NC0025453_Permit application_20021009

I
I
APRIL 2002
I
I'
TOWN OF CLAYTON
LITTLE CREEK WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
NPDES PERMIT NC0025453
JOHNSTON COUNTY
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A CAPACITY
EXPANSION FROM 1.9 MGD TO 2.5 MGD
AND
ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
300 S.W. BROAD STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, N.C. 28388
[phone]
A 1
K z-
I
PROJECT CONTACTSI
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
I
Town of Clayton
I
I
Michael C. Wicker, P.E.
Angela Mettlen
Steve Biggs, Town Manager
Tim Simpson, Director Public Works
James Warren, WWTP Superintendent
Facility Address:
Durham Street Extension
Clayton, NC
[phone]
[phone] fax
Environmental Division Manager
Project Manager
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
300 SW Broad Street
Southern Pines, NC 28388
[phone]
[phone] fax
Post Office Box 879
231 E 2nd Street
Clayton, NC 27520-0879
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
NPDES FORM 2A APPLICATION OVERVIEW
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A.
B.
Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).C.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D.
1.
2.
3.
E.
1.
2.
3.
F.
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.
I G.
Page 1 of 26ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a “Basic Application Information” packet
and a “Supplemental Application Information” packet. The Basic Application Information packet is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.8. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow > 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through B.6.
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
FORM
2A
NPDES
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity Testing
Data):
Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes). SIUs are defined as:
All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
Any other industrial user that:
Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to Imgd,
Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLICANTS:
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet.I A.1. Facility Information.
Town of Clayton - Little Creek Water Reclamation FacilityFacility Name
Post Office Box 879Mailing Address
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Contact Person Steve Biggs
Town ManagerTitle
[phone]Telephone Number
Facility Address Durham Street Extension
Clayton, North Carolina(not P.O. Box)
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:I Same as aboveApplicant Name
I Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number ()
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
operatorowner
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
□ facility •/ applicant
NC0025453NPDES PSD
UIC Other
RCRA Other
Population ServedName Type of Collection System Ownership
I Town of Clayton 8,479 Separate Municipal
East Clayton area Industrial Area Separate Municipal
8,479Total population served
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 2 of 26
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
(include state-issued permits).
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
A.5.Indian Country.
Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?a.
Yes J No
b.
Yes No
Design flow rate 2.5 mgda.
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
1.318 1.419b.Annual average daily flow rate 1.356
Maximum daily flow rate 5.711 2.371 2.712c.
J Separate sanitary sewer 100 %
I Combined storm and sanitary sewer %
A.8. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
✓ Yes NoDoes the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.?a.
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i.Discharges of treated effluent 1
Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent 0ii.
0iii.Combined sewer overflow points
iv.Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)0
0Otherv.
b.
J No
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
Location:
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s)mgd
continuous or intermittent?Is discharge
Yes NoDoes the treatment works land-apply treated wastewater?c.
If yes, provide the following for each land application site:
Location: Pine Hollow Golf Course - Under design. To be completed with planned nutrient removal/reuse upgrades.
Number of acres:150 total acres with 65 acres to be used for irrigation initially
Annual average daily volume applied to site:0.15 mgd
continuous orIs land application v' intermittent?
d.
Yes ^No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 3 of 26
RIVER BASIN:
NeuseRenewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works?
Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? Yes
i:
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
A.6. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year’s data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12lh month of This year" occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
If transport is by a party other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number L i
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number L 1
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility.mgd
e.
□ Yes No
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed by this method:
□ continuous □ intermittent?Is disposal through this method or
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 4 of 26
Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection):
If yes, describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
A.9. Description of Outfall.
001Outfall numbera.
b.Location
(Zip Code)
Distance from shore (if applicable) ft.c.
Depth below surface (if applicable)d.3 ft.
Average daily flow rate 1.419 mgde.
Yes J No (gotoA.9.g.)f.Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge?
If yes, provide the following information:
Number of times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge: mgd
Months in which discharge occurs:
Yes J NoIs outfall equipped with a diffuser?9-
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
Name of receiving water Neuse Rivera.
Neuse Subbasin 03-04-02b.Name of watershed (if known)
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known):
I Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): Neuse River Basinc.
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known):03020201
Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable) 7Q10 = 186 cfs based on USGS data (summer 7Q10)d.
cfscfschronic acute
mg/l of CaCO3Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable): e.
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 5 of 26
1
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
If you answered “Yes” to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A.12 once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered “No” to question
A.8.a, go to Part B, “Additional Application information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd.”
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
North Carolina
(State)
Town of Clayton - Neuse River Between SR 1700 and NC 42
(City or town, if applicable)
Johnston County
(County)
35°39’54”
(Latitude)
78°25*53”
(Longitude)
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
A.11. Description of Treatment
a.
J Advanced Other.Describe:
b.Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BODS removal or Design CBOD5 removal 98 %
Design SS removal 96 %
Design P removal 75 %
Design N removal 92.5 %
Other %
What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:c.
UV Disinfection
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? Yes No
Yes NoDoes the treatment plant have post aeration?
I
Outfall number 001
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
PARAMETER
I Value Units Value Units Number of Samples
6.2pH (Minimum)s.u.
pH (Maximum)7.7 s.u.
2.712 MGDFlow Rate 1.419 MGD 365
8 OCTemperature (Winter)
29 OC
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT ML/MDL
Cone.Units Cone.Units
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BODS 23 mg/l 4 mg/l 252 2
CBOD5
FECAL COLIFORM 5200 100 ml 98 100 ml 204 1
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)mg/l27 2.5 mg/l 252 2
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 6 of 26
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
Primary Secondary
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Number of
Samples
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (Report one)
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is
discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Temperature (Summer)
• For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
I
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART B.
B.l.
450,000 gpd
e.
f.
B.3.
Mailing Address:
n
a.
b.
Yes
Page 7 of 26EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Telephone Number
Responsibilities of Contractor
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
The Town of Clayton has an on-going sewer system evaluation and rehabilitation program.
Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
v' No
ADDITIONAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS WITH A DESIGN FLOW GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL TO 0.1 MGD (100,000 gallons per day).
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redundancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? Yes J No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor’s responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name:__________________________________________________________________________ _________ _______
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within ’A mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail,
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show the entire
area.)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable.
All applicants with a design flow rate > 0.1 mgd must answer questions B.1 through B.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
B.5. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
001 - Treatment plant unit upgrades to allow for a capacity increase to 2.5 MGD. The project includes
modifications to the headworks, influent pump station, aeration basins, clarifiers, sludge pumping, and re­
routing of the backwash line.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
If the answer to B.S.b is “Yes,” briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).c.
d.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
I - Begin Construction I 08/15/2001
- End Construction 07/11/2002
- Begin Discharge L L
- Attain Operational Level I
□ NoHave appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained?v' Yese.
Describe briefly: An Authorization to Construct these treatment plant modification was issued by NCDENR on May 24,
2001.
List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.e.
001 - Wastewater Treatment Enhancements for Nutrient Removal and Wastewater Reuse
f.
= Yes
If the answer to B.S.b is “Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).g-
h.
I
Actual CompletionSchedule
MM/DD/YYYYImplementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction ///
/- End Construction
L L- Begin Discharge
- Attain Operational Level /!L
□ Yes □ NoHave appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained?e.
Describe briefly:
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 8 of 26
Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
No
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
B.5. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local, State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
The Amendment to the Clayton 201 Facilities Plan was submitted on December 15, 2001. The current schedule call for
plans and specification to be submitted within 8 months of NCDENR approval of the amended 201 Facilities Plan; obtain
approvals of plans and specifications from NCDENR within 3 months of submittal; advertise, bid, and complete the bid
award within 3 months of the approval of the plans and specifications and issuance of the ATC; and complete
construction of the improvements within 18 months after the start of construction.
Outfall Number: 001
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT ML/MDL
Cone.Units Cone.Units
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)9.9 mg/I 1.6 mg/I 258 .5 mg
N/A Not is Use
DISSOLVED OXYGEN 9.8 mg/I 7.9 mg/I 252 N/A
9.4 mg/I 2.4 mg/I 52
12 mg/I 3.8 mg/I 52
OIL and GREASE 6.1 mg/I 5.3 mg/I 3 ERA 1664 5
PHOSPHORUS (Total)4.1 mg/I 1.5 mg/I 52 .1
<1 mg/I <1 mg/I STM 2540C3 1
OTHER
I
I
I
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 9 of 26
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(TDS)
TOTAL KJELDAHL
NITROGEN (TKN)
CHLORINE (TOTAL
RESIDUAL, TRC)
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NITROGEN
END OF PART B.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
MAXIMUM DAILY
DISCHARGE
Number of
Samples
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
B.6. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the indicated
effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent is discharged. Do not include information
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and on-half years old.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PARTC. CERTIFICATION
ALL APPUCANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION.
Name and official title Steve Biggs, Town Manager
SignatureI 4^-
Telephone number
Date signedI
I
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
I
27699-1617
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 10 of 26
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must complete all applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
NCDENR/ DWQ
Attn: NPDESUnit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
[phone]_______
7-//-^
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
v' Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
v' Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
J Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRA/CERCLA Wastes)
□ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART D. EXPANDED EFFLUENT TESTING DATA
Refer to the directions on the cover page to determine whether this section applies to the treatment works.
Outfall number:001
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGEIPOLLUTANT ML/MDL
Cone.Units Mass Units Cone.Units Mass Units
I METALS (TOTAL RECOVERABLE), CYANIDE, PHENOLS, AND HARDNESS.
<5 ug/lANTIMONY <5 ug/l 3 ERA 200.7 5
I ARSENIC <5 ug/l <5 ug/l 4 EPA 200 F 5
ug/lBERYLLIUM<1 <1 ug/l 3 EPA 200.7 1
CADMIUM <1 ug/l <1 ug/l 4 EPA 200 F 1
<2 ug/lCHROMIUM <2 ug/l 4 EPA 200 F 2
8.2 ug/lCOPPER 3.2 ug/l 12 EPA 200 F 10
13 ug/lLEAD 6.8 ug/l 24 EPA 200 F 2IMERCURY<.2 ug/l <.2 ug/l 4 EPA 245.1 .2
I <5 ug/INICKEL <5 ug/l 4 EPA 200 F 5
<5 ug/l ug/lSELENIUM<5 4 EPA 200 F 5
I 2.3 ug/lSILVER 2 ug/l 24 EPA 200 F 2
<2THALLIUM ug/l <2 ug/l 3 EPA 200 F 2
270 ug/l 142ZINC ug/l 12 EPA 200.7 2
<.002 mg/1CYANIDE <.002 mg/l 4 EPA 335.3 .002
<.01 mg/l <.01 ug/l 3 EPA 420.1 .01
101 mg/lHARDNESS (as CaCO3)96 mg/l 3 EPA 200.8
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 11 of 26
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other metals requested by the permit writer
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
TOTAL PHENOLIC
COMPOUNDS
Number
of
Samples
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
(Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
Effluent Testing: 1.0 mgd and Pretreatment Works. If the treatment works has a design flow greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd or it has (or is required
to have) a pretreatment program, or is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the data, then provide effluent testing data for the following
pollutants. Provide the indicated effluent testing information and any other information required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which
effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected
through analyses conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, these data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and
other appropriate QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. Indicate in the blank rows provided below
any data you may have on pollutants not specifically listed in this form. At a minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three pollutant
scans and must be no more than four and one-half years old.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
(Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)Outfall number: 001
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGEMAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
ML/MDLPOLLUTANT
UnitsCone.Units Mass Units Cone.Units MassIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ug/l 3 GCMS 624 100<100 ug/l <100ACROLEIN
ug/l 3 GCMS 624 100<100 ug/l <100ACRYLONITRILE
I <1 ug/l <1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624 1BENZENE
<1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624 1<1 ug/lBROMOFORM
GCMS 624 1ug/l <1 ug/i 3<1
<1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624 1<1 ug/lCHLOROBENZENE
GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l <1 ug/l 3
ug/l 3 GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l <1CHLOROETHANE
ug/l 3 GCMS 624 5<5 ug/l <5
I ug/l 3 GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l <1CHLOROFORM
GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l 3<1 ug/l
I GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l <1 ug/l 31,1-DICHLOROETHANE
GCMS 624 1ug/l 3ug/l <1<11,2-DICHLOROETHANEI GCMS 624 1<1 ug/l 3<1 ug/l
I GCMS 624<1 ug/l 3 1<1 ug/l
GCMS 624 13<1 ug/l <11,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
I GCMS 624 13ug/l <1<1
GCMS 624 1<1 3<1 ug/lETHYLBENZENE
GCMS 624 13<1 ug/l <1METHYL BROMIDE
GCMS 624 1<1 3<1 ug/lMETHYL CHLORIDEI GCMS 624 53ug/l <5<5METHYLENE CHLORIDE
I GCMS 624 1<1 3<1 ug/l
GCMS 624 1<1 3<1 ug/l
GCMS624 1<1 3<1 ug/lTOLUENE
Page 12 of 26EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
1
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Number
of
Samples
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
TETRACHLORO­
ETHYLENE
1,1,2,2-TETRA-
CHLOROETHANE
TRANS-1.2-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE
1,1-DICHLORO-
ETHYLENE
1,3-DICHLORO-
PROPYLENE
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORODIBROMO­
METHANE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL
ETHER
DICHLOROBROMO­
METHANE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
Outfall number: 001 (Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT MUMDL
Cone.Units Cone.Mass Units Units UnitsMassI
<1 ug/l <1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624
I ug/l<1 <1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624
<1 ug/lTRICHLOROETHYLENE <1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624
ug/lVINYL CHLORIDE <1 <1 ug/l 3 GCMS 624
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other volatile organic compounds requested by the permit writer
ACID-EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS
I P-CHLORO-M-CRESOL <10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8240 10
<10 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8240 102-CHLOROPHENOL
<10 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8240 102,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
<10 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8240 102,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
ug/l4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL <50 <10 3 GCMS 8240 50
<50 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 82402.4-DINITROPHENOL 50
<10 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8240 102-NITROPHENOL
ug/l 3 GCMS 8240 504-NITROPHENOL <50 <10
ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8240 50<50PENTACHLOROPHENOL
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 10PHENOL
<10 ug/l 3 10<10 ug/I
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other acid-extractable compounds requested by the permit writer
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8270 10<10 ug/lACENAPHTHENE
I GCMS 8270 10<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3ACENAPHTHYLENE
3 GCMS 8270<10 ug/I <10 ug/lANTHRACENE
GCMS 8270<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3BENZIDINE
GCMS 8270<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3BENZO(A)ANTHRACENEI 3 GCMS 8270<10 ug/l <10 ug/lBENZO(A)PYRENE
I EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 13 of 26
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Number
of
Samples
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
2,4,6-
TRICHLOROPHENOL
1.1,2-
TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-
TRICHLOROETHANE
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:I Neuse
Outfall number: 001 (Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT ML/MDLCone.Units Mass Units Cone.Units Mass Units
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/lBENZO(GHI)PERYLENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
I <10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
I <10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270I<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
I <10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
I <10 ug/lCHRYSENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/lDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/lDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 82701,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
<10 ug/l1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 82701,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
I <10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l <10 ug/lDIETHYL PHTHALATE 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l ug/lDIMETHYL PHTHALATE <10 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l ug/l2,4-DINITROTOLUENE <10 3 GCMS 8270
<10 ug/l2,6-DINITROTOLUENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 14 of 26
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Number
of
Samples
4-CHLORPHENYL
PHENYL ETHER
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
1,2-DIPHENYL-
HYDRAZINE
3,3-DICHLORO-
BENZIDINE
DIBENZO(A,H)
ANTHRACENE
2-CHLORO-
NAPHTHALENE
4-BROMOPHENYL
PHENYL ETHER
BUTYL BENZYL
PHTHALATE
BIS (2-CHLOROISO-
PROPYL) ETHER
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
BENZO(K)
FLUORANTHENE
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY)
METHANE
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL)-
ETHER
3,4 BENZO­
FLUORANTHENE
<10
___
I
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
Outfall number 001 (Complete once for each outfall discharging effluent to waters of the United States.)
