NC0063096_Permit Issuance_19970203

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
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:
February 3, 1997
This document is prizited on reuse paper - ignore any
eonterit on the reirerse side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0063096
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Holly Springs
FACILITY NAME: Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major ✓
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: -0750 MGD- \ , 5 M c
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
modification for flow to 1.50 MGD
RECEIVING STREAM: Utley Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-06-07
Reference USGS Quad: E23NE, Apex
County: Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 3/31/96 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by:
Steven D. Pellei
Prepared by: ?at' /% %' /
Reviewed by: u
LtA
itz,5g1/L. Cs)/ 3 3 /G (43 )
uA Z GJU
(please attach)
Dom: 10/2 if96
Date:
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
'''#
Drainage Area (mi2 ) 0,73 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 0.X9,
7Q10 (cfs) 0./ / Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0, ZS 30Q2 (cfs) 0, 3 v
Toxicity Limits: IWC 90
Instream Monitoring: Parameters d v� , 7 1�
T P/ TAJ ( C�Qj -„ o�-
Upstream Location (.{f 5 fry rM w P
Downstream Location At eotiviluAk d o w
see. a) LA Fq,c�010 --co v }vri r
dttrielifrm
d4- ►o;cv
% Acute/`C' ro c
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
.�
/D
NH3-N (mg/1)
Z
y
D.O. (mg/1)
6
TSS (mg/1)
3 v
3 0
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Z go
z co
pH (SU)
_
6 --q
/75.C2(e)
/9
/9
7-P (17/0
A'
me-i
mid;
/cmp (v )
0
Comments: ail G✓� d c t / Wn.e.,S t / f�rt�1 St�v�j

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Town Engineer
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Ms. Sudano:
i
January 22, 1997
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0063096
Utley Creek WWTP
Wake County
In accordance with the application for a discharge permit received on July 29, 1996, the Division is
forwarding herewith the subject NPDES 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 December 6, 1983.
In response to your comment letter of December 30, 1996, several changes have been made to this
final permit. The summer and winter limits for ammonia have been changed to 2.0 and 4.0 mg/1,
respectively. The Division believes these limits for ammonia represent BAT for facilities of this size.
Monitoring for Total Residual Chlorine has not been eliminated, however, a footnote has been added
requiring monitoring ONLY if chlorine is added to the effluent. This will provide operational flexibility
and protect water quality in the event that the UV disinfection must be taken off line.
Footnotes have been added to the effluent pages and special condition F that delay initiation of the
new testing requirements until July 1, 1997. As you noted in your letter, this will give the Town of Holly
Springs time to plan and budget these additional expenses for the next year.
This permit can not be issued for the full 4.88 MGD originally requested in the permit application.
As noted in the June 28, 1996, DWQ Finding of No Significant Impact statement, expansion beyond the
1.5 MGD capacity will require additional water quality monitoring and modeling to assure that the water
quality standards and uses in Utley Creek and Harris Lake can be protected. An expansion above 1.5
MGD would require additional review under the NC Environmental Policy Act as either an addendum to
your previously submitted Environmental Assessment or as a new EA.
Please be aware that the subject facility will be required to conduct weekly Chlorophyll -a monitoring
at the downstream location during the summer months of June, July, August and September. No
monitoring is required during the remainder of the year. If the first 12 samples collected are below 25.0
141 you may request to have the monitoring frequency decreased.
Part III, Special Condition G, requires that any expansion of the subject facility will make provisions
for installation of nutrient removal facilities as needed in the future. This special condition is due to past
problems with algal growth in Harris Lake and is in accordance with the Finding of No Significant Impact.
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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is
made, this decision shall be final and binding.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
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, Coastal Area
Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions conceming this permit, please contact Steve D. Pellei at telephone number
[phone], extension 516.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology Unit
Technical Assistance & Certification Group

Permit No. NC0063096
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
off NCSR 1115
southwest of Holly Springs
Wake County
to receiving waters designated as Utley Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I,
II, III and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective March 1, 1997
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 2001
Signed this day January 22, 1997
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0063096
1. Continue to operate the existing 0.50 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of flow
equalization, flow meter, manually cleaned bar screen, dual extended aeration basins with
coarse bubble diffusers, dual clarifiers, tertiary filter with traveling bridge filter, ultra -violet
light disinfection, diffused air post aeration, and aerobic sludge digestor/holding tank utilizing
coarse bubble diffusers located at Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, off NCSR 1115,
southwest of Holly Springs, Wake County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality, construct to
expand the existing wastewater treatment facility to 1.5 MGD (See Part III of this Permit), and
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Utley
Creek which is classified C waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.

ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE 1
LIGHT•DUTY ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE --
UNIMPROVED ROAD
Latitude 35°38'41" Longitude 78°51'03"
Map # E23NE Sub -basin 030607
Stream Class C
Discharge Class 01
Receiving Stream Utley Creek
Design Q 0.5 MGD Permit expires 3/31/96
SCALE 1:24 000
0
1 MILE
0 7000 FEET
1 0 1 KILOMETER
g•l-1 1
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
Holly Springs WWTP
NC0063096
Wake County

