NC0023906_Historical information_20031023

October 13. 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Schuster:
Wastewater Management
Facility
This responds to the notices of violation as listed above by the case numbers. The
flow violations and the weekly BOD violation were caused by extremely wet weather
conditions experienced this past fall and winter beginning in October 2002 thru April
2003. approximately 33.99 inches of rainfall was recorded. Approximately 17.71 inches
of rainfall was recorded during the months of February. March and April 2003. This
amount of rain over a seven (7) month period exerted tremendous stress on the
wastewater collection and treatment system.
Response to Notices of Violation
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0182
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0192
NPDES Permit No. NC0023906
Citv of Wilson WWTP •*
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
DWQ/RRO
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1628
CITY OF WILSON
uMofith CaitoCina
INCORPORATED 1849
27894-0010
The City of Wilson continues with an aggressive i/1 program that includes
rehabilitation of manholes, relining collection system pipes with cured-in place pipe liner,
closed circuit TV monitoring of the system and smoke testing to locate problem areas,
installation of flow meters at the four major pump stations and regular inspections of the
system by two full time 1/1 technicians. The City has successfully replaced over 50.000
feet of collection system pipe with cured-in place pipe liner and rehabilitated over 450
manholes. This work has significantly reduced SSOs in the system and reduced flows to
the WWTP during normal rain events.
P.O. BOX 10 ♦ WILSON, NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 ♦ TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
If you have any questions concerning this letter please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Cc:
Russell Brice,
WWTP Manager
Kenneth Schuster
Response to NOV
Page 2
Charles Pittman
Barry Parks
Jim Cauley
Al Hinnant
Rodney Martin
ACA
North Carolina Department of
October 9, 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
A review of Wilson WWTP's monitoring report for April 2003 showed the following violations:
Limit TypeLimit ValueDateParameter
7.5 mg/104/12/03BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)
14.75 mgd14 mgd04/30/03
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
81 = 60 eOOZ.CT'IOONOIIVHI SI NIKOV H0IAH3S 2 IT SlidSOO/SOO'd T6SZ.#
L
Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. To prevent Further action by the Slate, carefully
review the causes of these violations to avoid future occurrences.
Raleigh Regional Office
Water Quality Section
1628 Mall Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27609-1628
[phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Weekly
Average
Exceeded
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson NC 27893
Kenneth Schuster. P.E.
Raleigh Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
NOTICE Of VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson WWTP
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0192
Wilson County
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
nment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Reported Value
7.74 mg/l
L’ —
" X
NCbEN?'
> (Ljrvys-3
10/06/2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
Limit ValueDateParameter
14 mgd02/28/03
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
TOO/TOO'd TL8L#NCIIYH1SINIWGY SOIAHSS OITSfld est’ZSSEzgzi 02 = 60 eooz.ouioo
Raleigh Regional Office
Waler Quality Section
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
iment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson NC 27893
A review of Wilson WWTP's monitoring report for February 2003 showed the following
violations:
Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. To prevent further action by the Stale, carefully
review the causes of these violations to avoid future occurrences.
1628 Mall Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27609-1628
[phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson WWTP
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-Q182
Wilson County
4M
Kenneth Schuster. P.E.
Raleigh Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Reported Value
14.11 mgd
Limit Type
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
North Carclina Dopartrnenl of
LdT.
> |L I 11II r
X
October 9, 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
A review of Wilson WWTP's monitoring report for April 2003 showed the following violations:
Parameter Date Limit Value Reported Value Limit Type
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)04/12/03 7.5 mg/1 7.74 mg/1
04/30/03 14 mgd 14.75 mgd
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
Kenneth Schuster, P.E.
Raleigh Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. To prevent further action by the State, carefully
review the causes of these violations to avoid future occurrences.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
Weekly
Average
Exceeded
NCDEM
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson WWTP
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0192
Wilson County
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson NC 27893
[phone]
Facsimile [phone]
^/rAI I rj > IUUAJ i r
October 7, 2003
^00^0^
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
The subject city of Wilson 201 Facilities Plan Amendment is hereby approved.
RB/dr
cc:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
The Construction Grants and Loans Section of the Division of Water Quality has
completed its review of the city of Wilson 201 Facilities Plan Amendment. The project consists
of upgrading the Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility at the existing flow capacity
of 14-million-gallons-per-day. The project includes the construction of one additional aeration
tank, the upgrade of the four existing anaerobic digesters, construction of a new sludge
thickening and dewatering building, two new gravity belt thickeners and two belt filter presses, a
new waste activated sludge pump station, a new alkaline sludge stabilization facility, new sludge
holding tanks, a new septage receiving station, replacement of the existing primary sludge
pumping systems, a new drain pump station, and a new administration/laboratory building.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Larry Horton, P.E.
of our staff at [phone].
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt, City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
Approval
City of Wilson
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Project No. CS370381-06
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Waler Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Ron Taylor, P.E., Hazen and Sawyer
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Robert Brown
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF
NCDENR
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
\
%
4> Ij I kAXT' r
Sincerely*
A'n^. Blowe, P.E., Chief
,/onstruction Grants and Loans Section //
10/06/2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
A review of Wilson WWTP's monitoring report for March 2003 showed the following violations:
Parameter Date Limit Value Reported Value Limit Type
03/31/03 14 mgd 15.37 mgd
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
Kenneth Schuster, P.E.
Raleigh Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
[phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. To prevent further action by the State, carefully
review the causes of these violations to avoid future occurrences.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson WWTP
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0183
Wilson County
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson NC 27893
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
P
GO j
> I
o'
NCDEN’ j
r
T’
10/06/2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
Date Limit Value Reported Value Limit TypeParameter
02/28/03 14 mgd 14.11 mgd
Sincerely,
xc:WQ Central Files
1
A review of Wilson WWTP's monitoring report for February 2003 showed the following
violations:
Flow, in conduit or thru
treatment plant
Raleigh Regional Office
Water Quality Section
Remedial actions should be taken to correct this problem. To prevent further action by the State, carefully
review the causes of these violations to avoid future occurrences.
Kenneth Schuster, P.E.
Raleigh Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Monthly
Average
Exceeded
£££
nCdem
Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson NC 27893
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson WWTP
Case No. NOV-2003-LV-0182
Wilson County
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
[phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
^/Til I IrJ
September 22, 2003
TO®SEP
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
Sincerely,
RB/dr
cc:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
The Construction Grants and Loans Section of the Division of Water Quality has
completed its review of the subject engineering amendment to the city of Wilson Preliminary
Engineering Report. The engineering amendment recommends the elimination of a chemical
feed system and the inclusion of eight manholes with air release valves in the project.
The subject engineering amendment to the city of Wilson Preliminary Engineering
Report is hereby approved.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Larry Horton, P.E.
ofourstaffat [phone].
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt, City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
<f6hn R. Blowe,T.E., Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Approval
Engineering Amendment of December 23, 2002
City of Wilson Preliminary Engineering Report
Project No. E-SRG-T-00-0095
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Leo Green, III, P.E., Green Engineering
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRG
I> [L
NCDENH
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
^11
F
MEMORANDUM
Christie JacksonTo:
Kirk Stafford-RROFrom:
Randy Jones-RROThrough:
August 26, 2003Date:
Subject:
/ 5 / Ce cr^c^
Z'J
7^
Draft NPDES Permit NC0023906
City of Wilson Hominy Creek WWMF
Wilson County
I have reviewed the subject draft permit with the tollowing comment. The changes to the
current draft permit are detailed in the cover letter. The RRO supports the changes. It is
noted that the Residual Chlorine limit is specified as 18 ug/'l. It is my understanding that
Residual Chlorine limits in NPDES permits would either be 17 ug/1 or 28 ug/'l. The RRO
does not have a concern if this is the actual limit. No errors or omissions were noticed
during the review.
f
August 8, 2003
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
Sincerely,
RB/dr
Attachment (all cc’s)
cc:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt, City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
City of Wilson
Preliminary Engineering Report
Revised December 2002
Project No. E-SRG-T-00-0095
[phone]
FAX [phone]
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its technical review of the
subject Preliminary Engineering Report (PER). The revised PER recommends the elimination of
a chemical feed system and the inclusion of an additional eight manholes in the project. A copy
of the comments resulting from this review is attached for your reference. These comments are
also being sent directly to your consulting engineer. Green Engineering, by copy of this letter.
Providing thorough and complete responses to these review comments in a timely manner is
necessary to avoid delay of the project approval.
E. Leo Green III, P.E., Green Engineering
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Robert Brown
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRG
If you or your engineer have any questions concerning the technical review issues, please
contact Mr. Rob Brown at [phone]. You may also contact me at [phone].
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
> | L
K. Lawrence Horton, HI, P. E., Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
NCDENR
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
I kAX7’ JI IH ' u
August 8, 2003
1.
2.
3.(Reference Page 25) The approved PER dated October 2001 and approved January 22, 2002
did not include item 8, the eight manholes with Air Release Valves. Please justify the
inclusion of the manholes in this amendment.
As noted in comment 1 above, the chemical feed system is proposed to be eliminated from
the plant upgrade. Discuss any remedial means available to achieve nutrient NPDES effluent
limits in the event the upgraded plant cannot achieve these limits as designed and
constructed.
CITY OF WILSON
Technical Review Comments
For Wilson Preliminary Engineering Report Amendment
Project No. E-SRG-T-00-0095
General
(Reference Page 20) This amendment recommends the elimination of the previously planned
permanent chemical feed system from the scope of the project. The purpose of the feed
system was to facilitate phosphorus removal. It is documented in the amendment that
construction of the major biological nutrient removal system at the WWTP would provide
adequate nutrient removal. Please demonstrate, by calculation, the plant’s ability to meet
nutrient limits.
r
A
July 30. 2003
Dear Mr. Brice:
Reporting requirements for nitrogen have been updated.
Condition A.(6.) regarding compliance with the fecal coliform limit, has again been inserted into the permit
Mr. Russell Brice, WMF Manager
City of Wilson
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894- 0010
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Based on adverse comments from EPA. the Division of Water Quality was required to implement a policy to
adopt weekly average NH3-N (ammonia) limits for municipalities, as required by the Code of Federal
Regulations. This implementation policy was adopted October 15, 2002. The weekly average values are three
times the monthly average values (this value was established based on a review of treatment capability at
various municipal plants). This permit includes both monthly average and weekly average limits for NH3-N
for the existing flow.
Condition A.(5.) regarding the effective date for more stringent NH3-N limits has again been inserted into the
permit. As was agreed upon during the adjudicatory settlement of the previous permit, the more stringent
NH3-N limits shall become effective July 1,2004.
Based on a statistical analysis (reasonable potential analysis - RPA) of the existing data, the Division has
determined that no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standards or an acute criterion exists for
cadmium, chromium, mercury, and silver. However, the WWMF will still be required to perform monitoring
via the pretreatment Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Reasonable potential to exceed the acute criteria for copper and zinc still exists. Monitoring is still
recommended on a monthly frequency.
In order to have complete information for the next pennit renewal, the pollutant scan has been added to the
permit [ref. Condition A.(7.)].
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
on
ro cz-
Attached to this letter is the draft NPDES permit for the City of Wilson’s Hominy Creek Wastewater
Management Facility (WWMF) renewal, NPDES Permit No. NC0023906. The permit is renewed with the
previously approved and phased expansion limits and reference to the wastewater reuse permit. The following
changes have been made during this renewal cycle and are reflected in this draft:
Subject: NPDES Draft Permit
Wilson Hominy Creek WWMF
Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson County
K s
NCDENR Z
North Carolina Department of /
Environment and Natural Resources /
1 61 7 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-161 7 - Telephone [phone]/FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer paper
Visit us on the web at http //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES
1
cc:
Mr. Brice
NC0023906
2
Raleigh Regional Office/Water Quality Section
NPDES Unit
ERA Region IV, Roosevelt Childress
Please review these documents very carefully to ensure a thorough understanding of the information,
conditions, and requirements contained therein. Once a permit is issued, except for typographical or technical
errors, the permit may be appealed only through the legal process.
Sincerely,
.^p/David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Unit
Any comments regarding the draft permit should be submitted no later than September 2, 2003. If
you have any questions regarding the draft NPDES permit, please contact Susan Wilson at (919) 733 - 5083,
extension 510.
4 Permit No. NC0023906
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
to receiving waters designated as Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River Basin
This permit shall become effective
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility
Alan W. Klimek. P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Wilson - Hominy Creek WWMF
Old Stantonsburg Road
Wilson
Wilson County
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023906
This pennit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2008.
September 28, 2001.DRAFT
*
Permit No. NC0023906
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
is hereby authorized to:
1.
2.
3.
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge, are
hereby revoked. [The exclusive authority to operate this facility arises under this permit. The
authority to operate the facility under previously issued permits bearing this number is no
longer effective.! The conditions, requirements, terms and provisions of this permit
authorizing discharge under the NPDES govern discharges from this facility.
Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Contentnea Creek which is classified C Sw-NSW waters in Neuse
River Basin.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility
Continue to operate a water reclamation and distribution system to provide beneficial
reuse for treated effluent from the treatment plant, as approved pursuant to Permit No.
WQ0020915.
Continue to operate an existing 14 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
mechanical bar screens, manual bar screen, grit chamber, preaeration, primary
clarifiers, biological nutrient removal, extended aeration basins, secondary clarifiers,
polishing ponds, tertiary filters, methanol feed system, chlorination and
dechlorination, post aeration, and anaerobic digesters located at Hominy Creek
WWMF, Old Stantonsburg Road, Wilson, Wilson County, and
87
Cem
H Cem
Cem
Cem-
- 162?
SCALE 12UOOONorth
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWTP
X
o
e»-
Quad: E27NW
Latitude: 35°40’37”
Longitude: 77O54’51”
Stream Class: C-Swamp NSW
Subbasin: 30407
Receiving Stream: Contcntnea Creek
>Cn
IB
l'1
a -e* ■
Daniels ■
Chapel -e|
Contentnea
/^Junction
o-X
- <?
