NC0063096_Wasteload Allocation_19960820

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
QWasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 20, 1996
This docurneut is printed ors. reuse paper - iigrs.ore any
content on the reirerse side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0063096
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Town of Holly Springs
Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status:—Modii€ieation--
Major
re°r lv✓��,f — 41//4
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 0.500 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
RECEIVING STREAM: Utley Creek
Class: C
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
,,II -139
Drainage Area (mil ) V i j Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 0. 2_
7Q10 (cfs) 0, / ( Winter 7Q10 (cfs)0,) 5 30Q2 (cfs) ©, 3
Toxicity Limits: IWC Ai/it % Acute/Chronic
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Sample should be taken in the pool formed immediately upstream
of the instream weir.
Sample should be taken on the dam structure in a spot as to avoid contact
with the ground and the sample bottle.
D.O., temp, cond., fecal, TP, TN, and Chlorophyll -a
Instream samples should be collected once per week.
Sub -Basin: 03-06-07
Reference USGS Quad: E23NE, Apex
County: Wake
(please attach)
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 03/31/96 Treatment Plant Class: II
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Jeanette Powell
Prepared by: ;� Zed .1444,fra
Reviewed by: ()-jl an /ta,9:,A
w64z 14/Q
Date: 01/25/96
Date: ��/'lG
Date:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/I):
NI-I3N (mg/1):
DO (Gngfl):
TSS (mg/I):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Temperature:
Summer Winter
0.5 0.5
16.0 22.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6-9 6-9
19 19
monitor * monitor
monitor * monitor
monitor monitor
* TP and TN should be monitored once per week in order to coincide with the
instream monitoring.
Comments:
/ 9 6

AUG 09 '96 03:40PM
P.2
RUG-06-096 10:12 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY S5CTION TO
Facility Name:
N ES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
?eruct Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACF SKSEI1 FOR wAS1
Utley Creek WWTP
NC0063096
Domestic 100%
Existing Renewal
Utley Creek
C
03-06-07
Wake
Raleigh
Jeanette Powell
1/25/96
E 23 NE
RRO
P.01/04
Post -it" Fax Note
7671
cam
• of
To U
Fro
CAhi,
Weluau+"
t','t' e
p
CoJDept.
fl -i ��
Phone*
H---Z3-
Tax # _.
___„
Fox o
&OM giterisric:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Axea (ini2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
'Winter 7010 (cfs):
Average Flow (cis):
3002 (cfs):
1WC (%):
02.1021.7945
211 1/93
0.73
0.11
0.25
0.82
0.32
88
Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach tem% correspondence with region, EPA, etc)
In April 1995 the facility put into service a new 0.5 MOD package plant Since that time only two
permit violations have occurred, one for fecal and one for ammonia. Before the switch the facility
appeared to have a problem meeting its fecal and ammonia limit. Since 1993 only one instream D.O.
violatio
n has been recorded (4.8 mg/1.. on 6/30195). However, the downstream onitoring point is at a
poor location for catching instream D.O. problemsdue to the significant amount of reairation which occurs
a few feet above the sampling point Utley Creek is a relatively swift takese o moving
creek moving,fxx sst of its
length
down to Harris Lake. As the creek approaches the lake though, i
characteristics. Instrearn D.O. problems are not likely to be a concerti until the creek slows down near the
lake.
Nunicnts in the effluent should be the principle concern for this facility considering the proximity
of the discharge to Harris Lake and the forecasted increase in population of Hotly Springs. During the
summer of 1995 instrearn TP and TN concentrations increased markedly over 1993 and 1994 values.
Downstream TN concentrations as high as 16.4 mg/L and T? concentrations as high as 1.2 mg,IL were
recorded in 1995. Since TN and DTP in the effluent were only monitored quarterly, whereas TN and TP
ixtstream were monitored 3/week during the summer, it is difficult to determine if an actual increase in
nutrient loading occurred from the facility to correlate with the increases observed instream. The current
downstream sampling point is on a small earthen dam structure. Thomas Tillage, ORC, has stied that
during dry periods the sampling bottle is placed directly on the dam in. order to allow enough water to flow
into the bottle to get a sampple. Since algae was observed growing on the dam during a site visit, the
practice of placing the bottle on the darn during low flow periods could contaminate the sample and result
in erroneously high nutrient concentrations. The downstream sampling location may need to be changed
such that the sample is taken further downstream. Below the damn the stream descends steeply through
what may be best described as a mini gorge area. As a result sampling downstream of the dam wiu require
the person sampling to hike through the woods a significant distance in order to get to an area were the
stream is accessible again. Regions Ce coni lent nn a ne downs am rnanit. line locatiop, If
the
instream samples taken during the summer of 1996 continue to show high nutrient levels then additional
downstream sampling locations should be considered as well as nutrient limits when the facility expands.

Aus-gr .'96,.0G:41PM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTIEN TO
RRO p. g2/Q4
2
If the nutrient concentrations measured last summer are indeed an accurate estimate of the amount
of nutrients the facility is discharging then high chlorophyll -a levels would be expected this summer in the
mill pond. Therefore, instream chlorophyll -a monitoring is recommended for the downstream location.
The facility should be encouraged to Write down the exact sampling locations on their DIViRs
instead of simply writing in "Holly Springs" as the up and down stream sampling points.
A current staff report was not reviewed for this WLA.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
4J R, JA Ar t /�' [G ►-cYcot �. �- 1.�. eG d �, � -te�a ��
jp,,- 77;
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
nstream Assessment
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
d,k/ch
(grly.full fact 544c'7` Cenl' 7zo
i0 I'Y.l,Ue/k
f(yij a. ► ; savyk 6c �`�' 4,40G1
Date 7f 7 96 T44% �s
ec rap_ v.4 tare.k /9°G)
Date: gl g1 i LP
Dam: siVq(
/<►/ Llit-- Date: g q
RETURN TO TCCHNICAL. SUPPORT BY:
1 h , ,S GALL 1 � 4 Is u'a4- IDS/ h r I ;IA. / ✓ia/Jz, 1'l9 f ce 44644. % Q
j 5 74LC7 %JL & i(iV'7 t/ -' /n v, ,d, ,fin.
Rib,
,,L f% t
7/li/9b) '7t�-' 0 7f, S 4 t ��S 1. P�i1C.) do G L�. ,11P�✓h r.�L ow aT�,�+� [. 42-.
411 fief c_ FAtit,J Ndli ct,ir., (',e0) .
Y--dccda.
64A ,r64 Arta CP #t_ /11.74A 4Ati. CA/0Y—a
o/ Qi�otayr., fL I17r.+, A..f
aU
�h'M // f/?/9r
5 7- ,lfg�� Ah'hi

AUG 09 '96 03:42PM
Au-0Q-1996 10:1S FMUM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
RRO P •./04
E4ls ig Limits'
Wasteflow (MGD):
RODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/I):
DO (mg/I):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/I00 mn:
pH (SU,):
Residual Cbdorine (µg/l):
TP (mg/1):
N (mom):
Pam:
Rern(apetl7dP+1 .imi[
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
N N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine Oig/I):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mgll):
Temperauni:
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.25 0.25
16.0 22.0
1.2 2.8
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Sumer Winter
0.5 0.5
16.0 22.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6-9 6-9
19 19 WQ
monitor * monitor
monitor * monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.5
16.0
1.1
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
19
monitor
monitor
monitor
WQor.EL
QW
QW
EL
0.5
22.0
2.3
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
19
monitor
monitor
monitor
* TP and TN should be monitored three times per week dieing June. July, August, and September and
once per week during the remaining mouths of the year in order to coincide with the instream
monitoring.
Limit changes due to:
Per current Division procedure ammonia limits below 2 mglL (S) and 4 rng/L (W) are 110 longer
recommended.
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the
immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent
limitationx for addition dischargers within this portion of die watershed.
OR
__,_ No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

AUG-08G
-199s 'gzk:1. 4H Uti nEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO RRO P : 4/04
4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Sample should be raken in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream
weir.
Downstream Location: Sample should be taken Oil the darn structure in a spot as to avoid contact with the
ground and the sample bottle.
Paranneters: D.O., temp, cond., fecal, TP, TN, and Chlorophyll -a
Special instrearn monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: � r 5 rs evx,✓k /rr-
l/
instream samples should be collected three times per week during June, July, August, and September and
once per week during the remaining months of the year.
.MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Fj,jstig Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing Treatment facilities?
Yes No
lino, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Spezial_Instrucuons or Condi jou
W steload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysis if
modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
TOTAL P.04

AUG 09 '96 03:43PM
P.6
Holly Springs (NC0063096) Waste Allocation -Regional Comments
In regard to waste allocation, it is the RRO's recommendation that
summer effluent sampling for TP and TN be increased from a
quarterly frequency to 3 samples/week. This will more effectively
allow a correlation (if any) between the instream concentrations of
TP and TN to the TP/TN concentrations in the effluent. As a result,
more stringent nutrient controls may need to be implemented if last
summer's elevated instream levels of TP and TN are repeated and/or
linked to the effluent. Further, if there are in fact high TP/TN in
the effluent, the addition of downstream chlorophyll --a monitoring
may also be necessary. In regards to the downstream monitoring
location, the RRO recommends that the current downstream site in
question be retained. However, precautions should be made during
low flows to avoid contact with the dam and sample bottles. Perhaps
this could be achieved by using a boat, or a long -handled sampler.
In addition and support of the aforementioned it should be noted
that on July 11, 1996, Mr. Eric Fleek (DWQ-RRO) and Mr. Ed Williams
(DWQ-ESB) investigated an algal bloom and fish kill on Utley Creek
downstream of the outfall. A lake approximately .5 miles downstream
of Holly Spring's WWTP contained a severe algal bloom (Dissolved
Oxygen=16.8 mg/1, pH9.8-- Nutrient samples and Chlorophyll a
values pending) In addition, approx. 1.5 miles downstream of this
algal bloom site, a fish kill (comprising 100-200 Crappie and
Sunfish, ranging from 2-4 inches. in length) on Utley Creek was
documented. D.O. values on this section of Utley Creek ranged from
.2 mg/1 to .5 mg/I, and water color in this area was black
accompanied by the distinct odor of Hydrogen Sulfide (i.e. anoxic
conditions). It is the opinion of the RRO that this algal bloom/
fish kill was likely the result of a approx .3 week period of dry
& hot weather (i.e. low flow on Utley Creek) during which the
effluent of Holly Spring's WWTP comprised the majority of Utley
Creek's flow. This extended dry period was abruptly ended by a
period of 2-4 days of heavy thunderstorms. This sudden influx of
cooler/denser rainwater likely disrupted the thermocline in the
lake (which was acting as a Nitrogen/Phosphorous sink) allowing
unusually large quantities of nutrients to become available to
algae in the photic zone -thereby triggering a bloom. Large amounts
of this algal biomass was observed downstream of this lake and it
is believed that this increase in exported algal biomass greatly
contributed to the downstream oxygen demand. This is supported by
the extremely low D.O. levels in the area of the fish kill. It
should also be noted that this facility's quarterly monitoring for
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous has revealed extremely high
levels for both of these parameters. Specifically, July, 1995
recorded levels of TP at 4.0 mg/1, October, 1995 recorded levels of
Total Nitrogen at 25.3 mg/1 and TP at 2.5 mg/1, and the most recent
quarterly monitoring report for May, 1996 showed TN levels at 33.8
mg/1 and TP at 4.7 mg/1.
Reviewer:
Ef==' 1-)74::=7

3
Page 1 of 2 5/96 Fish Kill Field Investigation Form
• -SendTa DEMEnvinxnentl Sciences Branch Attn. Madc Hale 4401 Reedy Creels Rd. Raleigh , NC 27607 019) 733 6946 Fax [phone]
5f-r4,-bsaY14.3
IMIBlatg eve e.
n> i KS u�seKon[
Investigation Date/Time
• r �C(L d l /(/
a/lA
1t(etce
Investigators: Name �
g Q Re _ onal office
Phone S'7 i — 4 7 OG
Address ISGU PAO f -+ Phone S I --1 ?ads
1
Address � Cr-0- Phone 7 3 3 — `1
(
5 Lvadvri
04-9
Organization i�lG I do '
Address'. w • . = •
Reporting Party: D � (l U
Coinvestigators: 4- of �"� !
Manhours Required Ca • 5 Z M e
Cr—
Ndrest CityfI'own,Landmark 1-1Q)1( f 5p/
77
SIWOMMEZ
.r,}.r r }}}...�•. rt�.r
{v..y3Y jxri •.k:
Location: Waterbody
County \.• 1 '
Tributaries Affected
Latitude/ Longitude (Kill center) obi G 4 1 9 3 iv '4— Attach map describing area of kill and provide coordinates
VPS{re°'="af 1-1#r't) t ((4 _
Kill Info: `7 l U/ T C Time l 3 0 0
Date Began (First reported)
At time of investigation: kill is in progress ?Q, completed [ ] 1 1 l/ c7
��q1C
Fxtent of Kill: River Miles Lake/Estuary (Specify area) l
Kill Duration: Estimated length in Days Hours
Finfish Species Affected: g —4-- I. Species: C� r°1 f p, e Size Range 5
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead 0 Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: 6 f Govv\ M0.oe" PIA4 £cv. Size Range94- ,.Z.a
In Distress / Dying ] Dead �(] ecayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead [ ] Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead [ ] Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead [ ] Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Fish observations (Describe below):
Injuries [ ] Lesions [ ] Gasping [ ] Loss of equilibrium [ ] Erratic behavior [ ] Flared Gills [ ]
Attempts to leave water [ ] Lethargy [ ] Convulsions [ ] Other [ ]
Describe:
C PF
Subasin
Other organisms affected (crustaceans, mollusks, insects, terrestrial animals, etc.):
Total Mortality:
Estimated Total Finfish Killed
z�
Estimated No. Other Organisms Killed (Observable)
(Continued on back)

