NC0025381_Return Application_20180822

ROY COOPER
6
MICHAEL S. REGAN
/ LINDA CULPEPPER
• •* . Interim Director
Owl
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 22, 2018
Mr. Shannon Baldwin
Town Manager
P.O. Box 255
Lake Lure, NC 28746-0255
Subject: NPDES application return
Special Order by Consent(SOC) S17-008
Return#2315
Dear Mr.Baldwin:
The Division is returning the Town of Lake Lure's 2017 request for an SOC. The justification given for the
SOC—connection to the Town of Spindale WWTP via the proposed"Green Line"—was never pursued by
your municipality. Since your municipality has acquired public funds to pursue an alternate means of
wastewater disposal, the Division cannot issue the proposed SOC.
Please note the following items regarding your NPDES permit, NC0025381:
D The waiver from enforcement action is terminated. Enforcement actions will resume for violations of
NC0025381.
D Your municipality currently owes the Division $29,789.68 in unpaid civil penalties [see attached case
list]. Pay these fines to avoid accumulation of additional costs [interest, etc.] should the cases be
referred to the Attorney General's Office for collection.
D A draft permit renewal is being prepared and will be forwarded to you within the next two weeks.
If you have questions regarding the enforcement status of your facility, contact Landon Davidson in the NC
DEQ Asheville Regional Office at 828-296-4680. If you have questions about the NPDES permit process,
contact me at the telephone number listed below, or via email [[e-mail]].
Sincerely,
i /, ��
Charles H. Weaver,Jr.
NPDES program
cc: Central Files
NPDES file
ec: ARO/Landon Davidson
Amy Bircher/NC DOJ
.--1:1,94
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
919-707-3616
I

B
BROWN CONSULTANTS PA
June 29, 2017
Technical Memorandum RECEIVED/NCDEQ/DWR
JUL 2 0 2017
• To: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Point Source Branch permitting Section
1617 Mail Service CenterN'C;;'Ro`
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1619 ,
O • tits./ •• /2.
From: Harlow L. Brown, PE q's SEAL
Chief Engineer 6115 f
E
. . GINE ...''O��
Cc Ron Nalley .5//17
Town Manager ''•o W L. 8,,, . a
• Re: Lake Lure Special Order by Consent(SOC)
Rutherford County,NC
. • Attached is one original and.two copies of the Application for a Special Order by Consent
(SOC).
1.• Application for a Special Order by Consent (SOC)—See Attached
2: •Pre-Application Meeting—See Attached email from Tim Heim waiving pre-meeting.
3: Additional Flow.or Flow Reallocation-No additional flow is need for SOC.
4. Necessity Narrative—See Attached
. 5. Certification—See Attached WK Dickson Document
. • 6. Predicted Compliance Schedule - See Attached
• 7. Funding Sources Identification—See Attached Funding Letter.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
30 Ben Lippen School Road,Asheville,NC 28806)828.350.7683[office])828.350.7684[fax]>www.brownpa.net

Application for Special Order by Consent

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL ORDER BY CONSENT (SOC)
I. PERMIT RELATED INFORMATION:
1. Applicant(corporation, individual, or other): Town of Lake Lure
2. Print or Type Owner's or Signing Official's Name and Title:
Ron Nalley
3. Facility Name (as shown on Permit):
4. Owner Phone: [phone] (or)
5. Owner Email: townmgrAtownoflakelure.com
4. Application Date:
5. NPDES Permit No. (if applicable):NC0025381
6. Name of the specific wastewater treatment facility(if different from 1..3. above):
Town of Lake Lure
II. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
Prior to submitting this completed application form, applicants must meet with the appropriate
regional office staff to discuss whether or not an SOC is appropriate for this situation. Please
note the date this meeting occurred and who represented the permittee:
Representative: As per email from Tim Heim Date: April 07, 2017 .
III. ADDITIONAL FLOW OR FLOW REALLOCATION:
In accordance with NCGS 143-215.67(b), only facilities owned by a unit of government may
request additional flow.
Additional flow may be allowed under an SOC only in specific circumstances. These
circumstances may include eliminating discharges that are not compliant with an NPDES or
Non-discharge permit. These circumstances do not include failure to perform proper
maintenance of treatment systems, collection systems or disposal systems. When requesting
additional flow,the facility must include its justification and supporting documentation.

If the requested additional flow is non-domestic, the facility must be able to demonstrate the
ability to effectively treat the waste and dispose of residuals. The applicant must provide a
detailed analysis of the constituents in the proposed non-domestic wastewater.
The total domestic additional flow requested: 0 gallons per day.
The total non-domestic additional flow requested: 0 gallons per day.
The total additional flow(sum of the above): 0 gallons per day.
Please attach a detailed description or project listing of the proposed allocation for additional
flow, with an explanation of how flow quantities were estimated. Further, any additional flow
requested must be justified by a complete analysis, by the permittee, that additional flow will not
adversely impact wastewater collection/treatment facilities or surface waters.
IV. NECESSITY NARRATIVE:
Please attach a narrative providing a detailed explanation of the circumstances regarding the
necessity of the proposed SOC. Include the following issues:
• Existing and/or unavoidable future violations(s) of permit conditions or limits(s),
• The existing treatment process and any process modifications that have been made to
date to ensure optimum performance of existing facilities,
• Collection system rehabilitation work completed or scheduled(including dates),
• Coordination with industrial users regarding their discharges or pretreatment facilities.
Identify any non-compliant significant industrial users and measure(s) proposed or
already taken to bring the pretreatment facilities back into compliance. If any industrial
facilities are currently under consent agreements, please attach these agreements,
• Date and outcome of last Industrial Waste Survey,
• Whether or not the facility is acting as a regional facility receiving wastewater from other
municipalities having independent pretreatment programs.
V. CERTIFICATION:
The applicant must submit a report prepared by an independent professional with expertise in
wastewater treatment. This report must address the following:
•
An evaluation of existing treatment units, operational procedures and recommendations
as to how the efficiencies of these facilities can be maximized. Theerson in charge of
P g
such evaluation must sign this document.
• A certification that these facilities could not be operated in a manner that would achieve
compliance with final permit limits. The person making such determination must sign
this certification.
• The effluent limits that the facility could be expected to meet if operated at their
maximum efficiency during the term of the requested SOC (be sure to consider interim
construction phases).
• Any other actions taken to correct problems prior to requesting the SOC.
2

VI. PREDICTED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE:
The applicant must submit a detailed listing of activities along with time frames that are
necessary to bring the facility into compliance. This schedule should include milestone dates for
beginning construction, ending construction, and achieving final compliance at a minimum. In
determining the milestone dates,the following should be considered:
• Time for submitting plans, specifications and appropriate engineering reports to DWR for
review and approval.
• Occurrence of major construction activities that are likely to affect facility performance
(units out of service, diversion of flows, etc.) to include a plan of action to minimize
impacts to surface waters.
• Infiltration/Inflow work, if necessary.
• Industrial users achieving compliance with their pretreatment permits if applicable.
• Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TRE), if necessary.
VII. FUNDING SOURCES IDENTIFICATION:
The applicant must list the sources of funds utilized to complete the work needed to bring the
facility into compliance. Possible funding sources include but are not limited to loan
commitments, bonds, letters of credit,block grants and cash reserves. The applicant must show
that the funds are available, or can be secured in time to meet the schedule outlined as part of this
application.
If funding is not available at the beginning of the SOC process, the permittee must submit a copy
of all funding applications to ensure that all efforts are being made to secure such funds.
Note: A copy of the application should be sufficient to demonstrate timeliness unless regional
office has reason to request all information associated with securing funding.
THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION
PACKAGE UNLESS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ITEMS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE
SUBMITTAL.
Required Items:
a. One original and two copies of the completed and appropriately executed application
form, along with all required attachments.
• If the SOC is for a City / Town, the person signing the SOC must be a ranking
elected official or other duly authorized employee.
• If the SOC is for a Corporation / Company / Industry / Other, the person signing
the SOC must be a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-
president, or.his duly authorized representative.
• If the SOC is for a School District, the person signing the SOC must be the
Superintendent of Schools or other duly authorized employee.
3

Note: Reference to signatory requirements in SOCs may be found in the North
Carolina Administrative Code [T15A NCAC 2H.1206(a)(3)].
b. The non-refundable Special Order by Consent (SOC) processing fee of$400.00. A
check must be made payable to The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
c. An evaluation report prepared by an independent consultant with expertise in
wastewater. (in triplicate)
APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATION:
(NO MODIFICATION TO THIS CERTIFICATION IS ACCEPTABLE)
1, Ron Nalley , attest this application for a Special Order by Consent(SOC)
has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand if all required parts of this application are not completed and if all required
supporting information and attachments are not included, this application package may be
returned as incomplete. (Please be advised that the return of this application does not prevent
DWR from collecting all outstanding penalties upon request). Furthermore, I attest by my
signature that I fully understand that an upfront penalty, which may satisfy as a full
settlement of outstanding violations, may be imposed. (Note: Reference to upfront penalties
in Special Orders by Consent may be found in the North Carolina Administrative Code [T15A
NCAC 21-1.1206(c)(3)}.}
Date 11511/
Signature of Signing Official U
Ron Nalley,Town Manager
Printed Name of Signing Official
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION PACKAGE, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL AND TWO
COPIES OF ALL SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND MATERIALS, SHOULD BE SENT
TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
IF THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A NON-DISCHARGE SYSTEM,THEN SEND TO:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION
1636 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1636
4

t
Pre — Application Meeting Information

Harlow Brown
From: Heim, Tim <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Ron Nalley
Cc: 'Harlow Brown'; Bob Keith
Subject: RE: Town of Lake Lure Request for SOC
Thanks Ron. We received the hard copy. Once I finish review, I will send you an e-mail with instructions on how to file
the formal SOC application (I believe Harlow is already familiar with this).The application references a pre-meeting, but
considering the amount of communication we have already had on this, we can probably waive it unless the town would
like to have to meeting.
From: Ron Nalley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday,April 07, 2017 3:31 PM
To: Heim,Tim <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Harlow Brown' <[e-mail]>; Bob Keith <[e-mail]>
Subject:Town of Lake Lure Request for SOC
Tim,
I apologize for the delay. Attached is a letter to Mr. Davidson requesting a Special Order by Consent for the Town of
Lake Lure (NPDES Permit#00253481). I will place the original letter in the mail today. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have questions or require any additional information.
Thank you,
Ron Nalley
Town Manager
2948 Memorial Highway
Lake Lure, NC 28746
Office: 828.625.9983, Ext. 101.
Web: townoflakelure.com
e.

Additional Flow or Flow Reallocation — N/A

Necessity Narrative

1
Necessity Narrative
The Town of Lake Lure is not currently facing capacity issues impacting the existing
WWTP or existing sanitary sewer collection system. The primary issues facing the Town
of Lake Lure are related to aging treatment system equipment, inability of biological
treatment to achieve ammonia nitrogen removal, low organic loading, high iron
concentrations, low influent temperature and inadequate solids dewatering capacity.
These issues impact the reliability of the treatment system to achieve the NPDES
Permit effluent limits.
Ammonia nitrogen has an existing and unavoidable future violation of the permit
conditions, due to the limited/inadequate equipment/process of the existing WWTP.
Total Suspended Solids may be an unavoidable future violation due to inadequate
solids storage and dewatering capacity and disposal. The existing digester is operating
at 1/2 capacity due to a leak.
p Y
The existing Lake Lure WWTP was originally constructed in 1969 as an activated
sludge process with a permitted capacity of 0.350 MGD. Due to hydraulic overload
associated with the lake I/I issues, the plant was upgraded and converted to physical
chemical plant in 1991 with a permitted capacity of .995 MGD.
The Lake Lure collection system received an ARRA grant in 2009 to reduce the lake I/I
into the underwater collection system resulting in a significant reduction of I/I. At this
time there is no scheduled/future work for the system.
The Town of Lake Lure currently has no Industrial waste users. Lake Lure has never
performed a Industrial Waste Survey due to Lake Lure never having an industrial waste
customer.
Currently the Town of Lake Lure receives wastewater from the Town of Chimney Rock.
Chimney Rock does not currently have a pretreatment program.

Certification

Lake Lure Green Line Sewer Interconnection
Engineering Report/Environmental Information Document
Town of Lake Lure
Prepared for:
Town of Lake Lure
2948 Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 255
Lake Lure, NC 28746
August 31,2016
�,tuttuIl,r
•
=' Smoi 8802 l,
31
. N°�•. R, FRS o``,
Charles R. Froneberger,PE
W.K.Dickson &Co., Inc.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28205
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
NC License#F0374
WKD Project Number 20160047.00.CL

P
Intentionally Left Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 CURRENT SITUATION
2.1 Collection System Condition 4
2.2 Wastewater Treatment System 5
2.3 Current Population 21
2.4 Current Wastewater Flow 22
3.0 FUTURE SITUATION
3.1 Population Projections 23
3.2 Flow Projections 23
4.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 26
5.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
5.1 Alternative Description 28
5.2 Present Worth Analysis 44
5.3 Alternative Analysis Summary 75
5.4 Proposed Project Description 77
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT N/A
7.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
7.1 System Financial Condition 81
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
8.1 Projects Below Minor Construction Activity Thresholds/EPA Criteria 88
8.2 Environmental Impacts Statements 88
8.3 General Recommendations 89

List of Appendices
Appendix A.Project Location Maps
A.1: Vicinity Map
A.2: Project Area Map
Appendix B.Town of Lake Lure WWTP
B.1: Existing Gravity Sewer Collection System(with SSO's)
B.2 Existing Lake Lure WWTP Site Plan
B.3 Existing WWTP Flow Schematic
B.4 NPDES Permit NC 0025381
B.5: SSO/NOV Reports
Appendix C.Discharge Monitoring Reports(DMR's)—January 2014 to January 2015
Appendix D.2010 US Census Information
Appendix E. Inflow
E.1 Inflow Calculation
Appendix F.Alternative No.1—Upgrade Existing WWTP
F.1 Proposed WWTP Upgrade Site Plan
F.2 Proposed Flow Schematic
Appendix G.Alternative No.2—Regionalization at Rutherfordton WWTP
G.1 Proposed Force Main Routing Plan and Profile
G.2 Preliminary Pump Station Calculations and Pump Selection
G.3 Town of Rutherfordton Current Rates for Contract Treatment
Appendix H.Alternative No.3—Regionalization at Spindale WWTP
PP � P
H.1 Proposed Force Main Routing Plan and Profile
H.2 Preliminary Pump Station Calculations and Pump Selection
H.3 Town of Spindale Rates for Contract Treatment
Appendix I. Financial and User Rate Information
I.1 Water and Sewer Fund—Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures
I.2 Current Water&Sewer User Rates
ii

Appendix J. Environmental Information Document Information
Appendix K. Public Meeting Documents
Appendix L. Response to NCDENR Technical Review Comments
iii

List of Tables
Table 2.1.1 SSO Description and Special Orders
Table 2.1.2 Unsewered Areas and Failing Septic System Description
Table 2.2.1 General WWTP Condition
Table 2.2.2 Historical Wastewater Flow Data
Table 2.2.3.1 Specific Equipment Description-Influent Pump Station
Table 2.2.3.2 Specific Equipment Description—Influent Flow Splitter
Table 2.2.3.3 Specific Equipment Description—Mechanically Cleaned Screen
Table 2.2.3.4 Specific Equipment Description— Influent Flash Mixer/Flocculation Basin
Table 2.2.3.5 Specific Equipment Description—Sedimentation Basin
Table 2.2.3.6 Specific Equipment Description— Clarifier
Table 2.2.3.7 Specific Equipment Description—Disinfection System
Table 2.2.3.8 Specific Equipment Description—Effluent Sand Filter
Table 2.2.3.9 Specific Equipment Description—Sludge Pump Station
Table 2.2.3.10 Specific Equipment Description—Sludge Thickener/Aerobic DigesterTank
Table 2.2.3.11 Specific Equipment Description—Chemical Feed System
Table 2.2.3.12 Specific Equipment Description—Sludge Dewatering/Disposal
Table 2.2.4 NPDES Permit Information
Table 2.3.1 Current Population Analysis
Table 2.4.1 Current Flow Analysis
Table 3.1.1 Future Population Analysis
Table 3.2.1 Future Flow Analysis
Table 4.1 Need and Purpose
Table 5.1.1 Alternative Description—No Action
Table 5.1.2 Alternative Description—Decentralization
Table 5.1.3 Alternative Description—Optimization of Existing WWTP
Table 5.1.4 Alternative 1 Description—Upgrade of Existing WWTP
Table 5.1.5 Alternative 2 Description—Regionalization of Treatment at Rutherfordton
WWTP
Table 5.1.6 Alternative 3 Description—Regionalization of Treatment at Spindale WWTP
Table 5.1.7 Alternative 4 Description- Upgrade Existing WWTP with Land Application
of Effluent
Table 5.2.1.1 Capital Costs.Alternative 1 -WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.1.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1-5)—Alternative 1 WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.1.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6-10)-Alternative 1 WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.1.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11-15)-Alternative 1 WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.1.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16-20)-Alternative 1 WWTP Upgrade
iv

Table 5.2.1.6 Present Valve of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)—Alternative
1 WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.1.7 Present Valve of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)—Alternative
1 WWTP Upgrade
Table 5.2.2.1 Capital Costs—Alternative 2- Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP
Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1-5)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6-10)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11-15)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16-20)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.6 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)-Alternative
2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.2.7 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)-Alternative
2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.1 Capital Costs—Alternative 2. Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3
Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1-5)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6-10)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11-15)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16-20)Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to
Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.6 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)-Alternative 2-
Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.3.7 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)-Alternative
2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.4.1 Capital Costs—Alternative 3. Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2—3 Pump
Stations
Table 5.2.4.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1-5)Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale
WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.4.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6-10)Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale
WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
v