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
POLLUTANT ML/MDLCone.Units Mass Units Cone.Units Mass Units
ug/lFLUORANTHENE<10 <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
<10 ug/lFLUORENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
<10 ug/lHEXACHLOROBENZENE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
ug/l<10 <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 20
<10 ug/lHEXACHLOROETHANE <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10
ug/l<10 <10 ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10ISOPHORONE
<10 ug/l <10 ug/l GCMS 8270NAPHTHALENE3 10
<10 ug/l <10 GCMS 8270NITROBENZENEug/l 3 10
<10 ug/l <10 GCMS 8270ug/l 3 10
<10 ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8270ug/l 10
ug/l <10 GCMS 8270<10 ug/l 3 10
I ug/l GCMS 8270<10 <10 ug/l 3 10PHENANTHRENE
ug/l <10 3 GCMS 8270<10 ug/l 10PYRENE
ug/l GCMS 8270<10 <10 ug/l 3 10
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other base-neutral compounds requested by the permit writer
GCMS 8270<10 ug/l <10 ug/l 3 10
Use this space (or a separate sheet) to provide information on other pollutants (e.g., pesticides) requested by the permit writer
ug/l ug/l 3 GCMS 8270 10<10 <10
I
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 15 of 26
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
END OF PART D.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
Number
of
Samples
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
N-NITROSODI-
METHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-
PHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-
PROPYLAMINE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)
PYRENE
HEXACHLORO­
BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLO-
PENTADIENE
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
1,2,4-
TRICHLOROBENZENE
I
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
I SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART E. TOXICITY TESTING DATA
I
I Required Tests. Attached Indicate the number of whole effluent toxicity tests conducted in the past four and one-half years.E.1.
□ acute Clayton submits quarterly toxicity testing to NCDENR as required by their NPDES permit.v' chronic
E.2.
Test number Test numberTest number
I Test information.a.
Test Species & test method number
I Age at initiation of test
Outfall number
Dates sample collected
Date test started
Duration
b. Give toxicity test methods followed.
I Manual title
Edition number and year of publication
Page number(s)
Give the sample collection method(s) used. For multiple grab samples, indicate the number of grab samples used.c.
24-Hour composite
Grab
I d. Indicate where the sample was taken in relation to disinfection. (Check all that apply for each.
Before disinfection
After disinfection
After dechlorination
Page 16 of 26EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
POTWs meeting one or more of the following criteria must provide the results of whole effluent toxicity tests for acute or chronic toxicity for each of the
facility's discharge points: 1) POTWs with a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1.0 mgd; 2) POTWs with a pretreatment program (or those that are
required to have one under 40 CFR Part 403); or 3) POTWs required by the permitting authority to submit data for these parameters.
• At a minimum, these results must include quarterly testing for a 12-month period within the past 1 year using multiple species (minimum of two
species), or the results from four tests performed at least annually in the four and one-half years prior to the application, provided the results
show no appreciable toxicity, and testing for acute and/or chronic toxicity, depending on the range of receiving water dilution. Do not include
information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA/QC
requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136.
• In addition, submit the results of any other whole effluent toxicity tests from the past four and one-half years. If a whole effluent toxicity test
conducted during the past four and one-half years revealed toxicity, provide any information on the cause of the toxicity or any results of a
toxicity reduction evaluation, if one was conducted.
• If you have already submitted any of the information requested in Part E, you need not submit it again. Rather, provide the information
requested in question E.4 for previously submitted information. If EPA methods were not used, report the reasons for using alternate methods.
If test summaries are available that contain all of the information requested below, they may be submitted in place of Part E.
If no biomonitoring data is required, do not complete Part E. Refer to the Application Overview for directions on which other sections of the form to
complete.
Individual Test Data. Complete the following chart for each whole effluent toxicity test conducted in the last four and one-half years. Allow one
column per test (where each species constitutes a test). Copy this page if more than three tests are being reported.
PERMIT ACTION
REQUESTED:
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
Test number:Test number:Test number:
e. Describe the point in the treatment process at which the sample was collected.
Sample was collected:
f.For each test, include whether the test was intended to assess chronic toxicity, acute toxicity, or both
Chronic toxicity
Acute toxicity
g. Provide the type of test performed.
Static
Static-renewal
Flow-through
h.Source of dilution water. If laboratory water, specify type; if receiving water, specify source.
Laboratory water
I Receiving water
Type of dilution water. If salt water, specify “natural" or type of artificial sea salts or brine used.i.
Fresh water
Salt water
Give the percentage effluent used for all concentrations in the test series.j-
k. Parameters measured during the test. (State whether parameter meets test method specifications)
pH
Salinity
Temperature
Ammonia
Dissolved oxygen
I.Test Results.
Acute:
%% %
LC50
%%%95% C.l.
% %%Control percent survival
Other(describe)
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 17 of 26
Percent survival in 100%
effluent
PERMIT ACTION
REQUESTED:
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
I Neuse
Chronic:
NOEC %%%
IC25 %%%
Control percent survival %%%
Other (describe)
m. Quality Control/Quality Assurance.
Is reference toxicant data available?
I I I I I I
Other (describe)
E.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. Is the treatment works involved in a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation?
□ Yes No If yes, describe:
I
I IDate submitted:(MM/DD/YYYY)
Summary of results: (see instructions)
The Town of Clayton submits quarterly chronic toxicity tests to NCDENR in accordance with their NPDES permit.
The Town authorizes NCDENR to obtain this testing information from the state database for use with this permit
application. The most recent chronic toxicity test results, however, are included with this application. The Town
is currently completing additional acute (fathead minnow) testing. Copies of the two tests recently completed are
attached. The Town will continue to complete acute toxicity test with their quarterly chronic testing for the next
several quarters. These future test results will be submitted directly to NCDENR for use with this permit
application.
I
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 18 of 26
Was reference toxicant test within
acceptable bounds?
END OF PART E.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE.
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
What date was reference toxicant test
run (MM/DD/YYYY)?
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
E.4. Summary of Submitted Biomonitoring Test Information. If you have submitted biomonitoring test information, or information regarding the
cause of toxicity, within the past four and one-half years, provide the dates the information was submitted to the permitting authority and a summary
of the results.
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.l.Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
✓ Yes □ No
I
Number of non-categorical SIUs.1a.
b.Number of CIUs.3
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Name:Bayer Corp
Mailing Address:8368 US Highway 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
F.4.Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU’s discharge.
Extraction Machines
Principal product(s):Biological Medical Products
Raw material(s):Blood Plasma
F.6.Flow Rate.
a.
300,000 gpd continuous or intermittent)
b.
100,000 gptf continuous or intermittent)
F.7.Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
□ NoLocal limits / Yesa.
□ Nob.Categorical pretreatment standards z Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
CFR 439.20
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 19 of 26
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA.CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
Non-process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non-process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intemnittent.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy guestions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information reguested for each SIU.
Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU’s
discharge.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
F.8.
If yes, describe each episode.
Christmas 2000, the plant experienced excessive foaming due to excessive CIP 200 discharge; however, no NPDES
excursions occurred.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?F.9.
Yes No (goto F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
Rail Truck Dedicated Pipe
Amount Units
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
Yes (complete F. 13 through F. 15.)✓ No
F.15. Waste Treatment.
Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?a.
Yes No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?b.
Continuous Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 20 of 26
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
J Yes No
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.l.Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
•S Yes □ No
F.2.
Number of non-categorical SIUs.1c.
d.Number of CIUs.3
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Name:Novo Nordisk
Mailing Address:3612 Powhattan Road
Clayton, NC 27520
F.4.Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Mixing and Packaging
F.5.
Insulin for I.V. InjectionPrincipal product(s):
Insulin CrystalsRaw material(s):
F.6.Flow Rate.
c.
52,000 gpd continuous or intermittent)
d.
43,000 (£gpd continuous or intermittent)
F.7.Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
J Yes □ NoLocal limitsa.
Z Yes □ Nob.Categorical pretreatment standards
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
CFR 439.40
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 21 of 26
RIVER BASIN:
NeuseRenewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
Non-process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non-process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA.CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU's
discharge.
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
I
F.8.
If yes, describe each episode.
I
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?F.9.
□ Yes
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
□ Truck □ Rail □ Dedicated Pipe
I ERA Hazardous Waste Number Units
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
□ Yes (complete F. 13 through F. 15.)Z No
I
I
F.15. Waste Treatment.
Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?c.
□ No□ Yes
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
I Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?d.
□ Continuous □ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.I
I
Page 22 of 26EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
□ Yes ■/ No
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
Amount
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
Z No (go to F. 12)
I PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.l.
No
F.2.
I Number of non-categorical SIUs.1e.
I f.Number of CIUs.3
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Name:Fresnius Kabi Clayton - L.P.
8484 U.S. 70 West / Post Office Box 597Mailing Address:I Clayton, NC 27520
F.4.Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU’s discharge.I
I.V. Nutritional ProductsPrincipal product(s):
Soybean Oil, Egg Yolks, Glycerin, Amino AcidsRaw material(s):
F.6.Flow Rate.
e.
65,000 «gpd continuous or intermittent)
I f.
35,000 «gpd continuous or intermittent)I F.7.Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
•S Yes NoLocal limitsa.
I Categorical pretreatment standards J Yes Nob.
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
I CFR 439.40
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 23 of 26
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA.CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
Non-process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non-process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system
in gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
Yes
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works, copy guestions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information reguested for each SIU.
Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per
day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or contribute to the SIU’s
discharge.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works. Submit additional pages
as necessary.
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
F.8.
If yes, describe each episode.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9.RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
□ Yes No (go to F. 12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
□ Truck □ Rail □ Dedicated Pipe
UnitsAmount
I
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
□ Yes (complete F. 13 through F. 15.)v' No
I F.15. Waste Treatment.
Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?e.
□ No□ Yes
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
I f.Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
□ Intermittent□ Continuous If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
ERA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces ERA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.Page 24 of 26
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or contributed to any problems (e.g.,
upsets, interference) at the treatment works in the past three years?
□ Yes J No
Renewal / Capacity
Increase to 2.5 mgd
RIVER BASIN:
Neuse
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
NC0025453
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number
I
Control
Control
4? V’UD
I °C °C
9 11 12
2X
L
4 5 10 11 12
2U
O.qi?
Mean
ffluent%
O.&3
1 4 £10
fluent%
3 9 10
I DWQ form AT-3 (8/91) Rev. 11/95
JZ.
