NC0063096_Permit Issuance_20060825

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
12ermit 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:
August 25, 2006
This& document ie printed on reuses paper - iignore any
content on the resrerne aide

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
August 25, 2006
Mr. Carl G. Dean, Town Manager
Town of Holly Springs
P. O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0063096
Town of Holly Springs WWTP
Wake County
Dear Mr. Dean:
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are
forwarding the attached NPDES discharge 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 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency dated May 9,1994 (or as subsequently amended).
The following modifications from the draft permit are included in the final permit•.
• The monitoring frequency for the Chronic Toxicity test in the 1.75 MGD effluent page was corrected to
quarterly.
The request for an Authorization to Operate shall be submitted to the Constructions Grants and Loans Section of the
Division of Water Quality.
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 (6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand
is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which
may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the 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 Teresa Rodriguez at telephone number [phone],
extension 553.
Sincerely,
-fir ; Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Cc: NPDES Files
Raleigh Regional Office — Surface Water Protection
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
USEPA Region 4
N& Carolina
atura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycied/10% Post Consumer Paper

I '
Permit NC0063096 •
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
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, the
Town of Holly Springs
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Utley Creek WWTP
Irving Parkway
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, II, III,
and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective October 1, 2006.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2011.
Signed this day August 25, 2006.
� v
ar. Alan W. imek, P.E., Dire or
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

.R
Permit NC0063096
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this NPDES permit. The conditions,
requirements, terms and provisions of this NPDES permit governs surface water discharges from
this facility. All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility bearing this permit number,
whether for operation or discharge, are hereby revoked.
The Town of Holly Springs is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility located in Holly
Springs off the Irving Parkway in Wake County. This facility discharges through outfall
001 and includes the following wastewater treatment components:
• Mechanical bar screen
• Grit chamber
• Anaerobic phosphorus removal basin
• Pump station
• Anoxic tank
• Aeration tank
• Package plant with two aeration tanks, two clarifiers and two sludge stabilization tanks
• Final clarifier
• Tertiary filter
• Sludge stabilization/storage
• UV disinfection system
• Cascade aerator
2. After receiving an Authorization to Operate from the Division of Water Quality, operate the
above facility at a capacity of 1.75 MGD.
3. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division of Water Quality, construct
and operate wastewater treatment facilities with an ultimate capacity of 2.4 MGD.
4. Discharge from said treatment works into Utley Creek, a class C stream in the Cape Fear
River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.

Town of Holly Springs - Utley Creek WWTP
State Grid/Quad: Apex
E23NE
Receiving Stream: Utley Creek
Stream Class: C
Latitude:
Longitude:
Drainage Basin:
Sub -Basin:
35° 38' 41" N
78°51'03"W
Cape Fear
03-06-07
North
NPDES Permit NC0063096
Wake County

Permit NC0063096
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (1.5 MGD)
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expansion above 1.5 MGD (or expiration), the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
;
.'�'�. '•��,;-1.:: �5.5. '�� 4
�.�
t.- �:!+^' T'a
"`-L 7,2
� � A, z �'+vg .5:
,,.
-. 7
,
r
•
o
* '�7t
amr
I,
It.
MSS
�,C7��y
r r . _
`j
�- a q . 1 0 ..,.aI.4.
A
.pis
.�.r
yr4, .
.9¢�i%• 'C-
Flow
1.5 MGD
Continuous
Recordin g
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
went and
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1- March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
19 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
TKN6
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N+ NO3-N6
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen• 7
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6.7• 8
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. See A. (4) for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process.
6. Beginning on January 1, 2009 the measurement frequency shall be 3/Week. .
7. See Condition A. (5) for calculation of total loads.
8. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected weekly during
each calendar quarter (January -March, April -June, July -September, October -December).
9. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnta) P/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November (see A. (6)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

6 y
Permit NC0063096 -
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (1.75 MGD)
Beginning upon issuance of the Authorization to Operate and lasting until expiration or expansion above 1.75
MGD, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be
limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
:•ys, nar -• 5. j i.-, t.. rk y _
1`� x .- - ,
r.
,( ..# fir. i•'r. yam.
✓.t-"5�
Y �f;
i� -.r .L r. t
,� Lw c 1y'"x`'' Y
•.-.'
f. -w"bA -. a"• "...=."^. 1 w�.t
} y ro.l.�.-i... .._... ...�:." r,..,�.e:J�i.:
44-4 'i•';,.-
...y.. •-'
tc Cr-a. ..-i
ith
_y ..
' �3,�ircJ -.. sa -..-
. o t
.
e e d
"®aii .
i at e`; t'
- 4-_
r r' ,
•:WI
,.-.. a _-.. 0A
i 1't'.14,1 cM+R
•. tiH
Flow
1.75 MGD
Continuous
Recordin g
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1- October 31)2
_
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
. Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(November 1 -March 31)2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1- October 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March 31)
4.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Conform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature 0C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
1
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
TKN6
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N+ NO3-N6
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen. 7 -
43,800 lbs/yr
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6. 7.8
2,664 lbs/yr
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity9
I
I
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. See A. (4) for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process.
6. Beginning on January 1, 2009 measurement frequency shall be 3/Week.
7. See Condition A. (5) for calculation of total loads.
8. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected weekly during
each calendar quarter (January -March, April -June, July -September, October -December).
9. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November (see A. (6)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0063096
A. (3) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (2.4 MGD)
Beginning upon expansion beyond 1.75 MGD and lasting until expiration or until discharge from the facility is
removed from Utley Creek, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
_ 11.. s •..`r !y � . --7,1
r : t�S-:?'ss' �r�`+�''•,�J'e 4 �`+ rao:�-.i ' y c;t�l_�.t�-ji�:
. , , - i. 5
'iT..
Y �z' -::fi 3�j+'f .1f
rC�'
,..".._t ti. : ' Y:n". •,..=si .
4�' 4T• gs-iix ^r•-z
�i1�;1,17 •t �
1.?' T „T•5:. i",,,,,
0.7- -to `e
� .r"x ^� li.'t-'� `�'.;'��
:'° .;':� .? '
witi caorf i
i�r+�j-l�i'��0 0
••-- %.,'' ..---',,-►.
ii .ic? •Y,�,^•,,. ` . • - w ,,
� t ....
� J
..ir�i&
'If
N.LLT.:
'''i y. ;. •' 1X �P k}:. �t<ana. -W4c.'4 i
x aF -�- v
f w.'r t"L :
eel
„• - �L,--
DaiT°�
eem
s s,
_3
PWII
Flow
2.4 MGD
Continuous
Recordin g
Influent or
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1-October 31)2
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)2
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
.
. Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October 31)
1.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1- March 31)
2.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature 0C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorines
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
TKN6
Monitor & Report
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO2-N+ NO3-N6
Monitor & Report
Weeklzy
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen6.7 .
43,800 lbs/yr
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6. 7. 8
3,653 lbs/yr
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity9
quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. See condition A. (4) for instream monitoring requirements.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
4. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5. Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the treatment process.
6. Beginning on January 1, 2009 measurement frequency shall be 3/Week.
7. See Condition A. (5) for calculation of total loads.
8. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected weekly during
each calendar quarter (January -March, April -June, July -September, October -December).
9. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90% with testing in February, May, August and November (see
Condition A. (6)).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids. or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