Table 5.2.4.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11-15)Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to
Spindale WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.4.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16-20)Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to
Spindale WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.4.6 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs (Years 1-10)-Alternative 3-
Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.4.7 Present Value of Operation and Maintenance Costs (Years 11-20)-Alternative
3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2—3 Pump Stations
Table 5.2.5 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions
Table 5.2.6 Total Present Worth Summary for Feasible Alternatives
Table 5.3.1 Alternative Analysis Summary
Table 5.4.1 Project Description Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System Engineering
Report
(Section 6-Environmental Information Tables Not included)
Table 7.1 Applicant's/LGUs Financial Condition
Table 7.2 Funding Distribution—Force Main Transfer to Spindale
Table 7.3 Year 1 Interest and Repayment—Force Main Transfer to Spindale
Table 7.4 Cost per 5,000 Gallons to Finance Project—Force Main Transfer to Spindale
Table 7.5 User Rates Needed to Finance Project—Force Main Transfer to Spindale
Table 7.6 Impact to Bills Due to Project—Force Main Transfer to Spindale
vi

List of Figures
Figure 2.2.1 Influent Pump Station
Figure 2.2.2 Influent Pumps
Figure 2.2.3 Influent Pump Station Emergency Generator Connection
Figure 2.2.4 Influent By-Pass Screen
Figure 2.2.5 Influent Flow Splitter
Figure 2.2.6 Inflent Screen Front view
Figure 2.2.7 Influent Screen Discharge Side
Figure 2.2.8 Existing Flash Mix&Flocculation Basins
Figure 2.2.9 Sedimentation Basin
Figure 2.2.10 Sludge Pump Station
Figuer 2.2.11 Existing Clarifier
Figure 2.2.12 Existing Clarifier Weirs
Figure 2.2.13 Existing Chlorine Contact Tank
Figure 2.2.14 Traveling Bridge Effluent Filter
Figure 2.2.15 Sludge Pump Station
Figure 2.2.16 Sludge Pumps
Figure 2.2.17 Digester Tank
Figure 2.2.18 Digester Blower
Figure 2.2.19 Recirculation Pump
Figure 2.2.20 Chemical Metering Pumps
Figure 2.2.21 "Geotube"Solids Dewatering System
vu

Intentionally Left Blank

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Lake Lure(Town)is located in the northern corner of Rutherford County and
considered to be a resort area with a 2015 service area year round population estimated to be
approximately 2,156 and seasonal population of 5,000 people. The Town of Lake Lure
provides wastewater treatment services for 1,007 customers within the Town's service area
that includes the Chimney Rock and Rumbling Bald Resort communities.
The main wastewater gravity collection system was constructed in 1927 prior to Lake Lure
being flooded. The collection system conveyed untreated wastewater to a discharge point
into the Broad River below the dam until 1969. In 1969,the Town constructed a 0.35 MGD
wastewater treatment plant(WWTP). Over the period between 1969 and 1989,the WWTP
experienced increasing volumes of lake infiltration and inflow(I/I)leading to several WWTP
upgrades with an increase in permitted capacity to 0.995 MGD in 2008. The increasing flow
was directly attributed to infiltration into the gravity sewer line located below Lake Lure and
the associated pressure on the joints exerted by the depth of the lake. With increasing I/I, the
Town received a number of Notice of Violations(NOV's)leading to a Special Order By
Consent(SOC)in 2007.
In 2009, the Town was awarded a$3,000,000 ARRA grant to seal approximately 25%of the
joints within the system subject to I/I. These repairs were completed in 2011 resulting in a
significant reduction of the average daily flow to approximately 0.33 MGD.Despite several
upgrades to the WWTP,the plant continues to experience NOV's for ammonia nitrogen and
total suspended solids. These NOV's are directly attributed the following factors:
• Average influent temperature of 18°C reducing biological activity of treatment
system.
• The inability of the system to maintain biological nitrification attributed to the low
organic loading and low temperature.
• Inadequate provisions for controlling the solids inventory within the plant.
Basic contact information for the project is as follows:
Owner- Town of Lake Lure
Owner Contact- Mr.Ron Nalley,Town Manager
P.O.Box 255(2948 Memorial Hwy)
Lake Lure,NC 28746
828-625-9983
[e-mail]
1

Engineer- W.K.Dickson&Co.,Inc.
Engineer Contact- Mr.Brian L.Tripp,P.E.,B.C.E.E., Client Manager
Mr.Charles R.Froneberger,P.E.,B.C.E.E.Project Manager
616 Colonnade DR.
Charlotte,NC 28056
704-334-5348
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
This Engineering Report(ER) identified the below listed deficiencies within the existing
treatment plant with no proposed increase in permitted capacity:
• Influent flow surges associated the off/on operation of constant speed influent
pumps.
• Low organic loading to support biological treatment combined with low biological
activity associated with the low influent temperature.
• High concentrations of iron in the influent wastewater resulting in iron oxide solids
formation upon oxidation and chlorination.
• Inadequate solids storage and dewatering capacity producing a high solids inventory
within the system and overflow into the effluent.
To address the current WWTP deficiencies,the below alternatives were identified and
evaluated:
• No Action
• Decentralization
• Optimization of Existing WWTP
• Upgrade of Existing WWTP
• Regionalization of wastewater treatment at the Rutherfordton WWTP
• Regionalization of wastewater treatment at the Spindale WWTP
Each of these alternatives were evaluated based upon the projected capital cost,operation
and maintenance costs,environmental impacts,permitting considerations and overall system
compatibility with the long term goals,financial resources and needs of the Town of Lake
Lure. Based upon these evaluations,W.K.Dickson recommends the Town pursue the
regionalization of treatment at the Spindale WWTP consisting of the following additions and
modifications:
2

1) Modifications at existing WWTP to permit continued use of the influent screening
system, conversion of the existing sedimentation tank and clarifier into emergency
storage and closure of remaining existing treatment components.
2) Addition of new flow monitoring system.
3) Addition of a new pump station at the existing WWTP site with two(2)intermediate
pump stations strategically located within the force main route. All three(3)pump
stations are to have duplex pumps and emergency diesel powered generators and
SCADA monitoring system to insure reliability.
4) Construction of approximately 98,400 if of 12 inch force main extending from the
Lake Lure WWTP site to the a connection point at the headworks of the Town of
Spindale's existing WWTP.
The total projected cost for the proposed conveyance and regionalization of treatment at the
Spindale WWTP has a probable capital cost of approximately$13,565,600. This alternative
was the most cost effective alternative based upon the present worth cost analysis and is the
Owner preferred alternative. Based upon utilization of funding from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund(CWSRF) at 0%interest over a 30 year period,the project would require in
increase in the typical 5,000 gallon per month sewer user fee from the current$69.50 per
month to$100.06 per month or a 43.97%increase. In the event that Lake Lure does not
qualify for a 0%interest loan, the monthly user rates at the current CWSRF rate of 1.84%
would be increased to$109.83 per month or a 58.02%increase.
3

Intentionally Left Blank

2. CURRENT SITUATION
The Town of Lake Lure (Town) is located in northern corner of Rutherford County and is
considered a resort area with a year round service area population of approximately 2,156
and seasonal population of approximately 5,000 people. The Town of Lake Lure currently
provides wastewater treatment services for 1,007 customers within a service area including
Lake Lure,ChimneyRock
and Rumbling Bald Resort communities.
2.1 Collection System
The Town's collection system is currently permitted under NCDENR Collection System
Permit WQCS001131 with an expiration date of June 30,2017. The main gravity sewer
collection system for Lake Lure consists of 12.35 miles of cast iron pipe(CIP)installed in 1927
prior to the lake being flooded.There are approximately 65 gravity sewer laterals,which are
tapped off the main collection system and extend to manholes located along the perimeter of
the lake. Various gravity sewers and service lines are connected to these manholes that are
owned by the Town or private individuals.
Between 1928 and 1969,the collection system discharged charged untreated wastewater directly into
the Broad River downstream of the dam. In 1969,the Town constructed a 0.35 MGD
wastewater treatment plant(WWTP). Over the period 1969 to 1989,the WWTP experienced
increasing lake infiltration and inflow(I/I) leading to several upgrades of the WWTP
increasing the permitted capacity to 0.995 MGD around 2008. With I/I continuing to increase,
the Town received a number of Notice of Violations(NOV's)for the treatment plant from
NDDENR and entered into a Special Order by Consent(SOC)in 2007 to correct the treatment
problems. In 2009,Lake Lure was awarded a$3,000,000 ARRA grant to seal approximately
25%of the joints in the system.Many of the other unwrapped joints are inaccessible due to a
deep silt overburden blanket,which is believed to have sealed these joints.The repairs were
essentially complete in 2011 resulting in a significant reduction of the average daily flow
from over 0.9 MGD to approximately 0.33 MGD. Calculations of the Lake Lure collection
system infiltration utilizing the NCDENR methodology are not feasible due to the large
percentage of residences that utilize residential wells. This makes the water billing records
inaccurate for comparison with wastewater flow records.
The proposed project does not include any modifications or expansions within the collection
system. Considering the unique construction of the collection system with a large portion of
the system under the lake, the majority of the collection system is not subject to sewer system
overflows or risks of leaks into the lake due to the water pressure exerted by the lake forcing
water into the gravity sewer.
Sanitary sewer overflows(SSO's) and SOC's for the system are itemized in Table 2.1.1.
1. Comprehensive Sewer Study for the Town of Lake Lure, August 2010, Brown Consultants
4

Table 2.1.1. SSO Description and Special Orders
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Provide the SSOs that have occurred in accordance with Section 3.3.1.2 of the guidance.
Figure number for SSO map: N/A
Appendix Number for SSO Reports and
Special Orders: N/A—See below comment.
Estimated
Brief Description of Amount
Date Location Cause Spilled (gal). Map Key
7/25/10 Influent Pump Sta. Transformer failure Unknown N/A
and loss of power at
pump station and
damage to backup
generator
Provide information related to special orders in accordance with Section 3.3.1.2.
Does the LGU have a SOC,pending SOC, or other special order? No.
❑Yes,SOC is in place.
❑Yes,SOC is pending.
® No
If Yes,provide the information discussed in Section 3.3.1.2.
N/A
Provide information related to unsewered areas and septic systems in accordance with Section
3.3.1.3 of the guidance.
Figure Number for Unsewered Areas map: N/A
Discuss any unswered areas.
N/A
2.2 Wastewater Treatment System
The Town's wastewater treatment needs are currently served by a WWTP permitted for
operation under NPDES Permit No.NC0025381. The receiving stream for the Lake Lure
WWTP is the Broad River. Due to the size of the Broad River(i.e.significant 7q10 flow and
ample toxicity dilution requirements in the NPDES permit), the assimilative capacity of the
river is substantial. Accordingly,the plant currently operates under secondary treatment
limits with no limits for total nitrogen or phosphorus.
5

A general area vicinity map for the WWTP location is provided in Appendix A. The current
WWTP description and condition assessment are included in Table 2.2.1 with a copyof the
P
related NPDES Permit,site plan and schematic flow diagram provided in Appendix B.
Table 2.2.1. General WWTP Condition
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Provide a brief description of the WWTP condition as discussed in Section 3.3.2.1 of the guidance.
The Lake Lure WWTP was originally constructed in 1969 as an activated sludge process
with a permitted capacity of 0.350 MGD. Due to hydraulic overload associated with the
lake I/I issues,the plant was upgraded and converted to a physical chemical plant in 1991
with a permitted capacity of 0.995 MGD. Continued hydraulic overloading issues resulted
in many NOV's requiring another upgrade in 2008. An ARRA grant was received in 2009
to reduce the lake I/I into the underwater collection system resulting in a significant
reduction of I/I. Historical WWTP flow data isp rovided in Table 2.2.2. The current
WWTP NPDES Permit provides two(2)tiered effluent limitations based upon an annual
flow up to 0.495 MGD and for an annual average flow exceeding 0.495 MGD. Consistent
compliance with the permit limits for ammonia nitrogen and effluent solids continues to
be an issue.
The WWTP currently includes the following unit processes which are further described in
Table 2.2.3:
1) Influent pump station
2) Flow splitter box with manually cleaned by-pass screen and plant by-pass to the
influent of the Chlorine Contact Tank
3) Mechanically cleaned screen
4) Flash mix and flocculation basins
5) Sedimentation basin
6) Clarifier
7) Disinfection system with chlorination, dechlorination
8) Effluent filter(no longer in service)
9) Sludge pump station
10) Sludge thickener/aerobic digester/aeration tank system
11) Chemical feed systems
12) Sludge disposal
Provide the average daily flows for the past four years and the current flow.
Schematic Diagraph Reference: Appendix Plant Diagram Reference: Appendix
B B
DMR Appendix Reference: Appendix C
6

Table 2.2.1. General WWTP Condition
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Year ADF (MGD) Year ADF(MGD)
2011 0.44 2013 0.31
2012 0.33 2014 0.33
Current Flow(MGD): 0.33 (2014)
Current Capacity(MGD): 0.995
Percentage of Capacity Currently Utilized: 33%
Provide information related to any NOVs the WWTP may have received or any special orders that
may be in place.
NOVs Special Orders
Does the WWTP have any NOVs? Does the WWTP have any Special Orders or
®Yes pending SOCs?
❑ No ❑ Yes,Special Order is finalized
❑ N/A(new construction only) ❑ Yes,Special Order is pending
® No
❑ N/A(new construction only)
If yes, then describe and provide supporting If yes, then describe and provide supporting
information in an appendix of the ER/EID. information in an appendix of the ER/EID.
Appendix Reference: Appendix Appendix Reference: N/A
B.5
Table 2.2.2. Historical Wastewater Flow Data
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Provide historical flows in accordance with Section 3.3.2.2 of the guidance.
Historical Flow Appendix Reference: Appendix C
Maximum Monthly Minimum Monthly
Annual Average Average Flow Average Flow
Year Daily Flow(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
1 2011 0.44 0.54 0.24
2 2012 0.33 0.48 0.18
3 2013 0.31 0.39 0.26
4 2014 0.33 0.48 0.22
Qn y0.35 0.47 0.23
Provide additional discussion of flow variations in accordance with Section 3.3.2.2 of the guidance.
7

Table 2.2.2. Historical Wastewater Flow Data
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
The Town received a$3,000,000 grant from ARRA in 2009 to reduce I/I attributed to lake
induced I/I associated with the submerged collection system. Approximately 60%of the
underwater pipe joints were wrapped. Many of the other the remaining joints were inaccessible
due to a deep silt overburden blanket which is believed to provide a seal for these joints'. This
work was completed in 2012 substantially reducing the I/I and flow to the WWTP from an
average daily flow exceeding 0.9 mgd in 2009 to the average daily flows previously noted.
The flow reduction noted in the reported flows for 2012 to 2014 are attributed to the joint
wrapping program. Calculation of the existing system infiltration using the NCDENR
methodology is not feasible for this system due to the large percentage of residents served by
residential wells and lake water infiltration rendering a comparison of water billing records and
wastewater flow invalid.
The system inflow was calculated utilizing the NCDENR methodology with the calculation
table included in Appendix E. This calculation utilized a 1.04 inch rainfall event of November
23,2014 which followed a five day period from November 18 to November 22,2014 with no
rainfall. This calculation indicated a 142 gpd/capita inflow which is not considered to be
excessive by NCDENR guidelines.
1.Comprehensive Sewer Study for the Town of Lake Lure, August 2010, Brown Consultants
Table 2.2.3.1 Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Influent Pump Station
Picture Figure 2.2.1' Additional
Diagram Appendix
2.2.2& Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B
2.2.3 Reference:
Condition Age Size
® Good 24 years 4" Gorman Rupp with
❑ Fair capacity estimated at
❑ Poor -300 gpm/pump
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
8

The influent pump station is located at the base of the Lake Lure dam and contains three
(3) reliable,320 gpm Gorman-Rupp self-priming,constant speed pumps. Emergency
power if required can be provided by connection to a portable generator with an accessible
receptacle and transfer switch already in place.
Operational issues related to the existing influent pumps are as follows:
1) Constant speed operation results in slug flow to the WWTP due to pump cycles.
2) The discharge header for all three (3) pumps is one size creating additional head loss
when more than one pump is in operation. This significantly reduces the additional
flow capacity when multiple pumps are in operation. Pumping capacity for the
three(3)pumps is essentially the same as for two(2)pumps.
3) The existing influent flow meter is no longer utilized due to the age with repair parts
no longer available. Influent flow to the WWTP is currently estimated based on the
pump run time and rated flow. This is not accurate if more than one pump is in
operation.
4) Recommended upgrades includes:
a) Installation of new pump motors with variable speed drives to reduce flow
slugs to the WWTP and increased horsepower and pump speed to provide
additional capacity.
b) Replacement of the existing flow meter.
wi
ti
Figure 2.2.1 Influent Pump Station Figure 2.2.2 Influent Pumps
•
Figure 2.2.3 Influent Pump Station Emergency Generator Connection
9

