NC0088366_Permit issuance_20120629

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E.
Governor Director
June 29, 2012
Mr. Steve Ward
Director of Harnett County Public Utilities
P.O. Box 1119
Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit Renewal
NCO088366
South Harnett County Regional WWTP
Harnett County
Dear Mr. Ward:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality (Division) personnel have reviewed 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, or as subsequently amended.
There are no changes to this permit from the draft permit dated April 25, 2012. The following changes have been made
from the current permit:
+ On A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS, -TRC monitoring, limit and
footnote have been removed as UV light is now used instead of chlorine for disinfection.
The Annual Pollutant Analysis has been changed to 3 tests during the permit cycle during specked years. See
A.(7).
+ A mercury TMDL Reopener clause has been added in conjunction with the upcoming Mercury TMDL.
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
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet: http: / / h2o.state.nc.us /
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolna
VVatlfCR�ly

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 re-
issue, or revoke this permit. Please notice 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 Coastal Area Management Act, or other
federal or local governments.
If you have questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact Jim McKay at [e-mail] or call
[phone].
Sincerely,
" UVK�
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Enclosure: NPDES Permit FINAL NCO088366 South Harnett County Regional W WTP
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection with Fact Sheet
EPA Region 4, Atlanta, with Fact Sheet and RPA - via email
NPDES Unit
Central Files
Monitoring Coalition Program - Steve Kroeger & Carrie Ruhlman - via email
Aquatic Toxicology, Susan Meadows - via email

Permit NCO088366
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 provisions 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,
Harnett County Public Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Shady Grove Rd. - SR 2050
Spring Lake
Harnett County
to receiving waters designated as the Little River in the Cape Fear River Basin -in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, H, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 2012.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2016.
Signed this day June 29, 2012.
3-\
axles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

l
Permit NC0088366
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate
and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
Harnett County Public Utilities is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate a 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of the following components:
• Headworks including an automatic fine screen with manual bypass, vortex grit chamber, influent composite
sampler, and flow splitter box,
• Intermittent continuous extended aeration system including dual 126-ft by 174-ft basins providing a total volume
of 4,728,000 gallons, three 2,300 scfin blowers, fine bubble diffusers, and five 25 hp submersible mixers
• Surge tank
• Three 12.5 ft by 52-ft traveling bridge filters
• Dual channel UV disinfection system
• Cascade aerator with Parshall flume and effluent composite sampler
• A sludge management system consisting of three 300 gpm sludge return pumps, an aerated sludge holding basin
with a capacity of 802,000 gallons, including a 2,692 scfin membrane disc aeration system
• A lime addition system including two 7.5 hp submersible mixers
• A standby electrical generator
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct, to construct, and after submitting an Engineer's Certification, to
operate a 15.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of the following components:
• The above listed 5.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility, plus:
• Dual intermittent continuous extended aeration systems with each system including dual 126-ft by 174-ft by 18-ft
depth basins providing a total aeration volume of 5.90 MG, a 1.30 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers,
decanter, five 25 Hp submersible mixers, and four 2,300 scfin blowers
• Dual tertiary traveling bridge filters, with three 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each
• Dual channel UV disinfection system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5 MGD,
• A sludge management facility expansion including a 2-meter gravity belt thickener rated at 900 dry pounds/ hour,
a 2.2 meter sludge filter press rated at 2,041 dry pounds/ day with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A
residuals heated vessel rated at 2,000 pounds/ hour, lime storage silo and delivery system, and an odor control
system
• A 1,000 KW -emergency generator
Located on Shady Grove Rd, Spring Lake, in Harnett County.
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into the Little River, classified as C
waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.

Permit NCO088366
�� ;
9
I
/' JJ// 4 cyYlS
t s
1 Alt
\..� �L,
i]�,�/y ��,�q ..: �/� 4-•i
J/jC�,.'�
! Oil
°,.
;
L1)
C'.yCa �� 3! {'� Q i `� \ �,. �1U�r� `i1
J 1
.f �( l ,lilt
1'J 1
fr
Hamett County Public Utilities —South Regional W WTP
Soh C.idlGwd: G23NWlMauLest Uflnetsl 3513'49"
1e195fia�: 791s•00"
PuWdy IA atkn
mt b scale
ES Permit N0. N00088366
Harnett County
Ezsaa Seem.: Liele&wr D.,k e>1a.m: Caye Fe Rives
$eeam Chu: C SJi-Ho>9e 03-06-14

A
Pexmit NCO088366
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, or expansion above 5 MGD, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent
Characteistic
,mac a _ e =I�i�n��a�io ns
__ a . _.
storing �2e uxre ads
_ _
03��.
'Y
a. y
4 easur
{re uenc
a,a�o
Flow
5.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(April 1—October 31) 2
5.0 mg/L
• 7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 200C
(November 1 — March
31) 2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1— March
31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen 3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100m1
400/100ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
PH 4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKN
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2 + NO3
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity,
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature 6
See Footnote
1
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen 6
See Footnote
1
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent Pollutant Scan 7
Footnote 7
1Footnote 7
1 Effluent
NOTES: See next page

Permit N00088366
NOTES for A.(1)
1• Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream of the discharge. Downstream = at least 500 feet from the discharge.
Stream samples shall be collected three times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September
and weekly during the remainder of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration as measured in the effluent shall not lie less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) limit at 15% with testing in January, April, July, and October (see Special
Condition A. (3)).
6. Instream sampling (Upstream and Downstream monitoring) is waived as long as the Permittee retains
membership in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA), which is conducting a coordinated
instream monitoring effort. If the Permittee's membership in the MCFRBA is terminated, the Permittee must
immediately notify the Division in writing, and the instream monitoring requirements specified in this permit
shall be reinstated immediately.
7. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit [see A. (7)].
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO0883664
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the submission of an Engineer's Certification and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated 100% domestic wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluelait. °AW
cage,,afioins
a=
ljl�o�i togictsr_ ��_:_
Cha -ante �' tics
-
lYlontlily ,d
ay �'
.t Da'1 �
ea reme t;
'ue�►�`c'
` r" Saix►i lei `
Sa ' e� ociVa . :
`"'
Y
1e1,pi,
Flow
15.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(April 1— October 31) 2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C
(November 1— March
10.0 mg(L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
3 1)2
Total Suspended Solids 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
(April 1— October 31)
NH3 as N
(November 1— March
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg(L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
31)
Dissolved Oxygen 3
Daily _
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
200/100ml
400/100m1
Daily
Grab
Effluent
(geometric mean)
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH 4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Phosphorus mg/ L
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus 5
Seasonal Mass load of 53,543 lb
October to
c
Calculated
Effluent
TKN
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
NO2 + NO3
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen mg/ L
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
Total Nitrogen 5.6
Seasonal Mass load of 160,628 lb
April -
October
Calculated
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity 7
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Temperature g
See Footnote
Grab
Upstream &
1
Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen s
See Footnote
Grab
Upstream &
1
Downstream
Effluent Pollutant Scan 9
Footnote 9
Footnote 9
Effluent
NOTES: See next page

Permit NCO088366
NOTES for A.(2)
1 • Upstream = at least 50 feet upstream of the discharge. Downstream = at least 500 feet from the discharge. Stream
samples shall be collected three times per week during the months of June, July, August, and September and weekly
during the remainder of the year.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen concentration as measured in the effluent shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Seasonal Mass limits for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen represent the total pounds discharged during the time period
beginning on April through October 31 of each calendar year.
6. TN = TKN + No3-N + NO2-N where TN is Total Nitrogen, TKN is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and NO3 N + NO2 N are
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen, respectively.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) limit at 34% with testing in January, April, July, and October (see Special
Condition A. (4)).
8. Instream sampling (Upstream and Downstream monitoring) is waived as long as the Permittee retains membership
in the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA), which is conducting a coordinated instream
monitoring effort. If the Permittee's membership in the MCFRBA is terminated, the Permittee must immediately
notify the Division in writing, and the instream monitoring requirements specified in this permit shall be reinstated
immediately.
9. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit [see A. (7)].
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NCO088366
A. (3) 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 15%.
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 January, April, July, and October. 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, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and TB P3B
for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:NC DENR / DWQ / 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 the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit
number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the
form. The report shall be submitted to the 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 then 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 NCO088366
A. (4) 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 346/o:
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 January, April, July, and October. 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, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and TBP3B
for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention:NC DENR / DWQ / 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 the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit
number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the
form. The report shall be submitted to the 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 then 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.

f
Permit NC0088366
A. (5) PERMIT RE -OPENER: SUPPLEMENTARY NUTRIENT MONITORING
Pursuant to N.C. General Statutes Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 02H, specifically, 15A NCAC 02H.0112(b)(1) and 02_14(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 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.
A. (6) MERCURY TMEDL REOPENER
The Division may, upon written notification to the permittee, re -open this permit in order to incorporate or modify effluent
limitations and monitoring and reporting requirements when such action is necessary to implement a TMDL for mercury
approved by the U.S. EPA.

Permit NCO088366
A. (7) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below. One scan
must be performed in each of the following years: 2013, 2014, and 2015. Analytical methods shall be in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 136. and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether parameters are present in
concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should be collected with one quarterly toxicity
test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless
otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Trans- l,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
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ethylbenzene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease
Methyl bromide
2-chloronaphthalene
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
1,121-trichloroethane
1,2-diclilorobenzene
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 (EPA Method 1631E)
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
Fluoranthene
Zinc
2,4-dinitrophenol
Fluorene
Cyanide
2-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds
4-nitrophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene
Volatile orzanic 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
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form -A MR PPA 1 (or in a form approved by the Director) by
December 31 ' of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the following address: NC
DENR / DWQ / Central Files,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
Priority Pollutant Analysis results shall be submitted with NPDES permit renewal applications.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO088366
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
South Harnett County Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1119, Lillington, North Carolina 27546
Facility Address:
3324 Shady, Grove Road, Spring Lake, North Carolina 28390
Permitted Flow
5.0 MGD/ expanding to 15.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
100 %Domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Grade IV / Renewal
County:
Hamett County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Lower Little
River
Regional Office:
Fayetteville
Stream Classification:
C
State Grid / USGS Quad:
G23NW/ Manchester
303(d) Listed?
Yes, low pH &
Hg on 2012 Draft
303(d) list
Permit Writer:
Jim McKay
Subbasin:
03.-06-14
Date:
Aril 9, 2012
Drainage Area (mi'):
398
Lat. 35° 13' 49" N Long. 78° 53' 00" W
(cfs)
.4
W7Q1
W7Q10 (cfs)
91.8
91
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs):
495.5
IWC (%):
34%
Stream Index
18-23-(24)
Background
The U.S. military, through a process called "Base Realignment and Closure" or BRAC is in the
process of transforming the Fort Bragg and Pope AFB areas by moving thousands of military
personnel, dependents, and contractors to the area. Many of these will be relocated into the
South Harnett County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant service area, allowing other military
bases to be closed. In order to efficiently provide infrastructure to keep up with the growth, the
U.S. military, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), and Harnett County government have worked together to develop plans
for providing wastewater treatment facilities. Harnett County currently operates a 5.0 MGD
regional WWTP near Fort Bragg and Spring Lake. The facility started up in June, 2009, and is
discharging less than 1 MGD so far. Fort Bragg operates an 8.0 MGD WWTP that is old and has
operational problems due to the facility age. Harnett County proposes to expand the South
Harnett Regional WWTP to 15.0 MGD with a tertiary treatment facility, taking flow from Fort
Bragg, and retiring the older facility. The expansion was approved by DWQ when the permit
modification regarding the 15.0 MGD rate was issued in April, 2010.
Receiving Water Review
This facility discharges to Lower Little River near the town of Spring Lake. Lower Little River
is classified as C waters in the Cape Fear River Basin, and is listed as Impaired for pH and Hg on
the 20012 Draft 303(d) list. DWQ is continuing to monitor water quality in Lower Little River to
try and determine the source of impairment. It may be local drought related. Little River drains
into the Middle Cape Fear River between Buckhom dam and Lock and Dam Number Three,
which is impaired for chlorophyll A in the four miles upstream of the lock and dam.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0088366 Draft
Page t

