- Collection:
- Georgia Government Publications
- Title:
- Short-term wastewater capacity plan final report / Brown and Caldwell in association with ARCADIS and PEQ
- Creator:
- Brown and Caldwell
- Contributor to Resource:
- Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Planners for Environmental Quality
ARCADIS (Atlanta, Ga.) - Publisher:
- [Atlanta, Ga. : Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District] : Brown and Caldwell, 2002
- Date of Original:
- 2002
- Subject:
- Sewage disposal--Georgia--Planning
Water quality managmenet--Georgia--Planning
Sewage treatement facilities--Georgia - Location:
- United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018
- Medium:
- state government records
- Type:
- Text
- Format:
- application/pdf
- Description:
- Title from cover
"Approved August 7, 2002"--cover - External Identifiers:
- OCLC 52603043
IZ MMS ID 9929335073902959
Call Number M480 .M1 2002 W3
Call Number HD1695.A86
NZ MMS ID 9910217399002931 - Metadata URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bm480-b-pm1-b2002-bw3-belec-p-btext
- Digital Object URL:
- https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-bm480-b-pm1-b2002-bw3-belec-p-btext
- Extent:
- 1 v. (various foliations) : col. maps, charts ; 28 cm.
- Holding Institution:
- University of Georgia. Map and Government Information Library
- Rights:
-
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ iv LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ES-1
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1 Background.................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 1-2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Progression of Work...................................................................................................................... 1-4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 1-4
SECTION 2. IDENTIFICATION OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CAPACITY ............ 2-1 System Inventory........................................................................................................................... 2-1 Data Compilation........................................................................................................................... 2-1 Chattahoochee River Basin........................................................................................................... 2-5
City of Atlanta.......................................................................................................................... 2-14 Cobb County ............................................................................................................................ 2-17 Coweta County ........................................................................................................................ 2-18 Douglas County ....................................................................................................................... 2-19 Forsyth County ........................................................................................................................ 2-20 Fulton County .......................................................................................................................... 2-21 Gwinnett County...................................................................................................................... 2-23 Paulding County ...................................................................................................................... 2-24 Etowah River Basin....................................................................................................................... 2-24 Bartow County......................................................................................................................... 2-29 Cherokee County ..................................................................................................................... 2-31 Paulding County ...................................................................................................................... 2-33 Cobb County ............................................................................................................................ 2-33 Fulton County .......................................................................................................................... 2-34 Flint River Basin............................................................................................................................ 2-34 Clayton County........................................................................................................................ 2-37 Coweta County ........................................................................................................................ 2-37 Fayette County......................................................................................................................... 2-37 Henry County........................................................................................................................... 2-38 Lake Lanier Basin.......................................................................................................................... 2-39 Forsyth County ........................................................................................................................ 2-39 Hall County.............................................................................................................................. 2-43 Ocmulgee River Basin .................................................................................................................. 2-43 Clayton County........................................................................................................................ 2-48 DeKalb County ........................................................................................................................ 2-48 Gwinnett County...................................................................................................................... 2-48 Henry County........................................................................................................................... 2-48
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
i
9/18/02
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Rockdale County ..................................................................................................................... 2-49 Walton County......................................................................................................................... 2-50 Oconee River Basin....................................................................................................................... 2-50 Hall County.............................................................................................................................. 2-53 Walton County......................................................................................................................... 2-53
SECTION 3. EVALUATION OF CAPACITY NEEDS ........................................................... 3-1 Programmatic Alternatives............................................................................................................ 3-1 Evaluation of Areas with Plans in Place....................................................................................... 3-19 Evaluation of Alternatives for Areas with Special Needs............................................................ 3-20 Methodology for Evaluation of Alternatives................................................................................ 3-21
Economic Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 3-21 Non-Economic Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................... 3-23 Rating of Alternatives Against Evaluation Criteria................................................................ 3-25 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Alternatives for Forsyth County ........................................... 3-25 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs................................................................................ 3-25 Alternative F-1 Construct New Treatment Plant with Chattahoochee River Discharge ... 3-27 Alternative F-2 Construct New Treatment Plant with Lake Lanier Discharge.................. 3-28 Alternative F-3 Transfer Flows to Fulton County............................................................... 3-29 Alternative F-4 Expand Fowler Plant Capacity................................................................... 3-30 Evaluation of Forsyth County Alternatives ............................................................................ 3-31 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Alternatives for North Fulton County .................................. 3-33 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs................................................................................ 3-33 Alternative NF-1 Expand Fowler Treatment Facility (Forsyth County)............................ 3-34 Alternative NF-2 Divert Flow to Gwinnett County 2 mgd.............................................. 3-35 Alternative NF-3 Divert Flow to Gwinnett County 4 mgd.............................................. 3-36 Alternative NF-4 Divert Flow Directly to North Fork Peachtree Interceptor 4 mgd ..... 3-37 Alternative NF-5 Divert Flow to Cobb County (R.L. Sutton WRF) 2 mgd ................... 3-37 Evaluation of North Fulton County Alternatives ................................................................... 3-38 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Alternatives for South Fulton County .................................. 3-40 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs................................................................................ 3-40 Alternative SF-1 Divert Wastewater Flow from Camp Creek to Utoy Creek ................... 3-41 Alternative P-1 Divert City of Palmetto Flow to Fulton County's Camp Creek WRF ..... 3-42 Alternative P-2 New 1.2 mgd Palmetto WWTP ................................................................. 3-43 Alternative P-3 Divert 1.2 mgd of Flow to the New Fairburn WWTP .............................. 3-43 Evaluation of South Fulton County Alternatives ................................................................... 3-44 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Alternatives for Rockdale County ........................................ 3-46 Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs................................................................................ 3-46 Alternative R-1 Divert Flow to Existing Quigg Branch WPCP in North Rockdale.......... 3-47 Alternative R-2 Pump to Regional Pole Bridge WPCP in DeKalb County....................... 3-49 Alternative R-3 Pump to New South Rockdale WPCP ...................................................... 3-50 Evaluation of South Rockdale County Alternatives............................................................... 3-51
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
ii
9/18/02
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
SECTION 4. SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY PLAN ...................................... 4-1 Basis for Development of the Short-Term Plan ........................................................................... 4-1
Regulatory and Institutional Issues ......................................................................................... 4-1 Short-Term Plan Recommendations............................................................................................. 4-4
Critical Elements of the Short-Term Plan............................................................................... 4-5 Recommendations for Programmatic Actions........................................................................ 4-7 Recommendations for Actions by Local Jurisdictions........................................................... 4-8 Issues Requiring Investigation and/or Resolution During Development of the
Long Range Wastewater Management Plan.................................................................... 4-14 Implementation Plan Summary .............................................................................................. 4-16
Appendix A. NPDES Inventory and Matrix Tables Appendix B. River Modeling Technical Memorandum
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
iii
9/18/02
LIST OF TABLES
No.
Title
Page
2-1
Summary of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants ....................................... 2-3
2-2
Summary of Unpermitted Discharges Reported to EPD ............................................. 2-5
2-3
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District - Chattahoochee
River Basin POTW Capacity Needs.............................................................................. 2-8
2-4
Proposed Short-Term Increases to Permit Capacity at Treatment Plants
Discharging to the Chattahoochee River....................................................................... 2-14
2-5
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Etowah River
Basin POTW Capacity Needs...................................................................................... 2-26
2-6
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Flint River
Basin POTW Capacity Needs...................................................................................... 2-36
2-7
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Lake Lanier
Basin POTW Capacity Needs...................................................................................... 2-41
2-8
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Ocmulgee River
Basin POTW Capacity Needs...................................................................................... 2-45
2-9
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Oconee River
Basin POTW Capacity Needs...................................................................................... 2-52
3-1
Wastewater Service Areas in the Chattahoochee River Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-3
3-2
Wastewater Service Areas in the Etowah River Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-7
3-3
Wastewater Service Areas in the Flint River Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-10
3-4
Wastewater Service Areas in the Lake Lanier Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-12
3-5
Wastewater Service Areas in the Ocmulgee River Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-13
3-6
Wastewater Service Areas in the Oconee River Basin with
Short-Term Capacity Needs......................................................................................... 3-15
3-7
Summary of Unit Costs Used in Preparing Capital Cost Estimates........................... 3-22
3-8
Summary of Units Cost Used in Preparing Annual O&M Cost Estimates.................. 3-23
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
iv
9/18/02
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No.
Title
Page
3-9
Rating Scales and Weighting Factors for Evaluation Criteria...................................... 3-25
3-10
Summary of Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs for Forsyth County ................ 3-27
3-11
Summary of Economic Analysis of Forsyth County Alternatives ............................... 3-31
3-12
Summary of Evaluation Ratings for Forsyth County Alternatives .............................. 3-32
3-13
Summary of North Fulton County Wastewater ............................................................ 3-34
3-14
Summary of Economic Analysis of North Fulton County Alternatives ...................... 3-38
3-15
Summary of Evaluation Ratings for the North Fulton County Alternatives................ 3-39
3-16
Summary of Economic Analysis of South Fulton County Alternatives ...................... 3-44
3-17
Palmetto Alternative Ratings ......................................................................................... 3-45
3-18
Summary of Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs for Rockdale County ............. 3-48
3-19
Summary of Economic Analysis of South Rockdale County Alternatives ................. 3-52
3-20
Summary of Evaluation Ratings for Rockdale County Alternatives ........................... 3-53
4-1
Proposed Short-Term Increase to Permit Capacity at Treatment Plants
Discharging to the Chattahoochee River..................................................................... 4-6
4-2
Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements............................. 4-9
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
v
9/18/02
No.
ES-1 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 3-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities..................................... ES-4 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Study Area .................... 1-3 Work Flow Diagram ............................................................................................ 1-5 Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities..................................... 2-4 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Chattahoochee River Basin........................ 2-7 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Etowah River Basin.................................... 2-25 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Flint River Basin......................................... 2-35 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Lake Lanier Basin....................................... 2-40 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Ocmulgee River Basin................................ 2-44 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Oconee River Basin.................................... 2-51 Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities..................................... 3-2
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRpt\TOC.doc
vi
9/18/02
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Growth in the metropolitan Atlanta area combined with the need to preserve water quality in the region's streams and lakes presents a difficult challenge to local wastewater utilities.
To address this growing concern, the State of Georgia legislature created the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District). The District is charged with formulating definitive long-term plans for water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal and stormwater management in a 16-county region, which includes the metropolitan Atlanta area and surrounding jurisdictions.
One of the first tasks undertaken by the District was a Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan, focusing on the immediate capacity needs of local wastewater systems, and recommendations for addressing those needs. This Short-Term Plan is important because a number of wastewater systems in the District study area are operating at or near their capacity. The District's LongTerm Wastewater Management Plan will likely take a number of years to implement. In the meantime, a number of cities and counties have short-term needs that must be addressed if the metro area is going to continue to grow and water quality standards are going to be maintained.
In summary, the Short-Term Plan revealed several key findings:
The vast majority of the wastewater utilities in the District have implementable plans in place that will satisfy their short-term capacity needs.
There is a significant amount of interjurisdictional cooperation already occurring among wastewater utilities within the District and opportunities for expanding the level of regional cooperation will increase over the long-term.
In addition to increasing treatment plant capacity, a consistent and high level of sewer system maintenance is required to minimize sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
There are temporary, short-term options available to communities who require an immediate increase in system capacity to eliminate existing sewer tap moratoria or to prevent sewer tap moratoria from occurring.
The following is a summary of the Plan, including an overview of how the study was conducted, the findings, and the recommendations identified for addressing immediate capacity needs. It is important to note that this Short-Term Plan is the first step in the implementing the needed infrastructure improvements. The second step is permitting, which is beyond the limited scope of this study. This permitting step is essential to assure that water quality is protected.
All recommendations contained in this report are contingent upon successfully meeting all permitting requirements and water quality standards. EPD has indicated that they will use this Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan to assist in NPDES permit decision making pertaining to those jurisdictions with immediate wastewater capacity problems or are under sewer tap
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES1
9/20/02
moratoria. Other NPDES permit decisions within the District will be acted upon after the conclusions of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan are available.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Georgia Legislature passed Senate Bill 130 creating the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District in May 2001 and authorized it to complete certain regional planning activities related to water, wastewater and stormwater management. One of the planning activities required of the District was the preparation of a Short-Term Plan to ease immediate capacity constraints and reduce the need for sewer tap moratoria. A consulting team led by Brown and Caldwell was selected to prepare the Short-Term Plan. The primary objectives were:
Identify those areas in the District facing existing or short-term capacity needs. Identify and evaluate options for addressing those capacity needs. Recommend improvements for implementation by local wastewater utilities.
ASSESSING CURRENT CONDITIONS AND IDENTIFYING CAPACITY NEEDS
The study examined a 16-county area that includes 102 public wastewater treatment systems operated by 41 wastewater utilities which are in operation, design and/or construction. Discussions were held with each city, county, wastewater authority and major system, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the other Regional Development Centers (RDCs) in the District to review and update planning data, define upcoming capital improvement projects, and identify any plans already in place for satisfying capacity needs. To focus the study and provide information in a manageable format, the wastewater systems were grouped according to the six primary river basins comprising the District:
Chattahoochee River Basin Etowah River Basin Flint River Basin
Lake Lanier River Basin Ocmulgee River Basin Oconee River Basin
Once the information in the assessment phase was compiled, the short-term growth anticipated in each of the wastewater system service areas was examined. From this information, short-term capacity needs were identified. This was done through a comparison of the existing permitted capacity of the various wastewater systems with projected wastewater flows for their respective service areas in 2008. Where projected 2008 flows exceeded existing permitted system capacity, short-term capacity needs were noted. Regulatory and institutional issues, such as interbasin transfers, water quality standards, and effluent trading, which could impact the ability to meet short-term capacity needs in District wastewater systems were also identified.
IDENTIFYING OPTIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS AREAS
Using the combined information from the assessment and the anticipated needs analysis, wastewater treatment facilities were categorized based on those having no short-term needs,
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES2
9/20/02
those having short-term needs but with a plan in place to address them, and those having shortterm needs with no plan. (See Figure ES-1.)
The needs assessment showed that 44 wastewater treatment systems, operated by 24 utilities throughout the District, are projected to require additional capacity by 2008. Forty out of the 44 treatment plant service areas involved have a plan in place, or are in the process of developing plans to meet their short-term capacity needs. There are three treatment plants in Rockdale County and the Palmetto plant where the plans were not yet sufficiently developed, or did not fully satisfy the projected short-term need. In addition, the service areas in portions of North Fulton County (Big Creek, Johns Creek) and South Fulton (Camp Creek) and Forsyth County do not have plans in place that fully address their short-term needs.
Alternatives for satisfying projected short-term capacity needs in these four areas (Forsyth County, Fulton County (North), Fulton County (South) and Rockdale County) were identified and evaluated as part of the Short-Term Plan.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHORT-TERM PLAN
Development of the Short-Term Plan involved consideration of a number of factors including programmatic alternatives, and recognition of local wastewater plans already in place.
EPD Approval of the Chattahoochee River Model Project (CRMP). By 2004, Georgia Power Company will begin reducing its thermal discharges to the Chattahoochee River, making additional wasteload allocation available to treatment plant discharge. For the past 18 months, the wastewater utilities that discharge to the Chattahoochee River have been working with ARC and a modeling consultant to develop a short-term plan for the river. Using the EPD's Chattahoochee River Model as its basis, a plan has been proposed that allows utilities to increase the flow they discharge to the river by treating to a higher level and actually reducing the pollutional load. This assures that water quality standards will be met. It was assumed that the EPD would accept the proposed plan, or one similar to it, as the basis for future discharge permits.
EPD developed its model over a period of several years. The model, which has undergone significant peer review, conservatively predicts the River's response to various pollutant loadings. Using this information, EPD can then establish conservative allowable loadings, which will protect water quality.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES3
9/20/02
OOSTA NA UL
A R
CE R CR
*A
LIC K C R S A L COA CR
DA PINE LOG CR
BARTOW
I 75
A
R L
SHO A L CR CH E
CHA A
N EE
ICA LOLA CR ITT LE A
A RP R
CR
E
SCAR CO RN
OCK CR T A L K ING
SH
A
CR OC K CR
LU F
B F CR
M P CR LONG SW
L M
S HOA L CR
I 575
CHEROKEE
R ITT L E
SE T T IN G D OW N CR
FORSYTH
AM P CR
C
L a k e L a n i e r MOSSY
E R ES T AT
CR
HUDSO N R
HOO CHE E R TT
HALL L CR
G R OV
E CR
Y LEV H IC
KS
PAR CR
K OR E L CR
AL LE N CR
I 985
M OCO NE P
OND F K E R,
EE R
M O URR
E E
L
E CR UHA RL
S CR HIL
Etowah River Basin
PU
K
INV INE CR MP
R N
CR ACCOO
PAULDING
N DAY
E TOW AH R
CR N OO
COBB
COPPER SA NDY CR
I 285
O T
KS CR
A L L APOO
BR O
SA R
NOSES CR
EET SW
W
A
TER C R
I 20
ANNEEW A E
DOUGLAS
D OG CR
E CR K
I 75
*A
FULTON CAM P
CONLEY CR
I 675
H
W OO
EE HA
PING CR
K N
S A E CR
WAH O O CR
C EDA R CR
BEA R CR
RKEY CR
N C COWETA TU
NG C M OR
I 85
NI CLAYTON
R *A
FAYETTE
L INE C
FLINT R
C TT A HO OCH R
M OUN TA I R
LIN E CR R
W HITE O A K CR
C KET CR
E LK INS CR
NEW R
YE LLOW J A
Chattahoochee River Basin
Flint River Basin
RE D OAK CR
CR COBB CR
I 85
GWINNETT
BE A VE R RUI JAC K SON CR
N
CR
R OW E
STONE M OU
SH B
NT
AIN CR
DEKALB
I 20
ROCKDALE
Y LL
RU Y F K CR OA CR
BI G FLA T CR CO RNIS H CR
GUM CR
C
B
L ITTLE M U L BE RRY R
RRY R
E MUL
Y CR
Oconee
R i v e r B a s i n CON
BA RBER C R A
RB URG CR
M C NU TT CR
M M O UN TAIN CR
BAY CR
L CR SH
SH O A L
J A CK 'S CR
APALA C HE E R
WALTON
BI G S AN DY C R
A BOR C HA
RD L R
BIG HA Y NE S CR LIT TLE R
S NA
S CR J
INDIA N CR
HONE Y CR
AM E
PPING
S
HOA L S SAM PS
B IG CO TTO N CR INDIA N C R
C N
O R
CR
A L CO VY R BEA R CR
I 75W A LN UT CR
HENRY P ITT
M AN CR
HA W
R I
IND AN C
TUSS A
CR
H S CR
MUR H
SO U
ERD
S OA L CR
TH R
YELLO W W AT ER CR
DER CR
CR
T OW ALIG A C
R
O i
cCA BIN v
m eCR
u r
lgee Basi
n
BU CK
R
ROCK Y CR
Y IG
B
S A ND CR
K INNA RD CR
LIT TLE FA
W OL F C R, N FK
Legend No Capa LLING CR city Issues
Capacity Needs/Permitted
IE
CR
FK
T
ED O W A LIG A CR
LITT L E
TO B E SO EE R
FALLING CR
C E D A R CR
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
RU M CR
0
Capacity Needs/No Plan In PCRlace BIG CE DA R
Basin Boundaries OC
T CR
R ULGE E M
3.75 7.5
15 AL NU
W
Miles
CR HO G
Figure ES-1 Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Programmatic Alternatives. Water conservation, sewer system maintenance, and relaxation of flow limits were considered as potential programmatic components of the Short-Term Plan. Water conservation was shown not to be viable as a short-term flow reduction measure in the District. However, sewer system maintenance can be an effective means of reducing the peak wet-weather flows and line blockages that result in SSOs. Flow limits in NPDES discharge permits appears to be redundant with mass loading limits and may even be counterproductive to meeting other regional water resource objectives. Elimination of permit flow limits should be considered by EPD.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
During the preparation of the Short-Term Plan there was extensive involvement of stakeholders within the District. In accordance with SB130, the District has established a Technical Committee and Subcommittees. The Wastewater Technical Subcommittee of over 40 members comprises wastewater utility managers, engineers and other technical leaders of the various District members and water and wastewater utilities in the District. In addition, the District has established six Basin Advisory Councils (BACs) that coincide with the six major water basins in the District. There are over 200 members total for the six BACs.
A series of meetings with each of the six BACs took place in January and March 2002 to present information and receive comments and inputs into the planning process. The District staff and the BC Team conducted six meetings with the Wastewater Subcommittee to present findings and gain feedback on the various tasks while the plan was being developed. In addition, two meetings were held with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD). Finally, a series of six public hearings, one in each of the six river basins, was held in June 2002. Over 100 comments and questions were received and responses prepared. These were posted on the District Internet web site www.northgeorgiawater.com.
SHORT-TERM PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the implementable local wastewater plans identified in this investigation were integrated into the Short-Term Plan. In those areas identified above where additional alternatives were evaluated, the highest rated alternative for each service area was made part of the Short-Term Plan. The result is a comprehensive plan that addresses immediate wastewater capacity problems of the District, while protecting water quality. While each of the recommended plans has it own permitting issues, all of the proposed plans have been judged to be permitable within the context of existing regulatory requirements.
Table ES-1 shows all the facilities that could have a 2008 capacity deficit if no actions are taken, their plan to address the deficit, and additional recommendations.
Although for developing this plan a common time horizon of 2008 was used, the recommended improvements in Table ES-1 are intended to provide a plan and framework to be used only to meet immediate needs while a long-term plan is developed. The recommendations in this plan
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES5
9/20/02
apply until such time as the Long-Term Wastewater Facilities Plan is adopted by the Water District Board which is anticipated within 12 months.
Table ES-1. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Cobb
Cobb Co.
County Water System
R.L. Sutton
No flow
limit
40
Expand plant capacity to 60 mgd; EPD to permit R.L. Sutton at 50 mgd in 2004 and 60 mgd in 2008, consistent with Chattahoochee River Model; complete Chattahoochee Tunnel and Pump Station project by 35 47 2004.
Coweta Co. WSD Sargent (Arnall)
Expand facility from 0.06 to 0.09 mgd 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.09 by 2004.
Coweta County
Grantville Pond #1
Expand plant capacity to 0.15 mgd capacity and convert to LAS by 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 summer 2002.
Newnan Mineral Springs
Expand plant capacity to 0.9 mgd by 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.85 2003.
Northside
Expand plant capacity to 2 mgd by
0.6
0.6 0.6 1.4 2004.
Douglas County
Douglasville/ Douglas Co.
WSA
South Central Southside
St. Andrews
Expand plant capacity to 1 mgd,
0.5
0.5 0.04 1.0 2005-2010.
Expand plant capacity to 5 mgd by N/A 3.25 3.0 4.9 2005.
Replace existing plant with new 0.250.02 0.02 0.02 0.3 mgd plant and LAS by 2003.
Sweetwater Creek
Expand plant capacity to 6 mgd,
3.0
3.0 1.1 6.4 2005-2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES6
9/20/02
Table ES-1. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Cumming Bethelview Rd
Expand Bethelview Road plant
capacity to 8 mgd by 2003; negotiate
agreement with Forsyth County for
division of waste load allocation to
Lake Lanier; construct first phase of
new treatment plant for discharge to
3
3 0.9 8 Lake Lanier.
Forsyth County
Fowler
Construct initial 1.5-mgd phase of
new Fowler plant and LAS by 2003;
expand Fowler plant capacity to 2.5
mgd in 2004 with wet weather
0
1.5 0 1.5 discharge permit for up to 1.0 mgd.
Forsyth Co. (Future Plants)
Construct new 10 mgd treatment plant
near River or construct additional
expansion of Fowler plant for
discharge to the Chattahoochee River
by 2004, consistent with
Chattahoochee River Model; lease 1.0
mgd capacity in Cumming's
Bethelview Road plant on temporary,
0
0
0 11.5 short-term basis.
Big Creek
Connect Big Creek plant to Cobb
County system through existing
Willeo PS bypass line and divert 2
mgd of flow through Chattahoochee
Interceptor to R.L. Sutton plant for
24
24 25 26 treatment.
Fulton Fulton County
County
(North)
Johns Creek
Expand Johns Creek plant capacity to
15 mgd by 2005, consistent with
7
7 6.9 11.5 Chattahoochee River Model.
Cauley Creek
Construct initial 2.5-mgd phase of
Cauley Creek plant by summer 2002; obtain wet weather discharge permit
and expand capacity to 5.0 mgd by 2.5 2.5/5.0 0.0 2.5 2004.
Fulton County (South)
Camp Creek
Construct temporary, short-term flow
diversion of up to 4 mgd to Atlanta's
Utoy Creek WRC by 2003; divert
flows from Fulton County Little Bear
plant and City of Palmetto plant to
Camp Creek for treatment; expand
Camp Creek to 24 mgd by 2005; take
existing Little Bear plant out of
13
13 13 17 service.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES7
9/20/02
Table ES-1. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Fulton County
South Fulton Municipal
Regional Water and Sewerage
Authority Palmetto
Divert flow to new SFMRWSA plant
while maintaining 0.6 mgd discharge
N/A
0.6 0.75 1 point.
Bartow County Southeast
Bartow County
Cartersville Cartersville
Emerson
Puckett Road
Canton
Canton
Cherokee County
Cherokee Co. WSA
Rose Creek
Woodstock Woodstock
Cobb County
Cobb Co. Noonday Creek Water System
Northwest Cobb
Forsyth County
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
Paulding Paulding Co.
County
WSA
Pumpkinvine
Etowah River Basin
Expand plant capacity to 2 mgd,
0.1
0.1 0.01 1.5 2003-2005.
Expand plant capacity to 20 mgd,
15
15 9.3 16 2005-2010.
0.172
Puckett Road plant to be replaced by new 0.45-mgd plant in 2002. Develop plan to serve new 0.172 0.17 0.3 developments along I-75.
Expand plant capacity to 4 mgd by
2003; expand plant to 6 or 7 mgd
1.89
1.89 1 4 before 2010.
Expand plant capacity to 5 mgd in
2002; expand plant to 10 mgd by
4
4
3.6 7 2004 and 15 mgd by 2010.
No flow
Expand plant capacity to 1.5-2.5 mgd,
limit
0.5 0.4 0.75 2003-2005.
No flow
limit
12
Expand plant capacity to 20 mgd by 11 16 2004 (under construction).
No flow
limit
8
Expand plant capacity to 12 mgd by 6 9 2006.
No collection system in place at
present; Construction of collection
and transmission system to convey
wastewater flows to Fowler plant or
other County treatment facility
0
0
0 2 anticipated within next 5 years.
Expand plant capacity to 1.5 mgd
(2005-2008) with 1 mgd discharge to
Pumpkinvine Creek and 0.5 mgd
0.5
0.5 0.058 1.0 reuse.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES8
9/20/02
Table ES-1. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
District Member
Entity
Facility
Clayton County
Clayton Co. Water
Authority
R.L. Jackson Shoal Creek
Coweta County
Henry County
W.B. Casey
Coweta Co. WSD Shenandoah
Senoia
Henry Co. WSA
Senoia Bear Creek
Etowah River Basin
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Take plant out of service when W.B.
Casey plant expansion is completed in
4.5
4.5 3.9 5.5 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 4.4 mgd by
2.1
2.1 2.3 5.5 mid-2002.
Expand plant capacity to 24 mgd by
15
15 14.7 17.6 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 1.5 mgd by
0.9
0.9 0.9 1.5 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 0.5 mgd by
0.07
0.07 0.006 0.5 2003.
Expand plant capacity to 3 mgd by
0.25
0.25 0.026 0.5 2004.
Cumming (Future Plant)
Forsyth County
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
F. Wayne Hill
Hall County
Gainesville Flat Creek Hall Co.
NE Hall County
Lake Lanier Basin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
10.2
10.2 7.2
0
1.8
0
Negotiate agreement with Forsyth County for equitable division of joint waste load allocation to Lake Lanier; construct first phase of new treatment 11.5 plant for discharge to Lake Lanier.
Negotiate agreement with City of Cumming for equitable division of joint waste load allocation to Lake Lanier; in short-term, convey wastewater flows generated in Lake Lanier Basin to Fowler plant or other County treatment facility; prepare long-term strategy for providing wastewater service in Lake Lanier 3 Basin.
Expand plant capacity to 60 mgd; additional 40 mgd flow capacity to be 33.7 discharged to Lake Lanier.
Expand plant capacity to 12 mgd to 11.0 meet growth demands.
New wastewater service area; construct new conveyance system and new 3 mgd treatment plant by 2003. Facility may be located in Oconee 1.8 Basin.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES9
9/20/02
Table ES-1. Recommended Short-Te rm Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Ocmulgee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Clayton County
Clayton Co. Water
Authority Clayton Northeast
6
Expand plant capacity to 10 mgd by
6
6.7 7.5 2005.
DeKalb County
DeKalb Co. W&S
Pole Bridge
Expand plant capacity to 86 mgd by
2010 to accommodate flows from
Snapfinger plant as well as regional
flows from surrounding jurisdictions.
May require phased expansions.
DeKalb Co. and EPD must resolve
interbasin transfer issues prior to
20
20 13 30 permitting.
Snapfinger
Take Snapfinger plant out of service
following expansion of Pole Bridge
36
36 23 40 plant.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
Yellow River
Expand plant capacity to 14.5 mgd by
12
12 10.34 14.5 2003.
Henry County
Henry Co.
WSA
Indian Creek
Expand plant capacity to 3 mgd by
2005; expand plant capacity to 6 mgd
1.5
1.5 0.0 4 by 2008.
Almand Branch
Plant to remain at 1.25 mgd capacity;
divert flows above 1.25 mgd to Quigg
1.25
1.25 1.64 1.83 Branch plant.
Rockdale County
Rockdale WRD
Honey Creek
Divert flows to Quigg Branch plant;
0.30
0.30 0.30 0.4 take Honey Creek plant off-line.
Snapping Shoals
Plant to remain at 0.45 mgd capacity;
divert flows above 0.45 mgd to Quigg
0.45
0.45 0.35 1.09 Branch plant.
Hall John Weiland
County
Homes
Spout Springs
Walton County
Social Circle Little River
Oconee River Basin
The Lanier Technology Wastewater
Development Authority plans to
purchase this facility. Expand plant
capacity to 0.4 mgd by 2004; expand
0.05
0.05 0 0.75 plant capacity to 0.75 mgd by 2008.
Expand plant capacity to 0.9 mgd by
0.45
0.65 0.43 1.2 2004. Expansion to 1.4 mgd by 2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Exec Summary FR2.doc
ES10
9/20/02
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the work performed by the Brown and Caldwell project team (BC Team) in preparing a Short-Term Wastewater Plan for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (District).
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill (SB) 130 became effective May 1, 2001, after being signed by the Governor and passed earlier by the Georgia General Assembly. SB130 created the District and directed it to complete certain regional planning activities related to water, wastewater and stormwater management. The defined purpose of this legislation is to create a planning entity dedicated to developing comprehensive regional and watershed-specific plans to be implemented by local governments in the district. The general purposes of the District are to establish policy, create plans, and promote intergovernmental coordination for all water issues in the District; to facilitate multijurisdictional water related projects; and to enhance access to funding for water related projects among local governments in the District. The District is to promote regional coordination and cooperation through development of regional and watershed-specific plans for wastewater management taking into account recommendations developed by the basin advisory councils.
One of the specific planning activities required of the District is the preparation of a Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan (Short-Term Plan) within 12 months of the effective date of the legislation. The goal of the Short-Term Plan, as defined in SB130, is "...to ease immediate wastewater capacity constraints and to reduce the need for sewer tap moratoria." SB130 did not specify a short-term planning period. A common time horizon of 2008 was used to collect data and analyze needs. However, the District has determined that use of the Short-Term Plan recommendations be limited to the period of time until the Long-Term Wastewater Plan is adopted which is anticipated within 12 months.
In the summer of 2001, the District developed funding mechanisms for its responsibilities under SB130. In August 2001, the District initiated procurement of an engineering consultant to prepare the Short-Term Plan in cooperation with District members, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the Georgia Mountains Regional Development Commission (RDC), the Northeast Georgia RDC, the Flint River RDC, and the Coosa River Valley RDC. In September 2001, the consultant team of Brown and Caldwell, ARCADIS, and Planners for Environmental Quality (PEQ) was selected by the District to prepare the Short-Term Plan. On October 15, 2001, a notice to proceed with the work was issued.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 1 FR.doc
1-1
9/18/02
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the project were to identify the short-term wastewater capacity needs in the 16-county District study area, to identify and evaluate options for addressing those needs, and to make recommendations for improvements. In preparing the Short-Term Plan, local wastewater plans already in place were to be recognized and made part of the Plan where possible. However, regional solutions, where appropriate, were also to be considered.
STUDY AREA
The study area for the Short-Term Plan is the geographical area that makes up the District as defined by SB130. Included as members of the District are the City of Atlanta and the following 16 counties:
Bartow Cherokee Clayton Cobb Coweta DeKalb Douglas Fayette
Forsyth Fulton Gwinnett Hall Henry Paulding Rockdale Walton
Within the 16-county geographical study area, a total of 41 local governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, or authorities) are responsible for existing or proposed wastewater systems that were included in the development of the Short-Term Plan.
The water resources of the study area are divided into six primary river basins:
Chattahoochee River Basin (downstream of Buford Dam) Etowah River Basin Flint River Basin Lake Lanier Basin (Chattahoochee River upstream of Buford Dam) Ocmulgee River Basin Oconee River Basin
The short-term wastewater capacity needs of the District study area, as well as the recommended actions for resolving them were identified within each of these primary river basins as required by SB130. This also allowed the BC Team and the District staff to have increased input from the public in each of the basins during development of the Short-Term Plan.
A graphic illustration of the study area is presented on Figure 1-1.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 1 FR.doc
1-2
9/18/02
JO HNS CR R CE A RC
OOSTA N A UL A R
*A
R D
LIC K C R
O CK CR TA L K NG
ARP R
R
C S
CA RE
ORN C
SH
NG
P INE LO CR
G
S A LAC O
R
A CR
LU F
CR OC K C R
B F CR
SW AM P CR LO
ICA L OLA CR ITTL E A
L M
S H OA
L CR
SHOA L C
BARTOW
I 75
I 575
CHEROKEE
TTL E R
S ETTIN G D OW N CR
FORSYTH
I R
LI
AM P CR Y CR
C
L a k e L a n i e MOSS r
CHA OOC
HEE R TT A H
H
I 985
HALL
M O CO NE
KS P
AR CR
Y LEV H IC
UD K OR
EL C GROV E CR
N
R
R SON
SP R ING C
EE L C R E R, PO ND F K
R R
R N PU M PK
N V INE R
W A
E
t
o
w a h S C H IL
L
River Basin
EU HA RLE E C
C
CR
I
ACCO O
PAULDING
NOS ES CR
N DA
AH
CR Y NO O
COBB
R ETO W
COPPE R S A NDY CR
I 285
P TAL L
L I T TL E R
*B L E
LA O OSA R
R
A O OSA R
BROOK S C R
P TA L LIT T
W OO
H
EE T SW
TE R CR
I 20
DOUGLAS
D OG CR
R E
A HOOC
*A
CH
FULTON CAM P
ATT HE
CR
I 75
C ONLE Y CR
I 675
N
S AK E CR
C E DA R C
BEA R CR
NG C M OR
I 85
NI CLAYTON
R *A
PI NG CR
W A H O O CR
FAYETTE
RKEY CR
CR COWETA TU
LINE C
FLINT R R
M OUNTAIN
C KET CR
N EW R
Y ELLOW J A
Chattahoochee
River
C HA TTA HOOCHEE R
Basin
LIN E CR
CR H IT
W E OAK
Flint River Basin
S CR
RED OA K CR
EL KIN
COBB C R
M
CU O CONEE R
AL CO
I 85
GWINNETT
BE A VER RU
JACK S ON CR
CR IN
YE
LLOW R N
STONE M OU
DEKALB
T A IN CR
I 20
SH R
BIG H
B U Y F K CR
GUM CR E OA
VY R
MU L
BE R RY R
O c o n e e L ITTLE MU L BE RRY R
RRY CR
River Basin ROCK Y C
A
R LA HE M OUNTAIN C R
AP
BA Y CR
A C R
M RB URG CR
L C R S H O A L CR SH
M CN UT T CR BA RBER C R
WALTON
H
JA CK'S CR
B IG S A ND Y R
C
ARD L A BO R C R
B IG FL A T CR CORNIS H CR
AYNE S CR
S CR J
ROCKDALE
HO NEY CR
S NA PP IN G
AM E
BI G C OTT O N CR INDIAN C R
I 75W AL N UT CR
O R
CR N C
SHO ALS SAM PS
BEA R CR
CR
IT T
P M AN
LIT TLE R
M URDE
HENRY
R CR
SO TUS S A
UTH R HAW
C AB IN C R BU CK
TOW A LIG
CR
CR
E R DS
H
S OA L CR
H
Y E L LOW W A T E R CR
Ocmulgee
KN A
D
CR R N I
W OL F CR, N F K
River Basin B IG
SA ND
A CR
ROCK Y C R
Y CR
A L L IN G CR
CE DAR CR
IND IA N CR
S SU G
A R CR
LIT TLE F F A LLING CR
CR
E
CR
FK
O
EDI W A LIG A C R
LITT LE T
TO B E SO EE R
U L GEE R
RU M CR
OCM
CR BIG CE D A R ALN UT
HO G CR
CR TTL
TA Y L
W CR
LI O R E C EDA R C R
Figure 1-1 Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District
Study Area
PROGRESSION OF WORK
The progression of work for preparation of the Short-Term Plan consists of six primary work elements, or tasks, as follows:
Task 1--Inventory Existing Wastewater Facilities, Plans and Problems (Section 2) Task 2--Identify Short-Term Capacity Needs and Issues (Section 2) Task 3--Evaluate Options for Addressing Short-Term Capacity Needs (Section 3) Task 4--Identify Placeholder Issues for Long-Term Wastewater Plan (Section 4) Task 5--Prepare Summary Reports Task 6--Meetings and Presentations
During the preparation of the Short-Term Plan there was extensive involvement of stakeholders within the District. In accordance with SB130, the District has established a Technical Committee and Subcommittees. The Wastewater Technical Subcommittee of over 40 members comprises wastewater utility managers, engineers and other technical leaders of the various District members and water and wastewater utilities in the District. In addition, the District has established six Basin Advisory Councils (BACs) that coincide with the six major water basins in the District. There are over 200 members total for the six BACs.
The District staff and the BC Team met on several occasions with the Wastewater Subcommittee to present findings and gain feedback on the various tasks while the plan was being developed. Meetings with the BACs took place in January and March 2002 to present information and receive comments.
In addition, two meetings were held with the Georgia EPD.
Figure 1-2 shows the overall flow or work for the preparation of the Short-Term Plan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of the Short-Term Plan would not have been possible without the cooperation of the 41 local cities, counties and authorities that supplied data for the existing treatment facilities. The Georgia EPD supplied data on spills and overflows, and allowed access to files on discharge permits and treatment plant performance. The District's Wastewater Technical Subcommittee reviewed and commented on interim task reports throughout the project and provided general input and guidance to the BC Team during development of the Short-Term Plan. The six Basin Advisory Councils also reviewed and commented on the interim task reports and provided a forum for public comment during each phase of Plan development. The ARC and the District provided staff who assisted the BC Team throughout the project. In particular, the assistance of Pat Stevens, Rick Brownlow and Jill Downs was instrumental in keeping the project on schedule and the flow of information to appropriate District committee, council and Board members and the public properly coordinated. Their efforts toward successful completion of this Short-Term Plan are recognized and appreciated.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 1 FR.doc
1-4
9/18/02
BAC Members, RDC Staff, Georgia EPD,
District Members
BAC Members, RDC Staff, Georgia EPD,
District Members
District Committee Review, Georgia EPD Review
Compile Data on Existing WW Systems
Identify Short-Term
Capacity Needs
Conduct Basin
Workshop
Task 1 Interim Report
11/01
Task 2 Interim Report
12/01
Define Options
Perform Preliminary Economic Evaluation of
Options
Conduct Option Evaluation Workshop
Formulate Recommended
Plan
Draft Report
3/02
Final Draft Report 4/02
Final Report
7/02
Task 3 Interim Report
2/02
District Board Review
Georgia EPD Review
Public Hearings
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Tasks 4-6
Figure 1-2. Work Flow Diagram
P:\MNGWPD\21910\wp\0072402 Final Report\Figure_1-2.doc
7/26/02
SECTION 2
IDENTIFICATION OF WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CAPACITY
This section identifies the wastewater systems investigated in the Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan (Short-Term Plan) and the capacity needs that are projected for these systems through 2008.
SYSTEM INVENTORY
According to Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) records, as of November 30, 2001, there were a total of 219 surface water discharge permits for wastewater treatment facilities in the 16-county District area. Of this total, 80 permits were in effect for discharges from publicly owned wastewater treatment plants (POTWs). Of the remaining 139 permits, two were for discharges from confined animal feed lot operations, seven were for discharges from combined sewer overflows, four were for discharges from Federally owned treatment facilities, 75 were for industrial wastewater discharges, and 51 were for discharges from other private and institutional treatment facilities (schools, subdivisions, etc.). A listing of the wastewater discharge permits obtained from EPD, by facility type, is included as Table A-1 in Appendix A.
As stated previously, the objective of the Short-Term Plan was "...to ease immediate wastewater capacity constraints and to reduce the need for sewer tap moratoria." Accordingly, work on the Short-Term Plan focused on municipal wastewater treatment systems and District jurisdictions, such as Forsyth County, which have a need for wastewater service but have no wastewater treatment facilities of their own in place.
DATA COMPILATION
During the development of the work approach for the Short-Term Plan, many District members pointed out that they already had completed or were in the process of completing wastewater management plans for their local jurisdictions. The District felt it was important that these local plans be recognized as part of the Short-Term Plan. Accordingly, data compilation on existing wastewater systems focused on the following:
Compiling capacity and performance data on publicly owned wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal facilities throughout the 16-county District area from existing sources, including local jurisdictions, the Georgia EPD and regional planning agencies.
Compiling current information from local jurisdictions on plans to expand or upgrade existing facilities in response to anticipated increases in wastewater flows or stricter permit limits.
The information gathering effort began with a questionnaire prepared by District Staff that was sent to each public wastewater utility in the District area. The questionnaire requested
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-1
9/18/02
information on previous water, wastewater and stormwater planning efforts that had been completed to date. Responses to the survey varied, but were useful in identifying where relevant work had already been accomplished. Members of the BC Team reviewed each of the responses to the District questionnaire for information relevant to the Short-Term Plan.