’■‘V”.'-JWoudard
■=- '7<:-
r>
I®
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Effluent Characteristics
RecordingFlow
CompositeDaily7.5 mg/l5.0 mg/l
CompositeDaily15.0 mg/l10.0 mg/l
CompositeDaily45.0 mg/l30.0 mg/l
CompositeDaily6.0 mg/l2.0 mg/l3
EffluentCompositeDaily12.0 mg/l4.0 mg/l3
EffluentCompositeDaily3.0 mg/l1.0 mg/l3
EffluentCompositeDaily6.0 mg/l2.0 mg/l3
200/100 ml 400/100 ml
Grab18pg/l
TN Load8
6-9
Conductivity
Conductivity
Daily
3/Week
Daily
3/Week
Daily
3/Week
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Monitoring Requirements
Sample Type
NH3asN [April 1-October 31]
[Through June 30, 2004]
NH3 as N [Nov. 1-March 31]
[Through June 30, 2004]
NHsasN [April 1 - October 31]
[Beginning July 2004]
NH3 as N [Nov. 1 - March 31]
[Beginning July 2004]
Dissolved Oxygen4______
Dissolved Oxygen
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
Weekly
Daily
3/Week
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Composite
Composite
Composite
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Effluent
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent
Sample
Location1
Influent or
Effluent
Influent &
Effluent
Influent &
Effluent
Influent &
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity11
Copper________
Zinc__________
pH1?
Limits
Monthly
Average
14MGD
Total Residual Chlorine8
TKN (mg/l)__________
NO2-N + NO3-N (mg/l)
TN (mg/l)7__________
Total Monthly Flow (MG)
BOD, 5 day (20gC)2
[April 1 - October 31]
BOD, 5 day (20gC)2
[November 1 - March 31]
Total Suspended Residue2
t rcik '-‘AVMI-
M (Klj’OUV'
Fecal Coliform (geometric mn) 5
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
Monitor & Report
157,684 Ib/year (Annual Mass Loading)9
2.0 mg/L (Quarterly Average)Total Phosphorus 10
Temperature (QC)
Temperature (9C)
During the period beginning on the effective date of tlic permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge up to 14 MGD of municipal wastewater from outfall OO1.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
4
Footnotes:
1.
2.
3.
The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 7.0 mg/1.4.
Refer to Condition A. (6) regarding fecal coliform limits.5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
12. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
10. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected
weekly during the calendar quarter (January-March. April-June, July-September, October-
December).
11. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia dubia) P/F at 90%: February, May, August, and November [see
Special Condition A.(4)]. Toxicity monitoring shall coincide with metals monitoring.
The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
Sample locations: Upstream at Old Blackcreek Road and downstream at NC Highway 222.
Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be collected 3/Week during June - September
and 1/Week during the remaining months of the year. Instream monitoring is provisionally
waived in light of the permittee’s participation in the Lower Neuse Basin Association.
Instream monitoring shall be conducted as stated in this permit should the permittee
end its participation in the Association.
Total residual chlorine monitoring is required only if chlorine or a chlorinated compound is
used as a disinfectant (or elsewhere in the process).
TN means Total Nitrogen. For a given wastewater sample, TN is the sum of Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen and Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen: TN = TKN + NO2-N + NO3-N.
See Condition A.(5) regarding phased NH3-N limits. More stringent NH3-N limits shall become
effective July 1, 2004.
TN Load is the mass load of TN discharged by the Permittee in a period of time. Mass loadings
for Outfalls 001 and 002 shall be monitored and calculated as prescribed in Condition A.(2.),
and the combined annual mass loadings of the two outfalls shall not exceed the specified TN
limit. See Special Condition A.(2.), Calculation of TN Loads.
The annual TN Load limit shall become effective with the calendar year beginning on January
1, 2003. Compliance with this limits shall be determined in accordance with Special Condition
A.(3.), Annual Limits for Total Nitrogen.
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
(Continued)
>
a.
TMF
8.34
a.
b.
c.
i.
l-lnmi
ii. Annual TN Load (Ib/yr) = Sum of the 12 Monthly TN Loads for the calendar year
b. The Permittee shall report monthly Total Nitrogen results (mg/L and Ib/mo) in the discharge
monitoring report for that month and shall report each year’s annual results (Ib/yr) in the
December report for that year.
• ilA cl
v f re’.:I. WW Mt
No. \( 0C»2 '.906
= the average Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the
composite samples collected during the month
= the Total Monthly Flow of wastewater discharged during the
month (MG/mo)
= conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
where:
TN
modification. The Division must receive application no later than August 31 for changes
proposed for the following calendar year.
iv. Application shall be sent to:
NCDWQ / NPDES Unit
Attn: Neuse River Basin Coordinator
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
A.(3.) ANNUAL LIMITS FOR TOTAL NITROGEN
Total Nitrogen (TN) allocations and TN Load limits for NPDES dischargers in the Neuse River
basin are annual limits and are applied for the calendar year.
For any given calendar year, the Permittee shall be in compliance with the annual TN Load
limit in this Permit if:
i. the Permittee’s annual TN Load is less than or equal to said limit, or
ii. the Permittee is a Co-Permittee Member of a compliance association.
The TN Load limit in this Permit (if any) may be modified as the result of allowable changes
in the Permittee’s TN allocation.
Allowable changes include those resulting from purchase of TN allocation from the
Wetlands Restoration Fund; purchase, sale, trade, or lease of allocation between the
Permittee and other dischargers; regionalization; and other transactions approved by the
Division.
ii. The Permittee may request a modification of the TN Load limit in this Permit to reflect
allowable changes in its TN allocation. Upon receipt of timely and proper application, the
Division will modify the permit as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal
program requirements.
iii. Changes in TN limits become effective on January 1 of the year following permit
A.(2.) CALCULATION OF TOTAL NITROGEN LOADS
The Permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN Loads as follows:
i. Monthly TN Load (Ib/mo) = TN x TMF x 8.34
4
d.
i.
e.
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Cerioclaphnia 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 cluririg 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.
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.
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.
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:
( tly ()i VvH'.'in
llomui\ ( iJek WWMI
• !-'!.0o2’.0ik:
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubici at an effluent concentration of 90 °/o.
If the Permittee is a member and co-permittec of an approved compliance association, its TN
discharge during that year is governed by that association’s group NPDES permit and the TN
limits therein.
The Permittee shall be considered a Co-Permittee Member for any given calendar year in
which it is identified as such in Appendix A of the association's group NF’DES permit.
ii. Association roster(s) and members’ TN allocations will be updated annually and in
accordance with state and federal program requirements.
iii. If the Permittee intends to join or leave a compliance association, the Division must be
notified of the proposed action in accordance with the procedures defined in the
association’s NPDES permit.
(1) Upon receipt of timely and proper notification, the Division will modify the permit
as appropriate and in accordance with state and federal program requirements.
(2) Membership changes in a compliance association become effective on January 1
of the year following modification of the association’s permit.
The TN monitoring and reporting requirements in this Permit remain in effect until
expiration of this Permit and are not affected by the Permittee’s membership in a compliance
association.
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
I
A. (4.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) (cont’d.)
A. (5.) Effective Date for More Stringent NH3-N Limits
A. (6.) Fecal Coliform Compliance Condition
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.
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.
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.
The permittee agrees that it will not challenge the new limits when this permit is renewed so long
as such limits are generally applicable to major dischargers in the Neuse River Basin.
Based on the resolution of the permit adjudication, with agreed upon language submitted July 13,
2001, the limits of 2 mg/1 (April 1 - October 31) and 4 mg/1 (November 1 through March 31) shall
be in effect until July 1, 2004. at which time new limits of 1 mg/1 and 2 mg/1 shall become
effective.
Should the City of Wilson be deemed by the Division of Water Quality to be chronically
noncompliant with the weekly average and/or monthly average fecal coliform limit after
completion of the expansion to 14 MGD, the City shall submit plans and specifications within 90
days after notification by the Division. The plans and specifications shall provide for an
adequately designed chlorine disinfection facility. If another method of disinfection is proposed, it
should conform to conventional design parameters, as well as any minimum requirements
specified by the Division. Bidding and subsequent construction of the project shall commence
immediately after the issuance of the Authorization to Construct permit.
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.
i
2.
\PDI-s
3.
4.
2.4.6-trichlorophenol
Base neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3.4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1.1 -dichloroethylene
1.2- dichloropropane
1.3- dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2 chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
1.2- dichlorobenzene
1.3- dichlorobenzene
1.4- dichlorobenzene
3.3- dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2.4- dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzei le
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indenof 1,2.3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1.2.4- trichlorobenzene
A. (7.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual pollutant scan of its treated effluent for the following
parameters:
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual. TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1.1 -dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroe thane
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1.1.2.2- tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1.1,1 -trichloroethane
1.1.2- trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cre so
2-chlorophenol
2.4- dichlorophenol
2.4- dimethylphenol
4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
2.4- dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
1. The total set of samples analyzed during the current term of the permit must be representative
of seasonal variations.
Samples shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with analytical methods approved
under 40 CFR Part 136.
Unless indicated otherwise, metals must be analyzed and reported as total recoverable.
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved
by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. Two copies of the report shall be submitted along
with the DMRs to the following address: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section.
Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.
I
J
k
Regional Office:Receiving Stream:RRO
Stream Classification:Quad
303(d) Listed?:Permit Writer:
July 25, 2003Date:
However,
Point source rules regarding control of TN and TP have been passed by the EMC. To address
the nutrient reduction issue, the City is a participant in the Neuse River Compliance
Association (this will allow the facility to comply with the nitrogen limit through the
Association).
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES Renewal
Page I
Contentnea Creek is a tributary to the Neuse River. According to the Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan for the Neuse, the primary water quality considerations for point sources in
the basin are discharges of (1) oxygen-demanding substances and (2) nutrients.
DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0023906, Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF
Subbasin:__________
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Applicant/Facility Name:
Applicant Address:______
Facility Address:________
Permitted Flow__________
Type of Waste:__________
Facility/Permit Status:
County:
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
IWC (%):__________
Primary SIC Code:
94.4
4952
Facility Information____________
City of Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF_________
P.O. Box 10, Wilson, NC 27893-0010_________
Old Stantonsburg Road_______________________
14 MOD______________________________________
87% Domestic, 13% Industrial (approximately)
Renewal______________________________________
Wilson
_______Miscellaneous
Contentnea
Creek_________
C-Sw NSW
SI: 27-86-(7)
Yes: TMDL -
Neuse:
Listed for D.O.,
section 27-86-
(7)a___________
030407_______
240__________
1.3 (regulated,
conservative
est.)
Contentnea Creek is now listed as supporting near this area of the discharge.
instream data indicate depressed D.O.'s below the discharge (and this section is not considered
impaired, but is listed on 303(d) due to low D.O.s).
SUMMARY
Wilson operates a 14 MGD wastewater treatment facility that discharges into Contentnea Creek
which is a tributary to the Neuse River. The City has modified the plant to achieve biological
nutrient removal (esp. for total nitrogen) which brought the ultimate plant capacity to 14 MGD.
The City is also in the process of completing a 201 plan for plant improvements to meet the
more stringent NH3-N limits which will be implemented July 2004.
As stated in the previous fact sheet (dated May 4, 2000). due to the swamp-like nature of
Contentnea Creek, a steady state one dimensional model could not be used. The BOD5 limits
for 14 MGD are based on BPJ (tertiary treatment levels). The Wilson - Hominy Creek plant is
designed for tertiary treatment and biological nutrient removal.
E27NW
Wilson
S. WHson^y
4
The City also is reusing a portion of its wastewater (as per WQ0020915).
All concentrations expressed in ug/1 (or ppb)
Limit?PermitLimit?Current
ChronicAcute
0.013Mercury
Silver
The Wilson - Hominy Creek WWMF has a full pretreatment program through the Division of
Water Quality’s Pretreatment Unit. This program will continue to be implemented in
accordance with the permit.
54 ug/1 (daily
max)
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES Renewal
Page 2
Chronic
Standard
YES
MON
(Monthly)
Reasonable
Potential?
Cadmium____
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Copper
Mon (Monthly)
Limit
No reqmnt
No reqmnt
_ No Reqmt.
MON(Monthly)
No
No
14 MOD
_____Renewal
Acute
No
No
No
MON
(Mnthly)
No
No
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement: Chronic P/F @ 90% (also recommended with renewal)
Wilson has had “passes” in 2002 and 2003. (The facility had a failure November and December
2001. but passes since that time. Wilson attributed this to a type of polymer they were trying
at the time.) Due to the consecutive passes for the past year, they are not subject to the Action
Level policy.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: BASED ON THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS
The City adjudicated the previous permit over the more stringent NH3-N limit (1 mg/1 (sum)).
The adjudicatory settlement allowed Wilson a compliance schedule for the more stringent NH3-
N limit. The City has until July 2004 to comply with the limit.
The City has had some flow violations during the first quarter of this year (NC has had high
rainfall events all winter) - not high enough to trigger a civil penalty. Average flow for 2002 =
9.73 MGD (drought year); January 2003 - May 2003 = 13.52 MGD (high rainfall).
Per computer print-out, the facility appears to be in compliance with other limits.
Compliance Evaluation Inspection and staff report indicate that the facility is well maintained
and operated.
TOXICANT PARAMETERS
A reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was conducted for all toxicants currently monitored [Ag,
Cd, Cu, Zn, Cr, Hg - through the permit; Ni, As, Se, Mo, Chlorides, Al, CN, Pb - through the
LTMP]. The data evaluated was reported between from June 2001 - May 2003.
Where data were available, both the chronic and acute (1/2 FAV) were evaluated for reasonable
potential.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Wilson is part of the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA) and is not required to perform the
instream monitoring listed in this permit.
The LNBA monitors upstream and downstream sites on Contentnea Creek [J6764000,
upstream at Hwy. 301; J6890000, downstream at NCSR 1622; J7210000, downstream at Hwy.