.14
.2H
7.54
ln l l l c rraTr
10
3^
L
9~
L
10
-5 6 7 8
2? |ZZ|ZL |/q |^q IS
Chlorine(mg/T
Sample temp, at receipt
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
Grab
Composite
(Duration)
Hardness(rng/I
Spec.Cond.(Limhos/cm
Imail
TO:
Test
Information'
7. Rfidf
az
7. Red
IV.I
pH Final 740
D.O. Initial ?fjt|
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
ft'uent%
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
ronic Ceriodaphnia
Pipe# GO) County —
Comments
Sample 2
7/ZoM
<04
3>-o '
_Zk
1X2
Start Time End Time
‘1 '■3o onuo
Renewl Tenew2
Control Control
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
744
2$l
# Young
Adult
(L)ive (D)ead
- --------— 3 4 .5 6 7 8
Star! Date
Start
i.n
2%
E-OZ- v.<;3
2£|
2I1J
7.13
S-ZI
2S,o
Z3.|
Critical Sum
X<o
TS.cO
7 5. co
~75So
Sample 1
L
6
L
8
L
9Jffluent%
2l-l$
<0A
l-Z
L
7
ns
% Rad
110
Mean
■A Red
Mean
^48 Hour Mortality
Oof 10 '
r—2 13 14 5
11 L I L I L
U
zulzi |2^27|^|3^|i4|3I Zfc^7
M lXXUT l l l
J—j-3— 3 4 5 6 7 8
z/
L XfL[L|c C~ ~L ZU L to
-2—- 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9Bffluent%
fuT
Z7o
1
Mean
# Young ,
■ Z 27 Adult U . l~ h |~1 1—I —L21L±- ||(L)ive (D)ead L L LI. L L L L L L
“l -------------------------— 2 3 4
10 Mean
|Z2-ho
c|L|L l|l|l|l|l Z
-6 7 8 9
2-j Mb
Non-Parametric Analysis (if applicable!:
Method: STlgUS
Effluent %
o.ms
0.F3
ATT: Environmental Sciences Branch
Div. of Water Quality
N.C. DENR y
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
G.^%
Control
I
Should use highest test concentration or
highest concentration with D.O. >5.0 mg/l
t% Reduction from Control Reproduction Mean
Treatment G-t1!
pH Initial 7t2. |7ffL{
HI
fog
ZX-o
Organism#
_678
Reproduction Analysis:
Repro. LOEC=_Lb£_%; NOEC=_0.U%
Method: 57^1*5
Normal Distrib? AJO Method: KoiMHoagy
Statistic:^ ST ft Critical: |.oj5
Equal Variances? Method: /AXfi^FT
Statistic.7I>i£iZQ—_ Critical: < 5,0 3
-----:____________£ffluent Aq^pc Toxicity Report Form/Phase
FaCll,ly T-------- --------------------------------------------------NPDES#: NC 00fS
m Labp^tory Performing Test lOTlC
• x Itn
J “^nature ofO.R.a----------------------------------------------------------------------------
■LX^—-----------------------------------------------------------Signature of Lab Supen/isor
Renew! henew2
xn.
740
fclR
tob
2 <3
24.4
------Chronic Test Results"
■U680 Final Control Mortality °/. Ct
% Control 3rd Brood
_______Control Repro CV ;). 3
48 Hour Mortality"
Control |wc
. ° of J_0_
Significant? | Y | XD
Final Mortality Sjg^canT©
------------Yo ot(j No" ConcS)
Rank Sum
loo-00
hC.SQ
GG-oo
Overall Analygis;
Result = PASS/FAIL or
Test LQEC=>L-^ %; NOEC= %
Chronic Values %
End Date
io
Start
A DDK Environmental, Inc. A
^laboratory division
I
I
County Johnston
I
Control
21.5-h 24-h
I 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12# YoungControl 0.23 20 28 23 22 26 27 21 19 21 NA NA
100LLLLILLLLLLNANA
13.31234567891011# YoungEffluent%21 26 iwc2423242526242222NA1000.415 10LnLLLLLLLLLNA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9# YoungEffluent%28 22 25 25 21 26 26 Reproduction Analysis:21 23 20
0.83 L L L L L L L L L L Reproduction LOEC=>6-64 %;NOEC= 6.64%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Method:# Young DunnetVs TestEffluent%22 22 20 28 27 20 26 23 24 24 Normal Distrib?Kolmogorov D1.66I L L L L L L L L L L Statistic:0.579 1.035• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9# YoungEffluent%17 30 22 23 25 27 29 24 22 22
3.32 L L L L L L L L L L Effluent0/.Rank Sum Critical Sum1234567890.415# YoungEffluent%26 28 25 30 29 27 26 23 31 28 0.83
6.64 L L L L L L L L L L
I
46
107
Adult
(LMve (Plead
Adult
(Dive (Plead
Adult
(Llive (Plead
Adull
(Lliwa (Plead
Adult
(Dive (Plead
Adult
(Dive (Plead
Should use
highest test
concentration or
highest concentration
% Reduction
from Control
Reproduction Mean
Treatment
pH Initial
pH Final
D.O. Initial
D.O. Final
Temp. Initial
Temp. Final
Critical:
Npn-Parametric Analysis (if applicable)-
Method:
MAIL
TO:
W
Information*
6.64 %
%
Organism «
5
506 Colwell Drive
Brevard, NC 28712
10 mean
28 27.31
tL o.oj
Sample 2
08-10-00
Pipe# 0Q1
Comments:
1.66
3.32
6.64
Sample 1
08-07-00
Start Dafn
08-09-00
Start — i
90%
7.65
7.69
8.1
8.3
24.5
24.3
Start
1716
Start
Control
7.78
7.69
8.2
8,2
24.5
24.3
24.1
IR.
0.0
23.6
■TRe
0.0
23.7
‘tRe
0.0
I no cone.
X
I iTnd Time
J__
Renew!
Control
7.69
7.75
8.0
7.8
24,1
24.2
' - » I I .0909 [ |
Renew2
Control
”7.81
7.80
8.2
7.8
24.3
25.4
12 mean
NA^s.?!
£tRed
NA | oo|
' I FndOala
1 | 08-16-00
Renew!
90%
~ 7.72
7.77
8.7
7,9
24,1
24.2
North Carolina DENR
DWQ/Envlronmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mall Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
10 mean
n
Renew2
90%
7.76
7.81
8.7
7.8
24.3
25.4
Chronic Test Results'
Final Control Mortality %
% Control with 3rd Brood
Control Reproduction CV |
48 Hour Mortality
----CanlrnL
Q o
Significant?' |^0 |
Final Mortality Slanificant
• %
10 mean
10 mean
Overall AnaJysfe<
Result QASSJfaIL or
TestLOEC^r >6 64 o/o. n0EC=
Chronic Value = >e.B4
484
<0.10
2?9 T
498
<0.10
13
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Effluent Aquatic Toxldty Report Form/Phase || Chronic Ceriodaphn^’™"1 [e-mail]
l^aboratoiy Performing Test DDK Environmental, taZ--------
Sample Information
Collection Start Date
Grab
Composite (Duration)
Hardness (mg/L)
Spec. Cond. (pmhos/cm)
Chlorine (mg/L)
Sample Temp, at Receipt
Yes Method:
I Fo:Chronic Pass/Fail and Acute Date: 09/21/01
NPDES#: NC0025453 Pipe#:001 County: JOHNSTON
r
Comments:
I ator m Responsible Charge
I Li •oratory Supervisor *
Environmental Sciences Branch
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ■e 9 10 11 12
% Mortality# Young Produced Avg.Reprod.34 32 36 34 30 33 32 33 35 33 31 34
L L L L L L L L L L L L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PASS FAIL
I # Young Produced 30 32 35 31 36 33 29 34 34 28 36 33 orgs X
Check OneAdult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L L L L L L L L L
1st sample 1st sample 2nd sample
Control 7.6 7.9 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.0
7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.1
1st
Grab Comp.Duration
Sample 1 24 hrs
Sample 2 24 hrssample
Hardness(mg/1)468.3 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.7
Spec. Cond.(^mhos)166 747 787reatment 2 8.3 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.9
<0.1 <0.1
0.8 3.3
%%%%%%%%%Concentration
%%%%%%%%%%
start/end
Control
pHD.O.
Organism Tested:
:::::::::
[CONTROL ORGANISMS
Method of Determination
Moving Average
Spearman Karber
Probit
Other
Control CV
5.067%
High
Cone.
I
Note: Please
Complete This
Section Also
S
A
M
P
S
A
M
P
LC50/Acute Toxicity Test
'^Mortality expressed as %, combining replicates)
%
0.00
Treatment 2
0.00
Control
D
I
L
U
T
32.58
Treatment 2
33.08
Control
s
t
a
r
t
1st
e
n
d
e
n
d
e
n
d
2nd
P/F
LC50 = , %
95% Confidence Limits
% -- %
Mortality
start/end
ceriodaphnia
Organism Tested; Ceriodaphnia dubia
Copied from DEM form AT-1 (3/87)
X
‘X
yffluent %: 1.66%
■TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS
I
PH
jrreatment 2
.0.
Control
BlAdult (L)ive (D)ead
s
t
a
r
t
1st sample
s
t
a
r
t
2nd sample
X J \
“Sign.
Div. of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept, of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445
Chronic Test Results
Calculated t = 0.553
Tabular t = 2.508
% Reduction = 1.51
% control <—-
producing 3rd
brood
100%
X
“S’
PASSED: 1.51% Reduction *
Chlorine(mg/1)
Sample temp, at receipt (°C)
Complete This For Either Test
Test Start Date: 09/05/01
Collection (Start) Date
Sample 1: 09/03/01 Sample 2: 09/06/01
Sample Type/Duration
Duration(hrs):
rev. 11/95 (DUBIA ver. 4.32)
Effluent Toxicity Report
Facility: CLAYTON WWTP
LaboratfirV^e^^rming Test: TRITEST, INC.
atpxe
^Vork Order: 01090-00100
Chronic Pass/Fail Reproduction Toxicity Test
EffluentI - Chronic Pass/Fail and Acut'
001
Comments:
Responsible Charge
I
* PASSED:-6.85% Reduction *
Work Ord,r: 0105-721-001I MAIL original TO:
I Toxicity Test
control ORGANISMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# Young Produced 27 23 %32 30 31 21 32 Avg.Reprod.25 34 24 28 29I.Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L L L L L L L L L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# Young Produced PASS FAIL30I2632333227303026283134X
Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L L L L Check OneLLLLL
PH
TestControl8.0 8.0 8.0
Treatment 2 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.1 7.7 8.1
Grab Comp.DurationISample 1 X 24 hrs
Sample 2 X 24 hrs
8.0 8.0 448.0
8.0 .8.0 8.2 8.1 1898.1 7498.1 694
<0.1 <0.1
3.5 1.9as %,I %%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%I
pH D.O.
combining replicates)
%
North Carolina
Chronic Pass/FailCeriodaphnia
, --- Reproduction
Probit
Other High
Cone.
28.00
Control
S
A
M
P
S
A
M
P
D
I
L
U
T
29.92
Treatment 2
2nd
P/F
s
t
a
r
t
1st
e
n
d
e
n
d
s
t
a
r
t
2nd
e
n
d ‘
_ I
Note: Please
Complete This
Section Also
% ' 'Concentration
%Mortality
start/end start/end
Control
Date: 06/21/01
County; JOHNSTON
-C50
NC0025453 Pip7# :
1st sample
7.9
27607-6445
Results
t = -1.363
= 2.508
-6.85
D.O.
Control
s
t
a
r
t
1st sample
8.2
Method of Determination
Moving Average
Spearman Karber
LC50 = %
95% Confidence Limits
-------%%
X
-Sicnrfaf
x A-fjz
NPDESfl:
INC.
1st sample
7.9
Effluent %; 1.66%
TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS
u¥eof Laboratory Supervisor
Hardness(mg/1)
Spec. Cond. (/^mhos)
Chlorine(mg/1)
Sample temp, at receipt(°C)
m Complete This For Either
Te?t Start Date: 06/06/01
Collection (Start) “
Sample 1: 06/04/01
0.00
Treatment 2
Control CV
14.527%
% control orgs
producing 3rd
brood
100%
Treatment 2
2nd sample
7.8
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh,North Carolina
Chronic Test
Calculated
Tabular t -
% Reduction =
Mortality
0.00
Control
Date
?:,npte °6/04/01 Sample 2: 06/07/01Sample Type/Duration ub/u//oi
1st
LC50/Acute Toxicity Test
(Mortality expressed
%
Toxicity Report
Facility; CLAYTON WWTP
Labora irforjpii\g Test: TRITEST,
Duration(hrs):
rev. 11/95 (DUBIA ver. 4.32)
Organism Tested: Ceriodaphnia dubia
Copied from DEM form AT-1 (3/87)
sample
8.1
sample
8.1
: 001
Comments: ft
rge
* PASSED:-1.46% Reduction *
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# Young Produced 33 30 30 28 27 27 32 27 28 25 26 30
Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L L L L L L L L L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PASS FAIL# Young Produced 26 31 31 28 26 28 28 29 34 29 30 28 X
i Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L Check OneLLLLLLLLLL
2nd sample
TestControl7.9 8.2 7.8 8.0
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.1 7.8 8.0
1stGrabComp.Duration
Sample 1 X 24 hrs
Sample 2 X 24 hrs
Control 8.0 468.0 8.2 8.0
8.3 8.0 206 6568.2 6208.0 8.1 8.0
<0.1 <0.1
0.8 1.0
%%%%%%%%Concentration
%%%%%%%%%%
start/end
Control
pHD.O.
Organism Tested:
I
Date: 03/16/01
County: JOHNSTON
North Caroiina C.D^J
Chronic Pass/Fail
Ceriodaphnia
/"_11 Reproduction Toxicity TfeSt*
Probit
Other
0.00
Treatment 2
High
Cone.
I
Note: Please
Complete This
Section Also
D
I
L
U
T
29.00
Treatment 2
i Branch
Management
s
A
M
P
S
A
M
P
Facility: CLAYTON
Laborator
Control CV
8.499%
2nd
P/Fe
n
d
e
n
d
e
n
d
Mortality
start/end
Jreatment 2
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Copied from DEM form AT-1 (3/87)
1st sample
8.0
Avg.Reprod.
