPROVF SUBTOTAL
8,334.100
1.3 --0
360.300
345.6001
160.9001
691.200
71.500
121,900
72,2001
112 600
123.000
TAt, I 16.2n.2001 I.V5.0001 410.6001 426.2001 211.901 74Z4001 193,000 7.253 600 174.400 5.21S.200
TO'
226.000
DEBT PKG 1
DEBT PK .2
D33
OEBT PKG 4
DEBT PACKAGES 1.300.000
93s,*Hl
1 1 7.000.000
S.000.009
ANNUAL DEBT i RESERVES $1.100.000 1 $200.000
$275.0001 SSO.000
$620.000 1 $0 sl.000.001
so s5,00.000so
ANNUAL WrTAL OUTLAY $27S.000 I 5210.600
$151.200 1 $121.800
S122ACO 1 $193.0001 $253.600 1
$174 400 $215.200 1 S226,000

TABLE F1-B-1
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION B1 - PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
201E
2019
PROJECT LOCAMON COST
YEAR i
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATER tMPROVEMENTS
WATERLINE REPLACEMENTI REPAIRS
400,000
40.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
40 000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
VEHICLES I ECOPMENT
114.100
10.000
10,30
10.600
10.900
11.200
11.500
11.800
12.200
12.600
13.000
ALTER Mt=REPLACEMfNT
$0.000
80,000
DRAIN AND CLEAN RESERMOR AND SLUDGE BASIN
30.000
30.000
REPLACE RAW WATER PLW
70.000
70.000
REPLACE R£SERYOIRPUMPS
1oo.000
50.000
$0.000
REPLACE WON SERMCE PUMP
50.000
$0.000
WATER IMPROVE TAL
8".1001
60.0001
sa.300
$0.6001
SO.9001
51.2001
121.5001
131.800
IOU001
102.600
103.000
ASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
MANHOLE REHABILITATION
280.000
100,90
100.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10.000
SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT/ REPAIRS
1A50.000
1.000.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50,000
$0.000
$0.000
$0.000
50.000
$0.000
WASTEWATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
$50 000
$50.000
HICLES I EQUIPMENT
114.100
10.000
10.300
10.600
10.900
11.200
11.500
11.800
12.200
12.600
13.000
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL
U94.1001
1,7160.0001
1604300
70.6001
70.900
-M.2001
Ti.sool
71AODI
72.200
72.600
73.000
TOTAL, 3.=.Ml 1.310.0001 210.6001 151.200 121.=l IZZA001 193.0001 203.6001 175.200
176.000
DEBT PACKAGES
ANNUAL DEBT) RESERVES
ANNUAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
OEBT PKG 1
i,65Q.000
$1.650.000 1 Sol Sol Sol Sol Sol Sol Sol Sol So
S160.000S210.6001 $1S1.200 $121.8001 $122,4001 $193.0001 $203.6001 $174.4001 $173.2001 $176.000

TABLE F9-B-2
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION B2 - PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT - EXPAND WATER PLANT
2010
2011 1
2012 1
2013
1 2014 1
2015
1 2016
2017
2018
2019
PROJECT LOCATION COST I
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3 1
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATIER tUPROVEMENTS
WATER LINE REPLACEMeW! REPAIRS
400.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
vmCLw i eov"eNT
114.100
10,000
10.300
10.600
10.000
11.200
11.500
11.900
12,200
12.600
13.000
WATER PLANE MAMMON
71000.000
7.000.000
FILTER ueM REPLACEMENT
WOOD
80.000
DRAIN AND CLEAN RE39MOR AND SLUDGE DAMN
30.000
30.000
REPLACE RAW WATERPUUFI
70.000
70.000
REPLACE RESERVOIR PUUPS
100.400
50.000
50,000
REPLACE HIGH! SERVICE PUMP
50.000
50,000
A QNiPROVEE4ENTS SUBTOT1
-1.644.100
50.0001
50.3001
8D.6001
SO,9001
51.200
121.600'1
7.131AMI
102.2001
1 600
103.000
WASTMATER IMPROVEIYI NTS
MANHOLE RIMBRHAWN
280.000
100.000
100.000
10,000
10.000
10 000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10,000
SEWER LINE REPLACEItEnRI REPAIRS
1.450.000
1.000.000
50.000
50,000
50 000
50,000
50.000
50.000
50 000
50.000
50,000
WASTEWATER SYSMA Di1ERCONNECf
650.000
650.000
VppCLntEOfxpuw
114.100
10.000
10.300
10.600
10,900
11.200
11.500
11,300
12.200
12,600
13.0
WAS ATER IMPRO SUBTOTAL
2.494.100
1.760.0001
160.300
00 70.6
70.900
71.200
71.500
71,800
72.200
72.600
73.000
TOTAL 10,338.2001 1.510,0001 210.6001 151,2001 121.900 122-4001 193.0001 7.203,6001 174.4001 173.20
176.000
BENT PKG 1 DBBT PKG 2
DEBT PACKAGES 1.650.000 7.000.000
ANNUAL DEBT / RESERVES I S1 650.000 Sol sol Sol SO $O 1 S7.000.000 I Sol Sol SO
ANNUAL CAPITAL OUTLAY I S160.0001 S210.6001 $131.2001 S121.900 $122,400 1 $193.001 $203.6001 3174.4001 $175.2001 $176.000

TABLE F1-C
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION C - PURCHASE WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT
2010
1 2011
2012
1 2013.
2014
1 2015
1 2016
1 2017
2013
2019
PROJECT LOCAMON COST
YEAR it
YEAR 2
YEAR s
1 YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATER WROVEMEWn
TER UNE REPUICEMENTI REPAM
400,0
40.000
40,000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
WATER SY57MOnERCONNECT
100.00D
100.000
VENCLeS ! ECU"ENT
114100
10.000
10,300
10.600
10,900
11,200
11
11,800
1 200
12.600
13.000
WATER IMPROVEMENTS SUM-TAL
1 614.1001
150.000
50.300
$0.600
5O.Scal
51 00
'51."ol
siml
S2,200
SZ600
53.000
WASTEWATERW"TEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Mi MMe RELuAMUTAMON
230.000
100.000
100.000
10.000
10.000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
sEWRUNEFMACEUENTIREPAIRS
1,450000
1.000.000
50.000
$0.000
50.000
50000
$0000
50,000
5o.oao
50.000
50.000
VOSTEMYER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT
$60.000
650.000
VEMCLESIE019PUENT
114,100
10.000
10.300
10,600,
10.900
11.200
11.500
11.800
12.200
12,600
13.000
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL
2.A94.100
1.76 01
160.3001
70.6001
70.9001
71.2001
71.5001
71.8001
72.2001
72,600
73.000
TOTAL, 3.103.2001 1.910.0001 210.6001 121.2001 121.8001 122.4001 123.0001 123.6001 124AODI 12S.200
129.000
DEBT PACKAGES
ANNUAL DEBT I RESERVES
ANNUAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
pEBT PKG 1
1.750.000
$1.750.0001 Sol sol Sol SO SO SO SO _ So So
$160.0001 $210.6001 $121.2001 $121.9001 $122.4001 $123.0001 $123.6001 $124.4001 S12S.200 $126.000

TABLE F1-D
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN - OPTION D - MERGE WITH GASTONIA
2010
2011
2012
2013 1
2014 1
2015 1
2016
2017
2018
2019
PROJECT LOCATION COST
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR s
I YEAR 5 1
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
WATER 1AWROVIEUMM
1ER UNE
400.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40.000
40,000
40 000
40 000
40.000
40.000
yyATERSysmu WERMNECT
100.000
100.000
VEM-LES I EaU MOff
154.100
$0.000
10AN
10.600
10.200
11,200
11.500
11,300
12,20
12,WO
13,000
WATER IMP"vemmm =mom
654 !00
190.000
50.300
50.600
50.Ml
$1.200
S1.500
51.800
S2.200
52,G00
53,000
WASTEWATER IMPROVEWNTS
MAKHM REHAMUTARON
280.000
100.000
100.000
10.000
10.000
10,000
10,000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
SEINER UNE REPLACEMENT►REPAMS
1,450,000
1.000.000
SO 000
SO 000
50.000
50,000
60,000
Sa 000
50.000
$0.000
50.000
WASTEMWRSYSWM INTERCONNECT
650.000
650.000
VEMCLES I EOUiPMENT
114.100
MOW
10 300
10.600
10.900
11.200
11 600
11.800
1 200
12.600
13.000
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL
2AS4,1001
1360.000
150.3001
70.600
70.9001
71.2001
71.Sftl
71.90
72.200
72.600
73.000
TOTAL 1 3.148.2001 IMO.0001 210.6001 121.2001 1M.3001 122ANI 121.0001 123.600 124.400 125.200
126.000
DEBT PKG 1
DEBT PACKAGES 1.750.000
ANNUAL DEBT I RESERVES S1.7S0.000 I Sol sol Sol Sol sol sol Sol Sol SO
ANNUAL CAPITAL OUTLAY I S200.0001 $210.600 1 S1 I.= 1 $121.800 5122.400 1 S123.0001 $123.6001 $124.4001 S12S.200 $126,000

