NC0063096_Permit Issuance_20030131

NPDES DOCUHENT :MCANNIN`i COVER SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
PermiIssuance
Wasteload 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:
January 31, 2003
This document is printed an reuse paper. - ignore any
content on the reverse side

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WIMP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART C. CERTIFICATION
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must complete all applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
El Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
❑ Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
❑ Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
❑ Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes)
❑ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations. Name and official title Carl Manager �-
fife
IIown
Signature C -x/l J 4-
Telephone number [phone]
1 O' y" O 2
Date signed
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENR/ DWQ
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617

.j • �• I��
1 _•� r'
•I*
r :• t
L a r ' f^- 1 J, f ti I -1,� . Jrp.--r 1t
. ''-'.-% e ,,I ,., ill '‘-'7",41}1 .1."'l .-7-_.
1.' .. ; .. %, • 1 I � { r .I .,�., • J — ' r'' ` [[ I R�.i.1 7 _ ' of
f r J. rr iJ wI r'f_.1i 1 L,`i,.. /i'I r111 ,:.,,-^~''tl-}r11, 1}: �
I
_ f •.J
r"'`r^r� •..•,r L�f• L I S,. �.,_�`��..r� � ' __
f• ,L TI 1 } I
—':'4r'iy. r1.r _I I L I i ' I' ��
. ',1 •'. r -. .ram-r 7;3/. ' Iv ' ' t�` - fi-I
L.
•
5 "--•' I
N
Scale:
1" = 1000'
r ; ("Utley Creek WWTP
i I '
III , r I 1 r5r. .'�
J ,•
•
i r
Topographic Vicinity Map
Utley Creek WWTP
Holly Springs, North Carolina
USGS Quads:
Apex, NC 1993

2.4 mgd
Flow
Metering
Influent
LEGEND:
Screening
2.4 mgd 2.4 mgd
To Land Application .
Grit Anaerobic
Removal Basin Lift Station Anoxic Basin Aeration Basin
2.4 mgd
4.32 mgd 4.33± mgd
1
L
1
L
13.93* mgd
L. MLSS 9.6:m.1
WAS
4.33± mgd
Filter Backwash 0.007 mgd 3
RAS 1.92 mgd
Wastewater PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Sludge 2.4 MGD UTLEY CREEK WWTP
----- MLSS HOLLY SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA
Aerobic Digestion /
Sludge Holding
Tertiary
Filtration
0.048 mgd
Clarification
2.41 mgd
NW
1
240 mgd
UV .__V
Disinfection
Post
Aeration
/"'
}40m0d
Effluent to -----)r
Utley Creek
2.40 mgd

Michael F. Easley
W ATFiQGovernor
Q
G William G. Ross Jr.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- I Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 12, 2002
Stephanie Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
RE: Environmental Assessment (EA)/FONSI for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and
Discharge into Utley Creek (Project # 03-E-4300-0041)
Dear Ms. Sudano:
On September 9, 2002, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
review on the above project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse w/comments).
Comments were received from the State Historic Preservation Office referring to a previously circulated
project within the area, and are attached to this letter for further consideration during future project
development.
No adverse comments were received regarding the mitigative measures included as part of this document.
The mitigative measures provided to reduce anticipated impact include the Town's commitment to utilize
100 foot vegetated buffers along perennial and intermittent streams within the Town's jurisdictional area of
the Middle Creek drainage basin, additional restrictions regarding development within floodplains, and more
stringent requirements for sewer lines. Forthcoming code changes corresponding to "the Green Plan" were
also referenced in the EA/FONSI as mitigative measures to reduce negative environmental impact.
Effective control of higher frequency/lower intensity storms is an important part of the mitigative measure
package associated with this project. Future monitoring data collected as part of the ongoing and
alternative stormwater strategy should be shared with the regulatory and resource agencies with particular
interest in the habitat of the dwarf wedgemussel and the health of the overall stream system.
It is now acceptable to proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality. Permits
covering activities associated with this project should be consistent with the findings contained in the
EA/FONSI issued on August 9, 2002. No further actions on the Environmental Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone], ext. 366.
Sincerely,
Milt Rhodes
Watershed Planner
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONSI w/Conditions)
cc. Dave Goodrich, Supervisor NPDES Permitting Unit
Kim Colson, Supervisor, Non -discharge Permitting Unit
John Dorney, Supervisor Wetland/401 Certification Unit
Bradley Bennett, Supervisor, Stormwater Permitting Unit
Melba McGee, DENR Office of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs
NCDENF
Customer Service
[phone]
1-877-623-6748
Url
ji N (0 N 11 W
SEP 1 2 2002
UESIR-'W.',feft
f Ui 11 SOURCE Birt,7rICH
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
http://www.enr.state.nc.us

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
September 9, 2002
Mr. Milt Rhodes
N.C. Dept. of Env. & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Archdale Bldg. -1617 MSC
Raleigh, NC
Dear Mr. Rhodes:
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4300-0041; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact;
Town of Holly Springs -Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Discharge into Utley Ceek in
central Wake County.
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Because of the
nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on
your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached
comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
4,75d/
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region J
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1302 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail [e-mail]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

NORTH CAROLIRA STD*TE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
ARCHIVES -HISTORY BLDG - MSC 4617
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRIANGLE J COG
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
AGENCY RESPONSE:
REVIEW CLOSED:
123430
°>
4,-p 4 002 0
RECEIvED
S Greta
rY OfficevivA
CH
/
/•'
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Env. & Natural Resources
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
ERD: Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
DESC: Town of Holly Springs -Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Utley Ceek in central Wake County.
03-E-4300-
08/07/2002
09/03/2002
09/08/2002
0041 `'` H02
and Discharge
t4 •02 —e)3`d 2
into
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office
at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
I 1 NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY:
DATE:
euc, 9JeAe-' c� 3/��a.� a)gaeie_c(
ALT0 r2nrf)
0 CL32

Michael F. Easley. Governor
I.isbeth C. Evans. Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow. Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 28, 2002
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Gerald B. Pottern
Senior Biologist
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, NC 27616-3175
•,1'� A. 6'
SEP2002 4 •Q
RECEIVED
N Secretary's Office
-44r) DOA `��
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson. Director
Re: Waste Water Treatment Plant Effluent Discharge Pipeline, Holly Springs, Wake, Chatham
and Harnett Counties, 02-E-4300-0382
Dear Mr. Pottern:
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project
Buckhorn Plant CP&L, (CH 158)
Two uninhabited concrete buildings remain from this complex and are in the general area of the
effluent discharge point on the Cape Fear River (see enclosed map). This proposed undertaking
should have no effect on these resources, but please contact us if plans call for any structures related
to the Buckhom Plant to be disturbed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
avid Brook
bc: Brown/Allen
County
Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St. Raleigh , NC
515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617
4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] .715-4801

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Town of Holly Springs Public Works
• August 9, 2002
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, for a proposed expansion to the Town of Holly Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Wake County. The Town of Holly Springs (Town) has proposed to expand the wastewater treatment facility and
the discharge to Utley Creek in Central Wake County. The Town is responding to growth pressures in the region by
providing sewer services to additional areas so as to eliminate the need for individual septic systems. A portion of
this expanded service area extends into the Middle Creek catchment of the Swift Creek watershed.
The proposed improvements are designed to expand the capacity of an existing facility from 1.5 mgd to 2.4 mgd in
order to keep pace with the Town's growth. The expansion plans include capabilities for both biological nitrogen
and phosphorous removal, and a supplemental chemical feed system for back up phosphorous removal. The Town
is also prepared to design in supplemental nitrogen removal facilities and develop a supplemental denitrification
filtration system to meet total nitrogen limits of 2.2 mg/L.
Several alternatives were considered prior to choosing the preferred approach, including: water conservation;
increased abatement of inflow and infiltration; wastewater reuse; and in place of expanded discharge a use of spray
irrigation, regional system development and developing a shared common line for discharge into the Cape Fear
River. A no action altemative was not considered due to the significant growth pressures on the Town. The Town
is also taking efforts to develop a reuse program for treated wastewater and a number of existing golf courses are
being consulted to determine irrigation needs for a proposed reuse system that would operate in abandoned force
mains in the area. As this expansion is only an interim measure, the Town is committed to develop water
conservation planning, and improve the abatement for inflow and infiltration. In addition, the Town, in
collaboration with other local governments of this area is exploring how regional alternatives can be implemented to
increase and improve wastewater treatment capabilities of western Wake County. It is through the development of
the regional entity that the Town may be able to abandon the discharges into Utley Creek and Middle Creek.
The project effects the entire jurisdiction of the Town by providing additional capacity to be treated at the facility.
A portion of the jurisdiction extends into an area having habitat suitable for freshwater mussel species including the
dwarf wedgemussel. Concern has been expressed by state and federal agencies regarding the expansion of the
Town's wastewater treatment facilities and expansion of a surface discharge into Utley Creek. However, the Town
has worked closely with resources agencies of the State to avoid, minimize and mitigate against significant impacts.
The Town will to conduct field surveys for dwarf wedgemussels for all projects that impact perennial streams with
suitable habitat in this catchment. A basin wide survey for the dwarf wedgemussel will come as part of the
aforementioned regional approach to wastewater treatment disposal.
The waters within the Town's jurisdiction drain to both the Cape Fear and the Neuse Rivers. Long term plans
indicate that the Town plans to extend jurisdiction farther into the Cape Fear River Basin and does not plan further
extensions into the Middle Creek watershed within the Neuse River Basin. Additional discharge is not foreseeable
into Middle Creek due to the assimilative capacity being depleted. As part of thisexpansion project, a package
plant will cease its discharge to the stream system. The Neuse River Basin Plan calls for no new permits to be
issued for discharge into Middle Creek. The expansion of the Utley Creek discharge was acceptable, however, only
as an interim solution while a regional solution was developed.
Some unavoidable adverse environmental impacts will occur as a result of this project. Erosion and sedimentation
will occur from the construction of the wastewater treatment plant expansion, but the project will be constructed in
conformance with all rules and regulations. Secondary and cumulative impacts are likely. Forest and agricultural

land will continue to be fragmented due to continued residential and non-residential development occurring
throughout the jurisdiction of the Town. This will lead to diminished wildlife habitat, diminished forest resources
and some changes in water and air quality. However, the Town is committed to reducing these impacts to a point of
insignificance. To achieve this desired outcome, the Town will continue to utilize UV disinfection treatment at the
treatment facility and incorporate advanced treatment technology to reduce direct impacts associated with an
increased discharge. Additionally, the Town plans to begin implementing a locally administered sediment and
erosion control program that provides closer scrutiny of projects disturbing land resources of the area. In addition,
the Town is developing a more aggressive approach to stormwater management from new development by
developing control strategies focused on higher frequency (2 year) storms. The Town will in accordance with the
request from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, monitor and document the effects of the stormwater
management approach submitted as part of this project.
The Town has agreed to implement 100-foot vegetated buffers along all perennial and intermittent streams within
the Town's jurisdiction of the Middle Creek watershed. Furthermore, the Town has developed a floodplain
ordinance that restricts residential development from the 100 year flood plain and as indicated on official maps
submitted with this project industrial or commercially zoned land will not be located within the floodplains of the
Middle Creek basin. To further reduce direct and indirect impacts, the Town has agreed to change its design and
construction standards for sewer line stream crossings within the Middle Creek basin. Wherever possible by
directional bores will be utilized in place of conventional cut and fill approaches.
Finally, the Town has developed what is referred to as the "Green Plan" that will add environmental protection
strategies to the 10-year comprehensive growth plan. This plan includes five policies identified below:
Policy 1: The Town shall work with State Agencies to enforce the Neuse River Basin
development requirements
Policy 2: The Town shall develop standards to protect water quality for areas not covered by state
mandated guidelines.
Policy 3: The Town shall enforce flood plain protection ordinances and amend as needed.
Policy 4: The Town shall encourage multi -modal travel, interconnected streets, and other
transportation practices that reduce automotive congestion and emissions.
Policy 5: The Town shall develop a tree preservation ordinance to protect significant trees or
stands of trees.
The Town is working towards creating the rules and enforcement procedures to give concrete expression to the
adopted policies. The Town will also incorporate the conservation measures recommended by resource agencies of
the State where practicable to help achieve the aforementioned policies. This will, however, not be immediate, but
will be codified and implemented over the course of the next several years.
Based on the findings of the EA and on the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, and upon the
recommendation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
Endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to
the environment. However, if new information reveals that impacts of this project may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, or this action is modified in a way that was not considered
during the review, or a new species is listed or critical habitat determined for this area, the agreements reached
during the review must be reconsidered.
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, NPDES Discharge and Non Discharge Sewer Extension Permits by the Division of Water Quality.
Pending approval by the State Clearinghouse, the environmental review for this project will be concluded. An
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this project.
Division of Water Quality
August 9, 2002

A% Michael F. Easley, Governor
!9 Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
�O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
rGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> —f Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
May 24, 2002
Stephanie Sudano, PE
Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
128 South Main Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Re: Town of Holly Springs WWTP Expansion
Dear Ms. Sudano:
Thank you for the revised submittal of the Environmental Assessment for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion for the Town of Holly Springs. The revised document and
supplemental material has been circulated to the proper reviewing agencies.
The Town has indicated that demand on wastewater services induced by continued growth is the
reason for the additional expansion. Direct and indirect impacts associated with rapidly
developing areas are a threat to the water quality and aquatic habitat in the service area identified
in this expansion request. The environmental documentation acknowledges that some impacts are
likely.
The regulatory and resource agencies of DENR have provided the town with recommended
measures to minimize the possible negative effects associated with secondary and cumulative
impacts associated with this infrastructure expansion. The Town has chosen to develop
alternative measures to meet the requests submitted by the Department. We are pleased with the
initiative provided by Town leadership in identifying ways to meet our common goals. This kind
of cooperation in the upcoming regional wastewater treatment facility will help expedite the
review and permitting.
However, there are still concerns from the resource agencies regarding the secondary and
cumulative impacts associated with growth supported by this project and the impacts to the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel species and the other aquatic habitat in the Middle
Creek watershed.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has requested that an analysis of the effects to the
dwarf wedgemussel be provided in the environmental document. This information should be
included in section 4 and section 5 of the document and provided to the Service for review. Upon
review of this information, the Service will determine if additional information is required with a
possible outcome being a formal consultation by the Service and a freshwater mussel survey for
the service area proposed by this project.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Service
ATA
NCDEN3
1 800 623-7748

Page 2, Holly Springs WWTP Upgrade and Expansion EA
In addition, as the Town has proposed to pursue an alternative stormwater management approach
that that from the recommended mitigative measures provided by the Wildlife Resources
Commission and Natural Heritage Program. As we discussed in the meeting in January 2002,
alternative approaches taken that provide the same degree or better protection than the
recommended approaches is the prerogative of the applicant. As such we are requesting that the
Town of Holly Springs, clarify in the final draft environmental assessment, how the proposed
approach to stormwater management of new development in the Middle Creek area will provide
adequate or better protection of the habitat of concern. This should include a discussion of how
the approach will specifically protect the channel and banks of stream features adjacent to
development sites and flowing into larger aquatic systems, and prevent down stream degradation
of water quality associated with higher velocity flows associated with stormwater runoff.
Should the Service determine that the dwarf wedgemussel species is present or habitat exists that
supports this species and will be negatively affected by the proposed action, then the applicant
should develop and submit for review a stormwater implementation and monitoring strategy.
This strategy should be included with the final environmental document. Additionally the Town
should provide a description of the implementation tools associated with the strategy and show
how this strategy will protect the dwarf wedgemussel and the associated aquatic habitat in the
Middle Creek sub -basin. While it is not necessary that this monitoring strategy apply to the entire
service area proposed in the project, due to the concerns identified by the resource agencies of
DENR, the Division is requesting that the strategy be developed for the portions of Middle Creek
in which Holly Springs has jurisdiction.
Pending the outcome of results of the review by the Service, and possible further actions
regarding development of mitigative measures, a Finding Of No Significant Impact can be issued
by the Division. Please provide one copy of the proposed Environmental Assessment for a final
review by the Division. Upon receipt and satisfactory review, provided the above mentioned
issues have been resolved, the Division will draft a FONSI and request an additional seven copies
to be circulated in the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review period.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-733-5083 ext. 366.
Sincerely,
Milt Rlhodes
DWQ Watershed Planner
Ei,NOWN
MAY 2 9 2002
MAY 2 9 2002
Irr :R - WATER QUALITY
,T SOURCE BRANCH
cc. Dave Goodrich, NPDES Permitting Unit Supervisor, w/o attachments
Bradley Bennett, Stormwater Permitting Unit Supervisor, w/o attachments
John Dorney, Wetland/401 Certification Unit Supervisor, w/o attachments
Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
Ken Schuster, DWQ, RRO