58]. Depressed DOs have occurred at the downstream sites, with a trend indicating a definite
impact from the upstream to the downstream sites. This creek is likely affected due to both
point and nonpoint source impacts; additionally, this is classified as “swamp”, in which DOs
may be naturally depressed on occasion. A new federal program, the Unified Watershed
Assessment, will provide funds to study Contentnea Creek and possibly determine causative
factors.
Zinc
PROPOSED CHANGES:
Metals:
Other metals demonstrated no RP.
Other Parameters
REGIONAL OEFICE COMMENT':
Copper and Zinc showed RP to exceed the action level standard. Monitoring will be continued
at a frequency of monthly.
Other parameters did not show RP (and Cr, Pb, Hg, Al, Ag. As, Se, Mo all had values below
detection for the 2 year period).
Nutrients
Wilson is a member of the Neuse nutrient compliance group. As a member of the compliance
association, the annual load limit for total nitrogen will not have to be met. The individual TN
load for Wilson - Hominy Creek is 157,684 Ibs/year. The total phosphorus limit of 2 mg/1 was
instituted in the previous permit (and since Wilson is a member of the Compliance Association,
the 2 mg/1 TP limit is applied again in this permit).
Copper and Zinc did demonstrate a reasonable potential to exceed the acute criteria. However,
these are both Action Level parameters and should be reviewed in conjunction with toxicity
testing. Monthly monitoring of these parameters will continue. [See above for more detailed
explanation - as well as RP analysis].
Data resulting from the LTMP showed values less than detect for most parameters except
molybdenum and chlorides. Chlorides are a concern in water supply - and this is not a water
supply classified water body (molybdenum is monitored through the LTMP - there is no WQ
standard for it). No changes are proposed in the permit based on LTMP data.
The fecal coliform special condition is being continued with this renewal (based on
the modifications for the 14 MGD, the chlorine contact basin is not going to be
enlarged, so the NPDES Unit has the same concerns regarding the contact time).
Based on the NH3-N policy adopted October 15, 2003, weekly average NH3-N limits have been
inserted for the existing flow.
An annual priority pollutant scan has also been inserted in the permit to ensure that the
permittee complies with the requirement in the municipal permit applications.
Other than conventional parameters, the parameters sampled in the application had above
detection levels for copper, zinc, chloromethane. No changes are proposed based on
information in the permit application (the volatile compound was in amounts below WQ
standards).
Wilson/ Hominy Creek WWMF
NPDES Renewal
Page 3
MON
(Monthly)
No Req mt
No req mt
MON
(Mnthly
No '
No
Selenium
Chlorides
SlWfE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Susan Wilson at [phone] ext. 510.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: July 30, 2003 (est.)
Permit Scheduled to Issue: September 16. 2003 (est.)
North Carolina
July 29, 2003
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
RB/dr
Attachments (all cc’s)
cc:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has received the attached July 1, 2003
memorandum and July 25, 2003 e-mail communication concerning the chlorine contact detention
time at the Hominy Creek WWTP. It is our understanding that the City is aware that the
condition to the NPDES Permit, which is noted in the correspondence, will remain a part of the
new NPDES Permit.
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt, City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
City of Wilson
201 Facilities Plan Amendment (September 2002)
Project No. CS370381-06
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
tment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
If you or your engineer have any questions concerning this matter, please call
Mr. Rob Brown at [phone] or call me at [phone]
Bob Berndt, P.E., Hazen and Sawyer
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF
K. Lawrence Horton, HI, P. E., Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
NCDENR
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
co/1> (LAl IJI IL 4—
To:
From:
Subject:
cc:
The NPDES Unit still raises the concern regarding hydraulic retention time for chlorine
contact. Although the contact time is estimated as 45 minutes - it appears that the
“contact tanks” are used for chlorination, dechlorination, and post aeration. Once
again, we encourage the City to implement additional true chlorine contact time.
Likely, if this is not done, the language in Condition A. (6.) of the NPDES permit will be
continued with the next permit renewal (and future permit cycles).
It appears that the facility will not be expanding beyond 14 MGD (20 year projected
flow) and this document reflects only conditions for 14 MGD. The City is currently
permitted for 14 MGD, so the NPDES Unit has no further comments on this portion of
the 201.
Alex Marks
Local Government Assistance Unit
IVISION OF WATER QUALITY
July 1, 2003
Ken Schuster, RRO/WQ
Central Files
NPDES Unit
Susan A. Wilson, Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
City of Wilson - 201 Facilities Plan (September, 2002)
NPDES No. NC0023906
Wilson County
I have briefly reviewed the 201 Plan submitted by Hazen & Sawyer on behalf of the City
of Wilson [September 2002, Revised May 2003).
JUL - 7 2003
May 1.2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Cashion:
3.
Enclosed is a report updating I/I work already done and planned for 2004.8.
P.O. BOX 10 ♦
Wastewater Management
Facility
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The influent and effluent composite samplers are programmed to take a flow
proportional sample. The influent and effluent flow meters are wired to transmit
flow readings to the influent and effluent samplers. The program is set up to
cover the range of 1 MOD to 30 MOD. Enclosed is a copy of the table showing
how the sampling is programmed. Also included is a copy of the manual flow
spreadsheet used to composite samples in the event the automatic sampler unit is
out of service.
Mr. Ted Cashion
NCDENR/DWQ
Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1628
Compliance Evaluation Inspection Response
City of Wilson Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson County
This responds to the compliance evaluation inspection report dated April 4. 2003.
The report is the result of a compliance inspection conducted at the City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWTP on March 12, 2003. The following are comments to the items
you requested:
CITY OF WILSON
INCORPORATED 1849
27894-0010
WILSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 ♦ TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
14.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Cc:
Mr. Ted Cashion
Compliance Evaluation Response
Page 2
Russell P. Brice
WWTP Manager
Ms. Tonja Springer with the Laboratory Certification Unit was contacted
concerning the "‘Qualifying Statement” on the DMRs. Ms. Springer confirmed
that the qualifying statement is the correct method to use when standards and/or
other QC parameters are out of the required range.
Charles Pittman
Barry Parks
Debra Collins
Al Hinnant
Jim Cauley
ACA
11.25
[Volume collected during each sampling event during composite: |225|mL
24
Use table below to determine proper pulse for estimated flow.
Goal
Suggested pulse calculated based on achieving goal values for
desired container fill and desired number of sampling events.
Suggested
Number of
Pulses
Flow
(MGD)
^C.OO MGD____________
4166.70 Gallons / Flow Pulse
Size of sample collection container (liters) =
Size of sample collection container (gallons) =
Desired minimum fill level of container is 60% =
Goal fill level of conatiner is 75 % =__________
Desired maximum fill level of container is 90% =
Number of sampling events during composite: Permit Minimum
Number of sampling events during composite: Goal Minimum
Number of sampling events during composite: Goal__________
Number of sampling events during composite: Shutoff Maximum
9.00 Liters
Liters
13.50 Liters
15.00 Liters
3.96 Gallons
events
40 events
events
events
Full Scale Flow Rate (20 UPoutput) based on:___________
Full scale Flow Rate x 138.89 Days per million flow pulses =
50
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
5
10
14
19
24
29
34
38
43
48
53
58
62
67
72
77
82
86
91
96
101
106
110
115
120
125
130
134
139
144
Permit
Minimum
(MGD)
0.50
1.00
1.40
I. 90
2.40
2.90
3.40
3.80
4.30
4.80
5.30
5.80
6.20
6.70
7.20
7.70
8.20
8,60
9.10
9.60
10.10
10.60
II. 00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.00
13.40
13,90
14.40
(MGD)
I. 04
2.08
2.92
3.96
5.00
6.04
7.08
7.92
8.96
10.00
II. 04
12.08
12.92
13.96
15.00
16.04
17.08
17.92
18.96
20.00
21.04
22.08
22.92
23.96
25.00
26.04
27.08
27.92
28.96
30.00
Shutoff
Maximum
(MGD)
1.25
2.50
3.50
4.75
6.00
7.25
8.50
9.50
10.75
12.00
13.25
14.50
15.50
16.75
18.00
19.25
20.50
21.50
22.75
24.00
25.25
26.50
27.50
28.75
30.00
31.25
32.50
33.50
34.75
36.00
Flow Ranges
Goal
Minimum
(MGD)
0.83
I. 67
2.33
3.17
4,00
4.83
5.67
6.33
7.17
8.00
8,83
9.67
10.33
II. 17
12.00
12.83
13.67
14.33
15.17
16.00
16.83
17.67
18.33
19.17
20.00
20.83
21.67
22.33
23.17
24.00
Manual Flow Compositing Spreadsheet
City of Wilson Page 1 4/24/2003
Hour
#
Flow Rate
(MGD)
Volume
to Use
(mL)
Volume
Collected
(mL)
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
12,000
500
500
500
319
383
447
479
255
287
351
399
447
415
287
287
287
255
255
255
224
192
255
287
319
383
447
479
7,994
479
192
333
Adjusted
Volume
to Use
(mL)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
15.00
250.50
15.00
6.00
10.44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
Maximum
Minimum
Average
10.00
12.00
14.00
15.00
8.00
9.00
11.00
12.50
14.00
13.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
North Carol
April 17, 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
L
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
A copy of the approved addendum is attached for your files, and one (1) copy retained for
our files.
Reference is made to Addendum No. 1, dated September 12, 2002, from the engineer, for
revisions to the subject project.
The proposed addendum, as described in the attachment, has been reviewed by this office
and is hereby approved and eligible for Revolving Loan funding, in accordance with the loan
offer and conditions thereof.
Mr. Charles W. Pittman, III
Deputy City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
City of Wilson
Approval of Addendum No. 1
Hominy Creek WWTF Improvements
Project No. CS370381-04
[phone]
FAX [phone]
It is the responsibility of the recipient and the consulting engineer to ensure that the
project plan documents are in compliance with Amended N.C.G.S. 133-3 (ratified
July 13, 1993). The administrative review and approval of addenda do not imply approval of a
restrictive specification for bidding purposes; nor is it an authorization for noncompetitive
procurement actions.
Adequate time must be allowed for the potential bidders and this office to receive and act
on addenda prior to the receipt of bids for subject project.
The approval of this addendum does not constitute any change in the amount of your
funding for this project.
___ AfA
MCDENR
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
artment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality/DUJGll
-2-
Sincerely,
irvisor
ICD/dr
Attachment
cc:
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E. at [phone].
Leo Green, Jr., Green Engineering
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Amy Simes, P.E.
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Valerie Lancaster
Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E.
Cecil G. Madden, Jr., P.E.
SRF
Cecil G/ Madden, J
Design Management Unit
Construction Grants and Loans Section
2.\
\v-\
X \
April 11,2003
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
HS/nvv
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site, www.nccgl.net
In an effort to reduce the schedule for the 201 Facilities Plan approval, it is suggested that
the city and its engineer resolve the environmental issues and concerns discussed in the attached
comments by directly contacting the commenting agencies.
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its environmental review of
the subject project and has the attached comments. Several agencies reviewed the plan, and all
of the review comments, if requested, will be made available. The attached comments from the
Water Quality Section, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Division of Air
Quality, and the Raleigh Regional Office must be addressed. These comments are also being
sent directly to your consulting engineer, Hazen and Sawyer, by copy of this letter. A revised
201 Plan/Environmental Assessment that incorporates responses to these comments should be
submitted for our review and approval as soon as possible. Providing thorough and complete
responses to these review comments in a timely maimer is necessary to avoid delays of the
project approval. Our technical review of the 201 Plan is ongoing, and comments will be
forwarded to you as soon as the review is completed.
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt. City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
City of Wilson
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
(September 2002)
Project No. CS370381-06
(919) 733-6SCO
FAX [phone]
Sincerely,
K. Lawrence Horton, III, P. E., Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G, Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolin^fpartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
0^^
1DIO
Customer Service
1 SCO 623-7748
If you or your engineer have any questions or need assistance in resolving these
environmental issues, please call Ms. Hannah Stallings at [phone]. Also, if there arc
questions concerning this review, you may contact me at [phone].
Page 2
Attachments
cc:Ron Taylor, P.E., Hazen and Sawyer
2/0WQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Robert Brown
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF
CITY OF WILSON
April 11,2003
Page I of 4
Environmental Review Comments
For Hominy Creek 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Project No. CS370381-06
Some information and sections, which are recommended by the N.C. Department of
Administration Environmental Assessment Guidelines, were omitted. A copy of the EA
Guidelines is attached for reference and these guidelines may also be accessed via hyperlink
from CG&L's website. Please follow the guidance provided by this document when drafting the
response.
3. Page 7-7, 7.2.4 Groundwater: The Environmental Assessment states that “Except for the
City of Wilson, most of the water for the Wilson County communities and private residences
comes from groundwater supplies.” Are there any residences to be served by this project that
do not receive their potable water from the city of Wilson and rely upon groundwater wells?
II. Existing Environment
1. Page 7.3, 7.2.2.2 Demographics and Land Use - The Environmental Assessment states that
“The service area for the Hominy Creek Plant includes the City of Wilson, the Town of
Lucama and the Town of Black Creek.” Please be certain that ordinances and/or rules of
each of the three municipalities is addressed where appropriate in the discussion of mitigative
measures for this project.
I. Proposed Facilities, Actions, and Funding Sources
1. Page 7-1: The Environmental Assessment states that “The treatment plant expansion is
planned to be constructed in two phases, with the proposed first phase, upgrade to improve
treatment at the current design flow capacity of 14 mgd, expected to meet treatment capacity
needs for the next eight to ten years.”
a. Please provide some description of the second phase of the treatment plant expansion to
provide a complete picture of the larger project of which the current project is a part.
b. Please adjust the text and tables in the Environmental Assessment where appropriate to
acknowledge that this project is planned to meet treatment capacity needs for the next
twenty years.
