NC0063096_Permit Issuance_19931102

NPDES DOCUHENT :SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
;Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Meeting Notes
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 2, 1993
This document is pririted on reuse paper - igriore arty
content on the reizerse *side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Gerald W. Holleman
POBox8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
Dear Mr. Holleman:
November 2, 1993
Subject: Permit No. NC0063096
Utley Creek WWTP
Wake County
In accordance with your application for discharge permit received on March 12, 1993, we
are forwarding herewith the subject state - NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to
the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215 .1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection agency dated
December 6, 1983.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit
are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a
written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611 -7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take notice this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements
to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Environmental Management or permits required by the Division of
Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental
permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mr. Charles Alvarez at
telephone number 919/733-5083.
Sincerely
Original Siigned By
Coleen H. Sullins
A. Preston Howard, Jr.
Director
cc: Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA
Raleigh Regional Office
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Permit No. NC0063096
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision 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,
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
off NCSR 1115
southwest of Holly Springs
Wake County
to receiving waters designated as Utley Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, 11, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 1993
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on March 31, 1996
Signed this day November 2, 1993
Original Signed By
Coleen H. Sullins
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0063096
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.250 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of dual 0.125
MGD package plants consisting of a bar screen, aeration basin, two hopper clarifier, baffled
chlorination chamber and post aeration chamber located at Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, off NCSR 1115, southwest of Holly Springs, Wake County (See Part III of this Permit),
and
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Environmental Management,
expand the existing facility to 0.500 MGD with sludge holding and digestion facilities and
addition of dechlorination treatment to the effluent
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map into Utley Creek
which is classified Class C waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.250 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Tvoe Location
Flow 0.250 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 16.0 mg/I 24.0 mg/I Weekly Composite E, 1
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Weekly Composite E, I
NH3 as N 1.2 m g/ I Weekly Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen*** Weekly Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Weekly Grab E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine 2/Week Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Quarterly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Composite E
Conductivity Weekly Grab U, D
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream just below old mill pond dam structure
**The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
% removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
**** Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus instream samples shall be collected only during the months of June through October.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
..

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.250 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Units (specifyi Measurement Sample 'Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency LYDA Location
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN) Weekly'* Grab U,D
Total Phosphorus Weekly**** Grab U,D
Temperature Daily Grab E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.250 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Type Location
Flow 0.250 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 22.0 mg/I 33.0 mg/I Weekly Composite E, I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/I Weekly Composite E, I
NH3 as N 2.8 m g/ I Weekly Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen*** Weekly Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml Weekly Grab E,U,D
Total Residual Chlorine 2/Week Grab E
Temperature Weekly Grab U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Quarterly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Composite E
Conductivity Weekly Grab U, D
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream just below old mill pond dam. structure
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (85
% removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored weekly at the effluent by grab
sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expansion above 0.250 MGD, the Permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
Temperature
Discharge Limitations
Units (specify)
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg.
Daily Max
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Daily
Requirements
Sample
Typo
Grab
*Sample
Location
E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning after expansion above 0.500 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Pennittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg, Daily Max Frequency type Location
Flow 0.500 MGD Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 16.0 mg/I 24.0 mg/I 3/Week Composite E, I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/l 45.0 mg/1 3/Week Composite E, I
NH3 as N 1.1 mg/I 3/Week Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen *** 3/Week Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml 3/Week Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine 19.0 µg/I 3/Week Grab E
Temperature 3/Week Grab U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Quarterly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Composite E
Conductivity * Grab U, D
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream just below old mill pond dam structure
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples of dissolved oxygen, fecal conform, temperature and conductivity
shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value
(85% removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
**** Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen instream samples should be collected only during the months of June through October.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored three times per week at the effluent
by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SUMMER (April 1- October 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning after expansion above 0.500 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Temperature
Discharge Limitations
Units (specify)
Monthly Avg, Weekly Avg. Daily Max
Monitoring
Measurement
frequency
Weekly****
Weekly****
Daily
Requirements
Sample *Sample
Tye Location
Grab U,D
Grab U,D
Grab E

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning after expansion above 0.500 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Pischarge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample *Sample,
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max Frequency Type Location
Flow 0.500 mg/I Continuous Recording I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C** 22.0 mg/I 33.0 mg/I 3/Week Composite E, I
Total Suspended Residue** 30.0 mg/I 45.0 mg/l 3/Week Composite E, I
NH3 as N 2.3 m g/ I 3/Week Composite E
Dissolved Oxygen *** 3/Week Grab E, U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml 400.0 /100 ml 3/Week Grab E, U, D
Total Residual Chlorine 19.0 µg/I 3/Week Grab E
Temperature 3/Week Grab U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN) Quarterly Composite E
Total Phosphorus Quarterly Composite E
Conductivity * Grab U, D
* Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream 50 feet, D - Downstream just below the old mill pond dam structure
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples of dissolved oxygen, fecal conform, temperature and conductivity
shall be collected three times per week during June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
** The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value
(85% removal).
*** The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1- March 31) Permit No. NC0063096
During the period beginning after expansion above 0.500 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. (Continued)
Effluent Characteristics
Temperature
Discharge Limitations
Units (specifyl
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Daily Max
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Daily
Requirements
Sample
Tye
Grab
*Sample
Location
E

Part III Permit No. NC0063096
E. Effluent nutrient limits may be required if downstream concentrations are greater than 0.05 mg/1
for Total Phosphorous or greater than 0.5 mg/1 for Total Nitrogen.

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0063096
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Holly Springs
FACILITY NAME: Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal with Modification
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 0.500 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
RECEIVING STREAM: Utley Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-06-07
Reference USGS Quad: E23NE, Apex
County: Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 5/4/93 Treatment Plant Class: II
Classification changes within three miles:
a-14(40—
Charles Alvarez
(please attach)
Pl.. 1,ED
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Date: 5/4/93
Date:
7
/(,
9.3
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
T.
s 5 '3
14-5-2-
Drainage Area (m.2 ) 0.73 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): (1.
7Q10 (cfs) 0. / ( Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 9. 2 5-- 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC •4
% Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters P.c) � 1�%D%. T F TI tk
Upstream L14-k2 / Crr,a_ Location sui Soups. e f ot4a I
Downstream 0-Fk�k
y Crx,Location jus-}-ds °fokmilk'(�A:m o►uSINc vre
' fir./ iPces 5{{ajw co rEa 72u 2 uJ6TH'fc .stAmktele- t7N Li'•
Effluent
Characteristics
Al- o.2SMC, Gv
S, �''YV-- rr; LL-IQ-
^MM'NL�
A'i o.5 M D
Su/yf�l% WinterLU I ,7
BOD5 (mg/1)
/
Z
/b
ZZ
NH3-N (mg/1)
(7/
/j/. 0
/. f
Z.3
D.O. (mg/1)
C.0
C. 0
.0
C. 0
TSS (mg/1)
37
30
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Zoo
SOC
Zoo
200
pH (SU)
6--q
' — /
C. %
6 -,
7 4 f /
eesidualeilinix-. /1)
i/
ine"gi '
/ %
/ /G�
7r7,,,wGsfrtre (°G)
nimi1''
„xhifri,
01311/07
man;4..Y
TP (j//)
Mal
rvlani '
OW AV—
,*V
7 ( //)
moni-/or
fin'/
nvyl�I7
,rraNi fn✓
Comments:
GYf uc-►�r NkfrE -r rmir5Mk'/ 15e QcotIr
Date: IF DaA•IsTi:✓~4 1 CAJcE -01-A- 7t'?JS >D. o5 1441- (TP) a_> 4.5Mc711--
_ a (r45