Permitting Strategy
The wastewater treatment system is to be an advanced tertiary facility with three 5.0 MGD
modules. Disinfection will be by ultraviolet light (UV) instead of chlorine. Since disinfection is
by UV and not chlorine/ derivitives, the TRC monitoring, limit, and footnote will be removed
from the permit. The treatment system.will be designed to comply with very stringent limits of
1.0 mg/ L of ammonia nitrogen and 5.0 mg/ L of BOD5 in keeping with the Basinwide Quality
Plan for new and expanding POTWs.
Nutrients
In keeping with the Basinwide Quality Plan, seasonal mass based limits are placed equivalent to
6.0 mg/ L TN and 2.0 mg/ L TP for the time period of April through October at the permitted
flow of 15.0 MGD.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The facility has been in operation for 2 1 /2 years, operating at very low flowrates. DMRs were
reviewed for this permit modification, but there are no parameters monitored that an RPA could
be run for, so no RPA was conducted.
Operational Review:
The permit requires the monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Solids
concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal). The
actual results are 99.2% BOD removal and 98.5% TSS removal.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: April, 2012.
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June, 2012.
Permit effective date: July 1, 2012
Expiration Date: May 31, 2016
NPDES Division Contacts
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Jim McKay at [phone], or by email at [e-mail].
NAME: e 104 DATE:
Regional Office Comments
NAME:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
-�- >/--7,&ice
HATE:
Fact meet
NPDES NC O088366 Draft
Page 2

NCOOSS366
South Harnett WWTP OMR Data Review
20D9. 2011 YTO
,
Date
Flow, MGD
pH, SU
BOD, mg/ L
NH3, mg/ L
Avg.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
MAY-09
Jun-09
0.810
2.248
0.372
IS
6.6
<2
2.2
<2
<1
41
<1
1.20
Jul-09
0.4S4
0.707
0.152
7.3
7.2
<2
2.8
<2
<1
<1
<1
1.20
Aug-09
0.499
0.617
0.40S
7.4
7.1
4.2
81.0
<2
< 1
<2
<1
1.20
Sep-09
0.489
0.632
0.394
7.8
6.9
<2
5.0
<2
<1
< 1
<1
<2
Oct-09
0.515
0.933
0.398
7.3
6.7
< 2
< 2
< 2
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
Nov-09
0.420
1.234
0.221
7.3
6.6
<2
<2
<2
<I
<2
<1
<1
Dec-09
0.412
0.579
0.310
7.1
6.7
<2
2.7
<2
<1
<i
<1
<1
Jan-10
0.426
0.990
0.026
7.2
6.2
<2
15.0
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Feb-10
0.490
0.763
0.345
6.8
6.4
2.3
5.1
<2
1.18
7.49
<2
1.10
Mar-10
0.432
0.S66
0.065
7.2
6.4
<2
2.4
<2
< 1
< 1
<1
< 1
Apr-10
0.360
0.415
0.289
7.7
7.0 -
<2
3.7
<2
<1
<2
<1
2.60
May-10
0.401
0.567
0.317
7.7
6.7
<2
7.8
<2
<1
<1
<1
L60
Jun-10
0.493
0.605
0.410
7.3
7.0
<2
6.1
<2
<2
1.72
<1
2.60
Jul-10
0.504
0.612
0.395
7.7
6.8
<2
3.4
<2
< 1
<1
<1
<1
Aug-10
0.488
0.566
0.365
7.7
6.9
<2
2.6
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Sep-10
0.490
0.762
0.349
7.3
6.S
<2
2.8
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Oct-10
0.491
0.901
M025
7.4
6.7
<2
<2
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Nov-10
0.549
1.391
0.298
7.3
6.8
<2
<2
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Dec-10
0.469
0.587
0.256
7.1
6.7
<2
<2
<2
<1
<1
<1
2.00
Jan-11
0.484
0.662
0.000
7.4
6.7
<2
5.1
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
Feb-11
0.580
0.729
0.397
7.1
6.7
<2
7.5
<2
<1
6.32
<1
<1
Mar-31
0.625
0.318
0.449
7.0
6.5
<2
2.6
<2
<1
<1
<1
< 1
Apr-11
0.635
0.923
0.553
7.1
6.7
<2
4.6
<2
<1
<1
<1
<1
May-11
0.646
0.826
0,402
6.9
6.6
<2
<2
<2
<1
<1
<1
1.40
Jun-11
0.622
0.7S6
0.284
7.3
6.5
<2
2.7
<2
<1
<1
<1
<2.S
Jul-11
0.693
0.879
0.582
7.0
6.7
<2
4.0
<2
<1
<1
< 1
< 2.S
Aug-11
0.82S
1.330
0.626
7.0
6.7
<2
3.0
<2
<1
<1
<1
<2.5
Sep•11
1.02S
1.430
0.652
7.1
6.5
<2
3.0
<2
<1
8.30
<1
<2.5
Oct-11
0.972
1.342
0.807
7.0
6.6
<2
Is
<2
<1
<1
<1
<2.5
Nov-11
0.972
1.253
0.719
7.2
6.7
<2
3.9
<2
<1
<1
<1
<2.5
Dec-11
0.944
1.177
0.723
7.2
6.6
<2
<2
<2
<I
<1
<0.04
<2.5
0.587
1.430
0.000
7.8
6.2
3.3
82.0
2.2
1.18
8.30
0.00
1.54
Avg
Max
Min
Max
Min
Avg
Max
Min
Avg
Max
Min
Avg
a
Chronic
TSS, mg/ L Fecal, geo mean N/ 100 ML DO, mg/ L TN, ma/ L TP, me/ L Tox
Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. P/F
7.10
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.6
8.9
6.1
12.20
2.17
10.80
< 1
1
30
< 1
7.S
8.5
6.8
0.85
3.48 P
23.80
< 2
1
10
< 1
7.5
8.7
6.5
23.50
4.02
1.90
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.5
8.9
6.3
16.60
3.6S
L90
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.2
8.4
6.0
19.40
3.42 P
S.40
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
8
9.2
7.2
16.90
3.06
S.20
<1
<1
<1
<1
9.5
11.3
8.1
22.60
21.52
3.40
<1
<1
<1
<1
10.4
11.5
9.1
12.70
2.70 p
3.80
<1
<1
<1
<1
20.6
12.8
8.1
15.40
2.23
2.60
<1
<1
<1
<1
9.7
11.3
8.9
8.32
2.55
26.00
< 1
2
41
< 1
8.7
9.7
7.3
3.99
2.85 p
3.70
<1
<1
<1
<1
8.2
9.6
5.2
3.9S
2.36
7.30
<1
1
71
<1
7.5
8.5
6.4
7.23
5.10
10.70
<1
<1
<I
<1
7.2
8.3
6.4
10.S6
4.89 P
2.00
< 1
1
104
< 1
7.2
7.8
6.7
11.36
2.68
2.50
<1
<1
<1
<1
7
8.2
6.3
11.3S
2.78
2.10
<1
<1
<1
<1
7
7.5
6.4
7.58
3.35 P
9.00
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.3
8
6.7
8.09
3.82
6.50
< 1
1
32
< I
8
9.3
6.6
10.46
2.85
1.30
<1
<1
<1
<1
8
8.9
7.2
1.64
12.16 P
2.00
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.8
9.2
1.9
21.55
2.72
4.80
<1
<I
<1
<1
7.9
9.2
7.2
3.64
2.04
1.50
<1
<1
<I
<1
7.5
8.3
6.8
4.42
3.42 P
3.50
<1
<1
<1
<1
7.1
7.7
6.5
2.21
4.51
2.90
< 2.5
1
240
< 1
6.9
7.5
6.5
1.65
2.93
4.40
< 2.5
1
32
< 1
6.6
6.9
6.4
2.34
4.20 P
3.60
<2.5
<1
<1
<1
7
7.8
6.5
3.20
5.83
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 1
< 1
< 1
7.2
8.3
6.5
2.89
2.52
<2.5
<2.5
<1
<1
<1
7.8
8.9
6.6
13.49
3.90 P
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 1
< I
< 1
7.6
9.6
7.1
5.46
4.18
< 2.5
< 2.5
1
2
< 1
8.8
9.7
8.2
5.11
2.23
16.00
0.00
2.11
240.00
0.00
7.86
12.80
1.79
8.67
3.84
Max.
Min
Avg
Max
Min
Avg
Mak
Min
Avg
Avg

NC0088366
South Harnett WWTP DMR Data Review 2009 - 2011 YTD
Influent Data
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
Aug-11
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
BOD, mg/ L TSS, mg/ L
Avg. Avg.
168.0
103.0
161.5
89.4
163.9
96.4
182.4
95.3
157.7
87.8
173.6
94.4
178.8
89.4
162.7
87.8
155.5
92.0
184.1
84.4
274.3
109.0
243.3
96.9
233.9
171.1
234.1
100.1
267.6
137.7
292.7
110.3
272.1
96.9
297.3
108.5
302.7
117.0
300.3
105.5
281.5
121.8
313.1
115.9
303.6
107.7
332.6
106.3
276.7
129.2
273.3
162.7
266.1
231.2
240.1
264.7
243.1
231.0
254.7
201.9
257.8
209.4
240.3 127.6
Avg. Avg.

