NC0063096_Permit Issuance_20111012

......,.'fir
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
October 12, 2011
Randal S. Martinez, Chief Operator/ORC
Town of Holly Springs
P. O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Issuance of Permit NCO063096
Utley Creek WRF
Class"IVFacility
Wake County
Dear Mr. Martinez: '
Division of Water Quality (Division) personnel have Ceviewed and approved your application for
renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit.
It 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 October 15, 2007.
There were changes to your permit from the draft permit issued August 17, 2011. They include the
following:
• The supplement to permit cover page was modified to include the equipment recently installed
during the plant upgrade.
• The effluent pollutant scan condition was modified to require three tests during the next permit term,
rather than an annual requirement.
The following modifications from the draft permit remain in effect:
• Effluent limitations tables for 1.5 MGD and 1.75 MGD were eliminated. The effluent limitations
table for 2.4 MGD was retained.
• A nutrient reopener was added to address concerns common to discharges in the Middle Cape
Fear River Basin.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919-B07-63001 FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623.6748 NoY thCarohna
(ntemet: www.ncwaterquality.org NatitrallyAn Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

• Quarterly monitoring for zinc and copper was added, since these action -level parameters
showed a reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of water quality standards.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
after receiving this letter. Your request must take the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and must be filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such demand is
made, this permit remains final and binding.
This permit is not transferable except after notifying the Division of Water Quality. The Division may
modify and reissue or revoke this permit. Please note that this permit does not affect your legal
obligation to obtain other permits required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land
Resources, the Division of Coastal Management, or other federal or local agencies.
If you have questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Gil Vinzani at
[[e-mail]] or at [phone].
3Sinc ;44Z
Coleen H. Sullins
IOW
Enclosure: NPDES Permit FINAL NCO063096
Cc: US EPA Region IV, Pamala Myers*
Raleigh Regional Office, Surface Water Protection Section
Environmental Services Section, Aquatic Toxicology Unit, Susan Meadows*
NPDES Files
Central Files
*E-mail Copy
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 One
Phone: 9IM07-M \ FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina
Internet:ualwww.nnity\AqualitveAc Natlf"tile/ An Equal Opportunity \ Alfirmalive Action Employer

Permit NCO063096
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 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, the
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
150 Treatment Plant Road
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 November 1, 2011.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2016.
Signed this day October 12, 2011.
lfopeen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NCO063096
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this *NPDES permit. The conditions,
requirements, terms and provisions of this NPDES permit govern surface water discharges from this
facility. All previous NPDES permits issued to this facility bearing this permit number, whether for
operation or discharge, are hereby revoked.
The Town of Holly Springs is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 2.4 MGD wastewater treatment facility located in Holly Springs at 150
Treatment Plant Road in Wake County. This facility discharges through outfall 001 and includes the
following wastewater treatment components:
• Mechanical bar screens
• Centrifugal grit chambers
• Anaerobic phosphorus removal basins
• Primary anoxic basins
• Carrousel oxidation basins
• Secondary anoxic basins
• Reaeration basins
• Chemical feed system with bulk chemical storage
• Secondary clarifiers
• Tertiary filtration
• UV disinfection system
• Cascade aerator
• RAS fine screenings process
• Cannibal solids reduction tank
• Solids stabilization/storage basin
2. 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 map.
p
a

f �l
tom\ V 4-1�� ( ����U lT
�isj/Iil r " fJ� l,�` i ��► `l )!�� �
��
J
mil}•
`,.
` , (1152J/'�
c5/
V.
C �/ \
Outfall 001
\.♦
�
:� (11 5\ • � .� i�� ,��
r�: ;tea
,�.11�,�
,J �
em
Town of Holly Springs - Utley Creek WRF
a,
State Grid/Quad: Apex E2NE Latitude: 35' 38' 41" N
8-Digit HUC: 03030004 Longitude: 78' 51' 03" W
Facility Location
(not to scale)
Receiving Stream: Utley Creek Drainage Basin: Cape Fear
Stream Class: C Sub -Basin: 03-06-07
North
NPDES Permit NC0063096
Wake County

Permit NCO063096
A (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon 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:
E L1 N
CHARACTERS 3CS- 1
_
u�e'Xnenf
Sarp�
Sa"mp
a, h x- x i
Monttfly--.NeelClysDaifyilea
e�
.3 e JV 4
uyy
y
.AL_ -
Flow
2.4 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C 2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
(April 1 —October 31
BOD, 5 day, 200C 2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
(November 1 - March. 31)
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I and E
NH3 as N
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
(April 1— October 31
NH3 as N
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
November 1— March 31
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily average not less than 6.0 mg/L
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 Standard Units
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/100 mL
400/100 mL
Daily
Grab
E
(geometric mean
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine 3
17 Ng/L
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen a
43,835 Ibs/yr
Weekly
Composite
E
(TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N
Total Phosphorus 5
3653 Ibs/yr
Weekly
Composite
E
Total Copper
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Zinc
Quarterly
Composite
E
s
Chronic Toxicity
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
1. 1= Influent; E = effluent. See condition A (2) for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. Total residual chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process. The Division shall
consider all effluent TRC values reported below 50 lag/L to be in compliance with the permit. However, the
permittee shall continue to record and,submit all values reported by a North Carolina certified laboratory.
4. For a given wastewater sample, TN = TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N, where TN is total nitrogen, TKN is total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, and NO3-N and NO2-N are nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, respectively. TN load is the mass quantity of
total nitrogen discharged in a given time period. See condition A (4) of this permit.
5. See condition A (4).
6. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November; see condition
A (5).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO063096
A (2) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Efflue t.Ch� ac `f s
;.fir'" a, �Ya au� ��t�i:';. H
e_as rem entl"re ure G'
rr y
:._3.. { ?E i+. L :•f f'••i a i.. Y 3 .�:
�
. ,t
ti0, 21
Dissolved Oxygen
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
Weekly
Temperature °C
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May'
Weekly
Fecal Coliform
June -September
3/week
(geometric mean)
Grab
U, D
October -May
Weekly
Total Phosphorus2
June -September
Weekly
Grab
U, D
October -May
Monthly
Total Nitrogen
June -September
Weekly
(NO2+ NO3 + TKN)2
Grab
U, D
October -May
Monthly
Chlorophyll -a
June -September
Weekly3
Grab
D
Notes:
1. 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.
2. Effluent and instream monitoring shall be conducted on the same day.
3. Chlorophyll -a monitoring is not required during the months of October through May.
As a participant in the Cape Fear River Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements as
stated above are waived. Should your membership in the agreemeht be terminated, you must notify the
Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your permit will be reinstated.
A (3) CAPE FEAR BASIN NUTRIENT. REOPENER
Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in the North
Carolina Administrative Code at 15A NCAC 2H.0112 (b) (1) and 2H.0114 (a) and Part II sections B-12
and B-13 of this permit, the Director of DWQ may reopen this permit to require supplemental nutrient
monitoring of the discharge. The purpose of the additional monitoring will be to support water quality
modeling efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin and shall be consistent with a monitoring plan
developed jointly by the Division and affected stakeholders. In addition, the results of water quality
modeling may require that additional limits for total nitrogen and total phosphorus be imposed in this
permit upon renewal.