03/22/2002 15:50 910-814-2662 HARNETT CO MANAGER
PAGE 01
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TEDDY J. BYRD, Chairman
l .grpicE 13. Hru., Vice Chairman
D N B. AN -maws
TIM MCNBxu
WALT TITCHENER
COUNTY OF HARNETT
F.O. BOX 759 • LILLINGTON, N.C. 27546
[phone] • FAX [phone]
March 22, 2002
Ms. Chris Baggett
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Re: NC Clearinghouse
Town of Holly Springs
Proposed 16 MGD Raw Water Intake
Proposed 16 MGD WWTP Dischar e
Dear Ms. Baggett:
COUNTY MANAGER
NFL. EMORY
WM. A. (ToNY) WILDER, A. sisranr
CLERK TO THE BOARD
KAY S. BLANCHARD
Harnett County wishes to express its appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the
interlocal comment period. Ot i behalf of the Harnett County Board of Commissioners, I
offer the following background and comments:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
• Holly Springs and Harnett County have a 40-year water purchase contract.
• Holly Springs currently owns 2-MGD capacity in the Harnett County Regional Water
Treatment Plant.
• Holly Springs' current average day demand is approximately 700,000 (.7-MGD).
• Holly Springs currently owns 9.5-MGD of hydraulic capacity in the newly constructed
36" regional transmission line from Lillington to Wake County.
• Expansion provisions are well defined in the Holly Springs -Harnett County contract for
future water purchases.
• Cost protection is provided to Holly Springs wherein the wholesale rate to Holly •
springs is directly tied to the in-coumty (Plat -nett) bulk rzruuicipal rate.
Harney County doe., not diseri:n+inate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or
disability in employment or the provision of services.

03/22/2002 15:50 910-814-2662 HARNETT CO MANAGER
PAGE 02,
•
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Page 2
March 22, 2002
• The current contractual arrangement for Holly Springs with Harriett County provides
for an as needed increase in future water purchases. This concept minimizes the
excessive financial burden placed upon the town, as would building a regional facility
from the start.
• In addition to Harriett Comity's long-term contract, Holly Springs has an agreement for
water purchase through 2017 with the City of Raleigh.
ith regard to wastewater initiatives by Holly Springs, additional study should be
given to a different alternative of regional emphasis using the current Southwest Wake -
Harnett plan.
• If Holly Springs were to abandon the investment to Harnett County and not utilize the
capacity paid for by state grants, would Holly Springs be required to reimburse the
state for that part oldie inveytwent that was riot used for its intended purpose?
Therefore, in review of the background and comments made hereinabove, Harnett County
finds it difficult to understand the motive of another water intake between Sanford: and
Lillington. Furthermore, there has been no attempt by Holly Springs at this juncture to
seriously evaluate the regional wastewater alternative that is currently under design with
the Town ofFuquay-Varina which is part of the southwest Wake communities' tributary to
the Cape Fear River.
During the time that the Wake County water and sewer master plan was being developed,
negotiations with Fuquay-Varina were being held to develop a Southwest Wake regional
wastewater alternative. Those agreements have been finalized and Fuquay-Varina and
Harnett County will bid a 48-inch regional sewer interceptor from Wake County to
Lillington this fall (November 2002). In addition to this regional interceptor, a 5.6-MGD
regional wastewater treatment plat expandable on the land available to 36 MGD. Holly
Springs has made inquiry on two different occasions but has not made any in-depth
evaluation and study of this wastewater alternative versus the plan proposed in the
Clearinghouse Interlocal review.
In summary, both the federal and state funding entities historically have given higher
recognition to regionalization in lieu of expending funds for unnecessary redundancy and
duplication. It appears in this case that a permit is requested first before there is a bonafide
regional consensus developed with signed contracts. Harnett County has developed a
regional consensus with 40-year contracts with Moore County, towns of Linden and Spring
Lake in Cumberland County, towns of Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina in Wake County,
towns of Angier, Coats and Lillington in Harnett County. It appears that state regulators
must give serious consideration to those public investments already in place. In concert

e3/22/2002 15:50 910-e14-2662 HARNETT CO MANAGER PAGE 03
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Page 3
March 22, 2002
with the investments is the regional intent that all the partners have committed to as
evident with contracts. It is the state regulatory agency's responsibility to justify state
funding investments, good faith, and efficient use of resources and protection of
environment when analyzing best use of resources and future intakes and discharge points
on the Cape Fear River.
Since
zidid gm/
Teddy J. Byrd, Chairman
Harnett County Board of Commissioners
TJB:sw

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
March 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: J. Todd Kennedy
Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Letter for Town of Holly Springs Discharge to Cape Fear River
Wake County; DENR #02E-0382; DWQ# 13013
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed the subject document. The Town of Holly Springs
has proposed a new, 6-MGD discharge from the Town's WWTP to the Cape Fear River. At present, an EA for
an interim discharge expansion to Utley Creek is undergoing review by the Department.
We appreciate Holly Springs' stated intention to invite participation from the Towns of Cary, Apex and
Fuquay-Varina for the proposed project. In the recent past, the Division has expressed its desire to see the
local governments of western Wake County develop plans for regional participation in wastewater
infrastructure improvements. Prior to development of an EA for this project, the Division believes a clear
demonstration of regional cooperation is needed. Therefore, we strongly recommend the development of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the participants to solidify a strategy for regional cooperation.
Notwithstanding the need for a regional solution, the Division has the following comments on the project:
• A full review of alternatives to discharge expansion will be required. The EA should discuss the existing
system and need for the expansion, and provide proper justification for an increase in flow. The
Division's guidance for preparing the Engineering Alternatives Analysis is attached.
• The applicant should submit a request for speculative waste limits to the Division's NPDES Unit prior to
submittal of the EA. The model used for waste load allocations on the mainstem of the Cape Fear River
is currently undergoing recalibration. Pending approval, the Division expects to use the model to evaluate
additional discharges to the Cape Fear River.
• Questions regarding force main permitting for this project may be directed to Kim Colson with the Non -
discharge Permitting Unit at 919.733.5083 x540. Further information on nondischarge permitting can be
found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndpu/.
• Identify all state waters at the project site and within the project service area indicating name, location,
classification, and use support rating. Information on use support is available in Basinwide Water Quality
Plans(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/). Stream classifications are available from the Division's
Classification and Standards Unit (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/).
• Describe and quantify wetland and stream impacts. Identify the number, location and method for stream
crossings. All impacts to waters of the state must comply with the NC Water Quality Standards. If a
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Town of Holly Springs Scoping
Page 2
Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers is required, a NC 401 Certification will also be
required. Notification and approval requirements differ depending on the activity. Refer to
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/ for more information on 401 Certification.
• What are the existing and planned land uses within the service area? Discuss population, zoning,
development density, and local land use ordinances within the project service area. Describe all changes
in land use that may be induced by the project as well as the associated impacts.
Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts within the project site and service area should be discussed in
proportion to their significance. Avoidance, minimization and mitigation should be employed to avoid
significant impacts to the surrounding environment. Additional guidance regarding SEPA document
preparation for Division projects can be found at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/sepa/index.htm.
I may be contacted at 919.733.5083 x555. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Attachment

To:
Through:
From:
Date:
Subject:
NC Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
MEMORANDUM
Todd Kennedy
Dave Goodrich
Teresa Rodriguez
March 12, 2002
Town of Holly Springs Scoping Letter
The Town of Holly Springs requested comments regarding the construction of an
effluent discharge force main from the Town's WWTP to the Cape Fear River
downstream of Buckhorn Dam. This project is in harmony with the Division's
position of pursuing a regionalized solution for the wastewater management needs
of Holly Springs and neighboring cities.
The Cape Fear River is classified as a Water Supply IV at the proposed location of
the discharge. The discharge will have to meet the water quality standards
applicable to WS-IV waters.
The Town should address and justify the expected flow to be discharged at the
Cape Fear River including the flows from Apex and Cary.
OtJid r/ 1`5
ii()ay
Lam- ',7 /
��- P6')).(74-
611L
6-+ OA • CC C,CF1
r ,,
vvuOd-d ZpOLCKUAAfi
,A:u ( .l C r (!ciD.rz 406-r , wz` 111&,..nS+Q

Date Date Ow (MGD) Up DO (mq/L) Up Temp (Ct Up Dosat (mq/L) Up %Sat Dwn DO (mq/L) Dwn Temp (C)
.2-.Ian-94 1/2/94 0.135 11 8 11.84 92.9 13 5
9-Jan-94 1/9/94 0.114 10.4 11 11.02 94.3 11 6
14-Jan-94 1/14/94 0.128 15 3 13.46 111.5 13.6 5
21-Jan-94 1/21/94 0.114 11.4 7 12.13 93.9 13.6 5
26-Jan-94 1/26/94 0.113 13.3 6 12.44 106.9 13.1 6
3-Feb-94 2/3/94 0.098 13.2 2 13.83 95.5 12.4 4
9-Feb-94 2/9/94 0.105 10 12 10.77 92.8 13.4 11
16-Feb-94 2/16/94 0.097 13 5 12.77 101.8 11.3 6
23-Feb-94 2123/94 0.118 9.4 10 11.28 83.3 12.2 11
1-Mar-94 3/1/94 0.125 8.2 9 11.56 71.0 8.3 8
9-Mar-94 3/9/94 0.117 6.4 11 11.02 58.1 8.2 14
16-Mar-94 3/16/94 0.123 13.2 10 11.28 117.0 12.2 13
24-Mar-94 3/24/94 0.105 9 13 10.53 85.4 9.4 16
31-Mar-94 3/31/94 0.144 10.6 10 11.28 93.9 6.6 12
7-Apr-94 4/7/94 0.108 9.4 14 10.30 91.2 12 17
14-Apr-94 4/14/94 0.097 10 17 9.66 103.5 15 20
21-Apr-94 4/21/94 0.091 4.4 15 10.08 43.6 11.8 22
28-Apr-94 4/28/94 0.091 8.4 20 9.09 92.4 8 22
5-May-94 5/5/94 0.122 8 16 9.87 81.1 6.2 16
12-May-94 5/12/94 0.014 7.4 16 9.87 75.0 12.3 22
19-May-94 5/19/94 0.083 5.4 15 10.08 53.6 10.4 22
25-May-94 5/25/94 0.024 7.4 19 9.27 79.8 13 28
2-Jun-94 6/2/94 0.04 6.2 18 9.46 65.5 7.3 26
10-Jun-94 6/10/94 0.098 7.2 19 9.27 77.6 11.5 28
15-Jun-94 6/15/94 0.062 7.4 20 9.09 81.4 10.2 28
23-Jun-94 6/23/94 0.022 8 21 8.91 89.8 7.1 29
30-Jun-94 6/30/94 0.047 7.2 20 9.09 79.2 4.8 27
7-Jul-94 7/7/94 0.221 6 22 8.74 68.6 7.2 29
14-Ju1-94 7/14/94 0.034 9 24 8.42 106.9 8.2 31
21-Ju1-94 7/21/94 0.061 6.4 26 8.11 78.9 8 28
28-Ju1-94 7/28/94 0.058 8.2 22 8.74 93.8 9 26
4-Aug-94 8/4/94 0.073 7.5 22 8.74 85.8 8.4 32
11-Aug-94 8/11/94 0.079 8 22 8.74 91.5 7.6 32
18-Aug-94 8/18/94 0.051 6.4 22 8.74 73.2 6.8 27
24-Aug-94 8/24/94 0.066 7.2 19 9.27 77.6 8 26
1-Sep-94 9/1/94 0.065 8 22 8.74 91.5 11 30
8-Sep-94 9/8/94 0.225 8.8 18 9.46 93.0 9.3 26
15-Sep-94 9/15/94 0.064 7.2 18 9.46 76.1 12 19
22-Sep-94 9/22/94 0.071 8.2 18 9.46 86.6 9.2 20
29-Sep-94 9/29/94 0.04 7.4 17 9.66 76.6 9 22
6-Oct-94 10/6/94 0.144 8 15 10.08 79.4 7 18
13-Oct-94 10/13/94 0.167 9.2 15 10.08 91.3 6.4 16
20-Oct-94 10/20/94 0.173 9.2 15 10.08 91.3 8.6 16
27-Oct-94 10/27/94 0.175 5.6 11 11.02 50.8 6.4 14
3-Nov-94 11/3/94 0.174 8.4 10 11.28 74.4 9.2 14
10-Nov-94 11/10/94 0.153 7.8 14 10.30 75.7 9.4 16
17-Nov-94 11/17/94 0.162 10 12 10.77 92.8 9.2 12
23-Nov-94 11/23/94 0.148 10 13 10.53 94.9 10 14
1-Dec-94 12/1/94 0.166 9.4 8 11.84 79.4 10 11
8-Dec-94 12/8/94 0.161 9.2 11 11.02 83.5 12 12
15-Dec-94 12/15/94 0.174 10.2 9 11.56 88.3 11 10
22-Dec-94 12/22/94 0.149 10 9 11.56 86.5 10 10
29-Dec-94 12/29/94 0.175 11.2 7 12.13 92.3 11.4 10
5-Jan-95 1/5/95 0.186 11 6 12.44 88.4 14.1 5
13-Jan-95 1/13/95 0.15 10 10 11.28 88.6 10 9
19-Jan-95 1/19/95 0.2 9 11 11.02 81.6 10.2 12
26-Jan-95 1/26/95 0.206 10 5 12.77 78.3 12.2 5
3-Feb-95 2/3/95 0.192 11.2 10 11.28 99.3 11 10
9-Feb-95 2/9/95 0.179 11.4 10 11.28 101.0 14.2 5
16-Feb-95 2/16/95 0.382 10.2 11 11.02 92.5 10 12
23-Feb-95 2/23/95 0.199 8.2 14 10.30 79.6 9 14
3-Mar-95 3/3/95 0.202 11.2 10 11.28 99.3 11 10
9-Mar-95 3/9/95 0.221 11.4 10 11.28 101.0 14.2 5
17-Mar-95 3/17/95 0.1 10.2 11 11.02 92.5 10 12
23-Mar-95 3/23/95 0.287 8.2 14 10.30 79.6 9 14
3-Apr-95 4/3/95 0.097 10.6 7 12.13 87.4 10 9
10-Apr-95 4/10/95 0.109 6.2 14 10.30 60.2 7.2 15
17-Apr-95 4/17/95 0.102 9.2 13 10.53 87.3 9.4 15
23-Apr-95 4/23/95 0.11 9.6 11 11.02 87.1 9.2 15