i {
Permit NC0063096
A. (4) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
• csf„ a _i
'''
�� any
i e i en
h g� i "� •
all- sF' . ry :Si•W.
e e i c ,�
', e, ,�
Yw CwiC.2y
7
-11.
•..i..- i.�
:t'
11•iS�. SA y ; YPZ
_.:!^:: r-... Y A+t ii�'. x �iY
•
� VY , i T �.�
•i�.-� J1;S'.Wi�P.
.�
Dissolved Oxygen
.. _
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1 /week
Temperature 0C
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
—
1 /week
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
June -September
3/week
Grab
U, D
October -May
1 /week
Total Phosphorus2
June -September
1 /week
Grab
U, D
October -May
Monthly
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+ NO3+ TKN)2
June -September
1 /week
Grab
U, D
October -May
Monthly
Chlorophyll -a
June -September
1 /weeks
Grab
D
Notes:
1. U: Upstream in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream flow weir. D: Downstream on the
existing dam structure in a location so as to avoid contact between the ground and the sample bottle.
2. Effluent and instream monitoring shall be conducted. on the same day.
3. Chlorophyl -a monitoring is not required during the months of October through May.
As a participant in the Cape Fear River Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements as stated above
are waived. Should your membership in the agreement be terminated, you shall notify the Division immediately
and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.

Permit NC0063096
A. (5) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS
a. The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN and TP Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN (or TP) Load (lb/mo) = TN (or TP) x TMF x 8.34
where:
TN or TP = the average Total Nitrogen (or Total Phosphorus)
concentration (mg/L) of the composite samples collected
during the month
TMF = the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the
month (MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN (or TP) Load (lb/yr) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN (or TP) Loads for the calendar
year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus results (mg/L and lb/mo)
in the discharge monitoring report for that month and shall report each year's annual results
(lb/yr) in the December report for that year.
A. (6.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (Quarterly)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterlu monitoring using test procedures outlined in
the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or
subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in
each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter
code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621

1
Permit NC0063096
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later
than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if
chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test
form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the
report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to
the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring
will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re-
opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls,
shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later
than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0063096
A. (7) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following parameters:
Ammonia (as N) Trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Chlorine (total residual, TRC) 1,1-dichloroethylene Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Dissolved oxygen 1,2-dichloropropane Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Nitrate/Nitrite 1,3-dichloropropylene 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Ethylbenzene Butyl benzyl phthalate
Oil and grease Methyl bromide 2-chloronaphthalene
Total Phosphorus Methyl chloride 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Total dissolved solids Methylene chloride Chrysene
Hardness 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane Di-n-butyl phthalate
Antimony Tetrachloroethylene Di-n-octyl phthalate
Arsenic Toluene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Beryllium 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 1,2-dichlorobenzene
Cadmium 1,1,2-trichloroethane 1,3-dichlorobenzene
Chromium Trichloroethylene 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Copper Vinyl chloride 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Lead ACID -EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS: Diethyl phthalate
Mercury P-chloro-m-cresol Dimethyl phthalate
Nickel 2-chlorophenol 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Selenium 2,4-dichlorophenol 2,6-dinitrotoluene
Silver 2,4-dimethylphenol 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Thallium 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol Fluoranthene
Zinc 2,4-dinitrophenol Fluorene
Cyanide 2-nitrophenol Hexachlorobenzene
Total phenolic compounds 4-nitrophenol Hexachlorobutadiene
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Pentachlorophenol Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Acrolein Phenol Hexachloroethane
Acrylonitrlle 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene BASE -NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS Isophorone
Bromoform Acenaphthene Naphthalene
Carbon tetrachloride Acenaphthylene Nitrobenzene
Chlorobenzene Anthracene N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Chlorodibromomethane Benzidine N-nitrosodimethylamine
Chloroethane Benzo(a)anthracene N-nitrosodiphenylamine
2-chloroethylvinyl ether Benzo(a)pyrene Phenanthrene
Chloroform 3,4 benzofluoranthene Pyrene
Dichlorobromomethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1,2-dichloroethane Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the
Director within 90 days of sampling. The report shall be submitted to the following address:
NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

