20140351 Ver 2_More Info Received - Email_20170206

Homewood, Sue
From:Homewood, Sue
Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 9:00 AM
To:'Heiser, David'
Cc:Bailey, David E SAW
Subject:RE: Minor modification to No Rise
Dave,

Since no additional impacts will occur in the buffer from what was approved, these changes will not require a formal modification
to the 401 or buffer authorization. I will include this information in our file. Thank you for taking the time to communicate the
changes and verify the steps needed to properly address them.

Thanks,

Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality

336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]

450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Heiser, David \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 6:33 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor modification to No Rise

Thank you, Sue. By no additional impacts, I meant that no fill would be placed in any of the buffer zones, other than
the rip rap that has been permitted in both the creek bed and on the hillside surrounding the completed outfall
structure to minimize future erosion. The small area of cut shown on my Sketch “A” will be needed to slope the west
side of the very small hill downstream of the new structure for the rip rap placement, and will amount to about 8 to 10
CY of earth being removed….not the entire hill, by any means. The existing wetlands will continue to be protected to
the best of my monitoring capabilities of the activities along the pipeline ROW; and please note that a much smaller
cofferdam than was originally permitted has been installed for this separate new outfall structure.

As you saw this morning, David Bailey has given us the USACE’s approval regarding the 404 permit; and this afternoon
we also received the approval from the Supervisor of the City of Greensboro’s Water Resources Department,
Stormwater Division for the revisions to the (FEMA) No-Rise certification. Please let me know if I can help you any
further with your review of this request. Thank you – have a great weekend!

1

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
Resident Construction Engineer
Cell: 919-805-2395

From: Homewood, Sue \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:28 PM
To: Heiser, David <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor modification to No Rise

Sorry Dave, I had been receiving them but figured I’d wait until you responded to David’s email to join in. I’m slightly confused
about the buffer impacts. You say that a small knoll will be removed in Zone 1 to install riprap but then you said that no additional
impacts to the buffer will occur. I’m sure I’m just mis-understanding something, can you help clarify that for me.

Thanks,

Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality

336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]

450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Heiser, David \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 9:11 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Minor modification to No Rise

Sue – I have not heard back from you, so I am simply trying to find out if you have been receiving these Emails. Please
let me know if DWR or DLR need any other information from me. Thank you!

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
Resident Construction Engineer
Cell: 919-805-2395

From: Heiser, David
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:56 AM
To: 'Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boone, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Butcher, James <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor modification to No Rise

2

Dave - Thank you for the quick reply, and sorry for being so late in responding (I had to make sure I had the final version
of the "Impacts Map" from the 4/18/2014 PCN Application submittal to the USACE, prior to responding). Since the
distance we would like to move the second outfall structure downstream is so short (approx. 9’), the proposed
modifications to the pipe alignment, the outfall structure itself, and the rip rap (both in the creek and on the banks
surrounding the existing and new structures) will not be installed outside of the footprint for temporary disturbance
shown in the Impacts Map attached to the original PCN Application. The small knoll due east (downstream) of the
outfall structure will have to be sloped back slightly, to install the rip rap to prevent slope erosion at this location after
the project is completed, thus a small volume of soil will be removed from the downstream section of the Zone 1
Riparian Buffer prior to the rip rap installation. I do not expect the temporary or permanent impacts to the Riparian
Buffers, the open waters/pond, the existing wetlands, or the creek itself to exceed the permitted limits in these areas –
either in location or acreage. In addition, I would like to point out that the Contractor has only installed a cofferdam
that is roughly 33 feet long \[parallel to the creek’s flowline\], in lieu of the 60 feet shown on the Impacts Map. Please let
me know if I can provide any additional information. Thank you!