Dwn Dosat (mq/Ll
12.77
12.44
12.77
12.77
12.44
13.10
11.02
12.44
11.02
11.84
10.30
10.53
9.87
10.77
9.66
9.09
8.74
8.74
9.87
8.74
8.74
7.83
8.11
7.83
7.83
7.69
7.97
7.69
7.43
7.83
8.11
7.30
7.30
7.97
8.11
7.56
8.11
9.27
9.09
8.74
9.46
9.87
9.87
10.30
10,30
9.87
10.77
10.30
11.02
10.77
11.28
11.28
11.28
12.77
11.56
10.77
12.77
11.28
12.77
10.77
10.30
11.28
12.77
10.77
10.30
11.56
10.08
10.08
10.08
Dwn % Sat
101.8
88.4
106.5
106.5
105.3
94.6
121.6
90.8
110.7
70.1
79.6
115.8
95.3
61.3
124.2
165.0
135.0
91.5
62.8
140.7
119.0
166.1
90.0
147.0
130.3
92.3
60.3
93.6
110.4
102.2
111.0
115.0
104.1
85.4
98.6
145.6
114.7
129.4
101.2
103.0
74.0
64.9
87.2
62.1
89.3
95.3
85.4
97.1
90.7
111.4
97.5
88.6
101.0
110.4
86.5
94.7
95.6
97.5
111.2
92.8
87.4
97.5
111.2
92.8
87.4
86.5
71.4
93.3
91.3
Up TP (mq/L) Dwn TP (mq/L) Eff TP (mq/L) TP Load (lb/day) Up TN (mq/L) Dwn TN (mq/L) Eff TN (mq/L)
<0.1 0.3
<0.1 0.2
<0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
<0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.2
0.2 <0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
2.1
0.8 1.7
0.5 1.7
0.4 1.7
20.4 2.7
1.5 1.7
0.9 1.4
0.7 2.2
1.3 2.2
0.8 1.9
1.4 1.2
0.4 1.6
0.4 1.7
0.3 1.5
0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8
<0.1 0.1 0.3 1.2
0.1 0.2 2.7 1.6 0.5 3.4
<0.1 0.1 1 1.8
0.02 0.106 <0.2 2.21
1.79 0.959 <0.2 1.75
0.022 0.098 1.22 1.8 <0.2 1.01
<0.02 0.079 <0.2 1.33
0.035 0.066 0.25 2.2
<0.05 <0.05 <0.2 1.1
<0.05 0.282 2.1 0.4
2
4.3
15.6
0.86
4.8 14.5

L1 o
Li, TQ.�.
1-May-95 5/1/95 0.12 7.4 13.5 10,42 71.0 13.4 20.5
• 8-May-95 5/8/95 0.138 7.6 20 9.09 83.6 7 19
15-May-95 5/15/95 0.134 8.1 16 9.87 82.1 8 21
22-May-95 5/22/95 0.111 8.1 14 10.30 78.6 7.3 21
30-May-95 5/30/95 0.166 8.2 18 9.46 86.6 10.1 22
5-Jun-95 6/5/95 0.103 6.2 19 9.27 66.9 8.2 24
6-Jun-95 6/6/95 14.62 0.0
8-Jun-95 6/8/95 0.165 14.62 0.0
12-Jun-95 6/12/95 0.125 6 27 7.97 75.3 5.6 24
13-Jun-95 6/13/95 0.198 14.62 0.0 24
19-Jun-95 6/19/95 0.115 8 18 9.46 84.5 10 22
26-Jun-95 6/26/95 0.143 7 19 9.27 75.5 13.8 24
3-Jul-95 7/3/95 0.186 7.2 22 8.74 82.4 6.4 24
10-Jul-95 7/10/95 0.147 7.2 19 9.27 77.6 11.2 25
17-Jul-95 7/17/95 0.106 7 22 8.74 80.1 12 29
24-Jul-95 7/24/95 0.168 7 21 8.91 78.5 11.5 29
25-Jul-95 7/25/95 0.168 14.62 0.0
31-Jul-95 7/31/95 0.099 5.6 22 8.74 64.1 11 30
7-Aug-95 8/7/95 0.12 5.8 22 8.74 66.4 6.2 28
14-Aug-95 8/14/95 0.162 6.2 22 8.74 70.9 14.8 29
21-Aug-95 8/21/95 0.108 7.2 19 9.27 77.6 7.2 26
29-Aug-95 8/29/95 0.119 6.8 20 9.09 74.8 7.6 26
30-Aug-95 8/30/95 0.11 14.62 0.0 26
5-Sep-95 9/5/95 0.175 6.2 17 9.66 64.2 12.8 24
11-Sep-95 9/11/95 0.138 11.9 21 8.91 133.5 12.1 24
18-Sep-95 9/18/95 0.171 7.2 19 9.27 77.6 9 23
25-Sep-95 9/25/95 0.145 7 18 9.46 74.0 9.4 19
2-Oct-95 10/2/95 0.106 6.8 14 10.30 66.0 13 20
9-Oct-95 10/9/95 0.173 7.5 22 8.74 85.8 11 20
16-Oct-95 10/16/95 0.275 8.4 11 11.02 76.2 6 17
23-Oct-95 10/23/95 0.234 9 11 11.02 81.6 7 13
30-Oct-95 10/30/95 0.234 10.2 10 11.28 90.4 6.6 13
31-Oct-95 10/31/95 14.62 0.0
6-Nov-95 11/6/95 0.135 10.2 8 11.84 86.2 7.8 10
13-Nov-95 11/13/95 0.31 9 8 11.84 76.0 8.4 10
19-Nov-95 11/19/95 0.298 9 6 12.44 72.3 10 5
27-Nov-95 11/27/95 0.266 10 9 11.56 86.5 11.4 6
4-Dec-95 12/4/95 0.129 9 8 11.84 76.0 12 6
11-Dec-95 12/11/95 0.273 13 1 14.21 91.5 14 1
20-Dec-95 12/20/95 0.187 12 6 12.44 96.4 14.2 6
29-Dec-95 12/29/95 0.202 14.2 0 14.62 97.2 15 2
2-Jan-96 1/2/96 0.229 9.2 9 11.56 79.6 13 4
8-Jan-96 1/8/96 0.277 13 0 14.62 88.9 14.2 0
16-Jan-96 1/16/96 0.398 11 4 13.10 83.9 12 2
22-Jan-96 1/22/96 0.347 13.4 3 13.46 99.6 12.2 3
29-Jan-96 1/29/96 0.384 11.2 5 12.77 87.7 11.4 3
5-Feb-96 2/5/96 0.257 13.4 2 13.83 96.9 13 0
12-Feb-96 2/12/96 0.404 9.8 4 13.10 74.8 10.4 6
19-Feb-96 2/19/96 0.262 9.4 2 13.83 68.0 11.2 2
26-Feb-96 2/26/96 0.396 9.2 10 11.28 81.5 10.4 10
4-Mar-96 3/4/96 0.312 10.2 5 12.77 79.9 9.4 9
11-Mar-96 3/11/96 0.311 11.4 2 13.83 { 82.5 9.8 4
18-Mar-96 3/18/96 0.323 7.4 10 11.28 65.6 6.8 10
25-Mar-96 3/25/96 0.239 8.2 8 11.84 69.3 8.6 8
1-Apr-96 4/1/96 0.413 12.3 10 11.28 109.0 11.3 10
8-Apr-96 4/8/96 0.231 11.4 6 12.44 91.6 10.2 8
15-Apr-96 4/15/96 0.172 5.6 12.5 10.65 52.6 10.6 17
22-Apr-96 4/22/96 0.321 8.4 15 10.08 83.3 7.2 17
29-Apr-96 4/29/96 0.317 8.4 15 10,08 83.3 8.6 17
6-May-96 5/6/96 0.193 14.62 0.0
13-May-96 5/13/96 0.233 14.62 0.0
20-May-96 5/20/96 0.293 14.62 0.0
28-May-96 5/28/96 0.316 14.62 0.0
29-May-96 5/29/96 0.337 14.62 0.0
3-Jun-96 6/3/96 0.289 8.6 14 10.30 83.5 13.4 23
4-Jun-96 6/4/96 0.262 9 16 9.87 91.2 7.2 17
5-Jun-96 6/5/96 0.267 8.6 16 9.87 87.2 15 23
10-Jun-96 6/10/96 0.284 6.4 18 9.46 67.6 7.8 25
11-Jun-96 6/11/96 0.34 7.6 18 9.46 80.3 9.2 24

. s k
R00 148.9
9.27 75.5
8.91 89.8
8.91 81.9
8.74 115.6
8.42 97.4
14.62 0.0
14.62 0.0
8.42 66.5
8.42 0.0
8.74 114.4
8.42 164.0
8.42 76.1
8.26 135.6
7.69 156.1
7.69 149.6
14.62 0.0
7.56 145.6
7.83 79.2
7.69 192.5
8.11 88.8
8.11 93.7
8.11 0.0
8.42 152.1
8.42 143.8
8.58 105.0
9.27 101.4
9.09 143.0
9.09 121.0
9.66 62.1
10.53 66.5
10.53 62.7
14.62 0.0
11.28 69.1
11.28 74.4
12.77 78.3
12.44 91.6
12.44 96.4
14.21 98.5
12.44 114.1
13.83 108.5
13.10 99.2
14.62 97.2
13.83 86.8
13.46 90.7
13.46 84.7
14.62 88.9
12.44 83.6
13.83 81.0
11.28 92.2
11.56 81.3
13.10 74.8
11.28 60.3
11.84 72.6
11.28 100.1
11.84 86.2
9.66 109.7
9.66 74.5
9.66 89.0
14.62 0.0
14.62 ; 0.0
14.62 0.0
14.62 0.0
14.62 0.0
8.58 156.3
9.66 74.5
8.58 174.9
8.26 94.4
8.42 109.3
TP
r_ r P
0.064 0.426
0.1 0.3
0.605 0.334
0.8 0.5
0.02 0.396
0.3
<0.02 0.39
0.049 0.591
<0.1 0.7
<0.02 0.786
<0.1 0.9
0.1 1
<0.1 1.2
0.08 0.92
<0.1 1.1
0.05 1.11
0.1 1.1
<0.1 1
0.037 0.409
<0.1 0.6
0.058 0.622
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.7
0.8 0 2
�-� r1'
r.1!(.
bid 1
bn i rJ
v�J
Cf Q
4.72 0.0 35.6
0.45 3.48
1.2 2.2
1.19 2.61
2.4 5.5
0.2 3.32
0.9 3.2
0.21 4.72
0.8 7.5
4 5.6 0.3
2.46 5.74
0.3 7.1
0.14 6.82
0.5 8.8
1.6 10.7
0.6 16.4
<0.5 8.75
0.6 9.9
<0.5 10.7
1.1 10
0.5 9.7
<0.5 3.18
1.4 7.7
<0.5 5.69
0.7 5.7
2.5 25.3
4.7 13.2 33.8
1.5 7.6
1.4 6.7

);) 1, !%J 1),,tD ]). lip ,US6_* U) 0,,<
. f
0
12-Jun-96 6/12/96 0.296 6.8 19 9.27 73.3
;177Jun-96 6/17/96 0.248 8.2 19 9.27 88.4
18-Jun-96 6/18/96 0.248 8.8 19 9.27 94.9
19-Jun-96 6/19/96 0.33 9.8 18 9.46 103.6
24-Jun-96 6/24/96 0.355 8.4 22 8.74 96.1
25-Jun-96 6/25/96 0.241 6.4 21 8.91 71.8
26-Jun-96 6/26/96 0.323 7.8 20 9.09 85.8
1-Jul-96 7/1/96 0.382 8 19 9.27 86.3
2-Jul-96 7/2/96 0.236 7.6 22 8.74 86.9
3-Jul-96 7/3/96 0.193 7.8 20 9.09 85.8
8-Jul-96 7/8/96 0.276 7.4 20 9.09 81.4
9-Jul-96 7/9/96 0.261 7.6 21 8.91 85.3
10-Jul-96 7/10/96 0.247 7.2 19.5 9.18 78.4
15-Jul-96 7/15/96 0.362 7.2 23 8.58 84.0
16-Jul-96 7/16/96 0,424 6.2 21 8.91 69.6
17-Jul-96 7/17/96 0.286 7 21 8.91 78.5
22-Jul-96 7/22/96 0.288 7.8 20 9.09 85.8
23-Jul-96 7/23/96 0.325 7.2 21 8.91 80.8
24-Jul-96 7/24/96 0.322 5.8 21 8.91 65.1
29-Jul-96 7/29/96 0.266 7.2 21 8.91 80.8
30-Jul-96 7/30/96 0.342 7 20 9.09 77.0
31-Jul-96 7/31/96 0.21 6.4 20 9.09 70.4
5-Aug-96 8/5/96 0.351 6.2 20 9.09 68.2
6-Aug-96 8/6/96 0.303 7 19.5 9.18 76.2
7-Aug-96 8/7/96 0.296 6.2 21 8.91 69.6
12-Aug-96 8/12/96 0.295 7.6 19 9.27 82.0
13-Aug-96 8/13/96 0.302 6.6 19 9.27 71.2
14-Aug-96 8/14/96 0.272 8 19 9.27 86.3
19-Aug-96 8/19/96 0.271 8.2 19 9.27 88.4
20-Aug-96 8/20/96 0.298 7.4 19 9.27 79.8
26-Aug-96 8/26/96 0.406 8.4 20 9.09 92.4
27-Aug-96 8/27/96 0.351 7.8 20 9.09 85.8
28-Aug-96 8/28/96 0.324 9.2 20 9.09 101.2
3-Sep-96 9/3/96 0.231 8.4 20 9.09 92.4
4-Sep-96 9/4/96 0.341 7.2 20 9.09 79.2
5-Sep-96 9/5/96 0.295 7.2 20 9.09 79.2
10-Sep-96 9/10/96 0.373 8.2 21 8.91 92.0
11-Sep-96 9/11/96 0.42 8.8 20.5 9.00 97.8
12-Sep-96 9/12/96 0.4 8.4 20.5 9.00 93.3
16-Sep-96 9/16/96 0.341 9.2 16.5 9.76 94.2
17-Sep-96 9/17/96 0.312 8.2 20 9.09 90.2
18-Sep-96 9/18/96 0.362 10.2 16 9.87 103.4
23-Sep-96 9/23/96 0.288 10.2 14 10.30 99.0
24-Sep-96 9/24/96 0.241 10.2 14.5 10.19 100.1
25-Sep-96 9/25/96 0.21 9.6 16.5 9.76 98.3
30-Sep-96 9/30/96 0.317 8.8 16 9.87 89.2
4-Nov-96 11/4/96 0.262 13.4 8 11.84 113.2
12-Nov-96 11/12/96 0.248 15 3 13.46 111.5
18-Nov-96 11/18/96 0.207 14 7.5 11.99 116.8
25-Nov-96 11/25/96 0.368 14.4 8 11.84 121.6
2-Dec-96 12/2/96 0.429 12 20 9.09 132.0
9-Dec-96 12/9/96 0.331 13.2 6 12.44 106.1
16-Dec-96 12/16/96 0.321 15 7 12.13 123.6
23-Dec-96 12/23/96 0.25 10.4 5 12.77 81.5
30-Dec-96 12/30/96 0.372 9.8 11 11.02 88.9
6-Jan-97 1/6/97 0.328 10.4 8 11.84 87.8
7-Jan-97 1/7/97 0.297 14.62 0.0
13-Jan-97 1/13/97 0.232 14 1 14.21 98.5
20-Jan-97 1/20/97 0.313 14.2 5 12.77 111.2
27-Jan-97 1/27/97 0.242 14 6 12.44 112.5
3-Feb-97 2/3/97 0.339 13.4 7 12.13 110.4
10-Feb-97 2/10/97 0.389 14.2 7 12.13 117.0
17-Feb-97 2/17/97 0.521 15 5 12.77 117.5
24-Feb-97 2/24/97 0.445 15 5 12.77 117.5
3-Mar-97 3/3/97 0.418 9.8 15 10.08 97.2
10-Mar-97 3/10/97 0.501 11 12 10.77 102.1
17-Mar-97 3/17/97 0.341 12.4 6 12.44 99.6
24-Mar-97 3/24/97 0.345 14 6 12.44 112.5
3-Apr-97 4/3/97 0.357 11.2 9 11.56 96.9
Ott .) D
9.2 24
8.8 25
10.2 26
10 26
13.2 20
11 20
8.4 28
8 23
15 28
12 27
14.2 27
15 27
11.2 27
8.4 25
7.4 24
9 26
15 27
10.2 27
8.4 27
7.4 25
8 24.5
9.4 25
7.4 26
7.2 26
7.2 27
7.6 24
6.8 23
7.4 22
13 25
14 25
7.8 22
6 22
8 23
11.4 23
11.2 23
9.8 23
8.4 25
7.2 22
6.6 22
11.8 20
9 21
7.8 19
11.4 19
12 19
14.2 20.5
10.6 20
13.2 10
15 6
15 6
15 7
11 20.5
11.8 17
15 7
11.4 4
12.2 10
13.2 10
15 1
14 7
13.6 5
12 8
14.8 6
14.8 5
13 4
11.2 16.5
14 12
15 11
13.6 12
14.2 13

