20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake Comment Summary on 072607 PDT Materials (8-23-07)_20070823

Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3

Paul Barth - New Hill Community Association
Speculative effluent limits letters from DWQ will be included as an appendix in
1) Need to have the specific emission limits for BOD5, ammonia, solids, the EIS and has been added as an attachment to the Alternative Discharge
nutrients, etc. What are the criteria that would cause these limits to change? Locations narrative. The specific limits are inlcuded in this letter. These limits
Need to have a copy of the referenced DWQ letter and provide as Attachment represent treatment to the limits of technology for oxygen-consuming wates
to this document. and a high degree of treatment for nutrients, so it is not expected that the
limits will change.
Because the Harnett County facilities also discharge to the Cape Fear River, it
2) Need to know the above limits as it would apply to Harnett County facility. is expected that the same limits would apply to these facilities when they
Option 2: Regional significantly expand their discharges.
Wastewater System,
1 Management New Water Biosolids will be thickened at the Western Wake WRF but transported to an
Options Reclamation offsite facility for disposal. The Partners currently plan to dispose of the
Facilities thickened biosolids by transporting them to a composting facility. The
3) Where is the offsite facility located that will be used for disposal? Partners would contract with a private contractor to provide this service. The
composting facility site location depends on which residuals management
company is selected to provide this serivice and will be determined by the
company. This clarification has been added to page 4.
Composting facility charges were estimated at $35/wet ton plus a hauling
What are the associated costs? charge of $162/truckload in the April 2006 Western Wake WWMF PER.
Costs will be included in the EIS cost estimates.

2 Wastewater
Management Option 3:
Independent Need hybrid Option. Each town would treat their own wastewater and use a This would be part of Option 2, a Regional System. The Option 2 discussion

Options
Systems regional solution for transmission of treated wastewater to discharge location. will be expanded to include sub-options within the Regional System Option.
Purchase Capacity from Durham County:
Based on an interlocal agreement between the Town of Cary and Durham

Wastewater
Option 4: Purchase 1) What are the contracted capacity limits? County, Durham County has agreed to treat up to 4.0 mgd of wastewater from
Cary's western service area, RTP South, and the Haw River portion of
3 Management Capacity from Other Morrisville through June 2011.
Options Systems

