NC0026051_Permit Issuance_20020522

QTn
NCDENR
Mr. Chuck Hill, Utility Division Manager
Durham County
120 Parrish Street, Law Bldg.
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Dear Mr. Hill:
Michael F. Easley
Govemor
William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
May 22. 2002
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0026051
Durham County Triangle WWTP
Durham County
Division staff have reviewed and approved your application for an NPDES discharge permit.
Accordingly, the Division is forwarding the subject 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as
subsequently amended).
The following items appear in this FINAL permit:
Permit Additions
• Addition of a 12 MGD phased effluent sheet, which will become effective upon receipt of the
Engineer's Certificate of construction completion to 12 MGD.
• Addition of an annual Total Phosphorus (TP) mass limit of 10,204 pounds for the phased 12 MGD
flow, based on freezing actual current TP loading to Lake Jordan due to evidence of nutrient
enrichment. At 12 MGD, this load translates to an average TP concentration of 0.28 mg/L, and
represents a 50% reduction from current permitted loading. Currently, this facility must comply
with a TP concentration limit of 0.5 mg/L (summer) and 2 mg/L (winter).
• Addition of an annual Total Nitrogen (TN) mass limit of 100,452 pounds to both the 6 MGD and
12 MGD flows based on HB 515 requirements. This TN limit was originally scheduled in the draft
permit to become effective with the calendar year beginning January 1, 2003. However, based on
permit delays and the anticipated construction upgrade schedule, a two-year compliance
schedule has been included in this final permit, which will delay the TN mass limit until calendar
year 2005. This compliance schedule was based on the anticipated Phase II construction
completion date of end of 2004 for the biological nutrient removal system. TN monitoring has
also been changed from monthly to weekly. At 12 MGD, this load translates to an average TN
concentration of 2.75 mg/L. This mass limit represents a 49% reduction from current actual TN
loading, and a 69% reduction from current permitted loading (assuming an average TN effluent
concentration of 18 mg/L).
• Addition of a 250 mg/L limit and weekly monitoring for chloride, based on reasonable potential to
exceed the NC water quality standard for water -supply waters. The permittee commented on this
item in the draft permit, requesting that the chloride limit be raised or eliminated in the final.
The chloride limit is retained in this final without change, since there is no basis to remove it. It
is recommended that the facility investigate potential sources of chloride to the WWTP if levels
start approaching the permit limit. Based on the chemical formulation of sodium aluminate
(NaA1O2), it does not appear that use of this chemical for phosphorus precipitation would add
chloride to the treatment system.
• Addition of a Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limit of 17 µg/L for the 12 MGD flow, based on the
NPDES TRC permitting policy. Please note that monitoring and/or limits for TRC and chlorine
byproducts are applicable only if chlorine is added to the treatment system. The permittee has
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: [phone]
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center. 1 800 623-7748

Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0026051
Durham County Triangle WWTP
Page 2
stated that the facility will switch to UV disinfection, which should reduce the future use of
chlorine.
• Subsequent to the draft permit, the permittee requested the option to reuse a small portion of the
treated wastewater effluent for onsite internal uses (e.g., toilets, HVAC, vehicle wash) to conserve
water. The Division supports these reuse efforts, and this final permit provides for a reuse
option. Specific requirements associated with onsite reuse of effluent have been added in Special
Condition A. (6).
• Subsequent to the draft permit, the US EPA commented that the final permit should have a
weekly average limit for ammonia in addition to the monthly average limit. In this final permit,
the Division has added Special Condition A. (7) (Ammonia Reopener) to address the EPA concern.
The reopener will be exercised (and a weekly average limit will be added) if a reasonable potential
analysis shows ammonia to exceed allowable concentrations. Otherwise, the weekly average limit
will be added at the next permit renewal.
• Although the previous mercury limit was deleted in the draft permit based on lack of reasonable
potential to exceed the water quality standard, a daily maximum mercury limit of 0.012 µg/L has
been added back to this final permit. This addition is based on recent mercury detections that
show reasonable potential. Since the receiving stream has a summer 7Q10 flow = 0 cfs, there is
no dilution factor used to calculate the mercury limit, hence the limit equals the water quality
standard of 0.012 µg/L. Subsequent to the draft permit. the Division also negotiated an
agreement with US EPA to require NPDES facilities to start using a new mercury laboratory
method when analyzing for mercury. The most commonly used laboratory method (EPA Method
245.1) has a detection limit of 0.2 µg/L, which is an order of magnitude higher than the water
quality standard. A more sensitive lab method (EPA Method 1631) was recently approved by EPA
and should produce a detection limit below the water quality standard, which will allow the
Division to assess potential water quality impacts from discharges more accurately. Therefore,
beginning on or before September 1, 2003, you will be required to begin using EPA Method 1631
when analyzing for mercury. Please note that effluent limits and monitoring may be reduced or
deleted in the future upon written notification of the Division, if the permittee provides updated
effluent data (recommended one-year period) that shows no reasonable potential to exceed the
water quality standard.
Permit Deletions
• Deletion of limits and weekly monitoring for methylene chloride and 1,2-Dichloroethane, based
on lack of reasonable potential to exceed EPA criteria.
• Deletion of limit for chloroform, and change in monitoring from weekly to 2/Month. There was
no reasonable potential to exceed EPA criteria, but chloroform was detected in 46 of 57 samples
and therefore monitoring is retained.
• Following the draft permit, the permittee requested that limits for bromodichloromethane and
dibromodichloromethane be eliminated in lieu of the TRC limit. This request is denied, since the
limits are based on different protection criteria (IRC is protective of aquatic life, while the other
limits are protective of human health). Please note that these limits and monitoring are
applicable only when chlorine is added to the treatment system, and may not be applicable when
the facility converts to UV disinfection.
• Deletion of 2/Month monitoring for toluene, based on the lack of reasonable potential to exceed
NC water quality standards. Toluene was not detected in 57 samples.
• Deletion of limits and daily monitoring for lead, nickel. and cyanide, based on lack of reasonable
potential to exceed NC water quality standards. Effluent monitoring for these parameters will
continue quarterly under the Pretreatment LTMP program.
Miscellaneous
• Change the limit for bromodichloromethane from 0.85 µg/L to 1.8 µg/L, based on updated EPA
human health criteria. Monitoring is maintained at a weekly basis.
• The instream monitoring requirements have been waived as long as the permittee retains
membership in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA), which contracts out the
instream monitoring requirements for the upper basin members.
• The boilerplate language requires the permittee to continually evaluate wastewater disposal
alternatives. It is recommended that Durham County continue to explore reuse options with

Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0026051
Durham County Triangle WWTP
Page 3
each new high water use facility, including expansions of existing facilities. Annual mass limits
for TN should provide operational flexibility and allow consideration of reuse as a viable option.
• Please note that this facility discharges to Northeast Creek, which is listed as impaired water
(Partially Supporting) in the Draft 2000 303(d) list due to fecal coliform bacteria, and a fecal
TMDL is in preparation. It is the plan of the Division to work for the improvement and recovery
of the waterbody. If there is noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and degradation of the
creek can be attributed to this point source, then mitigative measures may be necessary.
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 a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice 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, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or any other federal or
local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Tom Belnick at telephone number
[phone], extension 543.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
GregoryBtUd , Ph.D.
cc: Central Files
DatkES Unit '
Marshall Hyatt, EPA Region 4
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit
Technical Assistance & Certification Unit
Aquatic Toxicology Unit

Permit NC0026051
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,
Durham County
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Durham County Triangle WWTP
5926 NC Highway 55
Durham County
to receiving waters designated as Northeast 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 July 1, 2002.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2006.
Signed this day May 22, 2002.
ORIGINAL SIGNED SY
SILL REID
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0026051
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Durham County is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate the existing 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility located
south of Durham at the Durham County Triangle WWTP off NC Highway 55 in
Durham County. The facility includes the following treatment components:
• Mechanical bar screen
• Mechanical grit removal
• Parshall flume
• Influent pump station
• Dual train extended aeration basins
• Chemical phosphorus removal
• Dual secondary clarifiers
• Tertiary filters
• Chlorine gas disinfection
• Sludge lagoons
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct from the Division, construct and
operate an expansion to a 12.0 MGD wastewater treatment system. This
upgrade/expansion will include a biological nutrient removal system and an onsite
wastewater reuse system which will return a small portion of treated effluent back
to the new Administration/Laboratory Building for internal uses; and
3. Discharge from said treatment works (via Outfall 001) into Northeast Creek, a
Class WS-IV NSW water in the Cape Fear River Basin, at the location specified on
the attached map.

Latitude:
Longitude:
USGS Quad #:
River Basin #:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Class:

Permit NC0026051
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (6.0 MGD)
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration or expansion beyond 6.0 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:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample Location
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD. 5-day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)1
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
BOD, 5-day. 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)'
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October 31)
1.0 mg/L
2
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March 31)
1.8 mg/L
2
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chloroform3
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Bromodichloromethane3
1.8 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Dibromochloromethane3
1.3 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 nil
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH5
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)6
No Limit (mg/L
No Limit (pounds/month)
Annual Limit: 100,452 pounds/years
Weekly
Monthly
Annual
Composite
Calculated
Calculate
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
(April 1 - October 31)7
0.5 mg/L7
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
(November 1 - March 31)7
2.0 mg/L7
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity$
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Mercury9
0.012 µg/L
Weekly
Composite9
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chloride
250 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. The monthly average effluent BODS and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%
removal).
2. Ammonia weekly average limit to be developed at a later date. Refer to Special Condition A (7).
3. Limit and/or monitoring applies only when chlorine added to treatment system.
4. The daily effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. Refer to Special Condition A (4) for Total Nitrogen Loading Calculation. The TN annual mass limit becomes effective with
the calendar year beginning January 1. 2005.
7. Compliance shall be based on a quarterly average of weekly samples. Winter Quarters = Jan -Mar. and Oct. -Dec.. while
Summer Quarters = Apr. -June and July -Sept.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90%; Feb., May. Aug.. and Nov.; refer to Special Condition A (5).
9. Mercury samples subject to EPA Method 1631 analysis (beginning 9/ 1 /03) shall be collected as single grab samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0026051
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (12.0 MGD)
Beginning upon expansion above 6.0 MGD and lasting until 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:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency ,
Sample
Type
Sample
Locations
FlowContinuous
12.0 MGD
Recording
Influent or
Effluent
BOD,5-day, 20°C
(April 1- October 31)1
5.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
InflueEfflnt and
uet
BOD.5-day, 20°C
(November 1 - March 31)'
10.0 mg/L
g
15.0 m /L
g
Daily
Composite
Influent and
Effluent
i
Total Suspended Solids'
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
DailyComposite
P
Influent and
Effluent
NH3 as N (April 1- October 31)
1.0 mg/L
2
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March 31)
1.8 mg/L
2
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Total Residual Chlortne3
17 µg/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Chloroform3
2/Month
Grab
Effluent
Bromodichloromethane3
1.8 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Dibromochloromethane3
1.3 µg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Colifonn
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 rril
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH5
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+IKN)6
No Limit (mg/L)
No Limit (pounds/month)
Annual Limit: 100.452 pounds/year6
Weekly
Monthly
Annually
Composite
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Total Phosphorus6
No Limit (mg/L)
No Limit (pounds/month)
Annual Limit: 10,204 pounds/year6
Weekly
Monthly
Annually
Composite
Calculated
Calculated
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity'
guarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Mercury8
0.012 µg/L
Weekly
Composite8
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chloride
250 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85%
removal).
2. Ammonia weekly average limit to be developed at a later date; refer to Special Condition A (7).
3. Limit and/or monitoring applies only when chlorine added to treatment system.
4. The daily effluent dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
6. Refer to Special Condition A (4) for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loading Calculations. The TN and TP annual
mass limits become effective with the calendar year beginning January 1, 2005.
7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 90%; Feb.. May. Aug., and Nov.; refer to Special Condition A (5).
8. Mercury samples subject to EPA Method I631 analysis (beginning 9/ 1 /03) shall be collected as single grab samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
s

Permit NC0026051
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (3) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning upon the permit effective date and lasting until expiration. the Permittee shall monitor instream
conditions as specified below':
INSTREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Measurement
Frequency
Sample Type
Sample Location
Dissolved Oxygen
3/Week3
Grab
Upstream, D 1, D2
Temperature
3/Week3
Grab
Upstream. D1, D2
Conductivity
3/Week3
Grab
Upstream. D1. D2
Fecal coliform
3/Week3
Grab
Upstream, D1, D2
pH
3/Week4
Grab
Upstream. D1, D2
Total Phosphorus
Weekly4
Grab
Upstream. D 1, D2
PO4
Weekly4
Grab
Upstream. DI . D2
TKN
Weekly4
Grab
Upstream, DI. D2
NO2 + NO3
Weekly4
Grab
Upstream. D1, D2
NH3 as N
Weekly4
Grab
Upstream. D 1, D2
Notes:
1. As a participant in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements as
stated above are waived. Should your membership in the association be terminated, you shall notify the
Division immediately and the instream monitoring requirements specified in your permit shall be reinstated.
2. Upstream = at NCSR 1102. DI = Downstream at NCSR 1100. D2 = Downstream at NCSR 1732.
3. Samples shall be collected 3/Week during June -September and Weekly during October -May.
4. Samples shall be collected during June -September only.
A. (4) TOTAL NITROGEN and TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING CALCULATIONS
The Permittee shall calculate and report the annual mass loading of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)
as the sum of monthly loadings. according to the following equations:
(1) Monthly Mass Loading (pounds/month) = TN (or TP) a Q x 8.34
where:
TN (or TP) = The average total nitrogen (or total phosphorus) concentration (mg/L) of the weekly
composite samples collected during the month
g = The total wastewater flow discharged during the month (MG/month)
8.34 = Conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
(2) Annual Mass Loading (pounds/yr) = Sum of Monthly Mass Loadings for the calendar year
The Permittee shall report the total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations for each sample and the
monthly mass loading in the appropriate monthly self -monitoring report. and the annual mass loading of
total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the December self -monitoring report for the year. TN and TP loading
calculations are required with the calendar year beginning January 1. 2005.

Permit NC0026051
A (5) QUARTERLY CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT
6.0 MGD and 12.0 MGD
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, auarteriq 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: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Branch 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 NC002605 1
A. (6) REUSE OF TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
The effluent from the Durham County Triangle WWTP is authorized for onsite reuse subject to
the following conditions:
• The reuse water will be used onsite, within the fenced perimeter of the wastewater
treatment plant with controlled public access, and for very specific internal uses (Le.,
restrooms, I-iVAC system, and vehicle washdown).
• The reuse water will be used by plant personnel who are trained and knowledgeable about
reuse water.
• An RPZ device will be required onsite to protect the potable water supply.
• A water meter will be installed on the reuse line to monitor usage.
• No runoff shall occur from the vehicle washdown area.
• Reuse piping valves will be properly labeled and locking.
A. (7) AMMONIA REOPENER
The Division may re -open this permit to require weekly average limits for ammonia. After
calculating allowable concentrations, the Division will perform an analysis of past ammonia
data to determine if there is a reasonable potential for this discharge to exceed these potential
limits. If there is reasonable potential, this permit will be re -opened and weekly average limits
added. If there is not reasonable potential, the permit will not be re -opened, but will contain
weekly average limits for ammonia upon renewal.

Af4f7Wil
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of North Carolina
County of Durham
Donna B. Minor being duly sworn says that she is the
Principal Clerk of The Durham Herald Co., Inc., publishers
of The Herald -Sun, a newspaper published in and of general
circulation in said County, and that a notice of which the
annexed is a true copy, was published in said newspaper one
time on the 6th day of July, 2001.
Principal Clerk
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of July,
2001.
nu,)-yk.t)
90/14blic
My commission expires December 16, 2001.
Durham County, North Carolina
vi�1,t603tingh —1
tls( ...rbas
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE,QF
NORTH CARO111
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/
NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE
CENTER
RALEIGH, NC
27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF
INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES WASTEWATER
PERMIT
On the bans of thorough
staff review and applica-
tion of NC Generol Stat-
ute 143.21, Public law 92-
500 and other lawful
standards and regulations
the North Carolina Envi-
1 ronmental Management
Commission proposes to
ssue o Notional Pollutant
I Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) wastewater
dischangge permit to. the
I person(s) listed on the at-
tached pages. effective 45 ,
day from be publish date
of this notice.
Written comments regard-
ing the proposed permit will be ocbepted until 30
days after the publish
date of this notice.. All
comments received prior
to that date are consid-
ered in the final determi-
nation regarding the pro-
posed permit. The Direc-
tor of the NC Division of
Water Quality may decide,
to hold a public meeting'
for the proposed permit
should the Division re-
calve a significant degree
of public interest.
Copies of the draft permit
and other supporting infor-
mation on file used to de-
termine conditions pres-
ent in the draft permit are
available upon request
of rreep odnt of elionste costs
Mo Moil
comments and/or- re-
quests for inforrnation to
the NC Division of Water
Quality' at the above ad-
dress or call Ms. Christie
Jackson at (919) 733-
5083, extension 538.
Please include the NPDES
permit number (attached)
in any communication. In-
terested persons may also
visit the Division of Woter
Quality at 512 N. Solis -
bury Street, Raleigh, NC
27604-1148 between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. to receive infor-
mation on file,
NPDES Permit Number
NC0026051, DURHAM
CO -TRIANGLE WWTP,
301 W. MAIN ST., 7TH
FLOOR, DURHAM, NC
27701 has applied for o
permit renewal and expan-
sion for a facility located
in DURHAM County dis-
charging treated wastewo-
ter into NORTHEAST
CREEK in the CAPE FEAR
River Basin. Currently sev-
eral parameters are water
quality limited. This dis-
charge may affect future
1 allocations in this portion
of the receiving stream.
H-S: July 6, 2001

NC0026051 - Durham Co. Triangle WWTI
•
El) ci) air/coifc'el.
Subject: NC0026051 - Durham Co. Triangle WWTP
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:33:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
I am so sorry! I thought I'd sent comments re this to you a while ago
because I did do this one first. Thanks for the reminder now.
The only comment I have is the lack of weekly avg limits for ammonia.
C011 C urif-ram cfr)
1 of 1 2/19/02 11:07 AM

Durham County Triangle; NC0026051
Subject: Durham County Triangle; NC0026051
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:12:15 -0500
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
To: caroline ejimofor <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Hello folks- I'm trying to find out the status of EPA's review of this
draft permit for a major municipal facility (Durham County Research
Triangle Park, NC0026051). The permittee has requested
renewal/expansion of the WWTP from 6 to 12 MGD, which will add nutrient
removal, switch to UV disinfection, and incorporate reuse. I'm getting
a lot of calls from the permittee, since they're trying to schedule
construction activities for the upgrade and are under a tight compliance
schedule before nutrient limits kick in. However, they can't proceed
until the draft permit is finalized and an ATC is also issued. The
draft was noticed 7/6/01, and I mailed the additional info that EPA
requested to Scott Gordon on 1/10/02 (letter attached). Please let me
know if you need additional information at this time, and when you
anticipate permit review. Thanks
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
EPADMRItr.doc
Name: EPADMR1tr.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 2/1/02 10:14 AM

A. F WATFRQ Michael F. Easley
Governor
cO co 7 William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
r-- NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> —1
p -C Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
January 10, 2002
Mr. Scott Gordon
US EPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Dear Mr. Gordon:
Subject: Renewal of NPDES Permit
Additional Data
NC0026051- Durham County
As per discussions with Dave Goodrich, I am forwarding the following items for the subject facility:
• Signed Amendment to the NPDES Permit Application + DMR data summary
• Permittee Comments to the Draft NPDES permit
• Final Fact Sheet
This draft permit was noticed on July 6, 2001. The only comments received were from the permtttee, and
these comments are enclosed for your review. I have also enclosed a final Fact Sheet, which highlights all additional
changes to the draft permit. These additional changes are: 1) provision for an additional year before total nitrogen
limits become effective, based on the loss of construction time during the EA/permitting processes and the tight
construction timeframe; and 2) provision for the facility to reuse a small amount of treated wastewater for onsite uses,
which is strongly supported by DWQ.
Please note that this permit is being prioritized within DWQ. The facility is proposing to expand from 6
MGD to 12 MGD, and upgrades will include biological nutrient removal capability as well as a switch to UV
disinfection. The permittee will be facing a tight construction schedule to upgrade their facility in order to meet total
nitrogen effluent limitations beginning January 2004, and DWQ cannot approve their upgrade plans until the NPDES
permit is finalized. If there is any additional information that you need to complete your review of the draft permit,
or any questions about this submission, please contact me at telephone number [phone], extension 543.
cc: Cover letter (without enclosures)
Caroline Ejimofor, US EPA Region 4
Dee Stewart, US EPA Region 4
Dave Goodrich, NPDES Unit
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Sincerely,
1 /
Tom Belnick
NPDES Unit
Phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center: 1 800 623-7748

Durham Triangle WWTP; NC0026051
ao(_,,0,4teei
Subject: Durham Triangle WWTP; NC0026051
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:29:00 -0400
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
To: Ken Schuster <[e-mail]>
Hi Ken- The two items remaining on this permit before we finalize are:
1. The facility is requesting that TN limits not become effective until
1/1/05, which provides for 31 months (from the permit effective date).
They anticipate a 2-year construction schedule, plus additional time
needed for document prep/bid/award, and then time for system startup.
We previously agreed to give them till 1/1/04 based on the anticipated
schedule at the time; however, the draft permit has sat in-house due to
the delay with EPA concurrence. I feel ok with their latest schedule
request. Let me know what you think.
2. I had taken out the mercury limit in the draft permit based on no
detections in the past 65 samples. However, since the permit was
drafted, they have had 2 months with several Hg detections. Therefore,
I plan to add a Hg limit back in the permit. I'll need to give them 30
days to review/comment on this change. Are you ok with this?
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
A (JO L
ge.11A V A ApYr\ PAA
riv‘ age iitviittx
r-e,cioorsho4
1 of 1 4/26/02 4:31 PM

NCDENR / DWQ
FINAL FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Durham County
NPDES No. NC0026051
Facility Information
(1.) Facility Name:
Durham County Triangle WWTP
(2.) Permitted Flow,MGD:
6 MGD
12 MGD
(phased)
(6.) County:
Durham
(3.) Facility Class:
IV
(7.) Regional Office:
Raleigh
(4.) Facility Status:
Existing
(8.) USGS Topo Quad:
D23NW
(SE) Durham)
(5.) Permit Status:
Existing
Stream Characteristics
(1.) Receiving Stream:
Northeast Creek
(2.) Subbasin:
030605
(8.) Drainage Area (mi2):
18.00
(3.) Index No.:
16-41-1-17-(0.7)
(9.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0
(4.) Stream Class:
WS-IV NSW
(10.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.5
(5.) 303(d) Listed:
YES
(11.) 30Q2 (cfs):
0.9
(6.) 305(b) Status:
(12.) Average Flow (cfs):
20.00
(7.) Use Support:
PS
(13.) 1WC (%):
100
Conditions Incorporated into DRAFT NPDES Permit Renewal
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis for Condition(s)
Add phased effluent sheet for 12
Phased Effluent Sl i vi
Permittee prepared
MGD.
Environmental Assessment and
Engineering Alternatives
Analysis for expansion to 12
MGD. FONSI issued 4/10/01.
Add annual TP mass limit of
Effluent- TP
Existing TP concentration limits
10,204 Ibs for phased 12 MGD
are 0.5 mg/1 summer. 2 mg/1
effluent sheet.
winter for 6 MGD. which are
more stringent than HB515. For
the expansion limit. the TP load
is frozen to the current actual
loading, based on an annual
average of loading over four
years (1996-99). At 12 MGD,
this load limit translates to a
monthly average TP
concentration of 0.28 mg/1.

