NC0021849_Permit Modification_19990201

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
Mr. John Christensen, Town Manager
Town of Hertford
P.O. Box 32
Hertford, North Carolina 27944
Dear Mr. Christensen:
L
Af
k
NCDENR,
NORTH CAROLINA DER�RTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 1, 1999 11��
.' ( �h e,-) �C_
-et
L 0-
a' '0
a
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit No. NCO021849
Town of Hertford WWTP
Perquimans County
In accordance with the application for a discharge permit received on September 2, 1998 and additional
information received on'November 13, 1998, the Division is forwarding herewith 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
December 6, 1983, and as subsequently amended.
The following modifications, as indicated in the draft, have been finalized:
Upon expansion to 0.70 MGD, BOD5 and ammonia monthly average limits are 15.0/30.0 mg/l
(Summer/Winter) and 4.0/8.0 mg/l, respectively.
* Upon expansion to 0.70 MGD, BOD5 weekly average limits are 22.5/45.0 mg/l (Summer/Winter).
Uponexpansion. to 0.70 MGD, a total residual chlorine (TRQ limit of 28 �tg/l applies if chlorine is used
for disinfection.
Upon expansion to 0.70 MGD, instrearn monitoring is required for temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO),
and fecal coliform. Weekly monitoring will be required in the summer, and monthly monitoring will be
required in the winter.
Expiration Date -
Please note also that this permit modification changes the expiration date for -the subject permit to December 3 1,
2002.. The Division is beginning the second five-year cycle of river basin lanning and permit renewals. An
p C'
examiniition.of the basin planning schedule has revealed that the timing of permit renewals does not allow an
evenly distributed workload as first envisioned. In an effort to improve customer, service, and after a review of
the water quality issues in your area, the Division is changing the permit renewal schedule for NPDES permits in
your sub-�basin.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina ' 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumee paper

Please find enclosed the amended permit cover page, supplement to cover, and effluent limitations page for
outfall 001 (A(2.) only), all of which should be inserted into your permit. The old cover pages should be
discarded. All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full effect.
This permit modification 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.
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 feceipt of this
letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please take note that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E. 4. addresses the requirements to be followed in
case of change in ownership or control of this discharge. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to
obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Land Resources or any other Federal or Local
governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this permit, please contact Bethany A. Bolt at [phone],
extension 55 1.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Enclosure
cc: Washington Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
Central Files
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit

Permit No. NCO021849
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
Enviror.unental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
Town of Her�fbrd
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Hertford Wastewater Treatment Plant
NCSR 1108
north of Hertford
Perquirnans County
to receiving waters designated as Perquimans River in the Pasquotank 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 March 1, 1999.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2002.
Signed this day February 1, 1999.
Original Signed By
Pavid A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Hertford
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NCO021849
1. Continue to operate an existing 0.4 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of a
grit removal chamber, aeration basin, clarifier, chlorine contact chamber, sludge
digester, and drying beds, located at Hertford VPNTP, on NCSR 1108, north of
Hertford, Perquimans County, and
2. After receiving an Authorization to Construct for expansion above 0.4 MGD, operate
a 0.70 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of a mechanical bar screen and
grit removal system, sludge holding tank, oxidation ditch, dual clarifiers, post
aeration, ultra -violet disinfection, sludge digester, and drying beds, located at
Hertford WWTP, on NC SR I 10 8, north of Hertford, Perquimans County, and
3. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
into the Perquimans River, which is classified as C-Swamp waters in the Pasquotank
River Basin.

ion's
P,
—2, J
7 7 . ( I - -
J/
44 "4
W
K, 4
J
:Lj!
--7
r
o C�enty
S h
0
I F--:j
0',
a
30
L
—6-
T% )kk
r7:
_j .
4. A Y
31
4-1
-7
1007 We, e r
U.
T *1 r "'
rai e e an'
Pary
* iL
Bear Garden
Point
3
Ak�
�06 2
IN i-N-
<1 S. IT.
ert o r :.-a I
h P,
/w Nuo.
Crow
Point
I TU
Z
L
mi h
S
Latitude: 36012'19"
Longitude: 76128'34"
Quad# C33NW
Receiving Stream:
Perquimans River
Stream Class: C-Swamp
Subbasin: 30152
NCO021849
Town of Hertford
WWTp
Facility
",
WM
Location
SCALE 1:24000
,t4]F