2) What are the increased flows post 2001 mentioned in City of Durham This section refers to increased flows that are expected in the Durham County
service area? service area beginning in 2011. These flows are attributed to growth and
development in Durham's service area.
Page 1
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
City of Durham's South Durham WRF: 20 mgd permitted capacity
Durham County's Triangle WWTP: 12 mgd permitted capacity
3) What is City of Durham's permitted discharge limits, current flow rate, and The Western Wake Partners' Phase 1 flow requirement of 18 mgd exceeds
'
-
excess capacity? the total capacity of Durham County
s Triangle WW
FP and would require
'
nearly all of the City
s South Durham WRF total treatment capacity. Capacity
at the City's and County's wastewater treatment facilities is designed to meet
planned needs for the City's and County's wastewater service areas without
excess capacity for other towns' service areas.
The Durham County Triangle WW-FP discharges to Northeast Creek, which is
Wastewater Option 4: Purchase a tributary of the Upper New Hope Creek arm of Jordan Lake. In 2002, the
3 Management Capacity from Other Upper New Hope Creek arm of Jordan Lake was placed on the 303(d) list of
(cont.) Options Systems impaired waters based on violations of the chlorophyll a standard of 40 fag/L.
(cont.) (cont.) Based on the results of water quality modeling, NCDENR and USEPA
established a TMDL for Jordan Lake for nitrogen and phosphorus. NCDENR
4) Explain what the difficulties are with expanding City of Durham WRF? has established an annual allocation of nitrogen and phosphorus for the
Durham County Triangle WW-FP. This allocation is unlikely to be changed in
the future, meaning wastewater would need to be treated to even lower levels
of TN and TP if the flow were increased. It is considered beyond the limits of
technology to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus levels even further. Further
expansion of this facility will not be allowed for the same reasons that DWQ
would not allow a new discharge to Jordan Lake.
5) Holly Springs can run a line to Harnett County facility. Holly Springs has Holly Springs has already received a FONSI for expansion of its Utley Creek
stated that they will use Harnett County facility for future capacity, not the WW-FP and plans to proceed with plant expansion as soon as permits are
WWP WRF. received. The FONSI is included as an attachment.
Purchase Capacity from City of Durham:
Based on the interlocal agreement between the Town of Cary and Durham
County, Durham County has agreed to treat 4.0 mgd of wastewater from
Wastewater Option 4: Purchase 1) Let Durham continue to handle South RTP wastewater treatment. Cary's western service area, RTP South, and the Haw River portion of
4 Management Capacity from Other Reduces costs and capacity requirements of new facility. Morrisville through June 2011. After June 2011, extension of the agreement
'
Options Systems will depend on Durham
s available capacity for a period of time but cannot be
permanent because Durham County has not planned for this service area.
The Partners cannot depend on capacity being available after June 2011.
2) Factors listed are inherent in any option that looks at regional solutions and Options must meet the established Purpose and Need for the Project to be
should not be used to discount any option. considered feasible.
Page 2
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
Wastewater Option 4: Purchase Capacity at the South Durham WRF is designed to meet planned needs for
4 Management Capacity from Other
3) What is the date South Durham WRF expects to hit capacity? the City's wastewater service areas without excess capacity for other towns'
(cont.) Options Systems service areas. According to the Durham Comprehensive Plan, the City
(cont.) (cont.) expects the flow at the South Durham WRF to reach 18 mgd by 2025.
Purchase Capacity from Harnett County:
1) States Harnett County facilities does not have sufficient excess capacity to
accommodate 2030 demands for western Wake service area.
Permitted capacities of Harnett's major treatment plants are:
North Harnett Regional WW-FP: 5.6 mgd
South Harnett Regional WWTP: 5.0 mgd
Cooper's Ranch WWTP: 0.4 mgd
a. What is current capacity and inflow rate? Buies Creek WWTP: 0.5 mgd
Erwin WWTP: 1.2 mgd
Wastewater Option 4: Purchase
5 Management Capacity from Other Inflow rates are not included because these capacities are small in
Options Systems comparison with the Partners' wastewater capacity needs.
b. What excess capacity is available?
The Western Wake Partners' Phase 1 flow requirements exceed the total
c. Maybe facility can handle incremental demands while its facility is capacity of Harnett County's wastewater treatment capacity. While Harnett
expanded. Harnett County facility could be expanded in phases as current County could be contracted to expand to meet these needs, this was not
project proposes. evaluated because of extensive conveyance impacts for raw wastewater and
d. Should greatly reduce cost, environmental impacts, resolves environmental impacts to Jordan lake operations. This discussion has been added to the
justice issue, Chatham County pipeline issue, etc. document.
e. Provides true regional solution.
Why don't the partners treat the sewage to a primary and secondary level in Additional costs to pump raw wastewater to Partners' existing plants (and
their own towns then provide tertiary treatment at Harnett County facility or a
expand those plants to accommodate the additional flow)
partially treat it at
Wastewater Option 7: Regional facility convenient to the Partners in western Wake? Benefits include: ,
the existing plants, pump it to another facility for additional treatment, and
6 Management Water Reuse 1) Reduced environmental risk of spills. pump it to the discharge location is not practicable. Site impacts would be
Options System 2) The pumping and maintenance costs of treated wastewater are far less similar and conveyance impacts would greatly increase. Tertiary treatment is
than those for raw sewage. required to achieve levels required for reuse. NCDWQ has directed the
Partners that effluent cannot be discharged into Jordan Lake or Harris Lake.
3) Grey water can be used in the towns where it is generated.
Page 3
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
4) Less piping would be required because the Partners could discharge the
(see previous page)
Wastewater Option 7: Regional highly-treated wastewater into Jordan Lake or Harris Lake.
6
(cont.) Management
Options Water Reuse
System 5) Much less adverse economic and environmental impact to New Hill
(cont.) (cont.) community. Solves environmental justice, social, and cultural issues.
6) Could be used if and when needed to support growth in New Hill and south
to count line.
Summary of various options impact the conclusions. Thus the summary of the Summary was added at request of NCDWQ and is needed to provide a
'
options should be deleted and each options reanalyzed taking into concise conclusion stating which options are feasible and why the Partners
consideration the comments from the stakeholders. preferred option was selected. Summary will be revised as necessary as
revisions are made to the document.
Wastewater Summary