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
S ubbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WAS 1'LLOAD ALLOCATION
% Z
Request # -N0063096-
Town of Holly Springs/Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
NC0063096
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Modification
Utley Creek
C
030607
Wake
Raleigh
Nizich
3/25/93
G6SW
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
02.1021.7945'
1993
:-J
0.73
0.11
0.25
0.82
0.32
88
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
The stream which receives this wastewater was thought to be dry at both 7Q10 and 30Q2
conditions, but a revised flow was given by the USGS on 2/11/93. This would therefore allow the
facility to expand the discharge from 0.25 to 0.5 MGD. Limits of 30 mg/1 (BOD5) and 1.1 mg/1
(NH3) will be recommended as summer limits upon expansion. The ammonia limit is based on
potential toxicity. This reduction in NBOD allows the stream to accept more CBOD, thus the 30
mg/1 BOD5 limit. Dechlorination or an alternative means of disinfection will also be require /
d
As discussed with Donnelly, this discharge is three miles upstream of Harris Lake, so nutrient
limits may be appropriate. To this end, instream monitoring of phosphorus and nitrogen are
recommended. A downstream monitoring site was agreed upon during a site visit with Mayor
Holleman, the ORC, Alvarez (P & E), and Goodrich. If instream monitoring samples result in
concentrations of TP above 0.05 mg/1 or levels of TN above 0.5 mg/1, nutrient removal will be
recommended by this office.
Special Scheel e Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
A V:. r�Nc�..' ..� AY C.�.Y t..\"� �.i�` kLS tv.`�.l T�R��'�. �•'+1
ti i Ash 4t,;J'J
e r ra _ " ,1, ,.O —�O✓
Recommended by: / AAia_
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: a 1
t731`°Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICE BY:
Date: 6 '3
Date: 4
Date -
Date:
AUG 1 '9 1993
RECEIVED
Jo' 29199i
DEHNR-RAL RQ

Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Temperature (°C):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1): (�
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (14/1):
Temperature (°C):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
*Daily maximum
PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.25 0.25
16.0 22.0
9.0
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
17.0
6.0
30.0
200
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
��7uJ //m'ate' G "c. 3 &/ d, 23A.Z+�
Monthly Average
Summer Winter EL/WQ
rt(5+0-
Z2
-9+ I.1 .26:0 Z .3 WQ
6.0 6.0 WQ
30.0 30.0 EL
200.0 200.0
6-9 6-9
19.0* 19.0* WQ
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
inkksycv.,''on..
t �OQ .3 S nt.c 11..i(--)--1[ 7
to 1�. CL� A cxr‘'n .
x Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS*
Upstream Location: Utley Creek approx. 50-100 feet upstream of outfall
Downstream Location: Utley Creek just downstream of the old millpond dam structure
Parameters: Fecal, Temperature, DO, Conductivity, Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen*
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
*TP AND TN SAMPLES SHOULD BE COLLECTED DURING THE SUMMER ONLY.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demofistrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes V No 01`'.r''b
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes ✓ No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
ev
If no, why not?

MEMO
TO:
6e,-zz-ee-6 /10`elestet•-c__
c /
DATE: 6 t 7 3
SUBJECT: k4J
twayeg J ke>i
Ltd
Da•,e_ 6�a.�. . -. do y,efk Aefidn-71; Da‘-e- 7‘(0( 4.:
-
From:
sfArf ,"
�MsaNo rth Carolina Department of Environment,
• :Health, and Natural Resources
Printod on Recycled Paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 23, 1993
All7CirA
E.3EHNR
Mr. Gerald Holleman, Mayor
Town of Holly Springs
Post Office Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Speculative Limits for the Town of Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES #NC0063096
Wake County
030607
Dear Mayor Holleman:
This is in response to your May 14, 1993 letter in which you requested speculative effluent limits for an
expansion of the Town of Holly Springs WWTP. This expanded discharge to Utley Creek would be
approximately 1.0 to 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and would be located at the existing plant site.
For several years DEM has documented localized problems in the arms of lakes and reservoirs in North
Carolina. These nuisance conditions may not be obvious in the lake at first, but over a period of time can be
manifested in violations of the state water quality standard for chlorophyll -a (40 µg/1), algal blooms, fish kills,
supersaturated oxygen levels, and low oxygen concentrations during plant respiration. Based on a preliminary
review by my staff, Holly Springs WWTP may contribute significant nutrients to the White Oak Creek arm of
Harris Lake. As a result, it is imperative that you begin monitoring for total phosphorus and nitrogen upstream
and downstream of your discharge this summer. An acceptable monitoring site was determined by you and
members of my staff just below the old millpond dam during a site visit. Information collected from these
samples will be used in future analyses of your permit. Specifically, the stream should not have concentrations of
TP greater than 0.05 mg/1 nor greater than 0.5 mg/1 of TN downstream from your plant. If these or higher levels
of these nutrients are documented, limits for TP and/or TN will be given in your NPDES permit. I strongly
encourage you to address phosphorus and nitrogen removal in your designs for future expansions.
Assuming that there are no nutrient problems from your facility, modeling analyses were performed for
your discharge at 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 MGD per your request. Note limits are not given for TP or TN. The other
resulting limits would be:
Parameter at 1 MGD at 2 MGD at 3 MGD
BOD5 (mg/1) 16.0 16.0 16.0
NH3 (mg/1)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Total suspended solids (mg/1)
Fecal coliform (#/100 ml)
Total residual chlorine (1.1g/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Total nitrogen (mg/1)
pH (SU)
#Assuming a Grade IV plant.
*Pending results of instream monitoring.
1.1 1.0 1.0
6.0 6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0 30.0
200.0 200.0 200.0
18.0 18.0 17.0
* * *
* * *
6-9 6-9 6-9
Monitoring Frequency#
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
daily
*
*
daily
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

page -2-
Letter to Mayor Holleman, Town of Holly Springs
July 23, 1993
Instream monitoring would also be required. If the wastewater characteristic for this proposed plant is anything
other than domestic, a quarterly chronic toxicity test and chemical specific limits for toxicants of concern would
also be required.
Please note that this information is preliminary only. A decision to allow a discharge as you have
proposed will be made only after reviewing the results of the nutrient data collected on Utley Creek and after
evaluating your analysis for alternatives to a surface water discharge at this location. I assume that this analysis
will include the costs and benefits of piping the wastewater to the Fuquay-Varina WWTP as well as an
investigation of non -discharge disposal methods. If a discharge is granted, final limits for the proposed discharge
can only be given upon receipt of an NPDES permit application and the appropriate fees. If you have questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to call Dave Goodrich or me at (919)-733-5083.
Donald Safrit,
Assistant Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Tim Donnelly, RRO
Coleen Sullins
Douglas Hudgins, P.E.
Hudgins & Associates, Inc.
4915 Waters Edge Drive/Suite 285
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section/Rapid Assessment Group
July 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Safrit
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek
Carla Sanderson
FROM: Dave Goodrich°
SUBJECT: Town of Holly Springs
NPDES #NC0063096
Wake County
030607
Per our discussions regarding the proposed expansion of the Holly Springs WWTP, I
have attached four things:
our current SOP used to determine appropriateness of a TP limit
calculations for Holly Springs WWTP using the current SOP
a fact sheet which has been prepared to be sent to the Raleigh Regional
Office
a draft letter to Holly Springs responding to their request for speculative
limits at 1, 2, and 3 MGD.
The main issue in permitting this facility is whether or not to give a limit for TP and/or TN.
Using the SOP procedure attached, a TP limit of 0.15 mg/1 would be required to meet the
instream TP target of 0.05 mg/1 and a TN limit of 1.5 mg/1 would be required to meet the
instream TN target of 0.5 mg/1. This, by the strict interpretation of the SOP, would trigger
the Instream Assessment Unit to deny any expansion of the discharge of wastewater from
the WWTP at Holly Springs. (Consistently meeting limits of TP at 0.15 mg/1 and 1.5 mg/1
of TN is not technically achieveable at this point in time.) The facility would then have to
prove that their discharge would not attribute to eutrophication of the downstream arm of
Harris Lake before expanding.
Given that this application has been in-house for over two years (the facility has
begun securing loans for the expansion and is discharging at 85% of their limited flow),
and the legal/technical questions regarding our method of assigning nutrient limits, I am
recommending that we allow the expansion to 0.5 MGD without a limit for TP or TN. It
should be stressed, however, that this facility should still bear the burden of proof for