A (2). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Permit No. NCO021849
During the period beginning upon expansion above 0.4 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
tF "UEN V'd 'CTERISTICS',*',"'1�?`�
OW
E
I NJI g
"HARA
VR
OR
­MONITO
:�.Dai
Measuremefi V0
t
y�,-Maximum
,;!SampW,
'Locationt'
Flow
0.70 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 200 C2 (April I —October 31)
15.0 mg/L
22.5 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
1, E
BOD, 5-day, 20OC2 (November 1 — March 31)
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
1, E
Total Suspended SolidS2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
1. E
NH3-N (April 1 — October 31)
4.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3-N (November . 1 — March 31)
8.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
E
PH 3
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine 4
28 pg/L
2NVeek
Grab
E
Temperature OC
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature OC
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
U, D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E, U, D
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
Notes:
1 Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I — Influent, U — Upstream about 0.75 miles of effluent channel/Perquimans River confluence (near terminus of dirt
road in this vicinity), D — Downstream about 0.33 miles of effluent channel/Perquimans River conflu6nce (at railroad bridge). Instream monitoring
shall be grab samples taken weekly (Jun -Sep) and monthly (Oct -May).
2 The monthly average effluent BOD, and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal
required).
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Monitoring requirement applies only if chlorine is used for disinfection.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
FEBRUARY 1, 1999 MODIFICATION

The Perquimans Weekly
P.O. Box 277
Hertford, NC 27944
Telephone [phone]�,'p
CLIPPING OF LEGAL
ADVERTISEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA
ATTACHED HERE
PERQUINIANS COUNTY
4 PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
'4.MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
PO�T OFFICE BOX 29535
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
RALEIGH, N.C. 27626-0535
County and State, duly commissioned, qualified, and
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT
ISSUE A STATE
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
:kT0
NPDES PERMIT
appeared
On 'the basis' of thorough
SUSAN HARRIS
stag review and applica-
who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is
tlon,of Article 21 of Chap-
ter,*143, General Statutes
the Editor of The Perquimans Weekly, engaged in the
of Aorth Carolina, Public
publication of a newspaper known as The Perquimans
LavA#'92-500 and other low- I
ful'standards and regula-
Weekly, published, issued, and entered as second class
tIon§, the North Carolina
Environmental Manage -
mail in the City of I lertford, in said County and State; that
mew Commission propos-
she is authorized to make this affidavit and sworn
es to issue a' permit to dis- I
chalge to the persons'list- I
statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a
ed,below effective 2/l/99,
and subject to special
true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in
conditions.
.4 .
The Cfer)quimans Weeky on the following dates:
1. NPDEX No. NCO021849.
ToWn of Hertford, P.O. Box
32_ Hertford, NC 27944 has
app)led for a permit modi-
ficWion for a facility locat-
ed*-at Hertford WWTP on
and that the said newspaper in which guch notice,
NCSR 1108, north of Hert-
paper, document, or legal advertisement was published
ford Perquimans County,
Thd.facility is permitted to
was, at the time of each and every such publication, a
discharge 0.70 MGD of
newspaper meeting all of the requirements and
treated domestic waste -
water from one ouffall into
qualifications Of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes
th4-Perquimans Riveu: a
ofNorth Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within
Class C-Swamp stream'In
the Pasquotank River Basin
the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of
with tidal flow. BOD5,
North Carolina.
ammonia, and total resid-
ud.chlorine are water
quality limited. For sQme
(Signature ofperson making affidavit)
pc�ameters, the available
lodO capacity'of the
Immediate
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this :ZiZi
receiving",
wctter will be consumed;
ThisImay affect future allo-
day of
catipns In this pRrtlm of
th4.watershed,
)o
Pe4ns wishing to��60'm_­
mJ9t uponlor object, 0
MY COmmeiiSSiioltNqERODIMSfP(6hk�iibcer 11, 2001
y
determina-
My Commission expires:
..thq4proposed
tlon� are invited to submit
4e in writir
sar igOo the
aqove address no later
thgh 1/18/99. All com-
m4l�ts received prior to
th(JJ date will 'be consid-
or+d in the formulation of
f '011 de'ter minatlons
re9prding the proposed
pqNnit. A public meeting
m held where the
DI, t�?ro f the Division of
;.X
E nt, onmental ManaQ197
ment finds slanificonti