Re:1Ho11y Springs Flow Projections
Subject: Re: Holly Springs Flow Projections
From: Larry Horton <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:37:06 -0400
To: Mike Slusher <[e-mail]>
CC: Daniel Blaisdell <[e-mail]>, Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Mike,
I have considered the five scenarios offered in your email. The actual historic growth rates are currently 10.4 to 10.58%
and empirical data suggests that the residential flow rate is 70 gpcd (page 20, Feb. 2006 report).
A 70 gpcd rate is the amount that CG&L generally accepts as typical for residential flow. The revised report estimate of the
residential flow rate of 75.4 gpcd seems to be based on counting all flow as residential and dividing by the number of residents.
This would appear to be counting commercial and industrial flow as part of the residential rate.
The assumption that the town's current rate of growth will continue for approximately 10 years and then decline to approximately
the same as the Wake County growth rate seems to be reasonable. It is likely that the decline in the growth rate will be gradual. I
suggest the population and flow rate model could be tweaked a little by using a 70 gpcd flow rate and a gradual decline in the
population growth, for example between years 2015 and 2020. A example of how this slightly different scenario might look is
attached.
Please call me if there are questions or if you would like to discuss the flow projection.
Larry
Mike Slusher wrote:
Larry & Dan:
Thanks for taking time last week to discuss the flow issues with us.
I've attached a few pages of our revised 201 text (June 2006). CDM/CH2 have reviewed this same language
with Teresa Rodriguez, and it will be in the next DEIS submittal. According to an email yesterday from Ruth
Swanek, Teresa has reviewed this and wants insure the text is consistent in both documents.
As recommended by Dan, we looked at historic growth rates:
Period
Annual Rate
'90 to '95
27.2%
'95 to '00
25.0%
'00 to '03
- 10.4%
'00 to '04 est
10.58%
'95 to '04
18.25%
For the 201 we used 10.4% for the first 10 years, then 2.86% (Wake County, projected 2010-2020) for the
remaining years.
Also as discussed I prepared several scenarios for projected flows, with the bold criteria changing in each. I
also attached a graph comparing all scenarios.
Scenario 1
'As presented in the 201
growth rates =10.4% and 2.86%
2030 population = 61,920
80 gcpd for everyone,
15 gpcd commercial, 0.32 MGD I/I, 10% industrial
ADF reaches 6.0 MGD in 2026 and 6.79 MGD in 2030
Scenario 2
growth rates = 10.4% and 2.86%
1 of 2 8/3/2006 9:17 AM

Re:'Floll'y Springs Flow Projections
2030 population = 61,920
70 gcpd for everyone,
15 gpcd commercial, 0.32 MGD I/1, 10% industrial
ADF reaches 5.84 MGD in 2030
Scenario 3
growth rates = 10.4% and 2.86%
2030 population = 61,920
hold 2004 flows and 80 gcpd for growth population,
15 gpcd commercial, 0.32 MGD I/I, 10% industrial
ADF reaches 6.0 MGD in 2028 and 6.37 MGD in 2030
Scenario 4
growth rates =10.58% and 2.86%
2030 population = 63,130
70 gcpd for all population,
15 gpcd commercial, 0.32 MGD I/I, 10% industrial
ADF reaches 5.96 MGD in 2030
Scenario 5
Mostly closely matches Scenario 1
growth rates = 10.9% and 2.86%
2030 population = 71,900
70 gcpd for all population,
15 gpcd commercial, 0.32 MGD I/I, 10% industrial
ADF reaches 6.0 MGD in 2026, 6.78 MGD in 2030
Once you've had a chance to review this, please give me call and we can discuss in more detail.
Mike Slusher
Davis -Martin -Powell
[phone] x349
Fax [phone]
www.dmp-inc.com
Larry Horton, P.E.
Supervisor, Facilities Evaluation Unit
N. C. Construction Grants & Loans Section
[phone] Voice
[phone] FAX
Holly Springs Pop. & Flow Est.xls
Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Content -Encoding: base64
2 of 2 8/3/2006 9:17 AM

DENR / DWQ / NPDES Unit
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name
Town of Holly Springs / Utley Creek WWTP
Applicant Address
P.O. Box 6, Holly Springs, NC 27540
Facility Address
850 West Ballentine St., Holly Springs, NC 27540
Permitted Flow (MGD)
1.5 MGD
Type of Waste
Domestic/Commercial
Facility Class
IV
County
Wake
Facility Status
Renewal
Regional Office
Raleigh
Stream Characteristics
Receiving Stream
Utley Creek [AU# 18-
7-5.5]
Stream Classification
C
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.73
Drainage basin
Cape Fear
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0.11
Subbasin
03-06-07
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
0.25
Use Support
Not rated
30Q2 (cfs)
0.32
303(d) Listed
No
Average Flow (cfs)
0.82
State Grid
Apex
IWC (%)
95
USGS Topo Quad
E 23 NE
Summary Holly Springs operates a 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of: mechanical
bar screen, grit chamber, anaerobic phosphorus removal basin, pump station, anoxic tank, aeration
tank, package plant with two aeration tanks, two clarifiers and two sludge stabilization tanks, final
clarifier, tertiary filter, UV disinfection system and cascade aerator. Holly Springs doesn't have a
pre-treatment program. Holly Springs has submitted an Environmental Assessment for an expansion
to 6 MGD and connection to the proposed Western Wake Regional Facility discharging to the Cape
Fear River.
Waste Load Allocation (WLA) The Division prepared the last WLA in January 1996 and developed
effluent limits for the expansion to 1.5 MGD. BODS, NH3N, DO and residual chlorine are water
quality limited. In 2005 the Division approved a flow increase to 1.75 MGD based on re -rating the
facility. The re -rating has not taken place yet.
Basinwide Plan Utley Creek from source to Harris Lake (4.6 miles) was Not Rated in the 2000 plan,
and no data were collected to assign a use support rating during this assessment period. Earlier studies
indicated the Holly Springs WWTP was a significant contributor of nutrients to the creek that could
cause algal blooms and subsequent fish kills downstream. Because of the water quality problems
noted above, the 2000 basin plan recommended that Holly Springs pursue other alternatives to a
discharge into Utley Creek. It was also recommended that land use planning be used to prevent
further increases in nutrient loading from the developing watershed. DWQ continues to recommend
that Holly Springs find another wastewater disposal alternative. Further recommendations to protect
streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES Permit NC0063096
Page l

The NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries includes Utley Creek. This
watershed is approximately 80 square miles in size, extending south from the Town of Apex to the
Cape Fear River and east from the Chatham/Wake County line to the Town of Holly Springs. Both
Apex and Holly Springs span the ridgeline that separates the Neuse and Cape Fear River basins. The
watershed contains Harris Lake, an impoundment of Buckhorn Creek, which is used by Progress
Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant for cooling.
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Notices of Violation (NOVs) Penalties were assessed for BOD and Total Suspended Solids
violations on April 2005.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test The permit requires chronic (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%. The
town passed all the toxicity tests for the past five years.
DMR Data Review DMR data were review for the period of January 2004 to December 2005. Limit
exceedances were reported for BOD and TSS in April 2005.
The following table presents a summary of average values:
Flow
BOD
TSS
TN
TP
Ammonia
0.95 MGD
2 mg/L
2.15 mg/L
4.8 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
0.27 mg/L
Instream Data The facility is a member of the Cape Fear Monitoring Coalition. There are no
sampling stations upstream or downstream from the creek where they discharge.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
• Monitoring for conductivity was eliminated from the permit. Conductivity is not required for
facilities that don't receive industrial wastewaters.
• Cape Fear Nutrient Permitting Strategy - For the 2006 permit renewal cycle the Division
developed a permitting strategy to address nutrient concerns in the Cape Fear River Basin.
This strategy is being applied at permit renewal to existing discharges on the basin. The
strategy for the Middle Cape Fear calls for nutrient monitoring and reporting to support the
efforts of the Modeling and TMDL Unit in developing special studies and TMDL projects.
Monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus will remain weekly as your current
permit until January 1, 2009, when monitoring will increase to 3 times per week.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
Fact Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0063096
Page 2
June 21, 2006
August 14, 2006