Table 2.2.3.2 Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Influent Flow Splitter
Picture Figure 2.2.4& Diagram Appendix Additional
Information N/A
Reference: 2.2.5 Reference: B Reference:
Condition Age Size
•
❑ Good >46 years -4' x 4'
® Fair
n Poor
H N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The influent flow splitter and manually cleaned screen permits flow to be diverted through
the manually cleaned screen directly to the influent of the chlorine contact chamber. It is
not currently used.
� � ';i19" En'i'L 4iisl
rf s
„..,..,:, ; r ...„..%.
h 4 +14. a#
. It-f:t.44: '-''IT:;"V.f.'I'4"'''''6:'.-%."4 —.6 4,,,,..„,..'rt.:
k
4 11
.1-5,1" Iq'✓ ,,,,„.......:14501.,i t e
Figure 2.2.4 Influent By-Pass Bar Screen Figure 2.2.5 Influent Flow Splitter
10

r 1
Table 2.2.3.3. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Influent Mechanically Cleaned Screen
Additional
Picture Figure 2.2.6& Diagram Appendix Information N/A
Reference: 2.2.7 Reference: B
Reference:
-
Condition Age Size
MGood -7 years 7.5 MGD (sewage)
I-1 Fair 11 MGD(clean water)
❑ Poor (24"W x 4'-6"D Channel)
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The influent mechanically cleaned screen is a"step" screen with 3/8" (3 mm)screen
openings for effective influent solids removal complete with a screening dewatering
compactor for conveyance of dewatered screenings to a dumpster for final landfill
disposal.
1:
1 .i
- ' .`` --- _i_ x'71 •a,' i
r' , ''' j :t om
Figure 2.2.6 Influent Screen Front View Figure 2.2.7 Influent Screen Discharge Side
11

Table 2.2.3.4. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Influent Flash Mix/Flocculation Basins
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix Additional
2.2.8 Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B
Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good Flash Mix (Rehab.2007) Flash Mix-3' x 3' x-6'
n Fair Floc.Basin(Rehab. 1991) Floc.Basin 14'x 14'x10.5'
® Poor (15,400 gallons)
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The flocculation basin was constructed with the original plant in 1969 and was previously
utilized as a sludge holding basin until the 1991 plant upgrade and conversion of the plant
to a physical chemical process. In 1991,the flash mix tank was added for alum addition
and the sludge holding tank was converted into a flocculation basin. Slow,constant speed
mixers with small impellers were utilized in both the flash mix and flocculation basins. A
variable speed drive with improved flocculation capabilities has been previously
recommended for replacement of the existing flocculation basin mixer to promote better
floc formation. Alum is typically added at this location but recent issues with solids
storage in the following sedimentation basin has resulted in the relocation of alum feed to
the sedimentation basin effluent.
--
atm.
`jam -
..,
;r ,; ref
y
• J Y
Figure 2.2.8 Existing Flash Mix&Flocculation Basins
12

•
Table 2.2.3.5. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Lake Lure
Sedimentation Basin
Picture Figure 2.2.9& Diagram Appendix Additional
Reference: 2.2.10 Reference: B Information
Reference:
Condition Age Size
111 Good Structure is 46 years old 9 'x 48.58.75'
0 x deep
P
® Fair (255,800 gallons)
n Poor
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The sedimentation basin was installed with the original WWTP in 1969 as an aeration
basin in the former activated sludge process. In 1991,the basin was converted into a
sedimentation basin with a telescoping valve for solids removal. This was upgraded in
2008 in response to the SOC by the addition of a traveling vacuum sludge collection
system and later revised to a stationary pipe manifold sludge removal system utilizing the
self-priming sludge pumps.
1 x,
411
f
Figure 2.2.9 Sedimentation Basin Figure 2.2.10 Sludge Pump Station
13

Table 2.2.3.6. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Clarifier
Additional
Picture Figure 2.2.11 & Diagram Appendix Information N/A
Reference: 2.2.12 Reference: B
Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good >46 years 27'Dia.x 8' SWD
❑ Fair
N Poor
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The clarifier was part of the original WWTP installed in 1969. At the current permitted
flow of 0.995 MGD,the surface overflow rate for this unit is 1702 gpd/sf. This overflow
rate significantly exceeds the recommended design overflow rate for extended aeration
clarifiers. As a single clarifier unit, there are no provisions for redundancy to permit
clarifier maintenance. The high overflow rate combined with the short sidewall depth
impact the performance of this unit to remove solids at flow rates exceeding
approximately 0.3 MGD.
Alum is currently added at the effluent from the sedimentation basin, allowed to settle in
the clarifier and periodically pumped to the sludge storage/aerobic digester tank.
•
• _J
Figure 2.2.11 Existing Clarifier. Figure 2.2.12 Existing Clarifier Weirs
14

Table 2.2.3.7 Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Disinfection System
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix Additional
2.2.13 Information
Reference: Reference: B
Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good >46 years 14'-8"x 8'-5" x 5' SWD
n Fair (3420 gallons)
® Poor
n N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The disinfection system utilizes liquid sodium hypochlorite for chlorination and calcium
thiosulfate for dechlorination. The existing contact basin has insufficient volume to
provide the DENR recommended 30 minute chlorine contact time at flows greater than
approximately 0.164 MGD. To increase the contact time and achieve the desired
disinfection at a reasonable chlorine dosage without iron oxidation;sodium hypochlorite is
currently fed at the influent to the secondary clarifier. The addition of high dosages of
sodium hypochlorite in combination with the high iron concentration in the wastewater
results in the precipitation of iron oxide solids producing a reddish orange color in the
wastewater. This may also impact the effluent suspended solids level. The effluent flow is
monitored with an ultrasonic flow monitor and 2 foot rectangular weir at the effluent of
the contact tank.
Figure 2.2.13 Existing Chlorine Contact Tank
15

Table 2.2.3.8. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Effluent Sand Filter(Not Longer in Service)
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix
Additional
2.2.14 Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good 24 years 10'x 36' (Estimated)
❑ Fair
® Poor
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The effluent filter is a traveling bridge filter manufactured by Davco and was previously
utilized for solids removal in the effluent following chlorination. It was abandoned
sometime between 1990 and 2004 due to operational issues associated with the iron oxide
formation during disinfection. It has not been used in over 10 years and is considered to
be non-serviceable.
)/ii
�5 .r �•� + ,fir"
c 1.
Figure 2.2.14 Traveling Bridge Effluent Filter
16

Table 2.2.3.9. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Sludge Pump Station
2.2.15 Additional
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix
& Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B
2.2.16 Reference:
Condition Age Size
® Good -7 years -400 gpm
❑ Fair (Estimated)
❑ Poor
❑ N/A
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The sludge pump station is a Gorman-Rupp above ground,suction life station that
removes sludge from the sedimentation basin and clarifier and transfers it to the sludge
thickener/aerobic digester/aeration tank.
;ii
•
=.
Figure 2.2.15 Sludge Pump Station Figure 2.2.16 Sludge Pumps
17

Table 2.2.3.10. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Sludge Thickener/Aerobic Digester Tank
2.2.17, Additional
Picture Figure 2.2.18& Diagram Information
Reference: 2 3.19 Reference: Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good -14 years 24'dia.x 30'SWD
® Fair 101,500 gallons
n Poor
n N/A _
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The sludge tank was originally installed with the plant upgrade in 1991 and modified
during the upgrades of 2008 and 2012 to improve the aeration system. The tank currently
utilizes a 15 horsepower positive displacement blower and coarse bubble diffuser in the
bottom of the sludge holding tank to promote mixing and to reduce ammonia nitrogen by
air stripping. Previously a recirculation pump was also utilized for mixing but it is no
longer in service.
The sludge tank is also utilized to thicken the waste sludge with the liquid decant returned
to the plant influent immediately behind the mechanical screen. Sludge thickening/
decanting is performed by operation of the three(3)external valves or utilizing a
telescoping valve with 9 foot of travel accessible from the top of the tank. The tank
currently has a leak in an upper tank seam limiting the useful storage volume to
approximately 78,000 gallons.
•
11111 .
fr
14 firt4
i 4 I rot,
Figure 2.2.17 Digester Tank Figure 2.2.18 Digester Blower Figure 2.2.19 Recir.Pump
18

Table 2.2.3.11. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Chemical Feed System
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix Additional
2.2.20 Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B Reference:
Condition Age Size
® Good Varies Small metering pumps
❑ Fair (size unknown)
❑ Poor
n N/A-
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The plant has the capability to feed alum,caustic soda,sodium hypochlorite and calcium
thiosulfate using metering pumps paced by the effluent flow meter. Alum was previously
fed at the influent splitter box with caustic feed at the flash mix basin.Due to limited solids
handling and storage issues at the sedimentation basin,alum is currently fed at the
sedimentation basin effluent with precipitated solids removed at the clarifier. Caustic is
not currently utilized unless needed to adjust the system pH.
Sodium hypochlorite is currently also fed at the sedimentation basin effluent weir to
provide sufficient contact time at minimum dosage rates to avoid iron oxidation. Calcium
thiosulfate is fed at the chlorine contact chamber influent for dechlorination. Above
ground,flexible polyethylene tubing is utilized for conveying the chemicals to the
respective addition points permitting flexibility in moving addition points if desired.)11•
Figure 2.2.20 Chemical Metering Pumps
19

-
Table 2.2.3.12. Specific Equipment Description
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Sludge Dewatering/Disposal
Picture Figure Diagram Appendix
Additional
2.2.12 Information N/A
Reference: Reference: B Reference:
Condition Age Size
❑ Good N/A N/A
❑ Fair
® Poor
❑ N/A-
Additional Information
Provide any additional information that may be helpful in describing the equipment discussed
above.
The plant currently utilizes a"geotube" dewatering technology for solids dewatering with
ultimate landfill disposal. This system has limited capacity,is weather dependent and
currently lacks the capacity for removal and dewatering of the waste solids produced. A
polymer is added to the waste solids as it is pumped into a geotextile tubular bag
contained within a waste dumpster. Free liquid within the waste sludge passes through
the porous geotextile bag and is pumped back to the WWTP with solids retained in the
"geotube". When the captured solids achieve a sufficient solids level, the dumpster is
taken to a landfill for ultimate disposal. This dewatering system lacks the capacity to meet
the current waste solids dewatering demands of the plant creating a high solids inventory
leading to solids carryover into the effluent and effluent permit violations.
ji
+16 #a r
I'
Figure 2.2.20 "Geotube"Solids Dewatering System
20

Table 2.2.4. NPDES Permit Information
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Permit Reference: Appendix B
Describe the information provided in the permit in accordance with Section 3.2.2.5 of the guidance.
The Town operates under NPDES Permit NC0025381 with a current expiration date of
August 31,2018. A copy of the permit is provided in Appendix B. The permit includes
tiered discharge effluent limits for an average daily flow up to 0.499 MGD and flows up to
0.995 MGD. The permit provides secondary treatment limits for BODS,TSS and Fecal
Coliform plus specific limits for ammonia nitrogen,residual chlorine,toxicity,dissolved
oxygen and pH. Chronic toxicity testing is to be monitored quarterly during the months of
January,April,July and October at an effluent concentration of 10.4%at the 0.495 MGD
permitted flow and 19%at the 0.995 MGD permitted flow.Monitoring and reporting
requirements are also in place for temperature,total iron, aluminum,total nitrogen, total
phosphorus,chronic toxicity and mercury.
A graph of the Town's NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports(DMR's) reported flows for
the period May 2012 to December 2014 is provided in Appendix C. Notice of Violations
(NOV's)received by the plant in the past 4 years are also provided in Appendix B.
2.3 Current Population
The population and demographic data for the Town of Lake Lure were obtained from the US
Census Bureau for 2010 for Rutherford County and the North Carolina State Office of Budget
and Management(SOBM)with copies of related information provided in Appendix D and
summarized in Table 2.3.1.
21

Table 2.3.1. Current Population Analysis
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the areas shown in gray. Links are to U.S. Census Bureau websites
for use with this table.
U.S. Census Place or Count Town of Lake Lure _
Appendix Reference for U.S. Census Information: C
Total Census 2010 Population: 1,192
Persons per Square Mile in LGU: 73.30
LGU Land Area (miles21:► 17.80
WWTP Service Area(miles2): 32.2
%of LGU in WWTP Service Area: 180.90%
Current Population in Service Area: 2,156
2.4 Current Wastewater Flow
Wastewater produced by the Town of Lake Lure is currently classified as residential or
commercial and is summarized for the year 2013 in Table 2.4.1 below.
Table 2.4.1 Current Flow Analysis
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells in gray. Some cells have pulldown menus. Please use if present.
1/I Estimation Methodology: WWTP Only
WWTP ADF(gpd): 330,000
WWTP Min ADF(gpd)(if applicable): 220,000
Percent of LGU in WWTP Service Area: 180.90%
Water ADF WW ADF
(gp1) (gPd)
Residential: 111,861 100,675
Commercial: _ 19,575 17,618
Industrial:
Flow Commitments:
Infiltration/Inflow: 110,000
Total Estimated ADF(gpd): 228,292
alf the WWTP service area is the entire sewershed service area,then enter 100%.
Commercial Flow estimated based on 15 gpd/cap
22

Intentionally Left Blank

3. FUTURE SITUATION
The Town is not currently facing capacity issues impacting the existing WWTP or existing
sanitary sewer collection system. The primary issues facing the Town are related to aging
treatment system equipment,inability of biological treatment to achieve ammonia nitrogen
removal,low organic loading,high iron concentrations,low influent temperatures and
inadequate solids dewatering capacity. These issues impact the reliability of the treatment
system to achieve the NPDES Permit effluent limits.
3.1 Population Projections
Future population projections for the Town of Lake Lure, Chimney Rock and related service
areas were initially forecasted using population projections from the North Carolina OSBM
for Rutherford County from 2010 to 2034.Population data and is included in Appendix D.
The current Town of Lake Lure population accounts for 1.92%of the county population with
the service area population estimated at 180.9%of the Town population. The population
forecast utilizing County population projections and proportional land areas for Lake Lure
and the service area yielded a negative 20 year growth due to the economically depressed
nature of Rutherford County and projected deline in County populaton. The SOBM
population records over the period 2006 to 2014 specifically for the Town of Lake Lure;
however,projected an average growth of 18 capita per year in population associated with the
highly desirable nature of the Lake Lure area and recent develop trends. Accordingly,the
alternate population forecasts were based upon the SOBM Town of Lake Lure population
trends opposed to the County trends. Lake Lure surrounding service area population
outside of the Town was projected based upon the Lake Lure growth trend using the
percentage of service area(180.90%).The resulting population projections of population are
presented within Table 3.1.1 on the following page.
3.2 Flow Projections
Utilizing the population projections provided in Table 3.1.1,the future wastewater flow was
calculated using the current flow provided in Table 2.4.1 and the added flow based upon the
Lake Lure population trend as shown in Table 3.2.1 on the following pages. The future flow
projections for the year 2033 indicate a flow of 312,012 gpd. This flow,however, does not
include the 110,000 gpd inflow/infiltration unique to the Lake Lure collection system
extending under Lake Lure. Accordingly,the proposed design future flow included the
23

inflow/infiltration volume making the future design flow projection approximately 422,012
gpd(293 gpm).
24

Table 3.3.1. Future Population Analysis
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells in gray. Note that some cells may contain pulldown menu. If so,please use pulldown menus to select data.
SDC Data Appendix Reference:
Current OSBM Population: 1,210 County Name: Rutile rfordton
Current Service Area Population: 2,360 Most Current County Population: 67,810
Percentage of OSBM Population in County: 1.78% Percentage of Service Area in LGU Area**: 180.90%
State Data Center Alternate Data Source:Office of State Budget&Management
Service Area Town of Lake Lure Service Area
Year County Population OSBM Population Population County Population Population* Population
1 2014 67,568 1,206 2,156 67,568" 1,210 2,189
2' 2015 67,359 1,202 2,174 67,359 1,228 2,221
3' 2016 67,176 1,199 2,168 67,176 1,246 2,254
4' 2017 67,013 1,196 2,163 67,013 1,264 2,287
5' 2018 66,872 1,193 2,159 66,872 1,282 2,319
6' 2019 66,745 1,191 2,154 66,745 1,300 2,352
7' 2020 66,632 1,189 2,151 66,632 1,318 2,384
8' 2021 66,533 1,187 2,148 66,533 1,336 2,417
_ 9' 2022 66,447 1,186 2,145 66,447 1,354 2,449
10' 2023 66,368 1,184 2,142 66,368 1,372 2,482
11 2024 66,302 1,183 2,140 66,302 1,390 2,514
12' 2025 66,241 1,182 2,138 66,241 1,408 2,547
13" 2026 66,189 1,181 2,137 66,189 1,426 2,580
14" 2027 66,140 1,180 2,135 66,140 1,444 2,612
15' 2028 66,100 1,179 2,134 66,100 1,462 2,645
_ 16" 2029 66,062 1,179 2,132 66,062 1,480 2,677
17' 2030 66,031 1,178 2,131 66,031 1,498 2,710
18' 2031 66,001 1,178 2,130 66,001 1,516 2,742
19 P 2032 65,976 1,177 2,130 65,976 1,534 2,775
20" 2033 65,932 1,176 2,128 65,932_ 1,552 2,808
If using an alternative source of data,provide a justification for use of this data below and provide supporting information in an appendix of the ER/EID.
Appendix Reference:
*The Lake Lure Population was based on the Office of State Budget and Management(OSBM)population records over the period 2006 to 2014 indicating an average growth of 18
capita per year. Rutherford County is a depressed County with a negative 20-year growth forecast;however,Lake Lure continues to experience growth and is expected to have a
positive growth over the next 20-year period. Accordingly,the population forecast was based on a projected growth of 1.49%per year(18 capita per year/ 1,206 capita)with the
service area experiencing a similar growth.
**Percentage of OSBM in service area was assumed to be equal to percentage of LGU in service area.
24
I