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
' " Page 2
Durham County
NPDES No. NC0026051
Add annual TN mass limit of
100.452 lbs for both effluent
sheets, with calendar year
permit effective date of
1 / 1 /2003. Change TN
monitoring frequency from
Monthly to Weekly.
Effluent- TN
There are no existing TN limits.
Per HB515 requirement for NSW
water, set TN load limit based on
5.5 mg/1 TN and permitted flow
of 6 MGD as of 7/31/97.
Delete limit and weekly
monitoring.
Effluent- Methylene chloride,
1.2- Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride detected in 2
of 57 samples, and 1,2-
Dichloroethane detected in 0 of
57 samples, with no reasonable
potential to exceed EPA criteria.
Delete limit, and change
monitoring from weekly to
2/month.
Effluent- Chloroform
Chloroform detected in 46 of 57
samples, but no reasonable
potential to exceed EPA criteria.
Change limit from 0.85 ug/1 to
1.8 ug/I, based on updated EPA
human health criterion of 0.56
ug/1 and average annual flow
used to develop limits for
carcinogens. Maintain weekly
monitoring.
Effluent- Bromodichloromethane
Bromodichloromethane detected
in 10 of 57 samples, with
reasonable potential to exceed
EPA criteria. Limit increased to
1.8 ug/1 to reflect updated EPA
criteria.
Maintain limit and weekly
monitoring.
Effluent- Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloromethane detected
in 4 of 57 samples, with
reasonable potential to exceed
EPA criteria.
Delete 2/Month monitoring.
Effluent- Toluene
Toluene detected in 0 of 57
samples. No reasonable potential
to exceed EPA criteria.
Delete limit and daily
monitoring.
Effluent- Lead, Nickel, Mercury
Lead detected in 4 of 62
samples, nickel detected in 0 of
61 samples, and mercury
detected in 0 of 65 samples. No
reasonable potential to exceed
WQS. Monitoring will continue
quarterly under Pretreatment
LTMP.
Delete limit and daily
monitoring.
Effluent -Cyanide
Cyanide detected in 1 of 60
samples. The lone detection was
at the quantitation level (5 ug/1)
which is considered as zero for
compliance purposes due to
analytical capabilities.
Monitoring will continue
quarterly under Pretreatment
LIMP.
Maintain monthly monitoring.
Effluent- Copper, Zinc.
Copper detected in 16 of 16
samples, and zinc detected in 17
of 17 samples. Both metals
exhibited reasonable potential to
exceed state action levels. Per
Action Level Policy. maintain
monitoring (with no limit) since
chronic toxicity testing has been
compliant.
Page 2
Version: May 10, 2002

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 3
Durham County
NPDES No. NC0026051
Add limit of 250 mg/land
weekly monitoring.
Effluent- Chloride
Chloride detected in 10 of 10
samples, with reasonable
potential to exceed the state
WgS for water supply waters
(250 mg/1).
Add TRC limit of 17 ug/1 for
phased flow of 12 MGD, with
footnote that limit applies only if
chlorination used..
Effluent- TRC
Per TRC Policy, TRC limits are
added upon expansion. Since
facility plans to upgrade to UV
for disinfection, add footnote
that limit applies only if chlorine
used.
Waive instream monitoring
requirements as long as facility
remains member of the UCFRBA.
Instream monitoring
Facility is a member of the Upper
Cape Fear River Basin
Association (UCFRBA). which
contracts out the instream
monitoring.
Change permit expiration date to
4/30/06.
Permit Expiration Date
Per Basin Renewal Schedule.
Additional Conditions Incorporated into FINAL NPDES Permit
Proposed Conditions
Parameters Affected
Basis for Condition(s)
After the draft permit was
noticed. the permittee requested
that the WWTP be allowed to
reuse a small portion of treated
effluent for onsite internal uses
(e.g.. toilets, HVAC. vehicle wash)
to conserve water.
_
Onsite Effluent Reuse System-
Supplement to Permit Cover
Sheet + Special Condition A (6).
____ _— __ __. _ _____
1'he Division supports
wastewater reuse efforts by the
County. and has incorporated
this request into the Final
permit. Special Condition A (6)
lists requirements that must be
met for onsite reuse. The
planned reuse system will be
_reviewed as part of the Phase II
facility upgrade: ---_. _
_,
Af(er the draft permit was
noticed, the permittee requested
a two-year compliance schedule
to meet the HB515 TN annual
mass limit. The Division
concurred, and changed the
effective date to the calendar
ye eginning 1 / 1 /2005.
Effluent- TN
Construction was delayed and
the nutrient treatment system is
not scheduled for completion
until the end of 2004.
Addition of an ammonia
reopener, which will add weekly
average limits in current permit
(if reasonable potential exists).
Otherwise. weekly average limits
will be added during next permit
renewal. Monthly average limits
already exist.
Ammonia Reopeher--Special. __-_
Condition A (7).
Per EPA request So -express limit
as botfi"monty average and
weekly average.
Page 3
Version: May 10, 2002

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 4
Durham County
NPDES No. NC0026051
Addition of daily maximum
Effluent- Mercury
Subsequent to the draft permit.
mercury limit of 0.012 ug/1 with
the facility reported several
weekly monitoring. and language
detections of mercury which
in cover letter requiring use of
show resonable potential to
lab method EPA 1631 for all
exced the water quality
mercury analyses beginning
standard. Hence, a mercury
9/ 1 /03.
limit was reinserted to the final
permit. Language in the cover
letter requiring use of EPA
Method 1631 was also added
based on EPA concerns.
PROJECT NOTES
Summary
• This is a permit renewal for a 6.0 MGD major municipal POW with an extended aeration
activated sludge process. The permitted flow has been at 6MGD since 1983, and the
permittee has requested expansion to 12.0 MGD to accommodate future growth in the
Research Triangle Park (RTP) area. The pennittee has completed an Environmental
Assessment (EA) in support of the expansion, which was subsequently approved by the
Division.
• This facility currently averages 24% industrial wastewater and 76% domestic wastewater.
The permittee operates a full pretreatment program, and 14 significant industrial users
include metal finishing, electroplating, and pharmaceutical manufacturing. The facility is
contract operated by Woodward and Curran. Sludge is land applied.
• This facility discharges to Northeast Creek, which then discharges to Jordan Reservoir. The
creek receives a large discharge from the Triangle WWTP, with an instream waste
concentration of 100% during summer 7Q10 flow conditions. Northeast Creek is located in
heavily urbanized areas of Durham and RTP and also receives urban nonpoint source
pollution. Northeast Creek is classified for water supply (WS-IV) and as Nutrient Sensitive
Water (NSW), and is subject to the NSW Strategy for Jordan/Haw River watershed.
Northeast Creek is also listed in the Draft 303(d) list as impaired (Partially Supporting) due
to fecal coliform bacteria, and a TMDL is in preparation. The 2000 Basin Plan reports that
the creek is also subject to low DO, and recommended that no new dischargers be allowed.
There are no federally -listed threatened or endangered aquatic species in this subbasin.
• The permittee is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA),
which began collecting instream data in April 2000 based on a signed MOA with the
Division. Prior to that date, instream monitoring was performed by the facility.
• In 1999 the County initiated an aggressive Inflow/Infiltration (18d) reduction program.
Results indicate that these improvements have significantly reduced peak flow during
extreme rainfall events.
Permit Limits Development
• Application. The current permit was issued 3/4/96 and expired on 4/30/01. An NPDES
renewal application was received on 7/8/00.
• Environmental Assessment (EA) for Proposed Expansion. The facility prepared an EA for a
plant upgrade and expansion from 6 MGD to 12 MGD as required by the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act. The EA was subsequently approved, with a FONSI issued on
4/10/01. An Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA) was submitted as part of the EA.
The EAA evaluated various wastewater treatment alternatives including regionalization with
City of Durham, reuse, as well as upgrading and expanding the existing WWTP to a state-
of-the-art biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. The proposed upgrade and expansion
includes construction of a 5-stage BNR process, new tertiary sand filters, and a UV
disinfection system. The Division concurred with the EA/EAA conclusion that expansion of
the current facility was the most environmentally sound alternative from all reasonably cost
Page 4
Version: May 10, 2002

- NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Durham County
Page 5 NPDES No. NC0026051
effective options. The Division also concurred with the flow justification for 12 MGD, based
on population projections for the RTP area.
• BOD5/NH3. The previous permit included BOD/NH3 effluent limits of 5/1mg/1 (summer)
and 10/1.8 mg/1 (winter), based on a s7Q10 flow= 0 and w7Q10=0.5 cfs. These limits are
appropriate for renewal at both 6 and 12 MGD.
• Nutrients (TP). The facility currently has TP concentration limits of 0.5 mg/1 summer and
2.0 mg/1 winter based on the NSW strategy for Jordan/Haw River watershed. In 1997,
House Bill 515 was enacted to further address NSW waters, and set limits for both TN and
TP. The TP effluent limits set by HB 515 of 2 mg/1 have already been achieved. The
current TP annual load based on current limits and 6 MGD design flow would be 20,548
lbs. Based on actual flow data and concentrations, the actual average annual TP load for
the four-year period 1996-1999 was 10,204 lbs/year. Since Lake Jordan is already
showing evidence of nutrient enrichment, TP limits for the proposed expansion phase (12
MGD) were set by freezing actual current TP loading at 10, 204 lbs/year. At 12 MGD, a
10,204-pound annual TP mass limit translates to an average monthly TP concentration of
0.28 mg/1.
• Nutrients (TN). The previous permit had no TN effluent limits. HB515 mandates average
annual TN mass limits based on an allowable TN concentration of 5.5 mg/1 and the highest
permitted flow as of July 31, 1997 (which was 6 MGD). Hence, for 6MGD, the TN mass
limit is 100,455 lbs/year, calculated as 6 MGD x 8.34 x 5.5 mg/1 x 365 days/year. For 12
MGD, the TN mass limit remains at 100,455 lbs/year, which translates to an allowable TN
concentration of 2.75 mg/1. Since Durham County did not apply for a nutrient limit
compliance extension under Senate Bill 1366, the HB 515 limits for TN become effective
January 1, 2003. The proposed TN mass limit represents a 49% reduction from current
actual TN loading, and a 69% reduction from current permitted loading (assuming an
average TN effluent concentration of 18 mg/1). Following notice of the draft permit, the
permittee requested a one-year extension to the compliance date, based on the anticipated
nutrient treatment construction schedule running till end of 2003. The Division concurred
with the requested compliance schedule, which is reflected in the final permit.
• Chlorination Byproducts. The facility previously received several effluent limits for
chlorination byproducts (e.g., chloroform). The facility plans to switch to UV disinfection by
Summer 2002, and plans to maintain a small hypochlorite system to periodically dose
filters to prevent biogrowth and to provide chlorine residual in the event a reuse system is
implemented. Therefore, retain any necessary limits for chlorination byproducts with
footnote "if chlorination is used." Based on reasonable potential analysis (RPA), limits and
monitoring for methylene chloride and 1,2-Dichloroethane are deleted. Based on RPA,
limits for chloroform are deleted, but monitoring is maintained. Finally, based on RPA,
limits and monitoring for bromodichloromethane and dibromochloromethane are retained.
However, the limit for bromodichloromethane has been modified based on an updated EPA
human health criterion of 0.56 ug/1. Toxicants with limits receive weekly monitoring, while
monitoring for chloroform is changed to 2/Month.
• Metals. Based on RPA results, delete limits and monitoring for lead, nickel, cyanide, and
mercury (reinserted at final). Maintain monthly monitoring for copper and zinc, which
showed reasonable potential to exceed action levels, but do not get limits per Action Level
Policy, since chronic toxicity test results have been compliant. Most metals will continue to
be sampled quarterly under the Pretreatment LTMP requirements for effluent.
• Toluene and Chloride. The previous permit had 2/Month monitoring for toluene. Since
toluene was not detected in 57 samples, the monitoring requirement is deleted. Add limit
and weekly monitoring for chloride, which showed reasonable potential to exceed the NC
WQS of 250 mg/1 for water supply waters.
• Onsite Reuse System. Following notice of the draft permit, the permittee requested
authorization to reuse a small amount of treated wastewater for onsite internal uses. The
Division supports the County's reuse plans and included this option in the final permit,
with specific reuse requirements listed in Special Condition A (6). The reuse design will be
reviewed with the Phase II upgrade submission.
• NH3- Following notice of the draft permit, EPA requested addition of a weekly average limit
in addition to the monthly average limit. This was handled in the final permit as a reopener
Page 5
Version: May 10, 2002

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Durham County
Page 6 NPDES No. NC0026051
special condition A (7), which will provide time to determine an appropriate method to set
weekly average values.
• Water Quality Limited Parameters: BOD5, NH3, TP, TN, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, chloride. mercury
DMR Data.
• Effluent Chemical Data. Based on the period 1/00-3/01, monthly average values ranged
from: 3.0-5.6 MGD (flow); 1.0- >6.4 mg/1 (BOD); 0.1-1.1 mg/1 (NH3); 3-13 mg/1 (TSS); 8-170
orgs/ 100m1 (fecals); 13-29 mg/1 (TN); and 0.22-1.8 mg/1 (TP). The max monthly TRC
concentrations ranged from 250-1310 ug/1.
• Effluent Toxicity Data. The facility has passed 16 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests
between 1997-2000, with no failures since 1997. The test is conducted at an effluent
concentration of 90%.
• Instream Data. For the period 1/00-3/01, instream data indicate low DOs (< 5 mg/1) on
several occasions at the upstream station, but only one reported DO value < 5 mg/I at
downstream stations D 1 and D2. Thus, the current discharge does not appear to add to
the DO deficit during summer. The current discharge does appear to increase the instream
conductivity and fecal coliform concentrations at the downstream stations.
Compliance Summary
• Between 1/95-10/00, the facility has been fined three times for a total of $12,700. The
largest penalty was for a 1.6 MG wastewater overflow at the influent pump station in 1997.
There are no active SOCs listed. For the period 1/00-3/01, the facility was generally
compliant with permit effluent limits.
Wasteload Allocation Data.
• The last WLA was prepared in 1995. The Division provided speculative effluent limits for the
proposed 12 MGD expansion in letter dated 7/7/00.
Page 6
Version: May 10, 2002

ge,0
Durham County
NPDES No. NC0026051
•
NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Page 6
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
State Contact
07/11/01
08/27/01
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached
permit, please contact Tom Belnick at [phone], extension 543.
Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit
development:
• Reasonable Potential Analysis (majors only)
• Draft Permit
NPDES Recommendation by:
don
72-0/
Date
Regional Office Comments ' Zr OA, p_}O, & c-a
C� R-PCF 7- p tau T- A p T r be- .-�� F�Jc,@:p.
Regional Recommendation
by:
7,A*(,/Sig
I(t&(r
Date
Reviewed and accepted by:
Regional Supervisor:
.J2D.J
t)1Z316 1 •
Dat
Signature
NPDES Unit Supervisor:
Signature
Date
Page 6
Version: July 2, 2001

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Durham County
Page 5 NPDES No. NC0026051
DMR Data.
• Effluent Chemical Data. Based on the period 1/00-3/01, monthly average values ranged
from: 3.0-5.6 MGD (flow); 1.0- >6.4 mg/1 (BOD); 0.1-1.1 mg/1 (NH3); 3-13 mg/1 (TSS); 8-170
orgs/ 100m1 (fecals); 13-29 mg/1 (TN); and 0.22-1.8 mg/1 (TP). The max monthly TRC
concentrations ranged from 250-1310 ug/1.
• Effluent Toxicity Data. The facility has passed 16 of 18 quarterly chronic toxicity tests
between 1997-2000, with no failures since 1997. The test is conducted at an effluent
concentration of 90%.
• Instream Data. For the period 1/00-3/01, instream data indicate low DOs (< 5 mg/1) on
several occasions at the upstream station, but only one reported DO value < 5 mg/1 at
downstream stations D 1 and D2. Thus, the current discharge does not appear to add to
the DO deficit during summer. The current discharge does appear to increase the instream
conductivity and fecal coliform concentrations at the downstream stations.
Compliance Summary
• Between 1/95-10/00, the facility has been fined three times for a total of $12, 700. The
largest penalty was for a 1.6 MG wastewater overflow at the influent pump station in 1997.
There are no active SOCs listed. For the period 1/00-3/01, the facility was generally
compliant with permit effluent limits.
Wasteload Allocation Data.
• The last WLA was prepared in 1995. The Division provided speculative effluent limits for the
proposed 12 MGD expansion in letter dated 7/7/00.
Page 5
Version: July 2, 2001

A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
July 3, 20
Michael Douglas __
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Raleigh Regional Office
Tom Belnick
NPDES Unit
Review of NPDES Permit NC0026051
Durham County Triangle WWTP
A7r1r—
CDE R
c:,
rT1 NnRTH !CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
C7ENVI'ONMNT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
..a
:
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed permit renewal and return
this form by AUGUST 11, 2001. If you have any questions on the proposed modification, please
contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed at the bottom of this page.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained
properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not
contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed
Date: I 2 %/Z/
l
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 543 (fax) 919 733-0719
VISIT us ON THE INTERNEr I§ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES tom.belnick@ ncmail.net

P-to eeVi4A'r-
Division of Water Quality
1
May 29, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Randy Jones, RRO, Water Quality
Mike Templeton, NPDES
Keyes McGee, Pretreatment
Through: NA
From: Tom Belnick
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit NC0026051
Durham County Triangle WWTP
Hello folks- If you can get comments to me by June 13 that would be great, otherwise I'll shoot for the
next notice date of June 27. Randy- I can't notice this until I get RRO concurrence, so please let me
know if you need additional info. Thanks.
Good. Job ear .r. '�C rv�a� Gov s o v.t4 cap �-�.t (Lt�it
tro. t v..; sa em,c2d' u Fe. — it gLe-AAS %J L a , � 01 � J P�f 1
/WI V. .11. q utrtsw•S I/%114C_ +t) do v14/ + e.x00.40.3.
1e,N. +6 12 ?& ) , �loW
dtC1 we. c,PpCQJL. I ► t . -FL. tv�CreAS$ )31 Vt T"` . 1te . Cr�2 u 10v4 ^T't0s•r
ct,,.d s `f `r b *o J lra_l - 7 7,4,4- ar,c1 4 u s t, Ac.at;s,.• ate_ b41-1k,w) u S
�-©� , b�,�' i . s wow. ,n�,,,,4 ', „� -H•e - 1e_ ;•P y ©+A tki,Ali we. ^tell 10
re-ce s;caBr e , Rolcti'vy -1 \ watsr 11..v, 1 t, premKt 0r
(p I1/4).CA 4 d +Ices Core_ aF +L Q uerh o ,. p re-th .
Sdr'ry -ror-N,.es�a�.> —�"v.t+ti - 0..ro4-
-

durham county NC0026051
Subject: durham county NC0026051
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:50:29 -0400
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
To: Kristen Robeson <[e-mail]>
Another NPDES draft- relevant pages attached.
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
[F126051 effl.doc
Name: 26051 eff l .doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
26051 eff2.doc
Name: 26051 eff2.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
26051 fact sheet.doc
Name: 26051 fact sheet.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
B26051 Supp2EffSht.doc
Name: 26051 Supp2EffSht.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
1 of 1 5/31/01 10:52 AM

Durham NPDES Permit
•
Subject: Durham NPDES Permit
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:04:12 -0400
From: "Kevin Eberle" <[e-mail]>
To: "Tom Belnick (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Chuck Hill (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Glen Whisler (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
Hello Tom-
._ ot /i ? Sit c (c
egiot.)- hipett
Oil rQ civil- c
J O 1J
0�e %
After our discussion last week, I spoke with Chuck Hill in Durham and reviewed the
new mercury requirements. As I'm sure you can understand, Durham County has concern
about this new limit, particularly since the State of NC does not even have a
certified laboratory to run the analysis and shipping samples out-of-state will be
costly. We estimate that the weekly mercury monitoring requirement will cost Durham
County between $25k to $30k per year.
However, the County understands that this is an EPA requirement and is not project
specific in nature. As such it is unlikely that they would be successful in getting
EPA to eliminate the requirement or even reduce the sample frequency.
Therefore, Durham County respectfully requests that you finalize and publish the new
Triangle NPDES permit (inclusive of the EPA -mandated mercury monitoring requirements)
so that Durham County is not further delayed in initiating actions to get the
Triangle WWTF Phase II portion of the project out to bid ASAP so that construction
and start-up can be completed in time to meet the HB515 TN compliance limits by Jan
1, 2005.
Please let me know if you perceive any delay in issuing the final NPDES so that we
can plan accordingly.
Thanks again for your help throughout the process!
Kevin Eberle, PE
McKim & Creed, P.A.
5625 Dillard Drive, Suite 117
Cary, NC 27511
919.233.8091
www.mckimcreed.com
1 of 1 5/10/02 9:58 AM

NC0026051- Mercury Permit Additioi
•
• Subject: NC0026051- Mercury Permit Addition
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:43:37 -0400
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
To: chuck hill <chill @co.durham.nc.us>
CC: Kevin Eberle <[e-mail]>
Hi Chuck- I just left a voice message for you, but will follow up with
this email. Based on the mercury detections reported since the permit
was drafted, I will need to add an effluent mercury limit back into the
final permit with weekly sampling. This is based on the fact that there
is now reasonable potential to exceed the instream water quality
standard. The expired permit had a weekly average mercury limit of
0.012 ug/1 and a daily max limit of 0.048 ug/1. According to the
current methods we use to develop limits, I would propose a daily max
mercury limit of 0.012 ug/1. How we regulate mercury was also an EPA
concern, and they were holding up all permits with mercury limits. This
concern was recently resolved, with DWQ agreeing to require all
facilities with mercury limits to start using the more sensitive mercury
analysis (EPA Method 1631) on or before September 1, 2003. Thus, this
analytical deadline will also appear in the final permit in the cover
letter. At this time I don't think there are any labs in this state
certified to run this new method, so samples might have to be shipped
out if no labs become certified by that time. Clean sampling techniques
also become an important aspect of the sampling effort. Let me know if
you have any comments on this proposed permit addition.
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 4/26/02 3:43 PM

J1
EFFLUENT SUPPLEMENT
• ,vPDES PERMIT NO.: NC0026051
FACILITY NAME: TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC): Victor Cozart
CERTIFIED LABORATORIES:
DISCHARGE No.: 001
CLASS: 4
GRADE: 4
(1) Prism Laboratories (2) Chemical & Environmental Technology Inc.
CHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANGED
Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to:
ATTN: Central Files
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
MONTH:AUG 2001
COUNTY: Durham
PHONE: [phone]
PERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLES: Carolyn Hinton & Operator
\Lk.,
DATES' 4.6 - O1
(SIGNATURE OF OPEATIN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE)
BY THIS SIGNATURE I CERTIFY THAT THIS REPORT IS
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
71900 01042 01067 01051 01092 00720
D Oper Oper ORC
A Arrival Time On
T Time On Site Hg Cu Ni Pb Zn CN
E Site
Hrs Hrs Y/N ug/I ug/l ug/I ug/I ug/l ug/I
01 0700 24 Y 0.30 8 <10 <2 125 <5
02 0700 24 Y <.2
03 0700 24 Y <.2
04 0700 24 N
05 0700 24 N
06 0700 24 Y 0.30 <10 <2 83 8.00
07 0700 24 Y <.2 <5
08 0700 24 Y <.2 15.00
09 0700 24 Y <.2 <5
10 0700 24 Y <.2 <5
11 0700 24 Y
12 0700 24 Y
13 0700 24 Y 0.50 14.00 14 <5
14 0700 24 B <.2
15 0700 24 Y <.2
16 0700 24 Y 0.30
17 0700 24 Y <.2
18 0700 24 N
19 0700 24 N
20 0700 24 Y
21 0700 24 Y
22 0700 24 Y
23 0700 24 Y
24 0700 24 Y <.2 12.00 <2 <5
25 0700 24 Y
26 0700 24 N
27 0700 24 Y <.2 11.00 3
28 0700 24 Y <.2
29 0700 24 Y 0.70 <5
30 0700 24 Y <.2
31 0700 24 Y <.2
Average <.2 8 <10 3.40 104 <5
Maximum 0.7 8 14 14 125 15.00
Minimum
<.2 8 <10 <2 83 <5
Comp(C)/Grab(G) C C C C C G
Monthly Limit 0.012 monitoring only 25.0 25.0 monitoring only 5.0

ODARDCI II RAN CORPORATE OFFICES: Maine, Massachusetts,
�vR New Hampshire, Connecticut, Illinois, Florida
Engineering . Science . Operations Operational offices throughout the U.S.
September 19, 2001
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Central File
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: August 2001 Monthly Discharge Monitoring Report
Woodard & Curran respectfully submits the attached Discharge Monitoring Report for
the -month of August 2001 on behalf of the Durham County Triangle WWTF.
Data Qualification:
Our contract laboratory reported a value of 8 ug/1 for the sample analyzed on
August 6, 2001 and 15 ug/1 for the sample analyzed for Cyanide on August 8,
2001. The remaining samples were analyzed and reported for that week. The
monthly and weekly limit for Cyanide was not exceeded.
Additionally, the contract laboratory reported values of Mercury close to the
laboratory detection limit for August 8, 6, 13, 16, and 29t. All other samples
analyzed for the rest of the week had reported values less than 0.2 ugil. The
average value for the month was less than 0.2 ug/1 and has been reported on this
month's DMR. The source of any presence of Mercury is unknown.
Also, please note the following:
Effective April 6, 2000 the instream monitoring requirements for the Triangle
WWTF were waived when a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed
with the NC DENR. We have continued to sample weekly at the designated sites
and to report our results.
If you have any further questions or concerns please contact me at 919-544-8280.
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility a 5926 Highway 55 East • Durham, North Carolina 27713
919-544-8280 1919-544-8590 (Fax) i www.woodardcurran.com

rool
EFFLUENT SUPPLEMENT
TNO.: NC0026051 DISCHARGENo.: 001 MONTH:JUNE 2001
ME: TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CLASS: 4 COUNTY: Durham
RESPONSIBLE CHARGE (ORC): Victor Cozart GRADE: 4 PHONE: [phone]
BORATORIES: (1) Prism Laboratories (2) Chemical & Environmental Technology Inc.
CHECK BOX IF ORC HAS CHANGED PERSON(S) COLLECTING SAMPLES: Carolyn Hinton & Operator
Mail ORIGINAL and ONE COPY to:
ATTN: Central Files
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
V
DATE —1— - O
(SIGNATURE OF OPEATOR(il)f RESPONSIBLE CHARGE)
BY THIS SIGNATURE I CERTIFY THAT THIS REPORT IS
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
71900 01042 01067 01051 01092 00720
D Oper Oper ORC
A Arrival Time On
T Time On Site Hg Cu Ni Pb Zn CN
E Site
Hrs Hrs Y/N ug/I ug/1 ug/1 ug/I ug/I ug/I
01 0700 24 Y <.2
02 0700 24 Y
03 0700 24 N
04 0700 24 Y
•
05 0700 24 Y
06 0700 24 Y <.2 9 <10 <2 168 <5
07 0700 24 Y
08 0700 24 Y
09 0700 24 N
10 0700 24 N
11 0700 24 Y 0.40
<10 <2 <5
12 0700 24 Y <.2
13 0700 24 Y <.2
14 0700 24 Y <.2
15 0700 24 Y <.2
16 0700 24 Y
17 0700 24 N
18 0700 24 Y <.2
19.00 <2 <5
19 0700 24 Y
20 0700 24 Y
21 0700 24 Y
22 0700 24 Y
23 0700 24 B
24 0700 24 N
25 0700 24 Y 0.40
26 0700 24 Y <5
27 0700 24 Y 0.40 <10 <2
28 0700 24 Y 0.30
29 0700 24 B 0.40
30 0700 24 Y 0.30
Average <.2 9 <10 <2 168 <5
Maximum 0.4 9 19 <2 168 <5
Minimum <.2 9 <10 <2 168 <5
Comp(C)/Grab(G) C C C C C G
Monthly Limit
0.012 monitoring only 25.0
25.0 monitoring only 5.0

WOODARD &CURRAN
Engineering . Science Operations
July 10, 2001
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Central File
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: June 2001 Monthly Discharge Monitoring Report
CORPORATE OFFICES: Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Connecticut, Illinois, Florida
Operational offices throughout the U.S.
Woodard & Curran respectfully submits the attached Discharge Monitoring Report for
the month of June 2001 on behalf of the Durham County Triangle WWTF.
On June 11, 2001 and June 27, 2001 the contract lab reported the presence of Mercury in
the plant effluent. The reported value on both days was .0004 mg/1 Mercury. The
contract laboratory's detection limit is .0002 mg/1 Mercury.
In response to this detection of Mercury, we submitted the remaining samples for the
week of June 11 — 15, 2001. No detection of Mercury was reported. Additionally,
samples for the week of the 27th were submitted. All samples showed the presence of
Mercury close to the detection limit. No identifiable source of Mercury has been found
in the waste stream and our IPP technician continues to monitor our industries for non-
compliance. Sample results have been reported on the DMR in compliance with our
rules and regulations.
Also, please note the following:
Effective April 6, 2000 the instream monitoring requirements for the Triangle
WWTF were waived when a Memorandum of Agreement (MOM was signed
with the NC DENR. We have continued to sample weekly at the designated sites
and to report our results.
If you have any further questions or concerns please contact me at 919-544-8280.
WOODARD & CURRAN
Scott Lewis
Project Manager/Triangle WWTF
cc: Chuck Hill, Durham County
Jeff DuPont, Woodard & Curran
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility i 5926 Highway 55 East i Durham, North Carolina 27713
919-544-8280 1919-544-8590 (Fax) • www.woodardcurran.com