NPDES UNIT CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
NAME:
Regional Office Comments
NAME: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR:
DATE: 69/15/Crp
DATE:
Fat Sheet
Renewal -- NPDES NC0063096
Page 3

THE TOWN OF
IioIly
rin
P g
S s
P.O.Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
July 28, 2006
Teresa Rodriguez
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: NPDES Draft Permit
Permit No. NC0063096
Dear Ms. Rodriguez,
AUGviyEn
2 2006
DENR - 'MIER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Town staff has reviewed the draft permit for the 2006 permit
renewal cycle and have the following brief comments:
• On Section A (2) of the Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements (1.75 MGD) the measurement
frequency reads monthly. However the corresponding note
# 9 reads to test chronic toxicity in the months of
February, May, August and November. On the other
permits for 1.5MGD and 2.4 MGD the monitoring
requirement for chronic toxicity is quarterly.
• Which department within the Division of Water Quality
should we contact to administer the Authorization to
Operate for the 1.75 MGD permit?
We appreciate your time and consideration. If you have any
further questions or comments please feel free to contact Mr.
Thomas Tillage, Director of Water Quality at [phone].
Sin/er ly,
Carl G. Dean
Town Manager
Town of Holly Springs
CC: Thomas Tillage, Director of Water Quality
Stephanie Sudano, Director of Engineering

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA.l
Wake County. ) ss.
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF
NORTH .CAROLINA '
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617.MAIL -
SERVICE. CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICAOF
INTENT TO ISTISSSUE A
NPDES WASTEWATER
PERMIT.,
On the basis of thorough staff
review
General al Statutends 143 21,oPuub
!lc law 92.500 and other lawful
standards
Caroolind a
Environ-
mental Management Com-
mission proposes to Issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater dis-
charge.
on(s) listed below effective
45 days from the publish date
of this notice.
Wthe tpropn osed permit regarding
accepted until 30 days after
thisAlt omments recte Ofeived s prior
to that date are considered in
the final determinations- re-
garding Director of ih NCDivi-
decideon toto holldra publicmeet-
ing
for the proposed permit
should the Division receive a
significant degree of public
interest.
Copies of the daft permit and
I onfilesupporting
o1determinne
con-
ditions present in the draft
Permit are available upon re-
quest and payment of the
costs of reproduction. Mail
comments and/or requests
for
of Water Qualityat he
above address or call the
Point Source Branch. at
[phone], extension 363.
Please ,include 'the' NPDES
permit
nmuntiooInter-
estedny comicain.
vsitrlualtion of WaeQliy at 512. N..Salisbury Street,
w °eengthe hours Jooff 8:00 a.m
and 5:00 p.m. to review Infor-
mation on file. .
Th Town of Fuquay-Varina (1291
NC 27526)Rhas applied for re-
newal of permit:`NC0028118
for. its WWTPin Waka Coun-
shastadst— dicrgeretepermittedfacility to Kenneth Creek in the
Cape Fear River Basin. Cur-
rently BOD, 'ommonia nitro-
:gen,. fecol conform and -total
residual chlorine are, water
quality limited. This -dis-
charge may affect future al`
locations in 'this portion;af
`Kenneth Creek.,- -
The 'Town oil -lolly Springs,
NPDES NC0063096, has :OP -
plied .fhe renewal of its per-
mit discharging fo:..Utley
Creek in the Cape Fear River
Basin..BOD, ammonia, total
residual chlorine, total- nitro-
gen- wafer quality limited pas
rameters. This discharge
may affect future allocations
to the receiving stream.
N&O: June 24; 2006 . • -
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Chatham
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and authorized to
administer oaths, affirmations, etc., personally appeared Debra
Peebles , who, being duly sworn or affirmed, according to law,
doth depose and say that she is Billing Manager -Legal
Advertising of THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING
COMPANY a corporation organized and doing business under
the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and publishing a
newspaper known as THE NEWS AND OBSERVER, in the
City of Raleigh, County of Wake, the said newspaper in which
such notice, paper, document, or legal advertisement was
published was, at the time of each and every such publication,
a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications
of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section I-
597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and that as such
she makes this affidavit; that she is familiar with the books,
files and business of said corporation and by reference to the
files of said' publication the attached dve • ement for
,4f r..0.� z (g'r.�' ii
was ins rted in the aforesaid newspaper on dates as follows:
44-_,1- 7J3di'3f
spied from the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation and publication.
Debra Peebles Billing Manager -Legal Advertising
Wake County, North Carolina
Sworn or affirmed to, an ubscribed before me, this
a% day of,
by, Debra Peebles.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official sear the day and year aforesaid.
, 2006AD
Janet Scroggs, Notarsf P(£blic
My commission expires l4th day of March 2009.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUN 2 7 201
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
Holly Springs WWTP - NPDES No. NC0063096
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft
permit referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional
review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance, or if
significant comments objecting to the draft permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
C W E [1:))
JUN 2 9 2006 IL)
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa,gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 01 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

