HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (8-23-07)_20070823of Engineer-s°
ti"?,'irnintor? D- r
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: August 23, 2007
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 4 - August 23, 2007
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at the Apex
Town Hall to discuss the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
(WWMF) project. The following were in attendance:
Tim Bailey, Town of Cary David Hughes, Chatham County
Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Bob Kelly, New Hill
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Dan Blaisdell, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Commissioner George Lucier, Chatham County
Kelly Boone, CDM Melba McGee, NCDENR
Steve Brown, Town of Cary Sheila Morrison, New Hill
Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Jamie Revels, Town of Cary
Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy John Roberson, Wake County
Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Randel Sink, New Hill Community Association
Shearin Dramby, Brown and Caldwell Scott Smart, NCDENR DWQ CG&L
Glenn Dunn, Poyner and Spruill Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs
Larry Elmore, New Hill Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
Katie Gard, CDM Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR
Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Marshall Taylor, Brown and Caldwell
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Kevin Whiteheart, Chatham County
Michael Hosey, USACE Henry Wicker, USACE
The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda
(attached).
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 2
1) Introductions
Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, as listed on the agenda.
Project notebooks have also been distributed to each PDT member with tabs for
materials from each PDT meeting.
2) Work Plan
Mr. Wicker stated that a draft Work Plan has been distributed. He stated that the Work
Plan is more of a process than a scheduled timeline, but the Work Plan gives PDT
members an idea of the plan and process for PDT meetings. He asked if PDT members
had any initial comments on the Work Plan; none were noted.
3) Purpose and Need Statement
Mr. Wicker stated that a revised draft Purpose and Need statement has been distributed.
He stated that the map is the only part of the document that has changed and stated that
this document will be the final version.
4) Alternative Discharge Locations
Mr. Wicker stated that a draft document summarizing the Alternative Discharge
Locations has been distributed. This narrative contains the documentation that was
requested at the last PDT meeting. Mr. Wicker asked PDT members to submit
comments on this document to him by August 31, 2007.
5) Wastewater Management Options
Mr. Wicker stated that a revised draft discussion of the Western Wake Wastewater
Management Options has been distributed. This document contains the Holly Springs
Utley Creek WWTP Expansion FONSI as an attachment. Mr. Wicker stated that another
attachment may be added if an EA was completed for USACE for the Holly Springs
project. Mr. Wicker asked PDT members to submit comments on this revised draft
document to him by August 31, 2007.
Mr. Wicker also asked PDT members to review the Summary of Comments and
Responses from the July 26, 2007 materials and submit comments to him if anyone has
concerns with the responses that have been provided. Mr. Barth stated that a general
comment is that some of the responses to his comments state that the Partners' Phase 1
and Phase 2 flows exceed the existing treatment plants' capacities, and this is not an
acceptable response. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that page 3 of the document lists
capacities, and the Wastewater Management Options document has been rewritten to
include the capacities.
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 3
Mr. Wicker stated that a public webpage will be made available for the project. He will
add a link to the webpage on the USACE website. The webpage will include comment
summaries, meeting summaries, and final versions of documents. The address will be
available at the September PDT meeting. Ms Goodwin stated that the link will also be
available on from the Partners' website, www.westernwakepartners.org.
6) Preliminary WRF Site Screening
Mr. Bruce presented the Partners' proposed Analytical Framework for screening the
potential WRF sites. A three-stage approach will be used. Mr. Bruce stated that a table
summarizing the approach had been distributed. The blue box includes criteria that will
be used for the initial assessment; the yellow box includes criteria that will be used to
screen the group down to a set of reasonable alternatives; and the orange box represents
the detailed evaluations that will be performed for the final sites.
Sites north of US 64 were identified as potential sites for a WRF serving only Cary,
Morrisville, and RTP South. The sites in the center area were identified as potential sites
for a WRF serving Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South. Sites on the lower portion of
the map were identified for a WRF serving parts of Apex and Holly Springs.
Mr. Elmore asked what criteria were used for identifying the land areas. Mr. Bruce
stated that a site must be large enough, and site boundaries were then drawn around
reasonable parcel boundaries. Ms. Goodwin stated that the Partners looked for sites
approximately 200 acres in size and then matched parcel boundaries.
Mr. Kelly questioned why 200 acres were needed for the site. Mr. Bruce stated that the
Partners increased the WRF site layout area by about 50 percent to account for buffers.
Mr. Brown stated that approximately 60 acres are needed for the Phase 2 plant layout
and access roads. Buffers of 200 feet were included. Mr. Blaisdell stated that State
regulations require 100 feet of buffer from a wastewater plant to a residence, so the
Partners are doubling the State requirement.
Mr. Bruce stated that the process of identifying the thirty sites was begun in 2003, and
some WRF sites are no longer available because of development. Mr. Barth questioned
why this would exclude a site. Mr. Bruce stated that several sites had already been
developed or are already approved for development. Mr. Bruce clarified that sites that
have been sold to a developer are not included. Sites "approved" for development are
included, but sites "planned" for development are not proposed for elimination.
