NC0090247_Fact Sheet (Draft)_20230919

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCO090247
Permit Writer/Email Contact Siying Chen, [e-mail]:
Date: July 18, 2023
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Compliance & Expedited Permitting Unit
Permitting Action:
❑ Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑x New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Henderson County / Clear Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
1 Historic Courthouse Square, Ste 6, Hendersonville, NC 28792
Facility Address:
Near Fruitland Road, Hendersonville, NC 28792
(Outfall location: 35' 22' 32.1" N, 82' 24' 36.3" W)
Permitted Flow:
Phased flow: 0.2 MGD and 0.5 MGD
Facility Type/Waste:
Minor Municipal
Facility Class:
Grade II
Treatment Units:
Influent pump station
Bar screens
Flow equalization tank
Two (2) activated sludge trains
Two (2) secondary clarification tanks
Sludge holding tank
Chlorine contact basin
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Henderson
Region
ARO
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background:
Henderson County has applied for an NPDES permit for the proposed Clear Creek WWTP in April 2023.
The new sanitary sewer collection system will be composed of both gravity and pumped systems to serve
existing residential and commercial properties in the unincorporated community of Edneyville in
Henderson County, NC. The new WWTP will be constructed on an approximately 15-acre greenfield
Page 1 of 9

parcel (parcels to be further subdivided pending discussions with property owner) at the confluence of
Clear Creek and Laurel Branch. The WWTP site footprint will be approximately 0.5 acres. The WWTP
will be a "package" -type plant and have the capacity to treat 0.2 million gallons per day (MGD)
maximum month flow (MMF). It is conceptually planned to allow for future capacity expansions up to
0.5 MGD via installation of additional packaged treatment units. The WWTP will include an influent
pump station and screening, a flow equalization cell, two conventional activated sludge treatment trains,
two secondary clarifiers, a sludge holding tank, and effluent disinfection via chlorine.
This project is partly funded by $12.7 Million ARPA grant funds, administered by the Division of Water
Infrastructure. According to the final ruling for Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
(SLFRF, which is defined by ARPA), all ARPA funds are exempt from NEPA. Since these APRA funds
are directed to be administered by the DEQ/Division of Water Infrastructure through the Wastewater
Reserve Fund as established under NC General Statute Chapter 195G, these funds are statutorily exempt
from SEPA per G.S. 11 3A- 12(2)(h) and do not require preparation of an environmental document.
2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — Clear Creek
Stream Segment:
6-55-11-(5)
Stream Classification:
C
Drainage Area (mi2):
34.1
Summer 7Q 10 (cfs)
15.0
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
21.5
30Q2 (cfs):
28.3
Average Flow (cfs):
58
IWC (% effluent):
0.2 MGD: 2.02% (summer); 1.42% (winter)
0.5 MGD: 4.91% (summer); 3.48% (winter)
303(d) listed/parameter:
Yes — for Benthos
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
No
Basin/Sub-basin/I UC:
French Board River Basin / 04-03-02 / 060101050302
USGS Topo Quad:
Fruitland
Clear Creek is listed by the Division as impaired for Benthos in the 2022 North Carolina 303 (d)
List.
Clear Creek 6-55-11-�5}a 1.8 FW Miles
13216 From Lewis Creek to Laurel Branch
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 5 _Axceeding criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Bioclassification 2010
Clear Creek 6-55-11-(5}b C 4.7 FW Miles
13374 From Laurel Branch to Mud Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW) 0 !Exceeding Criteria Fair, Poor or Severe Biodassificationl 2020
3. Effluent Data Summary
Page 2 of 9

New facility, no effluent data available.
4. Instream Data Summary
New facility, no instream data available, and no instream monitoring is required at this point.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): N
Name of Monitoring Coalition: N/A
5. Compliance Summary
New facility, no compliance history available.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA
Oxveen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
BODS, TSS, 85% removal, pHLimits:
Applied 40 CFR 133.102 US EPA secondary treatment standards for a domestic treatment facility. Based
on modeling results, the BOD limits will protect the instream DO standard.
Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/1(winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Page 3 of 9

Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal:
NH3 Limits:
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an Ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/L (summer) and 1.8 mg/L (winter). Additional information on how the proposed facility would
meet these requirements would be expected as part of the design review. This would address instream
ammonia aquatic life concerns at the new discharge for 0.5 MGD.
TRC, Fecal Coliform Limits:
Applied 15A NCAC 02B .0211 water quality standards.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of/z detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 213.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was not conducted since there's no effluent data available.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a Minor POTW, a chronic WET pass/fail test on a
quarterly frequency is required in the permit.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit:
Semi-annual monitoring for TN and TP according to 15a NCAC 02b .0508.
Page 4 of 9

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Municipals (if not applicable, delete and skip to Industrials)
Are concentration limits in the permit at least as stringent as secondary treatment requirements (30 mg/l
BODS/TSSfor Monthly Average, and 45 mg/l for BODS/TSSfor Weekly Average). YES
If NO, provide a justification for alternative limitations (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
Are 85% removal requirements for BOD51TSS included in the permit? YES
If NO, provide a justification (e.g., waste stabilization pond). NA
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit
must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all
cases, existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results:
1. Determine if the proposed discharge will be allowed
Zero flow stream restrictions
USGS provided low flow characteristics for Clear Creek (summarized below), it is not subject to zero -
flow stream restrictions.
JFZFlow
7Q 10
5.8-23.9
15
15.3
3aQ2
13.3-44.3
28.3
26.3
W7Q10
8.5-44.3
21.5
19.4
7Q2
10.6-40.9
25.9
24.2
Basinwide Water Qualit,, Plans
Clear Creek is part of the French Broad River Basin, according to the 2011 French Broad Basinwide
Water Quality Plan, portions of Clear Creek are listed as Impaired, with other portions listed as
Supporting, but it does not preclude the proposed discharge.
Impaired waters and TMDLs
In the 2022 North Carolina Integrated Report (303(d) list), Clear Creek was given an Assessment Criteria
status of "Exceeding Criteria" for benthos. Clear Creek is not subject to any total maximum daily load
(TMDL) restrictions other than the statewide Mercury TMDL.
Page 5 of 9