Concurrent with the review of responses to the questionnaire, the BC Team made a data request to the Georgia EPD to facilitate the compilation of current flow and performance data at individual treatment facilities. The Georgia EPD responded with copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the period January 2000 to September 2001 for each treatment facility for which data was requested. Data on reported spills and regulatory enforcement actions involving municipal wastewater systems within the District were also obtained from the Georgia EPD's files.
Plans for compiling data and other system information from local jurisdictions were coordinated among BC Team members to assure consistency in the data gathering effort. A data checklist was prepared and was provided to each wastewater utility prior to any formal meetings or communications. Meetings were held with 20 of the largest public wastewater utilities operating within the District to obtain system information and to review the information with the utilities staff. Reconnaissance site visits were made to many individual treatment facilities operated by these utilities. Telephone interviews were conducted with the remaining wastewater utilities, most of which operate small municipal systems.
Data was obtained from 41 public wastewater utilities for 102 individual treatment systems throughout the District. These systems are identified in Table 2-1. Their locations are illustrated on Figure 2-1. A tabulated summary of the data collected for each treatment system is provided in Table A-2 in Appendix A. This matrix of information formed the basis for establishing the need for additional capacity and the existence of a plan for providing the needed capacity.
The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and the other Regional Development Commissions (RDCs) represented in the District are in the process of developing updated forecasts of future population and employment based upon data from the 2000 Census. However, these forecasts will not be finalized until sometime later in 2002 and were not available for use in developing the Short-Term Plan. Consequently, the 2008 wastewater flow forecasts used in developing the Short-Term Plan were based on flow projections made by the individual wastewater utilities (or their consultants) for their own capital improvement planning purposes.
For each wastewater service area, the projected 2008 average day, maximum month flow (ADMMF) was compared to the existing design capacity or permitted flow capacity of the treatment works to determine the short-term capacity need. If available capacity exceeded the projected ADMMF in 2008, a capacity surplus was noted. However, if projected ADMMF was found to exceed currently available capacity, a capacity deficit, or short-term need, was indicated. Planned expansions, even if in the process of implementation, were not considered in the calculation of short-term capacity needs. There are a few treatment plants whose NPDES Permits do not contain a flow limit. In these instances the design capacity of the treatment plant was used to determine if there is or is not sufficient capacity to meet the 2008 flow.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-2
9/18/02
Table 2-1. Summary of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants
District Member
Utility
Treatment Facility
District Member
Utility
Treatment Facility
City of Atlanta City of Atlanta Bartow County Bartow County
Cartersville
R.M. Clayton Utoy Creek South River Intrenchment Creek Southeast Two Run Creek
Cartersville
Fulton Fulton County County
S Fulton Municipal Regional WSA
Big Creek Camp Creek Cauley Creek Johns Creek
Little Bear Little River Fairburn
Palmetto
Adairsville
Emerson White
North South Puckett Road
Whispering Pines
Gwinnett Gwinnett County County
Beaver Run Big Haynes Creek Crooked Creek
F. Wayne Hill
Cherokee Cherokee County WSA Fitzgerald
County
Rose Creek
Jacks Creek Jackson Creek
Canton Woodstock
Canton Woodstock
No Business Creek Suger Hill
Clayton CountyClayton County Water Authority
Clayton N.E. R. L. Jackson Shoal Creek
Buford
Yellow River Southside Westside
W.B. Casey Cobb County Cobb County Water System Noonday Creek
Northwest Cobb
R.L. Sutton South Cobb
Hall County Hall County Gainesville
Flowery Branch John Weiland Homes
N.E. Hall (Proposed) WRF #1 (Flat Creek) WRF #2 (Linwood)
Flowery Branch Spout Springs
Coweta County Coweta County WSD
Sargent Shenandoah Arnco Mills
Henry County
Lula Hampton Henry County WSA
Lula Hampton Bear Creek
Grantville Newnan
Pond #1 Pond #2 Pond #3 Pond #4
Mineral Springs Wahoo Creek
Camp Creek Hampton Industrial Park (out of service 12/01/01) Indian Creek Simpson Mill Community
Springdale Springdale Rd
Senoia DeKalb County DeKalb County W & S
Senoia
Pole Bridge Snapfinger
Locust Grove
Walnut Creek (exist) HCWSA Walnut Ck
Locust Grove Pond (East)
Locust Grove LAS (West) Skyland MHP
Douglas County Douglasville/Douglas County WSA
Beaver Estates Northside Rebel Trails
Paulding County
Stockbridge
Stephen Peurifoy
McDonough
Walnut Creek
Paulding County WSA Coppermine
Pumpkinvine
Fayette County Peachtree City
South Central Southside St. Andrews
Sweetwater Creek Flat Creek Line Creek Rockaway Creek
Dallas Rockdale WRD
Rockdale County
Dallas North Dallas West Almand Branch
Honey Creek Lakeridge Estates Quigg Branch Scott Creek
Fayetteville Forsyth County Forsyth County
Cumming
Whitewater Creek Fowler (under const) Bethelview Road
Walton County
Monroe Loganville Social Circle
Snapping Shoals Stanton Woods Jacks Creek City of Loganville Little River
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-3
9/18/02
JOHNS CR R CE A RC
I R
L CR
OOS TA NA UL A R
*A
LIC K C R SALA COA
C R
R D
P INE LO CR
G
BARTOW
I 75
A RP R
R
C S
O CK CR NG TA LK
C A RE
O RN C
SH
NG
CR OCK C R
B
LU F
F CR
S W AM P CR LO
IC A LOLA CR ITTL E A
L M
S H OA
S HOA L C
ET OWAH
R R
I 575
CHEROKEE
S ETT IN G D O W N CR
FORSYTH
COPPER S A N DY CR
AM P CR
C
L a k e L a n i e MOSS r
Y CR
HUDSO N R
G ROV
CR E
HALL
KS P
AR CR
K OR EL C
ALLEN CR
M O CO NE
N
I 985
E R, PO ND F K
R Y LEV H IC
SP R ING C
EE L C R CU
R R
L
LEE CR EUHA
S C HIL
Etowah
PUM K
INV IN E CR P
River Basin
CR ACCO O
N DA
CR Y NO O
R N
PAULDING
COBB
I 285
TA L L
O P
A O O SA R
BR O
KS CR
LITTLE R
B
E AP O SA R
*
O TA L L L IT TL
UFF A
LO CR B
H
W OO
NOSES CR
EET SW
W A
TER CR
I 20
DOUGLAS
D OG CR
I 75
*A
FULTON CAM P
C ONLEY CR
I 675
N
S AKE C R
C EDA R C
BEA R CR
NG C M OR
I 85
NI CLAYTON
R *A
FLIN T R
CR COBB CR
I 85
GWINNETT
BE A V E R RUIN J AC K SON CR
CR
R W
L E
S TONE M OU
N
DEKALB
T A IN CR
I 20
SH BIG H
S CR J
ROCKDALE
AM E BIG C OTT O N CR INDIA N C R
I 75W A LN UT CR
HO NEY CR
SN APPIN
G
O R
SHO ALS SAM PS
CR N C
Y L O
BRU Y F K CR OA
RD L A BO R CR H
B IG FL A T CR CORNIS H C R
GUM CR AYNE S CR
CR
L
ITTL E
MU
L BE RRY
R
BE R
RY
R
MU L
RRY CR
Oconee
River Basin
BA Y CR
M RB URG CR
L C R SH O A L CR SH
M O ON E R
M CNUTT C R
B ARBE R C R
E C
A M OUNTAIN C R
JA CK'S CR
WALTON
A
BIG S AND
EE
CR
R A PALA CH
Y
LITT LE R
S SU
P
IT T
M
O
AN
G A R CR
S A LCO VY R BEA R CR
INDI A N CR GL A DL Y CR
R RKEY CR
UT H R
PING CR
WAH O O CR
HENRY
FAYETTE
TUS S A
HA W
OC M OUNTA IN
LIN E CR R
W HITE O AK CR
CR COWETA TU
L INE C
CKET CR
C
HA
TTA H O
HEE R
NEW R
YELLOW J A
Chattahoochee River Basin
R
Flint River Basin
RED OAK CR
ELKINS C
CR HO G DE R
C AB IN C R BU C K
CR
H CR
CR
E RDS
H
S OA L CR
Y E L LOW W A T ER CR
I N NA RD CR
Ocmulgee
CR TO WA
R i v e r B a s i nK
LIG A
ROCKY CR
Y IG
B
S AND CR
LITT LE F
A L L ING CR
MUR
W OL F CR, N F K
CR
CE DA R C R
F A LLING CR
E
CR
FK
O
E DI W A LIG A CR
L IT TL E T
TO BESO EE R
ULGEE R
RU M CR
O CM
CR BIG CE D A R ALN UT
L E O R
CEDA
R LIT T
TA Y
L
R
C
W CR
CR
Figure 2-1 Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The primary focus of the data compilation was the treatment plants in each of the service areas. Also of importance is the capacity and condition of the collection system. There is a wide variation of the extent and quality of summaries of this information among the 41 service providers. In order to supplement the somewhat limited data collected, EPD was requested to provide information from their files on sewer system conveyance issues and reported spills in the 16-county area comprising the District. EPD does not maintain specific information on sewer conveyance capacity for utilities. They do maintain records of spills based on reported information. Table 2-2 lists spill data EPD has on file for the counties within the District.
Table 2-2. Summary of Unpermitted Discharges Reported to EPD
Countya Bartow Cherokee Clayton
Unpermitted Discharges Reported
16 51 59
Reached State Waters
15 33 52
Did Not Reach State
Waters 1 18 7
Expedited Enforcement
Orders 3 4 3
Consent Orders Issued
--1
Cobb
597
571
26
Coweta
13
13
--
DeKalb
176
172
4
Douglas
10
9
1
Fayette
10
5
5
Forsyth
20
15
5
Fultonb
1,509
1,237
272
8
1
2
--
5
1
4
--
--
Pending
4
--
4
5
Gwinnett
200
196
4
5
--
Hall
19
18
1
2
1
Henry
10
6
4
--
1
Paulding
22
16
6
1
--
Rockdale
149
149
--
3
1
Walton
37
26
11
--
1
Total 2,898
2,533
365
48
12
Notes: a Spills for all service providers in each county. Spills ranged from 2 quarts to multi-thousands of
gallons. Includes out of Permit discharges after full or partial treatment at wastewater treatment
facility. b Includes City of Atlanta.
The following sections present brief descriptions of the wastewater systems and the short-term capacity needs in each of the six major river basins of the District. For each basin, a tabular summary of the treatment facilities and a graphic illustration of their locations are presented.
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BASIN
The Chattahoochee River Basin, south of Lake Lanier, includes some or all of eight District counties as well as the City of Atlanta. A total of 13 public wastewater utilities currently operate
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-5
9/18/02
34 wastewater treatment facilities in the Basin. Figure 2-2 illustrates the limits of the Chattahoochee River Basin within the 16-county District area and the locations of the existing treatment facilities. Table 2-3 lists the existing and proposed treatment facilities in the Chattahoochee River Basin and their short-term capacity requirements.
Allowable discharges to the Chattahoochee River downstream of Lake Lanier are limited by the assimilative capacity of the river with the primary water quality objective of maintaining a minimum in-stream dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration during all periods of the year. The DO standard is typically 5.0 or 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l) depending on the segment of the river and its designated beneficial uses. Water temperature has a significant effect on in-stream DO levels and, therefore, the temperature of discharges to the Chattahoochee River is important. Discharges of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, are also limited by the presence of West Point Lake, about 60 miles downstream of the City of Atlanta, and the objective of preventing eutrophic conditions and other water quality problems from occurring in that lake.
During the 1990s, the Georgia EPD and a team of modeling consultants developed the Chattahoochee River Model, a detailed water quality model capable of predicting water quality impacts in the river resulting from point and nonpoint source pollution loads. The model indicated that anticipated future growth in the metropolitan Atlanta area would result in violation of the DO standard in the river. The model also indicated, however, that a considerable amount of additional capacity could be realized if the heat load, introduced to the river by discharges of cooling water from Georgia Power Company power plants, was reduced or eliminated. Georgia Power Company responded by agreeing to eliminate the heat load from its cooling water prior to its discharge back into the river. The result is that as much as 200 million gallons per day (mgd) of additional flow can eventually be discharged to the river from Atlanta area treatment plants without violating water quality standards. Georgia Power Company estimates that a partial heat load reduction will be accomplished by 2004 and that full elimination of the heat load may be completed by 2008.
To take advantage of the heat load being removed, the ARC and the wastewater utilities discharging treated effluent into the Chattahoochee River have been working for the past year to devise a plan whereby the utilities can increase their permitted flow capacities to accommodate future growth without violating the DO standard in the river. This plan would also allow Forsyth County, which has been unable in the past to obtain an NPDES permit for discharge to the Chattahoochee River, to obtain one. The proposed plan for future permitted flows and effluent concentrations to the Chattahoochee River was recently presented to the Georgia EPD for review. The draft plan, as presented, is summarized in Table 2-4, but has not yet been approved by the Georgia EPD. A technical memorandum, summarizing the Chattahoochee River modeling work on which the draft plan is based, is presented in Appendix B.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-6
9/18/02
I 75
rsi
eviue R
IN CR T OU
fevv2qyxh M
N A
I 575
SETTIN G D
N CR
qesxisvvi
S HOAL C OW
usxqyx
BB AA RR TT OO WW
gexyx
CC HH EE RR OO KK EE EE
FF OO RR SS YY TT HH
Bethelview Road
gwwsxq
yeuyyh
HH AA LL LL
I 985
pvyi2fexgr
HA LL
irevii
RLEE CR EU
E t o w a hS CR R i v e r BHI a s i n
geisvvi iwiyx
ryvv2sxq ETO WA H R
Fowler COPPE R S A NDY CR
egyr
uixxie R
yyhygu
wyxesx2eu
evreie
yivv
Cauley Creek
Big Creek
Johns Creek
Sugar Hill
Westside
i2reix
qe2rsvvfpyh
M ULB E RRY R
Southside
exii
F Wayne Hill
Oconee R i v e r B a APAL A CHE
N DAY C
C C OON CR
E R A LCOV Y R
V I NE CR
feivv RA K IN
NOO
P UM P
NO S ES CR
PP AA UU LL DD II NN GG
hevve
Coppermine LAS rsew
CC OO BB BB
wesie
yhi2sxq
wxe
CH A T OCHEE
R
TAHO
I 285
hvr
fiuivi2veui
Crooked Creek
xygy
GG WW II NN NN EE TT TT
B EA V ER RUIN C R
veixgisvvi
FOX CR
hyesvvi grewfvii
JA C KS ON CR vsvfx
qeyx
hegve BA Y C R
BRU SH Y FK CR
LITT LE T A LLA PO A R SW
OS
I 20
xivvsvvi
BI
G FLAT CR
E E T W ATE R CR
Northside
R.L. Sutton
eivv
South Cobb
I 85
YE
LL OW R UN
R.M. Clayton
I 75 evexe
gveuyx yxi2wyxesx ST O NE M O
sxi2veui
eyxhevi2iei hige
TA IN CR
vyqexsvvi
WW AA LL TT OO NN
M
GU CR
HA Y NE S C R
svve2sge
Beaver Estates
Utoy Creek A
*
DD EE KK AA LL BB
BIG evx2qyi
Southside
Intrenchment Creek
Sweetwater Creek
vsryxse
DD OO UU GG LL AA SS
EE
Rebel Trails
D OG CR
South Central
CHA TTAH
O OCH R
South River
CAMP CRFF UU LL TT OO NN ie2ysx
Camp Creek
reisvvi
C O NLE Y CR
I 20
gyxi
RR OO CC KK DD AA LL EE
gyvviqi2eu
pyi2eu
St. Andrews
NA E CR
Little Bear Palmetto
Fairburn
BEA R CR
xsyx2gs pesfx
evwiy
veui2gs
sihevi
wyy
CC LL AA YY TT OO NN
IN
JA M ES
ygufshqi
B I G CO TT O N CR IN DIA N CR
HONE Y CR
SN APPING S HO A LS CR CR
Ocmulgee River Basin
CR G M ORN
K S
CR O OPING
SOUT H R A L COV Y
M OUNT AIN D
ELK INS C
WH
AR C R
CE
I 85
yxi
*A
R
WA LN UT CR
R INDI
L IG A T
Sargent
Mineral Spring
CR
Arnco Mills Wahoo Creek
xixex
peiisvvi
FF AA YY EE TT TT EE
iegrii2gs
CC OO WW EE TT AA
E CR
refq
FLINT R LIN
vyity
O WA
rewyx
CR
HH EE NN RR YY
I 75 wghyxyqr TUSSA HA W C R
Legend
vivve
No Capcity Issues
vyg2qyi
OUT H
R S
sx
A N C
Capacity Needs/PermitteYEdLLO W WA TER CR
N EW R Pond #1 Pond #4
wyivexh
Pond #2
qexsvvi
Pond #3
ixyse
fyyu
reevyx R
E OAK C
C A B IN CR BU C K
CR
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
Capacity Needs/No Plan In Place
Supporting
ROC KY CR
Partially Supporting
SA NDY
CR BIG
LINE C R
R WHIT
Chattahoochee River Basin
RED O AK CR
Flint River Basin
IE
CR
L
Not Supporting
MRPA
ED
BE TaOsWinALBIGAoCuRndary
LITT
0 2.5 5
10 Miles
Figure 2-2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Atlanta, City of
Entity Atlanta, City of
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Facility Intrenchment Creek R.M. Clayton
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks
N/A
25
16
20
No flow limit 122
99 120
Plant provides secondary
treatment only; secondary
effluent pumped to South
River WRC for additional
5 None
treatment.
Existing Consent Decree
with the U.S. EPA and None. Plan before EPD Georgia EPD require CSO
to permit plant at design and SSO improvements
capacity consistent with throughout City of Atlanta
draft Chattahoochee wastewater system by 2007
2 River Model.
and 2014, respectively.
South River
None. Plan before EPD
to permit plant at design
capacity consistent with
draft Chattahoochee
48
54
37
45
3 River Model.
See above.
Utoy Creek
None. Plan before EPD
to permit plant at design
capacity consistent with
draft Chattahoochee
40
44
32
34
6 River Model.
See above.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-8
9/18/02
District Member
Cobb County
Coweta County
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Cobb Co. Water R.L. Sutton System
South Cobb
Coweta Co. WSD Sargent (Arnall)
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
No flow limit 40
40
40
0.06
0.06
35
47
26
33
unk 0.09
-7 7 -0.03
Expansion of facilities to 60 mgd under construction; permit at 50 mgd must be secured.
No expansion planned, but treatment process upgrades currently in design.
Expansion to 0.09 mgd planned for near term. No deficit anticipated.
Arnco Mills
Grantville Newnan
Pond #1 Pond #2 Pond #3 Pond #4
Mineral Springs Wahoo Creek
0.065
0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.75
3
0.065
0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.75
3
0.03 0.065
0.05 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.82 0.85 2.07 2.6
0 None Expansion to 0.15 mgd and converting to LAS, no surface water
-0.1 discharge.
0
0
0 Expansion to 0.9 mgd by
-0.1 2003.
0.4 None
Remarks
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-9
9/18/02
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
District Member
Entity
Facility Beaver Estates
Northside
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
0.08
0.08 0.06 0.06 0.02 None
Expansion to 2.0 by
0.6
0.6
0.6 1.4
-0.8 2004.
Remarks
Rebel Trails
Douglas County
Douglasville/Douglas
Co. WSA
South Central
Southside
St. Andrews
0.04
0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 None
Contract with golf course
for irrigation water in
Expansion to 1.0 as
place, but reuse not yet
0.5
0.5
0.04 1.0
-0.5 needed 2005/2010.
initiated
Expansion to 5.0 in
N/A
3.25
3.0 4.9 -1.75 2005.
Voluntary sewer tap
New 0.25-mgd plant to moratorium in place until
0.02
0.02 0.02 0.3
-0.3 be on-line by 2003.
new WWTP completed
Sweetwater Creek
Expansion to 4.5 or 6.0
3.0
3.0
1.1 6.4
-3.4 as needed 2005-2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-10
9/18/02
District Member
Forsyth County
Fulton County
Entity Cumming Forsyth Co.
Fulton Co.
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Facility Bethelview Rd Fowler
(Future Plants) Big Creek
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks
Expansion to 8 mgd by
3
3
0.9
8
-5 2003.
Plant designed for 2.5
mgd in anticipation of New plant with LAS
future surface water disposal. Projected in-
0
1.5
0
1.5
-1.5 discharge.
service date of July 2003.
County has access to
approx. 5 mgd of existing
New plant(s) to be
capacity in plants owned
constructed after surface by others. If this capacity
water discharge permit is remains, 2008 deficit is
0
0
0
13
-13 obtained.
approx. 8 mgd.
Planned expansion to 36
or 48 mgd by 2008,
24
24
25
26
-2 subject to permitting.
Camp Creek
Expansion to 24 mgd by Step permit (13/19/24)
13
13
13
17
-4 2005.
approved by EPD.
Cauley Creek Johns Creek Little Bear
Under construction. Land
Application disposal and
Ultimate expansion to reuse (no discharge) at 2.5
5.0 mgd with seasonal mgd. Seasonal discharge
2.5
2.5
0.0 2.5
0 discharge.
has not been permitted.
Expansion to 15 mgd by Cauley Creek flow of 2.5
2005, subject to
mgd subtracted from Johns
7
7
6.9 11.5 -4.5 permitting.
Creek flows in 2008.
0.1
0.1
0.1 0.1
0
Will be phased out in approximately 5 years.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-11
9/18/02
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
District Member
Entity
Facility
Fulton County
South Fulton Municipal Regional Water and Sewerage Fairburn
Authority
Palmetto
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
The City is currently
constructing a plant to
meet reuse standards.
They have an EPD
permit. The estimated
completion date of the
plant is 6/2004. The
service area includes the
City of Fairburn and part
1
1
0
1
0 of City of Tyrone.
The City is in the process
of planning for future
growth by expanding the
existing plant or looking
at a new treatment
location. This may
required that they look at
N/A
0.6
0.75 0.53 -0.15 reuse and/or LAS.
Remarks
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-12
9/18/02
District Member
Gwinnett County
Paulding County
Table 2-3. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Chattahoochee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks
Buford
Southside Westside
Crooked Creek
2.0
2.0
1.09 1.50 0.50 None
0.25
0.25 0.17 0.20 0.05 None
16
16
15
16
0 None
Combined discharge to Chattahoochee River with F. Wayne Hill plant.
Gwinnett Co.
F. Wayne Hill
Sugar Hill
Paulding Co. WSA Coppermine
Combined discharge to
Chattahoochee River with
Crooked Creek plant. 40
Expansion to 60 mgd by mgd expansion to
20
20
9
20
0 2005
discharge to Lake Lanier.
Plant to be taken off-line.
Plant flows to be
conveyed to F. Wayne
0
0 Hill WRC in 2006.
1.5 mgd by 2004 & 3.0 No surface water discharge
0.75
0.75 0.28 0.75
0 mgd by 2008
anticipated for this plant.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-13
9/18/02
Table 2-4. Proposed Short-Term Increases to Permit Capacity at Treatment Plants
Treatment Facility
Discharging to the Chattahoochee River Existing Permit 2004 Permit Capacitya,
Capacity, mgd
mgd
City of Atlanta R.M. Clayton WRC Utoy Creek WRC South River WRC
--b
110c
40b
40
48b
48
Cobb County R.L. Sutton WRF
--d
50
South Cobb WRF
40
40
Douglas County
Sweetwater Creek WWTP
3
3
Forsyth County Future Discharge(s)
Fulton County Big Creek WRP Johns Creek WRP Camp Creek WRP
Gwinnett County Crooked Creek/FWHWRC
Total
0
10
24
24
7
15
13
16
36
50
351c,d
406
a Assumes partial heat load reduction from Georgia Power facilities. b Existing permits have no flow limits. Permit modifications, including flow limits (100 mgd at R.M. Clayton),
have been proposed by Georgia EPD and are under appeal by the City of Atlanta. c Permit may be staged at 103 mgd until full heat load reduction is accomplished. d No flow limit in existing permit. 40 mgd is existing design capacity.
The District members with operating treatment facilities in the Chattahoochee River Basin include the City of Atlanta and Cobb, Coweta, Douglas, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett and Paulding Counties. Portions of DeKalb County also discharge to the Chattahoochee River Basin through treatment facilities operated by the City of Atlanta. The following paragraphs provide some additional detail on the capacity needs of each jurisdiction and their current plans for addressing those needs.
City of Atlanta
The City of Atlanta has short-term capacity needs at one of its four treatment plants, as well as in its combined sewer system and separate (sanitary) sewer system. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the City's short-term capacity needs and the plans currently being implemented to address them.
Water Reclamation Centers . The City of Atlanta operates four water reclamation centers (WRCs), the R.M. Clayton WRC, the Utoy Creek WRC, the South River WRC, and the Intrenchment Creek WRC. The Intrenchment Creek WRC provides secondary treatment and
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-14
9/18/02
does not discharge to a receiving stream. Treated effluent from this plant is conveyed to the South River WRC for further treatment prior to discharge. Flows from the Intrenchment Creek WRC, therefore, are considered under the discharge permit for the South River WRC. The R.M. Clayton, Utoy Creek and South River WRCs all discharge directly to the Chattahoochee River.
The City of Atlanta recently made substantial capital improvements at the R.M. Clayton, Utoy Creek and South River WRCs to expand design capacity and to upgrade treatment performance to comply with stricter regulatory requirements. The 2008 flow projections in Table 2-3 for City of Atlanta treatment facilities are based upon recent projections made by the City. The 2008 flow projection for the Intrenchment Creek WRC is based upon current flows plus an assumed 25 percent increase in flow between now and 2008 resulting from the City's proposed program for separating combined sewers.
The projected ADMMF to the R.M. Clayton WRC is expected to increase to about 120 mgd by the year 2008. This projection takes into account the wet weather storage potential of the proposed Nancy Creek Tunnel. With the proposed elimination of the heat load from the Chattahoochee River, it is anticipated that additional capacity at the R.M. Clayton WRC will be permitted by the Georgia EPD. The first increment of additional flow capacity is expected by 2004 when a partial heat load reduction is achieved.
Projections of ADMMF in the Utoy Creek and South River/Intrenchment Creek WRC service areas through 2008 indicate that the existing permitted capacities at these facilities should be adequate in the short-term.
Combined Sewer System. The City has a permit for seven Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) discharge points. In 1998, the City signed a Consent Decree with the U.S. EPA and the Georgia EPD to bring its CSO discharges into compliance with water quality standards by July 2007 (CSO Consent Decree). Since that time, the City and its consultants have evaluated options for complying with the CSO Consent Decree and have recommended a preferred CSO control program that provides the best combination of benefits with respect to meeting the compliance deadline, affordability to rate payers, public acceptance, and compliance with water quality standards. The preferred CSO control program (Option C), approved by the U.S. EPA and the Georgia EPD in July 2001, consists of the following major components:
1. Partial separation of sewers (20 to 27 percent) by 2007;
2. Upgrades to the Intrenchment Creek CSO treatment facility;
3. Dechlorination of disinfected discharges at the existing CSO treatment facilities;
4. Construction of interconnected deep sewer tunnel systems in both the east and west sides of the combined sewer system to provide storage of CSO flows;
5. Treatment of stored CSO flows at dedicated CSO treatment plants; and
6. Development of site-specific permit limits.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-15
9/18/02
The City is proceeding with detailed planning of improvements included in the approved CSO control program. Design work should be initiated in 2002. While not directly related to shortterm capacity, implementation of the CSO control program is likely to impact flows to other components of the City's wastewater conveyance system and to its WRCs over the longer term. These impacts are not yet quantifiable, but need to be considered in long term planning for City of Atlanta wastewater facility needs.
Separate Sewer System Improvements. In 1998, the City of Atlanta entered into a second Consent Decree with the U.S. EPA and the Georgia EPD to make improvements in the separate (sanitary) sewer system. The objectives of this second Consent Decree were to: (1) assure full compliance with NPDES permits, the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (GWQCA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) at all Atlanta wastewater facilities, (2) eliminate all unpermitted discharges, and (3) eliminate all SSOs. The First Amended Consent Decree (SSO Consent Decree), signed in 1999, contains a comprehensive program of improvements that the City of Atlanta is now implementing, including Management, Operation and Maintenance (MOM) activities, priority capital improvements to provide additional short-term capacity for wetweather flows, and on-going evaluation and rehabilitation of sewer lines throughout the City's system. The target compliance date for all activities mandated in the SSO Consent Decree is 2014.
A capacity certification program remains in place for the City of Atlanta's wastewater conveyance system. Relief sewer improvements in the Peachtree Creek Basin are under construction and are scheduled for completion by early 2003. As a substitute for the improvements contained in the Consent Order, an 18-foot-diameter tunnel, 42,000 feet in length has been designed to relieve the Nancy Creek Interceptor and should be on-line by 2005, after the original Consent Order schedule of March 2003. The City has gained approval of the revised plan. A self-imposed moratorium on new connections in the Indian Creek subbasin was imposed by the Atlanta City Council. Construction of an Indian Creek trunk relief sewer is scheduled for completion in early 2003. Other priority capital improvements scheduled for completion by 2003 include improvements to the Veterans Hospital Trunk Sewer in the Nancy Creek basin and improvements to the 10th Ward Trunk Sewer in the South River Basin.
As of November 30, 2001, the City of Atlanta estimated that roughly 50 percent of its wastewater conveyance system was "capacity limited" as defined in the SSO Consent Decree. This includes portions of the service areas of all four City of Atlanta WRCs. Capital improvements to trunk sewer and interceptors will eliminate some of the capacity limitations. To eliminate the remaining capacity limitations, the City will be implementing a comprehensive sewer system evaluation survey (SSES) and sewer system rehabilitation program to eliminate excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) from the system. This work will be divided among six areas of the City's system, referred to as Sewer Groups. Work in some Sewer Groups is scheduled for completion by 2009 with the remainder scheduled for completion by 2014. As excess flows are removed from the system through the sewer rehabilitation process, new flows may be added to the system at the rate of 1 gallon for every 3 gallons removed. The City's goal is that when the sewer system rehabilitation process is complete, all existing capacity limitations in the City of Atlanta's wastewater conveyance system will have been eliminated.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-16
9/18/02
Cobb County
The Cobb County Water System (CCWS) operates a total of four water reclamation facilities (WRFs). The two largest treatment plants, the R.L. Sutton WRF and the South Cobb WRF, are located in the Chattahoochee River Basin and discharge directly to the Chattahoochee River. The following paragraphs summarize the treatment and conveyance system capacity needs in these two Cobb County service areas.
Water Reclamation Facilities. The R.L. Sutton WRF has an existing design capacity of 40 mgd. Based upon anticipated growth in the R.L. Sutton service area, the CCWS estimates that ADMMF at the plant will increase to 47 mgd by 2008. The CCWS is currently expanding the liquid stream treatment capacity at the R.L. Sutton WRF to an ADMMF design capacity of 60 mgd. The CCWS expects an increase in the permitted discharge capacity of the plant to 50 mgd by 2005 when the new expansion is scheduled to come on-line and a subsequent increase to 60 mgd in the longer term, as needed. The increase in permitted flow capacity is dependent upon the proposed reduction in heat load being discharged to the Chattahoochee River and requires a reduction in the effluent concentration limits at both the R.L. Sutton and South Cobb WRFs. If Georgia EPD approves the proposed increase in permitted flow capacity, the shortterm treatment capacity needs in the R.L. Sutton service area will be satisfied.
The South Cobb WRF has a design capacity and permitted discharge capacity of 40 mgd. The CCWS estimates that by 2008, ADMM flows to the South Cobb WRF will be about 33 mgd. Consequently, there are no short-term capacity needs at the South Cobb WRF and no expansions of the plant are planned at this time. However, the CCWS is currently in the process of implementing treatment process upgrades at South Cobb (filters, etc.) to be able to meet the lower effluent concentration limits that will be imposed by the Georgia EPD in the next round of permits for discharge to the Chattahoochee River.
Wastewater Conveyance Systems. The conveyance system in the R.L. Sutton WRF service area has had a continuing problem with surcharging in several of the trunk sewers and interceptor lines that convey wastewater flows to the Chattahoochee Interceptor due to excessive wet weather infiltration/inflow (I/I). Recognizing the potential capacity limitations this could cause, the CCWS is currently constructing the 9.5-mile long, 16-foot-diameter Chattahoochee Tunnel to relieve the Chattahoochee Interceptor and its main tributary sewers. The tunnel will have a flow capacity of about 300 mgd as well as additional volume for storage of wet weather flows if needed. When the tunnel is completed in 2004, any existing short-term capacity limitations in the R.L. Sutton conveyance system will have been addressed.
Unlike the R.L. Sutton WRF, which receives all of its flow by gravity, virtually all of the flow delivered to the South Cobb WRF is pumped. The primary pumping stations delivering flow to the South Cobb WRF are the Sweetwater Creek, Six Flags, and Nickajack Creek Pump Stations. All three of these pump stations have been expanded and/or upgraded in recent years to resolve previous capacity issues and to provide capacity for accommodating future flows from the South Cobb service area. The only significant capacity limitation in the South Cobb conveyance system results from the Sweetwater Creek Interceptor passing through a low-lying marsh area, which regularly holds water after storm events. Wet-weather inflow to this interceptor has
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-17
9/18/02
caused surcharging. CCWS is in the process of raising manholes and making other improvements in this area to reduce the wet-weather inflow problem and eliminate the capacity limitations.
In summary, the CCWS faces several short-term capacity issues with its wastewater systems in the Chattahoochee River Basin. In each case, however, the CCWS is currently taking appropriate actions to satisfy the short-term need. At the R.L. Sutton WRF, 2008 flow projections show wastewater flows exceeding the present plant capacity by 7 mgd. In 2005, however, the CCWS expects to bring on-line a new 20-mgd expansion which will satisfy the short-term need for more treatment capacity at the R.L. Sutton WRF. Completion of the Chattahoochee Tunnel in 2004 will eliminate any existing conveyance system capacity limitations in the R.L. Sutton service area. There are no short-term treatment capacity needs at the South Cobb WRF. The primary capacity limitation in the South Cobb conveyance system, a section of the Sweetwater Creek Interceptor that receives excessive wet weather I/I, is being addressed by the CCWS in the short-term.
Coweta County
Three different wastewater utilities operate treatment plants in Coweta County and discharge treated effluent to the Chattahoochee River. These are the Coweta County Water and Sewer Department (WSD), the City of Grantville, and the Newnan Water, Sewerage and Light Commission.
Coweta County WSD. The Coweta County WSD operates two water pollution control plants (WPCPs) that are located in the Chattahoochee River Basin, the Sargent (Arnall) WPCP and the Arnco Mills WPCP. A third plant, the Shenandoah WPCP, discharges to the Flint River Basin. Both the Arnall and Arnco Mills WPCPs are small treatment plants (0.06 and 0.065 mgd) that were built in the 1940s to serve textile and carpet mills and small resident populations in their immediate vicinities. Both plants discharge to Wahoo Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. Future flows to these plants are not expected to increase substantially in the short-term. Coweta County WSD has no plans to expand the geographical areas served by these two plants, however the WSD does plan to increase the capacity of the Sargent WWTP in the near future from 0.06 mgd to 0.09 mgd, pending approval of a permit by EPD.
Newnan Water, Sewerage and Light Commission. The Newnan Water, Sewerage and Light Commission operates two wastewater treatment facilities, the Mineral Springs WPCP and the Wahoo WPCP. The Mineral Springs WPCP is a 0.75-mgd facility that is currently receiving an average day flow of about 0.5 mgd. Discharge from this plant is to Mineral Springs, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. The Wahoo Creek WPCP is a 3.0-mgd facility that is currently receiving an average day flow of about 1.7 mgd. Discharge from this plant is to Wahoo Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River.
Updated flow projections indicate that by the year 2010, flows to the Mineral Springs facility will increase to 0.85 mgd and that the Wahoo facility will have flows exceeding 2.6 mgd. The Mineral Springs WPCP is currently being expanded to 0.9 mgd. This expansion will be complete by 2003. Newnan WPCPs will not have a capacity deficit in 2008.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-18
9/18/02
City of Grantville. The City of Grantville operates four aerated pond treatment facilities with a total combined capacity of 0.195 mgd. Pond #1 (0.05 mgd) and Pond #2 (0.04 mgd) discharge to New Mountain Creek, while Pond #3 (0.05 mgd) and Pond #4 (0.03 mgd) discharge to an unnamed tributary of Yellow Jacket Creek. All four of the treatment facilities are operating at or near their permitted capacities at the present time.
Growth in the Grantville service area is expected to increase wastewater flows to the City's treatment facilities by about 0.1 mgd in the short-term future. To accommodate this growth and avoid a capacity deficit, the City plans to construct new wastewater pumping stations and to expand Pond #1 to a capacity of 0.15 mgd during 2002.
Douglas County
The Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority (Authority) operates seven wastewater treatment facilities, all of which are located in the Chattahoochee River Basin. The Sweetwater Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) discharges directly to the Chattahoochee River. The Southside, Northside, Beaver Estates and Rebel Trails WWTPs discharge to tributary streams that ultimately drain to the Chattahoochee River. The South Central Urban Reuse Facility and the St. Andrews WWTP are land application and wastewater reuse facilities and do not have surface water discharges.
The Authority expects significant short-term growth in its service area based upon plans for residential, commercial and industrial development projects that have been proposed for the past several years. At the present time, the Authority treats an ADMMF of about 4 mgd. By 2008, the Authority projects the ADMMF to increase to about 14 mgd. This increase in flow will create a short-term capacity deficit of about 7 mgd unless additional capacity is constructed and permitted to accommodate it.
The timing of new development in the Authority's service area will be dependent on short-term economic conditions. Nevertheless, the Authority has a plan in place to accommodate a high rate of growth over the next 5 to 10 years should it occur. This plan includes the following activities, as needed:
1. Construct a new 0.25-mgd urban water reuse facility to replace the existing 0.02 mgd St. Andrews WWTP by 2003. Georgia EPD is currently reviewing the permit application for this project.
2. Expand and upgrade the Northside WWTP from 0.6 to 2.0 mgd by 2004. Georgia EPD is currently reviewing the permit application for this project.
3. Expand the Southside WWTP from 3.25 to 5.0 mgd by 2005.
4. Expand and upgrade the Sweetwater Creek WWTP from 3.0 to 6.0 mgd by 2008.
5. Expand the South Central Urban Reuse Facility from 0.5 to 1.0 mgd by 2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-19
9/18/02
These improvements will accommodate the projected short-term capacity needs of the Authority. No improvements are planned for the Beaver Estates and Rebel Trails WWTPs. These are treatment plants that serve single residential communities that are close to being built out. The Authority plans to phase these two small WWTPs out of service and convey their flows to larger treatment facilities. The timing of this action, however, has not been determined.
Based upon information available from the Authority, there is no indication that there are capacity limitations in any portion of the Authority's wastewater conveyance system. Major interceptors, trunk sewers, pump stations and force mains have been designed to convey flows in excess of those projected for the short-term future.
Forsyth County
The majority of Forsyth County is generally divided between the Chattahoochee River Basin and the Lake Lanier Basin. The northwest corner of the county is in the Etowah Basin. Two wastewater utilities provide wastewater services in the portion of Forsyth County that lies within the Chattahoochee River Basin, the City of Cumming and the Forsyth County Department of Water and Sewer (Forsyth County). The following paragraphs briefly describe the short-term capacity needs of these two wastewater utilities in the Chattahoochee River Basin.
City of Cumming. The City of Cumming operates the 3-mgd Bethelview Road Advanced Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF) that discharges to Big Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. Average flows to the Bethelview Road AWRF are currently less than 1 mgd. However, the City estimates that by 2008, ADMMF may increase to as much as 8 mgd, resulting in a potential short-term capacity deficit of 5 mgd. To address this short-term capacity deficit, the City requested and obtained from the Georgia EPD an approval to increase its waste load allocation in Big Creek from 3 mgd to 8 mgd, in part by meeting stricter effluent limits. The City has moved forward with expansion of the Bethelview Road AWRF and expects to have 8 mgd of capacity available by 2003 to accommodate future growth. This expansion will satisfy most of the short-term wastewater capacity needs of the City of Cumming in the Chattahoochee Basin. The City also has plans to construct a second treatment plant that would discharge to Lake Lanier. Refer to the Lake Lanier Basin for additional discussion.
Forsyth County. Forsyth County does not presently own or operate any wastewater treatment plants of its own. The County has contractual agreements with the City of Cumming and Fulton County to provide 2.5 mgd of wastewater treatment and disposal service at the Bethelview Road, Big Creek and Johns Creek treatment plants. The County also owns 0.6 mgd of treatment capacity in the Dicks Creek treatment plant, which is owned and operated by a private firm. The 3.1 mgd of existing treatment capacity is not sufficient to meet existing demand for wastewater service let alone the future needs of one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. Consequently, privately owned and operated package plants with land application systems are being constructed by developers to serve new residential communities while others are being served by septic tanks. In total, Forsyth County has available to it approximately 5 mgd of treatment capacity at various public and private treatment plants operated by others. This includes the recent purchase of 0.5 mgd of capacity in the privately owned Hampton wastewater treatment and land application system.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-20
9/18/02
Forsyth County recently initiated an update to its water and wastewater master plan. Revised wastewater flow projections for both the short-term and long-term future are expected by late2002. Based upon previous planning work performed by the County, however, it is estimated that the demand for wastewater service in the portion of unincorporated Forsyth County that drains to the Chattahoochee River below Lake Lanier will be approximately 13 mgd by the year 2010. If this projection is accurate, and Forsyth's existing capacity in treatment plants owned and operated by others is maintained, a short-term capacity deficit of about 8 mgd will occur unless additional capacity is provided. If the County gives up its capacity in those plants, then Forsyth's short-term capacity deficit in the Chattahoochee River Basin south of Lake Lanier would be about 13 mgd. Forsyth County officials have indicated that they would be willing to discuss giving up their capacity in Fulton County's treatment plants if a permit for discharge to the Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam could be obtained from the Georgia EPD.