Permit NCO063096
A (4) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN and TP Loads as follows:
1. Monthly TN (or TP) Load (lb/mo) = TN (or TP) x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN or TP = the average Total Nitrogen (or Total Phosphorus)
concentration (mg/L) of the composite samples collected
during the month
TMF = the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the
month (MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN (or TP) Load (lb/yr) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN (or TP) Loads for the calendar
year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus results (mg/L and Ib/mo)
in the discharge monitoring report for that month and shall report each year's annual results (lb/yr)
in the December report for that year.
A (5) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
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 versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole 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 for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the
permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II 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 regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing 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. If reporting pass/fail
results using the parameter code TGP313, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If
reporting Chronic Value results using the parameter code THP313, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be
sent to the following address:

Permit NCO063096
Attention: NC DENR / Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section 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. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed 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 thelop 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
Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
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 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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and all AT
Forms submitted.
NOTE: Failure 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.

Permit NCO063096
A (6) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
Beginning upon the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee shall perform
three pollutant scans of its treated effluent for the following parameters:
Ammonia (as N)
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
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-tetrachloroethane
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
Trichloroethylene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper
Vinyl chloride
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead
Acid Extractable Compounds
Diethyl phthalate
Mercury (Method 1631 E)
P-chloro-m-cresol
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
Flu oranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
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
Bromoform
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphthylene
Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Anthracene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane
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
Notes:
1. The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative of seasonal
variations.
2. Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved under 40 CFR
Part 136.
3. Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable.
4. 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, Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.

Vinzani, Gil
From: Deamer, Nora
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Stallings, Hannah; Belnick, Tom
Cc: Manning, Jeff; Behm, Pamela; Stecker, Kathy; Vinzani, Gil
Subject: NPDES /SEPA requirements for Town of Holly Springs ambient monitoring
Additional Comments for NPDES permit/SEPA # 14382 — Town of Holly Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion
and Discharge Relocation Wake County, NC.
In order to be assured that Holly Springs is required to collect ambient data at the downstream locations (Utley Creek
below proposed discharge and White Oak Creek Arm of Harris Lake), I would like to see similar language in their NPDES
permit, to that use in Siler City's last permit.
I would like to see:
Specific instream monitoring and location requirements have been added. "Because of site specific concerns for the
water quality in the lower portion of Utley Creek and the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake, these specific locations
may not be waived or exempted by participation in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association monitoring program.
These data may be collected and submitted by the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association if desired but remain the
responsibility of the permit holder for the life of the permit."
Monitoring Required:
1.) Utley Creek below proposed discharge —
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Turbidity
Total Phosphorus
NH3
TKN
NO3+NO2
Fecal Coliform
2.) White Oak Creek Arm of Harris Lake -
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Turbidity
Total Phosphorus
NH3
TKN
NO3+NO2
Fecal Coliform
Monitoring Frequency:

One time per month for all parameters
Two time per month for field parameter during - May, June, July, August & September.
If there is a need to modify these requirements in the NPDES permit, please meet with BPU and MTU to discuss.
Thank you,
Nora
Nora Deamer
Basinwide Planner
DENR-Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919-807-6431
nora.deamer(@ncdenr.gov
http:/ jportal.ncdenr.or.ef web f wq f ps f bpu
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.

a
THE TOWN OF
t I011y
Springs
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
w .Irollyspringsnc.us
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
September 19, 2011
Gil Vinzani, PE
NPDES Program/DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Utley Creek WRF INC 0063096
Draft NPDES Permit Renewal
Dear Mr. Vinzani,
u2@90PRE,
SEP 2 1 2011
hETLANDSNR-WAiER
ANDSTOgA1N4tl&8RANCH
The Town of Holly Springs received the draft permit renewal for the Utley Creek
WRF on August 22, 2011. Staff has reviewed the draft and has the following
comments:
On the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet page, item 1 the equipment listed is not
confluent with the current operation of the facility. The facility completed a major
upgrade in 2010 and the following list of equipment is currently operational:
• Mechanical bar screens
• Centrifugal grit chambers
• Dual chamber influent pump station
• Anaerobic phosphorus removal basins
• Primary anoxic basins
• Carrousel Oxidation basins
• Secondary anoxic basins
• Re -aeration basins
• Chemical feed system with bulk chemical storage
• Secondary clarifiers
• Tertiary filtration
• UV disinfection
• Cascade aeration
• RAS fine screenings process
• Cannibal Solids Reduction tank
• Solids stabilization/storage basin
Please make the adjustments necessary to reflect the 2010 upgrades to the facility. We
appreciate your time and effort in the renewal process and if you have any additional
questions or comments please feel free to contact me at 919-567-4738.
Sincerely,
AZD44- C � 1 .
Randal S. Martinez, MPA
Chief Operator/ORC

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit ' .
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NCO063096
Town of Holly Springs Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility
FacilNji:lnforma#ion _
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Holly Springs Utley Creek WRF
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 8; Holly Springs, NC 27540
Facility Address:
150 Treatment Plant Road
Flow (MGD):
2.4 - Permitted; 6.0 - Present Capacity
Type of Waste:
Munici al
Facility Class:
IV
County:
Wake
Facility Status:
lRenewal
Regional Office:
Raleigh
Stream_Chat~actedMICs
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
-Digit HUC
03030004
0Q2 cfs
0.32
03 d Listed
No
Average Flow cfs
0.82
State Grid
Apex
IWC %
97%
IUSGS To o Quad
E 23 NE
Summary
The Town of Holly Springs Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) currently serves
24,000 residents. The Town received an authorization to construct for 2.4 MGD on July 31,
2007. Although this permit action is for a renewal of the 2.4 MGD permit only, the plant has
been constructed to a capacity of 6.0 MGD. Because the Town is experiencing rapid growth,
and had intended to pursue a regional approach to wastewater disposal with the Towns of Cary
and Apex, it received approval from the Division to construct an expansion to 6.0 MGD.
Speculative limits for flows of 6.0 MGD and 8.0 MGD were provided on February 23, 2010 for a
discharge into the White Oak Creek arm of Harris Lake. (Utley Creek flows into Harris Lake).
However, after obtaining approval to relocate the outfall to a point further downstream in Utley
Creek from its present site, the town subsequently applied for and received another speculative
limit letter for flows of 6.0 and 8.0 MGD on June 24, 2011. This new discharge point avoids
impacting impounded areas on Utley Creek with algae problems caused by nutrients. Currently,
the Town is seeking a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) for an environmental assessment
for this expansion. NPDES approval for the expansion will be evaluated through a future permit
modification, after the FONSI is obtained.
The Town has a full pretreatment program. It has one SIU, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics,
Inc., which contributes a total average flow of 161,300 GPD. There is also one categorical
industrial user, the South Wake County Landfill. It contributes an average of 10,700 GPD.
The Town is also developing a wastewater reuse program. It has constructed a 500,000 gallon
tank and a distribution system for this purpose.
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit NCO063096
Page 1

