NCG020933_CORRECTED NOI pg 8 & 9_20190513

NCG020000 N.O.I.
37) Are wastewater treatment facilities (including recycle systems) planned in the 100-year flood plain?
❑ No X N/A
❑ Yes
38) A WaSteWater treatment alternatives reviewis required by 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (c)(2)
�t 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:
X Mine Dewatering
❑ Process Wastewater (such as washing or recycle system overflows, other mining activity wastewater)
a) What wastewaters were considered for this alternatives review? X Dewatering ❑ Process WW
b) Connection to a Municipal or Regional Sewer Collection System: N/A
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): N/A
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): N/A
i) Is a surface or subsurface disposal technologically feasible (possible)? ..................... ❑ Yes ❑ No
Why or Why not?*
ii) Is a surface or subsurface disposal system otherwise feasible to implement?*............ ❑ Yes ❑ No
Why or Why not?*
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?*
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 N/A
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 ❑ No N/A
* 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?
X No ❑ Yes
b) Is this facility a Small Quantity Generator (less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste generated per month)
of hazardous waste?
X No ❑ Yes
c) Is this facility a Large Quantity Generator (1000 kg. or more of hazardous waste generated per month)
of hazardous waste?
X 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.)
X 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