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL
Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting UNTIL EXPANSION ABOVE 0.50 MGD, or expiration, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
..r.... . .. � �. x.
..E.i~.�.�.��N'i'.....H.AR�C''.1 .'l..Y:.:.�..::::.44s..4.:}�:.
t+iMIT�•.�,:.:::.;.::::.::::.:..�:::::.:.�:.::::::::..Y.::.:::•
::::.:.::...................... .. .:.:...� :.:.:.r...�
i :
r...........t�l1.C�Ni:�:t)f�1t�fG.....R�G�.U.tip.EME:N<!'S..:.::r:::..::�::r..::.::•
rr.:::.... ... ........
.. ........ ... r... .{ ..L. ...... ...:......
....•.....•......•...4...:.•.:.::..:..::::::...:::r.:4:..r........:............... r.........................
•�
. r••
•.Yr.. •: • •::.:.YhY.4Yh4•:.Y: rr:.Y::.•.
!....:::. •:'.:•:::.:•.W:.:•:::: r:.:4:Y:t.{{•{{...L.... 4Y.L:.::....:.Y:.�.:Y:.Y::: r.Y •.Y:::.
...... iirlc�t1 �11.i.
- •:.4 (i}
::44 AV��`� �.
..; ..•...........
W�....I...
p
V {+� jr( j+� {yyam
:::{�.r•.V,•!M. '{j•�:;:•:•}}:v
r.... r... . •. � ::...
1]ati:
.%y�� Y �{j����
M/� ...-R��:':':':•:•:
Me�3ti:1'�t1't!��t:.
y� (y.•�
J:C�. •� M��•:
•.. +5..`Yy
am to
l■�y,
s�n ��:�:�:�.
•{•J}:{.
Flow
0.50 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2 (April 1 - October 31)
16.0 mg/I
24.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E,
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31)
22.0 mg/I ,
33.0 mg/I .
3/Week
Composite
E, I ,
,
Total Suspended Residue2
30 mg/I
45 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E,
NH3 as N (April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3 as N (November 1 - March 31)
4.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D'
Chlorophyll -a
Weekly?
Grab
D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 /100 ml
400 / 100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D1
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
3/Week
Grab
U, D1
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Weekly5
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus
Weekly5
Grab
U, D
Total Residual Chlorines
19.0 µg/I
3/Week
Grab
E
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D1
Chronic Toxicitys
• Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream flow weir, D - Downstream on the existing
dam structure in a location so as to avoid contact between the ground and the sample bottle.
Upstream and Downstream samples of Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Fecal Colifonn, and Conductivity shall be collected three times per week during
June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
The Monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be Tess than 6.0 mg/I.
The pH shall not be Tess than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus shall be monitored weekly during June, July, August, and September; and monthly during the remaining months of
the year. Effluent and Instream monitoring shall be conducted on the same day. Prior to July 1, 1997 effluent monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus shall be conducted Quarterly.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; February, May, August, and November See Part III, Condition F.
Chlorophyll -a shall be monitored weekly during June, July, August, and September; and during the remaining months of the year no monitoring is required.
Prior to July 1, 1997 no monitoring for Chlorophyll -a is required.
Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the effluent.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL
Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning AFTER EXPANSION ABOVE 0.50 MGD TO 1.50 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
yyw► � - ii��. .
�y.�1••�•
•.W� ..�� .:;.;.f}'{}}•�.:{•�{•.ir
..................:.:. M1 .........:..: .
.. .... . ..... ... ............ x
. .. r .
............. :.. :.: ..... . f• . ;.... .
... .. .. .. .. .. .. J. .M1..{
... .................. ..... ..... . ........
.. ..- .. r
..:..... .. :.. ..... f. .. .
.:................... J... .. ..... . t... .:
• . r
........:...........:........:.rrr.M1......n..:.......r..
�yy y■ r■
at• i, �• ���!'��1..(� •lr•:.• �}. .•. ••i
:� .. '{•.
Y■
:•:.Y yv::.:Y: r•: :•::.M1• :•:::::::. :{{!... :•..:..�.'�t ��...:., .......:. ... :•........................
...................... r........, .,.,., M1,,....... .�.....r..M1.............
iw N.1'�O�tf�iG .�.E:U"!#��t11ME•1�>CS{;{:::::r};::>vi}}
........ ...... .....r.: O :.. :.. �• � :.......
...
.. r.v••.v::
l� f.
........J .....:..:....:...........:..:x�.......{M1....
f r{ 4
... ..:M1 . r .. f.. r}r. r .. xr. r. n r}.. ... ....! ..
r r
..... ......... J.�:.�. �y]•� � .v: rw:: •. v •:Cw.v •:
.. ..'f .. .. . M1 r .4.. J.. r r . . ..... r. r
..... r ..... . r?... . n r. . .: .... .... r. 4. r. ...
.r... : ... f Y.h.RS A }.r��
.. . . �•,''J{.. .r.:..... v.. v...
.Y:....:. J ..: J.... r: : ... .... I....... . hV. f.. Y..... M1}.
, :....{:...r.......r.::...............
:.�.f ...r.r:..........::....
. • .........:..:..f.rW�ekt
.. .....:.
:: .-.v : ::::::; {.r . .. ........
...:.. r.. : : . .. ..
. . .. ..•:•
.. r.:...
........ rr
.. ....:.......
� ......
Y:...Y:..
. .
... :.. ..... .. ......... . ....•.
...:.. r. ..
:....• :..v :•r.
h:..V.. -.
v�f' �...r.....
_....... _ . .. g ........
'.{:.Y:.:..Y:.Q$il:
.............
� . ., ... ...... .. J...
......
lv:.•:. '
.... .....
��i .........:
��..,. ,.,, .....,. .............
..�A:���a� tt1�a�•::..
..................................... ;.....
. r. r.:. : .....: � ........
....... .. .. .: F.w:
.. ...
r.Vr: r: .:
r8 cr�tt�........
, .. � li:::::::.E..............,
`N,•.t�`�
xr}�
:..,v.. :.. ... •.vk4:4:4}:vr.:•{:(:•.{{
.�. .�f .rV•.: •.
.-!:� 4.:. 1. : .. ::.............
...�:�....."�'. :�r<::::•:
,Y� ....................,....,.
:'{ :{v •. •-••.l•j}}::•::':':
���:��tib'h:.}:{.:::.:::.:
.. .
Flow
1.50 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
_
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2 (April 1 - October 31)
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E,
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2 (November 1 - March 31)
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E,
Total Suspended Residue2
30 mg/I
45 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N (April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3 as N (November 1- March 31)
4.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D'
Chlorophyll -a
Weekly?
Grab
D
pH4
3/Week
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 /100 ml
400 / 100 ml
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D'
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
3/Week
Grab
U, D'
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN)
Weekly5
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus
Weekly5
Grab
U, D
Total Residual Chlorines
•
19.0 µg/I
3/Week
Grab
E
Conductivity
3/Week
Grab
E, U, D'
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream flow weir, D - Downstream on the existing
dam structure in a location so as to avoid contact between the ground and the sample bottle.
Upstream and Downstream samples of Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Fecal Coliform, and Conductivity shall be collected three times per week during
June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
The Monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/I.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus shall be monitored weekly during June, July, August, and September; and monthly during the remaining months of
the year. Effluent and Instream monitoring shall be conducted on the same day. Prior to July 1, 1997 effluent monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus shall be conducted Quarterly.
Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; February, May, August, and November See Part III, Condition F.
Chlorophyll -a shall be monitored weekly during June, July, August, and September; and during the remaining months of the year no monitoring is required.
Prior to July 1, 1997 no monitoring for Chlorophyll -a is required.
Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the effluent.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

f1
Part DI Permit No. NC0063096
F. CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) -
This condition will take effect beginning July 1,1997.
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic
Bioassay Procedure - Revised "September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document).
The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance
with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of
this permit during the months of February, May, August, and November. Effluent sampling for this
testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment
processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:
Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly
monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this
monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or 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 requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and
will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable
test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
G. NUTRIENT REMOVAL FACILITIES
Upon expansion above 0.50 MGD, facilities shall be designed to include nutrient removal or be
designed such that they may be easily retrofitted to include nutrient removal facilities as needed in
the future.

FOR AGENCY USE
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION II. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
Complete this section for each present or proposed discharge Indlcated In Section I. Items 7 and 8, that Is to surface waters. This
Includes discharges to other municipal sewerage systems In which the waste water does not go through a treatment works prior to
being discharged to surface waters. Discharges to wells must be descrbed where there are also discharges to surface waters from
this facility. Separate descriptions of each discharge are required even tr several discharges originate in the same facility. Ali values
for an existing discharge should be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. If this is a proposed discharge. values
should rellect best engineering estimates.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS
INDICATED. REFER TO BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS.
1. Discharge Serial No. and Name
a Discharge Serial No.
(see instructions)
b. Discharge Name
Give the name of discharge, if
any (see instructions)
c. Previous Discharge Serial No
If a previous NPDES permit
application was made for this dis-
charge (Item 4, Section I) provide
previous discharge serial
number.
2 Discharge Operating Dates
a Discharge to Begin Date
If the discharge has never
occurred but is planned for some
future date, give the date the
discharge will begin.
b. Discharge to End Date 1f the
discharge is scheduled to be
discontinued within the next 5
years, give the date (within best
estimate) the discharge will end.
Give reason for discontinuing
this discharge in Item 17.
3. Discharge Location Name the
politicarboundaries within which
the point of discharge is located:
State
County
(If applicable) City or Town
4. Discharge Point Description
(see instructions)
Discharge into (check one)
Stream (includes ditches, arroyos,
and other watercourses
Estuary
Lake
Ocean
Well (injection)
Other
If 'other' is checked, specify type
5. Discharge Point - Lat/Long.
State the precise location of the
point of discharge to the nearest
second. (see instructions)
Latitude
201a
201b
201c
202a
203a
203c
204a
204b
235a
001
Utley Creek WWTP
N/A
97 6
YR MO
N/A
YR MO
North Carolina
Wake
Holly Springs
•
® STR
❑ EST
❑ LKE
❑ OCE
❑ WEL
❑ OTH
203d
20 3e
20C3f
•
Agency Use
35 DEG. _ 38 MIN. 42.93 SEC
Longitude
205b
78 DEG. 51 MIN. 2.67 SEC