NCO021849
I -ME
NOTES FOR HERTFORD WWTP MAJOR MODIFICATION
Summary:
Major modification request to increase permitted capacity from 0.4 to 0.7 MGD. A
speculative limits letter was sent out July 16, 1998 that detailed most major changes to
the permit upon expansion.
The facility discharges to the Perquimans River (Pasquotank River Basin, 3-01-52),
which is classified C-Swamp waters. Recommended limits for BOD5/ammonia that
originated from a swamp waters study that established 15/4 mg/1 (summer) based on
reasonably achievable technology and waste assimilating capacity of swampy systems
that do not maintain advective flow.
DO readings at an ambient monitoring station located about I mile downstream of the
discharge indicated levels below 5 mg/1 standard during periods of warmer weather;
however, could not conclude that Hertford's discharge was contributing to those low
levels. Instream monitoring included for DO, Fecal, and Temp.
Class rating from 1997 staff report indicated Hertford was a Class II facility. With
upgrades (additional flow, UV, no chlorine disinfection), total points should still place
WWTP in Class II category. Should be checked at renewal, however.
Basin Plan
Water quality in this sub -basin generally fair (benthic macroinvertebrate data); in the
Perquimans R., duckweed growth is problematic, attributed to non -point source run-off.
Hertford is the largest discharger. The Perquimans River is rated as support -
threatened, and its quality will continue to be monitored. No specific point -source
permitting strategies are noted.
Modification similar to spec limits, with the following exceptions:
• Policy is to set weekly ave. (municipalities) limits for BOD5 by multiplying monthly
average by 1. 5. Therefore, summer BOD5 weekly ave. is 22. 5 mg/ 1 instead of 3 Z 5.
• Per Dave, 12/8/98: policy is NOT to apply weekly average limits for ammonia, even
when the limit is set for oxygen consuming concerns. For some reason, daily max.
limits in the spec. letter were calculated using a factor of 2.5. Only monthly average
ammonia limits apply.
• Chronic toxicity footnote omitted (previous typo).
• Monitoring frequencies changed. Consistent with 213 .0500s for Class 11 facilities.
• Conductivity monitoring omitted. (Not in current permit) This facility discharges
100% domestic waste, so monitoring shouldn't be necessary.
WaRO (Al Hodge, 10/9/98): Recommends going for at least no net increase in
pollutants discharged. Al expects this modification to go to Public Hearing.
BOD Loading
BODu—WLA in 1992 noted an ultimate BOD of 135 mg/l. Original model assumed a
multiplier (CBODu/BOD5) of 1.5; typically 2 is assumed. I took a look at total BOD
loading after expansion using both multipliers to compare. In both cases, net annual
loading should decrease with proposed modified limits.
12/08/98

NCO021849 BAB
Region Staff Report (10/12/98): No EAA submitted for this expansion; Add. info.
request sent to facility on 10/ 14/98. Region concurs with modification as long as EAA
approved and spec. limits are used.
Confirmed that project does not fall under SEPA. Per Jason Doll, 7QlO would not be
valid in this case since waters are tidal, so IWC > 33% is not an applicable criterion.
EAA (received 11/ 13/98)
Spray irrigation capital costs cited as double those of expanding the existing plant
(difference of $3 M). Consequently no present value cost was performed, given that
operation of both systems would cost about the same.
Spray irrigation is the only option considered possibly feasible, but it is unclear what
the bases for many of the cost estimates were:
• Land acquisition-389 acres; what is basis for 389 acres? Is this for entire 0.7 MGD
or only additional 0.3 MGD? No soils information was submitted.
• What does "Spray Irrigation Facility" include? Where does cost come from?
Per Michael McAllister, 12/2/98:
0 389 acres: assumed 1/2" rainfall per acre per week, which is typical for these soils
(mainly sandy). This estimate also includes required buffers to property lines, etc.
0 Spray Irrigation option considered entire 0.7 MGD capacity; I explained that it
should have only considered 0.3 MGD-43% (less than half) of what was used.
Since acreage included buffers, McAllister said land estimate should be reduced by
about a third. With reduced acreage, cost of land would still be approximately
$625,000—does not bring cost significantly closer to WWTP expansion cost. He
added that pumping would cost about the same, as well as spray irrigation facility (I
question this ... ).
a Spray irrigation facility includes pumping facility and spray heads for entire field.
I have requested a breakdown of how the cost estimate for the spray irrigation facility
was derived to supplement documentation.
Fax from McAllister, 12/3/98
• $8,768/acre estimate. Since this is based on acreage, it should be reduced because
of lower flow. If reduction is suggested 1/3, total cost should only be $1,987,413—a
difference of almost $1 M.
• Savings based on a more accurate land cost and spray facility cost, then, is a total
of about $1.3 M. This means the cost of spray irrigation is about 50% more
expensive, instead of 90% more.
• Since cost differences depend heavily on acreage, I'll make a more conservative
assessment —cut land/spray facility by half and compare the costs, in case 1/3 is
too small. This would save almost $2 M, which brings the total cost of spray within
28% of WWTP expansion —still too high to justify as economically reasonable.
Final Assessment
Installing spray irrigation for additional 0.3 MGD would incur a significantly higher cost
than expanding the existing facilities at the WWTP. Also, a UV -disinfection system win
replace chlorine if the plant is upgraded, which is a benefit (also avoiding additional
chlorination facilities for spray). Direct discharge is the most economically feasible and
environmentally sound option for this facility, and the proposed modification to the
permit is recommended.
2
12/08/98