TABLE F4-A-1
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION Al - DO NOTHING
ESTIMATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR? YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
2009 2010 2011 2012 ' 2013 2014 201E 2019 2017 2018 2019
RVATER SALES EMUES
1.104.000
1,115000
1.126.140
1.137.412
1.148.786
11150,ZT3
1117IA79
1,183.59E
1,19s,431
1,207.38E
1.219.459
SEWER SALES
558,000
564.00o
s69.640
675 336
501.090
s66.901
602.T70
SMA137
604.6E4
910.731
616.073
NEATER AND SEWER TAPS
37.000
37000
37.3T0
37.744
38.121
38J02
38,887
39.27E
39669
40.066
40.464
aYF1E t OPERATING REVENUE
83000
54AN
84AO
as=
68.54E
87.411
88 28S
89,16E
90.059
90.%0
SIA79
TOTAL OPERATENG REVENUE
1.782.000
1A00.000
1.818.000
1.W5.180
1 KS42
IA73.087
11351.015
1710.736
,1,029,844
1.S49.142
1.S60.633
NON OPERATING REVENUE:
TRANSFERS IN
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANTENNA LEASE
63.000
63.Da0
63 000
63000
63A00
63000
63 000
63.000
43,010
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUES
1.845,000
1.803000
1.881.000
1.a19.18a
1917.542
1,936,087
1AS4,618
1.973,736
1A9
2,012,142
Z.031.W3
NEW SOURCES OF REMM,
REVENUE FROM V+tATER RATE INCREASES
_
185.368
254,607
267xs
316.669
379.122
429.636
481,673
PROJECTED RATE OF 091WAS$
=
VA
5'A
S'A
5%
4%
1"A
3%
3%
REVENUE FROM SEW>rR RATE INCREASES
27A72
56,60C
87.503 '
120420
1:1.472
14l.572
175088
202,T88
227,44d
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
6%
6%
51A
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
TOTAL REVENUES
IA"J 00
1.863000
1XCG76
2075,715
2.190.433
2,311.164
2a31,645
2,440.197
21651,354
2.644,566
2.740.9$0
EXPENDITURES
WATER AND SEWER OPERATIONS
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
371000
36s.00o
383,230
402.413
422,S33
443AN
40A43
489.125
$13.592
$39.271
366.23E
OTHER
96A00
177.000
1341080
191.443
199,1Ot
20746S
215.348
223.961
232,920
242=
25ta26
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
174000
207000
215.280
223,891
232.64T
242.161
251"
261.92E
27Z.398
283.=4
294.43
CHEMWJ S AND SUPPLIES
121,000
59000
102.960
10710T8
111.352
116AIS
120.449
1281267
130XT1
135.48E
140.90E
WATER PLANT
SALARIES AHDBF103M
138000
1SOM
164900
174.19S
182,90E
192.050
201.652
211.735
2ZL=
233,43E
24S.110
OTHER
1oC1o0a
$5.000
SSAN
91.936
95.613
99.43E
103.415
107.552
111.064
116.320
120.UZ
MAUNTENANCEANDREPAIR
34000
40M
44.720
46.50E
48.299
60,304
62.316
34AO
WAS
s8.848
61.202
CHELRCALS AND SUPPLIES
106,000
$9.000
92.910..__._
, . 96.262
100.113
104.117
108 2S2
M.....,...
lIZ413
117,11E
1211=1
126.675
WATER PURCHASES
_ ...
_........
_:_ _ .,
_,.. _
, _-....
SEWER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
SS.o00
92,000
96 600
101AU
106.502
III=
1174418
123,289
129.4s3
13%=
142,722
OTHER
210.=
291.000
172.640
179."s
18C,727
154.157
"IA"
210.0{3
218.44E
227,182
236.270
MAIAflVJVMEAND REPAIR
38.=
49.=
so.:150
s2.998
35.11E
57,323
59.919
92001
K441
67060
0,742
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
46.W
3200D
33,280
_ 34,611
35,95C
37A3S
38,533
40.490
42,110
43.754
45.816
.SEWER TREATMENT PURCHASES
r .-
r
........ .. ........
.....
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
1.557000
1.607,000
1.630.630
1.702AI3
1,777.16E
IAW.392
1.937.033
2=416
Z,ISI,SS4
2.W4.670
2.301.043
CAPITAL OUTLAY
337000
275,000
2101m
151.200
121MO
122.400
193,000
253,60
174AN
215.200
726.000
EXISTING DEBT
07
2.22E
„
NEW DEBT
83.391
168.783
l4SXI
209 m
"SLOO
2S :009
252,009
252X9
252.009
=009
OTHER FINANCING USES:
*oewfcrcoc
NCI INWi11C
CUMI ATIVE BALANCE
1�'!^M'�!1
_ .. _.
1���. .+•.^•I �� -w--•
(3Z4.644) (USA" (310A84) (228.412)
�• _� _" _ _ _. _. ___
(147,061) (19SA88) (283.3M (M.$24) 027.249)
(336.252)
UNRESTWGTEDNETASSETS
1.2941062
S69,S1C 928.179 983.59E 106S6s0
1,147.011 I.M.564 1010.73S 1.024,129 996.813
9S7.810
UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS I E)WOONTURES
61.69%
44.32% 4L22Y. 48.69% $0.54%
SIA4% KdZ% 39-im 4M35% 3731%
34AS%
MONTHLY MINE WATER AND SEINER CHARGE MW GAL)
S88.34
S88.34
$107.38
S123.21
MONTHLY OUT3IDE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE RM GAL)
$132.54
5732.St ; m
S161.10 _...: ' .. .' ..
$784 86
bm DEBT-
PROJECT COST
1.30000o
583,000
CAPITAL RESERVE CONTRIBUTION
0
0
LOAN AMOUNT
1.300300
983,000
PAYMENT
83.391
42.613
ANNUAL PAYMENTS
166.783
85,227
RATE
SAO%
6A0%
TERM
10
20

TABLE F4-A-2
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION A2 - DO NOTHING - EXPAND WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANTS
EST M'M YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR a YEAR 9 YEAR 10
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 2011
WATER SALES
1.504.000
1.116000
1,120,150
1,1370112
1.148.7S6
1.100,273
1.171.076
1.1d3,595
1.195.431
5,207.385
1,210,4s9
SEWERSALE8
MAC
364.000
6596040
6751336
"I'M
560m
59;T70
$08.807
604 II4
6106"1
616.639
WATER AND SEMLTR TAPS
37.000
37.000
37.370
37.744
33.121
2%502
3a aa7
39.276
30,602
400066
40.40
OTHEROP[RAnNGREVENFE
asOOD
d4000
ass4o
as.6aa
86,545
a7411
d91W1
D D54
0 0060
01a70
TOTAL OP NG REV!ENUE
1,7a2.o00
LII00,000
1,939,000
1,a3Q160
t.a54,542
l.b 3,Oa7
/ a91,ti10
5.010,736
1.90zo
1.94%142
1.969,033
NON OPERATING REVENUE:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TRANSFERS IN
ANTENNA LEASE
sm
63AW
63 000
d3jm
63,000
a
900
O3 No
ow
6] 060
TOTAL PMLMT REVt Wt 3
IA44000
1JM3.000
1.441.000
1.410.130
1.217.642
1.130,
7,954.a's
/,973,736
1.112.644
2.012,142
2,031.633
NEW 10URCEa_or REVENUE!
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE tNLREASE3
-
s1,4as
t09,346
264.7t3
367,561
47a.TOt
59S.a25
72a 63S
adr.9ri
1,061,670
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE _
:. . :.....::.
.
.....
_7
7%.7%..,7%
7%... -
6% .
a%
..
REVENUE FROM SEVVER RATE INCREASES
_:
. ...
39.491
80026
_ _. .
124.945
MAN
=5.990
262,646
343,016
4t9070
501,108
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7Y.
7%
0%
8%
TOTAL REVENUES
1,845,000
1,Sa3,000
2,000,946
2.148,752
2,307.200
2,477,13T
2069ATS
ZAK204
3.005,394
3.310.101
3,S94,411
WATER AND SEWER OPPggno"
SALARIES AND aENEMS
371.000
395.000
383.2SO
402413
422.533
443,950
46$.a43
4^135
613,902
5 oxi
566,235
OTHER
96.000
177,000
1".m
161A3
119,101
20.066
215.30
227,9a+
232,920
242,237
251.926
MAtNTVUV= AND REPAIR
174"
207.000
215.260
223A"
232w
24Z,161
2St.a47
261,121
27-.=
=204
204,626
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
121000
92.000
102,60
10707a
Ill.=
115,E16
120.449
125 207
130=7
t36,4SS
140,908
WATER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
193.000
155w
166,900
174,10S
182.005
102060
201.652
211,73E
222,322
=438
245,1to
OTHER
100.000
4S.000
66,400
91.036
2%613
99,430
l"AlS
107.652
111.654
Ito,=
120062
MAtNTEMANCE AND REPAIR
36.000
43.000
44.720
43,5o9
4IL300
60.304
=14
Koo
66,5as
5e,548
61,202
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
100,000
a00D0
92,560
16,262
100,113
104,117,
105,2S2 w
112013
117.11a
121.603
126,a75
NEW OPERATING COSTS
-
•._.
101,576
100,063
110,T04
WATER PURCHASES
SEWER PLANT
$ALA►RMAMBINEM
s5,000
92,000
Km
10/A30
106.502
ttt,e27
117.413
t23,2S1
+20.453
13492G
142,722
OTHER
210.000
291,00
172 40
179.546
1W.727
104.107
201.164
210.043
21a,44S
227.192
=..I0
MAINTENANCE AM REPAIR
60.000
40.000
60.060
Zz"s
SS.t1II
57.323
s9,at6
cz ool
K441
$7.060
6%742
CHEMICALS AM SUPPLIES
49.000
32,000
33,2t0
34.611
35016
37A35
Gaon
_ 40.400
4Z1t0
_ 4VM
45.S sd
NEW OPERATING COSTS
_
_ , -
14d.2a4
SEWERTREATMEJT PURCHASES
TOTAL OPERATINGEXPENDITURE3
1,557,000
1,6d7000
1,630,630
1,702.313
1.7T7.196
1.6SS,302
1,037,oa3
MZZ.416
ZM3.130
2.310.753
2.561,o21
CAPITAL OUTLAY
337,000
2Ta.000
214600
151,200
121.800
122.400
.. 193.o00. .
253.600
174 4100 ^
215,200
2^000
t�JO3TtNO OEBT
207,226
t42,155, ..
, ::',, .. �
.
.
•
NEwoEBT
:.:: ......
a3,s91
16ere3
tafi,rss
20,396
262,00
25i,oaa
sctaia
b5i.(e;7
1,073,905
1,20o3c6
OTHER FINANCING U s
__ .,....
.
TRANSFERS OUT
'yp�j,'LEXp&,tDM{
101
1a7
z Ola
• o
z.1oa
sot
Ia:2.93%80
3,24, 213
D 0 oLa
6ri s27
RE tTt 0 EXPENDITURES
c2S0 22s)
rn'4 >
(7-om
''aA50..
:_ ?2 als
247.31s
277 3a3 _.__
24.344
I+TJ.Otat._.,_
. (��o.7s7I
(402,016R
ACCRUUALADJUSTMENTS
_ ...
_
_
NETtNCOME
RZK.?251,
P24,546)
(1.007)
12aA66
19%510
24r.335
277.3a3
24,3N
t171,ata)
t2d0,711T
143ZSIGI
CULfULAt4BALANCE
`__..._.._
n24.U4
9231.612)
(20 lsq
(442M
242W
520.30
S44.M
364.906
S1.119
4316.767)
UNRESTRICLO)NETASSETS
/.294,062
2016910
aa2449
1010.906
1.W9.724
1.537,0"
1014.442
1,a V511
1,6rs.966
lAmial
856.265
UNRESTRICTED NETASSM I EXPENDITURES
6+.51%
44.32%
47.03%
54.m
61+7%
6&03%
76.17%
$US%
5+.12%
38=16
21.96%
NPV @ 5%
(222.060)
MOMULYtU=EMTMANDU'ftRCHARGE(70W"L)
SS0.34
S6Zi1:
511trS0
M
$16S.46
GOMHLYORRTSMWATERANDSMIERCHARGE(7000CAP
$I="
513234 .,_.,.:..
........
. _ ... -,'
.... .,.
$173.73 _
;. ._.... .,..
... :....
.. . :.... ...
..... . . ..
sums
NPSV OEM
PROJECTCOST
1.300000
965,000
7,000.000
$.MGM
CAPITAL RESERVE CONTT49=0II
0
0
0
0
LOAN AMOUNT
1.300000
9II5,000
7,000 000
S000,000
PAYMENT
a3.391
42.913
30;a37
215.3t2
ANNUAL PAYMENTS
u9.763
as m
605.073
43ZQA
RATE
z00%
0.00%
000%
6Ao1.
TERLI
10
20
20
20