runt HLIC
111111111
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
6. Discharge Receiving Water Name
Name the waterway at the point of
discharge, (see instructions)
If the disctarae is through an outfall that extends
beyond the shoreline or is below the mean low
water line, complete item 7,
For Aaencv Use
Major I CiinorI SiID
1
For Agency Use
303e
7. Offshore Discharge
a. Discharge Distance from Shore
b. Discharge Depth Below Water
Surface
206a
2065
ICI
207a
207b
Utley Creek
N/A feet
N / A feet
1f discharge is from a bypass or an overflow point or is a seasonal discharge from a lagoon, holding pond, etc., complete Items 8,
9, or 10. as applicable and continue with Item 11.
8. Bypass Discharge (see instructions)
a Bypass Occurrence
Check when bypass occurs
Wet weather
Dry weather
b. Bypass Frequency Give the
actual or approximate number
of bypass incidents per year.
Wet weather
Dry weather
c. Bypass Duration Give the aver-
age bypass duration in hours.
Wet weather
Dry weather •
d. Bypass Volume Give the
average volume per bypass
incident, in thousand gallons
Wet weather
Dry weatiler
e. Bypass Reasons Give reasons
why bypass occurs
Proceed to Item 11.
9. Overflow Discharge (see instruction
a Overflow Occurrence Check
when overflow occurs
Wet weather
Dry weather
b. Overflow Frequency Give the
actual or approximate
incidents per year
Wet weather
Dry weather
N/A
208c1
208 c
2Ced1
208d2
208e
209a1
209a2
209b1
209b2
Yes No
Yes No
times per year
times per year
hours
hours
thousand gallons per incident
thousand gallons per incident
N/A
Yes No
Yes [] No
times per year
times per year

kJ- AG NCY US
c. Overflow Duration Give the
average overflow duration in
hours.
Wet weather
Dry weather
d Overflow Volume Give the
average volume per overflow
incident in thousand gallons.
Wet weather
Dry weather
Proceed to Item 11
10. Seasonal/Periodic Discharges
a Seasonal/Periodc Discharge
Frequency If discharge is inter-
mittent from a holding pond,
lagoon, etc., give the actual or
approximate number of times
this discharge occurs per year.
b. Seasonal/Periodic Discharge
Volume Give the average
volume per discharge
occurrence in thousand
gallons. •
c. Seasonal/Periodic Discharge
Duration Give the average dura-
tion of each discharge
occurrence in days.
d SeasonaJ;/Periodic Discharge
Occurrence -Months Check the
months firing the year when
the discharge normally occurs.
11. Discharge Treatment
a. Discharge Treatment
Description
Describe waste abatement prac
tices used on this discharge
with a brief narrative. (See
instructions)
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
209c1
209-
209d1
209r±?
210a
21 tab
210c
210d
211a
hours
hours
thousand gallons per incident
thousand gallons per incident
N / A
times per year
thousand gallons per discharge occurrence
days
❑ JAN ❑ FEB ❑ MAR
❑ APR ❑ MAY ❑ J U N
❑ JUL ❑ AUG ❑ SEP
❑ OCT ❑ NOV ❑ DEC
Treatment now consists of"flpw equilization,
influent pumping, manually cleaned bar screen,
extended aeration activated sludge treatment,
followed by tertiary filtration, ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection, and diffused air post aeration. Wast
activated sludge is aerobically digested and dispo
ed of by land application. The activated slude sy
tem and aerobic digestors/holding tanks utilize
coarse bubble diffusers. Tertiary filtration is
provided by a travelling bridge type filter. The
activated sludge system is a package plant providi
dual aeration basins, clarifiers, and aerobic dige
ors/holding tanks. Future plans call for adding
fine (ti`) mechanical screening and aerated grit re
moval, using variable frequency drives on the infl
ent pumping station, and adding additional extende
aeration activated sludge, tertiary filtration, an
UV disinfection capabilities. The existing diffus•
air post aeration system will eventually be replac,
with cascade type post aeration.

t. Discharge Treatment Codes
Using the codes listed in Table I
of the Instruction Booklet,
desaibe the waste abatement
processes applied to this dis-
charge in the order in which
they occur, if possible.
Separate all codes with
commas except where slashes
are used to designate parallel
operations.
If this discharge is from a municipal waste
treatment plant (not an overflow or bypass),
complete hems 12 and 13
12. Plant Design and Operation Manuals
Check which of the following are
: ur<ently available
Engineering Design Report
Operation and Maintenance
Manual
13. Plant Design Data (see instructions)
a. Plant Design Flow (mgd)
b. Plant Design BOD Removal(%)
c. Plant Design N Removal (%)
• d. Plant Design P Removal (%)
Plant Design SS Removal (%)
`.. Plant Began Operation (year)
g. Plant Last Major Revision (year
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
211b Fxicting: J. S, ASE, FSR, P(UV) ,
APP (post aeration). DD,, XD (land
pppliration of digested sludge).
Future: S. GA, J, ASE, FSR, P(UV),
APP (cascade post aeration). 1D,
XD (land application of -digested
S1udg.e).
212d
212b
Existing:
213a 0.300
213b
213c N/A %
213d N/A %
213e 98 %
213f 1987
213c 1995
Total
Proposed:
mgd 4.880mgd*
98%
N/A
N/A
98%
1997
N/A
*The plant would initially be expanded
to a total capacity between 1.0mgd and
1.7mgd depending upon the outcome of
current funding decisions by the Town
Board.

217 Item Number DESCRIPTION
The Town of Holly Springs has a 20 year projected wastewater treatment capacity need of 2.4 MGD and projected
full development wastewater treatment needs of 4.880 MGD. Given the limited area available for Town growth,
and development demands in the general geographic area in which the Town is located, full development is
expected in the next 20 to 40 years. Growth at present is proceeding at an extraordinarily rapid pace, with building
permits for new residences averaging 30 per month. In order to meet the wastewater treatment needs of this growth,
the Town is pursuing a two pronged strategy. Ideally, Holly Springs will, through a negotiated agreement, have
wastewater originating in the eastern portion of the Town (within the Neuse River Basin) treated at the Town of
Cary facility located on Middle Creek, while wastewater within the western portion of the Town (within the Cape
Fear River Basins) is treated at an expanded Utley Creek facility. This ideal strategy is dependent on the successful
conclusion of negotiations with the Town of Cary. In the interim, the Town must provide for its citizens.
Accordingly, the Town requests that the permit for Utley Creek plant be issued for its full projected needs. The
Town recognizes through its work on the EA required for this permit application that the State is not prepared to
allow a discharge of greater than .1.5 .MGD until it has had time to collect and evaluate additional stream flow water
quality data. The Town therefore expects its permit to initially not authorize construction of facilities capable of
treating more than 1.5 MGD. The Town would, however, like for the permit to name 4.88 MGD as the permitted
flow. This would make the Town permit comparable to the permits held by the nearby communities of Apex and
Cary with whom the Town could potentially negotiate a regional wastewater solution for its Neuse River side
sewage. Both of those communities NPDES permits authorize discharges greater than the size of the treatment
plants the State has allowed these communities to construct. A similarly worded permit would not put the Town at a
disadvantage when negotiating with its neighboring communities. Ultimately, having a permitted capacity of 4.,88
MGD would provide the Town with protection should either the present negotiations with Cary be unsuccessful, or
should initial negotiations with Cary be successful but future negotiations to renew an initial agreement be
unsuccessful. The Town proposes to initially expand its existing Utley Creek plant to a total capacity of 1.5 MGD.
This expansion will allow it to meet the needs of the western portion of the Town for the next 20+ years, and should
negotiations with Cary be unsuccessful, allow it to meet the long term wastewater treatment needs for the entire
Town for a shorter but still substantial time period. Future expansions of the Utley Creek plant could then be built
as needed up to the point when the full request permit capacity of`4.88 MGDI%is realized.
I00I6.DOC