"Approved" for development refers to a site that has plans and engineering already
completed.
Ms. Goodwin stated that the Partners tried to come up with a way to eliminate sites that
would not have been on the original site list due to development. Mr. Donnelly stated
that if the Partners purchased a site that had already been developed or approved for
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 4
development, the cost for compensation for land would be much higher, because the
developer would have to recoup his investment. Mr. Barth stated that he does not
disagree with eliminating sites that are already developed or are approved for
development, but he would disagree with eliminating any sites that are "planned" for
development. Mr. Blaisdell stated that having an approved development plan is an
acceptable factor for eliminating a WRF site.
Mr. Barth questioned whether one criterion would be sufficient to eliminate a site. Mr.
Wicker stated that the purpose of the PDT meetings is to discuss the criteria that will be
used for elimination of a site.
Mr. Sink asked whether the Partners placed a moratorium on the sites when they were
identified. Mr. Bruce stated that the sites were identified only as potential sites. Mr.
Bailey stated that a moratorium must apply town-wide and cannot be site-specific. Mr.
Donnelly stated that the Towns cannot tell property owners that they cannot develop
their property because the property is one of 30 sites under consideration for a new
WRF. Mr. Sink stated that this was done for roads. Mr. Bailey stated that there is an
official process for highway property acquisition, and it is time limited and has other
restrictions.
Mr. Bruce stated that the next proposed criterion for site elimination is consistency with
the Partners' selected wastewater management option and discharge location. Sites that
were outside the area for the selected wastewater management option would be
impractical, because they are associated with more environmental impacts. For
example, Sites 27, 28, and 29 were identified to serve Holly Springs and Apex and not
Cary, Morrisville, and RTP South. Mr. Barth questioned why sites that include stream
crossings and crossings of areas of well use would be better. Mr. Bruce stated that the
Partners would rather have long effluent pipelines than influent pipelines. Ms.
Goodwin stated that the Partners are proposing elimination of only the sites that are
farthest from the service area.
Mr. Sink stated that he has concerns with transmission of raw wastewater and
suggested that treating the wastewater closer to its source would be better. He
suggested that the Partners have separate wastewater plants, which would enable reuse.
Mr. Bruce stated that using separate plants was not the selected wastewater
management option. Ms. Goodwin stated that reclaimed water was considered in the
wastewater management option document, but the Partners would still need an option
for discharge of treated wastewater in the winter when reclaimed water is not used for
irrigation.
Ms. Morrison stated that she believed that DWQ suggested that the Partners build one
facility. Ms. Goodwin stated that DWQ suggested a regional plan but not necessarily
one facility. She stated that the same pipeline lengths would be required in the service
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 5
area no matter where the plant is constructed. Mr. Sink stated that this seems to mean
that the Partners should build two plants, which would not create a single point of
failure. Mr. Donnelly stated that one plant at the lowest point of each service area
would be reasonable, but then the Partners would lose their economies of scale from
staffing, there would be two points of compliance instead of one, and this would be
more expensive.
Mr. Kelly stated that sewage spills are inevitable, and the Partners have not addressed
what will happen if a spill happens in the county where residents use wells for water.
Mr. Donnelly stated that a sewage spill does not mean automatic contamination. Mr.
Smart stated that the State can levy criminal penalties for spills, and the Partners will be
required to have a wastewater collection system permit for the pipelines. Mr. Kelly
stated that two plants would be a better way to handle the wastewater.
Mr. Wicker asked PDT members to submit these comments to him. He stated that the
group has already developed the Purpose and Need statement and Wastewater
Management Options document, but PDT members should send him comments or
suggestions and he will try to address them so that the group can move on. Ms.
Goodwin stated that the same criteria would apply if two wastewater facilities were
used - site screening would still be required.
Mr. Bruce stated that the third proposed criterion for site elimination is the Harris Lake
expansion. Progress Energy plans to expand its conservation pool at Harris Lake from
220 feet to 240 feet. There is currently no time schedule for this expansion, and Progress
Energy is still evaluating the expansion. Mr. Barth stated that he would like to see a
copy of a document from Progress Energy or some rationale for this plan.
Mr. Bryson stated that he has requested information but is waiting for the Progress
Energy Engineering Department to respond to his request. He stated that he
understands that the current plan is that Progress Energy will add two units and expand
Harris Lake by 20 feet, which will inundate 4,000 to 7,500 acres. The same cooling
arrangement will be used - lake water will be used in the cooling towers and to meet the
NPDES permit requirements. A 50-foot buffer will also be needed around the lake, and
Progress will need to mitigate for stream and wetland flooding, loss of terrestrial
habitat, gamelands, etc. Mitigation ratios are unknown at this time. Progress Energy
would also need to mitigate areas that were previously used for mitigation. Mr. Bryson
stated that Progress Energy staff are considering whether they even have enough land
with the new lake elevation, buffers, mitigation, etc. In addition, they are considering
whether land can be used for another purpose if it was condemned. Mr. Bryson stated
that the expansion is planned for 2016-2018. NRC licensing takes 5 years, and
engineering work for infrastructure relocation takes about 5 years. Specific plans for
raising roads and similar work is undetermined at this time. Mr. Bryson stated that he
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 6
will send the letter that was sent to the agencies for planning for the expansion to Mr.