Page 2 of 2 S/96
Fish Kill Field Investigation Form
Physical Observations:
Station:
. I
6-(Gt �- on_ 3— =iv\Pound
Cloud Cover � GAL l
l 0 Seas — Air Temp 7 S° r Precipitation T�✓nt C '
Wind Direction -� Wind Speed
Prior Conditions (3-4 Days) > e a tt-e !c rl A C + rid-1 ^ 5 td rnr� 5�f} f►a r. 3 t,`; �Gy _ �, 7 i to /-
Water� 1 Clarity Po r Coloration f314Gt( Secchi Depth
Bottom Depth : e- t FE-
Depth
(meters)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)
pH
Temperature
(oC)
Conductivity
(meter reading)
Salinity
(ppt)
Surface
. 0
q-
� O CQ
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
ontinue table or record data for other stations on additional sheet if necessary
Other observations (oil sheen,?, algal blooms, odors, etc.)
-f-"\ i 5 Pe(111" G lvt (' I a I 1 Od n& �,i a
. L° olovt c1U S
Area Activity: Y
Land Use(%): Urban Industrial Residential Agriculture
Other(Describe)
Outfalls present? (Location and Description) 1 o n.y 5o / (nr� 5 \dot,/ 7'?
Spills �
in area? (Describe) U -/L . .
Oro X ( M- r' (Q �JD S I 162 ovz/t D
� r''1 40 /0 r' S ^� . I � 5 o d Q l`-
b1ack cola /cid Valet- let- stem-
ti
ForestryUndeveloped(wild) '\
Other Activity (Specify)
Biological and Chemical Sampling Please indicate sampling locations on attached map (s).
Biological Samples
Fish (Describe)
Iced,Preserved?
Station: Sample No
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? [ ] Contact for results
Phone
Algae/Plants (Describe) Algal Bloom Form Completed? Y [ ] N [ ]
Station: Sample No
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? [ ] Contact for results
Phone
Other (Describe)
Station: Sample No
Results: TO ESB?( ] To Other? [ ] Contact for results
Phone
Chemical Samples
Chemical Samples (metals, pesticides, nutrients etc. Describe)
Station:
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? [ ]
Phone
Photographs and/or Videos taken?
Where on file? Name/Address
Phone
Additional Comments, Observations, Conclusions: (attach additional sheet if necessary)
Sample No
Contact for results
ytt4 N[i owt9

CArltt
•
44.^•e S"� ' This form should be completed and sent to the D.E.M. Chemistry Laboratory in Raleigh (Courier 52-01-00) marked
Pad u•*-Q AI ENTION: Karen Lynch. Please send also a chlorophyll sample, and one fresh and one preserved
�11 P i 1S1 j algal sample. Nutrient samples are also helpful. One algal sample should be preserved with Lugol's solution at
the rate of 2-3 ml. per 500 ml of sample (sample should be straw colored). No special containers are regaired,
however, 500 ml of sample is preferred. -The phytoplankton (o.j. bottle) and chlorophyll samples (brown bottle)
—V-4`11"--- should be taken concurrently or from the same labline sample. Please call if there are questions (733-1 7 86). Ask
for Karen Lynch, Steve Kroeger or Greg Price. Any one ofbe_se people can send you Lugol's solution and report
forms if your region needs more. U
LAKE, RIVER or STREAM: *�` C-jr`
TOPO It QUAD r Q L RIVER BASIN-
S AMPLER: _ t — 1C DATE & TIME:
DESCRIBE PRESENT AND RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
ALGAL BLOOM REPORT FORM
OUNTY:• j v q(�
C-.?c e y L)-1 7(.e
DESCRIPTION OF BLOOM: Please include a map to indicate exact location or nearest ambient station (if
applicable) and extent of bloom coverage.
Please V all that apply.
VISUAL SIGNS
BLOOM INDICATORS
FROM
METERED DATA
OTHER REASONS
FOR
COLT FCTION
1 ✓LQ_
Discolored water. color
z F N S
I
Fish Lill (descbe below)
High dissolved oxygen
on surface. _% saturation?
-
1
Fl
Flecks, balls, or t'il m�ent
y'
"
■
TastelOdor co lams
High surface pH value.
:.
':: �11 5 1 c;<crE (G)
N
Surface film. color
,�<s f
� f
Other? to (4c,1n/a9e( i
K
�
42- S-Icy
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
Depth
mte.
(ers
Dusotved oen
DO
'
. �
Te'<nprature...°C
.z;
Conductv2r[y i $iin ty (ppt
(cb£rre'seteQ to.5°C) :... ... _.
Surface 6=1S ';
t/ 4- 3
ci- g
ZS• S
4 1
10AK _ .
20
x=. _ 4 .
Bottom Depth? (meters)
Please continue on additional sheet if n'trrssary.
DO NUTRIENT SAMPLES ACCOMPANY THIS SAMPLE? YES
CHLOROPHYLL SAMPLE(S) TAKEN? YES
OTHER CHEMICAL ANALYSIS?
NO
NO
born a-e a. aro Ht el u e - reen)= Psc (i aiofiCL.
veo,, s

• Rage 1 of 2 5/96 Fish Kill Field Investigation Form
39959
Sa:dTa DEM FsviLonner►tal Sciences Branch Attn. Mark Hale 4401REedyCxeekRd. Raleigh, NC 27607 (919)7 3 6946 Fax [919)73
PIM!
Investigation Date/Time
Investigators: Name
Organization
Address
Reporting Party:
Coinvestigators:
Manhours Required
Location: w�terb� y,
County JJ 1
Tributaries Affected
Latitude/ Longitude (Kill center)
Kill Info:
Date Began (Fust reported)
At time of investigation: kill is in prakeo L
P�xtent of Kill: River Miles 5
jCill Duration: Estimated length in Days
0004 v c_��e of
PS
%.7
Time
completed [ ] C r e f —
stuary (Specify area)
Hours 4 P Firs .
Aft
dr ..}}YY, a�,
410c,� ( (c( mot.
agaigleMaaVgad
Regional office 0-‘
Phone 5 r-
Phone 7 3 3— 7 i 69 0
h 1G Phone
Address 3
Address
f e 0 r 4tbasin
Nearest CityfTown,Landmark o t/ pr roi 5
Attach map describing area of kilt and provide coordinates
Ai
Finfish Species Affected: — Cf- �'cz
Species: C rrp rP Size Range
In Distress / Dying (] Dead Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: 5 i einA.N. Size Range
9--- - ei-t* •
In Distress / Dying K Dead ( Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying (] Dead [ ] Decayed ( ] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead [ ] Decayed (] Approx No/Area observed
Species: Size Range
In Distress / Dying [ ] Dead [ ] Decayed [ ] Approx No/Area observed
as
`70-gc5
Fish observations (Describe below): Erratic behavior [
Injuries [ ] Lesions [ ] Gasping Loss of equilibrium [ ]
Attempts to leave water [ ] Lethargy ] Convulsions [ ] Other [ ]
Describe:
Flared Gills [
affected5rustaceans, mollus , insects, t rrestrial animals, etc•): °� 5 5-,
!they organisms oA a r� �� fre(Q� %
3tn. ,n L.
Total Mortality:
Estimated Total Fmfish Killed
Estimated No. Other Organisms Killed (Observable)
dc) - 04-
-3 S (M/)
(Continued on back)

x.
Page 2 of 2 5/96
Fish Kill Field Investigation Form
• Physical Observations:
Station:
'NW/1Si(C-bw1 aF ,5v4�(ZMv'��lcl /1�4-
) —
Cloud
Cover ' E 0 C ) Seas Air Temp 7 5 i= Precipitation -1-1'i (-
Wind Direction — Wind Speed ----
Prior Conditions (3-4 Days) c q i-4 e' re d A f t e r now, 19f a /M f l( War 3 mac) • 1>. 7 k/ o It
Water Clarity f oo r Coloration l 51 a c.K- Secchi Depth
Bottom Depth :, v ic-1 meters — c itr 4 i• F f
Depth
(meters)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L)
pH
- Temperature
(oC)
Conductivity
(meter reading)
Salinity
(ppt)
Surface
p 0
1, -
R.
3 ( 3
1.0
2.0
i
3.0
4.0
5.0
Continue table or record data for other stations on additional sheet if necessary
Other obse lions (o'1 sheen, trash algalblogs, odors, etc) A PProi- 1-5
fo I f rn A roy 5(Oo4 LIct iPfo fe)
. J
Area Activity:
Land Use(%): UrbanIndustrial Residential Agriculture Forestry
Oth
vp5#r092A-1 p 11-1 i
1-4X 5 c c4a r Ve rY Olpvt a/ 5
4 (, Ja t e r ta1ared Iolak
Undeveloped(wildi
er(Describe)
Outfalls present? (Location and Description) 1 A/ 1JJT tf ?lc./ 11,7 5 f r r'i '
Spills in area? (Describe) U - - •- -
Other Activity (Specify)
Biological and Chemical Sampling
Biological Samples
Fish (Describe)
Station:
Please indicate sarnpling locations on attached map (s).
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? [ ]
Phone
Iced,Preserved?
"Sample No
Contact for results.
Algae/PIants (Describe) Algal Bloom Form Completed? Y [ ] N [ ]
Station: • -- Sample No
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? [ ] Contact for results
Phone
-(o "
Other (Describe)
Station: a_ Sample No o.
Results: TO ESB?[ ] To Other? (, Contact for results A 0,0
Phone 71 — 4 700
Chemical Samples
Chemical Samples (metals, pesticides, nutrients etc. Describe)
Station:
P /1omio/cJ,$
Results: TO ESB?(] To Other? [ ]
Phone
Sample No
Contact for results
Photographs and/or Videos taken? Y
Where on file? Name/Address
Phone
Additional Comments, Observations, Conclusions: (attach additional sheet if necessary)
]
N"

7(i, ar-Q --rpo f\AGF5 _
rir
I e I 2) C3 oz-ivi A r -c--cL
il- i\mP Joe-5
l'cncf7\ ,,\'. v) ayl 5 Wc.‘LA.
`` (/mow 2j c'' t' Gil 5 \\ (..-

c
"SBURY)
In sw
1:24 000
0
Fr
„ l .r
1L
rlut 1.1 nl:,rd:. cr/u,,r,i..l,.1n:„, a hu 55'41/4
1 MILE
3000 4000 5000 6000 '7000 FEET
0
1 KILOMETER
fERVAL 10 FEET
JERTICAL DATUM .OF 1929
rIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
l- SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
.PS AND SYMBOLS IS AVM: ABLE ON REQUEST
1689
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
3947
3946
•}e
3945000m N.
j 690 I •- N. ~. ,., '•EOLI".IC* SURVEY
.NES1ON. VIN61N1`°"' 35*37'30"
692000m.E.
78°52'30"
,_,,. • CLASSIFICATION mac,
Primary highway, Light -duty road, hard or Sa y
hard surface .. improved surface _ -- --- ss v
Secondary highway, �F�''-�
hard surface .. -... -- Unimproved road _ .. _ _ _
) Interstate Route
U. S. Route State Route
NEW HILL, N. C.
N3537.5—W7852.5/7.5
1974
PI-IOTOREVISEI7 1981
DMA 5255 III NW —SERIES V842
23/ W

3949
40'
3947
690 000 ,
FEET
3946
3945
35°37'30"+
78°52'30"
stt
g2
•
lba
Or
6
6
4693 2040000 FEET 694
Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey
Control by USGS, NOS/NOAA, and North Carolina Geodetic Survey
Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs
taken 1973. Field checked 1974
Projection and 10,000-foot grid ticks: North Carolina coordinate
system (Lambert conformal conic). 1000-meter Universal
Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 17, shown in blue
1927 North American Datum. To place on the predicted
North American Datum 1983 move the projection lines 12
meters south and 23 meters west as shown by dashed
corner ticks
Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings are shown
There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of
the National or State reservations shown on this map
Purple hatching indicates areas to be submerged
1695
MN*
1
124 MILS
GN
11'17.
23 MILS
- 7696 50' I
UTM GRID AND 1987 MAGNETIC NORTH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
Revisions shown in purple and woodland compiled in
cooperation with State of North Carolina agencies from
aerial photographs taken 1984 and other sources. This
information not field checked. Mao edited 1987