Presence of Endangered Species
C1earWater Environmental Consultants is preparing the Environmental Assessment (EA) for both the
proposed WWTP location and the upstream proposed collection system conveyance improvements. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service provided a protected species list in the project area, which are summarized
below:
Common Name
eagle
Scientific Name
Heliaeetus leucocepholus
Federal Status
BGPA'
State Status
—
Bog turtle
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Threatened (SJA)
Threatened
Bunched arrowhead
5ogittariafasciculato
Endangered
—
Gray bat
Myotis grisescens
Endangered
Endangered
Mountain heartleaf
Hexostylis con tracto
—
Endangered
Mountain sweet pittherplant
5arrocenia rubta ssp. Jonesd
Endangered
Endangered
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionolis
Endangered
Threatened
Small whorled pogonia
lsotria medeoloides
Threatened
—
Swamp pink
Helonia hulloto
Threatened
—
White irisette
5isyrinchium dichotomum
Endangered
—
No designated critical habitat for any species has been found within the project area. Potentially suitable
habitat for bunched arrowhead was observed within the proposed project area, between tributaries along
Clear Creek. No suitable habitat for all other listed species was observed within the proposed project area.
2. Provide reasonable projections for population and flow
Below is the projected population for Henderson County:
Edneyville is primarily a rural and agricultural community with scattered suburban developments.
Currently, most of the community is unsewered and relies on septic treatment systems for wastewater
handling and disposal. There is limited data on current wastewater flows within the entire sewer subbasin
that would contribute to the new WWTP. There are also three existing package WWTPs within the
service area and they will be abandoned after this new WWTP is established.
Based on the likely and possible contributors, the new Edneyville sewer collection system is anticipated
to collect up to 65,000 gpd upon initial activation, and the anticipated growth rate for this system is
Page 6 of 9

expected to be approximately 2.54 percent (%) per year. Below is the Edneyville Sewer Collection
System Flow Projections and Peaking Factors:
3. Evaluate technologically feasible alternatives
The EAA explored different alternatives including connection to existing sewer systems and WWTPs,
land -based disposal application, wastewater reuse, and combination of different alternatives. Below is a
comparison summary of the different alternatives:
Option
Hendersonville WWTP can accept flows; additional gravity sewer
Connection to WWTP
Y
needed to facilitate connection; higher cost than surface water
discharge.
Limited available land for purchase and at high cost. Large potential
Land Based Disposal
YjN
agricultural user base, however, demand is not anticipated to be stable;
further coordination on nature of demands and quality requirements is
needed.
Wastewater Reuse
N
Not feasible because of cost, low customer base, and distance to
customers.
Surface Water Discharge
Y
Preferred option; economically feasible.
Combination of land -based disposal and surface water discharge is
Combination
Y
feasible but would incur significant additional cast and include the
limitations noted above
4. Evaluate economic feasibility of alternatives
Below is the summary cost table for the different alternatives discussed:
In the EAA review, concerns were raised about the close cost estimates between direct discharge
(Alternative D) and connection to Hendersonville WWTP (Alternative A). The concern has been
addressed with CEPU management and ARO, and both have agreed to proceed with the direct discharge
option.
Page 7 of 9

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NA
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 213.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4
11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. Effective December 21, 2025, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to
submit additional NPDES reports electronically. This permit contains the requirements for electronic
reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Speculative limits were issued by DWR on August 5, 2022, which includes limits and monitoring
requirements for BOD5, ammonia nitrogen, DO, TSS, TRC, pH, fecal coliform TN, TP, and chronic
toxicity pass/fail test. Special conditions for annual instream assessment and notification of start-up were
also included.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: 9/12/2023
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Page 8 of 9

Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
14. NPDES Division Contact:
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Siying Chen via email at siyin .cg henkdeq.nc.gov.
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No):
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
Page 9 of 9