3.42
8.26
8.11
8.11
9.09
9.09
7.83
8.58
7.83
7.97
7.97
7.97
7.97
8.26
8.42
8.11
7.97
7.97
7.97
8.26
8.34
8.26
8.11
8.11
7.97
8.42
8.58
8.74
8.26
8.26
8.74
8.74
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.58
8.26
8.74
8.74
9.09
8.91
9.27
9.27
9.27
9.00
9.09
11.28
12.44
12.44
12.13
9.00
9.66
12.13
13.10
11.28
11.28
14.62
14.21
12.13
12.77
11.84
12.44
12.77
13.10
9.76
10.77
11.02
10.77
10.53
109.3
106.5
125.8
123.3
145.2
121.0
107.3
93.3
191.7
150.6
178.3
188.3
140.6
101.7
87.9
111.0
188.3
128.0
105.5
89.6
96.0
113.8
91.2
88.8
90.4
90.3
79.3
84.7
157.4
169.5
89.2
68.6
93.3
132.9
130.6
114.3
101.7
82.4
75.5
129.8
101.0
84.1
122.9
129.4
157.8
116.6
117.0
120.5
120.5
123.6
122.2
122.1
123.6
87.0
108.1
117.0
0.0
105.6
115.4
106.5
101.4
118.9
115.9
99.2
114.7
130.0
136.1
126.2
134.8
9k'Tr,
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.6
<0.1 1.4
<0.1 1
0.189 0.859
0.1 0.6
<0.1 0.6
0.066 0.753
<0.1 0.5
0.02 0.446
0.1 0.5
1.69 0.539
<0.1 0.3
0.02 0.24
<0.1 0.3
<0.02 0.39
2.34
1.6
P IoG yr, uri E� fk-
0.71 �.1Q "-I2 vLk/A
0.5 4.7
3 4.7
0.7 17
0.8 8.3
<0.5 4.4
0.6 10.3
0.6 2.1
<0.5 6.9
5.8 29.32
0.6 10.4
<0.5 9.68
1 6.2
<1 6.53
1.9 4.6
<0.5 1.92
0.7 5.9
<0.5 4.77
3.5 21.8

7-Apr-97 4/7/97 0.433 10 18 9.46
. 8-Apr-97 4/8/97 0.338 11 11 11.02
9-Apr-97 4/9/97 0.266 11 11 11.02
14-Apr-97 4/14/97 0.442 9.2 10 11.28
15-Apr-97 4/15/97 0.343 11 9 11.56
16-Apr-97 4/16/97 0.297 11 9 11.56
21-Apr-97 4/21/97 0.369 12.4 10 11.28
22-Apr-97 4/22/97 0.395 10 10 11.28
23-Apr-97 4/23/97 0.435 11.4 11 11.02
28-Apr-97 4/28/97 0.433 8.4 16 9.87
29-Apr-97 4/29/97 0.641 10 14 10.30
30-Apr-97 4/30/97 0.569 10.4 12 10.77
5-May-97 5/5/97 0.324 9.2 12 10.77
6-May-97 5/6/97 0.401 8 14 10.30
7-May-97 5/7/97 0.337 8.4 14 10.30
12-May-97 5/12/97 0.371 8.4 16 9.87
13-May-97 5/13/97 0.39 8 16 9.87
14-May-97 5/14/97 0.316 8 20 9.09
19-May-97 5/19/97 0.374 7.4 18 9.46
20-May-97 5/20/97 0.383 8 20 9.09
21-May-97 5/21/97 0.378 8.4 17 9.66
27-May-97 5/27/97 0.359 8.2 17 9.66
28-May-97 5/28/97 0.321 9.4 15 10.08
29-May-97 5/29/97 0.28 9.8 15 10.08
105.7 15 19
99.8 15 15
99.8 16 16
81.5 14.2 15
95.2 15 15
95.2 15 15
109.9 15 15
88.6 13 13
103.4 13 13
85.1 9.2 15
97.1 9 14
96.5 9 14
85.4 9 16
77.7 8.6 17
81.5 10.2 18
85.1 12.8 20
81.1 13 20
88.0 13 22
78.2 14.2 23
88.0 15 25
86.9 14.6 23
84.9 9.8 21
93.3 8.2 15
97.2 12.4 20

-9.27 161.8
10.08 148.8
9.87 162.2
10.08 140.9
10.08 148.8
10.08 148.8
10.08 148.8
10.53 123.4
10.53 123.4
10.08 91.3
10.30 87.4
10.30 87.4
9.87 91.2
9.66 89.0
9.46 107.8
9.09 140.8
9.09 143.0
8.74 148.7
8.58 165.6
8.26 181.6
8.58 170.3
8.91 110.0
10.08 81.3
9.09 136.4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVEW TRACKING SHEET
DWQ - WATER QUALITY SECTION
DATE: 2/14/2002
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab, MSC 1621)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Jay Sauber (ecosystems)
O Matt Matthews (toxicology)
O Dianne Reid (intensive survey)
Non -Discharge Branch (Archdale 12th)
O Kim Colson (permitting, reuse)
Wetlands (Parkview Bldg, MSC 1650)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401, construction)
O John Hennessy (DOT)
O Cyndi Karoly (dredging)
0
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
�ave Goodrich (NPDES, Reverse Osmosis)
O Bradley Bennett (stormwater)
O Tom Poe (pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
DENR# 02E-0382
DWQ# 13013
TYPE: EA SCOPING
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville 0 Mooresville 0 Washington
O Fayetteville 0 Raleigh 0 Wilmington
O Winston — Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Darlene Kucken (basinwide planning)
O Tom Reeder (classifications & standards)
O Alan Clark (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (water supply)
O Michelle Woolfolk (modeling)
O Gloria Putnam (coastal nps)
0
Attached is a copy of the project document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to
the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form along with your written comments, if any, by the date
indicated. Thank you.
Project:
Holly Springs WWTP Effluent Discharge
Pipeline, in Wake , Chatham and Harnett Counties
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNATURE
Response Deadline
DATE
[phone] ext. 555; [e-mail]
Milt ' oies: 919) 733-5083 ext. 366; [e-mail]
Local Government Assistance Unit, Planning Branch
Archdale 6th; MSC 1617; fax: [phone]
Notes:
T
m
L

8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616-3175
e-mail: rgoldsteineri9aCarolina.com
01 February 2002
Welt p. a /4(24.4eielea,1Ne.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985
Mrs. Chrys Baggett
NC State Clearinghouse
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Re: SCOPING: Holly Sprin
Harnett Counties.
Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Fax: [phone]
website: www.rjaaCarolina.com
RECEIVED
FEB 5 2002
STATE CLEAR tiC n:L-
s WWTP Effluent Discharge Pipeline, in Wake, Chatham, and
Dear Mrs. Baggett:
The Town of Holly Springs proposes to construct a new efflue.nt discharge force
main from the Town's WWTP on Utley Creek (a tributary to Harris Lake in the Cape Fear
River basin) to the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam: The pipeline will be
approximately 15 miles long and at least 36 inches in diameter; with a design capacity of
at least 6 mgd average daily flow. The Towns of Apex, Cary,•a,nd Fuquay-Varina will be
invited to participate, making this a regional project, in which. case-:tfie pipe diameter may
b&increased to accommodate the needs of the participating communities. The proposed
discharge site, below the mouth of Buckhorn Creek and approximately 2,000 feet
upstream of the Chatham/Harnett County line, is downstream of Sanford's existing water
intake and Holly Springs' proposed intake, in a river segment with good natural reaeration
capacity. The NC-DWQ stream classification at the proposed.dtseafge point is WS-V.
• The existing Holly Springs WWTP is permitted to discharge 15 mgd into Utley
Creek. NC-DWQ has' advised the Town that Utley Creek and Harris Lake may be unable to
assimilate additional wastewater, and that relocation of the discharge to the Cape Fear
River will be the most viable discharge site when WWTP expansion -becomes necessary..
The effluent impacts assessed in this EA will be those the DWQ assigns in water quality
limited situations, i.e. technology based limits, since even speculative limits are not
expected to be available for a discharge to the Cape Fear River in the time frame in which
the EA is to be completed. The Town plans to provide treated effluent- to public and private
reuse customers, and discharge to the river only the excess that cannot be reused. It is not
•
known how successful the reuse program will be, so it is possible,. particularly during cool
or wet months, that most of the Town's wastewater will be discharged to the Cape Fear
River. An application for a discharge permit to the Cape Fear River will be submitted upon
completion of the EA.
The proposed effluent force main alignment is mostly along existing public road
rights -of -way except for two off -road segments: 1) a 0.5 mile segment from the WWTP to
NC-55 Bypass (under construction), and 2) a 1.2 mile segment from NC-42 to the
discharge point, as shown on the attached map. Mr. Ford Chambliss of The Wooten
Company, Raleigh, is the project engineer.
Environmental Assessments ® Environmental Impact Statements a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineations Q Endangered Species Surveys
G1S/GPS Mapping a Reservoirs © Archaeological Surveys and Testing o Water Supply Projects ® Real Estate Risk Assessments 7 Lake
Management Watershed Management Glnstream Flow Analyses aMitigation Plans 0 Stream Restoration a Solid Waste Landfills 0Sewerlines
Wastewater Treatment Plants a 404 and 401 Permits ® Groundwater Monitoring 0Biological Assessments ©Expert Witness Testimony

8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616-3175
e-mail: rgoldsteinarjgaCarolina.com
Ragete p, OleteeigaKd rilaaociated, 9KG,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Since 1985 . Tel: [phone] or (:y
Fax: (5
website: www.rigaG,
A related but separate scoping letter and EA for a new water supply intake and
water treatment plant are being prepared and will be submitted concurrently with the
wastewater scoping letter and EA. This approach will assist reviewers in ensuring
consistency between the projects, while keeping the SEPA approval process and
permitting separate for, each project. If approval of one project is delayed due to
environmental concerns, the other project may proceed. The proposed raw water intake
will be on the Cape Fear River upstream of Buckhorn Dam.
Sincerely,
Gerald B. Pottern
Senior Biologist
cc: Ford Chambliss, The Wooten Company .
Stephanie Suda.no, Engineering Director, Town of Holly Springs
Steve Zoufaly; :NC Division of Water Quality
Environmental Assessments ° Environmental Impact Statements ° Jurisdictional Wetland Delineations ° Endangered Species Surveys
GIS/GPS Mapping ° Reservoirs © Archaeological Surveys and Testing B Water Supply Projects ° Real Estate Risk Assessments ° Lake
Management Watershed Management °lnstream Flow Analyses °Mitigation Plans ° Stream Restoration ® Solid Waste Landfills °Sewerlines
Wastewater Treatment Plants Q 404 and 401 Permits ° Groundwater Monitoring ©Biological Assessments °Expert Witness Testimony

d=
D
•
RT
.add
Uzi
Figure 1.
Holly Springs Potential Sewer Service
Area (solid line) and WWTP Effluent
Force Main (dashed line), Chatham,
Harnett, and Wake Counties, N.C.
Scale: 1 inch = 1.8 miles
Robert J.. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616-3175
rit!, RIPER
• . J 1
,
r j 1
,4-
0.,10

TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
January 2, 2002
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NCDENR-DWQ, NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES Permit Number NC0063096, Holly Springs Town/WWTP
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the proposed issuance of an NPDES
permit to the Town of Holly Springs for expansion of their wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) from 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) to 2.4 mgd. While we have
no objection to the expansion of the facility's capacity, we do have serious
concerns about the Town's planned use of this expanded capacity to serve areas
that were not included in the service area described in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for this expansion. Because of this inconsistency, we believe
additional information is needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the
proposed WWTP capacity expansion. We also believe that there additional
alternatives to the proposed expansion that were not presented in the EA.
Further discussion of these two issues is presented below.
It has recently come to my attention that Holly Springs is considering adoption of
an ordinance annexing 7 parcels, totaling about 330 acres, located just south of
Optimist Farm Road at Pierce Olive Road (Town of Holly Springs Annexation file
A02-09). Figure 1 shows the municipal corporate limits, Extra -Territorial
Jurisdictions (ETJ), and Urban Service Areas (USA) in the vicinity of the
proposed annexation [from Wake County GIS]. Please note that the boundary
represented by the Town of Holly Springs as their ETJ in Figures 1 and 2 of the
EA is not consistent with the ETJ obtained from Wake County.
The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by the Division of Water
Quality dated August 9, 2002, states (emphasis added):
Long term plans indicate that the Town plans to extend jurisdiction farther
into the Cape Fear River Basin and does not plan further extensions into
the Middle Creek watershed within the Neuse River basin.
TOWN of CARY
316 North Academy Street •Cary, NC 27513 • PO Box 8005 • Cary, NC 27512-8005
tel [phone] • fax [phone] • www.townofcaty.org