TABLE F4-B-1
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION B1 - PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT - INSIDE RATES
ESMMM YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 3 YEAR 9 w-e,.q 10
200 2010 2011 2012 2013 ----2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 20113
Itrypru"
WATERSALC3
t.104,000
1.115.000
I.IAIN
I'137.412
1.140.766
1.10.273
I.Ig%sos
1.1su3)
1.207.155
1.210.430
SEWER *Att*
653.000
604000
51115,440
573.3114
361.00
sm.9a1
50V70
MOST
04.684
910.7311
616.638
WATER AND SEWER TAPS
37.000
37.000
27.37*
37.7"
31LI21
35,302
38.887
3#JT6
39m
40"
40.4"
OTHER OPERATING RmftvE
03.00
"A"
"Je
SSAU
55A45
47,411
gas
jmlu
GoAss
W90061
&T*
TOTALOPfRATINGPEVIENLSE
I,7uA"
I'mim
1.11115.000
lAmigo
11,0154.SI2
111173A57
1.41211.1111
IM1O.736
UWA"
1.149.142
1AUA31
NON OPERATING RUMM
TRANZFM IN
0
O
0
0
ANTENNA LEASE
04
swa-.
lim:
OLM
"104
14%aw
63'006
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUE3
1.94fA00
1.963.000
1ASIX0
7,579,160
1.117.342
1.139917
1.134,514
1.973,736
I.99:Jw
ZAIZ142
2031.033
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE INCREASES
1401"a
24,4.713
UTAGI
474.703
mum
913,:*7
at:.*"
036,277
MOJECTW RATE Of INCREASE
7%
7%
7%
7%
4%
6%
6%
9%
Rr4== FROM SCV= PATE 1NCREA063
3401161
&NM
124.045
173,459
nss"
274669
327"
3112.311
463.=*
PRO,JECTEDRATEOPINCRFASE
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
4%
4%
41.
9%
TOTAL REVEWES
1.54aA0D
i j43.000
2ANJM
2.I4a,W$2
2.207.200
2.477.137
USSAIS
2,1130.064
3.ft3.392
3,207,362
3.414.230
t7mmermys
WATER AND 3rMR OPEB&MM
SALARMS AND SENEM
3711.000
363.00
U3AW'
4422"
11 1 '
4S,M
$aa,=
OTHER
94.00
177X*
JUASO
189.101
207.0115,:
215.3"
aux?
zssozs
MAWEN,ANC1! AND RCPAIR
174.000
"J."d
alf.M.
232.147
242,%"
251.047
261.921
274306
ism%
CHEM3CAL21AND3UPPLIES,
121.040
:.t. VA4§
135A84-
:140.406
WATER PLANT
3ALAI= AND 5ENEFffS
Iujm
174.103
lazxs
111200
201.052
2111.73111
2=22
213.434
24S.110
OTHEIR
loop*
m000
"A40
91.938
9S.913
99A38
losAls
107AS2
111.634
It*.=
126.18.2
MAOMMANCE AND REPAIR
34JWO
43NO
44.720
44.609
411.369
010oo4
52�316
54AN
$15011
60,045
&I.=
CKMICALSARDSUPPM
lof,m
XSAN
IZAGO
96.242
100.113
104.117
Izl.w3
126,676
WATMPURCHAM
.
.....
MODENCIFIT3
sono
OTKEA
210A00
2".QaQ
MADITMNCEANDREPAM
_,944,164
21 -kw
7274J67.. -
iso Jay
SE m TREATMENT "RCHASE3
499,3"
07.7"
$1019
624.1105
533,721
"UN
U9.230
Mrs
54060
TOTAL OPMTWA EXPENDITuRE3
IARJM
IwJm
I.as 30o
ZAAM
2,134p29
2.214A"
2.207.139
MASUIS
2A"0684
2A71.0113
WIXG
CAPJTAA.OUTLAY
337.000
160.000
711,200
T?CqW
EMTDIG 090T
20=5
KWDEVT
211A"
211AU
211.06
21s 5a6
211AU
2114"
2114"
2111.684
211.444
PIET&Vwma
CMULAM IIALANCII
-�-#
to
- --
(410273
UNRESTMTKOKETASSETS
1,204,Of2
IA42.0" "SAM UU32 2.11i47
1149.150
107.402 1146.264 2119AU
534.840 6536423
Glift
San% Z?=% IsAv% lQ07%
an%
L"% Lock% 10.12%
I -as% 21.82%
NPVGI%
cutj . .
............. .... . ..... ...
MONTHLYINSIDEWATERANDS ZZWERCHARCC0000GAL)
$38.34
s".0
$its"
7
61
mOmTNLY*trT=C WATER AND S&AR CHARGE J7000 GAL)
SULU
SUL".. .
... . ...;
3234A9
NEW OPHT7
CAPITAL RESERVE COKTRICVTIDN
LOANANCKINT
PAYMENT
ANNIALPAYMENT3
211,G"
RATE
SAO%
Tm
10
Samu
CMUD SEWER FLOW lispoop" 115.000,0a0 114.150.006 117,311,300 IINAWIS 11UGOACI 120JIMISC 124974.11117 123.225AS 124.5211.5211
9NFtLTRAVK3kUFLQW --22,190-00 27.400A00 Mk"4.1= UA011.136 24,411.76% 2L033AO2 22&LSS7O 23,I54L213 ZIAZ00 23AWAID
TOTAL GASTONIA CMARGE -- -- -- 491.S=
•ADUMTRATON CHARGES ARE CALCULATED VY PRORATING IFY 20t0 TREATMENT CHARGES BY THE RATIO OF PY 2008 ADMINISTRATION I OPERATING CHARGES. WHICH 0 45%