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
CDMSmith
Raleigh, NC
Cell: 919-805-2395

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:13 PM
To: Heiser, David <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boone, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Butcher, James <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor modification to No Rise

Thanks for the information, Dave. I can see the changes are minor. However, I do want to clarify:
Are the changes to the pipe, grading, rip rap, or temporary construction disturbance areas (within streams, wetlands,
open waters) proposed outside of the existing permitted footprint? This question refers to the location, not just the
acreage amount, of these impacts. Thanks.
-Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__corpsmapu.usace.army.mil_cm-5Fapex_f-3Fp-3D136-3A4-
3A0&d=DwIFAg&c=NpiPIT1KNSO0vXgGk6ogJQ&r=6k9ItOc7YN8hJQ6GpFSpkZWzByGaNntXnsYtde4z39o&m=9OHxpyjna
YrmUtQ_E9_3X_RmueENz9n3lKP-lZY0U4s&s=l-fpaQ4FOJdWiLLUL26qRGmroQLxZiNoO1MLddITn_0&e= .

-----Original Message-----
3

From: Heiser, David \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boone, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Butcher, James <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] FW: Minor modification to No Rise

David:

This is a followup to our conversation two weeks ago about the new outfall structure for the T.Z.Osborne WRF plant
outfall to the South Buffalo Creek in Greensboro, NC. For your reference, the 401 ID number is " DWR #14-0351 " for
Guilford County, and the 404 Action ID is " SAW-2014-00820. " As I told you on our phone call, the contractor is having
a very difficult time getting the area within the cofferdam dry enough to build the outfall structure expansion directly
onto the existing structure, without having a flow of water from underneath the existing box - which is obviously not a
desirable situation. He has therefore asked to build the same new box as a separate structure, about 8' or 9'
downstream of the location shown on our contract drawings, and create an additional inner, smaller cofferdam for
building the new structure itself. To help refresh your memory, I have included herewith a copy of sheet M-25 from
the No-Rise Certificate application in 2013, to show the original design of the extension to the outfall structure to
accommodate the addition of the second 54" plant outfall pipe.

Attached are two sketches regarding the proposed modifications to the layout of the new outfall structure in South
Buffalo Creek. Sketch "A" shows the revised location of the outfall structure for the second 54" outfall line, as well as
the slight regrading that will be required to slope the ground to the new structure prior to the rip rap installation. No
fill will be placed within the floodway or the South Buffalo Creek buffer zone. The approximate wetlands delineations
are also shown on Sketch "A", highlighted in yellow.

Sketch "B" is a blowup of the area at the outfall structures. The existing outfall structure (that is now proposed NOT to
be partially demolished) is shown highlighted in yellow, and the new outfall structure is highlighted in pink, which will
be about 8' or 9' downstream of where it was shown on the contract drawings. Please note that the new outfall
structure will be exactly the same size and shape, and will be constructed at the same elevation and orientation as
what was originally permitted, just as a separate structure. The two boxes will also be joined by a concrete slab on top
of rip rap and 57 stone between the two boxes, to prevent any future erosion occurring between the two
structures. The outfall for both pipelines will thereby appear as one structure when construction is completed. (This
concrete slab will not be allowed to extend beyond the front or rear walls of the existing or new outfall structures.)

As you can see, even with this slight relocation of the new outfall and its connecting 54" PCCP pipeline, there will be no
additional impacts to the existing wetlands. In addition, I will make every effort to direct the contractor to adjust the
locations of the rip rap installations, so that the same area of rip rap lining within the creek and the same area of rip rap
lining on the finished banks around the new outfall will be installed as shown on the contract drawings and in the
permit application.

CDM Smith has determined that there will be no detrimental effect of this modification to the creek and its floodplain,
and will coordinate closely with the City of Greensboro's Stormwater Division regarding the No Rise certification. I will
also notify both the DWR and DLR at the Winston Salem NCDEQ regional office regarding the 401 and erosion control
permits. Please call me with any questions regarding this modification and/or the attached sketches. Thank you!