Based on the proposed annexation, the Town of Holly Springs clearly intends to
extend service farther into the Middle Creek watershed, well beyond their actual
ETJ, and into the portion of the urban service area designated as future planning
area for Cary. This additional service area could result in impacts greater than
those discussed in the EA.
The Town of Cary did not previously comment on the EA because, in the spirit of
cooperation during development of a regional wastewater treatment study
agreement, we agreed, along with Wake County, Apex, Morrisville and Fuquay-
Varina, to not oppose Holly Springs' permit application. As we have indicated
above, we do not oppose Holly Spring's expansion of the WWTP. However,
given Holly Springs' recent actions that are inconsistent with the EA, additional
comments on the EA itself are warranted — specifically on the alternatives to
WWTP expansion that were presented in the EA.
The expansion of the Holly Springs WWTP is acknowledged as an interim
solution, and the FONSI states that:"/t is through the development of the regional
entity that the Town may be able to abandon the discharges into Utley Creek and
Middle Creek" and `The expansion of the Utley Creek discharge was acceptable,
however, only as an interim solution while a regional solution was developed."
The EA concluded "There is no short term alternative available to the Town other
than to expand and continue to discharge at its present location."
In spite of the acknowledgement of the proposed project as a short-term solution,
the alternative analysis discussed in the EA focused on meeting long-term
needs. In a paragraph concluding "it seems unlikely that any solution involving
one of Cary's existing wastewater treatment plants will be available to the Town
of Holly Springs," it states that "The Town is committed to finding a viable long
term solution, with a strong preference towards a regional solution." It appears
that there was no consideration of an interim regional solution.
While Cary has not been approached by Holly Springs regarding an interim
arrangement for use of the South Cary Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF), we
would be eager to discuss that possibility. The SCWRF currently has excess
capacity greater than the 0.9 mgd expansion planned by Holly Springs, due to
the economy and slowed development. We expect this capacity will be available
at least through 2010, when facilities identified through the regional study should
be on-line.
We estimate that the wholesale cost to Holly Springs for using the SCWRF
excess capacity would be about $2 per 1000 gallons, which is likely to be less
than the cost of WWTP expansion, especially given the strict nitrogen removal
requirements in the draft NPDES permit. One other advantage of this option is
that there is potential for the SCWRF to be part of regional solution for the Middle
Creek area of Wake County, so that even if it is implemented as a short-term
solution, it could turn out to be a long-term solution. This is not true with the
Holly Springs WWTP expansion. This alternative would also prevent additional

nutrient loading to Utley Creek, and based on the compliance record at our EPA
award -winning SCWRF, should result in the least impact to the environment.
Please contact me at 469-4002, or Kim Fisher, Public Works and Utilities
Director, at 469-4092, with any questions. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the proposed NPDES permit.
Sincerely,
00/cAu_c,,, 91
William B. Coleman, Jr.
Town Manager
Copy: Bill Ross, Secretary, NCDENR
Dempsey Benton, Chief Deputy Secretary, NCDENR
Alan Klimek, Director, NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Coleen Sullins, Chief, NCDENR-DWQ Water Quality Section
Carl Dean, Manager, Town of Holly Springs
David Cooke, Manager, Wake County

Figure 1. Municipa
Boundaries
LEGEND
Holly Springs
Annexation A02-09 •4,-.
Town Limits
CARY
APEX
FUQUAY-VARINA
HOLLY SPRINGS
Extra -Territorial Jurisdictions
APEX
CARY
FUQUAY VARINA
HOLLY SPRINGS
Long Range Urban Services Areas
Apex
Cary
Fuquay-Varina
Holly Springs
• Outside
unresolved
1 Inch =1.116 Miles

AtcwrA
NCDENR
Mr. Thomas Tillage
Town of Holly Springs
850 West Ballantine Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Mr. Tillage:
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
January 31, 2003
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0063096
Utley Creek WWTP
Wake County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your request for a major modification of the subject permit.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently amended).
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to
you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of
this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain
other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be
required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact David Goodrich at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 517.
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
EPA Region IV / Madolyn Dominy
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Sincerely,
„RIG►NAL SIGNED E._
SUSAN A. WfIL SO' -
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center.1 800 623-7748

Permit NC0063096
D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
PARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
ATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1
In com fiance with the provisi`'on of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standa ds and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Manag .ment Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Torn of Holly Springs
is here y authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Utley Creek WWTP
Irving Parkway
Holly Springs
Wake County
to rece:
effluen
and IV.
The pe
This p
Signed
ving waters designated as Utley Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance with
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III,
hereof.
't shall become effective March 1, 2003.
rmit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2006.
this day January 31, 2,003.
;R1GINAL SIGNED BY
SUSAN A. WILSON
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0063096
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The Town of Holly Springs is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility located in Holly
Springs off the Irving Parkway in Wake County. This facility discharges through outfall
001 and includes the following wastewater treatment components;
• Mechanical bar screed
• Grit chamber
• Anaerobic phosphorus removal basin
• Pump station
• Anoxic tank
• Aeration tank
• Package plant with two aeration tanks, two clarifiers and two sludge stabilization tanks
• Final clarifier
• Tertiary filter
• Sludge stabilization/storage
• UV disinfection systen
• Cascade aerator
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of ;Water Quality, construct
and operate wastewater treatment facilities with an ultimate capacity of 2.4 MGD.
3. Discharge from said treatment works into Utley Creek,, a class C stream in the Cape Fear
River Basin, at the location specified on the attached nap.

Town of Holly Springs - Utley Creek WW
State Grid/Quad: Apex
E23NE
Receiving Stream: Utley Creek
Stream Class: C
Latitude:
Longitude:
Drainage Basin:
Sub -Basin:
i
35° 38' 41" N
78°51'03"W
Cape Fear
03-06-07
,P
t
North
NPDES Permit NC0063096
Wake County

Y_
Permit NC0063096
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (1.5 MGD)
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 1.5 MGD (or expiration), the
Permittee is authorized to discharge ti-eated wastewater from outran 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
j LL ENT
I
f ,I1V I $
4 S 1 _ ._ {:.
f
.. t
x , ONI.TORING TiEQORS - _' S
I �i4 ; Y 4- ;.Y .: _ a. ..:� ..
///.���/.,
�Y S �MM
1 - ( =
E
M6.�it 1y .
Aerie Fagg
Wee
s sAv `age =
ally
M
easturement
Fee nenep�
:' Sample
T_rpe
-
Samp e
hocat on,
Flow
1.5 iMGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)2
10.0' mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0' mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March 31)
4.0,mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
19 ug/L
Daily
4
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
_
Oaily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+ NO3 + TKN)6
Weekly
i
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity'
Qu E rterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
I See A. (3) for instream monitorin; requirements.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.9 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process.
6. Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus shall be monitored weekly during the months of June through September
and monthly during the remaining months of the year. Effluent and instream monitoring shall be conducted
on the same day.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November (see A. (4)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0063096
A. (2) EFF ,DENT LIMITA
Beginning upon :xpansion beyond 1.
treated wastewa .tr from Outfall 001.
specified below:
IONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (2.4 MGD)
MGD and lasting until expiration, tl`►e Permittee is authorized to discharge
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
` 1
.�
.
3 1V C�1 TO ING REQUJREMENTS:
z' A
th1yiLy
rage
;
e
D:;
Masimi
ni
Qe' cement.'
(F �ntency
Sample =
Type
Saznple
X;1a ati�n
Flow
2.4
MGD
' Continuous
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1 - October
31)2
5.0
mg/L
7.5 mg/L
' Daily
j
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
BOD, 5 day. 20°C
(November 1 - March
31)2
10.0
mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
Total Suspended
Solids2
30.0!mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October
31)
1.0
mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March
31)
2.0 ,rng/L
6.0 mg/L
i
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH4
I Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/
100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
4
Grab
Effluent
Temperature oC
;
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
17 'µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+ NO3 + TKN)6
6.0
mg/L
' Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6
0.5
mg/L
s Weekly
Composite
Effluent
_
Chronic Toxicity'
!
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. See A. (3) fo
2. The monthl
respective i
3. The daily av
4. The pH shal
5. Total Resid
6. Effluent an
7. Chronic To
There shall be
instream monitorin ` requirements.
average effluent BO )5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
fluent value (85% re oval).
;:rage dissolved oxyg n effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
not be less than 6. standard units nor greater than, 9.0 :3tandard units.
al Chlorine shall be onitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process.
instream monitorin shall be conducted on the same days
city (Ceriodaphnia) 1?'j/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November (see A. (4)).
o discharge of flo.ting solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

ti
Permit NC0063096
A. (3) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Efuent.Characteristics •.•
Measurement Fre�gne�cy
', , `� i
.; ' `
Sammple Type
Sample
��,.Ocation1
Dissolved Oxygen
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1
/week
Temperature 0C
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1
/week
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
i
/week
Total Phosphoru;s2
June -September
:
/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
Monthly
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+ NO3 + TKN)2
June -September
..
/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
; Monthly
Chlorophyll -a
June -September
1
/week 3
Grab
D
Notes:
1. U: Upstream in the pool formed immediately upstreani of
existing dam structure in a location so as to avoid contac
2. Effluent and instream monitoring shall be conducted ion i
3. Chlorophyl -a monitoring is not required during the montl
As a participantin the Cape Fear River Basin Association,the
are waived. Should your membership in the agreement be tei
and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your r
the instream
between the
he same day.
is of October
instream mo
ninated, you
ermit shall be
ow weir. D: Downstream on the
round and the sample bottle.
Trough May.
itoring requirements as stated above
'hall notify the Division immediately
reinstated.

• Permit NC0063096
j
A. (4) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Qua'rterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration Of 90 %).
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent `►ersions or "North Carolina Phase 1I Chronic Whale Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling fo;r this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment; processes.
i
If the test prf)cedure performed as the first test of any single %luarter results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall beperforrried at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase I,I Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regjmf:s, and further statistical methods are
specified in tlhe "North 'Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity tf:sting results required as part of this permit Condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B :for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
l ! Attention: North Carolina Division bf Water Quality
= Environmental Sciences', Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting ;chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. TT)tal residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is exnployed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the
report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of :the form. The report shall be submitted to
the Environnental Sciences Branch at the address cited <<bove.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement of tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and 'modified to include alternate monitoring requirenents or limits.
NOTE: Failt',ire to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

!'1
Permit NC0063096
(5) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
e permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following parameters:
Ammonia (as N) Trans- 1 .2-d ichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC) 1, 1 -dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen 1,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite 1,3-dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosphorus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids Methylene chloride Chrysene
Hardness 1,1,2,2-Htrachloroethane Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony Tetrachloroethylene Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic Toluene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium 1,1,2-trichloroethane 1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium Trtchloroethylene 1.4-dichlorobenzene
Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead ACID -EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: Diethyl phthalate
Mercury P-chloro-m-creso Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel 2-chlorophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium 2,4-dichlorophenol 2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Fluoranthene
Zinc 2,4-dinitrophenol Fluorene
Cyanide 2-nitrophenol Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds 4-nitrophenol Hexachiorobutadiene
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein Phenol Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrile 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene BASE -NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS Isophorone
Firomoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodtbromomethane Benzidine N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene
Chloroform 3,4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.,2-dichloroethane Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative of seasonal
variations.
Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved under 40 CFR Part
136..
Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable.
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. Two copies of the report shall be submitted along with the DMRs to the following
address: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Central Files: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1617.

J��zeo stet.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- � yW REGION 4
o ��%J ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
yF o= 61 FORSYTH STREET
4,r44 PROS -Ci ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
January 7, 2003
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ:Town of Holly Springs - Utley Creek WWTP - NPDES No. NC0063096
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the permit
referenced above and have no objections to the draft permit conditions. We request that we be
afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the permit prior
to issuance, or if significant comments regarding the draft permit are received. Otherwise, please
send us one copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Mado1 n S. Dominy, Envi onme tal Engineer
Permits, rants and Technica • ssistance Branch
Water Management Division
JAN - 9 2003
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 % Postconsurner)

THE TOWN OF
Holly
Springs
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
January 9, 2003
Mr. Dave Goodrich
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality, NPDES Unit
1634 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
Re: Town of Holly Springs NPDES Permit Application
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
This letter is to supply information in response to the Town of Cary's
January 2, 2003 letter commenting on the issuance of an NPDES permit
to the Town of Holly Springs for expansion of an existing 1.5 mgd water
reclamation plant to 2.4 mgd. We understand that these are the only
comments that you received during the public notice period that ended
January 3, 2003. It is very clearly stated in the first paragraph of Mr.
Coleman's letter "we (the Town of Cary) have no objection to the
expansion of the facility's capacity'. We are pleased that the Town of
Cary has chosen to support our application with this statement — repeated
similarly throughout their letter - as we are both partners in the Wake
County Regional Wastewater Treatment Study coalition of six
governments currently pursuing a regional solution to future wastewater
needs. One of the central premises of the regional agreement, signed by
all parties in May 2002 (see Attachment 1) is the endorsement and
support of the various partners' previously existing pursuits of interim
capacities. This premise was a very important condition for all partners as
they entered into the agreement in that it provided some assurances that
each partner's on -going and previously expended efforts at interim
capacity were protected to the extent those capacities would be available
until a regional plant (or plants) is built.
Although the Town of Cary's letter expressed that Cary has no objection
to Holly Springs' plant expansion, the letter did include some statements,
which we believe require a response for the official record of the State.
Holly Springs staff has spoken to you and you also recommended this
course of action. This letter is designed to provide additional factual
information on the statements contained in the Town of Cary's letter. As
you know, these matters were visited extensively and repeatedly during
the iterative EA process. We will, however, summarize some of the
salient points in this letter for the benefit of the record. Should you need
any additional information pertaining to these matters, please advise.
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] — Fax [phone] — Cw•LDean@),wmail.net

Page 2
Mr. Dave Goodrich
January 9, 2003
Let me first express that we believe that the issues raised by Cary are not relevant to
the matter at hand, but are being raised with an objective to gain the upper hand in
smaller and local matters such as jurisdictional boundary disagreements. Our belief is
unavoidable, given the contents of a letter forwarded to us by Mr. Coleman earlier this
month (see Attachment 2 and Attachment 3) in response to a letter that I had sent out
to inform our regional partners.of the public notice status of our permit. The statements
Cary included in their letter are, at minimum, a surprise to us at this late hour of the
open, public, and lengthy process we have traversed to date with our permit application.
We would have preferred that the Town of Cary approach us directly with these
questions at an earlier date in the lengthy SEPA review process. Regardless, following
is information for the record on the statements included in Cary's letter.
Information on Service Area
In reviewing our files, we confirmed that the seven properties under question in
Cary's letter were included on a proposed service area boundary line map
presented to the Town of Cary by the Town of Holly Springs as early as 1996,
and on several subsequent maps presented to Cary staff in numerous
subsequent meetings between 1996 and the present day. The following four
paragraphs are intended to respond to the specific components of the service
area issue that you suggested we address. This information, coupled with the
clarification that the statement quoted from the FONSI in Mr. Coleman's letter
(see paragraph 3 of the letter) should be taken in context with the following
statement from paragraph one of the FONSI, should fully address this matter:
"The Town is ...providing sewer services to additional areas so as to
eliminate the need for individual septic systems. A portion of this
expanded service area extends into the Middle Creek catchment of the
Swift Creek watershed."
The exhibit referenced in Mr. Coleman's letter consists of ETJ lines
superimposed on large scale USGS mapping, and was in fact consistent with the
exhibit used in earlier versions of the EA. More detailed mapping was requested
during the EA review period, and was provided by the Town of Holly Springs on
April 4 and again on July 10 of this year. This information included more detailed
mapping information on the Town's potential wastewater service area, and was
used as the basis for discussions and negotiations between Town and DENR
staff in the EA review and comment periods, then subsequent issuance of the
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] - [e-mail]