Table 3.2.1 Future Flow Analysis
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative Flow Projections Used in Alternatives Analysis? No
Current Flow for 2014(gpd): 228,292 If Yes,complete below. Appendix Reference: D
SDC Data-Town of Lake Lure* Alternative Population Data Source:
Residential Flow Commercial Flow Industrial Flow Total Flow Residential Flow Commercial Flow Industrial Flow Total Flow
Year (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (Bpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd)
I 2014 0 0 22,829 251,122 2,279 488 23,106 254,166
2 2015 1,260 270 22,982 252,805 4,559 977 23,383 257,211
3 2016 847 181 22,932 252,253 6,838 1,465 23,660 260,255
4 2017 478 103 22,887 251,761 9,117 1,954 23,936 263,300
5 2018 160 34 22,849 251,335 11,397 2,442 24,213 266,344
6 2019 -127 -27 22,814 250,952 13,676 2,931 24,490 269,389
7 2020 -382 -82 22,783 250,611 15,955 3,419 24,767 272,433
8 2021 -606 -130 22,756 250,312 18,235 3,907 25,043 275,478
9 2022 -800 -172 22,732 250,052 20,514 4,396 25,320 278,522
10 2023 -979 -210 22,710 249,814 22,793 4,884 25,597 281,567
11 2024 -1,128 -242 22,692 249,615 25,073 5,373 25,874 284,611
12 2025 -1,266 -271 22,676 249,431 27,352 5,861 26,151 287,656
13 2026 -1,383 -296 22,661 249,274 29,631 6,350 26,427 290,701
14 2027 -1,494 -320 22,648 249,126 31,911 6,838 26,704 293,745
15 2028 -1,585 -340 22,637 249,005 34,190 7,326 26,981 296,790
16 2029 -1,670 -358 22,626 248,890 36,469 7,815 27,258 299,834
17 2030 -1,740 -373 22,618 248,797 38,749 8,303 27,534 302,879
18 2031 -1,808 -387 22,610 248,706 41,028 8,792 27,811 305,923
. 19 2032 -1,865 -400 22,603 248,631 43,307 9,280 28,088 308,968
20 2033 -1,964 -421 22,591 248,498 45,587 9,769 28,365 312,012
If the alternative flow projection was the one accepted for use in the alternatives analysis,then provide a justification as to why the alternative flow projections are preferred over the
flows developed based on SDC population projections. .
*The flow analysis utilized the population specific to the Town of Lake Lure opposted to the County OSBM projections. Rutherford County is a depressed area with a forcast for a negative
growth over the next 20 years. The Town of Lake Lure has and is expected to have a positive growth due to the attactiveness of this area as reflected in the growth rate of approximately
1.49%per year over the last 8 years period from 2006 to 2014. Accordingly,the Town's projected growth was utilized for the 20 year period with a similar growth utilzed for the adjacent
service areas.
25

4. NEED AND PURPOSE
The need and purpose for the project is summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Need and Purpose
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Provide the purpose in need statement in accordance with the requirements in Section 2.2.3 of the
guidance.
Many of the structures within the existing Lake Lure WWTP are approaching 46 years of
age(i.e.,flocculation basin, sedimentation basin,clarifier and chlorine contact basin).
Various components have been added in plant upgrades completed over the period 1991
to 2010. Despite the recent upgrades,the Town's wastewater treatment plant continues to
experience treatment deficiencies associated with the following issues:
1) The current treatment system utilizes a physical chemical treatment process with the
capability of feeding alum followed by flocculation and sedimentation. The waste
solids produced are pumped to a sludge tank with aeration to provide limited
ammonia nitrogen removal. The tank is also utilized to thicken and store waste solids.
This treatment process continues to experience compliance issues in achieving the
ammonia nitrogen and effluent suspended solids permit limits.
2) The large sedimentation tank relies on a pipe manifold system for removal of settled
solids with no mechanical means for solids collection and movement to a central sump
for removal or surface skimming for floating solids removal.
3) The influent wastewater contains high concentrations of iron that can be oxidized to
produce iron oxide solids potentially contributing additional solids within the system
and potentially overflowing into the effluent.
4) The influent pumps are constant speed pumps operated in an off/on condition by float
switches in the wet well. The irregular slug flows into the plant impacts the
performance of the sedimentation basin and clarifier as well as disinfection.
5) Major equipment within the plant lack provisions for redundancy(i.e., sedimentation
basin,blowers,chemical feed pumps, and clarifier)permitting equipment to be
removed from service for maintenance.
6) The plant does not have sufficient waste solids storage or dewatering capacity
resulting in effluent solids permit violations due to excess solids carryover.
7) The wastewater characteristics are influenced by the conveyance system passing under
the deep lake with continued infiltration resulting in an influent wastewater with low
organic loading(i.e.,BOD5<60 mg/L)and influent temperatures averaging 18°C.
These conditions impact the effectiveness of biological treatment to achieve BODS and
ammonia nitrogen removal.
26

Table 4.1. Need and Purpose
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
8) The existing treatment plant is located in area bordered by US Highway 64-74 and the
Broad River with severely sloped topography limiting the area available for the
addition of new treatment components.
The purpose of the proposed project is to address the above noted plant deficiencies to
improve the overall performance and reliability of the treatment system for continued
service and to explore options for regional treatment. The proposed project does not
include any provisions for collection system expansion or expansion of the treatment
system capacity.
27

5. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were identified for addressing the future wastewater treatment
needs of the Town:
• No-Action
• Decentralization
• Optimization of Existing WWTP
• Upgrade of Existing WWTP
• Regionalization of Wastewater Treatment at the Rutherfordton WWTP
• Regionalization of Wastewater Treatment at the Spindale WWTP
5.1 Alternatives Description
Each of the above alternatives were evaluated and summarized in Tables 5.1.1 through 5.2.7
on the following pages.
Table 5.1.1. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
No-Action Alternative
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: N/A
Description
Under the no action alternative,the existing WWTP will continue to be faced with likely
NPDES Permit violations associated with the following plant deficiencies:
1) Continued slug flow hydraulic loading impacting performance of the physical
chemical treatment process.
2) Continued effluent total suspended solids permit excursions associated the
inability of the plant to manage waste solids inventory due to inadequate solids
storage and sludge dewatering capacity.
3) Inability of the treatment process to achieve effluent ammonia nitrogen permit
limits without provisions for biological treatment.
Is Figure Included? T o Yes ❑No If Yes,Figure#: See Appendix B—Existing
WWTP.
Alternative Feasibility: ❑Feasible ®Infeasible
Capital Cost: $0 Present Worth: $0
Environmental Impact Description
28

.11
Table 5.1.1. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
No-Action Alternative
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
The no action alternative will permit continued and potentially increased NOV's resulting
in declining effluent quality impacting the water quality of the receiving stream.
Environmental Impact Analysis
® Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
• Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ❑Accepted ®Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
eljection
P
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
The no action alternative was rejected as it was considered to be unacceptable due to the
potential environmental impact to the receiving stream water quality associated with the
continued NPDES Permit violations of ammonia nitrogen and solids.
29

Table 5.1.2. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Decentralization
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: N/A
Description
The decentralization alternative considered the replacement of the regional WWTP with
multiple smaller capacity treatment options including septic tanks,media filters,smaller
aerobic unites or a pressure collection system.
Is Figure Included? ❑Yes ®No If Yes,Figure#: N/A
Alternative Feasibility: n Feasible ®Infeasible
Capital Cost: N/A Present Worth: N/A
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
The environmental impacts associated with the decentralization alternative include:
1) Abandonment of existing town gravity sewers and WWTP.
2) Addition of a number of systems with potential for poor operation/management
contributed by the seasonal nature of many of the residences.
3) Area topography especially around the lake does not support individual treatment
systems.
4) Greater potential overflow and spills into to the lake.
5) Less regulation of individual owners for maintenance will likely contribute to poor
performance and additional spills and leaks impacting lake water quality.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑ Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: n Accepted ®Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
The area wastewater generation is too great for decentralized treatment systems,is not
considered practical and would be environmentally unacceptable.
30

Table 5.1.3. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Optimization of Existing Facilities
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: N/A
Description
The alternative for optimization of existing facilities will need to address the following
existing plant treatment deficiencies:
1) Influent surge flow caused by constant speed pump on/off operation.
2) Low wastewater influent temperature associated with infiltration within the deep
lake water wastewater collection system.
3) Insufficient organic loading to support biological treatment for BODS and ammonia
nitrogen removal combined with low biological activity associated with low
influent wastewater temperature.
4) High influent iron concentrations potentially resulting in iron oxide formation
upon oxidation and chlorination within the treatment system.
5) Inadequate solids storage and dewatering capacity resulting in high solids
inventory within system and solids overflow into the effluent.
Based upon the flow projections for 2033,the projected flow including the lake related
infiltration/inflow is 422,012 gpd. This is well below the current WWTP permitted
capacity. However,optimization of the current treatment facilities with no accompanying
plant upgrades will not address the current plant deficiencies needed to achieve consistent
compliance with ammonia nitrogen and effluent suspended solids permit limits associated
with inadequate solids handling.
Is Figure Included? Yes No If Yes,Figure#: N/A
gu ❑ ® �
Alternative Feasibility: ❑Feasible NI Infeasible
Capital Cost: N/A Present Worth: N/A
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
Optimization of existing facilities will not address the ongoing NPDES Permit compliance
issues with ammonia nitrogen and suspended solids effluent limits impacting receiving
stream water quality or the ability to manage the solids inventory at the plant.
31

Table 5.1.3. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Optimization of Existing Facilities
Environmental Impact Analysis
® Greater than Preferred Alternative
Less than Preferred Alternative
n Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: n Accepted ®Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
The optimization of existing facilities alternative was rejected as it was considered to be
unacceptable for achieving consistent compliance with the NPDES Permit effluent
limitations. With no accompanying plant upgrades, the plant effluent will likely continue
to have issues in meeting the ammonia nitrogen and suspended solids permit limits.
32

Table 5.1.4. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 1—Upgrade Existing WWTP
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: Appendix F
Description
Alternative 1 proposes a general upgrade of the existing treatment facilities to allow more
consistent compliance with the NPDES Permit for ammonia nitrogen,effluent solids and
fecal coliform. The proposed upgrade is to include the following basis of design and
related modifications and additions:
Basis of Design:
Influent NPDES Effluent NPDES Effluent
Permit(Tier 1) Permit(Tier 2)
Flow(MGD) 0.995 0.495 0.995
Temperature (°C) 18 Monitor&Report Monitor&Report
BODS (mg/L) 60 30/45 30/45
(Mon.Ave/Wk Max) (Mon.Ave/Wk
Max)
TSS(mg/L) 75 30/45 30/45
(Mon.Ave/Wk.Max) (Mon.Ave/Wk
Max) _
Ammonia Nitrogen 18 9.4/28.2 200.2 /15.6
(mg/L) (Mon.Ave/Wk.Max) (Mon.Ave/Wk.
(April 1—October 31) Max)
Ammonia Nitrogen 18 Monitor&Report Monitor&Report
(mgt)
(Nov 1—March 31)
Fecal Coliform N/A 200/400 200/400
(#/200 ml) (Mon.Ave/Wk.Max) (Mon.Ave/Wk.
(geometric mean) Max)
Residual Chlorine N/A 0.28 0.28
(ug/L)
pH(standard Units) N/A >6.0&<9.0 >6.0&<9.0
33

Table 5.1.4. Alternatives Description
n
P
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 1—Upgrade Existing WWTP
1) Replace existing influent motors with increase horsepower,increased speed and
variable speed drives providing additional capacity, allowing a more consistent
flow into the plant and providing additional discharge head needed by the
proposed plant modifications.
2) Replace the existing influent flow meter to permit flow proportional chemical
addition.
3) Installation of a new force main to the WWTP area replacing the existing gravity
sewer to raise the hydraulic profile through plant.
4) Construction of a new elevated influent screening structure with new mechanical
screen and by-pass manually cleaned bar screen.
5) Addition of a new iron removal system consisting of a Lamella(parallel plate)
clarifier complete with rapid mix and flocculating sections.
6) Addition of new liquid lime and polymer feed systems with a pH monitoring
system to control lime addition for iron removal.
7) Addition of a new,two(2)stage moving bed biological reactor(MBBR)system
utilizing biospheres for BODS and ammonia nitrogen removal,medium bubble
diffused aeration and positive displacement blowers. Pilot testing of the MBBR
system is recommended to confirm the ability of the MBBR to achieve the desired
biological treatment at the low influent temperature and to confirm the need for
pretreatment for iron reduction.
8) New,duplex clarifiers utilizing a ballast material addition and recovery system for
enhanced solids removal with the associated waste sludge pumps. The ballasted
clarification is recommended in combination with the MBBR to o ensure the removal
of the light biological floc associated with nitrification within the MBBR.
9) New chlorine contact tank providing increased contact time for disinfection.
10) Conversion of the existing sedimentation basin to a sludge storage pond with
floating mixers for mixing and aeration.
11) Conversion of the existing clarifier into a sludge thickener utilizing the existing
sludge pumps for transfer of thickened sludge to a sludge holding tank.
12) Repair the existing sludge holding tank upper level to permit utilization of the total
tank volume for thickened sludge storage.
13) New sludge dewatering system consisting of mechanical screw press or centrifuge
for dewatering the combined iron removal and waste biological sludge.
Is Figure Included? ®Yes ❑No If Yes,Figure #: Appendix F
Alternative Feasibility: ®Feasible ❑Infeasible
Capital Cost: $11,483,884 Present Worth: $19,744,510
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
34

Table 5.1.4. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 1—Upgrade Existing WWTP
The short termed environmental impact of this alternative will be minimal with the
disturbed area limited to the existing WWTP site and immediate surrounding area.The
long termed impact,however,favors the transfer of wastewater to a regional WWTP
eliminating a discharge to the Broad River and the treatment issues associated with the
low temperature and high iron levels in the wastewater.
Environmental Impact Analysis
I1 Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑Less than Preferred Alternative
❑Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: n Accepted ®Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
This alternative was rejected based upon the present worth cost evaluations and the Town
of Lake Lure's desire to eliminate the wastewater treatment plant with associated
operational difficulties related to low temperatures, low organic loading and high iron
content.
35

Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 2—Regionalization of Treatment at Rutherfordton WWTP
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: Appendix G
Description
This alternative proposes the transfer of the Lake Lure wastewater to the Rutherfordton
WWTP for regional treatment. The Rutherfordton WWTP operates under NPDES Permit
No.NC0025909 providing a two (2)tier permit for flows up to 1.0 and 3.0 MGD. The
average daily flow to the Rutherfordton WWTP over the period October 2011 to September
2013 was approximately 0.5 MGD with a peak daily flow of 6.8 MGD. The Town has a
current commitment to provide an additional 0.6 MGD capacity for a future flow from a
development to the west along US 74 extending into Polk County associated with a new
Equestrian Center. Even with the new development, the Rutherfordton WWTP has
sufficient capacity with the tiered permit to accept the anticipated future Lake Lure
wastewaters provided the lake infiltration remains at the current level. The Town of
Rutherford has agreed to partner with Lake Lure for sewage treatment with a variable
cost,monthly volume based rate structure as documented in Appendix G. The
Rutherfordton sewer rate is projected to vary from$9.14 to$7.35 per 1000 gallons for an
average daily flow ranging from 0.33 to 0.5 mgd.
Two alternative routes were evaluated for the transfer of wastewater from Lake Lure to the
Rutherfordton WWTP. Route 1 was the shortest,most direct route,with approximately
85,536 if force main required. This route generally follows US Highway 64/74,Washington
Street,Ridgecrest Ave. and Lynch Street to a connection point into Rutherfordton's 16-inch
gravity sewer located on US Highway 221 south of the downtown area as shown in the
plan provided in Appendix G. The alternate Route 2 requires approximately 92,430 if of
force main and generally followed US Highway 64/74,Maple Creek,Maple Creek Road,
Piedmont Road,Tryon Road,Ridgecrest Ave and Lynch Street to the interconnect point on
US Highway 221 south of the downtown area as shown in the plan provided in Appendix
G. While Route 1 provides the shorter overall distance,it has a high point elevation of
1,120 feet producing a static pumping head of approximately 240 feet. Route 2 has a high
point elevation of 1,022 feet reducing the static head to approximately 140 feet and allows
approximately 50%of the construction along secondary roads less traveled than US
Highway 64/74 and the route through the north side of the downtown area.
These two(2)route options were further evaluated based upon the following proposed
common design assumptions:
36

Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 2—Regionalization of Treatment at Rutherfordton WWTP
1) The existing pump station located at the Lake Lure dam, force main and gravity sewer
utilized will continue to be utilized for transfer of wastewater to the current WWTP
site.
2) The existing mechanical bar screen at the WWTP site will continue in service to remove
larger solid materials from the wastewater prior to pumping to prevent deposition
issues along the long force main.
3) The existing 256,000 gallon, concrete sedimentation tank and clarifier are proposed to
be converted into an emergency storage tanks permitting short termed storage for
repairs to the force main or pump stations. The existing sludge pump station is
proposed to be utilized for the transfer of wastewater from the equalization basin and
clarifier back to the transfer pump station.
4) A new flow meter or parshall flume flow monitoring station will be added at the
WWTP Site for monitoring wastewater transferred to Rutherfordton for treatment.
Two(2)pumping options with three(3)pump stations in each option were considered for
the alternative routes as follows:
1) Utilization of a single pump station located at the existing Lake Lure WWTP site.
2) Utilization of a pump station located at the existing Lake Lure WWTP site with two(2)
intermediate pump station strategically located along the force main route to reduce
the respective pumping hydraulic heads for the pump stations.
The evaluation of the pumping route options is summarized as follows with the respective
route maps and pump calculations provided in Appendix G:
Design Flow 422,012 GPD
Design Pumping Rate 1,017 GPM (Ave Q x 3.34 PF)
Force Main Size 12"DIP
Route#1A Route #2A
One Pump Station Option: Option 1A Option 2A
• Force Main Length 85,646 if 92,430
• Static Head 237 ft 141 ft
• Total Dynamic Head 400 ft 345 ft
• Estimated Hp Series 125 Hp** Series 100 Hp **
Three Pump Station Option: Option 1B Option 2B
• Pump Station No. PS 1/PS 2/PS 3 PS1/PS 2/PS 3
• Force Main Lengths 31,416/29,568/25,344 if 31,416/40,867/20,592 if
37

