NCG020922_NOI Alternatives Analysis Revision Pages_20171219

NCG020000 N.O.I.
37) Are wastewater treatment facilities (including recycle systems) planned in the 100 -year flood plain?
® No
❑ Yes
38) A wastewater treatment alternatives review is required by 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (c)(2)
for any new or expanding water pollution control facility discharges in North Carolina. You may
attach additional sheets. List the types of wastewater this mine site will discharge:
® Mine Dewatering
❑ Process Wastewater (such as washing or recycle system overflows, other mining activity wastewater)
a) What wastewaters were considered for this alternatives review? IN Dewatering ❑ Process WW
b) Connection to a Municipal or Regional Sewer Collection System:
i) Are there existing sewer lines within a one -mile radius? ..................................... ❑ Yes ® No
(1) If Yes, will the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) accept the wastewater? .... ❑ Yes ❑ No
(a) If No, please attach a letter documenting that the WWTP will not accept the wastewater.
(b) If Yes, is it feasible to connect to the WWTP? Why or why not?*
c) Closed-loop Recycle System (meets design requirements of 15A NCAC 2T.1000):
i) Are you already proposing a closed-loop recycle system (CLRS)? ......................... ❑ Yes ® No
(1) If Yes, for what type of wastewater at this mine site? ❑ Dewatering ❑ Process WW
(2) If No, is this option technologically feasible (possible)? Why or why not?*
(3) If No, is it otherwise feasible to build a CLRS at this site? Why or why not?*
(4) What is the feasibility of building a CLRS compared to direct surface water discharge?*
d) Surface or Subsurface Disposal System (e.g., spray irrigation):
i) Is a surface or subsurface disposal technologically feasible (possible)? ..................... ❑ Yes ® No
Why or Why not?* There is not enough area onsite to dispose the volume of water
ii) Is a surface or subsurface disposal system otherwise feasible to implement?*............ ❑ Yes © No
Why or Why not?* There is not enough area onsite to dispose the volume of water
Page 8 of 12
SWU-NCG02-NOI Last revised 9/10/2015

NCG020000 N.O.I.
iii) What is the feasibility of employing a subsurface or surface discharge as compared to a direct
discharge to surface waters?* Its not feasible. There is not enough area onsite to do surface or subsurface
discharge
e) Direct Discharge to Surface Waters: Is discharge to surface waters the most environmentally sound
alternative of all reasonably cost-effective options for the wastewaters being considered?*
© Yes ❑ No
f) If this review included all wastewater discharge types, would excluding some types (e.g. mine
dewatering) make any of the above non -discharge options feasible for some of the wastewaters?
❑ Yes 0 No
* Feasibility should take into account initial and recurring costs. You may be asked to provide
further information to support your answers to these questions after the initial review.
Other:
39) Hazardous Waste:
a) Is this facility a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility?
® No ❑ Yes
b) Is this facility a Small Quantity Generator (less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste generated per month) of
hazardous waste?
© No ❑ Yes
c) Is this facility a Large Quantity Generator (1000 kg. or more of hazardous waste generated per month) of
hazardous waste?
® No ❑ Yes
d) If you answered yes to questions b. or c., please provide the following information:
Type(s) of waste:
How is material stored:
Where is material stored:
How many disposal shipments per year:
Name of transport / disposal vendor:
Vendor address:
40) Is your facility providing appropriate secondary containment for bulk storage of liquid materials? (See
permit text for secondary containment requirements.)
® No
❑ Yes
41) Does your site have an active landfill within the mining permit boundary?
x❑ No
❑ Yes If yes, specify type: ❑ LCID (Land Clearing and Inert Debris) ❑ Other:
Page 9 of 12
SWU-NCG02-NOI Last revised 9/10/2015