28.58
Control
combining replicates)
%
1st sample
8.1r
Treatment 2
I s
t
a
r
t
2nd sample
J Work Order: 010201089
WWTP
TeSt: T^^EST'
W o¥ Oper,
^iof'^Labt;
|
• CONTROL ORGANISMS
s
t
a
r
t
1st sample
8.1
If fluent %: 1.66%
TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS
s
t
a
t
1st sample
8.3
Method of Determination
Moving Average
Spearman Karber
Test
Collection (Start) "
Sample 1: 03/05/01 .
Sample Type/Duration
X__
Sig
X (
“Sila]
% control orgs
producing 3rd
brood
100%
J LC50 =
■ 95% Confidence Limits" —■ % “%
Date
Sample 2: 03/09/01
Hardness(mg/1)
Spec. Cond.(pmhos)
Chlorine(mg/1)
Sample temp, at receipt(°C)
rasa/rail and Acute LC5 0
NPDES#: NC0025453 P
INC. ____
in Responsible Chj
^pervTsor
Duration(hrs):
rev. 11/95 (DUBIA ver. 4.32)
Environmental Sciences
Div. of Environmental I
N.C. Dept, of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Ra 1 ei9H, North Carolina 2'7$07-6445
Chronic Test Results
Calculated t = -0.435
Tabular t = 2.508
% Reduction = -1.46
% Mortality
0.00
Control
kLC50/Acute Toxicity Test
Mortality expressed as %r
Chronic Pass/Fail and Acute
Comments:
I * PASSED:1.08% Reduction *
Work Order:0012-00179
MAIL ORIGINAL TO:
•1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# Young Produced 28 30 29 34 35 Avg.Reprod.30 29 31 29 30 31 33
Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L L L L L L L L L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PASS FAIL# Young Produced 32 31 31 28 33 30 26 31 30 31 32 30 X
Adult (L)ive (D)ead L L L L Check OneLLLLLLLL
1st sample 2nd sample
TestControl7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9
7.9 7.8 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.9
1stGrabComp.Duration
Sample 1 X 22 hrs
Sample 2 X 24 hrs
Control 8.2 8.0 498.1 8.0
8.2 8.2 2108.0 7808.1 7508.2 8.1
<0.1 <0.1
0.2 1.5
%%• %%%%%%Concentration
%%%%%%%%%%
PH D.O.
Probit
Other High
Cone.
D
I
L
U
T
30.42
Treatment 2
: Branch
Management
Results
; 0.401
2.508
1.08
30.75
Control
S
A
M
P
S
A
M
P
0.00
Treatment 2
Control CV
7.088%
I
Note: Please
Complete This
Section Also
e
n
d
e
n
d
e
n
d
2nd
P/F
|LC5 0 = %
95% Confidence Limits
i %
Mortality
start/end
J’reatment 2
Ceriodaphnia
, Reproduction Toxicity TbSt*
^Organism Tested:
start/end
Control
1st sample
7.8
as %, combining replicates)
%
fcpry Performing Test
atu:
■ North Caroiina C_l^d
J| Chronic Pass/Fail
jCONTROL ORGANISMS
|LC50/Acute Toxicity Test
^Mortality expressed
I %
s
t
a
r
t
1st sample
^Effluent %: 1.66%
■TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS
f.o.
. Treatment 2
s
t
a
r
t
2nd sample
8.0
s
t
a
r
t
1st sample
8.2
Method of Determination
Moving Average
Spearman Karber
X /
” Sign^.
X
Environmental Sciences
Div. of Environmental
N.C. Dept, of EHNR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27-607-6445
Chronic Test :
Calculated t =
Tabular t =
% Reduction =
% Mortality
0.00
Control
Ceriodaphnia dubia
opied from DEM form AT-1 (3/87)
% control orgs
producing 3rd
brood
100%
Complete This For Either
Test Start Date: 12/06/00
Collection (Start) ~
Sample 1: 12/04/00 .
Sample Type/Duration
Date
Sample 2: 12/07/00
Hardness(mg/1)
Spec. Cond. (jzmhos)
Chlorine(mg/1)
Sample temp, at receipt(°C)
Effluent Toxicity Report Fi
Facility: CLAYTON WWTP
Labo,
_________Date: 01/02/01
NPDES#: NC0025453 Pipe#: 001 County: JOHNSTON
ETest: Aritest, inc.
^pf^^rator i^Responsible Charge
ofabora Supervisor " "
Duration(hrs):
rev. 11/95 (DUBIA ver. 4.32)
'0
02TOWNOFCLAYTO:N PAGE14:27 91955310-5/13/2002
I
April 22,2002Effluent Toxicity Report Form - Chronic Piss/Fail and Acute LC50 Date;I County; JohnftonPipe #: 001NPDES#: NC 00254S3
dutions, LLC
North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Pass/Fali Reproduction Toxicity Test Percent
I 10 11 12567891234
Treatment 2Treatment 2
I
FailPass11127 8 9 10345612
04-16-02Test Start Date;I st Sample 2nd Sample1st Sample
Sample 2
I §I s
2nd Sample1 st Sample
Dmtion
24-hoor
I
> 100%
3 3
ControlX
High Cone.
Duration; 48-hoursPimephates promelasOrganism Tested;
DWQform AT-1 (3/87) rw 11/95
1 st Sample
PO Box 790
Pisgah Forest, NC 27868
LCj^/Acute Toxicity Test
(Mortality expressed as %, combining replicates.)
Sample 1
Sample 2
Chronic Test Results
Calculated t:
Tabular t:
% Reduction:
grodMaaa M farxxxJ
Co«ceDtT»tion (%)
Morality (•/,)
pH (S.U.)
Control
Treatment 2
D.O. (mg/l)
Control
Treatment 2
Hardness (mg/l)
Conductivity (umhos/an)
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/l)
Sample Temp, at Receipt (*C)
Mail Original To: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ/ Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Method of Determination
. Trimmed Spearman Karber
Probit
Other No analyses conducted.
1tz>1
1
Vi
■g
UJ
Effluent Percentage | |
Treatment 2 Organ Um»
Number of Young Produced
Adult Survival: (L)ive, (D)cad
7.98 7.96
8J6 T43
pH (S.U.)
Average
Reprodurdon
ControlControl Organisms________
Number of Young Produced
Adult Survival: (L)ive, (D)ead
~0~
123 2$
T
50
T
too
V
Morality
Control
Environmental Testing Solutions, LLC
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Comments; _____
Project 315______
Sample; 020416.01
Control
0
8.07.9
8.5
DO (mg/l)
CM
W
I I
Sample Typc/Duration
. Cnntp
x"
Facility: Tri test, Inc
Clayton, Little Creek WRF
Laboratory Performing Test: Environmental Testy
Signature of Operator jn Responsible Charge:
Signature of Laboratory Supervisor.
Collection (Start) Date:
Sample 1 04-14-02
.2 I
5
LC^^
95% Confidence Limits.
NA“' to" NA
659177
<0.10
14: 27 TOWNOFCLAYTO:N PAGE 0305/13/2002 9195531
TRITEST, INC.I Bioassay Chain ’of Custody Form ' •’
BioasBays■oii
Address:P.O. #:
I <?e /
I
I ___ Time AM or PM
AM or PM
# Hoxiri :
Time: AM or PM
Sample Volume:
—Chilled during Collection?
Method of Transportation to Lab ;
< • ♦ *
Kelln.B- Time.|B1
ZQJ^
For Laboratory Use Only
• Receiving Tcrapendixra:
Residual Chlorine;dlS jojoU/G.Olo
Address:
PhonetflP) 854-4984 Fax (91?) 834-^97
Number of Bottles : .
____ Outftll/Pipc#:
/• <£. & -
Raleigh. NC 27607setpoBsi
P
• Date.
County: .
%Effluent D'lhrtlon : ___
Sample Site Description^
Sample Collector: Print >
Signature >
<F 9 f
. Phone# ( y/1 •
Contact:
NPDES Permit # : o a
•Test Method ;
o t/ry ' gts
Tims
(L^
d
are to be sampled after B;30a.m-
- Tue-sday~S: Friday. ■
_T* _ hd»]Ort ii/>.
OPS
YZPq.
Tima: ■
Sample Type: Com polite;
Date Started : 7
Dmc Ended: tf - / gr ■ ,
Samples per Hour; ' 3
Grab ;
Date :
Facility Name; .
■;• c- ■"

Ofhtn of Custody
Date
PAGE 04
I
May 1(X 2002Effluent Twicity Report Fora * Chronic Pwi/Fail and Acuu LCW Date:I Cvunty JohMte*Pipe#: OOtNPDES#: NC OtoSW
Neith Caroll** Ccfiods^^ Cfcroaw Pu«/F»il R^rwuieCod T«UI
il 12109678
Th»lit>e*il 2neeorwwJ
I FaitPmm1210 117X93
Sat Date 04-2J-O2 3(14 Samplelit SampltI at Santplc
I Sample 2 j s15 2
21'4 Stmptela £ainp!»IrtSauwfcI
I
sI X
7.93 7.93
Dar*O«n: -MUJoartphtuphaluOrganUm Tcattd:
I CfiTHZ998J3 LQ • »t ZOOZ'tfXW
TKrlStdH’
POBOx?90
Pijgah Fon-^t-NC 27888
49
ISO
lCm/actu T oxfcity T mt
(MdirtAlity «®CC«cd U %, CAtnhining r«pt»*-«US.)
OiUM(rU<oa (%)
MpdiUy (%)
D.O. (pt/l)
Control
Trxabnent2
Km4q0u (rr.^lj
CMducdwUj' (jnMoWeffi)
I'anl Rmidual Ol.-**e (^1
Swnnfc I am. it Rac»p< CO
Ctroaic T<M R«w1b
CakulaUd t:____ _
TabuUc i; _______
H Reduction:
pB(SX.)
Control
Tmamott 2
Sar spiel
Satiric 2
5
8.0
kjT
Cactral Orttakmn__________
Nutnlw nt Young produced
Adult Survival: (l^vc. (D)cad
a
Efflueot PcKtoUge [ ]
Troaftntat 2 Oryanlww«
Number of Yottnp Poducad
Adult Survive: (L)ivt, (D)c*d
12J
“o”
«
T
Gorftsnwnn _
Prpjocb 320_______
Sampld 020423.01
666
<olo
0.4’
Environmental Testing Solutions, LLC
Phone: (U8) *&2-#W3
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: .TimSumnet^wtcom
s»
T
PtraeM
Mardgy
CcHUml
Avmac
Control
tknu»
7.9
~
Sunvic lyp^ Ourttion
y
Method of Derertninadoc
i
TOWNOFCLAYTO:N
712 OJ1 0-1T1 I I w ->
^jTi^maicd Spciraun Kwber
PrftMi
Olhtr. Mo xulno qtoJtMrt.
“T* o
CvnUvt _
8.13 8 37 |ti|^C«aK.
pU(&Ud
zooTNonnios ^xiisai iyxkiwnouxani
I I■Is
8*
CollcaiGn (San) DU*:
Sunfite 1 ft^-21 XJ2
Padticy: 'CWteat,!**. ________________
Cuytoo. Unia Crook WRF
I jibontory Pofettftlaa l'«*t tnvitonntantol T<P>tipy SoludoP*. LLC
Sijpwfvnc Opemuar i* Hacponribk Charge:
Signutwv of Labontory ______
LCh>“- >100%
»$% CtwifidoK* Liikiu
Na to Na
1 2
Mat Orhiaai To: North CuroHrm D-purfment of EnvirocmoJt and Naxural Rraourw
DWQ/ tAVirwunenlil Tfrvncb
1621 Mail Service Caater
Ralegh. NC 27699-1621
1 2
3 4 $
05/13/2002 14:27 9195531«|
rHY 14 'Wd ia;AP r-K
W30tJd
4 5 6
I 05
TRTTEST, INC.I Bioassiy Chain of Custody Form
I i oxi
7AddrtH; P.O. 4 ;
I
Stunple Sitv Dusripticnj
Siunpla CcJIoctor: Print > I Sijn4ft:ra>
Samp); Type: Co^RpUtn •.
D»t» Sur^d {or FM
Elded:K^ftr FM
fiuiu.
Drtc :rim*: AM or BMISample Vftltttac' ChfllcA during CollBctioQ?
Mficd cf TYBO^craHcn co Lxh :
■ mw — m
■npgu fold,By
4.v <X2Q
/■i C<L
320 |o^cMz^‘0^Rcjidud CHerfac.
Addrai: 3909-39.71 W--P.iUlcK NC 27607 Phon<919) 854 A984 Psx(91?) W4-O9T
f
^STBZSBSZa BO’-flI ZODZ'tl'AVKSMOiirnos dniissi oywjhnomians?O?/?00‘d »6frT«
x* TOTAL PAGE. 03 *>r.
J
71*15Due
3
. F’AeE
9^:PT 20. £1 AtW
Tim?
Time •■ ///^ <
Time:
1 n rt
u-
Seinpjax per Hour ; J
Date_______‘
D^i'DZ':
Chiin Vt Q'H^Ay yi < » »
t A61 P l^Tl d'X^-
assays.are to be sampled after 3;30a,m,
- \Tuegday & Far!day,
£1 A /• T^Z
ft fa
4/ 6 Conbu? l
Outfit ?ip* * t NPDSJ Pcanit*': ' fj C
Ter: Method ; p 41
05/13/2002 14:27 91955319
riMV 13 '«E 14:EW fk I
sa'aoud ssrezgseze
TOWNOFCLAYTO:N
Z’iV CiHZX J ->3
• XecsivinfTroperttuHu_____
A
por'UborKory ‘Us*O-uTy
I . ; ITL-.