COUNTY OF DURHAM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
April 15, 2002
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
APR 1 9 2002
DER - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Re: Request for Re-evaluation of Proposed Total Nitrogen Compliance Date
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion — Durham County, NC
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Please accept this letter as our formal request to extend the proposed HB515 TN
compliance date from January 1, 2004 (as identified in the latest draft NPDES permit) to
January 1, 2005 due to delays in issuance of the final NPDES Permit and Authorization
to Construct that were outside Durham County's control.
As you are aware, Durham County submitted a NPDES Permit Application on July 26,
2000 requesting authorization to upgrade the Triangle WWTF to a new five -stage
biological nutrient removal process and increase the permitted discharge limit from 6.0
MGD to 12 MGD. Following Clearinghouse approval, NCDENR completed their review
of the NPDES permit application and issued a Draft Permit on July 6, 2001.
We reviewed the draft permit and sent our formal comments to NCDENR for
consideration on August 8, 2001. As part of our comments, we requested a 12-month
extension to the HB515 TN compliance date from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2004, in
order to have sufficient time to complete construction of the new five -stage BNR process.
This request was made with the assumption that the final NPDES permit would be issued
effective on August 30, 2001.
On September 5, 2001 we received email confirmation that NCDENR would approve the
12-month extension to the HB515 TN compliance date as requested. We were told at that
time that the final NPDES permit would be drafted by the end of September.
120 E. Parrish Street, Law Bldg., 1st Floor, Durham, N.C. 27701 [phone] Fax [phone]
Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Employer

D. Goodrich
Page 2
In response to our request in early November, we received notification on November 9,
2001 that NCDENR had not been able to finalize any NPDES permits due to EPA
objections about the format of NCDENR's application form. At this time we informed
NCDENR that we would not be able to meet the extended TN compliance date of
January 1, 2004 unless the NPDES Permit could be expedited.
On December 12, 2001 we were notified that EPA had agreed to release major municipal
permits provided that the permittees agreed to sign an application amendment giving
NCDENR authorization to submit monthly DMR data on behalf of the municipality. We
were told that the NPDES Permit could be finalized by the end of December if we
submitted the signed amendment. We had some concerns over the amendment and we
met with representatives from your staff on December 18, 2001 to review the amendment
and express our concerns over the delays in NPDES Permit issuance that will necessarily
impact our ability to meet the proposed TN compliance schedule. Following the meeting,
NCDENR sent us a copy of the final NPDES permit that would be sent to EPA. This
final NPDES permit was sent to EPA on January 10, 2002. It was our understanding that
EPA would complete their review of the final NPDES permit within 30 days.
On February 11, 2002, we were told that EPA had released several NPDES permits, but
that the Triangle permit was still under review. On February 25, 2002 we were told that
EPA had only one comment on the final permit. They requested that a weekly ammonia
limit in addition to the monthly average limit. We were told that this was a global issue
and the requirement would affect a number of permits in NC. We understood that EPA
would be meeting with NCDENR to resolve the issue in early March.
On March 8, 2002, we were informed that negotiations were still under way with EPA
and you had not reached a consensus yet on the ammonia limit. Finally, on April 8, 2002
we received notification that the EPA had released the NPDES permit for the Triangle
WWTF. However, the TN compliance date (that was originally negotiated with the
assumption of that the NPDES permit would be release by the end of August 2001)
remained the same.
I trust that you would agree that we have made good faith efforts to move this project
forward; however, without the NPDES permit and Authorization to Construct, Durham
County could not proceed with final financing arrangements, bidding, award and
construction of the project as originally proposed. These delays were completely outside
of our control. As such, we respectfully request that you modify the HB515 TN
compliance date to January 1, 2005. This will preserve the 24 months required between
the start of construction and final completion as indicated in our original Project
Schedule. The revised HB515 compliance date also incorporates 60 days for system
start-up, stabilization and operational testing, which will be required for a system of this
complexity. We have completed a revised Project Schedule and are attaching it with this
letter for your review.

D. Goodrich
Page 3
Please review this request and feel free to call either Kevin Eberle, (McKim & Creed,
P.A. at 233-8091) or me if you have any questions or need additional information. We
appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to your favorable response.
Sincerely,
Glen E. Whisler, P.E.
County Engineer
Attachment
cc: Wendell Davis, Deputy County Manager
Chuck Hill, P.E., Utility Division Manager
Bryan F. Blake, P.E.
Tim Baldwin, P.E.
Kevin C. Eberle, P.E.
Tom Belnick, DWQ

i
TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS
DURHAM COUNTY
REVISED PROJECT SCHEDULE
APRIL 15, 2002
NPDES Permit Issuance
Authorization to Construct
Advertisement for Bids
Open Bids
Award Contracts
Start Construction
Substantial Completion Phase II Construction
Final Completion Phase II Construction
Start-up, Stabilization and Operational Testing
NPDES Compliance Date
May 1, 2002
May 1, 2002
June 23, 2002
August 20, 2002
September 16, 2002
November 4, 2002
August 31, 2004
October 31, 2004
November 1 — December 31, 2004
January 1, 2005

COUNTY OF DURHAM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
January 11, 2002
Ms. Christy Jackson
NCDENR
NPDES Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Durham County Triangle WWTP Improvements Project
Dear Ms. Jackson:
As requested, this letter confirms that McKim & Creed has the authorization to submit
the engineering drawings, specifications and other information that may be necessary to
complete the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project for Durham
County. Also, they are authorized to represent Durham County in any discussions related
to this project.
This project is very important both to provide Durham County the additional capacity for
future customers and to provide additional treatment capability to comply with House
Bill 515 and the County's expected NPDES permit requirements. To meet these
requirements, we are attempting to put this project out to bid in March 2002. Any
assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 560-7992.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hill, P.E.
Utility Division Manager
cc: Glen E. Whisler, P.E., County Engineer
Bryan Blake, P.E., McKim & Creed
CH/vej
M1u
0
fvul
N
N
CO
w
LL
120 E. Parrish Street, Law Bldg., 1st Floor, Durham, N.C. 27701 [phone] Fax [phone]
Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Employer

MCKIM&CREED,,
December 5, 2001j otMA 506^'?
4/1 Gk h o H -0$44 i
V C‘ja-/ 144
7.
Coleen Sullins, Section Chief Q T' c.�,:I:IL _ ram, .�%%µ,,,, ��x
Water Quality Section 37 ?XL /,,,„/ _ c-,�l...1 [-id/ t/✓ S� 6 arm
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources aP1��ho�..Q
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Re: Durham County Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade
Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sullins,
On behalf of Mr. Wendell Davis, Durham Deputy County Manager, we are
requesting a meeting with you and Tom Belnick of your staff on either December
18th or December 19th to discuss the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility
Upgrade. We would be happy to meet with you in the afternoon of either day at
your office in Raleigh.
In particular, Durham County is interested in providing you with an update on the
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility construction schedule and to discuss the
status of the Final NPDES permit approval for this critical project. It is our
understanding that no comments were received during the draft NPDES public
comment period for the project. However, it seems that the final permit is being
held up (along with a number of other NPDES permit applications) due to issues
raised by the USEPA concerning North Carolina's NPDES permit application
form.
As you know, Phase I of the project (influent pumping station, screening, grit
removal, flow metering, UV disinfection and post aeration processes) was
recently bid and we hope to start construction within 4-6 weeks. We are planning
to submit final design plans for Phase II (BNR, clarification, WAS/RAS pumping,
filtration, and chemical feed proces es) on December 20th for DENR approval.
Our intention is to advertise the Ph se II improvements for bidding during the first
quarter of 2002. As such, time s of the essence, if we are to maintain the
schedule tentatively agreed to for i�rlplementing nutrient removal improvements.
gEnztDEC / 2001
WADER QUALITY
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511 SECTION
TEL [phone] FAx [phone] www.mcklmcreed.com
AA0002667

Please check your calendars and call or email me (keberlemckimcreed.com)
with a time and place that will be convenient for you and Torn. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED, P.A.
Kevin C. Eberle, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
c: Wendell Davis, Durham County
Chuck Hill, Durham County
Glen Whisler, Durham County
Tom Belnick, NCDENR
Bryan Blake, McKim & Creed
Tim Baldwin, McKim & Creed
/S:\1471\0002\10-Comm\12-05-01 ColeenSullins.doc
4',/McK[1\4&CREED

1.
COUNTY OF DURHAM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
August 10, 2001
Ir Tom Belnick
NPDES Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
0 2001 1
AUG
AOG 1 2�01
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Re: NPDES Draft Permit — Permit No. NC0026051
Dear Mr. Belnick:
I received the Draft Permit referenced above with your letter dated July 3, 2001, and have
the following comments:
• The requirement for Total Nitrogen will be exceeded with the County's current
facilities. However, Durham County has dedicated tremendous effort, and spent and
committed significant funds to provide the facilities needed to comply with the limits
described in House Bill 515. The County plans are proceeding to replace the existing
facility with new, state of the art BNR facilities to improve effluent quality to protect
the area's water quality. Unfortunately, the County's project will not be completed
by January 1, 2003. I am requesting that the Total Nitrogen requirement become
effective on January 1, 2004.
• Chloride is not currently a problem, and we do not expect the new Chloride limit to
be a problem. However, we do have a stringent Phosphorous limit which we will
meet partially with a chemical treatment. Unfortunately, these chemicals can create ,
Chloride, and the creation may not be avoidable due to the Phosphorous limits. I am
requesting that the Chloride limit be raised or eliminated to enable the County facility
to effectively remove the Phosphorous.
120 E. Parrish Street. Law Bldg., 1st Floor, Durham, N.C. 27701 [phone] Fax [phone]
Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Employer

• We are not sure that a Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limit is necessary, because
Chlorine will not be used for disinfection, and its other possible uses should be
minimal. However, it appears that the TRC limit would make the limits on Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC's) unnecessary. Therefore, seeing the TRC limit in the
permit, I am requesting the elimination of limits for Bromodichloromethane and
Dibromodichloromethane.
I appreciate your assistance with both the renewal and the amendment aspects of this
permit, and the consideration of Durham County's requests. Please feel free to contact
me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hill, P.E.
Utility Division Manager
cc: Glen E. Whisler, County Engineer
Wendell Davis, Deputy County Manager
Chuck Kitchen, County Attorney
Kevin Eberle, McKim & Creed
CH/jld

contact the NPDES unit for assistance.
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Cc: NPDES unit
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 17, 2001
Bryan Blake, PE
McKim & Creed
5625 Dillard Dr., Suite 117
Cary, NC 27511
RE: Triangle Wastewater Plant
Durham County
Dear Mr. Blake,
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LC)
The Division has received your letters dated May 23, 2001 and July 6, 2001 regarding Durham
County's intentions to serve the new Administration Building at the Triangle Wastewater
Treatment Plant with reclaimed wastewater. It is the recommendation of the Non -Discharge
Permitting Unit that your request be processed with your NPDES application for modifications to
the wastewater treatment plant.
The Non -Discharge Permitting Unit does not have significant concerns with your request for an
exemption to the regulation requiring continuous turbidity monitoring. Nor do we have concerns
about the inability to return effluent that exceeds TSS or fecal levels. This is because the
reclaimed water will be utilized for very specific internal uses. and the employees of the building
will be very knowledgeable about reclaimed water. How ver. it will be the NPDES unit that will
complete a technical review of the project and therefore ake the final determination of the
Division's decision in this matter.
Should you have any questions or comments, feel free t contact me at 919-733-5083 x502 or
et VLk
l AY'
Si
1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

09/26/2001 16:08 FAX [phone] hicKllli & CREED
001
4Mcxxnvt&cREED
5625 DILLARD DRIVE
SUITE 117
CARY, N.C. 27511
TEL. [phone]
FAX [phone]
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DESIGNATED RECIPIENT: l��f
FAX NO: 7)-"'07/9
COMPANY: DATE: / o/
SENDER: ,r TIME:
NUMBER OF TRANSMISSION PAGES (Including this page): 4
PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME T k, �a_-.-1o,
(] THIS IS YOUR ORIGINAL HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
COMMENTS: ` ' IF NOT CORRECTLYREOEIVED OR PAE3ES FAULTY, PLEASE CALL SENDER AT 919i233-8091 ""
REMARKS:
Z5, 2 "Id Z.ef7-717Z
ATTENTION
111E IFOITh1AT10N cuNmAINPD IN 111I$ FACSIMILE MESSACag IS PRML> GEO ANI1coNnournAiRlfsOftMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR 11-IE 119E OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITYNAMED MOVE IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT 111E INTF.ICIED RECIPIENT, 0R THE EMP1OYF.E OFAR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER II'TO TFi1
INTENDaI REEIFICNy. YOU ARC rIENEEITNI211FIED 111AT ANT uis-4e.-1.10Aliu DISTREAcTiONQRCUPPINGorTNi5CC NUNICATIONt5STRICTLYPRQh11tlITED. IF YOU
WAVE RECEIVED THt$ COMMUNICATION IN ERROR ELEME NOTIFY UN HY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE, UPIC3NAI. MESSAGE TO U$ AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE
U.S. POSTAI. $E.I MCC. INEWILL Ft1:(,ylUUnZe Y1 U FOR MCC MISTS INCURRED. -
REV -020:

09/26/2001 16:08 FAX [phone] Mc_.ItIM & CREED
002
*MCKEM&CREED
May 23, 2001 M&C 01471-0003 (10)
Mr. Kim Colson, P.E_
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street, Suite 542
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
'RE; Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant, Durham, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Colson;
In the fellow -up to our meeting on May 15', please find the enclosed documents;
• July 7, 2000
• April 10, 2001
• April 17, 2001
Speculative Limits Letter,.
FONSI Letter
Request for NPDES Submittal
On behalf of Durham County, McKim & Creed has submitted the NPDES permit application for
review and approval, The State has started their formal review procedure of the application.
It Is the County's intentions to serve the new Administration/Laboratory Building with reuse water
for the restrooms, HVAC system, and vehicle washdown for water conservation. The County is
also interested in this approach es a test case or model for implementation of a future reuse
system and for their LEM:A building program. However, at this time, the County Is not ready to
start a full fledge reuse system to the public.
The planned upgrade of the wastewater facilities includes a 5-stage BNR process, clarifiers,
filters and UV disinfection with post aeration. The on -site reuse system will pump water but of
the discharge channel of the UV reactor. The County would like to propose in the interim that
liquid chlorine be utilized and injected in the reuse water stream prior to entering the
hydropncunlatic storage tank This would allow for additional disinfection of the reuse stream to
maintain a fecal count of 14. The) plant NPDES permit requires sampling in order to monitor
discharge limits for fecal, TSS, BOD, and TN. We would suggest an additional sample on the
reuse stream for fecal only_ This interim approach is proposed as the reuse water will be on -site
and basically in contact with plant personal only.
swrnnrftmth-commm.zatC Iorid w
5625 DILLARD PR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
To. / 19.233.8091 FAx [phone] www.rncklmcr9ed,com
Mma:ca�

09/26/2001 16:08 FAX [phone] b1cKIM & CREED
a 003
Mr. Kim Colson, P.E.
May 23, 2001
Page 2
At they meeting, we understood that an RPZ device will be required on site to protect the potable
water supply. We are planning to install this device at the building. Also, several suggestions
were made for troubleshooting the reuse system. First, a water meter was suggested to be
installed on the reuse line to monitor usage. A port for injecting tracing dye in the reuse system
was also suggested to help with tracing Gross connections. It was also suggested that pictures (etl
be taken during construction to document the locations of the reuse lines in the walls and slabs.
The County is in agreement to provide these items in the design of the system piping.
After your review of this information, we request your directions on implementation. On behalf of
the County, we thank you for your time and input.
Very truly yours,
McKIM & CREED, PA
.e �. j
Bry Bla1o, P.E.
Prct Managor
ider
Enclosures
cc: Chuck Hill, P.E.
David Hahn
Wayne Munden
Sn1a71WW1 c-commn p6231(4-1,,_+i
MCKIM & CREED

09/26/2001 16:09 FAX [phone] MCAIM & CREED
Z 004
4mcmm&CREED
July 6, 2001 M&C Project # 014710008 (10)
Ms. Sue Homewood
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
512 S. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
13urham County
Dear Ms. Homewood:
This letter is in follow-up to our conversation regarding our May 23'd letter addressing the
use of reuse water for the proposed Administration/Laboratory Building. As proposed, -
thc upgrade and expansion of the wastewater facility will be comprised of a 5-stage BNR
process, clarifier, tertiary filters and UV disinfection. Although the speculative limits
require a suspended solids limit of 30 mg/1, the process has been designed to meet
reuse quality with a suspended solids limit of 5 mg/1 with a maximum day of 10 mg/1.
The County is planning to utilize "purple° coded piping with valves properly labeled and
locking. However, the County is asking for an exemption concerning continuous turbidity
monitoring and the ability to return effluent that exceeds the TSS or fecal levels. The
reason being is tho reuse lino serving the new Administration/Laboratory Building will
actually branch off of the Internal wash down system. The wash down system will
provide plant effluent for screen washing, clarifier spray system, wash down, etc. These
items are not part of a reuse system and therefore, do not have to meet the reuse
standards. We have designed an internal wash down system utilizing pumps and a
hydro pneumatic pressurized storage tank to provide both the wash down system and
the "reuse system". The storage tank is designed to manually drain if an upset occurs.
Also, this proposed system will be on -site and will be monitored by plant personnel who
understand the issues related to reuse water systems.
We trust this answers your questions. If wo can provide any additional information,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
McKim & Creed, PA
8ryahlBlake, PE
Project Manager
cc' Chuck Hill, PE
David Hahn
S:/14171/C003/10/070601HamDrvexVIC" SUiTI? 117, CAky, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
TEL 9 i 9.233.$091 FAX [phone] www.mctumcreecs.com
&A WM7

a
COUNTY OF DURHAM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
March 9, 2001
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
`
Re: NPDES Permit Renewal: NC0026051
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion — Durham County, NC
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
This letter is to confirm conversation between our consultant, Kevin Eberle, P.E. of
McKim & Creed, P. A. and Tom Belnick of your staff in connection with the NPDES
Permit for our Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility. A copy of their email
correspondence is attached to this letter for reference.
Per Mr. Belnick, we understand that Durham County is legally authorized to operate the
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility with direct discharge to Northeast Creek under
the current permit (even though it expires April 30, 2001) until such time as the Division
issues a new permit. This is based on the fact that the County submitted the required
NPDES Application and supporting documentation in accordance with NCDENR
requirements in July 2000, and the permit renewal delay is due to the Division's
excessive workload. Based on discussions with Tom Belnick of your staff we
understand that the NPDES review process may take as long as 180 days to complete,
and that a letter from NCDENR confirming this information may not be forthcoming.
Therefore, based on the clarity of the correspondence with Mr. Belnick, I am satisfied
that this letter accurately confirms the County's authorization to discharge after the
expiration of and prior to the issuance of the County's NPDES permit.
120 E. Parrish Street, Law Bldg., 1st Floor, Durham, N.C. 27701 [phone] Fax [phone]
Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Employer

D. Goodrich
Page 2
Due to the Division's extreme workload, I am only asking for a response to this letter if
Durham County is not authorized to discharge after the expiration of our NPDES permit,
or if there are other actions required for the County to retain the authorization.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
ci4
Chuck Hill, P.E.
Utility Division Manager
Attachment
cc: Glen E. Whisler, P.E., County Engineer
Bryan Blake, P.E., McKim & Creed
Kevin C. Eberle, P.E., McKim & Creed, P.A.
Tim Baldwin, P.E., McKim & Creed
Tom Belnick, NCDENR-DWQ
CH/j1d

hill, chuck
• From: Kevin Eberle [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:43 PM
To: Chuck Hill (E-mail)
Subject: FW: Durham County Triangle WWTP; NC0026051
Attachment for inclusion with Division of Water Quality Letter.
Original Message
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:18 AM
To: Kevin Eberle
Subject: Re: Durham County Triangle WWTP; NC0026051
Kevin- I'd recommend that the County file away the email, since drafting a
letter for this type of inquiry is very low priority at this time.
Kevin Eberle wrote:
> Hi Tom-
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. Would you mind drafting this response on
> letterhead and sending it to Chuck Hi11,P.E., Durham County Engineering
> Department, 120 East Parrish Street, Law Building, Durham, NC 27701? The
> County would like a copy for their file.
> Thanks again for your assistance!
> Kevin
> Original Message
> From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:25 AM
> To: Kevin Eberle
> Subject: Durham County Triangle WWTP; NC0026051
> Kevin- This email is to confirm the fact that the subject facility is
> allowed to legally operate under their current permit (which expires
> 4/30/01) until a new permit is issued. This is based on the fact that
> the County submitted their renewal application in appropriate time, and
> the permit delay is due to the Division's workload. Assuming the FONSI
> is issued in later March, I'll try to start the renewal process in mid
> April. Since I'm telling everyone at this point to assume up to 180
> days to get a permit, this could push the County's permit issuance out
> to mid -October.
> Mailto:[e-mail]
> N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
> 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
> Work: [phone] ext. 543
> Fax: [phone]
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]

•
?/`frMcIQMf�CREED � y
February 19, 2001
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: NPDES Permit Renewal
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion
Durham County, NC
Dear Mr. Goodrich,
M&C 1471-0002 (10)
FEB232001
ENR - WATER QUALITY
PO,NT SOU":'E BRANCH
The NPDES permit for the Durham County Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility was
originally scheduled to expire on February 28, 2001, but was modified by NCDENR to April 30,
2001 via a NPDES Permit Modification dated August 18, 2000. Durham County completed the
necessary NPDES Permit Application and supporting documentation associated with a request
to expand the capacity of the facility from 6 MGD to 12 MGD on July 26, 2000 and submitted it
to your Office for review and approval. However, we were told that the technical review of the
NPDES permit could not commence until after the FONSI was approved.
We now understand that the Engineering Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment
submitted in support of this application have been reviewed and approved by your Department
and all other mandated review agencies. Mr. Milt Rhodes (NCDENR) has therefore started
preparation of the FONSI and hopes to have it completed this week for public review and
comment. Assuming there is no significant public comment, the earliest the FONSI could be
approved is March 21S1. This leaves only 5 weeks for your Division to complete your review of
the NPDES permit prior to the scheduled NPDES permit expiration date of April 30, 2001.
Based on discussions with Tom Belnick of your staff, we understand that the NPDES review
process may take as long as 180 days to complete. Tom stated that the County would be able
to continue to operate under the existing NPDES Permit (even after it has expired), since they
submitted the required NPDES Application and supporting documentation in accordance with
NCDENR requirements. We would appreciate your written confirmation of this fact to insure
there are no misunderstandings.
Q:1147110002110102-14-01 Goodrich.doc
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] www.mcklmcreed.com
AA0002667

Mr. Dave Goodrich
2/19/01
Page 2
Also, we would appreciate if you could provide an estimated schedule for review of the NPDES
Permit Application, and the date Durham County can expect to have their new NPDES Permit in
place.
On behalf of Durham County, we would like to express our appreciation to you and your staff for
the efforts you have made to work cooperatively with us during the last six months.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED, P.A.
Kevin C. Eberle, P.E.
Project Manager
/der
Enclosure
cc: Chuck Hill, P.E., Durham County
Glen Whisler, P.E., Durham County
Bryan Blake, P.E., McKim & Creed
Tim Baldwin, P.E., McKim & Creed
Q:11471 A0002110102-14-01 Goodr,ch. doc
*fr/McKIM&CREED

MCKIM & CREED
July 26, 2000 M&C 1471.0002 (42)
Mr. Dave Goodrich
NC-DENR Water Quality
Point Source Branch, NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Submittal of NPDES Permit Application, Environmental Assessment, and Engineering
Alternative Analysis & Basis for Final Design Report
Durham County Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility
M&C Project #1471.0002
Dear Dave:
I called and spoke with Tom Belnick earlier this week to discuss the logistics of submitting the
Environmental Assessment (EA), Engineering Alternative Analysis (EAA) and NPDES Permit
Application for the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade. Per Tom's voice mail
message to me today, we understand that the NPDES Unit does not normally review the
NPDES application for a new discharge until after the EA has been reviewed and a Finding of
No Significant Impact has been issued.
However, in Durham's case, we are requesting that you initiate a technical review of the NPDES
Permit Application and EAA simultaneously with the normal EA review for the following reasons:
Durham County's existing NPDES Permit #NC0026051 became effective on April 1,
1996 and expires on February 28, 2001;
Section B, General Conditions, Subsection 10 Expiration of Permit states:
"The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date...Any
permittee that has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration,
or any permittee that does not have a permit after the expiration and has not
requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will subject the
permittee to enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS 143-215.6 and 33
USC 1251 et.seq.
August 28, 2000 is the deadline for the County to apply for their NPDES permit renewal.
Q\147110002110107-26-0OGoodnchNPDES-EAATrans#2.doc
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
TEL [phone] FAX [phone] www.mckimcreed.com

Mr. Dave Goodrich
July 26, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Since 1998, the County has diligently pursued an evaluation of alternatives to
accommodate future wastewater flows in the Triangle Basin; these efforts have included
discussions with the City of Durham relative to wastewater regionalization, as well as the
feasibility of upgrading the existing Triangle WWTF to a state-of-the-art biological
nutrient removal process. The County has also investigated the potential for effluent
reuse.
r Projected wastewater flows to the existing Triangle WWTF are expected to reach design
capacity in October 2001. Failure to increase wastewater treatment capacity could
have significant economic impacts to the County and the entire Triad Region.
For these reasons, we are submitting three copies of the NPDES Permit Application, EAA and
EA to you, along with the eight copies of the Environmental Assessment that are being
simultaneously delivered to Steve Zoufaly in the DENR Water Quality Planning Branch for the
required multi -disciplinary review.
We trust that the attached documents are sufficient to allow you to complete your review and
initiate the required public hearing process. However, please feel free to contact me if you need
additional information.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED
Kevin Eberle, P.E.
Senior Engineer
C: Chuck Hill, Durham County
Glen Whisler, Durham County
Steve Zoufaly, NCDENR, Water Quality Planning Division
Tim Baldwin, McKim & Creed
Bryan Blake, McKim & Creed
Q:11471 \0002110107-26-0OGoodrichN P DES-EAATrans#2. doc
4›/McKIM&CREED