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Clear Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0090247
Prepared By: Siying Chen
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.2
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 15
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 21.5
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
15
s7Q10 (CFS)
15
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.2
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.31
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.31
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
2.02
IWC (%)
2.02
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
840
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
38.7
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
21.5
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.2
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.31
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
49.39 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
1.42
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
111.4
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Clear Creek WWTP
PermitNo. NC0090247
Prepared By: Siying Chen
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.5
Enter s7Q10 (cfs): 15
Enter w7Q10 cfs : 21.5
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/1)
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
s7Q10 (CFS)
15
s7Q10 (CFS)
15
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/1)
0
Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
4.91
IWC (%)
4.91
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
346
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
16.1
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/1)
Fecal Coliform
w7Q10 (CFS)
21.5
Monthly Average Limit:
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
(If DF<331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
20.35 Upstream Bkgd (mg/1)
0.22
IWC (%)
3.48
Allowable Conc. (mg/1)
45.6
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non -Muni)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
RICHARD E. ROGERS, JR.
Director
Mr. Marcus E. Jones, County Engineer
Henderson County Engineering
1 Historic Courthouse Square, Suite 6
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Dear Mr. Jones:
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 5, 2022
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Edneyville/Clear Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. N/A
Henderson County
French Broad Basin
This letter provides speculative effluent limits for a new 0.2 MGD or 0.5 MGD WWTP in the
Edneyville/Clear Creek areas. The Division received the speculative limits request in a letter dated May 23,
2022, from Marcus A. Jones, PE., of Henderson County Engineering. Please recognize that speculative limits
may change based on future water quality initiatives, and it is recommended that the applicant review the
speculative limits with the Division's Municipal NPDES Unit when the NPDES permit application is
submitted.
Receiving Stream. Clear Creek is located within the French Broad River Basin. Clear Creek has a stream
classification of C, and waters with this classification have a best usage for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The three potential WWTP
locations along Clear Creek have the following flows:
Site
DA
s7Q10
w7Q10
Average Flow
30Q2
Preferred Location #2
34.1 mil
15 cfs
21.5 cfs
58 cfs
28.3 cfs
Alternate Location #1
32.4 mil
14.3 cfs
20.4 cfs
55.1 cfs
26.9 cfs
Alternate Location #3
32.3 mil
14.2 cfs
20.3 cfs
54.9 cfs
26.7 cfs
This segment of Clear Creek is listed on the 2022 303(d) list as impaired for aquatic life based on `biological
integrity'. The sources of these impairments are undetermined, however non -point sources are typically a
significant contributing factor for biological impairment. Although the impairment does not preclude a new
discharge at this time, the Division would include the following condition in an issued NPDES permit:
"The Permittee shall submit a study plan to annually assess biological integrity in the receiving water via
benthic macroinvertebrate (benthos) sampling and analysis. The study plan shall include methodologies
consistent with DWR-approved assessment methodologies and propose an annual assessment schedule and
sampling location(s). Once approved, the studyplan shall be usedfor all subsequent assessments unless a study
plan modification is approved by the Division. Instream biological integrity assessments shall be conducted by
a laboratory or entity that is NC -certified for the procedure. "
Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online Map
Viewer, there are Federally Listed threatened or endangered species identified within a 5-mile radius of the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NORTH CARCLINA
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
proposed discharge location. If there are any identified threatened/endangered species, it is recommended that
the applicant discuss the proposed project with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the
proposed discharge location might impact such species.
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and specific proposed
discharge locations, speculative limits for the proposed new 0.2MGD or 0.5 MGD WWTP are presented in
Tables 1-3. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants,
as well as potential instream monitoring requirements, will be addressed upon receipt of a complete NPDES
permit application.
Every applicant shall also submit documentation of any additional pollutants for which there are certified
methods with the permit application if their discharge is anticipated. These pollutants may be found in 40
CFR Part 136, if there are additional pollutants with certified methods to be reported, please submit the
Chemical Addendum to NPDES Application and, if applicable, list the selected certified analytical method
used.
Some features of the speculative limit development include the following:
NH3 Limits. In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution
considerations for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow
(chronic Aquatic Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow
(carcinogen, HH). Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an
Ammonia chronic criterion of 1.0 mg/1 (summer) and 1.8 mg/1 (winter). Additional information on
how the proposed facility would meet these requirements would be expected as part of the design
review. This would address instream ammonia aquatic life concerns at the new discharge for 0.5 MGD.
BOD5, TSS, 85% removal, pH Limits: Applied 40 CFR 133.102 US EPA secondary treatment
standards for a domestic treatment facility. Based on modeling results, the BOD limits will
protect the instream DO standard.
TRC, Fecal Coliform Limits: Applied 15A NCAC 02B .0211 water quality standards.
REQ5 North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
onparhnem of EmironmanW 9uallly

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for the proposed Edneyville/Clear Creek WWTP — Preferred Location
#2 (0.2 MGD and 0.5 MGD)
Effluent Limitations 0.2 MGD
Effluent Limitations 0.5 MGD
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Average
Average
Maximum
Average
Average
Maximum
Flow
0.2 MGD
0.5 MGD
BOD51
30.0 mg/L
1 45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
NH3 as N — Summer
Monitor & Report
16.1 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
NH3 as N - Winter
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum)
Daily average > 5.0 mg/l
Daily average > 5.0 mg/l
TSS
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
TRC3
1 28.0 ug/L
1 28.0 ug/L
p H
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
9.0 S.U.
9.0 S.U.
Fecal coliform (geometric
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
7
mean)
Total Phosphorus
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Total Nitrogen
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
2 0%
4.9%
(Quarterly test)
Note:
1. The monthly average BOD5 and TSS concentration shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
2. Summer: April 1 — October 31 Winter: November 1 — March 31
3. TRC is only applicable if chlorine or a chlorine derivative is used for disinfection.
REQ5 North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
onparhnem of EmironmanW 9uallly

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
TABLE 2. Speculative Limits for the proposed Edneyville/Clear Creek WWTP — Alternate Location
#1 (0.2 MGD and 0.5 MGD)
Effluent Limitations 0.2 MGD
Effluent Limitations 0.5 MGD
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Average
Average
Maximum
Average
Average
Maximum
Flow
0.2 MGD
0.5 MGD
BOD51
30.0 mg/L
1 45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
NH3 as N — Summer
Monitor & Report
15.4 mg/L
3 5. 0 mg/L
NH3 as N - Winter
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum)
Daily average > 5.0 mg/l
Daily average > 5.0 mg/l
TSS
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
TRC3
1 28.0 ug/L
1 28.0 ug/L
p H
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
9.0 S.U.
9.0 S.U.
Fecal coliform (geometric
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
mean
Total Phosphorus
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Total Nitrogen
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
2 1 %
5.1 %
(Quarterly test)
Note:
1. The monthly average BOD5 and TSS concentration shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
2. Summer: April 1 — October 31 Winter: November 1 — March 31
3. TRC is only applicable if chlorine or a chlorine derivative is used for disinfection.
REQ5 North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
onparhnem of EmironmanW 9uallly