Facility Marne; _j
Z^££j^rAi
___Z^/o^ ,
County: ________
%21Hucni Dilution : 2 • 61 <r
ro
Sludge Redrc.
o )<
ooooo D.B.
J P.S.z^Alum Feed -<
ScumD.B.
I
o
Sludge Ftecirc.
I
Drain
M
Sludge RecircJWaste
-M-Legend l -H
oM<
Metin anol Feed System
A
L
j
Ln
1
-------->
Influent
I
1
P.S.
D.B.
Scum Waste to /
Aerobic Digester
\ Waste Sludge to
\ Thickener I
Aerobic Digester
Clarifier
No. 1-7
Tetra Denite
Filters -----
Effluent to
UV Dlslnf.
Clarifier
No. 3
g
Ca>
Ca>
Ca>
ii II '
cp
r*o
ro
o
CT>
CO
CO
cx>
Ca>
CO
CJ1
€X>
CO
"Tl
CH
CJ1
“Tl
“*
O
7 s
§ <z>
m
----------- Wastewater / Effluent
-----------Sludge
-----------Scum
—M— Methanol Feed System
—m— Magnesium Hydroxide Feed
Alum Feed
Polymer Feed
Pump Station
Distribution Box
/ / /Clarifier
e/ No. 2-^
Exhibits
Schematic Flow Diagram of Alternative 1
Clayton LCWRF Upgrading for Nutrient Removal
r
I First Stage
| Anoxic Tank
I
l Anaerobic —
'Tank /
Alum Feed -A—I
• Polymer Feed-P-^ I
Ox. Basin No. 1 (0.75 MG) ’
I
I
I
I
I
I
27
i rf'
ksTii
Magnesium
Hydroxide
Feed or
Sodium
Hydroxide
First Stage .
Anoxic Tank
Ox. Basin No. 2 (1.15 MG)
-------r------------\ 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
Flocculation Tanks
Rotaiy Drum Thickener
o
F
-H
Sludge Drying Beds
i tn oo
i
Biickened
Sludge
Aerobic
Sludge
Digester
Polymer
Feed Systems
Waste Activated
Sludge
<x>
OJ
p
F
B□ □
L
o
s
s
o
m
co
<£>
oo<*>
CJ1
co
co
co
CD
■O
oi
co
ro
\
\
\
\
7L—DecantLegend
---------Sludge
----------Filtrate / Decant
Sludge Pumps
Flow Meters
Aeration Blowers
Existing Facilities
New Facilities
Sludge
Loaoing Station
/ /
/ /
' /
/
/
v;
To Drainage Recycle
Pump Station
Aerobic Sludge
Digester / Holding
Tanks
“Fl
OlExhibit 7.3
Schematic Flow Diagram of Alternative 1
Clayton LCWRF Sludge Handling Facilities
yo6
J □ J'
1
7,
)V
Pa
Jis’
I C2\. n
I*0
UNIMPROVED ROAD
0
t«
QUAD LOgAUQH
■
Neuse River
I
rz^Ti-*-
Town of Clayton
NC0025453
Johnston County
WWTP
•T v
V-Vq '
WS-V NSW
01
e
*
dem ( |
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
f LtGHT-OUTY ROAD. HARO OR
IMPROVED SURFACE =
bm" y-'..J^Zx
®r
•. v^i
o
taggadfigr
1
I =
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
Discharge
Bite
Jp
i oS'
«»«
E__
ude 35o39'50" Longitude 78°25,26
j^25NW S u b - b a si n 3-04-02
anri Class_____
Wge Class___
2"ng Stream__
1 9 MGP
Pt1M5U
pijOfesI
#wB
al
SCALE 1:24 000
1 mile

7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
e. A?
-So 1^
1 INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
The Town Council of the Town of Clayton retained the firm of Hobbs, Upchurch and
Associates to prepare an amendment to the existing NPDES permit. Clayton is served by
one wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the Town with discharge into the
Neuse River. This plant currently serves the Clayton Municipal Limits, the east Clayton
industrial area, the East Clayton Elementary School area and collection facilities which
serve the to the I40/NC 42 interchange area, and the Cleveland Community (service
area). This expansion project will service this same area.
An agreement between the Town of Clayton and Johnston County is intended to permit
the Town and the County to effectively utilize their respective wastewater treatment
capacities. The agreement states that the Town of Clayton can divert up to 600,000 gpd
of wastewater flow from the East Clayton Industrial Park to the county system and in
return will receive a similar daily quantity of wastewater flow from the western 140/142
interchange area portion of Johnston County.
Page 1
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
NPDES Permit Modification to Increase Daily Permitted Flow
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project
Town of Clayton, North Carolina
NC0025461
Johnston County owned facilities currently serve the I40/NC 42 interchange area, which
is comprised predominantly of light commercial developments and several residential
subdivisions. Wastewater flows from this area are transported by Johnston County
owned utilities to the Town of Clayton’s wastewater treatment plant. In trade for this
treatment of flow, the County transports wastewater from the East Clayton Industrial
Park to the Johnston County regional wastewater treatment plant located in Smithfield
during periods of peak flow. The Glen Laurel residential development and the Caterpillar
industrial site are also jointly utilized by both facilities.
An amendment to the 201 Facilities Plan was prepared by McKim and Creed on behalf of
the Town of Clayton in 1993 and an expansion from 1.5 mgd to 1.9 mgd with tertiary
treatment was designed and bid. The Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility was
expanded and upgraded in 1987 to 1989 and again in 1998 to 1999 with the all the new
The Clayton service area is defined by two major drainage basins, the Little Creek basin
and the Neuse River basin. After examination in a 1997 study by McKim and Creed of
existing users, zoning, current land use and development patterns in and surrounding the
Town of Clayton, it was determined that the major contributions to long-term growth will
be primarily from residential development and secondarily from industrial expansion.
The service population in 1997 was approximately 11,250. Industrial locations are found
mainly along the US Highway 70 corridor with the most prominent being the East
Clayton Industrial Park.
I
The purpose of this NPDES permit expansion is to begin the re-rating of the existing
WWTP to the expanded capacity of 2.5 mgd. The engineering evaluation by Hobbs,
Upchurch indicate that the existing facilities with minor modifications are capable to treat
to this design flow. In addition to this evaluation, an Environmental Assessment for this
Page 2
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
facilities commissioned in May, 1999. The scope of improvements was consistent with
the Clayton 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan, and the treatment facilities were planned to
provide adequate service to Clayton and its environs through the year 2007. Explosive
growth in Wake County, and its attendant effect in western Johnston County have
resulted in the treatment facilities nearing their design capacity much sooner than has
been forecast. In addition, the anticipation of much more stringent effluent limitations
for receiving streams in the Neuse River Basin have necessitated the comprehensive
review and evaluation of wastewater treatment and disposal options for the Town for the
foreseeable future.
The design capacity of the LCWRF, and its current permitted flow rate, are set at 1.9
MGD. The influent flow to the LCWRF for averaged 1.35 and 1.32 MGD, respectively
in 1998 and 1999. This is 69 to 71 percent of its permitted capacity. When the influent
flow reaches an annual average of 80 percent of the plants capacity, or 1.52 MGD at the
currently permitted flow capacity, the Town must begin planning and design of new
capacity in order to avoid a moratorium or other actions. Once the Town begins such a
process, they can apply for a waiver to allow the plant to accept up to 90 percent of its
currently permitted flow rate or 1.71 MGD. Additionally the Raleigh Regional Office of
the DWQ has expressed concern that sewer permit allocations to the LCWRF are
approaching 100% of the permitted capacity. While it may be several years before these
allocated flows become actual flows, DWQ has chosen to withhold additional sewer
permits at such time as 100% of the capacity is allocated. At the current growth in the
system the Town has 2-3 years in which to plan and develop additional flow capacity.
As more people live and work in the Neuse River Basin, more wastewater will continue
to be generated. Treatment and disposal of this wastewater will be accomplished either
by enlarging or creating more wastewater treatment plants or by constructing more on­
site wastewater systems such as septic systems. Because the basin’s surface waters have
a limited capacity to assimilate wastewater, the level of treatment at wastewater
treatments will need to continue to improve in order to hold the line on the amount of
pollutants leaving the plants as the flow of wastewater to them increases. Also, while on­
site wastewater systems can provide a very effective means of disposing and treating
wastewater from individual homes or communities, they can also pose environmental
risks if not properly installed and maintained.
The last population projections from the State of North Carolina indicate that Johnston
County grew from a population of 81,306 in 1990 to 99,215 in 1996. The estimated
population in 2016 is 141,563. The Town of Clayton grew from a population of 4,756 in
1990 to 6,810 in 1996. Using the same growth rate of approximately 43%, the Town’s
2016 projected population would be 9,738. The County growth is occurring rapidly in
the I40/NC42 and Cleveland Community, which are also served by the Clayton system.
A Finding of No
I
Monitor
I
By achieving this expansion with existing facilities the Town of Clayton should be able
to continue serving the expected growth within the next 2-3 year period during which the
Town can begin a full 201 Facilities Plan Update for a 20 year plan for wastewater needs.
The purpose of the update to 201 Facilities Plan will be to determine the most cost
effective means for future wastewater treatment and disposal which will meet water
quality standards and accommodate future growth of the Clayton wastewater service area.
The existing NPDES permit allows a 1.9 mgd discharge of tertiary treated wastewater to
the Neuse River at a point between SR 1700 and NC 42. The Neuse River is classified as
WS-IV NSW CA in this area. The summer 7Q10 for the Neuse River is 186 cfs at this
location. The City of Raleigh WWTP discharge is approximately 9 miles upstream and
the City of Smithfield Water Plant intake is downstream in the critical area designation of
the River.
The following speculative effluent limits (dated July 10, 2000) have been given for the
expanded wastewater treatment facility by the Division of Water Quality:
expansion has been completed and is included in Appendix A.
Significant Impact was determined on January 16, 2002.
Speculative Effluent Limitations
(2.5 MGD Flow)
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
BOPs mg/1_______________
NH3-N mg/1
DO mg/1_________________
Fecal Coliform per 100 ml
TSS mg/1________________
Total Residual Chlorine ug/1
Cadmium ug/1____________
Chromium ug/1___________
Copper ug/1______________
Nickel ug/1 _____________
Lead ug/1________________
Zinc ug/1________________
Silver ug/1_______________
Cyanide ug/1_____________
Total Phosphorus mg/1
pH NTV
Neuse River
Summei^_
5_________
1_________
6______
200_______
30________
28________
Monitor
Winter
10____
2_
6_____
200
30____
28
2
6-9
2_
6-9
A Total Nitrogen Limit of 21,400 Ib/year is given as a mass loading on annual basis for
the Town. The mass limit may be waived if the Town is a member of an approved
trading coalition for the Neuse River Basin. Per the Neuse River Basin Rules, the
Page 3
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
2 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
I
The existing 1.9 mgd facility consists of the following unit processes:
I
expansion of the WWTP would also result in a Total Phosphorus limit drop to 1 mg/1
unless the Town is a member of the Association. A copy of these Speculative Limits is
included as Exhibit 3 of the attached Environmental Assessment.
The existing facility currently is compliant with flow limits of 1.9 mgd, 5.0 ppm for
BOD, 30 ppm for TSS, 2 ppm for NH3-N, 2.0 ppm for TP, 200/100 ml for Fecal
Coliform, and 21,400 Ib/yr for TN. A copy of the current NPDES Permit for the
Town of Clayton is included as Exhibit 2 of the attached Environmental Assessment.
Page 4
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Mechanical Bar Screen
Grit Removal
Flow Measurement
Influent Pumping
Intermediate Pump Station, Clarigester, Trickling Filter, Secondary Clarifier
Two Extended Aeration Basins
Two Secondary Clarifiers
Return Activated Sludge Pumping
Tertiary Sand Filters
Ultra Violet Disinfection
Effluent Pumping to the Neuse River through a 7 mile outfall
Waste Activated Sludge Pumping
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge Conditioning
Sludge Thickening
Sludge Storage
Sludge Dewatering (Drying Beds)
Sludge Disposal (Land Application by Trucking)
The Town of Clayton operates Little Creek Water Reclamation Facility; a tertiary wastewater
treatment plant that provides secondary biological and tertiary treatment to the Town’s
wastewater and discharges the treated effluent to the Neuse River. The current NPDES
permit establishes the rated design capacity at a monthly average of 1.9 million gallons per
day.
An engineering evaluation of the existing wastewater treatment plant has been completed by
Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, P.A. This report was presented to the Town of Clayton
Town Council in June of 1999. The evaluation of the wastewater treatment plant
recommends an upgrade to the existing facilities with relatively minor construction and
equipment changes to increase the capacity to 2.5 mgd. A copy of this evaluation,
including a unit by unit evaluation of the WWTP, is included as Exhibit 1 of the
attached Environmental Assessment.
I
I
3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
I
I
I
4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
I
1. Do nothing (no action).
I
I
The wastewater plant options have been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed on the basis of
environmental impact and cost. The options of no action at the existing wastewater treatment
plant are not viable in that the effluent limits cannot be achieved while accommodating
imminent growth and sewer service demands, and the Town would be subject to citations and
penalties.
The following general options for wastewater treatment and disposal were considered in
1993:
2. Optimize operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant and continue to discharge
to the Little Creek with initial effluent limits of 10/4/2 and future effluent limits of 5/2/2.