Since it has not been able to obtain a surface water discharge permit, Forsyth County has been forced to look toward land application to meet some of its short-term capacity needs. The County plans to construct the new 1.5-mgd Fowler Property Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) that will discharge to a land application site adjacent to the Chattahoochee River several miles away. The Fowler Property WWTP is being designed for a capacity of 2.5 mgd, but will not treat more than 1.5 mgd unless Forsyth County is able to obtain a surface water discharge permit or obtain a permit for land application on other property. The Fowler Property WWTP is scheduled to come on-line in 2003. The initial 1.5 mgd capacity in this facility is anticipated to be completely sold or allocated before it is placed into operation. Approximately 0.5 mgd of the initial capacity will be designated to treat flow currently routed to the Big Creek WRP in Fulton County. This will free up capacity for other developments in the Forsyth County portion of that service area.
Clearly, Forsyth County has significant short-term wastewater capacity needs. The proposed plan put forth by local wastewater utilities to increase discharges to the Chattahoochee River following removal of the Georgia Power heat load (Table 2-4), provides for a 10-mgd discharge to the river from Forsyth County in the short-term. If Georgia EPD approves this plan, Forsyth County already has acquired the necessary land and will construct the treatment facilities required to satisfy its short-term capacity needs. If a discharge permit to the Chattahoochee River cannot be obtained, however, the options available to the County will be limited and potentially very costly.
Fulton County
Fulton County operates a total of four water reclamation plants (WRPs) that discharge flow to the Chattahoochee River, two in North Fulton County and two in South Fulton County. The Big Creek WRP (24 mgd) and the Johns Creek WRP (7 mgd) are located in North Fulton County. The Camp Creek WRP (13 mgd) and the Little Bear WRP (0.1 mgd) are located in South Fulton County. Additionally, Fulton County is currently constructing the new Cauley Creek WRP in the existing Johns Creek service area to divert some of the flow away from the Johns Creek WRP. The new Cauley Creek WRP will have an initial capacity of 2.5 mgd and will dispose of treated wastewater by means of land application and beneficial reuse. There will be no surface
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-21
9/18/02
water discharge from this treatment facility. It is possible that the Cauley Creek WRP could be expanded above 2.5 mgd in the future, but a seasonal surface water discharge would be required for this to occur.
The wastewater conveyance and treatment systems in North Fulton County have been capacity limited for some time. Both the Big Creek and Johns Creek WRPs are very near their design and permitted capacities. In addition, frequent overflows and spills have occurred in the conveyance systems, and a sewer tap moratorium is currently in place in both the Big Creek and Johns Creek service areas. Because of the need to transfer flow between the two plants over the years, Fulton County has constructed a number of connection points between them. At the present time, approximately 2 mgd of flow from the Johns Creek service area is being pumped into the Big Creek system.
In 1999, Brown and Caldwell prepared a Water and Wastewater Master Plan for Fulton County that projected future wastewater flows for the County's existing wastewater treatment plants from 2000 through 2020. For the Camp Creek and Little Bear WRPs in South Fulton County, the projections in the 1999 Master Plan were used to project the 2008 flows presented in Table 2-3. For the Big Creek and Johns Creek WRPs in North Fulton County, updated projections made in 2001 by Wiedeman & Singleton were used. These projections show a combined capacity deficit of 6.5 mgd by 2008 in North Fulton County at the Big Creek and Johns Creek WRPs (assuming Cauley Creek at 2.5 mgd) and a capacity deficit of 4 mgd in South Fulton County at the Camp Creek WRP.
Fulton County's plan for addressing these short-term capacity needs relies heavily on the additional waste load allocations that will be coming available as heat load is removed from the Chattahoochee River. The current plan calls for the following steps to be taken over the next 5 years, pending review and approval by the Georgia EPD.
1. Construction of the 2.5-mgd Cauley Creek WRP and land application disposal system by 2002, with expansion to 5 mgd in 2004.
2. Expansion of the Johns Creek WRP to 15 mgd by 2005 (to be permitted at 15 mgd in 2004).
3. Expansion of the Camp Creek WRP to 24 mgd by 2005 (to be permitted at 16 mgd in 2004 with staged increases thereafter).
4. Expansion of the Big Creek WRP to 48 mgd by 2008 (to be permitted in staged increases beginning in 2009).
As flow is taken away from the Johns Creek WRP by diversion to the Cauley Creek WRP, some of the flow that is now being conveyed to the Big Creek WRP from the Johns Creek service area may not need to be conveyed to Big Creek. When Johns Creek is expanded to 15 mgd in 2005, some flow from the Big Creek service area can also be conveyed to Johns Creek until the Big Creek WRP is expanded in 2008. The exact timing of these planned activities is dependent on the timing of the increased waste load allocations to the Chattahoochee River and the timing of
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-22
9/18/02
the increased flow capacities that the Georgia EPD includes in the next round of operating permits.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett County operates two wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the Chattahoochee River, the Crooked Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and the F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center (WRC). A third treatment facility, the Sugar Hill WPCP, is located in the Chattahoochee River Basin, but disposes of treated wastewater to a land application system and, therefore, does not discharge to the river. Gwinnett County also owns and operates six other treatment facilities, but these plants discharge to the Yellow River and Big Haynes Creek in the Ocmulgee River Basin.
Gwinnett County has constructed an integrated system of pumping stations, force mains and interceptors to collect wastewater flows and convey them to various treatment facilities as needed. This will allow Gwinnett County the flexibility to provide future capacity at the FWHWRC or at other facilities as appropriate to balance demand, costs and environmental protection.
Currently, the Crooked Creek WRF is permitted at 16 mgd. The existing ADMMF is about 15 mgd, but no future expansions at Crooked Creek are planned. Rather, additional capacity will be constructed at the F. Wayne Hill WRC to treat future increases in flows from both treatment plant service areas. Consequently, flow to the Crooked Creek WRF will increase to 16 mgd and then remain stable for the foreseeable future. No capacity deficit is projected at this plant as long as expansions to the F. Wayne Hill WRC can accommodate growth in the Crooked Creek service area.
The F. Wayne Hill WRC is currently permitted at 20 mgd. Existing flows to the plant are only about 9 mgd. However, Gwinnett County expects flows at the plant to increase dramatically in the short term. Flows as high as 54 mgd are projected by the year 2008. This is the result of anticipated growth within the F. Wayne Hill WRC and Crooked Creek WRF service areas, as well as diversion of flows from other treatment facilities within the County that will not be expanded in the future.
Gwinnett County is currently in the process of expanding the F. Wayne Hill WRC to 60 mgd. Construction should be completed by 2005. Georgia EPD has issued a permit to discharge the 40 mgd of additional flow to Lake Lanier. When the expansion is completed, the short-term capacity needs of Gwinnett County will have been met. However, the lake discharge permit has been appealed, and it is not clear yet whether the expanded plant will be allowed to discharge into Lake Lanier. If not, additional flows would need to be discharged into the Chattahoochee River downstream of Buford Dam. The plan proposed by local wastewater utilities for increasing permitted flows to the Chattahoochee River (Table 2-4) only allows 50 mgd to be discharged to the river from Gwinnett County facilities in 2004 and 65 mgd longer term. This is not sufficient to meet the capacity needs of the County. Therefore, the final standing of Gwinnett County's application for discharge to Lake Lanier is likely to become a crucial component of the District's Short-Term and Long-Term Wastewater Plans.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-23
9/18/02
Paulding County
Paulding County Public Works (PCPW) operates one wastewater treatment plant in the Chattahoochee River Basin, the Coppermine Land Application System (LAS). This plant has a permitted average annual daily flow of 0.75 mgd and a permitted peak day flow of 2.5 mgd. Current flows average about 0.3 mgd and all of the treated effluent is land applied. PCPW anticipates that flows to the plant will increase substantially in the short-term. Although detailed flow projections are not available, average annual daily flows of 1.0 to 1.5 mgd are expected by 2008. A 0.75-mgd expansion is planned by 2004 and another 1.5-mgd expansion is planned by 2008. Of this additional 2.25 mgd flow capacity, 0.5 mgd will be treated to reuse standards for golf course irrigation and the remainder will be land applied. No surface water discharge from the Coppermine LAS is anticipated in the future.
ETOWAH RIVER BASIN
Those portions of the District that are located within the Etowah River Basin generally include Bartow County, Cherokee County, northern Paulding County, northwestern Cobb County, northwestern Fulton County, and northwestern Forsyth County. Within that area, there are 15 municipal wastewater treatment plants operated by 11 wastewater utilities. A map of the Etowah River Basin identifying the locations of the 15 treatment plants is presented on Figure 2-3. Table 2-5 lists the existing District wastewater systems in the Etowah River Basin and their shortterm capacity requirements. Table 2-5 also contains an entry for that portion of Forsyth County which is within the Etowah Basin, but there are no existing POTWs in this area. Two additional treatment plants in Bartow County, operated by the City of Adairsville, discharge to a tributary of the Oostanaula River outside the Etowah Basin.
Significant growth is expected in the Etowah River Basin in the short-term future. The wastewater utilities providing service in the Etowah Basin all have plans to expand treatment facilities to accommodate this growth. However, water quality issues, particularly in small tributary streams and in water courses upstream of Lake Allatoona, may make some of these plans difficult and costly to implement.
Allowable discharges in the Etowah River Basin are generally limited by water quality issues in Lake Allatoona and the objective of preventing eutrophic conditions and other water quality problems from occurring in the lake. In particular, discharges of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, are regulated to protect the lake. The Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority, the Georgia EPD, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have all participated in developing guidelines to limit pollution loads into Lake Allatoona. Specific phosphorus and nitrogen loading limits have been set by the EPD, and these will be achieved, among other avenues, through increasingly stringent wastewater discharge permit limits.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-24
9/18/02
Adairsville North
ehessvvi
Adairsville South
eviue
fevv2qyxh
Two Run Creek
usxqyx
BB AA RR TT OO WW
I 575
rsi
Whispering Pines
CC HH EE RR OO KK EE EE
gexyx
Canton
I 75
FF OO RR SS YY TT HH
gwwsxq
Cartersville
irevii
geisvvi
Southeast
iwiyx
Rose Creek
ryvv2sxq
Fitzgerald
Puckett Road
Woodstock yyhygu
Little River
wyxesx2eu
Pumkinvine
Noonday Creek
egyr
evreie
Northwest Cobb
uixxie
yivv
fpyh qe2rsvv
exii
feivv
Dallas North
Dallas West
hevve
PP AA UU LL DD II NN GG
wesie
CC OO BB BB
I 285
rsew
yhi2sxq
wxe
eivv
evexe
FF UU LL TT OO NN I 75
hvr fiuivi2veui
GG WW II NN NN EE TT TT veixgisvvi
xygy
hyesvvi grewfvii
vsvfx
Legend
xivvsvvi
I 85
No Capacity Issues
gveuyx
yxi2wyxesx
Capacistxyi2vNeui eeds/Permitted
higeeyxhevi2iei
DDCEEapKKacAAityLLNBBeeds/Not Permitted
svve2sge
I 20
DD OO UU GG LL AA SS
xsyx2gs pesfx
ie2ysx reisvvi
gyvviqi2eu
pyi2eu veui2gs
CC LL AA YY TT OO NN
sihevi
0
wyy
Capacity Needs/No Plan in Place
SupporI t2i0ng
vsryxse
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting MRPA
gyxi
Basin Boundary HH EE NN RR YY
2.5 5
10 Miles
Figure 2-3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Etowah River Basin
District Member
Bartow County
Entity Adairsville Bartow Co. Cartersville Emerson
Table 2-5. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Etowah River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Facility Adairsville North Adairsville South Southeast Two Run Creek Cartersville
Puckett Road
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1
15
0.172
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1
15
0.172
2001 MMF, mgd 0.175 0.30 0.01 0.06
9.3
0.17
2008 MMF, mgd
0.3 0.5 1.5 0.1
16
0.3
2008
Capacity
Available
+/-, mgd Planned Expansion
Remarks
No flow projections
available, 2008 MMF
0.7 None
estimated by BC.
No flow projections
available, 2008 MMF
0 None
estimated by BC.
Next expansion is to 2 Most expansions are
mgd with an additional 1- based on development in
-1.4 2 mgd 5-6 years later. the area.
New plant will eventually
Plant may eventually be be built to meet any
0 closed and relocated. future growth needs.
Facility was recently
expanded. An additional
expansion may be
-1 necessary by 2007.
New plant will serve
current service area.
Unserved areas around
None to this plant.
two I-75 interchanges will
Construction of new 0.45 have need for future
mgd plant to begin in service, potentially in the
-0.13 2002.
short-term.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-26
9/18/02
Table 2-5. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Etowah River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
District Member
Entity
Facility
Bartow County
White
Canton
Whispering Pines Canton
Cherokee County
Fitzgerald Cherokee Co. WSA
Rose Creek
Woodstock
Woodstock
Cobb County
Noonday Creek Cobb Co. Water System
Northwest Cobb
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
0.25 1.89 0.33
4
No flow limit No flow limit No flow limit
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
0.25 1.89
0.33
4
0.5 12 8
2001 MMF, mgd
0.25 1 0.3
3.6
0.4 11 6
2008 MMF, mgd
0.25 4
0.33
7
0.75 16 9
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Plant to be decommissioned in next 2-3 years with flow 0.0 treated elsewhere.
Remarks 2001 MMF is 0.11 mgd, however can't treat any more flow due to low treatment capability. Thus no surplus capacity. White will later be served by Cartersville, and possibly by Bartow County.
-2.11 0 -3
-0.25
Expand to 4.0 by 2003; to Will serve Ball Ground in
6 or 7 mgd before 2010. future.
Facility will be closed or
changed to a point
Current facility utilizes a
discharge depending on land application system
current negotiations. on 55 acres.
Expansion to 5 mgd to be
completed in 2002. Plan
to expand to 10 mgd by
2004 and to 15 mgd
around 2010.
Previous flow limit of 0.5
mgd expected to be added
back into permit when
Expand to 1.5 - 2.5 mgd renewed in 2002. 2008
in next few years.
flow is estimated by BC.
Expansion to 20 mgd -4 under construction.
4-5 MG/month of
Expansion to 12 mgd by reclaimed water used to
-1 2006.
irrigate golf course.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-27
9/18/02
District Member Forsyth County
Fulton County
Paulding County
Table 2-5. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Etowah River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Forsyth Co. Fulton Co.
Dallas
(Future Plant)
Little River Dallas North Dallas West
Paulding Co. WSA Pumpkinvine
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
0
1.25 0.5 0.9
0.5
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
0
1.25 0.5 0.9
0.5
2001 MMF, mgd
0
1.1 0.23 0.63
0.058
2008 MMF, mgd
2
1.25 0.5 0.9
1.0
2008
Capacity
Available
+/-, mgd Planned Expansion
Remarks
No wastewater
conveyance or treatment
systems currently in
-2
place.
Expansion to 2.5 to
handle peaks, no increase 1 mgd discharge, 0.25
0 in annual discharge.
mgd LAS.
Expansion to 1 mgd by
0 2004.
No firm plans--discharge
0 limitation.
1.5 mgd by 2005 with 1
mgd discharge to
Pumpkinvine Creek and 2008 flow estimated by
-0.5 0.5 mgd reuse.
BC.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-28
9/18/02
Additionally, Lake Allatoona and many of its tributaries (including sections of the Etowah River, Little River, Pumpkinvine Creek, and Rubes Creek) are listed as 303(d) "impaired waters", and must have total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) established. The EPD is required to set the TMDLs for the 303(d) streams in the Coosa Basin by June 30, 2003.
According to Section 391-3-6-.03 of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Rules (Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards), Lake Allatoona and those waters impounded by Allatoona Dam and upstream to State Highway 5 on the Etowah River, State Highway 5 on Little River, the Lake Acworth Dam, and the confluence of Little Allatoona Creek and Allatoona Creek, must meet specific standards, including the following:
Total Nitrogen: not to exceed 4 mg/l as nitrogen in the photic zone.
Phosphorus: Total lake loading shall not exceed 1.3 pounds per acre-foot of lake volume per year.
Dissolved Oxygen: a daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times at the depth specified in 391-3-6-.03(5)(g).
The above phosphorus limit equates to 340,000 pounds per year; however, based on watershed assessment studies, only 18,000 pounds of this phosphorus load is allocated for point source discharges. As discharge permits in the basin come up for renewal, new more stringent permit limits will be imposed. The Little River and Noonday Creek are particularly impacted by water quality concerns, and thus it is expected that future discharges to these streams will be very limited. All of the available point source phosphorus load to Lake Allatoona has been allocated by the Georgia EPD to existing dischargers. Therefore, any increases in permitted capacity at existing treatment facilities must hold the effluent phosphorus load constant. Also, any new treatment facilities that will discharge to Lake Allatoona or upstream of Lake Allatoona will not be granted any additional phosphorus allocation. These facilities will be required to stay within the 18,000-pound aggregate loading allocated to point source discharges.
Within the Lake Allatoona watershed, a range of stakeholders is working to protect water quality in Lake Allatoona. The Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority, and cities, counties, and utilities within the watershed are working to reduce pollutant loading to the Etowah River, the Little River, and Lake Allatoona. Bartow, Cherokee, and Cobb Counties have implemented land use development strategies such as green space development, buffer zone enhancements, increased buffer zones, stormwater management strategies, watershed protection programs, and policies and model ordinances for protecting the environment. In the meantime, however, municipal wastewater discharges will continue to be restricted.
Bartow County
The City of Cartersville Water Department (Cartersville) is the primary wastewater service provider in Bartow County, currently treating about 92 percent of the wastewater flow within the County. In addition to Cartersville, Bartow County and the Cities of Adairsville, Emerson, and White operate small wastewater systems. The two Adairsville plants discharge to the Oostanaula River, which joins the Etowah River to form the Coosa River.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-29
9/18/02
Cartersville Water Department. Cartersville operates one treatment plant, the Cartersville WPCP, which has a design and permitted capacity of 15 mgd. Flow to this plant is currently approximately 9.3 mgd, or about 60 percent of design capacity. The plant, which discharges to the Etowah River downstream of Lake Allatoona, serves Cartersville and portions of unincorporated Bartow County. Permit compliance at the plant has been excellent. The existing facilities are well maintained and can continue in service.
A 1998 capacity assessment predicted that the current WPCP capacity would be exceeded in 2007, and that Cartersville will have a capacity deficit of 1 mgd in 2008. The plant is located in an industrial area and has the necessary space for at least a 2.5-mgd expansion. Cartersville is also planning to buy an additional 40 acres adjacent to the existing plant in 2002. As flows to the treatment plant approach its permitted capacity over the next 3 to 5 years, the City plans to move forward with expansion to accommodate projected growth. The 1998 capacity assessment stated that the current interceptor sewer system is capable of conveying wastewater flow through year 2020 with the addition of two relief sewers. Although not stated directly, the 1998 capacity assessment did not indicate any short-term capacity needs in the Cartersville wastewater conveyance system.
City of Adairsville. The City of Adairsville (Adairsville) currently operates two WWTPs, the North WWTP and the South WWTP, which provide wastewater service within the City of Adairsville. The North and South WWTPs have capacities of 1.0 and 0.5 mgd, respectively. Monthly flows to the plants are about 0.175 and 0.30 mgd, respectively, or about 18 percent of design capacity at the North WWTP and 60 percent of design capacity at the South WWTP. The plants discharge to Oostaloca Creek, a tributary of the Oostanaula River which drains into the Etowah River near Rome, Georgia. The existing facilities can continue in service and adequate land area for expansion is available around both plants. Permit compliance at both plants has been good, with only one permit violation in the last several years.
Future wastewater flow projections are not available for Adairsville; however, based on current flows and the relatively slow rate of growth in northern Bartow County, it appears that the existing facilities will be adequate to serve the City well beyond 2008. Given the North WWTP has a much larger capacity surplus than the South WWTP, it is expected that in the future, additional flows will be directed to the North WWTP. For the purposes of this study, it is estimated that Adairsville will have a capacity surplus of about 0.7 mgd in 2008. The current interceptor sewer system is adequate to serve the City for the foreseeable future, and I/I is not a significant problem.
City of Emerson. The City of Emerson (Emerson) provides wastewater service to Emerson and small portions of unincorporated Bartow County. Emerson operates one treatment plant, the Puckett Road WWTP, which has a permitted capacity of 0.172 mgd. The plant discharges to Pumpkinvine Creek, a tributary to the Etowah River downstream of Lake Allatoona. Permit compliance at the plant has been variable, partially prompting the construction of a new treatment plant. As detailed wastewater flow projections were are not available for Emerson, for the purposes of this plan it is estimated that Emerson will have a capacity deficit of approximately 0.13 mgd in 2008. A new 0.450-mgd facility has been designed and is expected to be on-line to replace the existing plant by 2003, however. The new treatment facility is
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-30
9/18/02
designed to accommodate growth for the next 20 years in the current service area (the area generally west of US 41); however, several thousand acres within Emerson along I-75 (including two interchanges) are not served and will have need for future sewer service. No plans are underway to serve these areas.
City of White. The City of White (White) operates one treatment plant, the Whispering Pines WWTP, which serves one restaurant and the 60-home Whispering Pines subdivision in White. The plant has a design and permitted capacity of 0.025 mgd. Average flows are approximately 0.011 mgd; however, it is expected that the facility would not be able to meet its permit limits at higher flows. The plant is located on Whispering Pines Lane and discharges to Petit Creek, a tributary to the Etowah River downstream of Lake Allatoona. Given the size and operating constraints of this plant, White plans to connect the subdivision to either the Cartersville or Bartow County wastewater system and to decommission this plant. This is expected to occur prior to 2008, so neither a capacity deficit nor a capacity surplus is projected for the City of White in the short-term.
Bartow County Water Department. The Bartow County Water Department (Bartow County) operates two wastewater treatment plants serving portions of unincorporated Bartow County. The Two Run Creek WWTP discharges to Two Run Creek, a tributary to the Etowah River, and the Southeast WWTP discharges directly to the Etowah River. Both discharges are below Lake Allatoona. The two plants have a combined capacity of 0.2 mgd; however, the County currently treats only about 0.07 mgd of wastewater flow at its two plants, while sending approximately 0.75 mgd of wastewater flow to the City of Cartersville.
The Two Run Creek WWTP is a 0.1 mgd facility and monthly flows are currently 60,000 gpd, or about 60 percent of capacity. The sponsors of the plant paid all of the capital costs and hold the unused capacity. The existing Two Run Creek WWTP will require expansion or abandonment in favor of a larger facility downstream to be able to serve a larger area more efficiently. Previous studies of potential development in the vicinity of the existing plant projected needs of up to 1.0 mgd. In the absence of detailed wastewater flow projections, the 2008 flow is projected to be 0.1 mgd, at which time the facility would be at capacity.
The Southeast WPCP has a 0.1 mgd capacity and serves a portion of the Pumpkinvine Creek watershed. The plant discharges directly to the Etowah River at its confluence with Pumpkinvine Creek. Monthly flows are approximately 10,000 gpd, or about 10 percent of capacity. Wastewater flow in 2008 is projected to be about 1.5 mgd; thus, a capacity deficit of about 1.4 mgd is anticipated. The County plans to expand this plant to 2 mgd prior to 2008.
Cherokee County
The Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority (CCWSA) is the primary wastewater service provider in Cherokee County, currently treating about 74 percent of the sewered flow within the County. The cities of Canton and Woodstock also operate treatment plants to serve their residents.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-31
9/18/02
Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority. The CCWSA currently treats approximately 2.45 mgd of wastewater flow, at two WWTPs with a combined capacity of 4.33 mgd. The Rose Creek WPCP is a 4.0-mgd facility serving portions of unincorporated Cherokee County, and the Cities of Woodstock, Holly Springs, and Canton. The plant operates at about 60 percent of capacity and discharges to the Etowah River arm of Lake Allatoona. An expansion and upgrade that will increase the plant capacity to 5.0 mgd is scheduled to be completed in 2002. Further expansion to 10 mgd is planned for about 2004. There has not been a history of spills or overflows in the conveyance system that would indicate existing capacity problems. Based on existing capacity and a projected 2008 flow of 7 mgd, a capacity deficit of 3 mgd is projected for the plant in 2008.
The Fitzgerald Creek Land Application System (LAS) has a capacity of 0.33 mgd and serves portions of unincorporated Cherokee County. Monthly flows are currently about 60 percent of plant capacity. The treated effluent is disposed via a LAS application (capable of disposing 0.171 mgd of wastewater) and a drip irrigation system facility capable of disposing 0.159 mgd of treated effluent, and does not discharge directly into a body of water. It is proposed that the Fitzgerald Creek facility either be closed or converted from a land application to a surface water discharge system so that the facility can eventually be expanded to greater than 10 mgd. Future expansions are dependent on negotiations with other entities within the County and will begin in approximately 2 years if the negotiations are successful.
The City of Canton. The City of Canton (Canton) operates one treatment plant, the City of Canton WPCP, which discharges directly to the Etowah River downstream of the City of Canton's and the CCWSA's water supply intakes. Average flow in 2001 was about 61 percent of the 1.89 mgd plant design capacity. This plant serves Canton, limited areas of unincorporated Cherokee County, and soon will begin serving the City of Ball Ground. Maximum month flows are expected to increase to about 4 mgd by 2008, indicating a projected short-term capacity deficit of just over 2 mgd. A treatment plant expansion to 4.0 mgd is planned to be on-line by 2003, with an additional expansion to 6 or 7 mgd expected around 2008.
Canton conducted a sewer system evaluation study in 1994 and completed a significant sewer rehabilitation project in 1995. I/I evaluations continue and some repairs are completed when problems are found while others are planned to be corrected in a second phase of a sewer rehabilitation project.
City of Woodstock. The City of Woodstock (Woodstock) operates one treatment plant, the Woodstock WWTP, with an average day design capacity of 0.5 mgd (1.0 mgd peak). Weekly average flows in October 2001 were 0.396 mgd. The plant discharges to Rubes Creek, a tributary to the Little River that is listed as an "impaired stream segment" on the 303(d) list.
Continued growth in Woodstock is expected. Woodstock expects its service area to be built out by 2007 or 2008 with about 4,000 customers. Assuming a 2008 flow of 0.75 mgd (from the 0.4 mgd current flow), the plant will have a short-term capacity deficit of about 0.25 mgd. Future plans include expanding the existing plant to 1.5 mgd by about 2005, treatment of some flows at the CCWSA's Rose Creek WWTP, and conveying up to 1 mgd to Cobb County's Noonday Creek
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-32
9/18/02
WRF. A 50-year agreement recently signed with the Cobb County Water System allows Woodstock to use up to 1 mgd of capacity at the Noonday Creek plant.
Paulding County
There are four treatment plants in Paulding County, three of which are located in the Etowah River Basin. Two are operated by the City of Dallas and one is operated by Paulding County Public Works (PCPW). All three plants discharge to tributaries of the Etowah River.
The Dallas West WPCP is a 0.9-mgd facility that currently treats 0.63 mgd. The facility discharges to Weaver Creek, a tributary to Pumpkinvine Creek and the Etowah River downstream of Lake Allatoona. The permitted capacity of 0.9 mgd will exhaust the wasteload allocation of the creek, and while Dallas would like to expand this facility to 5 mgd, it appears that the wasteload capacity in the creek is not available. A consent order is in place for this facility. It is estimated that the flow will increase to 0.9 mgd by 2008, at which time the plant will be at capacity.
The Dallas North WPCP is a 0.5-mgd facility that is treating 0.23 mgd. The plant discharges to Lawrence Creek, another tributary to Pumpkinvine Creek. A plant expansion to 1 mgd is planned for completion by 2004. It is estimated that the flow will increase to 0.5 mgd by 2008, thus the plant will be at capacity in 2008 unless the expansion is permitted and constructed as planned.
The PCPW's Pumpkinvine Water Reuse Facility is a 0.5-mgd facility that is currently treating a mean monthly flow 0.058 mgd. The PCPW plans to expand the facility to 1.5 mgd by about 2005. Currently, effluent is of reuse quality and is sprayed on a golf course. Current and future plant expansions would increase the discharge to Pumpkinvine Creek and maintain the 0.5 mgd to reuse. Flow projections for the plant were not available, however, for the purposes of this analysis, flow to the Pumpkinvine Reuse Facility in 2008 is estimated to be about 1.0 mgd. The plant will then have up to 0.5 excess capacity if reuse is fully utilized.
Cobb County
Two of the Cobb County Water System's (CCWS's) four wastewater treatment plants are located in the Etowah River Basin. These are the Noonday Creek and Northwest Cobb Water Reclamation Facilities (WRFs), which discharge to Noonday Creek (a tributary of the Little River upstream of Lake Allatoona), and to Lake Allatoona, respectively.
The Noonday Creek WRF is located in northern Cobb County, about 1 mile south of the Cherokee County line. The plant has an existing capacity of 12 mgd. Monthly flows over the 12-month period ending September 2001 have ranged from about 8.3 mgd to 11.3 mgd, or about 78 percent of plant capacity on average. The plant discharges to Noonday Creek, which flows north to the Little River and Lake Allatoona. Permit compliance at the Noonday Creek WRF has generally been excellent. Wastewater flows in the Noonday Creek service area are projected to be 16 mgd by 2008, resulting in a 2008 capacity deficit of 4 mgd. To accommodate expected growth, the CCWS has initiated an expansion of the Noonday Creek plant to 20 mgd that is expected to be completed by 2005. Additionally, when planned improvements to the Noonday Creek Interceptor are
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-33
9/18/02
completed in the near future, the capacity of all trunk and interceptor sewers in the Noonday Creek conveyance system will have sufficient capacity to accommodate projected flows for the foreseeable future.
The Northwest Cobb WRF is located in northwestern Cobb County near the eastern end of Lake Allatoona. The plant has a design capacity of 8 mgd and monthly flows over the past 12 months have averaged about 70 percent of plant capacity. The plant has two permitted discharges: 6 mgd directly to Lake Allatoona and 2 mgd for urban wastewater reuse, including irrigation of the nearby 18-hole Cobblestone Golf Course owned by Cobb County. The golf course is currently using reclaimed water for irrigation at the rate of about 4 million gallons per month (0.013 mgd).
Flows to the Northwest Cobb WRF are expected to increase from about 6 to 9 mgd by 2008, resulting in a 2008 capacity deficit of 1 mgd. The CCWS plans to expand the plant to 12 mgd by about 2006 in anticipation of this growth. In its current permit renewal application to EPD, the CCWS has requested an increase in the surface water discharge to Lake Allatoona from 6 mgd to 8 mgd because customers for the reclaimed water produced at the plant have been slow to develop and a larger percentage of the effluent is being discharged to the lake than originally planned. Future increases in the plant's discharge to Lake Allatoona will be required to meet lower effluent limits, particularly for phosphorus. If future increases in the surface water discharge to Lake Allatoona become cost prohibitive, future plant capacity will largely depend on the development of additional reclaimed water customers. There are no known capacity limitations in any of the major trunk sewers, pumping stations or force mains comprising the Northwest Cobb conveyance system.
Fulton County
One Fulton County treatment plant, the Little River Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), is located in the Etowah Basin. The Little River WRP is permitted to discharge 1 mgd to the Little River, a tributary to Lake Allatoona, and 0.25 mgd via land application. The plant has a design capacity of 1.25 mgd, and current flows are about 1.1 mgd. Flow in 2008 is projected to be about 1.25 mgd; thus the plant is projected to be at capacity in 2008. A capacity expansion to 2.5 mgd is planned to handle peak flows; however, no increase in the permitted surface water discharge capacity of the plant is expected.
FLINT RIVER BASIN
There are four District members that have wastewater treatment facilities in the Flint River Basin. They are Clayton County, Coweta County, Fayette County and Henry County. A map of the Flint River Basin identifying the locations of these treatment facilities is presented on Figure 2-4. Table 2-6 summarizes the existing District wastewater systems in the Flint River Basin and their short-term capacity requirements.
Some of the facilities listed in Table 2-6 show the need for additional capacity prior to 2008. However, there are plans in place for all of these facilities so there will not be a short-term capacity issue. There were no significant conveyance issues reported.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-34
9/18/02
*A
DD OO UU GG LL AA SS
evwiy
xsyx2gs pesfx
evexe
FF UU LL TT OO NN
ie2ysx
reisvvi
gyvviqi2eu
pyi2eu veui2gs
sihevi
wyy
CC LL AA YY TT OO NN W.B. Casey
ygufshqi
xixex
CC OO WW EE TT AA
Shenandoah
wyivexh qexsvvi
I 85
refq sx
R.L. Jackson
*A
yxi
peiisvvi
Whitewater Creek
Shoal Creek FF AA YY EE TT TT EE
vyity
Hampton Industrial
Flat Creek
iegrii2gs
Line Creek
Bear Creek
rewyx
Hampton
Rockaway Creek
Senoia
ixyse
reevyx
Flint River Basin
fyyu
Legend
No Capacity Issues
Capacity Needs/Permitted
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
Capacity Needs/No Plan in Place
Supporting Partially Supporting Not Supporting MRPA
Basin Boundary
0 1.5 3
6 Miles
Figure 2-4 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Flint River Basin
District Member Clayton County
Coweta County
Fayette County
Henry County
Table 2-6. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Flint River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Clayton Co. Water Authority
R.L. Jackson Shoal Creek
Coweta Co. WSD Senoia
Fayetteville
W.B. Casey Shenandoah Senoia Whitewater Creek
Peachtree City
Flat Creek
Peachtree City
Line Creek Rockaway Creek
Hampton
Hampton
Henry Co. WSA Bear Creek
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
4.5
4.5
2.1
2.1
15
15
0.9
0.9
0.07
0.07
3.75
3.75
0.9
0.9
2
2
2
2
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
2001 MMF, mgd
3.9 2.3 14.7 0.9 0.006 2.05
0.59 1.23 1.63
0.4 0.026
2008 MMF, mgd
5.5 5.5 17.6 1.5 0.49 3.3
0.9 2 2
0.5 0.5
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd Planned Expansion
Plant to come off line when WB Casey Plant expansion completed -1 (2005).
Remarks
Planned expansion to -3.4 4.4 mgd by June 2002.
Planned expansion to 24 -2.6 mgd by 2005.
-0.6 -0.42
Planned expansion to 1.5 mgd by 2005. Planned expansion to 0.49 by 2003.
50% Residential, 50% Industrial.
A WLA for 5 mgd has 0.45 been requested.
Plant to be taken off-line in 2004. Flow to be diverted to Rockaway WPCP with discharge at 0 existing site. Upgrades to allow for reuse & seasonal 0 discharge by 2004.
Planned expansion to 4 0 mgd by 2004
Agreement with HCWSA -- excess flows to be diverted to Bear 0 Creek Facility.
Planned expansion to -0.25 3.0 mgd by 2004.
Hampton Industrial Park 0.1
0.1
0.01 0.1
0
Taken off line 12/1/2001
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-36
9/18/02
Unsewered areas in the Flint River Basin are on septic tanks. Fayette County has a minimum lot size to enable septic tanks to have sufficient drain field capacities. The County does not plan to own and operate wastewater treatment systems in the foreseeable future.
Clayton County
The Clayton County Water Authority operates three facilities in the Flint River Basin: the R.L. Jackson WRF, the Shoal Creek WRF, and the W.B. Casey WRF. The Authority will expand the W.B. Casey WRF to 24 mgd by the year 2005. When that expansion is completed flow from the R.L. Jackson WRF will be diverted to the W.B. Casey facility and the R.L. Jackson WRF will be decommissioned. Both the Casey and the Jackson facilities discharges are currently combined and pumped to the E.L. Huie LAS site located in the Ocmulgee River Basin. The LAS site was designed to dispose of the combined total design flow of 19.5 mgd. Concurrent with the expansion of the Casey facility a portion of the site will be converted to constructed wetlands for treatment. The Authority is awaiting approval of the discharge permit for the constructed wetland portion prior to commencing construction.
The Shoal Creek WRF is the only facility of the three that has reported any treatment compliance issues. The plant is currently overloaded and the operational ability of the reject water pump station is marginal. However, there is an expansion and upgrade to the facility that will be complete by June 2002.
All three of the Clayton County facilities expect current flow to increase so that the current plant capacities will be exceeded. However, the County has plans in place so the permitted limits and capacities will not be exceeded. The County has not reported any conveyance issues or needs.
Coweta County
Coweta County has two facilities that operate in the Flint River Basin. The Coweta County Water and Sewer Department (WSD) operates the Shenandoah WPCP that discharges directly into the Flint River Basin and the City of Senoia operates the Senoia facility that discharges to a land application system. Both of these facilities are projected to exceed their permitted capacities within the short-term study period. However, the Senoia facility will be expanded to 0.49 mgd by the year 2003 and the Shenandoah facility will be expanded to 1.5 mgd by the year 2005.
Although the Coweta facilities that discharge within the Flint River Basin are projected to exceed their current capacities there are plans in place so that they will not exceed their permitted discharge limits and capacities. The owners of these facilities have not reported any treatment and conveyance issues.
Fayette County
All four facilities in Fayette County have discharges within the Flint River Basin. One of the facilities is owned and operated by the City of Fayetteville, Whitewater Creek WPCP. The other three facilities are owned and operated by Peachtree City Water and Sewerage Authority
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-37
9/18/02
(WASA): the Flat Creek WPCP, the Line Creek WPCP, and the Rockaway WPCP. None of the facilities are projecting short-term capacity issues. There have been no compliance issues reported for treatment or conveyance.
The Whitewater Creek WPCP in Fayetteville was expanded in 1992 to its current 3.75 mgd of capacity. The City is not projecting any shortfall of treatment capacity through the year 2010. However, they are currently in the process of planning for future conditions.
Peachtree City WASA completed a Wastewater Master Plan in 1998. Based upon the planning, WASA is currently looking at upgrading and expanding their system so that they will be capable of meeting projected build-out flow conditions (6 mgd). To accomplish this they will:
Expand Rockaway WPCP from 2 mgd to 4 mgd. Upgrade Line Creek WPCP to reuse quality. Decommission Flat Creek WPCP.
Flows from Flat Creek will be diverted to the expanded Rockaway WPCP. Currently Flat creek has a significant amount of industrial flow that from time to time causes them some operational problems. The Flat Creek facility is old and by diverting this flow to Rockaway, that has more of a domestic waste flow, the operational problems currently being experienced, will not longer be an issue.
Once the Line Creek facility upgrades are complete 0.9 mgd will be discharged back to the Flat Creek discharge point. This is being done to maintain the environment of Flat Creek. Line Creek will obtain a seasonal discharge that will allow them to pump up to 1.1 mgd to golf courses for irrigation purposes during the summer and discharge it to Line Creek in the winter.
Henry County
There are three facilities in Henry County that discharge within the Flint River Basin: Hampton WPCP, Bear Creek LAS, and Hampton Industrial Park. The Hampton WPCP is owned and operated by the City of Hampton and the other two facilities are owned and operated by Henry County WSA. There were no treatment issues reported and only the City Hampton has reported a conveyance problem, infiltration/inflow.
Bear Creek LAS is the only facility that is projecting a short-term capacity issue and Henry County WSA is planning to expand the facility from 0.25 mgd to 3 mgd by 2003. The City of Hampton and Henry County WSA have an agreement in place should the capacity of the City's plant be exceeded. In this event, excess flows will be diverted to the Bear Creek facility. The Hampton Industrial Park was taken off line on December 1, 2001. The flows from this facility were diverted to Bear Creek LAS.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-38
9/18/02
LAKE LANIER BASIN
Lake Lanier is a multi-purpose body of water. It is used for hydropower, flood control, navigation, recreation and as a water supply. Discharges to Lake Lanier are required to be of a high quality. As previously discussed for Lake Allatoona in the Etowah River Basin, the Georgia EPD has established a total allowable phosphorus load for Lake Lanier. The load has been allocated to point and non-point sources. The point sources have been included in totals allowed from the counties around the lake. EPD has left it to the local jurisdictions to allocate the total phosphorus load among themselves.
A map of the Lake Lanier Basin identifying the locations of existing and proposed wastewater treatment facilities is presented on Figure 2-5. Table 2-7 summarizes the District wastewater systems in the Lake Lanier Basin and their short-term capacity requirements.
Forsyth County
Forsyth County is generally divided between the Chattahoochee River basin and the Lake Lanier Basin. Two wastewater utilities provide wastewater services in the portion of Forsyth County that lies within the Lake Lanier Basinthe City of Cumming and the Forsyth County Department of Water and Sewer (Forsyth County). In addition there are several privately owned wastewater treatment facilities Forsyth County.
City of Cumming. The City of Cumming operates the 3-mgd Bethelview Road Advanced Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF) which discharges to Big Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. Average flows to the Bethelview Road AWRF are less than 1 mgd. However, the City estimates that by 2008, the ADMMF will increase to as much as 8 mgd, resulting in a potential short-term capacity deficit of 5 mgd. To address this short-term capacity deficit, the City requested and obtained from the Georgia EPD an approval to increase its discharge to Big Creek from 3 mgd to 8 mgd. The City has moved forward with expansion of the Bethelview Road AWRF and expects to have 8 mgd of capacity available by 2003 to accommodate future growth. This expansion will satisfy most of the short-term wastewater capacity needs of the City of Cumming in the Chattahoochee Basin.
The City recently submitted updated wastewater flow projections which indicate the need for 11.5 mgd of capacity in the Lake Lanier Basin by 2008. No basis or supporting documentation for the projections were provided.
The City reports that if capacity could be made available by constructing a new facility with a discharge to Lake Lanier that they could better serve their existing customer base and add the anticipated new customers. A plant with a Lake Lanier discharge could serve customers in that basin and eliminate the need to pump over a ridge to get to the Bethelview Road AWRF. Also, a lake discharge would place a treatment facility closer to an area with substantial growth pressure and would eliminate the need for as many septic tanks in the Lake Lanier basin which is the current means of disposal for many developments. In addition, the City has indicated a willingness to provide service to those customers currently served by the private Lanier Beach South and Habersham facilities. These two plants have relaxed treatment standards and their
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-39
9/18/02
ETOWAH R
S HO A L C R CH
E E L IT T E F
RJA
R ESTA T
LI TLE R, W FK
K LE R,
CLERMONT
M O S S Y CR
SO
QUE R
T
N.E.Hall
Lula
LULA
R OV E
CR CR G
S E T TIN G DOW N CR
C O
HEE R TA HO
HA T C
Linwood
HALL GAINESVILLE
Flat Creek
NE EL CR
GILLSVILLE PA RK S
ALLEN CR
E R O
FORSYTH
CUMMING
OAKWOOD
I 985
M C ONE
FULTON
DULUTH
SUWANEE
SUGAR HILL
FLOWERY BRANCH
Flowery Branch
REST HAVEN
BUFORD
F Wayne Hill
GWINNETT
APA LA CHE A LCO V
L
R E
Y R
R
, POND FK M O CONE E
I 85
LITT L E M U BE RR Y R
Legend
No Capacity Issues R
Capacity Needs/Permitted
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
Capacity Needs/No Plan in Place Supporting Partially Supporting Not Supporting MRPA Basin Boundary M U L BERRY
0 1.25 2.5 RO CKY CR
5 Miles
Figure 2-5
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Lake Lanier Basin
District Member Forsyth County
Gwinnett County
Hall County
Entity Cumming Forsyth Co. Gwinnett Co. Gainesville
Lula Flowery Branch
Hall Co.
