NC0036668_Environmental Assessment_19950725

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SKEET
NC0036668
NPDES Permit:
Kenansville WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 25, 1995
Thin document iia printed on reutce paper - ignore any
content on the reairerae 'Bide

A
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 25, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reginald Sutton
Construction Grants
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek t2(`
Carla Sanderson
FROM: Jason Doll
SUBJECT: Revised Environmental Assessment
Proposed WWTP Expansion
Town of Kenansville
Duplin County
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the revised 201 Plan / Environmental
Assessment (EA) prepared by McDavid Associates, Inc. for the Town of Kenansville for
the expansion of the town's wastewater treatment plant from 0.17 MGD to 0.3 MGD. The
revised EA was found to thoroughly address the concerns raised in our March 21 memo
regarding the original EA. In our opinion, the document is prepared to proceed to the next
level in the review process.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the revised document. Please let
me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Permits and Engineering
Central Files

•
.. .. ..—.. - .. Riy M .•'ruV.w-1.•'rYilre.'�Yv+VIL!Sa'.T.Gi.'w.✓. q' -.�., wr.'•' •-iR! '• wlMw._lr.:i-Ir:.—�Tr!1Y+•r.. ��i�. iY'w":. �.•�\r : �.:'r'•.••_._-'Llrr.• ^.!.•.44 1}... •""\iiM.•UAW, Y :���' ✓L `111..-
Ta_...__a•Ty.-=rstT 'r.•�+_T+_.w:ia• ..if.�!'�_..sz 0.' �042' �- _.. ia'f,,.p""�lh..,�•�`:�. '""wr"3•^'i•s.'�Srir.'....aY.i. «-..tril•;..:n• +�. •" .y'i�.'Lr\
•ts- ?.r,�. vw1".;;.- "7'' i'O47"4:7" is}M5A4":4.• '"75 •r; - '91';T'•7
'":.; • '' ..-i:: �: _t•'t •- "' r• -a ,.
!:
•
•
wnc.. y-c^•-n "L� ,leer -Planne•rs•,-%,at�r7 .�'s/s,�sf• o,f� � .-:•s.� �_ar. ,,,, ►s✓ 4t.�;,,,,_
•
�C�Y. FI
•
^�-.:•L:`�:.
•., ..;...:..-CQR.PORATE OFFICE
_� .. ...� (919) 7i3?139 ' Fax t919) 753-7220—
_ Drawer 49
— _ __. ^ ...�_. _�� ._. _ Faimviile, NC 2.7828 - _w
44414,,
GOLDSBQRO-OFFICE•_-�- -
_ .• _ - �- = 2:- _ - (919)- 736-7630 • 6x919)
_ _' 109 E.,Walnut Streett.P.O.
4 Goldiboro,-NC 27533
-� Jury--14; 1995-
Daniel M. Blaisdell, Project Manager
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Blaisdell:
`.RECEIVED
JUL 1 J 1995
fAXISTRUCTION ANTS & t r Scull
Friar MAJNEREMT spacti
SUBJECT: Response to Environmental Comments
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Project No. CS 370591-03
Kenansville, NC
The following comments are provided in response to your April 6,1995 letter and attachments:
1. The location of the existing and proposed facilities have been added to Figure 5.1 in
the revised 201.Plan.
2. Additional discussion regarding impacts on Grove Creek has been incorporated in a
new section (5.4.16) in the 201 Plan. Grove Creek is the only stream in the
Kenansville vicinity of significance.
3. The U. S. Corps of Engineers has been requested by letter (copy attached)to provide
a response regarding jurisdictional areas.
4. Additional information describing the existing site and acreage to be impacted has
been added to the 201 Plan. The proposed site is owned by the Town and consists
of cut -over timberland with standing trees -typically no larger than 6 inches in
diameter.
- The woods were harvested- fol.- timber in -1994.-The:soi - pe is
Fallsington fine sand which is not considered "prime" or "important" farmland,- 'he
proposed site is -believed to be free of wetlands. A total of four acres of •cut -over
- - —timberland will be cleared for the construction of the proposed wastewater treatment
- _ _plant. --r _ _ . - - " •_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _..._ ._ _ -
- ss-- • -J..._,. -..•e_•- 9.•.-wr,..1..41110-.•..•.r....+-••—•... _:w..•--.z-.:::.a• --e...-._--::3^�.......•.
__
• areat house from the e.xi_ sting and ra osed VsiStewater i p P Batmen is
-" y `�approximate_ly=1500Kfed-and iillustrated_ � .o.r. r_
is:.-L,. .�.
-� - ` . �i•f�won'Flgure 51.
li l'1YA1•.`FY�f I F rF."l J.:-.
..Kt ..•Q-.,. ..ISLe
•
•�.Y
Z.
aSa.'' �C r LT.
Y4