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad: .
747tAy 1,t041-i'
"1;1
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Utley Creek WWTP
NC0063096
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Modification
Utley Creek
C
03-06-07
Wake
Raleigh
Steven Pellei
10/24/96
E23NE
Request # 8522
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
02.1021.7945
2/11/93
0.73
0.11
0.25
0.82
0.32
95 %
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
This WLA is for a modification of Holly Spring's permit from a waste flow of 0.5 MGD to 1.5 MGD.
In April 1995 the facility put into service a new 0.5 MGD package plant. Since that time the
facility has been doing a good job of removing BOD and TSS from the influent. However, four ammonia
violations and six fecal violations have occurred since the startup of the new plant. Of the four ammonia
violations though, only one monthly average was above 2 mg/L. Holly Springs is planning a 1.0 MGD
expansion of its current treatment capacity, to be comprised of a 1.0 MGD oxidation ditch operated in
parallel with the existing package plant.
Holly Springs discharges to Utley Creek, a small class C stream which feeds into Harris Lake. As
the creek approaches the lake it takes on slow moving, swamp/marsh-like characteristics. Since 1993 only
one instream D.O. violation has been reported by the facility (4.8 mg/L on 6/30/95). On the other hand,
numerous violations of the state standard for dissolved gases (110% of saturation) have been reported at
the downstream monitoring site during the summer months of 1995 and 1996. This site is located
approximately 1.4 miles downstream of the outfall on an earthen dam which impounds a small pond (- 15
acres). Ed Williams (ESB) and Eric Fleek (RRO) documented an algal bloom in this pond on July 11,
1996. During this investigation they also reported a fish kill and low D.O. levels further downstream in
the creek.
Considering the proximity of the discharge to Harris Lake and the forecasted increase in population
of Holly Springs, nutrient loading is the principle concern related to this facility. CP&L conducts a water
quality monitoring program in Harris Lake and in 1995 has measured monthly average chlorophyll -a
concentrations as high as 37.6 mg/L in the White Oak arm of the lake approximately 1/2 mile upstream of
SR1127. The individual chlor-a readings which comprised this average were not available. The latest
information from ESB for the Lakes Report lists Harris Lake as mesotrophic. ESB did not have a
sampling site in the White Oak arm of the lake for this report.

During the summer of 1995 TP and TN concentrations in Utley Creek increased markedly over
1993 and 1994 values. Downstream TN concentrations as high as 16.4 mg/L and TP concentrations as
high as 1.2 mg/L were recorded in 1995. Although August and September, 1996 DMR data are not yet
available, instream TN and TP concentrations as high as 17.0 mg/L and 1.4 mg/L, respectively, were
reported this summer. The most recent available effluent nutrient data (May 1996) reveals TN
concentrations of 33.8 mg/L and TP concentrations of 4.7 mg/L. Since TN and TP in the effluent are only
monitored quarterly, whereas TN and TP instream are monitored 3/week during the summer, it is difficult
to determine if an actual increase in nutrient loading occurred from the facility to correlate with the
increases observed instream. Therefore, the Instream Assessment Unit (TAU) recommends that TN and
TP be monitored weekly both instream and in the effluent during the summer months. Monthly nutrient
monitoring in the effluent and instream should be conducted the remaining months of the year. v.
Nutrient limits may be recommended during the next permitting cycle if nutrient related water
quality problems continue to occur. The lack of effluent nutrient data to correlate with instream
measurements, as well as the lack of instream chlor-a data, prohibits such a recommendation at this time.
The possibility of nutrient limits has been communicated to the town since 1993 and was recognized in the
EA dated June 1996 for the 1.0 MGD expansion. The FONSI, issued June 28, 1996, states that
mitigative measures such as expanded monitoring and designing the plant expansion to accommodate 2
nutrient removal facilities, if needed, are required. This language should be included in the permit.
The facility should be encouraged to write down the exact sampling locations on their DMRs
instead of simply writing in "Holly Springs" as the up and down stream sampling points. When
examining instream data it can be very important to know the time when the sample was taken. The
facility frequently reports up and down stream sampling times to be simultaneous. This may or may not
be accurate, so the facility should be encouraged to report the exact sampling times on its DMRs.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
k�
Date: 4
Date:
Date: /1//�/%'
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
v'ec e , -�a;,s
1 3111. 4D NOT
uJ 1,z, WLIA
,o*��� .

Exiting Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
* Daily max.
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Temperature:
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.5 0.5
16.0
1.1
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
19 *
monitor
monitor
22.0
2.3
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
19*
monitor
monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
0.5 0.5
16.0 22.0
1.1 2.3
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6-9 6-9
19 * 19 *
monitor ** monitor **
monitor ** monitor **
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
1.5 1.5
5.0
2.0
6.0
30.0
200
10.0
4.0
6.0
30.0
200
WQ or EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
6-9 6-9
19* 19* WQ
monitor ** monitor **
monitor ** monitor **
monitor monitor
* Daily max.
** TP and TN should be monitored weekly during June, July, August, and September, and monthly
during the remaining months of the year in order to coincide with the instream monitoring. NOTE
THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR BOTH THE 0.5 AND 1.5 MGD
PERMITS. Effluent and instream nutrient data should be collected on the same day.
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Chronic Pass/Fail
none
90%
Feb, May, Aug, Nov.
Limit changes due to:
Limit changes including toxicity test requirement are based on the speculative letter from Steve Tedder to
Gerald Holleman, Mayor, dated July 7, 1995. The Instream Assessment Unit (TAU) supports a toxicity
test requirement for both the 0.5 and 1.5 MGD permit considering previous plant upset incidents. Refer to
the January 11, 1995 memorandum from Dana Folley (Pretreatment Group) to Jason Doll (IAU) and Dave
Goodrich (P&E) for a summary of potential significant industrial users.

4
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the
immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent
limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Sample should be taken in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream
flow weir.
Downstream Location: Sample should be taken on the existing dam structure in a spot so as to avoid
contact with the ground and the sample bottle.
Parameters: D.O., temp, cond., fecal, TP, TN, and Chlorophyll -a
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, fecal, and conductivity should be collected three times per week during June,
July, August, and September, and once per week the remaining months of the year. TP, TN, and chlor-a
should be collected once per weekj earrQund.. OTE THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR
BOTH THE 0.5 AND 1.5 MGD PERMITS.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities?
Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysis if
modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

I +,,, �� � 04011/ f7'wJs � oFacility Name 14f i Ck. vVVVI f Permit# Ncoo&30 Pipe #
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed oler thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Fe 6 a.q j A w. g l /VD V, . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted fide effluen`l discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 di cfs
Permitted Flow /. S MGD
IWC 95— %
Basin & Sub -basin D 3-c76,-07
Receiving Strew West C' k. ,
County bil et k
Recommended by:
decked /(14
Date a/9M (ority,» API)
QCL PIF Version 9/91

U1/ei C1k /,/772
NGa1630%
. J /VIt7!
U1161 C -
D306-0rj
Ii//fj f wi_4
Refer -co (A11-4 8zi39 fil
4154Of I/Q117 S1YYIt��g )156
i996
figa- a _e?,1 4//1,14q ie/..449 44L.
% A' J4 Go •ems )(or Oar
/'e1/i'ew, 4 / i99C ,D✓ig *AO N/e_ /111// 04/4
nofe5 I'efrvN)fri
�lQ�. GJdf�} WFJ�.
/gym
iV U2
�VI-ad P/?'"
D2

/4/174 PR 1996
4,/T�C. 14A1 s/� �,r�o�aPIA-vvY
Issazee. *fr
c, /7 VS ielA4 /214
1/arleoty /,s- /Li6'D.
noi
WI-r9 ge1-31 -at

OCT 25 '96 03:09PM
P.1
wirN
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
, ► 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone] FAX:[phone]
..,,..•o,:a'^;ts:?:.'hY•^?x•?ti}x•xn4::Y,::ir>:4:: ark{�;�n•�cw:a::ic�sr:e:;'+efxfi:+x�aYwxva:o:v;4:<;:YY�ar.:.:�e•It:�Prx::v;<:.;hs^:r;.�^! fr.•x•.c,x:«;:s:
...:4:.;5?Y: �:!->'?i.�•:SL;. :.Y.4:{G{�: :55:4:i`:. :c::•:2�. •i!:•7P?Y;RPi*:t�:4. ,,. .:y: ..:5':'._ .,....... ....... ..
FACSIMILE
You should be receiving pages (including cover sheet). .
If you do not receive all pages, please contact sender at 919/571-4700.
TO; IS? 1 0_44� FROM: C- I +�
ORGANIZATION' � S# �/1 i�'�/ SUBJECT: 6C) � (,)/$i'((i)S ��:fli
FAxNUMBER: qI l 1 I DATE• P/W17 fe2
MESSAGE:_5 6rvel 6fe 1:5_21110
(34s-1.4 /1/1 611
ncit CeSS
�1(I7 q.L.p(._ off. da_

OCT 25 '96 12:25PM
P.2
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section ��
Attention: Dave Goodrich 1
Date May 9, 1996 rr
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION `7
County Wake
Permit No. NC0063096
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
2. Date of Investigation: April 19, 1996
3. Report Prepared by: Eric Fleek
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Thomas Tillage (ORC)
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: U.S. Highway 1 South from Raleigh, then
South on Highway 55 to Holly Springs, then Right on SR 1115
for approx. 1.2 miles, then Right on a dirt road that ends
at the treatment facility.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35 °38 '41 " Longitude:78 '51 '03 "
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E23NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Amex, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application 7
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Site is
essentially flat. There is a very slight slope toward Utley
Branch. The treatment plant is above the flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: There are no dwellings within
500 feet of the treatment plant.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Utley Branch
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Cape Fear 03:06:07
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Receiving stream 10' wide, 1-2
feet deep, and of moderate flow. Drains into
Shearon Harris Lake.