Wicker.
Mr. Elmore stated that screening sites based on Progress Energy's potential plans is
unacceptable. Mr. Bryson stated that Progress Energy has formally started the
expansion request process by filing an intent notice with NRC. Mr. Barth stated that
Marty Clayton of Progress Energy informed him that Progress Energy has not started
the process. Mr. Bryson also stated that Progress Energy is currently proposing
standards NRC units, but regulatory agencies may require something different that
would change the scope of the project.
Mr. Bruce clarified that sites were not eliminated because of the lake level itself but for
the high costs of pipes, roads, and site development compared to other sites. Mr. Kelly
stated that Progress Energy sites that do not have adequate land could be combined to
account for the increased lake level reducing some sites' areas.
Mr. Wicker stated that the Partners have proposed their suggested screening criteria,
and he will accept comments and suggestions PDT members may have for a better
screening method.
Mr. Kelly stated that according to his attorney, land that was condemned for utility
purposes could be used for a WRF.
Mr. Bryson will follow up with others at Progress Energy to discuss these issues.
Mr. Taylor suggested that the boundaries of the Progress Energy sites could be changed,
but the screening would still be the same. Mr. Barth stated that a Progress Energy site
should be shown as an arbitrary circle. Mr. Bruce stated that the Partners have
combined parts of Sites 16 and 17, and they will work on combining others.
Mr. Bruce summarized the Partners' screening process by stating that the number of
WRF sites was reduced to nine sites. The Partners propose to perform further
evaluations based on the criteria defined in the Analytical Framework memorandum.
7) Future PDT Meeting Dates
Future PDT Meeting dates are as follows:
a) September 27, 2007 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3,d Floor Training
Room
b) October 25,2007- 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
August 23, 2007
Page 7
c) November 29,2007- 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3,d Floor Training
Room
8) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for September 27,
2007 Meeting
Mr. Wicker noted that meeting objectives for the September 27, 2007 PDT Meeting will
include final discussions on wastewater management options and alternative discharge
locations narratives. Discussions on reducing the number of WRF sites to a reasonable
number will also continue.
9) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants
N/A
10) Other Business
N/A
The next PDT meeting will be held on
Thursday, September 27, 2007 from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Apex Town Hall
73 Hunter Street
Apex, NC 27502
Army Corp,-'
Engineers
Wilmington District MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
PDT Meeting No. 4
August 23, 2007
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Apex Town Hall, Apex, North Carolina
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC, 27502
1) Introductions and Handout Distribution
a) PDT Project Notebooks
b) Summary of July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 3
c) Summary of comments on draft Wastewater Management Options narrative
d) Revised draft summary of Wastewater Management Options
e) Draft narrative summarizing Alternative Discharge Locations
f) Revised Purpose and Need statement (map has been revised)
g) Proposed Work Plan for EIS process
h) Draft Analytical Framework/Rationale for Identifying Reasonable WRF Site Alternatives
2) Work Plan
a) Present Work Plan for NEPA EIS process and graphical schedule of Work Plan
3) Purpose and Need Statement
a) Purpose and Need statement service area map has been revised to show only the service areas
for the project (preferred project facilities have been deleted)
4) Alternative Discharge Locations
a) Present draft narrative summarizing process for determining discharge location
b) Submit comments on draft discharge location narrative to USACE by August 31, 2007
5) Wastewater Management Options
a) Present revised draft description of alternative wastewater management options
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
August 23, 2007
Page 2 of 2
b) Comments received from PDT are summarized on Comment Summary table
c) Submit comments to USACE by August 31, 2007
6) Preliminary WRF Site Screening
a) Present Analytical Framework/Rationale for Identifying Reasonable WRF Site Alternatives
b) Submit comments to USACE by August 31, 2007
7) Future PDT Meeting Dates
a) Sept. 27, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
b) Oct. 25, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
c) Nov. 29, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
8) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for September 27, 2007 Meeting
a) Final discussions on wastewater management options and alternative discharge locations
narratives
b) Obtain consensus on reducing the number of WRF sites to a reasonable number (reducing 30 sites
to 10-15 sites)
c) Obtain consensus on criteria for detailed WRF site evaluations (reducing 10-15 sites to 2-5 sites)
9) Other Business
10) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
September 27, 2007
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Apex Town Hall (3rd Floor Training Room)
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502