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
TABLE 3. Speculative Limits for the proposed Edneyville/Clear Creek WWTP - Alternate Location
#3 (0.2 MGD and 0.5 MGD)
Effluent Limitations 0.2 MGD
Effluent Limitations 0.5 MGD
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Average
Average
Maximum
Average
Average
Maximum
Flow
0.2 MGD
0.5 MGD
BOD51
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
NH3 as N - Summer
Monitor & Report
15.3 mg/L
35.0 mg/L
NH3 as N - Winter2
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum)
Daily average > 5.0 mg/1
Daily average > 5.0 mg/1
TSS
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
TRC3
1 28.0 ug/L
1 28.0 ug/L
p H
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor greater than
9.0 S.U.
9.0 S.U.
Fecal coliform (geometric
mean)
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
Total Phosphorus
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Total Nitrogen
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Chronic Toxicity Pass/Fail
2 1 %
5.2%
(Quarterly test)
Note:
1. The monthly average BOD5 and TSS concentration shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent
value (85% removal).
2. Summer: April 1 - October 31 Winter: November 1 - March 31
3. TRC is only applicable if chlorine or a chlorine derivative is used for disinfection.
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that an NPDES permit
for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative limits for either 0.2 MGD or 0.5 MGD.
Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal permit application for the
expanded discharge.
In accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most environmentally
sound alternative should be selected from all reasonably cost-effective options. Therefore, as a component of
all NPDES permit applications for new and expanding flow includes a detailed engineering alternatives analysis
(EAA) that must be prepared. The EAA must justify the requested design flow and provide an analysis of
potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the Division guidance for preparing EAA documents is
attached.
In addition to the EAA, please review information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Online Map Viewer. Please confirm if there are/are not any Federally Listed threatened or
endangered aquatic species identified within a 5-mile radius of the proposed discharge location. If there are
any identified threatened/endangered species, the applicant may consider reviewing the proposed project with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the proposed expanded discharge might impact such
species.
State Environmental Polices SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements. A SEPA EA/EIS document may be required
for projects that: 1) involve $10 Million or more of state funds; or 2) will significantly and permanently
REQ5 North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
onparhnem of EmironmanW 9uallly

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B5AC59D-E985-4C6E-B372-635D77A1C450
impact 10 or more acres of public lands. Please check with the DWR SEPA coordinator (David Wainwright,
919-707-9045) as to whether your project requires SEPA review. For projects that are subject to SEPA, the
EAA requirements discussed above will need to be folded into the SEPA document. If required, a FONSI
must be issued prior to issuance of the NPDES permit for the expansion.
We understand this project is moving forward rapidly; however we would expect that any request for NPDES
permitting action for the expansion be taken within a five-year period from the date of this letter, or the noted
speculative limits in Tables 1-3 would be subject to reassessment and review.
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting requirements, please feel
free to contact Kristin Litzenberger at [phone] / [e-mail] or Michael Montebello
at Michael.Montebello ci,ncdenr.gov.
Respectfully,
Do'c'fu,Si-gne'Id by, A A
C464531431644FE...
Michael Montebello
NPDES Program Branch Chief
Attachment: Link to EAA Guidance Document, Chemical Addendum Form, and NPDES application information:
https:Hdeg.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-qualiiy_pemiitting/npdes-wastewater/npdes-permitting-process/npdes-
individual-permit-applications
ec: NPDES Files [Laserfiche]
Henderson County / Marcus E. Jones, County Engineer [[e-mail]]
CDM Smith / Anish Luthra [[e-mail]]
DWR / Julie Grzyb [e-mail]]; Michael J Montebello [[e-mail]]; Doug Dowden
[[e-mail]]; Derek Denard [[e-mail]]
ARO / Dan Boss [[e-mail]]
NC WRC / Maria Dunn [[e-mail]]
US Fish and Wildlife Service / Sarah McRae [sarah [e-mail]]
DWR/Basinwide Planning, Michelle Raquel [[e-mail]]
REQ5 North Carolina Department ofEnvironmental Quality I Division ofWater Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
NORTH CAROLINA 919.707.9000
onparhnem of EmironmanW 9uallly

Mot'.
- - r U.IJ
PP
jAt
�17 - - _
L rf.
�, r Love' ��+ot:,�t.���� I i; � -• � �- R
K
RoC
CHITA
IRUrel
On
r,{ CC
--
r,
POSL
- � O _ '_� •may,. _� , ;c' • .•�
61
`,- - _ ' Tyler -! - � ,, i .- - - " _ ___ �_S%'•b?��yGS R� . � � �l === �! ' ` i l '' 1
�`� � ( �\-� i •. '° i f -'--+-' - � - _-_ _ yam; -_ — ��� -J
I 'I ---- _
Cog le. '
64 I_ Mountoin
H�
L C� fit,�i'r 5 it ✓;'� USG he National Map: National Boundaries'Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National
Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS
Fl Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal
ORelief Model. Data refreshed June, 2022.
N Legend Clear Creek WWTP
Proposed Gravity Sewer Henderson County, NC
Topographic Location Map 1 inch = 1,200 feet Figure 1
0 600 1,200 2,400
Feet CDM
Smith

CLEAR CREEK RD
CREEK R�
QO 24" GRAVITY
4P SEWER LINE
0
PROPOSED 12"
GRAVITY SEWER LINE
BLACKSMITH RUN \ /
WWTP/PROPOSED
PROPOSED PUMP STATION \ `
12" GRAVITY
SEWER LINE
PROPOSED
V, 8" GRAVITY SEWER LINE
N
JW .
/\
�O
�' �erJ
PROPOSED 0.2 MGD
F
PROPOSED 8" CAMP IUDEA PROP
ae/S
WWTP LOCATION
J„a•
GRAVITY WWTP 6" FORCE MAIN
SEWER LINE
tree
PROPOSED
"dCGi•e/
12" GRAVITY
rj�
SEWER LINE
"�rfr •
r r
[1
PUMPED FLOW
(TYP)
WNC JUSTICE
ACADEMY W WTP
GRAVITY FLOW
1 (TYP)
t
r"0r i'1hoti7(:i-•
rl
S�ources:Esri, HERE, Garmin`Iriferrmap�incr'ernent P Corp., GEBCO, (USG- —,,FAO.) NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBasAe, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordna `ce Survey, Esr)Japan, •M'ETI, Esri China -('Hong
p Kong), (c) Open StreetMap contributors, and=the GlS_User Community a
N Legend Figure 1 Henderson County, NC
Pr. Force Main Major Roads Parcel Map of Proposed Collection System Improvements
Pr. Gravity Sewer 0 Pr. Wastewater Treatment Plant CDM
Streams 0 Pr. Pump Station 0 2,300et
Smith
MILEYCO is\Mllev\ArcGIS\269598 2Z2510 ClearO \DATA\M F1.0 11 110- 11-30-l—A 1/31/2023