Memorandum
North Carolina Division. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Instream Assessment Unit
To: Alai Clark
From: Andrew McDaniel
Through: Carla Sanderson
Ruth Swanek 1 j
Don Safrit
Date: June 19, 1996
Subject: Holly Springs Environmental Assessment Review Comments
I have reviewed the environmental assessment. (EA) for the expansion of Holly
Spring's wastewater treatment capacity. Six treatment alternatives were submitted, with
alternative T-6 being the recommended course of action. Briefly, alternative T.-6 involves
keeping the existing 0.5 MGD package plant in operation on Utley Creek. A new 1.0
MGD plant would be built adjacent to the package plant and would treat the waste flow
originating from the Capc. Fear River Basin side of town. The new plant would be
designed such that it could be retrofitted for nutrient removal in the future if necessary.
However, the new plant initially would not nave nutrient removal capabilities. The EA
recommends that construction of this plant begin this year. In addition, negotiations would
be made for the Town of Cary to treat the waste flow originating from the Neuse River
basin side of town. Alternative T-6 goes on to say if negotiations with Cary fail, the 0.5
MGD package plant eventually would be replaced with another new treatment punt capable
of meeting advanced tertiary limits with nutrient removal. The two plants discharging to
Utley Creek would ultimately have a total treatment capacity of 4.88 MGD.
Preliminary modeling results indicate that Utley Creek could accept. 1.5 MGD of
effluent treated to meet advanced tertiary limits without the instream standard for dissolved
oxygen being violated. However, additional modeling work would have to be conducted
to estimate the impact of a 4.88 MGD discharge to Utley Creek. The Instream Assessment
Unit (IAU) is not prepared to comment at this time on the potential water quality impacts of
a 4.88 MGD discharge to Utley Creek.
In the interest of protecting water quality in the receiving stream, Utley Creek, as
well as Harris Lake further downstream, the 'AU recommends that Holly Springs design
and build the new plant so as to maintain maximum operational flexibility for biological
nutrient removal. The following data is offered as support for this recommendation:
• From June to November Holly Springs is required as a condition of its NPDES permit
to monitor instream for TN and TP three times per week. High instream nutrient levels
have been recorded by the Town, especially during the summer of 1995. For example,
instream TN levels as high as 16.4 mg/L and TP levels as high as 1.2 mg/L were
reported by the facility during the summer of 1995 (see attached scatter plot of instream
TP concentrations from December 1992 through November 1995). In April 1995 Holly
Springs started up the 0.5 MGD package plant. The elevated TN levels could, in part,
be attributed to plant start up if the old plant had been operated to achieve denitrification.
However, elevated TP levels can not be attributed to plant start up since Holly Springs to
my knowledge has not been chemically precipitating out phosphorus.

• On June 13, 1996 Carla Sanderson, Karen Lynch (ESB), and I made a field trip to Utley
Creek to assess the feasibility of relocating the downstream monitoring location closer to
Harris Lake. At present the downstream sampling location is on an earthen dam below a
small pond. During the trip an algal bloom was visible on the pond which is consistent
with what one would expect to see given the high nutrient concentrations measured
instream. Closer to Harris Lake where Utley Creek slows down, additional algal
blooms, which covered the entire surface of the creek for approximately 100 meters of
its length, were observed. Karen took a water sample back to the lab in order to identify
the alga observed in the pond. Numerous algal species were identified including
members of the Euglenophyceae which are often found in organically enriched waters.
• Percept dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation was calculated based on instream temperature
and DO measurements taken by Holly Springs from the period June to October 1995.
Attached is a scatter plot summarizing these data. Eleven (11) violations of the
instantaneous state standard for super saturation of dissolved gases were reported during
the 1995 monitoring period. Page 46 of the EA mentions that downstream DO levels
often exceed saturation concentrations. The EA attributes the super saturation of D() to
excellent reaeration capabilities of the stream. This statement may mislead the reader to
believe that the super saturation of DO is attributed to rife or small waterfall areas in the
Creek near the downs.tr''.Pm sniping :its' does have these
features which do facilitate reaeration to a degree, the super saturation values reported
can in no way be attributed to riffle or small waterfall areas at ambient atmospheric
pressure. The super saturation values are however, strong evidence to suggest that an
algal bloom was present during the 1995 sampling period.
• Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) operates a nuclear electrical generating
facility on Harris Lake. CP&L has established several water quality monitoring stations
in the lake, two of which are marked on the attached map. Station S2 is located
approximately 500 rn upstream of SR 1127 in the White Oak Creek arm of the lake.
Utley Creek feeds into this arm of the lake. Chlorophyll -a measurements taken at station
S2 indicate chlorophyll -a concentrations near or above the state standard of 40 ug/L have
occurred over the past several years: In May.1995 for example, the mean monthly
average chlorophyll -a concentration was 37.6 ug/L based on three samples taken during
the month. The data collected by.CP&L over the past five years suggests that Harris
Lake may be sensitive to additional inputs of nutrients.
Summary
Field observations and instream measurements indicate that Utley Creek is enriched
with nutrients. Although further data is needed to pin point the source(s) of the excess
nutrients measured in Utley Creek, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of
the nutrients is originating from the treatment plant considering, that the watershed below
the discharge is largely undeveloped. Utley Creek feeds into Harris Lake, which the
available data suggests could be sensitive to additional inputs of nutrients.
Although additional data is needed before the IAU would recommend nutrient limits
in the NPDES permit, the IAU does strongly recommend that Holly Springs closely
evaluate the feasibility of building the 1.0 MGD plant to include nutrient removal from the
start in case nutrient limits are required in the future.
cc: Steve Tedder

1
1.5 --
a
0
0 1 --
a.
h
0.5 —
5
4.5
4
2 — 0
Utley Creek Instream Total Phosphorus Measurements
May 1993-November 1995
C' E`l. TP
31 Dwnstream TP
0 Upstream TP
X Mon. Avg. Ow
0
0
0
• E.cc
• m m
`C `aW C o `° `° '�D csoCZ W C., CDJ. A. A A' 4s
Date
0
z
c—
0
a
CO
10
(77
0
z
ca

Saturationil 00
2.00 —
1.80 —
1.60 —
1.40 —
1.20
1.00 --
aav 0.80 --
0
• 0.60 —
❑
❑ ❑
o
0
121
Utley Creek
Percent Dissolved Oxygen Saturation
June -October 1995
m
s,t
El
1100, Saturation -Instantaneous State Standard
C
0
0
0
❑ ❑ ❑
0
0
131
0
0
0
O Up%Sat.
® Own % Sat.
0
0.40 —
0.20 —
0.00 i i i i i i i
5/31/95 5/10/95 8120/95 0/30/95 7/10/95 7/20/95 7/30/95 8/9/95 8/19/95 8/29/95 9/8/95 9/18/95 9/28/95 10/8/95 10/18/95 10/28/95 11/7/95
Date
a---
p

Harris Nuclear .Power Plant 1993 Environmental Monitoring Report
gezrzonlagam-w-...aamzeduaeacatimisermazaszaammeseabzteamcem.vmtsammonsmarrasszmay.a-nmitarsturzsarawnvaawatatzumsmratimmazi
1
, •
Tom Jack Thomas \
.0;
‘\Creek • Creel; Little White
kiS . ..... 1. Oak Creek
Plant Site
.....
COI
Of i
\..------..,,
1 \,---- -----C. •-
\:-\. ,......r-f ....•-.-,
ri/";*"--1 Branch
... _„ . ...—._....___. , ..,.._
'''. ......' Hoilein8n*z-: ,--1 ----(
7....c.--) ••• - C•ross,roa. cis ,..-J 7
( 1.3oat Ramp r•,,/ i
,, ,.....
4:......_ \ 1 \.), fs,
. ...Jr1- - ''''',...)
• .1
ti Btickhorr:
f...) .t. c-- -s•-•1 ---7 -
-,...... \.....-‘
0.., c--1 1 , ..: ' ..- Creek
7.) r , \ •
--,-,
. •
....:.
White Oak
Creek
• NC 42
Boat Ramp
NC 42
Intake
-- Canal 3 ..:‘,... -
(M) 1 ,--- -----...
—. er-- ,--)
jj . .----
• 54 a+ i 0 -YI
\ 5.2 ,r---'
V 7
r--"\\ -.)---
....---.- Frilr(-1.,,n,-,v \:\ - I r--)-. .,-.
/ •••••.. y-\jr---
*--1 Service s,,,A \J 1 id
Water intake - 3 \ -- i /
,
0 h (Al) ,_r7---- Q \-.........' t /
"\r-,..., ' /'N_ ( .1 ,-.(' \.\*....,....- -........ 'y
_I,., _ ,-----.1
`-/
t----- 3
k
K
r
•
/ ML:r. i)arr.
Buckhorn
Creek
_zt i-tqrris Nuciear ••
Power Plant •
NORTH CAROLINA
•
0
N
a
0 1
Kilometers
1 2
Miles
Appendix 1. Sampling areas and stations at Harris Lake during 1993.
Caoina Po'vve.r tic Light Company

Holly Springs Pond 960613
An algal bloom was visible in the Holly Springs Pond below the town of Holly Spring's
WWTP. The bloom consisted of prolific growths of filamentous algae, surface blooming
phytoplankton and duckweed (Lemna species). The bloom was washing out of the pond and
flowing downstream into Utley Creek. Remnants of the bloom could be seen rafted up in slow
places in the creek. The filamentous algae consisted of growths of the green algae, Oedogonium
species (Chlorophyceae).
Oedogonium is always aquatic and is usually found in small permanent bodies of water.
Oedogonium is a common green alga which often proliferates in the spring. The filaments begin
growing attached, but often break off becoming free-floating and form cottony mats near the
water's surface. On smooth substrate, Oedogonium will form simple holdfasts, whereas on rough
surfaces, branched holdfasts are formed. As the algae ages, it appears yellow -green in color.
Oedogonium is commonly found on old rushes or cattail stalks.
Floating algae or phytoplankton were also collected. High numbers of the green colonial
alga, Scenedesmus quadricauda maximus, were found in the pond. Scenedesmus consists of
colonies of 2, 4 or 8 fusiform, crescent or oblong cells. This genus is probably more widespread
than any other fresh water algae. Often small pools or aquariums are densely populated and
discolored by this genus. Visibly floating on the surface was a bloom of Euglenophytes which
consisted of the alga, Trachelomonas species (Euglenophyceae). Members of the
Euglenophyceae are often found in organically enriched waters. Trachelomonas are free
swimming unicellular phytoplanktors. Species of Trachelomonas can be found throughout the
year usually in fresh water ponds and lakes. Trachelomonas is derived from the Greek words
trachelos (neck) and monas (single organism).

i.0
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission b�
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733�3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Develop nt, I TR
FROM: Owen Anderson, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: .tune 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Engineering Evaluation and Environmental Assessment for Long Range
Wastewater Facilities Planned Including Interceptor, Outfall. and Treatment
Systems, Town of Holly Springs, Project No 789
Biologists on the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission staff have reviewed the
subject document. These comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) Section
201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) and the North Carolina Statutes (G.S. 113-131
et seq,).
The Town of Holly Springs is proposing short and long term wastewater treatment and
collection systems for their jurisdiction. The document does a good job of discussing
alternatives and the direct and secondary impacts of the project. We appreciate the efforts and
thoroughness of the document.
There are a number of sensitive areas, high quality habitat and federal and state listed
species that potentially could be adversely impacted by the proposed improvements. The
environmental consultant did an excellent job of describing the habitat, impacts and measures
that should he taken to minimize adverse impacts to sensitive resources and high quality habitat.
Additionally, the Town of Holly Springs has committed to a proactive plan that includes
protection of riparian corridors and wetlands and programs to develop in an environmentally
sensitive manner. Tf these measures and recommendations are adhered to, most of our major
concerns have been addressed.
We are concerned with the additional discharge of 1.0 mgd to Utley Creek, which flows
to Shearon Harris Reservoir. Shearon Harris Reservoir is currently producing a good bass and
sunfish fishery and becoming increasingly popular with recreational fisherman. Irydrilla, an
invasive exotic aquatic plant, has been introduced to this reservoir. Since the initial upgrade
under alternative Tl -6 to 1,5 ingd will not include nutrient removal, we are concerned that the
additional nutrients could accelerate hydrilla expansion and cause excessive eutrophication.
Shearon Harris has a long retention time, which could exacerbate the increased nutrient input.