7 Management Option 2, Regional
Options System States this option enables the Partners to comply with DWQ's NCDWQ has not stated that a regional solution must be a single WRF. The
recommendation that the Partners work together to identify a regional solution Partners developed the single new WRF strategy with Holly Springs
for wastewater. We are not aware of DWQ ever stating that a regional expanding their treatment and sharing efluent conveyance with the Partners
solution must be a single WRF. However, if DWQ has made such a as their preferred approach to the Regional Option.
statement, need copy of the document and added as an Appendix.
What level of treatment would be required in order to discharge to Jordan No level of treatment will allow discharge into Jordan Lake or Harris Lake.
Lake or Harris Lake?
The inter-basin transfer needs to be thoroughly analyzed. If the City and The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) mandated that the
Wastewater County of Durham draw from the Neuse Basin and return to the Cape Fear
' Partners must return treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River basin without
8 Management Additonal Basin, why can
t the partner towns continue to draw from the Cape Fear Basin regard to Durham's transfer, which has been "grandfathered" into the law by
Options and (partially) return to the Neuse Basin? We would like to see an adequate the NC General Assembly.
response from both the Partners and from NCDENR to this issue.
Recommend removing any references to other projects that are not part of USACE representatives have stated that they expect that all reasonably
this project and therefore not part of this EIS process. foreseeable projects will be included in the EIS.
Larry Elmore - New Hill
Generally speaking, this initial draft outlines the various options that the
Western Wake Partners (WWP) have considered and summarizes the Documentation of conclusions will be included or referenced in EIS. A
Wastewater conclusions that they have reached to date. However, documentation separate document summarizing the decisions regarding discharge
9 Management supporting these conclusions is conspicuously absent. For example, DWQ's alternatives including references, correspondence, and meeting summaries as
'
Options decision to not allow WWP to discharge into either Jordan or Harris Lake
' attachments has been prepared. We anticipate that DWQ
s review of this
needs to be referenced in the chapter and included in the document
s document, plus the background they provided at the July PDT meeting will
appendix. My concern regarding the lack of documentation supporting the sufficiently address questions related to discharge location.
conclusions presented in this draft is reflected throughout my comments.
Page 4
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
The draft should focus on those segments of the proposed project that are
Purchasing capacity from Harnett County is not a feasible alternative,
part of project (segments that are funded and built as part of this project) and because the Western Wake Partners' Phase 1 wastewater treatment capacity
Wastewater descriptions of supporting/secondary segments of the proposed project needs exceed Harnett County's treatment capacity and additional conveyance
10 Management should be eliminated or minimized. This comment is illustrated in Option #2: and Jordan Lake management impacts associated with treatment in Harnett
Options Regional System where more information is presented about pumping County. USACE representatives have stated that they expect that all
stations that were not evaluated as part of this project than the option of reasonably foreseeable projects will be included in the EIS. Therefore, the
purchasing capacity from Harnett Co. alternatives analysis includes all facilities.
Wastewater All of the options should be presented and evaluated in a consistent manner. When identifying feasible alternatives, the Partners considered their Phase 2
11 Management The Regional System option is consistently presented and referenced as a build out flows. All alternatives were consistently evaluated for their ability to
'
Options project that will be done in 2 separate phases. However, none of the other meet the Partners
Phase 2 needs. Considering only Phase 1 flows would not
options outlined in the draft are presented in a similar manner. meet the purpose and need for the project.
The Partners are not aware of any local public utility with excess wastewater
This draft fails to address several viable options. First, emission trading is not treatment capacity that would meet the Partners' Phase 1 or build out flow
addressed. While this issue was addressed at the last meeting, emissions requirements. The DWQ permitting process does not allow local governments
trading should be included as an option. to build excess capacity for speculative growth. Requests for capacity have to
be based upon specific planning including analysis of population projects,
Wastewater future land use, and other factors affecting required capacity.
12 Mana
ement
g
Options Second, Option 3: Independent Systems does not address using a combined This would be part of Option 2, a Regional System. The Option 2 discussion
forced main through which the Western Cary WRF and the Western Apex will be expanded to include sub-options within the Regional System Option.
WRF could discharge to the Cape Fear River.
Lastly, Option 3 does not include a scenario where the Western Cary WRF
and Western Apex WRF are designed to provide secondary treatment and This would be part of Option 2, a Regional System. The Option 2 discussion