` -'� .�'--�"���w 1�1llilu_ �uwn �unirs aonot have_aecesS Q_ Town �ewer�ines ash
indicated on pikes- 11 and 13. Although these houses are note cmgepter en erit
ic tank
problems the Town plansto :proyidesewer-services-to-these trot e it the take._
7� copy of tlie-public hearing transcript has �beea add�-to _ _ �,
Attac�.--_hm�e; nt3_. --
3alOng--;ith,
�--'=-
a copy of the advertisement for the public hearing:
- .-8. Responses to comments from other agencies are provided in the following-secti of this letter. - g ons
OFFICE OF WASTE REDUCTION 3-20-95 MEMO
1. An alternative discussing conservation and waste reduction has
added
Plan (Section 4.2.6). The Town Hall bulletin board has literature for
public
the 201
which encourages and promotes water conservation. AIthough conservation in Spllay
Itself
will not solve the Town's current wastewater capacity
increase the life of the surplus capacityp �' problems it may significantly
rP proposed to be included in the new waste-
water treatment plant.
2. Construction plans for the project will require grinding limbs and debris on site for
use as mulch.
3. Hydro -seeding will be identified as acceptable for erosion and sedimentation control
in lieu of straw and asphalt tack. -
4. There will be no waste concrete or wood since the project does not involve
demolition of existing structures. Any steel removed will be sold as
for reprocessing. scrap material
5. The project will allow the use of recycled materials where possible such as road base
or crumb rubber for asphalt.
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 3-29-95 MEMO
1. The
epopulation projections included within the Water Supply Plan developed for the
Division of Water Resources were calculated pursuant to a defined format set forth
in the instructions for the Water Supply Plan. The population projections in the 201
Plan follow a defined format required by the Division of Environmental Management.
The two methods are different and therefore yield different results. Although the
methods yield different results the difference is not considered significant. The Water
Supply Plan 2010 population projection is 787 versus the DEM 2010 projection of
910.. The 123 person difference amounts to less than 10,000 gpd-'in wastewater flow
while the proposed plant will include approximately 75,000 gpd of excess_capacity.
ty.
DEM JASON DOLL 3-21-95 MEMO
- - -1: The land application al -
ternativ��n the,201: -lan has been revised
lieu :of 200 ft.- -buffer and" �$ 'OOO�iac � � � -- - to . r� �.--150;ft.
.� 2, ti re Land cost in lieu of �3,00(�1acxe. �.
••g ,s.'er . < -.t .t -,--• • "¢.:n. ' ".4e.'X'.:i.•
74
j4 Qr=.Y.tjy".d•
~_xr. ,M t -. 3ii. L. �i M .. ._, .:n-tr .... i� +l1't`•. '• - aV`
•
•
'7 -•
iy.- ter.' Y _ nr„i+"��•'.x� _ i- .. may+t.
-•
�►. *�.,.� - , _ _ `:.t,a fit- ^i^•.r ` s•� r 1+.+.-++.�.z;- i ` - R*�e,.+'tt„',,. �c.
a � DE_ EiW ItEStONSE:LTR - r •`iris=� •. ' s _ ; L � �� •.
�#;. 4 C �4+a�. - - # � • '��vc+ — �scs,�-- •�y�.'i'r.sa---+�� � i M ;
i
• ♦ ee.,... v' .
t.~ �K �- .. �^• .y4 -�"� o s - to o-:. -''.�. ^'�..—'-"_��.::. rr�w .:- � rat* � '�F :.;j-""_°.r.-_.�..:. tTi:_-.� :.� �`�`_.