.uIKC ,f MLL6 LHKE I cL
1U :?U
I'dU.UUi F.U4
1-lolly Springs 201 Plan 2 June 10, 1996
Project. No. 789
Excessive eutrophication or hydrilla expansion would adversely impact the recreational
opportunities at this reservoir.
We request that modeling be performed to determine the impacts of nutrients on
eutrophication and hydrilla growth in the Shearon Harris Reservoir for both the 1.5 mgd
alternatives (T-3 and T-6) being considered. Additionally, the impacts of a 4.88 mgd plant with
nutrient removal should also be evaluated. If the modeling demonstrates adverse impacts would
occur, biological nutrient removal should be implemented with the 1.0 mgd expansion
(alternative '1'-6) and be capable of meeting minimum effluent limits thr BODS and ammonia of 5
rng/1 and 2 mg/l respectively, if adverse impacts are demonstrated for either the 1.5 mgd or 4.88
mgd plants with nutrient removal, different alternatives should be considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input during the planning stages for these
projects. if we can provide further assistance to you or the Town of [lolly Springs, please
contact our office at [phone].
cc: John 1'le f'ner, Supervising Biologist, USFWS
Dave Uoodrich, DEM, NPDES Section

Memorandum
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section, Instream Assessment Unit
To: Monica Swihart
From: Andrew McDaniel A,Ho
Thru: Carla Sand rsonE2'
Ruth Sw
Don Safrit
Date: March 8, 1996
Subject: Holly Springs Environmental Assessment
I have reviewed the E. A. for the Town of Holly Springs. Preliminary modeling results
indicate that the receiving stream, Utley Creek, can accept at least 2.0 MGD of effluent treated to
meet advanced tertiary limits without the instream standard for dissolved oxygen being violated.
Instream monitoring data collected by the facility in 1995 after the start up of the town's new 0.5
MGD package plant suggests that nutrient removal may be necessary for the protection of Harris
Lake. For example, instream TN levels as high as 16.4 mg/L and TP levels as high as 1.2 mg/L
were reported by the facility during the summer of 1995. The engineering consultant appears to be
aware of the potential nutrient problem as evidenced by the fact that alternatives T-1 and T-3
described in the E. A. recommend that an expanded facility be designed for biological nutrient
removal (see below for summary of alternatives). However, alternative T-4, which recommends
the purchase of an additional 0.8 MGD package plant, only makes provisions for the chemical
removal of phosphorus. Nitrogen removal may be necessary as well and alternative T-4 does not
address this possibility. Alternative T-6 which appears to be the interim "quick fix" alternative
recommends a second 0.5 MGD package plant with no nutrient removal capabilities. Expanding
the discharge at the current location without nutrient removal capabilities may not protect water
quality in Harris Lake. In addition, alternative T-6 mentions that if negotiations with Cary to treat
the Middle Creek portion of the Town's wastewater flows are ultimately successful then an
additional 0.5 MGD of treatment capacity would be needed at the Utley Creek location late in the
20-year planning period. Presumably this would mean the installation of a third package plant
however the E. A. does not state how the additional treatment capacity will be implemented.
I would like to stress that additional data is needed before the Instream Assessment Unit
can recommend nutrient limits for Holly Springs. Currently, the waste load allocation (WLA) for
the Town's renewal of its 0.5 MGD NPDES discharge permit is being circulated in-house for
review. This WLA recommends increasing the frequency for monitoring TN and TP in the
effluent as well as adding monitoring for chlorophyll -a instream. By the end of this summer the
Instream Assessment Unit should have enough additional data to make a recommendation as to
whether nutrient limits are needed upon expansion of the Utley Creek discharge. If it is determined
that nutrient limits are needed to protect Harris Lake then alternative T-6 may not be able to meet
the new limits. Therefore, the town may want to consider pursuing an alternative that can be
modified in case it is determined that nutrient limits are needed.
The Instream Assessment Unit strongly encourages regionalization of wastewater treatment
facilities and therefore Holly Springs should make every effort to connect to the Town of Cary as
outlined in alternative T-2 before increasing its discharge to Utley Creek. Alternative T-6 which
describes a scenario in which potentially three (3) package plants would be in operation at Utley
Creek indicates that the Town is reacting to rapid growth instead of planning and managing the
growth.

A 1.5 MGD discharge from three package plants could have a greater impact on Utley Creek and
Harris Lake than a larger discharge (described in Alt. T-1) from a better designed plant capable of
nutrient removal. Therefore, the Instream Assessment Unit does not support the recommendations
outlined in alternative T-6.
Summary of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Described in the E. A.:
The waste flow from Holly Springs is projected to be 2.4 MGD in the next 20 years.
• Alt. T-1: Holly Springs build a 2.4 MGD plant on Utley Creek to meet advanced tertiary limits
complete with biological nutrient removal capabilities.
• Alt. T 2: Abandon its existing plant and purchase rights to have Cary treat 2.4 MGD.
• Alt. T 3: Purchase rights for Cary to treat a waste flow of 1.1 MGD generated from the Neuse
River Basin side of town and expand the Utley Creek WWTP to 1.3 MGD to serve the Cape
Fear River Basin side of town. The 1.3 MGD plant would be capable of biological nutrient
removal and of meeting advanced tertiary limits.
• Alt. T-4: Same as T-3 except the 0.5 MGD Utley Creek plant would remain in service and an
additional 0.8 MGD package plant capable of chemical phosphorus removal would be installed.
• Alt. T-5: Keep the 0.5 MGD Utley Creek plant in service and have Cary treat the remaining 1.9
MGD projected flow.
• Alt. T-6: This alternative was developed to deal with the possibility that Holly Springs
continues to grow at a rapid rate and negotiations with Cary are either unsuccessful or so
protracted that an interim solution must be implemented to avoid a moratorium on new sewer
connections. Alternative T-6 would involve installing a new 0.5 MGD package plant on Utley
Creek sometime in 1997 or 1998 as an interim measure. No provisions for nutrient removal
would be made at this time. If negotiations with Cary are ultimately successful then the 1.0
MGD in treatment capacity at Utley Creek would be expanded by an additional 0.5 MGD late in
the 20-year planning period. If negotiations with Cary ultimately prove unsuccessful then the
two package plants would eventually be replaced with a new WWTP capable of meeting
advanced tertiary limits with biological nutrient removal. The new plant would be designed to
meet the ultimate wasteflow needs of the town which are predicted to be 4.88 MGD.
cc: Coleen Sullins

z F. e4w, /1,-e_e_yA2 it(A7c,
/l/c?A} Za - oaf'
% 673

' rcL «J wi&bi 35 - -f -8S kYkoct So all (Yanit.64 box. H . s .
C� �1 -4✓ Me -5a-`f-)`6-rc 6 to) col-.
mot, ,
go Ca CGg4tw4I C c -`L Gu ld kpc?-moo -iz) y�
-0-feep 74774.
v
,gpAE,
• add-Gce-1-6
.h% CCtC� �o G Ol o-noz6-A cv .iD%
;-e pace. 9 6c
Ped. -1--1APJ‘) 5t7ykz) 0'0)1 Lukoki-
ak-N-1.6-;/ At- o -
•
-7e
Th?
j
6714. >c91)/p rooi,x,es (,1). 40-4`cl
otAP
PPS} - Ca rsitec) a1vc� - h�-p�
of r coo
R-
(42/u/c . c (va -/ 41-6y, %6
AiLeCtp -- baA a.tyvc. c -17) olecJ bo/
by `.2 ,e414/' Af.e
L,04,6 Cv (arcJ.),.// � c�.�.� _ �-� �- hay
cad cvs� - nad -tv .P Lethn c,i-Lt +/A:0 ntoie

o. �lri%/11 A,
nv7 L
Awe �doJ�'t UGC
/ /14 7l r //t41/3
Rt6V/1/1 0/ /7/
.7,1/n55
.f/v6
/11/7f.‹_
6)-I C'Ld 4/-5
6tifrux_
TIa ate- 77/.�.�.
(-,tAJe,\
G, ,0 14 fie:I,0.36_
a 7 1, Pw/1/
U 4. h/a42 /1/.7 p1(?),90 a/17
/0/o,44�d
),, c Wain, i
/
//eai 1./7;nis• e/e/c/
__ 74a PeW4--4( Pt/x/r/t4,
1,„

&too arP vt�y
W. �, r(..PPclS 5v_rLt.,c.-/ 7Lf E4`) - Lb7r�)
Aitt t A /710-1-11/1/4-to c ct/ykd /4/50 -ra,\2atel
L)/ C 7J EA- 1'/ 1A- lam`
1=0/l l ---fi cz-pp-fir Re.
C6 r d l akuk, F/41--
Cta-/( p 5i n cva-poet; '
c .�. c'ct. i..v�cri huge « l ; / /
C.0 r A - Ajeec/ .
XtrYrct-P-Lza4;(9-71- ; U cco4, 414S -icuitt
Ccc-Lhkkfi viu 441 (toorol, LH,J2eLe
LOIte4, L GL p1 G'
,kcu0 1))61/0), co-LoA!,1 y-/W1
ntv--,J4 egt 191 16 oontmi,71
Coo it01 . -) -/D cu.bCCOV) .,er) c-t_f_dh (9--frk.- 10 OCLor?

/'/o/L1lNwrp
iUCOOG"09G
w=DSf✓r'&P
ig/t1 L'�
03-06) -D 7
ly
GPI Go,c1(1.6.4i5 /q93 U✓ - ' 17o s -7;y. pit -/9i3
1/4"?. 600d) ter./xi,ea Llk,sd,4re
pv1/2,, i lamA1 /iy-4/73 A04J Lee J �--
�0.�'�'G 7 /4/(/( _ YW& 7 I i',/ted2"eeYi/l1/
teL off; ,' 771/ a,�.��/
6,74wd g,/- 41/W. a4-- Pf/25_7(re44/11
pcox))0,;ty A Az2z2-
/ Lam.. ��� S /Z ahi 1/✓_0✓,
0411
A176
51/39
G(_///pry /4/M atA (Ted
/))1//5
�- ��oo�tie o/d nor/77ePi
Gt) / t Cr7b1'/ a 744"9 7 ,%L- /J2�
Aa/14, 7--/e) /;14,4/ t>v22.,
/W./4;1 ea/v./AA-1 e9,/ //le 716,61,44 _1;1
eta 771/ ,447(
Pd&,
p /(2 4e, c4, 4
4oD, W&r/vz, 14/-0
1k,t/z- /3oUs /, 47/f
z

17,,t /;/1f fad [% a I /d
l
y� va s Uf /947y. #0,,✓itALv7,, /its l-
l6141/ iW/ g� / //5 a-�- fr(6-P
,a,‘ e6t,(4/1- vi4 19,rd /
Mi-Pwt (41(;)2,--, 44i/i 7,1% /(9:44-e
4,4xt (. f i // z� l/ ✓ G� S r f /a7� Jc0 Cl� �� i G x
O/3/9 a' s/r4� Igo l W/9
7
( 00 --:- 14110, ivy; 1,9.0 671.2
Pit G a Z ' M4.71/LA.4 a/,r771 -511/<.t, -"/W2-(...-- a f //�
4A/y7,i 600,,1 O 14A774
JO)Vvk 14 H firfm, /0(6„--,_ )/eam; e/7'11-0
Grp w )ruua-
#06
11 m/ 144i
j7.�.kems mmh fr(� v� A i a� k1)
(L, . (Ofl /, frie ;ta PC C tiAS
1'44 r /7FL Ati.ezte, A2,/he,,A,
A4 h/t i o / 0 lr✓� //I iici7. ye_
_
° 1,4 Po tWIcan '>`thWd-- -f4 r�
1214r'f i Q IriSl � o Z�2z5���' m a�,
WziAiez .2‘44 14w.` chew_
ri/n. a/2,,(,44 k/zi- /1,pe
./;ailz; roi alfetz- 2,-er1-4,1,-