,5typfersieti kr 06(A
co/ ('erl.04
NPDES Permit No.
Abbr. No.
Permittee
Contact
Salutation
Address
City
State
ZIP
Facility Name
Address
City
State
ZIP
Location 1
Location 2
County
Receiving Stream
Classification
River Basin
Subbasln No.
WWTP Status
Design Q
Regional Office
Letter cc *1
Letter cc #2
Permit Writer
Ext
Signature Block 1
Signature Block 2
Signature Block 3
NC0026051
Durham County
Chuck Hill, Engineering Dept
Mr. HIll
120 Parrish St. law Bldg.
Durham County
North Carolina
27701
Durham County Triangle WWTP
5926 NC Highway 55
Durham
North Carolina
27713
5926 NC Highway 55
Durham
Durham
Northeast Creek
WS-IV NSW
Cape Fear
030605
Existing
6 MGD
Raleigh
Tom Belnick
543
Tom Belnick
NPDES Unit
Permit Type
Discharge Status
SIC #1
SIC #2
SIC #3
WW Code #1
WW Code #2
WW Code #3
WW Code #4
WW Code #5
Basin Code
Latitude
Longitude
Major
Minor
Subminor
M
S
D
M
S
Type Ownership
Facility Type
Main Tmt Unit Code
USGS Quad Map No.
Quad Map Name
Stream Index No.
Facility Class
Public Notice Date:
Issue Date:
Existing
Existing
4952
01
59
57
79
33
03
06
05
..........
35
52
51
78
53
50
MU
Major
051-3
D23NW
SE Durham
IV
7/28/99
9/13/99
303(d) listed (Y/N)
305(b) listed (YM)
Use Support (S. ST. PS. NS)
Drainage Area (sq. mi.):
S7010 (cis):
W7010 (cfs):
3002 (cis):
°Avg (cfs):
IWC (%):
USGS Sta. No.
ZaD t-tivt4( 3 3 41 tiliEn /VOW p/isfil orph thehurt.
YES
18.00
0
0.5
0.9
20.00

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Self -Monitoring Summary April 19. 2001'
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Duke Power -Lincoln Turbine P-2-Penn chr lim: 23% (Grab) 1997 -- >92 - - >92 >92 - >92
NC0080781/001 Begin:9/1/1996 Frequency: Q Mar Jun Sep Dec NonComp: ChV Avg 1998 -- - 65.05 - - 32.5 -- 65.05 - - >92
County: Lincoln Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB33 1999 -- - >92 - - >92 -- >92 - - 65.05
PF: 0.4 Special 2000 .- >92 - -- >92 -- 65.05 - - 65.05
7010: 2.1 IWC(%)23 Order: 2001 --
Duke Power -Marshall 002 Pcrm chr lim: 12% (Grab) 1997 -- Pass - - Pass -- --- Pass -- -- Pass
NC0004987/002 Begin: 10/1/1995 Frequency: Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp: Single 1998 - Pass - -- Pass -- Pass >48 Pass
County: Catawba Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB32 1999 - Pass - - Pass -- Pass -- -- Pass
PF: 5.3 Special 2000 - Pass - Pass -- Pass -- Pass
7Q10:60.0 IWC(%):12.0 Order 2001 - Pass
Duke Power -McGuire 001 Perm 24hr p/fac lim: 90•/ (Cerio) 1997 - Pass - - Pass Pass -- Pass
NC0024392/001 Begin:10/1/2000 Frequency: Q + Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 1998 - Pass - -- Pass Pass -- -- Pass
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB32 1999 - Pass - Pass -- -- Pass -- -- Pass
PF: NA Special 2000 - Pass - -- Pass Pass -- Pass
7Q10:80 IWC(%):90 Orden 2001 -- Pass
Duke Power -McGuire 002 Perm 48hr LC50 ac lim: 64% (Grab) 1997 -- >100 - -- >100 -- -- >100 --- --- >100
NC0024392/002 Begin:10/1/2000 Frequency: Q + Feb May Aug Nov + NonComp:Single 1998 - >100 - -- >100 -- -- >100 -- -- >100
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB33 1999 - >100 - >100 >t0o -- -- >100
PF: 03315 Special 2000 - >100 - -- >100 -- -- >100 -- -- >too
7Q10: 80.0 IWC(%)d.64 Order: 2001 - >100
Duke Power -McGuire 005 Perm chr lim; 1.4% (Grab)
NC0024392/005 Begin:10/1/2000 Frequency: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Mecklenburg Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB33
PF: 0.754 Special
7Q10: 80.0 IWC(%):1.4 Order:
+ NonComp:Single
1997 Pass
1998 Pass
1999 Pass
2000 Pass
2001 Pass
Pass --- - Pass
Pass -- Pass
Pass --- Pass
Bt - -- Late
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Duke Power -River Bend 002 Perm chr lim: 10% (Grab)
NC0004961 /002 Begin:9/1 /1996 Frequency: Q P/F + Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Gaston Region: MRO Subbasin: CTB33
PF: NA Special
7Q10: 80.0 IWC(% ):10.36 Order:
NonComp: Single
Y 1997 Pass - Pass -- Pass - - Pass
1998 Pass - - Pass -- -- Pass --- Pass
1999 Pass - Pass --- --- Pass -- Pass
2000 pass - - 9t Late Pass - Pass
2001 Pass --
Dunn/Blackriver WWTP Perm chr lim: IV. 1997 - --- Pass - -- Pass -- - Pass -- Pass
NC0043176/001 Begin:9/1/1996 Frequency: Q P/F + Mar Jun Sep Dec NonComp: Single 1998 -- - Fail.Pass -- Pass - - Pass - -- Pass
County: Harnett Region: FRO Subbasin: CPFI3 1999 -- -- Pass - - Pass - Pass Pass
PF: 3.75 Spacial 2000 -- -- Pass Pass - Pass -- --- Pass
7Q10: 586.6 IWC(%):I.O Order: 2001 -
Dupont De Nemours Perm chr lim: 3.3% 1997 - Pass - Pass - Pass --- Pass
NC0003573/001 Begin:9/l/1996 Frequency: Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp:Singlc t998 - Pass - - Pass - -- Pass -- -- Pass
County: Bladen Region: FRO Subbasin: CPF16 1999 - Pass - - Late Pass - Pass -- Pass
PF: 17 Special 2000 .- Late Pass - Pass - - Pass --- --- Pass
7QII1i 791.0 IWC(%)3.3 Order: 2001 --- Pass
Durham Co. -Triangle WWTP Perm chr lim: 90% Y 1997 -- Pass - Pass -- Fail Pass -- Pass
NC0026051(901 Begin:4/1/1996 Frequency: Q P/F + Feb May Aug Nov NonComp:Single 1998 --- Pass - - '. '.9 - a -- -- Pass
County: Durham Region: RRO Subbasin: CPF05 1999 -- Pass - - Pass - -- Pass -- -- NR/Pass
PF. 6.0 Spacial 2000 .- NR)Pass - - Bt -- Pass Pass --- --- Pass
7010: 0.0 IWC(°61:100 Order: 2001 -- NR
Dnrham-Northside WWTP Perm chr lim: 90%
NC0023841/001 Begin: Il/1/2000 Frequency: Q Jan Apr Jul Oct
County: Durham Region: RRO Subbasin: NEU01
PF: 20.0 Special
7Q10: 0.075 IWC(%):99.5 Order:
+ NonComp:Single
Y 1997 Late
1998 Pass
1999 Pass
2000 pass
2001 Pass
Pass
Pass - Pass -- Pa55
Pass - - Pass -- Pass
Pass - - Pass -- -- Pass
Pass -- Pass -- -- Pass
E. 1. Dupont De Nemours/Kinston Fac. PERM CHR LIM: 1.9% 1997 Pass - Pass -- -- Bt .- Pass
NC0003760/001 Begin:7/1/1994 Frequency: Q P/F + Jan Apr Jul Oct NonComp:SINGLE 1998 Pass - Pass -- Pass- - -- Pass
County. Lenoir Region: WARO Subbasin: NEU05 1999 Pass --- -- Pass -- Pass - -- Pass
PF: 3.6 Special 2000 Pass -- - Pass -- Pass - Pass
7Q10: 283.1 IWC(%):1.9 Order: 2001 Pass ---
Y Pre 1997 Data Available
LEGEND:
PERM = Permit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimomhly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually; OWD- Only when discharging; D- Discontinued monitoring requirement
Begin = First month required 7Q10 = Receiving stream low Bow criterion (efs) += quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon failure or NR Months that testing must occur - ex. Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct NonComp = Current Compliance Requirement
PF = Permitted flow (MGD) IWC % = lnetrcam waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic
Data Notation: f - Fathead Minnow; • - Ceriodaplmia sp.; my - Mysid shrimp; ChV - Chronic value; P - Morality of stated percentage at highest concentration; at - Performed by DWQ Aquatic Tox Unit; bt - Bad test
Reporting Notation: --- = Data not required; NR - Not reported Facility Activity Status: 1 - Inactive. N - Newly Issued(To construct); H - Active but not discharging; t-More data available for month in question; • = ORC signature needed
17

Cape Fear River Basin
Name & Description
Part 1 1
Waters for which TMDLs are required.
Total
Class Index # Subbasin Miles Use Cause of Impairment miles acres Approach Potential Sources Priori
(Acres) Rating TMDL Status
Northeast Creek
From N.C. Hwy. 55 to Durham Co.
WWTP
WS-IV 16-41-1-17- 30605 2.6 NR Fecal Coliform 2.6 TMDL
NSW (0.7)a
High
Development
Note: Index number on 1998 303(d) should have been -(0.7) not -(7). Intensive fecal coliform monitoring in progress. Monitoring should be completed in Summer, 2000. Sediment removed based on new
biological information.
Northeast Creek WS-IV 16-41-1-17- 30605 5.8 PS Fecal Coliform 5.8 TMDL High
Durham Co. WWTP to a point 0.5 NSW (0.7)b Development
mile downstream of Panther Creek
Note: Index number on 1998 303(d) should have been -(0.7) not -(7). Intensive fecal coliform monitoring in progress. Monitoring should be completed in Summer, 2000. Sediment removed based on new
biological information. No longer impaired for turbidity, copper. New chemical/physical data.
East Fork Deep River WS-IV * 17-2-(0.3) 30608 6.5 PS Fecal Coliform 6.5 TMDL Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From source to a point 0.4 mile Industrial Permitted
downstream of Guilford County SR
1541
Deep River WS-IV CA 17-(4)b 30608 6.8 PS Fecal Coliform 6.8 TMDL Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From SR 1113 ( Guilford) to SR 1921 *
(Randolph)
Note: This segment is scheduled to be impounded by Randleman Reservoir. Fecal coliform levels in the river may not be a good indicator of likely fecal coliform levels in the reservoir. Fecal coliform levels in the
reservoir will be monitored after construction. TMDL development will be postponed until reservoir constructed and monitoring indicates impairment. No longer impaired for lindane or turbidity. New
chemical/physical data.
Richland Creek WS-IV' 17-7-(0.5) 30608 6.4 NS Fecal Coliform 6.4 TMDL Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From source to a point 0.4 mile
upstream of Guilford County SR 1154
Note: A new ambient station needs to be established in this segment. The ambient station in 17-7-(4) used to identify fecal coliform as a cause of impairment in this segment will be impounded by Randleman
Reservoir. No longer impaired for turbidity, copper, lindane. New chemical/physical data.
Richland Creek WS-IV CA 17-7-(4) 30608 2.6 NS Fecal Coliform 2.6 TMDL Major Municipal Point High
From a point 0.4 mile upstream of * Source
Guilford County SR 1 154 to Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Randleman Reservoir. Deep River
Note: Some of this segment will be impounded by Randleman Reservoir. Fecal colifort levels in the river may not be a good indicator of likely fecal coliform levels in the reservoir. Fecal coliform levels in the
reservoir will be monitored after construction. TMDL development will be postponed until reservoir is constructed and monitoring indicates impairment. No longer impaired for turbidity, copper, lindane. New
chemical/physical data.
April 3, 2000 North Carolina's 2000 § 303(d) List Part 1, Cape Fear, Page 2 of 11:
SL

Cape Fear River Basin
Name & Description
Part 5
Total
Class Index # Subbasin Miles Use Cause of Impairment miles acres Approach Potential Sources Priori
(Acres) Rating
Biologically impaired waters. Pollution/pollutant monitoring will place waters
on Part 1 or Part 2.
New Hope Creek WS-IV 16-41-1-(11.5) 30605 24.5 PS Historical listing for 24.5 PPI Major Municipal Point High
From a point 0.3 mile upstream of NSW 'sediment' based on Source
Durham County SR 2220 to a point biological impairment Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
0.8 mile downstream of Durham
County SR 1107
Note: Intensive fecal coliform monitoring in progress. Monitoring should be completed in Summer, 2000.
Third Fork Creek
From source to a point 2.0 miles
. upstream of N.C. Hwy. 54
C NSW 16-41-I-12-(1) 30605 5.1 NR Cause Unknown
5.1 PPI Low
Northeast Creek
From a point 0.5 mile downstream of
Panther Creek to New Hope Creek
Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake
WS-IV 16-41-1 -17-(4) 30605 1.5 PS Habitat Degradation 1.5 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Hieh
NSW CA
Non -urban development
Little Creek WS-IV 16-41-I-15-(0.5) 30606 5,4 NS Habitat Degradation 5.4 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Hieh
From source to a point 0.7 mile NSW
downstream of Durham County SR
1110
Bolin Creek WS-IV 16-41-1-15-1-(4) 30606 1.0 PS Historical listing for 1.0 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From U.S. Hwy. 501 Business to NSW 'sediment' based on
Little Creek biological impairment
Booker Creek (Eastwood Lake) B NSW 16-41-1-15-2-(1) 30606 3.6 PS Cause Unknown 3.6 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Low
From source to dam at Eastwood Lake
Booker Creek C NSW 16-41-1-15-2-(4) 30606 1.2 PS Cause Unknown
From dam at Eastwood Lake to U.S.
Hwy. 15
1.2 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Low
Booker Creek WS-IV 16-41-I-15-2-(5) 30606 0.8 PS Cause Unknown 0.8 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From U.S. Hwy. 15 to Little Creek NSW
Little Creek WS-IV I6-41-I-15-(3) 30606 0.7 PS Habitat Degradation 0.7 PPI Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers High
From a point 0.7 mile downstream of NSW CA
Durham County SR 1 1 10 to New
Hope Creek
April 3, 2000 North Carolina's 2000 § 303(d) List Part 5, Cape Fear, Page 61 of 11: l'•J

4
.a
7
7
Chapter 5 -
Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
Includes New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Jordan Reservoir
5.1 Water Quality Overview
Subbasin 03-06-05 at a Glance
269
Land area: 251
Water area: 18
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
Total area:
Population Statistics
1990 Est. Pop.: 102,058 people
Pop. Density: 407 person/mil
Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 78.2
Surface Water: 8.2
Urban: 6.4
Cultivated Crop: 0.6
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 6.6
Use Support Ratings
Freshwater Streams:
Fully Supporting: 52.5 mi.
0 Partially Supporting: 39.9 mi.
Not Supporting: 0.0 mi.
Not Rated: 122.4 mi.
Lakes:
B. Everett Jordon Reservoir -
Fully Supporting
This subbasin includes large sections of the City of
Durham and Research Triangle Park. New Hope Creek
and many of its tributaries are within the geological
formation of the Triassic Basin, an area that covers about
1,100 square miles. The 7Q10 values are zero for all but
the largest watersheds. A large percentage of land use
within this subbasin is urban and built-up. A map of the
subbasin, including water quality sampling locations, is
presented in Figure B-5.
Biological ratings for these sample locations are presented
in Table B-5. The current sampling resulted in impaired
ratings for two streams in this subbasin. Refer to
Appendix III for a complete listing of monitored waters
and use support ratings. See Section A, Chapter 3, Table
A-31 for a summary of lakes use support data.
There are eight permitted dischargers in the subbasin.
Two facilities have permitted flows of greater than 1
MGD. These facilities discharge to Northeast Creek
(Durham County Triangle WWTP) and New Hope Creek
(South Durham Water Reclamation Facility) and have
instream waste concentrations of 100% and 99.5%,
respectively, under 7Q10 flow conditions. Elevated
nutrient concentrations and depressed dissolved oxygen
values have been recorded at both of these locations when
compared to most other Haw River tributary locations.
Median fecal coliform counts are above water quality
criteria at both of these locations.
Both point and nonpoint sources have impacted streams in this highly urbanized subbasin.
Streams in this subbasin are typical of the Triassic Basin with 7Q10 values of zero and poor
instream habitat. For these reasons, most streams in this subbasin were not sampled because of
low flow conditions or were not rated using benthic macroinvertebrate criteria.
Fish tissue samples were collected from two locations on Jordan Lake during 1998: Farrington
arm and near the dam. Only one largemouth bass from the Farrington arm location had a
mercury concentration exceeding EPA criteria.
Section B: Chapter 5 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 138

Cape Fear River 030605
6 Macroinvertebrate Station
Fish Community Station
® Ambient Monitoring Station
^
/ V Stream
Ign Municipal Boundary
Figure B-5 Sampling Locations within Subbasin 03-06-05

4
4
4
Table B-5 Biological Assessment Sites in Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05
BENTHOS
Bioclassification
Site #
Stream
County Location 1993 1998
B-4
B-6
B-11
B-12
New Hope Creek
Northeast Creek
Beartree Creek
White Oak Creek
Durham SR 1107 Not sampled Fair (s)
Durham SR 1102 Not Rated (w) Not rated (w)
Chatham SR 1716 Not Rated (w) Not rated (w)
Chatham SR 1603 Not sampled Not rated (w)
FISH
Bioclassification
Site #
Stream
County Location 1994 1998
F-1
New Hope Creek
Durham SR 2220 no sample Poor
FISH TISSUE
No. Samples
Exceeding Criteria
Station
_ ___ _ - - - - — -
FT-1
Description
Year
Sampled
1998
Total
_Samples
24
Metals
_ .�_ _..... _. —
1
0
Organics
-
0
__ _
0
Comments
EPA mercury limit
exceeded in 1 bass sample_
No samples exceeded
criteria
- ---- - --
Lake Jordan
near Farrington
Lake Jordan
near Dam
FT-2
1998
22
(w) Winter collection (s) Summer collection
5.2 Impaired Waters
Portions of New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek, Third Fork Creek and White Oak Creek were
identified as impaired in the 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Portions of
New Hope Creek and Northeast Creek are currently rated impaired according to recent DWQ
monitoring. Current status of each stream is discussed below. Prior recommendations, future
recommendations and projects aimed at improving water quality for these waters are also
discussed when applicable. 303(d) listed waters are summarized in Part 5.3 and waters with
other issues, recommendations or projects are discussed in Part 5.4.
New Hope Creek
1996 Recommendations
New Hope Creek (20.7 miles from I-40 to SR 1107) was not supporting (NS) in the 1996 Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. The stream receives a large discharge from South
Durham Water Reclamation Facility. The instream waste concentration was 99% during summer
low flow conditions. The stream was subject to low dissolved oxygen (DO). The upstream
segments receive wastewater from smaller discharges that reduce the instream DO prior to the
WWTP. It was recommended that upon expansion from 10 to 20 MGD, the WWTP should meet
advanced tertiary treatment of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 1 mg/1 NH3-N. It was also recommended that
smaller discharges into zero flow streams above the WWTP connect to regional treatment
facilities.
Section B: Chapter 5 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 140

Current Status
The South Durham Water Reclamation Facility has expanded to 20 MGD with permitted limits
of 5 mg/1 BOD5 and 2 mg/I NH3-N and 2 mg/1 TP. The instream waste concentration is 100%
during summer low flow conditions. Some of the small discharges in the area have connected to
regional facilities. However, because of insufficient DWQ staffing, more regionalization of
wastewater treatment has not been pursued. New Hope Creek (25 miles from Sandy Creek to SR
1107) is currently partially supporting (PS) according to recent DWQ monitoring because of an
impaired biological community. Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint
sources and the South Durham Water Reclamation Facility discharge is a possible cause of
impairment. Manganese and fecal coliform bacteria are also noted as problem parameters in the
lower segment. New Hope Creek is on the state's year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
New Hope Creek is in heavily urbanized areas of Durham and should benefit from the existing
city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1 and Section C, Chapter 1, Part
1.5.1). DWQ will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality
in these streams. DWQ is currently studying New Hope Creek to determine the extent and
possible sources of fecal coliform bacteria contamination. DWQ also encourages further efforts
to connect small discharges in this watershed to a regional facility. The South Durham Water
Reclamation Facility is in compliance with current permitted limits. Permit limits may be
reevaluated after modeling efforts are completed to address the NSW strategy for Jordan
Reservoir/Haw River (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4).
The 800-acre New Hope Creek Riparian buffer and greenway trail system is protecting this
stream from rapid commercial and residential development in this watershed. For more
information on this project, refer to Section C, Chapter 1, Part 1.5.1.
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program and Duke University received a grant of
$582,500 to collaborate on the restoration of degraded streambanks and riparian areas of Sandy
Creek, within the New Hope Creek watershed. The project will treat stormwater runoff within
the 25-acre project watershed adjacent to the University Campus. Treatment methods will
include the installation of twelve biofiltration areas to receive and attenuate runoff from parking
and trail areas, and a structure to create an instream stormwater wetland and support the
restoration of degraded streambanks. The Wetland Program at Duke University will monitor
water quality at 15 sites in the project area to determine the success of the project design.
Northeast Creek
1996 Recommendations
Northeast Creek (13 miles from source to Jordan Reservoir) was partially supporting (PS) in the
1996 plan. The stream receives a large discharge from the Durham County -Triangle WWTP.
The instream waste concentration was 99% during summer low flow conditions, and the stream
was subject to low dissolved oxygen (DO). Because of low summer flows, it was recommended
that no new discharges be allowed.
Section B: Chapter 5 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 141

Current Status
No new discharges have been permitted into this stream. There was a 1.6 million -gallon sewage
spill from Durham County -Triangle WWTP in 1997. Northeast Creek (14.9 miles from source
to New Hope Creek arm of Jordan Reservoir, 3 segments) is currently partially supporting (PS)
according to recent DWQ monitoring data because of an impaired biological community.
Instream habitat degradation associated with urban nonpoint sources and the Durham County
Triangle WWTP is a possible cause of impairment. Manganese, fecal coliform bacteria and low
dissolved oxygen (DO) are also noted as problem parameters. Northeast Creek is on the state's
year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
2000 Recommendations
Northeast Creek is in heavily urbanized areas of Durham and Research Triangle Park and should
benefit from the existing city stormwater program (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.7.1). DWQ
will work with the stormwater program, where possible, to improve water quality in these
streams. Durham County Triangle WWTP is in compliance with current permitted limits.
Permit limits may be reevaluated after modeling efforts are completed to address the NSW
strategy for Jordan Reservoir/Haw River (see Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4).
Third Fork Creek
Current Status
Third Fork Creek (4.5 miles from source to Jordan Reservoir) was not supporting (NS) in the
1996 plan. An impaired biological community and turbidity related to development in the
watershed were the causes of impairment. New biological information has determined that the
previous rating was inappropriate because of the small size of the stream. Third Fork is currently
not rated.
2000 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor the impacts of land development on streams in this watershed.
The 303(d) list approach will be to resample this stream to obtain updated use support
information.
White Oak Creek
Current Status
White Oak Creek (0.4 miles from NC 751 to New Hope River Arm of Jordan Reservoir) was
identified as partially supporting (PS) in the 1996 basinwide plan because of an impaired
biological community. White Oak Creek is currently not rated (NR). Based on new biological
information, it was determined that the previous biological rating was inappropriate. This stream
is not on the state's year 2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved).
Section B: Chapter 5 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05 142

5.3 303(d) Listed Waters
There are three streams (49 stream miles) in the subbasin that are impaired and on the state's year
2000 303(d) list (not yet EPA approved). New Hope Creek, Northeast Creek and Third Fork
Creek are on the list and are addressed above. For information on 303(d) listing requirements
and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
5.4 Other Issues, Recommendations and Projects
Approximately 60% of the waters in this subbasin are impaired by nonpoint source pollution
(mostly urban). All the waters of the subbasin are affected by nonpoint sources. DENR, other
state agencies and environmental groups have programs and initiatives underway to address
water quality problems associated with nonpoint sources. DWQ will notify local agencies of
water quality concerns in this subbasin and work with these various agencies to conduct further
monitoring, as well as assist agency personnel with locating sources of funding for water quality
protection.
Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association
The Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association (UCFRBA) is starting to sample 45 sites in the
upper Deep and Haw River watersheds. The data will be analyzed to support various studies and
will be used with DWQ data to develop use support ratings for waters in the Cape Fear River
basin during the upcoming basinwide cycle.
Jordan Reservoir
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir is currently supporting its designated uses. There are currently no
public health advisories for swimming, fish consumption or drinking water use. Aquatic weeds
are not currently a significant issue. The water treatment plant using the Jordan Reservoir as a
raw water source has had (1995, 1996) some experiences with taste and odor issues as a result of
noxious algal growth. However, these treatment concerns are not currently a problem according
to the water plant operators. Recent DWQ evaluations of water quality, however, continue to
show concerns for water quality standards. Water quality standards related to eutrophication are
not consistently achieved. Continued growth in the drainage basin is likely to increase runoff
and increase delivery of nutrients and sediment to the reservoir.
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir receives discharges from many large municipal facilities via the Haw
River, Morgan Creek, New Hope Creek and Northeast Creek. The cumulative effect of the
discharges increases the potential for water quality problems associated with excessive nutrients.
Because the facilities in the Jordan watershed are increasing flow capacity in response to
population growth, steps will need to be taken to prevent water quality degradation in Jordan
Reservoir from both point and nonpoint sources. Refer to Section A, Chapter 4, Part 4.4 for
updates on the Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy.
Section B: Chapter 5 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-05