The facility averaged 1.35 mgd in 1998, which is approximately 72% of the permitted
capacity. The facility averaged 1.32 mgd in calendar year 1999, which approximately
69% of the permitted capacity. The evaluation of the existing treatment units predicts that
the effluent limits can be achieved with the existing treatment at the increase of flow to
2.5 mgd with some additional improvements to the facility.
Page 5
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
An alternatives analysis for the wastewater treatment options has been considered for the
Town of Clayton. The 201 Facilities Plan amended in 1993 by McKim and Creed on behalf
of the Town of Clayton addressed several of the options at such time and concluded that the
best alternative for the Town was the upgrade and expansion of the existing facility with a
discharge to the Neuse River. The wastewater treatment facility was expanded to 1.9 mgd
with an additional 0.6 mgd diverted to the Johnston County Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Both the Clayton and Johnston County wastewater service areas have seen tremendous
growth and are approaching their capacity. Some of the same alternatives have been
considered for this WWTP expansion as previously considered in 1993.
The most feasible alternative is to continue to divert the east Clayton area flows to the
Johnston County wastewater treatment facilities and upgrade the Town of Clayton WWTP to
2.5 mgd for treatment and discharge to the Neuse River, in combination with a reuse project
for which the Town has received a grant award and a project to add nutrient removal at the
facility. The recommended alternative actually represents a combination of two of the
alternatives discussed below and allows the Town to take advantage of projects currently
under construction or planned as well as those which have received grant funding. The
figures evaluated in order to arrive at this conclusion are included in Appendix B.
Detailed design notes are included in Exhibits 4 and 13 of the attached Environmental
Assessment.
3.
I 4.
5.
6.
The following alternatives have been considered for this expansion request:
1.Do nothing (no action).
Optimize Treatment at the Existing Facility2.
3.
4.
5.
6.Utilize Nutrient Offset Payments
Participate in a Basin Association7.
Utilize Nutrient Allocation Trading8.
As required by NCDENR-DWQ, all environmentally feasible alternatives for wastewater
discharge have been evaluated as a part of the Town of Clayton’s NPDES permit
modification application to increase the discharge rate from 1.9 MOD to 2.5 MOD.
Modify the existing wastewater treatment plant and convey to a separate site(s) for
equalization and disposal by land application.
Divert flow as necessary from the east Clayton area to the Central Johnston County
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, and upgrade and expand the Clayton WWTP to
treat the remaining waste stream and discharge to the Neuse River with effluent limits of
10/4/2 and future effluent limits of 5/2/2.
Modify the existing wastewater treatment facility for preliminary treatment and flow
equalization (only) and discharge into the City of Raleigh wastewater treatment plant.
Modify the existing wastewater treatment facility for preliminary treatment and flow
equalization (only) and discharge into the Central Johnston county Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (CJCRWWTP).
Modify the existing wastewater treatment facility for preliminary treatment and flow
equalization (only) and discharge into the Central Johnston county Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (CJCRWWTP)
Modify the existing wastewater treatment plant and convey to a separate site(s) for
equalization and disposal by land application
Modify the existing wastewater treatment facility for preliminary treatment and flow
equalization (only) and discharge into the City of Raleigh wastewater treatment plant
Page 6
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
In 1993 alternative number 4 above was the selected alternative. All of the recommended
improvements in the 1993 analysis were completed in 1999. Despite this implementation the
WWTP flows are approaching the permitted limit and additional analysis is required for
further expansion of the permitted flow for this facility.
9. Optimize Treatment at the Facility with Land Application
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES5
5.1
5.2
I
Each of these alternatives has been evaluated with regard to, first, environmental feasibility,
and then with regard to capital construction costs. Summaries of the preliminary design,
design calculations, and cost estimates are provided for each alternative.
The previously mentioned alternatives for wastewater disposal have been analyzed in order
to determine to most environmentally feasible and cost-effective solution for the Town’s
need to increase its total daily discharge from 1.9 MGD to 2.5 MGD.
Page 7
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
In addition as stated in the Nutrient Removal Study and the revised 201 Facilities
Plan, additional biological and chemical treatment to reduce nitrogen will be
necessary at the existing wastewater treatment facility. The Town of Clayton is
proceeding with adding the necessary treatment units to accomplish this. These units
include anaerobic/anoxic basins, recycle pump stations, chemical addition from
The upgrade project currently under construction does include components necessary
optimization. Specifically, through the upgrades to the existing clarifiers and
oxidation ditches, these treatment components will also be evaluated for optimal
operation and used to achieve the maximum level of nutrient removal possible. (See
Exhibit 4 of the attached Environmental Assessment).
Optimization of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility
The alternative of optimizing operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant is
currently being accomplished. The evidence indicates that the facility will meet
current and immediately renewed NPDES permit limits at the proposed design flow
capacity of 2.5 MGD. This option continues to divert 600,000 gpd to the
CJCRWWTP from the industrial area while continuing to serve the Town of Clayton
residential and commercial district and the additional flow from the County residents
and commercial enterprises near Cleveland. The flow rating of the WWTP would be
increased to 2.5 MGD. The treatment optimization would be used in conjunction
with the wastewater reuse project and would require the addition of biological and
nutrient removal at the plant. The estimated costs for the upgrade and optimization of
the plant combined with the addition of the BNR components are $7,339,500.00, with
a present worth valuation of $17,341,970.00.
Do Nothing Alternative
The first alternative of no action remains an unacceptable option to all parties
involved due to the inevitable restrictions on residential, commercial, and industrial
growth in the Town’s wastewater service area, and a risk of future NPDES permit
renewals with more stringent limits than the current facilities are capable of
achieving. As previously stated, the Town of Clayton is within 2-3 years of achieving
flow rates, which would result in sewer moratoriums in the area.
I
I 5.3
5.4 Modification of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility for Pretreatment/Flow
Equalization and Discharge to City of Raleigh WWTP
The fourth option involves conversion of the existing Town of Clayton wastewater
treatment plant to a pump station and flow equalization facility and construction of a
force main to the City of Raleigh Neuse River wastewater treatment plant.
Page 8
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
existing caustic, alum, polymer, and chlorine facilities, and supplemental methanol
treatment, if necessary. The treatment plant design will be optimized to remove
nitrogen and phosphorus. See Exhibit 13 (option 2) of the attached Environmental
Assessment for detailed design calculations.
It should be noted that the Town has just recently received a grant for the construction
of a wastewater reuse project where effluent will be set to the Pine Hollow Golf
Course for use as irrigation water. This is a much smaller project than diverting all of
the facility flow for reuse but represents a start to establishing such a system. The
initial estimates indicate that the implementation of this project will take
approximately 0.15 MGD of Clayton’s discharge and divert it to the golf course. The
cost estimate for this project based on the Wooten Study is an additional $733,000.00
(present worth valuation of $1,330,519.00); however, additional alternatives must be
used in conjunction with this project in order to enable the Little Creek treatment
facility to operate at the eventual expanded flow of 2.5 MGD. (See Exhibit 13 of the
attached Environmental Assessment for detailed design calculations)
Modification of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility with Utilization of Land
Application
The third option of land application was evaluated extensively in the original 201
facilities plan. Exhaustive efforts were made to locate adequate disposal sites in the
201 area. Although site characteristics were conducive to the actual disposal design
criteria, it was impossible to locate sufficient land area within an approximate 5 mile
distance of the Town on even a semi-contiguous basis, i.e., perhaps half the land area
in one site and the remainder distributed among two or three separate sites in
reasonable proximity. Further, at that time given the flow projections and then
anticipated application rates, the amount of land to be located was approximately half
of what would be required at this juncture. Accelerated residential development
demand pressure has made the land in the Clayton area even more expensive and
more difficult to obtain and locate. Therefore, the viability of this option is virtually
nil. As an illustrative example land application of wastewater at 1” per acre per week
requires approximately 750 acres of wetted area to irrigate the entire amount
necessary to eliminate the discharge. Additionally 225 million gallons of storage
lagoons would be needed to store wastewater during inclement weather. The recent
example of the Town of Gamer land application treatment facility being closed to
divert their wastewater to the City of Raleigh system indicates the unattractiveness of
this option to an area where residential growth is utilizing desirable land. (See Exhibit
4 of the attached Environmental Assessment for detailed design calculations). The
estimated cost for a new land application facility is $17,500,000.00 with a present
worth valuation of $23,475,191.00.
5.5
Page 9
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
While the Town currently sends 600,000 gpd to the Central Johnston County
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (CJCRWWTP) from its industrial area, this
facility does not have the capacity to accept additional flows from Clayton.
Treatment levels at this facility would be the same as those being faced at Clayton’s
Little Creek plant. Therefore, Clayton would still need to purchase into the expansion
of the CJCRWWTP in much the same level as is needed for its facility. The costs for
this option are contained in the Environmental Assessment and are estimated at
$5,740,000.00 for only a 600,000 gpd commitment. The Town would still be
required to incur the costs to upgrade their 1.9 MGD WWTP to the nutrient removal
levels required by 2003. While this is a feasible option, this option is not the best
option at this time. It requires more cost to the Town of Clayton, requires more
extensive construction impacts for the conveyance system, expansion of the Johnston
Modifications at the plant would consist of expanding the influent works and
preliminary treatment, and modifying the influent pump station. Conveyance to
Raleigh would include approximately nine miles of 16” force main and a metering
and chemical addition station. In addition, a one time capital charge payable to the
City of Raleigh is required to reserve treatment capacity. Discussions with the City
of Raleigh regarding the diversion of Town of Clayton wastewater have proven
unsuccessful. In addition the costs of this alternative are higher than the costs of the
proposed expansion at the Town of Clayton wastewater treatment facility. This
alternative was considered and rejected in the 1993 analysis as well. The estimated
capital cost for this option is $7,500,000.00, with a present worth valuation of
$15,506,756.00. (See Exhibit 4 in the attached Environmental Assessment for
detailed design calculations) In addition, the City of Raleigh has stated that it does
not have any capacity in its facility for the Town of Clayton. Documentation of this
is included in Appendix C.
Modification of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility for Pretreatment/Flow
Equalization and Discharge to Central Johnston County Regional WWTP
The fifth alternative is similar to alternative 4 in that the treatment plant would be
converted to a pump station and flow equalization facility and raw wastewater would
be conveyed to the Central Johnston County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Required improvements would include expansion of the influent works and
preliminary treatment and modifications to the influent pump station, construction of
approximately twelve miles of 16-inch force main and one mile of 30” gravity
interceptor sewer and a metering and chemical addition station. The routing would
generally follow US Rt. 70 to the Neuse River at Smithfield. The existing Neuse
River interceptor sewer has insufficient capacity for this additional flow, which
necessitates the parallel new 30” interceptor sewer. In addition the Central Johnston
County Treatment Plant would require upgrading and expansion to accommodate the
additional flow at more stringent effluent limitations, (5 mg/1 BOD, 2 mg/1 ammonia
nitrogen, and 1 mg/1 total phosphorous), that would be occasioned by any request for
flow increase. This facility is also experiencing growth and the agreement with the
Town of Clayton and Johnston County to trade flow during peak flow periods appears
to be the best cooperative arrangement at this time.
I
5.6
5.7
Page 10
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
County facilities, and still requires construction at the Town of Clayton WWTP for
nutrient removal. The Regional WWTP options appear more attractive in the future
should additional growth in the Town of Clayton area require more extensive
expansions to the facilities beyond 2.5 MGD. The estimated capital cost for this
alternative is $5,740,000.00 (for only a 600,000 gpd capacity commitment), with a
present worth valuation of $18,347,654.00. (See Exhibit 4 in the attached
Environmental Assessment for detailed design calculations)
A Nutrient Removal Study was performed for the Town of Clayton by The Wooten
Company and was completed in October 2000. In this study, numerous alternatives
were discussed; including the use of the nutrient offset payments. Based on this
study, the calculated total nitrogen annual mass permit limit at a flow rate of 2.5
MGD is 26635.87 lb TN/yr. At the nutrient offset payment rate of 200 percent of the
cost at $11.00 lb TN/yr, Clayton would need to make a minimum payment in excess
of $3,455,000.00 in order to operate the facility at 2.5 MGD with a nitrogen
discharge limit of 26635.87 lb TN/yr. (26635.87 - 21,400 = 5235.87 lb TN/yr for 30
years). The present worth value of this alternative is calculated to be $12,214,630.00.
Utilize Nutrient Offset Payments
The Neuse Rules allow for wastewater dischargers to individually or collectively
reduce their respective nitrogen loadings through nutrient offset payments. If a
permitted wastewater discharger chooses this option, they are required to have made
an offset payment in an amount that is great enough to cover nitrogen reduction for a
period of 30 years. In addition, these payments are required to be made prior to a
NPDES permit reissuance.
While this represents an option, the costs must be weighed against those costs for the
addition of a nutrient removal system at the wastewater treatment facility. The
primary difference in the level of these costs is that the entire nutrient offset payment
must be made at the time of the application for the permit modification, whereas, the
costs for the nutrient removal can be spread over a number of years. Therefore, the
option of using nutrient offset payments is still one that is feasible; however, the
immediate costs would certainly be greater than other options available to the Town.
Participate in a Basin Association
Under the rules, a group of wastewater dischargers can collectively come together to
form an association for the purposes of working jointly to reduce their collective
nutrient loadings to the Neuse River. The association members must enter into an
agreement with the Division of Water Quality to establish annual loading goals for
the totality of the nutrient loading for all members. The Environmental Management
Commission must then formally approve the agreement for it to in effect. Each
individual discharger that is a member of the association would not be subject to an
individual total nitrogen limit but rather the group’s discharges could not exceed the
total allocation calculated for the association. Each individual discharge would also
have a quarterly total phosphorus limit of 2.0 mg/L.