4-/(VI
7/g
YOU j`��v 0 -r 19 (15 Ai9w P. 0440 Y4,4>`e-
14(r1;e4.e. o o W 5 /)-4v T7' Ai141 /✓ Cow o� 0 .
&714%/A4 6k/1 1/V,V73 g 4,1,t
' 1 lr
M/I /; /Pt da4 a "1/115 /3/)Z -1/1 ,/t/lj
9 /4 g r
ril7pt./' /✓ owe' 1/6' ` I% k- i l/leI tom///
yam /n0(/ti,4 ,42
/71efAA/77) 7-z) r, a/e-74,6,
7'0 f Gr/AQ4 n U 74 71%r / / .$ stir 0/O'ril/f 5/1
TA/ 7-1° /4ory.,,,%dt fisnif-t4
.0 5 divi'vt 7iXA- &/' , -711
/ 1
4'✓/,,a4l/ i'h� v 124r o / � 1 ,-7 /7?Z Cl
jp/,/( 45-0 p a` l/a//4 //),/-0791-/)
tit /a /h AV( d
urn / /jam may/ / /2afr7
p 1//1r/112g' 7 /Zt_ %v t 'I 4 vz
GI/G'r�I� G/f'ZGr /a C/WiZC
recre (aii4u 04 /4 ,444 /-7/ igme*i/h47/
P✓L/4 04 /9120
//o/'if7/17 9 ��- SOW/A
fl fc s A �� ��. Z, 6D,.//e i
z,..,;(4, a 2, /Mav f/�ci�s/ ad yk,

ad /1L/l /d /./k %o7 /? e42
/tem/ 1/t/t / 66A,ryz aia do/ h W//&r.
vv. 0 o t/R 72,(z.di loc
13 ifP UU-1 ",/);44,71,, ph./4evi/.- Ptlk eevri-y p-64/vY hAeovfr az1 "L-
/ Cat
k joe,d,
dot /tea �� �, �� /n otaA-e, a/ six,
-!O a/767 Nw pat'5a.d.
i/ i /th it /!
tuit/CGt�2/),214,t 0 /44 G / 2 /2, GG /7gf
I 10 6-p , //ow(4Ae/27
g5fez/a4 nSfie,t4A 7Ct.
lit/%iLet oak Q/z144 (//-/ /a✓kz m 4,
66776€A , F y f 1,0n471,e7e- /971 a/ l Gu �o
/40 a/� co //e'� 1:?- / a/az4/ s/1-�e 7
6,a�1/i c9/4 r- 7, 2-Pir G? he.i
/e t . .,�f' /k,
aAt lo74 a/4 a r77V:g,(41
f P/am Gr-c- a-z 1 G� /�''� 1�� ,m7PJ/ P f
,e1,6A(„4,td aipti 7'op..//A- 74it. ",--724/
7.211,(-,e 771,{4,e/irs2-e, ahti.454#
0 tea // 1,44/i-ea/7/44
14/7,-;raly /; ,
f J
bo U a/,/ii a/ ✓n.5//ea�� ; 77; P.0TA'/✓ Ti
0.4 -lU , 1•{ 114 ri)2 S' a rvor a% G
:/1/m/a/% 6(_. /L %l//4)Y%��%t% �/Gf•

OHM
WA
(91 li/14 -'(41,1(474/61i
Hopi -WO 1 j lei( Gt/711,-/-4 yea r/ire Ar
!�gi • „s /d. the ce4A/l 5t2Jy7 , e
tito re(r,44` /Th&wat 4/0 7 A4/1/ te6
Gffi g✓ ih 7' )w1 6 l'/U /99�
ace;u4a o u/AA/2z14/1 saw to
,//le , f y�� /99 cY
ih:ag/ //i,W /1,e a.6 Mi'vzievt
§e/a5vPr /;! -7/1_-7, /7a/ 7',11-(2‘
41,E
f//6 /n/1164/444 ‘{,d
w il/e4 11
eflzy,k1 "7/01,5 /2,4A, ina-k(-7a;tAl Wig 5,/,') n3/7,(.0's
4f/e/Z.
517 — 4-1 bt_ f f/i/t V'.u_ CY I S C U�� n'� /Ai e4/11, ,capi2
1'k . mr /;), Poi/ / TOL),
fri 4ili-/L' a o o/P,- /v\wr► V?/- afro
Wore, to/5
/v)7P4- o mo //10/// ylGU�ii'
�0 Ain '/ N i'✓'o 1-7irl12/ b/J %2.GceSS� .x .
Ply ` a /�r w/ N A'1
oafrefd-- C/a/e.
f -614 l'Ao /;-/ -(A'A/I4/04 ddx/ /rn'
2/ zi4 � .

,
//1�if1rL
ijNUK feiv et/
61'3o84 Di) 4p= i/v1
,ems G 12DalPitt = ' pi,/1-
OJ7Ati f 10,9-t fon/. 1*.
fkait convaastht, bol -1-;744
( yr,/, �'o (l3/96
TOP f/rei /41,66,1 /W.(r
w, /9"// orn/
G y e rfrrl rod f Ta/477 if f ./76v
4.britiiin___,L,,wm of? 0 yfreei eir
;/° cal 6rdid " 3 f/ ?m- U , 0/
�': fit /v/t ,fi r 7'4 (Jo✓0�,,� /Z) h_4,4�� /d/
.tZit c & rt /,. w ' n:914.
9,1/1/ . bet
kla pd. 0I/V., .67/IIVe W-e/L7, ..7'-
cian/e. r/i WZA, A x6 re4-m
/0/" v �/'✓1 ,/W1 �/�+�/r� ' /%1/D t/w a
weiL. 77tit waf4
ri) ibv,61 7e/T,frl fYw tf/49 • 2
jotb5 ova Wu dtm . 1/6 545. 4t_ 1ij t i 1 o f4/1 /14
TV 1Jap, We; ,a 4A hao / ;r 1,64 s
D
botf- Olao 10 .Q/v uL (t ��11
J

�(i iniv
�CC ' '� �v tt .tit J'k I fie lawma
%/c/d. /j%v a 07 COIF 3 eA5 t /% /Ai
4N-1-6r( 1 -It-11 /(t/t_ TN /7 5 f k
G1 in 1 'J 7% zl, �4/I4'o 4 , tAi."mci oocit/a
n4,/9 w/-AwAr
Away 0-F i/il/ Sin isM
/1,(G1 fi-4/7,of 4 w-. le,17,2a
zo Pro r5 t) ( i`�'y', G. f- /V(!0
4f,t-
fic C6,/L ! colyyzM1/47
/ R6 P
�6
6oz 1-0,4/1, ./A4, /vw&„ i-oz
/1 R6-p froa at ) (a
�te,oiue dkr/
7-;14///1
fritgAtifr5
or- reov2.
0 5--//14/ Cr ga,61M "7444 ca1/4 ft- it, /44 ,mA,
hy.ra, f4 o �h cam -W/ovi, ✓,te__. /u" �G/G

XoPitit/ e) 1411 /71/4/5 1./9 ff'd
!Wd d /g44.1 fr7 5/z �� .�i� 1.7k rz'Noiid
�YQh�j c� ./Xi,h, 1/'��7`1
/y h�� l ///7 Z,4 titd /7.
l-h 113
;
1-6✓✓c ,✓� irt /I ylG%J Arr4 ff /l/eu�e /✓���
e hwri -64/fiAm tiq a
I 3 4/!6:(2/ /%4 44.4--cr4
1/tx g-§oy pZo4d. I /ov✓ld `u 0"- rr✓l�
p fl/la?/1L/z49 M- 14/ gM/t7 / / 4 9
0-141
�/1/1/* /V' 1� W(y,� Flu 015.11011(1��
17A9,414 "di yi/t ///4(_ „rimi 44,1,
a: WO nri / peg/4-‘7,y
/ ni etp ,c VI(7 (/‘
i(,(A(/Ilow/ Yvd Ca��,d c1 fr
14 /'tom° .20 /

Holly Springs TNJTP Chart 4
ern,
Ow (10,000 gpd)
40 —
35
30
25
20
• 15
z 10
0
Holly Springs Instream Total Nitrogen Prof/ I
NC0063096
Utley Creek "C'
x
X
X ■
■ o ■ ■
■• ▪ e■°
°e!dMo■°: ;: °!o°:::d� ;❑
•
0
x
■ ■
■■■
0
x
■
X X
■ ■▪ ■■
■
■
■■
■❑■°■■■U■■°■°■■u■
1993 1994 1995
�4111- is app COX I r•1 JL2.
Page 1
O Eff. TN
■ Dwn TN
❑ Up TN
X Qw

PpiP
g
hvo-re
Wp1Prr
xItt
Q,,

Holly Springs TN/TP Chart 6
2-rn
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
a
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
Holly Springs Instream Total Phosphorous Pre / jp
0
0
■■■■ ■■
■■• ......❑
1993 I 1994
Time line is approximate
Page 1
0
0
•
•
❑ E.
❑■ ■ ■■■
■
1995
0 Eff. TP
• Dwn TP
❑ Up TP

INSTREAM MONITORING
DO
TEMPERATURE
CONDUCTIVITY
pH
FECAL COLIFORM
TP
PO4
TKN, TN, NH3-N
CHLOR A
14,1)4y1 ,- N 0.3
e/Y-
() /
UPSTREAM
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
J;O414,14!,
DOWNSTREAM
SITE 1
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
DOWNSTREAM
SITE 2
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
DOWNSTREAM
SITE 3.
WEEKLY *
WEEKLY *
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
2/MO
UPSTREAM SITE LOCATION: AT DIRT ROAD ACCESS TO THE WWTP
DOWNSTREAM LOCATIONS:
SITE 1: AT NCSR 1301
SITE 2: AT NCSR 1152
SITE 3: IN SUNSET LAKE (AT DAM'S WALKWAY) -SUNSET LAKE LODGE-
INSTREAM MONITORING (EXCEPT TP,PO4, TKN, TN, NH3-N, & CHLOR A) IS TO BE
SAMPLED 3/WEEK DURING JUNE, JULY, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER
* PARAMETERS A` THIS STATION SHOULD BE SAMPLED BEFORE 8:00 AM
TP, PO4, TKN, TN, NH3-N & CHLOR A TARAMETERS .FE TO BE SAMPLED ONLY
DURING JUNE, JULY, AUGUST & SEPTEMBER
-r p
Sy &A

Mr. David Goodrich, Supervisor
Water Quality Section, Permits & Engineering
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit Application, Holly. Springs, NC
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
1511/L
Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Parrish W. Womble
Mayor Pro-Tem
v 4nbto I P
�7 Lek- IC 4. Z wt►1
L►Y b a�kb+u ! ✓� Ca
It has been difficult to reach you by telephone. so I am writing to follow-up oriebtur February 16, agby,,,A.
1995 meeting regarding Holly Springs' NPDES permit application. Again, the meeting with you was very saw. vou)..s
helpful in assisting our municipality with the direction in which we need to proceed to meet future Qb 'Q3 i -He()
wastewater treatment needs.
MAY 9 095
Town of Holly Springs \;6wa C. T 6?2-
�a
) `( ...
y,{o�(/, Conur�fssloners
^�1 v" q/Jete\
Sarah Morton
�/ (�(George Kimble
\{(�lG dao Perrkinss
t
, v-rDdolt',r�
ClAetD
3
You indicated that you would follow-up our meeting by for arding speculative limit data to us as
soon as possible. I have not yet received that information and, as I indicated during our meeting, the Town
is anxious to proceed with completing our application. We have retained a firm to begin the Environmental
Assessment, and we are hoping to proceed as quickly as possible.
We would appreciate your assistance in sending the speculative limit data to us soon. Please feel
free to contact me at 552-2031 or page me at 310-3673 should you have any questions regarding this
request.
Sincerely.
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
cc:V teve Tedder, NCDEHNR-DEM
Ford Charnbliss, Wooten Company
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-6221 • Fax [phone]

Town of Holly Springs
March 29, 1995
Mr. Bill Coleman, Town Manager
-Town of Cary-
P.O. Box 8005
Cary, N.C. 27512-8005
Dear Bill:
WATER 'QUALITY
SECTION
t‹, (gif
This letter is to follow-up our meeting and subsequent telephone conversations since last
December. The Town of Holly Springs is formally requesting that the Town of Cary consider
providing to Holly Springs a 2.0 mgd allocation in the South Cary Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In addition, the Town of Holly Springs is requesting 2.0 mgd allocation in the Cary/Apex Water
Treatment Plant.
I have enclosed a map which shows the Town of Holly Springs' proposed planning jurisdiction
line between Cary and Holly Springs. It is my understanding that this is the information which
you and your staff requested in order to proceed with consideration of our request. Your staff
indicated that you would be receiving bids on your North Cary WWTP expansion around March,
and should then be able to provide a preliminary estimate of the cost of our participation in your
South Cary WWTP expansion. I look forward to receiving that information from you.
I am hopeful that our two municipalities can work together to the overall benefit of the public
by cooperating in a "regional" wastewater treatment facility. I thank you for your assistance in
this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerel
464A-
Ger ld W. Holleman
Mayor
cc: Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E., Town Engineer
i rFflJ
"APR 1 0 199::.
1
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-6221 • Fax [phone]

Town of Holly Springs
Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Parrish W. Womble
Mayor Pro-Tem
Commissioners
Sarah Morton
George Kimble
John J. McNeil
Edison Perkins
March 1, 1995
Mr. David Goodrich, Supervisor
Water Quality Section, Pemits & Engineering
NC Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit Application Holly Springs, N.C.
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Thank you for meeting with me on February 16th in order to discuss the Town of Holly
Springs' wastewater treatment needs. The information which you provided to me in that meeting
has been very helpful in assisting us with the direction in which the Town needs to proceed to
meet future needs.
You indicated that you will be forwarding a copy of the Neuse River Basinwide Management
Model and a set of "Speculative Limits" to me as a follow-up to the meeting. The limits are of
special intei est to us as they will allow us to proceed immediately with required engineering
studies. As indicated at our meeting, the Town of Holly Springs is experiencing extremely rapid
growth and must proceed as quickly as possible to obtain a permit for expansion of its existing
facilities.
2a3/
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-622-1-• Fax [phone]

For your additional information, we are beginning preparation of an official request for
capacity in Cary's existing Middle Creek WWTP to submit the Town of Cary, to follow-up a
meeting which we had with Cary officials in late 1994.
I look forward to receiving the referenced information from you. Again, thank you for your
assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
cc: Gerald W. Holleman, Mayor
Ford Chambliss, P.E., The Wooten Company