Therefore, only limited progress towards restoring NPS impaired waters can be expected during
this five-year cycle unless substantial resources are put toward solving NPS problems. Due to
these restraints, this plan has no NPS management strategies for many of the streams with NPS
problems.
DWQ plans to further evaluate the impaired waters in the Cape Fear River basin in conjunction
with other NPS agencies and develop management strategies for a portion of these impaired
waters for the next Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, in accordance with the
requirements of Section 303(d) (see Part 4.3 below).
4.3 Addressing Waters on the State's 303(d) List
For the next several years, addressing water quality impairment in waters that are on the state's
303(d) list will be a priority. The waters in the Cape Fear River basin that are on this list are
presented in the individual subbasin descriptions in Section B. For information on listing
requirements and approaches, refer to Appendix IV.
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop a 303(d) list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. States are also required to
develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or management strategies for 303(d) listed
waters to address impairment. In the last few years, the TMDL program has received a great deal
of attention as the result of a number of lawsuits filed across the country against EPA. These
lawsuits argue that TMDLs have not adequately been developed for specific impaired waters. As
a result of these lawsuits, EPA issued a guidance memorandum in August 1997 that called for
states to develop schedules for developing TMDLs for all waters on the 303(d) list. The
schedules for TMDL development, according to this EPA memo, are to span 8-13 years.
There are approximately 2,387 impaired stream miles on the 303(d) list in NC. The rigorous and
demanding task of developing TMDLs for each of these waters during an 8 to 13-year time frame
will require the focus of much of the water quality program's resources. Therefore, it will be a
priority for North Carolina's water quality programs over the next several years to develop
TMDLs for 303(d) listed waters. This task will be accomplished through the basinwide planning
process and schedule.
4.4 Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy for Jordan/Haw River Watershed
The 1996 Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan recommended that a nutrient fate and transport model
be developed to better identify point and nonpoint source impacts and to evaluate the Nutrient
Sensitive Waters strategy. It was determined that water in the Haw River was high in nutrients
and that conditions existed for potential algal growth. Ambient monitoring data indicate high
nutrient loads at both high and low flows, implicating point and nonpoint sources.
Status of Progress
In 1983, the Haw River and Jordan Reservoir (subbasins 03-06-01 to 03-06-06) were classified
as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). The NSW strategy mandated effluent total phosphorus (TP)
Section A: Chapter 4 — Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 89

of 2.0 mg/l for all discharges of 50,000 GPD or greater. Currently all subject discharges are
meeting this limit. Nutrient overenrichment is a continuing potential source of impairment to the
waters in this watershed. The Clean Water Responsibility Act (House Bill 515) was enacted in
1997 to further address ongoing problems associated with waters classified as NSW. The Act
sets limits for nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) discharges to NSW waters. The limits apply
to facilities discharging more than 0.5 MGD that were in operation or had authorization to
construct prior to July 1,1997, and all facilities issued authorization to construct after that date.
Senate Bill 1366 granted extensions to compliance dates in watersheds affected by House Bill
515. The extension includes conditions that the dischargers must meet, including development
of a calibrated nutrient response model. The municipalities of Greensboro, Mebane, Reidsville,
Graham, Pittsboro, Burlington, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority requested compliance
extensions from the nutrient limits, primarily because of the nitrogen reduction requirements.
Compliance extension requests were received by DWQ prior to the statutory deadline of January
1, 1999. South Durham, Durham RTP and Cone Mills did not apply for the extension. Triangle
J and Piedmont Council of Governments are administering the project and have hired a
consultant to perform the modeling tasks. Progress on the compliance extension will be reported
to the Environmental Management Commission two times a year.
4.5 Randleman Reservoir
In November 1998, waters in the proposed Randleman Reservoir watershed were reclassified to
WS-IV CA. Rules have been adopted (15A NCAC 2B .0248 through .0251) to help prevent
potential water quality problems in the proposed reservoir. The rules address point source
discharges by not allowing new or expanding discharges into the watershed except for High
Point Eastside WWTP. This facility will have to meet phosphorus limits established to protect
water quality standards. The rules also address nonpoint source pollution in the Randleman
Reservoir watershed with management strategies that maintain and protect riparian areas and
require urban stormwater programs to be developed by local governments having land use
authority in the watershed.
Local governments are required to develop ordinances or modify existing water supply
ordinances to protect riparian areas and implement stormwater management plans by January 1,
2000. All of the affected local governments have submitted their revised ordinances to meet the
specifications set forth in the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Nutrient Management
Strategy (15A NCAC 2B .0248 through .0251) for approval by the EMC's Water Quality
Committee.
4.6 Modeling Efforts in the Lower Cape Fear River and Estuary
DWQ, in cooperation with the Lower Cape Fear River Program (LCFRP), (see Section C,
Chapter 1, Part 1.4.1), EPA and other interested stakeholders are developing a dynamic water
quality model for the Cape Fear River from Lock and Dam #1 downstream to near the mouth of
the estuary. The modeling domain will also include portions of the Black and Northeast Cape
Fear Rivers. The model will be used as a tool for assessing the assimilative capacity of the
system and for the development of a TMDL for oxygen -consuming wastes. DWQ is working
Section A: Chapter 4 — Water Quality Issues Related to the Entire Cape Fear River Basin 90

CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Subbasin Stream Index Number Map Number Class
Neville Creek CPF06 16-41-2-2-1-(2) D22NE7 WS-II NSW CA
New Hope Creek CPF05 16-41-1-(0.5) C22SW9 C NSW
New Hope Creek CPFOS 16-41-1-(11.5) D23NW4 WS-IV NSW
New Hope Creek CPF19 18-68-3-1 H26SW7 C Sw
New Hope Creek (including New Hope Creek Arm CPFOS 16-41-1-(14) D23NW7 WS-IV NSW CA
of New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan
Lake)
New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake
(below normal pool elevation)
New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake
(below normal pool elevation)
New Hope River Arm of B. Everett Jordan Lake
(below normal pool elevation)
CPFOS 16-41-(0.5) D23SW4 WS-IV&B NSW CA
CPF04 16-41-13.5) D22SE6 WS-IV&B NSW CA
CPF05 16-41-(3.5) D22SE6 WS-IV&B NSW CA
Nicholson Creek (Mott Lake) CPF15 18-31-14 G22SW5 C
Nick Creek CPF12 17-43-9 D21SW8 C
Nicks Creek CPF14 18-23-3 (1.5) G21NW2 WS-III CA
Nicks Creek CPF14 18-23-3-(3) WS-III
Nicks Creek (Von Canon Lake) CPF14 18-23-3-(0.5) WS-III
Nigis Creek CPF17 18-88-1-2 L26NE3 SC Sw HQW
Ninemile Swamp CPF22 18-74-26-1-1 H28SW8 C Sw
Nixon Channel CPF24 18-87-20 J28SW4 SA ORW
Nixons Creek CPF24 18-87-11 J28NW9 SA
Norris Branch CPF07 18-7-5-1 E23NE7 C
North Branch CPF22 18-74-29-2-3-1 H26SE4 C Sw
North Buffalo Creek CPF02 16-11-14-1 C19SE4 C NSW
North Prong Anderson Creek (Cambro Pond) CPF14 18-23-32-1 F23SW5 C
North Prong Carvers Creek (Currin Lake) CPF15 18-24-2 G23NE4 WS-IV
North Prong Richland Creek (Fariows Lake) CPF09 17-22-1 E19NE8 C
North Prong Rocky River CPF12 17-43-4 D20SE3 WS-III
North Prong Stinking Quarter Creek CPF03 16-19-8-1 D20NW9 C NSW
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF21 18-74-(1) G26NE6 C Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF22 18-74-(1) G26NE6 C Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF22 18 74-(25.5) H27SE4 C Sw HQW
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF22 18-74-(29.5) I27NW2 C Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF23 18-74-(29.5) I27NW2 C Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF23 18-74-(47.5) J27NE4 B Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF23 18-74-(52.5) J27SW2 C Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF17 18-74-(61) J27SW8 SC Sw
Northeast Cape Fear River CPF23 18-74-(61) J27SW8 SC Sw
Northeast Creek CPF05 16-41--1-17-(0.3) D23NW6 C NSW
Northeast Creek CPF05 16-41-1-17-(0.7) D23NW9 WS-IV NSW
Northeast Creek CPFOS 16-41-1-17-(4) D23SW4 WS-IV NSW CA
Oak Branch CPF14 18-23-29-2-3 F22SE8 C
Oak Branch CPF21 18-74-8-4-1 G27NE7 C Sw
Oakie Branch CPF22 18-74-28 H27SW8 C Sw
Old Creek CPF23 18-74-51 J27NE7 C Sw
Old Field Branch CPF14 18-23-16-8-7 F22SW7 WS-III
Old Field Creek CPF05 16-41-1-7 D22NE2 C NSW
Old Mill Creek CPF24 18-87-7 J28NE5 SA
Old Mill Swamp CPF19 18-68-1-6 G25NW9 C Sw
Old Topsail Creek CPF24 18-87-12 J28SW2 SA
Oppossum Swamp CPF19 18-68-1-17-2 G24NE9 C Sw
Orton Creek (Orton Pond) CPF17 18-86 L26NE2 C Sw
Page 20 of 30
d►.c olimi y ilea, tiot, M T)oglin L4

IWC Calculations
Durham County -Triangle
NC0026051
Prepared By: Tom Belnick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10(cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
6
0
0.5
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (I
IWC (°b)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF <331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
0 7010 (CFS)
6 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
9.3 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)
0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
100.00 IWC (°o)
17 Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
0
6
9.3
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
0.5
6
9.3
1.8
0.22
94.90
1.9
5/11/01

IWC Calculations
Durham County -Triangle
NC0026051
Prepared By: Tom Be!nick, NPDES Unit
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10(cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
12
0
0.5
Residual Chlorine
7010 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (l
IWC (°%o)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Limit
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DE <331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
0
12
18.6
17.0
0
100.00
17
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
200/100mI DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.00 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
0
12
18.6
1.0
0.22
100.00
1.0
0.5
12
18.6
1.8
0.22
97.38
1.8
5/11/01

DMR Data Review- EFFLUENT --001
Facility: Durham County Triangle
N C00 26051
Preparer: Tom Belnick
Date: 5/15/01
Eff Eff
Month AvgQ Max TRC
MGDC� ug/I
Eff
AvgBOD
mg/I
Eff
AvgNH3-N
mg/I
Eff Eff Eff Eff
AvgTSS AvgFecal MinDO TN
mg/I #/100m1 mg/I mg/I
Eff
TP
mg/I
Jan-0o_
Feb-00
B LI70
5-`i
0-9
5
7
8 6-01
Z1
f- 5
ii. O 180
6-3
O. %
36
6-l6
12.
0.9
Mar-oo1 3. t/
2-50
3.8
I -I
5
39
6.06
19
/. 07
Apr-00
3.5
Z80
I. 2
0.'l
9
15
6.9
Z�
0.Y9
May-00j
Jun-00_3.
Jul-00
3../
Z-90
1. 00
I
S
(p�o
7.3
201
0.2.2-
2
L1OS
2
0.1
4
156
73
ZZ
0. Z9
MISiAJ6
f! LE'
L
Aug-00
Sep-00
oct-oo'
i{-2
(SS
3. 2
0.(
q
I / O
6.5
15
an
3.s-
3Y5
3•7
0. 1
5
17.8
70
1/ d
0.Y2-
0- Y8
3.0
4I0
z.ci
0.1
SO
7. Z
/T
Nov-00 .0
720
4 Z
O. Z
3
72.
79
J
/_3
+ / S
%• S
Dec-00
Jan-01
J . 2-
300
1.6
0 1
Z 6.3
LY
17
3.2.
3
5b0
3.8
0 -5
5
3 6.�L
Feb-01 MISS 1 N
6- FI L-
e
r-�-
1- 8
Mar-01
5.4
No
5 6.)
(• t)
13 ' L7
-0.3
13
CurrentLimits: S
CurrentLimits: W
6
NL
5
1
30 200
>6
NL
0.5
6
NL
10
1.8
30 200
>6
NL
2
ice- lb >14 69 TA) x 6 r i r x . Y x 36s L32_8.j 71o2_ k/21 j-414 04 ff.e4; ul Ah/
d 7rt/ X 3 sl,n (rp x 5 .3Yq33 11r,,)- o14 acl ? efyix

DMR Data Review- INSTREAM DATA
Facility:
NC00
Preparer:
Date:
Durham County Triangle
26051
Tom Belnick
5/15/01
Month
Up D1 D2
DO MADO
mg/I mg/1
Up
Fecal
#/100m1
D1
Fecal
#/100m1
D2
Up D1 D2
Cond Cond
umhos umhos
VP Of 0 Z
TP -re
i fY ri^afY "/&
Mar-o18.3-10.7
761.({ VI-6•Y
91
65 Ti
1`1 i 35...5
_
0. $Y o-
Feb-01
_
0- 10-8
' ''-►I.7
72-85 Io.3-11.5-
Y 72.
Y3W
Jan-01
79
813 23
18 boy
Dec-oo
6--0-9.y 1.3.I0.‘"
137
_
170 'IS"
183
SIG,
624
7$`
Nov-oo
%t) S• i -g.6 6.3-9�
I 1 0
3SS93 Lib
237,
697
Oct-oo
ssu�s!,
FE, c 5 -7. 6.1-$.
10t(
1 7b
211
7V0.10
.-
S•`�
S.%- 5 6.0-$-I
2217
3Y I 1 '
! Y
0 '
0.2
-YS
0.37
0• Y7
Aug-00
.
S3 -! b.'- .
270
Li 31
150
LI f3
9/
0.3Z
O.
JuI-00_.�----
Jun-00
- - 6'I
b-0 -7 B b % $
163
32 ( T5O
Z Y3
7�14
O. ! 7
0.29
4. 23
May-o�9
?
. - 7. •
Si- B•L 6 "
7
4 O
610 bZ
IV
b r
537
Apr-00
b. -
130
3 / Y---
72
343
Mar-00
8-W 7- 7
1 5
3 Z
ciSL
Feb-00
¶-7- I2 8.S-11. 9•1- I
5B
SS 11
3 Y b
8'f2
535
Jan-00
7-iti 7-Ig 7-P{
70
1,33 313
186
41I
367
WQS >5
,
>5
200
200
NL
NL

Re: Durham County Triange NC0026051 �Cr
200z f
Subject: Re: Durham County Triange NC0026051
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:17:29 -0400
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
CC: Bill Reid <[e-mail]>, Shannon Langley <[e-mail]>
�tiicoFi,h44(f3C4e lP
Tom -
I spoke with Laura DeVivo and Coleen today and we felt pressured to make the
call on this. We decided to allow this schedule of compliance within the
context of the permit.
- Dave
li,6S
Tom Belnick wrote: fiIo4'.J I
> I'm getting ready to finalize this NPDES permit but have one remaining
> issue. Durham County is subject to HB 515 nutrient requirements, which
> require nutrient controls effective January 1, 2003. In the draft
> permit we implemented the TN limit as a total annual TN load; thus, for
> 2003, there would be one compliance point at the end of the year. The
> County has requested that the HB515 compliance date be pushed back one
> year since their nutrient removal system will not be in place until the
> end of 2003. Their primary reasons for the delay are 1) they lost up to
> 8 months negotiating with the City about possible discharge alternatives
> involving use of City treatment plants; and 2) they lost design time
> while waiting for the draft nutrient limits. I discussed the County
> request with the Raleigh Region (Ken Shuster), and Ken is o.k. with a
> 1-year compliance schedule within the final NPDES permit, but does have
> concerns that other facilities might want to request the same down the
> road. The only other option that I was aware of was an SOC, but Marcia
> indicated these can only be issued after the fact. In this case,
> assuming they install the nutrient removal system on schedule, the
> situation would be remedied by the time an SOC could be issued. I'm
> hoping to resolve this issue and finalize the permit by end of this
> month. Any thoughts, comments???
>
> --
> Mailto:[e-mail]
> N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
> 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
> Work: [phone] ext. 543
> Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/4/01 5:05 PM

RE: Durham County, NC0026051
w '
•
Subject: RE: Durham County, NC0026051
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:40:12 -0400
From: Kevin Eberle <[e-mail]>
To: "'Tom Belnick'" <[e-mail]>
CC: Tim Baldwin <[e-mail]>, Bryan Blake <[e-mail]>,
"Chuck Hill (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>, Bob Elefritz <[e-mail]>
Hi Tom -
I really appreciate your update on the status of the NPDES draft.
Its great to hear that you will be incorporating annual mass limits for TN
at the Durham Triangle WWTF. This will definitely make beneficial reuse a
more viable consideration.
Relative to your request for biosolids management...We have completed our
Biosolids Management Alternative Analysis and I have nearly finished the
PER. Basically, we are recommending the following biosolids management
strategy:
1. Construct two 0.75 MG Aerated, Waste Activated Sludge Holding Tanks
to receive WAS from secondary clarifiers (0.075% TSS).
2. Construct new sludge thickening system (two gravity belt thickeners
in new building)
3. Construct two new 0.25 MG Aerated, Thickened Sludge Storage Tank (5%
TSS) .
4. Construct new sludge dewatering system (two 2-meter belt filter
presses in new building) to dewater to 16 - 18% TS.
5. Construct new high pH, high temperature sludge pasteurization
process in a new building to produce a high lime, Class A agricultural soil
amendment (Bioset Process).
6. Construct a new, covered Class A soil amendment load -out facility
adjacent to the Bioset Process building for dual trailer loading.
7. Construct a new 10 day covered soil amendment storage facility
adjacent to the load -out facility for temporary or emergency use in the
event Class A product cannot be transported to off -site distribution area.
8. Purchase 25 acre parcel in Chatham County to serve as Class A soil
amendment distribution center where Class A product can be temporarily
stockpiled and distributed to private agricultural land.
9. Durham County will purchase two new diesel haul trucks, two new 28
ton vibrating dump trailers, one new front end loader, one new 4WD farm
tractor, and one new PTO driven manure spreader for application of high lime
Class A product.
Class A biosolids will be applied by Durham County Staff or their
Contractors.
I hope this is sufficient for your purposes. If you need additional
information or would like a site plan showing the various components, please
let me know. I will also make sure you receive a copy of the final
Biosolids PER.
Kevin
Original Message
From: Tom Belnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:33 PM
To: Kevin Eberle
Subject: Durham County, NC0026051
Hi Kevin- one additional item I need with the renewal application is a
1 of 2 5/24/01 9:31 AM

RE: Durham County. NC0026051
•
narrative regarding how the facility manages sludge residuals (e.g., are
they land applied). A couple of sentences will suffice. You could just
reply to this email with the info.
FYI- After some internal discussions regarding H3515, it looks like we
will be incorporating TN limits in the permit as an annual mass load,
rather than monthly mass limits. I'm shooting to get the draft to
notice on June 20th, and should get it out for internal review tomorrow.
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 5/24/01 9:31 AM

RE: NC0026051- Durham County Triangle
•
V/C41brinc�.�n
Subject: RE: NC0026051- Durham County Triangle
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:16:28 -0400
From: Kevin Eberle <[e-mail]>
To: "'Tom Belnick'' <[e-mail]>
CC: Bryan Blake <[e-mail]>, Tim Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Hi Tom -
The UV system is included in Phase I of the project because Durham currently
has THM violations with their chlorination system. The intent was that
Phase I be advertised this summer with a 12 month construction period. The
UV system should be up and operational by Summer 2002.
They will maintain a small hypochlorite system (primarily for periodically
dosing the filters to prevent bio-overgrowth) and to provide the CL residual
in the event that they get their reuse system off and running. The
hypochlorite system could also serve as a secondary back-up disinfection
system in the unlikely event that the entire UV system goes down.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.
Original Message
From: Tom Belnick (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 11:14 AM
To: Kevin Eberle
Subject: NC0026051- Durham County Triangle
Hi Kevin- I noticed an ATC was issued on March 23 to Durham County that
included the UV disinfection unit. Do you have a feel for when this
unit might be installed? Also, would chlorination still be maintained
as a back-up? Thanks.
Mailto:[e-mail]
N.0 DENR-DWQ/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Work: [phone] ext. 543
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 5/16/01 12:26 PM

TELEPHONE RECORD
Date: 5/15/00
Time: 1315
❑ Return Mr./ Mrs. Ms. Deborah Gore Representing: Triangle WWTP
❑ Call to Address Durham County
® Cali from NC0026051
Project: Same
Telephone: [phone]
FAX:
Subject: Reporting of quarterly averages
NOTES/ SUMMARY
Ms. Gore asked how they should be reporting Total Phosphorus data on their DMRs. Their TP limit of 0.5 mg/L
is a Quarterly average; the DMR form has a line for monthly - but not quarterly - averages. In the past, they filled
in each DMR and calculated the monthly average; if they could meet the limit on a monthly basis, they clearly
met the quarterly limit. The WWTP recently switched from alum to sodium aluminate for phosphate removal, and
TP numbers ran higher than usual while they adjusted to the new operation (0.49 mg/L for the month of April).
She wanted to know how to properly report their monitoring results for phosphorus.
We discussed a couple of options, and I suggested they do the following:
1. Continue to report the individual sample results and show them on each month's DMR
2. On the final DMR for each quarter, calculate the quarterly average and enter in the "Monthly Average" box;
enter the quarterly limit in the "Monthly Limit" box. In the other two months of each quarter, continue to enter
the monthly average, but leave the "Monthly Limit" box empty.
3. At the end of each quarter, add a note to the DMR cover letter summarizing the phosphorus monitoring
results and compliance for the quarter.
NEEDED FOLLOW-UP ACTION(S)
1. Relay info to Compliance and RRO for feedback.
BY WHOM/WHEN
1. MET
Signed /
Mike Templeton
NPDES Unit, DWQ, Raleigh
cc: WO Supervisor, Raleigh Regional Office
Shannon Langley, Pt. Source Compliance & Enforcement

I Rod Pad I
P-ea/neif Qvar�Il
wlOni47-jw�,
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Tom Belnick, 05/16/01
Facility Name=
Durham County WWTP
NPDES # =
NC0026051
Qw(MGD)=
6
Qw(cfs)=
9.2832
7Q10s (cfs)=
0
use for metals
/WC (%) =
100.00
Chronic CCC w/s7Q10 dil.
Acute CMC C w/no dil.
Frequency of Detection
Decision
Parameter
FINAL RESULTS, ug/I FINAL RESULTS, ug/I
#Samples
# Detects
Arsenic
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
_ 1
—
'
10
0
Allowable Cw
50.0
360
Cadmium
_
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
2.0
15
10
0
Chromium
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
50.0
1022
10
0
Lead
1
De le t i 6
Max. Pred Cw
14.4
Allowable Cw
25.0
34
62
4
Copper (A.L.)
Max. Pred Cw
60 8
t
Wip i i T� r
De to ft%}
Allowable Cw
7.0
7.3
-16
16
Nickel
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
25.0
261
61
0
Silver (A.L.)
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
0.1
1.2
10
0
Zinc (A.L.)
Max. Pred Cw
651.0
17
17
nA
(•Ib11 i4f
Allowable Cw
50.0
67
Cyanide
Otflikliil
Max. Pred Cw
6.5
Allowable Cw
5.0
22
60
1
Mercury
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
0.012
NA
65
0-le
Molybdenum
Max. Pred Cw
266.2
Allowable Cw
NA
NA
10
10
Selenium
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
5.0
NA
10
0
Fluoride
Max. Pred Cw0
Allowable Cw
1800.0
NA
10
9
Chloride(A.L.)
Max. Pred Cw
302400.0
Allowable Cw
250000.0
860,000
10
10
# d'milt
Modified Data: Use 0.5 Detection Limit for non -detects
story
LTMP
1T!►1P
LTA1 P
LTmP
LTM P
Lip
L7mP
L701 P
L?MP
L T(1I
LTMP

Parameter =
Arsenic
Parameter=
Cadmium
0.632
0.700
0.904
10.000
ugA
ug/i
uyl
r
Parameter =
Chromium
Standard =
Dataset=
50
vgf
Standard =
2
pg,1
Standard =
50
PSI
LTMP98-00
Nondetects
<2
<
<
<
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<
-
Dataset=
LTMP98-00
Dataset=
LTMP98-00
Modified Data
1
1
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Modified Data
Nondetects
RESULTS
ModitiedData Nondetects
RESULTS
0.775
0.5
<1
Std Dev.
1
<2
Std Dev.
0.775
Mean
1.900
0.5
<
Mean
1
1
1
2.5
<
Mean
1.900
1
C.V.
0.408
0.5
<
C.V.
<
C.V.
0.408
_ 1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Sample#
10.000
0.5
<
Sample#
<
Sample#
10.000
2.5
<5
<5
Mult Factor =
0.000
0.5
<1
Mutt Factor = 0.0001
2.5
<
Mutt Factor =
0.000
Max. Value
2.500
00l
0.5
<1
Max. Value
2.500
0.000
2.000
2.5
<
Max Value
2.500
WI
Max. Pred Cw
0.000
pgA
0.5
<1
Max Pred Cw
2.5
<
Max Pred Cw
0.000
AA
_ 2.5
2.5
Allowable Cw
50.000
pgll
0.5
<1
Allowable Cw
2.5
<
Alowable Cw
50.000
pgA
0.5<1
2.5<
4-

•
Parameter=
Lead
Parameter
Copper(A.L.)
,
Parameter=
Nickel
pgA
pgA
Standard =
25
Standard =
7Ip9.4
Standard =
25
pgA
Dataset=
DMRs3/01-1/00
Dataset=
DMRs3/01-1/00
Nondetects
Dataset=
DMRs3/01-1/00
ModifiedData
Nondetects
RESULTS
ModifiedData
RESULTS
ModifiedData
Nondetects
RESULTS
1
<
Std Dev.
0.955
16
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Sample*
5.662
5
<
Std Dev.
0.000
1
<
Mean
1.194
15
14.063
5
<
Mean
5.000
1
<
C.V.
0.800
16
0.403
5
<
C.V.
0.000
3
Sample#
82.000
17
16.000
5
<
Sample#
61.000
1
<
10
5<
1
<
Mult Factor
1.800
32
Mult Factor=
1.900
5
<
Mult Factor=
0.000
1
<
Max. Value
8.000
pgll
14
Max. Value
32.000
pg/I
5
<
Max. Value
5.000
1
<
Max. Pred Cw
14.400
pgll
10
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
60.800
pg/1
5
<
Max. Pred Cw
0.000
25.000J41
1
<
Allowable Cw
25.000
pgA
18
7.000
pgA
5
<
Allowable Cw
1
<
12
5<
1<
9
5<
1<
14
5<
1<
8
5<
1
<
13
5<
1
<
10
5<
1<
11
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
J
5<
1<
5<
8
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
3
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
-
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
2
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
5<
1<
1<
1<
1<
1<
1<
1<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
1<
1'<
1<
1<
1<
1<
1<
5<
5
<
5<
5<
5<
5<