Town of Hertford WWTP (NCO021849)
Flow
8005
BOb5
CBOD,,
CBOO,,
NH3-N
NBOD
NBOD
BOO,,
Web)
(m!g1l)
I (lbs/day)
I Mult.*
I (mg/1)
(lbs/day)
I (m9/1)
I (mg/1)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
CURRENT PERM=ED LOAD
Summer (assumed NBOO=90 m9/1)
0.4
30.0
Winter (assumed NBOD=90 mg/1)
0.4
30.0
LOAD UPON EXPANSrON
Summer
0.7
15.0
Winter
0.7
30.0
CURRENT PERM=ED LOAD
Summer (assumed NBOD=90 mg/1)
0.4
30.0
Winter (assumed NBOO=90 mg/1)
0.4
30.0
LOAD UPON EXPANSrON
100.08:
1.5
45.0
150.12
20.0
100.08
1.5
45.0
150.12
20.0
87.57
175.14
1.5 22.5 131.355 4.0
1.5 45.0 262.71
90
300.24
'450.4,
90
300.24
45o.4
Total Annual 900.7
18
105.084
23 6_4
36
210.168
472.9.,
Total Annual 709.3
2 60.0 200.16 20.0 90 300.24 500.4
2 60.0 1 200.16 20.0 90 300.24 '500.4
Total Annual 1000.8
Summer 0.7 15.0 87.57 2 30.0 175.14 4.0 18 105.084 �',280..2
Winter 0.7 30.0 175.14 2 60.0 350.28 8.0 36 210.168. -,560.4
Total Annual 840.7
100.08
100.08
*Multiplier for CBOD u1BOD5, Typically 2 is assumed for domestic wastes; however, 1.5
was used in the original model for this facility. Above is a comparison of both.

December 3, 1998
fog�o'
State of North Carolhia
Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Mana8ement
NPDIF,S Permit Unit
Post Office Box 29535
ftleisk North Carolina 27626-053 5
Attentioa Ms. Bethany Bolt
SU13JF-CT: Cost Breakdown for
Engineering Alternative Analysis
Town of Hertford, North Carolina
Permit No. NCO021849
Dear Ms. Bolt;,
The following is a breakdown for the spray irrigation facility cost that you requested.
It was assumed that approximately 340 acres of land would actually be used as spray
field, the remaining 49 acres would be used for buffers and the storage lagoon. The total cost
was derived from a per acre cost using the following;
Assume $01 spaoing on sprinklers or
16 Sprinkler I -leads per Acres ($23,00/14ead) $ 348-00
840 LF of Pipe ($10-001F) 8,400,00 %!W40
$8,768.00/Acre
$9,768-00 x 340 acres $2,981,120.00 -
"I —A9 Ar_KC5-' 2��-76
if you have any questions or should require additional information, please call. 11,90-7,413'.,
Respectfully,
Michael L_ McAllister
NMNVald
F,E9s-l?5/bolt-bleakdown-Itr.doc
OR49H ENGINEERING, PLLC
WATER. WAST9WATER. .5 URVEY114G, PLANNING. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
�03 K. q,0LDFSQRQ ST. PO DOX 609 WItSON N­-, 17093 TEL 2512.2S7.S365 PAX 252.243.7489 GREEN Eq6Q(;OCENTRAL,C0M

t4ppes
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF HERTFORD, N.C*
November 1998
Prepared By:
GREEN ENGINEERING9 P.L.L.C.
303 North Goldsboro Street
Wilson, North Carolina 27893
252-237-5365