Removal Rate Calculations
C..
Used in
Calculation <
Effluent
m
Used in
Calculation
Sample Date
Feb-10
Mar-10
Spreadsheet
Inshuctions:
1) Data214.5
donlyin313.2
Heavy
Bordered cans.234.1
Rest of
wotecteetis
protected,
password Is
2) For below
detection data,
emer.r in ^r
eniter1deteciton
level I
or EHluenl n Influen
195.9
9.9
9.9
7267A
11.6
11.6
Jun-10
5.1
5.1
Jul-10
<
2.0
1
Au -10
Se -10
267.6
<
2 0
1
292.7
292.7
<
2.0
1.0
Oct-10
272.1
272.1
<1
2.0
1.0
Nov-10
297.3
1 302.7
1 297.3
1 302.7
<1
<1
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
Dec-10
Jan-11
300.3
1 300.3
<1
2.0
1.0
Feb -I I
281.5
1 281.5
<1
2.0
1.0
Mar - II
columns.
Spreadsheet
will auto-
matically
calculate
averages and
removal rates
using 112 valuc
entered.
3)Document
removal Rate
choice
4)Formulas In
Compre-
he si aGuide
HWA Chapter,
section E.
page 1.
1 313.1
1 313.1
<1
2.0
1.0
A r-I 1
303.6
1 303.6
<1
2.0
1.0
Ma -11
332.6
1 332.6
<
2.0
1.0
Jun-11
276.7
1 276.7
<1
2.0
1 1.0
Jul-11
Au • I l
273.3
1 273.3
<1
2.0
1 1.0
266.1
1 266.1
<
2.0
1.0
Se -11
240.1
240.1
<
2.0
1.0
Oct -II
243.1
243.1
<
2.0
1.0
Nov-11
254.7
254.7
<
2.0
1.0
Dec-1I
257.8
257.8
<
2.0
1.0
Column Averages =>
NCO088366
So. Harnett W WTP
4/5/2012
F 273
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>
Literature/Default RR=>
43 % of data is BDL
2.12
99.22
85.00
88366 Removal -rate Calculation
Removal Rates
Page 1 of 1 pages
411012012, 9:51 AM
Revision: August 1999
Influent
< m
Used in
Calculation <
Effluent
m
Used in
Calculation
109.4
109.4
15.0
15
140.8
140.8
15.0
15
202.6
202.6
2.1
2.1
100.1
100.1
<
1.00
0.5
337.7
137.7
<
1.00
0.5
110.3
1 110.3
<
1.00
1 0.5
96.9
1 96.9
<1
1.00
1 0.5
108.5
1 108.5
<1
1.00
1 0.5
117.0
1 117.0
1 1.00
1 1
105.5
1 105.5
<1
1.00
1 0.5
121.8
1 121.8
<1
1.00
1 0.5
115.9
1 115.9
<1
1.00
1 0.5
107.7
107.7
<
1.00
0.5
106.3
106.3
1.40
1.4
129.2
129.2
<
2.50
1.25
162.7
162.7
<
2.50
1.25
231.2
231.2
<
2.50
1.25
264.7
264.7
<
2.50
1.25
231.0
231.0
<
2.50
1.25
201.9
201.9
<
2.50
1.25
209.4
209.4
<
2.50
1.25
148.12
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>
Literature/Default RR =>
2.27
98.46
7-71
85.00
Influent Used in I Effluent I Used in
mgJL I Calculation <1 m9JI, I Calculation
Unpaired Site Specific RR
Literature/Default RR
38 % of data is BDL of data is BDL

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HARNETT
In the Matter of:
Public Notice
Wastewater Permit
4/27,2012
I, Donna Bass, being duly sworn, say: that I am CLASSIFIED CLERK, of
THE DAILY RECORD, a newspaper published in Dunn, Harnett County,
North Carolina, and the attached clipping is a copy of the Notice published
in said newspaper for 1 day(s), as follows:
4/27, 2012
as required by law in the above entitled suit.
This newspaper is qualified for legal advertising in accordance with
G.S. 1-597 & 1-598.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
3/ day of , 2012.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires

Public Notice
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent to Issue a NPDES Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to
Issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the person(s) listed below.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be accepted until 30
days after the publish date of this notice. The Director of the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) may hold a public hearing should there be a signifi-
cant degree of public Interest. Please mall comments and/or information
requests to DWQ at the above address. Interested persons may visit the
DWQ at 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC to review information on file.
Additional Information on NPDES permits and this notice may be found on
our website: http://portal.nedenr.org/web/wq/swp/pslnpdes/balendar, or by
calling [phone].
The City of Dunn requested renewal of permit NCO043176 for Dunn W WTP
In Harnett County; this facility discharge is treated municipal wastewater to
Cape Fear River, Cape Fear River Basin,
Harnett County has applied for renewal of NPDES discharge permit
NCO088366 for the South Harnett County Regional W WTP which discharg-
es treated domestic wastewater to Lower Little River in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
4/27, 2012

Removal Rate Calculations
triple te
Feb-10
Spreadsheet
Instructions:
7az-10
1) Data
entered only In
Jun-10
Heavy
Bordered cells,
Rest of
worksheet Is
Jul-10
Au -10
Se/p -10
protected,
password is
N2N'
2) For below
Oct-10
70v-10
detection data,
Dec-10
enter"e In N<"
column, and
enter detection
level In Influeni
Jan-11
Feb-11
or Effluent mg/
columns.
Spreadsheet
will auto-
matically
calculate
averages and
removal rates
using 1/2value
Mar -II
7711
Jun-11
Jul -I 1
entered.
Au - 11
3) Document
Se 11
removal Rate
choice
Oct - II
Nov-11
4) Formulas In
Dec-1 I
Compre-
hensive Guide
HWA Chapter,
Column Averages =>
Section E.
Page 1.
NCO088366
So. Harnett W WTP
4/5/2012
88366 Removal -rate Calculation
Removal Rates
Page 1 of 1 pages
4/512012, 1:34 PM
Revision: August 1999
273 1 2.12
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>I 99.22 %
Literature/Default RR =>I 85.00 %
43 % of data is BDL
<
Influent
m L
Used in
Calculation <
Effluent
m
Used in
Calculation
109.4
109.4
15.0
15
140.8
140.8
15.0
15
202.6
202.6
2.1
2.1
100.1
100.1
<
1.00
0.5
137.7
137.7
<
1.00
0.5
110.3
110.3
<
1.00
0.5
96.9
96.9
<
1.00
0.5
108.5
108.5
<
1.00
0.5
117.0
117.0
1.00
1
105.5
105.5
<
1.00
0.5
121.8
121.8
<
1.00
0.5
115.9
115.9
<
1.00
0.5
107.7
107.7
<
1.00
0.5
106.3
106.3
1.40
1.4
129.2
129.2
<
2.50
1.25
162.7
162.7
<
2.50
1.25
231.2
231.2
<
2.50
1.25
264.7
264.7
<1
2.50
1.25
231.0
231.0
<1
2.50
1.25
201.9
201.9
<
2.50
1.25
209.4
209.4
<
2.50
1.25
148.12
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>I
Literature/Default RR =>I
2.27
98.46 %
85.00 %
38 % of data is BDL
II II
Unpaired Site Specific RR =>
Literature/Default RR =>I 85.00 %
of data is BDL

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 2012
To: Sergei Chernikov, NPDES
Jim McKay, NPDES
From: Steve Kroeger, EU Supervisor Avo
Jeff Manning, BP Supervisor
Re: Draft NPDES Permit Renewal — Dunn WWTP (NC0043176)
Draft NPDES Permit Renewal — South Harnett WWTP (NC0088366)
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft NPDES permits for the City of Dunn
WWTP and the South Harnett WWTP. Staff from the Ecosystems Unit and the
Basinwide Planning Unit reviewed the permits, and our comments are below.
Accompanying our comments is the copy of the draft permit for the City of Dunn with
our comments included.
• Please use consistent language when referring to the exemption of in -stream
monitoring requirements for coalition members. The following wording is
suggested:
As a member of the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA),
instream monitoring requirements are provisionally waived. If your membership
in the MCFRBA is terminated, or if the MCFRBA ceases to function, the Division
shall be notified immediately and the instream monitoring requirements in this
permit become effective. The Division may then reopen this permit to establish
any additional instream monitoring requirements deemed necessary to
adequately characterize the effects of discharges on water quality in the
receiving stream.
• If the clause stating the permit may be reopened upon cessation of membership
in the MCFRBA is not included in the permit, we would like to discuss the
inclusion of additional instream requirements. The coalitions sample an array of
parameters that capture watershed conditions and often address particular water
quality issues. The parameters required in individual NPDES permits are usually
limited to a combination of dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH. If an
individual NPDES permittee terminates membership in a coalition, we lose a
significant amount of valuable data that is not nearly compensated for by the
monitoring requirements in the permit.
• The DO and pH requirements for effluent should be included in the table instead
of in the footnotes.

e IM ' r e_ c e,r ,re-/ 11 f&w r E 4 e.1 co rr' e s 1190 A )e n e_2
Mckay, James
From: Pamala Myers [Myers. [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Mckay, James
Subject: RE: Comments for draft NPDES permit number NC0088366, South Harnett County Regional
WWTP.
Thank you Jim.
I appreciate your prompt responses. I'll let you know by the end of t he week if I have any further comments.
Sincerely,
Pamala Myers
404.562.9421
myers.pamalaPepa.Qov
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor I Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division I Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section
U.S. EPA, Region 4 161 Forsyth St. SW I Atlanta, GA 30303
�"Mckay, James"--06/04/2012 03:33:45 PM ---Pamela, Attached is the missing third PPA that you need. In response to
your email dated 5/08/2012:
From: "Mckay, James" <[e-mail]>
To: Pamala Myers/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Mark Nuhfer/R4/USEPA/US@EPA, "Belnick, Tom" <[e-mail]>
Date: 06/04/2012 03:33 PM
Subject: RE: Comments for draft NPDES permit number NC0088366, South Harnett County Regional W WIP.
Pamela,
Attached is the missing third PPA that you need. In response to your email dated 5/08/2012:
*Yes the draft is for a permit renewal, as specified in the cover letter.
*A copy of the missing 3'rd PPA is attached. Almost all of the data on all three is less than detect. There is one data point
for copper, and 3 for zinc. These are both considered "Action Level" parameters in North Carolina. Our rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0211]4) concerns copper, iron, silver, zinc and chloride. They generally are not bioaccumulative, and have variable toxicity
to aquatic life because of chemical form, solubility, stream characteristics or associated waste characteristics. We require
dischargers to perform Whole Effluent Toxicity testing to determine if the discharge is causing toxicity to aquatic life. If it is,
then we require the permittee to test to identify what is having the toxic effect, and verify it is not caused by one of the
Action Level substances. If the action level substance is causing toxicity, then a limit is placed on the permit. However, if the
facility passes all WET tests, we do not limit it. Quarterly monitoring is our permitting strategy for action level toxicants
where TOX testing indicates no toxicity.
*The BOD value of 81.0 caused an NOV to be issued to the facility for exceeding the Weekly Average limit. It was a one
time only incident, the facility was in compliance with the permit limits other than that one data point.
oThe mercury TMDL Reopener Clause has been added to the permit.
*The fact sheet has been corrected to show that the permit draft is a renewal instead of a modification. I
apologize for not changing that when I revised my last fact sheet, which was the 2010 modification.
Thank you for your thorough review and comments.