Parameter =
Standard =
Dataset=
ModifiedData
1
1
1
1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1
Silver (A.L)
WI
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
a
Parameter=
Zmc(AL.)
67 593
137.235
0.493
17.000
uyi
ucyl
ugll
Parameter=
Standard =
Dataset=
ModifiedData
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Cyanide
0.06
Standard =
50
p94
5
PO
LTMP98-00
Nondetects
<2
<
<
<
<5
<
<5
<5
<
<
Dataset=
DMRs3/01-1/00
DMRs3/01-1/00
ModlfiedData
Nondetects
RESULTS
Nondetects
RESULTS
0.775
71
Std Dev.
<
Std Dev.
1.258
1.900
110
Mean 1
<
<
<
<
<
Mean
3.667
C.V.
Sample#
0.408
130
C.V.
C.V.
0.343
_
10.000
310
Sample# 1
Sample#
60.000
180
Mutt Factor =
0.000
130
Mutt Factor =
2.1001
2.51
2.5
Mutt Factor=
1.300
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
2.500
p94
150
Max. Value 1
310.000
t 651.000
50.000
<
Max. Value
5.000
vyl
0.000
44
51
Max. Pred Cw
2.5
<
Max Pred Cw
6.500
pg/I
0.060
p9/1
92
Allowable Cw 1
2.5
<
Allowable Cw
5.000
pg/l
73
2.5
<
56
2.54<
2.5
230
<
140
2.5
2.5
<
100
<
200
2.5<
130
2.5
<
180
2.5
<
2.5
2.5
<
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5
<
2.5<
5<
A
5<
1
v"
5<
�J
1
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
•
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<
5<

Parameter=
Standard =
Dataset=
Mercury
Parameter=
Molybdenum
pgll
Parameter=
Selenium
0.012
pg/I
Standard =
Standard =
5
pg/I
DMRs3l01-1/00
Dataset=
LTMP98-00
Nondetects
Dataset=
LTMP98-00
ModifiedData
0.1
0.1
( Nondetects
RESULTS
ModifiedData
RESULTS
ModifiedData
Nondetects
RESULTS
<
Std Dev.
0.000
54
Std Dev.
25.439
1
<2
Std Dev.
0.000
<
Mean
0.100
83
Mean
64.500
1
<
Mean
1.000
0.1
<
C.V.
0.000
85
C.V.
0.394
1
<
C.V.
0.000
0.1
<
Sample#
65.000
34
Sample#
10.000
1
<
Sample/.
10.000
0.1<
60
1<
0.1
<
Mutt Factor=
0.000
121
Mult Factor =
Max. Value
2.200
1
<
Mutt Factor=
0.1
<
Max. Value
0.100
pg/I
56
121.000
pg4
1
<
Max. Value
10.000
1.000
pg/I
0.1
<
Max. Pred Cw
0.000
pg/I
60
Max. Pred Cw
266.200
pg/1
1
<
Max. Pred Cw
0.000
pgll
0.1
<
Allowable Cw
0.012
pg/I
42
Allowable Cw
0.000
WI
1
<
Allowable Cw
5.000
pg/1
0.1<
50
1<
0.1
<
_
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
L_
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
c
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1
<
0.1<
0.1
<
0.1
<

Parameter =
Standard =
Dataset=
Fluoride
1800
LTMP98-00
ModifiedData
50
720
1100
700
600
800
1000
1100
1300
800
p9/1
Nondetects RESULTS
<100 Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Sample#
347.373
817.000
0.425
10.000
Mult Factor =
2.300
Max. Value 1300.000 pg/I
Max. Pred Cw 2990.000 pgll
Allowable Cw 1800.000 pg/I
Parameter =
Standard =
Dataset=
Chloride(A.L.)
p9�� WQS( vUS-W
250000
LTMP98-00
ModitiedData Nondetects
130000
130000
130000
120000
115000
79000
90000
130000
124000
189000
RESULTS
Std Dev.
29147.327
Mean 123700.000
C.V. 0.236
Sample# 10.000
Mult Factor =
1.600
Max. Value
189000.000 pg/I
Max. Pred Cw
302400.000 pg/I
Allowable Cw
250000.000 pg. I
60✓1t 1I04%4 - num o4A.
telca -Fr -Iw (1061NW/__ • Cl WQSZST) ►'►1J 04uMl110 UiA1i
C) 440„&vJ: 230M W (Or brLice)

REASONABLE POTENTIAL
Prepared by: Tom Belnick,
ANALYSIS
05/16/01
Facility Name =
Durham County WWTP
NPDES#=
NC0026051
Qw(MGD)=
6
Qw (cfs) =
9.2832
AvgFlow (cfs)=
20
use for carcinogens, EPA HH
Criteria, water+fish
!WC (%)=
31.74
Parameter
Chronic CCC w/AvgFlow
FINAL RESULTS. ug/I Decision
Frequency of Detection
#Samples # Detects
Chloroform
46
2
Max. Pred Cw
7.8
Allowable Cw
18.0 Monitor
57
Methylene chloride
Max. Pred Cw
3.0
Allowable Cw
14.8 1 Delete
57
1,2-Dichloroethane
_
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
0
10
Allowable Cw
1.2 Delete
57
Bromodichloromethane
Max. Pred Cw
5.6
Allowable Cw
1.8 Limit
57
Dibromochloromethane
Max. Pred Cw
_
2.3
4
Allowable Cw
_
1.3 Limit
57
Toluene
Max. Pred Cw
0.0
Allowable Cw
Delete
57
0
Detection Limit for non -detects
Modified Data: Use 0.5
No+e s
i)frevio.) 10hi13 (Ur a ovf ewaMef (e re i u/iev,e) weft' ±44 er( on COn e-vtn
der o h. l a c' 1, 7 t✓i•l/
pJ€ CpIC�NO�Pniei� O(�� '�"0 /e�i�erh�,g/fio� � 1 >'iNe /�
yU U i� , n 7�t7 Z� b N) M A N T� �l tY (/7 /O /r rl H / r O h cr i / cry.
4414 )
z� For bvoMalni c,1,1J/OM44,ane t o cr;--oCcf wAa O.Sb H
-no) Inf(Ik.1e3 /innI >)--t) /. 8H di
aytA AiA)3 bAlr itf.

Parameter =
Chloroform
p41
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C V
Samplell
Mutt Factor = 1
Max. Value
Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
0.801
0 944
0 849
57 000
p91
pgA
p94
Parameter =
Standard =
Dataset=
Modified Data
1.6
0.25
0.25
1.2
Methylene chloride
Parameter =
1,2-Dichloroethane
1-
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Mean
C.V.
Sample$
Mutt Factor =
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Standard =
5 7
4.71pgA
Standard =
Dataset=
0.38119t1
Dataset=
Modified Data
2.3
0.25
088
1.7
0.25
0.77
0.25
1.2
DMRs3/01-1/00
Nondetects
<
c
<
DMRs3/01-1/00
Nondetects
OMRs3/01.1/00
Nondetects
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
RESULTS
ModifiedData
Std Derr.
0.217
0.25
0.000
0.250.
0.000r_
57.000
<
Mean
0290
0.747
57.000
P9II
p9A
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25<
0.25
0.25
0.25
<
C.V.
Samples
-
Mutt Factor =
Max. Value
Max Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
0.25<
1.950
0.25
<
1.850
4.00
7 80
17 96
0.25
<
1.60
2.98
0.25
AA
0.25
0.25
0.25<
0.25
0.25<
0.25<
<
0.00
1.20
p9A
pgll
0.25
<
<
14.81
p9A
0.25
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25
<
<
0.251<
0.25<
4
0.25
<
<
0.25<
1.1
0.25
<
0.25
025
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25_< _
057
0.5
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.62
0.25<
0.25<
0.5
0.25
<
0.25
<
1
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.52
0.25<
0.25<
1.2
I
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
.
0.25<
0.25<
0.5
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.9
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.9
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.25
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.1
_
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.65
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.1
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.6
0.25<
0.25<
1.8
0.25<
-
0.25<
1.8
0.25
< _
0.25
<
0.77
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.7
0.25<
0.25<
2A
0.25<
0.25<
1.5
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.7
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.1
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.2
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.5
0.25<
0.25<
0.1
0.25<
0.25<
1.6
0.25<
0.25<
0.5
0.25 <
0.25<
1.4
0.25
<
<
<
_
0.25
<
0.1
0.25
0.25<
0.1
0.25
_
0.25<
0.5
0.25<
0.25
<
0.4
0.25<
0.25<
0.25
<
0.9
<
0.25<
0.4
0.25
0.25
<
a2
0.25
<
0.25
<
1
0.25<
0.25<
0.4
-
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.1
0.25
<
0.25
<

Parameter =
Standard =
Dataset=
ModiliedData
0 25
0.25
0.51
0.25
0.25<
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25
0.25<
0.25
0.25<
025<
025<
0.25<
0.25
0.25'<
0.25
0 25
0.25<
025<
0.25<
1.2
0.9
1.65'
0.78
- 11
Bromodichloromethane
RESULTS
Parameter=
DR)rornochloromethane
RESULTS
Std Dev
Mean
C V.
Sampler.
Mutt Factor =
Max. Value
Pred Cw
ARowable Cw
0.199
0.302
0.660
57 000
/ q I
; :
t41
1
Parameter =
Standard -
Dataset=
ModdiedDala
0.25
0.25
Toluene
noncardnogen
0.56
Standard=
0.411p9/l
6800
pgA
DMRs3/01-1/00
Nondetects
<
<
<
<
<
<
< .
Datase
DMRs3/01-1/00
DMRs3/01-1
Nondetects
<
<
00
ModfedData
Nondetects
RESULTS
_
Std Dev
Mean
C V
Sampler. '
0.442
0.25
<
Std Dev.
0.000
0.421
1.050
57.000
0.25
<
Mean
0250
0.25
<
0.25
<
C.V.
0.000'
0.25
<
0.25
<
Sample*
57.000
0.25<
0.25<
Mu r Factor =
Max Value
Max Pred Cw
2.150
0.25
< .
1 1.7501
0.25
<
Mutt Factor=
280
py1
0.25
<
1.30
2.28
1.29
1
0.25
<
Max. Value
025
pal
AA
5.50ypl
0.25
< 'max.
0.25
<
Max Pred Cw
0.001yl
21423.86
Allowable Cw
1.70
pgl
0.25
<
0 25
`i<
`-<
.<
. i
'25<
0.25<
025<
025.<
0.25<
0.25
<
Allowable Cw
0.25<
<
_
0.25<
0.25<
<
0.25<
0.25<
<
<
0.25<
f
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
<
0.8
0.25
<
0.25<
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
_
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.3
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
0.74
0.25
<
D
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.4
0.25
<
0.25
<
1.3
025<
0.25<
025
<
025
<
0.25
<
0.25<
2.6
0.25
0.25
025<
0.25<
1.1
0.25
<
025
<
0.25
<
.<
<
025<
0.25<
0.78
025
<
0.25
<
0.25
0.25<
0.25
<
025
<
0.25
<
025<
0.25
<
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<
0.25
0 25
0 25
025<
0 25
0.25
0 25
025<
0 25
0.25
025<
025c
0.25<
028c
0.25<
<
025
<
0.25
<
<
025<
0.25<
<
0.25
<
0.25
<
025<
0.25<
<
025
<
0.25
<
<
025
<
0.25
<
<
025<
0.25<
025<
0.25<
<
0.25<
0.25<
<
025
<
0.25
<
0.25<
0.25<

(ov
W AT L. 1' t'
•"�Q n,�t/j`4il,/"v� Michael F. Easley
p.)4 y 411
r �!� F Govemor
7
(fel Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
William G. Ross Jr.
April 17, 2001
Kevin Eberle. P.E.
McKim & Creed
5625 Dillard Drive, Suite 117
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Re: SCH File #01-E-4300-0536, DWQ #12734, Durham County WWTP Upgrade and
Expansion EA
Dear Mr. Eberle:
On April 10, 2001, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act review on the above project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It
is now acceptable to proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water
Quality for the proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental Assessment are
required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (919)
733-5083, ext. 366.
Sincerely,
Milt Rhodes
Watershed Planner
enclosure (SCH letter)
cc: Dave Goodrich, NPDES Permitting Unit (w/o SCH Letter)
Ken Schuster, Raleigh Regional Office (w/o SCH Letter)
c:)
CO
CC
0_
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Division of Water Quality
January 31, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Milt Rhodes
Through: Dave Goodrich V1
From: Tom Belnick
Subject: Review of Revised Durham County Triangle WWTF EA/EAA
Revision Date: October 20, 2000
NPDES Permit #NC0026051
d 4 /3
The following comments are based on review of the revised subject documents, which request an
expansion from 6 MGD to 12 MGD.
• The revised document provides the necessary justification for flow expansion to 12 MGD.
• The revised document provides the necessary cost information to support the selection of Alternative
#3 (Upgrade Triangle WWTF with Surface Water Discharge). Cost numbers were verified with the
consultant on January 26, 2001.
( Although the document states that Alternative #4 (involving sidestream treatment of up to 0.25
MGD for effluent reuse) was determined to be technically infeasible at this time, the Division
strongly recommends that Durham County thoroughly explore reuse options with each new high
water use facility, including expansions of existing facilities.
•

I
TABLE III-17
DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE WWTF
PRELIMINARY NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS (DIRECT DISCH
INFLUENT PARAMETERS
CURRENT NPDES
LIMITS
PROPOSED NPDES PERMIT
LIMITATIONS 1)
INITIAL YEAR
(2003)
DESIGN YEAR
(2023)
FLOW
6.0 MGD
-
12.0 MGD
Annual Average Daily
BOD5
5 mg/1 (4/1 —10/31)
10 mg/1 (11/1 — 3/31)
-
5 mg/1 (4/1— 10/31)
10 mg/I (11/1 — 3/31)
-
5 mg/I (4/1 — 10/31)
10 mg/1 (11/1 — 3/31)
-
Concentration
Mass
TSS
30 mg/I
-
30 mg/1
-
30 mg/I
-
Concentration
Mass
TN
Concentration
Mass (Monthly Maximum)
None
None
6,4,A th 5.5 n ill
-
8,371 Ibs/month 2)
-
8,371 lbs/month 2)
NH3-N
1.0 mg/1 (4/1— 10/31)
1.8 mg/l (11/1 — 3/31)
-
1.0 mg/I (4/1 — 10/31)
1.8 mg/1 (11/1 — 3/31)
-
1.0 mg/l (4/1 — 10/31)
1.8 mg/1(11/1 — 3/31)
-
Concentration
Mass
TP
Concentration
Mass (Annual Maximum)
0.5 mg/1 (4/1— 10/31)
2.0 mg/ (11/1 — 3/31)
-
` -
-
10,204 lbs/yr3)
-
-
10,204 Ibs/yr3)
DO
Concentration
Mass
None
None
6.0 mg/I (minimum)
-
6.0 mg/l(minimum)
-
Fecal Coliform
200 colonies/ 100 ml.
200 colonies/ 100 ml.
200 colonies/ 100 ml.
Concentration
(30 day geometric mean)
al
6.0 — 9.0 Standard Units
1. Speculative limits provided by NCDENR on July 7, 2000.
2. At 12 MGD, an 8,371-pound monthly TN limit corresponds to an average monthly TN concentration of 2.75 mg/I.
3. At 12 MGD, a 10,204-pound annual TP limit corresponds to an average monthly TP concentration of 0.28 mg/I.
III - 25

TABLE
DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE WWTF SERVICE AREA
SEWAGE FLOW PROJECTIONS
FROM 2000 TO 2020
YEAR
RESIDENTIAL
SEWAGE FLOW (1)
(GPD)
INSTITUTIONAL
SEWAGE FLOW (2)
(GPD) _
COMMERCIAL
SEWAGE FLOW (3)
(GPD)
INDUSTRIAL
SEWAGE FLOW (4)
(GPD)
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
WASTEWATER FLOW (5)
(GPD)
FUTURE INFILTRATION
ALLOWANCE 6)
(GPD)
PREDICTED AVERAGE DAILY
SEWAGE FLOW TO THE
TRIANGLE WWTF (GPD)
2000
1,357,912
149,864
2,349,009
657,402
-
-
4,514,187
2005
1,863,471
205,349
2,812,741
752,796
1,556,328
269,068
7,459,753
2010
2,486,044
273,676
3,177,219
844,244
3,048,271
532,945
10,362,399
2015
2,794,426
307,520
3,295,080
872,442
3,508,308
627,778
11,405,553
2020
2,907,244
320,854
3,360,334
889,248
3,782,500
676,018
11936,198
NOTES:
1) Residential Sewage Flows based on Residential Dwelling Unit predictions taken from the Durham -Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan and associated Socio-Economic Forecast published in 1999. This comprehensive planning document was accepted by all 14 of the MPO member agencies via
resolution of the Board on August 12, 1999.
2) For the purpose of this analysis, the number of Institutional users is expected to increase at the same rate as residential growth. Sewage flow from Institutional users was predicted
based on the current average daily sewage production of 2,882 gpd per Institutional User,
3) Commerical sewage flows are based on predicted commercial job growth as published in the DCHC 2025 Transportation Plan and the existing sewage production rate of 57 gpd per
commercial job. Existing sewage production rates are based on metered water usage.
4) Industrial sewage flows are based on predicted industrial job growth as published in the DCHC 2025 Transportation Plan and the existing sewage production rate of 32 gpd per
industrial job. Existing sewage production rates are based on metered water usage.
5) An allowance for process wastewater generated from future "water -using" industries was computed based on the following assumptions: 1) Remaining undeveloped, industrial -zoned
property within the Triangle WWTF Service Area is 2,375 acres (Year 2000 data from GIS database), 2) 75% (or 1,780 acres) of the total undeveloped, industrial -zoned property will be
developed for industrial uses by 2025. 3) Of the developed acreage, 1188 acres will be developed with "light' water -using industries and will produce process sewage flows of only
1,000 gpd/acre on average: 4) The remaining 592 acres will be developed with "heavy" water -using industries and will produce process sewage flows of approximately 5,000 gpd/acre
(on average).
6) Since it was not possible to accurately predict future infiltration contributions, a 10% allowance for infiltration was made based on projected new flows only.

AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW (MGD)
DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
14-
12-
10-
0
80% of Design ----r
Capacity (4.8 MGD)
Proposed Design Flow = 12 MGD
Y Projected Date For Reaching 100% of Design Capacity (6 MGD) = October
2002
. f . . • 1 I . i
2005 2010 2015
YEAR
1995 2000
2020
2025

SEWAGE FLOW (GPD)
TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
PREDICTION OF FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOW (2000 TO 2020)
12,000,000 -
10.000,000
8,000,000
6,000.000
4,000,000
2,000.00
0
11,936,198
® Institutional Flow B Industrial Flow ®Industrial Process Wastewater Flow OCommercial Flow ® Residential Flow © Infiltration Allowance (Total Sewage Flow
5/19/00 FlowSummaryGraphsB&W.xls

POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS/YEAR)
900,000
TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
EXISTING PERMITTED LOADING
(Pounds/Year)
812,187
800,000 J
700, 000 ------
600, 000
500,000 —
400, 000
300,000
200,000 -------
100,000
129,374
CBOD
547,938
TSS
•mot
4++,
•++
♦+4
4+
•+4
• +4
•+4
•+
•♦
•+
•+
•♦
• +*,
•+
•+*
4+
•♦
•+
•+4
♦+;+
4,
4+
••
4+
#+
♦+
++
++
• +
•♦
•+
•+
• +
•+
♦♦
•+
♦♦
•♦
••
•+
4,.
TN
24,353 20,548
NH3-N
TP
Currently Permitted Loading @ 6 MGD
1) Current Permitted Loading based on seasonal limits; BOD = 5 mg/I &10 mg/I, TSS = 30 mg/I, TN based on current average effluent content of 15.3 mg/1 (no NPDES limit), NH3-N = 1.0 mg/1 & 1.8 mg/1; TP = 0.5 mg/1 & 2.0 mg/I.

A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WINTER (November 1 - March 31) Permit No. NC0026051
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittec is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
Monthly Avq
Flow 6.0 MGD
BOD, 5 day, 20°C" 10.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue" 30.0 mg/I
NH3 as N 1.8 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen"'
Fecal Colitorm (geometric mean) . 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity
2.0 mg/I""
Weekly Avq. Daily Max
15.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/I
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample `Sample
Type Location
Recording I or E
Composite E, I
Composite E, I
Composite E
Grab Fr, U, D
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E,U,D
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, 1- Influent, U - Upstream at NCSR 1102, D - Downstream at (1) NCSR 1100 and (2) NCSR 1732
Upstream and downstream samples shall he grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected three limes 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/I.
**** Compliance shall he based on a quarterly average of weekly samples.
***** Chronic Toxicity (Ccriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; February, May, August and November; See Part III, Condition G.
+ Limits take effect April 1, 1997. Monitoring only 2/month required prior to that date.
lithe first daily samples for nickel, lead, cyanide, and mercury are in compliance with the weekly averages for those parameters, the rest of the
daily samples do not need to be analyzed. If the limits arc not met at first, then the rest of the daily samples should be analyzed and reported.
The pi I 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 SUMMER (April 1 - October 31) Permit No. NC0026051
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Pcrrniuce is authorized to discharge from
outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permitlee as specified below:
Effluent Characteriatic Discharge . Limilatlont
Monthly Avq
Flow 6.0 MGD
BOO, 5 day, 20°C" 5.0 mg/I
Total Suspended Residue" 30.0 mg/I
NI-13 as N 1.0 mg/I
Dissolved Oxygen"'
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200.0 /100 ml
Total Residual Chlorine
Temperature
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Chronic Toxicity
0.5 mg/I""
Weekly Avq. Daily Max
7.5 mg/I
45.0 mg/i
400.0 /100 ml
Monitoring
Measurement
Frevuency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Quarterly
Requirements
Sample m_Plit
Type Location
Recording I or E
Composite E,
Composite E,
Composite E
Grab E, U, D
Grab E, U, D
Grab E
Grab E,U,D
Composite E
Composite E
Composite E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at NCSR 1102, D - Downstream at (1) NCSR 1100 and (2) NCSR 1732
Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall bc collected for temperature, dissolved oxygen, feat
coliform, and conductivity three times per week during June, July, August, and September and once per week during the remaining months of
the year. All other stream sampling shall bc conducted during June, July, August, and September only.
**The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15 % of the respective influent value (R5
%) removal.
*** The daily avcragc dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/l.
**** Compliance shall bc based on a quarterly avcragc of weekly samples.
***** Chronic Toxicity (Ccriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; February, May, August and November; See Part iII, Condition G.
•
+ Limits take effect April 1, 1997. Monitoring only 2/month required prior to that date.
If the first daily samples for nickel, lead, cyanide, and mercury are in compliance with the weekly averages for those parameters, the rest of the
daily samples do not need to bc analyzed. If the limits arc not mct at first, then the rest of the daily samples should be analyzed and reported.
The p11 shall not bc less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall he monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
There shall bc no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

LT/11 f
NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request 1/26/01
'Facility Durham County, Triangle WWTP
Permit # NC0026051
Region Raleigh Regional Office
i Requestor Tom Belnick
Pretreatment A_D Towns- Keyes McGee (ext. 580)
Contact
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) th- • • • • a Pretreatment Program
2a) is Full Program with LTMP or 2b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) the a ' ' • • -' - • • retreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow Permitted Actual
% Industrial 40 23.72
STMP time frame:
most recent
% Domestic 60 76.28
next cycle
L
(S)
T
MP
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/Non-
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge"
POC due to SIU"'
She specific POC (Provide Explanation)•"'
STMP
Frequency
effluent
at
LTMP
Frequency at
effluent
J
BOD
J
J
Q
J
TSS
J
Q
\1
NH3
-
Q
J
Arsenic
4
Q
J
Cadmium
d
4
J
0
J
Chromium
J
J
J
Q
7
Copper
J
J
J
Q
J
Cyanide
J
Q
J
Lead
J
J
J
Q
7
Mercury
J
0
J
Molybdenum
J
Q
J
Nickel
J
J
J
Q
J
Silver
J
J
Q
J
Selenium
J
Q
J
Zinc
J
J
J
Q
J
COD
J
Q
J
Fluoride
J
Q
J
NO2 + NO3
Q
J
T Phos.
J
J
Q
JTTO
J
'Always in the LTMP
—Only in the LTMP if the POTW land appl es sludge
"' Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
""- Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex -Chlorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
0= Quarterly
M=Monthly
Comments: Mr. Tyrone Battle of the Woodard & Curran Company ( Contracted
Operations Co. for Durham County ) states that all LTMP effluent data
will be reported on the daily monitoring reports in the future.
version 8/23/00
PIRF_Durham County.xis
Revised: August 4, 2000

PERMITTED
INDUSTRY FLOW --(MG)
Cree 0.322
DuPont 0.098
Eisai 0.075
Glaxo Pipe 001 0.308
Pipe 002 0.2
Pipe 003 0.171
Pipe 004 0.227
Pipe 005 0.2
IBM 0.25
JMC 0.01
Litespec 0.104
MCNC 0.066
Pilling Weck 0.039
RTI 0.185
SCM 0.05
Sphinx 0.05
Sumitomo 0.045
Total 2.4
NPDES Permit 6
Percent For Industry 40%

Actual
(Estimate --
INDUSTRY per day) Yearly
Cree 0.17128 365 62.5172
DuPont 0.018092 365 6.60358
Eisai 0.023836 365 8.70014
Glaxo 0.082863 365 30.245
IBM 0.134255 365 49.00308
JMC 0.00198 365 0.7227
Litespec 0.097059 365 35.42654
MCNC 0.068607 365 25.04156
Pilling Weck 0.025392 365 9.26808
RTI 0.074723 365 27.2739
SCM 0.042934 365 15.67091
Sphinx 0.021945 365 8.009925
Sumitomo 0.06314 365 23.0461
Total 0.826106 365 301.5287
Effluent Flow 1270.96
Industry Total/Effluent Flow 23.72%

WOODARD & CURRAN
Fax
Re:— f ,
CC:
Durham County
Wastewater Treatment Facility
5926 NC HWY 55 East
Durham, North Carolina
919 544 8280 Fax [phone]
CI Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment O Please Reply D Please Recycle
f__5- 11-1-0‘ r t(tx5-,a
e i-P ad'yfh��y etse_ /S
Ee-ded<
rre
-yor eft-r,on
ceould /:/- ore /00551%/e—,
id WdvT:E0 T00Z 0Z 'Gad
06S8vvS6T6 : 'ON Xdd NueNno : WObd