Compliance
Data was obtained from BIMS for monitoring report violations from January 2007 to the present.
The Utley Creek WRF had ten exceedances of weekly BOD average limits from December
2008 to May 2009, also incurring three monthly average violations during this same period. In
addition, during this same period it experienced five fecal violations, five ammonia -nitrogen
concentration exceedances, and one total phosphorus exceedance. From January 2007 to May
2009, it also experienced six TSS concentration exceedances. The Town completed an
extensive upgrade in 2010 to address these problems (and expand treatment capability). These
improvements included new mechanical bar screens, grit removal units, and a five -stage BNR
process train with aeration, clarifiers, filters, and biosolids handling (see July 31, 2007
Authorization to Construct).
There was one WET test failure since January 2007, which occurred during the May 2009 test.
Subsequent testing in June and July 2009 showed passing results.
Toxicant Analysis
Data were obtained from monthly DMRs and from three priority pollutant analyses from 2008-
2010. According to the PERCS unit, all LTMP (long-term monitoring plan) data is included in
the monthly DMRs. Since August of 2010, the Town has been performing quarterly monitoring
of selected toxicants and metals, in support of the water reuse program. The following
parameters showed no hits or reasonable potential to cause exceedances of any water quality
standards: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total phenolic compounds, chromium, cyanide, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and silver. No monitoring will be required for these
parameters. Zinc and copper both showed reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of
water quality standards. As action level parameters, quarterly monitoring is proposed.
Nutrients
There were no changes from the existing permit regarding the limits for nutrients. As per the
Cape Fear Basin Nutrient Monitoring strategy, no changes are made to monitoring frequencies
for TN or TP where there is an existing limit for either.
Proposed Changes to the Permit
The following changes are proposed for this draft permit:
• Effluent flow tables for 1.5 MGD and 1.75 MGD were eliminated.
• A nutrient reopener was added to address concerns common to discharges in the Middle
Cape Fear River Basin.
• Quarterly monitoring for zinc and copper was added, since these action -level parameters
showed a reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of water quality standards.
Proposed Schedule of Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: August 15, 2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue: October 2011
NPDES Unit Contact
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Gil Vinzani at [phone] or at [e-mail].
:1a
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0063096
Page 2

Utley Creek WRF REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Outfall 001
NCO063096 Ow = 2.4 MGD .
Qw (MGD) = 2.40
1 Q 1 OS (cfs) = 0.09
7Q I OS (cfs) = 0.11
7QIOW (cfs) = 0.25
30Q2 (cfs) = 0.32
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 0.82
Receiving Stream: Utley Creek
W WTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC @ 1Q10S = 97.64%
IWC @ 7QIOS = 97.13%
IWC @ 7Q10W = 93.70%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 92.08%
IWC @ QA = 81.94%
Stream Class: C
PARAMETER
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
N
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
TYPE
(1)
J
a..
t
z
NC WQS I Applied th FAV I
i1 # Det. Max Pred Allowable Cw
Chronic Standard Acute
Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Arsenic
C
50 FW(7Q1Os)
ug/L
13 0
5.0
__ _ _______
__________________________
Chronic: 51.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required _
Arsenic
C
10 HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
13 0
5.0
Chronic: 12.2
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Beryllium
NC
6.5 FW(7QIOs)
ug/L
4 0
11.9
_ _______ ____
_______________ ___-____
Note: n <_ 9
Default C.V.
Chronic: ti.7
Limited i:zset (n<8 samples) -no hits; no monitoirng
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
required
Acute: 15.4
Cadmium
NC
2 FW(7Q10s) 15
ug/L
13 0
1.6
_ ______ ___ .
___________________________
Chronic: 2.1
No RP, no hits; no monitoimg required
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorides (AL)
NC
230 FW(7Q10s)
mg/L
0 0
N/A
___ _ _______ ___
___________________________
Chronic: 237
Acute: NO WQS
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
1 A(30Q2)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
___ _ ___________
___________________________
Chronic: 1 1
Acute: NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300 A(30Q2)
ug/L
3 2
135.1
_._ _ _______ ____
________________ ______
Note: n _< 9
Default C.V.
Chronic: 325.8
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required
Acute: 1,077
Chromium
NC
50 FW(7Q10s) 1022
ug/L
13 0
4.0
_ _oni_______ ____
_ _ __________ _ _ ______
Chrc: 51.5
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required
Acute: 7.5
Copper (AL)
NC
7 FW(7Q10s) 7
ug/L
13 11
19
_h_ _____
i_
c: 7
RAZn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply quarterlyP_o____________________
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring in conjunction with TOX Test
Acute: 22.5
Cyanide
NC
5 FW(7Q1Os) 22
10
ug(L
3 0
28.2
_
__ _______________ ________
Note: n <_ 9
Default C.V.
Chronic: 5.1
Limited Dataset (n<8 samples) -no hits; no monitoimg
Limited data set
No value > Allowable Cw
required
2011 Hotly Springs RPA, rpa
Page 1 of 2 8/9/2011