Table 2-7. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Lake Lanier Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Facility (Future Plant) (Future Plant) F. Wayne Hill Flat Creek Linwood
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
0
0
0
0
0
40
10.2
10.2
3.1
3.1
2001 MMF, mgd
0
0
0 7.2 1.8
2008 MMF, mgd
11.5
3
33.7 11.0 2.8
2008
Capacity
Available
+/-, mgd Planned Expansion
Remarks
Cumming and Forsyth
County have a joint WLA
for discharge to Lake
-11.5 Future plant
Lanier.
Cumming and Forsyth
County have a joint WLA
for discharge to Lake
-3 Possible future plant Lanier.
Expansion to 60 mgd by NPDES permit has been
2005 with 20 mgd to issued by EPD. Discharge
Crooked Creek and 40 to Lake Lanier has been
-33.7 mgd to Lake Lanier. challenged.
Expand plant capacity to
12 mgd to meet growth
-0.8 demands.
5 mgd to be complete by
0.3 2005.
Lula Flowery Branch NE Hall County
No limit 0.082 unk 0.08
0.4
1
unk 0.4
0
1.8
0
1.8
0
Southeast Hall Co. service
area recently added to
Flowery Branch service
0.0
area.
Facility may be located in
Oconee Basin. This facility
is planned to ultimately use
Have created a WW Hall County's Lake Lanier
service area, plan to discharge allocation of 3
-1.8 construct WRF by 2003. mgd.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-41
9/18/02
elimination as point source discharges to Lake Lanier would be a positive step in Lake Lanier water quality.
Forsyth County. Forsyth County does not presently own or operate any wastewater treatment plants of its own. The County has contractual agreements with the City of Cumming and Fulton County to provide 2.5 mgd of wastewater treatment and disposal service at the Bethelview Road, Big Creek and Johns Creek treatment plants. The County also owns 0.6 mgd of treatment capacity in the Dicks Creek treatment plant which is owned and operated by a private firm. The 3.1 mgd of existing treatment capacity is not sufficient to meet existing demand for wastewater service let alone the future needs of one of the fastest growing counties in the United States. Consequently, privately owned and operated package plants with land application systems are being constructed by developers to serve some new residential communities while others are being served by septic tanks.
Forsyth County recently initiated an update to its water and wastewater master plan. Revised wastewater flow projections for both the short-term and long-term future are expected by late2002. Based upon previous planning work performed by the County, however, it is estimated that the demand for wastewater service in unincorporated Forsyth County will be approximately 13 mgd by the year 2010. Of this total, it is estimated that about 5 mgd of wastewater flow will be generated in that portion of the County that drains to the Lake Lanier Basin. If this projection is accurate, and Forsyth's existing capacity in treatment plants owned and operated by others is maintained, a short-term capacity deficit will occur unless additional capacity is provided. In addition, the County is concerned that as private treatment plants age, the owners may request to abandon those plants and use County-owned facilities which do not exist.
Since it has not been able to obtain a surface water discharge permit, Forsyth County has been forced to look toward land application to meet some of its short-term capacity needs. The County plans to construct the new 1.5-mgd Fowler WWTP that will discharge to a land application site several miles away. This plant is in the Chattahoochee Basin, but may serve customers in the Lake Lanier Basin, also. The Fowler WWTP is scheduled to come on-line in 2003. Capacity in this facility is anticipated to be completely sold or allocated before it is placed into operation. Approximately 0.5 mgd of its capacity will be used to treat flow currently routed to the Big Creek WRF in Fulton County. This will free up capacity for other developments in that service area.
Forsyth County has significant short-term wastewater capacity needs. The Georgia EPD has allocated 22 mgd of flow to Forsyth County and Cumming for discharges to Lake Lanier. The EPD has left it to Cumming and Forsyth County to agree on the division of this allocation between the two of them before it allows either to request a discharge to the Lake. Once a plan is adopted and approved by the Georgia EPD, and Forsyth County acquires the land necessary to construct the treatment facilities, the potential is there to satisfy a portion of its short-term capacity needs. If a discharge permit to Lake Lanier cannot be obtained, whether due to opposition or an inability for Cumming and Forsyth County to come to agreement, the options available to the County will be limited and potentially very costly.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-42
9/18/02
Hall County
Service within Hall County in the Lanier Basin is provided by the Cities of Gainesville and Flowery Branch. Gainesville owns and operates two treatment plants. EPD has allocated a portion of the phosphorus load for Lake Lanier to Hall County and the cities within it. The total allocation has been divided between the service providers in the County--Gainesville and Flowery Branch--and a portion has been reserved for future use by Hall County.
City of Gainesville. The City has two wastewater treatment plants with a combined, permitted capacity of 13.3 mgd. The Flat Creek WRF (WRF #1) has a permitted capacity of 10.2 mgd. The current average flow is 7 to 8 mgd. The City is in the process of making selected improvements to the plant that will allow it to be permitted to operate at 12 mgd. These improvements will be completed in time to meet the short-term capacity needs. The Linwood WRF (WRF #2) has a permitted and design capacity of 3.1 mgd. Current flow is an average of 1.6 to 1.9 mgd. The plant is scheduled to be expanded to 5 mgd in 2005, in time to meet projected short-term capacity needs.
With these two treatment plants and their anticipated expansions, the City of Gainesville expects to have no unmet wastewater service needs through the short-term planning period.
Hall County. Hall County has no existing wastewater treatment facilities of its own. Service is provided by the various city treatment plants or by septic tanks. Hall County completed a Wastewater Master Plan in October 2000. Portions of that Plan have been modified as it has been implemented. Hall County has recently undertaken a plan to evaluate the practicality and financial reasonableness of creating a wastewater service area within the corridor of the extension of I-985. The results of this study are expected to be complete by mid-2002. The County expects that it will proceed with development of a service area and that the wastewater needs in this area will be met during the short-term planning period. The site for the new treatment plant may be in either the Lake Lanier Basin or the Oconee Basin.
Flowery Branch. Flowery Branch owns and operates one wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 0.4 mgd. The treatment facility provides service to the City of Flowery Branch and a portion of unincorporated Hall County. A portion of the County service area, formerly known as the Hall County Southeast service area is now part of Oakwood/Flowery Branch Service Area. There are no identified short-term wastewater needs.
OCMULGEE RIVER BASIN
There are six District members that have wastewater treatment facilities in the Ocmulgee River Basin. They are Clayton County, Gwinnett County, Henry County, Rockdale County, Walton County, and DeKalb County. A map of the Ocmulgee River Basin identifying the locations of these treatment facilities is presented on Figure 2-6. Table 2-8 summarizes the existing District wastewater systems in the Ocmulgee River Basin and their short-term capacity requirements.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-43
9/18/02
CO B B CR FO
HOO HEE R
CC HH EE RR OO KK EE EE
yivv
CC OO BB BB
C CHA TT A
I 285
I 75
evexe
evreie
FF UU LL TT OO NN
FF OO RR SS YY TT HH
qe2rsvv
fpyh
exii
I 85
AALCPAOVLYA CHE E
L ITT L E M U LB E R R Y R
hvr fiuivi2veui
hegve
xygy
GG WW II NN NN EE TT TT X CR
veixgisvvi
Beaver Ruin
B EA VER RUIN C R
R CR
R LB
R R
MU ER R Y R
ROC K Y C R
Oconee River Basin
B A RBER C
MA B U RG
hyesvvi grewfvii
J A CKS ON CR vsvfx
Jackson Creek
Yellow River
qeyx
Big Haynes Creek BA Y CR
CR S
K'S CR JA
M OUNT A IN CR
xivvsvvi
City of Loganville
No Business Creek
C
vyqexsvvi
I 85
gveuyx
yxi2wyxesx
sxi2veui
higeeyxhevi2iei
DD EE KK AA LL BB
Jacks Creek
RUSHY FK C
fiiix
wyxyi
WW AA LL TT OO NN
evx2qyi
B R HO AL CR
NDY C
SHO A L
qyyh2ryi B IG S A
R
HA RD LA B
CR
ie2ysx
reisvvi gyvviqi2eu
C O NLEY C R
pyi2eu veui2gs
sihevi
wyy
CC LL AA YY TT OO NN
vsryxse
I 20
HONEY
Snapfinger
Pole Bridge
Quigg Branch
gyxi
RR OO CC KK DD AA LL EE
Almand Branch
Lakeridge Estates
Clayton N.E.
Honey Creek
Stephen Peurifoy
Stanton Woods
Snapping Shoals
YE
Scott Creek
W
R LLO
SNA
PPING
SHOA LS
SAM P
ygufshqi
Springdale
SON C
C ORNISH CR CR
BIG H A Y N E S CR GU M CR
BIG F LA T CR
tii
OR
ygsev2gsgvi
E R
HUNN IC UT CR LITT L
CR R
P ITTMA N
CR M ORNI
NG
*A
W ALNUT CR HCWSA Walnut Creek
Camp Creek
CR
FL INT R
peiisvvi
FF AA YY EE TT TT EE
fyyu
vyity
HH EE NN RR YY wghyxyqr Walnut Creek
BE A R CR
Legend
O CM ULG E E R H R
S IG
INDIA N CR IN
Simpson Mill Comm I 75
rewyx
Locust Grove West
vivve
Indian Creek
Locust Grove East
TUS SA HA W CR
vyg2qyi
Skyland Mobile Home
TO W A LIGA C R
YE L LO W W AT ER CR
TA TOE
CA B CR
B A NDY CR
PO
No Capacity Issues
M URD E R
CR
Capacity Needs/Permitted
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
SO UT
Capacity Needs/No Plan ISnHOAPL ClaR ce
R DS C R
Supporting
HE
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting MRPA
W O LF C FK
R, N
Basin Boundary
0
2.5 KINN
5IT TLE FA LLING CR
CED
10 Miles
A R CR
ARD CR L
CR
Figure 2-6 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Ocmulgee River Basin
District Member Clayton County
DeKalb County
Gwinnett County
Table 2-8. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Ocmulgee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity Clayton Co. Water
Authority
Facility Clayton Northeast
DeKalb Co. W&S Pole Bridge
Snapfinger Beaver Ruin
Gwinnett Co.
Big Haynes Creek
Jacks Creek Jackson Creek
No Business Creek
Yellow River
Design Permitted Capacity Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
6
6
20
20
36
36
4.5
4.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
12
12
2001 MMF, mgd
6.7
13 23 4.46
0.22 0.51 2.99
1.0
10.34
2008 MMF, mgd
7.5
30 40 4.5
0 0 3
0
14.5
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks
Planned expansion to 10
-1.5 mgd by 2005.
Combine Pole Bridge and Approximately 80 mgd
Snapfinger in one 86 mgd interbasin transfer at full
plant at Pole Bridge,
design flow. DeKalb Co.
provide service to portions and EPD must resolve
of Rockdale, Gwinnett, interbasin transfer issues
-10 Henry, and Clayton.
prior to permitting.
Transfer to Pole Bridge, -4 decommission Snapfinger.
0 None
Flows controlled by offWill be phased out to load via interconnected 0 Yellow River in 2003. pumping system.
Will be phased out to 0 Yellow River in 2003.
0 None
Flows controlled by off-
Will be phased out to load via interconnected 0 Yellow River in 2003. pumping system.
Increase in design flow to
12 mgd by means of
Flow to replace permitted
additional clarifiers
capacity at other plants to
-2.5 planned for 2003.
be phased out.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-45
9/18/02
District Member
Henry County
Table 2-8. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Ocmulgee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Entity Henry Co. WSA
Locust Grove
Facility
Design Permitted Capacity Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
Camp Creek Indian Creek
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Simpson Mill Comm.
0.18
0.18
Springdale WPCP,
Springdale Road, &
Walnut Creek (Extg)
2
2
HCWSA Walnut Creek
4
4
Locust Grove LAS (West) Locust Grove Pond (East)
Skyland Mobile Home Park
0.3 0.052 0.2
0.3 0.052 0.2
2001 MMF, mgd
1.2 0.0 0.15
1.4 0
0.06 0.017 0.15
2008 MMF, mgd
1.5 4 0.0 2.0
0.3 0.052 0.2
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd Planned Expansion
When flow exceeds capacity, excess flow will be diverted to Indian Creek WRF-- Upon completion of new Walnut Creek plant all flow diverted to Walnut Creek and Camp Creek 0 decommissioned. 3.0 mgd by 2005 and 6.0 -2.5 mgd by 2008. To be taken out of service 2002 & flow diverted to 0.18 Indian Creek LAS.
Long range plan will convey flow in excess of 2.0 mgd to new Walnut 0 Creek Facility.
Remarks
New Plant. Projected in-
0
service date of early 2004.
Upon completion of new
Skyland plant, divert flow
to Skyland Plant and
decommission Locust
0.0 Grove--West.
0.0 None
Add 0.3 mgd LAS facility 0 prior to 2005.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-46
9/18/02
District Member
Henry County
Rockdale County
Walton County
Entity McDonough Stockbridge Rockdale WRD Loganville
Table 2-8. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Ocmulgee River Basin POTW Capacity Needs
Facility
Walnut Creek Stephen Peurifoy Almand Branch Honey Creek Lakeridge Estates
Quigg Branch Scott Creek Snapping Shoals Stanton Woods
Design Permitted Capacity Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.25
1.25
0.30
0.30
0.09
0.09
6.00
6.00
0.22
0.22
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.15
2001 MMF, mgd
unk 0.52 1.64 0.30 0.03
4.00 0.14 0.35 0.09
2008 MMF, mgd
2.0 1.5 1.83 0.4 0.09
4.88 0.22 1.09 0.15
2008 Capacity
Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Will be expanded to 2.0 mgd by early 2004. Near
Capacity -- Plans and permit have been submitted for approval.
Need to hold Public Meeting on EID prior to -1.0 approval.
0 None
-0.58
-0.10
0.00
Planned expansion to 8 mgd by adding 2 mgd 1.12 reuse system by 2004.
0.00
-0.64
0.00
City of Loganville
1.75
2
0.6 1.75
0 Just completed upgrades.
Remarks
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-47
9/18/02
Clayton County
Clayton County has only one facility that it operates in the Ocmulgee River Basin, Clayton N.E. WRF. This facility is operating at flows of approximately 4.4 mgd. The current plant capacity is 6.0 mgd and will be expanded to 10 mgd by 2005 to be able to accommodate projected flows of 7.5 mgd by the year 2008. There is currently insufficient aeration and WAS capacity. The planned expansion will correct this issue. No conveyance issues have been reported.
DeKalb County
The two plants in DeKalb County that discharge to the Ocmulgee River Basin are the Pole Bridge Plant and the Snapfinger Plant. Pole Bridge is a 20-mgd facility that is planned for expansion to 86 mgd by the year 2010. The existing Pole Bridge facility may run out of available capacity before this time. When the expansion is completed, flows from Snapfinger will be diverted to Pole Bridge. The service area of this combined plant has been proposed to include portions of Clayton, Henry, Gwinnett, and Rockdale Counties.
The only noted compliance issue with the existing two plants is within the conveyance system that provides flow to the Snapfinger facility where there is an I/I. A new equalization basin is expected to balance flows to the plant and allow higher peak flows. Also, the planned interceptor connecting Snapfinger to Pole Bridge will provide additional equalization of peak flows generated in the Snapfinger service area.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett County currently has six plants operating within the Ocmulgee River Basin: Beaver Ruin WRF, Big Haynes Creek WRF, Jacks Creek WRF, Jackson Creek WRF, No Business Creek WRF, and Yellow River WRF. The flow to the three smaller facilities, Big Haynes Creek WRF, Jacks Creek WRF, and No Business Creek WRF, will be diverted to the Yellow River WRF upon completion of the 2.5 mgd expansion in 2003. The only compliance issue noted at the three remaining facilities is their reliability for phosphorus removal. Each of these facilities has plans for upgrade and/or expansion to correct this issue. None of the facilities have reported conveyance issues.
Henry County
There are eight wastewater treatment facilities operating in Henry County within the Ocmulgee River Basin: Camp Creek WPCP, Indian Creek LAS, Simpson Mill Community, Springdale Road WPCPs, Locust Grove West, Locust Grove East, Skyland Mobile Home Park, and Stephen Peurifoy WPCP. The first four are operated by Henry County WSA, the next two by the City of Locust Grove and the last by the City of Stockbridge. There are no significant treatment or conveyance compliance issues on any of the facilities. All the plants that are forecasting a shortterm capacity problem have plans in place so that these will not be a capacity issue by the year 2008.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-48
9/18/02
Henry County has begun construction of a new 4 mgd facility, Walnut Creek LAS. When completed in early 2004 flow will be diverted from some other facility and at least one facility will be decommissioned. The Henry County WSA Camp Creek WPCP is near capacity, however, should flow exceed capacity, excess flow will be diverted to Indian Creek until the completion of a the new 4 mgd Walnut Creek WPCP. The new Walnut Creek WPCP will begin operations in early 2004. The Indian Creek LAS facility is a new 1.5 mgd facility that will have two additional expansion phases. The first phase will take the plant to 3 mgd by the year 2005 and the second phase will be completed by 2008. The flows from the Simpson Mill Community facility will be diverted to the Indian Creek LAS facility in early 2002 and then will be decommissioned.
The Springdale Road facility sits on three sites, each with its own permit. The combined flow from these facilities is 2 mgd. All of the facilities will require rehabilitation in the near future. By the time the new Walnut Creek facility is completed it is expected that flows will begin to exceed capacity at the Springdale Road facilities. Any flows in excess of the 2 mgd capacity will be diverted to the new Walnut Creek facility. The only conveyance issue that was noted was the need to replace one of the pump stations in the collection system.
The City of Locust Grove owns and operates three facilities: Locust Grove LAS (West), Locust Grove Pond (East) and Skyland Mobile Home Park. The Locust Grove LAS has no reported treatment or collection issues. The Locust Grove Pond is planned to be decommissioned and its flow treated at the Skyland Mobile Home Park facility following its expansion. The Skyland Mobile Home Park is scheduled to replaced by a new 1.0 mgd facility at the same location prior to 2005 to handle projected growth and to receive the flow from the decommissioned Locust Grove Pond facility. They do not have treatment compliance issues; however, they do have some I/I issues that they are working on. The City of Stockbridge WPCP has no treatment or conveyance compliance issues. Their flow projections do not indicate a short-term capacity issue.
Rockdale County
All seven of the water reclamation facilities in Rockdale County are in the Ocmulgee Basin. The Quigg Branch WRF is in the Yellow River sub basin. The other six plants are in the South River sub basin.
The Quigg Branch WRF has capacity for existing flows within its service area. There are capacity issues in Rockdale County south of I-20 (commonly referred to as South Rockdale). In order to reduce the load to the facilities in South Rockdale, the County has constructed pumping stations and a force main to convey raw wastewater to Quigg Branch. A major source of raw wastewater to Quigg Branch is from one industry--Visy Paper. The waste stream from Visy Paper undergoes pretreatment at a dedicated facility on the Quigg Branch WRF site. Effluent from the pretreatment facility joins the influent commercial and domestic wastewater. This pretreatment facility experienced process upsets in recent years which resulted in overloading of the Quigg Branch WRF. The overloading resulted at times in NPDES effluent violations. A consent order was issued by EPD. Rockdale County has undertaken rehabilitation of the pretreatment facility which will mitigate the overloading condition. Rockdale County is planning
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-49
9/18/02
to provide additional treatment steps at Quigg Branch which will allow reuse of the effluent by Visy Paper and other potential industries in the County. The plant will be expanded by 2 mgd as well as upgraded to reuse standards.
In South Rockdale, the six existing water reclamation facilities are under growth pressure to provide additional capacity. ADMMF to the Almand Branch WRF exceeded its permitted capacity in 2001. Flow in the Snapping Shoals service area exceeds the permitted capacity of the plant, but a portion of the flow is pumped to the Quigg Branch WRF so as to avoid overloading Snapping Shoals. The County has pursued avenues for providing additional capacity. Thus far, a plan acceptable to residents, the Georgia EPD and environmental groups has not been established. One result of this has been the proliferation of septic tanks in South Rockdale. The County has established (through its Watershed Assessment) that septic tanks represent a significant source of non-point pollution in the County. The accepted position is that avoiding additional septic tanks and connecting many of the existing ones to a public sewer will aid in the reduction of non-point pollution. However, this will increase the flow to publicly owned treatment works. It is generally accepted by Rockdale County that providing additional treatment capacity for South Rockdale is critical and the County is planning to undertake this as soon as a plan acceptable to the appropriate stakeholders is adopted.
Rockdale County has experienced sanitary sewer overflows within its system during recent years. EPD issued a consent order for the sanitary sewer system. The County has been working to mitigate infiltration/inflow to eliminate overflows.
Walton County
The City of Loganville operates the only wastewater treatment facility in Walton County that discharges to the Ocmulgee River Basin. The facility was recently upgraded therefore there are no treatment compliance issues. They do have some infiltration/inflow issues but have an active maintenance management program.
OCONEE RIVER BASIN
There are three District members located partially in the Oconee River Basin: Hall County, Gwinnett County, and Walton County. At the current time, only the Cities of Monroe and Social Circle in Walton County operate wastewater treatment systems in this basin.
Figure 2-7 illustrates the Oconee River Basin and the locations of the two existing wastewater treatment facilities in Walton County. Table 2-9 summarizes the short-term wastewater capacity needs in the Oconee River Basin.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-50
9/18/02
vve
qesxisvvi
HH AA LL LL
FF OO RR SS YY TT HH
yeuyyh
gwwsxq
I 985
pvyi2fexgr
i2reix
fpyh qe2rsvv
Spout Springs
exii
I 85
FF UU LL TT OO NN
hvr
GG WW II NN NN EE TT TT
veixgisvvi
hegve
qsvvsvvi
OCONEE R M
vsvfx
qeyx
xivvsvvi
vyqexsvvi
fiiix
WW AA LL TT OO NN wyxyi
Jacks Creek
qyyh2ryi
DD EE KK AA LL BB
vsryxse gyxi
RR OO CC KK DD AA LL EE
HH EE NN RR YY
evx2qyi tii
Little River ygsev2gsgvi
Legend
No Capacity Issues
Capacity Needs/Permitted
Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
Capacity Needs/No Plan in Place
Supporting Partially Supporting Not Supporting
MRPA
I 20
Basin Boundary
0 2.5 5
10 Miles
Figure 2-7 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Oconee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Table 2-9. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District Oconee River Basin POTW Capacity needs
Facility
Design Permitted Capacity Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks
Hall County
John Weiland Homes
Spout Springs
The Lanier Technology
Wastewater Development
Increase to 0.4 mgd in Authority plans to purchase
0.05
0.75
0 0.75 -0.70 2004, 0.75 mgd by 2008. this facility.
Walton County
Monroe
Jacks Creek
Social Circle Little River
Modifications to plant to
allow for peak hour flows
to 9.5 mgd recently
3.4
3.4
1.65 2.35
1.05 completed.
Upgrade and expansion to
0.9 mgd by Feb 2004 and
conveyance system
improvements. Expansion
0.45
0.65 0.43 1.2 -0.75 to 1.4 mgd by 2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-52
9/18/02
Hall County
Hall County has created a wastewater service area within the basin and has plans to construct a wastewater treatment system. The treatment plant may be located in either the Lake Lanier Basin or the Oconee Basin. The plant is expected to be in service by 2003. The Lanier Technology Wastewater Development Authority is assisting in implementation of the Spout Springs treatment facility in southeast Hall County. After the plant is constructed by a private developer by 2004, the Authority is expected to take over the facility and be responsible for future expansions. No capacity issues are anticipated in either of these service areas if appropriate permitting is obtained.
Walton County
There are two operating wastewater treatment facilities within Walton County: Jacks Creek WPCP and Little River WPCP. The Jacks Creek WPCP is owned and operated by the City of Monroe. It is a 3.4 mgd facility that was recently modified to allow for peak flows to 9.5 mgd. The Little River WPCP is owned and operated by the City of Social Circle. The facility is currently a 0.45 mgd facility that has significant age on it. The City has implemented a capital improvement program to upgrade and expand the plant to a 0.9 mgd by early 2004. As part of Social Circle's capital improvement program, they are also implementing a maintenance management program for their conveyance system to correct the infiltration/inflow problem they currently have.
Neither of these facilities is projecting short-term capacity issues. The only compliance issue of any significance is I/I in the conveyance system for the Little River service area. However, the City of Social Circle has implemented a capital improvement program to correct this.
The remainder of the unsewered area of the District within the Oconee River Basin in Gwinnett, Hall and Walton Counties is on septic tanks.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 2 FR.doc
2-53
9/18/02
SECTION 3
EVALUATION OF CAPACITY NEEDS
The Wastewater Capacity Assessment, documented in Section 2 of this report, identified 44 existing or proposed wastewater treatment plants in 27 jurisdictions throughout the District that are projected to have wastewater capacity deficits by 2008 unless additional capacity is provided. In addition, there are needs in areas of Forsyth and Hall Counties that are not yet served by a treatment plant. The BC Team's analysis showed that for 40 of the 44 service areas involved, there is an implementable local plan in place to address the projected capacity deficit. In the remaining treatment plant service areas, Cumming (Lanier Basin), Forsyth County, Rockdale County and Palmetto, an implementable local plan is not in place or the plan being followed by the local jurisdiction is not adequate to address all of the short-term needs, either in terms of capacity requirements or timing.
Figure 3-1 shows the location of all of the treatment plants in the District and whether there is a capacity need and the ability to meet the projected needs. Tables 3-1 through 3-6 identify the 44 treatment plants that are projected to experience wastewater capacity deficits by 2008 unless additional capacity is provided and other service areas which do not yet have a treatment plant. This summary is grouped into the six river basins comprising the District. In each case, the proposed local plan for addressing the projected capacity shortfall is identified and any assumptions regarding the implementation of the local plan are noted.
PROGRAMMATIC ALTERNATIVES
Three programmatic alternatives were identified with the potential to help meet the short-term treatment needs within the District without the construction of additional wastewater treatment plants. This section identifies and provides a brief summary of these programmatic alternatives.
Water Conservation. Water conservation programs across the U.S. have been successful in reducing the demand for water by reducing water waste. Probably the largest beneficial impact that water conservation programs have had is related to outdoor water use. Water efficient landscapes and education of the public about how and when to irrigate their landscapes has resulted in significant reductions in peak water demand in many communities. Local water utilities, such as the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, and regional planning agencies, such as the Atlanta Regional Commission, have embraced water conservation as a component of the water supply planning process and have accounted for water conservation efforts in making water demand forecasts for the future.
While the benefits of water conservation to water utilities has been clearly demonstrated, the benefits to wastewater systems are less widely documented. Wastewater systems benefit from water conservation programs primarily through reduction of indoor water use in homes, schools and businesses. This is normally accomplished by using water efficient fixtures and appliances such as faucets, showerheads, toilets, urinals, and clothes washers. However, if the same
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-1
9/18/02
Lake Lanier
Adairsville North
Lula N.E.Hall
Adairsville South
Linwood
Two Run Creek
Whispering Pines
BB AA RR TT OO WW
I 575 Canton
CC HH EE RR OO KK EE EE
Bethelview Road FF OO RR SS YY TT HH
HH AA LL LL
Flat Creek
I 985
Cartersville
Etowah River Basin
I 75 Southeast
Puckett Road
Pumkinvine
Dallas West
Northwest Cobb Dallas North
Rose Creek
Woodstock
Little River
Fowler
Sugar Hill Westside
Flowery Branch Spout Springs
Fitzgerald Noonday Creek
Southside
FWH (Lake Lanier)
Big Creek Johns Creek
Cauley Creek
FWH (Crooked Creek)
Oconee River Basin
Crooked Creek
I 85
GG WW II NN NN EE TT TT
Beaver Ruin
PP AA UU LL DD II NN GG
Coppermine LAS CC OO BB BB
Jackson Creek I 285
Yellow River
R.L. Sutton R.M. Clayton
Northside
South Cobb I 75
Beaver Estates
Utoy Creek
I 20 Southside
DD OO UU GG LL AA SS
Rebel Trails
Sweetwater Creek
South River
Camp Creek FF UU LL TT OO NN
South Central
No Business Creek Jacks Creek
Big Haynes Creek City of Loganville
Jacks Creek
DD EE KK AA LL BB
Intrenchment Creek I 20
Snapfinger
WW AA LL TT OO NN
Quigg Branch
Pole Bridge RR OO CC KK DD AA LL EE
Almand Branch
Little River
St. Andrews
Fairburn Little Bear
I 675
Lakeridge Estates
Clayton N.E. Honey Creek
Stephen Peurifoy
Stanton Woods Snapping Shoals
Palmetto
I 85
CC LL AA YY TT OO NN
Scott Creek
R.L. Jackson
W.B. Casey
*A
Springdale Camp Creek
HCWSA Walnut Creek
Sargent
Whitewater Creek
FF AA YY EE TT TT EE
Shoal Creek
Walnut Creek HH EE NN RR YY
Arnco Mills
Wahoo Creek
Flat Creek
Hampton Industrial
Simpson Mill Comm
Mineral Spring
Shenandoah
CC OO WW EE TT AA
Line Creek Rockaway Creek
HamLpotocnust Grove West
Locust Grove East Skyland Mobile Home
Senoia
Bear Creek
Indian Creek
Locust Grove East
Pond #2
Pond #1
Pond #3
Ocmulgee River Basin
Legend No Capacity Issues Capacity Needs/Permitted Capacity Needs/Not Permitted
Pond #4
Chattahoochee River Basin
Flint River Basin
Capacity Needs/No Plan In Place Rivers\Streams Basin Boundaries
8
4
0
8 Miles
Figure 3-1 Locations of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
District Member
Table 3-1. Wastewater Service Areas in the Chattahoochee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Cobb Cobb Co. Water
County
System
R.L. Sutton
No flow limit 40
35
47
Expansion of facilities to 60 Increase in permitted discharge to
mgd under construction;
Chattahoochee River assumes
permitting @ 50 mgd must be increased flow limits following
-7 secured
removal of Georgia power heat load.
Coweta Co. WSD
Sargent (Arnall)
0.06
Coweta
County
Grantville
Pond #1
0.05
Newnan
Mineral Springs
0.75
Douglas County
Douglasville/ Douglas Co.
WSA
Northside
0.6
Expansion to 0.09 mgd
planned for near term. No
0.06
unk 0.09 -0.03 deficit anticipated.
Expansion to 0.15 mgd and
conversion to LAS by summer
2002; no surface water
Permitting not expected to be an
0.05
0.05 0.15
-0.1 discharge
issue
Permitting not expected to be an
0.75
0.82 0.85
-0.1 Expansion to 0.9 mgd by 2003 issue
Discharge is to a tributary of the
Chattahoochee River; increase in
permitted flow capacity not expected
to be a problem if mass loading to
the Chattahoochee remains at or
0.6
0.6
1.4
-0.8 Expansion to 2.0 by 2004 below current levels.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-3
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-1. Wastewater Service Areas in the Chattahoochee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
South Central
0.5
Southside
Douglas County
Douglasville/ Douglas Co.
WSA
St. Andrews
N/A 0.02
Sweetwater Creek
3.0
Contract with golf course for
irrigation water in place, but reuse
not yet initiated; permitting for
expanded capacity in future not
Expansion to 1.0 as needed expected to be an issue since there is
0.5
0.04 1.0
-0.5 2005/2010
no surface water discharge.
Discharge is to a tributary of the
Chattahoochee River; increase in
permitted flow capacity not expected
to be a problem if mass loading to
the Chattahoochee remains at or
3.25
3.0
4.9
-1.75 Expansion to 5.0 in 2005
below current levels.
Voluntary sewer tap moratorium in
place until new WWTP completed;
permitting for expanded capacity not
New 0.25-mgd plant to be on- expected to be a problem since there
0.02
0.02 0.3
-0.3 line by 2003
is no surface water discharge.
Increase in permitted discharge to
Chattahoochee River assumes
Expansion to 4.5 or 6.0 mgd as increased flow limits following
3.0
1.1
6.4
-3.4 needed 2005-2010
removal of Georgia power heat load.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-4
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-1. Wastewater Service Areas in the Chattahoochee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Cumming
Forsyth County
Bethelview Rd
3
Fowler
0
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plants)
0
Discharge is to a tributary of the
Have preliminary WLA from Chattahoochee River; increase in
Georgia EPD to support
permitted flow capacity not expected
expansion to 8 mgd; plan to to be a problem if mass loading to
expand plant to 8 mgd by the Chattahoochee remains at or
3
0.9
8
-5 2003.
below current levels.
Plant designed for 2.5 mgd in New plant with LAS disposal.
anticipation of future surface Projected in-service date of July
1.5
0
1.5
-1.5 water discharge.
2003.
County has access to approx. 5 mgd
New plant(s) to be constructed of existing capacity in plants owned
after surface water discharge by others. If this capacity remains,
0
0
11.5 -11.5 permit is obtained.
2008 deficit is approx. 6.5 mgd.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-5
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-1. Wastewater Service Areas in the Chattahoochee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Big Creek
Fulton County
Camp Creek Fulton Co.
Cauley Creek
Johns Creek
South Fulton Municipal
Regional Water and Sewerage
Authority Palmetto
24 13 2.5
7 N/A
Existing sewer tap moratorium in
place; alternatives analysis required
to address immediate capacity needs
2002-2004; future increase in
permitted discharge to
Planned expansion to 36 or 48 Chattahoochee River assumes
mgd by 2008, subject to permit increased flow limits following
24
25
26
-2 approval.
removal of heat load.
Step permit (13/19/24) approved by
13
13
17
-4 Expansion to 24 mgd by 2005 EPD.
Ultimate expansion to 5.0 mgd
with wet weather discharge; Under construction. Land
wet weather discharge has not Application disposal and reuse (no
2.5
0.0
2.5
0 been permitted.
discharge) at 2.5 mgd.
Existing sewer tap moratorium in
place; alternatives analysis required
to address immediate capacity needs
2002-2004; future increase in
permitted discharge to
Planned expansion to 15 mgd Chattahoochee River assumes
by 2005, subject to permit increased flow limits following
7
6.9 11.5
-4.5 approval.
removal of heat load.
No plan in place to address
Not
short-term capacity deficit;
0.6
0.75 available -0.15 planning is underway.
Alternatives analysis required.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-6
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-2. Wastewater Service Areas in the Etowah River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Bartow Co. Southeast
Next expansion is to 2 mgd
with an additional 1-2 mgd 5-6 Implementable plan in place to
0.1
0.1
0.01 1.5
-1.4 years later.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Bartow County
Cartersville Cartersville
Emerson Puckett Road
15 0.172
Facility was recently expanded.
An additional expansion may Implementable plan in place to
15
9.3
16
-1 be necessary by 2007.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
0.172
0.17 0.3
New plant will serve current service
area. Unserved areas around two I-
75 interchanges will have need for
future service, potentially in the
short-term. Implementable plan in
None to this plant.
place to satisfy short-term capacity
Construction of new 0.45 mgd needs in existing service areas but
-0.13 plant to begin in 2002.
not in unserved areas.
Cherokee County
Canton Canton
Expansion to 4.0 by 2003; Will serve Ball Ground in future.
expansion to 6 or 7 mgd
Implementable plan in place to
No flow limit 1.89
1
4
-2.11 before 2010.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-7
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-2. Wastewater Service Areas in the Etowah River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Cherokee Co. WSA Rose Creek
Woodstock Woodstock
4
4
No flow limit 0.5
3.6
7
Expansion to 5 mgd to be
completed in 2002. Plan to
expand to 10 mgd by 2004 and Implementable plan in place to
-3 to 15 mgd around 2010.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Previous flow limit of 0.5 mgd
expected to be added back into
permit when renewed in 2002.
Expand to 1.5 - 2.5 mgd in Implementable plan in place to
0.4 0.75 -0.25 next few years.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Cobb Cobb Co. Water Noonday Creek No flow limit 12
County
System
11
16
Expansion to 20 mgd under Implementable plan in place to
-4 construction
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Northwest Cobb No flow limit
8
6
9
Implementable plan in place to -1 Expansion to 12 mgd by 2006 satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-8
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-2. Wastewater Service Areas in the Etowah River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Forsyth County
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
0
0
0
2
-2
No wastewater conveyance or treatment systems currently in place. Alternatives analysis needed to determine preferred approach to serving anticipated short-term development.
Paulding Paulding Co.
County
WSA
1.5 mgd by 2005 with 1 mgd
discharge to Pumpkinvine Implementable plan in place to
Pumpkinvine
0.5
0.5
0.058 1.0
-0.5 Creek and 0.5 mgd reuse.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-9
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-3. Wastewater Service Areas in the Flint River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
R.L. Jackson
Clayton Clayton Co. County Water Authority
Shoal Creek
Plant to come off line when
WB Casey Plant expansion Implementable plan in place to
4.5
4.5
3.9
5.5
-1 completed (2005)
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Planned expansion to 4.4 mgd Implementable plan in place to
2.1
2.1
2.3
5.5
-3.4 by mid-2002
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
W.B. Casey
Planned expansion to 24 mgd Implementable plan in place to
15
15
14.7 17.6
-2.6 by 2005
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-10
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-3. Wastewater Service Areas in the Flint River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Coweta Co. WSD
Coweta County
Shenandoah
Senoia
Senoia
Implementable plan in place to
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.5
-0.6 Expansion to 1.5 mgd by 2005 satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Implementable plan in place to
0.07
0.07
0.06 0.49 -0.42 Expansion to 0.50 by 2003 satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Henry County
Henry Co. WSA
Bear Creek
Implementable plan in place to
0.25
0.25
0.026 0.5
-0.25 Expansion to 3.0 mgd by 2004 satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-11
9/18/02
District Member
Forsyth County
Table 3-4. Wastewater Service Areas in the Lake Lanier River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Cumming
(Future Plant)
0
Requires agreement with Forsyth
City plans to construct a new County on how the WLA to Lake
treatment plant discharging to Lanier will be divided between the
0
0
11.5 -11.5 Lake Lanier in the short-term. two jurisdictions.
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
0
No plan for construction of Short-term flows to be treated
new plant discharging to Lake initially at plant discharging to
0
0
3
-3 Lanier in the short-term. Chattahoochee River.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
F. Wayne Hill
0
NPDES permit for discharge to
Lake Lanier has been challenged.
Short-Term Plan assumes permit
40
0
33.7 -33.7 Expansion to 60 mgd by 2005 issue will be resolved.
Gainesville
Hall County
Flat Creek
10.2
Hall Co.
NE Hall County
0
Expand plant capacity to 12 Implementable plan in place for
10.2
7.2
11
-0.8 mgd to meet growth demands. satisfying short-term capacity needs.
Hall County intends to evaluate both
the Lanier Basin and the Oconee
Basin for the location of this facility.
Have created a WW service This facility is planned to ultimately
area, plan to construct WRF byuse Hall County's Lake Lanier
1.8
0.0
1.8
-1.8 2003.
discharge allocation of 3 mgd.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-12
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-5. Wastewater Service Areas in the Ocmulgee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Clayton Clayton Co.
County Water Authority
Planned expansion to 10 mgd Implementable plan in place to
Clayton N.E.
6
6
6.7
7.5
-1.5 by 2005
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Expansion to 86 mgd by 2010
pending permit approval;
Short-Term Plan assumes expanded
expanded Pole Bridge plant Pole Bridge plant will be permitted
will treat flows from
and capable of treating flows from
Snapfinger plant as well. May portions of Rockdale, Gwinnett,
DeKalb DeKalb Co. Pole Bridge
20
20
13
30
-10 require staged implementation. Henry and Clayton Counties.
County
W&S
Snapfinger
Convey flows to expanded
Pole Bridge plant and
decommission Snapfinger Implementable plan in place to
36
36
23
40
-4 plant.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
Increase in design flow
capacity by means of additional Implementable plan in place to
Yellow River
12
12
10.34 14.5
-2.5 clarifiers planned for 2003 satisfy short-term capacity needs.
Henry County
Henry Co. WSA
Expansion to 3.0 mgd by 2005 Implementable plan in place to
Indian Creek
1.5
1.5
0.0
4
-2.5 and 6.0 mgd by 2008
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-13
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-5. Wastewater Service Areas in the Ocmulgee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Almand Branch
1.25
Rockdale County
Rockdale WRD
Honey Creek
0.30
1.25
1.64 1.83 -0.58
0.30
0.30 0.4
-0.10
Additional WLA to South River not available. Alternatives analysis required.
Additional WLA to South River not available. Alternatives analysis required.
Snapping Shoals
0.45
0.45
0.35 1.09 -0.64
Additional WLA to South River not available. Alternatives analysis required.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-14
9/18/02
District Member
Table 3-6. Wastewater Service Areas in the Oconee River Basin with Short-Term Capacity Needs
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design 2001 Capacity MMF, MMF, mgd mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
2008 Capacity Available +/-, mgd
Planned Expansion
Remarks/Assumptions
Hall
County
Hall Co. NE Hall County
0
Hall County intends to evaluate
both the Lanier Basin and the
Oconee Basin for the location of
this facility. This facility is planned
Have created a WW service to ultimately use Hall County's Lake
area, plan to construct WRF byLanier discharge allocation of 3
1.8
0
1.8
-1.8 2003.
mgd.
John Weiland
Homes
Expansion to 0.4 mgd in 2004; The Lanier Technology Wastewater
expansion to 0.75 mgd by Development Authority plans to
Spout Springs
0.05
0.75
0
0.75
-0.7 2008.
purchase this facility.
Walton County
Social Circle
Little River
Upgrade and expansion to 0.9
mgd by 2004; planned
conveyance system
improvements. Expansion to Implementable plan in place to
0.45
0.65
0.43 1.2
-0.75 1.4 mgd by 2010.
satisfy short-term capacity needs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-15
9/18/02
pollutant load (solids, oxygen demanding material, nutrients, etc.) is introduced into the wastewater system with less water, the mass loading (pounds of pollutants) to treatment systems remains the same and the concentration of pollutants entering the treatment works may actually increase. The effects of wastewater flow reduction on influent wastewater characteristics resulting from water conservation has not been studied extensively, although at least one large study in California is in the planning stage.