•
•.. .... ,-�
•
.� -••-Kam...:.—_:...-----•-.._.A-..�:...�-��,.,-...,
•
mays .�
`S. aC...-. �.--
• --� .. : .. -- - - __ _ - = •.. -"' >`%"-.. ,.a: .,�-- •`� "tit' --'� t •c: Y^
2. * An analysis -similar to that provided in `the _ 201 Plan l' r E:
•o land-apicatioa except
--: utilizing treatmentvia the existingwastewater-treatment�plantis-attached°torth s letter
- _ __ - _ The present -North -.value of this=alternative-is-significantly-higher an ie chai -e._..�_`
_ - _ -=-. alternative in the 201-Plan. - = - -- - - "-- =- -- - - - -- _r _- _ .�. -.._—. g .._ _..�
i•
. The cost analysis in the 201 Plan has been revised to reflect monitoring for a Grade
III plant in lieu of Grade II. The monitoring tests and frequencies have been added
to the revised 201 Plan.
__ 4. A new section 5.4.16 "Receiving Waters" has been added to the revised 201 Plan to
provide additional discussion of impacts on Grove Creek from the existing and
proposed wastewater treatment plant.
Your continued review and approval of the Town's 201 Plan will be appreciated. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.
FTL:
Enclosures
cc: Town of Kenansville
:•D:LWPSIDAT F.rL103 -
..•.
Sincerely,
McDAVID ASSOCIATES, INC.
F. Tyndall Lewis, PE
Goldsboro Office
•
•
.Ae �-- _ r
�, s
714

ea
``;ai • �'3w.- -«fir
;.:yam �d;'•rJ.•.. a. •
_- -Engineers-- • Planners • Lan_ _ ..r .
Survryors =_ -
•
�.�:...._ .. - CORPORATE_ ORME -d
- _ _ - y -t:. --GO_LDSBOR
[phone] •Fax [phone], - - O-OFFICE
____ 120•iJ. Maier Sore_ r - P_o. Drawci 49 �_ _ _. .. __ w ' "'" (42S?j 73b-7630 =Fax [phone] -_
_ -F NC 27sis _ 109Walnut sic P.o. BoX •in6 .
-- �. -- Goldsboro, NC 27533 ..:.��
July 5, 1995
SS
- -_ ;-�..�-..ter'---.4..i...r Fx..•...�ar:<.i;
.. `-"a_ err. •. _.__.��"5�.�,'��•
•
Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Plant Project
Town of Kenansville
Duplin County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Wright:
The Town of Kenansville plans to construct a new wastewater treatment plant acr the access road from the existing Kenansville WWTP. The proposed project will require�ccl ose
nce
of approximately four (4) acres of woodlands. The Division of Environmental Management has
instructed the Town to request the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the ro osed ro'ec
area to determine if COE jurisdictional areas will be affected. P P P t
The existing Town wastewater treatment plant is adjacent to wetlands Iocated betw
e
site and Grove Creek; however, the proposed site is upland of the existinglant site andnap plant
a"high and dry" with no wetlands. Please find enclosed the following maps to assist your evaluation:s
1. Location maps of existing WWTP site and proposed site. (USGS mapand Flood lain
map) Floodplain
Map of existing WWTP illustrating wetlands - AS BUILT sheet G-4 dated 1987
3. Plan Sheets G-3 - G-8 from proposed project illustrating topo features, elevations and
proposed WWTP plant site.
The Town is under orders from the State to construct the new wastewater treatment plant. Your •
evaluation of this matter and timely response will be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
__ McDAVID ASSOCIATES, INC. -
-.;-,Enclosures.=--�
cc Dan Blaisdell, DEM
ow ir;of =Kenansville
D: DA (
s�XEI ANSVII.LE.COE WWrP.LTR
- ...... _..� __ •_ `�.:--..- - ice_.,.. - "
F-Tyndall Lewis, P
Goldsboro• Office
-� - �iJ1 .l�i.r
. 3Ie-•.y�w�
�.. _. s� '��:-5-.`.i.�.G���i^_ai)►e•. '•.omits.