TABLE F4-B-2
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION B2 - PURCHASE WASTEWATER TREATMENT - INSIDE RATES - EXPAND WATER PLANT
ES MATE YEAR 1 YW 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 4 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201E 2019
Rr4FNUFll
WATER SALES
1104.000
1,116,000
/.1S6,1SD
1.1370412
1.143a84
1,160.273
1,171A"
1,153,sfs
110SA31
1,207.33S
1,219,4119
SEWER SALES
SUM
SO4.000
Sao,"*
37S..136
Si1.000
$".901
$02.772
59616f7
604.454
610."1
616.035
WATERAND SEWER TAP*
37.000
37.080
37.370
37,744
33.121
35.002
33,867
302T0
32.961
40,006
40.405
OTHEROPERATtNORCMUE
23000
94000
NA40
f3.688
80.545
8�11
88,2M
89/W
90ASO
so's"
6187a
TOTAL OPERATING
1.7t2A0a
1.5"Joas
1M12
1.830,180
1,434,642
1A73A57
1.811AIS
1.910,738
1.92DA"
1.04D.142
1.988.033
NON OPERATING REVEIIUE:
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
TRANSFERS I N
ANTENNA LEA•rE
t3090
63ON
43000
CAN
83,000
83A00
C3,000
4394
43R00
62,0 0
53,000_
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUES
tA4sJXw
1JIi3009
1A61im
ljol.180
1.017.542
1.936.m
1.034.i18
1A73.736
1.20w644
2.012,142
2.031,633
NEW ROURCES OF REVENUE:
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE INCREASES
» +�
104 m
220.104
347.072
{Suss
024.1M
774.002
03TA"
1,113A49
1,310,070
PROJECTED RATE OF4ICREA6E ,. •;.
2%_
9*A
9%
0%
0%
8%
01G
i!i
O%
REVENUE FROM SEWER RATE WCREABES
;..
40,460
103AM
103"
229.001
2t4.O22
385.329
442,4s0
326.683
616.330
PROJECTED RATS OFIICRFASE
OIL
9%
9%
0%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
TOTAL REVENUES
IA4s,000
lAs3.OM
S035,21a
2,223.173
ZA28d842
2,4S2.753
2.573430
3.113.067
3,372.76T
3A$4.378
3NO.005
EXPENDITURES
WATER AND ;SEWER OPERATIONS
SALAMAMMEM3
371.m
_ .-,.._�,...
3asJI00 ;i3;2so____..- s02rt/i 4L`s33 '_40460
.. ,.,4 -. _ ;'=tsil35
a13j)u
a35.27f..
....6s027S
OWNER
"p00
177.000
Sitp80
l"Aa
190.101
207.066
2ls"
="I
232A20 .
24=7
201A26
MADVITIMICEAND REPAIR
174.000
"?.No
213,230
=An
Zama
244161
25W
2i1A21
372.3t5
Si3,2f4
394A2t
CHCMICALSANDSUPPLSEO
121.000
9t,000
1026to ......
107C70 _
111,142....
_113A1s
120,N9..
12328T
1302"
13SAU
_ 140,908
WMR PLANT
SALAR103ANOOCNEFRS
123,000
1ao1000
105.t00
174.103
into$
102J0so
201,C52
2IV35
222,322
233,438
24S.110
OTHER
100.04
8s,440
44.400
91A35
ts,613
95AU
103,413
107,SS2
111.334
114,326
120.032
MAK(CHANCE AND REPAIR
34.000
43.000
44,720
40.509
43,362
Am
S4314
34AOO
64.346
52A40
01.202
CHEMICALSANOSUPPLSES
tO0000.y._
M,000
92,s80
00.262
100,113
104.117
109.252 -
ISZA13
117.118
1.•1.003
124.678
NRA
.. ..
» »» ,.,
101.574T_
100A8
ItD,704FWOPCp
WATER PURCHASES
RFwR PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
Ssooa
OSJMo"
__. _ __.___-._.
---. ......
... ..._
. _ ._._ . .
.... .. _ . .......,.....
.....
• .... _ -._ . _ .
__ __.._ _
. _ _ _
OTHER
M0.000
25t m,
MANTENADCEAND REPAIR
5km
42.000:
CNEN3CALSANDDUPPLII3
ADM)NKiTRAT10N •
, ,.:O6;i00._.. ,„ ,.217„152 _..
_.. 226,133, ..,:':.p4.i72
-244;260
.: 2i4,037„
264,14i ': <
. 274767 '
: SO,a.7S7
SEWERTREATMENTPURCHASES
40o,3S0
507.780
sts is
524,tas
533,721
34Z.SM
356=0
3"mo
804.600
TOTAL OPERATING@XPLNDRURED
t,f87,00D
1087,000
1,M5,300
zos6,089
2.134A69
2.U4A48
2.297.139
2,383,213
2,370.070
2JS81,777
2.735.774
CAPITAL OUTLAY
337NO
160.000
21000tst.t00
121A00
_ .122,400.
193.000
203.600
174AN
175200
170.000
EX03TINODEST
NEW DEN?
267.22s
_ , . �-...... -
142.135 ._�:__
10SA43
.:,.:......___..:._..__.....
2"Aso 211FM
...:..'..
211,68s
. • 211,450
_._-.:._..._.__.
21/,as
..
400.630 .....700.303
....
70,353
... 760.393
OTHER FDLIN=C USEx-
TRANSFERSOUT
TOTAL EXPEND"URES
107,258
SAo4 f11
SA07Als
2A IMS
J.AU-a3
2A".633
2,70182b
60"Au
3S22J=
3620.3TO
3734167
REYC1tUEOVEREXPEN0IIURE3
Rf622iy
R?�>'Sil.__...»(�72.?!ls?
� _h9! ?).._
.I�o.W7)
t04'20
...171,574 .
, 33.713 ..--.-t1S0815y_-
._.-,2i3Oa5
2 SAW
ACCRUALADJUSTM'a
_» _
-�,...
NETDICOMB
)23t22S)
(2I."
Miss)
(1t7,372)
140JH3)
104,z0
171.114
33,713
(tS0165)
moos
="us
CUMULATIYEBALANC!
(231Aos)
OK3071
(502.735)
(142.781)
(738,Sit)
ISW47)
(53/A34)
f441.150
(653,182)
(42728)
UNRESTRICTED METASSETS
1,tC4,082
1.042,064
64DA05
401,323
461,:81
Ss3,s01
727,313
743,022
612,bT1
i40A96
460,7711
UNRESTRICTED MET ASSETS I EXPENDITURES
61AQ%
50670%
2LU%
292M
1528%
ZIA*%
20.02%
2LT9%
1TAG%
17.07%
3321%
NPV Q s%
_.._------
(4721sa) ....._
_.
_
_ .. _ .
....: <.
NONTHLYINSMWATERANDSEINERCHARGEVMCAL)
sii.74
iq.74
_ __ _
-. _.._..
...._ _ ...
512410
31•+e?
N ONTHLYOUTZME WATER AND SEWER CHARGE (7E00 CAL)
S132A4
3112.51 .
S187.D!
3274 f0
NEW DERTt
PROJECT COST
1,054.=
7JM .000
CAPITAL P63ERVE CONTRIBUTION
0
0
LOANAMOUNT
1.650.000
7.000.000
PAYMENT
103.443
273.334
ANNUAL PAYMENTL
2t1As4
$57.707
RATE
S40%
Loa%
TERM
to
20
OLLED39WERFLOW
--
113,000JXIO
11SA00,000
11o1SOJI00
117.3 Aa0
115,454.013
119,09AGI
I.C."M66
122JT74.517
123,253.96E
154,623.521
p[FI.777ATgNdNF1.40W
- -
28 750 000
•7 M0.00o
20.T14 Soo
28.8 AAM
24,63t 740
23 f33,M2
212KSM
23,104 -13
23-428157
23 64DA19
DLWERFLOW TOGASTONIA
143,TS0.000 142,400,o56
142,6",300
143,120J130
143AVLA 4
143.603,333
143A30,725
140.261A33
146.721.723
la.145A40
GASTONIA VOLUME RATE
S34.
Ss.sD
slag
uAl
slob
S3.72
M77
S3A3
t3Ao
$3_24
TOTAL GASTONIA CHARGE
_;.
493.938
49D,360
s07.780
81a,31s
sam
633.721
642AN
S66.230
374210
$84,560
•ADMDOSTRATION CHARGED ARECALCULATED BY PRORATING FY20107RFATMENT CHARGED DYTHE RATIO OF FY 2003 ADMINISTRATION IPPERATING CHARGED, WHICH 0431A

TABLE F&C
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION C - PURCHASE WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT - INSIDE RATES
EIITtRATC YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR a YEAR 4 YEAR 6 YEAR? TEAR s YEAR 9 YEAR t0
200a 2010 2017 2012 2013 2m 200 2016 20t7 2O1• 2018
WA pf� CA
esl•ataAtts
t t0407e
WAN
1411i,000
N4tr•
L '7a tL0
"%m
t VAt2
Sm.=
1.148,7N
psAw
t ="
$sum
%M.M
"zm
1.10AN
$=An
/<tftA"
swim
I.WTAU
NO."I
IX%40
s1Am
1gtTMAWSCI MI'At0
eo71ml0rlRATIMO RMIAIC
37AM
gCIM
slim
M Oe0
77,170
Y
VJ44
f7e
Win
30"
Q t
N.OV
3sA7e
ip
30Ase
e•e
"A"
"AN
>h
OTALt�OMCM" s�'�'
_
_ � t i�00r
tr04010
M'i
1 f7stsr
t,WyrZ
lA7Le7•
+.rt
L14sJ1M
6bti,U't
+.rM.W
IM OPMATM RCYDif1C
TRUMM sl
•
o
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
o
" 1,>
no
+.fe
In
TGT MiC
t
+A
+ J"
VAW
t r$i
tr
Ixrjm
,seM,µa
1A77,tu
Alf
ItCYLIYIQIN{Or1Y/ATEIlN1TL'INCIIU' SS9
11w
2w7w
UsAls
4mm
pe./N
iOQ.Qa
fm"s
SAIN.
$30"
rROA.'&fLDMTCOs'WCIICAfO
...
'.
':x.1.z�r<eat«u:.W!!<twMae.f..Awr.....w.....f.........:.yx.
tell
1tMA
10%
CA
... ..
stl
y..+t4......
f7Y
r
i%
Y. .'Y .c
N :.. i+t.
♦. .:
...«...-. :........ .w...... .... ......n...!.N.SR:eY..t•anr+.e,<wvf....i!.
otzv=7E rams&= RATC Vocat n
"A"
IMM
"plot
=%741
vmx
.Yyti'"t:•:
3mw
=?Am
.Y
311.m
rrs.771
Mt*= ILORATtOAOIdt U4
-
10%
10%
10%
r%
r%
r%
ru
wrnRsvuA=
%u%-
1.=
1
LTt0.Te7
243VO
21L 03
2AKM
kW.4"
3A0 M
%MM
3.7As.N3
�TI:R axe smp" Qr[pA1YJ1lr
OAiAWEepa0V4 S
sn eoo
3N.ace"""i•310•''."'N�tI3V-'-:,ICLi70.,
...
••A•;•1�--'.A62
s=-:O%fil'.'.,.-sai.=
OTHM
ee eoo
•00
17T.-
- I040N
If1.Ar3
11%"l
' 20t.W '
an,^$ .
,-. 2=^'l
232,t04 ._
- �i27 .
2e"A26
WlrnawwAMD VXPAR
cC
174.m
227Aw
,:.'
-' 2tsrAs
,
- 331;/t7
.3#XM.
.:2s11f7
-
s31101
.male
:10"4
3s/A s
c"cm4uAAYO•vt'%X,&
121AN
tRON.._5-t02.et0„$:;
I07,6Js _.
.fl,Net �.:'�:.�tt/rste
.-->i ttgAla;
., t2sOSN..'1,.,:17RS{/_.-u
:__13fAN.:.::.i.._NOIN
&QJWC"A�iaarcwen7r
/N,eeo
arm="
_ "oe wo
WW7LIWICCARORCAM
CH04CALS ARD SU►hllr0
s1.wo
400
.._.:.�.....
.........
.::
: ........
...11.
.
ADWOMTm.
......... .`.�_-..y
..:'
lam
t7f.400
min
to71
totAu
Milo
?IOW
2""
2lo^$
1rATLlt K010U3C!
_:-:......._.......
.... . ....
MAU
30AN
371074
381A3♦-'
p1A2i
AN.et•
4t•."I
492I.a6
al m
eAsiw acorns
uoN
e�coo
0711CR
210AOe
art t00 : .
..
WNTCHAM [AWRO"
Nr000
aloe
A=XM2MATpN
_Arloe.... �.....__=BAN
21730i=kwi:._.
__-`-e...-...2u�
_.._.-.'=kov
e2:L+p
.vA.7e7
nkm
�
s07.M
eI"$
�
as"
"zw
ts1� 2n
STo}R>t
"giw
AL vttt•
1,eN
1 .N0
21ye12
14062"
XAMA13
ZAQO.M24trr/2
XMIC0119
ww wo b
il04rt0
xygmu
CAMALOUTLAY
3farAw
Ickm
216�=
t2t.=
mm
122AOo
123e00
W.'"
MAN
nwm
USA"
C=Tmoca7
2W72s
u;tu.
wslvtxa7
*IN=rr/ARCM uet et
:; .'.'
II3a•T
rAAIs
32tets
3mti
2ltelr
22011
2MAIS
=Ali
2.-4Atc
2uAlc
�Mmv13 .-. orwol
(11aull
MISR? "
i:wa.AnvcauAReII
.....,........., �++7 �.� t►A"s.+aif
t+.+2e.aw
tI.+RNT? p."etw7 trlt�to3) ta3dat! rc+wu:� tist.aT4t
UMPtCSfVd Wr A33M
1.2bon 1."Km t MM4 =2"
teA.Tis
I"."s is lym 2mgn reywl omvw eC0.2re
Weti3TflW= 07Ati:T•T6>DOaOtNilCa
eL60% •'ot% 21A0% 11.1^
&A2%
Ore% •in MM 21fi% 2&2" =AM
Alwm6.YerwwAmARD3cwR wt=(msaAt
9&34
rnwstaY17uT$=% VAARt76cwafn+ARca(=CAP
t13M sssus
CAM
1.7301oe
CoMitC66RYECommun"MNAIMWAff
e
MY44RT
1I:,207
AR&ALPAYlCM
wis
RATE
TOOT
eo0%
Is
tpt D711IIL' --" -..... 1rt.0e4000 1rt104000 ti;lleo00 t1b037.toe 1SA,i7{Aei 1r1.7at Zee t:e,7o7gs te0,2e><,W igJAA7e +pelttp
1111TL1t LO63f1tK1 - lgleo ee•. "s taT,r00 zr,,.•rs eee t_t Nt�Ete t+YK'►f� tsTta f2t "01e10�t2 is rani t 1 tr�a,7u 17 xttx
trAmt s.ww'Wsirow► a., taltoG e.o N. taA1b.» t �ua�• t � 1,� t7..ataAt-f t Aez t aTArr
cAATom voLum RAIV 1pw 0.13 _714 m" St.r txae t = no >3A•
YCIALOA•Tgtippt�{N c .. 0 3rA0�2--3rZ,Me 37t s7A 3etAM mtii>�AOeAis 413:i a7.Tla ari,a�i"
OLLCaOtVMPLow 116Ae0.ew t1s,003.ste /10,1N�o0 1".37tAW Y%~g 11'lam" 120.11t.1U "amn? 12a3Tew 134.1n 1
P*%TRATR)RRWROW ALSk N 27AM Os 2S74.60 UM" 2OAt.70 2kWP2 szlu.e7o 2%10r.71s ZA2L10 ",=At*
Dbmmmi WTOOA•To" -- .. 14r.T10,000 142,4o0.r00 1et2.W.w0 1441=XW 147.r1%M 14MMM t42A^73e tµ.24s,03i 144.T21,TV IIr.1r0.0/0
liWOWA VOLOu3ItATT faAe U" 11rr AL
rl.M SLIT 1L77 11R $SOS ISM
YoAsY&7►erTAttot 4ae»r aaTso'�Y3w tar " eSL1re tr sm.469
-AamwwRATM C7 w=a AR94AL6IAATCODYMUTWO rY2ef0 TRUTMCRT CHARtit!OYMRAT* 00 PY30MADMMSMTOM s 0MATMCkW0MVAdM oKti