2. Pages 7-3 - 7-6, Surface Waters: The Environmental Assessment states that “The Hominy
Creek Plant discharges to Contentnea Creek downstream of Wiggins Mill.” Is this discharge
point also downstream of Buckhorn Reservoir, which is also located on Contentnea Creek
and is the primary water supply for the City of Wilson? Please provide a map with the four
reservoirs that supply the City of Wilson with water and the Hominy Creek WWTP discharge
point to provide a clearer picture of the spatial relationship among the reservoirs and the
effluent discharge point.
2. Pages 7-15-7-17, 7.6.1 Surface Water Quality - Nonpoint Source Discharges:
Page 2 of 4
IV. Environmental Effects
1. Page 7-13, 7.6.1 Surface Water Quality - Point Source Discharges: The Environmental
Assessment states that “total nitrogen [point source loadings]. . . will remain the same as
existing conditions. Point source loadings for ammonia nitrogen will decrease because of the
additional nitrification facilities included in the proposed plant upgrade.” Total nitrogen
(TN) is a measure of all the nitrogen associated with nitrite (NCT), nitrate (NO3), and total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen). If ammonia nitrogen will
decrease, it is very likely that total nitrogen loading will decrease also. Please clarify.
4. Page 7-7, 7.3 Existing Wastewater Facilities and Page 7-8, 7.4 Need for Proposed Facilities
and Actions: These sections should be moved under the heading of “Purpose and Need for
Proposed Project.”
Potable water supply needs to be addressed under the heading of Existing Environment
(please see attached outline).
Please amend section 7.6.11 Water Supplies to acknowledge the potential of groundwater
wells and to account for any affect (either positive or negative) this project may have upon
those using groundwater wells. If it is determined that this project will negatively affect
groundwater wells, please address this impact in the discussion of Mitigative Measures.
2. Pages 7-9 - 7-10, 7.5.1 No Action: The Environmental Assessment states that “The current
treatment plant design cannot reliably provide for ammonia nitrogen removal to the permitted
level of 1 mg/L.” Please clarify whether this statement refers to the current permitted
concentration of ammonia Nitrogen or if it refers to the ammonia Nitrogen effluent limit of
1 mg/L that must be met by July 1, 2004.
5. Page 7-8, 7.4 Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions: The Environmental Assessment
states that “The proposed upgrade at 14 mgd is needed to meet project treatment plant
performance and capacity needs for approximately the next eight to ten years.” Just above in
this section it states that the plant will have to meet an ammonia nitrogen effluent limit of 1
mg/L by July 1,2004. Please amend the quoted statement to reflect the immediacy of the
need for a higher level of wastewater treatment.
HI. Alternatives Analysis
1. Page 7-9, 7.5.1 No Action: The Environmental Assessment states that “The no action
alternative is not considered feasible because it would require future development to be
served by private wastewater treatment facilities or septic tanks.” Page 7-10 states that
“projected development is expected to be at urban densities throughout the service area.” If
growth is planned for the City of Wilson service area based on this project, then section 7.6.9
Changes in Land Use needs to be amended to address the indirect and cumulative impacts of
the proposed project on land use. Assuming that growth is planned for the service area
based on this project, the following sections also need to be amended to account for the
direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impact(s) of the development: 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.6.4, 7.6.5,
7.6.6, 7.6.7, 7.6.8, and 7.6.11.
a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page 3 of4
Page 7-19, 7.6.3 Wetlands - The statement that “The proposed facilities are located on the
existing plant site and are not within the 100-year floodplain or in wetlands” needs to be
placed in section 7.2 Existing Environment. (Please see attached outline.)
Page 7-19, 7.6.4 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands - The Environmental Assessment
states that “There will be no indirect or cumulative effects of the proposed project on prime
agricultural lands.” Table 7-7 on page 7-16 of the Environmental Assessment, which shows
existing and projected land use based on the implementation of the proposed project, projects
a decrease in agricultural land uses within the service area to 0 by 2010. Please clarify.
Page 7-20, 7.6.7 Air Quality and Noise and Odor Levels - The Environmental Assessment
states that “Construction activities associated with the proposed project will result in some
minor noise and air quality impacts due to construction equipment and traffic from delivery
of materials to the treatment plant site.” Please amend the narrative to include a discussion of
the following:
a. When (days of the week and hours of the day) construction activities that create noise
will occur;
The Environmental Assessment states that the “Existing loadings were based on the
existing land use acreages in the service area, as indicated in the Growth Plan” (pages 7
15 and 7-16). The year used to represent the existing land use pattern in Table 7-7 is
1989. Please update this table with more recent data to represent the current land use
pattern in the City of Wilson service area.
The Environmental Assessment states that the “Developed land acreages [presented in
Table 7-7 were] estimated assuming the same percentages of total developed land as
exiting land uses” and that the “Projected loadings were based on projected land use
acreage assuming the total area is developed in the same manner as the existing
developed area” (page 7-16). Please use more recent data to project nutrient loadings.
Please update both Table 7.8 and Table 7.9 if they are both based upon 1989 land use
data and there is newer data available.
Page 7-18, 7.6.1 Surface Water Quality - Summary: The Environmental Assessment states
that “Total nitrogen loadings are projected to increase because of the increased service area
development only. Total phosphorus loadings are expected to be higher in 2010 because of
the increased Hominy Creek WWMF flow and the increased service area development.”
a. Please clarify whether the statement about nitrogen loadings refers to increased
wastewater flows from increased population, increased runoff from greater amounts of
impervious surface from development, or a combination of the two.
b. The above statement quoted from the Environmental Assessment implies that impacts
from the indirect and cumulative effects of this project will outweigh the benefits derived
from the lowering of the ammonia nitrogen effluent concentrations (page 7-22 and 7-23).
If this is the case, please amend the statements on pages 7-22 and 7-23 to acknowledge
that the long-term effect of this project will be increased nutrient enrichment of surface
waters. Also, please amend the discussion of Water Supplies on page 7-22 and the
discussion of Long-Term Effects on page 7-23 to address a decrease in the quality of
downstream water supplies and surface water quality over the long term.
Page 4 of4
b. At what distance the increased noise levels will be heard; and
c. Whether surrounding properties will be affected by increased noise levels.
Please amend the discussion of Mitigative Measures to address how the noise impact of this
project will be lessened.
8. Page 7-21, Shellfish, Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats - Please amend the discussion of
the impact of the project on fish and shellfish to address the impact that the effluent resulting
from this project will have upon shellfish, fish and wildlife and their habitats. Please include
a discussion on the indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed project on aquatic flora
and fauna.
9. Page 7-23, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures - After amending the
Environmental Assessment according to comment #1 under Alternatives Analysis and to
address topics covered in the provided outline that are not addressed in the current report,
please amend the listing under “During Construction Activity” and “Long-Term Effects”
accordingly. Also, please amend the text of this section to correspond with these changes.
7. Pages 7-20 and 7-21, Shellfish, Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats - The Environmental
Assessment states that “birds and small mammals that use the grassy areas for feeding will
temporarily leave because of construction noise and increases in human activity. These
species will return during and after construction.” Please amend this statement to consider
the fact that grass will be permanently removed by this project and that the wildlife will not
be able to return to the same place.
North Carolina
November 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I may be contacted at 919.733.5083 x555. Thank you.
Attachment
N C Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
J. Todd Kennedy "9'“^
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rtment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Hominy Creek WWMF Upgrade and Expansion/ 201 Facilities Plan
DENR #1209; DWQ# 13185
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
DUJG.
We have reviewed the subject 201 Facilities Plan. Comments from the Division’s NPDES Unit are
attached.
To:
From:
Subject:
cc:
Steve Zoufaly/ J. Todd Kennedy
Local Government Assistance Unit
As stated in the document, the City of Wilson is required to meet more stringent
ammonia limits by July 1. 2004, as agreed through the adjudicatory settlement and
subsequent permit issuance dated September 28, 2001.
Ken Schuster, RRO/WQ
Central Files
NPDES Unit
City of Wilson - 201 Facilities Plan (September, 2002)
NPDES No. NC0023906
Wilson County
IVISION OF WATER QUALITY
November 19, 2002
Susan A. Wilson, Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
I have reviewed the 201 Plan submitted by Hazen & Sawyer on behalf of the City of
Wilson.
The document primarily addresses how the City of Wilson will comply with the more
stringent ammonia limits at the current flow of 14 MGD. The NPDES Unit agrees that
upgrades to the plant are necessary to comply with the more stringent limits. In review
of the improvements for 14 MGD, the NPDES Unit also recommends that the chlorine
contact time be evaluated again to determine if adequate time is provided to
consistently meet the fecal coliform limit. This was a concern during the previous
review of the expansion to 14 MGD and is the reason Condition A.(6.) was implemented
in the permit.
As stated in the 201 document, the City' plans to implement the improvements to the
existing 14 MGD plant during Phase I of the project and then the ultimate 20 year
design flow expansion during Phase II of the project. As stated previously, the NPDES
Unit has no objections to the proposed modification and improvements for the 14 MGD
design flow. However, prior to expanding to 18 MGD or funding of Phase II (18 MGD),
the document should be revised to reflect speculative limits for 18 MGD. thoroughly
document alternatives and thoroughly justify the 20 year flow projection.
Alternative analyses will have to be thoroughly documented prior to or upon any NPDES
application for expansion above 14 MGD. The NPDES Unit recommends that Wilson
thoroughly evaluate alternatives and re-use options prior to expansion of the treatment
plant. The NPDES Unit’s Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance document is
available on the Division’s website: [http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/
documents.html].
The NPDES Unit has not received a request from the City of Wilson for speculative
limits for a flow of 18 MGD. An increase of permitted flow from 14 MGD to 18 MGD
could have a major impact on the dissolved oxygen of Contentnea Creek. Due to the
swamp-like nature of Contentnea Creek, providing speculative limits will be difficult
and could be time-consumptive. Review of dissolved oxygen data during the last permit
renewal indicated that downstream dissolved oxygen levels were depressed, which may
also have an effect on the speculative limits. Additionally, Contentnea Creek, below the
Wilson water supply intake, is listed as biologically impaired (with impairment
historically listed as attributable to sediment).
.A L
-Due Date:
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
□
□
Water Use Permit□Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
Well Construction Permit□
Dredge and Fill Permit□
□
N/A 60 days
□
(3
N/A
□
.3
□The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
□Mining Permit
□North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
□
□Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
□Dam Safety Permit
A
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
in coastal N.C.with organic soils.
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time limit)
90-120 days
(N/A)
20 days
(30 days)
30 days
(60 days)
60 days
(90 days)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
ISA NCAC 2D. 1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-O82O.
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
30 days
(90 days)
30 days
(N/A)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per ISA NCAC
(29-0100,2Q.0300,2 H.0600)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
.. must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D. 1900
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(N/A)
1 day
(N/A)
90-120 days
(N/A)
The-Sedimentation Poltationrorit£oTAcfon973 must beproperly addressed forany land-disturbmg activity. - An erosiea & sedimentation
control piBrrwtlttie-requiied if one or'more acrestu be disturbed: Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at leas*t 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount .■aries with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required ’if more than five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
NCDENR Department o^^/ironment and Natural Resources Rr^^umben
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. f form’
PERMITS or REQUIREMENTS
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well□
Geophysical Exploration Permit□
State Lakes Construction PermitLJ
□401 Water Quality Certification N/A
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C0100.
□Notification of the proper regional office is requested if “orphan" underground storage tanks (UST5) are discovered during any excavation operation.
□Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
*Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form.
55 days
(130 days)
60 days
(130days)
22 days
(25 days)
□ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C 28301
[phone]
□ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C. 28115
[phone]
□ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
45 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
□ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
□ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone]
15-20 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
Raleigh Regional Office
A 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone]
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDl^^
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Lim it)
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations.
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27611
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
□ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
[phone]
2525229736 B WYNNE
TO;
FROM:
DATE:October 24, 2002
SUBJECT:
A
Bennett Wynne
Habitat Conservation Program
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries •
Telephone: f919) 733-3633
201 Facilities Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Citv
of Wilson Honiiny Creek WWMF, WdMn County, North Carolina. Project
Number: 1209, J
• 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 2769?-1721
3 ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
--North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Wilson’s wastewater treatment facility has recently been upgraded to 14 MOD but
problems wtth handling solids remain. We understand the Amendment to be comprised of 2
phases. Phase I dealing with improved solids handling/treatment and Phase II entailing an expansion to 18 MGR At the outset (Phase I?), all work would be located on theStag
thw ™Xlereatmenl T We SaW a° deSCript’on of Potential infrastructure mstaUation
that might be associated with the expansion to 18 MGD (Phase II?)
vr-p mlhOrt’ WC •16 uncertaln as t0 whethar Amendment includes an expansion to 18
MGB If the expansion is included, we disagree with theEA’s assertion on p. 7-19 that there will
be no indirect or cumulative effects on wetlands (prime wildlife habitat and water quality
protection) and recommend that the recently completed CSI Guidance Memorandum be followed
call me “2^52 J,OPPOrtUnity C°“ °n thiS Pr°ject If V™ have questions, please
PAGE 01
seqj.
10/24/2002 03:35
MEMORANDUM
TO:
aeration tank, upgrading
Should you require further information in this regard, please advise.
c: Connie Horne
Division of Air Quality
October 4, 2002
Project No. # 1209
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Hominy Creek WWMF Upgrade and Expansion
City of Wilson, Wilson County
The Division of Air Quality has reviewed the proposed project involving improvements
and expansion of the Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility (WWMF) that
serves the City of Wilson and the Towns of Lucama and Black Creek in Wilson County,
North Carolina. The planned improvements include adding one aeration tank, upgrading
four existing anaerobic digesters and various improvements regarding the handling,
treatement and storage of sludge.
Additionally, the contractors constructing the components of the wastewater system
should take care to comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. Adequate
wetting, reseeding and covering of disturbed areas should be utilized during earthmoving
operations to mitigate any adverse impact from fugitive dust emissions.
Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: B. Keith Overcash, Acting Director
SUBJECT:
If there are any questions regarding air permit requirements for this facility, Mr. Ernie
Fuller, Raleigh Regional Air Quality Supervisor, should be contacted at [phone].