OCT 25 '96 12:25PM
P. 3
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS(
.
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: .5 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? .5 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? .5 MGD
d. Date(s) and aonstruCtion activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two
years: On ,January 25, 1994 Authorization to Construct
Issued. Construction activities authorized included the
conversion of the .25 MGD plant to .5 MGD plant
consisting of the following: dual 314,000 gallon
aeration tanks, dual 64,665 gallon clarifiers, a
100,000 gallon sludge digester, a 73,000 gallon sludge
holding tank, 3 2690 CFM blowers, a 500,000 gallon
traveling bridge filter, UV disinfection, flow meter,
polymer addition and a porous bag sludge dewatering
system.
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities: Treatment consists of 2 equalization
basins along with biological treatment via activated
sludge. Biologic treatment is followed by clarification
and a bridge filter. Ultra -violet light is employed for
disinfection. Sludge is aerobically digested with final
disposal through land application.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: N/A
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: NH3 Toxicity
h. Pretreatment Program (PCTWs only):
in development approved
should be required not needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
permit no.WQ0000506 20,000 Gal/Year allocated Holly
Springs under this permit
Residual Contractor Wallace Woodall
Telephone No. 919-387-1906
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X
PFRP Other

OCT 25 '96 12:26PM
P.4
c, Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): Class III
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular
facilities i.e., non -contact cooling water discharge from a
metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary aX Secondary 02
Main Treatment Unit Code: 041-3
PART III . - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. N/A, Permit
Renewal.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: Summer effluent sampling for TP and TN should be
increased from quarterly to 3 times/week. Instream
chlorophyll -a monitoring may also be necessary if instream
TP and TN levels are as high as last summer's levels (Please
see Section IV of this report).
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate)
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Not recommended by the RRO for this area
due to high rates of population growth and lack of
sufficiently sized sites.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: The RRO is unaware of
any efforts to provide a regional system for southern Wake
County. However, the Town of Apex and the Town of Fuquay-
Varina
Subsurface:
Other disposal options:
5. Other special Items:
Date
11/30/93
Approx. 7/94
4/95

T
OCT 25 '96 03:10PM
P.2
PART YV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The RRO has completed a review and site inspection of the
subject facility. The upgrade from .25 MGD to the current
capacity of .5 MGD was completed in April of 1995. Since that
time, there have been three monthly average violations for fecal
and three for NH3. In addition, there have been five weekly
violations for fecal.
It is unclear why the chronic violations of fecal and NH3
parameters persist. Apparently, (as stated by the ORC), the UV
disinfection system has been prone to breakdown and to other
problems. The RRO strongly recommends that a backup to the vV
disinfection system be brought on-line.
In regard to waste allocation, it is the RRO's
recommendation that summer effluent sampling for TP and TN be
increased from a quarterly frequency to 3 samples/week. This will
more effectively allow a correlation (� f TP/TNany) between the
concentrations
instream concentrations of TP and TN to in stringent nutrient controls
in the effluent. As a result, g
may need to be implemented if last summers elevated
to the offstream
levels of TP and TN a�`einrenact ehiand TP/TNT in the effluent, the
Further, if there are4
addition of downstream chlorophyll -a monitoring may also be
necessary.
As of 10/25/96, this facility is requesting an upgrade from
the current .5 MGD limit to a proposed limit of 1.5 MOD. This
increase in flow will likely exacerbate thef already O���linink. g
water quality found in the downstream it waters is currentlUtley permitted
RRO believes that this facility
(i.e. at .5 MGD) needs more stringent TP/TN limits.
its. This
recommendation will also apply to the proposed 1.5 MO p
Signature of report preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Date

OCT 25 '96 03:10PM
P.3
Holly Springs (NC0063096) Waste Allocation -Regional Comments
In regard to waste allocation, it is the RRO's recommendation that
summer effluent sampling for TP and TN be increased from a
quarterly frequency to 3 samples/week. This will more effectively
allow a correlation (if any) between the instream concentrations of
TP and TN to the TP/TN concentrations in the effluent. As a result,
more stringent nutrient controls may need to be implemented if last
summer's elevated instream levels of TP and TN are repeated and/or
linked to the effluent. Further, if there are in fact high TP/TN in
the effluent, the addition of downstream chlorophyll -a monitoring
may also be necessary. In regards to the downstream monitoring
location, the RRO recommends that the current downstrm dsite
it in
question be retained. However, precautions should bee
dring
low flows to avoid contact with the dam and sample bottles. Perhaps
this could be achieved by using a boat, or a long -handled sampler.
In addition and support of the aforementioned it should be noted
that on July 11, 1996, Mr. Eric Fleek (DWO-RRO) and Mr. Ed Williams
(DWQ-ESB), investigated an algal bloom and fish kill on Utley Creek
downstream of the outfall. A lake approximately .5 miles downstream
of Holly Spring's WWPP contained a severe algal bloom
(Dissolved
ed
Oxygen=16.$ mg/1, pH-9•S^� Nutrient samples and 1 5 miles downstream of this
values pending) In addition, approx.
algal bloom site, a fish kill (comprising 100-200 eCrc Creek and
Sunfish, ranging from 2-4 inches in length) lon
nCreek ranged from
as
documented. D.O. values on this section Y
.2 mg/1 to .5 mg/1, and water color in this eia was anoxicblack
accompanied by the distinct odor of Hydrogen Sulfidearea
conditions). It is the opinion of the RRO that this algaliod Oloomf
fish kill was likely the result of a e pr��e�k week ing which the
f dry
& hot weather (i.e. low flow oncomprised
Umt r� ed the majority of Utley
effluent of Holly Spring's WWTPP
Creek's flow. This extended dry period was abruptly ended by a
period of 2-4 days of heavy thunderstorms. This sudden influx of
cooler/denser rainwater likely disrupted the thermocline in the
lake (which was acting as a Nitrogen/Phosphorous� available
ink) lloing
unusually large quantities of nutrients to becom
to
algae in the photic zone -thereby triggering a bloom. Large amounts
of this algal biomass was observed downstream of this lake and it
is believed that this increase in exported algal biomass greatly
contributed to the downstream oxygen demand. This is supported by
the extremely low D.O. levels inthe area of here fish
forIt
should also be noted that this facility's quarterly monitoring
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous has revealed extremely hihigh
h
levels for both of these parameters. Specifically, ed levels of
recorded Levels of TP at 4.0 mg/1, October,
Total Nitrogen at 25.3 Ong/1 and TP at 2.5 mg/1, and the
Most at
recen
quarterly monitoring report for May, 1996 showed TN lev
mg/1 and TP at 4.7 mg/1.
Reviewer:

DiEHNR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0063096
Applicant/Facility Name:
Applicant Address:
Facility Address:
Permitted Flow
Type of Waste:
Facility Class
Facility/Permit Status:
County:
Regional Office:
USGS Topo Quad:
Stream Characteristics:
Receiving Stream
Stream Classification
Subbasin
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (%):
Town of Holly Springs/Utley Creek WWTP
P.O. Box 8, Holly Springs, NC 27540-0008
1001 Treatment Plant Road, Holly Springs
1.5 MGD
Domestic-100%
III
Existing/Renewal with Modification
Wake
Raleigh
E 23 NE
Utley Creek
C
030607
0.73
0.11
0.25
0.82
95%
Wasteload Allocation Summary
This WLA is for a renewal/modification of Holly. Spring's permit from a waste flow of 0.5 MGD
to 1.5 MGD. Monitoring and limits will remain the same for the majority of parameters in the permit
for the flows under 0.5 MGD. Due to past problems with algal growth in Harris Lake more stringent
nutrient monitoring is being required for flows above and below 0.5 MGD.
In April 1995 the facility put into service a new 0.5 MGD package plant. Since that time the
facility has been doing a good job of removing BOD and TSS from the influent. However, four
ammonia violations and six fecal violations have occurred since the startup of the new plant. Of the four
ammonia violations though, only one monthly average was above 2 mg/L. Holly Springs is planning a
1.0 MGD expansion of its current treatment capacity, to be comprised of a 1.0 MGD oxidation ditch
operated in parallel with the existing package plant.
Holly Springs discharges to Utley Creek, a small class C stream which feeds into Harris Lake.
As the creek approaches the lake it takes on slow moving, swamp/marsh-like characteristics. Since 1993
only one instream D.O. violation has been reported by the facility (4.8 mg/L on 6/30/95). On the other
hand, numerous violations of the state standard for dissolved gases (110% of saturation) have been
reported at the downstream monitoring site during the summer months of 1995 and 1996. This site is
located approximately 1.4 miles downstream of the outfall on an earthen dam which impounds a small
pond (-. 15 acres). Ed Williams (ESB) and Eric Fleek (RRO) documented an algal bloom in this pond
on July 11, 1996. During this investigation they also reported a fish kill and low D.O. levels further
downstream in the creek.
Considering the proximity of the discharge to Harris Lake and the forecasted increase in
population of Holly Springs, nutrient loading is the principle concern related to this facility. CP&L
conducts a water quality monitoring program in Harris Lake and in 1995 has measured monthly average
chlorophyll -a concentrations as high as 37.6 mg/L in the White Oak arm of the lake approximately 1/2
mile upstream of SR1127. The individual chlor-a readings which comprised this average were not
available. The latest information from ESB for the Lakes Report lists Harris Lake as mesotrophic. ESB
did not have a sampling site in the White Oak arm of the lake for this report.
During the summer of 1995 TP and TN concentrations in Utley Creek increased markedly over
1993 and 1994 values. Downstream TN concentrations as high as 16.4 mg/L and TP concentrations as
high as 1.2 mg/L were recorded in 1995. Although, August and September, 1996 DMR data are not yet
available, instream TN and TP concentrations as high as 17.0 mg/L and 1.4 mg/L, respectively, were
reported this summer. The most recent available effluent nutrient data (May 1996) reveals TN
Page 1 of 3

concentrations of 33.8 mg/L and TP concentrations of 4.7 mg/L. Since TN and TP in the effluent were
only monitored quarterly, whereas TN and TP instream were monitored 3/week during the summer, it
was difficult to determine if an actual increase in nutrient loading occurring from the facility correlated
with the increases observed instream. Therefore, the Instream Assessment Unit (IAU) recommended the
following: TN and TP be monitored weekly both instream and in the effluent during the summer
months. Monthly nutrient monitoring in the effluent and instream should be conducted the remaining
months of the year. Instream and effluent monitoring of nutrients should be conducted on the same day.
Nutrient limits may be recommended during the next permitting cycle if nutrient related water
quality problems continue to occur. The lack of effluent nutrient data to correlate with instream
measurements, as well as the lack of instream chlor-a data, prohibits such a recommendation at this time.
The possibility of nutrient limits has been communicated to the town since 1993 and was recognized in
the EA dated June 1996 for the 1.0 MGD expansion. The FONSI, issued June 28, 1996, states that
mitigative measures such as expanded monitoring and designing the plant expansion to accommodate
nutrient removal facilities, if needed, are required. This language is included in the permit under Part III,
Special Condition G.
The facility should be encouraged to write down the exact sampling locations on their DMRs
instead of simply writing in "Holly Springs" as the up and down stream sampling points. When
examining instream data it can be very important to know the time when the sample was taken. The
facility frequently reports up and down stream sampling times to be simultaneous. This may or may not
be accurate, so the facility should be encouraged to report the exact sampling times on its DMRs.
Limit changes due to:
Limit changes including toxicity test requirement are based on the speculative letter from
Steve Tedder to Gerald Holleman, Mayor, dated July 7, 1995. The Instream Assessment
Unit (IAU) supports a toxicity test requirement for both the 0.5 and 1.5 MGD permit
considering previous plant upset incidents. Refer to the January 11, 1995 memorandum
from Dana Polley (Pretreatment Group) to Jason Doll (IAU) and Dave Goodrich (P&E) for a
summary of potential significant industrial users.
Instream Monitoring
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Sample should be taken in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream
flow weir.
Sample should be taken on the existing dam structure in a spot so as to avoid
contact with the ground and the sample bottle.
D.O., temp, cond., fecal, TP, TN, and Chlorophyll -a (downstream only)
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, fecal, and conductivity should be collected three times per week during June,
July, August, and September, and once per week the remaining months of the year. TP and TN should be
collected once per week during the months of June, July, August, and September, and once per month the
remaining months of the year. Chlor-a should be collected once per week during the months of June, July,
August, and September, and during the remaining months of the year no monitoring is required. NOTE
THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR BOTH THE 0.5 AND 1.5 MGD PERMITS.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/13/96
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 12/30/96
Page 2 of 3

c
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Dave Goodrich
Date May 9, 1996
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County Wake
Permit No. NC0063096
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
2. Date of Investigation: April 19, 1996
3. Report Prepared by: Eric Fleek
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Thomas Tillage (ORC)
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: U.S. Highway 1 South from Raleigh, then
South on Highway 55 to Holly Springs, then Right on SR 1115
for approx. 1.2 miles, then Right on a dirt road that ends
at the treatment facility.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35 °38 '41 " Longitude : 78 °51 '03 "
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E23NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Apex, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application ?
_X_ Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Site is
essentially flat. There is a very slight slope toward Utley
Branch. The treatment plant is above the flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: There are no dwellings within
500 feet of the treatment plant.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Utley Branch
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Cape Fear 03:06:07
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Receiving stream 10' wide, 1-2
feet deep, and of moderate flow. Drains into
Shearon Harris Lake.
1

PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: .5 MGD (Ultimate.
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water 'treatment facility? .5 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? .5 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two
years: On January 25, 1994 Authorization to Construct
Issued. Construction activities authorized included the
conversion of the .25 MGD plant to .5 MGD plant
consisting of the following: dual 314,000 gallon
aeration tanks, dual. 64,665 gallon clarifiers, a
100,000 gallon sludge digester, a 73,000 gallon sludge
holding tank, 3 2690 CFM blowers, a 500,000 gallon
traveling bridge filter, UV disinfection, flow meter,
polymer addition and a porous bag sludge dewatering
system.
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities: Treatment consists of 2 equalization
basins along with biological treatment via activated
sludge. Biologic treatment is followed by clarification
and a bridge filter. Ultra -violet light is employed for
disinfection. Sludge is aerobically digested with final
disposal through land application.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: N/A
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: NH3 Toxicity
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved
should be required not needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
permit no.WQ0000506 20,000 Gal/Year allocated to Holly
Springs under this permit
Residua]. Ccntracto:r Wallace Woodall
Telephone No. 919-387-1906
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X
PFRP ._ •1 Other