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 3, 1995
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
loyfr
AEI -INFO
---------
s6('
Subject: Information Regarding EA Requirement
Dear Ms. Sudano:
I am writing in response to your letter of December 21, 1994 to Mr. Dave Goodrich
concerning the required environmental assessment (EA) for a new discharge into Middle
Creek. Although you provided limited information on the proposed discharge site or
design flow of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), I will attempt to address your
questions.
A new discharge into Middle Creek will not be allowed by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). DEM developed a field -calibrated QUAL2E model of Middle Creek
in 1992. The modeling results indicated that the stream's assimilative capacity has been
exhausted, and recommendations were made to remove all package plants in the basin.
Cary and Fuquay -Varina were to serve as the regional plants in the area. These
recommendations are reiterated in the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan which was adopted in March 1993. A copy of the modeling report and pertinent
pages of the Basin Plan have been attached for your review.
Another issue is the need for the preparation of an environmental document under the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act. According to the rules implementing the Act, any new
WWTP or plant expansion whose flow is 500,000 gallons per day or greater or exceeds
one third of the 7Q10 of the receiving stream is required to prepare an environmental
document (15A: 01C. 0504(3)(a)). General information regarding this requirement was
provided to local governments in a memorandum from Steve Tedder, the Water Quality
Section Chief, on September 3, 1993 (attached).
Therefore, if a discharge into Middle Creek is not an option, the Town will want to further
explore expanding the current Utley Creek WWTP which will require an EA. The outline
you provided with your letter contains most of the necessary information, but I would like
to offer a few comments:
1. Chapters 2 and 4 should contain a section about woodlands. Contact Mr. Dan
Robbins, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, at [phone]
regarding information that should be included on forest resources in the EA.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

2. In section 2.8.2, existing water quality data should be summarized. The facility
collects instream monitoring data which should be summarized. In addition, the
facility is upstream of a mill pond and Harris Lake. If algal blooms have been
documented in these areas, this information should be included.
3. Chapter 3 should also review whether water conservation measures or control of
inflow/infiltration (I/I) would preclude the need for the expansion.
4. Speculative limits provided in a letter of July 23, 1993 to Mayor Holleman from
me should be included in the document and used as a basis for cost comparison to
other alternatives. Section staff also believe that the desktop model used to develop
the NPDES limits for the Utley Creek expansion may not adequately predict water
quality in the basin. Therefore, if Holly Springs pursues this option, DEM may
develop a field -calibrated model for the stream. In addition, the speculative limits
provided did not include nutrient limits, but due to the facility's location upstream
of a tributary arm of Harris Lake, nutrient limits may be necessary in the future.
The Town should consider the potential for these limits when it designs its plant.
Potential nutrient limits and monitoring should also be included in the cost analysis.
I would also like to briefly address each of the specific questions raised in your letter as
follows:
1. DEM develops its permit limits based on the available water quality information on a
receiving stream, water quality standards, existing rules and regulations, and water quality
models. To the best of our ability we include limits which should protect water quality.
'However, all models have some uncertainty in them, and on occasion we find that we have
overallocated a given water body. In addition, rules, regulations, and water quality
standards are subject to change, and if they are revised, new requirements may need to be
incorporated into NPDES permits.
2. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Town of Cary for the North
Cary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion is not adequate for assessing the site
specific water quality impacts from Holly Springs proposed discharge in Middle Creek.
The North Cary WWTP EIS may serve as a useful reference, but it is not sufficient to
address this alternative of a new discharge in Middle Creek for the Town of Holly Springs.
As already indicated, DEM's modeling report and the Neuse River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan do not support introduction of a new discharge into Middle
Creek.
3. The Town of Holly Springs is responsible for including all the necessary information in
the EA. DEM has provided speculative limits to aid the Town in its alternatives analysis.
4. The submitted outline along with the comments listed above should be sufficient if the
Town adequately addresses each portion of the outline.
Finally, you inquired about the alternatives analysis requirement. Per the State's
antidegradation policy outlined in 15A NCAC 02B .0201(c)(1), each applicant for an
NPDES permit must document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives. In
addition, procedures of compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(NCAC 01:25.0502) require a discussion of reasonable alternative to the recommended
course of action.
I hope this letter addresses your questions and concerns. If you need further information
concerning the EA process, please contact Monica Swihart of the Planning Branch. If you

have questions regarding the permit process, please call Dave Goodrich. Questions
regarding modeling should be addressed to Ruth Swanek. Monica, Dave, and Ruth can all
be reached at [phone].
Sincerely,
Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Asst. Chief for Technical Support
cc: Monica Swihart
Dave Goodrich
Ruth Swanek

Page 1
Note for Ruth Swanek
From: Ruth Swanek
Date: Mon, May 8, 1995 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Holly Springs
To: Betsy Johnson
cc: Dave Goodrich
\051))' 5
Vti tr.nee,a,5
Cfp- k
tf v)s,k kip
sp,L
I only know what Dave's note says. (I was assuming from his note that they would get 9/2
in summer - now rereading his note, I see that NH3 is currently at 9, and BOD is 16. Too
early on a Monday. I am not sure I would give them 16/2 - would need more information on
situation out there and what they currently are meeting).
From: Betsy Johnson on Mon, May 8, 1995 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Holly Springs
To: Ruth Swanek
Will they have to build a real plant with 16/2 limits? I believe they currently have package
plants only. What wasteflow are we talkinh about now?
From: Ruth Swanek on Mon, May 8, 1995 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Holly Springs
To: Dave Goodrich
Cc: Betsy Johnson; Carla Sanderson; Jason Doll; Steve Bevington
We should give them limits to protect instream DO. I do not think we have a lot of
confidence in our LB model out there (their instream monitoring shows some violations of
DO standard). Basin plan recommends that we do LC out there if facility wants to pursue
expansion. If need answer before LC done, my answer (without consulting staff or
reviewing file) would be to give current BOD limits with ammonia tox limits.
Do you have WLA file? It is signed out to me, but I have not had the file since I passed it up
the ranks for signature on that letter that never went out.
Betsy/Jason - do you have any other opinions on this?
From: Dave Goodrich on Mon, May 8, 1995 7:36 AM
Subject Holly Springs
To: Ruth Swanek
Ruth -
In the summer of 1993 we did a speculative for this facility which predicted they would need
limits of 30 (BODS) and 1.1 (NH3) at 1 MGD, and 30 and 1 at 2 and 3 MGD. They
currently have 16 and 9. Since this speculative was done, Don has said that we shouldn't
slack off on the limit for BODS based on the change in NH3. In other words, the BODS
limit should have remained 16 mg/l. Tedder has no problem with telling them to build to
meet BAT limits (i.e., 5 and 2). My question to you is this: Should we tell them to plan on
meeting BAT limits or stick with our speculative verbatim or tell them their limits would be
16 and 2?
(Of course, you also have the option of picking none of the above.)
- Dave

HOLLY SPRINGS WWTP
NC0063096
POTENTIAL LIMITS
SCENERIO FLOW BOD5 BOD5 MULT CBODu CBODu NH3N NH3N NBOD BODu
MGD mg/I Ibs/day ratio mg/I Ibs/day mg/I Ibs/day Ibs/day Ibs/day
Current Averages (4/94 - 2/95: 0.1 9.9 9.9 1.5 14.9 14.9 4.3 4.3 19.4 34.2
Current Limits (summer) 0.5 16.0 66.7 1.5 24.0 100.1 1.2 5.0 22.5 122.6
Current Limits (winter) 0.5 22.0 91.7 1.5 33.0 137.6 2.8 11.7 52.5 190.2
At 1.0 MGD (spec)
At 2.0 MGD (spec)
At 3.0 MGD (spec)
Expand w/ Current Limits (S)
Expand w/ Current Limits (W)
Equal BODu Loading (S)
Equal BODu Loading (W)
Equal BOD5 Loading (S)
Equal BOD5 Loading (W)
Equal BOD5 Loading (W)
1.0 30.0 250.2 1.5 45.0 375.3 1.1 9.2 41.3 416.6
2.0 30.0 500.4 1.5 45.0 750.6 1.0 16.7 75.1 825.7
3.0 30.0 750.6 1.5 45.0 1125.9 1.0 25.0 112.6 1238.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
16.0
22.0
5.0
10.0
8.0
16.0
11.0
133.4
183.5
41.7
83.4
66.7
133.4
91.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
24.0
33.0
7.5
15.0
12.0
24.0
16.5
200.2
275.2
62.6
125.1
100.1
200.2
137.6
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
16.7
33.4
16.7
33.4
16.7
33.4
33.4
75.1
150.1
75.1
150.1
75.1
150.1
150.1
275.2
425.3
137.6
275.2
175.1
350.3
287.7

Holly Springs WWTP
NC0063096
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
1
date temp
UPSTREAM
DO
DO sat
% sat
temp
DOWNSTREAM
DO DO sat
% sat
2
3
9/29/94
17.0
7.4
9.7
0.77
22.0
9.0
8.7
1.03
4
9/22/94
18.0
8.2
9.5
0.87
20.0
9.2
9.1
1.01
5
9/15/94
18.0
7.2
9.5
0.76
19.0
12.0
9.3
1.29
6
9/8/94
18.0
8.8
9.5
0.93
26.0
9.3
8.1
1.15
7
9/1/94
22.0
8.0
8.7
0.92
30.0
1 1 .0
7.6
1.46
8
8/24/94
19.0
7.2
9.3
0.78
26.0
8.0
8.1
0.99
9
8/18/94
22.0
6.4
8.7
0.73
27.0
6.8
8.0
0.85
10
8/1 1 /94
22.0
8.0
8.7
0.92
32.0
7.6
7.3
1.04
11
8/4/94
22.0
7.5
8.7
0.86
32.0
8.4
7.3
1.15
12
7/28/94
22.0
8.2
8.7
0.94
26.0
9.0
8.1
1.11
13
7/21/94
26.0
6.4
8.1
0.79
28.0
8.0
7.8
1.02
14
7/14/94
24.0
9.0
8.4
1.07
31.0
8.2
7.4
1.10
15
7/7/94
22.0
6.0
8.7
0.69
29.0
7.2
7.7
0.94
16
6/30/94
20.0
7.2
9.1
0.79
27.0
4.8
8.0
0.60
17
6/23/94
21.0
8.0
8.9
0.90
29.0
7.1
7.7
0.92
18
6/15/94
20.0
7.4
9.1
0.81
28.0
10.2
7.8
1.30
19
6/10/94
19.0
7.2
9.3
0.78
28.0
11.5
7.8
1.47
20
6/2/94
18.0
6.2
9.5
0.66
26.0
7.3
8.1
0.90
21
9/22/93
24.0
7.2
8.4
0.86
28.0
7.2
7.8
0.92
22
9/15/93
21.0
7.0
8.9
0.79
23.0
8.0
8.6
0.93
23
9/10/93
22.0
7.2
8.7
0.82
24.0
7.4
8.4
0.88
24
9/2/93
22.0
6.4
8.7
0.73
25.0
7.0
8.3
0.85
25
8/23/93
22.0
6.0
8.7
0.69
25.0
6.8
8.3
0.82
26
8/6/93
23.0
7.6
8.6
0.89
24.0
7.8
8.4
0.93
27
7/26/93
25.0
7.6
8.3
0.92
21.0
6.4
8.9
0.72
28
7/23/93
25.0
6.2
8.3
0.75
26.0
7.6
8.1
0.94
29
7/12/93
22.0
6.2
8.7
0.71
25.0
7.4
8.3
0.90
30
7/6/93
22.0
6.6
8.7
0.76
25.0
6.4
8.3
0.77
31
6/16/93
20.0
7.0
9.1
0.77
21.0
7.2
8.9
0.81
32
6/2/93
18.0
9.0
9.5
0.95
20.0
9.8
9.1
1.08
33
9/22/92
22.0
5.6
8.7
0.64
25.0
6.8
8.3
0.82
34
9/18/92
21.0
5.6
8.9
0.63
24.0
6.6
8.4
0.78
35
9/11/92
22.0
4.6
8.7
0.53
23.0
6.4
8.6
0.75
36
9/4/92
21.0
5.8
8.9
0.65
24.0
7.4
8.4
0.88
37
7/31/92
25.0
6.0
8.3
0.73
26.0
7.6
8.1
0.94
38
7/22/92
22.0
5.4
8.7
0.62
25.0
5.8
8.3
0.70
39
7/17/92
24.0
6.0
8.4
0.71
25.0
7.6
8.3
0.92
40
7/9/92
23.0
6.6
8.6
0.77
25.0
8.0
8.3
0.97
41
7/1/92
21.0
7.0
8.9
0.79
22.0
9.4
8.7
1.08
42
6/22/92
16.0
7.4
9.9
0.75
19.0
9.0
9.3
0.97
43
6/18/92
18.0
8.0
9.5
0.85
20.0
8.8
9.1
0.97
44
6/8/92
21.0
6.4
8.9
0.72
22.0
8.2
8.7
0.94
45
6/4/92
18.0
7.8
9.5
0.82
19.0
8.8
9.3
0.95
Page 1