TABLE F4-D
TOWN OF DALLAS WATER AND SEWER FUND
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION D - MERGE SYSTEM WITH GASTONIA
ESTIMATE YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
REVENUES
.._.._ _- .._._.__...._,.__-. _--•---_._.._._... ..,......_...,_.._--�--��_.._..�___._�___-_....__-.___._-._._._--- _-__..._. ..
WATER SALES
1.101.000
1.115.000•_.
SEWER SALES
SSd.000
S64,000
WATER AM SEWER TAPS
37.000
37.000 `
OTHER OPERATING REVENUE
d3.000
34.000
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
1,782.000
11300.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NON OPERATING REVENUE:
_ _
TRANSFERSIN
ANTENNA LEASE
0
63.000
01. .. _ - ... ----
63.000 63.000 63,000 53.000 63,000 63.000 63,000 63,000 63.00a 63,000
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUES
1,845.000
1.863.000 63.000 63.000 63,000 63,000 63.000 63.000 63.000 63.000 63.000
NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE:
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE RrtCREASES
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
REVENUE FROM SEWER RATE INCREASES
PROJECTED RATE OF MCREASE
TOTAL REVENUES 1.d4S.000 1,863,000 63.000 63.000 63.000 63,000 63.000 63.000 63.000 63.000 63.000
�ENDTTURES
WATER AND SEWER OPERATIONS
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
OTHER
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
WATER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
OTHER
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
WATER PURCHASES
SIMMER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
OTHER
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES
SEWER TREATMENT PURCHASES
371,000 365.000, -__
56,000 177.000>:
174.000 207.000
121.000
106.000 85.000
$4.000 43,000
106.000 49.000
210.000 291.000 ,
50,000 49.000!
46,000 32.000. r
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1.55T.000 1,697.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPITAL OUTLAY 337.000 27S,000. :..... ...._.. ,_ ..._. �.�,._...___.- _ - ..-• ---__ ...._.._._,._., _._..._, . ........ .. __. -... , _.. •..._ __.. ..
EXISTING DEBT 207.22S� 142AS5
NEW DEBT _..._
OTHER FINANCING USES:
"r
TRANSFERS OUT
..
.....
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
2.101.225
2.104.155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
(23 .2251
(241 1S5)
63.000
63,000
63.000
63 000
63.000
63.000
63.000
63,000
63.000
ACCRU4LADJUSTWNT3
NET INCOME
(256.225)
1241,155)
63.000
63.000
63,000
63.000
63,000
63.000
63.000
63,000
63.000
CUMULATIVE BALANCE
(241.155)
(178.155)
(115.155)
(52.15S)
10.845
73.845
136.d45
199.345
262,845
325.345
UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS
1.294.062
1,052.907
1.115,9071.17d.907
1,241,90T
1,304,407
1,367.907
1.430.907
1.493,207
1.556,907
1.619.$07
UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS I EXPENDITURES
61.59Y.
,
w
NPv Q 5% $196,797.37
NOTES.,
ANTENNA LEASE REVENUE REMAINS WITH TOWN OF DALLAS

TABLE F4-D-1
CITY OF GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FUND - DALLAS OPERATION
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION D-1 - MERGE WITH DALLAS - DALLAS RATES
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR S YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 9 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 . 2017 2018 2019
WATER
1.127.000
1.135.270
1.149.653
1,191.149
1.172.761
1.184.488
1.196.333
1.208,297
1.220,380
1.232.583
SEWER SALES
565.000
S70,650
576.357
552.120
567.941
523.921
599,759
605,756
611.814
617,932
WATER AND SEWER TAPS
35.000
35.350
35,704
36.061
'36,421
36,785
37.153
37,52S
37,900
33,279
OTHER OPERATING REVENUE
77,000
77.770
78,548
7S,333
80.127
80.928
31.737
62.554
83.380
$4,214
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
1.804.000.
1,822,040
1,840.260
1.858,663
1.877.250
1.896.022
1,914.932
1.934.132
1.953.473
1.973.003
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUES
1.363.300
1.822.040
1,940.260
1.858.663
1,a77,250
1.896.022
1.914.932
1.934.132
1,953.473
1,973.003
NEW SOURCES OF REVENUr
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE INCREASES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
REVENUE FROM SEWER RATE INCREASES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
TOTAL.REVENUES
1.863.800
1.822.040
1.840.260
1,858.663
1.877.=
1.06.022
1,914.182
1.934,132
1.9S3.473
1,973.008
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
336.000
290.177
301,837
313.990
326.6S7
339,860
353.622
36T.966
332.919
393.505
WATER PLANT
SAI ARIES AND BENEFITS
110.000
115.500
121.27S
127.339
133,706
140.391
147.411
154.781
162.S20
170.646
TREATMENT
133.000
195.520
203,341
211.474
219.933
228.731
237.W0
247.395
2$7,291
267.583
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
20.500
21.320
22.173
23.060
23.932
24.941
2S,939
26.977
28.056
29.178
OTHER
56.500
M760
61.110
63.555
66.097
M741
71.491
74.3S0
77.324
90,417
SEWER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
90.000
93.600
97.344
101.238
105.287
1091499
113.879
118.434
123,171
128.093
TREATMENT
203.000
81.120
$4,365
37.739
91.249
94.399
98,895
102.643
106.748
111.oi8
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
37,500
39.000
40.560
42,182
43.870
45.624
47.449
49.347
51.321
53.374
OTHER
26.000
26.000
26.000
26,000
26.000
26.000
26.000
26.000
26.000
26.000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
1.067.500
920,997
958.005
996.577
1.036.781
1.073,646
1.122.365
1.167.393
1,215,330
1.264.919
CAPITAL OUTLAY
200.000
210.600
121.200
121.000
122.400
123.000
123,600
124,400
125.200
126.000
EXISTING DEBT
142,1SS
.,..... ;
.......
NEW DEBT
112.25T
224,51S
2U415
224.515
224.515
224.516
224.515
224.S15
224.516
224,51S
OTHER FINANCING USES:
TVARMccos nip
- -
-
REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES
346,888 465,928 $36.540 515,771
.�t .. .. ,.
493,553 469,321
444.502 .417.324 388.408 357.674
ACCRUALADIUSTMENTs
NET INCOME
346,858
455.929 538.540 515.771
493,653 469.821
444.502 417.324 388.408 3S7.674
CUMULATIVE BALANCE
346,888
812.815 1.349.356 1.965.126
2.363.680 2,828.501
3.273,003 3.690.327 4A78.73S 4.436.410
NPV@S%
3.446.402,
MONTHLY UWE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE MW GAL)
SSL34
-...
S88.34
$U.34
MONTHLY OUTSIDE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE (7000 GAL)
$132.54
_.... ._ _ ..:.a.
$132.54 I ..... _ _. W_ _. _.
;'_ ::. _ , _ .. S132-S4
NEW DEBT:
PROJECT COST
1,750,000
CAPITAL RESERVE CONTRIBUTION
0
LOAN AMOUNT
1.750.000
PAYMENT
112.257
ANNUALPAYMENTS
22015
RATE
5.00%
TERM
10