It construction of the new primary sludge pumping systems includes installation of
standby engines or engine-driven generators or if improvements or construction at the
wastewater management facility include installation of particulate sources such as lime
silos, boilers, emergency generators or peak-shaving generators, then an air permit may
be required.
FA GUIDELINES http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htm
March 1999
(replaces 5/24/93 guidelines)
N.C. Department of Administration
State Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse
Environmental Assessment
Guidelines
1. Prepare a cover letter including the following:
• Title/name of proposed activity
• Responsible state agency
• Name, address and phone number of state agency contact person
• Preparer of the document (if not a state agency, include address, phone number)
• List of other cooperating agencies, if applicable
1 of8 4/8/2003 2:13 PM
J
These standardized guidelines are for use when preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to comply
with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and its rules in the North Carolina Administrative
*
Code. The purpose of the EA is to provide a state agency with enough information to determine if a
planned project has a level of impact on the environment requiring the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is the appropriate conclusion.
it it
Prior to completing an EA, be sure that the proposed project meets the state project agency's
minimum criteria for requiring compliance with SEPA and that you are following the lead state
project agency's procedures and required forms. This information can be obtained from the state
project agency.
EA GUIDELINES http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htm
2. Complete all sections (A-I).
A. Proposed Project Description
B. Purpose and Need for Proposed Project
C. A Item atives A n alysis
1 of 8 4'8/2003 2:13 PM
Describe the entire project. Explain how it fits into any larger project or master plan. If this is a phased
project, identify future and previous planned phases and their timing Details should include, but are not
limited to, the following, as applicable:
Discuss all reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including the alternative of no action. If more
than one site was considered, discuss the site selection process and the factors considered in selecting the
proposed site. Factors considered could include real estate considerations, space, utilities, transportation,
environmental consequences, etc. Conclude with why the proposed site or project is the preferred
alternative.
Discuss why this project is necessary and how it fits into the project sponsor’s mission. Include any
unique aspects of the project. For example, is the project needed to bring together functions that are
scattered, to alleviate crowded facilities, to expand, upgrade or replace unsafe or inadequate facilities,
or to create a new needed facility/service?
• number of acres of land to be disturbed
• square footage and height in stories of new buildings
• square footage or acreage of footprint of entire project
• number of parking spaces in parking lot(s) or deck
• proposed use(s) of any building(s)
• 'k• location of project (county/municipality) and reference to location map(s) in Section H
• site improvements to be made, such as grading, filling, landscaping, etc.
• connections to existing utility and sewer lines and/or new utility installation
• amount of paved and otherwise impermeable surface
• construction of any stonnwater control devices
EA GUIDELINES http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htin
D. Existing Environmental ^uiracteristics of Project Area
(1) Topography
(2) Soils
(3) Land Use
(4) Wetlands
(5) Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
3 of 8
The existing or affected environment should be discussed in terms of what currently exists on the site
and in the surrounding area.
Briefly describe the topography of the project area including landforms, slopes, and elevations. A
brief description of the geology of the site can be added if available. Is the site within the 100-year
flood plain? National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps should be used to determine whether
the project will encroach on the base (100-year) flood plain.
Describe the existence of any wetlands on-site or near the site. Indicate any wetlands on the map in
Section H. Include a list of the type, quality, and delineation. Describe the primary function of the
wetland (e.g., flood control, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge), and other factors that
indicate the relative importance of the function to the total wetland resources of the area.
Describe the current use of the land at the site and the surrounding acreage. Additionally, discuss
how the current land use fits into the land use of the entire area in terms of conservation,
development, and ecological function. If applicable, identify the current zoning classification of
the project site and surrounding area.
Is any of the proposed site classified as prime or unique agricultural land? Reference some
authority. Local soil and water conservation districts can be of assistance in classification of these
areas.
If no site resource information exists for a given topic, make a statement to that effect and provide a
reference to a study or document which supports your statement. For example, if there are no
wetlands on the site, reference a wetlands delineation that was done in the past or, at a minimum, a field
survey that was conducted.
Describe the dominant soil(s) in the project area as well as any soil types that might prove to be a
constraint to the proposed project. This would include any fill, wetland soil types, etc.
4/8/2003 2:13 PM
j
For some topics, such as land use, wetlands, water supplies, shellfish or fish and their habitats, and
wildlife and their habitats, discussion should also include the surrounding area if there is any possibility
that the proposed project could have any impact on it. For example, if the site itself does not contain any
wetlands, but there are wetlands downstream that could be affected by the increased surface water
runoff from the site, they should be identified.
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htmEA GUIDELINES
(6) Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
(7) Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
(8) Air Quality
(9) Noise Levels
Discuss the current noise levels on the site with a measurable benchmark, if possible.
(10) Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
(11) Forest Resources
List type (for example, hardwoods/pines) at or near the site.
(12) Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
(13) Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
E. Predicted Environmental Effects of Projects
4 of 8 4/8/2003 2:13 PM
In this section the discussion should center on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts the project
will have on the same topics covered in the previous section with the addition of "(14) Introduction of
Identify surface waters and groundwater (aquifers) in the project area. For surface waters, identify
the name, location (include on the enclosed map in Section H), classification, and use support
ratings. Identify the river basin where the project is located. If there are unnamed streams, estimate
the average flow. Discuss groundwater in terms of use, quality, quantity, depth, and recharge.
Reference any studies that have been done on this site. If no studies are available discuss if and
how the site has been previously disturbed. List any buildings on the site and their approximate
age.
Identify the area’s air quality classification, acknowledging if it is in transition and why. Discuss
the current sources of emissions for the site. Discuss any previous odor problems or complaints
due to any existing facilities.
Note: Since these topics tend to overlap and are interrelated, discuss them together under a single
heading.
Are there categories of shellfish beds/fish habitats at or near the site? Are these closed beds, highly
productive areas, or spawning areas?
Identify any wildlife habitat that exists on or near the project area. List specific species of
dominant plants and animals that are indicative of the kind of habitat that exists, as well as any
threatened or endangered species.
Discuss the existence of any formally designated park land, scenic or recreational areas, or state
natural areas on or adjacent to the site.
FA GUIDELINES http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htm
(1) Topography
(2) Soils
(3) Land Use
(4) Wetlands
as
(5) Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
(6) Public Lands, Scenic and Recreational Areas
(7) Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
5 of 8 4/8/2003 2:13 PM
If, in Section D, "Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area," it was shown that a resource
did not exist on or near the site, then indicate "Not Applicable (N/A)" in the appropriate section. For
example, if there are no wetlands on the site or near the site that could be impacted by the project, then
there cannot be any environmental consequences to wetlands from the project and there need not be any
mitigative measures. Therefore, the topic of wetlands does not need to be addressed in this or the next
section and "N/A " should be indicated under #4 of this section.
Will this project change the existing topography? Identify and evaluate any encroachments of the
project on flood plains.
Will this project cause any soil disturbance or contamination? If soil is to be moved, how many
square yards/feet will be moved and to what location? If soil is expected to be contaminated,
discuss the contaminant.
How will the land use change due to the project and how will the new use(s) fit into the intended
land use of the entire area in terms of conservation, development, ecological function, and quality
of life? Will local zoning or land use plans need to be changed?
Will there be any direct or indirect impacts on wetlands from the project? If wetland is to be filled,
how many acres are involved and what kind of authorization (permit) is required? Will the
diversion/addition/withdrawal of surface water impact existing wetlands? Construction activity
well as long-term operational activity should be considered.
How will the project affect the identified prime or unique agricultural land? How much acreage
will be lost and how much retained in that use? What will be the impact of the loss?
How will the project impact any formally designated park land, scenic, recreational or state natural
areas on or adjacent to the site? Again, quantify the amount of loss. Also, discuss the loss of any
informal scenic or recreational site functions.
How will the project affect any areas of archaeological or historical value? Will any building be
demolished or renovated? If yes, include photographs of buildings on the site.
Toxic Substances." Identify bom the construction and operational imp^^. If there will be no impact in
any specific topic area (#1-13 above), that should be stated. If the impact is small and deemed to be
insignificant, describe the impact and then make a statement to that effect at the end of the discussion for
each topic. In all categories, quantify impacts where feasible (i.e., in terms of acres, linear feet, etc.).
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htmE.A GUIDELINES
(8) Air Quality
(9) Noise Levels
(10) Water Resources
(11) Forest Resources
If any forests are destroyed by this activity, describe forestry practices to be used.
(12) Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
(13 ) Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
(14) Introduction of Toxic Substances
F. Mitigative Measures
4/8/2003 2:13 PM5 of 8
How will the ambient air quality be affected by the project? Remember to discuss both the
construction and the operation of the project. Consider cumulative impacts as this project is added
to the existing development. Will there be any open burning? If parking is involved and there will
be more than 750 spaces, a Complex Air Source pennit will be required. Confirm if the project
will increase odor levels or increase the possibility for odor complaints.
Will the project increase noise levels? If so, when (days of the week and hours of day)? At what
distance will increased noise levels be heard? Will surrounding properties be affected by noise
level?
How will the project impact the following during construction and operation: surface water quality
and quantity, and groundwater quality and quantity? Address any changes in the amount of
impervious surface at the project site and stormwater runoff (i.e., nonpoint source pollution).
When discussing these impacts, include impacts on erosion rates at the site and downstream,
sedimentation changes, changes in downstream water quality (e.g., eutrophication impacts), etc.
What kinds of impacts on shellfish, fish, or their habitats will the project have either during
construction or operation? Again, consider on-site and nearby aquatic habitats.
How much of the existing natural vegetation will be destroyed or altered by the project? If the
wildlife will be displaced, are there surrounding areas that provide similar types of habitat or does
the project encompass any possible relocation areas nearby? What is the long-term effect if more
development is planned for the area?
Will any toxic substances be introduced during construction or operation of the project? If so,
name them and identify how they will be used. Discuss any measures that will be taken to ensure
that toxic substances will be treated in accordance with all appropriate regulations so that there
will be no significant environmental impact.
FA GUIDELINES
G. References
List in alphabetical order any documents referenced in the EA.
H. Exhibits
I. State and Federal Permits Required
List any permits that are to be obtained for this project.
FOR LEAD STATE AGENCY USE ONLY
Select the appropriate statement below:
Signed Agency
7 of 8 4/8/2003 2:13 PM
Conclusion Statement (Must be completed and signed by responsible state agency and submitted with the EA
document to the State Clearinghouse.)
After preparation/review of this EA, the responsible state agency has concluded there is a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) and will not be preparing an Environmental Impact. Statement (EIS). (Attach any additional
information regarding this conclusion that you deem important to this finding.)
The only topics that need to be covered in this section are those which were deemed to be significantly
affected by the proposed project in Section E, "Predicted Environmental Effects of Projects." List all of
those topics in the same order as above and discuss for each one what measures are going to be taken to
mitigate the effects of the project. For example, wetlands created to offset wetland loss, or if habitat of
any kind is going to be created, it should go in this section. If the project will cause an increase in
emissions, what steps are being planned to minimize or reduce future emission increases? If stormwater
control practices are going to be implemented, what kinds and what level of rainfall events will they
accommodate? Provide quantitative data.
Include a reproducible 8 1/2" x 11" site location map or maps showing the site of the proposed project
and any significant features such as wetlands, parks, historic sites, etc. Also include a most recent USGS
topographical map (7.5 minute quadrangle) with project and boundaries shown.
The agency has completed this EA and is hereby submitting it for review and comment. After a
consideration of the comments received, the agency will proceed with a FONSI or prepare an EIS.
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htm
F.A GUIDELINES http://www.nccgl.net/fap/eaguide.htrn
Submission Instructions
Note to non-state agency document preparer:
4 8/2003 2:13 PM
Documents completed for state agencies must first be sent to the appropriate agency for approval
and completion of the Conclusion Statement prior to State Clearinghouse submission. Contact the
appropriate agency for its submission procedures. Documents prepared for the N.C. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources will be subject to departmental review prior to submission
to the State Clearinghouse.
8 of 8
An EA should not exceed 40 pages in length, excluding exhibit materials. Sixteen (16) copies of this
document with the cover letter and Conclusion Statement should be submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, N.C. Department of Administration, Room 5106c, 116 West Jones Street, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27603. For the review schedule and submission deadline dates, call the State Clearinghouse at
[phone].
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
April 4, 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
4. A cursory review of the laboratory showed all temperatures to be in satisfactory ranges.
1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh. NC 27699-1628N. C. Division of Water Quality
DENR Customer Service 1 800.623.7748
1. The 14 mgd treatment facility consists of 2 mechanical bar screens, dual pista grit units, influent
ultrasonic flow meter, 2 preaeration basins 3 primary clarifiers (1 currently offline), BNR tank,
aeration basins with BNR process, 5 secondary clarifiers, 5 tertiary filters, Stractrol chlorination
system, post aeration, sodium bisulfite addition, ultrasonic effluent flow meter (used for DMR
reporting), 2 lime stabilization tanks, 2 anaerobic digesters, 2 lined emergency sludge storage
ponds, 1 pond for re-use water, covered belt press, and drying beds.
5. Ms. Collins stated oil and grease, metals, cyanide, and sludge testing is performed by Tritest.
All other analyses are performed in-house.
919. 571.4700
FAX [phone]
*
I
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Wilson Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0023906
Wilson County
Raleigh Regional Office
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
2. The influent sampler refrigerator unit was not operating properly. Mr. Brice stated later that the
unit will be replaced. The effluent sampler unit was at 0 degrees C, compliant with requirements
of 0-4 degrees Q,. without freezing.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
■x
< ol0
Mr. Charles W. Pittman III, Deputy City Manager
City of Wilson
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27893
A Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the subject facility was conducted by myself on
March 12, 2003. The cooperation of Russell Brice (Grade 4 ORC, Class IV facility) and Debra
Collins, Lab Supervisor, was appreciated. Findings during the inspection were as follows:
3. Please respond as to how the influent and effluent composite samplers are programmed
(interval between each sampling event, and the volume of each sampling event).
co/Filllr> IL/UJk
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina DepartiW^of Environment and Natural Resources
12. The effluent appeared clear and free of solids at the time of the inspection.
cc:
14. The DMR’s for each month include a copy of a “Qualifying Statement" for method requirements
for BOD analysis that were not met. Please contact Ms. Tonja Springer with the Laboratory
Certification Unit at 919.733.3908 for guidance and resolution in this matter.