I
I
5.8
5.9
I
I
Clayton is very interested in this option and has consistently expressed its willingness
to participate in this kind of alliance with the other wastewater dischargers in the
lower Neuse River Basin when the opportunity becomes available.
If such an agreement can be reached, the participation in this association would be
one of the most feasible options for the Town; however, they are proceeding with all
necessary projects under the assumption that this alternative will not be available to
them within the time frame during which they will apply for the NPDES permit
modifications to increase the plant flow to 2.5 MGD.
Page 11
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Utilize Nutrient Allocation Trading
Another option allowed by the Neuse Rules is the trading of nutrient allocations
between discharge facilities within the basin. This requires one facility to voluntarily
agree to trade some portion of its nutrient allocation to another facility and for the two
to enter into an agreement for the long-term commitment of this allocation transfer at
an agreed upon rate.
Optimize Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility, Construct Land Application
System, and Improve Treatment at the Existing Plant for Nutirent Removal
The optimization of treatment to limit nutrient loading to the Neuse River is the
primary goal of the rules. The other alternatives discussed are used to supplement
treatment and to provide a resource for the restoration of wetlands and riparian areas
within the basin. If a facility were able to meet the stringent nitrogen limits
established, then it would be in compliance with the discharge requirements.
Treatment optimization can come through the upgrade of existing facilities by the
installation of nutrient removal systems, through the use of land application practices,
or through wastewater reuse, to name several alternatives. Each of these can also be
used in combination with nutrient offset payments, basin associations, or nutrient
trading to achieve the required limits. This alternative represents the most feasible
alternative to the Town of Clayton and the one with which they are proceeding
because it will allow the use of multiple of projects either already designed or funded,
while also accomplishing the necessary nutrient reduction that was required by 2003
for the existing 1.9 MGD WWTP.
The current Lower Neuse Basin Association was established in 1994 upon the
execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DWQ in order to design
and implement a water quality monitoring program in the Neuse River. This
association, however, has not yet reached an agreement with DWQ with regard to the
collective nutrient loadings as has been done in the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
While this represents an alternative to the Town of Clayton, it is not one that is
realistic given the situation with most all dischargers in the Neuse Basin. Clayton
would have to identify an entity with excess allocation, which is willing to trade some
portion of it to Clayton in exchange for some unknown rate of payment. This is
considered a very unlikely option for the Town.
I
6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
I
ALTERNATIVE
I
I
The combination of alternatives presented above results in an estimated capital cost of
$8,072,500.00, with a present worth valuation of $18,672,489.00.
Page 12
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
Optimize Treatment at Existing Facility
New Land Application Facility
_____Convey to City of Raleigh_____
_____Convey to Johnston County_____
_____Nutrient Offset Payments______
Optimize Treatment at Existing Facility
with Land Application
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$7,339,500.00
$17,500,000.00
$7,500,000.00
$5,740,000.00
$3,455,000.00
$8,072,500.00
PRESENT WORTH
VALUATION
$17,341,970.00
$23,475,191.00
$15,506,756.00
$18,347,654.00
$12,214,630.00
$18,672,489.00
The final alternative proves to be the most feasible with respect to cost for a numbers of
reasons. First, the work to upgrade the existing clarifiers and oxidation ditches is currently
underway and is expected to be complete by July 2002. Second, the Town ahs received grant
funds to complete the wastewater reuse system to convey treated effluent to the Pine Hollow
Golf Course. Finally, the Town has completed an updated 201 Facilities Plan to address the
additional upgrades to the facility needed for nutrient removal. In summary, the components
To that end, the Town was recently awarded a grant for the purpose of the
construction of a wastewater reuse project. It will allow treated effluent to be sent to
the Pine Hollow Golf Course, a 150-acre 18-hole public course, for use as irrigation
water. Based on initial calculations for an irrigation rate of approximately 150,000
gpd, this reuse component will result in an estimated total nitrogen reduction of 1,351
lb TN/yr. This project is demonstrative of the Town’s aggressive pursuit for all
available options to meet the stringent nutrient limits imposed by the Neuse Rules.
The estimated cost of this reuse project is $733,000.00. Using this option in concert
with the nutrient offset payments could also amount to a savings to the Town of
$891,660.00, if those payments were elected as the means of providing for the
necessary nitrogen reduction. The preliminary route of the force main to transport the
effluent to the Pine Hollow Golf Course follows within existing road rights-of-way
and will utilize the golf course’s existing irrigation system. These measures will
minimize all impacts associated with the construction of this reuse project.
As with any alternatives analysis, the cost of a project is a critical factor in the decision made
by a municipality with regard to infrastructure improvements. The same is true for
The Town recognizes that it must complete these improvements not only to
allow for the growth of the community but also to eliminate any further NPDES discharge
violations thereby protecting the environment. These improvements, however, must be done
in a manner that allows for the maximum benefit for the Town and the environment at the
most reasonable cost. The following table provides a cost comparison of the applicable
alternatives included in this analysis:
I
I
I
I
I
I
that make up this alternative are largely either already completed or have been earmarked
with regard to funding, whether through grant or local funds.
Page 13
NPDES Permit Modification for the Town of Clayton
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
As stated above, cost is a major concern when evaluating all alternatives for an infrastructure
project; however, the environmental concerns must also be weighed such that an alternative
that would be more beneficial to the environment is not overlooked simply because of its
cost. While many of the alternatives discussed with regard to Clayton are normally
considered to be environmentally feasible, the primary focus of the environmental feasibility
concerns nutrient removal prior to discharge to the Neuse River. The utilization of the
alternatives that involve offset payments, trading, etc. do not specifically address the Town’s
discharge although they do look holistically at all of the discharges to the Neuse River.
Taken separately and apart from the on-going and planned improvements that the Town is or
will be making to their facility, these alternatives may be environmentally feasible. The
other alternatives discussed are used to supplement treatment and to provide a resource for
the restoration of wetlands and riparian areas within the basin. If a facility were able to meet
the stringent nitrogen limits established, then it would be in compliance with the discharge
requirements. Treatment optimization can come through the upgrade of existing facilities by
the installation of nutrient removal systems, through the use of land application practices, or
through wastewater reuse, to name several alternatives. Each of these can also be used in
combination with nutrient offset payments, basin associations, or nutrient trading to achieve
the required limits. However, the chosen alternative, Alternative 9, provides for an approach
to utilize land application where feasible as well as making improvements at the Town’s
facility to directly reduce the nutrient levels in the effluent. As previously stated, a copy of
the Environmental Assessment that was completed for this expansion is included in
Appendix A. It should be noted that a Finding of No Significant Impact was determined on
January 16, 2002.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I
I
Environmental Assessment for the
Town of Clayton Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade and Expansion
Johnston County
December 7, 2001
This project will upgrade the existing facility located between SR 1700 and NC 42 in
northwest Johnston County. This facility presently discharges into Little Creek near US 70. The
project will involve minor modifications to existing structures on site. The upgrades planned for
construction on this previously disturbed 10-acre site should disturb less than 1 acre and not
involve extensive construction activity. The project also seeks to expand permit limits in order
to optimize treatment capacity and make upgrades to pumps, piping and other facility
components.
Six alternatives were evaluated in this project proposal; (l)No Action, (2) Optimize
operation of existing waste water treatment plant, (3) Modify the existing wastewater treatment
plant and convey to a separate site for land application, (4) Divert flow as necessary from east
Clayton area to the Central Johnston County Regional Plant and upgrade Clayton Plant to treat
remaining waste stream and discharge to the Neuse River with effluent limits of 10/4/02 and
The Town of Clayton desires this expansion and upgrade to meet current and expected
growth demands in the East Clayton industrial area, East Clayton Elementary School, and the
interchange area associated with Interstate 40 and NC 42. This service area also includes the
Cleveland community. This project does not increase service area for the town of Clayton. It is
anticipated that this service area will grow faster than projected growth rates generated in earlier
201 Facility Plans for the Town, thus necessitating this project.
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for the proposed Town of Clayton Water Reclamation
Facility and discharge to Little Creek in Johnston County. The Town of Clayton desires to
increase their water reclamation facility treatment plant capacity from 1.9 mgd to 2.5 mgd and
upgrade facilities at the current plant site. The treated wastewater would continue to be
discharged into the Neuse River at the same location.
This project has been designed to minimize environmental impacts. As the immediate
project impacts will be located on an existing site, there are no prime farmlands or agricultural
areas that will be impacted through this project. The service area contains numerous wetland
areas and supports a variety of upland and wetland habitats. The surface waters are nutrient
sensitive and special regulations are in place to assist in the protection of these resources. The
Neuse River basin is also of particular concern because of eutrophication associated with
increased nutrients and the accumulation of these nutrients in the lower portion of the basin,
therefore special care and consideration is required for projects. Much of the Neuse is classified
as WS IV- NSW, however, Little Creek is classified as Class C - NSW.
CT9905
Forest Resources11.
Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats12.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation13.
I
Introduction of Toxic Substances14.
MITIGATIVE MEASURESF.
I
1
i
12/13/00Page 48HUA
I
I
I
Town of Clayton
Environmental Assessment for WWTP Expansion
i
i
4
No forested lands exist at the WWTP site; therefore, will not be any direct or
indirect disturbance or change in forested lands as result of this expasion project or
its subsequent operation.
There are no direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project to any of the
Natural Heritage Waters. In addition, there does not appear to be any adverse
impacts, direct or indirect, on shellfish, fish and their habitats by the construction of
this WWTP expansion project.
The construction and operation of the WWTP expansion site will not have direct or
indirect impacts on wildlife habitat or natural vegetation.
While species of interest of concern may exist in the Neuse River, it is not anticipated
that this operation of this expansion project would have any significant negative impact
on their habitat. The Division of Water Quality monitoring does not indicate any
significant impacts as a result of the Town of Clayton discharge and this relatively small
increase in flow will not result in a disproportionate change in impacts.
The proposed project will result in minimal adverse environmental impacts, most of
which are considered to be insignificant in their effects, as discussed in the previous
section. Therefore, only Item 10, Water Resources, will be dealt with in this section.
Water Resources
Rules were drafted that require all dischargers below the Falls Dam that have a design
flow of 0.5 MOD or greater (major dischargers) to meet annual nitrogen loads based on
their permitted flow and a concentration of approximately 3.7 mg/1 TN. The current point
source rule contains limits of 5.5 mg/1 TN for major dischargers above Falls Dam. A
mechanism was also established that allowed the point sources to meet the nitrogen
reduction goal collectively. The intent of this rule was to achieve a 30% reduction in
Construction and subsequent operation of the expansion project should not result in
introduction of toxic substances into the environment, through either direct or
indirect means. The continued use of ultra-violet radiation for disinfection and the
. continued adherence to the pretreatment program will allow the Town to remain
compliant with the toxicity limits in the NPDES permit.
CT9905
12/13/00Page 49HUA
Town of Clayton
Environmental Assessment for
{
F F
i
i
i
Expansion
point source loading at the estuary. Currently, point sources are discharging 4.1 million
pounds of nitrogen per year to the Neuse River. In order to achieve a 30 percent
reduction, dischargers must reduce their nitrogen contribution to 2.8 million pounds per
year. This rule equitably allocates the 2.8 million pounds per year between 3 different
groups of dischargers within the Neuse basin. The nitrogen is to be allocated to the
individual dischargers based upon the ratio of their permitted flow, with each facility s
permitted flow established in the rule, to the sum total permitted flow of these discharges
below the Falls Lake Dam. Under the proposed Neuse River Rules, dischargers have the
option to join a coalition of dischargers to allow implementation of point source controls
in a more cost-effective manner throughout the basin.
The Town of Clayton currently treats its wastewater to the state of the art for tertiary
treated wastewater. The proposed expansion continues to treat the wastewater to tertiary
limits. The Town of Clayton will continue to evaluate the operations of the wastewater
treatment plant to address nitrogen reduction below 3.5 mg/1 in the effluent. Methods
such as biological nutrient removal, chemical treatment and reuse are being evaluated for
implementation into the proposed expansion prior to the 2003 NPDES permit deadlines.
The Town is also participating with the Upper Neuse Basin Association, and as such, the
proposed capacity expansion of the WWTP should be mitigated by the tighter limits
required to be met by this plant on its own and in conjunction with its participation in this
Association.
The Division of Water Quality stormwater rules apply to the 10 largest municipalities and
5 counties within the Neuse River Basin. The rules require DWQ and the local
governments to develop a model stormwater management plan that addresses new
development, public education, illegal discharges, and identifying sites that could,
potentially, be retrofitted with stormwater controls. Local governments have an additional
18 months to develop a local plan that includes the same components as the model plan.
The Neuse River Basin Rule also requires the basin’s most heavily populated and fastest
growing local governments to take responsibility for managing their stormwater. Under
this program, the affected local governments would be required to work cooperatively
with DWQ to develop and implement a local stormwater management program to reduce
nitrogen by 30 percent. The affected local governments include ten municipalities (Cary,
Durham, Gamer, Goldsboro, Havelock, Kinston, New Bern, Raleigh, Smithfield and
Wilson) and five counties (Durham, Johnston, Orange, Wake and Wayne). The program
must include reviewing new development plans to ensure that they have adequate
nitrogen controls, educating the public on how to reduce nitrogen loading from their
homes and businesses, and identifying areas suitable for adding vegetated areas, wetlands
and other measures for removing nitrogen from urban areas. The Neuse Rule further
requires that riparian (Streamside) areas be protected and maintained on both sides of
streams, river, lakes and estuaries. A total of 50 feet of riparian area would be required
on each side of the waterbody. This 50-foot area would consist of 30 feet of virtually
undisturbed forest vegetation and 20 feet of grass, vegetation or trees that could be
harvested.