1
I
1
L

Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 2—Regionalization of Treatment at Rutherfordton WWTP
• Static Head 73/94/145 ft 73/77/204 ft
• Total Dynamic Head 147 ft/139 ft/164 142 ft/101 ft/201 ft
• Estimated Motor Hp 70 Hp/70 Hp/85 Hp 70 Hp/50 Hp/115 Hp
**Duplex -Series pumps(i.e.4 pumps total per pump station)
Based upon the evaluation of the route alternatives,the following conclusions were
reached:
• Route #1 provides the shortest distance but requires more construction along the
heavily traveled US Highway 64/74 and roads to the north of downtown.
• Both route options with a single pump station at the existing Lake Lure WWTP site
will require very large series pumps to meet the high static and dynamic head
requirements.This will produce very high force main pressures exceeding 180 psi at
the lower force main points. Therefore,the single pump station option was not
recommended for either route option.
• The use of a pump station at the Lake Lure WWTP site with two(2) additional
intermediate pump stations strategically located within the force main routes appears
to be advantageous in reducing the pumping hydraulic head conditions and related
force main pressure conditions.
• Cost evaluations were prepared for the pump station and force main route options for
the respective capital and present worth cost projections for Alternative 2A(Route 1)
and Alternative 2B (Route 2). Alternative 2A provided the more cost effective option.
Is Figure Included? RI Yes ❑No If Yes,Figure #: Appendix G-Figure G.1
Alternative Feasibility: Feasible n Infeasible
Capital Cost: $11,317,374 Present Worth: $28,441,588
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
This alternative will have essentially the same environmental impacts as the preferred
alternative for the transfer to the Town of Spindale. The force main follows a large
percentage of the same route along US Highway 64/74 to Rutherfordton. It also provides
for the elimination of the existing Lake Lure WWTP by regionalized treatment at the
Rutherfordton WWTP. The combination of the Lake Lure wastewater as a small
percentage of the Rutherfordton wastewater is expected to minimize the impact of the low
temperatures,low organic strength and high iron concentrations.
38

Table 5.1.5. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 2—Regionalization of Treatment at Rutherfordton WWTP
Environmental Impact Analysis
El Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑Less than Preferred Alternative
® Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: n Accepted ®Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
This alternative was rejected based upon the economic evaluations for present worth cost.
The proposed rate structure offered by the Rutherfordton will result in a higher present
worth cost and higher resulting user fees than the preferred alternative.
Table 5.1.6. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 3—Regionalization of Treatment at Spindale WWTP
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: Appendix H
Description
This alternative proposes the transfer of the Lake Lure wastewater to the Spindale WWTP
for regional treatment. The Spindale WWTP operates under NPDES Permit No.
NC0020664 with three(3)permit tiers for flows up to 3.0,4.5 and 6.0 MGD. The average
daily flow to the Spindale WWTP over the period January 2012 to November 2013 was
approximately 0.87 MGD with a peak daily flow of 6.1 MGD. Accordingly,the Spindale
WWTP has a sufficient capacity within the current permit for the anticipated addition of
the future Lake Lure wastewaters provided the lake infiltration remains at the current
level. The Town of Spindale has provided a preliminary acceptance of the proposed
transfer at a following proposed rate schedule as documented in Appendix H:
• One time capacity charge of$100,000.
• Volume charge of$1.97 per 1000 gallons to be billed monthly.
39

Table 5.1.6. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 3—Regionalization of Treatment at Spindale WWTP
The proposed force main route for the transfer of wastewater to the Spindale WWTP will
require approximately 89,7601f of force main. The proposed route will follow US
Highway 64/74 to the intersection with US Highway 74 and then follow the "Mountain
Thermal Belt Rail-Trail" along US 74A and Whiteside Road extending to a connection into
the Spindale 16" gravity sewer near Holands Creek.
Two(2)options for the transfer of wastewater to Spindale were further evaluated based
upon the following proposed common design assumptions:
1) The existing pump station located at the Lake Lure dam,force main and gravity sewer
utilized will to continue to be utilized for transfer of wastewater to the current WWTP
site.
2) The existing mechanical bar screen at the WWTP site is to continue in service for
removal of solid materials from the wastewater prior to pumping to prevent deposition
issues along the long force main route.
3) The existing 256,000 gallon,concrete sedimentation tank and clarifier is proposed to be
converted into an emergency storage tanks permitting short termed storage for repairs
to the force main or pump stations. The existing sludge pump station is proposed to be
utilized for the transfer of wastewater from the equalization basin and clarifier back to
the transfer pump station.
4) A new flow meter or parshall flume flow monitoring station will be added at the
WWTP Site for monitoring wastewater transferred to the Town of Spindale for
treatment.
Two(2)pumping options were considered for the transfer of wastewater to Spindale.
These options included a single pump station at the Lake Lure WWTP or three(3)pump
stations with one pump station at the Lake Lure WWTP site and two(2)pump station
strategically located to provide the most favorable combined pumping hydraulic head
conditions. The evaluation of these alternative pump stations options is summarized as
follows with the respective pump calculations provided in Appendix H:
Design Flow 422,012 GPD (2033 Projected Flow)*
Design Pumping Rate 1,017 GPM (Ave Q x 3.47 PF
Force Main Size 12"DIP
Option 1—Single Pump Option 2—Two Pump
Station @ Lake Lure WWTP Stations
PS#1 PS#1/PS#2/PS#3
• Force Main Length 98,397 if 31,416/29,568/37,413 If
40

Table 5.1.6. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 3—Regionalization of Treatment at Spindale WWTP
• Static Head 246 ft 73/96/159 ft
• Total Dynamic Head 409 ft 146/137/176 ft
• Estimated Hp Series 125 Hp** 70 Hp/70 Hp/85 Hp
*Includes the current I/I of 110,000 gpd associated with the underwater collection
system.
**Duplex -Series pumps (i.e. 4 pumps total per pump station)
Based upon the evaluation of the pumping options, the three(3)pump station option was
selected as the more feasible due to the high total dynamic head(TDH) of 350'required for
a single pump option and the associated high force main pressures at low points.
Is Figure Included? ®Yes n No If Yes,Figure#:Appendix H—Figure#H.1
Alternative Feasibility: ®Feasible ❑Infeasible
Capital Cost: $13,565,616 Present Worth: $19,613,462
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
This is the preferred alternative selected based upon the desire to eliminate the existing
Lake Lure WWTP discharge and move to a regional treatment facility that would not be
impacted as significantly by the low wastewater temperature,low organic loading and
high iron concentrations. It also offers the most favorable present worth cost of all
alternatives considered.
Environmental Impact Analysis
❑ Greater than Preferred Alternative
❑Less than Preferred Alternative
®Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: ®Accepted ❑Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
This alternative was accepted as the preferred alternative based upon the following
rational:
• Most cost effective present worth cost.
• Eliminates a wastewater discharge into the Broad River by regionalization with the
Spindale WWTP.
41

Table 5.1.6. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 3—Regionalization of Treatment at Spindale WWTP
• Combines treatment with a facility with a sufficient design capacity well above the
current plant loading.
• Adding the Lake Lure flow into the Spindale WWTP will minimize the impact of low
temperature,low organic loading and high iron on the treatment process.
Table 5.1.7. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 4- Upgrade Existing WWTP with Land Application
Provide a description of the above alternative in accordance with Sections 3.6.1.1 through 3.6.1.8 of
the guidance.
Supporting Information Appendix Reference: Appendix
Description
This alternative considered the land application of effluent on a dedicated application site
as an alternative to the continued point source discharge into the Broad River. Without a
stream discharge, the need to upgrade the existing WWTP as presented in Alternative 1,
would remain to provide an acceptable effluent for land application. Ammonia nitrogen
reduction will still be necessary to minimize the land requirements associated with
nitrogen loading limitations. The need for improved waste solids handling and
dewatering will also continue to be needed. Preliminary land application evaluations
identified the following additional design considerations associated with land application:
1) Lake Lure is located in the Mountain Physiographic Providence and has an average
daily flow greater than 130,000 gpd. This does not meet the minimum criteria
required by DENR for land application evaluation.
2) Using a very high g application rate of 1.5 inches per week for a mountain region,the
minimum irrigation area for the 2033 design flow of 0.42 MGD would be
approximately 74 acres plus additional areas required for excessive slope areas and
buffer zones around the site perimeter,area streams and wetlands. This land
requirement within the general vicinity of the existing WWTP and desired
topography will be difficult to obtain due to the area topography with sever slopes.
3) The North Carolina DENR regulations also require a minimum of 30 days storage
capacity be provided for irrigation systems.This would require 13.2 million gallons
of storage capacity based only upon an average daily flow of 0.42 MGD. Land with
topography required for this storage volume is not available in the general area of
the existing WWTP.
42

Table 5.1.7. Alternatives Description
Town of Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System ER
Alternative 4- Upgrade Existing WWTP with Land Application
Is Figure Included? ['Yes ®No If Yes,Figure#: N/A
Alternative Feasibility: ❑Feasible [Xi Infeasible
Capital Cost: N/A Present Worth: N/A
Environmental Impact Description
Provide a qualitative description of the environmental impacts and compare the impacts to that of
the Preferred Alternative.
The environmental impact of this alternative would be significantly greater than other
alternatives and would include:
1) Land disturbance required for the construction of conveyance to an off-site
irrigation site or sites.
2) Land disturbance greater than 74 acres at the application site plus additional areas
required for buffer zones and severely sloped area topography.
3) Land disturbance for the construction of a 13.2 million gallon storage basin.
4) Potential environmental impacts associated with ground water and site stormwater
runoff.
5) Potential air quality issues related to wind carried effluent.
Environmental Impact Analysis
VI Greater than Preferred Alternative
n Less than Preferred Alternative
❑ Same as Preferred Alternative
Acceptance/Rejection
Alternative: n Accepted N Rejected
Rationale for Acceptance/Rejection
Discuss the rationale for acceptance/rejection of the above-referenced alternative.
This alternative was not considered feasible based upon the following rational:
1) While there are three(3)local golf courses within approximately 1.5 to 3 miles of
the WWTP,the mountainous topography would make conveyance very difficult
and costly. Additionally,the average annual rainfall in the region is 57.68 inches
per year impacting the available days for irrigation and potentially adding to the
storage requirements.
2) The existing WWTP would still require upgrade to reduce ammonia nitrogen and
provide solids handling and dewatering capacity.
3) The additional cost for conveyance and storage plus the costs for an irrigation site
would be further added costs making this alternative capital and operating costs
significantly higher than the proposed upgrade of the existing WWTP and would
not be cost effective.
43

5.2 Present Worth Analysis
As outlined within the respective alternative descriptions,the following alternatives were
rejected due the inability to provide acceptable treatment for NPDES Permit compliance,
obvious excessive capital and operation/maintenance costs exceeding other alternatives or
technical considerations:
• No-Action
• Optimization of Existing Facilities
• Decentralization
• Upgrade existing WWTP with land application of effluent
The remaining alternative consisted of the following:
• Upgrade the existing Lake Lure WWTP
• Regionalized treatment at the Rutherfordton WWTP including four(4)pumping and
route alternatives.
• Regionalized treatment at the Spindale WWTP
The cost effectiveness of these alternatives was further evaluated by a present worth analysis
using a 20 year planning period and a discount rate of 4.875%with an inflation rate for
replacement cost based upon a Construction Cost Index of 2.97% and operation and
maintenance costs based on a Municipal Cost Index of 0.09%per the NCDENR 2015
guidelines. The respective capital and present worth costs of replacements and operations •
and maintenance costs are provided in Tables 5.2.1.1 through Table 5.2.4.7. A summary of
the replacement cost life cycle assumptions is provided in Table 5.2.5 with a summary of the
respective alternative capital and present worth cost provided in Table 5.2.6.
44

Table 5.2.1.1 Capital Costs
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown,use pulldown menu to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the capital cc
Project Administration($): $1,493,128
Component Unit Costa Unit Quantity Total Cost
Upgrade inf pumps w/new motors&VFD's $75,000 EA 3 $225,000
New influent magnetic flow meter $15,000 EA 1 $15,000
New 8"FM to WWTP new headworks $50 LF 1,700 $85,000
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 soil) $350 CY 10 $3,500
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 rock) $350 CY 100 $35,000
Headworks elevated headworks structure $500 CY 1,000 $500,000
Headworks access stairs $25,000 EA 1 $25,000
Headworks aluminum handrails $60 LF _ 60 $3,600
New Influent Mechanical Screen $75,000 Budget 1 $75,000
Liquid lime feed system $225,000 EA I $225,000
Polymer feed system $40,000 EA 1 $40,000
pH monitor/control system $20,000 EA 1 $20,000
Influent Lamella Clarifiers w/Chem.Feed for Iron Removal $300,000 EA 1 $300,000
Concrete pad for clarifiers(25'x 15'x 1.5') $650 CY 1 $650
MBBR System:
MBBR-2 concrete tanks in series $650 CY 270 $175,500
MBBR biofilm carriers,sieves,aeration grids and blowers $900,000 LOT I $900,000
Handrail $60 LF 280 $16,800
Access steps $25,000 EA 2 $50,000
Actiflo Ballasted Clarifier System:
Actiflo packaged clarifers(2 ea @ 500,000 gpd/ea) $1,000,000 EA 2 $2,000,000
Concrete pad for clarifiers(24'x24'x 1.5') $650 CY 32 $20,800
New Chlorine Contact Basin:
Concrete $650 CY 120 $78,000
Excavation $15 CY 213 $3,195
Handrail $60 LF 116 $6,960
Relocate Effluent Flow Meter,weir plate and sampler $7,500 Budget 1 $7,500
Convert sed.basin to sludge storage w/float.Aerators $40,000 EA 2 $80,000
Convert existing clarifier into sludge thickener w/new mech. $125,000 EA 1 $125,000
New plant drain pump station for thickener&C12 drain $100,000 LS 1. $100,000
Repair existing sludge holding tank $25,000 Budget 1 $25,000
Sludge Dewatering System:
Centrifuge or Screw Dewatering System $775,000 EA 1 $775,000
Building(40'x 40'x 2 story) • $150 SF 3,200 $480,000
Sludge Pumps $25,000 EA 2 $50,000
Emergency generator $250,000 EA 1 $250,000
Electrical/Instrumentation @ 15% $1,005,000 EA 1 $1,005,000
Site&Piping @ 5% $335,000 EA 1 $335,000
Contractor Mobilization @ 3% $242,000 EA 1 $242,000
Contractor OH&P®10% $804,000 EA 1 $804,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
°Unit costs are in today's dollars,not future dollars. Total Construction Cost: $9,082,505
Construction Contingency Cost: $908,251
Project Administration Cost: $1,493,128
Total Capital Cost: $11,483,884
45
I ,

Table 5.2.1.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:;2.97% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5
Upgrade inf pumps w/new motors&VFD's $75,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New influent magnetic flow meter $15,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New 8"FM to WWTP new headworks $50 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 soil) $350 CY 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 rock) $350 CY 100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks elevated headworks structure $500 CY 1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks access stairs $25,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks aluminum handrails $60 LF 60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Influent Mechanical Screen $75,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Liquid lime feed system $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Polymer feed system $40,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
pH monitor/control system $20,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Influent Lamella Clarifiers w/Chem.Feed for Iron Removal $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete pad for clarifiers(25'x 15'x 1.5') $650 CY 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR System:
MBBR-2 concrete tanks in series $650 CY 270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR biofilm carriers,sieves,aeration grids and blowers $900,000 LOT 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Handrail $60 LF 280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Access steps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Pumps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical/Instrumentation @ 15% $1,005,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site&Piping @ 5% $335,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor Mobilization @ 3% $242,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor OH&P @ 10% $804,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
46

Table 5.2.1.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 6 7 8 9 10
Upgrade inf pumps w/new motors&VFD's $75,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,370
New influent magnetic flow meter $15,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,491
New 8"FM to WWTP new headworks $50 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 soil) $350 CY 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 rock) $350 CY 100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks elevated headworks structure $500 CY 1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks access stairs $25,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks aluminum handrails $60 LF 60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Influent Mechanical Screen $75,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,457
Liquid lime feed system $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,370
Polymer feed system $40,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,310
pH monitor/control system $20,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,655
Influent Lamella Clarifiers w/Chem.Feed for Iron Removal $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete pad for clarifiers(25'x 15'x 1.5') $650 CY 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR System:
MBBR-2 concrete tanks in series $650 CY 270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR biofilm carriers,sieves,aeration grids and blowers $900,000 LOT 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $749,480
Handrail $60 LF 280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Access steps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Pumps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,189
Electrical/Instrumentation @ 15% $1,005,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site&Piping @ 5% $335,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor Mobilization @ 3% $242,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor OH&P @ 10% $804,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10): $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,457,322
47

Table 5.2.1.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate-based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% EPA Discount Rate:,4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 ! 14 15
Upgrade inf pumps w/new motors&VFD's $75,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New influent magnetic flow meter $15,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New 8"FM to WWTP new headworks $50 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 soil) $350 CY 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 rock) $350 CY 100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks elevated headworks structure $500 CY 1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks access stairs $25,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks aluminum handrails $60 LF 60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Influent Mechanical Screen $75,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Liquid lime feed system $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Polymer feed system $40,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
pH monitor/control system $20,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Influent Lamella Clarifiers w/Chem.Feed for Iron Removal $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete pad for clarifiers(25'x 15'x 1.5') $650 CY 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR System:
MBBR-2 concrete tanks in series $650 CY 270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR biofilm carriers,sieves,aeration grids and blowers $900,000 LOT 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Handrail $60 LF 280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Access steps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0_ $0 $0
Sludge Pumps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical/Instrumentation @ 15% $1,005,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site&Piping @ 5% $335,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor Mobilization @ 3% $242,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor OH&P @ 10% $804,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
48