the effluent from these two systems is piped to Harnett Co. for any requisite will be expanded to include sub-options within the Reigonal System Option.
tertiary treatment.
This section fails to discuss the rationale for DWQ's position regarding Holly
Springs not being allowed to continue discharging into Harris Lake. What are
the limiting factor(s) for this requirement. For example, is the limitation due to
Wastewater Option 1: Holly Springs current emission limits (i.e., BOD, COD, nutrient level)? Would More stringent discharge limits are beyond the limits of technology and would
13 Management No Action Holly Springs be allowed to continue discharging into Harris Lake if they met not allow continued discharge to Harris Lake. The IBT certificate will be
Options more stringent discharge limits? Has DWQ outlined its rationale for this included as an appendix in the EIS.
requirement in a letter to Holly Springs? If so, this letter should be referenced
and included in an appendix. Also, the IBT should be included in the
appendix.
Page 5
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
Reference sentence "For the Regional System Option, a single regional water
Wastewater reclamation facility would be constructed to provide wastewater treatment
14 Management Option 2: services for the towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and the Wake County
" Concur.
Options Regional System portion of RTP South.
"
Suggest revising as follows:
For the Regional System Option, the Partners
propose constructing a single regional water reclamation facility..."
When identifying feasible alternatives, the Partners considered their Phase 2
Wastewater Option 2: Will Phase 2 of this project be funded as part of this project. If not, this build out flows. All alternatives were consistently evaluated for their ability to
'
15 Management Regional System should be indicated in this section. meet the Partners
Phase 2 needs. The EIS will include discussion of both
Options Phase 1 and Phase 2, but Phase 2 will be designed and construced at a later
date.
Option 2: USACE representatives have stated that they expect that all reasonably
Wastewater Regional System, Recommend removing discussion about the West Cary Pump Station since it foreseeable projects will be included in the EIS. Therefore, the alternatives
16 Management New Raw Wie is not part of this project. On a broader scale, recommend deleting analysis includes all facilities. The document clearly states that the West
Options Trans. Facilities references to any project that is not part of this project. Cary Pump Station is under construction and was approved under a separate
environmental review process.
Wastewater Option 2:
Regional System, WWP should indicate which option of this forced main will be part of this The Partners have not determined whether it is more cost-effective to
17 Management
New Raw WW project. Inclusion of or deferring this option will have an impact on the costs construct Phases 1 and 2 of the West Cary Force Main simultaneously or at
Options
Trans. Facilities of this project and any associated cost/benefits analysis. separate times. The EIS will address both phases.
Wastewater Option 2:
18 Management Regional System, Need to spell out what the WRF acronym means. Concur. The acronym will be identified where it is first referenced (see page
Options New Raw WW 1).
Trans. Facilities
Wastewater Option 2:
19 Management Regional System, The entire paragraph should be deleted because it describes/addresses a USACE representatives have stated that they expect that all reasonably
Options New Raw WW project that is not part of this option. foreseeable projects will be included in the EIS.
Trans. Facilities
Option 2: [At end of New Raw Wastewater Transmission Facilities subsection] Begin a
Wastewater Regional System, new paragraph as follows-- This proposed option includes the construction of
'
20 Management New Raw WW a new water reclamation facility and expansion of Holly Springs
existing Concur. Will add this paragraph.
Options Trans. Facilities wastewater treatment facility. These two segments of this option are
discussed below.
Wastewater Option 2: Document fails to address DWQ's decision in any substantive detail.
'
21 Management Regional System, Document should outline the DWQ
s rationale, cite letter from DWQ Alternative discharge locations will be addressed in a separate document
Options New WRF Facilities transmitting its decision and supporting documentation, and letter should be (section of the EIS).
included in appendix.
Page 6
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
Wastewater Option 2: DWQ's speculative limits should be included, rationale for limits, assumptions Speculative effluent limits letter will be included as an appendix to the EIS and
22 Management Regional System, made, and any criteria that would cause these limits to be changed. as an attachment to the Alternative Discharge Locations narrative.
Options New WRF Facilities
Biosolids will be thickened at the Western Wake WRF but transported to an
Wastewater Option 2: offsite facility for disposal. The Partners currently plan to dispose of the
23 Management Regional System, Disposal site location should be identified. Transportation and associated thickened biosolids by transporting them to a composting facility. The
Options New WRF Facilities (e.g., social and environmental) costs should be included in analysis. Partners would contract with a residuals management company to provide this
service. The composting facility site location depends on which residuals
management company is selected to provide this serivice.
Wastewater Option 2:
Regional System,
[Revise heading to the following:] To clarify, this heading was revised to "Existing Wastewater Treatment

