WQ0004230_Return Application_20031020

O� WAT�,gQ�
y_
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Division of Water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 20, 2003
Mr. James I. Taylor, President
A Place at the Beach III, Homeowners Association
P. O. Box 877
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Subject: Return of Permit Application Package
Application Number WQ0004230
A Place at the Beach III
WWTP and Rapid Infiltration
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
This letter is in reference to your permit application received on May 2, 2003 for the construction and operation of
the subject wastewater collection, treatment and/or disposal facilities.
In letters dated July 16, 2003 and July 31, 2003, you were asked by Bennie Goetze, Jr., P. E. of the Non -Discharge
Permitting Unit, to provide additional information (copy of letters attached). As of today, this information has not
been received. In addition this office received a letter from Ms. Sue Lewis of Beach Vacation Properties indicating
that the proposed design would not be pursued, that a replacement engineer was being selected, and that the
association did not wish to receive approval for the design now under review. Therefore, the Division of Water
Quality must return your application as incomplete in accordance with North Carolina General Statute § 143-215.1.
PIease be advised that construction and/or operation of wastewater collection, treatment, and/or disposal facilities
without a valid permit is a violation of North Carolina General Statute § 143-215.1 and may subject the
owner/operator to appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with North Carolina General Statute § 143-215.6A-
6C. Civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation may be assessed for failure to secure a permit required by
North Carolina General Statute § 143-215. L
When you have obtained the requested information that is needed to make your application package complete, you
may submit a new application package and appropriate permit processing fee.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact Bennie Goetze, Jr., P. E. at (919) 733-
5083 extension 375.
Since,, r ,
- Alan W. Klimek, P. E.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Groundwater Section, Central Office
Mr. Gary MacConnell, P. E., MacConnell & Associates, P. C.
Ms. Sue Lewis, Beach Vacation Properties
Permit File WQ0004230'
NDPU Files - Returns
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DENR Customer Service Center
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer
Internet http:/Wo.enr.state,nc.us/ndpu
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Telephone [phone]
50% recycled/] 0% post -consumer paper

IjtiJ rE Michael F. Easley, Governor
�O. R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
-p. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
y
Division of Water Quality
July 16, 2003
Mr. James I. Taylor, President
A Place at the Beach III Homeowners Association, Inc.
P. O. Box 877
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Subject: Application No. WQ0004230
Additional Information Request
A Place at the Beach III
WWTP and Rapid Infiltration
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
The Non -Discharge Permitting Unit has completed a preliminary engineering review of the
subject application. Additional information is required before we can continue our review. Please
address the attached items no later than August 15, 2003. To expedite the review and response process,
these items were discussed with your engineer in a meeting on July 15, 2003.
Please note that comments from the Regional Office / Groundwater Section are pending at this
time, and additional requests may be necessary to address these comments. Please be aware that you are
responsible for meeting all requirements set forth in North Carolina rules and regulations. Any
oversights that occurred in the review of the subject application package are still the responsibility of the
applicant. In addition, any omissions made in responding to the above items may result in future requests
for additional information.
Please reference the subject permit application number when providing the requested information.
Please provide a written response/explanation to each item to enable a quicker review. All revised
information, including letters, calculations, revised drawing sheets, and revised pages of the
specifications, should be signed, sealed, and submitted in duplicate to my attention at the address below.
Additional cor mments may be forthcoming following a review of the requested information. Please note
that failure to provide this additional information on or before the above requested date can result in your
application being returned as incomplete.
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DENR Customer Service Center
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer
Internet http;//h2o.ear.state,nc.us/ndpu
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Telephone [phone]
50°!o recycledil0% post -consumer paper

If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone], extension 375.
You may also check the future status of this project online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/RMorts/repoitsPeim-i-its.html. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
and timely response.
Sincerely,
A. Bennie Goetze, Jr., P. E.
Environmental Engineer
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
Attachment
cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Groundwater Section, Central Office
Mr. Gary MacConnell,P. E., MacConnell & Associates, P. C.
Permit Application File WQ0004230