Best regards,
Jim McKay, Environmental Engineer
NC DENR / Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
919/807-6404 (work); 919/807-6495 (fax)
"Please note, my email address has changed to James.McKayna,ncdenngov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Imv and may be disclosed to
third parties.
From: Pamala Myers[mailto:Myers.PamalaOepamail.epa.Qov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Mckay, James
Cc: Mark Nuhfer; Belnick, Tom
Subject: Comments for draft NPDES permit number NC0088366, South Harnett County Regional WWTP.
Jim,
From data provided by you and what I have in our files this draft is understood to be intended as a renewal? According to
the information in our files, this should be a renewal permit from an approved expansion of this plant from 5 MGD to 15
MGD. However, the application is incomplete and the permit has expired. Being a major facility with design flow greater
than 1.0 MGD there must be three (3) sampling events reported for renewal application. They have reported only 2. The
previous permit was modified for that expansion at which time the expiration date was shortened to May 31, 2011 to
"comply with NCs basinwide schedule".
Federal regulations require a complete application be received prior to new permit issuance. It goes on to state that
completeness of application is a judgement call made by the [S]tate Director, or his designee,e.g., the permit writer. The
issue of an incomplete application could easily be conciliated by requiring the permittee submit one additional set of
priority pollutant analysis (PPA) data for evaluation in concert with the 2-already submitted data sets within one month of
permit issuance and prior to the effective date. Upon receipt of these data, NC should then analyze all three PPA scans
through NCs RPA standard program and evaluate whether this permit merits issuance as is, or does the permit need new
and/or more stringent effluent limitations based on the new data. Otherwise, this application for new permit is considered
incomplete by the EPA and a new permit is not merited at this time.
Beyond that, the BOD5 reported at 81.0 mg/L deserves some explanation in the fact sheet. What might be causing this
high BOD5 reading? Have follow up measurements identified a root cause? or is this condition continuing? This appears
to be the same data submitted in the (previous) January 2010 application.
Zinc is reported at 52 ug/L as a maximum daily value which exceeds the NC action level value of 50 ug/L for freshwater
discharges and should be addressed according to current toxicity program parameters.
Also, the permit requires a Mercury TMDL reopener statement. The application shows the permittee performed the correct
method, but again 2-samples does not constitute a complete application.
Finally and with respect that the fact sheets are not enforceable, we ask that you correct one sentence on page 2 under
the heading Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) to clarify this permit is intended to be a renewal of an already approved
and modified (previous) permit. Where it says "DMRs were reviewed for this permit modification..." Would you mind
terribly to change "modification" to "renewal"?
I appreciate the opportunity to review this draft permit and am available to discuss these issues I have expressed above at
your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
Pamala Myers

404.562.9421
myers. pamalaPepa.gov
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor I Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division I Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section
U.S. EPA, Region 4 161 Forsyth St. SW ( Atlanta, GA 30303[attachment "South Regional Lab Data PPA Report May
11_173815.pdf'deleted by Pamala Myers/R4/USEPA/US]

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 18, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dina Sprinkle
Point Source Branch
FROM: Dale Lopez, Environmental Specialist
THROUGH: Belinda S. Henson, Regional Supervisor Surface Water Protection echo , FRO
SUBJECT: Renewal of NPDES Permit
South Hamett County Regional WWTP
NPDES No. NCO088366
Bladen County
Please find attached a staff report and recommendation from the Fayetteville Regional Office
concerning the issuance of subject NPDES Permit.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please advice.
DL/dl
Enclosure
FEB 2 4 2011

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: YES NO X
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
NPDES Section
Attention: Dina Sprinkle
Date: February 18, 2011
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY: Harnett
Permit No. NCO088366
PART I -GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Mr. Steve Ward
Director, Dept. of Public Works
Harnett County
PO Box 1119
Lillington, NC 27546-1119
2. Date of Investigation: February 7, 2011
3. Report Prepared by: Dale Lopez, Environmental Specialist, FRO
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Kenneth Fail [phone]
5. Directions to Site: The wastewater treatment plant is located at 3324 Shady Grove Road, Spring
Lake, NC. From Fayetteville, travel on Ramsey Street for 10.7 miles, turn
left onto Elliot Bridge Road and travel 2.6 miles, turn left at Shady Grove
Road and travel 0.1 miles. WWTP will be on the left hand side.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
WWTP outfal1001: Latitude: 36' 13' 49" N Longitude: 78° 53' 00" W
Attach a U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S.Quad No. G 23 NW
U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Manchester, NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No (If No, explain)
8. Topography (relationship to flood included): Relatively flat (0-2% slope)
9. Location of nearest dwelling: private residence, approximately 400 feet.

l 0. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
a. Classification: Lower Little River Class C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Cape Fear CPF14 (030614)
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
The South Harnett County Regional WWTP is located downstream of the Town
of Spring Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent. Downstream uses: fish and
wildlife propagation.
PART H - DESCRIPTION OF WASTES AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 15.0 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment facility? 5.0 MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity). 5.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct issued
in the previous two
A to C No. 088366A02: Dual intermittent continuous extended aeration systems (ICEAS No.
2 and No. 3) with each system including dual 126 —ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins
providing a total aeration volume of 5.90 MG, a 1.30 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers,
decanter and five (5) 25 HP submersible mixers: four (4) 2,300 scfm blowers; dual tertiary
traveling bridge filters (filter No. 2 and No. 3), with three (3) 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; dual
channel UV disinfection system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5
MGD; and a sludge management facility expansion including a 2-meter gravity belt thickener
rated at 900 dry pounds/hour, a 2.2-meter sludge filter press rated at 2,041 dry pounds/day
with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A residuals heated vessel rated at 2,000 dry
pounds/hour, lime storage silo and delivery system, odor control system; a 1,000 kW
emergency generator; and all site work, yard piping, and electrical and work; in conformity
with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and
approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities:
Headworks including an automatic fine screen with manual bypass and vortex grit
chamber; flow splitter box; intermittent continuous extended aeration system including dual 126-ft
by 174-ft basins providing a total volume of 4,728,000 gallons, three (3) 2,300 scf n blowers, fine
bubble diffusers, and five (5) 25 HP submersible mixers; surge tank; three (3) 12.5-ft by 52-ft
traveling bridge filters; single channel UV disinfection system with three (3) individual modules
installed, each capable of 6.25 MGD; cascade aerator with Parshall flume; and a sludge
management system consisting of three (3) 300 gpm sludge return pumps, an aerated sludge
holding basin with a capacity of 802,000 gallons including a 2,692 scfin membrane disc aeration
system, operations building and laboratory, including all associated pumps, blowers, motors,
meters, chemical feed and handling, 1,000 kW generator for standby power.

f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities:
A to C No. 088366A02: Dual intermittent continuous extended aeration systems (ICEAS No.
2 and No. 3) with each system including dual 126 —ft by 174-ft by 18-ft depth basins
providing a total aeration volume of 5.90 MG, a 1.30 MG surge tank, fine -bubble diffusers,
decanter and five (5) 25 HP submersible mixers: four (4) 2,300 scfm blowers; dual tertiary
traveling bridge filters (filter No. 2 and No. 3), with three (3) 12.5-ft by 52-ft units each; dual
channel UV disinfection system, with each channel capable of treating a peak flow of 12.5
MGD; and a sludge management facility expansion including a 2-meter gravity belt thickener
rated at 900 dry pounds/hour, a 2.2-meter sludge filter press rated at 2,041 dry pounds/day
with sludge feed pump, screw conveyers, Class A residuals heated vessel rated at 2,000 dry
pounds/hour, lime storage silo and delivery system, odor control system; a 1,000 kW
emergency generator; and all site work, yard piping, and electrical and work; in conformity
with the project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and
approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A.
h. Pretreatment Program: N/A
In development Approved
Should be required Not needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilizing/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ Permit No. SWC 1906
Residual Contractor: McGill Environmental
Telephone: [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X PFRP Other
WQ 0007066
C. Landfill: N/A
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (specify): N/A
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
This facility is presently a Grade IV Biological WPCS (see attached)
4. SIC Code (s):

Main Treatment Unit Code:
PART III — OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds (municipals only)?
Yes
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: N/A
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates (please indicate):
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications ........................................... NA
Begin Construction....................................................................N/A
Complete Construction...............................................................N/A
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: N/A (existing)
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A (existing)
Subsurface: N/A (existing)
Other disposal options: N/A (existing)
5. Other Special Items: N/A
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Spring Lake, Cooper's Ranch, Carolina Lakes, Anderson Creek were sending their
wastewaters to the South Harnett County Regional WWTP. In the future, the Ft. Bragg WWTP
discharge pipe will pass very close to the Spring Lake POTW on its way to the South Harnett
County Regional WWTP. (However, Spring Lake presently chooses not to tie on). It is the

recommendation of the Fayetteville Regional Office that NPDES Permit No. NC0088366 be
issued for the existing wastewater treatment plant. The subject application for permit renewal
should be processed in 4eping with basin wide strategy.
R /i S/aCIPMi
Signature of Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Date