Please respond in writing to items 3, 8, and 14. If you have questions concerning this report please
contact me at 919.571.4700 ext. 273.
13. A review of DMR data submitted from January - December showed complaince with limits and
monitoring requirements.
8. Please submit an update on inflow/infiltration reduction activity the City completed in 2002 and
2003, and what is planned for 2004.
9. Synagro land applies sludge for the City. Some sludge is taken to the landfill in Aulander when
necessary. Class A sludge can be produced if necessary.
10. Mr. Brice stated that there are 20 pump stations. We recommend the City have emergency
backup power available at each station to prevent overflows during power outages.
6. A water re-use pump station is being constructed, scheduled to be completed approximately
August 2003. Plans are to spray at the golf course and at 2 industrial park sites.
7. Mr. Brice stated that several projects are scheduled to be completed at the plant. These include
expansion of the sludge handling system (dewatering, belt press, covered concrete pad, refurbish
the anaerobic digester), and add a BNR tank. The City is waiting on the FONSI approval. This will
not increase the capacity of the plant.
Mr. Pittman
Page 2
Wilson Co. Health Dept.
Tonja Springer
A
1
11. There is an above ground temporary sewer line from the influent pump station to the
headworks area. Mr. Brice stated this line was used when the pump station experienced problems,
and that it may remain set up in case of other emergency situations.
Sincerely,
Ted Cashion
Environmental Chemist
Transi
66
| I807473
Permit Effective DateEntry Time/Date
CSO/SSO (Sewer Overflow)'Flow Measurement-■Permit
Other:Storm Water
Date
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax Numbers
EPA Form 3560-3 (Rev 9-94) Previous editions are obsolete.
Records/Reports
Facility Site Review
x
Effluent/Receiving Waters
Pollution Prevention
Multimedia
'Self-Monitoring Program
Compliance Schedules
Laboratory
Form Approved.
0MB No. 2040-0057
Approval expires 8-31-98
Agency/Office/Phone and Fax NumbersName(s) and Signature(s) of Inspectors)
Transaction Code
2|2J
Inspection Type
,8l£]
Fac Type
20 l£j
Inspector
y-j—*
Il
Other Facility Data
I Date
//yoo '‘f/?/#
ol/I el
Permit Expiration Date
Signature of Management Q A Reviewern
SEPA
_______ _________Section B: Facility Data
Name and Location of Facility Inspected (For industrial users discharging to POTW, also
include POTW name and NPDES permit number!
21| | | | | | | | | | | | II
Inspection Work Days
67| | 1 | 69
Neme(s) of On-Site Representative(s)/Title(s)/Phone and Fax Number(s)
NPDES
3|/|C|^|o|jp |-?|q£|n
^-4^^ a
Exit Time/Date
Vet
Is States Environmental Protection Apency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Wate^ompliance Inspection Report^
Section A: National Data System Coding (i.e., PCS)
yr/mo/day
Remarks
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l-l.l I I I
Facility Self-Monitoring Evaluation Rating Bl QA - Reserved
701| 71 || 721 | 73| | 174 75| | | I | |
Section D: Summary of Findings/Comments (Attach additional sheets of narrativa and checklists as necessary)
Name, Address qf Responsible Official/Title/Phone and Fax Number
Contacted
(^C Ye. No____________________________
Section C: Areas Evaluated During Inspection /C/»c<r only those areas evaluated)
'Operations &
Maintenance
kludge Handling/Disposal
Pretreatment
V
SOC Priority Project Yes No XXX
Date March 17, 2003
Permit No. NC0023906 RENEWAL
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility and Address:I.
March 12, 2003Date of Investigation:2.
Report Prepared by: Ted Cashion, Environmental Chemist3.
Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:4.
5.
Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:6.
Longitude-.yy^’SI"Latitude: 35o40’37"
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E27NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Wilson, NC
Site size and expansion area consistent with application ?7.
If No, explain:NoXXX Yes
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on
map.
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek Wastewater Management Facility
P.O. Box 10
Wilson, NC 27893
Russell Brice, Superintendent
919-399-2491
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County Wilson
To: NPDES Permits Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Susan Wilson
Directions to Site: From Raleigh: US 64 East to US 264 East. In Wilson, right on SR
1606, left on SR 1607, right on SR 1602. Facility is on right approximately 0.7 miles.
J
8.Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
Area is flat and appears to be located out of the flood plain.
9.
10.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1.a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Possible impacts from NH3, chlorine,
metals.
Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: 2 mechanical bar screens, 2 manual bar screen, 2 grit
chambers, 2 preaeration basins, 3 primary clarifiers, biological phosphorus
removal tank, 6 aeration basins, 5 secondary clarifiers, 5 tertiary filters, chlorine
contact/post aeration tank, dechlorination, 2 ponds for emergency sludge
storage, 1 pond to be used for water reuse project, 2 anaerobic digesters, 2
sludge storage/lime stabilization tanks, belt press, drying beds.
Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development
Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to
Construct issued in the previous two years: NA
What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 14.0 MGD
Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: MGD(Ultimate
Design Capacity) 14.0 mgd
Classification: C-Sw-NSW
River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03:04:07
Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Relatively small stream that
eventually drains into the Neuse River, a drinking water source.
Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 14.0 MGD
a.
b.
c.
Location of nearest dwelling: Greater than 400 feet. Discharge point is approximately
6600 feet from WWTP.
Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
v>ui utii iti led
Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: It is
planned to expand the sludge handling facilities (dewatering, belt press, covered
concrete pad, refurbish anaerobic digesters) and to add another BNR tank.
Capacity will remain at 14 MGD. Waiting on FONSI results, per Russell Brice.
■
Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:2.
If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM permit no. WQ0001896a.
Telephone No. 1 -877-267-2687
b.
Landfill:c.
Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):d.
Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Class IV3.
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
- OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATIONPART III
1.
2.
Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate) NA3.
4.
Spray Irrigation: NA
Connection to Regional Sewer System: NA
Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved, (municipals only)? yes
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities i.e.., non-contact
cooling water discharge from a metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 047-3
Residuals Contractor- Synagro Southeast, Inc.
6220-A Hackers Bend Ct.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
approved XXXX
should be required.
not needed
Residuals stabilization:
PFRP XXXX
PSRP XXX
Other
Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non-discharge
options available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: P/F Ceriodaphnia at
appropriate IWC; appropriate metals monitoring/limitations as required; see recommendations.
Subsurface: NA
Other disposal options: NA
5.Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The facility is well operated and maintained, and compliant with permit limits.
Date
The RRO recommends that the permit be reissued in accordance with the basinwide permitting
strategy.
Signature of report preparer
On another note, Wilson has talked with the Towns of Elm City and Bailey regarding possible
connection. Both of these towns have chronic compliance problems at their spray irrigation
plants.
The permit application has been reviewed and a site visit and CEI performed by RRO staff.
The application notes that in addition to standard domestic strength waste discharged to the
facility, parameters including metals, laundry waste, pharmaceuticals, commercial lab waste,
and hospital waste are discharged to the facility. The parameters and limits in the current
permit appear to be satisfactory for this facility.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor | I
T-2632523332209 P 325 F-197FPCM-Wilson WastawatsrJAN-Z4-Z002 05:29PM
f
1
I
J!I
c 1 kBS
I
i "Cem
NC0030716
scale tauoooNorth
.j
i
. i
Facility
Location'
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWTP
i
i
i
i
i
l
i’
\ \
■/
■ys? t
I---
c
i
o
* •
<e
r-
:i *
•< i
'09
Quad: E27NW
Ladrvdc: 35o40’37”
Longitude: 77*54’51”
Scream Class: C-Swimp NSW
Subbasin: 30407
Receiving Stream: Conccntnea Creek ’
^U-
■~r.
z
CcntenUiejT
/^Junction ;
i-Cem
Oaruoli ,i
CMo*< -
"Cem
•V
•.:Cem ' -J-
... X
— «.
. /?
FACILITY INFORMATION:
NAME OF FACILITY:
(0MAILING ADDRESS:
COUNTY:
TEEEPHONE:~(^-^ ) !
PERMIT NO: ^00 ^0^Check One: NC WQ___HrALiH DP
ORC:
i-- '
RATING INFORMATION: ^(Beforerompietiiig this sections please xefer to pages 2-4-)
MGD NO PERMITTED FLOW:
CHECK CLASSIFICATION: WASTEWATER:3 1 d /\
COLLECTION:1___ A 0
SPRAY IRRIGATION SUBSURFACE LAND APPLICATION
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL GRADE I GRADE II
^-o *DATE: REGION:RATED BY:
TONE
WATER POLlft’ION CONTROL SYSTEM CURATORS
CERTIFICATION COMMISSION
CLASSmCATION
RATING SHEET FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
■a/, //c J - oo! o
Z~ fac’C'hj
’TELEPHONEfT^
BNR? YES X
• J',. •
REGIONAL-DEEP
CONTACTFERSON:’■ A > f
A*-
[PHI
nutrient reduction *
as biological water pollution control system. Grade of system.’
* Biological Nutrient Reduction -
The reduction of total nitrogen on total phospho,
process as required by the facilities permit.
------- Grade II Biological WPCS
- Systems that utilize an activated i *
less than or equal to 0.5 million gall
Based on population served:
------- 1,500 or Less = Grade I
------- 1,501 to 15,000 = Grade D
------- 15,001 to 50,000 = Grade HI
------- 50,001 or more = Grade IV
1
'-'•i
Classification, of lidlection.WatetPoUution-^
(whichever provides lowest grade)
J
sludge or fixed growth pi
_ Ions per day (mgd)
rocess with a permitted
r^.
nous by an activated sludge or fixed growth
Grade IV Biological WPCS
_ Sy^terw; that ntiliTingzair activated: sludge: or fixed7 growth- process; with: arpennitted flow
of greater tham23rinillioirgallons.peEday, (mgd).. .
- GradeilU systems that are required to achieve biological
. ——- ''KLGradg&HinlngTpJfll
Septioiank/saihi i
- BiologicaLlagoonisystems^ - * 7
- Construote^ wetlands and associated appurtenances
. Grade HI Biological WPCS ,
ystems that utilize an activated sludge or fixed growth process with a permitted flow
of greater than 0.5 through 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd)
II sysums that are required to achieve biological nutrient reduction * —
■i
Classification of Land AppHfafinp.of Residuals Systems:
a
t
■ *
• ^~T* 9 J:i
2iSystemsiwhIcIituiilizaspraynm^^^
These systems: include!
storage basins; screening; sedhnenatioSs^^^
shall be subject to additional classification '
prawlfneai
» water pollution control syMa; utilizes a phyical/chetnical process to enhance an
aettvated sludge or fixed growth process; shall not besubject to additional classification.
Classification of Sybsurfaqg Water Pollution Control Systems:
Systems penmtted and dedicated for land application of residuals that am produced by
water pollution control system or contaminated soils. • Y
*** Any subsurface system that has as pan of its treatment process a water pollution control
systems that may be classified under Rules .0302 through .0307 of this section shad be
subject to addional classification.
. ■'^^^OBdisposakofwasterwater.
^sepucunl^mc^^^^^^^^.
/i- r.
Systems which utilize the soil for subsurface treatment and disposal of wastewater
an or are required to have a certified operator under 15A NCAC 18A.1961. **»
Classification of Phy^isalOmLWater PoUution Control Treatment Systems:
7h^C^^™^AOy£W^^II“dtt“^Lsy^nttllat;utili2es a Primarily
■- physical process to.treatwastewater-Thisclassification includes groundwater
remediation systems:-**
------ Grade n Physical/Chemical: Any water pollution control system that utilizes a primarily
cnemial process to tmatwastewater-Thiaclassification includes reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis; and ultrafiltration systems: **
•k;
i
‘ent, or
I
J
!
i
Collection System . '
stations, and other related
control system.
Chemical Process - shall mean
exclusively of the additii
of
10 C°nduct ^ater to the water pollen
a system which utilizes a membrane filter to remove
;ons semipennable
ion of chemicals to^T^X^
- ^mbZ«Zp^^d't^1111'3113 SySteni WhiCh UtUi2es
and treat.wastewater.
Ultrafiltration System - shall mean
pollutants! from wastewater.
-. _i< .<•< -. 7. i-’ ■■■: - • - Z = e/y W^^®^^«|^mpenheable membrane
Stratton as a means of treatment- PPU2S’gIaVUnetnc ^dinrentation.- floation, and
„ , . ... -
0
I
March 7. 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Schuster:
Wastewater Management
Facility
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
This follows up on our telephone conversation Monday March 3, 2003. On
Sunday March 2, 2003 at approximately 5:05 a.m. the influent pump #1 came apart. The
How from the wet well back through the pump flooded the pump station dry well. The
gate valve to the pump located on the suction pipe was under water when the operator
reached the pump station. The 16" plug valve on the suction line could not be closed.
Two of the influent pumps. #2 and #3 continued to run under water for approximately 36
hours. We began locating bypass pumping immediately. The term bypass is used in the
context of isolating the influent pump station so damage assessment and repairs could be
made. The bypass flows were discharged into the wastewater treatment plant.