m
- page 2-
Holly Springs WWTP Expansion/Nutrient Limits
July 6, 1993
demonstrating that downstream nutrient targets are being met, and therefore, should begin
monitoring for TP and TN in Utley Creek immediately. The facility will be given specific
information as to instream data collections, and how that information will be used to
determine the appropriateness of limiting concentrations of nutrients in their effluent. The
addition of effluent limits for such parameters could be given as early as 1996 when
permits in the Cape Fear River basin are scheduled to be renewed. This information should
be transmitted as part of the response to their request for speculative limits (see attached
draft).

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
D.S. Guidance for evaluating discharges to suspected (8/25/92)
or known localized problem areas.
Discharges to classified Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) and/or impoundments
and slow moving rivers, streams, and estuaries where eutrophication is a concern may
need to have nutrient limits applied to their NPDES permits. For most wasteload
allocations, the Level B procedures below will apply. The Level B procedures involve
developing nutrient limits based on observation, physical information, treatment
technologies, and NSW regulations. Level C procedures allocate nutrients through
analyzing actual nutrient data. Thus, if nutrient series and/or AGPT data have been
collected, the Level C procedures for evaluating localized nutrient problems should be
applied (see D.5.b.).
D.5.a. Level B Procedures for Lakes. Reservoirs or Ponds
Poorly flushed waters such as lakes, reservoirs, ponds, or slow -moving streams
may be subject to eutrophication if conducive environmental conditions are present (e.g.
long residence time, light penetration, warm temperature, excessive nutrient loads, etc.).
Therefore when a point source discharge is suspected of impacting a lake or pond, the
wasteload allocation analysis should consider the need for nutrient limitations or denial of
discharge per 15 NCAC 2B.0211(b)(3)(A).
The following procedures describe how DEM staff should: 1) target lakes with a
retention time >14 days: 2) calculate limits for proposed and expanding discharges: and
3) recommend instream monitoring for targeted facilities.
Calculating Retention Time and Allowable Effluent Concentrations of Nutrients
Calculate the volume of the lake or arm of the lake (or pond...).where the
discharge is located. The entire pond or lake arm should be used to calculate the volume.
Calculate the retention time for that segment to determine if eutrophication is likely:
T = (V/Q)/86,400 where: T = residence time (days)
V = volume (ft3)
Q = inflow (ft3/sec)
Use the 30Q2 at the mouth of the stream reach
before entering the lake as the inflow (Q). (Note: If a Level B model exists, this
information can be obtained directly from the stream profile output using the 30Q2
statistic for headwater flow and setting the wasteflow to zero). If the result is seven (7)
14 days or morethe body of water is a candidate for eutrophication if other factors are
present. In these cases, calculate the allowable effluent limit using a mass balance
equation with O .0.05 mg/1 as the instream criteria for Total Phosphorus (TP) and 4 0.5
mg/1 as the criteria for Total Nitrogen (TN).
Cw = [(Qd * Cd) - (Qu * Cu)] / Qw
where: Cw = Allowable Effluent Nutrient Concentration in mg/1
Qd = Downstream Flow (i.e., Qw + Qu) in cfs
Cd = Allowable Downstream Nutrient Concentration in mg/1
Qu = Upstream Flow (i.e., 30Q2 or minimum daily average release) in cfs
Cu = Upstream Nutrient Concentration (i.e., background) in mg/1
Qw = Requested Wasteflow in cfs

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
D.5.a. Level B Eutrophication Procedures (continued)
If there are no background data available from the stream or nearby ambient
stations, assume the upstream concentration is zero. However, before gathering data,
calculate the mass balance assuming zero background loading. If the allowable loading is
less than technology (0.5 mg/1 for TP), stop the analysis and deny the discharge. If the
allowable depends on background, pursue a data search.
{NOTE: EXAMPLES HAVE BEEN ALTERED FROM LAST APPROVED SOP.)
Example #1:
There is a pond downstream of a 2.0 MGD discharge measuring 250 feet wide, 6
feet deep, and 0.3 miles long. The 30Q2 entering the pond is 5.5 cfs.
Volume = 250 * 6 * (0.3 * 5280) = 2,376,000 cubic feet
Flow rate = 5.5 cfs
T = 2,376,000 / 5.5 = 432,000 / 86,400 = 5.0 days
T is less than 14 days, so no nutrient limits are necessary for this body of water.
Example #2:
There is a pond downstream of a 2.0 MGD discharge measuring 250 feet wide, 6
feet deep, and 0.3 miles long. The 30Q2 entering the pond is 0.55 cfs.
Volume = 250 * 6 * (0.3 * 5280) = 2,376,000 cubic feet
Flow rate = 0.55 cfs
T = 2,376,000 / 0.55 = 4,320,000 / 86,400 = 50 days
T is greater than 14 days, so a mass balance should be done to determine
allowable TP and TN concentrations. Assuming background concentrations are zero,
allowable concentrations (Cw) may be calculated as:
Cw = (3.65 cfs * 0.05 mg/1) / 3.1 cfs = 0.06 mg/1 of TP
Cw = (3.65 cfs * 0.5 mg/1) / 3.1 cfs = 0.6 mg/1 of TN
Current waste treatment technologies appear to be capable of meeting nutrient
limits of 0.5 mg/1 TP for large municipal WWTP's (i.e., >1.0 MGD) and 1.0 mg/1 TP for
package plants, and 4 mg/1 TN in summer (8 mg/1 TN in winter). Therefore, if the
required effluent limits for a proposed discharge are more stringent than these levels,
denial of the permit issuance should be recommended. (Note: modeler can calculate
maximum allowable wasteflow by back -calculating from instream targets with minimum
treatment requirements. Example #2 would result in a recommendation of a denial for
any proposed discharge or expansion request.)