.....-•'=fit"' � .. _
•
•
--=4.5-Alternative II=Land - .4 .� �.'. •.. _ -: �. __.- ..� _. Des —CH_ _:�. _._.,__�_A_lication Utilizin Existinlion and C - _ --__ -_ -- - -- _ V'VWTP ' _ ost =Anal sis
- - `� .Anyproject involving land disposal oiwastewater .in eastern _ i _
designed -due to -the unusual nature of the soils and topography °� Carolina must be ca.refuliy
purposeofevaluating - . throughout the area:- _For the .:�
b this .alternative, optimistic assumptions are utilized for design criteria.
If evaluation of this Alternative is favorable the design criteria must
__ _ _ _ - _ _ be carefully re-evaluated:"
Soils in the vicinity of Kenansville most suitable for irrigation of wastew
those
in the Lakeland, Norfolk and Goldsboro classifications. These soils are ypicall include drained
or at least capable of being drained and consists of sands and sandycltays. clly well drinrd
suitable for agricultural crop production and are typically found inproduction i These County.s are
Surface drainage and ditching are "musts" for the successful management m Duolin
of the soils.
For the purpose of evaluating this alternative, a loading rate of 39 inches
utilized. A total of 103 wet acres will be required for irrigation based on per year will 110be
MG (1.059 Mg/Acre/yr). Assuming a square shaped irrigation lot with
annual0 flow of sa
total of 134 acres will be required to provide 103 wet acres. The sites close to the 150 foot buffers e
wastewater treatment plant containing sufficient acreage and soil types desire Kenansville
spr y
irrigation are located approximately 1/ to 2 miles from the wastewater d for spray
NCSR 1301. For purposes of evaluating this alternative, it is assumed that these s tes plant bon
e
purchased for approximately $2,000/acre and that a total of approximatelyt 3sites could be
purchased. If the economic analysis associated with the land application alternativeaces wfaould be
an on -site study of soils and water table conditions will be necessary to more is ccu atele
determine loading rates, azY re accurately - --
Treatment is required prior to land application of wastewater. For thepurpose
this alternative with others it is assumed that the existin treatment capabilitycomto
provide adequate pretreatment prior to land application. One new 1pum hast the od to
required to convey the treated effluent away from the existingtreatmentP station would be
plant.
A structure must be provided for storage of the lagoon's effluent during would not be possible, such as during periods of high water table due to rainfall. It is irrigationst
that a minimum of 30 days of storage would be required. In the event the It is estiformated this
alternative appears favorable, a more detailed water balance will be cost analysis e this
accurately determine the appropriate capacity for the storage structure. Apo d in order to
acres of water surface will be required.based on a four foot depth in the storage s Approximately seven
structure will require lining in order to protect groundwater standards. g fracture. This
The Town owns sufficient land across the access road -from -the existingw 4lant o accommodate the effluent storage structure. Effluentpumping, disinfection
treatment
measuring would be required to convey the wastewater from the storage structure on and s flow
-_ _ irrigation field. Two pumps rated at-600 gpm each" ' - g to the spray
_ ___ _stem. _ - — ✓ _ _ -- are proposed along with a gas chlorination
The influent pump station is -proposed to :be u raded
_•=- Pg by adding�staadby power:
•
•
•

�.-.^:.•c-w= -ter
An: eight inch diameter force main: is proposed between the effiuent,holding structure and the •
irrigation site. `Monitoring _wells will_be provided�in .strategic locations: around the- effluent- -
+-- -" t � stora • e�faciIi -� and s ra -
__ g t _- p y irrigation fields. Monitoring will be accomplished as=required to _
y --- makesure groundwater is_not-contaminated. A "fixed set" type irr ation ystem is proposed
- --whereby the irrigation piping and spray nozzles are constructed initially -arid permanent) left
in place to accomplish irrigation. - --- _• •
_ y
The cost analysis for Alternative 11 is presented in Table 4.1. __Figure 4.1 illustrates the-
-- —gentrallOd-ation of the -proposed land application site. Figure 4.2 provides a schematic diagram
of .the proposed treatment units. Design criteria are. illustrated in Attachment E.