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
CDMSmith
Raleigh, NC
Cell: 919-805-2395
4

Homewood, Sue
From:Heiser, David <[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:56 AM
To:Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Boone, Kelly; Butcher, James; Homewood, Sue
Subject:RE: Minor modification to No Rise
Dave - Thank you for the quick reply, and sorry for being so late in responding (I had to make sure I had the final version
of the "Impacts Map" from the 4/18/2014 PCN Application submittal to the USACE, prior to responding). Since the
distance we would like to move the second outfall structure downstream is so short (approx. 9’), the proposed
modifications to the pipe alignment, the outfall structure itself, and the rip rap (both in the creek and on the banks
surrounding the existing and new structures) will not be installed outside of the footprint for temporary disturbance
shown in the Impacts Map attached to the original PCN Application. The small knoll due east (downstream) of the
outfall structure will have to be sloped back slightly, to install the rip rap to prevent slope erosion at this location after
the project is completed, thus a small volume of soil will be removed from the downstream section of the Zone 1
Riparian Buffer prior to the rip rap installation. I do not expect the temporary or permanent impacts to the Riparian
Buffers, the open waters/pond, the existing wetlands, or the creek itself to exceed the permitted limits in these areas –
either in location or acreage. In addition, I would like to point out that the Contractor has only installed a cofferdam
that is roughly 33 feet long \[parallel to the creek’s flowline\], in lieu of the 60 feet shown on the Impacts Map. Please let
me know if I can provide any additional information. Thank you!

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
CDMSmith
Raleigh, NC
Cell: 919-805-2395

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:13 PM
To: Heiser, David <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boone, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Butcher, James <[e-mail]>; Homewood, Sue
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Minor modification to No Rise

Thanks for the information, Dave. I can see the changes are minor. However, I do want to clarify:
Are the changes to the pipe, grading, rip rap, or temporary construction disturbance areas (within streams, wetlands,
open waters) proposed outside of the existing permitted footprint? This question refers to the location, not just the
acreage amount, of these impacts. Thanks.
-Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
1

Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__corpsmapu.usace.army.mil_cm-5Fapex_f-3Fp-3D136-3A4-
3A0&d=DwIFAg&c=NpiPIT1KNSO0vXgGk6ogJQ&r=6k9ItOc7YN8hJQ6GpFSpkZWzByGaNntXnsYtde4z39o&m=9OHxpyjna
YrmUtQ_E9_3X_RmueENz9n3lKP-lZY0U4s&s=l-fpaQ4FOJdWiLLUL26qRGmroQLxZiNoO1MLddITn_0&e= .

-----Original Message-----
From: Heiser, David \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Boone, Kelly <[e-mail]>; Butcher, James <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] FW: Minor modification to No Rise

David:

This is a followup to our conversation two weeks ago about the new outfall structure for the T.Z.Osborne WRF plant
outfall to the South Buffalo Creek in Greensboro, NC. For your reference, the 401 ID number is " DWR #14-0351 " for
Guilford County, and the 404 Action ID is " SAW-2014-00820. " As I told you on our phone call, the contractor is having
a very difficult time getting the area within the cofferdam dry enough to build the outfall structure expansion directly
onto the existing structure, without having a flow of water from underneath the existing box - which is obviously not a
desirable situation. He has therefore asked to build the same new box as a separate structure, about 8' or 9'
downstream of the location shown on our contract drawings, and create an additional inner, smaller cofferdam for
building the new structure itself. To help refresh your memory, I have included herewith a copy of sheet M-25 from
the No-Rise Certificate application in 2013, to show the original design of the extension to the outfall structure to
accommodate the addition of the second 54" plant outfall pipe.

Attached are two sketches regarding the proposed modifications to the layout of the new outfall structure in South
Buffalo Creek. Sketch "A" shows the revised location of the outfall structure for the second 54" outfall line, as well as
the slight regrading that will be required to slope the ground to the new structure prior to the rip rap installation. No
fill will be placed within the floodway or the South Buffalo Creek buffer zone. The approximate wetlands delineations
are also shown on Sketch "A", highlighted in yellow.