Draft Permit reviews (2)
Subject: Draft Permit reviews (2)
From: John Giorgino <john.giorgino®ncmail.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:22:56 -0400
To: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Hi Teresa, I have reviewed NC0063096 - Town of Holly Springs and NC0023868 - East Burlington WWTP. No
comments on each. Thanks for forwarding them.
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 7/24/2006 10:44 AM

s -
W •11 ��Si.'. GIMr.C�F1L.�•�'':'n
July 14, 2006
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E, Director of Engineering
Town of Holly Springs
P. O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sudano:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Available Flows
Town of Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Wake County
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the present availability of flow
capacity in the subject wastewater treatment facility. As you know, the subject permit is
currently being renewed at its present capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day, with discharge to
Utley Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. It also has provisions for accepting flows of 1.75
MGD and 2.4 MGD. Although the allowable discharge to Utley Creek from this facility has
been capped at 2.4 MGD, we understand that you are pursuing an expansion to 6.0 MGD, with
a discharge directly to the Cape Fear River.
A review of existing flows shows that the plant is averaging approximately 1.0 MGD.
Since this is well under the available flows shown on the permit, the Division would have no
concerns with the addition of the flow contribution of 125,000 gallons per day from the
proposed Phase I of the Aardvark manufacturing plant.
If in the future, flows at the Utley Creek Plant begin to approach the 2.4 MGD cap, DWQ
will work with the Town to ensure adequate allocation for future additional flows from the
Aardvark plant. In the worst case, if the outfall line from the Wake County Regional facility is
not yet constructed, the Division will again consider a special order agreement or special
permit conditions to allow the greater flow.
Please understand that this letter does not in any way relieve the Town of its
responsibilities to operate its wastewater treatment facilities responsibly, including the
oversight of any pretreatment by Aardvark, if necessary.
None Carolina
17atura!!ri
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/1 O% Post Consumer Paper

1
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, Town Engineer
July 14, 2006
Page 2
If you have any questions of comments regarding the above, please contact Mr. Gil
Vinzani at 919-733-5083, extension 540.
Sincerely,
as....... irce..1.42_,
Alan W Klimek
Cc: Gil Vinzani
Melba McGee

RE: aardvark letter of request to melba 7 06.doc
Subject: RE: aardvark letter of request to melba 7 06.doc
From: "Stephanie Sudano" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:31:34 -0400
To: "Melba McGee" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Kendra Stephenson" <[e-mail]>, "Jenny Mizelle"
<jenny.mizelle @Hollyspringsnc.us>
125,000 gallons per day for phase 1. thank you!
Note that if a meeting will help, let us know and we will come down
immediately.
Original Message
From: Melba McGee [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Stephanie Sudano
Subject: Re: aardvark letter of request to melba 7 06.doc
Do you know how much wastewater
they would use much.
Aardvark will
use? I wouldn't think
Stephanie Sudano wrote:
Thank you very much! I leave for a mission trip
(I'11 be in the office a couple of hours only)
kendra and jenny with any additional emails and she
handling from here. Thank you very much!
tomorrow around 10am
so please copy
and jenny will be
Original Message
From: Melba McGee [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Stephanie Sudano
Subject: Re: aardvark letter of request to melba 7 06.doc
Just to let you know I am looking into this.
Stephanie Sudano wrote:
Melba, attached is the document we discussed yesterday. Thank you as
always for any assistance you can provide!
1 of 1 7/14/20 6 8:44 AM

[Fwd? Holly Springs]
Subject: [Fwd: Holly Springs]
From: Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:31:48 -0500
To: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Original Message
Subject:Holly Springs
Date:Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:00:03 -0500
From:"Stan Taylor" <[e-mail]>
To:<alan.klimek @ ncmail.net>
Alan,
Thanks for taking your time to discuss the Holly Springs situation with
me yesterday. I have reviewed your letter to the Town of April 26,
2005, and it is very clear that DWQ will allow discharges beyond 1.75
MGD, but it does not mention the 2.4 MGD flow contained in the existing
permit or address the issue of what will happen if the flow in the Holly
Springs plant reaches 2.4 MGD before the Western Wake Outfall is
completed. My understanding from our discussion is that DWQ will allow
Holly Springs to discharge to Utley Creek in excess of the current
permitted limit of 2.4 MGD only until the Western Wake Project outfall
to the Cape Fear River is available for their use, provided the
treatment plant expansion is completed and the discharge is in
compliance with the effluent limits in the permit, including the current
mass based limits on total P and N that become effective if the flow
exceeds 1.75 MGD. If I am correct in my understanding, could you please
confirm this by return e-mail so that I may include this in my report on
the site? It is important for my client to know that the Town will be
able to accept their wastewater flow if they choose the Holly Springs
site, and I certainly want to be accurate in my report to them.
It's always good to talk with you. If you need to, please call me at
271-4465 Thanks again for your help in this matter.
Stan
This email, including any attachment(s) to it, is confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify O'Brien & Gere (OBG) by replying to the original
email and deleting any emails or attachments that you have
received. Please note that any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and do not represent
those of OBG. OBG screens all outgoing emails and attachments
for viruses, however, OBG cannot accept liability for any
damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. The
recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses.
1 of 1 3/22/2006 1:37 PM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, Director
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Hannah Stallings
®A
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
Teresa Rodriguez
EAST NPDES Program
March 15, 2006
Town of Holly Springs Engineering Report February 2006
The EAST NPDES Unit has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments:
• The analysis of past wastewater flows estimated the residential per capita flow at 70 gpcpd. Justify
the use of 80 gpcpd for the residential flow projections for Holly Springs.
• The proposed wastewater treatment facility's capacity is 6.0 MGD, thererfore the permit for the
discharge to the Cape Fear at the Western Wake Regional WTF will be limited at 6.0 MGD.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, Director
To: Hannah Stallings
From: Teresa Rodriguez
EAST NPDES Program
Date: September 27, 2005
A
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Town of Holly Springs 201 Facility Plan Amendment
The NPDES Program has reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments:
• The population and flow estimates presented in the 201 Facility Plan Amendment are different than
the estimates included in the EIS for the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management
Facilities. Population and flow estimates should agree in both documents.
• The flow estimate for the year 2005 is given as 1,728,945 gpd. This estimates seems high given that
the maximum average monthly flow for the first seven months of 2005 was 1.08 MGD and for the
year 2004 it was 1.01 MGD. The projections should be updated based on the most current
information.
• In a previous Environmental Assessment document submitted to the Division the Town of Holly
Springs indicated that the projected wastewater flow at full development was between 4.9 and 5.0
MGD. The 201 Facilities Plan Amendment now projects this flow to be 6.1 MGD, and the Western
Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities EIS projects this flow to be 8.28 MGD. A
discussion of the population and flow at full development should be included. Furthermore,
Progress Energy lands around the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant appear to be included in the
planning area for the town. Since the development of the land around the nuclear plant is unlikely,
this area should be reevaluated.
• The speculative limits for 8 MGD included in the document apply only to the connection to the
effluent line from the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facility. These speculative
effluent limits do not apply to a discharge to Utley Creek. The Division has informed Holly Springs
that in the event that the flows exceed the permitted flow before the Western Wake Regional
Facility is in place the Division will consider a SOC or appropriate permit conditions to allow the
continued discharge to Utley Creek.