March 2 - Pumping was set up to bypass the Hominy Swamp outfall line and
pump this How into the 18" emergency line set up during Hurricane Floyd. This line
discharges into the primary clarifier distribution box. Two 6" pumps were set up to pump
from the influent channel that feeds the influent pump station wet well to the final
clarifier #1 RAS pump station wet well. A 10" pump was set up to pump water from the
headworks splitter box to the wet well of final clarifier #1 RAS pump station. A 6"
submersible pump and a 3" pump were set up to pump water from the pump station dry
well to the wet well of final clarifier #1 RAS pump station. Approximately 400 gallons
of wastewater entered the stormwater collection system during the set up of the
emergency pumps. This water was contained in the retention pond behind the plant and
pumped back into the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Kenneth Schuster
Raleigh Regional Office
DENR/DWQ
1618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1628
Flooding of Influent Pump Station
Hominy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC23906
City of Wilson
CITY OF WILSON
Tlo/ttl-i Cwoftna
INCORPORATED 1849
27894-00109
P.O. 3OX 10 ♦ WILSON. NORTH CAROLINA 27894-0010 ♦ TELEPHONE [phone] ♦ FAX: [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Mr. Schuster
Influent Pump Station Flooding
Page 2
March 3 - Influent pumps #2 and #3 were turned off to prevent further damage to
the pumps. Continued bypass pumping into the wastewater treatment plant. Extremely
high flows were coming into the plant from the heavy rains the previous week. Flow to
the pump station wet well had to be lowered significantly in order to remove water from
the dry well. The bypass pumps could only keep up with the high flows and maintain the
water level. No progress was made in lowering the flows.
March 4 - Finally, flows began to recede. At approximately 6:00 p.m. water in
the dry well was low enough for the plug valve on the suction line to be closed. Work
began to remove the pump motors and make the necessary repairs to the pumps and
motors. At approximately 10:00 p.m. pump #2 and #3 motors were removed and taken to
Electric Motor Shop in Rocky Mount for repairs.
March 5 - It appeared that an object had entered pump #1, cracked the impeller
and twisted the bolts out of the pump housing. During the extremely high flows the
previous week and weekend the manual bar rack at the headworks was flooded allowing
a significant amount of flow to enter the pump station wet well unscreened. The wet well
was inspected and much debris could be seen in the wet well including wooden logs,
boards, etc. The wet well was constructed in 1958 and has one small access manhole
located in one corner of the structure. Cleaning the wet well would be very difficult due
to lack of sufficient access. Compliance EnviroSystems. Baton Rouge, LA was hired to
try and clean the wet well and to clean the influent channels that feed the wet well. Due
to insufficient access to the wet well only partial cleaning could be achieved.
March 6 - Pump #2 was put back in service at approximately 10:00 a.m. It ran for
approximately 5 minutes and tripped out. We began to take pump #2 apart to inspect. At
approximately 11:00 a.m. pump #4 was put in service. Immediately the flows in the
influent headworks began to recede. Further inspection of pump #2 revealed a wooden
log jammed into the pump impeller. The log was approximately 3 feet long and 6 inches
wide. It took several hours to remove the log from the pump. At approximately 6:30
p.m. pump #2 was put in service. The emergency pumps were turned off when both
influent pumps were on line.
The pump motors for pumps # 1 and #3 were more damaged than the other two
and will be repaired by Tuesday of next week. The City will be investigating options to
improve screening at the headworks of the plant.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please call me at [phone].
Sincerely.
Cc:
Russell P. Brice
WWTP Manager
Mr. Schuster
Influent Pump Station Flooding
Page 3
Charles Pittman
Barry Parks
Jim Cauley
ACA
February 26, 2003
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
Mr. Edward A. Wyatt, City Manager
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Also, the Construction Grants and Loans Section has received comments from review
agencies. The attached comments from the Division of Water Quality, DWQ Raleigh Regional
Office, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Division of Air Quality
must be addressed. These comments are also being sent directly to your consulting engineer,
Hazen and Sawyer, by copy of this letter. A revised 201 Facilities Plan/Environmental
Assessment that incorporates responses to these comments should be submitted for our review
and approval as soon as possible. The Facilities Evaluation Unit’s environmental review is
ongoing, and our additional environmental comments will be forwarded to you when the review
is complete. Also, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and N.C. Cultural Resources’ comments have
not been received, but will be forwarded as soon as they are available. In an effort to reduce the
schedule for the 201 Facilities Plan approval, it is suggested that the city and their engineer
resolve the environmental issues and concerns discussed in the attached comments by directly
contacting the commenting agencies.
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its technical review of the
subject Facilities Plan. A copy of the comments resulting from this review is attached for your
reference. These comments are also being sent directly to your consulting engineer, Hazen and
Sawyer, by copy of this letter. A revised Facilities Plan that incorporates responses to these
comments should be submitted for our review and approval as soon as possible. Providing
thorough and complete responses to these review comments in a timely manner is necessary to
avoid delays of the project approval.
Customer Service
1 SCO 623-7748
City of Wilson
201 Facilities Plan Amendment (September 2002)
Project No. CS370381-06
Michael F. Easley, Governor
.. William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
I lean oarci!r^™artment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
If you or your engineer have any questions, or need assistance in resolving the
environmental review issues, please call Ms. Hannah Stallings at [phone]. If there are
-2-
RB/dr
Attachments (all cc’s)
cc:Ron Taylor, P.E., Hazen and Sawyer
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Robert Brown
Hannah Stallings
PMB/DMU/FEU/SRF
Sincerely,
/
/
questions concerning the technical review issues, please contact Mr. Rob Brown at
[phone]. You may also contact me at [phone].
K. Lawrence Horton, III, P. E., Supervisor
Facilities Evaluation Unit
K
CITY OF WILSON
February 26, 2003
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.
6.
Page 1 of 5
I
1.
Please note that approval of the Facilities Plan does not constitute approval of sole source
procurement. Plans and specifications must comply with N.C. General Statute Chapter 133,
Section 3, prior to their approval.
Please be advised that the city should have an approved user charge system and sewer use
ordinance to provide for funding the sewer system operation and maintenance, and
repayment of the SRF loan.
A loan from the North Carolina Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Fund is contingent
on the review and approval of the proposed loan by the Local Government Commission.
Genera!
From our reading of this report, and from discussions with Mr. Ron Taylor of Hazen and
Sawyer, we will review the report conclusions as supporting a 14-million gallon per day
(mgd) plant, based on the 20-year design flow. The conclusions section of the report should
be revised to clearly reflect this.
Technical Review Comments
For Hominy Creek 201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Project No. CS370381-06^
b. A reasonable subsurface investigation that must be made available to the contractor. If it
is not included in the specifications, the specifications must advise where a copy of the
report can be observed. Typically, CG&L expects a boring about every 500 feet and at
each road crossing for line work, and at all major structures like pump stations, aeration
basins, and clarifiers.
Please provide a section in the 201 Plan that addresses public participation. Public meetings
in early stages of the project development are encouraged. These meetings can be regular
town board meetings in which the project is discussed. One public hearing with 30-day
notification is required.
The owner and consulting engineer should be advised that after approval of the 201 Facilities
Plan, there are several construction project permits, approvals, certifications, etc. that must be
obtained before the project plans and specifications can be approved and the project is
advertised for bids. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that preliminary work to obtain
the following items, if applicable, begin as soon as possible:
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit from the Division of Land Quality, or a letter
from them stating that no permit is required for this project.
a. A copy of the Facilities Plan should be available for review by the public at least 15 days
prior to the public hearing. The hearing should identify the problem, discuss the selected
7.
8.
9.
2.
Page 2 of 5
III
1.
(Reference Page 2-9) Describe the chlorine contact system (including the presence of a
quiescent zone to facilitate kill) and verify the available chlorine contact time at the design
flow of 14 mgd. Demonstrate, by calculation, the sufficiency of the available chlorine
contact time.
If the total construction cost for the selected alternative exceeds $10 million, the recipient
must provide a Value Engineering study. For more information on value engineering, see the
Internet website at www.value-eng.com .
Currently, SRF loan participation in Laboratory/Administration buildings funding is limited
to $135 per square foot. This participation amount is revised annually based on construction
cost indices. Please provide a total square footage, and list these buildings separately in the
Bid Form, so that eligible costs can be determined after receipt of bids.
Please confirm that the proposed project design will comply with NCAC 2H.0219 -
Minimum Design Requirements, and NCAC 2H.0124 - Reliability Requirements. (A copy
of .0219 & .0124 is attached for reference).
c. Provide a transcript or detailed summary of the hearing, an affidavit of publication of the
hearing notice, and a copy of the resolution from the governmental unit agreeing to
implement the selected alternative. The Public Hearing must be held, and this
information must be provided before the FNSI can be sent to the State Clearinghouse.
IV
1.
II
1.
b. Place an advertisement for the hearing in the local newspaper that identifies the time and
location of the public hearing, advises when and where a copy of the Facilities Plan can
be observed, provides a brief description of the proposed project, advises how much
funding is required, and identifies the source of funding.
Section 3
(Reference Page 3-4) An inflow rate of 300 gpd/capita is noted on this page. As a rule of
thumb, inflow in excess of 275 gpd/capita is considered to be excessive. Please comment on
any effort by the city to remove excessive inflow. Does the city have an on-going
Section 1
(Reference Page 1-2) The report references the city’s intent to join the Lower Neuse Basin
Association in order to facilitate compliance with the Division of Water Quality’s rules to
limit nutrient discharges into the Neuse River. Provide discussion as to the city’s role in the
Association. For instance, will the city discharge within Water Quality limits, or will credit
purchase be necessary? Or, in the alternative, will the city be capable of selling credits?
Section 2
(Reference Page 2-18) The report documents the expiration of the NPDES Permit on
May 31, 2003. Please discuss the status of permit renewal.
alternative, identify the size of the projected loan, discuss any associated inter-local
agreements, and identify the effect this project will have on the monthly sewer bill for a
typical residential user.
k
2.
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.10% Industrial Reserve (based on 10% of current flows excluding I/I).
e.
4.
Page 3 of 5
Based on the information provided in the Facilities Plan, the 18 mgd flow may not be
determined eligible for SRF funding. Hence, any items to be constructed in this phase which
are designed to accommodate the eventual expansion to 18 mgd may not be eligible for
funding. Please demonstrate that each item in this phase is designed for 14 mgd; or, in the
(Reference Page 3-6) Table 3-3 shows an increasing reserve capacity for future Industrial
Reserve. Note that industrial reserve capacity is limited to 10% of existing residential,
commercial, and industrial flows. This should be revised. Also, note that no allowance for
future increase above the current non-excessive infiltration/inflow should be included in flow
projections.
Provide 20-year commercial growth based on population projections. Typically, this
flow value is based on 15 gpd per capita of projected growth in residential population.
Provide current flows including non-excessive I/I and any planned industrial flows, with
a Letter of Intent as justification.
rehabilitation program? Are budget funds set aside for identification and removal of inflow
sources?
Provide 20-year flows and residential growth based on population projections. Typically,
this flow value is based on 70 gpd per capita of projected growth in residential
population.
The projected design flow should include only existing non-excessive I/I. Projected
future increase in LI may not be included in the design flow. Please delete future I/I from
the design flow.
If an examination of planning area population over the past 10 years indicates accelerated
growth, the SRF method of projecting flow may be overly conservative, and an alternate
means of projecting population may be employed. An alternate method of justification
would be some indication of increased building permits issued. Also, since the above
referenced Hazen and Sawyer studies are 10 and 6 years old, respectively, an analysis of the
accuracy of the projections to this point could be utilized.
This is a phased project, with the current phase upgrading the existing 14 mgd plant to
provide a higher quality effluent and better sludge handling capability. A subsequent phase
expanding the plant to 18 mgd is recommended within the 20-year planning period. Portions
of the plant appear to be designed to facilitate this expansion to 18 mgd. The expansion to
design flow of 18 mgd is justified, based on a study done by Hazen and Sawyer in 1993, as
well as an EIS generated in 1996, concerning the Buckhom Reservoir. Using SRF criteria, a
20-year flow of 14 mgd is justified. In order for this office to support SRF funding for the
18 mgd portion of the project, a 20-year design flow of 18 mgd should be supported using
SRF guidelines as follows:
a.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page 4 of 5
V
1.
(Reference Page 4-27) The summary of Option A includes discussion as to the operational
problems associated with managing this system. In order to analyze the cost effectiveness of
the option, the cost of upgrading the system so as to eliminate these operational problems
should be provided and included in the PW analysis. Note that Construction Grants and
Loans can only participate in the most cost-effective option unless otherwise justified by
economic, environmental, social or institutional factors.
(Reference Page 4-20) The estimated cost for sludge facilities for a 14 mgd plant is listed as
$13,107,000 and the cost for sludge facilities for an 18 mgd plant is listed as $13,482,000.
Please provide a detailed cost breakdown and narrative to support that the cost difference
between the sludge facilities for a 14 mgd plant is less than 3% lower than the cost for sludge
facilities for an 18 mgd plant.
(Reference Page 4-20) In Option D, the cost of the land for the aerated static pile is excluded.
This cost should be included in the cost estimate.
(Reference Page 4-17) On this page, the cost for Option A is documented as $7,916,000 for
either a plant design condition of 14 mgd or of 18 mgd. Please justify the lack of cost
difference between sludge facilities sized to handle 14 mgd and sludge facilities sized to
handle 18 mgd.
Provide a detailed cost estimate for those items in the current upgrade that are designed to
facilitate the expansion to 18 mgd capacity design, and the 20-year capacity design. A
cost estimate should also be provided for the estimated cost at 14 mgd.
(Reference Page 4-28) As a justification for the selection of Option C as the preferred
alternative, the increased flexibility of providing Class A sludge is noted. Further discussion
of the benefits of this flexibility should be provided. For example, could this provide a
revenue generating product? In order to justify an additional $5,300,000 in project cost, the
flexibility benefits should be substantial. The justification also cites the fact that disposal
options are more certain. Please discuss this.
b. Demonstrate that the facility is capable of operating properly at both the current flow and
the 18 mgd.
alternative, provide the following information to enable us to assign a Reserve Capacity Cost
Ratio (RCFR) to each item:
Section 4
(Reference Section 4.4) This section notes a non-discharge land application alternative but
considers the alternative not to be valid and does not evaluate it. A present worth cost
analysis of this alternative should be provided to demonstrate this, particularly in light of the
anticipation of increasing restrictions on discharge into Hominy Creek. This cost analysis
should be compared to the selected alternative.