Utley Creek WRF REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Outfall 001
Nr-nninnnaA Ow = 2.4 MGD
----------
Acute: NO WQS
Fluoride
NC
1800 FW(7Q10s)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
_ _ _____ _ _
--Chronic:
_ — __ _— -_______
— —
1,853.2--
—�- -
Acute: 34.6
Lead
NC
25 FW(7Q10s) 33.8
ug/L
13 0
5.0
__ _ _______ ____
_ _ _.
Chronic: 25.7
o_
RP,_ Predict_ed_ Max_ < 50_%_of Allowa_ble Cw -No
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required
Acute: NO WQS
Mercury
NC
12 FW(7Q10s)
0.5
ng/L
11 b
8.7
__ _ _______ ____
____ _ ___
Chronic: 12.4
No RP ,Predicted Max.50% of Allowable Cw -
No value > Allowable Cw
defer to LTMP
Acute: NO WQS
Molybdenum
NC
2000 HH(7Q1Os)
ug/L
10 0
2.5
_ _ _ __
_ _____ _ ___ ____
Chronic: 2,059.1
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
monitoring required
Acute: 267.3
Nickel
NC
88 FW(7Q10s) 261
ug/L
13 0
5.0
_ _ _______ __
_ _ _______-_-_ _ __
Chronic: 90.6
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
No value > Allowable Cw
Monitoring required
Acute: 57.4
No RP, no hits; no monitormg required
Selenium
NC
5 FW(7QIOs) 56
ug/L
13 0
5.0
_ _ ------_-_
___ __ ___ -------------
Chronic: 5.1
No value > Allowable Cw
Acute: 1.260
Sliver (AL)
NC
0.06 FW(7QIOs) 1.23
ug/L
13 0
2.500
_ _ __
____ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___
Chronic: 0.062
Action Level parameter; no hits; no,monitoirng
13 values > Allowable Cw
required
Acute: 68.6
Zinc (AL)
NC
50 FW(7QIOs) 67
ug/L
13 13
151.5
_ _ _______ ____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______
Chronic: 51.5
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,Ci) -apply quarterly
6 values > Allowable Cw
monitoring In conjunction with TOX Test
Acute:
0 0
N/A
_ _ _
--Chronic:----------
---- — —, ----- ------
--- -
Acute:
0 0
NIA
----------
--Chronic:
----- - ----
— — — ----- --- —
Acute:
0 0
N/A
----------
----------- —
---- - - - - -
--Chronic:
Acute:
0 0
N/A
---------- -
I -
—
- — -------------
— —
Chronic:
— -
2011 Holly Springs RPA, rpa
Page 2 of 2 8/10/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
UDC VNL r
"VA CTC
I Arsenic - FW Standard Arsenic - HH/WS Standards
Date Data
8/1/2010 <
9/1/2010 <
10/1/2010 <
11/l/2010 <
12/1/2010 <
1/1/2011 <
2/1/2011 <
3112011 <
4112011 <
5/1/2011 <
2/1/2010 <
11/1/2009 <.
8/l/2008 <;
BDL=I2DL
Results
10 5
Std Dev.
10 5
Mean
10 5
C.V.
10 5
n
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor=
10 5
Max. Value
10 5
Max. Pred Cw
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
5,0000
0.0000
13
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
Date
Data
1
8/1/2010
<
2
9/1/2010
<
3
10/1/2010
<
4
11/1/2010
<
5
12/1/2010
<
6
1/1/2011
<
7
2/12011
<
8
3/1/2011
<
9
4/l2011
<
10
5/1/2011
<
11
12
2/1/2010
<
13
11/1/2009
<
14
811/2008
<
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BDL—MDL
Results
10 5
Std Dev,
10 5
Mean
10 5
C.V.
10 5
n
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor=
10 5
Max. Value
10 5
Max- Pred Cw
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
- 1 - 8/9/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
3
Beryllium
Date Data
13DL-12DL
Results
W72011
5
2.5
Sid Day.
0.0000
Mean
2.5000
2112010
5
2.5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
11/1/2009
5
2.5
n
4
8/12008
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
4.74
Max. Value
2.5 ug2
Max Pred Cw
11.9 ugfL
0
Date Data
1 8/12010 <
2 9/1/2010 <
3 10/12010 <
4 11/1/2010 <
5 12/12010 <
6 1/12011 <
7 2112011 <
8 3(12011 <
9 4/12011 <
10 5/12011 <
11
12 2/12010 <
13 11/1/2009 <
14 8/1/2008 <
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Cadmium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
2
1
Std Day.
2
1
Mean
2
1
C.V.
2
1
n
2
1
2
1
Mull Factor=
2
1
Max Value
2
1
Max. Pred Cw
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
0.2
0.1
0.9308
0.2682
13
1.61
1.0 ug/L
1.6 ug/L
2011. Holly Springs RPA, data
8/9/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
7
e
Total Phenolic Compounds
Chromium
Date
Data BDL=I2DL
Results
• •
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1
2/12010
< 10 5
Std Dev.
9.5044
1
6/12010
5
2.5
Std Dev.
0.6240
2
11/12009
24 24
Mean
14.3333
2
9/12010
5
2.5
Mean
2.3269
3
8/12008
14 14
C.V. (default)
0.6000
3
10/12010
5
2.5
C.V.
0.2682
4
n
3
4
11/12010
5
2.5
n
13
5
5
12/12010
5
2.5
6
Mult Factor =
5.63
6
1/1/2011
5
2.5
Mult Factor =
1.61
7
Max. Value
24.0 ug/L
7
2/1/2011
5
2.5
Max Value
2.5 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
135.1 ug/L
8
3112011
5
2.5
Max Pred Cw
4.0 u9/L
9
9
4/1/2011
5
2.5
10
10
5112011
5
2.5
2f112010 1 5 2.5
11/12009 5 2.5
8/1/2008 0.5 0.25
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
-1- 892011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
9
10
Copper (AL)
Cyanide
Date
BDL=112DL
Results
Data
Data BDL=1/2DL
Results
•'
1
_Data
811/2010
4 4
Std Dev.
1.6013
1
2/1/2010
5 5
Std Dev.
0.0000
2
9/1/2010
3 3
Mean
2.6923
2
11/1/2009
5 5
Mean
5.00
3
10/1/2010
2 2
C.V.
0.5948
3
8/1/2008
5 5
C.V. (default)
0.6000
4
11/1/2010
2 2
n
13
4
n
3
5
12/1/2010
2 2
5
6
1/1/2011
4 4
Mult Factor =
2.69
6
Mult Factor=
5.63
7
2/1/2011 `_-
3 3
Max. Value
7.0 ug/L
7
Max. Value
5.0 ugfL
8
3/1/2011
2 2
Max. Pred Cw
18.8 ug/L
8
Max. Pred Cw
28.2 ug/L
9
4/1/2011
2 2
9
10
5/1/2011
2 2
10
2/1/2010 : <, 2 1
11/1/2009 __<-. 2 1
8/1/2008 7 7
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
- 1 - 8/9/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
12
Dale Data
8/1/2010 <
9/12010 <
10/1/2010 <
11/1/2010 <
12/1/2010 <
1/1/2011 <
2/1/2011 <
3/12011 <
4/1/2011 <
5/12011 <
2/1/2010 <
11/1/2009 <
8112008 <
Lead
BDL=I2DL
Results
10 5
Sid Dev.
10 5
Mean
10 5
C.V.
10 5
n
10 5
10 5
Mult Factor=
10 5
Max. Value
10 5
Max. Fred Cw
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
10 5
5.0000
0.0000
13
1.00
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
13
Mercury
Date
Data
BDL=I2DL
Results
1
8/18/2010
2.72
2.72
Sid Dev.
2
9/15/2010
<
1
0.5
Mean
3
10/27/2010
1.34
1.34
C.V.
4
11/16/2010
2,39
2.39
n
5
12/21/2010
1.8
1.8
6
1/182011
<;
1
0.5
Mult Factor=
7
223/2011
<'
1
0.5
Max. Value
8
a/4/2011
<
1
0.5
Max. Fred Cw
9
4/19/2011
1,45
1.45
10
5/17/2011
1.29
1.29
11
12
2/1/2010
2,�
1
0.5
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
1.2264
0.6634
11
3.19
2.7 ng/L
8.7 ng/L
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
8/10/2011