9
10,500 LF of Proposed
III Gravity Sewer
fV-V
Clear Creek
Tie-in to Existing 24"
Gravitylnterceptor
J10.
H0
Klondike L
i'�rb/I C:t
Proposed wwTF
�i
OR
N'
24" Gravity
Sewer Line
r—
ca�4ie
HERE, Garmin.l�nterme p, inclement P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
NkKadasterNL—b6aanceSurvey, Esri_Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c)
ap-coo ntributors—and the G,.IS User.Community
N Legend Henderson County, NC
Existing Gravity Sewer Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Figure 3
Proposed Gravity Sewer C Parcel o izso CDM.
Streams ,
Feet Smith
MILEVCO C\Users\mllevco\OneDrive-CDM SmICF\Deskcoo\Clear Creek Sewer- We'— l.'- Academy\ III 12]251J Clear Creek EAA\Fleure l\Fleure 1.— e/1-22

eAd
0,.
4
T-
w
N Legend
WWTF Parcels
100-Year Floodplain
17) ® Floodway
Outfall Location
- - - - - - - - WWTP Footprint
(with Expansion)
�Y
Henderson County, NC
Figure 7
0 75 150 300
Feet CDM
1 inch = 300 feet Smith

w
U
W
N
J =
Q
Z tz
O N
N
N
LLJ
O U
C w
d O
r
mz
0
oQ
M N
> K
O p
ck� _
ar
v� Q
z
�z
� w
w
o E
o
z w
�r
r r
zz:I
w p
O
Inr
LJ U
N w
w
=O
rcl.
Of
n w
z=
w p
U Z
O Q
O K
w O
O W
w
�Q
w a
Of
p O
w w
K J
W p
S
W
Z
r
S p
U W
J
J W
Q M
Smith
Figure No. 2
Clear Creek WWTP - Flow Diagram
FEB 2023

0—ET WEIR
BOX
4 BE
T BLET FEEDER
6-INCH
A
ow
O WIn
PUMPS
PLAN VIE'
ELEVATIOI` „
2._0"
L o
2'-0•
FLOW SPUTTER
BOX
z._°.
f
J 5'ML L LJ�I ill
FLOW CONTROL
BOX WITH BAR
SCREEN
DIMSFF
gIOP
DAS
cocR vuvE
mPPusm
I—E NR
gfFU5ER5
DIFFUSER DROP
CONCEPT PLAN FOR ENGINEERING 4'-0 }14'-0•—{
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS EMERGENCY BY—PASS BY 8" PIPES 4 HOUR RETENTION TIME PLUS 3 DISINFECTION I
VOLUME PROVIDED IN TANDEM DOUBLE CLARIFIER CLARIFIER V-
TYPE: DIMENSIONS 28' WIDE BY 24' LONG HOPPER STYLE CLARIFIERS CHLORINE CONTACT TANK CROSS-SECTION CROSS-SECTION
FIELD ERECT (TEAR DOWN): SLUDGE HOLDING WITH AERATION 27,450 GALLONS STORAGE PROVIDED 30 MINUTE CONTACT TIME AT
,4•-0' PER TRAIN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW, EXCEEDING
CONCEPT IS PROVIDE 100,000 GPD 58,000 GALLONS STORAGE WITH 30 TWO TRAINS PROVIDED VOLUME REQUIREMENT 15—MINUTE
TREATMENT TRAINS WITH 24—HOUR DAYS OF STORAGE CONTACT TIME AT PEAK FLOW
EXTENDED AERATION RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE / WASTE Vj�jj
Vj�
WITH DECANT SYSTEM ACTIVATED SLUDGE PIPING SYSTEM BY DIMENSIONS 28 FEET WIDE X 2 FEET 77B._5.
MINIMUM SCOPE PROVIDE 200,000 AIR-LIFT PUMPS LONG X 12'-4" TALL
7
AA=A GPD TREATMENT WITH ABILITY TO DIMENSIONS 28' X 22' LONG
EXPAND TO 500,000 GPD AS NEEDED INLET BAFFLE CONTROL ADDITIONAL FEATURES
24—HOUR HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME CLARIFIER —SECTION
BY CONSTRUCTING 100,000 GPD EXTENDED AERATION CHAMBER WITH SURFACE LOADING RATE 255 GAL/SQ. ACCESS STAIR WITH LANDING HOT TYPICAL
TREATMENT TRAINS AERATION PROVIDED FT. AVERAGE DAILY FLOW DIPPED GALVANIZED
FLOW EQUALIZATION CHAMBER WITH 100,000 GALLONS PER TRAIN, TWO SURFACE LOADING RATE 447 GAL/SQ. COATING SYSTEM
AERATION PROVIDED TRAINS PROVIDED FT. AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
FOR A TOTAL OF 200,000 GALLONS SSPC—SP10 ALL INTERIOR SURFACES
SEWAGE CONTROL WITH AUTOMATIC OUTLET CONTROL SAW TOOTH WEIR SSPC—SP6 ALL EXTERIOR SURFACES
SCREENING, FLOW DISTRIBUTION AND DIMENSIONS PER TRAIN 14' WIDE BY PLATE
RECYCLE FLOW CONTROL TO AERATION 76'-6" LONG STRIPE COAT ON UNEVEN SURFACES.
CHAMBER DIMENSIONS PER TRAIN 14' WIDE X
CLARIFICATION 28' LONG X 16'-6" TALL TWO COAT SYSTEM TNEMEC N 8-12
63,000 GALLONS STORAGE FINAL DFT SOLID PIGMENTED COLORS
ONLY ON BOTH INTERIOR AND
EXTERIOR
Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
Process Equipment for Waste
Water Treatment
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
Date:
October 17, 2022 1
Scale:
16" per foot
DRAWING:
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
EDNEYVILLE, NC
Pro -Water Representative:
GARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
C:
D:
E:
H:
L:
M:
Q•
S:
Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
PAGE 1 OF 7 OVERALL