In evaluating the merits of water conservation as an alternative for satisfying short-term wastewater capacity needs in the District, it also important to consider that most flow-related capacity deficits in wastewater systems occur during wet weather periods when infiltration and inflow (I/I) enter the wastewater collection system. It is rare to find treatment plants operating above their permitted capacities during dry weather periods. Likewise, it is uncommon for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to occur in dry weather periods unless there is a blockage in a pipeline or there is a mechanical or electrical failure somewhere in the system. While water conservation will reduce both wet weather flows as well as dry weather flows, the percentage reduction will be greater with dry weather flows.
The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 required standard flow rates and flush volumes for manufactured plumbing units, and controlled not only fixtures in new construction, but also replacement fixtures as well. These standards have been incorporated into the Georgia Plumbing Code. As a result, all new construction since 1992 and all replacement fixtures purchased since that time have had to comply with the new standards.
Over time, a larger and larger percentage of the homes and businesses in the District will be using water efficient fixtures and appliances. This will occur by attrition as old units wear out and are replaced with new ones. The California Urban Water Conservation Council in Sacramento, CA estimates that the water savings resulting from full conversion of plumbing fixtures (faucets, showerheads, toilets) from old units to new units meeting the 1992 standards could be as high as 13.4 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
The cost to water utilities for retrofitting plumbing fixtures, however, is not insignificant. The rebates offered by communities for replacement of plumbing fixtures has varied widely, as have the participation rates in the various programs. For example, rebates for replacing toilets have ranged from $50 to more than $200 per unit in programs cited in the literature. Generally, the higher the rebate, the higher the participation rate.
To get a sense for how water conservation might compare to other alternatives as a means for satisfying short-term capacity needs within the District, consider the following example. Assume a 13.4-gpcd reduction in water use is achievable by retrofitting existing homes with water efficient faucets, showerheads and toilets, and that 100 percent of the water savings translates to flow reduction in the wastewater system (no consumptive use). Further assume that there are 2.5 people per household. To achieve a wastewater flow reduction of 1 mgd, a total of about 30,000 homes would have to be retrofitted. If these 30,000 homes are assumed to have an average of 2 toilets, 1.5 showers and 2.5 faucets, and a rebate cost of $300 per home is assumed to retrofit all of these fixtures, the total cost would be on the order of about $9 million. This is a relatively high cost, but given the potential benefits to both the water and wastewater utility
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-16
9/18/02
systems, it may be feasible in some communities. The problem for the Short-Term Plan is that development in the communities with the most acute wastewater capacity needs (Fulton and Rockdale Counties) is relatively new. Therefore, many of the homes in these communities will already have water saving fixtures. As a short-term measure, a large-scale retrofit program would also be problematic due to the time required to plan and implement it. An implementation period of several years is not uncommon.
In summary, the benefits of water conservation to water supply, treatment and distribution systems are well documented. Intuitively, indoor water conservation should also provide benefits to wastewater collection and treatment systems, at least in terms of reducing the flows they receive. The effects of indoor water conservation programs on wastewater flows, however, are not well documented in the literature. Over the long-term, as old plumbing fixtures and water using appliances are retired from service and replaced with new models, the per capita indoor water use and wastewater generation rate should decline. We believe that water conservation should be incorporated as a key element of the District's Long-Term Water Supply and Wastewater Management Plans. We also believe that water conservation should be encouraged as part of the District's Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan. However, effecting sizable wastewater flow reductions in the short-term to satisfy specific capacity needs in certain service areas of the District probably requires large-scale rebate programs. We do not believe such programs are practical to consider further as part of the Short-Term Plan due to the anticipated cost and implementation schedule involved.
Sewer System Management. Depending on age, material of construction, and quality of construction, sanitary sewers are susceptible to I/I during storm events. Most of these wet weather flows are conveyed via the collection system to water reclamation facilities for treatment, where they place added burden on the ability of these facilities to function adequately. In some cases, the capacity of the collection system is exceeded, and SSOs occur.
On January 28, 1998, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources passed a resolution stating, in part, "...this Board insists that regulatory initiatives be put in place to insure that polluters, whether public or private, are identified and that appropriate penalties are levied in order to correct problems." In response to this direction by the Board, EPD implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" concerning SSO's. This policy specifies that any SSO must be reported to EPD. Such reports must include the location and amount of spill, the cause, and the required corrective measures. Each spill so reported results in an Expedited Enforcement Order (EEO) whereby the identified polluter agrees to pursue and implement the corrective measures, and pay a stipulated fine.
Table 2-2 (Section 2) summarizes the EEO's and Consent Orders issued by EPD for the period from September 1999 through December 2001. A review of this data with District members indicated that the vast majority of the EEOs are the result of sporadic stoppages, which are addressed by improved maintenance procedures. To respond to the "zero tolerance" mandate, utilities within the District have implemented a variety of corrective and preventative measures, including additional collection maintenance staff, additional crews, identifying and correcting flow restrictions within the collection systems, more frequent cleaning of grease traps, etc.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-17
9/18/02
With the exception of some of the very small municipal systems, virtually all of the wastewater utilities investigated in this study have an ongoing sewer maintenance and I/I reduction program in place. While it is not possible to accurately quantify the flow reduction that has resulted from the various measures that have been implemented District-wide, it is safe to say that these efforts have resulted in fewer SSOs, while improving the overall operation of wastewater collection systems. The wastewater flow projections used in developing the Short-Term Plan have taken into account the beneficial results of ongoing sewer system maintenance programs. Continuation and expansion of these programs should become an integral component of the District's longterm wastewater planning process as the EPA's CMOM requirements begin to take effect over the next 5 to 10 years for many of the District's wastewater utilities.
Permitted Flow Limits. In the most recent round of NPDES permits, EPD has included flow as a permit "discharge limitation". Prior to this round, flow monitoring was required, but actual plant flow was not a permit parameter. A review of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's) shows that many treatment facilities within the District consistently provide higher quality effluent than allowed by their permit. In these instances, it would be possible to exceed the "flow limit" without exceeding the allowable pollutant loading to the stream.
There are several reasons why flow limits can be viewed as redundant at best, and possibly counterproductive at worst.
Throughout the District, allowable discharges are based on predictive modeling of the assimilative capacity of the stream segment involved. Waste load allocations (WLAs) reflect the results of these models with appropriate margins of safety added to insure that the stream ecology will be protected. WLAs are the mass loadings, which form the basis of the "discharge limitation", and are made part of the NPDES permit. As long as the mass limit is not exceeded, assuming a minimum stream flow is present, the stream will not be impaired. The stream is protected if the treatment plant is meeting its mass limit even if the plant flow is greater than its permitted "discharge limitation".
The important consideration for water quality is the limit placed on the total mass of constituents, particularly oxygen demanding parameters when discharging to a river, or nutrients when discharging upstream of a lake. For most District discharges, both conditions apply. Higher flows in the receiving stream improve oxygen re-aeration and increase its assimilative capacity; higher flows from the treatment facility, while meeting its mass loading limits, provides even greater protection of water quality.
Many states do not include flow as a "discharge limitation", and the EPA does not place flow limits on POTW permits on water-quality limited streams in states where EPA has retained permitting authority. In these cases, "flow" is monitored and reported, since it is part of the "mass" calculation, but is not a regulated parameter.
One of the arguments for flow limits is to control the secondary, non-point impacts for land use changes supported by increased treatment capacity. This concern is lessened if the jurisdiction is controlling non-point pollution through implementation of EPD's watershed assessment requirements.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-18
9/18/02
Another reported reason for flow limits is to insure that local governments plan appropriately to meet future capacity needs as they arise. In lieu of flow limits, it would be more productive to have the permittee annually review the plant (design) rating with actual flows received at the facility. Once the facility has reached a preset percentage of the system capacity, based on the limiting parameter; BOD loading, flow, etc. Florida uses this method to initiate planning for expansion at 80 percent and construction of additional facilities at 95 percent of the critical parameter. EPD would also be able to use the plant design rating in reviewing plans to see if the WLAs will be met.
In summary, the Georgia EPD has a number of reasons for wanting to keep flow limits in NPDES discharge permits. Most of these reasons, however, could be satisfied in other ways. Through waste load allocations (WLAs) and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), the Georgia EPD has effectively controlled the quantity of pollutants (mass loading) that can be discharged into receiving waters. Therefore, flow limits would seem to be somewhat redundant. Furthermore, the Tri-State Water Compacts may require that a certain percentage of the flow taken from a stream for water supply purposes be returned to that stream for the benefit of downstream users. It would seem that flow limits in NPDES discharge permits could be counterproductive to meeting that goal. Relaxation of flow limits could have significant benefits to some communities in meeting their short-term wastewater capacity needs. We believe that the Georgia EPD should consider eliminating flow as a "discharge limitation" in future NPDES discharge permits.
EVALUATION OF AREAS WITH PLANS IN PLACE
If the plan prepared by the local jurisdiction can be implemented by that jurisdiction on its own and there are no immediate capacity needs to resolve (e.g. existing sewer tap moratoria), then no additional alternatives analysis is warranted. In these cases, the local plans in place were made part of the Short-Term Plan. In these 40 cases it is imperative that the local jurisdictions proceed with:
1. Permitting all aspects of the project at the local, state and federal level
2. Continuing or initiating public awareness programs
3. Obtaining the necessary funds for project financing
4. Executing required interjurisdictional arrangements in order to ensure that the needed projects are completed
5. Confirming that adequate sewer capacity is available for projected wastewater flows.
A summary of these 40 locations are included in Section 4--Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-19
9/18/02
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR AREAS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
In a few locations it was determined that an evaluation of alternatives would be needed because one or more of the following conditions existed:
1. There is no local plan in place to satisfy a projected short-term capacity need;
2. The local plan in place only partially addresses the projected short-term capacity needs; or
3. There are immediate capacity needs (e.g. existing sewer tap moratoria) that cannot be resolved by the local plan(s) due to timing issues.
Based upon the above guidelines, the following jurisdictions or service areas were determined to warrant analyses of alternatives during development of the Short-Term Plan:
Forsyth County (Chattahoochee, Etowah and Lanier Basins) and Cumming (Lanier Basin)
Fulton County (North) Fulton County (South) Rockdale County
Forsyth County has a limited wastewater collection system in place with no treatment plants of its own. Forsyth County has purchased small amounts of capacity in treatment facilities owned and operated by others, and is in the process of implementing a 1.5-mgd treatment and land application system (LAS). However, these measures are not sufficient to meet the wastewater capacity needs of Forsyth County through 2004, when a 10-mgd surface water discharge permit to the Chattahoochee River is likely to become available to the County as a result of heat load reduction. Cumming is forecasting a dramatic increase in wastewater flow in the Lanier Basin of its service area. There is insufficient capacity at its Bethelview Rd facility to meet all of its needs.
In North Fulton County, existing sewer tap moratoria are in place in both the Johns Creek and Big Creek Basins. Immediate needs exist in both service areas to avoid exceeding permitted flow limits. Fulton County is currently developing the Cauley Creek treatment plant and LAS to relieve some of the capacity deficit. However, Cauley Creek, by itself, will not eliminate the capacity needs of North Fulton County between now and 2005 when the partial heat load reduction in the Chattahoochee River will allow the Johns Creek treatment plant to be expanded. Regional solutions for providing additional capacity in the North Fulton County service area during the next 3 years (2002-2004) should be considered in the Short-Term Plan.
In South Fulton County, the wastewater capacity needs assessment showed a deficit of approximately 4 mgd at the Camp Creek WRF. The County is expanding Camp Creek from 13 mgd to 24 mgd, with the new facilities scheduled to be operational in 2005. Since current flows
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-20
9/18/02
are at the 13-mgd design capacity, some relief is needed to cover the shortfall, especially during wet weather conditions, until the new facilities are brought on-line. Also in south Fulton County, the City of Palmetto's wastewater treatment plant is also projected to develop a capacity deficit within the short-term planning period. The City's 0.6-mgd treatment facility is currently at or very near design capacity and increases in wastewater flows are expected in the future. The City has recently begun to examine its options for finding additional capacity, however, no local plan is in place.
Rockdale County has attempted to increase wastewater system capacity in the southern half of its service area (south of Interstate Highway 20) for several years. However, the County has not been able to do so because of the lack of additional wasteload allocation in the South River Basin upstream of Lake Jackson. The County's six small treatment plants in its South Rockdale service area are all at or near capacity and restrictions on new connections to some of these plants are possible in the short-term.
METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives developed in this investigation for increasing short-term wastewater capacity in the four local jurisdictions identified above were evaluated on the basis of various economic and non-economic criteria. The following paragraphs describe the methodology used to evaluate the alternatives according to these criteria.
Economic Evaluation Criteria
The economic analysis of alternatives included the development of estimated capital and operating costs to achieve additional wastewater system capacity in the short-term. These capital and operating cost estimates were used to identify the marginal cost of the additional capacity (dollars per gallon) for each option. Because of the variable service lives of the options considered, and the variable incremental system capacity being provided, the marginal cost approach was used to provide a mechanism for comparing the economic value of alternatives per "unit of capacity".
Capital Costs. Capital costs include costs for all construction activities, including the construction of new facilities and the expansion, modification, rehabilitation or upgrading of existing facilities to increase capacity. In addition to construction costs, the following costs were included in the capital cost estimates developed in this investigation:
Land acquisition, if required Purchase of capacity in another wastewater system Construction contingency Engineering, legal and administrative services
Wherever local utilities, or their consultants, had already developed capital cost estimates for an alternative (or components of an alternative), those estimates were updated to December 2001 dollars using industry-standard cost indices and used as a reference for developing unit costs for
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-21
9/18/02
similar capital improvements District-wide. The unit costs used by the BC Team to prepare the capital cost estimates are summarized in Table 3-7. All capital cost estimates prepared as part of this investigation were for planning purposes only with an intended accuracy of plus or minus 50 percent.
Table 3-7. Summary of Unit Costs Used in Preparing Capital Cost Estimates
Capital Cost Item
Unit
Cost per Unit
Pipelines Gravity Sewer Force Main
Linear Feet Linear Feet
$6.60/inch diam.a $4.60/inch diam.a
Pumping Stations
0-1 mgd
LS
$400,000
1-2 mgd
LS
$700,000
2-3 mgd
LS
$850,000
3-4 mgd
LS
$1,000,000
> 4 mgd
LS
$250,000/mgd
Treatment Plants
Advanced Secondary (new site)
Gallon
$4.00
Advanced Secondary (expansion)
Gallon
$6.00
Tertiary (new site)
Gallon
$6.00
Tertiary (expansion)
Gallon
$8.00
Wastewater Storage Tanks
Gallon
$0.25
Land Application System (LAS)
Gallon
$2.00c
Land Acquisition
Acre
$20,000-$40,000b
a Pipeline costs do not include special construction items such as directional drilling, boring and jacking, etc.
Separate cost allocation made for these items. b Land costs based on application values in the local jurisdictions involved. C LAS cost is in addition to treatment plant cost
Operation and Maintenance Costs. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include all costs associated with performance and upkeep of wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. Typically, these include the following:
Labor Materials and supplies Energy Chemicals Residual solids disposal Contracted O&M costs
For the purposes of this investigation, annual O&M costs were grouped together into categories related directly to the facilities for which capital cost estimates were prepared. Table 3-8 summarizes the unit costs used to prepare annual O&M cost estimates.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-22
9/18/02
Table 3-8. Summary of Unit Costs Used in Preparing
Annual O&M Cost Estimates
O&M Cost Item
Unit
Cost per Unit
Pipeline O&M Gravity Sewer Force Main
Pumping Stations General O&M Power
Linear Foot Linear Foot
mgd capacity kilowatt-hour
$1.00 $0.02
$6,000 per year $0.07
Treatment Plant O&M
Advanced Secondary
1,000 gallons
$0.75
Tertiary
Land Application System O&M
a LAS cost is in addition to treatment plant O&M
1,000 gallons 1,000 gallons
$1.00 $0.25a
Marginal Cost of Additional Capacity. The marginal cost of additional capacity was computed as the present value of the total capital and O&M costs over the service life of the alternative divided by the total wastewater capacity (gallons) provided during the service life of the option. Some options had limited service lives (5 years or less) while others were intended to continue in service for the long term. For these options, the marginal cost calculations were performed assuming a 20-year time period. The discount rate used in the present worth calculations was 4 percent, net of inflation.
Non-Economic Evaluation Criteria
The non-economic criteria used in this investigation for qualitatively evaluating short-term wastewater capacity alternatives were the following:
Compliance with Water Quality Standards. Any measures taken to satisfy wastewater capacity needs in the short-term must maintain compliance with water quality standards. The development of water quality models to test various discharge scenarios is beyond the scope of this investigation. Therefore, a qualitative assessment was made based upon the mass loading to be discharged in the alternative versus the mass loading currently being discharged, taking into account the location of the discharges and the results of previous modeling efforts performed by the Georgia EPD and the Atlanta Regional Commission.
Capability to Satisfy Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs. This criterion considers how much of the short-term wastewater capacity need can be satisfied by the alternative. For example, assume there is a short-term capacity deficit of 5 mgd projected for a particular treatment plant between now and 2008. An alternative that would provide 5 mgd of additional capacity would rate higher against this criteria than an alternative that would provide only 2 mgd of additional capacity in the short-term.
Implementation Schedule. This criterion considers how long it will take to implement an alternative. In the previous example, the 5-mgd alternative would not be of much value in the
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-23
9/18/02
short-term if it could not be implemented until 2008, whereas the 2-mgd option would be of greater value in satisfying an immediate need if it did not require much construction and could be implemented in the next 12 months.
Consistency with Long-Term Wastewater Management Strategies. Preferably, the approach for increasing wastewater system capacity in the short term should be consistent with the longterm wastewater management strategies in the jurisdictions affected. It is reasonable to assume that short-term capital improvements that will remain in service over the long term will be better investments than capital improvements with short service lives, even if they might be more costly initially. Also, there are benefits to be gained with respect to public acceptance of the wastewater program if the short-term plan for resolving capacity issues is consistent with a sound, defensible long-term plan for wastewater management. This criterion assesses the degree to which a short-term alternative is consistent with a generally accepted long-term wastewater management strategy.
Flexibility. This criterion rates the flexibility of an alternative to be adapted to change in the future. For example, a short-term alternative that allows for temporary diversion of wastewater flow from one treatment facility to another, with provision to return the flow to the original treatment facility at a later date, would be considered to have a high degree of flexibility.
Complexity of Interjurisdictional Cooperation Required. Interjurisdictional agreements are often difficult to negotiate. The greater the number of jurisdictions involved, and the more complex the issues, the less likely an alternative can be implemented effectively. This criterion considers the potential constraints to implementation based upon the degree of interjurisdictional cooperation required.
Consistency with Interbasin Transfer Issues. Senate Bill 130 set guidelines for future interbasin transfers of water within the District. The Tri-State Water Compacts may set additional guidelines for interbasin transfers. Alternatives for resolving short-term wastewater capacity needs should be consistent with these guidelines and, wherever possible, should attempt to return treated wastewater to the basin from which it was originally withdrawn.
Anticipated Level of Environmental Impact. This criterion considers the potential for beneficial as well as adverse environmental impacts resulting from implementation of a particular alternative. An example of a potential beneficial impact would be an expected reduction in the number of overflows and spills due to increased system capacity or reduced flows to particular components of a wastewater system. An example of a potential adverse impact might be a sensitive river crossing associated with diversion of flow from one treatment plant to another. Due to the conceptual nature of the alternatives being evaluated in this investigation, rating against this criterion was based upon a qualitative assessment of the magnitude of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of each alternative.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-24
9/18/02
Rating of Alternatives Against Evaluation Criteria
Each of the options considered in this investigation was evaluated against the economic and noneconomic evaluation criteria discussed above. A scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) was used to rate the various options. Additionally, because the evaluation criteria are not all necessarily equal in importance, a weighting system was developed in cooperation with District Wastewater Subcommittee members. Table 3-9 summarizes the evaluation criteria and the rating scales and weighting factors associated with each.
Table 3-9. Rating Scales and Weighting Factors for Evaluation Criteria
Criterion Economic Criteria
Marginal cost of added capacity
Rating Scale Weighting Factor
1-10
25
Total Points 250
Non-Economic Criteria
Implementation schedule
1-10
20
200
Compatibility with long-term
1-10
15
150
strategies
Interjurisdictional complexity
1-10
10
100
Interbasin transfers
1-10
5
50
Flexibility
1-10
5
50
Potential environmental impacts
1-10
20
200
Total
100
1000
The alternatives were not rated numerically with respect to their ability to meet water quality standards. If it was determined that implementation of an alternative could potentially result in violation of water quality standards, that alternative was eliminated from any further consideration and not evaluated.
SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES FOR FORSYTH COUNTY
This section provides information on the alternatives evaluated for addressing projected shortterm wastewater capacity needs in Forsyth County. An overview of each alternative is provided followed by summaries of cost estimates and evaluation ratings for the alternatives.
Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs
The wastewater capacity needs for Forsyth County are complicated by a number of considerations:
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-25
9/18/02
Forsyth County currently does not own any treatment facilities and has a limited wastewater collection and transmission system.
Forsyth County is served by a number of public and private wastewater systems, not directly under the control of the County.
Forsyth County is located in three major basins, the Etowah River, Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier basins, with all of its water supply taken from Lake Lanier.
Historically, developments without public sewer service available, have made use of onsite treatment systems (septic tanks) and this trend continues.
According to recent flow projections, the City of Cumming has needs in the shortterm above and beyond the expanded capacity of the Bethelview Rd facility.
Forsyth County has contracted treatment capacity with a number of entities inside (City of Cumming and private systems) and outside of Forsyth County (Fulton County). The County has begun implementation of its first county-owned treatment facility, the Fowler treatment plant and land application system (LAS), which is scheduled to be available for service in 2003. The plant will have an initial permitted capacity of 1.5 mgd, but is being designed for 2.5 mgd in anticipation of a wet weather discharge permit being issued in 2004. By the time this plant is in service, all of its capacity is expected to have been sold. Septic tanks can be used for future development, but their continued use is not considered a desirable option from an environmental and public health perspective.
Table 3-10 summarizes the projected annual wastewater capacity needs in Forsyth County outside of the City of Cumming service area between 2002 and 2008. These projections were made for the County in 1999. The County is preparing an update of its Water and Wastewater Master Plan and the projections shown here are subject to revision based on more current analysis. The 1999 projections assumed that most new development would be on a sewer system rather than continuing the propagation of septic tanks. The projections show a deficit beginning in 2004 and increasing annually through the short-term wastewater planning period.
A total of four alternatives, with the potential to address some or all of the short-term wastewater capacity needs in Forsyth County, were developed for evaluation. Three of the four alternatives include the lease or purchase of additional capacity in Cumming's Bethelview Road plant. Cumming anticipates that it will have sold all of the capacity in this facility before 2008, so there may not be capacity available for Forsyth County to purchase or lease on a long-term basis. The following paragraphs provide an overview of each alternative.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-26
9/18/02
Table 3-10. Summary of Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs for Forsyth County
Projected Capacity and Wastewater Flow
Treatment Capacity, mgd Cumming Bethelview Road Fulton Big Creek/Johns Creek Dick's Creek Fowler Existing private WWTPs
Total, Treatment Capacity Projected wastewater flow, mgd
Chattahoochee Basin Lake Lanier Basin Etowah Basin Total, Projected Wastewater Flow Projected Capacity Surplus (deficit), mgd
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -- 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
4.0 5.5 7.0 8.5 10.0 11.5 13.0 -- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 -- -- -- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.5 13.0 15.5 18.0 0.5 0.0 (1.0) (3.5) (6.0) (8.5) (11.0)
Alternative F-1 Construct New Treatment Plant with Chattahoochee River Discharge
Under this alternative, a new 10-mgd wastewater treatment plant would be constructed in the southeast corner of the county on county-owned property or by expanding the new Fowler Property WWTP with a discharge to the Chattahoochee River. All wastewater flows generated within Forsyth County beyond the capacity of the existing facilities would be conveyed to the new plant. The major conveyance system elements required would include a pumping station to divert flow from the Settingdown Creek basin to the Big Creek basin, a pumping station to divert flow from the Big Creek basin to the new plant, and an interceptor sewer along the Chattahoochee River to collect flow from the southeastern portion of the county.
To satisfy projected capacity needs, the new treatment plant would be constructed in two, 5-mgd phases. The initial phase would be constructed and commissioned by 2005, the second by 2007. An additional 1 mgd of capacity would also need to be leased at Cumming's Bethelview Road plant by 2004 to meet projected capacity needs until the new Forsyth County plant can be constructed.
This alternative assumes that a maximum flow of 2 mgd would continue to be sent to Fulton County's Big Creek and Johns Creek plants and that a 10-mgd discharge permit will be granted to Forsyth County as proposed in the most recent Chattahoochee River modeling work being conducted for the ARC.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 10-mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant or expand the Fowler Property WWTP with discharge to the Chattahoochee River.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-27
9/18/02
Construct a new 2-mgd pumping station along Settingdown Creek west of Georgia Highway 400, including 35,000 feet of 16-inch force main, to deliver flow into the Big Creek basin.
Construct a new 10-mgd pumping station along Big Creek at the southern county border, including 48,000 feet of 30-inch force main, to deliver flow to the new Forsyth County plant.
Construct 37,000 feet of 30-inch interceptor along the Chattahoochee River north from the new Forsyth County plant.
Lease 1 mgd of capacity at Cumming's Bethelview Road plant on a short-term, temporary basis.
Alternative F-2 Construct New Treatment Plant with Lake Lanier Discharge
Under this alternative the basic concept is that a new 10-mgd wastewater treatment plant would be constructed in Forsyth County, east of the City of Cumming, with a discharge to Lake Lanier. Similar to Alternative F-1, all wastewater flows generated within the county beyond the capacity of the existing facilities would be conveyed to the new plant. This plant could be constructed as a Forsyth County project to meet its needs, a City of Cumming project to serve both City and County needs, or a joint project between the City and County. Institutional arrangements between the City and County must be finalized during the implementation phase. The major conveyance system elements required to deliver Forsyth County flows to the new plant would include pumping stations in the Settingdown Creek, Big Creek, and Dick Creek basins. A new interceptor sewer along the Chattahoochee River to deliver flow from the southeastern portion of the county to the new Dick's Creek PS would also be required.
To satisfy projected capacity needs, the new treatment plant would be constructed in two, 5-mgd phases. The initial phase would be constructed and commissioned by 2005, the second by 2007. An additional 1-mgd of capacity would also need to be leased at Cumming's Bethelview Road plant by 2004 to meet projected capacity needs until the new Forsyth County plant can be constructed. This alternative assumes that a maximum flow of 2 mgd would continue to be sent to Fulton County's Big Creek and Johns Creek plants.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 10-mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant for discharge to Lake Lanier.
Construct a new 2-mgd pumping station along Settingdown Creek west of Georgia Highway 400, including 35,000 feet of 16-inch force main, to deliver flow into the Big Creek basin.
Construct a new 7-mgd pumping station along Big Creek at the southern county border, including 56,000 feet of 30-inch force main, to deliver flow to the new Forsyth County plant.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-28
9/18/02
Construct a new 3-mgd pumping station on Dick's Creek near the Chattahoochee River, including 58,000 feet of 20-inch force main, to deliver flow to the new Forsyth County plant.
Construct 37,000 feet of 30-inch interceptor along the Chattahoochee River north from the Dick's Creek PS.
Lease 1 mgd of capacity at the Cumming's Bethelview Road plant on a short-term, temporary basis.
Alternative F-3 Transfer Flows to Fulton County
Under this alternative, all wastewater flows generated within Forsyth County beyond the capacity of the existing treatment facilities would be conveyed to the Big Creek and Johns Creek plants in Fulton County. The total flow from Forsyth County would be split approximately 60/40 between these facilities, respectively, based on the apportionment of existing Forsyth County flows to these facilities. This alternative assumes Forsyth County's future 10-mgd discharge to the Chattahoochee River would be transferred to the Big Creek and Johns Creek plants in Fulton County to avoid the addition of a new point source discharge on the Chattahoochee River.
The major conveyance system requirements within Forsyth County would include new pumping stations in the Settingdown and Dick's Creek basins to divert flow to the Big Creek and Johns Creek basins, respectively, and a new interceptor sewer along the Chattahoochee River to deliver flow from the southeastern portion of the county to the new Dick's Creek PS. In addition to the new Forsyth County facilities, improvements to the Big Creek and Johns Creek interceptor sewers would be required to convey the additional flow. Similar to the previous two alternatives, an additional 1-mgd of capacity would also be needed at the City of Cumming's Bethelview Road plant by 2004 to satisfy projected capacity needs until the expanded facilities in Fulton County could be constructed.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Purchase 6-mgd capacity at the Big Creek plant in Fulton County. Construct 71,000 feet of 36-inch parallel interceptor sewer along the Big Creek
interceptor.
Purchase 4-mgd capacity at the Johns Creek plant in Fulton County.
Construct 60,000 feet of 30-inch parallel interceptor sewer along the Johns Creek interceptor.
Construct a new 2-mgd pumping station along Settingdown Creek west of Georgia Highway 400, including 35,000 feet of 16-inch force main, to deliver flow into the Big Creek basin.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-29
9/18/02
Construct a new 3-mgd pumping station along Dick's Creek near the Chattahoochee River, including 23,000 ft of 18-inch force main, to deliver flow into the Johns Creek basin.
Construct 37,000 feet of 30-inch interceptor along the Chattahoochee River north from the Dick's Creek PS.
Lease 1 mgd of capacity at the City of Cumming's Bethelview Road plant on a short-term, temporary basis.
Alternative F-4 Expand Fowler Plant Capacity
Under this alternative, the proposed Fowler treatment plant would be expanded to a capacity of 13.5 mgd to treat all flows generated within Forsyth County beyond the capacity of the existing facilities. Discharges from the Fowler plant would continue to be land applied; therefore, additional land application sites would be required. Major conveyance system elements similar to the previous alternatives would be required, including pumping stations in the Settingdown Creek, Big Creek, and Dick's Creek basins to deliver flow to the new Fowler plant and a new interceptor sewer along the Chattahoochee River to deliver flow from the southeastern portion of the county to the new Dick's Creek PS.
The Fowler WWTP would also be expanded in two, 5-mgd phases. The first phase of expansion would be constructed and commissioned by 2006, the second by 2008. The initial design capacity of the WWTP, however, would be increased from 2.5 to 3.5 mgd to handle the projected flows until the first expansion design and construction could be completed. This alternative assumes that a maximum flow of 2 mgd would continue to be sent to Fulton County's Big Creek and Johns Creek plants and that suitable land application sites can be located within reasonable distance (3 miles or less) from the Fowler plant site.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Expand the new Fowler plant from 2.5 to 13.5-mgd capacity.
Construct land application sites to land apply 11 mgd of additional capacity, including a 4-mgd pumping station and 30,000 feet of 20-inch force main to each site. The cost for this component could be less if the County finds `customers' (such as new developments or industries) willing to take reclaimed water for beneficial reuse rather than purchasing potable water from the County. For the purpose of this evaluation, no such use was assumed.
Construct a new 2-mgd pumping station along Settingdown Creek west of Georgia Highway 400, including 35,000 feet of 16-inch force main, to deliver flow into the Big Creek basin.
Construct a new 3-mgd pumping station along Big Creek at the southern county border, including 30,000 feet of 18-inch force main, to deliver flow to the expanded Fowler plant.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-30
9/18/02
Construct a new 3-mgd pumping station on Dick's Creek near the Chattahoochee River, including 49,000 feet of 20-inch force main, to deliver flow to the expanded Fowler plant.
Construct 37,000 feet of 30-inch interceptor along the Chattahoochee River north from the Dick's Creek PS.
Evaluation of Forsyth County Alternatives
A summary of the economic analysis results for the Forsyth County alternatives is presented in Table 3-11. A summary of the rating of alternatives according to the economic and noneconomic evaluation criteria is presented in Table 3-12. All of the alternatives were evaluated as if they were long-term (20-year) strategies being implemented initially to satisfy short-term needs. Alternative F-1 was determined to be the least costly and the highest rated overall of the four alternatives evaluated for Forsyth County. It should be pointed out that some combination of the above alternatives may prove to be the most attractive to Forsyth County over the longterm, including the possibility of a joint treatment plant project with the City of Cumming. However, in the short-term, construction of a new treatment facility with a surface water discharge to the Chattahoochee River appears to be the most attractive option for Forsyth county to pursue.
Table 3-11. Summary of Economic Analysis of Forsyth County Alternatives
Analysis Parameter
Alternatives
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
Total capital cost, million $ Average annual O&M cost, million $ Estimated service life, years
128
145
193
211
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.6
20
20
20
20
Total present value, million $
162
176
226
238
Marginal cost, $/million gallons
2,561
2,795
3,586
3,711
Forsyth County should complete the 1.5-mgd Fowler wastewater treatment plant and land application system as soon as possible in 2003. Since the Fowler plant is being designed with a capacity of 2.5 mgd, Forsyth County should work with EPD to get the additional 1 mgd of capacity permitted by 2004. To meet the remainder of its short-term needs, the alternatives evaluation showed that a 10-mgd discharge to the Chattahoochee River, consistent with the most recent Chattahoochee River Model results, would be the best course for Forsyth County to pursue. This could be accomplished by building a new plant near the river, or by expanding the Fowler plant and piping treated effluent to the Chattahoochee River for disposal. The option implemented by Forsyth County should be the one that is most consistent with the strategy ultimately selected by the County for long-term wastewater management. Regardless of which option is chosen, the first phase of the new treatment facility should be on-line by 2005. It may also be necessary for Forsyth County to lease a small quantity of treatment capacity (approximately 1 mgd) in the City of Cumming's Bethelview Road plant on a temporary, shortterm basis until its new treatment facilities are available.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-31
9/18/02
Table 3-12. Summary of Evaluation Ratings for Forsyth County Alternatives
Evaluation Criterion
Weighting
Factor
F-1
Rating Points
Alternatives
F-2
F-3
Rating Points Rating Points
Marginal Cost of Added Capacity
25
4
100
3
75
2
50
F-4 Rating Points
1
25
Implementation Schedule
20
4
80
2
40
2
40
4
80
Compatibility with Long-Term Strategy
15
10
150
10
150
1
15
1
15
Interjurisdictional Complexity
10
10
100
5
50
1
10
10
100
Interbasin Transfer
5
3
15
3
15
3
15
3
15
Flexibility
5
5
25
5
25
4
20
5
25
Environmental Impact
20
6
120
8
160
6
120
5
100
Totals
100
590
Alternative F-1. Construct new treatment plant with Chattahoochee River discharge. Alternative F-2. Construct new treatment plant with Lake Lanier discharge. Alternative F-3. Transfer flows to Fulton County Big Creek and Johns Creek plants. Alternative F-4. Expand Fowler plant capacity and land apply treated effluent.
515
270
360
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-32
9/18/02
In addition to the short-term needs in the Forsyth County service area, the City of Cumming is projecting short-term needs in its service area. A new treatment plant with a discharge to Lake Lanier will meet Cummings' short-term needs and become a component of the City's long-term wastewater management plan. As part of the Short-Term Plan, Cumming and Forsyth County should come to agreement on an equitable division of the joint waste load allocation to Lake Lanier. Part of the plan for Cumming's discharge to Lake Lanier should be the decommissioning of the Habersham and Lanier Beach South WWTPs. The City has indicated a willingness to take these systems over. Cumming and Forsyth County should investigate the relative merits of separate treatment facilities or a joint facility to serve their respective service areas within the Lake Lanier Basin over the long-term.
SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES FOR NORTH FULTON COUNTY
This section provides information on the alternatives evaluated for addressing projected shortterm wastewater capacity needs in North Fulton County. An overview of each alternative is provided followed by summaries of the cost estimates and evaluation ratings for each alternative.
Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs
The wastewater capacity needs assessment for North Fulton County showed a projected deficit of about 9 mgd by the year 2008 if no additional capacity is provided. Phase 1 of the Cauley Creek Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) and land application system (LAS) is nearing completion and should provide an additional 2.5 mgd of capacity in North Fulton County by mid-2002. This will reduce the projected 2008 capacity deficit to about 6.5 mgd. Fulton County has plans to expand the Cauley Creek WRP to 5.0 mgd in the future. However, this will require a new wetweather or seasonal discharge to the Chattahoochee River. The Georgia EPD has recently established policy for issuing such permits.
A key element of the short-term plan for North Fulton County is the expansion of the Johns Creek WRP from its current capacity of 7 mgd to 15 mgd. For the purposes of this investigation, it is assumed that the expansion of the Johns Creek WRP will be permitted by 2005 after a portion of the heat load is removed from the Chattahoochee River. Even if this occurs as assumed, there is an immediate need for wastewater treatment capacity in North Fulton County to address existing sewer tap moratoria in the Big Creek and Johns Creek WRP service areas.
Table 3-13 summarizes the projected annual wastewater capacity needs in North Fulton County between 2002 and 2008. The annual flow projections presented in the table are based upon information presented by Brown and Caldwell in the "Fulton County 2020 Water and Wastewater Master Plan," dated June 1999, and updated by Weideman & Singleton, et al. in a document entitled "North Fulton Wastewater Management Conceptual Plan, Draft 2.5," dated October 2001. The projections show a deficit of about 1 mgd in 2002, after Phase 1 of the Cauley Creek WRP comes on line, increasing to about 1.5 mgd in 2003. It was assumed that expansion of the Cauley Creek WRP to 5 mgd will be available sometime in 2004, and that expansion of the Johns Creek WRP to 15 mgd would be available by 2005, eliminating the deficit in North Fulton County through 2008. By 2008, or shortly thereafter, it is expected that
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-33
9/18/02
expanded capacity in the Big Creek WRP will be available as a result of the remaining Georgia Power heat load being removed from the Chattahoochee River. This will prevent subsequent deficits from occurring in North Fulton County.
Table 3-13. Summary of North Fulton County Wastewater
Projected Capacity/Flow
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Treatment Capacity, mgd
Big Creek
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Johns Creek Cauley Creek
7
7
7
15 15
15 15
2.5 2.5
5
5
5
5
5
Total, treatment capacity
33.5 33.5 36
44
44
44
44
Projected wastewater flow, mgd
34.4 35.0 35.5 36.1 37.4 38.7 40.1
Projected capacity surplus (deficit), mgd (0.9) (1.5) 0.5 7.9 6.6 5.3 3.9
Options to provide immediate capacity relief in North Fulton County, therefore, should focus on the objective of providing additional capacity in the next 3 years. Options that take 2 to 3 years to implement have marginal value in North Fulton County in terms of addressing the existing sewer tap moratoria. Options that can be implemented in 6 to 12 months, even if only on a temporary basis, have the potential to provide far greater benefit given the current situation.
A total of five alternatives, with the potential to address some or all of the short-term wastewater capacity needs in North Fulton County, were developed for evaluation. The following paragraphs provide an overview of each alternative.
Alternative NF-1 Expand Fowler Treatment Facility (Forsyth County)
The Big Creek and Johns Creek WRPs both currently accept wastewater flow from Forsyth County, at the rates of 1.25 mgd and 0.75 mgd, respectively. Under this alternative, Forsyth County would construct the required conveyance facilities and expand its new Fowler wastewater treatment plant to a capacity of 3.5 mgd to relieve 2 mgd from the North Fulton County facilities. Since a wet-weather or seasonal discharge permit is not in place to allow the Fowler plant to treat more than 1.5 mgd initially, it was assumed that the disposal of the additional flow would be by land application.
Based on a review of available sewer and topographic maps for the Big Creek and Johns Creek service areas, there are a total of four locations where wastewater flows from Forsyth County enter the Fulton County system. New pumping stations would be required at each of these locations to intercept the flow and deliver it to the Fowler plant. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that a single force main trunk would be constructed from the proposed Johns Creek pumping station (furthest away) to the Fowler plant, collecting flow from the remaining three pumping stations along the way.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-34
9/18/02
The Fowler plant would be expanded to provide the additional capacity to treat these flows. Expansion would also require acquisition of additional land application sites and the associated pumping and irrigation facilities. It was assumed that suitable land can be acquired in reasonable proximity to the Fowler plant site for this purpose.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Upgrade the new Fowler wastewater treatment plant from 1.5 to 3.5 mgd to accommodate additional flow from southern Forsyth County.
Construct a new 2-mgd pumping station to deliver treated effluent from the Fowler plant to a new land application site, including 15,000 feet of 16-inch force main.
Construct a new 250-acre land application site with spray irrigation system for disposal of an additional 2 mgd of treated effluent.
Construct a new 0.75 mgd pumping station along Johns Creek at the Fulton/Forsyth County line to deliver flow to the Fowler plant.
Construct a new 0.5 mgd pumping station along Caney Creek at the Fulton/Forsyth County line to deliver flow to the Fowler plant.
Construct a new 0.5 mgd pumping station along Big Creek at the Fulton/Forsyth County line to deliver flow to the Fowler plant.
Construct a new 0.5 mgd pumping station along Camp Creek at the Fulton/Forsyth County line to deliver flow to the Fowler plant.
Construct an estimated 60,000 feet of 6 to 14-inch force main from the new Johns Creek pumping station to the Fowler plant. This force main will collect flow from the other three pumping stations.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the expansion of the Fowler plant would remain in operation for the long-term future even if Forsyth County was able to obtain a surface water discharge. Therefore, present worth was calculated over a period of 20 years and the marginal cost of the alternative was calculated assuming that 2 mgd of additional capacity would be available in North Fulton County over the same 20-year time period.
Alternative NF-2 Divert Flow to Gwinnett County 2 mgd
Fulton County currently has pumping facilities in place to divert flows up to 1 mgd to the Crooked Creek WPCP from the Johns Creek service area. The existing pumping station is located along the Chattahoochee River near Holcomb Bridge Road, taking flow from the Chattahoochee II East Interceptor Sewer. An existing 12-inch force main connects the pumping station to the plant.
Under this alternative, the existing force main could be reused and new pumping equipment could be installed at the existing pump station site to deliver a total flow of 2 mgd to the Crooked Creek WPCP. To accommodate the additional flow at the plant, Gwinnett County's collection system could be temporarily reconnected to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor feeding the
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-35
9/18/02
R. M. Clayton WRC operated by the City of Atlanta. This connection was abandoned in 1999 as part of the development of the F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center. The cessation of all flow from Gwinnett to DeKalb sewers leading to Atlanta's R.M. Clayton plant was at the crux of the 20-mgd permit for the new facility. This connection was abandoned to effectuate the effluent trading on which the 20-mgd permit was based. The permitting process included public comments and a public hearing. In order to reverse this arrangement a flow control mechanism could be designed such that Gwinnett County could divert an equivalent amount of flow to the R. M. Clayton WRC when Fulton diverts flow to the Crooked Creek WPCP. This alternative assumes that that the existing force main can be reused without modification and that reconnecting the Gwinnett County system can be accomplished with minimal cost.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 2.0 mgd pumping station and connect to the existing 12-inch force main.