Table 5.2.1.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:!2.97% 1 EPA Discount Rate::4.875% ,
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 16 17 18 19 _ 20
Upgrade inf pumps w/new motors&VFD's $75,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
New influent magnetic flow meter $15,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,402
New 8"FM to WWTP new headworks $50 LF 1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 soil) $350 CY 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Excavate slope in expansion area(1/2 rock) $350 CY 100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks elevated headworks structure $500 CY 1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks access stairs $25,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Headworks aluminum handrails $60 LF 60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Influent Mechanical Screen $75,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,011
Liquid lime feed system $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
Polymer feed system $40,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,739
pH monitor/control system $20,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,870
Influent Lamella Clarifiers w/Chem.Feed for Iron Removal $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,044
Concrete pad for clarifiers(25'x 15'x 1.5') $650 CY 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR System:
MBBR-2 concrete tanks in series $650 CY 270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MBBR biofilm carriers,sieves,aeration grids and blowers $900,000 LOT 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $624,133
Handrail $60 LF 280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Access steps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Pumps $25,000 EA 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,674
Emergency generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,370
Electrical/Instrumentation @ 15% $1,005,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Site&Piping @ 5% $335,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor Mobilization @ 3% $242,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractor OH&P @ 10% $804,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20): $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,456,311
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Life of Project): $2,913,632
49

Table 5.2.1.6 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index;0.09% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @ 19 hr/day $2,896 Ea 1 $2,764 $2,638 $2,517 $2,402 $2,293 $2,188 $2,088 $1,993 $1,902 $1,815
Influent mech Screen @ 1 HP $366 Ea 1 $349 $333 $318 $303 $290 $276 $264 $252 $240 $229
Infl.Clarifier System(mixer,flocculator @ 1 Hp total) $366 Ea 1 $349 $333 $318 $303 $290 $276 $264 $252 $240 $229
Lime @ 50 ppm,Q=0.35 mgd&$0.1/lbs P. $5,327 Ea 1 $5,084 $4,852 $4,630 $4,419 $4,217 $4,025 $3,841 $3,665 $3,498 $3,338
Polymer @ 5 ppm,Q-0.35 mgd&$2/1b P. $10,654 Ea 1 $10,168 $9,704 $9,261 $8,838 $8,434 $8,049 $7,682 $7,331 $6,996 $6,677
MBBR Blowers @ 15 Hp $5,487 Ea 1 $5,237 $4,998 $4,769 $4,552 $4,344 $4,145 $3,956 $3,776 $3,603 $3,439
Actiflow Clarifier(mixers,drive @ 2.5 Hp total) r $915 Ea 1 $873 $833 $795 $759 $724 $691 $659 $629 $601 $573
Polymer @ 5 ppm,Q-0.35 mgd&$2/1b P. $10,654 Ea 1 $10,168 $9,704 $9,261 $8,838 $8,434 $8,049 $7,682 $7,331 $6,996 $6,677
Hypochlorite @$I/gal,444 gal/mgd gal&0.35 mgd) P. $56,721,Ea 1 $54,131 $51,660 $49,301 $47,050 $44,902 $42,851 $40,895 $39,028 $37,246 $35,545
Sludge Holding Basin Aerators(2 @ 15Hp&12 hr/d) P. $5,487 Ea 1 $5,237 $4,998 $4,769 $4,552 $4,344 $4,145 $3,956 $3,776 $3,603 $3,439
Sludge decant tank blower(1 @ 15 hp&12hr/d P. $2,744 Ea 1 $2,618 $2,499 $2,385 $2,276 $2,172 $2,073 $1,978 $1,888 $1,802 $1,719
Sludge pump to centrifuge(5 Hp @ 10 hr/wk) r $109 Ea 1 $104 $99 $94 $90 $86 $82 $78 $75 $71 $68
Centrifuge(40 Hp+10 Hp @ 10 hr/wk) r $1,086 Ea 1 $1,036 $989 $944 $901 $859 $820 $783 $747 $713 $680
Screw Conveyor(3 hp @ 10 hr/wk) $65 Ea 1 $62 $59 $57 $54 $52 $49 $47 $45 $43 $41
Polymer(g 10 lbs/dry ton,756 lbs/yr @$2.00) ' $1,512 Ea I $1,443 $1,377 $1,314 $1,254 $1,197 $1,142 $1,090 $1,040 $993 $948
SI Disposal @ Landfill( 392 w tons/yr$175/wet ton) r $68,600 Ea 1 $65,468 $62,479 $59,626 $56,903 $54,305 $51,826 $49,459 $47,201 $45,046 $42,989
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Ea 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Ea I $2,863 $2,732, $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
Existing WWTP Costs:
Contractural Services (2 times current cost) r $51,140 Ea 1 $48,805 $46,577 $44,450 $42,420 $40,484 $38,635 $36,871 $35,188 $33,581 $32,048
Professional Services $3,000 Ea 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
Repairs&Maintenance Bldgs,Equip P. $14,000 Ea 1 $13,361 $12,751 $12,169 $11,613 $11,083 $10,577 $10,094 $9,633 $9,193 $8,773
Contract Operator(1.5 times current service) r $187,500 Ea 1 $178,939 $170,769 $162,972 $155,530 $148,429 $141,652 $135,184 $129,012 $123,121 $117,500
Telephone&Supplies $3,800 Ea 1 $3,626 $3,461 $3,303 $3,152 $3,008 $2,871 $2,740 $2,615 $2,495 $2,381
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 1-10): $419,364 $400,217 $381,943 $364,504 $347,861 $331,978 $316,820 $302,355 $288,549 $275,374
50

Table 5.2.1.7 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:!0.09% : EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
, ! Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component'
Unit Cost r Unit '
r Quantity 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @ 19 hr/day $2,896 Ea 1 $1,732 $1,653 $1,577 $1,505 $1,437 $1,371 $1,308 $1,249 $1,192 $1,137
Influent meth Screen@ 1 HP r $366 Ear 1 $219 $209 $199 $190 $181 $173 $165 $158 $151 $144
Infl.Clarifier System(mixer,flocculator @ 1 Hp total) r $366 Ear 1 $219 $209 $199 $190 $181 $173 $165 $158 $151 $144
Lime @ 50 ppm,Q=0.35 mgd&$0.1/lbs r $5,327 Ea r 1 $3,186 $3,040 $2,902 $2,769 $2,643 $2,522 $2,407 $2,297 $2,192 $2,092
Polymer @ 5 ppm,Q-0.35 mgd&$2/1b r $10,654 Ea r 1 $6,372 $6,081 $5,803 $5,538 $5,285 $5,044 $4,814 $4,594 $4,384 $4,184
MBBRBlowers @ 15 Hp r $5,487 Ea r 1 $3,282 $3,132 $2,989 $2,852 $2,722 $2,598 $2,479 $2,366 $2,258 $2,155
Actiflow Clarifier(mixers,drive @ 2.5 Hp total) r $915 Ea r 1 $547 $522 $498 $475 $454 $433 $413 $394 $376 $359
Polymer @ 5 ppm,Q-0.35 mgd&$2/1b r $10,654 Ea r 1 $6,372 $6,081 $5,803 $5,538 $5,285 $5,044 $4,814 $4,594 $4,384 $4,184
Hypochlorite @$1/gal,444 gal/mgd gal&0.35 mgd) r $56,721 rEa ' 1 $33,922 $32,373 $30,895 $29,484 $28,138 $26,853 $25,627 $24,457 $23,341 $22,275
'Sludge Holding Basin Aerators(2 @ 15Hp&12 hr/d) r $5,487 Ea r 1 $3,282 $3,132 $2,989 $2,852 $2,722 $2,598 $2,479 $2,366 $2,258 $2,155
Sludge decanttankblower(1 @ 15 hp&12hr/d r $2,744Ea • 1 $1,641 $1,566 $1,494 $1,426 $1,361 $1,299 $1,240 $1,183 $1,129 $1,077
Sludge pump to centrifuge(5 Hp @ 10 hr/wk) $109 Ea 1 $65 $62 $59 $56 $54 $51 $49 $47 $45 $43
'Centrifuge(40 Hp+10 Hp @ 10 hr/wk) r $1,086 Ea r 1 $649 $620 $591 $564 $539 $514 $491 $468 $447 $426
Screw Conveyor(3 hp @ 10 hr/wk) r $65 Ea r 1 $39 $37 $35 $34 $32 $31 $29 $28 $27 $26
Polymer(@ 10lbs/dry ton,756lbs/yr @$2.00) r $1,512 Ea r 1 $904 $863 $824 $786 $750 $716 $683 $652 $622 $594
'Sl Disposal @ Landfill( 392 w tons/yr$175/wet ton) r $68,600 Ear 1 $41,026 $39,153 $37,365 $35,659 $34,031 $32,477 $30,994 $29,579 $28,229 $26,940
Generator Maintenance r $4,000 Ea 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
'Generator Fuel r $3,000 Ear 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355, $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
Existing WWTP Costs:
Contractural Services (2 times current cost) r $25,570rEa ' 1 $15,292 $14,594 $13,928 $13,292 $12,685 $12,106 $11,553 $11,025 $10,522 $10,042
Professional Services r $3,000rEa r 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
Repairs&Maintenance Bldgs,Equip r $14,000 Ea r 1 $8,373 $7,990 $7,626 $7,277 $6,945 $6,628 $6,325 $6,037 $5,761 $5,498
Contract Operator(1.5 times current service) r $125,000 Ea r 1 $74,757 $71,343 $68,086 $64,977 $62,010 $59,179 $56,477 $53,898 $51,437 $49,089
Telephone&Supplies $3,800 Ea • 1 $2,273 $2,169 $2,070 $1,975 $1,885 $1,799 $1,717 $1,639 $1,564 $1,492
r
✓ r p
✓ r r
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 11-20): $210,131 $200,536 $191,380 $182,642 $174,302 $166,344 $158,749 $151,501 $144,583 $137,982
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs(Life of Project): $5,147,115
51

Table 5.2.1.8 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:10.09% ;EPA Discount Rate:j4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 •
Replace Existing Package Pump Sludge Sta $80,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,133
Replace Existing Sludge Storage Tank $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,667
Replace Sludge Tank Blower $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Repairs to Site Office Building $50,000 Allowance I $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replace Chemical Pumps $10,000 Allowance 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,916 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations&Maintenace Costs(Years 1-10): $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,078 $0 $0 $0 SO $112,800
Table 5.2.1.9 Present Value of Intermittent Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:0.09% 1 EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Replace Existing Package Pump Sludge Sta $80,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replace Existing Sludge Storage Tank $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replace Sludge Tank Blower $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Repairs to Site Office Building $50,000 Allowance 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replace Chemical Pumps $10,000 Allowance 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations&Maintenace Costs(Years 11-20): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0
Total Present Value of Intermittent Operations&Maintenance Costs(Life of Project): $199,878
52

1
,
1
1

Table 5.2.2.1 Capital Costs
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown,use pulldown menus to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate I
Alternative:
Project Administration(5): $1,414,735
Component Unit Cost' Unit Quantity Total Cost
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $10,000
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $250,000
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP 1017 gpm @ 147'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $275,000
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $225,000
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd 1017 gpm @ 138' -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $275,000
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $225,000
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd 1017 gpm@ 164'-85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $262,000
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $175,000
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 85,536 $4,889,388
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $24,000
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 6 $30,000
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $112,500
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $300,000
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 945 $236,250
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY ' 8,554 $684,296
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $240,000
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 2,795 $139,750
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 200 $15,000
Erosion Control $4 LF 8554 $34,215
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,375 $437,500
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA ' 35 $52,500
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $60,000
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 1
'Unit costs are in today's dollars,not future dollars. Total Construction Cost: $9,002,399
Construction Contingency Cost: $900,240
Project Administration Cost: $1,414,735
Total Capital Cost: $11,317,374
53

Table 5.2.2.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% 1 EPA Discount Rate:; 4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP 1017 gpm @ 147'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd 1017 gpm @ 138' -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd 1017 gpm @ 164'-85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 85,536 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 2,795 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
54
J

Table 5.2.2.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:;2.97% EPA Discount Rate:;4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 6 7 8 9 10
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,328
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 a Exist LL WWTP 1017 gpm @ 147'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd 1017 gpm @ 138' -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd 1017 gpm @ 164'-85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 85,536 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,986
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,827
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 2,795 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,965
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,638
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10 : $0
p ) $0 $0 $0 $369,743
55

Table 5.2.2.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:,2.97% EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP 1017 gpm @ 147'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd 1017 gpm @ 138' -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd 1017 gpm @ 164'-85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 85,536 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 2,795 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
56
i

Table 5.2.2.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index 2.97% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 16 17 18 19 20
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,935
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,370
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP 1017 gpm @ 147'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,707
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd 1017 gpm @ 138' -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,707
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd 1017 gpm @ 164'-85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,692
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121,359
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 85,536 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,644
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,044
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 2,795 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 8,554 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,609
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,674
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20): $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,477,809
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Life of Project): $1,847,552
57

Table 5.2.2.6 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutlrerfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index,0.09% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @ 19 hr/day $2,896 Ea 1 $2,764 $2,638 $2,517 $2,402 $2,293 $2,188 $2,088 $1,993 $1,902 $1,815
Influent mech Screen @ 1 HP @ 24 hr/day $366 Ea 1 $349 $333 $318 $303 $290 $276 $264 $252 $240 $229
,
PS#1-980 gpm@ 149',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 hr/day $4,865 Ea I $4,643 $4,431 $4,229 $4,036 $3,851 $3,676 $3,508 $3,348 $3,195 $3,049
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
PS#2-980 gpm @ 137',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 hr/day $4,865 Ea 1 $4,643 $4,431 $4,229 $4,036 $3,851 $3,676 $3,508 $3,348 $3,195 $3,049
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
PS#3-980 gpm@ 165',85 HP Submersible @ 5.6 hr/day ' $6,105 Yr 1 $5,826 $5,560 $5,306 $5,064 $4,833 $4,612 $4,401 $4,200 $4,009 $3,826
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/lf/yr) P 21,412.50 Yr I $20,435 $19,502 $18,611 $17,762 $16,951 $16,177 $15,438 $14,733 $14,060 $13,418
O&M of Inf Pumps&Inf.Screen @ 2 hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $34,833 $33,243 $31,725 $30,277 $28,894 $27,575 $26,316 $25,114 $23,968 $22,873
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) $3,750 Yr 1 $3,579 $3,415 $3,259 $3,111 $2,969 $2,833 $2,704 $2,580 $2,462 $2,350
Rutherfordton User Fee '$1,073,210 Yr 1 $1,024,208 $977,443 $932,814 $890,223 $849,576 $810,785 $773,766 $738,436 $704,720 $672,543
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 1-10): $1,121,321 $1,070,123 $1,021,262 $974,632 $930,131 $887,662 $847,132 $808,453 $771,540 $736,312
58

Table 5.2.2.7 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index 0.09% EPA Discount Rate:: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @19 hr/day $2,896 Ea 1 $1,732 $1,653 $1,577 $1,505 $1,437 $1,371 $1,308 $1,249 $1,192 $1,137
Influentmech.Screen@1HP@24hr/day $366Ea 1_ $219 $209 $199 $190 $181 $173 $165 $158 $151 $144
PS#1-980 gpm @ 149',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6
hr/day $10,488 Ea I $6,272 $5,986 $5,712 $5,452 $5,203 $4,965 $4,738 $4,522 $4,316 $4,119
'Generator Maintenance $4,000"Yr ` 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel $3,000'Yr ` 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#2-980 gpm @ 137',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 ` ` `
1v/day $4,865 Ea 1 $2,910 $2,777 $2,650 $2,529 $2,414 $2,303 $2,198 $2,098 $2,002 $1,911
'Generator Maintenance $4,000`Yr 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel $3,000'Yr 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#3-980 gpm @ 165',85 HP Submersible @ 5.6 ` `
hr/day $23,107 Yr 1 $13,819 $13,188 $12,586 $12,011 $11,463 $10,940 $10,440 $9,963 $9,508 $9,074
Generator Maintenance '. $54,750`Yr ` 1 $32,743 $31,248 $29,822 $28,460 $27,160 $25,920 $24,737 $23,607 $22,530 $21,501
Generator Fuel ` $3,750`Yr ` 1 $2,243 $2,140 $2,043 $1,949 $1,860 $1,775 $1,694 $1,617 $1,543 $1,473
r . . r
'FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/lf/yr) ' $21,413'Yr ` 1 $12,806 $12,221 $11,663 $11,131 $10,622 $10,137 $9,674 $9,233 $8,811 $8,409
O&M of Inf.Pumps&Inf.Screen @ 2 hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $21,829 $20,832 $19,881 $18,973 $18,107 $17,280 $16,491 $15,738 $15,020 $14,334
r
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) $3,750 Yr 1 $2,243 $2,140 $2,043 $1,949 $1,860 $1,775 $1,694 $1,617 $1,543 $1,473
'
Rutherfordton User Fee $1,073,210 Yr 1 $641,835 $612,530 $584,562 $557,872 $532,400 $508,091 $484,892 $462,752 $441,623 $421,459
I
` Yr 1
P . p
. . . .
p p . .
P r r
. p r p
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 11-20): $747,023 $712,915 $680,364 $649,299 $619,653 $591,360 $564,359 $538,591 $513,999 $490,531
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs(Life of Project): $15,276,662
59

Table 5.2.3.1 Capital Costs
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to RutherfordtonW
WTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
_.. Town of Lake Lure
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown,usepulldown menu to select options. The spreadsheet will calculi
Alternative
Project Administration($):" $1,678,800
Component Unit Costa Unit Quantity Total Cost
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $10,000
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $250,000
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP, 1017 gpm @ 147'@ 70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $275,000
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $225,000
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd, 1017 gpm @ 103'@ 50 Hp $250,000 EA 1 $250,000
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $175,000
PS#3 @ Maple Creek Rd, 1017 gpm @ 203'@ 115 Hp $300,000 EA 1 $300,000
Emergency Generator $250,000 EA 1 $250,000
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 92,430 $5,283,461
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $24,000
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 7 $35,000
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $112,500
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $300,000
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 1,980 $495,000
Rock Allowance cr,0.1/LF $80 CY 9,243 $739,440
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $240,000
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,675 $183,750
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $46,500
Erosion Control $4 LF " 92,430 $369,720
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY ` 4,250 $425,000
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $52,500
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $60,000
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 1
$0
°Unit costs are in today's dollars,not future dollars. Total Construction Cost: $10,151,871
Construction Contingency Cost: $1,015,187
Project Administration Cost: $1,678,800
Total Capital Costs: $12,845,859
60

Table 5.2.3.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5)
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:'2.97% EPA Discount Rate::4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 IS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 a,Exist LL WWTP, 1017 gpm na,147'A 70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd, 1017 gpm @ 103'@ 50 Hp $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ Maple Creek Rd, 1017 gpm @ 203'@ 115 Hp $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 1,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,675 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
61

Table 5.2.3.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10)
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 6 7 8 9 10
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,328
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL W WTP, 1017 gpm(x),147'@ 70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 x McEntire Rd, 1017 gpm @ 103'A 50 Hp $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ Maple Creek Rd, 1017 gpm @ 203'0x,115 Hp $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,986
Creek Crossing . $5,000 EA 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,827
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 1,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,675 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,965
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,638
1
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10): $0 $0 SO $0 $369,743
62

Table 5.2.3.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% EPA Discount Rate::4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP, 1017 gpm @ 147'@ 70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd, 1017 gpm @ 103'@ 50 Hp $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ Maple Creek Rd, 1017 gpm @ 203'@ 115 Hp $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 1,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,675 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15): $0 $0 SO SO $0
63
.