A 63 000 GALLON
FLOW EQUALIZATION
28 0"
14' - 0'
a
A
FLOW
EQUALIZATION
PUMPS
a
FLOW CONTROL
BOX DUALIZED
WITH RECYCLE
CT-200
SCREEN
24'-0"
58,000 GALLON
SLUDGE HOLDING
Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
Process Equipment for Waste
Water Treatment
a a
a a
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
Date:
0
October 17, 2022
Scale:
4" per foot
WAS DRAWING:
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
o EDNEYVILLE, NC
___ ___ ___ _____ ________ Pro -Water Representative:
CARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
0
C:
D:
E:
WAS H:
L:
M:
Q:
S:
Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
22'-0" --
PAGE 2 OF 7 PLAN 1

iz00000 GALLON
EXTENDED AERATION
a
WAS
WAS
RAS
RAS
RAS
4-INCH RAS
2-INCH SC
4-INCH RAS
11 2-INCH SC
Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
Process Equipment for Waste
Water Treatment
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
Date:
TREATMENT TRAIN #2 October 17, 2022
Scale:
4" per foot
a a
a
2-INCH SC
4-INCH RAS
2-INCH SCMA
TREATMENT TRAIN #
a < a
76'-6"
DRAWING:
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
EDNEYVILLE, NC
Pro -Water Representative:
GARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
C:
D:
E:
H:
L:
M:
Q:
S:
Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
152'-6"
PAGE 3 OF 7 PLAN 2

a
as
54 90 GALLON Pro -Water
C Kl F E R S Systems, I nc
6 —INCH process Equipment for Waste
OUTLET a PIPE
Water Treatment
a
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
BAFFLE FH-200,000 GPD
OUTLET WEIR Date:
B 0 X October 17, 2022
Scale:
4" per foot
DRAWING:
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
EDNEYVILLE, NC
---- ,- - - - - - ------ - - - -- - ---- - - --- FIPI TIN (I milli Pro -Water Representative:
-- --
CARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
C:
BAFFLES D:
E:
0 0
a H:
L:
M:
4 TUBE Q:
TABLET FEEDER S:
O O Plant Length:
TROUGH 6—INCH CONCEPT PLAN
INSET
a a a FOR REVIEW ONLY
PIPE
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
289-099 29-099
PAGE 4 OF 7 PLAN 3

8-INCH 8-INCH WAS
14' — 0' Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
Process Equipment for Waste
Water Treatment
8—INCH
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Date:
a a
October 17, 2022
:H: H: E :E[BE � I � H � �� � ��:
A FLOW CONTROL Scale:
BOX DUALIZED 4" per foot
WITH RECYCLE DRAWING:
FLOW 24 — 0 " 22 — 0 "
EQUALIZATION Pro -Water Plant Serves:
PUMPS HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
I X VE V V EDNEYVILLE, NC
PLAN
BY-PASS Pro -Water Representative:
TURNDOWN
ELBOW GARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
;SCREEN A: AS SHOWN
B:
WASTE
C:
o�RFoww RECE ACL
------ --- D:
E:
-- 4„ H:
8" DRAIN --- EMERGENC
LINE c^e^� Y—PASS WA `_ L:
P AS
M:
Q:
3" DECA I', S:
ASSEMBL Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
--- FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
__- CONSTRUCTION
a azi a a
E EEVAT 0 E V EW
PAGE 5 OF 7 ELEV 1

Z]
4" RAS /jo,
WAS
ASSEMBLY
W.L.
11 ■ 5i:
2" SCUM
LINE
TREATMENT TRAIN #1
a ° a
152'-6"
A
76'-6"
a
Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
-Process Equipment for Waste
Water Treatment
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
-Date:
October 17, 2022
_Scale:
4" per foot
DRAWING:
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
EDNEYVILLE, NC
Pro -Water Representative:
GARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
C:
D:
-E:
-H:
L:
M:
Q:
S:
Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
PAGE 6 OF 7 ELEV 2

a a
a
a
a
28'-09
a
Pro -Water
Systems, I nc
Process Equipment for Waste
4 TUBE Water Treatment
TABLET FEEDER
Pro -Water Model and Flow:
FH-200,000 GPD
TROUGH 1
45�6—INCH Date:
INLET October 17, 2022
PIPE
Scale:
4" per foot
DRAWING:
9 099
BAFFLE BAFFLE
/^\ 1 0 9 0 9 9
z
- z
zJ
z
o
9
N
10'-2"
12' — 4"
Pro -Water Plant Serves:
HENDERSON CO
Pro -Water Plant Location:
EDNEYVILLE, NC
Pro -Water Representative:
GARRY HAGER
Dimensions:
A: AS SHOWN
B:
C:
D:
E:
H:
L:
M:
Q:
S:
Plant Length:
CONCEPT PLAN
FOR REVIEW ONLY
NOT FOR BIDDING OR
CONSTRUCTION
PAGE 7 OF 7 ELEV 3