Reconnect the Gwinnett County system to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor.
For the purposes of evaluation, it was assumed that this alternative would be a temporary, shortterm option that would remain in operation only until Fulton County is able to expand Cauley Creek WRP to 5 mgd or its Johns Creek WRP to 15 mgd, whichever occurs first (2004 or 2005).
Alternative NF-3 Divert Flow to Gwinnett County 4 mgd
This alternative is based on information presented in a draft technical memorandum prepared for Fulton County by Jordan, Jones, & Goulding (JJ&G) dated May 2001. The elements of this alternative are similar to those of Alternative NF-2 except that a new 4-mgd pumping station and force main would be constructed to deliver flow from the Johns Creek service area to the Crooked Creek WPCP in Gwinnett County.
The new pumping station would be located in the same vicinity as the existing station and a new 24-inch force main would be constructed. The force main, approximately 8,000 feet in length, would cross the Chattahoochee River, Spalding Drive and Crooked Creek before discharging at the Crooked Creek plant site. This alternative assumes that reconnecting the Gwinnett County system to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor can be accomplished at minimal cost.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a 4 mgd pumping station to deliver raw wastewater to the Crooked Creek WPCP.
Construct 8,000 feet of new 24-inch force main. Reconnect the Gwinnett County system to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor.
For the purposes of evaluation, it was assumed that this alternative would be a temporary, shortterm option that would remain in operation only until Fulton County is able to expand Cauley Creek WRP to 5 mgd or its Johns Creek WRP to 15 mgd, whichever occurs first (2004 or 2005).
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-36
9/18/02
Alternative NF-4 Divert Flow Directly to North Fork Peachtree Interceptor 4 mgd
This alternative was also derived from the May 2001 technical memorandum prepared by JJ&G. Under this alternative, flow would be diverted directly from the Johns Creek service area to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor in DeKalb County. This alternative eliminates the diversion of flow into Gwinnett County as required in the previous two alternatives.
A new 4-mgd pumping station would be constructed along the Chattahoochee River at Holcomb Bridge Road, similar to Alternatives NF-2 and NF-3. A new 24-inch force main, approximately 37,000 feet in length, would convey flow to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor near Pleasantdale Road. In addition to crossing the Chattahoochee River, the route of the new force main would include approximately ten street and highway crossings, one railroad crossing, and one raw water and two natural gas pipeline crossings.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct 4-mgd pumping station to deliver raw wastewater to the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor.
Construct 37,000 feet of 24-inch force main.
For the purposes of evaluation, it was assumed that this alternative would remain in operation over the long-term. Accordingly, economic analyses were conducted over a 20-year period, consistent with the evaluation methodology discussed previously.
Alternative NF-5 Divert Flow to Cobb County (R.L. Sutton WRF) 2 mgd
The Big Creek WRF receives flow from both Fulton and Cobb Counties via three pumping stations in the area: the Cobb Willeo PS (located on the plant site), the Riverside Drive PS, and the Willeo PS. An emergency bypass sewer exists between the Willeo PS in the Fulton County system and the Little Willeo PS in the Cobb County system. This bypass is currently inactive. Under this alternative, this bypass would be utilized to divert excess flows from the Big Creek WRF into the Cobb County system for treatment at the R.L. Sutton WRF.
Based on discussions with Cobb County, the bypass can pass a maximum flow rate of 4 mgd, delivered to the Cobb system during low flow periods (evenings hours). It is assumed that this period will be approximately 12 hours which corresponds to a maximum total flow of 2 mgd. Flow equalization/storage facilities would be constructed at the Big Creek plant site to store flow over the course of the day and deliver them to the bypass during the prescribed period. New facilities at the plant site would include a 2-MG equalization tank, a 4-mgd pumping station, and the associated yard piping and site work.
It should be noted that components of the planned future expansions at Big Creek could be constructed now to serve as flow equalization facilities. However, these facilities would result in much higher capital cost, and this approach was not considered further in this alternative. This alternative assumes that the existing bypass has the specified capacity and can be returned to active service with minimal effort. In addition, this alternative assumes that Cobb County's
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-37
9/18/02
conveyance system downstream of the bypass sewer can handle the additional flow. This will require additional investigation prior to implementation of this alternative.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a 2-mgd Crom-type tank at the Big Creek WRF, including associated yard piping, structure modifications and site work.
Construct a new 4-mgd pumping station to convey bypass flows back to the existing Willeo Creek pumping station.
Construct 5,000 linear feet of new 16-inch force main to the Willeo Creek PS bypass.
For the purposes of evaluation, it was assumed that this alternative would be a temporary, shortterm option that would remain in operation only until Fulton County is able to expand its Cauley Creek WRP to 5 mgd or its Johns Creek WRP to 15 mgd, whichever occurs first (2004 or 2005).
Evaluation of North Fulton County Alternatives
A summary of the economic analysis results for the five North Fulton County alternatives is presented in Table 3-14. Alternatives NF-1 and NF-4 were evaluated as long-term solutions over a period of 20 years. The remaining three alternatives were evaluated as temporary, short-term solutions with an operating life of only 3 years. The results of the analysis indicate that NF-4 is the least costly option on a marginal cost basis. Of the temporary short-term alternatives, NF-2 and NF-3 are considerably less expensive than NF-6. However, if it is determined that flow equalization is not needed at the Big Creek WRF to divert 2 mgd of flow into the Cobb County system, than Alternative NF-6 would be considerably less costly.
Table 3-14. Summary of Economic Analysis of North Fulton County Alternatives
Analysis Parameter
NF-1
Alternatives NF-2 NF-3 NF-4
NF-5
Total capital cost, million $
43
1
3
10
3
Average annual O&M cost, million $
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
0.8
Estimated service life, years
20
3
3
20
3
Total present value, million $
54
3
3
32
11
Marginal cost, $/million gallons
3,700 1,490 1,680 1,092 2,472
Table 3-15 summarizes the ratings of the alternatives according to the economic and noneconomic criteria included in the evaluation methodology. Based upon this evaluation, Alternatives NF-2 and NF-5 are rated the highest. Both of these alternatives received high ratings for environmental impact because they rely primarily on existing infrastructure. Alternative NF-5 received higher ratings for implementation schedule and interjurisdictional complexity than Alternative NF-2, which may be a differentiator between the two alternatives in terms of their overall value to solving North Fulton County's immediate wastewater capacity needs. Any of the short-term alternatives that require diversion to the Atlanta system (NF-2, NF-3, NF-4) may be problematic over the next several years because of existing capacity
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-38
9/18/02
Table 3-15. Summary of Evaluation Ratings for the North Fulton County Alternatives
Evaluation Criterion
Alternatives
Weighting Factor
NF-1 Rating Points
NF-2 Rating Points
NF-3 Rating Points
NF-4 Rating Points
Marginal Cost of Added Capacity
25
1
25
9 225 8 200 10 250
NF-5 Rating Points
5 125
Implementation Schedule
20
6 120 5 100 4
80
3
60
8 160
Compatibility with Long-Term Strategy
15
6
90
1 15 1
15
8
120
1
15
Interjurisdictional Complexity
10
10 100 1 10 1
10
1
10
5
50
Interbasin Transfer
5
10 50 10 50 10 50 10
50
10 50
Flexibility
5
5
25 10 50 10 50
5
25
10 50
Environmental Impact Totals
20
6 120 10 200 6 120 6 120 10 200
100
530
650
525
635
650
Alternative NF-1: Expand Forsyth County's Fowler WWTP. Alternative NF-2: Divert 2 mgd to Gwinnett County's Crooked Creek WRF. Alternative NF-3: Divert 4 mgd to Gwinnett County's Crooked Creek WRF. Alternative NF-4: Divert 4 mgd to North Fork Peachtree Creek Interceptor. Alternative NF-5: Divert 2 mgd to Cobb County R.L. Sutton WRF.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-39
9/18/02
constraints in the North Fork Peachtree Interceptor. Available capacity in the North Fork Peachtree system would need to be thoroughly investigated before any of these diversion alternatives could be implemented.
The Short-Term Plan calls for Fulton County to complete the new Cauley Creek treatment plant and land application system (LAS) by mid-2002 at a capacity of 2.5 mgd. Fulton County should also begin work immediately to get a wet-weather discharge permit for the plant so that it can be expanded to 5 mgd by 2004. The Short-Term Plan also calls for Fulton County to expand the existing Johns Creek plant to 15 mgd, consistent with the results of the most recent Chattahoochee River Model. With Cauley Creek expanded to 5 mgd, Johns Creek expanded to 15 mgd, and the Big Creek plant operating at its present capacity of 24 mgd, the projected shortterm capacity needs of North Fulton County after 2004 will be satisfied.
While the plant expansions are being implemented, however, immediate capacity needs over the next 2 to 3 years remain. The alternatives analysis indicated that the most attractive option for additional short-term, temporary capacity would be to divert up to 2 mgd of flow from the Big Creek service area to the Cobb County system for treatment at the R.L. Sutton plant. It is unclear whether storage facilities at the Big Creek plant site will be necessary or whether there is enough available capacity in the Cobb County system to accommodate the diversion without storage. The necessary investigations should be initiated as soon as possible to make this determination. It is also recommended that the Johns Creek system be connected to Gwinnett County's Crooked Creek system using existing pump station equipment and force mains. This connection would act as an emergency back-up to divert up to 2 mgd of flow from North Fulton County to Gwinnett County until such time as the Fulton County plant expansions are completed. Both diversions should be expressly time-limited to coincide with bringing the Johns Creek expansion on-line in 2005.
SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES FOR SOUTH FULTON COUNTY
This section provides information on the alternatives evaluated for addressing projected shortterm wastewater capacity needs in South Fulton County. An overview of each alternative is provided followed by summaries of the cost estimates and evaluation ratings for each alternative.
Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs
The wastewater capacity needs assessment for South Fulton County showed a projected deficit of greater than 4 mgd by the year 2008 if no additional capacity is provided. Fulton County is currently expanding the Camp Creek WRF to 24 mgd from the existing 13 mgd by the year 2005. However, the plant is at its current permitted capacity and will experience a shortfall until the new plant comes on-line, especially during wet weather conditions.
There are three municipalities in South Fulton County that have formed the South Fulton Municipal Regional Water and Sewerage Authority (SFMRWASA). These municipalities are Union City, the City of Fairburn, and the City of Palmetto. Union City currently has an
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-40
9/18/02
agreement in place with Fulton County and sends their wastewater to the Camp Creek WRF for treatment.
The City of Fairburn also has an agreement with Fulton County, but is expanding its service area and is currently constructing a new 1-mgd LAS system south of the City with plans to expand it to 2 mgd in the future. The City of Fairburn is not projecting any short-term wastewater capacity needs.
The City of Palmetto has a 0.6 mgd facility that is currently operating at capacity. There is no firm plan in place to expand the facility. Therefore, a short-term capacity issue exists; however, because future flows for the Palmetto service area have not been projected the extent of the short-term deficit is not known.
The SFMRWASA has hired a consultant to complete a utility master plan and options for expanding wastewater capacity are being developed. Flow projections are not complete at this time; however, options that are being looked at include pumping future flows to the Camp Creek WRF and constructing a regional facility with 1 to 3 mgd of capacity.
Alternatives for additional short-term capacity in South Fulton County were focused on providing short-term relief for the Camp Creek WRF and the City of Palmetto service areas. One alternative was developed for diverting flow away from the Camp Creek WRF on a temporary short-term basis. Three alternatives were developed for the City of Palmetto. As a general rule, options that take 2 to 3 years to implement have marginal value in South Fulton County in terms of addressing a potential sewer tap moratorium. Options that can be implemented in 6 to 12 months, even if only on a temporary basis, have the potential to provide far greater benefit given the current situation.
Alternative SF-1 Divert Wastewater Flow from Camp Creek to Utoy Creek
Under this alternative, Fulton County would construct the required conveyance facilities to divert wastewater flow from the Camp Creek WRF to the City of Atlanta's Utoy Creek WRC. The diversion would only be required for a period of 2 to 3 years until the Camp Creek expansion is brought on-line in 2005. Based upon the currently projected needs in the Camp Creek service area, only about 2 mgd of flow diversion would be required. However, if other jurisdictions in South Fulton County (e.g. Palmetto) needed to become part of the project, up to 4 mgd of diversion capacity could be required. Therefore, analysis of the alternative was based on constructing sufficient capacity to divert 4 mgd of flow from the Camp Creek WRF to the Utoy Creek WRC.
Based on a review of available sewer and topographic maps for the Camp Creek and Utoy Creek service areas, there is only one practical location where wastewater flows from the Camp Creek service area can be diverted to the Utoy Creek WRC. The pump station would be located in the vicinity of Vandiver Road and Enon Road where two interceptors tie together that collect wastewater east and north of the Camp Creek WRF. Approximately 30,000 feet of new 30-inch force main would be constructed. The force main route would be along an existing pipeline to Camp Creek Parkway, then north along Camp Creek Parkway to Fulton Industrial Boulevard to the Utoy Creek WRC.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-41
9/18/02
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 4-mgd pumping station in the Camp Creek WRF service area.
Construct approximately 30,000 linear feet of 16-inch force main to convey flow from the new pumping station to the City of Atlanta's Utoy Creek WRC.
This option can be implemented with minimal impacts to the environment and can be implemented in a relatively short period of time to provide relief in the short-term to the Camp Creek WRF. The County has a permit to expand this facility and is moving quickly to implement the expansion, which is due to be complete in 2005. However, they have a need for additional capacity prior to this expansion. This option provides Fulton County with the necessary flexibility and time to complete the expansion by taking advantage of available capacity at Utoy Creek WRC. An interjurisdictional agreement would have to be negotiated between the City of Atlanta and Fulton County for this option to proceed.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the proposed capital improvements would remain in service for no more than 5 years. After that time, the facilities would remain in place, but would be used only for emergency by-pass purposes.
Alternative P-1 Divert City of Palmetto Flow to Fulton County's Camp Creek WRF
Fulton County currently has plans to take the Little Bear WRF out of service at the completion of the Camp Creek WRF expansion. A pump station could be built at the Little Bear WRF and a new force main built to the Camp Creek WRF. The SFMRWASA is evaluating the option of building an interceptor from the Palmetto WWTP to the Little Bear WRF and tying into the proposed Fulton County pump station.
Because there is no future projected flow data for the City of Palmetto, it was assumed that the flow would double from 0.6 mgd to 1.2 mgd by 2008 for the purposes of this analysis. Approximately 13,000 feet of 16-inch interceptor would be constructed from the City of Palmetto WWTP to the Little Bear WRF.
For the purpose of evaluating this alternative, it was assumed that the pump station to be constructed by Fulton County at the Little Bear WRF would be sized to accommodate both Little Bear and Palmetto flows. A 3.0 mgd pump station was assumed for initial construction. Approximately 62,000 feet of 18-inch force main would need to be constructed. The assumed route of the new force main was east on Wilkerson Road out of Little Bear WRF, north on Jenkins Road, east on Rivertown Road, north on Cascade Palmetto Road, north on West Stubbs Road and then east on Cochran Road into the Camp Creek WRF.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct approximately 30,000 feet of new 16-inch diameter interceptor from the City of Palmetto WWTP to Fulton County's Little Bear WRF.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-42
9/18/02
Construct a new 3.0 mgd pumping station at the Little Bear WRF. Construct approximately 62,000 feet of new 18-inch-diameter force main from the
Little Bear WRF to the Camp Creek WRF.
This alternative is considered a potential long-term wastewater management strategy for the City of Palmetto. However, for it to be effective in meeting the City's needs in the short-term, it requires Fulton County to implement the Camp Creek diversion (Alternative SF-1) at 4 mgd to provide sufficient capacity in the Camp Creek WRF for City of Palmetto flows.
Alternative P-2 New 1.2 mgd Palmetto WWTP
One of the options being investigated by the consultant for the SFMRWASA, is construction of a new treatment plant for the City of Palmetto. The existing facility has reached the end of its useful life and any expansion would require that a new facility be built. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the new facility would be a 1.2-mgd plant and that it could be built at the current plant location. The existing 0.6-mgd surface water discharge would be maintained with the additional 0.6 mgd of flow being disposed of by land application. The LAS site would be located within a mile of the plant site and would require approximately 84 acres.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 1.2-mgd wastewater treatment plant. Construct a new 1.2-mgd effluent disposal pump station. Construct 5000 feet of new 6-inch effluent disposal force main. Construct a new 84-acre LAS site.
Alternative P-2 was considered to be a long-term wastewater management strategy for the City of Palmetto. Economic analyses were conducted over an assumed service life of 20 years.
Alternative P-3 Divert 1.2 mgd of Flow to the New Fairburn WWTP
The City of Fairburn is currently constructing a 1-mgd wastewater treatment facility utilizing LAS for effluent disposal. The facility is expandable to 2 mgd. An option that is currently being investigated by the City of Palmetto is to pump its raw wastewater to the City of Fairburn WWTP for treatment. Fairburn could land apply of all but 0.6 mgd of the treated effluent at its LAS site. The City of Palmetto would maintain their existing discharge permit at 0.6 mgd. Up to 0.6 mgd of treated effluent would be pumped from the City of Fairburn WWTP back to the City of Palmetto discharge point.
Because there is no projected flow data for the City of Palmetto, for the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that the existing flow would double from 0.6 mgd to 1.2 mgd. SFMRWASA has completed some analysis of this option. Their plan is to optimize pumping by using the existing plant structures at the Palmetto plant for flow equalization. A new 1.5 mgd pump station and 26,000 LF of 12-inch force main could be constructed from the City of Palmetto WWTP to a point along Johns River Road where the raw sewage force main would tie into the existing City of Fairburn gravity sewer system and be treated at the new WWTP. After treatment, effluent
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-43
9/18/02
could be pumped through a new 0.75-mgd pump station and 41,000 LF of 10-inch force main to the current discharge point of the City of Palmetto WWTP.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 1.5-mgd pump station at the Palmetto WWTP.
Construct a new 12-inch diameter force main from the Palmetto WWTP to the City of Fairburn system.
Construct a new 0.75-mgd pumping station at the Fairburn WWTP.
Construct new 10-inch diameter force main from the Fairburn WWTP to the Palmetto WWTP.
Alternative P-3 was considered to be a long-term wastewater management strategy for the city of Palmetto that could also satisfy the city's short-term capacity needs. Economic analyses were conducted over an assumed service life of 20 years.
Evaluation of South Fulton County Alternatives
A summary of the economic analysis results for the South Fulton County alternatives is presented in Table 3-16. Of the three Palmetto alternatives, Alternative P-3 involves the least initial capital cost and has the lowest marginal cost over the expected 20-year service life.
Table 3-16. Summary of Economic Analysis of South Fulton County Alternatives
Analysis Parameter
Total capital cost, million $ Average annual O&M cost, million $ Estimated service life, years Total present value, million $ Marginal cost, $/million gallons
SF-1 5 1.6 5 9
2,200
Alternatives
P-1
P-2
11
15
0.4
0.3
20
20
17
21
1,900 2,400
P-3 9.5 0.4 20 15.5 1,800
Table 3-17 summarizes the ratings of the alternatives according to the economic and noneconomic criteria included in the evaluation methodology. Of the three Palmetto alternatives, Alternatives P-1 and P-3 were rated nearly equal and generally higher than Alternative P-2. Both of these alternatives can be implemented in about the same amount of time and both are consistent with the concept of regional treatment. Alternative P-1 requires Fulton County to move forward with temporary, short-term diversion of flow from the Camp Creek WRF to Atlanta's Utoy Creek WRC (Alternative SF-1), while Alternative P-3 requires the City of Fairburn to expand its new wastewater treatment plant and LAS in a timely fashion.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-44
9/18/02
Evaluation Criterion Marginal Cost of Added Capacity
Table 3-17. Palmetto Alternative Ratings
Alternatives
Weighting Factor
SF-1 Rating Points
P-1 Rating Points
P-2 Rating Points
P-3 Rating Points
25
6
150
7
175
5
125
8
200
Implementation Schedule
20
7
140
6
120
6
120
6
120
Compatibility with Long-Term Strategy
15
4
60
8
120
8
120
8
120
Interjurisdictional Complexity
10
5
50
6
60
8
80
9
90
Interbasin Transfer
5
10
50
9
45
9
45
9
45
Flexibility
5
10
50
8
40
8
40
8
40
Environmental Impact Totals
20
8
160
7
140
5
100
6
120
100
660
700
645
735
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-45
9/18/02
One possible differentiator between the two alternatives may be in the area of environmental impact. Alternative P-1 consists mostly of new pipeline and pumping station construction with treatment operations only at the Camp Creek WRF. If this alternative were to be implemented, two treatment plants, the City of Palmetto's WWTP and Fulton County's Little Bear WRF, would be taken off-line and there would no longer be any wastewater discharges to Little Bear Creek. Alternative P-3 does not provide specifically for the elimination of any discharges, although Fulton County's long-term plan is to eventually take the Little Bear WRF out of service and consolidate flow at the Camp Creek WRF. However, an overriding point is that the SFMRWASA believes that the best option for them is Alternative P-3. This plan is consistent with the findings of this Short-Term Plan and is, therefore recommended for implementation.
In South Fulton County, the Short-Term Plan is to expand the Camp Creek plant to 24 mgd. However, this will not be completed until 2005 and immediate needs remain at both the Camp Creek plant and the City of Palmetto plant. Therefore, it is recommended that Fulton County and Palmetto work together with the City of Atlanta to implement a temporary diversion of up to 4 mgd of flow from the Camp Creek system to Atlanta's Utoy Creek WRC where existing capacity is available. This diversion would make sufficient capacity available at the Camp Creek plant for flows from Fulton's Little Bear plant, which is to be decommissioned, to be treated at Camp Creek. A pumping station would be constructed at the Little Bear plant site to convey the wastewater flow to Camp Creek for treatment. The result would be the elimination of a wastewater discharge to Little Bear Creek. After completion of the Camp Creek expansion, the temporary diversion of flow to Atlanta's Utoy Creek WRC would no longer be needed.
The City of Palmetto, as part of the SFMRWASA, would divert its current flow to be treated at the new City of Fairburn WWTP. Effluent would then be pumped back to the City of Palmetto WWTP site for discharge to Little Bear Creek and to a new LAS site.
SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES FOR ROCKDALE COUNTY
This section provides information on the alternatives evaluated for addressing projected shortterm wastewater capacity needs in Rockdale County. An overview of each alternative is provided, followed by summaries of the cost estimates and evaluation ratings for each alternative.
Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs
Rockdale County is bisected by Interstate Highway 20 (I-20), which runs generally east-west along a ridge line through the middle of the county. The sewered areas north of I-20 are served by the Quigg Branch WRF, a 6-mgd treatment facility which discharges to the Yellow River. The Quigg Branch plant is expected to reach capacity by 2005 or 2006. Rockdale County is currently in the process of expanding the capacity of the Quigg Branch plant from 6 mgd to 8 mgd. The additional 2 mgd of capacity will be treated to reclaimed water standards and a portion will be reused by a local industry. With this expansion, the capacity of the Quigg Branch WRF should be adequate to accommodate flows generated in Rockdale County north of I-20 through the year 2008.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-46
9/18/02
Short-term wastewater capacity needs are more acute in the area of Rockdale County south of I-20. This area of the county is currently served by six small wastewater treatment plants, ranging in capacity from 0.09 to 1.25 mgd. Most of these facilities are either at or near their permitted capacities, or are not providing adequate treatment. Rockdale County has attempted to increase capacity at its two largest treatment plants in the southern part of the county, the Almand Branch and Snapping Shoals plants. Due to the lack of available waste load allocation in the South River Basin upstream of Lake Jackson, the County has been unable to obtain a permit to do so. As an interim measure, Rockdale County has constructed a pumping station and force main to convey wastewater flows from the southern part of the county to the Quigg Branch WRF in the north.
Table 3-18 summarizes the projected annual wastewater capacity needs in Rockdale County between 2002 and 2008. In total, the County has sufficient wastewater treatment capacity through the short-term planning period, but there is insufficient capacity in South Rockdale immediately. The County has been managing this deficit through pumping of raw wastewater from South Rockdale to the Quigg Branch WRF with pumping stations located at the Snapping Shoals WRF and on Old Salem Road. These pumping stations do not serve all of South Rockdale. The County has also controlled the issuing of building permits to avoid adding more flow in the service areas at or above rated capacity which cannot route any flow to another treatment facility.
Rockdale County will soon begin an update to its water and wastewater master plan, which will result in updated projections of flow in the County. It is likely that development is being constrained by the lack of wastewater treatment capacity and that when the County is able to provide additional wastewater capacity, there will be an increase in new developments.
Three alternatives with the potential to address the short-term wastewater capacity needs in Rockdale County were developed for evaluation. The following paragraphs provide an overview of each alternative.
Alternative R-1 Divert Flow to Existing Quigg Branch WPCP in North Rockdale
Under this alternative, wastewater flow would be diverted from all six of the existing WPCPs in South Rockdale and pumped to the Quigg Branch WRF located in North Rockdale County. Four new pump stations and up to 19 miles of force main would need to be constructed. In addition, four of the six WPCPs in South Rockdale County would be decommissioned as dictated by Consent Order.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-47
9/18/02
Table 3-18. Summary of Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Needs for Rockdale County
Projected Capacity/Flow
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Treatment Capacity, mgd Almand Branch
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Honey Creek
0.30 0.30 0.30 0
0
0
0
Lakeridge Estates
0.03 0.03 0.03 0
0
0
0
Scott Creek
0.03 0.03 0.03 0
0
0
0
Snapping Shoals
0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Stanton Woods
0.2 0.2 0.2
0
0
0
0
South Rockdale Subtotal
2.46 2.46 2.46 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Quigg Branch
6.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Total, treatment capacity 8.46 8.46 8.46 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7
Projected wastewater flow, mgd
Almand Branch
1.64
2.0
Honey Creek
0.3
0.5
Lakeridge Estates
0.03
0.1
Scott Creek
0.14
0.3
Snapping Shoals
0.35
1.1
Stanton Woods
0.09
0.2
South Rockdale Subtotal
2.55 2.82 3.09 3.37 3.64 3.92 4.2
Quigg Branch
4.0 4.15 4.30 4.45 4.60 4.75 4.9
Total, projected flow
6.55 6.97 7.39 7.82 8.24 8.67 9.1
Projected capacity surplus (deficit), in South Rockdale, mgd
(0.09) (0.36) (0.63) (1.67) (1.94) (2.22) (2.5)
Projected capacity surplus (deficit), in Rockdale, mgd
1.91 1.49 1.07 1.88 1.46 1.03 0.6
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Use the existing Old Salem PS to divert 0.75 mgd to the Quigg Branch WPCP. Treat 1.25 mgd of flow at the existing Almand Branch WWTP. Construct a new pump station at the Honey Creek WPCP; divert 0.50 mgd of flow
to the Quigg Branch WPCP. Decommission the Honey Creek WPCP. Construct a new pump station at the Lakeridge Estates WRF; divert 0.10 mgd of
flow to the Quigg Branch WPCP. Decommission the Lakeridge Estates WRF. Construct a new pump station at the Scott Creek WPCP; divert 0.30 mgd of flow to
the Quigg Branch WPCP.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-48
9/18/02
Decommission the Scott Creek WPCP. Use the existing Snapping Shoals PS to divert 0.65 mgd of flow to the Quigg
Branch WPCP. Treat 0.45 mgd of flow at the existing Snapping Shoals WPCP. Construct a new pump station at the Stanton Woods WPCP; divert 0.20 mgd of
flow to the Quigg Branch WPCP. Decommission the Stanton Woods WPCP. Construct approximately up to 19 miles (100,000 feet) of force main ranging
between 6 and 16 inches in diameter. The force mains would convey flow from two existing and four new pumping stations to the Quigg Branch WPCP.
This alternative provides a short-term solution for South Rockdale. However, based on the flow projections in Table 3-18, the Quigg Branch WPCP, at 8 mgd, will only have capacity for the projected South Rockdale flows through about 2008. Accordingly, this alternative was evaluated based upon a service life of 7 years.
It should also be pointed out that decommissioning of the four smallest plants in South Rockdale was assumed as part of this alternative only for the purpose of comparison with the other alternatives. To preserve its wasteload allocation to the South River Basin, Rockdale County could choose to leave one or more of these plants in operation. This would reduce the cost of this alternative, as well as the amount of available capacity in the Quigg Branch plant required to accommodate South Rockdale flows.
Alternative R-2 Pump to Regional Pole Bridge WPCP in DeKalb County
Under this alternative, wastewater flow would be diverted from all six of the existing WPCPs in South Rockdale and pumped to the Pole Bridge WPCP located in DeKalb County. Rockdale County would purchase 2.5 mgd of capacity from DeKalb County. Four pump stations and approximately 23 miles of force main would need to be constructed. In addition, four of the six WPCPs in South Rockdale County would be decommissioned as dictated by Consent Order.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Use the existing Old Salem PS to divert 0.75 mgd to the Pole Bridge WPCP. Treat 1.25 mgd of flow at the Almand Branch WWTP. Construct a new pump station at the Honey Creek WPCP; divert 0.50 mgd of flow
to the Pole Bridge WPCP. Decommission the Honey Creek WPCP. Construct a new pump station at the Lakeridge Estates WRF; divert 0.10 mgd of
flow to the Pole Bridge WPCP. Decommission the Lakeridge Estates WRF.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-49
9/18/02
Construct a new pump station at the Scott Creek WPCP; divert 0.30 mgd of flow to the Pole Bridge WPCP.
Decommission the Scott Creek WPCP.
Use the existing Snapping Shoals PS to divert 0.65 mgd of flow to the Pole Bridge WPCP.
Treat 0.45 mgd of flow at the existing Snapping Shoals WPCP.
Construct a new pump station at the Stanton Woods WPCP; divert 0.20 mgd of flow to the Pole Bridge WPCP.
Decommission the Stanton Woods WPCP.
Construct approximately 23 miles (120,000 feet) of force main ranging between 6 and 16 inches in diameter. The force mains would convey flow from the two existing and four new pump stations to the Pole Bridge WPCP.
This alternative provides long-term wastewater capacity for South Rockdale County. However, for it to be implemented, the expansion of DeKalb County's Pole Bridge WPCP would need to be permitted at the necessary flow capacity and the County would have to construct the additional capacity. There is a strong likelihood that expansion of the Pole Bridge WPCP will be permitted by the Georgia EPD. Whether it will be permitted at a capacity sufficient for it to accept wastewater flows from Rockdale County is not known. Recently the County revised its schedule for expansion of the Pole Bridge WPCP to 2010 which is beyond the planning horizon of the Short-Term Plan. Unless this changes, Alternative R-2 may have to be eliminated.
Alternative R-3 Pump to New South Rockdale WPCP
Under this alternative, wastewater flow would be diverted from all six of the existing WPCPs in South Rockdale and pumped to a new wastewater treatment plant to be located in the vicinity of the Rockdale County Henry County border on property owned by Rockdale County. Four new pump stations and approximately 15 miles of force main would need to be constructed. In addition, four of the six WPCPs in South Rockdale County would be decommissioned as dictated by Consent Order.
The following capital components were assumed to comprise this alternative:
Construct a new 2.5-mgd tertiary treatment facility in South Rockdale County. Use the existing Old Salem PS to divert 0.75 mgd to the South Rockdale WPCP. Treat 1.25 mgd of flow at the existing Almand Branch WWTP. Construct a new pump station at the Honey Creek WPCP; divert 0.50 mgd of flow
to the South Rockdale WPCP. Decommission the Honey Creek WPCP. Construct a new pump station at the Lakeridge Estates WRF; divert 0.10 mgd of
flow to the South Rockdale WPCP.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-50
9/18/02
Decommission the Lakeridge Estates WRF. Construct a new pump station at the Scott Creek WPCP; divert 0.30 mgd of flow to
the South Rockdale WPCP.
Decommission the Scott Creek WPCP. Use the existing Snapping Shoals PS to divert 0.65 mgd of flow to the South
Rockdale WPCP.
Treat 0.45 mgd of flow at the existing Snapping Shoals WPCP. Construct a new pump station at the Stanton Woods WPCP; divert 0.20 mgd of
flow to the South Rockdale WPCP.
Decommission the Stanton Woods WPCP. Construct approximately 15 miles (80,000 feet) of force main ranging between
6 and 16 inches in diameter. The force main would convey flow from the two existing and four new pump stations to the new South Rockdale WPCP.
This alternative also provides long-term wastewater capacity for South Rockdale County and was evaluated over an assumed 20-year service life. However, it relies on Rockdale County being able to obtain a permit for a new discharge to the South River.
Evaluation of South Rockdale County Alternatives
A summary of the economic analysis results for the three South Rockdale County alternatives is presented in Table 3-19. Alternative R-1 has the least capital cost because a portion of the required infrastructure (pipelines and pumping stations) is already in place and available treatment capacity at the Quigg Branch WPCP is existing in the short-term. On a marginal cost basis, however, Alternative R-1 was found to have the highest marginal cost because the capacity at Quigg Branch was assumed to be available only until 2008. After that time, additional capacity would need to be constructed or purchased at another treatment facility. The marginal cost of Alternative R-1 would probably be lower, however, if Rockdale County did not decommission all four of its small South Rockdale plants in the short-term.
Table 3-20 summarizes the ratings of the three South Rockdale alternatives according to the economic and non-economic criteria included in the evaluation methodology. Based on this evaluation, Alternative R-1 is rated highest. While this alternative is the most expensive on a marginal cost basis, it involves the least construction, can be implemented the quickest, and does not depend on the actions of any other jurisdictions or regulatory agencies. Its major drawback, other than marginal cost, is that it does not, by itself, offer Rockdale County a long-term solution to the capacity short-fall in the southern part of the county unless the Quigg Branch WPCP can be expanded in the future beyond the 8 mgd capacity currently being planned for.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-51
9/18/02
Table 3-19. Summary of Economic Analysis of South Rockdale County Alternatives
Analysis Parameter
Alternatives
R-1
R-2
R-3
Total capital cost, million $
11
33
31
Average annual O&M cost, million $
0.8
0.6
0.6
Estimated service life, years
7
20
20
Total present value, million $
13
40
38
Marginal cost, $/million gallons
3,700
2,600
2,500
The alternatives analysis conducted in this investigation indicated that it would be advantageous for Rockdale County to continue diverting flow from South Rockdale to the Quigg Branch plant in North Rockdale, for the short-term. This will allow Rockdale County to decommission its small plants in South Rockdale and concentrate flows at larger plants where treatment is more efficient. The recommended Short-Term Plan for South Rockdale is to maintain operations at the Almand Branch and Snapping Shoals plants at their current capacities and decommission the Honey Creek, Lakeridge Estates, Scott Creek and Stanton Woods plants. Future flows in excess of capacity at the Almand Branch and Snapping Shoals plants, and all of the flows from the four smaller plants, would be diverted to the Quigg Branch plant where capacity is projected to be available through 2008.
The implementation schedule for the decommissioning of the four small plants in South Rockdale should remain flexible. Rockdale County does not want to lose the wasteload allocation that these plants currently represent. Therefore, it is recommended that Rockdale County work with the EPD to negotiate an agreement that preserves the wasteload allocation if the plants are decommissioned or keep the plants in service for another year or two. This will allow Rockdale County the time needed to complete an update of its wastewater master plan and determine the best strategy for maximizing value from the wasteload allocation in the future.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-52
9/18/02
Table 3-20. Summary of Evaluation Ratings for Rockdale County Alternatives
Evaluation Criterion
Weighting
Factor
R-1
Rating Points
Alternatives R-2
Rating Points
R-3 Ratings Points
Marginal Cost of Added Capacity
25
1
25
4
100
5
125
Implementation Schedule
20
9
180
4
80
2
40
Compatibility with Long-Term Strategy
15
4
60
8
120
8
120
Interjurisdictional Complexity
10
10
100
2
20
10
100
Interbasin Transfer
5
10
50
10
50
10
50
Flexibility
5
8
40
2
10
4
20
Environmental Impact
20
9
180
8
160
6
120
Totals
100
635
Alternative R-1: Pump to existing Quigg Branch WPCP. Alternative R-2: Pump to expanded Pole Bridge WPCP. Alternative R-3: Pump to new South Rockdale WPCP.
540
575
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 3 FR.doc
3-53
9/18/02
SECTION 4
SHORT-TERM WASTEWATER CAPACITY PLAN
This section presents the Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan (Short-Term Plan) for the 16-county District study area. The basis for development of the Short-Term Plan is first, followed by recommended actions for local jurisdictions to take in satisfying their short-term wastewater capacity needs. Finally, long-term wastewater planning issues are identified that should be addressed by the District in its future planning efforts.
Where necessary to effect practical economies of scale and phased construction, the recommendations presented in this Section are based on projected needs that may extend beyond the short-term planning period. All recommendations contained in this report are contingent on successfully meeting all permitting requirements and water quality standards. EPD has indicated that they will use this Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan to assist in NPDES permit decision making pertaining to those jurisdictions with immediate wastewater capacity problems or are under sewer tap moratoria. Other NPDES permit decisions within the District will be acted upon after the conclusions of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan are available.
BASIS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHORT-TERM PLAN
Formulation of the Short-Term Plan considered regulatory issues, as well as District-wide, or programmatic issues that could influence the need for or timing of capital projects to increase wastewater capacity where needed. A number of key elements also proved to be important to the development of the Short-Term Plan.
Regulatory and Institutional Issues
There are a number of issues of a regional nature, which have the potential to impact the decision-making process and/or the implementation of the Short-term Plan.
Tri-State Water Compacts. In June of 1990, the State of Alabama, later joined by the State of Florida, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the Corps from entering into agreements for future water supply for metro Atlanta. Since 1997, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida having been negotiating two interstate compacts for the long-term allocation of surface water resources in two major river basins shared by the three states. These basins are the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT). A final resolution to the resource sharing has not been concluded, but it is possible that these compacts will result in the establishment of a minimum flow that must be released to downstream users. Consequently, a primary concern for short-term wastewater capacity, and indeed the entire region on a long-term basis, is interbasin transfers which could result in decreased flows downstream of the District. Subsequent negotiations may preclude additional inter-basin transfers.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-1
9/18/02
Water Quality Standards for Lake Lanier, Lake Allatoona, West Point Lake and Jackson Lake. EPD has established total mass loading for phosphorus to the lakes in an effort to achieve acceptable chlorophyll limits. The phosphorus loading for Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona have been apportioned to the entities surrounding the respective lakes. No increases in the phosphorus load are likely to occur in the foreseeable future. The result is that any other entity which may want a discharge to the lake or an upstream tributary will have to achieve a very low effluent phosphorus concentration to stay below the allowable mass limit or will have to obtain, by purchase or trade, part of another entity's allocation.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs pose serious challenges to both District members and the rest of the state because they directly affect municipalities waste load allocation and permit limits. The federal government has listed impaired streams in the 303(d) list. Because the nexus between TMDLs and non-point source pollution is so strong, local cooperation will be essential to attain beneficial long-term results. EPD has indicated to the USEPA that the Georgia River Basin Management Planning process will provide the framework for the development of TMDLs. Public proposal of TMDLs for 303(d) listed segments in the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins will be performed by mid-2002. TMDLs will have some bearing on the short-term capacity issues, but will be a more critical element of the Long-Term Plan.
Chattahoochee River Temperature. One of the primary considerations in the elimination or reduction of the Georgia Power cooling water is dissolved oxygen levels in the river. Temperature also plays an important role because a portion of the Chattahoochee River below Buford Dam is classified as a secondary trout fishery. Verification that the short-term treatment plant modifications and/or expansions will result in compliance with the temperature requirements will be required as part of the permitting process.
Urban Water Reuse Guidelines. Georgia EPD adopted Urban Water Reuse Guidelines on February 20, 2002. These guidelines establish uniform criteria for those treatment facilities which make beneficial use of reclaimed water for irrigation in areas that are intended to be accessible to the public such as golf courses, landscaped areas, parks, athletic fields, and roadway medians. It could even include fire protection or decorative fountains. The proposed guidelines could impact the required level of treatment of existing treatment plants if their level of treatment prior to implementing reuse is insufficient. In addition, new more carefully defined requirements for storage have been proposed.
Potential Effluent Trading. There is no specific legislation or regulations for the trading of allowable discharges in the State of Georgia. Gwinnett County and Rockdale County entered into an Agreement several years ago in which effluent load from one plant was exchanged for other considerations. Fulton County has proposed to EPD the re-assignment of a portion of the effluent mass loading from the Camp Creek WRF to the John's Creek WRF. Some discussion has involved the potential for trading phosphorus allocation. In the future, there may be increased interest in re-assignment of discharges on an inter-governmental or intra-governmental basis.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-2
9/18/02
The U.S. EPA issued a draft policy for "Market-Based Approaches to Improve the Nation's Waters" in January 2002. The policy states, "EPA supports implementation of market-based strategies to achieve the goals of the CWA and establish economic incentives for greater water quality and environmental benefits than those required by or achievable under existing federal regulations. This policy sanctions the implementation of water quality-based trades and programs, and the development of other market-based approaches, consistent with the CWA." If this draft policy is adopted, there may be opportunities to enhance water quality in the District by shifting some point and/or non-point loads.
Increase in the Number of Small WWTPs. In recent years, private developers have become increasingly more willing to construct a dedicated facility for a residential or commercial development where publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are not readily available. Over time, these facilities tend to not keep their initial level of maintenance and effluent quality suffers. This is not considered a major issue in the short-term, but is likely to become important in the long-term.
Septic Tanks. Watershed assessments being performed throughout the District have identified septic tanks as significant sources of non-point pollution. Additionally, septic tanks reduce the surface flows to downstream users. There may be increased wastewater flows to POTWs if pressure increases to connect customers with septic tanks to the public sewer system. This is not considered a major factor in the Short-Term Plan, but will have increasing importance over the long-term.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Based on information supplied by EPD, more than 1,625 SSOs occurred within the District in the 28-month period from September 1, 1999 through December 17, 2001. Fourteen of the 17 District Members have reported spills during this time period. Some jurisdictions have agreements in place with EPD to mitigate their occurrence and/or cannot allow additional sewer connections without demonstrated inflow and infiltration (I/I) removal. Elimination of the SSOs may increase or may decrease flow to POTWs depending on the success of removing I/I from the system. CSOs will probably be a consideration in the long-term plan.