Brief description of South Harnett County Regional WWTP CEI
(Monday, 02/07/2011):
Cooper's Ranch, Carolina Lakes, Anderson Creek were sending their wastewaters to the
South Harnett County Regional WWTP. In the future, the Ft. Bragg WWTP discharge
pipe will pass very close to the Spring Lake POTW on its way to the South Harnett
County Regional WWTP. (However, Spring Lake presently chooses not to tie on). Ft.
Bragg will tie on to the 36-inch pipe that was located on the headworks structure at the
South Harnett County Regional WWTP, and South Harnett will abandon the smaller line
(which was a 24 or a 3 0-inch) that was presently used as the influent line. From the
headworks, the influent flowed into a pre -react side of the Reactor, which was
approximately one -quarter the size of the ICEAS Reactor. There were four holes at the
bottom of the reactor that influent flow went through. The ICEAS was on a four-hour
cycle: aerating and mixing (each part of the cycle could be adjusted). Aeration treatment
and nitrification occurred during the first two hours. After 120 minutes, the settling
mode activated (in which the mixers and the blowers stopped), and the sludge was
allowed to settle. One hour later, the decanters slowly came down. . The clear part (or
supernatant) flowed into the surge tank, and later flowed to the tertiary filters. At 240
minutes, the decanters were again out of the water, and the cycle began again. To make
sure that the filters did not get hydraulically overloaded, all three tertiary filters were in
service. The filtrate flowed to the UV, then to the cascade aerator. The system had a
Storm Surge program which was activated when it sensed a certain percent increase in
the amount of influent flow; and, for a single four-hour period, it would cut the time cycle
back 50% so that the capacity would go up, but the treatment time would go down.
Presently, only one side of the Reactor was in operation (ICEAS Reactor #2). In the
future, it will be set up so that the two sides will not be decanting at the same time.
There may be times when there could be overlapping. But, according to the
programming, for the most part, it will call for one side to be treating while the other side
will be decanting. Recently, South Harnett Regional began taking some of the flow from
Carolina Lakes. The WWTP operators had training for adjusting the timer settings for
aeration, etc. for increased flows that occurred during storm events. * At the time of this
CEI inspection, the WWTP was in the process of construction of two more of everything
that they presently had (in general). Three tertiary filters were already in service. They
were in the process of adding on six more. One UV channel was in service, and they
were in the process of adding on, for a total of three altogether. The last prediction for
completion of the WWTP plant was estimated to be December 2011; however,
completion of construction might be sometime next year. Presently, it appeared that one
more ICEAS might be completed by July 2011. The digester blowers were out -of -
service at the time of this CEI. They were in the process of trouble shooting the digester
blowers. The motors operated, but would overheat. There was not much in the digester.
So far, they have hauled sludge one time (approximately 1 MG in July 2010 to the North
Harnett County Regional WWTP lagoon). At that time, they let the sludge in the
digester settle, pumped it to the other compartment for additional thickening, and then
pumped it out and hauled it.

The upgrade will have a gravity belt thickener and a belt press. Presently, neither one of
these was in service. Every Monday at 8 AM, the generator was operated (but, not under
load). The mechanical climber screen was activated by a level sensor. The pump
station was approximately two miles away from the WWTP headworks. It also had a
fine mechanical bar screen (similar to the one at the headworks). The Grit Classifier was
operational. The water that dripped out of it would flow to a manhole that then flowed
to the backwash station, and later to the headworks. There were seven blowers that were
present: four were not in service (painted a gold color), and three that were in service
(green color). The gold colored ones were predicted to be quieter than the green colored
blowers. The generator had automatic switchover when the South River EMC electric
power would go down. There was 24-hour operator coverage seven -days -per -week.
There were two mixers. in each Reactor; and, each directed the flow in the Reactor to go
to the adjacent wall of the Reactor. Each Reactor had a solids sensor (HACH SC 100)
that had continuous readout of the MLSS. There was 3,148 mg/L MLSS at the time of
this CEI. A HACH sensor replaced the Royce Technologies solids sensor that was tied
into the SCADA system. There was also a sensor for continuous readings of the
Dissolved Oxygen in the mixed liquor. Each sensor could be adjusted to read the actual
amount found by the conventional method. These sensors were crosschecked on each
Monday. Approximately once every four hours, the self-cleaning cycle would activate,
and air bubbles blew debris away from the Dissolved Oxygen sensor. However, the
MLSS did not have a self-cleaning cycle. The MLSS sensor probably measured the
percent transmission of light. Part of the ICEAS programming was to waste solids to
keep the MLSS at a certain amount. The effluent from the Surge Basin flowed to the
Traveling Bridge Tertiary Filter Units. All three Tertiary Filters were in service. Every
six hours the tertiary filters automatically went into a backwash cycle. There was a high
level sensor that could activate the beginning of backwash cycle until the level went
below the high level sensor. Although chlorine (or bleach) was not added to the Tertiary
Filters, there was a tank on the tertiary filter that could be used to help clean the filters.
There will be six more Traveling Bridge Filter Units that will be built and put into
service, for a total of nine sand filter units. Presently, there were three UV banks. In the
future, there will be three more installed. As a precaution, there was a low water level
switch that would shut off the UV if the water level would get below a certain level.
Module # 1 was in service at the time of the CEI, and the other two UV modules were
operable. Each would be put into service for a period of approximately two months,
after which the module would be cleaned and then put back into its operating location.
For the routine maintenance wash of the UV bulbs, a large wench was used to lift a
module of bulbs out of the operating location and place the bulbs in a wash of a
hydrochloric acid dilution for a certain amount of time while air was bubbled in to help
clean the surfaces of the .UV bulbs. The Spring Lake POTW effluent discharge was
upstream of the South Harnett County Regional WWTP effluent discharge on Little River
(in the Cape Fear River Basin).

4T1�S
u UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6EP1CV
�41fy REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
z�Frorq PgesE�ce 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
February 9, 2012
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PCS Data Entry for Majors/Minors Update
FROM: Mark J. Nuhfer, Chief
Municipal and Industrial NPDES Sectio
Pollution Control and Implementation Brand
oo'
TO: Steve Hufford, Acting Chief
Data System and Information Management Branch
Office Of Compliance (2222A)
EPA Region 4 has determined that several facilities need to have changes made in regards to their
major/minor status within the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for North Carolina. The following
tables show the additions and deletions that need to be made to the majors list for Region 4. Please note
that the facility which needs to be downgraded to "Minor" has been verified that it is not currently on
the Quarterly Non -Compliance Report. We would appreciate this information be entered into PCS as
soon as possible. Copies of the rating sheets for industrial facilities will be sent to you via electronic
mail.
�0
Internet Address (URL) o http:liw .opa.gov
RecycledlRecyclable -Primed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30%Poslconsumer)

��.9�� � "^LTs�cS"�iSG�43tsts'• FetKf'Sa:"^�.� iF�4"PAry�"• '���Ft�i.�`i�''�'� '�^ r MUDa��i�.d.����
Y
>.«•.v.F.�sY�3 1 rs :s`. � Fxa:&SH' B
CAO. r
gtwcyt
s4A,(Us
Should you have any questions or concerns, please have a member of your staff contact Connie Kagey
of the Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section at [phone] or via email at this address:
kagey. connie(o)epa. gov.

Harnett
C O U N T Y
NORTH CAROLINA
December 29, 2010
NCDENR,
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Permit Renewal and NOV
South Harnett Regional W WTP
NPDES # NCO088366
Dear Sir or Madam:
Ae�-sty N Public Utilities Department
OnTaP! e p
AW WA
www.harnen.org
PO Box 1119
308 West Duncan Street
Lillington. NC 27546-1119
Please find the enclosed permit renewal application and associated documents for the above referenced
NPDES permit. As you are already aware, Harnett County received a NOV for failure to submit this
application by the deadline of December 2, 2010. Please accept my sincerest apology for this oversight.
The original permit for this 5 mgd facility was issued in December of 2006 with an expiration date of
September 30, 2011. My staff and 1 began operating this plant in June of 2009 and immediately began
setting our strategies to meet all of the renewal requirements that included multiple PPA's and
supplemental Toxicity testing that would include 4 second species, multiple dilution tests. However, when
our department received the appropriate permits to expand this facility to accommodate our regional
partnership with Fort Bragg I did not realize that the expiration date for NPDES 40088366 had been
changed to May 31, 2011.
After discussions with Mark Brantley (Fayetteville Regional Office) and Tom Belnick (Permitting Unit), I
have put together the enclosed application for review. The packet includes the following:
I. Basic permit application packet (Part A & B)
2. Part C (Certification)
3. Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing)
4. Sludge Management Plan
We will complete our fourth set of second species toxicity testing during the first week of January 2011 and
intend to submit Par E of this application as an amendment to this application by January 31, 2011. Once
again, I apologize for my failure to submit this application by the modified deadline. It has and will
continue to be our goal to meet all permit requirements.
Respectfully,
Kenneth W. Fail
Wastewater Superintendent
ph: 910-893-7575
fax: [phone]
strong roots • new growth

Harnett
COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
December 29, 2010
NCDENR,
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Sludge Management Narrative
South Harnett Regional W WTP
NPDES # NCO088366
Dear Sir or Madam:
A_ (t Tatyppw Public Utilities Department
Mwwa
(a nl e
'm.,v www.harnett.org
PO Box 1119
308 West Duncan Street
Lillington, NC 27546-1119
South Harnett Regional W WTP is currently operating under the original permit for 5 mgd and currently has
a 1.0 million gallon aerobic digester. Our sludge contractor (Synagro Southeast) is currently working with
the non -discharge unit on a major modification to the county's Residual Land Application Program WQ
40007066 adding approximately 900 acres and increasing the permitted dry tonnage to 1500 dry tons/year.
This facility has been added as a source already. Our expansion to 15 mgd has included the construction
and implementation of a gravity thickener, a 3 meter belt press and the Shwing Bioset Lime Stabilization
process equipment. Upon completion of these upgrades the South Harnett facility will have the following 3
options for managing its waste sludge.
1. Processing Class A Biosolids
2. Thickening of sludge to 4% for direct land application of Class B biosolids
3. Thickening of sludge to 4% for pump and haul to our 12 million gallon sludge lagoon located
at our North Harnett Regional facility. (Emergency Option)
If you require any further information or clarification in this matter, please feel free to contact me >
Respectfully,
Kenneth W. Fail
W WTP's Supt.
HCDPU
910.890.0767 (cell)
910.893.2424 Ext. 6470 (office)
ph: 910-893-7575
fax: [phone]
strong roots • new growth

90,
140 0- A,* � - r
Belnick, Tom
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:31 PM
To: Poupart, Jeff; Henson, Belinda; Stallings, Hannah
Subject: FW: FONSI
Just an fyi. This person called last week about Harnett County/Spring Lake connection issue, and followed up with
email. I said from NPDES standpoint, we would take another look at flow allocation at permit renewal in 2011.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Britt Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 1:37 PM
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: FONSI
Mr. Belnick,
What would the effect be on an ATC Permit or NPDEMS Permit that was approved contained flawed or
incorrect data?
For example, if the FONSI stated an upstream WWTP was to be decommissioned, however it will not be
decommissioned. Would this just change the limits of discharge or require to the process to begin again to
allow for public input on a corrected FONSI?
Thanks in advance for your time and help.