Holly Springs
Holly Springs 201 Facility Plan
Population Projections* Flow projections (GPD)
2005 15,096 1,728,946
2010 24,740 2,631,220
2020 46,710 4,685,415
2030 61,920 6,107,550
*used 10.6 % for first 10 yrs
then 2.86 % (Wake Co growth)
for remainder
Western Wake Regional WMF - EIS
Population Projections* Flow projections (MGD)
2005 14,540
2010 22,500
2020 37,500
2030 52,500
*Engineering study
Apex
Population Projections*
2005 28330
2010 34000
2020 60820
2030 100400
*Modified Jordan Lake
Allocations for the EIS
Cary
Population Projections*
2005 113460
2010 145720
2020 204520
2030 242930
*CAMPO, land use plans
Morrisville
Population Projections*
2005
2010
2020
2030
7920
15700
23580
27000
*Jordan Lake Allocation
1.239
3.12
5
6.9
Cape Fear Basin
Flow projections (MGD)**
1.538
2.347
4.447
7.073
**Only the portion on Cape
Fear to go to WWRWMF
Flow projections (MGD)**
4.47
9.75
12.69
Includes Morrisville
Flow projections (MGD)
Neuse Basin
Flow projections (MGD)**
0.65
0.85
1.117
1.87

7.4.4 Shaddox Creek [AU# 16-43]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Shaddox Creek from source to Haw River (8.1 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life on an
evaluated basis because Sierrapine Limited (NC0040701) had significant violations of total
suspended solids permit limits, which could have adversely impacted aquatic life in this stream.
The facility installed screens that have solved the TSS violations. The NPDES compliance
process will be used to address the significant permit violations noted above.
7.4.5 Utley Creek [AU# 18-7-5.5]
Current Status and 2005 Recommendations
Utley Creek from source to Harris Lake (4.6 miles) was Not Rated in the 2000 plan, and no data
were collected to assign a use support rating during this assessment period. Earlier studies
indicated the Holly Springs WWTP was a significant contributor of nutrients to the creek that
could cause algal blooms and subsequent fish kills downstream. Because of the water quality
problems noted above, the 2000 basin plan recommended that Holly Springs pursue other
alternatives to a discharge into Utley Creek. It was also recommended that land use planning be
used to prevent further increases in nutrient loading from the developing watershed. DWQ
continues to recommend that Holly Springs find another wastewater disposal alternative. Further
recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing urban
areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Water Quality Initiatives
The NCEEP Local Watershed Plan for Harris Lake and Tributaries includes Utley Creek. This
watershed is approximately 80 square miles in size, extending south from the Town of Apex to
the Cape Fear River and east from the Chatham/Wake County line to the Town of Holly Springs.
Both Apex and Holly Springs span the ridgeline that separates the Neuse and Cape Fear River
basins. The watershed contains Harris Lake, an impoundment of Buckhorn Creek, which is used
by Progress Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant for cooling. The Local Watershed Plan for
Middle Cape Fear and Kenneth/Harris Creeks may be viewed at:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/Harris-Kcnneth/Harris-Kenneth.htm
Chapter 7 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-07 84

An increase in sediment pollution is predicted to coincide with future development. To a
lesser extent, nutrient pollution is also predicted to increase. Sediment yield is predicted
to more than double by 2020 in the Little White Oak Creek and White Oak Creek FAUs,
and there will likely also be large increases in the Kenneth Creek and Utley Creek FAUs
(Table 4.3) Portions of Neills Creek area are predicted to see smaller but significant
sediment yield increases under anticipated future land use conditions. Relatively large
increases in nutrients, particularly phosphorus, are predicted in the Little White Oak
Creek and Utley Creek FAUs (Table 4.3).
The predicted changes in pollutant yield and associated changes in instream
concentrations under the anticipated development are relevant to the functional status of
study area streams. Water quality and aquatic habitat in seven of the FAUs (Little White
Oak Creek, White Oak Creek, Utley Creek, Middle/Lower Neills Creek, Kenneth Creek -
Suburban, Upper Neills Creek and Kenneth Creek -Rural) are threatened by these large
changes in pollutant loading. Harris Lake is also threatened by the predicted increase of
delivered nutrients. Only the relatively undisturbed portions of the study area and the
presently build out area around Kenneth Creek are unlikely to see major changes in water
quality and habitat function. If development continues at its current rate, 65% of the
study area will face new threats to functional qualities.
Table 4.3 Predicted Changes in Pollutant Yields by FAU, 2004 — 2020.
FAU
Sediment
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Little White Oak Creek
105%
19%
28%
White Oak Creek
288%
20%
13%
Utley Creek
86%
15%
61%
Buckhorn Creek
-1%
-2%
4%
Parkers Creek
-4%
9%
-2%
Avents Creek
0%
-4%
-5%
Hector Creek
3%
11 %
16%
Middle/Lower Neills
-8%
37%
39%
Kenneth Creek - Suburban
69%
31 %
8%
Kenneth Creek - Urban
6%
6%
-4%
Upper Neills Creek - Urban
22%
17%
11 %
Kenneth Creek - Rural
32%
16%
9%
4.2 Land Use Controls to Minimize Development Impacts
4.2.1 Low Impact Development
One possible solution to the impacts from new development is the implementation of low
impact development (LID) design practices. LID is a suite of design practices to
conserve natural systems and reduce infrastructure footprints and costs. Goals may
include preserving open space, minimizing land disturbance, protecting natural features,
and implementing processes that provide "green" infrastructure. LID is best suited for
new suburban development. Relevant practices for the protection of functional processes
within the study area include stormwater management designed to approach or achieve
4-7