A Place at the Beach III Homeowners Association, Inc.
A Place at the Beach III
WWTP and Rapid Infiltration
Application Number WQ0004230
Review Comments
July 16, 2003
General
1. Provide complete process design calculations for both options. Include calculations for the winter
season at reduced flow. Also provide all nutrient removal calculations including the selection of
anoxic times, etc.
2. Provide complete hydraulic profile calculations for both options at both average and peak flows.
This includes all pump curve calculations for all internal pumps.
3. Confirm whether the influent pump station is new or existing. Calculations are provided as
though it is new. However, details for new construction are not shown on the plans.
4. The influent pump station calculations show less than 2 cycles per hour. Pump stations should be
designed with 2 — 8 cycles per hour. The float settings should be adjusted to meet this
requirement. Also, the area shown does not agree with the wetwell dimensions.
5. The rapid sand filter calculations show a peaking factor of I.S. The effective peaking factor is
based on the pump selection since the flow is pumped to the filters.
6. The dosing pump tank area given in the calculations does not match the dimensions shown on the
plans. The flow of 75 gpm used in the cycle time calculations does not agree with the flow
determined from the pump system curve (105 gpm).
7. Sludge removal is by pumps located in a corner of the tank. There is no mechanism to get the
settled sludge from the far reaches of the tank to the pumps. Depending on the length of the
pump run time and the depth of the thickened sludge, it is possible that the pumps will draw a
"cone" and thus pump much thinner sludge to the digester than expected. This will result in more
frequent decanting from the digester.
8. Provide calculations to show that the digester can hold 30 days of sludge production.
9. Digester blower sizing should provide adequate air for treatment or mixing, whichever is greater.
The mixing requirement is 20 - 40 scfm per 1000 fO. It is strongly recommended that a value be
chosen that is at least near the midpoint of the range unless a basis is provided for a.iower value.
10. Provide calculations showing the loading on the disposal areas.
11. Consideration should be given to routing the filter backwash to the digester rather than to the SBR
tanks. Continuous reaeration of already light solids may lead to binding of the filters, resulting in
more frequent backwashes. Also since the flow is routed to an equalization tank prior to being
sent to the filters, it is possible that these light solids will remain in this tank as floatables since
the pumps will never lower the water level enough to send them to the filters.
12. Provide a copy of the sludge management plan for this facility. (15A NCAC 2H .0205 (d) (1)
(H).)

Specifications
Provide complete specifications for both options proposed. Include all pertinent sizes, etc. so that
all design calculations may be verified.
2. The specifications must provide a complete list of spare parts to be kept on site to insure the
continuous operation of the floating mixer/aerator.
3. Section 11000.2.60 requires 2 — 6,000 gallon precast flow equalization tanks for the rapid sand
filters. None appear to be shown on the plans. Please clarify.
4. Section 13300.2.03.0 — The autodialer should be equipped with a battery backup. Generator start
fail shall be an alarm condition activating the autodialer system.
Plans
1. PIan details should be provided for each option so that all calculations may be verified.
2. Show the 100 year flood elevation on the plans and confirm that all equipment is located above
this level.
3. Sheet C-102 — Provide a blowup of the W-ViWTP site plan indicating that the setbacks in 15A
NCAC 2H .02190) are complied with.
4. Sheet P-101-- Clarify the reference to a pre-SBR equalization tank in the hydraulic profile. None
is provided on this project.
5. Sheet M102A
a. The overflow is in note 5 and not note 6 as shown.
b. Indicate the size of the forcemain from the mudwell to the head of the plant.
C. The plans show an overflow pipe from the SBR tank to the effluent equalization tank.
This should be routed solely between the SBR tanks to prevent partially treated waste
from being discharged to the disposal system. Provide dimensions of the overflow
between the SBR tanks and calculations to support it's sizing. If it is felt that this bypass
to the eq. tank is necessary, then it would appear that there might not be enough
equalization provided in the SBR tanks.
6. Sheet M-102B
a. Confirm that one blower is capable of providing sufficient air for both tanks. Blower
controls and valving should allow for the blowers to be alternated to prevent excessive
wear on a single unit.
b. Clarify the diameter of the forcemain from the mudwell to the head of the plant. It is
shown as 3-inch near the mudwell and as 2-inch near the head of the plant.
7, Sheet M-104A — Provide complete details of the traveling bridge filter, including number and size
of the cells, etc.
S. Sheet M-104B — The decanter detail indicates that the decant rate for option B is 150 gpm. The
maximum decant rate for option A is 215 gpm. This would indicate that the cycle times would
vary somewhat. This must be present in the process calculations requested in General Comment
No. 1 above.