ql7/z4Jo #Q-fy -� 6- to
rVC,n3\A-Aj o'lj6f>
NcD7bob3�o o414z;vnt�f/
TA 140n Litt 001 �l(-1 � C,1,101e � ?IV S'QU�64r4�eT
vc 883t6),
1s m .
7-v� &t h, c IC
M\:vi"j d-u CdnnPc.hQn w/46vtA I- r�eFf IL�ir^.,C
see tjA^l

Permit
Facility
Activity
Assigned
Received
Description
Completed
Proposed
- p
South Harnett Regional WWTP
u
_ 9
Sec _
P
_ Rodriguez
, 9
_12/29/2003
srequest for proposed facil
spec re- q-- - -- tY
2/10/2004
Proposed
South Harnett Regional WWTP
EA
Rodriguez
5/1/2006
EA review
5/26/2006
NCO088366
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Spec Limit
Vinzani
4/10/2008
Spec Limit Request
4/24/2008
NCO088366
-
South Harnett Regional WWTP
EA
Berry
-
2/23/2009
Expansion from 5 MGD to 15 MGD
2/24/2009
- -
Expansion from 5 MGD to 15 MGD -
NC0088366
South Harnett Regional WWTP
EA
Vinzani
8/26/2009
second draft
9/15/2009
NCO088366
South Harnett Regional WWTP
Minor Mod
Rust
6/30/2009
Instream monitoring requirements waived
11/5/2009
C008836
South Harnett Regional WWTP j
Major mod
McKav'1/26/2010
_
Expand from 5 MGD to 15 MGD
4/12/2010
�p►1J i FJJH�/P,�r���/I'%p� �v /S�1G?% %JJk�( ,
J(, r, L4p,
7,-wrils/ 9

Belnick, Tom
From: Stallings, Hannah
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Belnick, Tom
Subject: FW: South Harnett Regional WWTP: DWQ # 14096
FYI
Hannah Stallings, DWQ's SEPA Coordinator
[phone]
Mailing address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/ps/sepa
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Painter, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:26 PM
To: Stallings, Hannah _
Cc: Deamer, Nora; Stecker, Kathy
Subject: RE: South Harnett Regional WWTP: DWQ # 14096
If Spring Lake is backing out, the NPDES discharge limit for SHR WWTP should be rolled back to 13.5 mgd and then
further subtract any allocation that was given for Spring Lake's 20-year planning period. Then the only option for Spring
Lake in the next 20 years should be to close the facility and connect, as planned, to this regional facility (along with their
allocation).
Wasn't there a letter of intent from Spring Lake we were waiting on a while back? Are there contractual agreements
between parties for WWTP consolidations like this?
The change in the line work according to the EA is because of cost encountered and land owner/s not allowing utility
easements through their land, not because of Spring Lake backing out. If this is not the case, as you indicated below, this
text should be revised along with the title and focus of this EA update.
From: Stallings, Hannah
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Painter, Andy
Subject: RE: South Harnett Regional WWTP: DWQ # 14096
The main reason I sent it to y'all was the possibility for comment on the chance of Spring Lake pulling out of this regional
plan and staying on their own.
If y'all don't have anything to say on that, okie dokie. But just wanted you to know I didn't send it for a review of the
line work. The change in the line work is due to Spring Lake seeming to progressively back out more and more and
maintain its own system and discharge.
Hannah Stallings, DWQ's SEPA Coordinator
[phone]
Mailing address: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Physical location: 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
1

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/ps/sepa
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Painter, Andy
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:30 PM
To: Stallings, Hannah
Cc: Stecker, Kathy
Subject: South Harnett Regional WWTP: DWQ # 14096
Hannah, I have no comments for the update to the South Harnett Regional WWTP EA.
Note: For change in location of sewer main, originally planned to run along Lower Little River as gravity main, and now
planned to be a FM along existing DOT right-of-way.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.
K

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC U I LITIES — SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEATER TREATMENT
PLANT EXPANSION TO 15 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY CAPACITY AND
REGIONALIZATION WITH FORT BRAGG AND SPRING LAKE
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et seq.),
an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared by Harnett County Public Utilities for the proposed
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion from 5 million gallon per day (N4GD) to 15 MGD to provide
a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve the existing service area for the South Regional WWTP, the
Town of Spring Lake, and Fort Bragg. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Spring Lake and Fort
Bragg will be decommissioned, thereby eliminating their discharges. New wastewater collection
infrastructure necessary to transmit flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the proposed regional WWTP
will include: an 8 MGD Pump Station at Fort Bragg WWTP; 14,500 linear feet (l.f.) of 30-inch forcemain
between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the existing Spring Lake WWTP site; replacement of the influent
pump station at the Spring Lake WWTP and pipeline construction to head of gravity sewer interceptor (1.5
MGD capacity); 19,000 11 of 42-inch gravity sewer interceptor parallel to and along the Lower Little River
between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett Regional Sewer Pump Station site; a
10 MGD pump station expansion at the South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NC-210); and 16,000 11 of 30- to 36-inch forcemain from the South Regional Pump Station to the South
Regional WWTP. Construction at the WWTP to allow for the 10 MGD treatment capacity expansion will
include: two 5 MGD Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System trains, including piping, decanting, fine
bubble diffusion and blowers; two 5 MGD traveling bridge tertiary filters, including backwash pumping,
piping, installation of additional UV disinfection modules; and modifications to the existing sludge handling
system which include the installation of a bioset sludge pasteurization system, including all necessary site
work piping and electrical conversions.
Three alternatives were considered for wastewater treatment: 1) no action; 2) optimization of existing
WWTP facilities; and 3) expansion of the South Regional WWTP from 5 to 15 MGD. Option 3 was chosen
for wastewater treatment. Three effluent disposal alternatives were considered: 1) discharge 15 MGD to the
Lower Little River; 2) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and land apply 10 MGD at a spray field
site; and 3) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and pump 10 MGD to reuse customers. Option 1
was chosen for effluent disposal.
Direct impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and
design. Noise levels will temporarily increase in the immediate vicinity of construction locations. Nuisance
noise levels, which currently are not detectable from the existing South Regional WWTP, are not expected to
increase or change adversely when the new expansion comes on-line. Any noise levels at the Fort Bragg
WWTP and Spring Lake WWTP sites will cease when they are taken offline, and operation of the pumping
stations to convey flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the regional WWTP should not create excessive
disturbance. Approximately 2.2 acres of farmland soils in Cumberland County and approximately 0.5 acres
farmland soils in Harnett County will be impacted as a result of the gravity pipeline construction.
Topography and soils will be directly impacted by grading activities; however, these impacts will be short
term direct impacts and will not result in permanent impacts to the topography or soil. Therefore, this project
will not impact local flood elevations. While immediate local air quality at the construction sites will be
degraded by stirred dust and emissions from machinery, the upgraded WWTP and wastewater transmission
infrastructure are not anticipated to produce significantly negatively impact air quality. However, the South
Regional WWTP's existing air permit will be reviewed and updated to include additional generators per final
design requirements. While some lowering of the water table during pipeline trench dewatering and
installation operations may be required, neither groundwater quality nor quantity should be adversely directly
affected by construction or operation of the proposed project. Direct impacts to streams and wetland areas
from installation of the forcemain will largely be avoided by using directional drilling techniques; however,

installation of the gravity interceptor will require open -cut crossings with 40- to 60-foot clearings and will
directly impact a total of approximately 1.7 acres of wetlands. Installation of the gravity interceptor will also
necessitate clearing approximately 25 acres of forested area. Substantial nutrient loading to the Lower Little
River is not expected, and water quality in the river should be improved through the elimination of the two
existing secondary treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake for the expansion of a single tertiary
discharge. Proper erosion and sedimentation practices will be followed during construction to protect local
water quality as well as aquatic habitat and wildlife. There will not be any significant direct negative impacts
on existing land uses, public lands, recreational areas, or threatened or endangered species.
Harnett County has worked with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to amend the project so that
it will not adversely impact local National Register -listed properties. The County has agreed to the following
conditions to attain SHPO's concurrence with this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI):
• All utilities will be buried pipe within existing road rights -of way at Thorbiskope with no means of
creating sewage odors or any other adverse direct impacts. Once construction is complete, virtually no
sign of a sewer system will exist within proximity to Thorbiskope.
• Ellerslie will not have a sewer main located on or adjacent to its property. No appurtenances of the
wastewater treatment or transmission systems will be visible from the Ellerslie property.
• The high quality of the tertiary -treated effluent discharged into the Lower Little River exceeds the
quality of effluent discharged from either the Fort Bragg WWTP or the Spring Lake WWTP, both which
currently discharge secondary -treated wastewater effluent upstream of the Ellerslie and Thorbiskope
properties. Decommissioning these two plants will benefit environmental quality along the Lower Little
River.
• Because of the remote WWTP location, treatment technology, and quality of the management, operation,
and maintenance of critical WWTP components, chemical additions at the plant headworks, aluminum
coverings over the raw sewage pump station, and fully contained sludge processing building and storage
facilities, the South Harnett WWTP should not produce nuisance odors that will affect Thorbiskope or
Ellerslie.
• Due to the distances involved and the remote downslope location of the WWTP site, no light emitted
from the WWTP lighting fixtures will spill onto the Ellerslie and Thorbiskope home sites or be
detectable from these home sites. To minimize the amount of sky glow emitted from the WWTP site,
fully shielded pole -mounted fixtures and wall lights will be used that meet the International Dark -Sky
Advocate (IDA) certification requirements.
Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (SCI) may result from this project and are outlined in the
EA. State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area, including local zoning, subdivision
regulations, land use plans, and watershed overlay ordinances, are described in detail within the EA and
include policies that promote orderly growth through proficient use of land and cost-effective provision of
sewer service. Therefore, the proposed project should not result in significant SCI.
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, and reviewed
by governmental agencies, the Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not
result in significant impacts to the environment. This EA and FNSI are prerequisites for the issuance of
Division of Water Quality permits necessary for the proj ect's construction. An Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for this project. This FNSI completes the environmental review record,
which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
22 September 2009