CT9905
I
I
I
I
I
I H.
I
12/13/00Page 50HUA
G. REFERENCES
Amendment No. 1 to Clayton 201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan, McKim & Creed
Engineers, November 1992.
Addendum No. 1 to Amendment No. 1 to Clayton 201 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Plan, McKim & Creed Engineers, April 1993.
Needs Survey for the Town of Clayton, McKim & Creed Engineers, 1997.
1999 Capital Improvements Plan, Town of Clayton, July 1999.
Town of Clayton Zoning Ordinance, Town of Clayton Planning Department, January
1993.
Town of Clayton Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Evaluation, Hobbs, Upchurch &
Associates, P.A., June 1999.
Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, Water
Quality Section, December 1998.
Neuse Letter, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, September 1997.
Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina, USDA, Soil Conservation Service,
October 1994.
File Correspondence, Staff Reports, Raleigh Regional Office, NCDENR, Division of
Water Quality, October 1999.
Town of Clayton
Environmental Assessment for WWTP Expansion
EXHIBITS (See Attached)
I. STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS REQUIRED
An amendment to the existing NPDES permit issued by the Division of Water Quality
will be required to increase the flow from 1.9 mgd to 2.5 mgd and issue new permit limits
at the expanded flow. An authorization to construct permit from the Division of Water
Quality will be required to re-rate the WWTP to a design capacity of 2.5 mgd Plans and
specifications for the minor plant modifications and the recent engineenng evaluation by
Appropriate erosion control during construction, and operation within permitted
limitations will mitigate any negative impact to water supplies. The Town of Clayton has
implemented these rules into their existing zoning requirements and has adopted a
Watershed Management Plan and a Strategic Growth Plan, and therefore, any additional
nonpoint source impact, such as stormwater runoff, as a result of this expansion project
will be effectively mitigated through these measures.
I
JANUARY 2001t
I
Project Lead Agency:
Agency Contact:
TOWN OF CLAYTON
WWTP EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Milt Rhodes [phone] ext. 366
I
fee
t
!
i
t
PREPARED BY '
HOBBS, UPCHURCH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
300 S.W. BROAD STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, N.C. 28388
[phone]
I
I
PROJECT CONTACTS
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates
I
Town of Clayton
I
I
I
I
w
Michael C. Wicker, P.E.
Angela Mettlen
Steve Biggs, Town Manager
Tim Simpson , Director Public Works
James Warren , WWTP Superintendent
[phone]
[phone] fax
Environmental Division Manager
Project Manager
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
300 SW Broad Street
Southern Pines, NC 28388
[phone]
[phone] fax
231 E2nd Street
Clayton, NC 27520-0879
CT9905
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I
&4J
I
I
1
HUA 12/13/00
I
Town of Clayton
Environmental Assessment for WWTP Expansion
7.
8.
9.
7.
8.
9.
Page 44
Page 44
Page 45
Page 45
Page 45
Page 48
Page 48
Page 48
Page 48
Page 48
Page 50
Attachments
Page 50
Page 41
Page 41
Page 42
Page 44
Page 44
Forward
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 6
Page 10
Page 10
Page 14
Page 16
Page 18
Page 20
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 23
Page 23
Page 33
Page 34
Page 38
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Environmental Assessment Comments and Responses
Executive Summary
Section A: Proposed Project Description
Section B: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
Section C: Alternatives Analysis
Section D: Existing Environmental Characteristics
Topography
Soils
Land Use
Wetlands
Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State
Natural Areas
Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
Air Quality
Noise Levels
10. Water Resources
11. Forest Resources
12. Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
Section E: Predicted Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Page 41
Topography
Soils
Land Use
Wetlands
Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State
Natural Areas
Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
Air Quality
Noise Levels
10. Water Reso urces
11. Forest Resources
12. Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
14. Introduction of Toxic Substances
Section F: Mitigative Measures
Section G: References
Section H: Exhibits
Section I: State and Federal Permits Required
I
Sheetl
I Hobbs, Upchurch and Associates, PJV
Southern Pines, NC '
Town of Clayton Alternative Cost Analysis
Captial Cost Annual O&M Present Worth
$837,000 | $17,341,970
17,500,000 $500,000 $$23,475,191
I 700,000 $I $7,500,000 15,865,268
$1,055,000 $$5,740,000 18,347,654
$$733,000 $3,455,000 12,214,630
Combination of Alt 2 & 3 $$887,000 $8,072,500 18,672,489
PV=Co + cn(1+i)An)-1)/((i)*(1+i)An)
I
I
Page 1
. $
I______________________
Upgrade to 2.5 MGD
i=interest rate
n=design lifeI
5.5 %
20 yrs
r
Co= construction cost
Ct= O&M cost
A/P factor ~11,95038~
.AI
7,339,500 ~
Convey to Johnston County
I
Nutrient Offset Payments
_ I
Alternative
Modifications to existing
WWTP w/ BNR
New Land Application WWTP
I
Convey to City of Raleigh
North Carolina Department oj
I February 24, 2002
FEB 2 8 2002
I
Dear Mr. Wicker:
Sincerely,
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONSI w/Conditions)I
I
I
[phone]Raleigh, NC 27699-16171617 Mail Service Center
1 800 623-7748
Re: SCH File #02-E-4300-0275, WWTP Capacity Increase for Clayton Water
Reclamation Facility
On January 16, 2002, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act review on the above project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It
is now acceptable to proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality
for the proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (919)
733-5083, ext. 366.
Milt Rhodes
Watershed Planner
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Customer Service
Michael Wicker
Hobbs, Upchurch, and Associates
290 SW Broad Street, PO Box 1737
Southern Pines, North Carolina 28388
Micnaei r. casiey, governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Jronment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Dc
■ X
co/Til I IrJ > I LyujyJi
EOe
cc. Ken Schuster, Supervisor Raleigh Regional Office
Kim Colson, Supervisor Non-discharge Permitting Unit
Dave Goodrich, Supervisor NPDES Permitting Unit
Gwynn T. Swinson, SecretaryMichael F. Easley, Governor
January' 16, 2002I
Dear Mr. Rhodes:
Re:
I Best regards.
cc: Region J
I
I
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
SCH File # 02-E-43 00-0275; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact Town
of Clayton - Proposal to Increase Treatment Capacity from Clayton's Water Reclamation Facility
from 1.9 MGD to 2.5 MGD
Mr. Milt Rhodes
N.C. Dept, of Env. & Nat. Resources
Div. of Water Quality
Archdale Bldg. - 1617 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
No comments were made by any state/local agencies in the course of this review. Therefore, no further
environmental review action on your part is required for the compliance with the Act.
I z
§§
I
o
/□
I
A B
8FS]
e□
X
□i Ililimm
\
II:<
■£
□ l
f§\
0
Ist13□
/
y.
>:
oE
1o
1
X
cX
4! <
----X-------: c—
/
i
I z
§
8
SYM.wte
£8
PROPOSED GRADING PU\N
I I
o
I
CD
I
£ JA
x
I
X
X
I
----------------X
z
v>
Ml
«
I
1
8
o
M
8
m
i
m
i
m
I
> z
X
° I
. I /
\
\
X
\
/4/j
z
M
8
I
I
CHLORNE
CONTAC T
CHAMB
s
IB
i
i
.ORINE
LDtNG
I
»;i
U- —-J
□
\
300 S.W. Brood Street, Southern Pines, North Caroline 28387
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
11
I
l
l
m
t
8
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
—I
I
/
I
S
m
Q mz u
x
w
8
u
I
CLAYTON WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
r-r
O 2
=»= > §
04 X)
Alfe
E
£
T
I
F
I
1—
I I
-3/i 1
//
! I
I
I
I
I
X
m
Ml
X
z
M
8
M
8
v>
8
£ oos
lbrt i
3 i r u
'\
IA
I
/
/
I
g r~
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
__L
I
k
/
/
I
/
/ /
/ /
/ / /
5 5 I
11
I
/
/
f
I
I
□
\
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
-f—
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
I
_L
Ix
§
fl
M
§
/
/
/
II
Sgz
/
/~r
r
-----X------
"X-
X
/
—X
4X-----
I
i
9
co >> mco ^3
'I1
Il J
i;
> m
co XI
55
=tfc o z
V
A
ill
s
i I
!1
1 i™
\\
1
Y
/
I
/
7
CAy 1i
I > ‘
I
7
o’ i
-+
■ i i
i
I1
J )
7 //
E
z
/
/
/
/
/
// tin
i p1
i
| pi I
I
ff
I I
il 1
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A
Comuttlng EnglnMn
SOLHHERN PINES, NC - MYRTLE BEACH. SC
NAGS HEAD, NC - RALEIGH, NC - CHARLOTTE, NC
'■lll!IIIIIIHllllllllllllll!lllllllll*ll
5
6
§
/
// •
// /
/s
r
\ \\'''
i 'n I e
11 if
x------
ijeiilirii
y/ 1< 1/A-
_2>
%
I ra sl’3
1
o cn
i— m =#= > o
3Z m co
O’!
I
I
I
I
I
1
IB |
III
I I ’
EZZ
i ;__—
J I
rd I
nV7
/
/
/
/
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
4-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-y
i
/
/
/
/
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i|
a C)
i
o1
i
T/l
I
o > co
-<
OI
• =A
$
'l
NATION' = = ft
A. xr.
3
•b
■ i ”43
^1
=-=i5£-
STATE
^XR&RJ^NTAL
Radio H ^-x
^Tt'^
• 11
: j^iil-_jzj4
U B'
1i
.20°
S' 'J
300
309
2000
GRAPHIC SCALE
FIGURE
BM
34B
o «
n
\T
\\«
//?
H
H
U
n
:n) .
364.^
Z
/ A
/ (
' YiOO-
W2000 <000 0
- 6'
'/A V V 7 . -/ ;■-a \/a
^A,1
56 k; C
;=iA X JLV
V clayton'
!s,v3)
ir
H
U
U
II
n
n
u
• A
'XA-V
uXj
J— tSs,
h
Siofei
T 5k~X.
4 faW# •<
J43F-. " |(or
r '' / \ \ ;•-
S® F'ZjWTI OKI
. « n ( -~==a:
JI
■ 5°x>^
r ’ CT~A X*'
FORCE MAINV^X^^,. \\
'XKW (X WXkV^N ,GW ) \
7J^
2^ . |P!X',
ylh/ - < I
I
AvwvX
f XxrX77 / _zK ia ws ^T) /xJ'BM /
' A-tf MctSuneri
L-\n/ aw7j
k£>\
■< CJ n 'IAX I
ri Ax W
xlr
&° *■
. f—~ ■- .
Gay / ''Xz
Cem /. ~- -~->^//"X
A:' Sa.aa-X
Xai ''?
I
I
0+00 to
N 5+00
2" GALV. W/L
N 4+00
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
PUMP STATION
N 3+00
3’x3' ALUMINUM ACCESS DOOR
PVC SLUDGE UNE
EXISTING GRADE
N 2+00 N 2+008SPLITTERSOX
SS-
24* SS 6* GATE VALVE
8* VC SS
FL-FL SPOOL PIECE
1* W/L
N i+ooBRACE
INFLUEMT
1* W/L
INFLUENT STRUCTURE
o+ooBYPASS CONNECTION SECTION VIEW
•DI.
12* D.I.P. FORCEMAINNEW N.T.S.
GRAPHIC SCALE
is* r:p
MOW
S 1+00
4* UNDERDRAIN
W 5+00 0+00
5EC0NDAR’
CLARIFIER
2* PVC W/L
12* D.l. FM/
'PRIMARY
CUK^IFIEF
18* Dl"
IERDRAIN
1* W/L2^
8* C.l. FM
—18* VC SS
4* C.l. SS -
15* RCP—7
TRICKLING
FILTER - 6“ c.l.
6* c.l. FM
§
6* RISER AND 6* W/
QUICK CONNECT
— 8* VC SS
8* C.l. FM
WATERPROOF WALLS ON
BOTH SIDES WITH APPLICATION
OF DRYCON WATERPROOFING
PER MANUFACTURER’S WRITTEN
DIRECTIONS
- 1* W/L
4* UNDERDRAIN
6* D.l. W/L
z—15* RCP,
NOTE:
FULLY RESTRAIN ALL
JOINTS. MEGA-LUG,
RODDED, OR EQUAL
5’—0*X6’—0* PRE-CAST
CONCRETE VAULT
mje
JULY, 2000
I'
If
in
B
l
§
J 6* SHORT RADIUS BEND W/
H MASONRY PEDESTAL BASE
NOTE:
VALVE SHALL BE SITUATED AS TO
BE OPERABLE FROM ABOVE WITH
DOOR OPEN AND WITHOUT
REQUIRING ENTRY INTO THE VALVE
PIT.
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
OU
PUMP STATION
INFLUENT >UMP
STATION
li
E '
r 041; if
§
/
r
I
I 5--
If
Fk I
8’ VC SS-
8* VC SS
' C.l. FM___—---------
CTF IN NEW 12"X6* WYE
1-12* GATE VALVE
1-6* GATE VALVE
P ?E—CAST VAULT MINIMUM
5 Xe’Xe’. INCLUDE ALL IN VAULT
PROVIDE VALVES WITH NUT OPERA ORS.
_______REG
CHECKEZk
______MOW
KMX:
1*-30'
MET MX
G-12
Q0-
o Z
Q_ Q.
aor