"
'
'
24 Management
Expanded WW
Expand Holly Springs Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility Facilities
because the paragraph discusses Apex
s and Cary
s facilities as
'
Options
Treatment Facilities well as Holly Springs
expansion.
Wastewater Option 2:
Regional System,
Insert "Basin" after "Cape Fear River" and delete "below Buckhorn Dam". NCDWQ has directed the Partners to discharge treated wastewater to the
25 Management
Expanded WW Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam. Other locations in the Cape Fear
'
Options
Treatment Facilities River Basin are not consistent with NCDWQ
s mandated discharge location.
Wastewater Option 2:
26 Management Regional System, This section should be deleted since it is not evaluated in this EIS. USACE representatives have stated that they expect that all reasonably
Options Expanded WW foreseeable projects will be included in the EIS.
Treatment Facilities

27 Wastewater
Management Option 3:
Independent Delete "involves the minimum collaboration for wastewater collection and
" This phrase will be changed to "involves no collaboration for wastewater
"
Options Systems treatment among the Project Partners, and would
. collection and treatment among the Project Partners....
[Paragraph 2]:
Wastewater Option 3: This paragraph infers that DWQ preferred "regional solution" means that the NCDWQ has not stated that a regional solution must be a single WRF. The
28 Management Independent WWP should build a single facility. Documentation supporting DWQ's Partners developed the single WRF strategy as their preferred approach to
Options Systems position and the inferred definition of "regional solution" should be cited and the Regional Option.
included in the appendix.
This section fails to adequately identify what segments of the transmission
Wastewater Option 3: facilities are and are not considered as part of this option. This information is
29 Management Independent necessary to ensure that appropriate segments of this option are included in
"
" All facilities are considered part of this option. Facilities that are already
Options Systems, New Raw any appropriate cost and benefit analysis. The
phases
of this option should constructed or covered under a separate environmental document are noted.
WW Trans. Facilities be denoted as they are with the Option 2. For consistency among options
and where appropriate, the document should reflect the "phasing" of option.
Page 7
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
Option 3: WWP failed to consider another option that would be a combination of
Wastewater Independent options 3 & 4. This option involves Cary and Apex build their own WRFs that
30 Management Systems
, New WRF are capable of achieving secondary treatment and piping the discharge to the See response to Comment 6.
Options Facilities Harnett Co. facility for tertiary treatment if so required to achieve permitted
limits.
Wastewater Option 4:
31 Management Purchase Capacity Document should include the amount of sewage (gallons/day or appropriate See response to Comment 3.
Options from Other Systems, units) Cary has contracted with Durham to treat.
Durham County
Capacity at the Triangle WWTP is designed to meet planned needs for the
Reference sentence "However, excess capacity at the Durham County County's wastewater service areas without excess capacity for other towns'
Wastewater Option 4: Triangle WWTP for wastewater flows from the western Wake service area is service areas. Based on an interlocal agreement between the Town of Cary

32
Management Purchase Capacity
projected to be limited beginning in 2011 because of increased flows in the and Durham County, Durham County has agreed to treat 4.0 mgd of
'

Options from Other Systems, Durham
County service area." wastewater from Cary
s western service area, RTP South, and the Haw River
'
Durham County
Document should include how much the flow will be limited to. portion of Morrisville through June 2011. Because the Triangle WWTP
s
capacity is only 12 mgd, sufficient capacity is not available for the Partners'
Phase l needs.
Wastewater Option 4: What is "build-out capacity"? Is this another way of indicated the permitted Build out capacity refers to the expected wastewater flow when all areas are
33 Management Purchase Capacity discharge limit of this facility. This document should include information developed, which is estimated to be 2030 for this area.
Options from Other Systems, regarding the Durham County Triangle WWTP permitted discharge limit, its
Durham County current flow rate and excess capacity. See response to Comment 3 for Triangle WWTP capacity.
Wastewater Option 4:
34 Management Purchase Capacity Need to identify and explain the difficulties with expanding the Durham County See response to Comment 3.
Options from Other Systems, Triangle WWTP.
Durham County
Wastewater Option 4:
Purchase Capacity Is the South Durham WRF a different facility from the Durham Co. Triangle Yes, the South Durham WRF is the City of Durham's facility. The Triangle