14
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
• 15
Molybdenum Nickel
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
8/1/2010
- <
5
2.5
Std Dev.
9/1/2010
<
5
2.5
Mean
10/1/2010
<
5
2.5
C.V.
11/1/2010
<
5
2.5
n
12/1/2010
<
5
2.5
1/1/2011
<
5
2.5
Mutt Factor=
2/1/2011
f
5
2.5
Max. Value
3/1/2011
<
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
411/2011
<
5
2.5
5/1/2011
<
5
2.5
2 5000
0.0D00
10
1.00
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
8/1/2010
<
10
5
Std Dev.
9/i/2010
<
10
5
Mean
10/1/2010
,
10
5
C.V.
11/1/2010
<1
10
5
n
12/1/2010
<
10
5
1/1/2011
<i
10
5
Mult Factor=
2/1/2011
c
10
5
Max Value
3/1/2011
<
10
5
Max Pred Ow
4/1/2011
<.
10
5
511/2011
<
10
5
2/1/2010
<
10
5
11/1/2009
<
10
5
811/2008
<
10
5
5.0000
0.0000
13
1.00
5.0 ugtL
5.0 ug/L
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
-1 - 8/9/2011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
1s
17
Selenium
Date
Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
• • •
Date
Data
8t1/2010
<
10
5
Std Dev.
0.0000
1
8/12010
<-
9/1/2010
<
10
5
Mean
5.0000
2
9/1/2010
r1
10/1/2010
<
10
5
C.V.
0.0000
3
10/1/2010
<`
11/1/2010
<
10
5
n
13
4
11/1/2010
-']!
121112010
<
10
5
5
12/1/2010
1/1/2011
<
10
5
Mult Factor =
1.00
6
1/1/2011
1
2112011
<
10
5
Max. Value
5.0 ug/L
7
2/12011
1:<f
3/1/2011
<
10
5
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 ug4
8
3/12011
<
4/1/2011
<
10
5
9
4/12011
<
5112011
<
10
5
10
5112011
<
11
2/1/2010
<
10
5
12
2/12010
<
11/1/2009
<
10
5
13
11/1/2009
<
8/1/2008
<
10
5
14
8/1/2008
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Silver (AL)
BDL=12DL
Results
5 2.5
Std Dev.
5 25
Mean
5 2.5
C.V.
5 2.5
n
5 2.5
5 2.5
Mult Factor=
5 2.5
Max. Value
5 2.5
Max. Fred Cw
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
5 2.5
2.5000
0.0000
13
1.00
2.500 ug/L
2.500 ugtL
2011 Holly Spdngs RPA, data
-1 - 8/92011

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
18
Zinc (AL)
Date Data
BDL--1/2DL
Results
•'
1
8/1/2010 -
56.
56
Sld Dev.
19.2576
2
9/12010
53.
53
Mean
47.3636
3
10/l/2010
33
C.V.
0.4066
4
11/1/2010
31.
31
n
13
5
12/l/2010
40.
40
6
1/12011
34.
34
Mult Factor =
2.02
7
2/12011
12.
12
Max. Value
75.0 ug4
B
3/1/2011
3
Max. Pred Cw
151.5 ug4
9
4/1/2011
55.
55
10
5/1/2011
32.
32
11
12
2/1/2010
61.
61
13
11/1/2009
75.
75
14
8/1/2008
72.
72
2011 Holly Springs RPA, data
8/9/2011

Vinzani, Gil
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:51 AM
To: Vinzani, Gil; Belnick, Tom
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: "No comments" for NC0063096, Utley Creek WRF, Wake County
Good morning Gil and Tom,
Just a brief note to let you know that the EPA, in Region 4 has "no comments" for draft NPDES permit
# NC0063096, Utley Creek WRF, in Wake County, North Carolina at this time.
As always should there be additional public comments or major changes to the draft document prior to
issuance, please afford the EPA an additional period of time to review any of those changes.
Otherwise, please proceed to issue this permit at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Pamala Myers
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor Pollution Control and Implementation Branch Water
Protection Division Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section U.S. EPA, Region 4 Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9421
404.562.8692 (fax)

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA.
Wake County.) Ss.
Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental
Management CommissiaN NPDES Unit
1617 Mail service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a
NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Man.
agement Commis
sion proposes to Issue a
NPDES wastewater discharge Permit to the
cerson(s) listed below.
N&O: August 19, 2011
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Wake
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and authorized to
administer oaths, affirmations, etc., personally appeared
Deborah Mahaffey, who, being duly sworn or affirmed,
according to law, cloth depose and say that she is Accounts
Receivable Specialist 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
he makes this affidavit; that he is familiar with the books, files
and business of said corporation and by reference to the files
of said publication the attached advertisement for NCDENR/
DWQ/ POINT SOURCE was inserted in the aforesaid
newspaper on dates as follows: 08/19/11
Account Number: 80763040
The above is correctly copied from the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation and publication.
�OlARy
'OUB00
Deborah Mahaffey, Accounts Receivable specialist
Wake County, North Carolina
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me, this
22 day of AUGUST 2011 AD ,by Deborah Mahaffey.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official seal, the day and year aforesaid.
Timothy R. Winslow, Notary Public
My commission expires 2nd of June 2013.

NPDES/Aquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
Check all that
apply
-ack from PERCS:
Notify PERCS ifLTMP/STMP data we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
you (or NOV POTW).
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
Date of Request
7/25/2011
municipal renewal
x
Requestor
Gil Vinzani
new industries
Facility Name
Holly Springs W RF
W WTP expansion
Permit Number
NC0063096
Speculative limits
permit renewal.
Region
Raleigh
stream reclass.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
Basin
Cape Fear
stream relocation
7010 change
if changes.
other
other
check applicable
PERCS staff:
Other Comments to PERCS:
BRD, CPF, CTB, FRB, TAR
X
Sarah Morrison (807-6310
CHO, HIW, LTN, LUM, NEU, NEW, ROA, YAD
Monti Hassan 807-6314
PERCS PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
1) facility has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment Program
X 3) facility has SIUs and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV° if program still under development)
X 3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b) Modified Program with STMP
4) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below STMP time frame:
Most recent:
Flow, MGDj Permitted Actual jTime period for Actual Next Cycle:
Inclustriall 0.275 1 0.055051 Jan 2010-Dec 2010
Uncontrollable Na 1 1.2866 1 Jan 2010-Dec 2010
POC due to
POC in Parameter of NPDES/Non- Required POTW POC STMP LTMP
LTMP/ Concern (POC) Disch Permit Required by 503 POC due (Explain Effluent Effluent
STMP Check List Limit by EPA- Sludge** to SIU"' below)— Freq Fre
X BOD L X 4 Q M
X TSS L X 4 Q M Q= Quarterly
X NH3 L X 4 Q M M= Monthly
X Arsenic X 4 Q M
Cadmium X 1 4 Q M
Chromium 4 Q M
copper X 4 Q M
X
Cyanide
4
Q M
all data on DMRs?
Lead
X
4
Q M
YES
X'
X
Mercury
X
4
Q M
NO
X
Molybdenum
X
4
Q M
Nickel
X
4
Q M
X
Silver
4
Q M
X
Selenium
X
4
Q M
zinc
X
4
Q M
data in spreadsheet?
X
Total Nitrogen
L
4
Q M
YES (email to writer)
X
Phosphorus
L
X
4
Q M
NOI
X
X Chlorides X 4 Q M
X Oil & Grease 4 Q M
'Always in the LTMP/STMP " Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge land app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
•" Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW "" Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concern to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs: info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems): Holly
Springs has 2 SIUS: South Wake Landfill and Novartis (pharmaceutical industry). Novartis also has limits for various pharmaceutical
parameters limited under 40 CFR 439.
Monthly LTMP data should be included on DMRs. Please let me know if not the rase and I will contact the Town.
NPDES Pretreatmenl_repuest ioren_Honyapnnlls_Aug2011
Remed July 24, 2007