Table 5.2.3.5 Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20)
Alkte rnative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:;2.97% EPA Discount Rate:,4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 16 17 18 19 20
New influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,935
Demo/Closeout Unused Existing WWTP $250,000 LS 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP, 1017 gpm @ 147' a,70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,707
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd, 1017 gpm @ 103'@ 50 Hp $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,370
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121,359
PS#3 a,Maple Creek Rd, 1017 gpm @ 203'@ 115 Hp $300,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,044
Emergency Generator $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,370
12"DIP Force Main via Low Head Route $57 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,644
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,044
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 1,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,675 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 92,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances(Assume 2/Mile) $1,500 EA 35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,609
Rehab Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,674
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20): $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,330,790
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Life of Project): $1,700,534
64

Table 5.2.3.6 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 0.09% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 v 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Influent plumps @ 10 Hp @ 8 hr/day ' $2,896 Ea 1 $2,764 $2,638 $2,517 $2,402 $2,293 $2,188 $2,088 $1,993 $1,902 $1,815
Influent mech.Screen @ 1 HP $366 Ea 1 $349 $333 $318 $303 $290 $276 $264 $252 $240 $229
PS#1-980 gpm @ 149',70 HP Submersible • $4,865 Ea 1 $4,643 $4,431 $4,229 $4,036 $3,851 $3,676 $3,508 $3,348 $3,195 $3,049
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr I $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
PS#2-980 gpm@ 102',50 HP Submersible • $3,475 Ea 1 $3,317 $3,165 $3,021 $2,883 $2,751 $2,625 $2,506 $2,391 $2,282 $2,178
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022, $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr I $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
PS#3-980 gpm @ 204',115 HP Submersible " $8,259 Yr 1 $7,882 $7,522 $7,179 $6,851 $6,538 $6,240 $5,955 $5,683 $5,424 $5,176
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/lflyr) 23,107.50 Yr 1 $22,052 $21,046 $20,085 $19,168 $18,292 $17,457 $16,660 $15,899 $15,173 $14,481
O&M of Inf.Pumps&Inf Screen @ 2 hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $34,833 $33,243 $31,725 $30,277 $28,894 $27,575 $26,316 $25,114 $23,968 $22,873
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) • $3,750 Yr 1 $3,579 $3,415 $3,259 $3,111 $2,969 $2,833 $2,704 $2,580 $2,462 $2,350
Rutherfordton User Fee '$1,073,210 Yr 1 $1,024,208 $977,443 $932,814 $890,223 $849,576 $810,785 $773,766 $738,436 $704,720 $672,543
l'otal Present Value of Yearly O&M Ex-ienses(Years 1-10): $1,123,668 $1,072,363'$1,023,400 $976,672_ $932,078_ $889,520 $848,906 $810,145 $773,155 $737,853
65

•
Table 5.2.3.7 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2)
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:'0.09% , EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @ 8 hr/day ` $2,896 Ea 1 $1,732 $1,653 $1,577 $1,505 $1,437 $1,371 $1,308 $1,249 $1,192 $1,137
Influent rrech.Screen @ 1 HP ` $366l'Ea ` 1 $219 $209 $199 $190 $181 $173 $165 $158 $151 $144
PS#1-980 gpm @ 149',70 HP Submersible ` $4,865`Ea ` 1 $2,910 $2,777 $2,650 $2,529 $2,414 $2,303 $2,198 $2,098 $2,002 $1,911
Generator Maintenance ` $4,000 Yr ` 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel ` $3,000"Yr ` 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#2-980 gpm @ 102',50 HP Submersible $3,475 Ea 1 $2,078 $1,983 $1,893 $1,806 $1,724 $1,645 $1,570 $1,498 $1,430 $1,365
Generator Maintenance ` $4,000 Yr ` 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel ` $3,000"Yr ` 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#3-980 gpm @ 204',115 HP Submersible ` $23,107 Yr ` 1 $13,819 $13,188 $12,586 $12,011 $11,463 $10,940 $10,440 $9,963 $9,508 $9,074
Generator Maintenance ` $54,750 Yr ▪ 1 $32,743 $31,248 $29,822 $28,460 $27,160 $25,920 $24,737 $23,607 $22,530 $21,501
Generator Fuel ` $3,750 Yr • 1 $2,243 $2,140 $2,043 $1,949 $1,860 $1,775 $1,694 $1,617 $1,543 $1,473
FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/lf/yr) ' $23,108 Yr • 1 $13,819 $13,189 $12,586 $12,012 $11,463 $10,940 $10,440 $9,964 $9,509 $9,075
O&M of Inf.Pumps&Inf.Screen @ 2 hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $21,829 $20,832 $19,881 $18,973 $18,107 $17,280 $16,491 $15,738 $15,020 $14,334
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) ` $3,750 Yr • 1 $2,243 $2,140 $2,043 $1,949 $1,860 $1,775 $1,694 $1,617 $1,543 $1,473
Rutherfordton User Fee `$1,073,210 Yr • 1 $641,835 $612,530 $584,562 $557,872 $532,400 $508,091 $484,892 $462,752 $441,623 $421,459
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 11-20): $743,843 $709,880 $677,467 $646,535 $617,015 $588,842 $561,956 $536,298 $511,811 $488,442
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs(Life of Project): $15,269,852
66

Table 5.2.4.1 Capital Costs
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWFP Option 2-3 Pump Stations
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the areas shown in gray below. Where shown,use pulldown menus to select options. The spreadsheet will calculate the c
Alternative: _
Project Administration($):`$1,779,600,
_ Component Unit Costs Unit Quantity Total Cost
New Influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $10,000
Demo Existing WWTP $250,000 EA 1 $250,000
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP-1017 gpm @ 146'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $275,000
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $225,000
PS#2 c@t McEntire Rd-1017 gpm @ 137'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $275,000
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $225,000
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd- 1017 gpm @ 176' -85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $262,000
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $175,000
12"DIP FM via Hwy 64/74&to @ Spindale WWTP. $57 LF 98,397 $5,624,546
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $24,000
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA ` 10 $50,000
River Crossing-Broad River $112,500 EA 1 $112,500
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $300,000
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 2,160 $540,000
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,840 $787,176
1 Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $240,000
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,715 $185,750
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $46,500
Erosion Control $4 LF ` 98397 $393,588
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY ` 4,225 $422,500
Const.Entrances (Assume 1/mile) $1,500 EA 34 $51,000
One Time Capacity Charge to Spindale $100,000 EA 1 $100,000
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $60,000
Rehabilitate of Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $50,000
Parshall Flume/Monitoring Sta.@ Spindale WWTP $30,000 EA 1 $30,000
'Unit costs are in today's dollars,not future dollars. Total Construction Cost: $10,714,560
Construction Contingency Cost: $1,071,456
Project Administration Cost: $1,779,600
Total Capital Costs: $13,565,616
67

Table 5.2.4.2 Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:;2.97% EPA Discount Rate:;4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5
New Influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo Existing WWTP $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 a,Exist LL WWTP-1017 gpm x,146'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd- 1017 gpm @ 137'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd-1017 gpm @ 176' -85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP FM via Hwy 64/74&to @ Spindale WWTP. $57 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing-Broad River $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 2,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,715 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 IF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances (Assume 1/mile) $1,500 EA 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One Time Capacity Charge to Spindale $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehabilitate of Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Parshall Flume/Monitoring Sta.@ Spindale WWTP $30,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 1 to 5): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
68

Table 5.2.4.3 Replacement Costs(Years 6 to 10)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:,2.97% EPA Discount Rate:'4.875%
Replacement Cost(Years 6 to 10)
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 6 7 8 j 9 10
New Influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0, $0 $0 $8,328
Demo Existing WWTP $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP-1017 gpm(x),146'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 x,McEntire Rd- 1017 gpm A 137'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd- 1017 gpm @ 176' -85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP FM via Hwy 64/74&to @ Spindale WWTP. $57 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,986
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing-Broad River $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $249,827
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 2,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,715 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances (Assume 1/mile) $1,500 EA 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One Time Capacity Charge to Spindale $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,965
Rehabilitate of Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA ] $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,638
Parshall Flume/Monitoring Sta.@ Spindale WWTP $30,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replcament Costs(Years 6 to 10): $0 $0 $0 $0, $369,743
69

•
Table 5.2.4.4 Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index:'2.97% EPA Discount Rate:14.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15
New Influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Demo Existing WWTP $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 na,Exist LL WWTP-1017 gpm A -70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd-1017 gpm @ 137'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#3 g WT Watkins Rd- 1017 gpm(n)176' -85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12"DIP FM via Hwy 64/74&to @ Spindale WWTP. $57 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
_Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing-Broad River $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AirNac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 2,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,715 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances (Assume 1/mile) $1,500 EA 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One Time Capacity Charge to Spindale $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehabilitate of Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Parshall Flume/Monitoring Sta.@ Spindale WWTP $30,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 11 to 15): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
70

Table 5.2.4.5 Replacement Costs(Years 15 to 20)
Lake Lure
Town of Lake Lure
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2-2 Pump Stations
Current Inflation Rate based on Construction Cost Index: 2.97% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of Replacement Costs in Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 16 17 18 19 20
New Influent magnetic flow meter $10,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,935
Demo Existing WWTP $250,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PS#1 @ Exist LL WWTP- 1017 gpm @ 146'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,707
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
PS#2 @ McEntire Rd-1017 gpm @ 137'-70 Hp $275,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $190,707
Emergency Generator $225,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,033
PS#3 @ WT Watkins Rd-1017 gpm @ 176' -85 Hp $262,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,692
Emergency Generator $175,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $121,359
12"DIP FM via Hwy 64/74&to @ Spindale WWTP. $57 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Surge Relief Valves $8,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,644
Creek Crossing $5,000 EA 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
River Crossing-Broad River $112,500 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Air/Vac Relief Valves&MH $6,000 EA 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,044
Jack&Bore Road Crossing w/Encasement $250 LF 2,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rock Allowance @ 0.1/LF $80 CY 9,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Repair $240,000 Budget 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Asphalt Drive Replacement $50 LF 3,715 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Concrete Drive Replacement $75 LF 620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Erosion Control $4 LF 98,397 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rip Rap Allowance @ 250 SY/Mile $100 SY 4,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const.Entrances (Assume 1/mile) $1,500 EA 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
One Time Capacity Charge to Spindale $100,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Existing Influent Pumps $20,000 EA 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,609
Rehabilitate of Existing Influent Screen $50,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,674
Parshall Flume/Monitoring Sta.@ Spindale WWTP $30,000 EA 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,804
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Years 16 to 20): $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,325,243
Total Present Value of Replacement Costs(Life of Project): $1,694,986
71

•
Table 5.2.4.6 Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 1-10)
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2-2 Pump Stations
Town of Lake Lure
Complete the cells shown in gray below.
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index:!0.09% EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year:
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp @ 8 hr/day $2,896 Ea 1 $2,764 $2,638 $2,517 $2,402 $2,293 $2,188 $2,088 $1,993 $1,902 $1,815
Influent mech.Screen @ 1 HP ' $366 Ea 1 $349 $333 $318 $303 $290 $276 $264 $252 $240 $229
PS#1-980 gpm @ 149',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 Hr/D ' $4,865 Ea 1 $4,643 $4,431 $4,229 $4,036 $3,851 $3,676 $3,508 $3,348 $3,195 $3,049
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr I $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
,
PS#2-980 gpm @ 137',70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 Hr/D $4,865 Ea 1 $4,643 $4,431 $4,229 $4,036 $3,851 $3,676 $3,508 $3,348 $3,195 $3,049
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318_ $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
PS#3-980 gpm @ 177',85 HP Submersible @ 5.6 Hr/D ' $6,105 Yr 1 $5,826 $5,560 $5,306 $5,064 $4,833 $4,612 $4,401 $4,200 $4,009 $3,826
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $3,817 $3,643 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,022 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $2,863 $2,732 $2,608 $2,488 $2,375 $2,266 $2,163 $2,064 $1,970 $1,880
FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/lflyr) ' $22,308 Yr 1 $21,289 $20,317 $19,390 $18,504 $17,659 $16,853 $16,084 $15,349 $14,648 $13,980
O&M of Pumps&Inf.Screen @ 2 hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $34,833 $33,243 $31,725 $30,277 $28,894 $27,575 $26,316 $25,114 $23,968 $22,873
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) $3,750 Yr I $3,579 $3,415 $3,259 $3,111 $2,969 $2,833 $2,704 $2,580 $2,462 $2,350
SpindaleUserFee ' $237,287 Yr 1 $226,452 $216,113 $206,245 $196,828 $187,841 $179,265 $171,079 $163,268 $155,813 $148,699
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 1-10): $324,420 $309,607 $295,471 $281,980 $269,105_$256,818 $245,092 $233,901 $223,222 $213,030
72

Table 5.2.4.7.Present Value of Operations and Maintenance Costs(Years 11-20)
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP Option 2-2 Pump Stations
Town of Lake Lure
Current Inflation Rate Based on Municipal Cost Index: 0.09% ' EPA Discount Rate: 4.875%
Present Value of O&M Costs for Year.
Component Unit Cost Unit Quantity 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Influent pumps @ 10 Hp(ra 8 hr/day $2,896 Ea I $1,732 $1,653 $1,577 $1,505 $1,437 $1,371 $1,308 $1,249 $1,192 $1,137
Influent mech.Screen 1 HP $366 Ea 1 $219 $209 $199 $190 $181 $173 $165 $158 $151 $144
Hr/D v $10,488 Ea 1 $6,272 $5,986 $5,712 $5,452 $5,203 $4,965 $4,738 $4,522 $4,316 $4,119
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#2-980 gpm @ 137,70 HP Submersible @ 5.6 ' $6,992 Ea 1 $4,181 $3,991 $3,808 $3,634 $3,468 $3,310 $3,159 $3,015 $2,877 $2,746
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571 1
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
PS#3-980 gpm @ 177',85 HP Submersible @ 5.6 $6,105 Yr 1 $3,651 $3,484 $3,325 $3,173 $3,028 $2,890 $2,758 $2,632 $2,512 $2,397 1
Generator Maintenance $4,000 Yr 1 $2,392 $2,283 $2,179 $2,079 $1,984 $1,894 $1,807 $1,725 $1,646 $1,571
Generator Fuel $3,000 Yr 1 $1,794 $1,712 $1,634 $1,559 $1,488 $1,420 $1,355 $1,294 $1,234 $1,178
FM Maintenance(Annual inspection @$0.25/If/yr) $22,308 Yr 1 $13,341 $12,732 $12,151 $11,596 $11,067 $10,561 $10,079 $9,619 $9,180 $8,761
O&M of Pumps&Inf.Screen @2hr/day @$50/hr $36,500 Yr 1 $21,829 $20,832 $19,881 $18,973 $18,107 $17,280 $16,491 $15,738 $15,020 $14,334
Screening disposals(25%of Current sludge hauling) $3,750 Yr 1, $2,243 $2,140 $2,043 $1,949 $1,860 $1,775 $1,694 $1,617 $1,543 $1,473
Spindale User Fee $237,287 Yr 1 $141,910 $135,430 $129,247 $123,345 $117,714 $112,339 $107,210 $102,314 $97,643 $93,185
Total Present Value of Yearly O&M Expenses(Years 11-20): $207,937 $198,443 $189,382 $180,735 $172,483 $164,608 $157,092 $149,919 $143,074 $136,541
Total Present Value of Annual O&M Costs(Life of Project): $4,352,860
73