c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): Class IIZ
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular
facilities i.e., non -contact cooling water discharge from a
metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary 02
Main Treatment Unit Code: 041-3
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. N/A, Permit
Renewal.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: Summer effluent sampling for TP and TN should be
increased from quarterly to 3 times/week. Instream
chlorophyll -a monitoring may also be necessary if instream
TP and TN levels are as high as last summer's levels (Please
see Section IV of this report).
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate)
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Date
11/30/93
Approx. 7/94
4/95
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Not recommended by the RRO for this area
due to high rates of population growth and lack of
sufficiently sized sites.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: The RRO is unaware of
any efforts to pr.ovide a regional system for southern Wake
County. Hoiever_, the Town of Apex and the Town of Fuquay-
Varina
Subsurface:
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
1

a
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The RRO has completed a review and site inspection of the
subject facility. The upgrade from .25 MGD to the current
capacity of .5 MGD was completed in April of 1995. Since that
time, there have been three monthly average violations for fecal
'and three for NH3. In addition, there have been five weekly
violations for fecal.
It is unclear why the chronic violations of fecal and NH3
parameters persist. Apparently, (as stated by the ORC), the UV
disinfection system has been prone to breakdown and to other
problems. The RRO strongly recommends that a backup to the UV
disinfection system be brought on-line.
In regard to waste allocation, it is the RRO's
recommendation that summer effluent sampling for TP and TN be
increased from a quarterly frequency to 3 samples/week. This will
more effectively allow a correlation (if any) between the
instream concentrations of TP and TN to the TP/TN concentrations
in the effluent. As a result, more stringent nutrient controls
may need to be implemented if last summer's elevated instream
levels of TP and TN are repeated and/or linked to the effluent.
Further, if there are in fact high TP/TN in the effluent, the
addition of downstream chlorophyll -a monitoring may also be
necessary.
Signature
Water
a ►e
or report prepare
�egi.ona�. Supervisor

•a
RATING SCALE - FOR CLASSIFICATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Name of Facility: /01^/-) C3 d 11 50(1055
Owner or Contact Person: `C 1,1
ez
Mailing Address • (�_ _ (3 c ( Ncij!,Y,$Pii > 2.)5O
County: W J !
Telephone:
Present Classification: New Facility
•NPDES Per. No _NCO° 309 (Q Nondisc. Per. No.WQ
Rated by: -t—(
Reviewed by:
ORC:
• Q-i
Check Classification(s): Subsurface
Wastewater Classification: (Circle One) I
Existing Facility 4--------,
Health Dept.Per No.
Telephone: $7 (4200 Date: (Q
Health Dept. Telephone:
Regional Office Telephone: 57/- .1.-7�
Central Office Telephone:
Grade: Telephone:
Sp irrigation Land Appl'cation
Ii • iV Total Points: (-VSt-
IN-RANT PROCFSSFS ANn RFt ATFD CQ.(TRCY FOUIPIIFNT WHICHARF ANIN i FGR PART OF i
CONSIDERED WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OFCLASSIRCATICN. ALSO SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS T CONSISTING USTRIAI � t I NOT T
AND GRAVITY NITRIFICATION LINES A „_ ONLY ScPTIC TALC
HF F�i-MPT FROM CLASSiFiCATI4N,
S'USSURFACE CLASSWFiCATION
(check all units that apply)
1. septic tanks
2. pump tank
3. siphon or pump -dosing systems
4. sand fillers
5. grease trap/interceptor
6. oil/water separators
7. gravity subsurface treatment and disposal:
8. pressure subsurface treatment and disposal:
SPRAY tRRiGA T SON CLASSIFICATION
(check ail units that apply)
1. preliminary treatment (definition no. 32 )
2. lagoons
3. septic tanks
4. pump tanks
5. pumps
6. sand filters
7. grease trap/interceptor
S. oil/water separators
9. disinfection
10. chemical addition for nutrient/algae control
11. spray irrigation of wastewater
in addition to the above classifications, pretreatment of
be rated using the point rating system and will require
9.
wastewater in excess of these
an operator with an appropriate
LAND APPLICATION/RESIDUALS CLASSIFICATION (Applies only to
1. Land application of biosolids, residuals or contaminated sot s non a dt esignated site.
components .shal•
dual certification
WASTEWATER TREATAafT FACILrrY CLASSIFICATION
The following systems shall be assigned a Class 1 classification, stnlcss the flow is of a significant quantity or the technol is
complex, to require consideration by the Commission on a case -by -case basis: (Check if Appropriate) °gy
1. 2• Oil/water Separator Systems consisting only of physical separation, pumps and disposal;
Septic Tank/Sand Filter Systems consisting only of septic tanks, dosing apparatus,
and direct discharge; P pumps,sand lifters,
3• Lagoon Systems consisting only of preliminary treatment, lagoons, pumps,
algae or nutrient control, and direct discharge;
4. Closed -loop Recycle Systems;
5. Groundwater Remediation Systems consisting only of oil/water separators,
and disposal;
6. Aquaculture operations with discharge to surface waters;
7. 6• Water Plant sludge handling and back -wash water treaimenl.1
Seafood processing consisting of screening and disposal.
Single-family discharging systems, with the exception of Aerobic.Treatment Units, will be classified if permitted aster July 1,
1993 or if upon inspection by the Divisiop, it is found that the •system is not being adequately o
systems witl be notified of the classificatioor reclassification by the Commission, in writing.�rraled or maintained. Such
disinfection
unusually
disinfection, necessary chemical treatment for
pumps,
air -stripping, carbon adsorption, disinfection

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Gerald Holleman, Mayor
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Mr. Holleman:
.7TrA
�EHNF1
July 7, 1995
Subject Speculative Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
NC0063096
Wake County
The Division appreciates your efforts regarding future wastewater planning needs for the Town of Holly
Springs. Based on a review of available instream data, and after a modeling analysis, the Division would
recommend the following limits for an expanded discharge into Utley Creek:
Parameter
BOD5
NH3
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Total Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform
Residual Chlorine
Chronic Toxicity (Pass/Fail)
Summer Limit
5.0 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
30 mg/1
200/100 ml
17 µgfl
@ 90% effluent concentration
Winter Limit
10.0 mg/1
4.0 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
30 mg/1
200/100 ml
17 µg/1
@90% effluent concentration
Connection of your discharge to the Town of Cary's regional wastewater treatment plant is a preferrable
option from an environmental standpoint. Alternatives to an expanded discharge into Utley Creek, such as a
spray irrigation system, water reuse, etc. must be considered as part of the economic engineering analysis and
environmental assessment document prior to the issuance of an NPDFS permit. If you have any questions
regarding this permit, please contact Mr. David Goodrich or me at (919)-733-5083.
Sincerely,
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs
David Goodrich
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

5-itsfAAIIE - ALI 1,0,4,t0s
( 7-76-1A1 (Afp41- 711(c = 3 yes.
Logy,-�� HJ/,vre, 4iJC ST ✓J/�fn/ j
GtO GiOztLP p,e 42 rb Gd Td Lam/477,-Matr-A lf,k7r. /11 1,teie /171 iz)
/t/i S% . , ie IST(cva/i , i)i/,�,brGer
MAIM 5/9ge-/C/ .
/4/sue = Ce' ,,�Ar1 41//A4 /4 (c37e*1
L/ . /4 - aS,f. a4us Z/ i $d(e/t/rr,4 J ,f-n5e/l/--E
k M/7/ ge1°1.dee44Er/ -
ate.
Pi r ,tsec-7-76/J uxiE Fgeve,kirs ` ey s
Al kV/MID/AA; t3eyeAJO/i
/ii(Pkt C� .
66- /We/ / 1/1°
16L-9<n/4 Ate4 -rS5 . bs 12 T
tie 2 C41. 77,E -rzotE = 3 Yies .)
11./ 0 A),66 kJ& rs
X . /46A-1, f ram/& i
(09-kY (s

