Return 1141_Return Letter_20070306

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P,E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 6, 2007
Mr. Larry Tyler
Putney Construction Company
PO Box 1577
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870
Subject: 2"d Return of NCG140000 NOI, #1141
Putney Construction — Roanoke Rapids
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Tyler:
On January 29, 2007, the Division of Water Quality, Stormwater Permitting Unit received your
Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under North Carolina's general permit NCG140000, re-
submitted for your proposed location in Roanoke Rapids at 121 West 13th Street. Your re -submittal
contained a check for $80, an NOI form, a site location map, and a single 11"x17" site layout
drawing. The re -submittal is significantly deficient, and we are again returning it unprocessed.
Please ask your engineer to make an appointment with me for a face-to-face explanation of the
minimum submittal requirements.
The submittal is deficient in the following particulars.
Non -responsive to our December S, 2006 return (letter, Return #1134. While your
re -submittal does address parts of our previous return letter, we cannot process your
submittal without specific and sufficient responses to each of the items in our December 5,
2006letter. Specifically,
a. The site plan is still not stamped by a Professional Engineer.
b. Nor have you identified the relevant qualifications of an internal employee as the
preparer of the site plan.
c. The site plan still does not contain finished grade topo lines so that we can
independently corroborate the surface flow direction. A topographic survey is
required.
d. While it appears from the revised NOI that you have abandoned the proposal for a
recycle system, the site plan still identifies a Proposed Truck Rinse Pit, for which you
have not provided engineering calculations to substantiate the response in item 14 of
the NOI indicating that there will be no wastewater discharge from vehicle cleaning.
2. Inadequate design basis. You have applied for a permit to discharge stormwater and
wastewater under our general permit NCG140000. North.Carolina rules require DWQ to
conduct an engineering review of your application.
a. Based on our understanding of standard practice in the ready -mixed concrete
industry, we expect that periodically the loading pad at the truck loading station will
be washed down to remove accumulated spillage. It appears that the wastewater
flow thus generated would be improperly discharged untreated into the Roanoke
Rapids MS4, and from thence to Chockoyotte Creek. It appears that the proposed
re -submittal design basis does not account for this wastewater flow.
b. Further, it is our understanding that irrigation of the raw material stockpiles is
frequently practiced at other ready -mix facilities. Please be aware that you have
No o h Carolina
lltllCll�llf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Interact: www.ncwater taliE .a Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunirylAf lmiative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/i0% Post Consumer Niper

Mr. Larry Tyler
Page 2 of 2
March 6, 2007
indicated at item 14 of the NOI that there will be no wetting of the raw material
stockpiles. Drainage from irrigation of the stockpiles is a wastewater, and must be
treated as such. If you intend to irrigate the stockpiles, then drainage from them
must be treated as a wastewater. Please either confirm that you will not irrigate the
raw materials stockpiles, or else revise your submittal design basis to account for the
resulting wastewater flow.
c. If you elect to reconsider installing a recycle system, please be aware that our key
design basis criteria for review of proposed new construction are: Does the
application include engineering calculations that predict compliance with the permit
limits (i.e. TSS removal calcs, Settleable Solids removal calcs, pH correction
narrative) for wastewater discharges; or else, does the application include water
balance calculations that show that there will be no discharge of wastewaters from
the recycle system in response to the 25-year, 24-hour storm event? The two
criteria are staged in items 14 and 15 of the NOI that you submitted with the
package.
3. Inadequate site plan. Please consider that as reviewers, we can't determine from the site
plan whether the measures you are proposing are sufficient, or not, because the drawing
does not present a complete picture of the site with respect to our typical items of interest
in a review. The specific deficiencies in the site plan are as follows.
a. As per the Final Checklist on page 5 of 5 of the NOI that you submitted, note that
the site plan must provide an outline of the contributing drainage areas. It is not
clear that the submitted site plan meets this requirement.
b. Also noted at the same location in the NOI,is the requirement that the site plan must
show the location of the stormwater and wastewater discharge points. In the
absence of a topographic survey, we are not confident that all the discharge points
from the site have been identified.
c. Also note at the same location in the NOI is the requirement that the site plan must
show runoff conveyance features (like ditches, swales, runoff control berms, and
pipes). We are not confident that the site plan shows the full extent of the existing
and proposed features on the site. Please have your engineer revise the site plan
accordingly, or confirm that the features presented completely describe the features
that may affect runoff flow direction.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle, P.E.
DWQ Stormwater Permitting Unit
[phone]x584
ken. pickle@ncmail,net
Enclosures: Returned application package (2'd return)
cc letter only: Jim_ Frei, Stormwater Services Group, 1251
�WQ-Raleigh Regional Office
SPU County Files - Halifax County
Bradley Bennett, SPU
Trillium Circle, Raleigh, NC 27606
' � RAtEiGn fi.t�iC1;';�,1- Oft4C