TABLE F4-D-1
CITY OF GASTONIA WATER AND SEWER FUND - DALLAS OPERATION
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION D-1 - MERGE WITH DALLAS - DALLAS RATES
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 9 YEARS YEAR 10
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201E 2019
NA GSTONIA'S ADMDWSTRATM COSTS COMPRISE 46% OF GASTONIA S OPERATING COSTS. TWS RATIO IS APPLIED TO DALLAS' ASSUMED OPERATING COSTS TO YIELD ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
WATER ANO SEWER TREATMENT ASSUMPTIONS
8rLLED WATER USAGE
151.000,000
1S2.51000
154 035,100
155.575,4S1
157.131.206
1S8,702,51E
180.20%S43
161.892A38
163.511.363
165,146.476
WATER LOSS OM
15100 000
1S 2S1000
15,403.510
15.65T.545
15.713.121
15.670,252
16.028.954
16.1E9.244
16,3S1.136
16.514.648
WATER PURCHASES FROM GASTONIA
166,100.000
167.761,000
169.439.610
171.132.296
172,044.325
174.572,769
176,318,497
178.031.632
179.862,499
181.661.124
GASTONIA COST PER 1000 GAL.
$1.13
MIS
$1.20
$1.23
S1.27
$1.31
$1.35
S1.39
S1.43
S1.47
TOTAL GASTONIA CHARGE
157,693
IA25T
203.126
211.312
219.823
228.687
237.903
247.490
257A"
267.840
BILLED SEWER FLOW
115,000.000
116.150.000
117,311,S00
118AN,615
119,669AG2
120.865.156
122.074.817
123,29S.565
124.528.521
125,773.406
INFTLTRATIONIINFLOW
23,750.000
27.076.000
26.231.645
26.066.615
_ 25.130.587
24.173,231
=194.215
23.426.157
23.660,419
23.897,023_
SEWER FLOW TO GASTONIA
143.750.000
144,026.000
144,293.145
.144.551.230
144,800.043
145,039,387
143.269.033
146.721,723
148.188.940
149.670.330
GASTONIA COST PER 1000 GAL
S1.41
SIAS
$1.50
$1.54
$1.59
S1.63
$1.68
$1.73
$1.79
$1.84
TOTAL GASTONIA CHARGE
202,68E
209,169
21S.644
222.717
229.793
237,078
244.S77
254A=
264.687
275.354
DALLAS FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
WATER FLOW
166,100.000
SEWER FLOW
143,7S0.000
WATER %
54%
SEWER %
46%
GASTONIA FLOW AND COST 8MMPTIONS
NOTES;
WATER FLOW
4.580.750.000
WATER TREATMENT COSTS
$4.337.355
COST PER 1000 GALLONS
S0.9S
WASTEWATER FLOW
4,372,700.000
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
$7.235.191
COST PER 1000 GALLONS
$1.65
r ,b

TABLE F4-13-2
CITY OF GASTONIA WATER AND SEINER FUND - DALLAS OPERATION
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - OPTION D-2 - MERGE WITH DALLAS - DALLAS TO GASTONIA RATES IN 5 YRS
1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10 I
IYEAR
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014.
2015
2016
2017
201E
2019
REVENUES
WATER SALES
1.127.000
1,0E3.633
1.029,286
993,944
947.591
9S7.067
966.637
076.304
9E6.057
995.927
SEWER SALES
665,000
$55.813
S46.386
536,71S
526.795
S32.063
537.384
$42.758
548,185
553.667
WATER AND SEWER TAPS
35,000
35.3SO
35,704
36.061
26.421
36.78S
37.153
37,S2S
37,900
33,279
OTHER OPERATING REVENUE
77.000
77,770
78,S48-
79.333 -
_ 60.127
80.028
81,737
SZS54
83,380
34.214
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
1.804,000
1.752.566
1.699.923
1.64602
1,590AU
1.60SAO
1,622.911
1,639.141
1.653.532
1.672.037
TOTAL PRESENT REVENUES
1.368.900
1.7$2,%S
1.699,923
1.646,052
1.590.934
1,606.843
1,622,911
1.639.141
1AS5,532
1,672.087
NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE:
REVENUE FROM WATER RATE INCREASES
0
64.024
129.S40
126.143
222,934
266.SU1
312.S17
360.033
409,465
460,88E
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE _
0.4%
Ss%
„$A%
5.6%
2,7%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0116
REVENUE FROM SEWER RATE INCREASES
0
30.219
61.907
95.047
110.387
131.319
153.094
175.747
109.313
223.8"
PROJECTED RATE OF INCREASE
0.0%
S.S%
5.5%
5.6%
2.7%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
TOTAL REVENUES
1.868.800
1,846.809
1.891.371
1,937,242
1,924.2SS
2.00S.003
2.038.522
2.174.921
2.264.310
2,356,804
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES AND RNEFITS
336.000
290,177
301.837
313,990
326,657
339,860
353.622
36T.966
382.919
398.SOS
WATER
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
110.000
11S.S00
121.27S
127.339
133.706
140.391
147.411
1S4,781
162,S20
170.646
TREATVMNT
188.000
195.S20
203,341
211.474
219,933
223.731
237AN
247.395
257.291
267.543
MANTENANCE AND REPAIR
20,500
21.320
22,175
23.060
23.992
24.941
2S.939
26,977
28,056
29.178
OTHER
56,500
58,760
61.110
$3.555
68.097
63.741
71.491
74.350
77.324
80.417
SEINER PLANT
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
90.000
93.600
97.344
101.233
10$,287
102.499
113.879
118.434
123,171
128.098
TREATMENT
203.000
91,120
84,36E
$7,739
91.249
94,899
98.69S
102.643
106.74E
111.018
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
37.500
39,000
40,560
42.182
43.E70
45.624
47.449
49.347
51.321
S3.374
OTHER
26.000
26.000
26.000
26,000
26,000
26.000
26.000
26.000
26.000
26.000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
1.067.500
920,997
958,00S
996,S77
1.036.781
1.075.636
1.122.365
1.167.693
1.21 S,350
1,264.819
CAPITAL OUTLAY
200.000
210.600
121,200
121.300
122400
123,000
123.6W
124,400
12SAO
126,000
EMSTINIGDEB7
NEW DEBT
112.257
224,61S
224.515
224,51S
224,516
224,515
224,51E
224,S1S
224.51S
224,516
ES:
OTHER FINANCING USTDARMPPRS
ACCRUAL ADJUSTMENTS
NET INCOME
346,886 490,697 $97.651 594.350
$40.559 570.801 618.042 658,113 699,244
741.470
CUMULATIVE BALANCE
316.86E 837,58S 142S,236 2,019,S86
2.W,145 3.138.946 3.756.98E - 4.41S,101 5.114.345
5.855.816
NPVGS%
4,41E.112,__
MONTHLY 1NSIdE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE (MO GAL}
S88.34 _... w ,.� .w
$77.27 �'� ""� µ -
$83.46
MONTHLY OUTSIDE WATER AND SEWER CHARGE (7000 GAL)
$132.54 _ .. , M :; , . .. , ..: ,.... , ....
$113.93 ..'.; . " .. .::
$122,41
NEW DEBT:
PROJECT COST
1.750.000
CAPITAL RESERVE CONTRIBUTION
0
LOAN AMOUNT
1,750.000
PAYMENT
112.2S7
ANNUAL PAYMENTS
224.515
RATE
5,00%
TERM
10
NOTES,
GASTomA,s ADMV85TRATIVE COSTS COMPRISE 46% OF GASTONIA S OPERATING COSTS. THIS RATIO IS APPLIED TO DALLAS' ASSUMED OPERATING COSTS TO YIELD ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

Great Place. Great People. Great Promise.
Department of Public Works and Utilities
Wastewater Treatment Division
Ms. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR - DWQ
Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
AUG - 4 2009
D
OENR - WATER QUALITY
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION SECTION
Re: Renewal Application of Permit NCO020184 Long Creek WWTP
Dear Ms. Sprinkle:
On behalf of the City of Gastonia, I am requesting renewal of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit #NC0020184 for the Long Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant. A permit application and associated information including a sludge
management plan are being submitted along with this letter. This permit renewal
application is being submitted by the August 4, 2009 deadline to comply with
requirement to apply 180 days prior to the date of permit expiration (January 31, 2010).
As requested, please find the original signed version of this information along with two
copies.
The Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant continues to operate as an advanced
biological nutrient removal plant treating municipal wastewater for the City of Gastonia.
Since the last permit renewal request, the City has performed a significant renovation of
the digester complex including installation of fixed concrete covers on four of the
digesters, installation of mechanical draft tube mixers, piping replacement, and pumping
and heating improvements. Numerous minor upgrades have taken place throughout
the plant as well often related to maintenance issues. Examples include rebuilding
intermediate screw pump gear boxes and rehabilitation of the screw drives, upgrade to
DAF air compressor, and improved SCADA process control including providing greater
control of major lift stations for wet weather events. We can provide more information
on these types of projects if desired.
All analyses have been tested by North Carolina certified laboratories in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 136 requirements. This application includes all data gathered for the
aaga INTERNATIONAL
J
ISO 14001 Certified
Pure and Clean for our Fields and Streams
74 Gastonia,
PO Box 1 8 NC 2874 053 1 8
www.cityofgastonia.com