Company Name:
Address:
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
A.A"a/vv Permit No:
Reason for Sampling:
Facility Rep/Phone:
Quarter Day
Other: 6,„,42„9„.
of Sample Location:
,edrup_.d-
type of Sample: Grab: )C Composite.: X Split Taken by industry: Yes No
)ate i Time Sampler Set: 3 tilikl Sk / \`'. v9n-, Date 1 Time Sampler Retrieved: 3 ) 19 f4 / *Try
ValerfSewer Ptow Meter Reading: Start: End: Total GPD:
'hysical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other:
late and Time of Grab Sample: 3 Lfit q / pH: Temperature:
Chemical Results, mg/1:
Others 91a3�
)D: q%033c 1k - S coo 4 ts0334: Z I Al: o . Z. S Ng: Z a • o 0o Z.
g eoaat tic\ No 2.$ W03 94033 s 1a-0 As: C. 0.005 Mo: Z. o , o S
i: "k3633L L o .00S 4 rA..\ oS44bp334 O .
980333 Q .$ Cr: L o•0oS Se: L0.00 L
13-N: a fiD 3 ..t o. -t y g
Cu' 0,0.c�1 Ag: 1p,c:05
S: ggL330 4, O Pb: Z o. o a Z Zn: o. 0-1 Z
nrnenls:
Sampler's Name:
Aisl-ft
Sample ID #'s: Q 3033o0331/44:,

PROM : WOODARD CURRAN
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading: Start:
Physical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other-
Facility Rep/Phone:
Reason for Sampling: -' Quarter Day of Sample Location: e i.e,`-
Other:
Type of Sample: Grab: x Composite: x Split Taken by Industry: Yes
Date J Time Sampler Set: 5 I Vi la% / O o0
Date ! Time Sampler Retrieved: 5 z p 9 8
End:
Permit No:
Date and rime of Grab Sample: 5 f 2° f 9 f
Chemical Results, mall:
N
20 2001 02:14PM
9195448590
0
z
x
c
c ,r3 zo c. z Others
BOD 4-z-1. CobL`t- VI �la� 0
.3Li Hg:
CI: c,Likk Z 4 -T'a \ osL4ct") . q 0 As: < o,00S Mo: o'-k
Co 14zL Q.¢4� t•oz,Vi`•oR,.0-t0 Cd: C o ,o0 1
Ni: 4o.o t
FtL ' 1.3 Igo. Loo.z.coos L'
9ge3 e, Z _ Cr: LC,poS Se: Za,002_ _
pusL
NI 13--h1: ` .
�ol.,kQ.00zSLst,) Cu. 10
`t8DtI-oc 2_ ` Ag: 10,po5
Pb:
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Pretreatment Samphing Sheet
Company Name: ot, (A0.rdc A
Address:
Total GPO:
pit: Temperature:
TSS
Comments:
1 „e b c.. cl e-S (.5r�
O 00� _ Zr?:
Sampler's Name:
No
Sampie ID aSt's:
9xos44 9x(\Sf\

• r
Company Name: C1
Permit No:
Address:
Reason for Sampling: 3 quarter Day of _ Sample Location:
Olher:��
Type of Sample: Grab: A. Composite: X Split Taken by industry: Yes No
Date f Pine Sampler Set zy _ f Z'•'09 rn Dale f Time Sampler Retrieved: 9 iz--sitj $ / a' 00
nl
WaterjSewer Flow Meter Reading: Start
End: Total GPD:
Physical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other.
34
2-J'+ 5
inangie wastewater Treatment Plant
industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Dale and Time of Grab Sample: c‘1219
Chemical Results, mg/I:
Facility Rep/Phone:
pH: Temperature:
�80 ayts,t
HOD: �, C.Q . / Q
40
CI: 1.30 1,902m: 3. (0 As: < . 065 Mo: ,.a(pc)
yl
3`r Cd: - 6b NI:
4z <r'O11
FI: .
3 Cr: < • 0-0 5 se: 4 , 00 , --
NIi3-N: _q _
Cu.: . Oo 5 Ag: , 00 �J
TSS: /
Pb: i o c� ^] Zn: + I 0 3
Comments:
Sampler's Name:
AAnA-
NdddfD 128000OM : WOdd
06SBN7S6I6 :
WdSI:ZO I00Z 02
Sample ID II's: `18bq; q '. 8 S

If
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial
�Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Company Name: g 6 6 4c,cd 4'1
Permit No:
c
Address: Facility Rep/Phone:
Reason for Sarnpdrng: Quarter Day
Other:
of
Sample Location:
fib.
5-4
2 r� r
Type of Sample: Grab: Composite: Split Taken by Industry: Yes No
Date / Time Sampler Set: ) 43) (q6 1 1 a Date / Time Sampler Retrieved: / i) 3 j / -n
Water/Sewer Flow Meier Reading: Start: End
— Total GPD:
Physical Description of Sample:
ColorfOdor/Oil and Grease&Other:
Date and Time of Grab Sample: /45f / 3
C h ern ica I Results, mgfl
pH: Temperature:
� t ers
BOD: 9� �..�uY1 AI: o . ! 3
Hg: GO. bC6.2
CI: `10 lvbz �4
Cn:
G )0 7 (-Po�
FI : - 0
NH3-N.
TSS r�
"roar r1_,
Comments:
5)
As: L G . 0 t>.S Mo: O. 0 sCa•
Cd: 4
D01
Cr: G
bees"
Ni: L0-r,)
Se: G C.), &c?...!
Cu: & vc L3 Ag: . &• 005"
Pb: Co `/ Zn: G. Oct )
Sampler's Name:
Sample ID #'s: �j (_
NUddnD Uth OOM
06S8bfS6T6 :
WdST:EO TOOE OE

L
a_
20 2001 02:16PM
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Company Name: ! i` / _-
L
Address: 4do-9'
Reason Far Sampling: J Quarter Day of
Other: L %`-
v Type of Sample. Grab: Composite:
Dale/Time Sampler Set: /
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading Start:
919544B590
0
z
x
a
rL
FROM : WOODARD CIRRAN
Physical Description of Sample
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other.
Date and Time of Grab Sample:
BOD•
C I:
C n:
FI
NH3-N.
Tss:
Comments:
Chemical Results, mgll:
Others
liOVF J
cao
,3>41,4gic#6
Perrnit No
Facility Rep/Phone:
Sample Location: E-24Ce,--
Split Taken by Industry: Yes
Date/Time Sampier Retrieved: Q 07401
End: Total GPO'
<,00f t 6411c0�-
73
_1‘4141,13_,(voef
Potii -=-.1(0 /2_
N/O
Composite Ternp. Travel Temp
pH. Temperature
Samplers Marne:
Sampler's ID #'s:
Review
Mo. .12/ /e
4',Wapy/e_
). Se: •N4• L
-4610c-1/ie
Zn: , /3 �lk-
Violations
Captains_

Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Company Named LAD uJ -NC)
Address:
Reason for Sampling: I '1 Quarter Day
-
Other.
Type of Sampto: Grab:
Composite:
Dale / Tirne Sarhpler Set: iC 2� C f
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading: Start
Physical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other:
Date and Time of Grab Sample: D a,$ q f c Uc)
Facility Rep/Phone:
Perml't No.
of I Sample 1Q atlon:
Split Taken by Industry: Yes
No
Date / Time Sampler Retrieved: t CI6 f 9q / ,A! 3 0'
End, L
Total GPD:
Chemical Results, mg/I:
SOD:
CI: 1 5
Cn:
FI:
NH3-14:
TS S:
Dominants
pH:
w: • r `7�cc j JL
_O4!10 As: _ < azu L
!vd f : - Cd:
Qes ec- Cr < 5AA jC.
(c a 5 Co: 1 O?L4 L
: b_ epic cL. Pb: < o�ct,5) i✓
(.•aCi fo0CI,Co
c1-€4
Temperature_
Hg:_ Co.•jL
5�: a�31L
Ag: 5 5
Zn: i'� rj 3 f
Mo,
N1:,
Sampler's Name:
Sample ID #'s: jriLj — ' ?0
-n
0
3
` UadfD QddUOOM
-n
D
x
z
0
06SBPt' 6T6 :
Wd9T:Z0 T00Z 0Z 'cR3
-u
rn

-- - �aetrnefl[ want
industrial P retreairnent Sannp ling Sheet
CompanyNarne: Dolor &c C
Address: ---CK"X G 4e
Facility Rep/Phone:
Reason for Sampling: Quarter Day l of
Sample Locallorr.
Other: L� —ta
Type of Sampfe: Grab: .
Composite: `i/
Date 1 Time Sampler Set: 3 )ZO 1 bo 1
OU
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading: Start:
Physical Description of Sample:
ColorrOdor,Oit and Grease/Other-
Cale and Time of Grab Sample- t..>-Ir• COD 1 j goo
Chemical Results, man:
-" v^ cl-r\
Others
J" - -Ob z VZ. 0 � tea
00-0lc' t z.00L hOS ruS
•oo-off
e ° --Ob 4• 1
•
Nt 13- bo -ti4, j
Comments:zi
c,J
Permit No:
Split Taken by Industry: Yes
Dale J Time Sampler Relrlaved: 3 �� /o p
End:
Total GPD:
Pia
cto- o -1, °
S� ? 0
c_000z
c5
L,002_ Atts o3
P_'
Sampler's Narne:
Sample ID #'s: ptj -0,g 1 0 o--()--i.4
NdbbnD OdUGOOf : Wald
06S8bfS616 :
WdzI:E0 j00Z 0Z

Triangle Wastewater Treatment Pliant
Industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Company Mame- 7 7[C (e- 11///e/777
Address: �� da, /" � t1l�l-r-r0`o%
Reason for Sampling: 44 Quarter Day of
Other: LTA/
Type of Sarnple:
DateJTFme Sampler Set /
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading:
Physical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other
Date and Tune of Grab Sample
BOD:
CI_
Cn:
FL
NH3-N:
TSS:
Grab: Composite:
02-'1 0 .2o•oo
Permit No_
Facility Rep/Phone:
Sample Location:
Start:
Split Taken by Industry: Yes
Date/Tirne Sampler Retrieved:
End:
i otal GPD:
No
/
Chemical Results, mg/I: /t/0 7/U 0D
Others
Comments 6 2- J
/4441464 ,AGO
Composite Temp
Travel Temp
4 /CNA
pH:
Temperature:
Ai: 7 20 U?// F g:
As 41, 1,./j/ Mc:
Cd: L.) U9(.e Ni
C 094 Se.
Cu: /3//9/--
Pb: ) ()1,
Sampler's Name:
Samplers ID Ws:
Review
Ag:
Zn:
• 2 e3/e.
160
Li /J-
Violations
Cantainc
PR
Nd4dD QeldIOOf1 : 1.4021J
06S8btS6T6

Cl:
Cn_
FI:
N H3-N:
TSS:
Comments:
Others
Date I Time Sampler Set: t } p 00 p O-
cri I Ot?!.
Company Name: _
Address:
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Facility Rep/Phone:
Reason for Sampling: Quarter Day of Sample Location:
Oilier: LT
Type of Sample: Grab: Composite: Split Taken by Industry: Yes
No
Permit No:
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading: Start
PhysPcal Description of Sample:
Coior/Odor/Oil and Grease/Other.
Date and Time of Grab Sample: 9 ) 11 0 a /
Chernikal Results, mgll:
SOD: ;� c_
�rnc L fU;
:, l b ij L As:
Date! Time Sampler Retrieved:
End:
Cd7
L Cr:
Cu:
Pb:
Total GPD:
pH. Temperature:
3aO,�g L Hg: LL
G lL (L Ni:
L z L Se: z
Ag: L 2,4„:51L
zn: q 2,4).j IL
Sampler's Name.
Sample ID #'s:
11
0
NUHHFO G8HGOOM
x
5
06SBbfS6T6 :
WdBT:ZO TEE 0Z *cP3

r Wangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
fndustr(al Pretreatment Sampling Sheet
Company Name: Nr:lt't a, C. ,..54
a�
Address:
Facility Rep/Phone:
Reason for Sarn ping. Quarter Day _ of Sample Location
Other:
Type of Sample: Grab: f Composite; ✓
Date/ Time Sampler Set: °l lb f o u /
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading:
Physical Description or Sample:
Color/OdorfOJl and Grease/Other:
Dale and Time of Grab S a mpie. i t 1 b y
Chemical Results, mg/I:
�r�S►n
BOD- 000ilik tA.pZ
17riir+
Others
Gm
Start:
CI: oQb'‘1%OZ Np2,.IrIra 03.
Cn: oo1:59,l`fl3 1 0 %.
Ft: oo a 2_
NH3-N a ct\IOZ
(-{)' C-
TSS: a it> Col a L
Comments:
a 9,oa
Permit No:
Split Taken by Industry: Yes No
Dale I Time Sampler Retrieved:
End:
pH:
boo"\lLb . At: pp vpZ Hg:
0 o e � itOZ As:
Mo:
DODgi.102. Cd:
Cr:
Cu:
Pb:
Nr:
Se:
A9"
Zn
Sampter's Narne.
Sample ID ifs
Total GPD:
Temperature
rAddanD U GODM : WOdA.
D
X
Z
0
06S8M7S6T6 :
n
rr
Wd8T:Z0 T00z 0z

Company Name:
Address:
Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant
o.rcaumarll Sampling Sheet
CIO YY4 v1
Reason for Sampling: Quarter Day _ of
Other:
Type of Sample. Grab: Composite:
Dale/Time Sampler Set: 1 1:1,60C)
Water/Sewer Flow Meter Reading: Start.
Physical Description of Sample:
Color/Odor/00 and Grease/Other:
Date and Time of Grab Sample -
PerrnitNo:
Facility Rep/Phone:
Sample Location:
Split Taken by Industry: Yes
No
Dale I Time Sampler Retrieved: 114,96d6 l
End.
Total GPD:
Chemical Results, rngll:
BOO: k—� Nn,
CI: \-a.g IL
Cn:
Others
e-a D
4z.Iua
Aot
f at
Fl: 1.0.trre1L 'T
�n -kaas
N I-f 3 N : _ c , \ % ,-- c5 l L T 'r � o .. `1-- u. z y •. K., 1 D
J M1'41� yzs : wl t D
TSS: . itu-h-...'4 4.6t N1L�
Comments: i b- H e -\:a a c1 a fl }n 4 ¢:\
1 So ,,.g(l. Al.
15 1 L As:
Cd:
pH: 1.-1k-0 Temperature:
kSOc ,R &L r•+9, L 0 ,» L
a to: 5 4,4,-g le.
1 f L Ni: 9).Ly j L
, `{ 3 a. Sl L. Cr: _ Z. "")•,.,,, i 1 c�
wo�t�us. sat dad tep4.c�.
Se. Z,g
Cu: i4i..511._ Ag. 2 9IL
Pb: 1 Zug f L_ Zn-
Sarnpfer's Name:
Sample ID'I's:
7-745IKA—eletZ?*— -
43d FID aldUDUM : NO J
e6S8t'trS6 t 6 :
Wd6T:z2 teen

Present Operating Status
The Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility is presently operating with a hydraulic
capacity of 6 MGD. The facility consists of a bar screen, grit removal at the influent pump
station, dual -train extended aeration basins, chemical phosphorus removal, secondary
clarifiers. tertiary filters and chlorine gas disinfection system.
The sizes and capacities of the existing process components are summarized below:
Mechanical Screen (at the Influent Pump Station)
Mechanical Screen:
Number of units
Unit capacity:
Ave. daily flow, MGD
Max. daily flow. MGD
Screen channel width, ft.-in.
Screen channel depth. ft.-in.
Total screen height, ft.-in.
Screen opening, inch
Angle of inclination from vertical degree
Maximum flow depth, ft.-in.
Minimum lift capacity, lb/ft
Drive motor horsepower, hp
Electrical service
2
6.0
12.0
2.0
4.0
19-81/2
1.0
6
2'-8"
210
3/4
460 volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz
Mechanical Grit Collector Chamber (at the Influent Pump Station)
Mechanical Grit Collector:
Number of units
Unit capacity: Ave. daily flow, MGD
Max. daily flow, MGD
Grit channel width, ft-in.
Grit channel depth, ft.-in.
Grit channel length, ft.
Surface Overflow Rate at
Hydraulic Detention Time
Velocity at
Ave. daily flow, gpd/sq.ft.
Max. daily flow, gpd/sq. ft.
at Ave. daily flow - minutes
at Max. daily flow - minutes
Ave. daily flow, ft/sec.
at Max. daily flow, ft./sec.
Grit Removal Mechanism
Minimum flow depth, ft.-in.
Mechanical grit buck lift height
Drive motor horsepower, hp
Electrical service:
2
6.0
9.0
3.0
4.0
30.0
33, 333.33
50, 000.00
0.39
0.43
1.00
1.13
Mechanic chain and bucket
1'-10"
18'-3"
3/4
460 volts, 3 phase, 60 hertz

Influent Pump Station
Number of pumps, non -clog centrifugal type 4
*Pump capacity. gpm
Pump No. 1 at 30 ft. TDH and 1175 rpm 3150
Pump No. 2 at 30 ft. TDH and 1175 rpm 3150
Pump No. 3 at 30 ft. TDH and 1175 rpm 3150
Pump No. 4 at 30 ft. TDH and 1175 rpm 3150
*Drive motor horsepower, hp, pump No. 1 50
*Drive motor horsepower, hp, pump No. 2 50
`Drive motor horsepower, hp, pump No. 3 50
*Drive motor horsepower. hp. pump No. 4 50
Electrical service 460 volts, 3 phase, 60 hertz
Impeller dia. in inches (all four pumps) 13.875
Field information and design information were contradictory. Field information shown.
Extended Aeration Type Activated Sludge System
Aeration Tanks:
Number of aeration tanks, 393'-0"x98'-0"x11'-10", each 2
Unit volume, gal. 3,066,750.00
Total volume. gal. 6,133,500.00
Hydraulic retention time. hrs at ADF of 6.0 MGD 24.5
Operating MLSS concentration, mg/L 3000 - 4000
Sludge Retention Time at 20'C. days (at MLVSS = 2250 mg/L) 32
F/M ratio, Ib BODs/Ib MLVSS 0.11 - 0.08
BODs loading, Ib BODs/1000 cu ft/day 15.25
Aeration System:
Type of aeration system Vertical Turbine
Oxygen provided requirements, AOR, Ib 0,/hr 483
Oxygen requirement at Standard Conditions, SOR, Ib 02/hr 530
Number of aerators per tank 4
Mixing provided hp/1000 cu. ft. per tank 0.61
Additional mixer (floating aerator used in field) Hp 25
Aerator motor horsepower, hp, 2 aerators 75
Aerator motor horsepower, hp, 2 aerators 50
Draft tubes on 2 50 hp aerator aerators only
Electrical service for aerators 460 volts,3 phase, 60 hertz

Clarifiers:
Number of clarifiers. 84 ft. diam x 12 ft.-6 in. SWD
Unit volume, gal
Total volume, gal
Hydraulic retention time, hr. at ADF of 6.0 MGD
Unit surface area, square feet
Total surface area, square feet
Surface overflow rate, gpd/sq.ft. at ADF of 6.0 MGD
Unit weir length
Total weir length
Weir overflow rate, gpd/lin. ft. at ADF of 6.0 MGD
Sludge Recirculation Pumps:
Number of pumps. flooded suction centrifugal type
Pump capacity, gpm, 2 at 12 ft. TDH and 860 RPM, .2 HP
Pump capacity, gpm, 2 at 12 ft. TDH and 700 RPM, 10 HP
Pump capacity. gpm, 2 hp at 12 ft. TDH and 860 RPM, 5 HP
Electrical service
Waste Sludge Pumps:
Number of pumps, flooded suction centrifugal type
Pump capacity, gpm, 2 at 11 ft. TDH
Pump drive horsepower, hp
Electrical service
Scum Pumps:
Number of pumps. flooded suction centrifugal type
Pump capacity. gpm
Pump drive horsepower, hp, each
Electrical service
Tertiary Filtration
Number of filters, filter bed 88 ft. long, 12 ft, 6 in.
Cell area width, in.
Unit surface area, sq. ft.
Total surface area. sq. ft.
Cell surface area, sq. ft. of cell area
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft
Filtration rate, gpm/sq ft - two cells coax.
Bridge drive motor Hp (2) provided
Filter Media:
Sand:
8 ft-8 in. each
running simultaneously
12-inch depth of media. The 10% effective
size ranges between 0.6 & 0.65 mm.
uniformity coefficient (ratio of 60% to 10%
Electrical service
Underdrain System:
Filter Backwash Pumps:
Filter Wash Water.
size)
2
491,790
983,580
3.93
5538.9
11078
541
263.8
527.5
11374
6
350
1400
700
460 volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz
2
200
460 volt, 3 phase. 60 hertz
1
200
460 volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz
2
8
1100
2200
8.33
25
3.0
3/4
460 volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz
2 pumps each rated @ gpm @a 20 ft., TDH, 1750 rpm
The drive horsepower is 3.0 hp, ea.
2 pumps each rated @ 20 gpm @ 20 ft., TDH, 1750 rpm
The drive horsepower is 3.0 hp, ea.

Other Features:
Chlorine Disinfection
Filtration system is designed with automatic
backwash system and influent conditioning
with polymer and chlorine.
Chlorine Contact:
Chlorine contact is provided in filter tankage and piping
Total capacity. gal.
Hydraulic retention time, minutes, at ave. daily flow
Chlorine Feed System:
Number of chlorinators
Chlorine feed rate. mg/L.
average
maximum
Accessories: Effluent flow meter flow proportional feed. The system is
equipped with a scale and a leak detection device.
76.600
>26
2
0.6
1.6
Chemical Feed System
1 Caustic Tank (not used since conversion to sodium aluminate) 10,000 gallon
1 Sodium Aluminate Tank 10.000 gallon
No. of feed pumps for caustic (not used since conversion to sodium aluminate) 3
No. of feed pumps for sodium aluminate 3
Type of pumps - Diaphragm type
Feed rate sodium aluminate pumps. gal/hr. 62.8
Feed rate caustic pumps, gal/hr(not used since conversion to sodium aluminate) 7.4
# Feed points for sodium aluminate (3)
Location Aeration Tank (near 1st aerator)
Aeration Tank (effluent)
Clarifier effluent manhole
# Feed points for sodium hydroxide (not used since conversion to sodium aluminate) (1)
Location Aeration Tank (at influent end)
Reaeration System
# Reaeration Blowers
Blower Type:
Blower Motor horsepower.
Blower Capacity
Electrical service
Location
(1)
Positive Displacement
10
450 scfm
460 volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz
effluent channel of sand filter

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
UPGRADE OF THE TRIANGLE WWTF
Proposed upgrade and expansion of the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Facility
includes:
Site improvements including new yard piping. drainage improvements. new 3-
phase electric service, new bituminous entry road, new internal service roads,
and associated appurtenances.
Installation of a new mechanical fine screening process with high spray wash.
dewatering screw press, and at -grade screenings roll -off container. The above -
grade portions of the screen and spray wash will be enclosed in an all-weather,
fiberglass enclosure. Influent channels will be covered to prevent odors.
Construction of a new wetwell-submersible influent pumping station with (2) low
flow pumps. (4) high flow pumps and new wetwell level control system.
Installation of a new induced vortex grit removal process with automated grit
wasting system including airlift pumps. grit classifier. and waste grit container.
Installation of a new influent flow metering system of new 48" Parshall flume,
ultrasonic level sensor. and PLC -based flow meter.
6. Construction of a five stage. biological nutrient removal process (three equal
trains) consisting of an anaerobic selector (to optimize biological phosphorous
removal), a three celled second stage anoxic reactor (for denitrification of
recycled nitrate), an oxidation ditch system (for biological oxidation of organics
and ammonia). a forth stage anoxic reactor (for denitrification of nitrates
produced in the oxidation ditch), and a fifth stage aerobic reactor (to restore
dissolved oxygen in the mixed liquor prior to clarification).
Construction of a new clarifier distribution structure consisting of adjustable weir
gates for balancing flow equally to the four new clarifiers.
Installation of four new 110' diameter x 16' SWD (side water depth) secondary
clarifiers to replace the existing (2) 84' diameter x 12' SWD clarifiers.
Construction of two new RAS/WAS submersible wetwell pumping stations each
with (2) RAS pumps and (1) WAS pump to serve two clarifiers.
10. Construction of five new 16' x 86' long traveling hood sand filters in new concrete
tankage.
11. Installation of a new medium pressure, high -intensity UV disinfection system in
an open channel configuration.

12. Installation of new effluent flow meter consisting of compound rectangular weirs.
a new ultrasonic level sensor. and a new PLC -based flow meter.
13. Construction of a new post aeration process consisting of a concrete, plug -flow
reactor basin, fine bubble diffused aeration system and (2) new positive
displacement blowers with variable frequency drives.
14. Construction of new sludge thickening, digestion and dewatering processes
15. Installation of a new computer -based, plant -wide, SCADA system for controlling
and optimizing individual processes and minimizing electrical discharge.
16. Installation of a new stand-by power system for emergency operation of
treatment processes and pumping systems.
17. Construction of a new 4800 square foot Control and Administration Building to
house the new SCADA control system, offices for County and WWTF staff,
analytical laboratory and showering facilities.
18. Construction of a new 3000 square foot Maintenance Building to house County -
owned equipment. a mechanics work area, and shop.