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 2, 1995
Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Subject: Speculative Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES No. NC0063096
Wake County
Dear Ms. Sudano:
In reference to your request for a review and update of the speculative limits for the
expansion of the Holly Springs wastewater treatment plant, we are hereby supplying limits
that would presently be applied to the discharge at its current location in Utley Creek at
expanded flows of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 MGD.
The discharge point is located roughly 3 miles upstream from the upper reaches of the
White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake. The drainage area at the point of discharge is
estimated to be 0.73 square miles, and the associated stream flow estimates are as follows:
7Q10 (summer) = 0.11 cfs, 7Q10 (winter) = 0.25 cfs, 30Q2 = 0.32 cfs and Q (average
flow) = 0.82 cfs.
Based on the flow estimates above, limits would be assigned as follows:
Parameter Units
Flow
BOD5 (Sum/Win)
NH3N (Sum/Win)
DO (minimum)
TSS
Fecal Coliform
Residual Chlorine
Chronic Toxicity*
MGD
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
/100 ml
ug/1
P/F @ %
Limits (30 day avg.).
1.0
8/16
2/4
5.0
30
200
18 (daily max)
90 %
2.0 or 3.0
5/10
2/4
5.0
30
200
18 (daily max)
90 %
*Toxicity Testing: Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) - no observable inhibition of
reproduction or significant mortality at the percentage indicated; Quarterly Test
The Division is concerned that eutrophication may occur in the White Oak Creek arm
of Harris Lake due to increased nutrient loading as a result of expanded flows from the
Holly Springs WWTP. In order to better track this potential water quality problem, upon
expansion of the WWTP, the town will be required to conduct a more extensive instream
monitoring program during summer months. Monitoring of temperature, dissolved
oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivity, total phosphorus and total nitrogen will be required
year round on Utley Creek at the nearest possible point to the headwaters of Harris Lake.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

The following rates were input and assumed to be constant throughout the segment. They were within the ranges
cited in the literature (USEPA, 1985). The rates produce fairly good fits of predicted to observed data (Fig. 7).
The calibrated model rates are:
R1-12 R13-14
Org-N > NH1-N .050 /day .050 /day
Org-N Settling 0.050/ day 0.050/ day
NHq-N Oxidation .250 / day .250 / day
Nitrate Oxidation 0.1 / day . 0.1 / day
BOD decay 0.10/day 0.10/day
BOD Settling 0.00 / day 0.00 / day
SOD 0.07gm/ft2/day 0.055gm/ft2/day
Reaeration 0' Connor and Dobbins (3)
The SOD rate at 20°C was input to represent the oxygen demand exerted by the sediments of the
stream bed. SODs were measured at two sites in the model area:
0.25 mi above I-95 .070 gm/ft2/day
0.35 mi above Lock & Dam #3 .055 gm/ft2/day
MODEL ALLOCATION
A. Headwater conditions
The allocation model was run under critical summer conditions (low flow and summer
temperatures).
Table 13. Headwater conditions for the model allocation.
Headwater
Flow
(cfs)
Temp
(F)
DO
(mg/1)
CBOD
(mgn)
OrgN
(mgn)
NH3-N
(mgn)
Nitrate
(mgn)
Cape Fear River
500 ,
82.4
6.0
6.5
0.40
0.05
0.58
B. Point Loads
Table 14. Permitted loads below Buckhorn Dam
FLOW
, BODS
CBODu
NH3N
NBOD
Facility
Subbasin
NPDES#
(MGD)
(mg/1) ,
(lbs/day)
(mg/1)
(lbs/day)
Fuquay-Varina WWTP
-07
NC0028118
1.2
16.0
256.2
5
225.2
Lillington WWTP
-07
NC0021636
0.6
12.0
162.1
2
45.0
Buies Creek WWTP
-07
NC0030091
0.5
,
30.0
550.4
20*
375.3
Swift Textiles
-13
NC0001406
2.5
395.4
8245
NL
NL
WWTP
-13
NC0064521
1.2
30.0
990.8
20*
900.7
_Erwin
Dunn WWTP
-13
NC0043176
3.0
30.0
1726.4
20*
2251.8
Fort Bragg WWTP
-14
NC0003964
8.0
16.0
2135
11
3302.6
Spring Lake WWTP
-14
NC0030970
1.5
28.0
770.6
8
450.4
Cross Creek WWTP
-15
NC0023957
22.0
8.0
3669.6
2
1651.3
Rockfish Creek WWTP
-15
NC0050105
12.0
6.0
3122.5
1
450.4
Raeford WWTP
-15
NC0026514
3.0
30.0
5179.1
20*
2251.8
Monsanto
-15
NC0003719
0.86
405.0
2905
3.2
103.5
total
* no limit; 20 mg/l is used for allocation purposes
56.4
29457
11783

In addition, during the months of June - September, weekly monitoring of total
phosphorus and total nitrogen and monthly monitoring of chlorophyll a will be required on
the White Oak Creek arm of the lake in the middle of the NCSR #1127 bridge. The
Division recommends that the town begin such monitoring as soon as possible in order to
establish background conditions. Given the potential for eutrophication to occur in Harris
Lake, the Division also recommends that Holly Springs contemplate some flexibility in the
design of the upgraded facility to enhance it's ability to comply with nutrient controls if the
need arises in the future.
Please note that these are speculative limits and are not binding unless the limits are
part of an issued NPDES permit. All information pertaining to this request has been sent to
our Central Files for storage. When you are ready to request the increase, please submit a
complete application package including fees appropriate for that point in time.
If you have any questions please contact Jason Doll at [phone].
Sincerely,
Donald Safrit, P.E.
Assistant Chief for Technical Support
Water Quality Section
cc: Ford Chambliss, Wooten Company
Raleigh Regional Office
David Goodrich - NPDES Permits Group.
Central Files

hydraulic conditions, the channel parameters were input directly to the model rather than calculated
internally by exponential functions. Thus, the model will be not be a predictive tool for other flows than
the low flow scenario.
Table 8. Hydraulics coefficients and exponents.
i
Velocity (ft/sec)
Depth (ft)
REACH
Coefficient
Exponent
Coefficient
Exponent
study
R1
0.4
0
3.5
0
1994
R2
0.54
0
4.0
0
1994
R3
0.37
0
3.0
0
1994
R4
0.54
0
5.0
0
1994
R5
0.54
0
5.0
0
1994
R6
0.42
0
6.5
0
1993
R7
0.46
0
6
0
1993
R8
0.38
0
9
0
1993
R9
0.0049
0.6814
1.04
0.2796
1975
R10
0.0049
0.6814
3.255
0.1828
1975
R11
0.0018
0.8020
3.2
0.159
1975
These functions reflect the average velocity, widths, and depths observed during the T-O-T studies at the
flows measured during the T-O-T studies (Table 9).
Table 9. Predicted vs. observed values.
Low Flow Study
REACH
Observed
Velocity (fps)
Predicted
, Velocity
Observed
Width (ft)
Predicted
Width
Observed
Depth (ft)
Predicted
Depth
R1
,
0.4
0.4
.
343
393
2.42
3.5
R2
0.54
0.54
387
255
4.08
4
R3
0.54
0.54
255
4
R4
0.37
0.37
340
496
1.3
3
R5
0.54
0.54
393
204
4.6
5
R6
0.54
0.54
204
5
R7
0.42
0.42
266
5
R8
0.42
0.42
266
5
R9
0.63
0.63
240
146
6.5
6.5
R10
0.46
0.46
213
217 ,
9.1
6
R11
0.38
0.38
213 _
175
9.1
9
R12
0.39
0.39
280
252
9.6
6.3
R13
0.44
0.44
243
154
14.5
10.8
R14
0.36
0.36
295
225
12.8
9.2
CALIBRATION
The model was calibrated to instream data collected by DEM on Spetember 26,1994. A design
temperature of 70.70F was assumed based on data from the Cape Fear River. Headwater conditions are based on
LT BOD data collected by DEM. A flow of 550 cfs was used to approximate low flow conditions present during
the 1993 and 1994 studies.
nditions for the model calibration.
Headwater
Flow
(ems)
Temp
(F)
DO
(mgll)
CBOD
(mgll)
OrgN
(mgll)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
Nitrate
_ (mgn)
0.58
Cape Fear River
550 _
70.7
7.7
6.53
0.35
0.05
1