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
D.5.a. Level B Eutrophication Procedures (continued)
Example #3:
There is a pond downstream of a 0.005 MGD discharge measuring 250 feet wide,
6 feet deep, and 0.3 miles long. The 30Q2 entering the pond is 0.3 cfs.
Volume = 250 * 6 * (0.3 * 5280) = 2,376,000 cubic feet
Flow rate = 0.3 cfs
T = 2,376,000 / 0.3 = 7,920,000 cfs / 86,400 seconds = 91.7 days
T is greater than 14 days, so a mass balance should be done to determine
allowable TP and TN concentrations. Assuming background concentrations are zero,
allowable concentrations (Cw) may be calculated as:
Cw = (0.30775 cfs * 0.05 mg/1) / 0.00775 cfs = 1.98 mg/1 of TP
Cw = (0.30775 cfs * 0.5 mg/1) / 0.00775 cfs = 19.9 mg/1 of TN
Facility should be limited at allowable waste concentrations calculated above.
Limits should be: 2.0 mg/1 for TP and 20 mg/1 for TN (round to two significant digits).
For existing discharges proposing to expand:
If the required limits fall below the ' lower limits of
technology, then additional field information evaluating existing impacts should be
required prior to approving the expansion. If the data indicate a higher level of loading
can be assimilated by the body of water in question, then limits for the expansion may be
considered accordingly.
For existing discharges (not expanding):
Existing discharges will be handled on a case -by -case basis. Nutrient limits
should not routinely be placed on existing point source discharges that are not increasing
their wasteflow unless an impact related to the discharge has been clearly documented or
unless the limits are required as part of the implementation plan for a designated Nutrient
Sensitive Watershed (NSW). However, appropriate instream monitoring requirements
may be added to assist in impact evaluation (see below).

II. WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROCEDURES
D.5.a. Level B Eutrophication Procedures (continued)
Instream monitoring recommendations:
In general addition, the following instream monitoring requirements should be
assigned to the standard minimum instream monitoring required by 15 NCAC 2B.0508
where instream eutrophication is expected and/or where effluent nutrient limits have been
assigned. Unique circumstances may result in an alternative sampling design.
Parameters: Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Chlorophyll -el, and pH*
Sample Locations: - upstream of the discharge
- At mouth of the stream or downstream of the outfall above pool,
- At the dam*
or at accessible bridge crossing in pooled area*_
*pH and chlorophyll -a should be collected only in the lake
Frequency: Weekly, Twice per month from May - October
In addition, depth integrated samples (-eter i (collected at the surface and at
one -meter intervals)ef-the-standarfl-fielel-pafanieter-s-PeFatuferpOrafid
of temperature, DO, and conductivity may be considered for application to
the downstream station in the pooled zone between the months ofJuly—September May -
October to determine if stratification exists.

MEMO
TO:
,....l..t.t•-( 1 i--,14t---t-ti:7
(
/
I lkif rt"-It41. ? . I C: r- i j titi
rti HAT 11.-- I, we) ie:4-r, uPuLD
14,11/x----
DATE:
SUBJECT:
141.49ux -rr) ( ) /".4
• Fpc,-__6(,--i- i -,-.,,,,-,- t ..,!..../ci.:>.
- t--- C
1 ,
i• ,-C(-, -7— \/..11,fc !r*)„1 .t.:-. /-1-1,:r. It:,
."-- 4 / ;.. :_ .1 (---)74:7(.P4-1
.........
.; - I 4...) r- cr ., C' i 4 = • -
e
I
---
e
-
Frorxr
fL
>
• cer..1--
-
(LILL 7g,
ct:D(70
ar.A1A-V
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources e
Printed on Recycled Paper

7y2-
Wieyeree,�c
87.
/1frexv 0G ka
/9' 1 'V// �•'�f r/I' /4%ram_ �k %/V/ cot I
. /j///r • li:I. � 4Y
//a7'/b' c �- .; / ! � e � f ) � �Y � r€%U
401 C 14- v/eP/ 24 �DG'k 6( a T `� � ,rr 7 4 ve //'r / 7V.1 !p
r
{�L ra li f 6l /6• / C- i:• /fi
qt
eW 7qju 1, . 1�d//r'`,�� �if4 / I1Ch 41 /� t'1 '
1.7 !`/41... t.rt:� lr iG6;yr ,% : Ott C:� . C/ C
a/W.W1
1-401,17g&/€47 74/(7 AV; 022 6;,.0.76(
5' . „w.„2
/ L / /9 , , Ame-4 P( �' rr/i� /E_ c�% C��//j* -
Atii/ fb,7% / i
a/44 n 44/./-7-.4 /7( friew 7/' 74/-6,-
/e y(/ d / / .-7 / ! 5 .fie? 4,Ap/ & e," / 4- 7
„/4.41,h `() I/ ,ItLa,` 7i (4/,rC ;A r_ _
/Gt(o 77 '�7/:ff g'N C "! /rI / ,7 / '= r% "= 4i e ( o s5(0
(1<.q4. /7- (.71.k
r/ ��./ 1 (I4 (.. c; (�; , ,. !' / pi f / / „1Y, :' r i s
161/(16 //i / a ,47 t0eleircc G.14 /;i/S c:nESL A.Arsf=ef(
'f G( eieLo - fC Pi o'7 44/ 7[ti 7/4.7(4.47z_
.• i r %

/gtJ'i / � -� ref der A. zit ete9ie terz.
'IGf7 .IT-��►Y ki:/( gird /�l�F�T.{ .
A►A1J /W 1111 64 ✓zE' S fj.t tom/
Cff /ate %t"itr. f -4nal..e.
G6110/0 = 15, 5" 6/5'
�z r ic��;;,s
S , x-74m1/r k, was % n YC . zymyrrcin A G..cir�'�.
. 5--7ZA • III- C S - a 11Wde.Gf _ - lr , pew 7h j . ;n-7. /-0rs -
41771 f/� /2 _7 4 «'!1-=- if'74 afe i.o/f&kJ r/-- - ;, v.
111l-, ! %¼L vUrijllLlLVEIGL v�'T /6.. r) c^%
• : C a ( d 6 - 1 (kfril (twe i .5 1 4 ' ' 2
?(il ihi s #4 / l I ei h6p/ G th,4 iern.
Miel / AI577e16f1 ‘;141.Z1
L rl�r. _Eie /el 6 h el Le_ 06 H (14-, `t/Ye.- , fnh/27('(
' f
tL-A.t f j' 54 ,116,11 ' �, j�ei Circe e ; Cj;SC 1/l .
D. x -(rtv / / ' (-Y A0754 fain /77'' _
k/L4vyr.
iC( {' Y �'1 / !/'.�.� � � �I 1 f,� ` =-r4,fse,./}/ Li/ e r MY%a
e/CCt ram: /e)145 ®t Lfi 1.4 tr n -- /// rb--- / ;1
el7761 44; (4/6 liteitt reow://)5
WGiI /Ai n 1s
/ PI' .i
_A,�
, tJ4L /_.s _` �ou_l�.i�t r rfu��' l S Gt��,P ficlr k,
r �i `s
• lr.j'lfll it(
t-M

//;1//:/5 ge-dd 7i(A //z(vr, 573/;•-/fe-/-774-
--nyic-//y Se-4`661a .rrkcani
( 1c4,1 a 774/1y &--
./17 4V 4( ell 7,/,-(:;•-)/-7;"
770-.zr4 7 4, (14 e'h 7.///4'' 17
/11C-d12 7- /
/1,16 t_7
G-4 e"( 7116 /*.
/26-
_AY 4&
kri:Y=t ci;iit
Z/119 /A / 1/4,elew; /474,1: .124%. 4.: .6 (•
eari-4.?erxdf,:1/7 /2y/ Are:. 4 k • ile:K
4 6 (--"k1 e 744.44 &fr-/ Hie.- 4
- 74 r 76- 6.-e ire-4/ '&1;(,17„.)-
Cll
t . t 411 Hitt ir- 04f e ., 5(A-4,44- v" Mr! C tr- f.; 4.016-.,
/. 0
/ I
. ‘.,
Z6v .1co gco 260
. .._,
1/27 c:
2.0
I. C /-c
2A' ZtC
7 `i 7
Yts
4,, (yid ( 74/:7; l 01( 230671:5/. A,X.4
ti/1 e/t ac6cn c4,.eic'ef
_47 •
t-'71 par ca4_ /t. 50-
,