Sketch "B" is a blowup of the area at the outfall structures. The existing outfall structure (that is now proposed NOT to
be partially demolished) is shown highlighted in yellow, and the new outfall structure is highlighted in pink, which will
be about 8' or 9' downstream of where it was shown on the contract drawings. Please note that the new outfall
structure will be exactly the same size and shape, and will be constructed at the same elevation and orientation as
what was originally permitted, just as a separate structure. The two boxes will also be joined by a concrete slab on top
of rip rap and 57 stone between the two boxes, to prevent any future erosion occurring between the two
structures. The outfall for both pipelines will thereby appear as one structure when construction is completed. (This
concrete slab will not be allowed to extend beyond the front or rear walls of the existing or new outfall structures.)

As you can see, even with this slight relocation of the new outfall and its connecting 54" PCCP pipeline, there will be no
additional impacts to the existing wetlands. In addition, I will make every effort to direct the contractor to adjust the
locations of the rip rap installations, so that the same area of rip rap lining within the creek and the same area of rip rap
lining on the finished banks around the new outfall will be installed as shown on the contract drawings and in the
permit application.

2

Homewood, Sue
From:Heiser, David <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 4:10 PM
To:Homewood, Sue
Cc:Boone, Kelly; Butcher, James
Subject:Minor Modifications to TZO Outfall Structure
Attachments:TZO-SBuffalo No-Rise M-25.pdf; 0588_001.pdf
Sue:
This is a followup to our conversation two weeks ago about the new outfall structure for the T.Z.Osborne WRF
plant outfall to the South Buffalo Creek in Greensboro, NC. For your reference, the 401 ID number is “ DWR #14-0351 “
for Guilford County; the 404 Action ID is “ SAW-2014-00820 “; the ATC ID for Package 3 is 047384A05; and the Erosion
Control Permit for this project is “ GUILF-2015-026. “ As I told you on our phone call, the contractor is having a very
difficult time getting the area within the cofferdam dry enough to build the outfall structure expansion directly onto
the existing structure, without having a flow of water from underneath the existing box – which is obviously not a
desirable situation. He has therefore asked to build the same new box as a separate structure, about 8’ or 9’
downstream of the location shown on our contract drawings, and create an additional inner, smaller cofferdam for
building the new structure itself. To help you understand the project, I have included herewith a copy of sheet M-25
(from the No-Rise Certificate application in 2013) to show the original design of the extension to the outfall structure to
accommodate the addition of the second 54” plant outfall pipe.

Attached are two sketches regarding the proposed modifications to the layout of the new outfall structure in
South Buffalo Creek. Sketch “A” shows the revised location of the outfall structure for the second 54” outfall line, as
well as the slight regrading that will be required to slope the ground to the new structure prior to the rip rap
installation. No fill will be placed within the floodway or the South Buffalo Creek buffer zone. The approximate
wetlands delineations are also shown on Sketch “A”, highlighted in yellow.
Sketch “B” is a blowup of the area at the outfall structures. The existing outfall structure (that is now proposed
NOT to be partially demolished) is shown highlighted in yellow, and the new outfall structure is highlighted in pink,
which will be about 8’ or 9’ downstream of where it was shown on the contract drawings. Please note that the new
outfall structure will be exactly the same size and shape, and will be constructed at the same elevation and orientation
as what was originally permitted, just as a separate structure. The two boxes will also be joined by a concrete slab on
top of rip rap and 57 stone between the two boxes, to prevent any future erosion occurring between the two
structures. The outfall for both pipelines will thereby appear as one structure when construction is completed. (This
concrete slab will not be allowed to extend beyond the front or rear walls of the existing or new outfall structures.)
As you can see, even with this slight relocation of the new outfall and its connecting 54” PCCP pipeline, there
will be no additional impacts to the existing wetlands. In addition, I will make every effort to direct the contractor to
adjust the locations of the rip rap installations, so that the same area of rip rap lining within the creek and the same
area of rip rap lining on the finished banks around the new outfall will be installed as shown on the contract drawings
and in the permit application.
CDM Smith has determined that there will be no detrimental effect of this modification to the creek and its
floodplain, and will coordinate closely with the City of Greensboro’s Stormwater Division regarding the No Rise
certification. I have already notified David Bailey of the USACE at the Raleigh regional office regarding the 404
permit. Please call me with any questions regarding this modification and/or the attached sketches. Thank you!