Table 5.2.5 Replacement Cost Life Cycle Assumptions
Wastewater Treatment System ER
Town of Lake Lure
Expected Replacement
Component Life Cycle Expected?t Rational for Expected Life Cycle
Pumps 10 Year 10 Mechanical/electrical wear
Air relief valves 10 Year 10 Mechanical wear
Flow meter 10 Year 10 Mechanical/electrical wear technology
update
Surge relief
valves 10 Year 10 Mechanical wear
Emergency 20 Year 20 Mechanical wear
Generator
'Period for replacement would be Years 1 through 20 only.
74

Table 5.2.6 Total Present Worth for Feasible Alternatives
Replacement
Costs Present Total Present
Option Capital Costs Worth O&M Costs Present Worth Worth
Annual Intermittent Total
1 Alternative 1-WWTP Upgrade $11,483,884 $2,913,632 $5,147,115 $199,878 $5,346,994 $19,744,510
Alternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton
2A WWTP Option 2A-3 Pump Stations(Route 1) $11,317,374 $1,847,552 $15,276,662 $0 $15,276,662 $28,441,588
Alkternative 2-Force Main Transfer to Rutherfordton
2B WWTP Option 2B-3 Pump Stations(Route 2) $12,845,859 $1,700,534 $15,269,852 $0 $15,269,852 $29,816,244
Alternative 3-Force Main Transfer to Spindale WWTP
3 Option 2-3 Pump Stations $13,565,616 $1,694,986 $4,352,860 $0 $4,352,860 $19,613,462
5.3 Alternative Analysis Summary
Table 5.3.1 provides a summary comparison of alternatives costs and impacts with the rational for alternative selection.
75

Table 5.2.6 Total Present Worth Summary for Feasible Alternatives
Preferred
Alternative 2 A Alternative 2 B Alternative
Alternative 1 Regionalization Regionalization Alternative 3
No-Action Optimization of Upgrade of Existing with Rutherfordton with Rutherfordton Regionalization
Existing WWTP WWTP (Route 1 Option) (Route 2 Option) with Spindale
Capital Cost $0 $0 $11,483,884 $11,317,374 $12,845,859 $13,565,616
Present Worth $0 $0 $19,744,510 $28,441,588 $29,816,244 $19,613,462
Feasibility ❑ Feasible ❑ Feasible ® Feasible ® Feasible ❑ Feasible
® Infeasible ® Infeasible ❑ Infeasible ❑ Infeasible ❑ Infeasible
Capital Costs ® Less than ® Less than ® Less than ® Less than ❑ Less than
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
❑ Greater than ❑ Greater than ❑ Greater than ❑ Greater than ❑ Greater than
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
❑ Same as ❑ Same as E Same as ❑ Same as ❑ Same as
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
4 Present Worth ® Less than ® Less than ❑ Less than ❑ Less than ❑ Less than
7
b Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
Q ❑ Greater than E Greater than ® Greater than ® Greater than ® Greater than
a Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
E ❑ Same as ❑ Same as El Same as ❑ Same as El Same as
.. Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
Environmental ❑ Less than ❑ Less than ❑ Less than ❑ Less than ❑ Less than
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
® Greater than ® Greater than ® Greater than ❑ Greater than ❑ Greater than
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
❑ Same as ❑ Same as ❑ Same as ® Same as ® Same as
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
Rationale for Environmental Environmental Present Worth, Present Worth Cost Present Worth Cost Owner preference,
Rejection/Acceptance Impact Impact Envir.Impact& Present Worth&
Owner Preference Environmental
Impact,
76

5.4 Proposed Project Description
Based upon the foregoing cost and alternative evaluations,it is recommended that the
Town of Lake Lure proceed with the regionalization with the Town of Spindale
alternative providing for the transfer of the Lake Lure wastewaters to the Town of
Spindale for treatment as further described in Table 5.4.1 below.
Table 5.4.1. Project Description
Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System
Engineering Report
Project Vicinity Map: Appendix HJ Project Location Map: Appendix H
Complete the cell below in accordance with Section 2.2.6 of the guidance.
The Town of Lake Lure,NC proposes to transfer the wastewater currently treated at the Lake
Lure WWTP to the Town of Spindale for regional treatment permitting the elimination of the
existing Lake Lure discharge into the Broad River. This alternative has the lowest initial
capital cost and present worth cost and is the Owner preferred option. The continued
treatment at an upgraded Lake Lure WWTP would continue to encounter ongoing
operational challenges in obtaining consistent treatment of wastewater with low influent
temperatures,low organic loading and high iron concentrations. The transfer of wastewaters
to the Spindale WWTP and combination with the current Spindale municipal wastewaters is
expected to significantly reduce the impact of Lake Lure wastewater characteristics that
would impact a smaller conventional biological treatment system.
The proposed design for this alternative will include the following components:
1) Continued utilization of the existing WWTP triplex influent pump station for transfer of
wastewater to the currently Lake Lure WWTP site.
2) Continued utilization of the existing influent screening system for removal of solids
potentially creating deposition issues within the proposed force main.
3) Modifications to the existing WWTP to permit utilization of the existing sedimentation
basin and clarifier for emergency storage and the existing sludge pumps for transfer of
stored wastewater back to the transfer pump station.
4) Addition of a new duplex pump station at the WWTP site, an emergency power supply
and automatic transfer switch(ATS) at the existing WWTP site. The duplex pumps are
proposed to be designed for a pumping capacity of 1,017 gpm based upon the following
considerations:
77

Table 5.4.1. Project Description
Lake Lure Wastewater Treatment System
Engineering Report
• The future year 2033 service area population of 2,808(Town of Lake Lure and Service
Areas).
• Design average daily flow of 422,012 gpd(293 gpm)based on a projected flow of
312,012 gpd plus 110,000 gpd of infiltration/inflow associated with the underwater
collection system within Lake Lure.
• A design peaking factor for the determination of pump design utilizing the "10 State
Standards"methodology based on a 2,808population yielding a peaking factor of 3.47
and resulting design flow rate of 1,017 gpm.
5) Two(2) additional new intermediate pump stations strategically located in the force main
to maintain reasonable pumping head requirements. These pump stations were
preliminarily positioned near McEntire Rd. (approximately 5.6 miles from Lake Lure
WWTP) and near WT Watkins Rd. (approximately 11.2 miles from the Lake Lure WWTP).
6) Approximately 98,3971f of 12-inch diameter force main following US Highway 64/74,US
Highway 74,the"Mountain Thermal Belt Rail-Trail" adjacent to US 74A,Whitesides
Road and the existing Spindale gravity sewer right-of-way along Hollands Creek to the
Spindale WWTP site. A parshall flume flow monitoring system is to received the
wastewater prior to discharge into the headworks of the Spindale WWTP.
7) This route will require one(1)major river crossing at the Broad River and an estimated
nine(9) creek crossings with the associated short termed environmental minimal impacts.
The basis of design for the proposed alternative is summarized below:
Design flow 422,012 gpd
Peaking factor 3.47
Design pump rate 1,017 gpm
Force main diameter 12—inch
Velocity in DIP force main at design pump rate 2.6 fps
Force main material DIP&HDPE
Pump stations 2 ea duplex submersible
pumps with space for future
third pump.
Pump Station#1 @ existing WWTP:
• Force main length 31,4161E
78

• Static head 73 ft
• Total dynamic head 147 ft
• Estimated motor horsepower @ 62%efficiency 70 horsepower
Pump Station#2 @ Hwy 64/74 near McEntire Rd:
• Force main length 29,568 if
• Static head 96 ft
• Total dynamic head 137 ft
• Estimated motor horsepower @ 62%efficiency 70 horsepower
Pump Station#3 @ Hwy 64/74 near WT Watkins Rd:
• Force main length 37,413 if
• Static head 159 ft
• Total dynamic head 176 ft
• Estimated motor horsepower @ 62%efficiency 85 horsepower
The Town of Spindale's letters of June 29,2015 and April 26,2016 are included in Appendix G
providing a preliminary indication of their agreement to accept the Town of Lake Lure's
wastewater and a proposed rate structure pending a formal contract.
79
L a

Predicted Compliance Schedule

Town of
Zime
est. 192North Carolina
April 7,2017
G.Landon Davidson,P.G.,Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section NCDEQ- Division of Water Resources
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa,N.C. 28711
RE: Request for a Special Order by Consent(SOC)
Town of Lake Lure WWTP
NPDES Permit NC00253481
Rutherford County,NC
Dear Mr. Davidson
The Settlement agreement signed on April 20, 2012 self-expired on April 1, 2013. Since
June 11, 1993 through March 3, 2016,the amount of Civil Penalties Assessed is$56,500;
and Enforcement Costs is $4,292.50, yielding total penalties of $60,792.50. The town
has paid $34,334.26 leaving a balance due of $26,458.24. This is all detailed on the
attached spread sheet provided by your agency.
The status of required items to be completed under section 2 of the expired Settlement
Agreement is as follows:
V Items (a), (b), and (c) are completed
V Item(d); "Consistent compliance"has not been achieved.
The Town has embarked on a major project to achieve full "Consistent compliance" by
the elimination of the Town's NPDES Permit NC00253481. The project description is as
follows:
The Towns of Lake Lure and Spindale have agreed to construct a sewer interconnect
from Lake Lure's WWTP to Spindale's WWTP and treat Lake Lure's wastewater at
Spindale's WWTP. The scope of the project is to construct three (3) sewer pump stations
and nineteen(19)miles of 12-inch interconnect force main between the Towns, generally
following Hwy US 64.
The project is locally referred to as "The Greenline", because it will eliminate Lake
Lure's discharge into an impaired section of the Broad River in Lake Lure and therefore
eliminate Lake Lure's NPDES Permit. Local support for this project is very high.
2948 Memorial Hwy. I P.O.Box 255 I Lake Lure,NC 28746 townoflakelure.com

These improvements total $12,500,000. The project has been approved for funding under
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Attached is the 8/1/2016 funding approval letter
from NCDEQ—DWI.
The Greenline project has already begun and is in the planning and engineering phase.
Construction is to begin in August 2018,with completion anticipated in August 2020.
The Town formally requests: NCDEQ and the Town of Lake Lure enter into a new
Special Order by Consent - SOC covering the time period that the Greenline project is
under construction, and include an additional six (6) months to allow for construction
time contingency and operational adjustments.
The Town requests that the beginning SOC date be back dated to when the previous
Settlement Agreement self-expired on April 1,2013
The ending date of the SOC would be February 1,2021.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me, or any questions
with regards to the Greenline project to Mr. Harlow L. Brown, PE of Brown Consultants.
Very Truly Yours,
'W-riAdef 04414z)
Ron Nalley
Town Manager
Cc: Bob Keith, Mayor
Harlow. L. Brown, PE, Brown Consultants

1

PAT MCCRORY
IN
l;! Grn enr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Seri e(ar w
Water Infrastructure
ENVIRONMENTALOVALITY KIM H. COLSON
Dire(tor
August 1,2016
Mr. Ron Nalley, Manager
Town of Lake Lure
P.O. Box 255
Lake Lure,NC 28746
SUBJECT: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Letter of Intent to Fund
Greenline
April 2016 Application Cycle
Project No. CS370489-05
Dear Mr. Karr:
The Division of Water Infrastructure has reviewed your application to the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund(CWSRF)program, and the State Water Infrastructure Authority has
approved your project as eligible to receive a low-interest loan. The total loan amount will be
$12,580,261. $500,000 of the total loan will be in the form of principal forgiveness and the
balance will have a maximum interest rate of 0%. A loan fee of 2%will be invoiced after bids
have been received.
Please note that this intent to fund is contingent on approval of the loan through the Local
Government Commission and on meeting all of the following milestones:
Milestone Date _
Engineering Report Submittal December 1,2016
Engineering Report Approval May 1,2017
Bid and Design Package Submittal November 1,2017 _
Bid and Design Package.Approval March 1,2018
Advertise Project,Receive Bids, July 2, 2018
Submit Bid Information, and Receive
Authority To Award
Execute Construction Contract(s) August 1, 2018 1
1
The first milestone is the submittal of an Engineering Report by close of business on
December 1, 2016. The Engineering Report must be developed using the updated guidance
found on our website(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wi/home). Failure to meet any milestone
may result in the forfeiture of funding for the proposed project.
Nothing Compares.,
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Infrastructure
1633 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699 I Location 512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh.North Carolina 27604
919 707 9160 T

Mr. Ron Nalley,Manager
August 1, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Upon detailed review of the project during the funding process, it may be determined that
portions of your project are not eligible for funding and the total loan amount may be reduced.
Additionally, changes in the scope or priority points awarded—based on additional information
that becomes apparent during project review—may also result in changes to the total loan
amount and loan terms.
Davis-Bacon Requirements and American Iron and Steel Provisions
Projects funded through the CWSRF program must comply with Davis-Bacon wage
requirements and American Iron and Steel provisions. You can find standard specifications
covering these requirements on our website.
General Assembly Notification Requirements
In accordance with G.S. 120-157.1 through 157.9, enacted on June 24, 2011, local government
units with projects that require debt to be issued greater than$1,000,000 must submit a letter to
Committee Chairs, Committee Assistant, and the Fiscal Research Division of the General
Assembly at least 45 days prior to presentation before the Local Government Commission. You
are responsible for submitting this letter and providing a copy to the Division of Water
Infrastructure upon receipt of this approval letter.
Brooks Act Compliance
Projects funded through the CWSRF program must comply with the federal Brooks Act for the
selection of architectural and engineering services. CWSRF projects cannot be exempted from
qualification based selection of these services under N.C.G.S. 143-64.32. The attached form will
need to be submitted as documentation of compliance for any services to be reimbursed. Any
services provided that were not selected in compliance with federal requirements will be
ineligible for reimbursement.
If you have questions, please contact Seth Robertson,PE, Chief,State Revolving Fund
Section at 919-707-9175.
Sincerely,
Kim H. Colson,P.E.
Attachment: PESP 4/11/16
CC: Harlow L. Brown, PE,Brown Consultants
Anita E. Reed,PE
Mark Hubbard,PE
SRF File
t I
(Nothing Compares -.,_
Stare of North Carolina I Environmental Qualityf Water Infrastructure
1633 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699 I Location 512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604
919 707 9160 T

Funding Sources Identification

IIS
PAT MCCRORY
Z'`' Ciurcrnnr �
r•
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Seartnr)
Water Infrastructure
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY KIM H. COLSON
Dire,wi
August 1,2016
Mr. Ron Nalley,Manager
Town of Lake Lure
P.O. Box 255
Lake Lure,NC 28746
SUBJECT: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Letter of Intent to Fund
Greenline
April 2016 Application Cycle
Project No.CS370489-05
Dear Mr.Karr:
The Division of Water Infrastructure has reviewed your application to the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund(CWSRF)program, and the State Water Infrastructure Authority has
approved your project as eligible to receive a low-interest loan. The total loan amount will be
$12,580,261. $500,000 of the total loan will be in the form of principal forgiveness and the
balance will have a maximum interest rate of 0%. A loan fee of 2%will be invoiced after bids
have been received.
Please note that this intent to fund is contingent on approval of the loan through the Local
Government Commission and on meeting all of the following milestones:
Milestone Date
Engineering Report Submittal December 1,2016
Engineering Report Approval May 1,2017
Bid and Design Package Submittal November 1,2017
Bid and Design Package Approval March 1,2018
Advertise Project,Receive Bids, July 2,2018
Submit Bid Information,and Receive
Authority To Award •
Execute Construction Contract(s) August 1,2018
The first milestone is the submittal of an Engineering Report by close of business on
December 1,2016. The Engineering Report must be developed using the updated guidance
found on our website(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wi/home). Failure to meet any milestone
may result in the forfeiture of funding for the proposed project.
Nothing Compares.`
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water infrastructure
1633 Mail Service Center.Raleigh.North Carolina 27699 I Location 512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604
919 707 9160 T

Mr. Ron Nalley,Manager
August 1,2016
Page 2 of 2
Upon detailed review of the project during the funding process,it may be determined that
portions of your project are not eligible for funding and the total loan amount may be reduced.
Additionally,changes in the scope or priority points awarded—based on additional information
that becomes apparent during project review—may also result in changes to the total loan
amount and loan terms.
Davis-Bacon Requirements and American Iron and Steel Provisions
Projects funded through the CWSRF program must comply with Davis-Bacon wage
requirements and American Iron and Steel provisions. You can find standard specifications
covering these requirements on our website.
General Assembly Notification Requirements
In accordance with G.S. 120-157.1 through 157.9, enacted on June 24,2011,local government
units with projects that require debt to be issued greater than$1,000,000 must submit a letter to
Committee Chairs,Committee Assistant,and the Fiscal Research Division of the General
Assembly at least 45 days prior to presentation before the Local Government Commission. You
are responsible for submitting this letter and providing a copy to the Division of Water
Infrastructure upon receipt of this approval letter.
Brooks Act Compliance
Projects funded through the CWSRF program must comply with the federal Brooks Act for the
selection of architectural and engineering services. CWSRF projects cannot be exempted from
qualification based selection of these services under N.C.G.S. 143-64.32. The attached form will
need to be submitted as documentation of compliance for any services to be reimbursed. Any
services provided that were not selected in compliance with federal requirements will be
ineligible for reimbursement.
If you have questions,please contact Seth Robertson,PE,Chief,State Revolving Fund
Section at 919-707-9175.
Sincerely,
Kim H.Colson,P.E.
Attachment: PESP 4/11/16
CC: Harlow L. Brown,PE,Brown Consultants
Anita E.Reed,PE
Mark Hubbard,PE
SRF File
�Nothing Compares
State of North Carolina 1 Environmental Quality I Water Infrnstruclure
1633 Moil Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699 I Location 512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604
919 707 9160 T