itf tt1 is* f /7/Cc_..
r11/ n At7►
r f Arab(I C ('era

COCZ0 74-
-770“ A.477e/e/t/r1 Z1 7-1--
76-77c TA/ e 14.4/7- ae"
--; ( ;Ice, ---4;-Y/e- (
Wt.trv-- -
5.'14 ti. 4"
1-0-:/oko
61, 5-2)( /c7//
Fen 4,tor
/-ru
6ketg. pKA --Ft .174 f A .
/1/A-7„; .
e()
(J
3 i 2 . .5
>14
A (....1.m)-r l.et--ail‹.-e-c,
t dlictilof 44, l/4/474 17CGICV/7//47.
,b-io,/,742/ek4r
('(,( 4/4a/dk crec4Q
Ah_r:k/e-pti (/)
C,) (7-p)
v' (77J)
..e• 5 rre?
.5 t -7-tJ
/. 17A7 I I
f514C2.44'rA) 'r AA-64' et6•114rk aCtilt-:e!? 1-11W177- ,v T A / / //V 46Y efr/11;1. 6-
•

Ncc- 1 _ cel&
r
`sckft
Y
a7.A. 3 7r z-
(rr✓zi 07-.f0z.-l.7`iy't'j _ ((Jr'3)
Ace4 cF A- l ! 4- K / - /1
(iff""pfrin/MC le()
•frhY -CC-1 7z,vjrA.. (;i1/Q-�,,�
(mo to, G )

� ,j•� V M i �Lf }1�,5� -WO
7�jl(O
' . MITS & ENGIN. UNIT
Q3MAY 17 Ail 11: 44
Town of Holly Springs
Gerald W. Holleman
Mayor
Parrish W. Womble
Mayor Pro-Tem
Commissioners
Sarah Morton
Otis Byrd
John J. McNeil
Edison Perkins
May 14, 1993
Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources
State of North Carolina
.512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
NC0063096
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County
Dear Mr. Safrit:
I was pleased to learn from Doug Hudgins of Hudgins & Associates, Inc.
that your office is proceeding with our application to upgrade the
Town's Wastewater Treatment Plant located on Utley's Creek from 250,000
gallons per day to 500,000 gallons per day based on the new stream flow
determinations by USGS. As indicated by Mr. Hudgins, we have requested
that Hobbs Upchurch to make copies of the application available for your
files.
As mentioned in my pervious correspondence, Holly Springs has been
inundated with requests for approval of new residential subdivisions.
Since my last letter, the requests continue without letup. The need for
the Town to expand our treatment plant becomes more urgent with each
day.
Accordingly, we would request your urgent attention in processing the
permit application to permit us to engage an engineering firm to
complete the engineering design, obtain a construction permit and
proceed with construction this summer. We have instructed our engineer
to proceed with the preparation of the design report and construction
plans in consultation with your office. In addition, we plan to meet
with the Farmers Home Administration to prepare the project for
financing through their program.
125 North Main Street • Post Office Box 8 • Holly Springs, NC 27540.919/552-6221

Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
May 14, 1993
Page 2
We also plan to proceed immediately to prepare a comprehensive
alternatives study for the next upgrade of the Town's treatment
capacity. In order to provide information required for this study, we
would appreciate your preparation of speculative limits for the Utley
Creek Treatment Plant for 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 million gallons per day at
the present location.
Should you require any additional information to process the permit
application or this request for speculative limits, please feel to
contact me. We appreciate your assistance.
Your/ sincerely,
Gerald W. Holleman, Mayor
cc: Mr. Tim Donnelly, Raleigh Regional Office

HOLLY SPRINGS - Allowable Waste Concentrations
;:.4 SUMMER
Residual Chlorine
..
.%' Ammonia as NH3
.1%
7010 (CFS)
0.11 :.,..q010 (CFS)
0.11
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5p DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775= DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.00 STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
0» UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
87.570621!4 IWC (%)
87.57062
Allowable Concentration (ug/I)
*zim,
19.41290311,Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
1.11071
Will
MY•
WINTER
. .,
. :Ammonia as NH3
*0'
1$::i 7010 CFS •
0.25
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
111 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
MI STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
..4 IWC (%)
75.60976
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
2.309677
NC0063096
DAG 5/21/93

/A/ra41 9414 FoK /-41-cYZ;etiti6S
.
: DATE
TEMP.
D.O.
% SAT
1
09/92
21.0
5.8
64
2
09/92
22.0
4.6
52
3
09/92
21.0
5.6
62
4
09/92
22.0
5.6
64
5
07/92
21.0
7.0
78
6
07/92
23.0
6.6
76
7
07/92
24.0
6.0
71
8
07/92
22.0
5.4
61
9
25.0
6.0
71
10
_07/92
09/91
21.0
9.2
102
11
09/91
18.0
8.2
86
12
09/91
23.0
8.6
98
13
09/91
17.0
8.0
82
14
08/91
22.0
8.4
95
15
08/91
22.0
8.6
98
16
08/91
20.0
8.7
95
17
08/91
22.0
9.2
105
18
08/91
23.0
7.2
83
19
07/91
23.0
7.8
90
20
07/91
23.0
7.4
85
21
07/91
21.0
8.0
89
22
07/91
23.0
7.9
91
23
09/90
19.0
9.2
98
24
09/90
20.0
8.4
91
25
09/90
15.0
8.9
87
26
09/90
16.0
9.2
92
27
08/90
19.0
9.1
97
28
08/90
20.5
8.3
91
29
08/90
21.0
8.2
91
30
08/90
21.5
8.2
92
31
08/90
20.5
8.6
94
32
07/90
21.5
6.2
69
33
07/90
21.5
7.0
79
34
07/90
20.5
7.0
77
s/7J
5/4-1-.)f- 51116
Afii(,tu9 9/0 7-7070
1sI± fika,m(,& EMv).V°c
P'90
y6affyi46 drtcy Ckat.
"Vlestalt vt/p5ir.‘t,
4/6. locabew 40Acii e / 71Ax_ .ft;44700<1
ggfe Sikr, Ateo Ct-
�t_

fe
tA 71.1 CA m
i i i "-Ty
/7< /..,
- . •/' ( 4±.> . s. ..,4
.., /
7.q.
_ _ t
7 Lt-
; • r
. C7' •
ftr
1
T-7).c: • c:70 -74-r•
2-
--
5,
5 I
.„ 71,z
(72
!yi
_F 0
gicir
• ••"?'""7
7
' • - •
67 c .7 77-.
x.)5..:Tx_c—.. 41,1
476 7--
r--
?;: 7 -7 9L-)___
(7P erf--: C7/4 FA
7frLrbo 1.cvl
'2
/
_ ;--1•Y5 ?
7 .i

9/9c /7
?�
1' 9,
Vir /7 9_/
717o .-.. ,5.- �•
7, (,
i 7.