Ir
last four and one half years up through June 30, 2009. Efforts have been made to
obtain seasonal variation in the sampling as much as was possible.
If you would like any additional information, or if I can be of any assistance please feel
free to call me at 704-866-6991 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Larry Cummings
Division Manager of Wastewater Treatment
City of Gastonia
cc: Matt Bernhardt - Director of Public Works & Utilities, Gastonia
Stephanie Scheringer — Assistant Division Manager of Operations
David Shellenbarger — Assistant Division Manager of Compliance
David Morgan — Senior Plant Operator
Certified Mail: 7007 2680 0001 8981 1257

r
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek W WTP, NCO020184
Renewal
Catawba River Basin
Additional Information for NPDES Permit Application
Section B.1. Inflow and Infiltration.
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
The City of Gastonia seeks to correct all sources of inflow or infiltration. Inflow and infiltration has been
of particular concern in the older portion of Gastonia's collection system, which feeds into the Long Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This area was extensively smoke tested as part of a sewer system evaluation
study to identify sources and extent of inflow/infiltration. Based on these identified sources the City is
undergoing efforts to eliminate them. The following are the major projects that have been identified and
their current status:
_ • Duhart Creek Manhole Rehabilitation — In 2004, the City completed a sewer manhole
rehabilitation project along Duhart Creek which raised 85 manholes above the 100-year flood
elevation and or sealed and vented the manholes. The project also includes several point repairs to
reduce infiltration into the sewer line.
• Firestone Mill storm drain connections —The possibility of roof drain connections to the sewer
system were identified during smoke testing as part of the sewer system evaluation study. The City
is working to have these connections removed. Firestone made some corrections to the portion
they currently operate in and some corrections to the historic Loray Mill portion of the site. Some
follow-up smoke testing has verified that some of the connections have been removed. A developer
is looking at redeveloping the Loray Mill into residential and commercial space. The Utilities
Department has met with the design engineers to discuss the problems with the roof drains.
Measures are being taken in the design of the rehabilitation to remove the remainder of the roof
drain connections from the storm drain. The City will work with contractors during construction to
verify that all roof drain connections to the sewer lines have been removed.
• Osceola Mill - The possibility of roof drain connections to the sewer system were identified during
smoke testing as part of the sewer system evaluation study. The mill was torn down in 2008 and
the sewer connection was plugged.
• Abandoned Wastewater Collection Systems - It is suspected that several of the abandoned
wastewater collection systems in some older mill neighborhoods remain connected to Gastonia's
existing wastewater collection system. This was identified in the sewer system evaluation study as
a possible source of inflow/infiltration. The City continues to investigate this potential source and
do the necessary work to disconnect any such lines. It is expected that substantial work will be
needed on both the private and public stormwater systems at these old mill sites. The City expects
it will require an additional 5 years to completely divert the stormwater from these mills and
abandoned lines.
• Armstrong Branch Sewer Line Rehabilitation — This project was completed in November 2007
utilizing STAG grant funding.
• Dillard Creek Outfall Manhole Rehabilitation — This project was completed in January 2005.
• Niblick Drive Sewer Line Rehabilitation — This project was completed in September 2004.
• Beaty Road Pump Station SSES — The Public Works & Utilities Department is currently
negotiating a professional services contract for a Sewer System Evaluation Study in the basin
served by the Beaty Road Pump Station to identify any sources of inflow or infiltration. The scope
.. of services will include design services for the rehabilitation of any areas found during the study.

B.2 Topographical
Map of Long Creek
WWTP -
Perm it #N C0020184
Facility Boundaries
.ti Ground Water Wells
.25 mile buffer
Long Creek WWTP Outfall 001
Sewer Nodes
Structures
Air Rel Valve in Manhole
Manhole
Abandon Manhole
Proposed Manhole
SLS
Abandon SLS
Valve
Monitoring Well
Meter
Plug
Inverted Siphon
Chemical Manhole
Treatment Plant
e Uncoded Node
Abandon Uncoded Node
Gaston County Roads
Sewer Lines
Lines
MAIN
PROPOSED MAIN
FORCE MAIN
—h CHEMICAL LINE
SMYR
USGS Quandrangle
Maps Referenced:
N Gastonia North
W+E Mt. Holly
s
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles
+ " :4._
r - �
MEN.
d z
w
It
�1
Sludge Storage Lagoons Long Creek WWTP Outfall 001
_ r Latitude 3518' 37"
Longitude 81 06' 50"
f
' Digesters for Treatment and Storage of Sludgel '
N 71 SPen Mtn
1 _
cf
h !
vir
.w
Y
�I

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek W WTP, NCO020184
Renewal
Catawba River Basin
Additional Information for NPDES Permit Application
Section B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic
Process Flow Description
The Long Creek W WTP is a 16-mgd facility operated by the City of Gastonia which
discharges to the South Fork River. Influent wastewater enters the plant through a 48"
gravity feed sewer line and passes through coarse manual and fine mechanical screens
and a grit collector screw. Following preliminary treatment, the flow enters the main lift
station. Five influent pumps (three duty, two standby) lift the influent flow to Manhole
#1 (MH-1) and the flow is split to three primary clarifiers. The primary clarifier effluent
is combined with the RAS in MH-2 where the flow is split to two biological treatment
trains. The biological treatment trains consist of anaerobic, anoxic and oxic basins, with
internal oxic recycle pumping (one duty, one standby per train) for denitrification. One
biological treatment train has a capacity of 7-mgd and the other has a capacity of 9-mgd.
Following the biological treatment trains, flow is combined in MH-6 and routed to the
denitrification basin which consists of anoxic zones for further denitrification and oxic
zones for reaeration. Flow can be diverted around the denitrification basins. This
flexibility was provided because the plant is only required to meet a total nitrogen limit in
the summer months. The intermediate pumping station consists of three screw pumps
(two duty, one standby) which lift the flow to four final clarifiers. From the final
clarifiers, the flow is sent to gravity anthracite filters. Eight filter cells are used to allow
filter cells to be taken out of service without impacting the performance of the system.
Flow can be diverted around the filters. Filter effluent is disinfected in an open chlorine
contact chamber by injection of chlorine solution. Sulfur dioxide is injected into the
chlorinated effluent for dechlorination. Finally, the effluent is discharged through two
three -stage static aeration devices to a 54" line, which discharges to the South Fork
Catawba River. The process flow schematics show all of the processes of the treatment
plant along with bypasses and backup power sources. The plant has three 1,600 kW
generators located at the plant entrance.

Influent
16 MGD
(Current daily
average = 6.3
MGD)
Main Lift /
Screening /
Grit Removal
24
MGD
Long Creek WWTP - Process Flow Schematic
Primary
Clarifiers 3
IG
41:�
w
2-411�
G)
v
t�
Primary co
Sludge RAS
Denitrification Basin
5.3 MGD
6.7 MGC
Intermediate
Pumping
Station
Treatment Trains
I o eer+n
Final Clarifiers
6 MGD _ '
6 MGD
6 MGD
10.6 MGD
N
E
G)
v
0' T. Filters
O-VMGG Chlorine
Contact
14GD,ri MG
1
1 8 1 ,�]C-D
1 MGD 1
1 1
0 Emergency Flow Diversion 0
2 To South Fork Catawba River
"� WAS

I
SCADA
,
ANTENNA - t 210M
EMERGENCY
�_ '
•� �, 1
GENERATORS
LAB /codrROL
__---
-----
---------
__BUILDING'
SCADR SYSTEM'
BLDG. _ _-
- . - - M.N.
t/
4 ��•\
CNMCAL
FINAL CLARIFIERS
ii ii ii ;
I
I
SCR
M
B
A
yy i'
FILTERSBAMR
\
L JL JLJ
17
M.H.#5
AERATION
EXISTING
\` \
♦
LIFT PUMPS
,
BASINS
MAIN
(9 MGD)
_ _ =
i
M.H.
-/
a
.M.H•
8
�
CHLORINATION i
M.H.
DECHLORINATION
M ------
CHLORIINE
#8
_- -
-
- SIPHON
_
S7ATw i-----._
--
`- -�CONTACT
�,.Q
INF. M.H.
- -
-
- — —
-:: _ �`
DENRRIRCA'f10N -
o
`
-
_STATIC
AERATOR
' PRELMIINAITY
-
BASINBACKWASH
-
=�
STAGE 1
•,\,\
-
'-\
'•�
o:yh
HOLDING
'\..
STAGE 2
TANK
LAYOUT PLAN
Long Creek WWTP — Layout Plan

M
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184
Renewal
Catawba
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject to, an approved pretreatment program?
® Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 11
b. Number of CIUs. 6
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Please see attached listing of SIU information
Mailing Address:
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s):
Raw malerial(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or Intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
M
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22, Page 18 of 21

r—
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek VWVfP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Arnold Foods Company Inc
Mailing Address: 1029 Cox Road
Gastonia, NC 28054
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge of manufacturing Process wastewater, domestic wastewater, washdown water, non -contact cooling water, and blowdown water.
F.S. Principal Products) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Bread
Raw material(s): Flour Yeast, Salt, Sugar, Bran. Nuts, Raisins, Wheat Sesame Seeds T000ings Meal
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater Flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
6,746 gpd (✓ continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
2250 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) *Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a, Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: C ntury Textiles Inc
Mailing Address: 803 North Oakland Street
Gastonia. NC 28052
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the Industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Currently domestic wastewater only. Future discharee will be from textile dyeing and finishing processes
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Matenal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Printed textile fabrics
Raw material(s): Woven man-made fabrics, dves. softeners and emulsifiers
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd ( condnuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the StU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
0

Me
We
MEN
am
Me
We
110
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WINTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Choice USA Beverages Inc
Mailing Address: 809 East Franklin Blvd.
Gastonia NC 28053
Fit. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge of manufacturing Process wastewater, and washdown wastewater.
F.6. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Carbonated Beveraoes
Raw material(s): Flavorings citric acid sodium/potassium benzoate and com syrup
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
7%899 gpd (✓ continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
975 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.S. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
am

M
r
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WVJTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Colort=USA LLC
Mailing Address: 1711 Sparta Court
Gastonia. NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge domestic and process wastewater from scouring biea h' g oral finishing PES/CO circular knitted fabrics
F.5. Principal Products) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): PES/CO Circular knitted fabrics
Raw material(s): Water, soaps and mist chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater (low rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
34,431 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SfU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

NO
ME
001
M
M
ING
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Cookson Company I LC
Mailing Address: 800 Tulip Drive
Gastonia NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge process wastewater from 3-stage phosphatine system to Powder mat rolling doors
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materlal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Aluminum, r aimed galvanized & stainless steel
Raw material(s): Rol ling doors cleaner& chemical solutions
F.S. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
6992 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater Sow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater now discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical prebeannent standards, which category and subcategory?
Metal Finishing 40CFR 433.17
F.S. Problem at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
OR