1. Gen
The Town of Hertford currently operates a 0.40 MGD wastewater treatment plant under
current NPDES Permit No. NCO021849. The facility named "Hertford Wastewater
Treatment Plant" is located on NCSR 1108 north of Hertford in Perquimans County.
Telephone number [phone]. The Town wishes to increase the flow from this
facility and has applied to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to expand this flow to 0.70 MGD. Any questions regarding the information
contained in this report may be directed to:
Michael L. McAllister
Green Engineering, P.L.L.C.
Post Office Box 609
Wilson, North Carolina 27893
[phone]
The existing sanitary sewer collection system consists of six-inch (6") diameter through
twelve -inch (12") diameter gravity sewer mains and'six (6) wastewater pumping stations.
The system does have problems with infiltration/inflow during periods of extreme wet
weather. Studies have been done and repairs have been made to correct this problem.
The wastewater treatment facility is currently operating at 76% of capacity, based on the
1997 average flow. Therefore, it is necessary to expand—tNe —capacity of the treatment
facilities to accommodate the expected and proposed growth in accordance with
T15A:02H.0223(l) of the North Carolina Administrative Code. The followingt is an
evaluation of these needs'
The population growth of the Town of Hertford is anticipated to increase at a moderate
pace over the next 20 years according to the North Carolina Office of State Planning
(State Data Center). The following table shows the estimated population increase of
1246 for Perquimans County and the 262 for the Town of Hertford based on the census of
1990.
1990 2000
Perquimans Co. 10,477 10,945
Town of Hertford - 2,244 2,349
2005 2010 2015 2020
11,112 11,3 52 11,500 11693.
2,384 2,434 2,465
Based on 60 GPD per person, this equals an additional flow of 15,720 GPD (Reference
T15A:02H.0219) and a Permit No. WQ001,099 �has recently been issued by NCDENR
for the Perquimans Commerce Centre that allocates 144,000 GPD of additional flow.
Also, the Town of Winfall wishes to discharge 0. 10 MGD to the p, lant. _1�
0,157 �- (),1444 4 0,[0 r- 0,4CD'I -14(
0.5 M (I D -;�7-�-7

Ii.
It is planned to use as much of the existing wastewater treatment plant 'facilities as
possible; however, most of the mechanical components are quite old and in need of
repair. It is anticipated that some of the equipment and tankage can be used in the
proposed upgrade, The following is a list of existing equipment and its planned use as
part of this expansion.
Existing Bar Screen and Structure: The current plan calls for this structure to be
abandoned. A new mechanical bar screen and grit removal system is to be
installed on the southeasterly portion of the site.
/2. Existiniz Aeration Basin: This structure will be retained and modified for
conversion to a sludge holding basin. A new multi -channel oxidation ditch will
be constructed on the so ' utheasterly portion of the site. The floating aerators and
mixers located in this structure shall be reused in the proposed aerobic digester.
v:C Existing Clarifier: This unit will remain in service as part of the expansion. A
new clarifier will be built adjacent to it as part of the expansion.
Existing Chlorine Contact Basin: This structure is to be demolished since size is
inadequate for the required detention time required Wi—th the additional ­AQW.,.-A
n�ew�ultra---�f6fa-digfrif6diidii unit will be-biu-illf
,,"'5. Existing Sludge Return Pump Statio : The current RAS pump station is old,
unreliable and of insufficient size. A new station is to be built near the clarifier.
V 6. Existing Aerobic Digest : This structure will remain and be converted to apost
aeration basin. A new aerobic digester shall be built elsewhere,on the site.
V'17. Existing Sludge DI:yi:ng Beds: These will remain as is.
Due to the nature of this type of facility; phasing of construction is not possible.
Evaluation of Dinosal Alternatives
The following is a brief evaluation of several disposal alternatives.
Connection to a publicly owned treatment works (LPOTMO: There is not a facility
of this type large enough within a five (5) mile radius capable of receiving the
discharge.
v,' �B Connection to a t)rivatelv owned treatm�e
in the area.
v� Individual Subsurface System:, A gravity
this is not a feasible option.
No facility of this type exists
system is currently in place,