Vinzani, Gil
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: RE: Holly Springs NPDES Permit
From: Wakild, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Matthews, Matt; Poupart, Jeff; Belnick, Tom; Clark, Alan; Reid, Dianne; Stecker, Kathy; Manning, Jeff; Blaisdell,
Daniel; Colson, Kim; Bill. [e-mail]
Subject: FW: Holly Springs NPDES Permit
FYI. We are relying on the current USGS flow metrics and expect to hear from Holly Springs within a few weeks for the
modeling and Progress Energy agreement.
From: Wakild, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:29 AM
To:'[e-mail]'
Cc: Sullins, Coleen; Matthews, Matt; Clark, Alan; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Holly Springs NPDES Permit
Stephanie,
We have reviewed the request from the Town of Holly Springs to relocate their discharge point to Utley Creek just
downstream of Thomas Mill Pond. The DWQ can reissue the Holly Springs NPDES Permit provided all of the necessary
support documentation demonstrates compliance with water quality standards downstream of the relocated discharge
point. The following processing steps and demonstrations are necessary:
• Holly Springs will be provided speculative effluent limits for the new location if they submit a water quality
modeling analysis which demonstrates compliance with standards and they submit documentation that the
downstream reservoir (Greentree Reservoir) will remain unimpounded into the future. We understand that
Progress Energy owns and operates that asset and they must agree to this condition.
• If and when speculative effluent limits are provided, Holly Springs must revise and resubmit an Environmental
Assessment (EA) document for processing through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This process
requires a public comment period. The best case outcome for Holly Springs is a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
• If and when a FONSI is issued, Holly Springs may submit an NPDES, Permit application reflecting the new location
and increased effluent flow. Processing of this permit application also requires a public comment period.
• If and when the revised NPDES Permit issues, Holly Springs must submit engineering plans and specifications for
the construction of a new effluent transport and discharge structure at the new location. After review, DWQ will
issue an Authorization to Construct (ATC). Depending on the particular design, there may be a need for
approvals to impact wetlands as well.
Issuance of these approvals is never absolutely certain given the opportunities for public input. Also, the length of time
it will take to complete these steps is dependent on not only DWQ review time, but how long various submittals take to
prepare and the quality (completeness and thoroughness) of those submittals, and what information may be brought
forward from the public. I believe the absolute minimum time needed to complete this entire process from where we
are today to issuance of the ATC is 12 months.
If you have questions, call me at 919-807-6358.

P-elffi ( �
4-x)
Al (rV 63096
MEETING SUMMARY
Flow Estimates on Utley Creek
CH2MHILL
ATTENDEES: Stephanie Sudano, Holly Springs
Daniel Calavito, Holly Springs
Amy Moore, Holly Springs
Jeff (?), USGS - Field support
Jeanne Robbins, USGS
Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Curtis Weaver, USGS
Ruth Rouse, CH2M HILL
MEETING DATE: May 9, 2011
Stephanie Sudano opened the meeting, and introductions were made.
Recent History of Utley Creek WWTP
Stephanie and Amy indicated that the Town had a discharge to Utley Creek since the mid
1980s. The following is a history of the plant capacities included in various NPDFS permits
for the Utley Creek WWTP:
• 1985 - 0.25 mgd
• 1993 - 0.75 mgd
• 1999 - 1.5 mgd
• 2009 - 2.4 mgd (built for 6 mgd)
Bill Kreutzberger provided a brief overview of the history of the Utley Creek WWTP. The
Town of Holly Springs was one of the Partners in the proposed Western Wake WRF - they
were to continue to operate the Utley Creek WWTP and share the outfall line with the
Partners to the Cape Fear River. As part of the Western Wake project, modeling was
completed on Harris Lake to evaluate this as an alternative for the WRF discharges. This
alternative did not meet the Partners needs; however the Town of Holly Springs was able to
use the model and received speculative limits to discharge to the White Oak Creek arm of
the lake.
Although being able to discharge to Harris Lake substantially reduces costs for the Town,
being able to discharge somewhere in Utley Creek could save up to $10 M in capital costs.
DWQ has indicated that they will not consider allowing the discharge to remain at the
present location because of water quality concerns in Thomas Millpond. Thus, the Town
requested speculative limits to Utley Creek downstream of the millpond. DWQ requested
that flow estimates be obtained at that site on Utley Creek.
History of Flow Estimates on Utley Creek
Curtis Weaver provided a history of USGS flow estimates on Utley Creek:
February 1984 below Thomas Millpond -All estimates (7Q10, 30Q2, Winter 7Q10)
were zero. These estimates were based on unpublished equations from the late
1970's and early 1980's.
USGS_FLOWMTG SUMMARY_MAY92011_V3.DOCX

FLOW ESTIMATES ON UTLEY CREEK
• January 1987 at mouth -All estimates were zero. These were based on transfer of
flow estimates from nearby gages based on flow/ sq mi drainage area. The index
sites used for the analysis were on White Oak Creek. The upper White Oak Creek
site had all flow estimates as zero, while the lower site had a positive 30Q2.
• March 1989 at Utley Creek WWTP - All estimates were zero.
February 1993 at Utley Creek WWTP - These flow estimates were completed just
following the release of the statewide low flow report. The estimates were 0.08 cfs
for 7Q10 and 0.23 cfs for 30Q2 (note: 7Q10 on Holly Springs NPDES permit is 0.11
cfs; Curtis noted that this was actually the yield per mil and the present discharge
location has a drainage area of about 0.7 mi2). These estimates were based on the
transfer of yield estimates based on 3 sites located in North Raleigh - Hare Snipe
Creek, Mine Creek, and Big Branch.
No further flow estimates until Holly Springs requested updated flows at DWQ's
request for the development of speculative limits
Curtis also had letter from Hugh Hudgins that references flow data collected by the Town
over V-notch weir in 1992; the lowest flow recorded in that year was 0.0754 cfs. Curtis also
had the USGS letter response to Mr. Hudgins (both letters attached). No data were included
with the hard copy letters that Curtis found in USGS files and the Town has not been able to
find copies of the reports or data from Mr. Hudgins.
Other Information
Amy reported that they have always been able to collect instream water quality samples
upstream of their discharge in Utley Creek since she has been with the Town since 2000. In
addition, the springs of Holly Springs are located downtown in the Utley Creek headwaters
and provide flow regularly to the Creek. The Town also pointed out that two mills were
historically located on the creek, and likely would not have been located there if flow not
available.
The soils data in the Utley Creek watershed was discussed. The reference streams on White
Oak Creek are largely within Triassic soils. Utley Creek has mainly B soils in its drainage
area so flows referenced from Triassic soil gages would not be appropriate (map attached).
Curtis acknowledged this information but does not have any reference sites for basing flow
estimates other than those in Triassic soils.
Future Flow Estimates
Curtis indicated that for USGS to make a definitive determination of flow estimates on Utley
Creek, the agency would need three years of data. The data would need to capture three
baseflow periods (late summer to early fall). Data from the three base flow periods would
be correlated with another gage; USGS acknowledged that the nearby gages were all in
Triassic soils and may not be appropriate. Flow estimates in this area have always been
limited by the lack of reference sites. Even available Triassic sites were discontinued 20
years ago. With no correlation to another gage, USGS would need ten years of data.
USGS_FLOWMTG SUMMARY_MAY92011_V3.DOCX