AMENDMENT TO WATER QUALITY MODEL
SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
HARNETT COUNTY, NC
0-1 LITTLE RIVER SEGMENT BETWEEN US HIGHWAY 401
AND DILTON MOBILE HOME PARK
s
7707
s
/> Dp
I�g,Q/o��,A,`,��
' L
•
f •3 � !r- O V
BY
Marziano & Minier, PA
PO Drawer 4428
Asheboro, N. C. 27204
[e-mail]
March, 2006
j M&M Project No. 23007

f �
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Reason for Amendment
1.2 Previous Submittals
1.3 Previous Results
2.0 SCENARIOS MODELED
2.1
Scenario 1
2.2
Scenario 2
2.3
Scenario 3
2.4
Scenario 4
3.0 MODELING PROCEDURES
4.0 RESULTS OF MODELING
4.1 Summary
4.2 Discussion of Graphs
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 Summary of Results
5.2 Project Benefits
Amendment to River Model Page 1 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

1.0 GENERAL:
1.1 Reason for Amendment
A QUAL2K river model to the Lower Little River was prepared
by Marziano & Minier, PA of Asheboro, NC dated October 31,
2005. The river model was submitted to NC Department of
Environment & natural Resources for the purpose of justifying
the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility to be
located in South Harnett County on the Little River.
Specifically, the location is approximately 6.6 miles
downstream of the Spring Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharge point. Staff of NC Department of Environment &
Natural Resources have reviewed the stream water quality
model submitted in November, 2005. As a result of the
review, the waste load allocation section of NC DENR has
requested that more specific scenarios be run for the
proposed discharge on the Little River.
1.2 Previous Submittals:
As stated, a report was prepared utilizing a QUAL2K river
model that proposed a wastewater discharge of 5.0 mgd at a
point on the Little River downstream of the Spring Lake
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The report included dissertation
relative to existing stream conditions and back up
information that was utilized to provide the base line data in
developing the stream model. Additionally, an entire print
out of the model was submitted that depicted all current
discharges in the studied section of the Little River under
summer conditions at a flow of 45.46 cfs which is the listed
7Q10 flow for that portion of the stream.
Amendment to River Model Page 2 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

1
I
1.3 Previous Results:
For reasons given in the previously mentioned study, the
model indicated that a stream discharge at the point indicated
would not degrade the river water quality below the standards
set by the State of North Carolina when the effluent was
treated to a tertiary level. Additionally, the report indicated
that the treatment facility proposed will employ advanced
wastewater treatment in that it will allow the biological
removal of nitrogen and phosphorus before entering the
stream.
2.0 SCENARIOS MODELED
2.1 Scenario 1:
Scenario no. 1 analyzed the steady state conditions of the
studied section of the Little River assuming that no
wastewater discharges were present. All of the flows listed
for Dilton Mobile Home Park, Ft. Bragg Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Spring Lake Wastewater treatment Plant and the
proposed South Harnett Wastewater Treatment Plant were
eliminated from the model and the results were tabulated.
2.2 Scenario 2:
This scenario modeled the section of stream under
investigation with only the existing wastewater treatment
plants operating at their permitted limits. The existing
Cooper's Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant which is
proposed to be abandoned if the South Harnett Wastewater
Treatment Plant is constructed was not included in this
scenario. Particularly since it sits several miles north of the
Amendment to River Model Page 3 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Little River and discharges into jumping Run Creek which is
tributary to the Little River.
2.3 Scenario 3:
This scenario modeled all of the existing wastewater
discharges on the studied section of the Little River and
included the discharge for the proposed South Harnett
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This scenario is
essentially the same scenario that was submitted with the
original report in November, 2005. Again, the Cooper's
Ranch WWTP was not included for the reasons listed under
Scenario 2 above.
2.4 Scenario 4:
This scenario assumed that the Ft. Bragg Wastewater
Treatment Plant discharge was relocated to the site of the
proposed South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment
i
Facility. The other wastewater discharges for Dilton Mobile
Home Park and Spring Lake WWTP were maintained at their
current location and permitted limits. i
It would be worthwhile to note at this point that Harnett
County was notified during the week of March 13, 2006,
from the Department of Defense through Ft. Bragg personnel
that preliminary contracts are being prepared for Harnett
County to review prepatory to assuming treatment
responsibility for the Ft. Bragg Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Currently, it is expected that negotoiations for Harnett
County's acquisition of the treatment for Ft. Bragg should be
concluded in early fall, 2006. Assuming a satisfactory
outcome, then Harnett County would be in a position to
relocate this discharge to the proposed South Harnett
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This scenario included
Amendment to River Model Page 4 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

� I '
a 5.0 mgd flow for the current Harnett County design
(- requirements and 10 mgd flow for the Ft. Bragg treatment
I facilityfor a total of 1 5.0 mgd at the proposed Little River
discharge point. Additionally, a speculative limits request
was answered by the State in February, 2004 that assumed a
15.0 mgd discharge into the Lower Little River at
approximately the same coordinates as that proposed for the
South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. This
( speculative limits letter is contained in the Appendix to this
Report Amendment.
3.0 Modeling Procedures:
E=
The above scenarios were modeled in essentially the same
manner as the original model submitted in November, 2005.
To change each model to evaluate the scenarios liste
d ed in
Article 2.0, the point inflow was changed accordingly in the
"Point Source Data Worksheet". The engineers found it be
very simple to just add or delete the point source of the
wastewater treatment facility in order to have the model
conform to the scenario that was being analyzed. As a check,
the engineer's completely changed one model scenario to
customize it exactly as the scenario would have been run had
it not been proposed to construct a new treatment plant. The
results observed were the same as those that are submitted in
this amendment to the report.
4.0 RESULTS OF MODELING:
4.1 GENERAL:
Included with this amendment are plots of various data that
j the engineers selected to show the comparison between each
scenario. Each model scenario has been copied to a CD and
the CD is contained in the Appendix of one copy to this
Amendment to River Model Page S of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Amendment. However, to keep the volume of this report to a
minimum only certain graphs were selected for the
comparison. Those graphs are:
• Graph no. 1 stream DO - last segment - diel data
• Graph no. 2 stream DO
• Graph no. 3 travel time
• Graph no. 4 stream flow
• Graph no. 5 stream velocity
• Graph no. 6 depth of stream flow
• Graph no. 7 re -aeration in the stream section
Each of the graphs listed above are attached to this
1='
amendment and have been printed in such a manner that
comparison between each scenario can be made on a graph
bvgra h basis as discussed below.
p
4.2 Discussion of Graphs:
Each graph is discussed in some detail below and presented
hereinafter for the reviewer to compare the scenario results:
1. Graph no. 1 compares the DO in the last segment of the
stream for each scenar_+o. The graphs should be self-
explanatory in that the last section of each scenario
indicates that the DO of the last stream segment would be
. at or above a minimum of 6 m I. A g/ s expected, Scenario
r
4 would have a lower starting and ending range due to the
fact that a major discharge of 15.0 mgd has been placed
just before that section of stream. However, as will be
seen in later graphs, the DO of the upper sections of the
stream have improved significantly as a result of this
relocation.
2. Graph no. 2 compares the dissolved Oxygen in the 20 mile
section of stream under each scenario studied. Scenario 1
Amendment to River Model Page 6 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Eli`
3.
9
obviously indicates a fairly steady rate of DO in the stream
from beginning to end with minor changes due to the
three different slopes that were analyzed in the model.
Scenarios 2 & 3 are very similar. What is significant about
scenario 2 & 3 is that the oxygen sag caused by the Ft.
Bragg/Spring Lake discharge rebounds prior to reaching
the South Harnett discharge point. Scenario 3 has slightly
less DO because of the South Harnett Wastewater
Treatment Plant when compared to Scenario 2 which does
not include that discharge. Scenario 4 indicates a much
improved oxygen curve above the Spring Lake Wastewater
Treatment Plant and a slightly lower oxygen level at the
site of the South Harnett Regional Wastewater Plant when
the Ft. Bragg discharge is relocated.
Graph no. 3 indicates the travel time in the stream section
under each scenario analyzed. The graph should be self-
explanatory and are only presented here to indicate the
affects of the travel time by adding or deleting discharges.
Graph no. 4 indicates the flow in the stream section under
each scenario analyzed. The stream flow is affected by the
location of the discharge points in each scenario along
with the slope studied for each section of stream. Stream
slopes can be found in the worksheets of the model on the
CD.
S. Graph no. 5 indicates the stream velocity for each scenario
studied. Like, Graph no. 4 previously, the velocity in the
stream is a function of the location of each point source as
it is input into the model along with the slope of the
stream bed.
6. Graph no. 6 indicates the depth of stream flow and as with
graphs 4 & 5 the depth of flow is a function of the point
source input along with the stream slope.
7. Graph no. 7 indicates the re -aeration capability in each
section of the stream along the 20-mile reach studied.
Where the discharges are included under scenario 2 & 3
Amendment to River Model Page 7 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

the re -aeration coefficients are depressed somewhat due
to the BOD load on the stream. However, relocating the
Ft. Bragg discharge to the new location approximates a re -
aeration curve very similar to that in scenario 1 where no
wastewater load is placed on the stream.
5.0 SUMMARY:
5.1 Summary of Results:
As previously indicated, the model for each scenario is
included on the CD in the Appendix of this amendment (only
one (1) copy has been provided. The model uses Microsoft
Excel 2000 or later and can be used to view the actual input
changes and results of each stream parameter that the model
studies. The curves presented herein were presented to
indicate the ability of the stream to recover oxygen levels as a
result of the discharges. The curves presented appear to
legitimately represent the changes that would occur in the
stream under each scenario. This is evident when the curves
were compared to each other on the sheets provided.
In reviewing the data presented, it is the engineer'sopinion
that a discharge at the point indicated in the previ,� ous study
of the Little River would maintain the river water Quality,
particularly when the discharge proposed is at a tertiary level
and utilizes advanced wastewater treatment.
5.2 Project Benefits:
Project benefits for a South Harnett Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant on the Little River include:
• Elimination of failing septic tanks in South Central
Harnett County. Harnett County currently pumps in
Amendment to River Model Page S of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

excess of 180 septic tanks that have failed and can
not be replaced. This occurrence of septic tank
failures is certainly expected to continue into the
future due to the density of development in that area
of Harnett County.
• The location of this regional plant will allow the
elimination of the Cooper's Ranch wastewater
treatment plant which is located on a stream that, in
the engineer's opinion, is more sensitive than the
point in the Little River studied.
• ere is a very real likelihood that Harnett County can
ccessfully acquire the wastewater treatment
contract for the base at Ft. Bragg. Should that
happen, Harnett County intends to relocate that
discharge to the location of the proposed South
Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. In
every model studied, this has the affect of
significantly improving the water quality in this 20-
Dnle reach of the Little River.
.e Spring Lake WWTP could be eliminated sometime
the future and be served economically by the S.
Regional WWTP.
Amendment to River Model Page 9 of 9 Marziano & Minier, PA
South Regional Harnett WWTP Consulting Engineers