Dave Heiser, PE, BCEE
CDMSmith
Raleigh, NC
Cell: 919-805-2395
1

.e
Lp
'S
z
Ix
10L
POR 17ALIAM OR -06AI
T
F EL� 69c).06
WSTALL NCIDOT CLASS
RIPRAP 30" Tr'?W�K ON
6 NO. '57 STONE AND
-'�11TER FABRIC
Ali
REV ID, ocAT I W4,07,f�
Arr-1-1 fk i'. -gr cAi i C,-rQ
0 Fr-� RD AM
UMTS OF CO
TOP EL. 690�00
FLDOD�l
SOU,�'H. BUFFALO CREEK
SILT tXISTING
0 U T FA' Ll� ST
RUC7URE
REGRADE AREA �Nf
FRONT oP
CU7FAI LL
,;EE
PROFILE
POR 17ALIAM OR -06AI
T
F EL� 69c).06
WSTALL NCIDOT CLASS
RIPRAP 30" Tr'?W�K ON
6 NO. '57 STONE AND
-'�11TER FABRIC
Ali
REV ID, ocAT I W4,07,f�
Arr-1-1 fk i'. -gr cAi i C,-rQ
0 Fr-� RD AM
T *1 - INET111jND 0- UWTS OF CLIP"
INSIA CLA
Ir 11 � LL SS R -P - RAP AND Ir"ONSTR".)C
5' L
E -HN' S7RI C. -UD
�NSTALL 'COFFERDAM As RE011PRErl.
TO FACIL,'WiE ICIONSTRUCTiON.
COFFER DAM SHALL RE DESIGNED
By T�4E CONTRACT, CIR'S
ENGINEER, SEE TEMPnRARY
DIVERSION NOTES THIS SHEET.\ SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
BUFFER ZONE
5 KL--Tci4 11 A q
(f �� Co v�� ot b wy. C -7)
FLO 0 rL
UMTS OF CO
TOP EL. 690�00
FLDOD�l
SOU,�'H. BUFFALO CREEK
BUFFM ZONE
40,0"
'—CCNNECT T li EX;ST-
2"
-.NPW
I
'-,�'ALYE E3 D, X TO HE
4-
1-4
NEW 77.
�Rr� 0--�ATF VALVE BOX
RUC -7 R�-
OUT F A L T u
SEEEM AND S SHEEfS
'\�iNSTALL
-zn" hllm�
T *1 - INET111jND 0- UWTS OF CLIP"
INSIA CLA
Ir 11 � LL SS R -P - RAP AND Ir"ONSTR".)C
5' L
E -HN' S7RI C. -UD
�NSTALL 'COFFERDAM As RE011PRErl.
TO FACIL,'WiE ICIONSTRUCTiON.
COFFER DAM SHALL RE DESIGNED
By T�4E CONTRACT, CIR'S
ENGINEER, SEE TEMPnRARY
DIVERSION NOTES THIS SHEET.\ SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK
BUFFER ZONE
5 KL--Tci4 11 A q
(f �� Co v�� ot b wy. C -7)
FLO 0 rL