P 01
,.r
Deft
je /
UDGINS & ASSOCIATES,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
MAR 0 8 1993
Facsimile Cover Shut
To:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
DAVID GOODRICH
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
733-5083
733-9919
From: Doug Hudgins
Date: 3/7/93
Pages including this
cover page: 3
Comments: PLEASE FIND ATTACHED COPIES OF THE
CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN YOUR OFFICE AND THE TOWN
DATED SEPT. 17 AND OCT. 14,1991, WHICH I MENTIONED
DURING OUR RECENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION.
THE APPLICATION IN QUESTION IS NC0063096. ALTHOUGH
THE STATE'S CORRESPONDANCE MENTIONS CRAIN'S CREEK,
THE TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS HAS ONLY ONE 250,000 GPD
PLANT WHICH IS ON UTLEY CREEK. AS DISCUSSED, WE
WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ACT ON THIS APPLICATION RATHER
THAN START A NEW PROCESS. THE TOWN WOULD ALSO LIKE
FOR YOU TO PROVIDE LIMITS AT 0.5 MGD AND 0.7 MGD BASED
ON THE NEW STREAM FLOW DATA FROM USGS.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY PROBLEM
ACTING ON THE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR THESE
LIMITS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. 1
4915 WATERS EDGE DRIVE • SUITE 285 • RALEIGH, N.C. 27606 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

P e2
a
00
RECEIVED SEP 1 9 lig
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Mr. Thomas Taylor
Town of Holly Springs
P. O. Box 8
Holly Springs, NC 27540
September 17, 1991
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
NC0063096
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
The Division is in receipt of a letter dated June 30, 1989 from David Townsend of Hobbs,
Upchurch & Associates stating your intention to prove that there is sufficient natural flow on
Crai 's Creek to support an increase in design flow from .25 MGD to .50 MGD.
'sCfeejC
re/ T is letter also stated that the Division would be kept informed as you began the flow study
o rains Creek. o date, however, we have received no information on the progress of this
stu• y. ' ue o s lack of progress, the Division must conclude that the Town of Holly Springs no
longer wishes to pursue this study.
If this is not the case, please notify the NPDES Permit Group by October 15, 1991 updating
the Division of your intentions, and the progress of the flow study. If we do not receive a
response we will assume you no longer wish to pursue this matter and will return your permit
application to you.
If you have any questions on this matter
cc: Hobbs, Upchurch & Assoc.
Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
ontact Mr. Dale Overcash at 919/733-5083.
onald L.
Supervisor,
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

P 93
.o
II HUDGINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
October 14, 1991
Mr. Donald L. Safrit, P.E.
Supervisor, Permits and Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental, Health and Natural
State of North Carolina
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject:
Dear Mr. 8afrits
Resources
NPDES Permit Application
N00063096
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County
Your letter of September 17, 1991 to Mr. Thomas Taylor on the above
subject has been referred to us for response by the Hon. Gerald Holleman,
Mayor of the Town of Holly Springs.
This project has been transferred to our office for follow-up. In
addition, please note that Mr. Tom Taylor ie no longer with the Town of Holly
Springs. The Town haw returned to the mayor/administrator system with Mayor
Gerald Holleman currently holding the position of Town Administrator.
It ie the town's intention to pursue the application to permit the
increase the design flow from 0.25 to 0.50 MGD. As such, our office has been
working with the town and the Raleigh office of USGS to install a flow
measuring device on the referenced creek. We expect this weir to be in place
in time to collect data during the current dry period. In addition, we have
been contracted by the Town to prepare a report to further support the Town's
application for an increase in design flows.
Accordingly, the Town respectfully requests that your office maintain
the application in an active status. You may expect to receive our report and
recommendation within the next 60 days. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
HUDGINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
H. Duglas Hudgins, P.E.
4915 WATERS EDGE DRIVE • SUITE 28S • RALEIGH, N.C. 27606 • [phone]

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS EXPANSION (0.5)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.1 MG/L)
The End D.O. is 6.60 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 27.74 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.00 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
6.07 1.25 2
45.00 4.95 6.00 0.50000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
\00. (A).4
000510ri
9010

Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O.
1 1 0.00 6.11
1 1 0.10 6.63
1 1 0.20 6.89
1 1 0.30 7.02
1 1 0.40 7.10
1 1 0.50 7.14
1 1 0.60 7.17
1 2 0.55 7.17
1 2 0.65 6.91
1 2 0.75 6.70
1 2 0.85 6.52
1 2 0.95 6.37
1 2 1.05 6.25
1 2 1.15 6.15
1 2 1.25 6.07
1 3 1.21 6.07
1 3 1.31 6.68
1 4 1.27 6.68
1 4 1.37 6.61
1 4 1.47 6.57
1 4 1.57 6.54
1 4 1.67 6.52
1 4 1.77 6.51
1 4 1.87 6.51
1 4 1.97 6.52
1 4 2.07 6.52
1 4 2.17 6.53
1 4 2.27 6.54
1 4 2.37 6.56
1 4 2.47 6.57
1 4 2.57 6.59
1 4 2.67 6.60
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.Q.
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS EXPANSION (0.5)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.1 MG/L)
CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
39.66 4.46 0.89
39.00 4.40 0.89
38.36 4.35 0.89
37.73 4.30 0.89
37.11 4.24 0.89
36.50 4.19 0.89
35.91 4.14 0.89
35.91 4.14 0.89
35.52 4.09 0.89
35.14 4.05 0.89
34.76 4.00 0.89
34.39 3.96 0.89
34.02 3.91 0.89
33.65 3.87 0.89
33.29 3.82 0.89
33.29 3.82 0.89
32.77 3.79 0.89
32.77 3.79 0.89
32.38 3.72 0.89
32.00 3.66 0.89
31.62 3.60 0.89
31.25 3.54 0.89
30.88 3.49 0.89
30.51 3.43 0.89
30.15 3.37 0.89
29.80 3.32 0.89
29.44 3.26 0.89
29.10 3.21 0.89
28.75 3.16 0.89
28.41 3.10 0.89
28.08 3.05 0.89
27.74 3.00 0.89
CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
V
_Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS Subbasin : 030607
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK Stream Class: C
'•Summer 7Q10 : 0.11 Winter 7Q10 : 0.25
Design Temperature: 26.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE) VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN 1
mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @2O4 design l @20' Idesign'
Segment 1
Reach 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
0.601 57.001 0.392 1 0.39 1 1.06 10.81 145.80 140.191 0.79
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
Segment 1 1 0.751 13.001 0.255 10.48 1 0.45 1 0.34 1 6.80 1 5.971 0.48
Reach 2 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.141143.001 0.511 1 0.34 1 1.32 1 1.00 156.97 1 50.001 0.79
Reach 3 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.441 21.001 0.293 1 0.45 10.57 1 0.43 112.63 1 11.081 0.79
Reach 4 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I
I Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O. 1
1 cfs I mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.775 1 45.000 1 4.950 1 6.000
Headwaters) 0.110 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 6.900
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 0.000