'
-
35 Management from Other Systems, VNIUfP? A map identifying the location of these different facilities would help FP is Durham County
s facility. A map will be available at the August 23,
WW
Options City of Durham to illustrate this option. 2007 PDT Meeting to clarify these locations.
Wastewater Option 4:
36 Management Purchase Capacity The factors listed are inherent in any option that looks for "regional solutions" More detailed explanation on the feasibility of this option has been added to
Options from Other Systems, and should not be used to eliminate this option from a detailed evaluation. the document.
City of Durham

Wastewater Option 4: Reference sentence "The current capacity of the South Durham WRF is 20
According to the Durham Comprehensive Plan, the City expects the flow at
37 Management Purchase Capacity mgd, and the projected wastewater flows to the South Durham WRF are 30
" the South Durham WRF to reach 18 mgd by 2025. The reference to projected
Options from Other Systems, mgd. flows of 30 mgd has been deleted.
City of Durham By what date?
Page 8
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
Reference sentence "In addition, given that the New Hope Arm of Jordan
Option 4: Lake has been placed on the 303(d) list and a draft TMDL has been
Wastewater Purchase Capacity developed, it will be difficult to expand the discharge capacity of the South
38 Management from Other
Systems, Durham WRF and maintain compliance with the nutrient reduction See response to Comment 3 (part 4).
Options
City of Durham requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus."
Same comment applies for a similar statement regarding the Durham Co.
Triangle WV\lTP.
Option 4: There option lacks any supporting information and deserves more attention
Wastewater Purchase Capacity than provided in this draft. For example what is the permitted capacity of the
39 Management from Other Systems, Harnett Co. facility and its current inflow rate. For consistency, this option
"
" See response to Comments 5 and 10.
Options Harnett County should be addressed in a
phased
approach. Does this facility have the
capacity to meet the proposed Phase I flow rate?
Reference sentence "Finally, given that the Neuse River has been placed on
the 303(d) list and a TMDL has been developed for total nitrogen, it will be
Wastewater Option 5: Optimum difficult to expand the discharge capacity of the Apex and Cary wastewater The alternatives analysis needs to state the reasons why a wastewater
40 Management Operation of Existing facilities and maintain compliance with the nutrient reduction requirements for
" management option is not feasible.
Options Facilities nitrogen.
The deleted statement is unnecessary since the IBT requires the Towns of
Apex and Cary to discharge to the Cape Fear River Basin.
Wastewater Comments on the various options impact the conclusions outlined in the
41 Management Summary summary. Thus, the summary for options 2, 3, 4 & 5 should be deleted and See response to Comment 7.
Options the WWP reanalyze the options taking into consideration comments provided
by the various stakeholders.
John Roberson - Wake County
In the first paragraph of the Option 2 description (page 2), it describes the
Wastewater service area including "...the Wake County portion of RTP South." This is a
42 Management Option 2: Regional somewhat redundant reference. It should either be the "Wake County portion
"
"
" Concur. Revision made on page 2 and page 12.
Options System of RTP
or
RTP South
. If you decide to use the term RTP South, then
somewhere at the beginning of the document RTP South should be defined
as the "Wake County portion of RTP."
Commissioner George Lucier, Commissioner Patrick Barnes, and William Sommers - Chatham County
Page 9
8/23/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
IMP
x?
The Chatham County representatives request that the following paragraph be
added to "New Water Reclamation Facilities" section of the July 26, 2007 draft
WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS, Option 2, Regional System,
under "New Water Reclamation Facilities" shown on page 4:
"The New Water Reclamation Facilities, referred to above, will be open for
Wastewater Option 2: Regional use, based on the outcome of subsequent negotiations, for either waste water The proposed language is not related to the Purpose and Need for the
43 Management System, New Water treatment or previously treated effluent, by Chatham County government as
'
project. However, the Partners plan to continue conversations with Chatham
Options Reclamation part of the latter
s vital and established interest in the overall project and its County about the Partners' and Chatham County's respective needs.
Facilities responding cooperation to assist the Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities in obtaining necessary rights-of-way within the 8.2
miles of the proposed effluent force main within Chatham County.
Moreover, Chatham County government, based on the outcome of
subsequent negotiations, will also cooperate in giving permission for
construction of the effluent force main once the necessary rights-of-way have
been obtained."
Page 10
8/23/07