1
TABLE 4.1
COST ANALYSIS - LAND APPLICATION
.I ,
+
l i i 1
,r . � ''• f
(2)
CAPITAL
COST
(3)
LABOR
($8/HR)
Hn/Wk S/Yr
(4)
MAINT/
MATERIALS
$/YR
(s)
ELECTRICAL
(6)
TOTAL O&M
+ 4 +
(7)
PRES WRTH
O&M
10.0 x(6)
(8)
SALVAGE*
VALUE
' (9) i 1
20-YR PRE$ ti
WORTH 1 ,
(�4-CA-(8)i '
. i '(10) ' , } , ,
i I t _i r • y l 1,
1 ' ' I. i '1 +
+ a' .,. , ,J r ,, i i. .' � � ;)''4 I,
mobilization and Bonds
I40,030
{ 40,000
,';
,
Influent Pump Station Upgrade ;
25.000
2 825
750
1.400
2,975
29.750
54,750
35 TDH: 2200 hrs: 50%Pumn S,07/kui !'
Existing WWTP/Ncw Pump Station '
100,000
14 3.825
2.500
10,500
18.825
188,250
_
18.030
270,250
eff: hr
t
Storage Structure
400.000
1 425
500
925
_
9,250
54.000
-355.250
Irrigation System
.
618,000
20 8,500
17,500
26,000
260,000
878.000
110 MO/Yr;3050 Hn;30 psi;10 Ica,
S15,000 Maint;
Chlorination System/Effluent Pump Station
140,000
•1 425
1.200
2.000
3.625
36,250
14.800
' 161.450
'
Site Grading/Ditching/Piping
25,000
3 1.250
1,2-40
12,500
3,400
34,100
'
Fencing `
50'000
r 50.0111
Monitoring Weill
10.000
1 425
425
4,250
14,250
Effluent Force Main (10,003 LF)
i00.000
_
13.500
86.500
SUBTOTAL
1,508,000
42 17,675
22,450
13.900
_
54,025
540,250
103,700
_
1.944550
' 'r
Contingency do Closing Fee
75,000
75,000
I
Engineering/Inspection,147,000
_
_
_
142.000
Land (134 acres 0 $2,000)
268.000
60.200
207.800
r
. ; .; Legal '
10.000
10.000
1 TOTAL
2,003,000
-
_
2,379,350
I
r '
,
{
,i
r
—
of Structure Value; 0 % Equipment; .2247 PWF

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
THROUGH: Carla Sanderson
Ruth Swanek 2Li
Coleen Sulli
Don S
FROM: Jason Doll
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan / Environmental Assessment
Town of Kenansville
NPDES#: NC0036668
Duplin County
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the 201 Plan and Environmental
Assessment, prepared by McDavid Associates, Inc., for the expansion of the Kenansville
WWTP from 0.17 MGD to 0.3 MGD. The document is very well organized and the
information presented is clear, pertinent and useful. However, there are a few additional
items that need to be addressed before the plan can proceed in the review process. Our
concerns are as follows:
Most of the areas which need to be addressed further are in the Alternatives Analysis
section of the document. The 201 Plan chooses the "oxidation ditch at new site" option as
the preferred alternative, siting cost as the primary reason. The cost analysis for the land
application option includes the expense of constructing a treatment lagoon in addition to the
storage facility. Such expense may be unnecessary, given that the treatment required prior
to storage could be completely accomplished by the existing treatment system. The land
application costs also include the expense of acquiring land for a 200 ft. buffer zone. The
current regulations pertaining to minimum design requirements for such systems (15A
NCAC 2H .0219) require a buffer zone of 100 ft. to most surface waters and 150 ft. to any
property line. A new cost analyses should be presented taking these possibilities into
account, and the cost analysis for the land application option should also contain a basis for
the $3,000 per acre cost for the necessary land.
The cost analysis for the new oxidation ditch option includes an annual operating
expense of $2,125 for lab facilities. This figure seems somewhat low to cover all the
monitoring and anlysis needs of what will likely be a grade III wastewater treatment facility
after expansion. The cost analysis should be supported by a detailed breakdown of
laboratory costs including an enumeration of the types and frequencies of tests to be
performed The lab costs should also contain a breakdown of what testing will be done in
house and what will be contracted out, and the associated costs of each.
Non -discharge systems, as a treatment and disposal alternative, are viewed by DEM as
environmentally preferable to discharging, if they can be achieved without significant
economic hardship to the permittee. The Town of Kenansville should give more careful
consideration to such a system, particularly if the cost could be made comparable to
discharging.

In the Environmental Assessment portion of the document there is no section to
address the impacts on surface water quality caused by the expansion of the discharge,
other than a brief section addmssing the potential for eutrophication. It should be noted that
a biological assessment of Grove Creek, performed by DEM in May, 1994, showed the
stream to be adversely impacted by the Kenansville WWTP discharge. While it is expected
that most or all of the results, of upgrade and expansion of the facility, whether to a
discharge or non -discharge system, would be beneficial to water quality, any such impacts
should be accounted for in the EA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the 201 Plan / Environmental
Assessment. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Permits and Engineering
Central Files