MODEL RESULTS
,Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (1.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.1 MG/L)
The End D.O. is 6.78 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 32.04 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.66 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.06 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00 4.95 6.00 1.00000
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Seg # I Reach #
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 3
1 3
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
1 4
I Seg # I Reach #
I Seg Mi
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15
1.25
1.21
1.31
1.27
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.67
1.77
1.87
1.97
2.07
2.17
2.27
2.37
2.47
2.57
2.67
Seg Mi
I D.O.
6.06
6.49
6.75
6.90
6.99
7.05
7.09
7.09
6.92
6.78
6.67
6.57
6.50
6.43
6.38
6.38
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.67
6.67
6.68
6.69
6.70
6.71
6.72
6.73
6.75
6.76
6.77
6.78
I D.O.
I CBOD
42.15
41.61
41.08
40.56
40.04
39.53
39.03
39.03
38.72
38.40
38.09
37.79
37.48
37.18
36.88
36.88
36.52
36.52
36.18
35.85
35.51
35.18
34.85
34.53
34.21
33.89
33.57
33.26
32.95
32.65
32.34
32.04
I CBOD
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (1.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.1 MG/L)
I NBOD I Flow I
4.69 1.66
4.65 1.66
4.62 1.66
4.58 1.66
4.55 1.66
4.51 1.66
4.48 1.66
4.48 1.66
4.44 1.66
4.41 1.66
4.38 1.66
4.35 1.66
4.32 1.66
4.29 1.66
4.26 1.66
4.26 1.66
4.23 1.66
4.23 1.66
4.19 1.66
4.15 1.66
4.10 1.66
4.06 1.66
4.02 1.66
3.98 1.66
3.94 1.66
3.90 1.66
3.86 1.66
3.82 1.66
3.78 1.66
3.74 1.66
3.70 1.66
3.66 1.66
I NBOD I Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS Subbasin : 030607
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK Stream Class: C
'.Summer 7Q10 : 0.11 Winter 7Q10 : 0.25
Design Temperature: 26.0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY 1 DEPTH) Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka I Ka 1 KN I
I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @204 Idesign'
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.601 57.001 0.628 1 0.42 1 1.32 1 1.00 156.97 1 50.001 0.79
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.751 13.001 0.409 1 0.52 1 0.54 1 0.41 10.91 I 9.571 0.48
Reach 2 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I
I I I 1 1 1 I 1
Segment 1 1 0.141143.00I 0.820 10.37 1 1.32 1 1.00 I56.97 1 50.001 0.79
Reach 3 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I
Segment 1 1 1.441 21.001 0.470 10.49 10.72 1 0.55 120.24 1 17.771 0.79
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I
I Flow 1 CBOD I NBOD 1 D.O. I
I cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 1.550 145.000 1 4.950 I 6.000
Headwaters) 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 6.900
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 0.000

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (2.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.0 MG/L)
The End D.O. is 6.97 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 35.56 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 3.77 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.03 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00 4.50 6.00 2.00000
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (2.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT (1.0 MG/L)
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0.00 6.03 43.53 4.38 3.21
1 1 0.10 6.32 43.19 4.36 3.21
1 1 0.20 6.53 42.85 4.34 3.21
1 1 0.30 6.68 42.52 4.32 3.21
1 1 0.40 6.80 42.19 4.30 3.21
1 1 0.50 6.88 41.86 4.28 3.21
1 1 0.60 6.94 41.53 4.26 3.21
1 2 0.55 6.94 41.53 4.26 3.21
1 2 0.65 6.86 41.27 4.24 3.21
1 2 0.75 6.79 41.02 4.22 3.21
1 2 0.85 6.74 40.76 4.20 3.21
1 2 0.95 6.70 40.51 4.18 3.21
1 2 1.05 6.66 40.26 4.17 3.21
1 2 1.15 6.63 40.01 4.15 3.21
1 2 1.25 6.61 39.76 4.13 3.21
1 3 1.21 6.61 39.76 4.13 3.21
1 3 1.31 6.73 39.52 4.12 3.21
1 4 1.27 6.73 39.52 4.12 3.21
1 4 1.37 6.76 39.23 A.09 3.21
1 4 1.47 6.79 38.93 4.06 3.21
1 4 1.57 6.82 38.64 4.04 3.21
1 4 1.67 6.84 38.35 4.01 3.21
1 4 1.77 6.86 38.06 3.99 3.21
1 4 1.87 6.87 37.78 3.96 3.21
1 4 1.97 6.89 37.49 3.94 3.21
1 4 2.07 6.90 37.21 3.91 3.21
1 4 2.17 6.91 36.93 3.89 3.21
1 4 2.27 6.93 36.65 3.86 3.21
1 4 2.37 6.94 36.38 3.84 3.21
1 4 2.47 6.95 36.10 3.82 3.21
1 4 2.57 6.96 35.83 3.79 3.21
1 4 2.67 6.97 35.56 3.77 3.21
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS Subbasin : 030607
'Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK Stream Class: C
`Summer 7Q10 : 0.11 Winter 7Q10 : 0.25
Design Temperature: 26.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd I Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN I
I mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @201/2 Idesign l @201/2 )design'
I I I 1 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1 I 0.601 57.001 1.030 10.46 1 1.32 1 1.00 156.97 1 50.00I 0.79
Reach 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I
I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.751 13.001 0.671 1 0.56 1 0.68 1 0.52 17.88 115.691 0.48
Reach 2 1 I I 1 I I 1 1
I I 1 1 I I 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.141143.001 1.344 10.40 1 1.32 1 1.00 156.97 1 50.001 0.79
Reach 3 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I
I I 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1 I 1.441 21.001 0.771 10.53 1 0.95 1 0.72 133.20 129.131 0.79
Reach 4 I I I 1 I I 1 1
I Flow I CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 3.100 1 45.000 1 4.500 I 6.000
Headwaters) 0.110 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 6.900
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 0.000

MODEL RESULTS
`•Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (3.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT OF 1.0 MG/L
The End D.O. is 7.06 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 37.06 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.95 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 6.02 0.00 1
Reach 1 45.00 4.50 6.00 3.00000
Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000

Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD
1 1 0.00 6.02 44.01
1 1 0.10 6.25 43.75
1 1 0.20 6.42 43.50
1 1 0.30 6.56 43.24
1 1 0.40 6.67 42.99
1 1 0.50 6.76 42.74
1 1 0.60 6.83 42.50
1 2 0.55 6.83 42.50
1 2 0.65 6.79 42.27
1 2 0.75 6.77 42.04
1 2 0.85 6.75 41.81
1 2 0.95 6.73 41.58
1 2 1.05 6.72 41.36
1 2 1.15 6.71 41.14
1 2 1.25 6.70 40.91
1 3 1.21 6.70 40.91
1 3 1.31 6.77 40.73
1 4 1.27 6.77 40.73
1 4 1.37 6.82 40.46
1 4 1.47 6.87 40.19
1 4 1.57 6.90 39.92
1 4 1.67 6.93 39.65
1 4 1.77 6.95 39.38
1 4 1.87 6.97 39.12
1 4 1.97 6.98 38.85
1 4 2.07 7.00 38.59
1 4 2.17 7.01 38.33
1 4 2.27 7.02 38.07
1 4 2.37 7.03 37.82
1 4 2.47 7.04 37.56
1 4 2.57 7.05 37.31
1 4 2.67 7.06 37.06
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD
SUMMER
HOLLY SPRINGS SPEC. (3.0 MGD)
AMMONIA TOX. LIMIT OF 1.0 MG/L
NBOD I Flow I
4.42 4.76
4.40 4.76
4.39 4.76
4.37 4.76
4.36 4.76
4.34 4.76
4.33 4.76
4.33 4.76
4.31 4.76
4.30 4.76
4.29 4.76
4.27 4.76
4.26 4.76
4.24 4.76
4.23 4.76
4.23 4.76
4.22 4.76
4.22 4.76
4.20 4.76
4.18 4.76
4.16 4.76
4.14 4.76
4.12 4.76
4.10 4.76
4.08 4.76
4.06 4.76
4.05 4.76
4.03 4.76
4.01 4.76
3.99 4.76
3.97 4.76
3.95 4.76
NBOD I Flow I