00
r.
i
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WVVfP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Danaher Tool Group
Mailing Address: 1228 Islet/ Drive
Gastonia, NC 26053
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect orcontribule to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge from plating orocesses, wash down non -contact cooling and blow down through Pipe 002 and discharge from Centralized Waste
Treatment System from the following hauled processes* Latex & water waste stream Starch & water waste stream and Oil & water waste stream
through One 003
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Plating tin nickel tri-valent chrome latex & water, starch & water and oil & water
Raw material(s): 4027 and 1OB29 steel alkaline cleaners plating chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
(Pipe 002)-81 683 (Pipe 003)-6 523 gpd (✓ (Pipe 002) continuous or ✓ (Pice 003) intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1 500 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
Metal Finisher 40CFR433 15 Pim 003 and CWT Regulations 40CFR 437,36 Pine 003
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WVVfP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Freiehdiner Corporation Name changed to Gastonia Comoonents&Logistics
Mailing Address: 1400 Tulip Drive
Gastonia. NC 28052
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the Industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge from E-Coat lines. Bum Table Vibratory- Zinc Phosphatine wash down cooling, non -contact cooling containment and DI unit
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Steel and Aluminum truck naM and syb-asscrnbly
Raw material(s): Vari us tru k vans, phosphatinechemicals- paint
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater Bow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
13,658 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
*500 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) *Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
Metal Finisher 40CFR433 17
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

do
`A
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek VWVfP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Gaston Courty l-andfill
Mailing Address: 3155 Philadelphia Church Road
Dallas NC 28034
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge oflandfill le hate
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): N/A
Raw material(s): N/A
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
33,784 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.S. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g, upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Gaston Memorial Hospital owned by Cerement Health Inc
Mailing Address: 2525 Court Drive
Gastonia NC 28052
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge of domestic washdown laundry, laboratory, non -contact cooling boiler/coolina tower blowdown. kitchen, and cafeteria wastewater.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): NIA
Raw material(s): NIA
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
76,000 gpd (✓ continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
100.000 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) *Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek VW TP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Industrial Electroplating Company
Mailing Address: 317 S. Linwood Road
Gastonia NC 28053
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge from process wastewater alkaline and chloride zinc processes
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materiai(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Plating metal pans
Raw matcrial(s): Metal parts, metals. acids, caustic soda
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
40.696 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
NIA gpd ( continuous or intermittent) 'Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
Metal Finisher 40CFR413 14
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
SIU suspected of discharging occasional hieh Zinc concentrations which increased W WTP influent zinc concentrations No upsets or interferences noticed
from these dichar es

M
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Modena Southern Dveine Comoration
Mailing Address: 1010 East Ozark Ave
Gastonia. NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge wastewater from dye home processes
F.6. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Dyeing threads
Raw material(s): Threads dyes and acetic acid
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
9930 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater now rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
•100 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) 'Flow based on 25 gallons perperson.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Porta-Jon of the Piedmont Inc
Mailing Address: 212 Bulb Avenue
Gastonia NC 28062
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge of domestic wastewater, washdown water, and stormwater runoff.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Domestic wastewater
Raw material(s): Liquid deodorizer containing formaldehyde
F.S. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
6034 gad ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater Dow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
NIA gpd ( continuous or intermittent) "Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreabnent standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

Us
ING
OEM
1_1
AWN
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: i RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WVVfP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: RADICISPANDEX
Mailing Address: 3145 Northwest Blvd.
Gastonia NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
SNJ ceased production at facility but requested to keep SIU permit for future processes
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Spandex Fibers
Raw material(s): Polyester Resin Di ersin Eth lenedianie Toluene and Isopropyl Alcohol
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
OCPSF 40CFR414 35
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SRJ caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
Currently no dischar a from facility.

M
M
s
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWfP, NC0020184 I Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Stabilus Inc
Mailing Address: 1201 Tulip Drive
Gastonia NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dischare from processwastewater_ wash down cooling, non -contact cooline blow down from boiler and cooling ters and air units,
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Matedal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Metal fabricated components
Raw material(s): Ste 1-1035 rod stock steel tubing. plastic and metal internal parts
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
13,118 gpd (✓ continuous or intermittent)
b- Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
• 1 000 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) *Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ® Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
Metal Finisher 40CFR413.17
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

I
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Sunshine Uniform Services- I
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12632
Gastonia NC 28053
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge domestic and process wastcwiter from laundry process and boiler blow down
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Industrial Laundry
Raw material(s): Water, soaps and mist chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
31,240 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flaw rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent
N/A gpd ( continuous or intermittent) 'Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.

WE
.a
an
W
MR
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Town of Ranlo
Mailing Address: 1624 Suancer Mountain Road
Castonin NC 28054
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Discharge domestic wastewater only,
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): N/A
Raw material(s): Domestic wastewater
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
195,000 gpd (✓ continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
gpd ( continuous or intermittent) "Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.S. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
❑ Yes ® No If yes, describe each episode.
an

M
nrl
ON
Me
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek VWVrP, NCO020184 Renewal Catawba River Basin
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following Information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatmentworks, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the Information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
Name: Water Supply & Treatment Division - City of Gastonia
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28052
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Water treatment.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): Drinking water
Raw material(s): Chlorine and Poly Aluminum chloride
F.S. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intennittent.
200,000 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intennittent.
625 gpd ( continuous or ✓ intermittent) -Flow based on 25 gallons per person.
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits ® Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ® No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets,
interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
® Yes ❑ No If yes, describe each episode.
User experienced a leak from one of their chemical tanks which caused low PH at the influent of the wastewater treatment plant. No u sets or
permit violations resulted at the wastewater treatment Plant.

-
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NC0020184
Renewal
Catawba River Basin
M Additional Information for NPDES Permit Application
Sludge Management Plan
for
Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit # NCO020184
The Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) design for sludge handling consists of
_ anaerobic sludge digestion followed by land application.
In February of 2007, a major rehabilitation of the digester complex was completed. In this
project, fixed concrete covers were placed on four primary digesters, replacing three failing steel
floating covers and one open top. New mechanical draft tube mixers were also installed in each
of these primary digesters and improvements were made to piping, heat exchanger and SCADA
controls.
This plan describes the processes in place for treating and disposing of this material.
-
Anaerobic Dieestion:
_ The anaerobic digestion system consists of four heated anaerobic sludge digesters and two
sludge storage digesters, each with a volume of approximately 450,000 gallons. These anaerobic
digesters treat the primary and waste -activated sludge generated from the WWTP. On average,
the City of Gastonia sends approximately 50,000 gallons of raw and thickened wasted solids to
these digesters each day for treatment.
Raw sludge from the bottom of three primary clarifiers is pumped to the two primary digesters
where it is held at a temperature greater than 35 'C. Wasting from the secondary clarifiers is also
pumped to the primary digesters, however these solids are first thickened in the dissolved air
,. floatation thickener unit located adjacent to the digesters. Following digestion in the primary
digesters, solids transfer to the holding digesters and then are pumped into the sludge storage
lagoons.
The WWTP has two biosolids storage lagoons, with a combined capacity of four million gallons.
Additionally, the City of Gastonia operates a residuals storage facility at the City of Gastonia's
Resource Recovery Farm located between Dallas and Cher yville. This facility is capable of
storing an additional eight million gallons of biosolids when application activities are hindered
by inclement weather.

M
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Long Creek WWTP, NCO020184
Renewal
Catawba River Basin
Additional Information for NPDES Permit Application
Sludge Management Plan (Continued)
The Long Creek WWTP currently complies with the 503 pathogen reduction requirement for
Class B biosolids by a PSRP process (40 CFR Part 257 Appendix II). Pathogen reduction is
demonstrated by fecal coliform testing or documentation of primary digester MCRT and
temperature. Vector attraction reduction is demonstrated by a measurement of 38% volatile
solids reduction using the Van Kleeck's equation or a 40 day additional anaerobic digestion
bench scale test.
Land Application Program:
For beneficial reuse of these biosolids, the City of Gastonia utilizes land application for disposal
of these solids. Gastonia contracts with EMA Resources to perform this land application.
Biosolids are land applied to 2,052.9 acres of local farmland in North Carolina, in accordance
with NCDENR Land Application Permit WQ0001793 and 414 acres in South Carolina under SC
DHEC Land Application of Domestic Sludge Permit ND0084883. One hundred seventy-seven
of the acres in North Carolina are on City owned land at the Resource Recovery Farm and the
remainder is private farmland.
Environmental Management System:
The City of Gastonia's Wastewater Treatment Division, which includes the biosolids program,
has implemented and operated under an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System since
2001. The City has seen many benefits from this program in better organization, improved
compliance, controlled environmental impacts and greater efficiencies. Additionally the City is
participating in the National Biosolids Partnership Environmental Management Program. This
program has helped to further improve some aspects of its biosolids handling. In particular, the
biosolids program has benefited from inclusion of the City's contractor in the environmental
management system, inclusion of the best management practices in the program, improved
public acceptance of the program and a greater emphasis on biosolids quality.

�j( II pZo► � Y - Fug Zo � � ���M� � rPv►���'
J3elnick, Tom
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:38 PM
To: Hood, Donna
Subject: RE: NC0020184/Long Creek (City of Gastonia)
Donna- I had to google "thalwag"...learn something new every day! This request would be a minor permit mod, which
we would prefer to incorporate at the time of permit renewal since its close at hand. We can give them the go-ahead
now, and make the permit change during renewal. Overall consideration- safety trumps everything else. I'll put a copy
of this email in the permit file to tip off the permit writer, and you might want to repeat the request in your staff report
for the permit renewal. Feel free to relay this information to Gastonia, and if they have questions or need an official
reply you can have them contact me.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES West Program
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Hood, Donna
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Bell, Wes; Bou-ghazale, Samar; Scheringer, Stephanie; Cummings, Larry
Subject: NC0020184/Long Creek (City of Gastonia)
Tom,
I have a question on behalf of the City of Gastonia. I recently did a follow up inspection at the facility and they wanted
to know if they could move their downstream sampling point'B'. The permit states the sample betaken from
NCSR2003. At this location, the sampler is required to get samples from a long, high bridge with fast traffic. Recently,
approximately 100 yards downstream, a kayak and canoe access point was installed as part of a parks/greenway
program. The sampler can easily access the river here, although he cannot access the thalwag of the stream. The City
Safety Coordinator would like to see the point moved for the safety of the sampler. Can they move their sampling point
and what do they need to do to have that happen? Samar Bou-Ghazale in our Office just received the permit renewal
package. Should Gastonia do it through permit renewal? Should they get some data to show no significant difference
between the two points? Thank you for your guidance and assistance.
Donna
Please note that my email address has changed to [e-mail]
Donna Hood - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
610 E. Center Ave.
Mooresville, INC 28115
Ph:704.663.1699 Fax:[phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. ' .