Page 3
Mr. Dave Goodrich
January 9, 2003
FONSI. EA discussions with staff and mitigation measures focused on and
addressed those more detailed service areas, not ETJ areas, since the EA
clearly envisioned the Town serving areas outside of its present ETJ.
The seven parcels of property that the Town of Cary references in their January
2 letter actually total 383 (not 330) acres. Of the 383 acres, two parcels
comprise 326 acres that were included within the service area boundaries
provided to the State in the April and July 2002 supplementary information
submittals referenced in the above paragraph. This acreage is served by
existing Town infrastructure, including a state of the art wastewater pumping
station sized for the basin, permitted by the State around 1999, and completed
as part of the Fair Share Project (mentioned later in this letter) in 2002.
Recently, the Town of Holly Springs received a petition to annex the remaining
five parcels (located to the SE of the larger acreage mentioned above and
totaling 57 acres) as part of a master -planned project package for the entire 383
acres. This 57-acre tract was indeed not specifically delineated in the Town's
anticipated service area shown on the information submitted for the EA.
However, it is located adjacent to the larger acreage in such a way that it could
be served in that direction (with the existing infrastructure as described above).
Of these 57 acres, only approximately one acre is developable under Holly
Springs development requirements, including flood plain restrictions, which are
some of the most restrictive in the county. In addition to the Town's
development restrictions, which will prohibit development of the majority of these
57 acres, the Town is in discussion with the developer of the project about
dedicating this property to the Town of Holly Springs as a park/open
space/preservation area.
In summary, at the time the EA was prepared, the Town had no knowledge that
the property owners would combine the 57 acres with the 323 acres into one
development package. In combination with the fact that it is not logical to split
the proposed development into two municipalities, that the 57 acres is essentially
undevelopable, and that infrastructure is already in place to serve the 323 acre
tract, note also that the flow that would be attributable to 323 (or 383 acres) is
negligible compared to the amount of flow under consideration with the
requested plant expansion. This is especially true in light of the fact that our
originally requested plant expansion — clearly supported by figures contained in
the EA on page 20 — was for 5.01 mgd. The currently requested expansion is for
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] - [e-mail]

Page 4
Mr. Dave Goodrich
January 9, 2003
a small portion of that amount — 0.9 mgd — well below the flow estimate of 5.01
mgd for the service area delineated in the EA. The 0.9 mgd expansion is clearly
intended to meet interim wastewater needs for only a portion of the developable
acreage in Holly Springs' growth area until the successful completion of a
regional facility. The inclusion or exclusion of the 383 acres referenced by the
Town of Cary do not affect the projected flow, or any conclusions of the EA, or of
the FONSI.
The following additional information on the service area questioned by the Town
of Cary may also be helpful. The 383 acres (and some surrounding acreage)
became more clearly a part of Holly Springs' proposed service area when the
Holly Springs Board of Commissioners voted in the mid 90's to undertake a
rather substantial project to serve the surrounding minority community of Fair
Share with basic water and sewer services. Approximately 600 residents -
Iocated in the area surrounding the 383 acres had long suffered from
contaminated drinking water wells and failing septic systems. The residents of
this community approached the Town of Holly Springs for assistance after
approaching and being denied assistance by both the Towns of Apex and Cary.
Holly Springs eventually secured a combination of grants, low interest loans, and
together with some of its own funds, installed the infrastructure needed to serve
the residents.
As of the fall of 2002, all but a handful of those residents were connected to
Town drinking water. In addition to budgeting funds for the construction project,
and to make the connections to public water and sewer lines affordable, the
Town waived between $6000 and $10,000 per connection for existing, original
Fair Share residents. The Fair Share project is why, today, the Town of Holly
Springs has existing water and sewer infrastructure in place to serve the 383-
acre portion of the development in question by the Town of Cary. This includes
a 12" waterline and a state of the art pumping station designed to serve the
tributary drainage basin. Naturally, the Town has been hopeful that some of the
costs associated with the project would be recouped when the undeveloped
portions of the basin developed. The 323-acre portion of the 383-acre tract is
one of the few undeveloped tracts that are serviceable by the existing pumping
station. The State permitted and approved the Fair Share infrastructure project,
including the pumping station, in the late 90's. Construction was completed in
2001/2002.
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] -- [e-mail]

Page 5
Mr. Dave Goodrich
January 9, 2003
Information on Alternatives Analyzed
The Town of Holly Springs EA does indeed provide information on the Tong -term
wastewater needs of Holly Springs. DENR staff will recall that this EA process
has been a long and protracted one, at first submittal requesting approval to
expand the Holly Springs plant to almost 5 mgd. One concession that the Town
of Holly Springs made in the iterative process with DENR was to amend the
requested amount of flow to 0.9 mgd, and to commit funds and vigorous efforts
to actively pursue a regional solution for the balance of the community's flow
needs. A statement directly from our EA (which Mr. Coleman also quoted in his
letter) demonstrates and confirms our intentions.... "The Town (of Holly Springs)
is committed to finding a viable long term solution, with a strong preference
towards a regional solution." We are confident that the EA fully describes all
alternatives available to us for interim capacity.
We are confident also that we have expended in excess of a sufficient amount of
effort investigating the particular alternative of obtaining flow capacity from the
Town of Cary. DENR staff is aware first hand of the extent to which Holly
Springs has communicated on numerous occasions (over the six year life of this
pending expansion request) with the Town of Cary regarding the purchase of
interim (and/or permanent) plant capacity arrangements. Such inquiries,
unfortunately, have only ended when the Town of Cary conditioned the
arrangements with one or more untenable requirements for the Town of Holly
Springs to implement, such as the required adoption of development fees and
standards identical to those of Cary, the adoption of a severely limited growth
rate, the requirement for unlimited financial responsibility (with no input) for
uncertain annual capital improvements costs, etc.
Holly Springs has invested over six years, many dollars in consulting fees, land
acquisition costs, and planning in pursuing the pending plant expansion. For
your additional information, the Town of Holly Springs expended monies in the
last plant expansion to size and install various components of the existing plant
to handle the additional 0.9 mgd flow increase. This included the voluntary
installation of nutrient removal components with the last plant expansion in
preparation for this pending expansion. The Town of Holly Springs also
expended monies at this same time to install a mile long parallel gravity
interceptor to the plant, and to build a fully certified lab in anticipation of the
build -out flow of 2.4 mgd. This additional investment, coupled with the extensive
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax (919) 567-�472 - [e-mail]

Page 6
Mr. Dave Goodrich
January 9, 2003
efforts Holly Springs has undertaken to explore all of the alternatives available to
us, is sufficient to support the conclusions reached in our EA, and therefore the
FONSI.
Simply stated, the approval of Holly Springs' 0.9 mgd expansion permit will allow Holly
Springs to move forward as a catalyst and participant in the on -going regional
wastewater solution efforts. Right now, by necessity, our efforts must be divided
between obtaining this pending expansion permit and participating in the currently on-
going regional project. Our community desperately needs to move forward and begin
construction on the plant expansion so that it will be available in time to meet our flow
needs for the next 5 to 7 years. We request that you consider assisting us in putting
this issue that DENR and the Town have worked on collaboratively behind us, so that
we can focus on being a part of the groundbreaking regional project.
We request that you move forward as quickly as possible with the issuance of our
permit. Thank you for the work of yourself and DENR staff on this matter of critical
importance to our community.
rely,
G. Dean
Town Manager
sls
cc: Bill Ross, Secretary, NCDENR
Dempsey Benton, Chief Deputy Secretary NCDENR
Alan Klimek, Director, NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Coleen Sullins, Chief, NCDENR-DWQ Water Quality Section
David Cooke, Manager, Wake County
Town of Holly Springs Mayor & Town Board
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] - [e-mail]

kktcsthkerlf 1
(a) All of the parties shall work cooperatively together to reach a mutual
agreement as to the portion of the capacity of the Facility which will be
allocated to each party's use.
(b) Each party participating further in a Project will commit in principle to
practice responsible growth management, as determined in the sole discretion
of the governing board of each local government.
(c) No party shall be required to adopt or adhere to caps on growth, except as
may be approved by the governing board of that local government, in its sole
discretion.
(d) No party shall be required to adopt or adhere to any planning, zoning, or
land use requirements within its jurisdiction, except as may be approved by
the governing board of that local government or as otherwise required by
law, in its sole discretion.
(e) Each party will, consistent with the best interests of its citizens, undertake
to support and further any future collaboration effort, and to not
unreasonably damage the prospects for regional cooperation.
ARTICLE V
PENDING INTERIM CAPACITY APPLICATIONS
Two of the parties have applications pending for increases in the wastewater
treatment capacities of these local governments. The increased capacities being requested
will serve the interim capacity needs of such local governments, while the collaborative
Project(s) contemplated by this Agreement are being pursued. The parties with such
applications pending and the amount of additional capacities being sought are as follows:
Holly Springs
Fuquay-Varina
(under an application
being pursued by Harnett County)
1 mgd
2.3 mgd
In consideration of the collaborative effort being undertaken, each party agrees that it will
not actively oppose the approval of the above -described interim capacity applications.
83070.17
-8-

A (4, ow -GO- 3
December 16, 2002
Mr. William B. Coleman, Town Manager
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512-8005
Subject: Holly Springs Wastewater Plant Expansion
Dear Bill:
This is to acknowledge your letter of December 10, 2002. I was
obviously surprised by the tone of the letter and the issues you
raised about annexation policies between the two towns. I
expressed my concern that Westlake School is closer to Holly
Springs and my concern about the limits east of Holly Springs, when
we talked about the 4+ mile voluntary annexation of the Department
of Transportation right-of-way down Ten -Ten on June 21. It was my
understanding that DOT was going to delay this annexation until
both towns clarified the unresolved Urban Services Area. It was
also my understanding, based on conversations with DOT, that a
meeting was to be scheduled on Tuesday, July 2 at 3:00 p.m. to
discuss these issues but I was never notified about this meeting. As
I stated on June 21, the Town of Holly Springs has no standing in
this issue but I did have concerns as to why Cary would need to
annex right-of-way that distance from your town limits and I
personally brought that to your attention.
In reference to your concems regarding development projects, we
are constantly receiving development inquires about property in and
around Holly Springs, but until we receive a confirmed submittal of
plans we consider the questions as exploratory. We have not
actively pursued any developer on any project but we will listen if
they want to talk with the Town about projects. In fact, according to
conversations that we have had with two developers, the Town of
Cary was contacted about these prospective development projects
in this area. The Town of Holly Springs was not notified by the
Town of Cary in either instance, although the property in question is
adjacent to the Holly Springs corporate limits.
The area I believe you have issue with is the 331-acre property
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] - [e-mail]

TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
December 10, 2002
Mr. Carl G. Dean, Holly Springs Town Manager
Mr. Bruce Radford, Apex Town Manager
Mr. David Cooke, Wake County Manager
Mr. John Ellis, Fuquay-Varina Town Manager
Mr. David Hodgkins, Morrisville Town Manager
Subject: November 22, 2002 Memo Regarding Holly Springs Wastewater Plant Expansion
I am aware of the status of the permit application for the expansion of the Holly Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. At this point, the Town of Cary does not feel obliged not to oppose your permit
application.
Over the past year, the Town of Holly Springs has taken actions that do not indicate a spirit of
cooperative behavior among regional jurisdictions. First, Holly Springs tried to prevent the Town
of Cary from annexing into the urban service area that has been designated as future planning
area for the Town of Cary for the past 15 years without any notification to the Town of Cary.
Second, the Town of Cary planning staff has been trying to initiate and move forward
discussions with regard to resolving future municipal boundary issues with Holly Springs for the
past 2 years. During that 2-year period, Holly Springs' staff has been unresponsive. Third, the
Town of Holly Springs has proceeded to annex territory that was the subject of these attempts
at resolution. Fourth, when the planning director for the Town of Cary asked the Holly Springs
planning director if Holly Springs was entertaining development proposals in this area, she
responded, "no", when it is clear that development proposals were being considered at that time
for this area.
It is clear to me that if Holly Springs wishes to act unilaterally on development issues without
consideration of the impact on its municipal neighbors, Holly Springs has no right to expect any
degree of cooperation from those neighbors. If, as a result of our review of your permit
application, we determine it in the best of the Town of Cary to oppose this application, we will do
so.
Sincerely,
(ALU(k.)*- C Cf444uf4 (4"9"(
William B. Coleman, Jr.
Town Manager
TOWN Of CARY
316 North Academy Street o Cary, NC 27513 o PO Box 80056 Cary, NC 27512-8005
tel [phone] o fax [phone] o www.townofcary.org

Page 2
Mr. William B. Coleman, Town Manager
December 16, 2002
located off Optimist Farm Road. Please keep in mind this property is directly
contiguous with the town limits of Holly Springs, we currently have a sewer line
and pump station approved to serve the site, and a water line is within 100 yards
of the property. Further, the developer of Sunset Ridge has the option on the
property and the Town has a very successful history with him and his
developments.
While I disagree with your rationale as it relates to why the Town of Cary would
oppose our permit, we probably need to discuss it in more detail when Mayor
Sears and I meet with you and Mayor Lang on Thursday, December 19 at 11:00
a.m. After all, if the Town of Cary chooses to violate the provisions set forth within
Article V of the Interlocal Agreement for Regional Wastewater Treatment Study,
entitled "Pending Interim Capacity Applications", such an action would
compromise the purpose, integrity, and trust that each community shared when
entering this multi -party agreement. It has been and continues to be our intent to
be a good regional partner because we understand the importance of regional
cooperation. As your position on our permit potentially affects the regional
wastewater treatment agreement, I think we should discuss your concerns with
the entire group before the end of the month. Again, we can discuss this on
Thursday if we have not made arrangements prior to December 19.
Should you have additional questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Carl G. Dean, Town Manager
Office of the Town Manager
Telephone [phone] - Fax [phone] - [e-mail]

Please include the NPDES
permit number (attached) in
any communication. Inter-
theed Divrs onnofWoterlso visit
Ouallt9
at 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 be-
tween the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. to review infor•
motion on file.
NPDES Nuber
�NC0063096,ermit Holly Springs
Town/ WWTP, NCSR 1115,
Holly Springs, NC27540 has
applied. for a modification far
I a facility located in Woke
'County discharging treated
wastewater into Utley Creek
in the Cape Fear River Basin.
currently BOD5, NH3N and
DO are water quality limited.
this discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations in this por-
tion of the receiving stream.
N80: November 29, 2002
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA.
Wake County. ) Ss.
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL
SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699.1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE
A NPDES
WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff
review and application of NC
General Statute 143.21, Pub-
lic law 92.500 and other lawful
standards and regulations,
the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater dis-
charge permit to the per-
sons) listed below effective
45 days from the publish date
ofthis notice.
Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after
the publish dateof this notice.
All comments received prior
to that date are considered in
the final determinations re-
garding the proposedpermit.
The Director of the NC Divi-
sion of Water Quality may
decide to hold a public meet-
ing for the proposed permit
should the Divisions received
significant degree of public
intere0l.
Copies of the draft permit and
other supporting information
on file used to determine con.
ditions present in the draft
permit are available upon re-
quest and payment of the
costs of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or requests
for information 10 the NC Di-
vision of Water Quality at the
above address or call Ms.
Valery Stephens at (919)
733-5083, extension 520.
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Johnston
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and authorized to
administer oaths, affirmations, etc., personally appeared Ivy
Marsch, who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law,
doth depose and say that she is Billing Manager -Legal
Advertising of The News and Observer a corporation
organized and doing business under the Laws of the State of
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper known as The
News and Observer, in the City of Raleigh , Wake
County and State aforesaid, the said newspaper in which such
notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement was published
was, at the time of each and every such publication, a
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-
597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and that as such
she makes this affidavit; that she is familiar with the books,
files and business of said corporation and by reference to the
files of said publication the attached advertisement for NC
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY was inserted in the
aforesaid newspaper on dates as follows: 11/29/02
Account Number: 73350831
The above is correctly copied from the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation and publication.
SEAL
Aillin Manager -Legal Advertising
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me, this
02 day of DECEMBER , 2002 AD
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official seal, the day and year aforesaid.
Arif
Notary Public
My commission expires 2nd day of July 2005.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
November 26, 2002
Ms. Christie Jackson
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
ZOOZ E - 33 a
SUBJ: Review of NPDES Permit Modifications
Weekly Average Ammonia Limits
Dear Ms. Jackson:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed our review of the draft
permit modifications to include weekly average ammonia limits. The permits that were reviewed
and have no comment are listed below.
Facility
City of Gastonia WWTP
City of Graham WWTP
City of Fayetteville/Cross Creek WWTP
City of High Point/East Side WWTP
OWASA/Mason Farm WWTP
City of Asheboro WWTP
Town of Siler City WWTP
Johnston County Regional WWTP
City of Hickory/Henry Fork WWTP
City of Dunn/Black River WWTP
Town of Robbins WWTP
Town of Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit No.
NC0020184
NC0021211
NC0023957
NC0024210
NC0025241
NC0026123
NC0026441
NC0030716
NC0040797
NC0043176
NC0062855
NC0063096
Two draft permit modifications, Fuquay-Varina/Kenneth Creek WWTP (NC0028118) and
the City of Burlington/South Burlington WWTP (NC0023876) are not correct. The Fuquay-
Varina draft modification does not have the weekly average limit for the summer months in the
table and the Burlington draft modification does not have the summer and winter weekly average
limits in the table. This no comment letter is conditional for these two permits until the
appropriate corrections are made.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oa Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