J
3
Head Wall
EL=244.12'
Inv. Out
EL=239.6'
YAR
HYDRANT I 1
TREE LINE
/
•
c
EIS
#217
/
'TOP OF BER
EIS]
#218
Disturbel
1;
OP
Control
N 774,574.17
E 2,030,436.97
HLORINE
JUNCTION
BOX
ANSFORMEpp
'1
W/BOX
S
PUMPING
STN
CHEMl��1 L
STORAG
%OFFICE 1
MAINTENANCE\MH
BUILDING
CHLORINATION
AND STORAGE
BUILDING
EXISTING
FLOOD WAY
LIMITS
GRAVEL/GRASS DRIVE
APPROX. ' 10'
REVISED
FLOOD WAY
LIMITS
#221
&CREED
5625 Dillard Dr., Suite 117, Bldg. I
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Cary, North Carolina 27511
AA0002667
Internet Site: http: //www.mckimcreed.com
LAGOON
YARD H CANT
FINAL
CLARIFIER
TOP WALL
EL =
52.60
FINAL
CLARIFIER
TOP WALL
EL =
25 2.
HYDRANT
TOP OF BERM
AERATION
JUNCTION AERA TION BASIN
BOX TOP WALL EL 25.523 YARD
H YDRAN T
ARD HYDRANT
BOX YARD
CLARIFIER AERATION BASIN HYDRANT
EFFLUENT TOP WALL EL = 253,18
ONCRETE
JUNC 770N
BOX
LAGOON
ABANDON CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER
GRAVEL/GRASS DRIVE
APPROX. 10'
DURHAM COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
EIS
#206
TREE
LINE
GRAVEL/GRASS DRIVE
APPROX. 10'
TOP OF BERM
Ovee He
Po•wi r L
TREE )
LINE
OVERHEAD
POWER
203 Be t
/ EN'IR A7T L"
•)/ />
/
!
;'\
ill
ES EIS EIP
#223 # #225 ControlOB N 774,527.93
E 2,031,420.69
100 YR. FLOOD
EXISTING WWTF SITE PLAN
1
DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE SEWER BASIN
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE ANALYIS
i
TRAFFIC
SIGNAL
NORTH
EXISTING EDGE
OF PA VEMENT
DATE:
JULY 5, 2000
MCE PROJ. 44
1471-0001
DRAWN
RT
DESIGNED
KCE
CHECKED
KCE
PROJ. MGR.
BJB
FIGURE A-2
SCALE
HORIZONTAL:
NOT TO SCALE
VERTICAL:
NA
lNlec DWG MIueER
ALT3
SHEET MAIDER
♦
Of
(STA1-LJS:
REVISION
l

EXISTING TRIANGLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FLOW SCHEMATIC
(Extended Aeration, Activated Sludge Process)
Grit
Chamber
Influent 0_EI .E
Influent Pum
Station
Parsall
Mechanical Flume
Bar Screen
Sludge
Lagoon
Aeration
Basin
Recirc.
Sludge
Aeration
Basin
FIGURE 2-1
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
DURHAM COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Sludge
Lagoon
Wasted Slud
R.A.S. Pump
1 Stations
Filter Bldg. &
Chlorine
Contact
Effluent

PROPOSED UPGRADE TO DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SITE PLAN
(Biological Nutrient Removal Process, Tertiary Filtration, & UV Disinfection)

NEW 54* OUTFALL
NEW ELECTRIC BUILDING
NEW RAS/WAS
PUMPING STAT1
(TYP. OF 2)
1
I
REVISED FLOODING
LIMIT
EXISTING FLOOOWAY UMIT
REVISED FL00DWAY UMIT
McKIM&CREED
v
5625 Dillard Dr., Suite 117, Bldg. I
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Cary, North Carolina 27511
AA0002667
Internet Site: http: //www.mckimcreed.com
ENT SEWER
1
I.I AIM
bmo vaw 4W .-Mot
Rat w
EXISTING SLUDGE
STORAGE LAGOON
(TO REMAIN IN SERVICE
UNTIL START-UP OF
NEW TREATED PROCESS)
NEW 5 STAGE BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT
REMOVAL PROCESS (3 TRANS.)
NEW SCREENING PROCESS
NEW INFLUENT PUMP STATION
NEW GRIT REMOVAL
PROCESS
NEW INFLUENT FLOW
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE SEWER BASIN
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ,
1
DATE:
JULY 5, 2000
MCE PROJ. f
1471-0001
DRAWN
RT
DEIGNED
KCE
CHECKED
KCE
PROJ. MGR.
BJB
I
CATUS:
NORTH
SCALE
HORIZONTAL
NOT TO SCALE
VERTICAL
N A
•
118NUMBER
MOO NUMBALT3
SHEET NUMBER
1
REVISOM
l

PROPOSED UPGRADE TO DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
PROCESS SCHEMATIC
(Biological Nutrient Removal Process, Tertiary Filtration, & UV Disinfection)

•
4
BABE FOR (DEEM
CRITERIA SODIUM ALUMM4ATE -
Woman;
IIPLIOR LOAC•121
®OSOOIUM
DESCRIPTION
DE9CN
STANpARO
INFTIIFJNT PARAMET7i5
INTu YEAR raaODY
DESIGN }TAR (20201
- -
ALUYINATE F®
®
►!G LY C1B/d® Wlv®I
TWE
FLOW, AVERAGE DAILY
4.5 NI,D
120 MOD
NLIMbp1
CCfirPAJGUs - FlNE SCREEN
2
2
DAILY
FLOW, PEAK DAILY
9.0 MGO
240 MOD
MECHANICAL
POLYMER
\
I
DEWATTETONO
PRESSURE
ANHIGFD SCREW
-
FLOW, PEAK HOURLY
BOD0. CONCENTRATION
20.0 MGD
230 nq/1
340 4CO
250 mg/1
BAR SCREEN
POLYMER FEED
MUABRRB„O KATIOM
CONVEGH
YOR
BIDS, MASS
TSS, CONCENTRATION
9,365 IG/d
180 mg/1
25020 Iba/d
180
INFUJENT FLOW
P `
TERTIARY
I I
1
L SUBMERSIBLE
TSS, MASS
6,753 Ib./d
mq�
14020 b d
-.
R A S 0 MAXIMUM)
_
R
SANp I
•NE7YR7.LS
PUMPS
e
-
2
TI04, CONCENTRATION
40 mq/1
40 mq//11
(1.5
�EIER
I
I
1
UD
TKN. MASS
NHS -IL CONCQITRA110N
1.500 b/d
25 mq/I
4,010 Wx/d
25 mAS
5 STAGE BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REIOVAL
ioSCOMI HYPOCILOT67E FEED
r
ILOW
I11
VOLUME PUMPS
PUMPS ((�)
18p6
_
NH3-IL MASS
D.18 b d
/
4�
9/I
2.502 IWO
INFLUENT
METER
INTERNAL RECYCLE (4 Q MAX)
L �-
FT
_ BLOWER
BURDINO
GRIT WOOL
T1PE
INDUCED VERTU
-
TP, OONCF}NTRATTN
1P, MASS
1so �/d
5 mq//11
300.4 IDS/d
SCRE3?lINCS
1 GRIT
-
n
1611,
UV
'� I
NUMBER
GRIT WASHINCF G
AAt LIFT PUMPS2
2
TO LANDFILL
REM 0V
J
J
J
I-
CTION
I POST
1
GRIT OEWATERING
SCREW MASSIF -CFI
O +RAS
_
SYSTEM EFFLUENT I
I�AE�RA��T1p1
I •
I
MAW Raw MEM
_
INFL
P.S
- -I.-
_ Q WAS
F3
-'--•.-I
��
"FIL�pTLy'��
fy�
_
P UME
-
J
I 1
ZE
46' TIRRQ8
-
ANTOTATED MO® ORCHARDS LYTATIG/
`-'
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
INITIAL YEAR (2000)
DESIGN YEAR (2720}
+
J
J
`_
F4 -
DESCRIPTION
DESIGN
S1A110 ARD
FLOW, AVERAGE DRAY
-
120 MCD
I ANAEROBIC
T
1� lld AEROBIC 2DC �p411;11)
I
STAGE 1: AHAIIi09C SELEC70R
E1005. M,LSSC£HTRATON
5 mq/I
5 mg/1 -
SUPERIEATE
SELECTOR
ANOXIC ANOXIC AERATION
I
1 11
S /TFtA91
3
K
30 mq/I
30 mg/1
I
RAS (lA 0 MAXIMUM)
--'I F5 - I
z 1 1
DEIEFIT4O/L167TAHREg (TOTAL)
1.5 HRS.
1 10 26 HRS.
TSS, MOCENTRATION
CONCENTRATOR
71ER/mo0fh
GIRT
Q..ASSRIER
l
■ RAS/WASini
I I
Mrol7 A Fi0R5EPOwEA (EAOi UNI
1e HP
3
TN, MASS
(MONTHLY MASS min)
NH3-N, CONCENTRATION
NHS MASS
43n be/month
1.0 mill
-
41n-
1.0 mg/1 (2)
-(
1j ®N�
I
RAS
LLL yip
WAS
METER
`
WAS I
1
BACKWASH TO INFI.UEM WETWe7.L
I
I
I
STAGE 2 int. ANOXIC REACTOR
CELLS/TRAIN
0L'LR710N THE (TOTAL)
3
4 HRS.
3 TO 6 MS
CONCENTRATION
-
TOTAL /
2
TP, w
10.204 b/yr
0.0,204 W^iSlr
GRIT
TO
BLOLDWG
F!� ROTARY DRUM 1
1 1
MD07L HORSEPOWER {EACH UN T)
12-5 HP
O, CONCENTRATION C NCENTRATKIN
DO, MASS
D1
6.0 mq/1 (minimum) m)
-
6.0 mg/1 (mYlYnum)
LANOFN.L
METHANOL
FEED
FLTRATE VYi11 THICKENERS
I
STAGE 3: AEROBIC REACTOR
TIM
ODODATI3 DITCH
FECAL CONLIFOR4
(30 day 9 R )
200 aa1001w/ 100 mi.
200 colonies/ 100 ml.
COMBINED 6NPLANT
(BACKWASH, SUPERNATANT. SLUDGE DEYMIERING ETC.)
`
i
DITCH6/1RA0N
TO14 T1ME/DFTCH
19 HRS.
>2
TO
0H
0.0 - 9.0 Standard Un1t4
`
AERATOR TYPE
SURFACEFW TOR
5 10 MS
(1) PERMIT UNIT IS BASED ON MAXIMUM MONTHLY LOADING OF 5.371 LBS/IIONT1
, ,
© ©AEROBIC DIGESTERS
DECANT TO
AERAIIXt HORSEPOWER
I AERATORS/DITCH
MIXEFt TYPE
NI)OR HORSFPONER (EACH UNIT)
4
SUe9 H9&E
>1
-
-
6-1104 CORRESPONDS TO A CONCENTRATION OF 275 MG/L AT 12 NIb.
I 14174ER5/TITCR
2
-
(2) AMMONA UNIT IS 1.0 MG/L DURING SUMMER A 1.6 Mc .. R MINTER
CONCENTRATION
© © © SLUDGE F® PUMPS
STAT2NN52rW ANOXIC REACTOR
(AVETtADE MONTHLY UNITS)
PERMIT
(3) PMIT LOFT IS BASED GI MAXIMUM ANNUAL LOADING OF 10,204 LBS/YEAR
®
+ FEEDS
CCELLSliR1J11
3
2
>2
>1
*NCH CORRESPONDS TO A CONCENTRATION OF 0.26 M6/L AT 12 NI$
®OPaYMER
� 1L ®
ODEEIIEE1111TON THE (TOTAL)
TOTAL 1 MI 03t5
RIDER HORSEPOWER
25 HRS.
2
A3 HP
2 TO 4 FIRS
-
0 PROCESS
SCHEMATIC
/ MASS FLOW
SD
SD
SLUDGE DEWATERING
STAGES end AEROBIC REACTOR
1RNNS
3
>2
vD NOT TO
SCALE
T
yl
CELLS A,M
T TIME (TOTAL)
AERATION TYPE
BLOWER TYPE
2
0.3 HRS.
COARSE ENIBBLE OIFIUSED AN
POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
>,
0.2 10 0.S HIM
FLTRAIE SLUDGE CAKE
I
BLOWER 9ZE
30 HP
LT.ASS B SLUDGE
STORAGE
d BLOWERS
2
>4
TO CERTIFIED
110014DAm MARRS*
LAND APPLICATION
DESCRIPTION
DESIGN
STANDARD
;ilE
RAPID SLUDGE UPTAKE
RAPID SLU>DGE UPTAKE
31 0
ix,NTYPE
SLUDGE CAKE4
UMBER
DMEN90N5
RATE
PEAK SOLIDDS RFLOW LOADING RATE
WEIR LOADING RATE
112' DIA
304 GPO/a 18' SWO
35 LBS/D/SF ((�
25,525 AF
2
>14' SAOOSURFACESF
<400 GPO
35 LBS/D/SF FF++DDFF))
30,000 /1F((PDF)
RAINWA8 R1MO876134
DESCRIPTION
OEM R
STANDARD
300
TYPE
NUMBER OF VETWET.I.S
NUMBER OF PUMPS - TOTAL
TOTAL RAS PUMPS
WI ITw1 SUBMERSIBLE
2
6
4
-
>2
-
TOTAL WAS PLAIPS
PUMPIN CAPACITY
I
2
1044 TO 15544 (ADF)
-
15% TO 150X (ACC}
TERTIARY WO FLTHAIR)M
DESCRIPTION
DESIGN
STANDARD
290
TYPE
NUMBER OF TRAINS
TRAVELING HOOD
5
>2
260
FILTER ORIEN90N5
HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES
• AOF
MAX SOLIDS LOADING
BACKWASH RATE
BACKWASH VOLUME/SAY
16' W z 66' LONG
1.8 GPM/SF
iF
0.5 LBS/➢/SF
20 GPM/SF
0.36 TO 0.6 M00
-
2 OPM//SSFF
Q5 lffi/D
20 GnM
31T TO 5X AV
IN DIONMICDOM
DESCRIPTION
DESIGN STANDARD
_
EL 275.00
...Br
WA. 273.10
HVA
287.
72
TYPE
C0NFl8URATON
di immix FS # PUMPS
MEDNM PRES21RE/14GH NTESRY -
OPEN CHANNEL
4 IN SERIES >2
270
FL LV. ZiU
50 ��
�p
EL
166.58
mill
UV TRA ON
644
R.
264.22
EL
252.4
41EL
DOSAGE AT
36 MO
35,800
WATT SECS/GNAT
%/
y
g
1
�r
283.42260
EA. 253.75
=
=
M1.42
MM. 25592
EL 25800
TAN
/LRIIL
25286
100 YR
EL 231/73
f1000
//�/
4" DIP
7
l%i}77%///%L
EL ,ylyT7��500
f
250
I.E. 244.0,
i!.
ELEV. 4&,B
EL 245.00
EL
245 00
EL 248 00
E�
p4gOp
p
Fy a4A 50
250
n.r.vt.
'x;"iriv
64' DIP
LE 240.10
N.9
�Ir }
�
r'?..,s,\c'V'
gg0O
3fip
�y W,
FL EL
.4
((--�^
.^AR'
54"
OUTFACE
F.L EL
24 .42
I.E.
40.pp
210.50
/
//�
2
(y\
240
36^
DIP
VA
/
EL .00
]
\
" DIP
%1
24200
Dip
E
'B °P
L
l7
240
230
HMI. EL25&83
233.08
HYA. EL
-i.
2T2 ati
IE 242.00
��M
1'ARdM11 FLARE
�- DIP
Imam
STRUCTURE
DISTRELRION
239.83
6 BTAOU°
4•J7
42"
BOLDOr,AL
T RBIOVAL
DIP
54" DIP
LE 240.
WAFER
:43.00
OBTFI
ROW
DP
/F011
238.92
LE 244.
fLTEiI,
LE 2M.00
E 243.00
W
Odi8f7110N
QIm01
FL EL
REA9MTbN
240.23
WOK
54" DIP
LE 240.50
110111FlABf
eRmL
220
4 23'
PILAW
00 FL
EL 229.5
�'
MA-
FL
EL 229.5
EL 219.5
230
l//
220
E,111110rule
© HYDRA_ULIC PROFILE
-
SrATIOR
__
- _ _
2 0
�v HORIZONTAL SE. AIF NONE
1 NCH- /0 rt.
R y ERE A-12
4MCKINI & E
C�a
TERNATNE
d 014n--0001
HORIZONTAL;
(L
J"
VL�O�J / 1TREATMENT
Lp�
ORAwx
Ey Ep�� COUNTY
D1ThAM
�Ey �L �E�yf7G�V
L� per PLANT
IAAN WASTEWATER ET
1AN
OLEO WO
WA IV
I
1-
E T LE EETEA,111MENT
Wpm
elmOgg� Mg "�
•COUN1
hA�FF
ma
I14 NORTH CAHOL W
.f�A 1/ C//)-E DRAV�LIIC 1 R1O9 E
r O S1,
PR" Mrn. n j
MA
�1A,
�-pp
` •
A,MIMM
IB1110T,7 t-LVA DIAGRAM
r...
IInA1n
041
HL
�T ANA
MESONS
Mime auM41� M:6,E
�

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Chuck Hill
County of Durham
120 East Parrish Street
Durham, NC 27701
Dear Mr. Hill:
ex� �w; ALr1( �L 1
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 18, 2000
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit NC0026051
Triangle WWTP
Durham County
The Division is beginning the cycle of permit renewals for the Cape Fear river basin. An examination of the Cape
Fear basin plan and the NPDES permit schedule has revealed that the existing expiration dates in Cape Fear NPDES
permits do not coincide with the revised permit expiration dates for the basin. This discrepancy could create unnecessary
delays in the processing of over 200 permit renewals. Accordingly, the Division is changing the permit expiration dates for
NPDES permits in the Cape Fear river basin.
This permit modification changes the expiration date of the subject permit in subbasin 30605 to April 30, 2001.
Please find enclosed the revised permit cover page. Insert the new cover page into your permit and discard the old page.
All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full effect. This permit
modification is issued under the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of
Agreement between North Carolina and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In accordance with the modification of the permit expiration date, the new due date for your renewal application is
November 1, 2000. Renewal application forms will be sent to you approximately 6-8 weeks in advance of the new due
date or you may download the forms from the NPDES web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents.html.
You will need to download Standard Form A. If you have already submitted a permit renewal form, there is no need to
submit any other forms to the Division; the application will be processed during the renewal period for your subbasin.
If any part of this permit modification 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 a written petition conforming
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, 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.
If you have any questions concerning this permit modification, please contact Natalie Sierra at [phone],
extension 551.
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Po' t So liance Enforcement Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES

Permit NC0026051
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,
Durham County
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Triangle WWTP
NC Highway 55 South
Durham
Durham County
to receiving waters designated as Northeast 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.
This permit shall become effective September 1, 2000.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2001.
Signed this day August 18, 2000.
Kerr T. Stevens, r irector
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 17, 1998
Mr. Chuck Hill, Division Manager
County of Durham
120 E. Parrish Street, Law Building, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27701
��m it- 406
NCDENR
Subject: NPDES Permit/VOC Issue
Permit No. NC0026051
Durham Co. WWTP
Durham County
Dear Mr. Hill:
This letter is in response to the correspondence received October 27, 1997 regarding the volatile organic
compound limitations in the NPDES discharge permit referenced above. In that correspondence, it was requested that
the effluent limitations for VOCs be changed to "monitor only" during some interim period until such time as
alternative means of effluent disinfection are operational.
Removal of the effluent limitations from the NPDES permit is not a viable alternative as they are based on
federal water quality criteria which represent maximum allowable effluent concentrations. Reasonable time frames
have already been given for compliance with effluent limtations for VOCs, including a four month extension from
April 1, 1997 to August 1, 1997. Effluent limitations have, therefore, been in effect for purposes of compliance
since August 1, 1997. In light of this fact, the Point Source Branch will support Durham County's application for a
Special Order by Consent to establish interim effluent limitations for those parameters which constituted limit
violations since August 1997 while installation of ultraviolet disinfection takes place.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Mark McIntire, telephone
number [phone], extension 553. If the County wishes to pursue a Special Order by Consent, please contact
Ms. Judy Garrett of the Division's Raleigh Regional Office at [phone].
jncerely,
Donald L. Safrit,
Assistant Chief
for Point Source Branch
cc: Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality
NPDES Unit, Mark McIntire
Pretreatment Unit, Dana Folley
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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 29, 1997
Mr. Edward O. Watson, Jr., Director
Project Managemetn Office
County of Durham
301 W. Main Street
Durham, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Watson:
:11•1 I C I rilA
�EHNR
Subject: NPDES Permit No. NC0026051
Durham County Trinagle Plant
Durham County
As you are probably aware, a meeting was recently held to discuss the subject permit and
the effluent limitations for various volatile organic chemicals (VOC's). Attending this
meeting were representaives of The Wooten Company, the County of Durham, JMM
Operational Services and the Division of Water Quality. The intent of the meeting was to
discuss the origin of the effluent VOC limitations and the flexibility for compliance with
these requirements.
The neccessity of the VOC limitations derives from our standard procedures to ensure that
surface waters utilized for drinking water purposes are not adversely affected. The water
quality standards for water supply waters (classified as "WS" waters) can be found in Title
15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Chapter 2H, Section .200.
These water quality standards are also complemented by the federal water quality criteria
which serve as the minimum national water quality standards. The specific parameters
identified as concerns to Durham County are Chloroform, 1,2 Dichloroethane, Methylene
Chloride, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane and Toluene. All of these
parameters are limited except for Toluene, which is required to be monitored twice per
month. The limitations for these carcinogens are necessary to protect the watershed
(Jordan Lake) downstream. Durham County's request to have these carcinogens limited as
a Total VOC cannot be honored because the standards are written for the individual
constituents, not for totals. Even if this were legally possible, cumulative values may not
take into account synergistic effects, and therefore, may not be as simple as adding the
limits together.
As discussed in the meeting, the NPDES permit which was issued March 4, 1996, went
into effect April 1, 1996. A one year period was granted via the permit to comply with the
VOC limitations. A four month extension was granted April 18, 1997 to allow more time
to specifically identify the source of the VOC's. Since it is evident that the limits are
necessary to protect the downstream waters and your investigations indicate that the
disinfection process utilized by the Durham County Triangle plant is the principle source, it
is important that the County take purdent and expedient action to eliminate the source, or
provide treatment for, these VOC's. 40 CFR 122.
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

\oi
4e
:V c
COUNTY OF DURHAM
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL
Mr. Don Safrit
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Re: VOC Limits
Durham County Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Safrit:
11,, —k M ei-.
SA) Zoint cit.4 -
�� c.
V2,1(.2
OCT 2 7 1997
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
This letter is a follow up to our meeting in your office and to your telephone conversation with Ford
Chambliss. We understand that it is not possible for our permit limits to be changed to allow for a
single total VOC limit and that we must continue to be regulated for specific individual pollutants.
As we explained, we do not expect to be able to comply with the VOC effluent limits until after we
have made major changes to our disinfection system_ While we had originally thought that the source
of the troublesome pollutants was one of our industrial customers, exhaustive checking and
monitoring revealed no significant industrial sources. Further investigation identified our own
chlorination system as the point where the majority of these compounds are produced. We have
reduced this production by more carefully regulating chlorine dosage, but have not been able to
consistently meet the new VOC limits. Greater reductions in chlorine dose would likely result in
coliform limit violations. Therefore, in the short term, we do not see any way to achieve compliance.
We are actively pursuing long term resolution of this problem by replacing our effluent chlorination
system with UV disinfection. We ask that the effluent limits for the VOC compounds be changed to
"monitor only" in the interim period.
Mr. Chambliss stated that you requested a schedule by which the County would complete this change
in the disinfection system. The County is now preparing a long range wastewater treatment plan
which will address a number of issues including expanding treatment capacity, wastewater reuse, the
use of UV disinfection, and resolution of intermittent problems the plant is now experiencing with
wastewater backing up in its effluent filters. These items are all closely related, and it appears likely
that an effluent lift station will be required in order to install UV disinfection. If required, such a lift
station would also need to be compatible with a future effluent reuse system and a potentially
increased plant design flow. Similarly, the County would want any UV system it installed to be
compatible with whatever long range wastewater treatment plant capacity it determines is required
to serve the area. We share with the State the concern that the plant be made capable of meeting all
120 E. Parrish Street, Law Bldg., Suite 100, Durham, N.C. 27701 [phone]
Equal Employment/Affirmative Action Employer

expected limits as soon as possible, but do believe that some time needs to be allowed to complete
long range planning so that the County can design a UV disinfection system compatible with its long
term needs. Accordingly we propose the following schedule:
Complete Long Range Study
Budget for UV Disinfection and Associated Pumping
(if required), Select Designer, & Begin Design
Complete Design
Complete State Review of Plans & Specifications
Advertise Project & Award Construction Contracts
Complete Construction & Begin UV Disinfection
January 15, 1998
April 15, 1998
June 15, 1998
August 15, 1998
October 15, 1998
April 15, 1999
We ask that the VOC limits be made "monitor only" until April of 1999. We realize that this is the
maximum time allowed under regulations. However, we believe the schedule we requested is
justified. The systems that will be needed, both pumping and UV disinfection, must be capable of
handling at least 10,000 gpm, and possibly much more. Facilities this size cannot be designed or
constructed quickly. A seven figure construction cost is not out of the realm of possibility
considering that a large, complex pump station as well as UV disinfection may be required, and that
extensive modification to the plant electrical and emergency power systems may be needed to
accommodate the new construction. The schedule we have given may prove optimistic, and the
County intends to monitor its progress closely. If, at any time, it appears we will not be able to meet
the schedule, we intend to apply for an SOC to protect the County from enforcement action until the
work on the UV system is completed.
We appreciate your taking the time to meet with us, and hope that you will be able to honor our
request. If, in the meantime, you should have any questions please do not hesitate to call me or Ford
Chambliss with The Wooten Company.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF DURHAM
Chuck Hill
Division Manager
cc: Mr. Ford Chambliss, The Wooten Company
Mr. David Prewitt, United Water Services

l rh 1 6.
— c /y4.-1 t...i I/OCr
sAvet
/SS//v{ .
/."% ' 7( c/:• ;f, il�rC
' e e.. - '_-1
7 a7 iX /'q4
4., IL- , i4 do L-J
Zdsr, yl 4-e �'/�%is�j! :i. yY�� �� c�C ,Cr L.
— te, 40 !- ]a 7 . / !/O G / , 4. '7. 2„ 0.......
J y Ca -it x 7I7z
ei7
670 /7-
/„r4 , T3 4-4 74
...I . 6-4
4— 4., 74
Ser. 'o ccl - H47 !� /)l C / 72.7 i S .✓! �,
*441.1.7 Ora 74 Gvo�� 0C4 �. / � /a 41" -
404e 7/ rfC /f . 211 /. 4 iy c---441 ;
4//"vt mac. Lrri�G.444r+ 7 4 GJii .4 7i 7' h
— 74, ( G‘ 4,5 ,
- SOG "WA1
/
7e

Ytn F i1r , e ,i,c G% (u , aik — % 1 IL
a J1� (q7 1g,g
'. 3
1.5
1,3
!Il 1 OIV' o L Ct (I / 6 /1,2 ..�.
(9/2r 4
-?11f- r, 7
12I14 ?. I
12123 I
12 130 1.4
14lef 118
1,2
.S