•»
2.
3.The schedule on Page 5-12 should be updated.
2.
3.
Page 5 of 5
VI
1.
(Reference Table 5-1) We note that on Page 5-7, the filtration rate on the deep bed filters
will be 3.9 gpm/sq ft. This seems to be a somewhat high rate for a deep bed filter. Please
discuss. We prefer a more conservative rate of 2.0 gpm/sq ft.
A Present Worth Analysis summary table should be provided, comparing the present worth
cost for all options.
A more detailed capital cost breakdown should be provided for each of the options in
Appendix C. The line items listed in each option should be broken down by process units,
i.e. digestors, etc.
The present worth analyses for all options should be revised. Construction costs should be
shown as a capital cost. Yearly O&M costs should be multiplied by the uniform series
present worth factor to determine the present worth value of O&M. The construction cost
and the present worth value of O&M should be summed up, and the present worth value of
salvage (salvage value multiplied by the single payment present worth factor) is deducted
from that sum to determine the present worth value of the alternative. This should be done
on a 20-year basis, and for the purpose of this report, a discount value of 6.125% is used.
user charges exceed 1.5% of the County’s median household income, the project
will be considered by EPA to be an “expensive” project and will warrant further evaluation
of alternatives. Therefore, options to reduce the total project cost and annual O&M cost
should be considered. Other options could include a High Unit Cost Grant, contributions
from other agencies, reduction in service area to include only the most densely populated
areas, reduction in scope, etc. Please provide information to confirm that the rate projected
on that page does not exceed 1.5% of the median household income.
VII Section 6
1. If expected
VIII Appendix C
1.
Section 5
Please demonstrate, by calculation, the ability of the plant as designed to meet the anticipated
NPDES Limits at a peak daily flow of 2.5 times design flow. This should be done on a
unit-by-unit basis and should include both the liquid and the sludge train. Plant
appurtenances such as influent pumping and piping and effluent pumping and piping should
be included.
2. (Reference Page 6-2) The projected user charge effect is estimated at S0.91/1000 gallons.
For the typical user of 5,000 gallons/month, the rate increase would be $4.55/month, or from
the existing typical user charge of $22.27/month to $26.82/month. Unless otherwise
justified, Page 6-2 should be revised to reflect this.
To:
From:
Subject:
cc:
Steve Zoufaly/ J. Todd Kennedy
Local Government Assistance Unit
As stated in the 201 document, the City plans to implement the improvements to the
existing 14 MGD plant during Phase I of the project and then the ultimate 20 year
design flow expansion during Phase II of the project. As stated previously, the NPDES
Unit has no objections to the proposed modification and improvements for the 14 MGD
design flow. However, prior to expanding to 18 MGD or funding of Phase II (18 MGD),
the document should be revised to reflect speculative limits for 18 MGD, thoroughly
document alternatives and thoroughly justify the 20 year flow projection.
The NPDES Unit has not received a request from the City of Wilson for speculative
limits for a flow of 18 MGD. An increase of permitted flow from 14 MGD to 18 MGD
could have a major impact on the dissolved oxygen of Contentnea Creek. Due to the
swamp-like nature of Contentnea Creek, providing speculative limits will be difficult
and could be time-consumptive. Review of dissolved oxygen data during the last permit
renewal indicated that downstream dissolved oxygen levels were depressed, which may
also have an effect on the speculative limits. Additionally, Contentnea Creek, below the
Wilson water supply intake, is listed as biologically impaired (with impairment
historically listed as attributable to sediment).
As stated in the document, the City of Wilson is required to meet more stringent
ammonia limits by July 1, 2004, as agreed through the adjudicatory settlement and
subsequent permit issuance dated September 28, 2001.
Ken Schuster, RRO/WQ
Central Files
NPDES Unit
City of Wilson - 201 Facilities Plan (September, 2002)
NPDES No. NC0023906
Wilson County
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
November 19, 2002
Susan A. Wilson, Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
The document primarily addresses how the City of Wilson will comply with the more
stringent ammonia limits at the current flow of 14 MGD. The NPDES Unit agrees that
upgrades to the plant are necessary to comply with the more stringent limits. In review
of the improvements for 14 MGD, the NPDES Unit also recommends that the chlorine
contact time be evaluated again to determine if adequate time is provided to
consistently meet the fecal coliform limit. This was a concern during the previous
review of the expansion to 14 MGD and is the reason Condition A.(6.) was implemented
in the permit.
I have reviewed the 201 Plan submitted by Hazen & Sawyer on behalf of the City of
Wilson.
Alternative analyses will have to be thoroughly documented prior to or upon any NPDES
application for expansion above 14 MGD. The NPDES Unit recommends that Wilson
thoroughly evaluate alternatives and re-use options prior to expansion of the treatment
plant. The NPDES Unit’s Engineering Alternatives Analysis Guidance document is
available on the Division’s website: [http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/
documents.html].
A L- O
Project Number ■Due Date:
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
a
□
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessaryu
Well Construction Permit□
Dredge and Fill Permit□
□
N/A 60 days
12
N/A
□The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
□Mining Permit
□North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
□
□Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
□Dam Safety Permit
NPDES-permrt to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
in coastal N.C. with organic soils.
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
not discharging into state surface waters.
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
the permit can be issued.
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
Normal Process Tim
(Statutory Time Limi
90-120 days
(N/A)
30 days
(60 days)
20 days
(30 days)
60 days
(90 days)
55 days
(90 days)
30 days
(90 days)
7 days
(15 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
olina
ivironmentand Natural Resources
90- 120 days
(N/A)
30 days
(60 days)
1 day
(N/A)
1 day
(N/A)
30 days
(N/A)
Thn rifriimi»nrafion£4»lliiliun 1 hnliol Actor l9/s
control plan wlfftw leqbired il one or rflOTg
days before beginning activity. A fee of $4(5
State of North^fcri
NCDENR Department o^mi
/ z •~7
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2p.O100,2Q.O3OO, 2H .0600)
Artyf open burning associated with subject proposal
/ must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D. 1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required ’if more than five
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Afte' review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permitjs) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this proiec
•be-praperly ni lrtn?rji.d fui uny land disturbingaethdry^An erosioniuscrfimentation
Lu bedbtuiUed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30
for the first acre or any part of an acre.
ing Office:
I
rnusv
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
□Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit□
□State Lakes Construction Permit
□401 Water Quality Certification N/A
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan' underground storage tanks (UST5) are discovered during any excavation operation.
□Compliance with ISA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
*Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application
by letter. No standard application form.
10 days
(N/A)
□ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
[phone]
□ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
□ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C. 28115
[phone]
□ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone]
□ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone]
60 days
(130 days)
55 days
(130 days)
45 days
(N/A)
22 days
(25 days)
10 days
(N/A)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
VEj Raleigh Regional Office
A 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
[phone]
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations.
Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify
N.C Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C 27611
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
□ Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
[phone]
2525223736 B WYNNE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:October 24, 2002
SUBJECT:
I
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Bennett Wynne /A/
Habitat Conservation Program
201 Facilities Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the City
of Wilson Hominy Creek WWMF, Wilson County, North Carolina Project
Number: 1209.
t Carolma Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the project for impacts
o wudlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
Coordination Act <48 St^ 401, as amended; 16 U.S C 661 et seq.). Section
o the Clean Water Act (as amended), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et
seq).
fS North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MailingAddres,: of Inland . Raltlgh)NC276i,.172l---------
xeiepnone. (919) 733^3633 ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
Wilson s wastewater treatment facility has recently been upgraded to 14 MGD, but
problems with handling solids remain. We understand the Amendment to be comprised of 2
phases, Phase I dealing with improved solids handling/treatment and Phase II entailing an
expansion to 18 MGD. At the outset (Phase I?), all work would be located on the existing
wastewater treatment facility site. We saw no description of potential infrastructure installation
that might be associated with the expansion to 18 MGD (Phase II?).
wr'n S ?Ort> WC *re ?nfertain as t0 whether the Amendment includes an expansion to 18
MGB If the expansion is included, we disagree with the EA’s assertion on p. 7-19 that there will
be no indirect or cumulative effects on wetlands (prime wildlife habitat and water quality
protection) and recommend that the recently completed CSI Guidance Memorandum be followed.
call me °“ ^efi0pportunityon this project If you have questions, please
PAGE 0110/24/2002 03:35
MEMORANDUM
TO:
SUBJECT:
Should you require further information in this regard, please advise.
c: Connie Horne
If there are any questions regarding air permit requirements for this facility, Mr. Ernie
Fuller, Raleigh Regional Air Quality Supervisor, should be contacted at [phone].
Additionally, the contractors constructing the components of the wastewater system
should take care to comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. Adequate
wetting, reseeding and covering of disturbed areas should be utilized during earthmoving
operations to mitigate any adverse impact from fugitive dust emissions.
Division of Air Quality
October 4, 2002
If construction of the new primary sludge pumping systems includes installation of
standby engines or engine-driven generators or if improvements or construction at the
wastewater management facility include installation of particulate sources such as lime
silos, boilers, emergency generators or peak-shaving generators, then an air permit may
be required.
The Division of Air Quality has reviewed the proposed project involving improvements
and expansion of the Hominy Creek Waste water Management Facility (WWMF) that
serves the City of Wilson and the Towns of Lucama and Black Creek in Wilson County,
North Carolina. The planned improvements include adding one aeration tank, upgrading
four existing anaerobic digesters and various improvements regarding the handling,
treatement and storage of sludge.
^vB. Keith Overcash, Acting Director
Project No. # 1209
201 Facilities Plan Amendment
Hominy Creek WWMF Upgrade and Expansion
City of Wilson, Wilson County
Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM:
o
January 23, 2003
Subject:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 (919) 733-21361621 Mail Service CenterEnvironmental Sciences Branch
k
This office has completed a review of the subject document prepared by the City dated
December 10, 2002. DWQ’s Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy was triggered by the
November and December 2001 toxicity test failures. An evaluation of reasonable potential to
violate instream action levels-rotai for these parameters was conducted by the NPDES Unit and
NOVs dated October 22, 2001, January 24, 2002 and March 11, 2002 were sent to the facility.
The City’s December 10 report cites no additional effluent toxicity permit limit violations
since December 2001 after eliminating a WWTP polymer that was suspected of causing the
chronic toxicity effluent permit limit violations. The City declined to perform metal “spiking” of
non-toxic samples during the nine month period.
The City requests that the December 10 report be considered as the final report “for the
evaluation of the causes for the toxicity failures experienced during August, November and
December 2001.” While our office considers that City’s actions to address these WET limit
failures to be proactive and appreciated, we cannot accept the December 10 report as conclusive
evidence to rule out copper and zinc as causative effluent toxicants. It appears that the City’s
investigative work regarding polymer usage had a positive effect in reducing effluent toxicity to
acceptable levels; however, evidence of instream concentrations for these parameters below the
action level standard does not “definitively” rule out these two metals.
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
The City submitted correspondence dated April 2, 2002 to our Unit and chose Option 3
(Toxicity Identification Evaluation) to definitively rule out copper and/or zinc as causes of
effluent toxicity.
Mr. Charles W. Pittman
City of Wilson
PO Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
Evaluation of Copper and Zinc per DWQ’s Copper and Zinc Action Level Policy
December 10, 2002 Report
City of Wilson WWTP
NPDES No. NC0023906
Wilson County
NCDENR
Customer Service
800 623-7748
Sbyyt
Sincerely,
cc:
Please feel free to contact me or Kevin Bowden at [phone] if you have any
questions.
Page 2
City of Wilson Copper and Zinc Evaluation
January 23,2003
In summary, the City remains subject to the provisions of DWQ’s Copper and Zinc Action Level
Policy should additional effluent toxicity violations occur in the future (ie, two effluent toxicity permit
limit violations occurring within the toxicity testing calendar quarter defined by the NPDES Permit).
Ken Schuster-Raleigh Regional Office
Kirk Stafford-Raleigh Regional Office
Dave Goodrich-NPDES Unit
Susan Wilson-NPDES Unit
Pretreatment Unit
Kevin Bowden-Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Marshall Hyatt, US EPA Region IV, Water Mgt. Div., 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Aquatic Toxicology Unit Files
Central Files
Matt Matthews, Supervisor
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
North Carolina,
T
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Pittman:
ICD/dr
Attachment (To All cc’s)
cc:
1633 Mail Service Center Raleigh, MC 27699-1633Construction Grants and Loans Section
Web Site: www.nccgl.net
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Ishwar Devkota, P.E., the State Project Review Engineer, at [phone].
City of Wilson
Post Office Box 10
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-0010
Attention: Mr. Charles W. Pittman, III
Review Comments on Proposed Changes
City of Wilson
Hominy Creek WWTF Improvements
Project No. CS370381-04
[phone]
FAX [phone]
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
«iment of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Green Engineering, P.A., (E. Leo Green, P.E.)
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Ishwar Devkota (Project Review Engineer)
DMU
SRF
--------
Customer Service
1 SCO 623-7748
A review of the proposed changes in the plans and specifications for the Wastewater
System Improvements at the Hominy Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) has been
completed by the Construction Grants and Loans Section. The comments resulting from this
review are being transmitted directly to your engineer for clarification and resolution; a copy is
attached for your reference.
Cecil Maaoe
Design Management Unit
Construction Grants and Loans Section
January id,, 2003
ro
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Design Management Unit
Review Comments on proposed changes on approved Plans and Specifications
Wastewater System Improvements - Hominy Creek WWTF
4. Plans should clearly indicate who is responsible for cleaning the existing basin before it
could be lined.
2. City of Wilson should send a request for proposed changes in writing stating the
justifications for these changes.
3. Engineer should request for change order approval by the Construction Grants and Loans
Section. The information outlined on the following web site should be addressed:
http://www.nccgl.net/fap/cwsrf/dlechangeorders.html
1. Provide a pennit modification request and an application with a S400.00 fee.