12"
To CUKTAIL 54" DIP
DD
5L0 W OF 1,JATGR
UfA)SK- 6-x, Bcx
PlLlt\l
WALL
exisria&, atiTFALL ION tz
19:-r&VcrJP,G NOT 1-o
FRMALLY OW01P
LAP
(TYP)
VIF
VIF
PLAN
1�V -- V-0-
0WOF OF *3 I-pzvcii
taxes cu 04k&lrrw
im PlAce
'�G(XrH 6VF�'AL-0 C Ri6eK
— EXVTgfqcs,
TNa.JC14 Sax
(fro m Skeet'5-- 17)
D M 14 S kitc � kl-2/1 7)
5KG'TCA 4911

d
z
U;
0
jo 11
L
a
4
x
oo,
u
o,
2- 90- BEND,
2' NP:�
2' BALL VALVE
VALVE BOI
EXIST 54'
INV EL 676.5
EL 686.50
VALVE BOX�
2' NP�W. AWNTAIN
2 �-6 _'r
C�
OVE
...........
iX;ST 54' FE
SEE NOTE 1
REMOVE EXISTING ' '
VALVE BOX AND 2' NPW
TO THE LIMITS SHOWN
2' NPW SUPPLY
HEADER
138' SPRAY
ANGLE, TYP OF 3
NOTE:
1� FOR THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
OUTFALL STRUCTURE, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS,
PLAN
FLOODJET SPRAY NOZZLE MODEL
112K-SS80 W177i SST SPtrr EYELET
CONNECTOR "ANUFACTURED BY
SpSPRAYNG SYSIEMS, INC OR EQUAL
NO2ZLES SMU BE PLACED 02'-6' OC
2
N
N"2
K
S
C
N
G
D
R
SW
`2
Y'5M
S_
75 DEGREE SPRAY
DEFLEC770H
RFMOVE EX151INC
SO :X'5 NO
VALVE BOX AND 2" NPW
TO THE LIMITS SHOWN
Et 660.00
OU'rFALL STRUCTURE
SEE STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS FOR DEAJLS
2" 90' SEND, TYP
" "S L
S
DRAW'N S
FOR DEAJLS
TYP
EZN
2- D�
TYP
2' 45' BEND,
TYP
VY
2' No
2' BALL VALVE
. W
HEADER
139* SPRAY
ANGLE. TYP OF
EL 69-6'50
VALVE BOX
EL 685.00
2" NPW
2'-6' MIN
(54" FE
INV EL 676
A& —
-�:W—ST
INV EL
CONNECT TO EXII
2* NPW SPRAY
HEADER
- EXISr 2' NPW
SUPPLY HEADER
NOTEN
1. SEE DETAIL H ON SHEET MD -2
FOR NOZZLE PIPE WALL SUPPORT.
PLAN
318" - V-0'
FLCDDJE:T SPRAY NOZZLE MODEL
1/2K-SSBO WITH SST SPLIT EYELET
CONNECTOR MANUFACTURED BY
SPRAYING SYSTEMS. INC OR EQUAL
NOZZLES SHALL BE PLACED C2' -S' OC
��'-EGREE SPRAY
IIII I 11111111
CM?0-
>A 9 - A
EL 680-0)
EXISTING OUTFALL STRUCTURE sli� 'It!
L
SECTI 54* FE
j-ImV E�L 676.5(
3/8- 1. dw
%N.o * * ,
Q 4t
EL 676.0)
OUTFALL STRUCTURE
SECTION
FLKIVII f iL I - NE) I K)K UUNb I HLI I ION
DESIGNED fff A.
DRAWN BY: 1. OLIVER
SHEET CHK'D BY: So LEE
CROSS CHK'O EY-- - X YADAV
APPROVED 8Y-- J. LAPSLEY
DATE� JANUARY 201
CIDM
Smith
c—P0—'M�)1—&'Sm
540a Glenwood A� Sults 300
R.la%h. INC 27612 1 Tel (919� 767-W20
INC L-- No. F-0412
CITY OF GREENSBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
WRF EXPANSION AND BNR UPGRADES PROJECT
T2. OSBORNE - PACKAGE 3
OUTFALL STRUCTURE
DEMOLITION AND MODIFICATION
PLANS AND SECTIONS
PROJECT No. ' 145-82159
FILE NAME, ,r25,,P,.DW,
SHEET NO.
M-25
REV.
NO. REMAI
FLKIVII f iL I - NE) I K)K UUNb I HLI I ION