AVERAGE 16.66 11.550 .9150
MAXIMUM 24.75 7.500 20.600 1.3000
MINIMUM 8.50 6.800 2.500 .5300
UNIT DEG.0 SU MG/L MG/L
GKEX88/MP
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT
03/14/95
PAGE 1
PERMIT--NC0071323 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 9202-9301 LOC---E
FACILITY--ETOWAH SEWER COMPANY DESIGN FLOW-- .1250 CLASS--2
LOCATION--ETOWAH REGION/COUNTY--01 HENDERSON
50050 00310 00530 00610 31616 50060 00300 00010
MONTH Q/MGD BOD RES/TSS NH3+NH4- FEC COLI CHLORINE DO TEMP
LIMIT F .1250 F 30.00 F 30.0 F 11.00 F 1000.0 NOL F 5.00 NOL
92/02 .0177 3.25 5.0 .12 31.6 .220 6.75 11.75
92/03 .0232 5.10 3.0 .08 3.1 .320 6.20 12.00
LIMIT F .1250 F 20.00 F 30.0 F 4.00 F 1000.0 NOL F 5.00 NOL
92/04 .0253 4.25 4.5 .56 20.0 .600 6.25 14.25
92/05 .0278 10.75 28.5 7.49F 14.1 .770 6.00 17.75
92/06 .0303 8.55 8.2 9.15F 10.0 .370 6.27 20.50
92/07 .0218 2.25 1.5 3.32 10.0 .470 6.80 23.40
92/08 .0320 3.15 1.5 1.42 18.1 .510 6.00 25.75
92/09 .0232 3.10 2.5 .70 4.1 .460 6.75 27.50
92/10 .0266 5.75 2.5 .25 12.6 .270 6.40 18.20
LIMIT F .1250 F 30.00 F 30.0 F 11.00 F 1000.0 NOL F 5.00 NOL
92/11 .0300 5.85 8.5 .10 60.5 .230 7.00 13.75

0,665T j;47)/(
ita,:-,, -77)7O
(r )7/4L( ,, J .<-0,O.-
i( oygy ‹0,, -<o . os
1(/3/9i 0.25 0.635
pfr-vqv _,,, 2_ <0. 62N
/070 0 Li <0,;_ 5,02
10A3/sq <0, e2_ /179
10/6/gi`( . 6,Z p, 02_
qi/2s 5Y I, 0 .LO,1
V59. 7 Ag 5, 5 0, I
9(1;1l b, 3 moo, 1
frifri (), 0 -
1-/Oq 0,3 D, (
ififfr( °, Li 0, (
1/1/1 Li 0.1 04 i
i:
6ti
? 11/ 5,1' <O, (
/42IbY
/, 3 O. i
7/1q `/•6.7 -.o, I
(61. 0"( It S 0 ,
6.15ri. 0.1 <e,I
#/i," 6,1 .<o, 1

Up 6-/-
e. `rev' �P
-1 33 3
V15113
�ays3
11203 53
1.21/53
1/2-
7/3a �53
c")V?' 57Lre -4

t1/41111 C:m9
Town of Holly
Spnngs�'4
\''bk
December 21, 1994
Mr. Dave Goodrich, Supervisor
Water Quality Section, Permits & Engineering
NC Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit Application
Holly Springs, North Carolina
TWC No. 2657
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Parrish W. Womble
Mayor Pro-Tem
Commissioners
Sarah Morton
George amble
John J. McNeil
Edison Perkins
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management by letter dated November 15, 1994
returned our NPDES Permit application for a discharge into Middle Creek. One reason cited
for the return of the application was the absence of an Environmental Assessment. Enclosed
for your review is an outline for an Environmental Assessment the Town proposes to prepare
in support of the permit application. The Town asks that you review the outline and let us
know your comments and suggestions.
In reviewing the proposed outline, the Town asks that it be provided specific guidance on the
depth of detail that the NC-DEM will require in assessing water quality impacts on Middle
Creek (and, for the alternative involving Utley Creek, Utley Creek). Answers to the
following questions would be particularly helpful:
(1) Can the Town assume that the NC-DEM's effluent limits to be developed
during the permitting process will be considered adequate to protect water
quality?
(2) Can the water quality impact assessment work done in conjunction with the
permitting of the Town of Cary's treatment plant on Middle Creek be deemed
adequate to evaluate the impact of the proposed Holly Springs treated
discharge?
If the work done in conjunction with the Town of Cary plant is not deemed
adequate for assessing impacts on Middle Creek, then what specific additional
work is required, and how much, if any, of that work will be done by the
NC-DEM in the course of the normal permitting process?
(4) What specific information regarding Utley Creek would the NC-DEM require
the Town to provide with regards to the Environmental Assessment?
The NC-DEM letter of November 15, 1994 also requested an Engineering Alternatives
Analysis. Such an analysis is ordinarily only required for discharge to a zero flow stream.
Middle Creek is not to our knowledge a zero flow stream. Utley Creek is also not a zero flow
stream. Please advise if the requirement for the Engineering Alternative Analysis is being
made because the NC-DEM records show Middle Creek to be a zero flow stream or because of
other technical considerations.
(3)
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-6221 • Fax [phone]

Town of Holly Springs
Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Parrish W. Womble
Mayor Pro-Tem
Commissioners
Sarah Morton
George Kimble
John J. McNeil
Edison Perkins
Your attention to this request is appreciated. The Town of Holly Springs is experiencing rapid
growth and wishes to proceed as expeditiously as possible with securing the means to handle
its expected future wastewater flows.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS
c
Stephanie Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
cc: Honorable Gerald Holleman
Enclosure
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540 • 919/552-6221 • Fax [phone]

Outline for WWTP Environmental Assessment
11. Summary of Project
1.1. Project Overview
1.2. Need for Project & Expected Time Frame for Project Completion
1.3. Expected Environmental Consequences & Mitigation Measures to
Minimize Adverse Impacts
02. Description of Present Environment
2.1. General Overview
2.2. Geographic Location & Political Jurisdiction
2.3. Population and Growth Rates
2.4. Geology, Soils, & Agricultural Resources /_ 0,4 .
4," ,
2.5. Cultural Resources '�"
2.6. Air Quality & Noise Levels
2.7. Groundwater Resources
02.8. Surface Water Resources
2.8.1. Water Resources & Usage Classifications
2.8.2. Existing Water Quality
2.9. Plant & Animal Habitats
ED 2.10. Protected Natural Resources
2.10.1. Wetlands
2.10.2. Endangered & Threatened Species
2.10.3. Natural Areas
03. Alternative Analysis
3.1. Overview
3.2. Expansion of the Utley Creek Discharge
3.3. Connection to a Regional System
3.4. Land Application
3.5. Direct Discharge to Middle Creek
3.6. Do -Nothing
04. Environmental Consequences
4.1. Overview
04.2. Changes in Land Use
4.2.1. Wetlands
Holley Springs Wasteater Treatment Project 1

v. r:::.�:::::.....::.�:::::::::::::.�.....:.: _.gin,........:............ ....................... .......:.:::: ... ... .:. .............:.... ...:. nt•xnw::::
Ar'Y
Outline for WWTP Environmental Assessment
4.2.2. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands ad aj
4.2.3. Public Lands `�
4.2.4. Scenic & Recreational Areas
4.2.5. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
4.3. Air Quality & Noise Levels
04.4. Water Quality
4.4.1. Groundwater Quality
4.4.2. Surface Water Quality including Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
4.4.3. Drinking Water Supplies
4.5. Wildlife Resources
4.6. Introduction of Toxic Substances
4.7. Summary
05. . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts & Mitigative Measures
5.1. Overview
' 5.2. Mitigation of Primary Impacts
5.2.1. Structural Measures
5.2.2. Non -Structural Measures
05.3. Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
5.3.1. Structural Measures
5.3.2. Non -Structural Measures
5.4. Summary
06. Finding of No Significant Impact
6.1. Narrative Summary of Project and the Area It Would Effect
6.2. Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Environmental Resources and
the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity
6.3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes Associated with
the Project
6.4. Basis for Conclusion that the Project with the Associated Mitigation
Measures Will Not Have Significant Environmental Impacts
6.5. Summary
Holley Springs Wasteater Treatment Project
1

,2j,31'I1#
allied /4., ov- 1 //e Mq �v /
ed-
!v4 S P G+ o-N _ C r,,t �% % `�
e < �� � • Ydvd • fhk, f/w a
I-
LA '/ Ij/ 4re-4Svc • r' 72<< T
%" Z ( - i f op LU ;I- /% A rD,v / C
v K . 7e c!/- 7 4 it /eye
rewa 1.
°Li_ 4,-2,
s. ; ?Le 5 /-
Gi + r e rA-1-5 4-e Fjf act
?-he")c‘crteJ 14;--/-4 n,�•-f-
d.�f,/i�ry ternitl Gll:my fDX
14-r S0'704 G? MAI- NPWa t •

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 25, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Ruth Swanek
Dave Goodrich
Through: Ken Eagleson V; j
Larry Ausley
Matt Matthews (PP'
From: Kevin Bowden (O
RE: Permit Modification Request
Town of Holly Springs
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Wake County
The Town of Holly Springs was reissued NPDES Permit No. NC0063096 on November
2, 1993, with an effective date of December 1, 1993, and an expiration date of March 31, 1996.
The newly reissued permit does not contain a toxicity monitoring requirement. The previous
NPDES permit issued to the Town on March 1, 1991, contained a toxicity limitation requiring
quarterly toxicity testing at an effluent concentration of 99%. It should be noted the previous
permit also contained "two consecutive language" in which two consecutive toxicity test failures
would comprise a noncompliance event. A review of the historical toxicity compliance data from
May 1991 to November 1993 shows a total of six toxicity limitation failures (none were two
consecutive), three instances of failing to report as required by the permit, one test result which
was late due to sampler failure, and seven "Pass" results. The NPDES Staff Report and
Recommendation prepared July 30, 1993 references past toxicity violations in the context of
"Most of the toxicity tests have passed."
This office contacted Carla Sanderson upon receipt of the reissued NPDES Permit and
discussions were held concerning the facility's option to accept an ammonia limitation in lieu of a
toxicity monitoring requirement. A review of monthly average ammonia nitrogen data for the
"Fail" toxicity test results shows three ammonia nitrogen values- to be less than 0.1 mg/1, one
value of 0.95 mg/1, one value of 1.1 mg/1, and one value of 4.4 mg/1. The assumption implied
whenever a facility opts for a decreased ammonia nitrogen limitation over a toxicity monitoring
requirement in a permit is that ammonia nitrogen is the toxic agent most likely contributing to
whole effluent toxicity and that the numerical ammonia limitation will pro "• _o._..._ - - • . ainst
toxic responses. The available data does not support the conclusion tha
primary causative toxicant. For the reasons stated above this office rec
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096 and incorporation of an appropriate 90
•
onia nitrogen is
ends a modification to
'city limitation.
When similar circumstances are seen in other permit reissuances we would recommend a
close review of available data to verify that assumptions are supported.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Matt Matthews, or Larry
Ausley at [phone].
cc: Steve Tedder
Dennis Ramsey
Tim Donnelly -Raleigh Regional Office
Carla Sanderson
Aquatic Toxicology Unit files
Central Files

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No_X
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Charles Alvarez
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT
NPDES PERMIT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Date: January 25, 1994
County: Wake
Permit No. NC0063096
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility Name and Current Address:
Town of Holly Springs
Utley Branch WWTP
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
2. Date of most recent NPDES Staff Report
July 30, 1993
3. Changes since previous action on NPDES Permit: none
4. Verify Discharge Point(s) on plans with current NPDES
Permit. List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35T38'41" Longitude:78°51'03"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E 23 NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Apex
Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): existing plant, class II, new plant, class III
II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
Existing treatment facility
a. What is the current permitted capacity of the
facility? 250,000 GPD
Date(s) and construction activities allowed by
previous Authorizations to Construct issued in
the previous two (2) years: none
/c) ( S //L.
5.
PART
1.
b.
(attach copy):

c. What is the actual treatment capacity of the
current facility (design volume)? 250,000 GPD
d. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: dual package plants, 125,000
gallons each, with bar screens, aeration tanks,
clarifiers, tablet chlorination, and post
aeration (this plant will be converted to flow
equalization)
2. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: Propose to convert existing plant
to 250,000 gallon flow equalization. Propose a new 500,000 GPD
plant consisting of dual 314,000 gallon aeration tank, dual
64,665 gallon clarifiers, a 100,000 gallon sludge digester, a
73,000 gallon sludge holding tank, three 2690 CFM blowers, a
500,000 gallon traveling bridge filter, UV disinfection, flow
meter, polymer addition and a porous bag sludge dewatering
system.
3. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
Currently, Wallace Woodall - WQ0000506
PART III - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The RRO has reviewed the plan and specs submitted
and has the following comments:
1. The need for stand-by power has not been addressed.
2. Duality of the tertiary filter is not provided
for.
3. This proposed porous bag sludge dewatering system
seems unworkable for a treatment plant this size. The
plant currently land applies 20,000 gallon per year.
That's 1,000, 20 gallon bags of sludge. What are they
going to do with these bags ? What advantage does
"bagging" the sludge have over just land application
continued land application ? This system seems like
a waste of money to the RRO.
"-'14 /t/ 1° / (") C J 44 -09L Q s
C"Z1 Ac f-J 3 ,ees u / -/ tS