W A rEgO Michael F. Easley, Governor
WilliamG. Ross Jr., Secretary
�Q G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 31, 2003
Mr. James 1, Taylor, President
A Place at the Beach III Homeowners Association, Inc.
P. O. Box 877
Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512
Subject: Application No. WQ0004230
Additional Information Request
A Place at the Beach M
WWTP and Rapid Infiltration
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Taylor:
The DWQ Groundwater Section has completed a preliminary engineering review of the subject
application. Additional information is required before we can continue our review. Please address the
attached items no later than September 2, 2003.
Please be aware that you are responsible for meeting all requirements set forth in North Carolina
rules and regulations. Any oversights that occurred in the review of the subject application package are
still the responsibility of the applicant. In addition, any omissions made in responding to the above items
may result in future requests for additional information.
Please reference the subject permit application number when providing the requested information.
Please provide a written response/explanation to each item to enable a quicker review. All revised
information, including letters, calculations, revised drawing sheets, and revised pages of the
specifications, should be signed, sealed, and submitted in duplicate to my attention at the address below.
Additional comments may be forthcoming following a review of the requested information. Please note
that failure to provide this additional information on or before the above requested date can result in your
application being returned as incomplete.
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
DENR Customer Service Center
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer
Internet http:a2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndpu
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Telephone [phone]
50% reeycled110% post -consumer paper

If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone], extension 375.
You may also check the future status of this project online at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslbims/Reports/reportsPelm-dts.html. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
and timely response.
Sincerely,
A. Bennie Goetze, Jr., P. E.
Environmental Engineer
Nan -Discharge Permitting Unit
Attachment
cc: Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Groundwater Section, Central Office
Mr. Gary MacConnell,P. E., MacConnell & Associates, P. C.
Permit Application File WQ0004230

A Place at the Beach III Homeowners Association, Inc.
A Place at the Beach III
WWTP and Rapid Infiltration
Application Number WQ0004230
Groundwater Section Review Comments
September 2, 2003
General
1. A hydraulic mounding analysis (constrained by a vertical separation of one foot between the top
of the mound and the land surface assuming the starting groundwater elevation is five feet below
the surface) has been completed for the new rotary distributors. The transmissivity, specific yield,
and vertical hydraulic conductivity values are from Andrews & Associates report of July 17,
2001. As proposed each rotary is common walled with another rotary. Therefore it's modeling
requires the use of a boundary condition at a distance of 36 feet from the center of the area. The
results of these analyses indicate that the capacity of each rotor is approximately 15,000 gpd.
This would produce a total plant capacity of approximately 60,000 gpd, less than the 70,000 gpd
requested. Without the common wall construction (but with sufficient distance between rotaries
approx. 200 feet) the given sized units will handle approx. 27,000 gpd each. Unless additional
acceptable documentation and calculations are provided, or the design is modified, the approved
capacity cannot exceed 60,000 gpd.
2. The type of sprinklers used will need to achieve a vertical height well above the proposed one -
foot perimeter wall to reach the 17 — 21 foot radius proposed. This will expose the waste stream
to prevailing winds, resulting in drift onto nearby landscaping, tennis courts, highway, etc. The
system should be modified to prevent this drift from occurring.
3. Current monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-4 shall be permanently abandoned within 60
days of beginning waste disposal on the new areas.
4. New monitoring wells MW-7, MW-8 and MW-9 shall be installed to monitor groundwater
quality. These wells shall be constructed such that the water level in the well is never above or
below the screened (open) portion of the well at any time of the year. The wells shall be located
as shown on the attached drawing. These wells shall be constructed prior to beginning waste
disposal operations on the new sites.
5. With reference to comments 4 and 5, provide appropriate details for the abandonment and
construction of the monitoring wells. Specifications must also be provided. These details and
specifications must be in accordance with 15A NCAC 2C .0109 and .0113 and any local county
rules.

r'"