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HOLLY SPRINGS Subbasin : 030607
Receiving Stream : UTLEY CREEK Stream Class: C
".Summer 7Q10 : 0.11 Winter 7Q10 : 0.25
Design Temperature: 26.0
'LENGTH' SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd 1 Kd 1 Ka 1 Ka 1 KN I
I mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesign l @20' Idesign l @204 (design'
Segment 1
Reach 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 I
0.60I 57.001 1.384 1 0.48 1 1.32 1 1.00 56.97 1 50.001 0.79
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.751 13.001 0.901 ( 0.59 1 0.80 1 0.61 124.03 121.09I 0.48
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 0.141143.001 1.807 1 0.42 1 1.32 11.00 156.97 1 50.001 0.79
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Segment 1 1 1.441 21.001 1.036 1 0.55 1 1.14 1 0.87 144.61 1 39.151 0.79
Reach 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I Flow 1 CBOD I NBOD 1 D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 4.650 145.000 1 4.500 I 6.000
Headwaters' 0.110 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 6.900
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 0.000

MODEL INPUTS FOR HOLLY SPRINGS LEVEL B ANALYSES
GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility Name: 1ik
/ly C;) .. ``-
NPDES No.:
(3C Z '
Type of Waste:
lore rekvrie..
Facility Status:
E)0 1"/nJh
Receiving Stream:
GF/lt V Cy t L k'
Stream Classification:
C.
Subbasin:
I) 0(r-01
County:
/64 .'f
Regional Office:
Topo Quad:
(� j N k-
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS #
t7,/p2471
Date of Flow Estimates:
'-1/1fif
Drainage Area (mi2):
0. ?3
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
. I/
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
C
Average Flow (cfs):
r , 5v
30Q2 (cfs):
0.32
IWC at Point of Discharge (%): kr, 5
p
Cummulative IWC (%):
...................:...............................
v:::::r:..:...}.;}:{:.}:':i: }i:f?.�.:}}::.:.}':.i'r{••:i{{{i{{•:{{•:•:i•i::.}i:i::}C... .:...r
.: :.{.r}:v\'. \t k....: v...;
k •
g
:(•,
{
nv i5-i;
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION
LENGTH OF REACH (miles)
C _
. 7r
. /4
/_
INCREMENTAL LENGTH (miles)
p . (
C . /
c /
C) , /
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW (MGD)
C. 5
-r-
--'
CBOD (mg/1)
171
NBOD (mg/1)
4/. 15
D.O. (mg/1)
6 . C
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs/mi2)
c='
(
C,
C
QA (cfs/mi2)
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TRIBUTARY CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs)
✓Ir'"Lt-
k7-, -
QA (cfs)
CBOD (mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
SLOPE (fpm)
51
/3
/91`
Name of facility
/-Ply pft:f?,r yfiii779

?do
iao
ZIA
St rect : &A
tYt ai (St 4 n,
13 f1"'
P43 Iren
I if
•
kv
EA•44.
disc
33o
3 zo
sf
0
Cum
dtst stop
7S
Z7D
5v
•6/
270
4 .4,
„, 74
Z 7.0
0
.1 . `h q 1i
ieS
101

MEMO
TO:
do4
ifiv
(o 446�
DATE:
a1c2e--74%
SUBJECT:
L
6,,v1 0,
z(oaK /_0
From:
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resourcesgs)
Printed on Recycled Paper

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No v
If Yes, SOC No.
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: (Charles Alvarez)
'WI 4193
Date July 30, 1993
1C;""' MIN
._.NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County Wake
Permit No. NC 0063096
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Holly Springs WWTP
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
2. Date of Investigation: July 28,1993
3. Report Prepared by: Michael Wicker
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Tom Tillage
552-6221
5. Directions to Site: Highway 1 south from Raleigh,then south
on Hwy 55 to Holly Springs, then right on SR 1115 for
approximately 1.2 miles, then right on a dirt road that ends
at the treatment facility.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35°38'41" Longitude:78°51'03"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E23NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Apex,NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application ?
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
sight is relatively flat, with a very slight slope toward
the creek. The treatment facility is above the flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling:
There are no dwellings within 500 feet of the treatment
plant.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Utley Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Cape Fear 03:06:07
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No,
If Yes, SOC No.
downstream uses: Receiving Stream 10' wide, 1-2'
deep, and moderately flowing. The creek flows into Shearon
Harris Lake.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: .5
MGD(Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? .25 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? .25 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two years:
N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
existing extended aeration treatment facility consisting of
two parallel package treatment plants each with bar screen,
aeration basin, and two -hopper clarifier; a baffled
chlorination chamber, a post -aeration chamber, and all
associated valves, piping, blowers, meters, and other
appurtenances.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: expansion would require duplicate
units to increase capacity, increased sludge production
would require sludge holding and digestion facilities
capable of PSRP, since an expansion with new facilities,
dechlorination would be required.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
ammonia toxicity, chlorine residuals
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved
should be required not needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
permit no. WO0000506 20,000 gallons /year allocated
to Holly Springs under this permit
Residual Contractor Wallace Woodall
Telephone No. 919-387-1906
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No,
If Yes, SOC No.
PFRP Other
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): Class II existing , Class III proposed
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular
facilities i.e.., non -contact cooling water discharge from a
metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary O1_ Secondary 02
Main Treatment Unit Code: 06 00 00 03
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)?
not on Construction Grants priority list, Town of Holly Springs
to obtain funding possibly by bond or FHA.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: continue Class. II monitoring requirements for existing
.250 mgd WWTP in accordance with current requirements, provide
for Class III monitoring requirements. for the expansion to .5 mgd
WWTP.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate)
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
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: not recommended by RRO for this area due
to population growth and lack of suitable sites of sufficient
size.
Date
Connection to Regional Sewer System: The RRO is unaware of
any efforts to provide a regional system for southern Wake County
however the Town of Apex and the Town of Fuquay-Varina WWTP's
are possible alternative disposal options. Interbasin flow and
discharges to low flow NSW streams, in addition to local
politics, probably limit this as an alternate.
Subsurface: N/A
Other disposal options:

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No
If Yes, SOC No.
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The RRO has completed a review and site inspection of the
subject facility. The proposed permit expansion of the existing
.250_ mgd WWTP to a .500 mgd facility has been evaluated.
The existing facility flows have averaged .215 mgd over the
last 5 months, ( Jan -May ), which is greater than 85% of the
permitted capacity and thus requires an evaluation of the future
wastewater needs per NCAC T15A: 02H.0223. This request for
expansion is seen as a step to address these concerns.
The current facility is a Class II extended aeration
facility capable of meeting the current permit limits. The last
year of compliance data indicate that the facility has had one
BOD violation and two fecal violations. Most of the toxicity
tests have passed.
The proposed expansion will require additional us to fore
constructed to increase flow capacity, provide
dechlorination, and possibly provide for phosphorus removal
ill be
dependent upon WLA). Increased
e required handling
r the expansion
necessary. Therefore, an ATC q he
and should be so stated in this permit III modification. t and Thet
expanded WWTP will probably rate a Class Y
permit monitoring should reflect this.
The volume of flow in relation to the
receivinassessment stream however
qualify the expansion for an environmental
due to the length of time this application has been i led and
since flow is below the 500,000 gpd + threshold an en
l
assessment does not appear necessary.
Through discussions with the Technical Support Group
upstream and downstream monitoring for nutrient loading is to be
required to determine possible impacts downstream on Harris Lake.
The RRO recommends the modification to the Townof Holly
Springs' existing NPDES permit no. NC0063096 for expansion
of
flow from .250 to .500 mgd.
The permit should be phased in accordance
with remain thie
expansion. The existing .250 mgd permit limits should
effect until expansion. After expansion the permit limits
should refect the issues previously mentioned, with the
the basin concerns,
wide
and be issued for a term in accordance
planning schedule.

. • s I
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No
If Yes, SOC No.
•-w
Michael Wicker
r �
s,s2
Signature of report preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
0
Date