z
w
w cn
Q� V)
U
mm
m
m J
Q�z
<) z w
Z :
2 U
U = V)
w L:
m
182'-4"
130'-2"
14'-0" 60'-0" 9'-6" 41'-8"
CD cl)
cy
z_ o
w
� J
J 0
of
111,250 GALLON AERATION
o
W
N
z
0
o
J w
J
Q
0
J0
01
Q V)Q
0
111,250 GALLON AERATION
0
rri
�
M ro
52,352 GAL. 500 SF
MECHANICAL CLARIFIER
1000 GPD/SF AT PEAK
52,352 GAL. 500 SF
MECHANICAL CLARIFIER
1000 GPD/SF AT PEAK
ALKALINITY FEED SYSTEM
14 DAY BULK STORAGE
5'-0"
DUTY AND STANDBY PUMPS
ALUMINUM HANDRAILING
PRECAST POST TENSIONED CAP WALKWAY
PUMP SCHEDULE:
PRECAST POST TENSIONED WALL PANEL
TWO FLOW EQ SUBMERSIBLE RAIL
PUMPS,
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BASE
140 GPM ® 16' TDH,
1.0 HP
0)
I o
I
`0
TWO SLUDGE PUMPS,
SUBMERSIBLE
RAIL
1'-0" WALL THICKNESS
60 GPM @ 16' TDH,
0.5 HP.
j
BLOWER SCHEDULE:
'1
SECTION VIEW
PLANT BLOWERS
THREE URAI-56 & 20 HP. (TWO OPERATING, ONE STAND-BY)
322 CFM @ 8.5 PSI
FLOW EQ BLOWER
TWO URAI-56 & 20 HP. (ONE OPERATING AND ONE STAND-BY)
355 CFM @ 8 PSI
SLUDGE HOLDING BLOWERS
TWO URAI-45 & 10 HP. (ONE OPERATING AND ONE STAND-BY)
94 CFM © 8 PSI
o ro' _
Lu
Fzml -ia-Q
o=mow
OJ H z 0 w
cn = Q I o 0
vvcoo<
QZoowo
0 0 0 z w V)
0 Q
w Y
Q
000� m
0 0 V)
o = Q
o 0 o
1 0.2 MGD WWTP- PRELIMINARY
CLEAR CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY: ADM SCALE: NTS DRAWING NO.:
DATE: 10/18/22 1 REV: 1 1 /1 /22 XXXXX
MACK INDUSTRIES, INC.
201 COLUMBIA ROAD, VALLEY CITY, OHIO 44280 [phone]

From:
Luthra, Anish
To:
Chen. Sivina
Cc:
Hennessy. John
Subject:
RE: [External] FW: Henderson County, DWI SRP-W-ARP-0085, Clear Creek Sewer System project
Date:
Thursday, July 27, 2023 7:48:45 AM
Attachments:
imaoe001.pna
imaae005.Dna
EAA Capital Cost Estimates.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Siying,
Please see responses to your questions below in red and attached capital cost estimate for the City of
Hendersonville Connection and Surface Water Discharge alternatives. Please let us know if you have any additional
questions.
Thanks,
Anish
From: Chen, Siying <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Luthra, Anish <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Henderson County, DWI SRP-W-ARP-0085, Clear Creek Sewer System project
Hi Anish,
The application was submitted to EAA review and we would like to request more information regarding the
connection to the Hendersonville WWTP alternative.
1. The cost estimated should only consider the cost of piping/pumps/resources necessary to connect to
the existing wastewater treatment plant, just want to double check with you and make sure the cost
evaluation provided is not considering other fees. For the purpose of the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis, it is assumed that a 24" gravity sewer line will convey flows to the location of the proposed
Clear Creek WWTP. The cost of this upstream gravity sewer is considered equal for all alternatives
within the Engineering Alternatives Analysis and is not considered in the cost estimate of any
alternative. For the alternative to connect to the Hendersonville WWTP, it is assumed that
approximately an additional 11,000 LF (-2 miles) of 24" gravity sewer will need to be installed from the
location of the proposed Clear Creek WWTP to a tie-in point on an existing 24" gravity interceptor that
currently conveys flows to the Hendersonville WWTP. Figure 3 in the Engineering Alternatives Analysis
shows the additional—11,000 LF of gravity sewer and tie-in point to the existing gravity interceptor. The
attached cost estimate breakdown only considers the cost associated with installation of the—11,000 LF
of new 24" gravity sewer. The City of Hendersonville noted that there would be no capital
improvements required to accept the Henderson County flows.
2. What's the distance between the proposed Clear Creek WWTP and the existing Hendersonville WWTP?
As noted above, Figure 3 shows the additional—11,000 LF of 24" gravity sewer that would need to be
installed from the location of the proposed Clear Creek WWTP to the tie-in point on the existing 24"
gravity interceptor that conveys flows to the City of Hendersonville WWTP. For reference only, the 'as
the crow flies' distance between the proposed Clear Creek WWTP location and the existing City of
Hendersonville WWTP is approximately 3.6 miles.
3. A breakdown for the cost analysis for connecting to Hendersonville WWTP and direct discharge would
be helpful, we would like to take a closer look and compare the budget for the two different options.

Please see attached cost capital cost buildup for the City of Hendersonville Connection and Proposed
Clear Creek WWTP alternatives. As described in further detail within Section 4 of the EAA, the capital
costs estimates are Class 4 cost estimates that are based on equipment and unit costs. Contractor and
other project multipliers are applied at the same percentages on both alternatives.
Thank you!
Siying (Sylvia) Chen (she/her/hers)
Environmental Specialist H, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
siying.chen(@deq.nc.gov
E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Luthra, Anish <luthraa(cDcdmsmith.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 7:59 AM
To: Chen, Siying <ssiying.chen(@deq.nc.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Henderson County, DWI SRP-W-ARP-0085, Clear Creek Sewer System project
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Good morning Siying,
Please see attached digital copy of the EAA. Due to file size, I will send a second email with the NPDES Permit
Application and associated figures.
Thanks,
Anish
From: Chen, Siying <siying.chen( deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 6:48 AM
To: Luthra, Anish <luthraa(@cdmsmith.com>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Henderson County, DWI SRP-W-ARP-0085, Clear Creek Sewer System project
Hi Anish,
I actually have a request for you, do you have a digital copy of the application, orjust the EAA report? I would like
to save a copy on our Laserfiche site, but I figure I should check with you first before I try to scan the whole binder,
in case you have a digital copy already.
Thanks!