FLOW ESTIMATES ON UTLEY CREEK
We asked whether USGS would need three years of data to determine whether the 30Q2
was zero or not. Curtis indicated that if Holly Springs could find any of the 1992 data in
their archives, he would review it and give an opinion.
Curtis acknowledged that without further data, the most current reference is the 1993 USGS
Low Flow Report by Giese and Mason ("Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North
Carolina", USGS Water -Supply Paper 2403). He indicated that this report is still valid and
can be used for flow estimates.
Next Steps
The Town was going to look in their archives for the 1992 data. The Town will meet with
DWQ to summarize the meeting and discuss next steps.
Utley Creek Site Visit
The group toured Utley Creek upstream of the Holly Springs outfall and at the headwaters
of Utley Creek at the springs. Photos of the site visit are attached.
USGS_FLOWMTG SUMMARY_MAY92011_V3.DOCX 3

FLOW ESTIMATES ON
UTLEY CREEK NEAR UPSTREAM SAMPLING LOCATION
Y
t b
UTLEY CREEK NEAR THE SPRINGS AT UTLEY CREEK HEADWATERS
USGS FLOWMTG_SUMMARY MAY92011_V3.DOCX 4

HUDGINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
December 31, 1992
Mr. Herman C. Gunter
United States Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, -North Carolina 27607
Re: Utley Creek at Holly Springs, NC
Dear Mr. Gunter:
The Town of Holly Springs desires to upgrade their existing
wastewater treatment plant which is located on Utley Creek. The Town
currently has an application for an allocation for 0.5 million gallons
per day pending with the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Management (NC DEM). However, prior to issuing an allocation, the NC
DEM requires*a determination from the USGS that Utley Creek is not a
zero flow stream under 7Q10 conditions.
No stream gauging stations exist on Utley Creek. In order to
gather evidence to assist your office determine the 7Q10 flow of the
stream, the Town of Holly Springs constructed in November 1991, after
consultations with your office, a 90 degree V-notch weir on Utley Creek
located adjacent to the treatment plant. The Town staff has read the
flow over the weir almost every day since its construction.
The drainage area contributing to the weir is approximately 454.5
acres (0.71 sq. miles). We have measured the flow over the weir to
determine the deviation from the standard formula for flow over a 90
degree V-notch weir (CFS = 2.5*H-2.5). The measured flows vary with the
standard formula by approximately 12%. Accordingly, flows have been
calculated using the changing the constant in the formula from 2.5 to
2.188 to give the following formula: CFS = 2.188*H-2.5.
The lowest flow measured during the year was in October 1992 at
33.85 gpm (0.0754 cfs). This flow was substantially sustained for a
period of 14 days from October 17 through October 30. A copy of the
flow measurements from August through October 1992 are enclosed for your
information and use. The stream appears to stabilize shortly after the
surface runoff from this small drainage basin passes the weir. This
pattern of stabilization appears to validate the contention of local
residents that Utley Creek is spring fed and has never been dry in the
memory of the oldest residents.
We look forward to receiving your determination of the 7Q10 for
this stream. Should you require any additional information or have any
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
HUDGINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
*Hugh. Hudgins, P.E.
4915 WATERS EDGE DRIVE • SUITE 285 e RALEIGH, N.C. 27606 • (919) 859-137.4 9 FAX [phone]

TAKEMDE IN
ited States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
P.D. Box 30728
Raleigh, N.C. 27622-0728
February 12, 1993
r
Mr. Hugh D_ Hudgins, P.E.
Hudgins & Associates, Inc.
4915 Waters Edge Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Mr. Hudgins:
In response to your December 31, 1993, request for low -flow data, the U.S.
Geological Survey does not have site -specific daca for Utley Creek at
headwaters at Holly Springs, N.C. The statistics that are provided on the
enclosed sheet have been computed by correlating the runoff characteristics
with the nearest gaged streams. They reflect natural streamflow conditions
and do not account for the effects of any diversion or regulation that may
be present. Because of the lack of site -specific data, no level of accuracy
was assigned to the computed statistics.
These data are preliminary and subject to revision pending approval for
publication by the Director of the Survey, and are made available through
our cooperative program of water -resources investigations with the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Zembrzuski
Supervisory Hydrologist
Enclosure
Copy to: Mr..John N. Morris, Director, DWR, DEHNR
Raleigh, North Carolina
Honorable Gerald Holleman
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
PJZ:af
n12

Source: NRCS SSURGO N
2 3 4
0 0.5 1 �I
Miles

THE TOWN OF
11011Y
Springs
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
w .hollyspringsncxs
[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
(9I9) 552-0654
Town of Holly Springs
Water Reclamation Facility
P.O. Box 8
150 Treatment Plant Rd.
Holly Springs, NC 27540
January 19, 2011
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
NC DENR/DWQ/NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Permit Renewal
Dear Mrs. Sprinkle,
Enclosed is the Town of Holly Springs Permit Renewal Application for the 2.4
MGD Utley Creek Water Reclamation Facility, permit #NC0063096. The facility
has completed an expansion from 1.5 MGD to 6.0 MGD capacity since the issuance
of the current permit which expires on July 31, 2011.
The expansion includes the addition of: expanded head works facilities, (2)
oxidation basins with anaerobic and anoxic zones, modification of the existing
oxidation basin to include a anaerobic zone, (2) secondary anoxic and re -aeration
basins, (3) clarifiers, (4) rotating cloth disc filters, a 2 bank ultra -violet disinfection
facility, RAS screening building, a aerobic digester, a Cannibal solids reduction
process, upgraded SCADA system, expansion of the administration and laboratory
building and all relevant piping, electrical, mechanical, and control systems
appurtenances.
The Town also constructed a Reclaimed Water System, permit #WQ0032289, on
site with all relevant piping, electrical, mechanical, and control systems
appurtenances.
The Town is currently in the planning process to retain and expand effluent
discharge in the Harris Lake watershed. The Town has received speculative limits
for a Harris Lake discharge, prepared draft EAA and EA analyzing discharge
options, and is working with the NPDES group to complete monitoring and
modeling so these documents can be submitted for approval.