EPD and EPA Consent Orders. During the period from January 1999 through December 2001, EPD issued 154 orders pursuant to the Georgia Water Quality Control Act in the 16 counties comprising the District. The causes for the orders were nearly equally split between violation of permit limits and sanitary sewer overflows. Forty-seven of the orders required the development of short or long-term plans to improve treatment or to better manage, operate and maintain collection systems to eliminate overflows. Orders issued by EPD can be found at http://www.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/ and then to enforcement.
The City of Atlanta is currently operating under two federal consent orders that require the City to certify to EPD and to EPA that adequate collection, transmission, and treatment capacity exist prior to authorizing new sewer service connections. The consent orders are very specific about the actions that the City of Atlanta must take in the short-term to increase capacity in its wastewater system, reduce the potential for SSOs, and minimize adverse impacts from CSOs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-3
9/18/02
Existing Sewer Tap Moratoria. As of December 20, 2001, sewer connection moratoria imposed by EPD remained in effect for Fulton County's Big Creek sewer service area and John's Creek sewer service area. These moratoria also affect those portions of Cobb County and Forsyth County into which these two sewer service areas extend.
Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA). MRPA establishes a 2,000-foot river corridor on both banks of the Chattahoochee River and its impoundments, including the streambed and any islands, for the 84 miles of river between Buford Dam and the downstream limits of the Atlanta region (Fulton and Douglas Counties). Under the Act, it is illegal to engage in any landdisturbing activity in the Corridor, which is not in compliance with or has not been certified under the Chattahoochee Corridor Plan. The Plan includes development principles and standards intended to minimize the negative effects of development on the river, and uses the natural characteristics of the existing terrain, soils and vegetation as a guide to identifying development suitability. Any construction or reconstruction of wastewater treatment/conveyance facilities must comply with one of six vulnerability categories based on the land's characteristics. Local governments in the MRPA Corridor are responsible for implementing the Plan by permitting Corridor development based on ARC findings, monitoring land-disturbing activities in the Corridor, and enforcing the Act's requirements and the Plan's standards.
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA). Congress created this recreation area by law in 1978. The CRNRA is a series of parks along the Chattahoochee River. Construction within these areas is severely limited, even for sewers and other public works projects.
Inter-jurisdictional Agreements. There are many interjurisdictional agreements in force within the District between various entities. Any Short-Term Plan will have to comply with the terms in force (including any which may affect Revenue Bond Covenants) or these agreements will have to be modified. Municipalities may need to alter existing agreements and draft new interjurisdictional agreements to advance regional environmental concerns. District members understand and appreciate the fact that technical issues between two or more municipalities can be resolved. Often asset allocation (both financial and infrastructure) obstructs municipalities and counties from entering agreements that will improve water quality. A primary goal of the District is to work with municipalities to ensure that practical steps are taken to overcome both technical and non-technical barriers as necessary to protect the region's water quality.
Because of the significant environmental challenges in the region, coupled with the District's legislative mandate, counties and cities must take advantage of opportunities to work together to advance regional environmental progress. This will require a re-evaluation of existing relationships between District members and a willingness to look at regional as well as local impacts.
SHORT-TERM PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations comprise the Short-Term Plan for satisfying the immediate wastewater capacity needs of the District. The recommendations are presented in terms of
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-4
9/18/02
programmatic actions, improvements to be made by local utilities, and long-term issues to be addressed by the District during future planning efforts.
Critical Elements of the Short-Term Plan
There are many programs of regional impact which affect the implementation of other local programs. Many of the local plans in place for addressing short-term wastewater capacity needs rely on one or more of the following to occur before they can be implemented.
1. Elimination of the Georgia Power heat load from the Chattahoochee River and lower effluent concentration limits, resulting in increased flow limits at treatment plants discharging to the Chattahoochee.
2. Permitting of the expanded Pole Bridge wastewater treatment plant in DeKalb County.
3. Final approval of Gwinnett County's permit for a 40-mgd discharge to Lake Lanier.
4. The City of Atlanta's Nancy Creek Capacity Management Project (tunnel and pumping station) being completed as currently planned by 2005.
These four items are critical to many of the local plans currently in place for addressing shortterm wastewater capacity needs in the District. The following paragraphs provide additional information regarding their importance to the formulation of the Short-Term Plan.
Improved Treatment and Elimination of the Georgia Power Heat Load to the Chattahoochee River. Georgia Power will remove its heat load to the Chattahoochee River, partially by 2004 and completely by 2008. Elimination of this heat load, combined with lower wastewater effluent concentration limits, will allow additional wastewater flows to be discharged to the river without violating water quality standards. About 60 mgd of additional capacity could be made available as early as 2004 with another 90 to 100 mgd possible after the full heat load has been removed subject to permitting constraints. Allocation of any resulting assimilative capacity will be developed as part of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan. Specific treatment requirements and allocation of flows at designated discharge locations will be finalized during the permitting process.
A preliminary distribution of the additional flow capacity among the treatment plants discharging to the Chattahoochee River has been proposed by the local jurisdictions themselves, in cooperation with the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and Natural Resources Engineering, Inc (NRE), a consulting firm hired by the ARC to test various alternatives using the Georgia EPD's Chattahoochee River Model. The proposed increases to permitted flow capacities are summarized in Table 4-1. A draft technical memorandum by NRE documenting the modeling work done to date to support the distribution of the increased wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Chattahoochee River is included in Appendix B of this report.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-5
9/18/02
The importance of the additional flow capacity at treatment plants discharging to the Chattahoochee River is very clear. Local wastewater plans in Cobb County, Douglas County, Forsyth County, Fulton County, Gwinnett County and the City of Atlanta are all based on the increased flow limits resulting from elimination of the Georgia Power heat load. Without the additional capacity, alternatives for satisfying the projected short-term capacity needs of these large wastewater utilities become much more difficult and costly. For this reason, elimination of the Georgia Power heat load, and the distribution of the additional flow capacity according to Table 4-1, is an underlying assumption of the Short-Term Plan.
Table 4-1. Proposed Short-Term Increases to Permit Capacity
at Treatment Plants Discharging to the Chattahoochee River
Treatment Facility
Existing Permit Capacity,
2004 Permit Capacitya,
mgd
mgd
City of Atlanta R.M. Clayton WRC Utoy Creek WRC South River WRC
--b
110c
40b
40
48b
48
Cobb County R.L. Sutton WRF
--d
50
South Cobb WRF
40
40
Douglas County
Sweetwater Creek WWTP
3
3
Forsyth County
Future Discharge(s)
0
10
Fulton County
Big Creek
24
24
Johns Creek
7
15
Camp Creek
13
16
Gwinnett County
Crooked Creek/FWHWRC
36
50
Total
351
406
a Assumes partial heat load reduction from Georgia Power facilities in 2004. b Existing permits have no flow limits. Permit modifications, including flow limits (100 mgd at R.M.
Clayton), have been proposed by EPD and are under appeal by the City of Atlanta. c Permit may be staged at 103 mgd until full heat load reduction is accomplished. d No flow limit in existing permit. 40 mgd is existing design capacity.
Gwinnett County Discharge to Lake Lanier. In 2000, Gwinnett County applied for a permit to discharge 40 mgd of highly treated wastewater to Lake Lanier. The permit was issued by the Georgia EPD, but was challenged. The appeal is currently being heard and a decision is expected by the summer of 2002. Gwinnett County's permit for discharge to Lake Lanier is actually contingent on a number of other things occurring, such as upgrades to the City of Gainesville's two treatment facilities that discharge to tributaries of the lake. Nevertheless, the
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-6
9/18/02
lake discharge is critical to Gwinnett County being able to meet its projected short and long-term wastewater capacity needs. If the lake discharge permit is not upheld on appeal, Gwinnett County would be forced to look to other alternatives for disposal of treated effluent from the F. Wayne Hill Water Reclamation Center. In the short-term, the most likely option would be to discharge more effluent into the Chattahoochee River downstream of the lake. This would likely reduce the flows other jurisdictions could discharge, thereby impacting their ability to meet their short-term capacity needs. While perhaps not as critical in the short-term as the assumption above regarding increased discharges to the Chattahoochee River, the importance of the Lake Lanier discharge to Gwinnett County is also very clear and is an underlying assumption of the Short-Term Plan.
Expansion of DeKalb County's Pole Bridge Treatment Plant. DeKalb County has in place a plan to expand its Pole Bridge Creek wastewater treatment plant from a capacity of 20 mgd to a capacity of 86 mgd by 2010, with subsequent expansion to 106 mgd. The expanded Pole Bridge plant would allow DeKalb County to take the 36-mgd Snapfinger Creek plant off-line and combine operations at Pole Bridge. The expanded Pole Bridge plant would also become a regional treatment facility, potentially serving portions of Clayton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale Counties as well. DeKalb County has initiated steps toward obtaining a permit for the expanded Pole Bridge facility, but no determination has been made by EPD regarding its issuance. DeKalb County's local plan relies on the Pole Bridge plant expansion being permitted. Furthermore, other jurisdictions may ultimately be able to take advantage of treatment capacity at a regional Pole Bridge plant. Because of funding limitations which may preclude construction of the full 86 mgd, it may be necessary for the plant to be expanded in phases in order to avoid a moratorium in DeKalb County. For the purposes of the Short-Term Plan, it is assumed that water quality and interbasin transfer issues will be resolved and the Georgia EPD will issue an NPDES discharge permit for expansion of the Pole Bridge plant and that the County will expand it sufficiently to allow its use for internal flows and possible flow from other jurisdictions. The Pole Bridge/Snapfinger expansions may need to return flow to the Chattahoochee Basin. This issue may be influenced by ongoing negotiations among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
Timely Completion of the Nancy Creek Tunnel Project. The Nancy Creek Capacity Management Project (tunnel and pumping station), which will relieve the existing Nancy Creek Interceptor and provide storage of wet weather flows to the R.M. Clayton WRC, is an integral element of the City of Atlanta's plan for meeting its short-term wastewater capacity needs. It is also part of a Consent Order that the City entered into with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Georgia EPD. Presently, the project is scheduled for completion in 2005. It is assumed that this project will move forward as scheduled and that other alternatives for managing wastewater flows in the R.M. Clayton WRC service area, and specifically the Nancy Creek Basin, will not be needed in the short-term.
Recommendations for Programmatic Actions
The following recommendations are made with respect to the programmatic alternatives considered in this investigation:
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-7
9/18/02
1. Water conservation should be encouraged as part of the Short-Term Plan and should be considered as an integral component of the District's Long-Term Water Supply Plan and Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan. However, the use of large-scale water conservation programs (e.g. rebate programs) to achieve sizable wastewater flow reductions in specified service areas of the District in the shortterm is not recommended due to the anticipated cost and schedule associated with the implementation of these programs.
2. Comprehensive and proactive sewer system maintenance programs have the potential to significantly reduce wet weather flows and to eliminate bottlenecks and blockages in sewer lines that result from normal day-to-day operation of a wastewater collection system. As a result, they can indirectly increase the dry weather carrying capacity of the collection system and reduce or eliminate SSOs from occurring. No wastewater systems are immune from spills and SSOs as documented by EPD data over the past 2 years. Therefore, it is recommended that every District wastewater utility review its current programs and procedures for sewer system maintenance with the goal of reducing the number EEOs in each jurisdiction.
3. Enforceable flow limits in NPDES discharge permits do not appear to provide any significant measure of protection to water quality in receiving streams, given the mass loading limits already in NPDES permits and the TMDLs that will soon be in effect. However, they may adversely impact the ability of some communities to meet their wastewater capacity needs. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Georgia EPD give serious consideration to development of criteria (such as elimination of enforceable flow limits) which will maintain or improve pollutant loading to the receiving streams. This will give EPD the ability to enforce water quality standards and provide local jurisdictions with latitude in managing wastewater discharges without increasing pollutant loads. This should be done in the next round of NPDES permits to be issued beginning in 2003.
Recommendations for Actions by Local Jurisdictions
This investigation showed that there are short-term wastewater capacity needs in 44 existing and proposed treatment plant service areas throughout the District, involving 24 local wastewater utilities and located in all six primary river basins. All but four of the local wastewater utilities involved have implementable plans in place that will satisfy their short-term capacity needs. In these cases, the local plans have been recommended for implementation as part of the ShortTerm Plan. In the cases of the other four utilities (Forsyth County, Fulton County, Palmetto, Rockdale County), alternatives for increasing short-term capacity were evaluated (reference Section 3 of this report) and the highest rated alternative(s) have been recommended for implementation as part of the Short-Term Plan.
Table 4-2 summarizes the recommendations of the Short-Term Plan for improvements to local wastewater systems. The recommendations are presented by individual utility within each of the six primary river basins comprising the District geographical area. Not all wastewater service
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-8
9/18/02
areas in the District are included in the recommendations, those service areas with projected additional capacity needs between 2002 and 2008 are included in the recommendations.
Although for developing this plan a common time horizon of 2008 was used, the recommended improvements in Table 4-2 are intended to provide a plan and framework to be used only to meet immediate needs while a long-term plan is developed. The recommendations in this plan apply until such time as the Long-Term Wastewater Facilities Plan is adopted by the Water District Board which is anticipated within 12 months.
Table 4-2. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Cobb
Cobb Co.
County Water System
R.L. Sutton
No flow
limit
40
Expand plant capacity to 60 mgd; EPD to permit R.L. Sutton at 50 mgd in 2004 and 60 mgd in 2008, consistent with Chattahoochee River Model; complete Chattahoochee Tunnel and Pump Station project by 35 47 2004.
Coweta Co. WSD Sargent (Arnall)
Expand facility from 0.06 to 0.09 mgd 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.09 by 2004.
Coweta County
Grantville Pond #1
Expand plant capacity to 0.15 mgd
capacity and convert to LAS by 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 summer 2002.
Newnan Mineral Springs
Expand plant capacity to 0.9 mgd by 0.75 0.75 0.82 0.85 2003.
Northside
Expand plant capacity to 2 mgd by
0.6
0.6 0.6 1.4 2004.
Douglas County
Douglasville/ Douglas Co.
WSA
South Central Southside
St. Andrews
Expand plant capacity to 1 mgd,
0.5
0.5 0.04 1.0 2005-2010.
Expand plant capacity to 5 mgd by N/A 3.25 3.0 4.9 2005.
Replace existing plant with new 0.250.02 0.02 0.02 0.3 mgd plant and LAS by 2003.
Sweetwater Creek
Expand plant capacity to 6 mgd,
3.0
3.0 1.1 6.4 2005-2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-9
9/18/02
Table 4-2. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Cumming Bethelview Rd
Expand Bethelview Road plant
capacity to 8 mgd by 2003; negotiate
agreement with Forsyth County for
division of waste load allocation to
Lake Lanier; construct first phase of
new treatment plant for discharge to
3
3 0.9 8 Lake Lanier.
Forsyth County
Fowler
Construct initial 1.5-mgd phase of
new Fowler plant and LAS by 2003;
expand Fowler plant capacity to 2.5
mgd in 2004 with wet weather
0
1.5 0 1.5 discharge permit for up to 1.0 mgd.
Forsyth Co. (Future Plants)
Construct new 10 mgd treatment plant
near River or construct additional
expansion of Fowler plant for
discharge to the Chattahoochee River
by 2004, consistent with
Chattahoochee River Model; lease 1.0
mgd capacity in Cumming's
Bethelview Road plant on temporary,
0
0
0 11.5 short-term basis.
Big Creek
Connect Big Creek plant to Cobb
County system through existing
Willeo PS bypass line and divert 2
mgd of flow through Chattahoochee
Interceptor to R.L. Sutton plant for
24
24 25 26 treatment.
Fulton Fulton County
County
(North)
Johns Creek
Expand Johns Creek plant capacity to
15 mgd by 2005, consistent with
7
7 6.9 11.5 Chattahoochee River Model.
Cauley Creek
Construct initial 2.5-mgd phase of
Cauley Creek plant by summer 2002; obtain wet weather discharge permit
and expand capacity to 5.0 mgd by 2.5 2.5/5.0 0.0 2.5 2004.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-10
9/18/02
Table 4-2. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Chattahoochee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Fulton County
Fulton County (South)
Camp Creek
Construct temporary, short-term flow
diversion of up to 4 mgd to Atlanta's
Utoy Creek WRC by 2003; divert
flows from Fulton County Little Bear
plant and City of Palmetto plant to
Camp Creek for treatment; expand
Camp Creek to 24 mgd by 2005; take
existing Little Bear plant out of
13
13 13 17 service.
South Fulton Municipal
Regional Water and Sewerage
Authority Palmetto
Divert flow to new SFMRWSA plant
while maintaining 0.6 mgd discharge
N/A
0.6 0.75 1 point.
Bartow County Southeast
Bartow County
Cartersville Cartersville
Emerson
Puckett Road
Canton
Canton
Cherokee County
Cherokee Co. WSA
Rose Creek
Woodstock Woodstock
Cobb County
Cobb Co. Noonday Creek Water System
Northwest Cobb
Forsyth County
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
Etowah River Basin
Expand plant capacity to 2 mgd,
0.1
0.1 0.01 1.5 2003-2005.
Expand plant capacity to 20 mgd,
15
15 9.3 16 2005-2010.
0.172
Puckett Road plant to be replaced by new 0.45-mgd plant in 2002. Develop plan to serve new 0.172 0.17 0.3 developments along I-75.
Expand plant capacity to 4 mgd by
2003; expand plant to 6 or 7 mgd
1.89
1.89 1 4 before 2010.
Expand plant capacity to 5 mgd in
2002; expand plant to 10 mgd by
4
4
3.6 7 2004 and 15 mgd by 2010.
No flow
Expand plant capacity to 1.5-2.5 mgd,
limit
0.5 0.4 0.75 2003-2005.
No flow
limit
12
Expand plant capacity to 20 mgd by 11 16 2004 (under construction).
No flow
limit
8
Expand plant capacity to 12 mgd by 6 9 2006.
No collection system in place at
present; Construction of collection
and transmission system to convey
wastewater flows to Fowler plant or
other County treatment facility
0
0
0 2 anticipated within next 5 years.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-11
9/18/02
Table 4-2. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
District Member
Entity
Facility
Paulding Paulding Co.
County
WSA
Pumpkinvine
Clayton County
Clayton Co. Water
Authority
R.L. Jackson Shoal Creek
W.B. Casey
Coweta County
Coweta Co. WSD Shenandoah
Senoia Senoia
Henry County
Henry Co. WSA Bear Creek
Etowah River Basin
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Expand plant capacity to 1.5 mgd
(2005-2008) with 1 mgd discharge to
Pumpkinvine Creek and 0.5 mgd
0.5
0.5 0.058 1.0 reuse.
Take plant out of service when W.B.
Casey plant expansion is completed in
4.5
4.5 3.9 5.5 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 4.4 mgd by
2.1
2.1 2.3 5.5 mid-2002.
Expand plant capacity to 24 mgd by
15
15 14.7 17.6 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 1.5 mgd by
0.9
0.9 0.9 1.5 2005.
Expand plant capacity to 0.5 mgd by
0.07
0.07 0.006 0.5 2003.
Expand plant capacity to 3 mgd by
0.25
0.25 0.026 0.5 2004.
Cumming (Future Plant)
Forsyth County
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
F. Wayne Hill
Hall County
Gainesville Flat Creek Hall Co.
NE Hall County
Lake Lanier Basin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
10.2
10.2 7.2
0
1.8
0
Negotiate agreement with Forsyth County for equitable division of joint waste load allocation to Lake Lanier; construct first phase of new treatment 11.5 plant for discharge to Lake Lanier.
Negotiate agreement with City of Cumming for equitable division of joint waste load allocation to Lake Lanier; in short-term, convey wastewater flows generated in Lake Lanier Basin to Fowler plant or other County treatment facility; prepare long-term strategy for providing wastewater service in Lake Lanier 3 Basin.
Expand plant capacity to 60 mgd; additional 40 mgd flow capacity to be 33.7 discharged to Lake Lanier.
Expand plant capacity to 12 mgd to 11.0 meet growth demands.
New wastewater service area; construct new conveyance system and new 3 mgd treatment plant by 2003. Facility may be located in Oconee 1.8 Basin.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-12
9/18/02
Table 4-2. Recommended Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Improvements
Ocmulgee River Basin
District Member
Entity
Facility
Permitted Capacity MMF, mgd
Design Capacity MMF,
mgd
2001 MMF, mgd
2008 MMF, mgd
Recommended Short-Term Improvements
Clayton County
Clayton Co. Water
Authority Clayton Northeast
6
Expand plant capacity to 10 mgd by
6
6.7 7.5 2005.
DeKalb County
DeKalb Co. W&S
Pole Bridge
Expand plant capacity to 86 mgd by
2010 to accommodate flows from
Snapfinger plant as well as regional
flows from surrounding jurisdictions.
May require phased expansions.
DeKalb Co. and EPD must resolve
interbasin transfer issues prior to
20
20 13 30 permitting.
Snapfinger
Take Snapfinger plant out of service
following expansion of Pole Bridge
36
36 23 40 plant.
Gwinnett County
Gwinnett Co.
Yellow River
Expand plant capacity to 14.5 mgd by
12
12 10.34 14.5 2003.
Henry County
Henry Co. WSA Indian Creek
Expand plant capacity to 3 mgd by
2005; expand plant capacity to 6 mgd
1.5
1.5 0.0 4 by 2008.
Almand Branch
Plant to remain at 1.25 mgd capacity;
divert flows above 1.25 mgd to Quigg
1.25
1.25 1.64 1.83 Branch plant.
Rockdale County
Rockdale WRD
Honey Creek
Divert flows to Quigg Branch plant;
0.30
0.30 0.30 0.4 take Honey Creek plant off-line.
Snapping Shoals
Plant to remain at 0.45 mgd capacity;
divert flows above 0.45 mgd to Quigg
0.45
0.45 0.35 1.09 Branch plant.
Hall John Weiland
County
Homes
Spout Springs
Walton County
Social Circle Little River
Oconee River Basin
The Lanier Technology Wastewater
Development Authority plans to
purchase this facility. Expand plant
capacity to 0.4 mgd by 2004; expand
0.05
0.05 0 0.75 plant capacity to 0.75 mgd by 2008.
Expand plant capacity to 0.9 mgd by
0.45
0.65 0.43 1.2 2004. Expansion to 1.4 mgd by 2010.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-13
9/18/02
Issues Requiring Investigation and/or Resolution During Development of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan
During the development of the Short-Term Plan, a number of issues were identified that are of long-term importance, and likely cannot be implemented immediately. There were ideas suggested by Citizens at BAC meetings, members of the Wastewater Subcommittee, District Staff or the BC Team. These include:
1. Standardize procedures to forecast future population and wastewater flows equitably among all District members.
2. Finalize the results of the Chattahoochee River Model and obtain confirmation of acceptance by all affected parties.
3. Long-term planning for water and wastewater should evaluate the control of consumptive uses of water, such as land application systems, as it relates to wastewater treatment and disposal.
4. The relative merits of uniform District-wide effluent limits should be evaluated.
5. Determine the effect of reclaimed water discharges on river temperature and determine if temperature should be included in NPDES permitting.
6. Gainesville and Hall County must agree on an equitable division of their joint wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier.
7. Cumming and Forsyth County must agree on an equitable division of their joint wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier.
8. Determine how the southern portions of Hall County should be served, whether by the F. Wayne Hill WRC in Gwinnett County or some other regional treatment facility.
9. Correlate wastewater discharges with water supply in Lake Lanier.
10. Determine the impact of combined sewer separation on the City of Atlanta's WRCs.
11. Assess the use of septic tanks as a long-term wastewater strategy for low density developed areas such as Fayette County, taking into account such regional issues as the wastewater return goals of the Tri-State Water Compacts. Develop District-wide standards and model ordinances for septic tanks.
12. Develop a District-wide standard for sewer system maintenance and management to reduce SSOs.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-14
9/18/02
13. Investigate the impacts of eliminating flow limits from NPDES permits.
14. Investigate the impact of TMDLs on treatment plant discharges throughout the District.
15. Investigate whether or not reclaimed water storage facilities, such as irrigation ponds on golf courses, should be required to obtain NPDES permits for wet weather discharges or whether such discharges could be permitted under a general stormwater permit.
16. Determine how expansion of the Big Creek plant in North Fulton County could become part of a long-term regional wastewater management strategy and to what capacity the Big Creek plant should be expanded to in the future.
17. Investigate the potential for expanding sewer service into developing areas of the District such as Bartow, South Fulton, Fayette and Forsyth Counties to avoid the adverse impacts of small wastewater treatment plants (package plants).
18. Develop a plan to extend wastewater service to new developments in Emerson, particularly in the I-75 corridor.
19. Investigate the impact of Federally Owned Treatment Works (FOTW), industrial discharges, and other private treatment facilities on water quality throughout the District, including TMDLs.
20. Identify methods to maximize the beneficial reuse of treated wastewater and biosolids throughout the District.
21. Inventory existing interjurisdictional agreements between major utilities and encourage formal agreements on future cooperative ventures to satisfy regional wastewater capacity needs.
22. Investigate the potential impacts of increased wastewater discharges upstream of water supply intakes and the effects these discharges might have on future water treatment requirements.
23. Investigate the return of some or all of the flow from the Pole Bridge facility to the Chattahoochee River to decrease the interbasin transfer of flow versus water quality in the South River with the reduced flows.
It is recommended that these issues be addressed to the maximum extent possible in future District planning projects such as the ongoing development of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan and the Long-Term Water Supply Plan.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-15
9/18/02
Implementation Plan Summary
The Short-Term Plan addresses projected needs through 2008. These recommendations are expected to be superseded by the District's Long-Term Plan when it is approved. In the interim, all recommendations contained in this report are contingent upon successfully meeting all permitting requirements and water quality standards. EPD has indicated that they will use this Short-Term Wastewater Capacity Plan to assist in NPDES permit decision making pertaining to those jurisdictions with immediate wastewater capacity problems or are under sewer tap moratoria. Other NPDES permit decisions within the District will be acted upon after the conclusions of the Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan are approved.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\ApprovedFinalRpt\Section 4 FR.doc
4-16
9/18/02
APPENDIX A
NPDES INVENTORY AND MATRIX TABLES
Table A-1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District NPDES Inventory
FACILITY NAME
GOLD KIST PORK C.E.W. FARMS I
NPDES NUMBER
COUNTY
GA0038164 GA0038211
BARTOW HALL
CITY (ADDRESS)
ATLANTA GAINESVILLE
FACILITY TYPE
CAFO CAFO
2
ATLANTA (INTR. CK)
GA0037168 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (CLEAR CK)
GA0036871 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (TANYARD CK)
GA0037109 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (MCDANIEL)
GA0037133 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (NORTH AVE)
GA0037117 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (CUSTER AVE)
GA0037141 DEKALB
ATLANTA
CSO
ATLANTA (GREER FERRY)
GA0037125 FULTON
ATLANTA
CSO
7
USA COE CLARK C USA COE MCKINNE USA COE OLD CON USAF PLT #6-L
GA0048305 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
FED
GA0047465 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
FED
GA0047074 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
FED
GA0001198 COBB
MARIETTA
FED
4
BAROID DRILLING BLUE CIRCLE AGG CHEMICAL PRODUC CHEMICAL PRODUC CRITERION MILLS FIRST BRANDS CO FLORIDA ROCK IN GEORGIA POWER GOODYEAR TIRE & NEW RIVERSIDE O RIVERSIDE PRODU STONE MAN INC VULCAN MATERIAL VULCAN MATERIAL VULCAN MATERIAL BLUE CIRCLE BLUE CIRCLE AGG GOLD KIST POULT SEABOARD FARMS VULCAN MATERIAL BLUE CIRCLE AGG FLORIDA ROCK IN AJAY NORTH AMER AUSTELL BOX BOA BLUE CIRCLE WIL BLUE CIRCLE WIL COLONIAL PIPELINE GA POWER CO (MC MICROMINERALS SWEETWATER PAPE VULCAN MAT'L KE GEORGIA POWER SHAW INDUSTRIES SOUTHERN MILLS
GA0001287 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0036901 BARTOW
LITHONIA
IND
GA0001295 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0000281 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0032751 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0000591 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0036986 BARTOW
ATLANTA
IND
GA0001449 BARTOW
ATLANTA
IND
GA0000515 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0029823 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0047333 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0047635 BARTOW
CARTERSVILLE
IND
GA0033413 BARTOW
ATLANTA
IND
GA0036960 BARTOW
ATLANTA
IND
GA0046515 BARTOW
ATLANTA
IND
GA0047031 CHEROKEE
MARIETTA
IND
GA0046701 CHEROKEE
NORCROSS
IND
GA0000728 CHEROKEE
ATLANTA
IND
GA0001724 CHEROKEE
CANTON
IND
GA0045918 CHEROKEE
ATLANTA
IND
GA0046108 CLAYTON
LITHONIA
IND
GA0027073 CLAYTON
FOREST PARK
IND
GA0048283 COBB
POWDER SPRINGS
IND
GA0001911 COBB
AUSTELL
IND
GA0001627 COBB
MARIETTA
IND
GA0025917 COBB
MARIETTA
IND
GA0048429 COBB
ATLANTA
IND
GA0001431 COBB
SMYRNA
IND
GA0037036 COBB
KENNESAW
IND
GA0035823 COBB
AUSTELL
IND
GA0000787 COBB
ATLANTA
IND
GA0001473 COWETA
ATLANTA
IND
GA0001171 COWETA
NEWNAN
IND
GA0046361 COWETA
SENOIA
IND
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\00724 Final Rpt\Table A-1 NPDES LIST FR.xls
A-1
7/26/2002
Table A-1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District NPDES Inventory
FACILITY NAME
UNITED STATES C VULCAN MATERIAL WILLIAM L. BONN AMOCO OIL CO BLUE CIRCLE AGG DAVIDSON MINERA HANSON AGGREGAT HOUSWORTH ROCK VULCAN MATERIAL WILLIAMS BROS B BLUE CIRCLE AGG VULCAN MAT'L LI YOUNG REFINING FLORIDA ROCK IN TYRONE QUARRY DNR FISH HATCHERY LAKE LANIER TRO MARTIN MARIETTA TYSON FOODS INC BLUE CIRCLE WIL C.W. MATHEWS C GA POWER-MORGAN METALPLATE GALV MONARCH WINE CO NATIONAL STARCH VULCAN MAT'L RE WILLIAMS BROTHE BLUE CIRCLE MAT BLUE CIRCLE WIL CONAGRA POULTRY TECHALLOY CO VULCAN MATERIAL VULCAN MAT'L (G BLUE CIRCLE AGG DAVIDSON MINERA SKF BEARING IND TERRELL A PHILY VULCAN MAT'L ST MULBERRY ROCK C BIO-LAB INC. CO UNIVERSAL RUNDL
NPDES NUMBER
COUNTY
GA0038288 GA0036749 GA0000507 GA0001775 GA0030066 GA0037273 GA0046175 GA0037010 GA0023736 GA0002984 GA0030899 GA0000779 GA0001902 GA0031844 GA0046060 GA0026174 GA0026174 GA0047562 GA0001074 GA0001643 GA0048356 GA0001511 GA0037907 GA0035955 GA0003352 GA0000752 GA0047601 GA0046906 GA0048640 GA0037699 GA0031143 GA0003140 GA0033359 GA0049387 GA0046698 GA0037265 GA0046191 GA0024406 GA0036994 GA0046779 GA0030961
COWETA COWETA COWETA DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS FAYETTE FAYETTE FORSYTH FORSYTH FORSYTH FORSYTH FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT HALL HALL HALL HALL HENRY PAULDING ROCKDALE WALTON
CITY (ADDRESS)
NEWNAN ATLANTA NEWNAN DORAVILLE NORCROSS TUCKER GAINESVILLE LITHONIA ATLANTA MARIETTA NORCROSS ATLANTA DOUGLAS TYRONE GAINESVILLE CUMMING CUMMING COLUMBIA, SC CUMMING MARIETTA ATLANTA DUNWOODY ATLANTA ATLANTA ATLANTA ATLANTA ATLANTA MARIETTA MARIETTA DULUTH NORCROSS ATLANTA ATLANTA NORCROSS GAINESVILLE FLOWERY BRANCH GAINESVILLE ATLANTA BIRMINGHAM, AL CONYERS MONROE
FACILITY TYPE
IND IND IND MUN IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND IND 75
ADAIRSVILLE (NORTH) ADAIRSVILLE (SOUTH) BARTOW CO TWO CARTERSVILLE WP DNR RED TOP MTN EMERSON POND WHITE WPCP (WHI CANTON WPCP CHEROKEE CO. WA FULTON CO (LITT
GA0046035 GA0032832 GA0020702 GA0024091 GA0029891 GA0026115 GA0046671 GA0025674 GA0046451 GA0033251
BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW CHEROKEE CHEROKEE CHEROKEE
ADAIRSVILLE ADAIRSVILLE CARTERSVILLE CARTERSVILLE ATLANTA EMERSON WHITE CANTON CANTON ATLANTA
MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\00724 Final Rpt\Table A-1 NPDES LIST FR.xls
A-2
7/26/2002
Table A-1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District NPDES Inventory
FACILITY NAME
WOODSTOCK WPCP CLAYTON CO (NOR COBB CO (NOONDAY) COBB CO-NORTH COBB CO-SOUTH COBB CO-SUTTON COWETA CO (ARN COWETA CO (ARN COWETA CO (SHEN GRANTVIILLE POND GRANTVILLE POND GRANTVILLE POND GRANTVILLE POND NEWNAN (MINERIA NEWNAN WAHOO WP AMOCO OIL CO DEKALB CO-POLEB DEKALB CO-SNAPF DOUGLAS CO (REB DOUGLAS CO BEAV DOUGLASVILLE (S DOUGLASVILLE NO DOUGLASVILLE SO FAYETTEVILLE-WH PEACHTREE CITY PEACHTREE CITY PEACHTREE CITY CUMMING WPCP ATLANTA (R.M.C ATLANTA (SOUTH ATLANTA (UTOY C FULTON CO-BIG C FULTON CO-CAMP FULTON CO-JOHNS FULTON CO-LIT PALMETTO WPCP BUFORD SOUTHSIDE BUFORD WESTSIDE GWINNETT CO (CR GWINNETT CO JAC GWINNETT CO NO GWINNETT CO-BEA GWINNETT CO-BIG GWINNETT CO-J GWINNETT C-YEL FLOWERY BRANCH GAINESVILLE (LI GAINESVILLE FLA LULA WPCP HAMPTON WPCP HENRY CO (CAMP HENRY CO (HUDSO HENRY CO (MEADO
NPDES NUMBER
COUNTY
GA0026263 GA0020575 GA0024988 GA0046761 GA0026158 GA0026140 GA0000299 GA0000311 GA0034614 GA0033219 GA0033197 GA0033201 GA0033227 GA0021423 GA0031721 GA0001775 GA0026816 GA0024147 GA0049786 GA0031402 GA0047201 GA0030350 GA0030341 GA0035807 GA0020371 GA0035777 GA0046655 GA0046019 GA0021482 GA0024040 GA0021458 GA0024333 GA0025381 GA0030686 GA0047104 GA0025542 GA0023167 GA0023175 GA0026433 GA0030732 GA0023973 GA0032841 GA0033847 GA0047627 GA0047911 GA0031933 GA0020168 GA0021156 GA0024767 GA0020320 GA0049352 GA0034711 GA0049239
CHEROKEE CLAYTON COBB COBB COBB COBB COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA COWETA DEKALB DEKALB DEKALB DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS FAYETTE FAYETTE FAYETTE FAYETTE FORSYTH FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON FULTON GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT GWINNETT HALL HALL HALL HALL HENRY HENRY HENRY HENRY
CITY (ADDRESS)
WOODSTOCK MORROW MARIETTA MARIETTA MARIETTA MARIETTA NEWNAN NEWNAN NEWNAN GRANTVILLE GRANTVILLE GRANTVILLE GRANTVILLE NEWNAN NEWNAN DORAVILLE STONE MOUNTAIN DECATUR DOUGLASVILLE DOUGLASVILLE DOUGLASVILLE DOUGLASVILLE DOUGLASVILLE FAYETTE PEACHTREE CITY PEACHTREE CITY PEACHTREE CITY CUMMING ATLANTA ATLANTA ATLANTA ROSWELL ATLANTA ROSWELL ATLANTA PALMETTO BUFORD BUFORD LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE LAWRENCEVILLE FLOWERY BRANCH GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE LULA HAMPTON MCDONOUGH MCDONOUGH MCDONOUGH
FACILITY TYPE
MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\00724 Final Rpt\Table A-1 NPDES LIST FR.xls
A-3
7/26/2002
Table A-1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District NPDES Inventory
FACILITY NAME
HENRY CO (SPRIN HENRY CO (SPRIN LOCUST GROVE-EA MCDONOUGH (WALN STOCKBRIDGE WPC DALLAS (NORTH) DALLAS WEST WPC ROCKDALE CO. (A ROCKDALE CO. (HO ROCKDALE CO. (LA ROCKDALE CO. (QU ROCKDALE CO. (SC ROCKDALE CO. (SN ROCKDALE CO. (ST LOGANVILLE WPCP MONROE (JACK'S SOCIAL CIRCLE
NPDES NUMBER
COUNTY
GA0037214 GA0037869 GA0049760 GA0023949 GA0023337 GA0026034 GA0026026 GA0021610 GA0022659 GA0022586 GA0047678 GA0026239 GA0023035 GA0049085 GA0020788 GA0047171 GA0026107
HENRY HENRY HENRY HENRY HENRY PAULDING PAULDING ROCKDALE ROCKDALE ROCKDALE ROCKDALE ROCKDALE ROCKDALE ROCKDALE WALTON WALTON WALTON
CITY (ADDRESS)
MCDONOUGH MCDONOUGH LOCUST GROVE MCDONOUGH STOCKBRIDGE DALLAS DALLAS CONYERS CONYERS CONYERS CONYERS CONYERS CONYERS CONYERS LOGANVILLE MONROE SOCIAL CIRCLE
FACILITY TYPE
MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN MUN
80
ALLATOONA CAMPGROUND BEST WESTERN CR WHITE ELEMENTARY FREE HOME ELEM LITTLE RIVER EL R M MOORE ELEM REINHARDT COLLEGE EASTGATE MHP-AC FAIRWAY VILLAS HAVEN HILL MHP OAK GROVE ELEM AUTUMN'S GATE M DAYS INN CCC MOBILE HOME DOUGLAS CO BOA PINE LAKE MOBIL FERNWOOD PARK-F FOUR SEASONS MP MARNELLE MOBILLE NORTH FAYETTE E FORSYTH CONSOLI HABERSHAM ON LA LANIER BEACH SO SAWNEE ELEM SCH EVOLINE C WEST MTN PARK ELEM S CHATTAHOOCHEE B CHATTAHOOCHEE C CHESTNUT MTN. EL CINNAMON COVE C DEAN MYERS ELEM DIXIE MOBILE HOMES EAST HALL HIGH FLOWERY BRANCH
GA0022616 GA0023540 GA0029904 GA0034185 GA0034363 GA0034959 GA0024228 GA0022292 GA0026611 GA0035254 GA0031461 GA0034606 GA0022632 GA0031526 GA0034622 GA0035271 GA0023078 GA0023388 GA0030198 GA0035670 GA0035971 GA0030261 GA0031674 GA0035866 GA0035378 GA0035076 GA0024198 GA0022471 GA0034835 GA0049051 GA0049883 GA0023043 GA0034878 GA0027090
BARTOW BARTOW BARTOW CHEROKEE CHEROKEE CHEROKEE CHEROKEE COBB COBB COBB COBB COWETA COWETA DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS FAYETTE FAYETTE FAYETTE FAYETTE FORSYTH FORSYTH FORSYTH FORSYTH FULTON GWINNETT HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL
CARTERSVILLE
PID
CARTERSVILLE
PID
CARTERSVILLE
PID
CANTON
PID
CANTON
PID
CANTON
PID
WALESKA
PID
MARIETTA
PID
ACWORTH
PID
DOUGLASVILLE
PID
CANTON
PID
NEWNAN
PID
NEWNAN
PID
DOUGLASVILLE
PID
DOUGLASVILLE
PID
DOUGLASVILLE
PID
FAYETTE
PID
ATLANTA
PID
FAYETTEVILLE
PID
FAYETTEVILLE
PID
CUMMING
PID
ATLANTA
PID
STONE MOUNTAIN
PID
CUMMING
PID
COLLEGE PARK
PID
LAWRENCEVILLE
PID
FLOWERY BRANCH
PID
GAINESVILLE
PID
CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN
PID
FLOWERY BRANCH
PID
GAINESVILLE
PID
GAINESVILLE
PID
GAINESVILLE
PID
GAINESVILLE
PID
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\00724 Final Rpt\Table A-1 NPDES LIST FR.xls
A-4
7/26/2002
Table A-1. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District NPDES Inventory
FACILITY NAME
GLOVER & BAKER HIGHLANDS MOBIL J.A. BARNES MHP NORTH HALL HIGH OAKWOOD ELEM SC SHADYGROVE MHP SO HALL INDUSTR TRAILWOOD ACRES WAUKA MTN ELEM WHITE SULFUR EL ATLANTA MOTOR S POOLE'S MOBILE THREE CEDARS MO W.C. ABNEY ELEM J H HOUSE SCHOOL LAKEVIEW UITILITIES PARK PLACE NURS
NPDES NUMBER
COUNTY
GA0027049 GA0024015 GA0022098 GA0034886 GA0048089 GA0023469 GA0034924 GA0034908 GA0032697 GA0027120 GA0031160 GA0022454 GA0032042 GA0029921 GA0022195 GA0035491 GA0049921
HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HALL HENRY HENRY PAULDING PAULDING ROCKDALE ROCKDALE WALTON
Notes:
1. From Georgia EPD files, November 2001
2. Does not include LAS installations
3. Facility Types
CAFO
Confined animal feed operation
CSO
Combined sewer overflow
FED
Federally owned/operated facility
IND
Industrial WWTP discharge
MUN
Municipal WWTP discharge
PID
Private institutional discharges
CITY (ADDRESS)
GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE GAINESVILLE FLOWERY BRANCH ATLANTA GAINESVILLE CLERMONT GAINESVILLE HAMPTON ELLENWOOD POWDER SPRINGS DALLAS CONYERS CONYERS MONROE
FACILITY TYPE
PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID PID
51
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\00724 Final Rpt\Table A-1 NPDES LIST FR.xls
A-5
7/26/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Atlanta, City of
Intrenchment Creek N/A
to South River
Chattahoochee
N/A
25
16
20
5
None
Atlanta, City of R.M. Clayton
GA0021482
X
Chattahoochee
No flow limit
122
99
120
2
None
South River
GA0024040
X
Chattahoochee
48
54
37
45
3
None.