Connection to Hendersonville WWTP
Proposed Clear Creek WWTP
Item
Quantity Unit
Unit Price
Price
Item
Quantity Unit
Unit Price
Price
Clearing & Grubbing
10 ac
$
10,925
$
109,250
Steel Tank Package WWTP
1 LS
$
3,502,164
$
3,502,164
Erosion Control
1 LS
$
150,000
$
150,000
Influent Pump Station
1 LS
$
555,000
$
555,000
24" Gravity Sewer
11000 LF
$
332
$
3,652,000
Site Grading
331 cu yd
$
51.50
$
17,036
Dewatering
1 LS
$
250,000
$
250,000
Excavation and handling of spoils
2379 cu yd
$
10.00
$
23,790
48" Steel Encasement Bored l
80 LF
$
3,000
$
240,000
Backfill, stone, compaction
1322 cu yd
$
110.00
$
145,383
5' Diameter Manholes
40 Ea
$
8,000
$
320,000
Package Plant Concrete Slab
344 cu yd
$
1,216.00
$
418,844
Washed Stone Bedding
25000 to
$
35
$
875,000
Sewer Services
1 LS
$
50,000
$
50,000
Incidental Stone
4000 TN
$
35
$
140,000
Stream Crossings
2 Ea
$
20,000
$
40,000
Seeding and Stabilization
10 ac
$
5,000
$
50,000
Equipment, Labor, Taxes Subtotal
$
5,876,250
$
4,662,217
Mobilization (3%)
$
176,288
$
139,867
General Conditions (7.5%)
$
440,719
$
349,666
Bonds, Insurance, and Permitting (5%)
$
293,813
$
233,111
Contractor's OH&P (10%)
$
587,625
$
466,222
Project Subtotal
$
7,374,694
$
5,851,082
Contingency (15%)
$
1,106,204
$
877,662
Engineering (18%)
$
1,327,445
$
1,053,195
Permitting Costs
$
150,000
$
25,000
Easement Acquisition Cost
$
190,000
$
75,000
Total
$
10,148,400
$
7,882,000

From: Pohlig, Ken <ken.pohligna deq.nc.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 3:55 PM
To: Eric Romaniszyn<eromaniszyn(d)enviroscienceinc.com>; Marcus Jones <mmones(@hendersoncountync.gov>;
Clement Riddle <clement(@cwenv.com>; Lapsley, Jonathan <LaosleyJS(@cdmsmith.com>; Luthra, Anish
<luthraa(@cdmsmith.com>
Cc: Davidson, Landon <landon.davidson(@deq.nc.gov>; Chen, Siying <siying.chen(@deq.nc.gov>; Hennessy, John
<iohn.hennessy(@deq.nc.gov>; Wainwright, David <david.wainwright(@deq.nc.gov>; Kluttz, Logan M
<Logan.Kluttz(@deq.nc.gov>; Desai, Trupti A <Trupti.Desai(@deq.nc.gov>; Evans, Tony V <tony.evans(@deq.nc.gov>;
Risgaard, Jon <ion.risgaardla deq.nc.gov>; Basinger, Corey <corey.basinger(a deq.nc.gov>
Subject: Henderson County, DWI SRP-W-ARP-0085, Clear Creek Sewer System project
IYou don't often get email from ken.pohlig aQdeq.nc.Qov. Learn why this is im op rtant
To: Marcus Jones, Henderson County
Eric Romaniszyn, Clement Riddle, ClearWater
Clement Riddle
Jonathan Lapsley, Anish Luthra, CDM Smith
cc: John Hennessy, Siying Chen, Division of Water Resources/NPDES Unit
David Wainwright, Division of Water Resources
Landon Davidson, Supervisor, Asheville Regional Office
This is a follow-up email to the Teams meeting we had this morning, where we discussed the Henderson County,
Clear Creek Sewer project.
This Henderson County project is partly funded by $12.7 Million ARPA grant funds, administered by the Division of
Water Infrastructure.
This project consists of a new WWTP in the Edneyville area of the County, and also a sewer collection system.
Recently, Henderson County submitted an NPDES Permit Application for this Edneyville area WWTP to the
DWR/NPDES Unit for review.
Regarding NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act): According to the final ruling for Coronavirus State and Local
Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF, which is defined by ARPA), all ARPA funds are exempt from NEPA. See page 38 of
the attached document.
6.3. Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAA apply to projects funded mith
SLFRF funds':
NEPA does not apply to Treasury's administration of the funds, including funds expended
under the revenue loss, public health and negative economic impacts, and water, sewer,
and broadband infrastructure eligible use categories. Projects supported with payments
from the funds may still be subject to NEPA review if they are also funded by other federal
financial assistance programs or have certain federal licensing or registration requirements.
Regarding SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act):
Regarding the $12.7 Million ARPA funds directed to this project by SL 2021-180, since these APRA funds are
directed to be administered by the DEQ/Division of Water Infrastructure through the Wastewater Reserve Fund as
established under NC General Statute Chapter 195G, these funds are statutorily exempt from SEPA per G.S.
113A-12(2)(h) and do not require preparation of an environmental document.
With regards to the rest of the funds to be used for this project, these funds may still be subject to the SEPA

requirements.
From this morning discussions between CDM Smith, Clear Water and the County, it appeared to be the case that
these activities would not trigger a SEPA review.
We and DWR encourage Henderson County to work with the appropriate funding agency (NC PRO office) to
determine whether these funds and/or construction activities still may trigger a SEPA review.
Let us know, and also DWR/NPDES Unit, regarding this final determination.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) I NC DEQ
When Does SEPA Apply?
For any project that meets all three of the following criteria, an environmental document must he
prepared:
• An expenditure of S10 million in funds provided by the state of North Carolina foras! ngle project
or action or related group of projects or action
Or
land4sturbing activity of equal to or greater than 10 acres of public lands resulting in
substantial, permanent changes in the natural cover or topography of those (ands (or waters)
• An action by a state agency, and
• Has a potential detrimental environmental effect upon natural resources, public health and safety,
natural beauty, or historical or cultural elements, of the state's common inheritance.
Need help in determiningthe level of environmental impact or detrimental environmental effect? DEQ
has developed minimum criteria to identify those projects requiring an environmental document
{scroll to page 7).
Ken Pohlig, PE, Supervisor
Wastewater Projects Unit
Division of Water Infrastructure
Water Infrastructure I NC DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality
[phone] office
[phone] cellphone
ken. Dohlia aancdenr.aov
Mailing Address - 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1633
Street Address - 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
-��---Nothing Compares --
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.