Loading...
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