The bio-solids management program consists of aerobic digestion and land
application of residuals under the direction of Synagro South, permit #WQ0019098.
Please contact me at [phone] or Amy Moore; Public Utilities Director at
[phone] if there are any questions or need of additional information.
Sincerely,
Randal S. Martinez, MPA
Chief Operator/Operator in Responsible Charge
Town of Holly Springs
Enclosures (3)

PUMP
1.3 MGD 1.3 MGD 2.377 MGD I NST STATION { PS) 2.377 MGD 2.377 MGD 2.377 MGD
ANAEROBIC ANOXIC AERATION a ° SECOND REAERATION
° o °° 0 °° o AN XIC
RAW x u o oe,00 0 0 0� o 0 0� ° ° ° < °
WASTE x
WAS— SCREENING GRIT '° ° ° o 0 o a° ° ° o° ° o ° e0 ° TO CLARIFIER
00 o.P16.
00 ,
00 0. Po 00 0. 80 °0 0.0 0 o
o0. °° °00. o ° .°° .°oa°do
006 �p 000 00cP o� oo *o B 4. 8 °
T
—(—RECYCLE—
LANDFILL I COAGULANT FEED
18ACKWASH FOR TP REMOVAL
10.005 MGD
2.377 MGD 1.339 MGD '� 1.334 MGD 1.334 MGD
[11�UV DISINFECTION POST
AERATION
I
REAEERA�TION — �— CLARIFICATION �— �— FILTRATION — — �► 1.334 MGD
� I
I Y 1 1
I J
Y RAS RECLAIMED
WATER P
I TATION
1.038 MGD 99
RAS SOREDUNG
.085 MGD INTERCHANGE � 5-7 �w 4�80� o
RAS SKIING SLUDGE PUMP CONJUNCTIVE
REUSE SYSTEM
GENERATOR GEN-1
}-- }—----—t-�— ;°& �.. . SOOKW 480V
LANDFILL
.e o.0 1
0_055 MGD 0.014 MGD
0.030 MGD I
NOTES:
I _ _ _ _ 0.0_1_6 _M_G_D_ _ _ ° ..:AEROBIC:-.'. LIQUID LAND
S -- �— 1. MULTIPLE TRAINS ARE OMITTED FOR CLARITY.
—� ° ° } APPUCAnON 2. CYCLONE FLOWS ARE INTERMITTENT AND LESS 'MAN
3. GEN-0 PROVIDES BACKUP FOR I I
r SWITCHGEAR
--- — — —� TRUCK 4. GEN-/I PROVIDES BACKUP FOR MCC-1 OPS EQUIPMENT)
W LAG
RAS RETURN CYCLONE PUMPS
TO IPS
- unv

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: Holly Springs Utley Creek
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Water Reclamation Facility
Renewal
Cape Fear
Permit#NC0063096
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of noncategoncal SIUs.
b. Number of CIUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. ff more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.3 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
\ r
Name: �� CJJGC�( fl VGLC.(. me.7 aoA 1210._ 9 n o *J Lf, . rA C�
/5
Mailing Address: �� ✓ �tYC21�1M1-S cQf K-L��U
f{Du ;n c- 97V40
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge. (j''
-iQfM It ICt
bio6n. t liyrt � manu1aL u f fop -of \I7c f • 't rt 1ud25 JG'rvt ii00 � PUyt"' ri' � U
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
f1�, ((,, ((`` (r' �1 ((''
Principal product(s): �1'(\;1ei1Zet- VCiCLI!)F trrro 't�hOt� 1-Df'VylUlei3cf\ ck,d n��t L{7jGCr�-tWM
Raw material(s): �'�'(w NUf� ( Ifl' u20.oS JX wt.titCAS t c t AJ Lr-&< aLt-, S'Lt•1.tiyo�naC. e4mcc-D 1 I
t$b �fOfXYr\Olr �t..1'n 4\VQUC,(,\lorr j'Q't'TgM(tl`J'5,�h�d2��'1r0.��MQIriCNy��1 kovv proludCl
66ff
F.6. Flow Rate. �^ c-ALL-1., r}ruvA41, a I: b®�ci ZW.( �io.'a C,V'K'.'cc'($
d¢f+u kJOvt.lnQ. te52rva.-kve,+ a_l' cM � o�
Q
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
11r) da • GPD (_�,� continuous or intennitten0
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
Is I S y q`I q intermittent)
l GPD ( continuous or
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits Yes [I No
,Ef
b. Categorical pretreatment standards LDS Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
q3&l fl c(& 4aq'y�
;.AK

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: Holly Springs Utley Creek
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Water Reclamation Facility
Renewal
Cape Fear
Permit#NC0063096
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRAICERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
FA. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
❑ Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs.
b. Number of ClUs.
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
FA Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each Sill discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
(`
Sr tl�L1 1N�1� 2G. cAt fy(±}
Name: 1 I
Mailing Address: (ri 00 0 016
Ap� NC, 29502-
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
f 1
CtitytiT 2 L7 ((\l�nifiP0.� ��idyw( L r7 vtdt �� ��Itr rc7a5 (e ew&0,4tJ15ui�
F.6. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Principal product(s): b jAuL4s �[Q DyotlUt
1
Raw material(s): 0Y\ � I �a o' c A I p " JU � 1(t
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
(D GPD ( continuous or `� intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (GPD) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
M'NI-- GPD (_ continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits E Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: Holly Springs Utley Creek
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Water Reclamation Facility
Renewal
Cape Fear
Permit #NC0063066
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
ElrV Yes No If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has 0 in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes Ly No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remedlation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that It will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) [i�/No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLAIRCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
N]MnEC EnDue oA Aaafi....-.i rs........ti....

Town of Holly Springs
Reclaimed Water System
'~-
_-------- / ._.
T—
L
THE TOWN OF
Holly
Springs
NORTH CAROLINA
Engineering Department
ER ED) MO
WWTP Bus Tour Route
flu
Approximate Distance 8.3 miles
E
S
Feet
1 inch =1.0UOfeet
State Plane NAo1ym
Jam

OWatershed Boundary
OCounty Boundaries
Municipalities
Conservation Land
Primary Roads
Pol CAFO - Swine
I�
• Non -Discharge Facility
NPDES WW Discharge
Major
A Minor
Monitoring Sites
® Fish Community
® Benthos
USGS Gage
* Lake
Ambient Stations
Q DWQAMS
MCFRBA
DWQ/MCFRBA
Draft 2012 Use Support
�i Supporting
�i Data Inconclusive
^; No Data
Oq
V ;
Buckhorn Creek - Cape Fear River
0303000401
CHATHAM 1
, o
/ /' n
FocK � Hughes
GINm
teems
-ASC�
-anford
LEE
78
w
a
Impaired $?
0 2.5 5 10
nnaoc
,
,
' VCPF.2r.A4p
Harris
J
Apex
Cary
e
WAKE
Holly Springs
Utley Cr.`. -:. 3
S � Fuquay-Varina
rB62000001
6A6
f%
11
i204000 /'-\'J
cO
sGt' BB297
aS�eS
• 4 � Ml�n Cr.
~u
B6230000 Q
5 BB290
BF41
42
G{. r HARNETT
Ge,�aS ; C`9A
t{'
ao1
421 =- - NCDWQ`
Basinwide
Apol 2012
210