Belnick, Tom
From: Steve Ward [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Glenn McFadden; Kenny Fail
Subject: RE: South Harnett WWTP Flow Justification
Attachments: 2006 03 16 Amendment to WQ Model Text.pdf
Tom,
The requested summary of the model is attached. Thanks.
From: Belnick, Tom fmailto:tom.belnick(alncdenr.govl
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Steve Ward
Subject: RE: South Harnett WWTP Flow Justification
Thanks Steve. I've forwarded this info along to DWQ staff involved in this project (SEPA, CG&L, NPDES) and we'll get
back with you after further discussion. Yesterday you mentioned a letter summary of the water quality model results
with both plants running at full capacity (County at 15 MGD, Spring Lake at 1.5 MGD). Can you also email that to me.
Thanks.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Complex NPDES Permitting Unit
NC DENR/Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Steve Ward rmailto:sward(aharnett.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Belnick, Tom
Cc: Glenn McFadden; Kenny Fail
Subject: South Harnett WWTP Flow Justification
Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this vitally important issue with Glenn McFadden and I yesterday. As 1 stated
yesterday in our phone conversation, as soon as Harnett County became aware of Spring Lake's reversal on their
decision to come into the South Harnett Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, we immediately began discussions with
Fort Bragg through the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) about the base purchasing an additional 2 mgd of
capacity in the plant. The original contract called for the post to own and pay for the construction of 8 mgd of capacity.
This was reflected in the EA and corresponding documentation with CG&L. We waited for the announcement of the
NPDES permit at 15 mgd to finalize our discussions about how much capacity Fort Bragg could purchase. The above
attachments are an attempt to produce evidence of these discussions and finalization of this allocation.
Descriptions of Attached Documents

1. Harnett Co NTP- W WTP Upgrades- FINAL 032510 - this document from DESC is the Notice To Proceed on the 10
MGD construction upgrade to the SHWWTP and it also references the agreed upon price for the 10 MGD
allocation of $20,516,849.09. This agreed upon price will be seen in many of the attached documents. This
letter also establishes the intent for DESC to pay for the future force main and pump station work currently
under review by CG&L.
2. Harnett Co WWTP Upgrade Increase Letter- FINAL March 25 2010- this document from DESC is the
government's acceptance of the increased cost associated with the increase in capacity from 8 mgd to 10 mgd.
The firm -fixed price of $20,516,849.09 is again referenced as the cost of the 10 mgd allocation and subsequent
construction currently underway. This letter also references a proposal from Harnett County to DESC for the
additional capacity dated February 22, 2010. Please note the timing of the proposal from Harnett County. It
was 4 days after we received the draft NPDES permit for 15 mgd at the plant. The government did not agree to
purchase this additional capacity without determining that Harnett County possessed the available capacity as
warranted in the draft permit.
3. Response to Comments on the HCWWTP GFE Proposal 22 Feb 10 - this document is a copy of the back and forth
emails between Harnett County and DESC where we are determining the cost (GFE-good faith estimate) of the
additional 2 mgd capacity in the plant. It includes comments from both sides discussing these costs for various
parts of the construction upgrade. It also contains two spreadsheets that show the original 8 mgd cost and the
new 10 mgd cost. This document again shows the agreed upon cost of $20,516,849.09 for the original cost
(8mgd) plus the modifications to the contract (additional 2 mgd for a total of 10 mgd).
4. Modifications P00015 and P00016- these are copies of the actual modifications to the original 8 mgd contract
that shows the government appropriating the funds to pay for the additional 2 mgd. This is evidence of the
strongest regional partnership that I am aware of. Regional partnerships usually fail due to a lack of funding.
The federal government is committing in excess of $34 million dollars to this project including the force main
and pump station.
5. SHW WTP Draft NPDES Permit for 15 mgd 2-18-10 — this is self-explanatory but the timing of the document is
important when you consider our proposal and the government's acceptance of the additional capacity given
Spring Lake's decision to not become a regional partner at this time.
If you have any additional questions about any of these documents or if some area of my explanation is not clear, please
let me know and I will try to clarify. Thanks again.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HARNETT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES — SOUTH REGIONAL WASTEATER TREATMENT
PLANT EXPANSION TO 15 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY CAPACITY AND
REGIONALIZATION WITH FORT BRAGG AND SPRING LAKE
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et seq.),
an environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared by Harnett County Public Utilities for the proposed
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) expansion from 5 million gallon per day (MGD) to 15 MGD to provide
a regional wastewater treatment facility to serve the existing service area for the South Regional WWTP, the
Town of Spring Lake, and Fort Bragg. The existing wastewater treatment facilities at Spring Lake and Fort
Bragg will be decommissioned, thereby eliminating their discharges. New wastewater collection
infrastructure necessary to transmit flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the proposed regional WWTP
will include: an 8 MGD Pump Station at Fort Bragg WWTP; 14,500 linear feet (l.f.) of 30-inch forcemain
between Fort Bragg's existing WWTP and the existing Spring Lake WWTP site; replacement of the influent
pump station at the Spring Lake WWTP and pipeline construction to head of gravity sewer interceptor (1.5
MGD capacity); 19,000 11 of 42-inch gravity sewer interceptor parallel to and along the Lower Little River
between Spring Lake's existing WWTP and the existing South Harnett Regional Sewer Pump Station site; a
10 MGD pump station expansion at the South Regional Sewer Pump Station (near Shady Grove Road and
NC-210); and 16,000 11 of 30- to 36-inch forcemain from the South Regional Pump Station to the South
Regional WWTP. Construction at the WWTP to allow for the 10 MGD treatment capacity expansion will
include: two 5 MGD Intermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System trains, including piping, decanting, fine
bubble diffusion and blowers; two 5 MGD traveling bridge tertiary filters, including backwash pumping,
piping, installation of additional LTV disinfection modules; and modifications to the existing sludge handling
system which include the installation of a bioset sludge pasteurization system, including all necessary site
work piping and electrical conversions.
Three alternatives were considered for wastewater treatment: 1) no action; 2) optimization of existing
WWTP facilities; and 3) expansion of the South Regional WWTP from 5 to 15 MGD. Option 3 was chosen
for wastewater treatment. Three effluent disposal alternatives were considered: 1) discharge 15 MGD to the
Lower Little River; 2) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and land apply 10 MGD at a spray field
site; and 3) discharge 5 MGD to the Lower Little River and pump 10 MGD to reuse customers. Option 1
was chosen for effluent disposal.
Direct impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and
design. Noise levels will temporarily increase in the immediate vicinity of construction locations. Nuisance
noise levels, which currently are not detectable from the existing South Regional WWTP, are not expected to
increase or change adversely when the new expansion comes on-line. Any noise levels at the Fort Bragg
WWTP and Spring Lake WWTP sites will cease when they are taken offline, and operation of the pumping
stations to convey flows from Fort Bragg and Spring Lake to the regional WWTP should not create excessive
disturbance. Approximately 2.2 acres of farmland soils in Cumberland County and approximately 0.5 acres
farmland soils in Harnett County will be impacted as a result of the gravity pipeline construction.
Topography and soils will be directly impacted by grading activities; however, these impacts will be short
term direct impacts and will not result in permanent impacts to the topography or soil. Therefore, this project
will not impact local flood elevations. While immediate local air quality at the construction sites will be
degraded by stirred dust and emissions from machinery, the upgraded WWTP and wastewater transmission
infrastructure are not anticipated to produce significantly negatively impact air quality. However, the South
Regional WWTP's existing air permit will be reviewed and updated to include additional generators per final
design requirements. While some lowering of the water table during pipeline trench dewatering and
installation operations may be required, neither groundwater quality nor quantity should be adversely directly
affected by construction or operation of the proposed project. Direct impacts to streams and wetland areas
from installation of the forcemain will largely be avoided by using directional drilling techniques; however,

installation of the gravity interceptor will require open -cut crossings with 40- to 60-foot clearings and will
directly impact a total of approximately 1.7 acres of wetlands. Installation of the gravity interceptor will also
necessitate clearing approximately 25 acres of forested area. Substantial nutrient loading to the Lower Little
River is not expected, and water quality in the river should be improved through the elimination of the two
existing secondary treatment discharges at Fort Bragg and Spring Lake for the expansion of a single tertiary
discharge. Proper erosion and sedimentation practices will be followed during construction to protect local
water quality as well as aquatic habitat and wildlife. There will not be any significant direct negative impacts
on existing land uses, public lands, recreational areas, or threatened or endangered species.
Harnett County has worked with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to amend the project so that
it will not adversely impact local National Register -listed properties. The County has agreed to the following
conditions to attain SHPO's concurrence with this Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI):
• All utilities will be buried pipe within existing road rights -of way at Thorbiskope with no means of
creating sewage odors or any other adverse direct impacts. Once construction is complete, virtually no
sign of a sewer system will exist within proximity to Thorbiskope.
• Ellershe will not have a sewer main located on or adjacent to its property. No appurtenances of the
wastewater treatment or transmission systems will be visible from the Ellershe property.
• The high quality of the tertiary -treated effluent discharged into the Lower Little River exceeds the
quality of effluent discharged from either the Fort Bragg WWTP or the Spring Lake WWTP, both which
currently discharge secondary -treated wastewater effluent upstream of the Ellershe and Thorbiskope
properties. Decommissioning these two plants will benefit environmental quality along the Lower Little
River.
• Because of the remote WWTP location, treatment technology, and quality of the management, operation,
and maintenance of critical WWTP components, chemical additions at the plant headworks, aluminum
coverings over the raw sewage pump station, and fully contained sludge processing building and storage
facilities, the South Harnett WWTP should not produce nuisance odors that will affect Thorbiskope or
Ellerslie.
• Due to the distances involved and the remote downslope location of the WWTP site, no light emitted
from the WWTP lighting fixtures will spill onto the Ellershe and Thorbiskope home sites or be
detectable from these home sites. To minimize the amount of sky glow emitted from the WWTP site,
fully shielded pole -mounted fixtures and wall lights will be used that meet the International Dark -Sky
Advocate (IDA) certification requirements.
Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (SCI) may result from this project and are outlined in the
EA. State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area, including local zoning, subdivision
regulations, land use plans, and watershed overlay ordinances, are described in detail within the EA and
include policies that promote orderly growth through proficient use of land and cost-effective provision of
sewer service. Therefore, the proposed project should not result in significant SCI.
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, and reviewed
by governmental agencies, the Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not
result in significant impacts to the environment. This EA and FNSI are prerequisites for the issuance of
Division of Water Quality permits necessary for the project's construction. An Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for this project. This FNSI completes the environmental review record,
which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
22 September 2009