pre -development hydrologic conditions for the post -development period, and the
preservation of riparian buffers as greenways.
LID may be implemented at different intensities and over different areas depending on
need, economic feasibility, and political will. In order to evaluate the potential of LID to
address functional deficits resulting from future development in the study area, two
possible LID development scenarios were developed. A modest implementation of LID
practices for the study area was used to represent development configurations that
reduced new impervious surfaces and limited new stormwater collection systems. Under
this moderate LID implementation scenario, new development would involve only 75%
of the impervious surface area and only 70% of the curb length expected under standard
development. Existing high value riparian buffers protected would also be protected
throughout the watershed.
Aggressive implementation of LID practices would aim to protect existing hydrographs
throughout the study area. Hydrographs would be maintained by the common and
widespread installation of onsite infiltration devices. In addition, essentially all existing
riparian buffers would be protected.
Both the moderate and aggressive LID scenarios were parameterized and used to drive
SWAT model runs to determine the general potential of LID to mitigate the impacts from
anticipated land use change in the study area. Results of this analysis are presented in
Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Predicted Sediment Load Reductions under LID Development Scenarios.
FAU
Standard
Development
Moderate LID
Aggressive LID
Little White Oak Creek
105%
95%
28%
White Oak Creek
288%
213%
13%
Utley Creek
86%
81%
15%
Buckhorn Creek
0%
0%
0%
Parkers Creek
0%
0%
0%
Avents Creek
0%
0%
0%
Hector Creek
3%
3%
3%
Middle/Lower Neills
0%
0%
0%
Kenneth Creek - Suburban
69%
50%
8%
Kenneth Creek - Urban
6%
6%
6%
Upper Neills Creek - Urban
22%
17%
11 %
Kenneth Creek - Rural
32%
16%
9%
In general, moderate LID practices, even if widespread, are not by themselves sufficient
to significantly reduce the threat of future development to functional processes within the
study area. However, aggressive application of LID does address the majority of impacts
from future development. Given the broad range of functional conditions of the 12
FAUs, one possible solution is to consider watershed -wide implementation of moderate
LID practices with aggressive LID practices prescribed in key areas.
4-8

5 Conclusions and Action Items
This report identifies a number of opportunities to restore and protect watershed function
throughout the middle Cape Fear local watershed plan study area. Prioritized project
information sheets are included in Appendices 1 through 4.
Given the vulnerable condition of the natural resources in this area, it is vital to expedite
implementation of the efforts recommended in this report. Many watershed functions are
already degraded or threatened by current development, and future development is likely
to continue at the same or, potentially, an accelerated pace. Failure to act will likely put
municipalities and agencies in a reactive, rather than a proactive, position. This is a more
costly and less effective approach to management, similar to the difference between
retrofit stormwater BMPs and new development stormwater BMPs (Section 2.4).
Additionally, it is more difficult to restore non-functioning habitat, hydrology, or water
quality than it is to restore areas that are at risk.
Many of the opportunities presented in this report can be undertaken by the EEP, while
others will need the involvement of local governments and other watershed stakeholders.
Outlined below are a number of steps that can be taken to begin the process of
implementing the recommendations in this report.
• EEP can capitalize on mitigation opportunities to fund stream and wetland
restoration projects, and possibly stormwater and agriculture BMPs. EEP is in a
good position to implement projects, having funded the development of the local
watershed plan and formed relationships with watershed stakeholders. Initiating
implementation can provide on -the -ground examples that contribute to
community education and encourage additional restoration efforts.
■ Local governments should undertake efforts to implement LID requirements.
Since it will be necessary to obtain buy -in from town council members and
county commissioners, meetings should be held to present the findings from the
local watershed plan. If it is not possible to achieve community buy -in to
implement aggressive LID practices throughout the towns and county, it may be
feasible to adopt moderate LID practices with aggressive LID practices prescribed
in key areas (e.g., headwaters).
• In addition to adoption of LID practices, local governments should adopt
stormwater ordinances to alleviate the effects of development. The Neuse River
stormwater requirements are a good example of a sample policy.
• Local governments should seek funding sources to implement additional
watershed efforts. Funding sources include the US Environmental Protection
Agency's Section 319 funds for nonpoint source management; the NC Clean
Water Management Trust Fund; institution of a stormwater utility; and municipal
bonds, as well as others. The for ner two measures may be more politically
feasible because they provide outright grants, though a cost share is required. In-
5-1

kind services and land donations could be used to provide cost share equivalents.
The utility or bonds are both essentially taxes, but are guaranteed to provide
funds.
• Local governments should decide how to allocate limited resources and choose
which opportunities to pursue. For instance, they may want to focus on a
particular type of opportunity - preservation, restoration, or BMPs. Such
decisions are value judgments that may vary between different local governments.
Limited resources may be spread between opportunity categories and locations
(e.g., FAUs), or they may be combined for more targeted results.
• It will be important for all involved stakeholders to monitor before and after
opportunity implementation. Documenting results validates the investment. It
also allows adjustments to be made if the practice is not performing as expected.
For example, maintenance or changes to vegetation types may be required.
• Efforts should be made to contact Progress Energy and other large landowners
regarding preservation opportunities. These opportunities would ensure future
watershed function in a number of areas. This practice is a much more cost-
effective than funding restoration efforts after development has occurred.
5-2