2
We request that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant
changes are made to the draft permit modification prior to issuance, or if additional significant
comments to this modification are received. Otherwise, please send us one copy of the final
permit modification when issued. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
[phone] or at [e-mail].
Sin erely,
Mado n S. Dominy
NPDES & Biosolids Section
Permits, Grants and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division

THE TOWN OF
ily�'prings
November 25, 2002
Lei DEC 1 V 2002
L_
Mr. William J. Ross, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1634 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634
--L-6111)
CAE 4- 2002
DIV. OF QUALITY
DIRFCTQP'C CF FI.CE
Re: Town of Holly Springs Wastewater Expansion Permit Application
Dear Secretary Ross:
I am writing to you in regard to Holly Springs' pending application for a small
expansion of its existing wastewater treatment plant. As I review the records of my
predecessor in Holly Springs, I see that former Mayor Parrish Womble wrote to you
regarding this permit application in January of 2001. The issue was slightly different —
and we appreciate your assistance in helping us to clear that particular hurdle. After
several additional hurdles and delays over the past year and one-half, we were pleased to
finally receive a FONSI for the project this past September.
This letter is to refresh your memory on our project, and to enlist your assistance
once again in the final processing stage of our permit application. After receipt of the
FONSI in September, we submitted the permit application in October for a 0.9 mgd
expansion to our plant. The permit application is now being routed through the standard
public comment process, which will run from November 27, 2002 to December 27, 2002.
We understand that the permit will then be processed and issued, after a 15 day waiting
period, during the later part of January.
In this day of economic downturns, it is critical to the continued economic
viability of our community to receive this expansion permit in January. You can see on
the attached time line exhibit that Holly Springs has been pursuing this pending expansion
since 1996, after the first plant expansion, at the request of the State to take a "bigger
picture" look at planned future growth. Six years later, and with a full 5 million gallons
less in requested flow, with a plant constructed to voluntarily treat nutrients at a higher -
than -required level, with $80,000 invested in a regional wastewater planning project, with
leading environmental controls, with a written commitment never to request an increased
discharge at our current location, we are still (unfortunately) waiting for our expansion
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. Box 8. 128 S. Main Street • Holly Springs, N.C. 27540 • [phone]

Page 2
Mr. William J. Ross, Secretary
November 25, 2002
permit. Holly Springs has met all requirements to move forth in the process and be
permitted for this small expansion. We have continued open communications with both
staff and all commenting agencies, and have supplied information as it was requested over
the course of the EA review, including the FONSI public comment period. We simply
need our permit.
In the course of pursuing a regional alternative to meet longer term growth needs
for Holly Springs (beyond the 0.9 mgd expansion addressed with this letter), we are
pleased to be participating in a coalition of communities from western Wake County. The
coalition has retained an engineering team to study alternatives for a regional facility (or
facilities). Holly Springs is funding $80,000 — or 18.3% of the funding for this project.
We look forward to, and have encouraged the coalition thusly, to include you and your
staffs participation in the regional project.
In the. "Interlocal Agreement for Regional Wastewater Treatment Study"
document that formed the basis for the coalition, all members of the coalition agreed to
support each other in existing efforts underway for meeting interim wastewater capacity
needs. Holly Springs' pending 0.9 mgd permit application is specifically named in the
agreement as one of the existing efforts underway to gain interim capacity. I wanted to
bring this to your attention so that you will know our permit has no opposition from the
entire coalition of communities, including Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Morrisville, and
Wake County. The incremental expansion of Holly Springs' existing wastewater facility
will be needed before any regional effort could possibly come to fruition.
Holly Springs is a small community that is experiencing all of the typical complex
challenges associated with growth. However, our Town Board is committed to managing
both growth and needed resources in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner.
Therefore, we have committed both staff and financial resources to pursue a regional
approach to solve our long term wastewater needs. The success of our permit (and
therefore interim capacity) will permit Holly Springs to continue to pursue the regional
project with a vigor, and with the funds to support construction of a regional infrastructure
project.
In short, I am asking for your assistance in timely processing of Holly Springs'
permit application. We cannot afford a delay for any reason. Holly Springs will be faced
in the very near future with having to impose a moratorium on any new economic
development if we do not gain the permit in January. In fact, it is very possible that we
will be forced to take limited actions even with the permit being issued in January. This
would have a catastrophic effect on our community. We believe that it would also
diminish our credibility and ability to continue as one of the leaders in development of a

Page 3
Mr. William J. Ross, Secretary
November 25, 2002
regional system. In advance, I appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter. Please
feel free to contact either myself or the Town Manager, at 557-3903, if we can provide
any additional for you on this matter.
Sincerely,
'D L (4, t,..-,-r--
Dick Sears, Mayor
sls
cc: Dempsey Benton, Deputy Secretary DENR
Alan Klimek, Director of Water Quality
Carl G. Dean, Town Manager
Stephanie L. Sudan, P.E., Director of Engineering, Holly Springs
Town Board of Commissioners

Holly Springs
Subject: Holly Springs
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:50:04 -0500
From: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
Town of Holly Springs expansion request status:
The permit application for the expansion of the Utley Creek WWTP was
received on October 9, 2002. The permit has been drafted and will be
sent to public notice on November 27, 2002. It should be published in
the newspapers by December 4, 2002. Once it is published the public has
30 days to comment on the draft. If no significant comments are
received, there is a statutory time of 15 days before the permit can be
issued, in this case the permit will be issued on January 17, 2003. If
significant comments are received the permit will have to be public
noticed again and a public hearing will be held. In this case the
process to issue the final permit will take approximately 4 months.
1 of 1 11/20/2002 10:27 AM

[Fwd: [Fwd: holly springs]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: holly springs]]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:13:55 -0500
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Teresa -
Please prepare a quick note for this.
Thanks,
Dave
Subject: [Fwd: holly springs]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:30:25 -0500
From: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Dave,
Please prepare the note for me, let Coleen review and send it to Merritt
per instructions. If it's done before the early afternoon, I can get it
to the Governor's office. Otherwise you'll have to handle (perhaps we
have a page upstairs - we can check w/ Dianna or Audrey - or maybe Laura
De Vivo will be heading over there). Alan
Subject: Re: holly springs
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:05:09 -0500
From: Bill Ross <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR
To: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
CC: Audrey Velazquez <[e-mail]>
Dear Alan,
Please send a short note to John Merritt in the Governor's Office
telling him the status of the Holly Springs matter. Please have it
hand -delivered to Mr. Merritt in the Capitol tomorrow or Wednesday.
Thanks! Good to see you today.
Bill
Alan Klimek wrote:
> In response to your question today. - we do now have the application for
> Holly Springs in house. A draft will be sent to Dempsey and Cary (per
> Dempsey's request - I think I got that part right but staff understands
> the instructions). It should be noticed by about Dec 1 in the newspaper.
> fyi - I think Steve Tedder is on the Holly Springs board.
1 of 1 11/20/2002 10:27 AM

draft permit modification reviews
Subject: draft permit modification reviews
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:55:48 -0500
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
To: Christie Jackson <[e-mail]>
CC: Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>,
Kevin Bowden <[e-mail]>
Hi Christie,
Thank you for sending our unit the following draft permit modifications
for our review:
0020184
0024210
0023957
0021211
0026123
0Q63096
0025241
0028118
0040797
0062855
0023876
0026441
0030716
Concerning. NC0026441: I noticed sections A(2) and A(3) were.not.attached
to the document.
Concerning NC0030716: IWC's are not calculated consistently with
permitted flows. I believe the problem lies with the 7Q10. Our data
base has it listed at 184 and the permit has it at 170. Can you review
the calculations and forward the correct 7Q10 for our records?
I have no comments with the other facilities at this time. Thanks for
allowing us to participate in the review process.
Best Regards,
John
John Giorgino
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
1 oft 1 1/ 14 /02 2: 1 9 PN

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Mr. Thomas Tillage
Director of Water Quality
Town of Holly Springs
850 West Ballentine Street
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
711
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
v
October 30, 2002
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit Modification
Permit NC0063096
Town of Holly Springs WWTP
Wake County
Dear Mr. Tillage:
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the draft permit modification for this facility. Please review the
draft carefully to ensure thorough understanding of the conditions and requirements it contains.
Based on an agreement between the State of North Carolina and the Environmental Protection Agency.
this permit is being re -opened to require weekly average limits for ammonia. After calculating
allowable concentrations and analyzing past ammonia data. the Division has set this limit at three
times your monthly average concentration (not to exceed 35 mg/L).
Submit any comments to me no later than December 6, 2002. Comments should be sent to the
address listed at the bottom of this page. If no adverse comments are received from the public or from
you, this permit will likely be issued in December. with an effective date of February 1. 2003.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this draft permit. please call me at [phone].
extension 538.
Sincerely.
Christie R. Jackson
NPDES Unit
cc: NPDES Unit
Raleigh Regional Office
a
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 538 (fax) 919 733-0719
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Christie.Jackson@ ncmail.net

•
Permit No. NC0063096
SECTION A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
1.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD. 5 day. 20°C (April 1 -
October 31)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E, I
BOD. 5 day. 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E. I
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E. I
NI-13 as N (April 1 -
October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/ L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3 as N (November 1 -
March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxv :'
Daily
Grab
E
pH4
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric
mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature °C
-
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorines
19 µg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (N0o- NO3 --
TKN)5
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus&
Weekly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity"
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E - Effluent. I - Influent.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. �u)Jt"t �h__. e :nYO
5. Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the effluen.6r-ter /"
6. Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus shall be monitored weeklyduring the months ofJune through September
and monthly during the remaining months of the year. Effluent and instream monitoring shall be conducted
on the same day.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%: February. May, August, and November: See Section A(3).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

[Fwd: Hotly Springs]
From:
Subject:
To:
I think
Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
[Fwd: Holly Springs]
Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
I already sent this, just clearing out old email
From: Dempsey Benton <[e-mail]>
Subject:Holly Springs
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
When Holly Springs submits their plans for the 1 mgd wastewater plant
expansion and there is the 30 day public comment period, please let the
Town of Cary know of the opportunity to comment. Please also let me
know when the public comment period begins.
10:24 AM
10/7/02 4:37 PM
1 of 1 10/14/02 1:54 PM

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Town of Holly Springs / Utley Creek WWTP
Applicant Address
850 West Ballentine St.
Facility Address
Irving Parkway
Flow (MGD)
1.5 (Actual)
2.4 (Expansion)
Type of Waste
Domestic
Facility Class
IV
County
Wake
Facility Status
Expansion
Regional Office
Raleigh
Stream Characteristics
Receiving Stream
Utley Creek
Stream
Classification
C
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.73
Drainage basin
Cape Fear
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.11
Subbasin
03-06-07
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
0.25
Use Support
Not rated
30Q2 (cfs)
0.32
303(d) Listed
NA
Average Flow (cfs)
0.82
State Grid
Apex
IWC (%)
97 %
USGS Topo Quad
E 23 NE
Summary
The Town of Holly Springs is requesting an expansion from 1.5 MGD to 2.4 MGD.
Speculative limits for a flow of 2.5 MGD were provided in 1998. The current permit was
issued in June 2002. An Environmental Assessment was reviewed by the State Clearing
house and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) was issued by the Division on
September 12, 2002.
Alternative Analysis/EA The Town of Holly Springs completed an Environmental
Assessment and Engineering Alternatives Analysis. The need for more capacity at the
WWTP arises from the rapid growth in recent years.
They considered the following alternatives:
• Reuse — The town is developing a reuse program but this alone will not prevent the
town from needing a flow expansion.
• Spray Irrigation — There is no available land suitable for spray irrigation.
• Regional System — A regional solution is been explored by Apex, Cary and Holly
Springs but there is no action plan yet.
• Expansion of WWTP — The expansion at the existing location is the most economically
feasible alternative.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NC0063096
Page 1

•
The Division has determined that the proposed expansion is necessary to accommodate
social and economic growth in the area and that it will not result in contravention of surface
water quality standards or loss of designated uses in the receiving stream.
Facility Description The wastewater treatment facility consists of: mechanical bar screen,
grit chamber, anaerobic phosphorus removal basin, pump station, anoxic tank, aeration
tank, package plant with two aeration tanks, two clarifiers and two sludge stabilization tanks,
final clarifier, tertiary filter, UV disinfection system and cascade aerator.
The expansion will be designed to achieve the required levels of nitrogen and phosphorus
removal.
Basinwide Plan Utley Creek flows to Harris Lake. The recommendation in the 2000 plan is
for Holly Springs to consider other means of disposal including connections to existing
facilities in the area due to high nutrients in the stream. Land use planning for the Harris
Lake area is also recommended in the basin plan.
PROPOSED LIMITS
The proposed limits for the expansion to 2.4 MGD are as follows:
Parameter
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
BOD, 5 day, 20°C (April 1 — October 31)
5.0 mg/l
7.5 mg/I
BOD, 5 day, 20°C (November 1 - March 31)
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/l
Total Suspended Residue
30 mg/I
45 mg/I
NH3 as N (April 1 — October 31)
1.0 mg/I
3.0 mg/I
NH3 as N (November 1 — March 31)
2.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
17 pg/I
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
6.0 mg/I
Total Phosphorus
0.5 mg/I
Nutrients - Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen: Due to the accumulation of nutrients, excessive algal
growth, and eutrophication problems in the receiving stream, limits for nutrients are recommended.
BOD and NH3-N: The 5/1 limits for these parameters were based on the waste assimilating capacity
of the receiving stream at low flow conditions and BAT for this size facility.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: December 4, 2002
Permit Scheduled to Issue: January 17, 2003
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0063096
Page 2

NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 595.
NAME:v DATE: /l 07 b;Z
Regional Office Comments
NAME: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR:
DATE:
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0063096
Page 3

• Checklist for permit renewal
t
Permit No. tOco063613 Facility /-62ay
U (' �
Date reviewed 11 I P"1 Oa..
Industrial Category/SIC code Municipal )(
Treatment system classification Class I Class II Class III Class IV 4
sampling agrees with classification
Basin, sub -basin & i&V
Basin plan
303(d) list Impared Y1
Compliance review: DMR NOV Instream data review
Water Quality based limits
Effluent Guidelines Technology based limits
Dept Policies (chlorine, instream monitoring, fecal coliform)
V ATC (expansion, new units)
Application complete gyrin ZJ 60y7
PPA
Second species tox test
Owner signature
Fact Sheet (note which parameters are water quality limited or effluent limited, attach reasonable
potential spreadsheet and limits calculations, pre-treatment)
RPA
Map
Reviewers/Approvals
EPA Region County/City Toxicology
Env. Health Others
Peer review
Ammonia limit or monitoring -
Mercury limit or monitoring — include mercury wording and footnote about sample change to grab
TRC — if no limit in permit, include wording about the adoption of a standard in the future.
Special conditions: PPA
BIMS
Comments:

CWooten
Engineering
Planning
Architecture
120 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC
27603
919-828-0531
Fax: [phone]
Since 1936
October 10, 2002
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez, Environmental Engineer
NCDENR / DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re: Replacement of 2 pages for NPDES Permit Modification Application
Town of Holly Springs, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
On behalf of the Town of Holly Springs, enclosed please find pages 6 and 8 of Form
2A requesting modification of Permit No. NC0063096. Please remove the existing
pages included in the original submission and replace them with the enclosed pages.
The modification to page 6 is that the Secondary checkbox has been checked in section
A.11.a. The modifications to page 8 include the addition of effluent testing data for
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Nitrate Plus Nitrite Nitrogen in Section B.6.
If you should have any questions, please contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
THE WOOTEN CANY
Gary D. Hdrtong
cc: Ms. Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs

. VI I Wt./1101F VV. V111I11, ..V. L.V .V VVVV. I \r/r/.V-/A. V/\r/..VV V V. VL•
rrrr-rn areas are spacea ror errre rype, r. e., .1 z cnaracrersnncnj.
• 'FOM
GENERAL
R
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I. EPA I.D. NUMBER
A GENERAL INFORMATION
S
T/A' '
C
Consolidated Permits Program
F
NC0063096
(Read the "General Instructions" before starting.)
1
2 13
14
15;
• i , .1 LABEL ITEMS
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
"I' ':
I L EPA D. NUMBER
,{ „•
If a preprinted label has been provided;'
affix it in the designated space. Review the
information carefully; if any of it is
l.:'FACILITY'NAME .
NC0063096
incorrect, cross through it and enterthe
correct data in the appropriatefill-In area,;.
below. Also, if any of the preprinted data is
absent (the area to the left of the label
V.' FACILITY
.MAILING LIST
BEY CREEK WWTP
POST OFFICE BOX 8
j HOLLY SPRINGS, NC 27540
space lists the information that should
appear) please provide it In the proper
in grea(s)' below. If the label is complete
and correct you need not complete Items
III, V, and' V I (except VI-B which must
fill-.
a
be
completed regardless). Complete all items
Yl, FACILITY.. , ..
LOCATION
POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
if no label has been
instructions' for detailed
and for the legal
this data is collected.
proved , ;Refer ,to .the'..
item 'descriptions`;
authorization under which
-
- U T€ o : omplete A t rough to determ ne whet er you need to submit any permit application' forms' to the EPA. I
. questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental from listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "X" in the
",the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer
excluded from permit requirements; see Section C of the instructions. See also, Section D of the instructions for definitions of bold-faced
you answer "yes:'; to' any`'"
box in the third column -if'
"no" if your activity Is,,
terms. . ,,.;' 'tt 1;
MARK."X�,
MARK "X"
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
YES
NO
FORM
ATTACHED
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS .
YES
NO
FQRM '
ATTACHED.
' Is this,fagtity a publicly owned treatment works
;. `which,;resuits in a discharge' to waters of the
{ ,.,U.S.?(FORM 2A)
0
B. Does or, will this facility (either existing . or
proposed) include a concentrated animal
feeding operation or aquatic animal
production facility which results in a discharge
❑
0
❑
16
17
18
to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 2B)" .''
19
20
21 ...
' , ; Is. this facility ,which currently results.. in:
.discharges to waters of the U.S. other than
❑
r
❑
D. Is this proposal facility (other than those described
, in A orB'above) which will result in -a discharge
❑
12
0
those described in A or B above? (FORM 2C)
22
23
24
to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 2D) ' -
25
26
- 27
E...Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes? (FORM 3)
❑
0
❑
F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industrial or
' municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum
containing, within one quarter mile of the well
bore, underground sources of drinking water?
❑
/',
❑
28
29
30
(FORM 4)
31
32
33
G. Do you or will you inject at this facility any
produced water other fluids which are brought to
thesurface in connection with conventional oil or '
- natural 'gas production, inject fluids used for
enhanced'. recovery of oil or natural gas, or inject
E .fiulds'lor' ' storage . of liquid hydrocarbons?
❑
F2
❑
H. Do you or will you inject at this facility fluids for
special processes such as mining of suffer by the
Frasch process, solution mining of minerals, in
situ combustion of fossil fuel, or recovery of
geothermal energy? (FORM 4)
❑
0
❑
;:(FORM 4)
34
35
36
37
38
39
i •.Is this.; facility a proposed stationary source
Whichis'one of the 28 industrial 'categories listed
In ,the; instructions and which will potentially emit
100 tons per year of, any air pollutant regulated:,
'under the Clean Air Act and may affect or be
❑
0
❑
J. Is this facility a proposedstationary source
which is NOT; one of the 28 industrial categories
listed in the instructions and which will potentially
emit 250 tons per year of anyair pollutant
regulated under the Clean Air Act and may affect
❑
/K1
❑
located in an attainment area? FORM 5
111. NAME OF FACILITY
40
41
42
or be located in an attainment are? FORM 5 `43
c
"SKIP
Utley Creek WWTP
,41
:
'..15 :
AV.:
• 16-29
FACILITY
+' : it#= `
30
CONTACT
A. NAME &`TITLE (last, .f rst &� title)
B. PHONE (area code &'no.).
69
'c.'
Tillage, Thomas, Director of Water Quality
577
1090
,
:1948
15 •
V.`FACIL'
16 :: ,.
ITY' MAILING ADDRESS
A. STREET OR P.O. BOX
4S .
' , .' ;
49 ` 51
52 . 55
,
c
Post Office Box 8
3
E}
15''
16
45
B. CITY OR TOWN
C. STATE
• D. ZIP CODE
c
Holly Springs
NC
27540
15 :.
VL
. 16 40
FACILITY LOCATION
41 42
47 51
!l ,,is
.1 T_"
.. A.STREET, ROUTE NO. OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER
c";
Irving Parkway off of Holly Springs Road •
15.
16.. 45
`.
B.COUNTY NAME
Wake
46 70
C. CITY OR TOWN
D.,STATE .,>
E. ZIP CODE
F. COUNTY CODE
c''`I'
Holly Springs
NC
27540
Wake
6'
is .
.16 40 I
41 ' 42
47 • 51
52 54 .
''

VII. 5It_.; euuts 4-cii.it, in order or.nont
A. FIRST
B. SECOND
c
(specify)
7
(specify)
7
7
15
16 19
15
16 17
C. THIRD
D. FOURTH
(specify)
(specify)
7
7
15
VIII.
16 17
OPERATOR
INFORMATION
15
16 19
A. NAME
B. Is the name listed in Item
o
I
Town of Holly Springs
VIII-A also the owner?
8
{
YES ❑ NO
18
19
55
C. STATUS
OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box;
if "Other, specify.)
0. PHONE area code & no.)
F = FEDERAL
S = STATE
P = PRIVATE
M = PUBLIC (other than federal or state)
0 = OTHER (specify)
M
(specify)
0
919
( 577
1090
A
22 25
56
15
16 18
1{ 19 21
E. STREET OR PO BOX
Post
Office Box 8
26
55
F. CITY OR TOWN
G. STATE
H. ZIP CODE 1 IX. INDIAN LAND
Holly Springs
NC
27540
Is the facility located onIndian lands?
B
❑ YES
NO
15
X.
16 40
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
A. NPDES (Discharges to Surface Water)
42 42
D. PSD (Air
Emissions
47 51
from Proposed
Sources)
T
I
NC0063096
C
8
9
P
15
16
17
18 30
15
16
17
18 30
B. UIC (Underground Injection of Fluids
E. OTHER (specify)
(Specify)
C
T
I
C
T
8
9
U
9
15
16
17
18 30
15
16
17
18 30
C. RCRA (Hazardous Wastes)
E. OTHER (specify)
(Specify)
C
T
1
C
T
8
9
R
9
15
16
17 18 30
15
16
17 18 30
XI.
MAP
Attach
show
hazardous
rivers
XII.
to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property
the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground.
and other surface water bodies in the ma area. See instructions for recise re uirements.
NATURE OF BUSINESS (provide a brief description)
boundaries. The map must
structures, each of its
Include all springs,
Treatment
and disposal of municipal wastewater.
XIII.
I certify
all
the
submitting
CERTIFICATION (see instructions)
under penalty of law that ! have personally
attachments and that, based on my inquiry
application, l believe that the information
false information, including the possibility
examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and
of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained in
is true, urate and complete. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for
of the nd imprisonment.
A. NAME
Carl
& OFFICIAL TITLE (type or print)
Dean, Town Manager o
SI NATU
C'.4J
RS
C. DATE SIGNED
l 0 y • d �
COMMENTS
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
A.
c
C
15
15 55

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek VVWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLICANTS:
AU treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet.
A.1. Facility Information.
Facility Name Utley Creek WWTP
Mailing Address Post Office Box 8
Holly Snrinas. North Carolina 27540
Contact Person Thomas Tillage
Title Director of Water Quality
Telephone Number [phone]
Facility Address Irving Parkway
(not P.O. Box) Holly Springs. North Carolina 27540
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name n/a
Mailing Address n/a
n/a
Contact Person n/a
Title n/a
Telephone Number d ) n/a
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
to the facility or the applicant.
environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
PSD
® owner operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed
• facility ® applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing
(include state -issued permits).
NPDES NC0063096
UIC Other
RCRA Other
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
Holly Springs 9.295 Separate Municipal
Total population served 9.295
r P.. r_._.__ Ar.A A• L•. . AA\ .•. _..._ -- rP.• I..A A A AMA^ AA

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
A.5. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
A.6. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12th month of "this year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate 2.4 mgd EXISTING PLANT 1.5 MGD, WILL BE EXPANDED TO 2.4 MGD
Two Years Aao Last Year This Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate 0.675 0.708 0.748
c. Maximum daily flow rate 1.195
1.860 1.730
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
® Separate sanitary sewer 100
❑ Combined storm and sanitary sewer n/a %
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i. Discharges of treated effluent
ii. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent
iii. Combined sewer overflow points
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)
v. Other
100
0
0
0
nla 0
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? ❑ Yes
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
Location: n/a
® No
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s) n/a mgd
Is discharge ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
c. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? 0 Yes ® No
If yes, provide the following for each land application site:
Location: n/a
Number of acres: n/a
Annual average daily volume applied to site:
Is land application ❑ continuous or
0 intermittent?
n/a mgd
d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works?
❑ Yes ® No

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WVVTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
If yes, describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
n/a
If transport is by a parry other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter Name n/a
Mailing Address n/a
n/a
Contact Person n/a
Title n/a
Telephone Number ( 1 n/a
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name n/a
Mailing Address n/a
n/a
Contact Person n/a
Title n/a
Telephone Number ( ) n/a
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge n/a
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility.
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection):
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
n/a
n/a mgd
❑ Yes No
Annual daily volume disposed by this method: n/a
Is disposal through this method ❑ continuous or 0 intermittent?
r P.• r__... 04. OS /.• I/... ♦ WO. P.. .-I---- rP.• I. _.... 1r•I. I. A 1r r1. IAA

s.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek VVWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered "Yes" to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A,12 once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered "No" to question
A.8.a, go to Part B, "Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
A.9. Description of Outfail.
a. Outfall number 001
b. Location Holly Springs 27540
(City or town, i< applicable) (Zip Code)
Wake
(County)
(State)
North Carolina
35° 38' 41" N 78° 51' 04" W
(Latitude) (Longitude)
c. Distance from shore (if applicable) n/a ft.
d. Depth below surface (if applicable) n/a ft.
e. Average daily flow rate 2.4 (design) mgd
f. Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? ❑ Yes ® No (go to A.9.g.)
If yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs: n/a
Average duration of each discharge: n/a
Average flow per discharge: n/a mgd
Months in which discharge occurs: n/a
g. Is outfall equipped with a diffuser? ® Yes ❑ No
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water Utley Creek
b. Name of watershed (if known) Cape Fear River Basin
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known):
c. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Cape Fear
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known):
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable)
acute cfs chronic
030607
cfs
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable): mg/I of CaCO3

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
❑ Primary El Secondary
® Advanced 0 Other. Describe:
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 98
Design SS removal 95 %
Design P removal 67 %
Design N removal 92
Other
c. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:
Ultraviolet Disinfection
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? n/a ❑ Yes ❑ No
Does the treatment plant have post aeration? ® Yes ❑ No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analyses not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Outfall number: 001
PARAMETER
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
Value
Units
Value
Units
Number of Samples
pH (Minimum)
.4
s.u.
v8
pH (Maximum)
.1
s.u.
f 4
Flow Rate
1.730
mgd
0.710
mgd
365
Temperature (Winter)
22
°C
15
'C
182
Temperature (Summer)
27
°C
22
°C
183
For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
ML/MDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (Report one)
BOD5
18
mg/L
0.8
mg/L
243
C
2
CBOD5
FECAL COLIFORM
1660
#/100 mL
2
#/100 mL
243
G
1
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
59
mg/L
0.9
mg/L
243
C
1
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART B. ADDITIONAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR. APPLICANTS WITH A DESIGN FLOW GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL TO 0.1 MGD (100,000 gallons per day).
All applicants with a design flow rate z 0.1 mgd must answer questions B.1 through B.S. All others go to Part C (Certification).
8.1. Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day
310.000 gpd PROJECTED WHEN COLLECTION
that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
SYSTEM AGES — CURRENT LEVELS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS
I/1 sources.
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
Town has ongoing program for finding and eliminating
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries.
This map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show the
entire area.)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable.
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within _ mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
f. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck,
rail, or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
B.3.Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redunancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
B.4.OperationlMaintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? 0 Yes IN No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name: n/a
Mailing Address: n/a
n/a
Te!ephone Number: ( ) n/a
Responsibilities of Contractor. n/a
B.S. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
001
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑Yes ®No
rnw ram..... Aga I. a.4 IA.. a AI.\ ."....1.... rnw f. ..... 1I A A A A AA

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Utley Creek WWTP, NC0063096
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
Modification
RIVER BASIN:
Cape Fear
c. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).
n/a
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction 10/31/2003 / /
- End Construction 01/31/2004 / /
- Begin Discharge 01/31/2004 / /
- Attain Operational Level 07/31/2004 / /
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained? ® Yes 0 No
Describe briefly: FONSI issued through SEPA process in September 2002.
8.6. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the indicated
effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not include information
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analyses not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and on -half years old.
Outfall Number: 001
POLLUTANT
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
ML/MDL
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Number of
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
10
mg/L
0.1
mg!L
243
C
0.1
CHLORINE (TOTAL
RESIDUAL, TRC)
n/a
nla
n/a
n/a
nla
nla
n/a
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
10.3
mg/L
8.6
mg/L
243
G
1
TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN (TKN)
1.9
mg/L
1.0
mg/L
25
C
0.2
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NITROGEN
19.4
mg1L
6.6
mg/L
25
C
0.5
OIL and GREASE
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
3.2
mg/L
0.9
mg/L
25
C
0.1
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(TDS)
OTHER NITROGEN (Total)
19.9
mg/L
7.6
mg/L
25
C
0.5
REFER TO THE APPLICATION
OVERVIEW
OF FORM
END OF PART
(PAGE
2A YOU MUST
B.
1) TO DETERMINE
COMPLETE
WHICH OTHER
PARTS