These items must be adequately addressed before the A
to C is iss
_Signatu
pWater Q
report preparer
ty Regional Supervisor �ryv�o�s
7 Dat 'bit"
H:\AC63096.SR
, ,„,k46y7-7)..1/

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Date: January 11, 1995
To:
Through:
From:
Subject:
Av"‘A
�EHNF�
MEMORANDUM
Jason Doll, Instream Assessment
Dave Goodrich, Permits & Engineering
Tom S. Poe I
Pretreatment Group Supervisor
Dana Rees Folleyae f
Pretreatment Group
rri.F rr N w
b i
.,
1995
Industrial Waste Survey in the NPDES Permit
Town of Holly Springs WWTP, NPDES No. NC0063096
Wake County
Jason asked me about the pretreatment program status of this facility as he is scheduling
wasteloads for this basin. I discussed the situation with Shane McCarthy of the Raleigh Regional
Office (RRO) and he has briefed Judy Garrett, RRO WQ Supervisor.
Holly Springs accepts trucked -in waste from Merritt Trucking and there have been instances in
the past few years where Holly Springs has notified the RRO of WWTP upsets due to a
discharge from Merritt Trucking. Based on some preliminary calculations I did on Merritt when
I was looking at the possibility of the another user discharging to Holly Springs (Wake County
Landfill - see below for more), it appears that Merritt Trucking could be an SIU for BOD based
on the "greater than 5% of the POTW's treatment capacity" criteria for SIU status. The POTW's
design treatment capacity is 834 lbs/d (0.25 MGD @ 400 mg/1 influent) and 5% is 41 lbs/d.
Merritt's BOD is 5440 mg/1 and at 0.003 MGD that equals 136 lbs/d. The POTW apparently
bleeds in the 0.003 MG over a whole week, so it doesn't strictly meet the 5% criteria, but since
the upset instances have occurred, we're concerned. Potential to cause interference at the WWTP
is another criteria for SIU status.
LAANCli
1
We request the NPDES permit include a requirement to perform an Industrial Waste Survey. I
suggest the following paragraph be included in the permit transmittal letter:
The Division is concerned with the possible effects on the WWTP from certain
industrial users (both the RRO and I feel we should not name Merritt Trucking).
Therefore, Part III, A. 4, of the permit requires submittal of an Industrial Waste
Survey on or before(I suggest giving them four months to do it). This survey is
intended to provide the Town and the Division an opportunity to determine if any
Users of the Town's WWTP are Significant Industrial Users and if the Town
would benefit from a Pretreatment Program. Please contact Ms. Dana Folley of
the Division's Pretreatment Group at [phone], extension 523, for details
about this requirement.
P. O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper

Attached is suggested NPDES language. I just took the standard Part III, A, that all municipals
get (from Maureen) and added a sentence to paragraph 4 (about accepting wastewater from new
SIUs) requiring the Survey, so there would be no major changes to numbering and lettering of
paragraphs.
FYI, Wake County approached us about the need for a pretreatment program to allow the
discharge from the Wake Co. Landfill to Holly Springs. We responded with the attached
February 8, 1994, letter. The letter outlines non-SIU and SIU options for the Town and County
to evaluate. Whichever option is chosen, the Landfill will still have to get a pretreatment permit
from the Division to discharge to Holly Springs (non-SIU from P&E, SIU from Pretreatment
while the Town develops their own program). According to Shane, the Town and the County are
proceeding with their plans and have entered into some kind of agreement about the situation
with discharge to commence in 1997. Shane is having Holly Springs send me a copy of the
agreement. I still don't know if they are planning for the non-SIU or SIU option.
During the Landfill review, the RRO expressed concern with the Town's flow capacity in
general. The Town indicated they were planning an expansion to 1.0 MGD, so our Feb. 1994
letter just required demonstration of sufficient flow capacity for the Landfill. I don't know if the
general RRO concern with flow has been resolved or not, but assume the RRO staff report of the
NPDES renewal will address their concerns if they still exist.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at 733-5083 (ext. 523) or Tom S. Poe, Supervisor of the Pretreatment Group.
DRF/hollnpdes.001
cc: DRF, Pretreatment Group, with enclosures
Shane McCarthy, Raleigh Regional Office, with enclosures

PART III
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Requirements for Control of Pollutants Attribute to Industrial Users.
1. Effluent limitations are listed in Part I of this permit. Other pollutants attributable to
inputs from industries using the municipal system may be present in the permittee's
discharge. At such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish
limitations for such pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent limitations
for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or
water quality standards.
2. Under no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the following wastes
in the waste treatment system:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including, but not
limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in
40 CFR 261.21;
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case
Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to
accommodate such Discharges;
c. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the
POTW resulting in Interference;
d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a
Discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference
with the POTW;
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in
Interference, but in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW
Treatment Plant exceeds 40°C (104°F) unless the Division, upon request of the
POTW, approves alternate temperature limits;
f. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in
amounts that will cause interference or pass through;
Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the
POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
h. Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the
POTW.
g•
3. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may be
necessary for the permittee to supplement the requirements of the Federal Pretreatment
Standards (40 CFR, Part 403) to ensure compliance by the permittee with all applicable
effluent limitations. Such actions by the permittee may be necessary regarding some or
all of the industries discharging to the municipal system.

-s
•
•
4. The permittee shall require any industrial discharges into the permitted system to meet
Federal Pretreatment Standards promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act.
Prior to accepting wastewater from any significant industrial user, the permittee shall
either develop and submit to the Division a Pretreatment Program for approval per
15A NCAC 2H .0907(a) or modify an existing Pretreatment Program per
15A NCAC 2H .0907(b). The permittee shall submit an Industrial Waste Survey
all users of the sewer collection system, including a determination of
Significant Industrial User status, to the Division on or before (four months after
the effective date of the permit).
This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to incorporate or
modify an approved POTW Pretreatment Program or to include a compliance schedule
for the development of a POTW Pretreatment Program as required under Section
402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations or by the requirements
of the approved State pretreatment program, as appropriate.

VIQIG VI IrVI lI I VQI VIII ICI
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 8, 1994
The Honorable Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Town of Holly Springs
PO Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
10ITVA
IC) I -I NI Fl
Mr. Mike Aull
Administrative Projects Officer
Wake County
PO Box 550
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Subject: Proposed Landfill Leachate Discharge from the South Wake Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Project (owned by Wake County)
Town of -Holly Springs - Utley Branch WWTP (NC0063096)
Wake_County
Dear Mr. Holleman and Mr. Aull:
The Pretreatment Group of the Division of Environmental Management has reviewed the
subject project to determine if the Division would approve discharge from the South Wake
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Project (owned by Wake County) to the Town of Holly
Springs Utley Branch WWTP. In particular, the review addressed whether acceptance of
the discharge by the Town would result in a requirement for the Town to develop a
Division approved pretreatment program. The project was discussed during a December
10,1993, meeting attended by representatives of the Town, the County, and the Division.
Conditions requiring n Pretreatment Program:
Town of Holly Springs:
• demonstrates that it has sufficient flow capacity, including all Division
approved sewer projects. The discharge would only be approved
for the 0.5 MGD WWTP.
• has obtained at least 8 acres for sludge disposal.
Wake County Landfill:
• provides flow equalization at a minimum as pretreatment for the discharge,
with the potential for aeration;
• provides any other pretreatment necessary to meet limits or as required by
the Town (possibilities include sufficient storage capacity to hold
discharge while sample results are obtained; metals removal to meet
limits);
• meets the applicable limits listed in the column titled "5 Percent MAHL"
for the applicable flow scenario in Attachment 1.
P. O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

The limits, along with appropriate monitoring frequencies, would be established in a Non -
discharge permit issued to the County by the Division's Permits & Engineering Unit, with
oversight and enforcement by the Division. Any Division issued permit would be subject
to approval by the Town prior to issuance.
As the predicted WWTP flow at the time of commencement of discharge of the landfill has
not yet been determined, three WWTP flow scenarios were evaluated - 0.2 MGD, 0.3
MGD, and 0.4 MGD. The County Landfill flow was assumed to be 0.017 MGD (their
proposal for the first several years). Headworks analysis (HWA) calculations for these
flows were performed to determine the WWTP treatment capacity or maximum allowable
headworks loading or MARL (see Attachment 2). Proposed County Landfill limits
representing 5 % of the Town's treatment capacity WWTP were then derived for each
WWTP flow scenario as any non -domestic User discharging greater that 5 % of the MAHL
would represent a Significant Industrial User and a pretreatment program would be
required (see Attachment 1 and also page 5, column K, of the HWAs in Attachment 2).
The actual limits that would be applied to the landfill would be based on the WWTP flow
demonstrated by the Town for the actual commencement of discharge by the landfill.
The HWA was performed using a BOD removal rate that was based on the design BOD
provided by the design engineer, Mr. Doug Hudgins. As TSS and NH3 as N were not
available, the same removal rates as BOD were used. All other removal rates and inhibition
criteria used in the HWA were from the literature for activated sludge/nitrification WWTPs.
The Town could provide alternative HWA calculations to support higher limits for any of
these parameters, based on actual performance of the WWTP.
If the County wished a higher flow limit, the Division would approve up to 0.025 MGD
without requiring a Division approved pretreatment program. This is based on the Town's
WWTP capacity of 0.5 MGD; 5 % of that flow is 0.025 MGD, and any discharge in
excess of this would be considered a Significant Industrial User (SIU), and.a pretreatment
program would be required. A higher flow limit would result in correspondingly lower
concentration based metals limits.
As the proposed limit for mercury is less than the current available detection limit, a value
of "less than" would be considered compliant. The Division would possibly require
monitoring for other pollutants that were indicated to be present in the discharge in the
October 1992 submission.
Conditions requiring Pretreatment Program development:
The Division would allow limits higher than 5 % of the MAHL provided the Town agreed
to develop their own Division approved pretreatment program. In that case, the limits
could be as high as those listed in the column titled "Highest Possible Limits" for the
applicable flow scenario in Attachment 1, subject to revision for differing POTW or SIU
flow values and also .subject to approval by the Town. An interim permit would be issued
to the County by the Pretreatment Group while the Town was developing its own program.
After that, the permit would be issued by the Town, with enforcement by the Town.

If you have any questions, or wish to pursue obtaining a permit to discharge the landfill
leachate, please contact Dana Folley or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Julia F. Storm, Supervisor
Pretreatment Group
DRF/holly springs landfilll.002
cc with attachments:
Thomas Tillage, Town of Holly Springs
Shane McCarthy, Raleigh Regional Office
DRF, Pretreatment Group �.
cc without attachments:
Central Files

holly springs landfill limits
frirf)-04 mEYi I.
At 0.2 MGD WWTP flow
At 0.3 MGD WWTP flow
At 0.4 MGD WWTP flow
5 Percent
Highest Possible
5 Percent
Highest Possible
5 Percent
Highest Possible
Limits @
MAHL @ IU
Limits @
MAHL @ IU
Limits @
MAHL @ IU
flow(MGD)
IU flow(MGD)
flow(MGD)
IU flow(MGD)
flow(MGD)
IU flow(MGD)
0.0170
Pollutant
0.0170
0.0170
0.0170
0.0170
0.0170
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
_ (mg/1)
(mg/1)
BOD
237.2941
566.0000
354.9412
829.0000
472.5882
1092.0000
TSS
444.9265
1393.8235
665.5147
2053.2353
886.1029
2712.6471
Ammonia
16.3140
32.1618
24.4022
46.8676
32.4904
61.5735
pH
6.0-9.0SU
Arsenic
0.0593
1.1512
0.0887
1.7218
0.1181
2.2924
Cadmium
0.0056
0.0758
0.0073
0.0938
0.0091
0.1118
Chromium
0.1483
2.3779
0.2218
_ 3.5544
0.2954
4.7309
Copper
0.2373
4.0282
0.3549
6.0224
0.4726
8.0165
Cyanide
0.0148
0.1781
0.0195
0.2141
0.0243
0.2502
Lead
0.0588
0.5989
0.0776
0.6877
0.0965
0.7765
Mercury
0.000028
-0.002979
0.000036
-0.004568
0.000045
-0.006156
Nickel
0.1391
,
2.5348
0.1837
3.3038
0.2283
4.0728
Selenium
0.0092
0.0121
0.0151
Zinc
0.2966
3.8735
0.4437
5.7853
_ 0.5907
_ 7.6971
Page 1