1
HISTORICAL SUMMARY
The review of the May 2003 to May 2004 DMR's show that in general this facility is operating very well. The
following average and peak parameters were observed:
Average Average
Parameter Influent Effluent
Flow ----- 0.89 MGD
BOD 322 mg/L 1.8 mg/L
NH4 32 mg/L 0.35 mg/L
TSS 372 mg/L 2.1 mg/L
TN 46 mg/L . 4.5 mg/L !-
TP 3 mg/L 0.45 mg/L V/
Fecal <5 mg/L
Despite the variations in influent BOD and TSS, percent removal of BOD, TSS, and Ammonia have all averaged
99%.
The Town is has identified two industrial sources of high strength wastewater, and is currently working to
resolve these problems..
DESIGN
A few components will be operating above typical loading rates:
o The plant piping is adequate for the increased peak flow without overflow or process interferences.
o Effluent filters loading will be 2.3 gpm/SF; slightly above the typical 2.0 gpm/SF. This is within the
general range of 2 - 6 gpm/SF, which may require more frequent backwashing.
o The UV system will operate at 38 GPM per lamp at peak flow. Normal operation will be about 15
gpm/lamp. The Manufacturer has reviewed this system and indicated it can handle the proposed flows
with regular Tamp cleaning and replacements.
o Use of the PTU's second aeration basin for waste sludge storage must be discontinued, resulting. in a
loss in storage volume. Timely land disposal will be critical to performance, as will the use of alternate
disposal methods, such as composting to maintain proper level of sludge in the process.
o The Town has not previously operated the EIMCO Carrousel to optimize denitriflcation, however
effluent nitrogen levels have generally averaged less than 6 mg/L. Operators will work with EIMCO to
improve the nitrogen removal efficiency of the process.
Preliminary Design Criteria
Component Average Peak
Anaerobic Zone 1.96 0.79 Hours Detention
Oxidation Ditch Flow 1.375 MGD
Oxidation Ditch 20.0 Hours Detention
PTU Aeration Flow 0.375 MGD
PTU Aeration 20.1 ---- Hours Detention
PTU Clarifiers #1, #2 347 868 Surface Loading, GPD/SF
Clarifier #3 357 893 Surface Loading, GPD/SF
Effluent Filters 2.28 5.70 Surface Loading, gpm/SF

2- IC- 2006 Mee-/io5 / 1 K. o-E kvl
G/L V1NZA N 1
„i6nrz_.
Ma k.a
Je.ax,v`.�5.�
C , _t_Ka/ (3/eem SArlo s
zz
• Src'KS 5
G fin,
S?rugs
0‘. 0. b.ISEA 1-6) 1 61n5
C?:/97335-72day_t__-.‘
733 Sot 3 x 5 Le 0
73 3-S7M 3 x SS 3
71a Sktki 1 x �o
33- y>a/
H-?3-SUv
2s2-
.d1
S5 1- 2`10 1

Re: Wednesday 2/15 Meeting
Subject: Re: Wednesday 2/15 Meeting
From: Paul Rawls <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:19:57 -0500
CC: Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, "tom.reeder» Tom.reeder" <[e-mail]>, Gil Vinzani
<[e-mail]>, Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Alan Klimek <[e-mail]>, "lois.thomas" <[e-mail]>
FYI
I spoke with Cyndi this morning and she indicated that she would speak with the COE today to see what their position is on
the matter. She said that she would get back with me today if at all possible, she's on the road for the next two days.
Thanks
Paul Rawls wrote:
I believe Coleen is right, if phone calls are good enough lets make it happen that way.
Tom/Cyndi if you feel we can't work it out via telephone please let me know.
Thanks
Paul .
Coleen Sullins wrote:
I just got off the phone with Leo Green about the Holly Springs NPDES permit expansion. We agreed to allow that
expansion to move forward ONLY IF they simultaneously applied for the permit to connect 10 the Western Wake
Facility Outfall. My understanding is that the COE is not wanting to issue the 404 for the outfall of a project that may
not be built for another four years. However, this is a condition of the NPDES expansion, which is now waiting in the
wings. Leo wants to bring the COE representatives in to meet with us, so that they can understand why Holly Springs
is applying for the 404 for that outfall. Apparently the COE is not willing to proceed without a meeting (phone calls
were suggested, but declined per Leo).
Cyndi/Tom - you may not have been involved in this one in the past. We have excellent reasons for the requirement,
based on history. Since you may have some of the same reservations as the COE, we need for everyone to be on
the same page.
I personally don't see why a meeting is needed, but if it is the only thing that is going to break this thing loose, then
meet we will. Please let Lois know when you are available on the 15th. Coleen
1 of 1 2/15/2006 8:47 AM

Melba, as a follow up to our conversation earlier today, attached is an electronic copy of
the language I provided to you at that time plus additional language to explain more
succinctly the reason for letter we have requested from DENR. Let me stress that Holly
Springs needs this letter asap (by end of business day Thursday July 13th if at all possible)
in order to eliminate any potential concerns of the client's with respect to wastewater
capacity in time for them to consider this in their final decision. With recent experience
on another significant project fresh on all of our minds, we are committed to being as
proactive as possible in addressing issues that arise — or have the potential to arise -
during this company's evaluation of our site. I speak for our Holly Springs team in
thanking you and the rest of DENR staff in partnering with us to succeed in securing this
regionally significant project. You have been invaluable to that end. With that said, here
is the information that you requested:
The Town's expansion of its wastewater treatment plant capacity from 1.5 mgd to
6.0 mgd is well underway (and has been for some time). When the plant comes
on line, it will be sized to accommodate 6.0 mgd of flow, however the NPDES ei G
permit for the current discharge into Utley Creek will remain at 2.4 mgd. - � o ,k 3
� tk o
According to DENR, the Utley NPDES discharge permit will remain in effect
��' ,'k`
ji until such time as the Western Wake Regional Facility (of which Holly Springs is t0v,,�.1r
a full partner in the effluent portion of the plant) comes on line — estimated to be r'
2011. At that time, Holly Springs NPDES discharge permit into Utley Creek will
go away, and be replaced by an NPDES discharge permit into the Cape Fear
River in the amount of 8mgd. With the Aardvark project plus continued growth
in the area, we expect for flows to exceed the 2.4 mgd threshold prior to 2011.
Our experience with the other major industrial project that was recently
considering Holly Springs (and North Carolina) was that they were extremely
concerned with the gap that will occur when Holly Springs' discharge into Utley
Creek exceeds 2.4 mgd, however regional facilities are not yet in place to convey
that discharge to the Cape Fear River (where the permit will allow 8 mgd to be
discharged). This was one of the major issues that impacted their decision to
eliminate the Holly Springs site from consideration. While we were able to
secure some verbal assurance from DWQ, it was not (and is not) sufficient to
mitigate the risks contemplated by these companies in site selection decisions.
With Holly Springs' willing commitment to expanding wastewater facilities in the
manner that DWQ has mandated (elimination of a discharge into Utley Creek) —
backed up by significant contractual and financial commitments — we believe that
this experience was an unnecessary stumbling block, and a significant loss for the
region and the State. The Town of Holly Springs needs very clear written
documentation from the State Division of Water Quality of their willingness to
bridge the gap that will occur between the current discharge permit and the
discharge that will be permitted when the regional plant is on line (2011).