Sugar Creek basin is capacity limited; improvements in progress
Plant provides secondary treatment; secondary effluent pumped to South River WRC for additional treatment.
Nancy Creek basin and North Fork
None. Plan before EPD to permit plant at Peachtree and South Fork Peachtree
design capacity consistent with draft
subbasins are capacity limited;
Chattahoochee River Model.
improvements in progress
Existing Consent Decree with the U.S. EPA and Georgia EPD require CSO and SSO improvements throughout City of Atlanta wastewater system by 2007 and 2014, respectively
None. Plan before EPD to permit plant at Hapeville, Jonesboro Road, East Point
design capacity consistent with draft
and 10th Ward subbasins are capacity
Chattahoochee River Model.
limited; improvements underway
See above.
Utoy Creek
GA0021458
X
Chattahoochee
40
44
32
34
6
None
None. Plan before EPD to permit plant at
design capacity consistent with draft
Service area is capacity limited;
Chattahoochee River Model.
improvements in progress
See above.
Bartow County Southeast
GA0037664
X
Etowah
Two Run Creek
Cartersville
Cartersville
GA0020702
X
GA0024091
X
Etowah Etowah
0.1
0.1
0.01
1.5
-1.4
None.
Next expansion is to 2 mgd with an additional 1-2 mgd 5-6 years later.
None.
TSS exceedances
due to algae in
Plant may eventually be closed and
0.1
0.1
0.06
0.1
0
lagoon
relocated.
None.
15
15
9.3
16
-1
None.
Facility was recently expanded. Expand
to 20 mgd between 2005 - 2010.
None.
Most expansions are based on development in the area.
New plant will eventually be built to meet any future growth needs.
Bartow County
Adairsville
Adairsville North
GA0046035
X
Etowah
Adairsville South
GA0032832
X
Emerson
Puckett Road
GA0026115
X
White
Whispering Pines
GA0046671
X
Etowah Etowah Etowah
1.0
1.0
0.175
0.3
0.7
0.70 None
None
No flow projections available, 2008 MMF estimated by BC.
0.5
0.5
0.30
0.5
0
None
None
None
No flow projections available, 2008 MMF estimated by BC.
0.172 0.25
0.172
0.17
Reoccurring permit None to this plant. Construction of new
0.3 -0.13 exceedances.
0.45 mgd plant to begin in 2002.
Excessive inflow/infiltration.
New plant will serve current service area. Area around two I-75 interchanges will have need for future service, potentially in the short-term.
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.0
None.
Plant to be decommissioned in next 2-3 Conveyance to Cartersville currently
years with flow treated elsewhere.
being designed.
2001 MMF is 0.11 mgd, however can't treat any more flow due to low treatment capability. Thus no surplus capacity. White will later be served by Cartersville, and possibly by Bartow County.
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
A-6
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Cherokee County
Cherokee Co. WSA Fitzgerald
GAU020278
X Etowah
Rose Creek
Canton
Canton
Woodstock
Woodstock
GAU020015
X
X Etowah
GA0025674
X
Etowah
GA0026263
X
Etowah
Clayton N.E.
GA0020575
X
Ocmulgee
0.33
0.33
0.3
0.33
0
None.
4
4
3.6
7
-3
None.
Facility will be closed or changed to a point discharge depending on current negotiations.
None at this time. If facility is closed,
existing flow will be sent to Rose Creek Current facility utilizes a land application system
WPCP.
on 55 acres.
Expansion to 5 mgd to be completed in 2002. Planned to expand to 10 mgd by 2004 and to 15 mgd around 2010.
Improvements are planned to match the increase is conveyance needs with the increased capacity of the plant.
1.89
1.89
1
4
-2.11
None.
Expand to 4.0 by 2003; to 6 or 7 mgd before 2010.
None.
No flow limit 6
0.5
0.4
0.75
-0.25
None.
Expand to 1.5 - 2.5 mgd in next few years.
None.
Insufficient aeration
capacity and WAS
capacity. Reject
6
6.7
7.5
-1.5
water PS marginal Planned expansion to 10 mgd by 2005
Will serve Ball Ground in future.
Previous flow limit of 0.5 mgd expected to be added back into permit when renewed in 2002. 2008 flow is estimated by BC.
Clayton County
Clayton Co. Water R.L. Jackson Authority
GAU020008
Shoal Creek
GAU020236
X Flint X Flint
4.5
4.5
3.9
5.5
-1
Plant to come off line when WB Casey Plant expansion completed (2005)
Plant overloaded
and reject water PS Planned expansion to 4.4 mgd by June
2.1
2.1
2.3
5.5
-3.4
marginal
2002
Cobb County
W.B. Casey
GAU020008
X Flint
15
15
14.7
17.6
-2.6
Planned expansion to 24 mgd by 2005
Noonday Creek
GA0024988
X
Etowah
No flow limit
12
11
16
-4
None
Improvements to Noonday Interceptor Expansion to 20 mgd under construction planned for short-term.
Cobb Co. Water Northwest Cobb System
GA0046761
X
X Etowah
No flow limit
R.L. Sutton
GA0026140
X
Chattahoochee
No flow limit
South Cobb
GA0026158
X
Chattahoochee
40
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
Inconsistent
8
6
9
-1
nitrification
Expansion to 12 mgd by 2006
None.
4-5 MG/month of reclaimed water used to irrigate golf course.
40
35
47
-7
None
Expansion of facilities to 60 mgd under construction; permit at 50 mgd must be secured
Chattahoochee Tunnel under construction to relieve Chattahoochee Interceptor.
40
26
33
7
None
A-7
No expansion planned, but treatment process upgrades currently in design
Improvements to Sweetwater Creek Interceptor underway to reduce wet weather inflow.
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Sargent (Arnall)
GA0000299
X
Coweta Co. WSD Shenandoah
GA0034614
X
Chattahoochee Flint
0.06
0.06
unk
0.09
-0.03
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.5
-0.6
Expansion to 0.09 mgd planned for near term. No deficit anticipated.
1.5 mgd by 2005
50% Residential, 50%Industrial.
Arnco Mills
GA0000311
X
Chattahoochee
0.065
0.065
0.03
0.065
0
Pond #1
GA0033197
X
Chattahoochee
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15
-0.1
None
Expansion to 0.15 mgd and converting to LAS, no surface water discharge
Coweta County
Grantville
Pond #2
Pond #3
GA0033201
X
Chattahoochee
GA0033219
X
Chattahoochee
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0
None
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0
None
Pond #4
GA0033227
X
Chattahoochee
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0
None
Newnan
Mineral Springs
GA0021423
X
Chattahoochee
Wahoo Creek
Senoia
Senoia
GA0031721
X
Chattahoochee
GAU020135
X Flint
DeKalb Co. W&S Pole Bridge
GA0026816
X
Ocmulgee
Snapfinger
GA0024147
X
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
Ocmulgee
0.75
0.75
0.82
0.85
-0.1
Expansion to 0.9 by 2003
3
3
2.07
2.6
0.4
None
0.07
0.07
0.006
0.49
-0.42
20
20
13
30
-10
none
36
36
23
40
-4
none
A-8
Planned expansion to 0.49 by 2003
Combine Pole Bridge and Snapfinger by 2010 in one 86 mgd plant at Pole Bridge, provide service to portions of Rockdale, Gwinnett, Henry, and Clayton
May require phased expansions. DeKalb Co. and EPD must resolve interbasin transfer issues prior to permitting
Transfer to Pole Bridge, decommission I/I in basin; EQ being provided
Snapfinger
Snapfinger/Pole Bridge interconnect
9/18/2002
DeKalb County
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Beaver Estates
GA0031402
X
Chattahoochee
Northside
GA0030350
X
Chattahoochee
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.02
None
None
MMF at or near
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.4
-0.8
permitted capacity Expansion to 2.0 by 2004
None None
Douglas County
Rebel Trails
Douglasville/ Douglas County WSA South Central
GA0049786
X
Chattahoochee
GAU020057
X Chattahoochee
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.03
None
None
None
0.5
0.5
0.04
1.0
-0.5
None
Expansion to 1.0 as needed 2005/2010 None
Contract with golf course for irrigation water in place, but reuse not yet initiated
Southside
GA0030341
X
Chattahoochee
St. Andrews
GAU020048
X Chattahoochee
Sweetwater Creek
GA0047201
X
Chattahoochee
Flat Creek Peachtree City
Line Creek
GA0020371
X
Flint
GA0035777
X
Flint
N/A
3.25
3.0
4.9
-1.75
Ammonia removal Expansion to 5.0 in 2005
None
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.3
-0.3
None
3.0
3.0
1.1
6.4
-3.4
None
0.9
0.9
0.59
0.9
0
New 0.25-mgd plant to be on-line by 2003
None
Expansion to 4.5 or 6.0 as needed 2005-
2010
None
Plant to be taken off-line in 2004. Flow to be diverted to Rockaway WPCP for treatment with discharge at existing Flat Creek site
2
2
1.23
2
0
Upgrades to allow for reuse & seasonal discharge by 2004
Voluntary sewer tap moratorium in place until new WWTP completed
Fayette County
Rockaway Creek
GA0046655
X
Flint
Fayetteville
Whitewater Creek
GA0035807
X
Flint
2
2
1.63
2
0
3.75
3.75
2.05
3.3
0.45
4 mgd by 2004 A WLA for 5 mgd has been requested
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
A-9
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Fowler
N/A
X Chattahoochee
0
1.5
0
1.5
-1.5
Plant designed for 2.5 mgd in anticipation of future surface water discharge.
Forsyth Co.
(Future Plant)
N/A
(Future Plants)
N/A
X
Etowah
X
Chattahoochee
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
11.5
-11.5
New plant(s) to be constructed after surface water discharge permit is obtained.
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
New plant with LAS disposal. Projected inservice date of July 2003.
New plant to serve anticipated development. No wastewater conveyance or treatment systems currently in place.
County has access to approx. 5 mgd of existing capacity in plants owned by others. If this capacity remains, 2008 deficit is approx. 6.5 mgd.
Forsyth County
(Future Plants)
N/A
X
Lanier
0
0
0
3
-3
Future plant anticipated beyond 2008, demand to be met by other facilities.
Forsyth County and Cumming have a joint WLA of 23 mgd for discharge to Lake Lanier.
Cumming
Bethelview Rd
GA0046019
X
Chattahoochee
(Future Plant)
N/A
X
Lanier
3
3
0.9
8
-5
None
Have a WLA for 8 mgd, expand to 8 mgd by 2003.
0
0
0
11.5
-11.5
Cumming and Forsyth County have a joint WLA of 23 mgd for discharge to Lake Lanier.
Big Creek
GA0024333
X
Chattahoochee
Camp Creek
GA0025381
X
Chattahoochee
Fulton Co.
Cauley Creek
N/A
X Chattahoochee
Johns Creek
GA0030686
X
Chattahoochee
Recent ammonia Planned expansion to 36 or 48 mgd by
24
24
25
26
-2
violations
2008, subject to permitting.
Unpermitted bypass
at plant due to wet
weather flows has
13
13
13
17
-4
been corrected
Expansion to 24 mgd by 2005
Major unpermitted discharges and spills
documented by EPD
Step permit (13/19/24) approved by EPD.
2.5
2.5 / 5.0
0.0
2.5
0
Ultimate expansion to 5.0 mgd with wet weather discharge.
Under construction. Land Application disposal and reuse (no discharge) at 2.5 mgd. Wet weather discharge has not been permitted.
7
7
6.9
11.5
-4.5
Expansion to 15 mgd by 2005, subject to permitting
Cauley Creek flow of 2.5 mgd subtracted from Johns Creek flows in 2008.
Fulton County
Little Bear
GA0047104
X
Chattahoochee
Little River
GA0033251
X
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
Etowah
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
1.25
1.25
1.1
1.25
0
A-10
To 2.5 to handle peaks, no increase in annual discharge
Will be phased out in approximately 5 years.
1 mgd discharge, 0.25 mgd LAS
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Fulton County
South Fulton Municipal Regional Fairburn Water and Sewerage
Authority
Palmetto
GA00
X
GA0025542
X
Chattahoochee
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
1
1
0
1
0
N/A
0.6
0.75
0.53
-0.15
The City is constructing a plant to meet reuse standards. They have an EPD permit. The estimated completion date of the plant is 6/2004.
The City is in the process of planning for future growth by expanding the existing plant or looking at a new treatment location. This may required that they look at reuse and/or LAS.
The service area includes the City of Fairburn, Union City, Palmetto and part of City of Tyrone.
Divert flow to new SFMRWSA plant while maintaining 0.6 mgd discharge point
Beaver Ruin
GA0032841
X
Ocmulgee
Reliability upgrade
4.5
4.5
4.46
4.5
0
for P removal
none
Big Haynes Creek
GA0033847
X
Ocmulgee
0.5
0.5
0.22
0
0
Will be phased out to Yellow River in 2005 or 2006.
Flows controlled by off-load via interconnected pumping system
Crooked Creek
GA0026433
X
Chattahoochee
F. Wayne Hill (Crooked
Creek)
w/ Crooked Ck
X
Chattahoochee
Gwinnett Co.
F. Wayne Hill (Lake Lanier)
X
Lanier
Jacks Creek
GA0047627
X
Ocmulgee
16
16
15
16
0
20
20
9
20
0
0
40
0
33.7
-33.7
1.0
1.0
0.51
0
0
none
Expansion to 60 mgd by 2005
Expansion to 60 mgd by 2005 with the new 40 mgd of capacity to be discharged to Lake Lanier
Will be phased out to Yellow River in 2005 or 2006.
Combined discharge to Chattahoochee River with F. Wayne Hill plant.
Combined discharge to Chattahoochee River with Crooked Creek plant. 40 mgd expansion to discharge to Lake Lanier.
NPDES permit for expansion has been challenged.
Gwinnett County
Jackson Creek
GA0030732
X
Ocmulgee
Reliability upgrade
3.0
3.0
2.99
3
0
for P removal
none
No Business Creek
GA0023973
X
Ocmulgee
Sugar Hill
GAU020003
X Chattahoochee
Yellow River
GA0047911
X
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
Ocmulgee
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
Will be phased out to Yellow River in 2005 or 2006.
Flows controlled by off-load via interconnected pumping system
0
0
Plant to be taken off-line. Plant flows to be conveyed to F. Wayne Hill WRC in 2006.
Increase in design flow to 12 mgd by
Reliability upgrade means of additional clarifiers planned for Flow to replace permitted capacity at
12
12
10.34
14.5
-2.5
for P removal
2003
other plants that are to be phased out
A-11
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Gwinnett County
Hall County
Buford
Southside
GA0023167
X
Chattahoochee
2.0
2.0
1.09
1.50
0.50
None
none
Westside
GA0023175
X
Chattahoochee
Hall Co.
NE Hall County
N/A
X Lanier or Oconee
Gainesville
Flat Creek
GA0021156
X
Lanier
0.25
0.25
0.17
0.20
0.05
None
0
1.8
0
1.8
0.0
10.2
10.2
7.2
11.0
-0.8
none
Have created a WW service area, plan to construct 3 mgd WRF by 2003.
Expand plant capacity to 12 mgd to meet growth demands
Linwood
GA0020168
X
Lanier
Flowery Branch Flowery Branch
GA0031933
X
Lanier
John Weiland Homes
Spout Springs
N/A
X Oconee
Lula Lula
GA0024767
X
Lanier
Hampton
Hampton
GA0020320
X
Flint
3.1
3.1
1.8
2.8
0.3
0.4
1
unk
0.4
0.0
0.05
0.75
0
0.75
-0.7
No limit
0.082
unk
0.08
0
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0
5 mgd to be complete by 2005
DDR approved for expansion to 1.0 mgd
Increase to 0.4 mgd in 2004, 0.75 mgd by 2008.
Agreement with HCWSA -- excess flows
to be diverted to Bear Creek Facility
I/I problems
Facility may be located in Oconee Basin. This facility is planned to ultimately use Hall County's Lake Lanier discharge allocation of 3 mgd.
Southeast Hall Co. service area recently added to Flowery Branch service area. The Lanier Technology Wastewater Development Authority plans to purchase this facility.
Henry County
Bear Creek Henry Co. WSA
Camp Creek
GAU020095
X Flint
GA0049352
X
Ocmulgee
Hampton Industrial Park GAU020125
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
X Flint
0.25
0.25
0.026
0.5
-0.25
3.0 mgd by 2004
When flow exceeds capacity, excess flow
will be diverted to Indian Creek WRF--
Upon completion of new Walnut Creek
plant all flow diverted to Walnut Creek
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.5
0
Near Capacity
and Camp Creek decommissioned.
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
0
A-12
Taken out of service 12/1/01 -- Flows diverted to Bear Creek LAS
Need to confirm 2008 flow.
Flows diverted to Bear Creek LAS 12/1/2001.
9/18/2002
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Remarks
Henry County
Indian Creek
GAU020250
X Ocmulgee
Henry Co. WSA Simpson Mill Comm. GAU020203
Springdale WPCP, Springdale Road, & Walnut Creek (Extg)
GA0037214, GA0037869, & GA02-239
X Ocmulgee
X X X Ocmulgee
HCWSA Walnut Creek
X
Ocmulgee
Locust Grove Pond
(East)
GA0049760
X
Ocmulgee
Locust Grove
Locust Grove LAS (West)
GAU020070
X Ocmulgee
Skyland Mobile Home
Park
GA0049816
X
McDonough
Walnut Creek
X
Stockbridge
Stephen Peurifoy
GA0023337
X
Ocmulgee Ocmulgee Ocmulgee
Paulding Co. WSA Coppermine
X Chattahoochee
Pumpkinvine
GA0200296
X Etowah
Dallas
Dallas North
GA0026034
X
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
Etowah
1.5
1.5
0.0
4
-2.5
New Plant
3.0 mgd by 2005 and 6.0 mgd by 2008
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.0
0.18
To be taken out of service 2002 & flow diverted to Indian Creek LAS
Long range plan will convey flow in
excess of 2.0 mgd to new Walnut Creek
2
2
1.4
2.0
0
Needs rehabilitation Facility.
Replacement of Tunis PS
4
4
0
0
0.052
0.052
0.017
0.052
0.0
Upon completion of new Skyland plant, divert flow to Skyland Plant and decommission Locust Grove--East
Three permitted facilities on one site
New Plant. Projected in-service date of early 2004.
0.3
0.3
unk
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.2
0
1.0
1.0
unk
2.0
-1.0
None
Build new 1.0 mgd plant by 2005 and decommission existing facility
I/I issues
Will be expanded to 2.0 mgd by early 2004. Near Capacity -- Plans and permit have been submitted for approval. Need to hold Public Meeting on EID prior to approval.
1.5
1.5
0.52
1.5
0
0.75
0.75
0.28
0.75
0
0.5
0.5
0.058
1.0
-0.5
None
1.5 mgd by 2004 & 3.0 mgd by 2008
1.5 mgd by 2005 with 1 mgd discharge to Pumpkinvine Creek and 0.5 mgd reuse.
No surface water discharge anticipated for this plant.
2008 flow estimated by BC.
0.5
0.5
0.23
0.5
0
A-13
1 mgd by 2004.
9/18/2002
Paulding County
Paulding County
District Member
Entity
Facility
Type of
Discharge Permit Number Direct LAS
Basin
Dallas
Dallas West
GA0026026
X
Etowah
Table A-2. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District POTW System Inventory
Permitted Capacity MMADF
Design Capacity MMADF
2001
2008 2008 Capacity
MMADF MMADF Available +/- Compliance Issues
Planned Expansion
0.9
0.9
0.63
0.9
0
No firm plans--discharge limitation
Conveyance Issues/Needs
Almand Branch
GA0021610
X
Ocmulgee
1.25
1.25
1.64
1.83
-0.58
Honey Creek
GA0022659
X
Ocmulgee
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.4
-0.10
Rockdale County
Lakeridge Estates
GA0022586
X
Rockdale WRD Quigg Branch
GA0047678
X
Ocmulgee Ocmulgee
0.09
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.88
1.12
Adding 2 mgd reuse system by 2004
Scott Creek
GA0026239
X
Ocmulgee
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.22
0.00
Snapping Shoals
GA0023035
X
Ocmulgee
Stanton Woods
GA0049085
X
Monroe
Jacks Creek
GA0047171
X
Loganville
City of Loganville
GA0020788
X
Social Circle Little River
GA0026107
X
Ocmulgee Oconee Ocmulgee Oconee
0.45
0.45
0.35
1.09
-0.64
0.15
0.15
0.09
0.15
0.00
3.4
3.4
1.65
2.35
1.05
Modifications to plant to allow for PHFs to 9.5 mgd recently completed.
1.75
2
0.6
1.75
0
Just completed upgrades
I/I issues, but have active maintenance program.
Upgrade & expansion to 0.9 mgd by 2004
& conveyance system improvements. To
0.45
0.65
0.43
1.2
-0.75
Old facility
1.4 mgd LAS by 2010.
Significant I/I issues.
Walton County
Remarks
P:\MNGWPD\21910\WP\0072402FinalRptTable A-2 MatrixSummary FR.xls
A-14
9/18/2002
APPENDIX B
RIVER MODELING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
50 Conifer Cir., Augusta, GA 30909 706.739.0606 fax 706.739.0454
Technical Memorandum
March 6, 2002
To: Ms. Pat Stevens - ARC From: Mr. Robert W. Olson Cc: ARC Chattahoochee Water Quality Work Group Re: Short Term Plan Technical Memorandum for NPDES Permit Limits
Natural Resource Engineering, Inc. (NRE) is providing this technical memorandum as documentation regarding the assimilative capacity of the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and the headwaters of West Point Lake. The results will be used as documentation by the wastewater treatment facilities (WTFS) for the 2004 renewal of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The following memorandum provides a brief description of the procedures used to evaluate the requested permit limits for both dissolved oxygen (DO) consuming constituents and total phosphorus and presents the assumptions and results of the analyses.
Dissolved Oxygen Procedures and Results
The Chattahoochee River discharge limits for DO demanding constituents were evaluated using the computer model developed by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) for their Chattahoochee River Modeling Project (CRMP). The objective of the CRMP was to develop a hydrodynamic modeling system to analyze the complex issues within the Chattahoochee River watershed. The foundation of the model used for the CRMP was the Corps of Engineer's RIV1 model.. EPDRiv1, a one-dimensional hydrodynamic model, was extensively modified and tested by the GAEPD prior to its use in simulating the water quality in the Chattahoochee River. The modifications to the model were made to more accurately simulate the impact of the following:
47 tributaries, 11 wastewater treatment discharges, 4 municipal water withdrawals, and 4 power plant thermal discharges.
The hydrodynamic model for the 115 miles of the Chattahoochee River downstream from Buford Dam was calibrated and verified by GAEPD using data collected during 1994 and 1995. The calibrated model and the study area data were then used to evaluate "critical conditions" for DO in the river segment. The critical DO conditions were determined to be the following:
All withdrawals and wastewater treatment facilities (WTF) operating at the maximum permit limits (i.e. flow, CBOD, organic nitrogen, ammonia, DO, etc.)
NPDES Technical Memorandum March 6, 2002 Page 2 of 6
Constant monthly flows from Buford Dam to maintain the minimum regulator flow of 750 cfs just upstream from the Peachtree Creek and Chattahoochee River confluence.
Monthly 7-day 10-year (7Q10) low flows from the tributaries as estimated by US Geological Survey (USGS) regression equations
Meteorological conditions as measured in 1994 and 1995
The critical conditions model, developed using the above assumptions, was used to project the allowable wastewater discharge loading. The basis of the loading was to satisfy the DO standard (5.0 mg/l 24-hour average, never below 4.0 mg/l) in the downstream sections of the Chattahoochee River. A list of the WTF discharges simulated in the model is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Wastewater Discharges
Wastewater Treatment Facility
New Forsyth County Plant Crooked Creek John's Creek Big Creek R.L. Sutton R.M. Clayton South Cobb Utoy Creek South River
Sweetwater Creek Camp Creek
Political Jurisdiction Forsyth County Gwinnett County Fulton County Fulton County Cobb County City of Atlanta Cobb County City of Atlanta City of Atlanta Douglas County Fulton County
River Mile 339.0 325.15 324.0 315.11 300.45 300.4 294.34 291.54 291.34 286.67 283.53
The critical conditions model was first used to simulate the WTF discharges at their current permit limits. The results of this analysis, shown in Table 2, indicate that the DO standard is not achieved at the current NPDES permit limits. Therefore, lower permit limits are necessary to achieve compliance with the DO standard. The procedures used to reduce the limits took into account the following factors:
NPDES Technical Memorandum March 6, 2002 Page 3 of 6
The proposed "GAEPD Metro Limits" CBOD5 = 2.9 mg/l, ammonia = 0.5 mg/l, organic nitrogen = 1.5 mg/l and DO = 7.0 mg/l
The ability of the WTF to treat to lower limits
Projected loading into the each WTF and anticipated WTF expansion/upgrades
Water quality kinetics of the River
Two of the underlying principles were to abide by the GAEPD guideline that any facility requesting an increase in hydraulic capacity would have to design the WTF to meet the "metro limits" and that there would be no increase in the existing permit concentration limits. In addition, several of the WTFS (Crooked Creek, John's Creek, and R.L. Sutton) had been previously designed or are operating such that the treated wastewater would comply with the "metro limits". Furthermore, several of the other WTFS had been recently upgraded and/or were efficiently operating so that their existing permit limits could significantly be reduced. Each WTF evaluated their recent operational performance and proposed acceptable limits.
In addition to modeling the WTFS discharges, the power plants operated by Georgia Power were modeled as a heat load. The scenarios evaluated for these permitting activities accounted for the commitment by Georgia Power to remove existing heat loads into the river during critical conditions. As a result, the following heat load scenarios were considered:
1. Full heat load this assumed that both plants McDonough and Atkinson would operate in a manner consistent with the 1995 observations.
2. Partial heat load this assumed that only Plant McDonough would operate at their permit limits during critical conditions.
3. No heat load this assumed that all power plant heat loads would be removed from the river.
Since there are several milestones that will effect the DO resources of the River during the 2003- 2008 permitting cycle, staged permits are requested so that each WTF can accommodate the anticipated increases in flow while complying with their NPDES permits and achieving water quality standards in the Chattahoochee River. The milestones that will trigger the stages requested in the permits are the completion of more efficient WTFs and the removal of heat loads. Each of these milestones results in the availability of additional assimilative capacity. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2.
As previously mentioned, any request for additional hydraulic capacity necessitates the WTF's compliance with the "Metro Limits". The flow rates (Table 2) for the City of Atlanta's RM Clayton, Utoy Creek and South River facilities show their flow rates increasing with the new permits. These apparent increases in flow rates are not the result of future capacity being added but an acknowledgement of the existing designed hydraulic capacities of these facilities. Table 2 shows that the permitted discharge flows for these facilities would be staged through 2008, in conjunction with the reduction of the heat load in the Chattahoochee, until the facilities' existing flow capacities can be allowed.
NPDES Technical Memorandum March 6, 2002 Page 4 of 6
It is not presently known when the heat loads will be removed from the River. It is anticipated that the last stage (2006-2008) will be associated with the hydraulic loads that each WTF will need for the projected 2008 NPDES permit renewals.
In addition to the critical condition permit loads presented in Table 2, we are presently evaluating the WTFs request for seasonal loads to accommodate the lowered treatment efficiencies during cool weather. These seasonal permit conditions will apply only to the carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), ammonia concentrations, and organic nitrogen concentrations. As with the critical conditions permit limits, the seasonal permit limits are being evaluated using the EPDRiv1 model. The cold weather version of the model was calibrated by GAEPD using data collected in 1994-95. The cold weather model simulations are base on assumptions similar to those used for the critical conditions model (i.e. 7Q10 tributary flow, 750 cfs at Peachtree Creek and 1994-95 observed meteorological conditions). The seasons tentatively selected for evaluation were based on the historic ambient air temperatures, 1994-95 river temperatures and resulting DO and the WTFs experience with treatment efficiencies during cooler months. At present, the seasons will be the following:
Winter December through February Spring March and April Summer (critical period) May through September Fall October and November
In summary, we recommend that the staged permit limits presented in Table 2 be incorporated in the respective NPDES renewal applications. These limits will allow for compliance with the DO standard in the Chattahoochee River and provides each WTF with the needed hydraulic capacity in a timely manner.
Total Phosphorus Procedures and Results
To control eutrophication of West Point Lake, the GAEPD established an annual limit (1,400,000 pounds) of total phosphorus (TP) that can be discharged into the lake. The TP loading can be attributed to point and nonpoint source s. The point sources are the WTFs that discharge directly to the River and those that discharge to tributaries that flow into the river. The point source contributions also include the discharge from the City of Atlanta's combined sewer overflows (CSO). The nonpoint sources include the TP from Lake Lanier (Buford Dam), storm water runoff and the TP load from the tributary base flow. A simple spreadsheet model approach was used to evaluate the sources of TP and assist in establishing a recommended TP limit for the WTFs that would assure compliance with the West Point Lake TP Standard. This simple procedure incorporates the following conservative assumptions:
No loss/assimilation of TP in the Buford Dam to West Point Lake River segment No reduction in TP loading was assumed for storm water control devices or Best Management
Practices implemented in the watershed WTFs operate at the permit limits
The TP from Buford Dam was calculated using the average annual flow (2050 cfs) and the average TP concentration (0.03 mg/l) observed during the 1994-95 CRMP sampling activities.
NPDES Technical Memorandum March 6, 2002 Page 5 of 6
The point source loads were calculated using various TP concentrations and the permitted flow of each WTF (both tributary and mainstem). The mainstem TP loads were calculated for the initial (2003) hydraulic load and for the anticipated hydraulic load in the final stage (see Table 2 labeled as Permit Limits after Plant McDonough Heat load removal (2006-2008)) of the NPDES permit renewal application. The tributary TP loads were calculated using the existing hydraulic load with various TP concentrations. In addition, TP loads using current TP concentrations and flows were calculated for comparison purposes. A summary of the point source TP loading for the mainstem and tributary WTFs is presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The nonpoint source loads were calculated using available land use, drainage areas and TP loading factors developed for the metropolitan Atlanta area. The land use was obtained from the ARC 1999 Land Pro Land Use/Land Cover for the metropolitan Atlanta area. For areas not within the ARC data set, 1995 land use data was obtained from the USGS. The land use of tributary areas less than 3 square miles and those that drain directly to the Chattahoochee River (collectively referred to as "Toe Jam Areas") was assumed to be approximately 95 percent forest/open space and 5 percent water.
The TP load from the CSO was based on estimates provided by the engineers designing the CSO treatment systems. The existing loads (7660 lb/yr) will be significantly reduced (1840 lb/yr) when the CSO treatment systems are put online.
The TP loading factors (lb/acre/year) were based on water quality data collected during the 1993 Atlanta Regional Storm Water Characterization Study (ARSWCS). This study was performed during the USEPA NPDES Part 2 Stormwater Permit Application process. There were 27 watersheds representing residential, commercial and industrial land uses monitored and sampled for the ARSWCS. These 27 watersheds, located in the City of Atlanta and the surrounding counties, were sampled during 81 storm events. The monitoring and sampling results for these representative storms were analyzed and compared to other national data by ARC and consultants to develop the recommended TP loading factors for metropolitan Atlanta shown in Table 5. These loading factors were used with the watershed land use (acres) to calculate the annual nonpoint source TP load. The estimated 1999 nonpoint source TP loading is summarized by tributary in Table 6.
The 2010 nonpoint source TP loading was based on estimates of future development. For tributaries with significant undeveloped areas, it was assumed that 10% of the open/forested area would be developed in similar proportions as were observed in the 1999 land use data. There was no increase in loading for watersheds that were considered fully developed in 1999. A review of select watersheds indicated that the TP load could increase on the order of 6% if no storm water control measures are implemented or constructed.
The base flow TP contribution was calculated using 1994-95 base flow data and measured concentrations. The data from the stream gages deployed during the 1994-95 CRMP data collection activities were used to establish base flow yields (cfs/mi2). These base flow yields were then transposed to nearby watersheds to calculate a base flow for ungaged tributaries. These base flows were used with observed "dry weather" concentrations in each tributary to calculate the base flow TP contribution.
NPDES Technical Memorandum March 6, 2002 Page 6 of 6
Table 5 Recommended Total Phosphorus Loading Factors
Land Use
Agriculture/Pasture & Cropland Commercial Forest/open Heavy Industrial Large Lot single family Low Density single family Low-Medium density Medium Density Office/Light Industrial Roads Townhouse/Apartment
Total Phosphorus Loading Factor
(lb/ac/yr) 0.44 1.71 0.08 1.45 0.29 0.60 1.08 1.35 1.29 1.8 1.05
The results of this simple spreadsheet model are summarized in Table 7 and in Figures 1 and 2. As shown in Table 7 and Figures 1 and 2, the nonpoint source contributes approximately 50% of the TP load to West Point Lake and that a WTF permit limit of 0.38 mg/l would allow for compliance with the West Point Lake 1.4 million lb/yr TP limit. In addition, the TP limit can readily be adjusted as additional data become available and the evaluation phase of the Watershed Characterization Studies are implemented.
Table 2 Summary of Results NPDES Permit Renewal for Critical Period Only Assumes Seasonal Nitrogen and BOD Limits
Parameter
Forsyth County
Current Permit
Flow (mgd) -BOD5 (mg/l) --
NH3 (mg/l) -DO (mg/l) --
Crooked Creek
36 2.9 0.77 5
John's
R.L.
Creek Big Creek Sutton
7
24
40
14
9.1
10
1.2
1.4
1.8
5
5
5
R.M. Clayton1
96 15 3.7 5
South Cobb
40 15 1.8 5
2004 Permit Limits (December 2003)
Flow (mgd) 10
50
15
24
50
100
40
BOD5 (mg/l) 2.9
2.9
2.9
4
2.9
3.5
4
NH3 (mg/l) 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
DO (mg/l) 7
6
7
7
7
6
7
Permit Limits after Camp Creek Plant upgrade (Fall 2004)
Flow (mgd) 10
50
15
24
50
110
40
BOD5 (mg/l) 2.9
2.9
2.9
4
2.9
3.5
4
NH3 (mg/l) 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
DO (mg/l) 7
6
7
7
7
6
7
Permit Limits after Plant McDonough Heat load removal (2006-2008)
Flow (mgd) 20
65
15
48
50
122
40
BOD5 (mg/l) 2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.5
4
NH3 (mg/l) 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
DO (mg/l) 7
6
7
7
7
6
7
Utoy Creek
40 15 3.7 5
40 3.5 0.5 6
40 3.5 0.5 6
44 3.5 0.5 6
South Sweetwater Camp
River
Creek
Creek
48
3
13
15
20
25
4.4
3.6
0.5
5
5
5
48
3
16
3.5
10
5
0.5
2
2
6
5
7
48
3
24
3.5
10
2.9
0.5
2
0.5
6
5
7
54
10
24
3.5
2.9
2.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
6
7
7
Totals
Minimum DO (mg/l)
Partial
Full Heat Heat Without
Load
Load2 Heat Load
347
1.75
1.9
2.15
396 NA
5
5.19
414
NA
5.05
5.24
492
NA
NA
5.15
1. RM Clayton design flow is 122 with previous permits issued for 120. 2. Partial Heat Load - McDonough is the only heat load into the river
Short Term Plan Table&Figures
March 6, 2002
Parameter
Current Permit Flow (mgd)
Current TP (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
Table 3 Summary of Mainstem Point Source Total Phosphorus Load NPDES Permit Renewal
Forsyth Crooked John's
R.L.
County Creek Creek Big Creek Sutton
R.M. Clayton
South Cobb
Utoy Creek
South Sweetwater Camp
River
Creek
Creek
Totals
0
36
7
24
40
96
40
40
48
3
13
347
0.3
0.41
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.64
0.75
0.64
0.64
0.75
0.3
0
44931 15982 54794 91323 187030 91323 77929 93515
6849
11872
675547
2003 Permit Limits
Flow (mgd)
10
Current TP (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
0.3 9132
TP Limit (mg/l)= 0.3
Total Load (lbs/yr)
9132
TP Limit (mg/l)= 0.38
Total Load (lbs/yr)
11568
50 0.41 62404
45662
57838
15 0.75 34246
13698
17351
24
0.75 54794
50
100
0.75
0.64
114154 194822
40
0.75 91323
21918 45662 91323 36529
27762 57838 115676 46270
40 0.64 77929
36529
46270
48 0.64 93515
43835
55524
3 0.75 6849
2740
3470
16
0.3 14612
396 753780
14612
361639
18508
458076
2008 Permit Limits Flow (mgd) 20
Current TP (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
0.3 18265
TP Limit (mg/l)= 0.3
Total Load (lbs/yr)
18265
TP Limit (mg/l)= 0.38
Total Load (lbs/yr)
23135
65 0.41 81125
59360
75189
15
0.75 34246
48
50
122
0.75
0.75
0.64
109588 114154 237683
40
0.75 91323
13698 43835 45662 111414 36529
17351 55524 57838 141124 46270
44
0.64 85722
54
0.64 105204
40182 49314
50897 62465
10 0.75 22831
9132
11568
24 0.3 21918
21918
27762
492 922058 449309 569125
Short Term Plan Table&Figures
March 6, 2002
Table 4 Summary of Tributary Point Source Total Phosphorus Load
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
Current Permit Limits Total P (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
Metro Limits Total P (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
Total P (mg/l) Total Load (lbs/yr)
Buford Buford Westside Southside
Tyson Foods
Total
Douglasville
Douglasville
Phosphorus
Cumming South Villa Rica South Newnan (lbs/yr)
0.25
2.00
1.50
2.00
0.60
0.52
3.25
2.30
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
571
4566
3425
4566
0.75 1370
0.75 1187
0.75 7420
0.75 5251
28356
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
228
1826
1370
1826
548
0.3
0.3
0.3
475
2968
2100
11342
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
289
2314
1735
2314
694
602
3759
2661
14367
March 6, 2002
Table 6 Summary of Results Total Phosphorus NonPoint Source Loading Projections
Tributary No.
Tributary Name
Drainage Area
(sq. mile)
Forsyth County
1
Haw Creek
3.8
3
James Creek
15.2
5
Dick Creek
8.8
Gwinnett County
2
Richland Creek
10.6
4
Level Creek
9.1
6
Suwanee Creek
51.2
8
Unnamed Creek
3.7
9
Crooked Creek
9.2
Fulton County
7
Johns Creek
13.1
10
Ball Mill Creek
3.5
11
Big Creek
103
13
March Creek
5.3
15
Long Island Creek
6.4
23
Camp Creek
46.8
24
Deep Creek
29.9
26
Tuggle Creek
3.2
27
Pea Creek
14.5
29
Bear Creek
29
33
White Oak Creek
16.6
35
Cedar Creek
51.8
Cobb County
12
Willeo Creek
19.8
14
Sope Creek
35.4
16
Rottenwood Creek
19.6
19
Nikajack Creek
36.7
22
Sweetwater Creek
264
City of Atlanta
17
Peachtree Creek
131
18
Proctor Creek
16.4
20
Sandy Creek
5.1
21
Utoy Creek
34.2
Douglas County
25
Anneewakee Creek
29.9
28
Bear Creek
17.3
30
Dog Creek
78.5
31
Hurricane Creek
10.1
32
Wolf Creek
16.8
Coweta County
36
Wahoo Creek
34.6
37
Thomas Creek
8.9
38
Moore Creek
3.5
Carroll County
34
Snake Creek
49.2
39
Acorn Creek
11.2
40
Whooping Creek
31.4
41
Yellowdirt Creek
25.7
Heard County
42
Pink Creek
10.2
43
Hilly Mill creek
12.4
44
Red Bone Creek
3
45
Nutt Creek
5.1
46
Harris Creek
7.4
47
Centralhatchee Creek 58.8
Toe Jam Area
224
TOTALS
1634.9
1999 Phosphorus
Loading (lb/yr)
1318 5242 3822
3534 3549 21107 3028 6893
8505 2684 53445 4525 4677 15614 5968 448 1739 4210 2051 8993
12840 27450 16651 23637 106307
106282 11669 3434 20722
15419 6122 17233 1627 2797
10662 1098 231
17407 873 1753 3731
534 1800 154 261 379 3011
10895
586330
Short Term Plan Table&Figures
March 6, 2002
Phosphorus Source
Buford Dam Load
Avg flow (2050 cfs)(MGD) Avg Total P concentration
Total P (lbs/yr)
Point Source Loads Main Stem
2004 Loads 2008 Loads
Tributary 2004 & 2008 Loads
CSO 2004 Estimates 2008 Estimates
Non Point Source Loads Projected Tributary Loading
Storm Baseflow
Table 7 Summary of Results Total Phosphorus NPDES Permit Renewal
Total Phosphorus
(lb/yr)
1324 0.03 120939
Current
753780 922058
TP Permit Limits 0.3 mg/l 0.38 mg/l 407301 458076 436524 569125
28356
11342
14367
7660 1840
Existing Land Use
586330
56666
Total =
642996
Future Land Use2 621510 56666 678176
Existing Land Use (2004) Future Land Use (2008)
Available Remaining TP Load (lbs/yr)1
NPDES TP Limits (mg/l)
Current
0.3
-153731
209762
-351369
151178
0.38 155961 15553
1 - Available Load = Total P Standard - Buford Load - Mainstem Point Source Load Tributary Point Source Load Nonpoint Source Load-CSO
Total Phosphorus Standard at Headwaters of West Point Lake = 1,400,000 lb/year 2 - Future Land TP load assumes no nonpoint source water quality controls
March 6, 2002
Figure 1 Total Phosphorus Contributions 2000 Land Use and NPDES TP limits at 0.38 Mg/l
Available 11%
Non Point 45%
Buford Dam 9%
CSO Load 1%
Trib NPDES 1%
Main NPDES 33%
Total Phosphorus Load @ West Point Lake = 1,400,000 lb/yr
March 6, 2002
Non Point 49%
Figure 2 Total Phosphorus Contributions 2010 Land Use and NPDES limits at 0.38 mg/l
Available 1%
Buford Dam 9%
CSO Load 0%
Trib NPDES 1%
Main NPDES 40%
Total Phosphorus Load @ West Point Lake =1,400,000 lb/yr
March 6, 2002