Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities

Frequently Asked Questions

Questions and answers will be updated to reflect changing interests, concerns, and conditions as the project moves forward between now and 2011, so please visit often.

The Partnership and Facilities
Site Selection
Facility Operations
Environmental Protection and Regulatory Process
Utility Service
Meetings and Public Input
Construction
Pipeline
Geotechnical Investigations

Site Selection

1. What has to happen from the Project Partners to approve land purchase and make the project happen?

As the lead agency, the Town of Cary will purchase all land, as requested in writing by each of the Partners. No other action is needed by the other partners for Cary to acquire the land. The Partners have also entered into an Interlocal Agreement in which they direct Cary to start design and construction of the project.

2. Have final facility sites been selected? Who made that decision and how was it made?

Yes, sites have been selected. The selected West Cary Regional Wastewater Pump Station site is as recommended in Section 2 of the Brown and Caldwell Preliminary Engineering Report. The selected Beaver Creek Regional Wastewater Pump Station site is as recommended in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, April 2006). The Partners’ preferred site for the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility and Effluent Pump Station is as recommended in Technical Memorandum No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS.

Preferred pipeline alignments have been identified for the DEIS, and the final pipeline routes will be selected during final design.

The Project Partners as a group selected the sites based on consultant recommendations that took into consideration the requirements that might be placed on the project by federal and state environmental resource agencies during the environmental document review as well as technical requirements for construction and operation.

For the water reclamation facility, consultants identified 29 sites to be studied and eventually narrowed the list to three sites. These three sites, along with a 30th site added by one of the Partners, were studied in further detail before the final site was selected. The selected site then underwent additional rigorous field investigations prior to full confirmation that this was the preferred site.

Based on comments from NCDENR, the Partners are refining the data related to 13 of the 30 potential WRF sites, and this additional detail on the site selection processes will be included in an updated Technical Memorandum No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS.

3. What factors were taken into consideration in selecting the water reclamation facility site?

When choosing a site for the facility, the Project Partners had to find a solution that best balanced many—and sometimes competing—goals. These include:

Engineering Factors
The facility must be located on a site where it can operate, which means it must tie directly to the Project Partners’ utility service areas and near a body of water where the high quality, cleaned wastewater can be discharged into the Cape Fear River.

Environmental Factors
The facility must be located on a site that meets local, state, and federal environmental policies and regulations including protecting wildlife and their habitat, water supply, air quality, and flood management.

Social and Cultural Factors
The facility must be located on a site that protects citizens’ quality of life. This means keeping the facility footprint as far away as possible from homes, parks, churches, playgrounds, and other areas important to citizens. The residences directly affected by a location as well as those nearby are taken into account.

Economic Factors
The Project Partners are obligated to give their customers the highest quality product at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the facility must be located on a site that the communities can afford to purchase, construct, service, operate, and connect to the existing utility systems and to the discharge location.

4. Were sites closer to the Cape Fear River considered to shorten the length of the effluent force main and reduce costs?

Yes, sites closer to the Cape Fear River were considered. However, shortening the distance to the outfall means that the pipelines carrying raw wastewater from the service areas to the water reclamation facility must be longer, and more pump stations might be required. So, shortening the effluent pipeline does not necessarily reduce cost.

5. Why did the Partners modify the alternative from the Option 10D that was selected?

In the original Option 10D, it was anticipated that Holly Springs would not expand the Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and the Town of Holly Springs would convey excess wastewater flows to the south from the Utley Creek WWTP to the North Harnett Regional WWTP in Harnett County. Holly Springs commissioned an independent study which indicated that cost savings could be realized if the Town continued to treat wastewater at the Utley Creek WWTP and discharged treated effluent to the outfall serving the Western Wake WRF.

During the Phase II studies, engineering and cost analyses were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of Holly Springs’ sharing in the effluent pumping and transmission system with Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The findings indicated that the proposed modification to Option 10D could be accomplished technically and would be financially favorable for the citizens of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. Based on these analyses, the Project Partners agreed to move forward with the implementation of the modified Option 10D.

6. Who in Wake County Government is in charge of ensuring that the best use is made of available lands? Who can I talk to about land use planning issues?

In North Carolina, municipalities have planning and zoning jurisdiction within their respective corporate limits and extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Beyond the corporate limits and ETJ boundaries, Wake County has planning and zoning jurisdiction. For the area near the proposed WRF site, the Wake County Planning Department should be contacted for information about planning and zoning.

In accordance with North Carolina’s environmental review and permitting process requirements for a water reclamation facility, the Project Partners will provide an opportunity for public comments regarding the proposed site for the water reclamation facility during the formal public hearing process. See Question No. 3 in the Meetings and Public Input section regarding when and where to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement.

7. Was land owned by Progress Energy considered?

Yes, several sites initially considered were owned by Progress Energy, but those sites were not as favorable as the final three because of environmental, technical, and cost considerations. Since none of the Progress Energy sites were selected, the company has not been asked for land for the WRF. The Town of Cary does have an agreement with Progress Energy that allows access to Progress Energy property to evaluate the construction of an access road to the proposed WRF site and the construction of a discharge at the Cape Fear River.

8. Do all the Project Partners have to approve a resolution on condemning land for the selected site?

No. According to the interlocal agreement between Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville that designates the Town of Cary as the lead agency, only the Cary Town Council needs to vote to condemn land if necessary. That said, the other Partners must each send a letter to Cary acknowledging its support of the proposed site, which each has done.

9. What happens if, after land is condemned, the State says it cannot be used for a treatment plant or pump station?

According to the NC General Statutes, the land could be used for another public purpose (GSA40A-10) or sold in the manner prescribed by law for the sale and disposition of surplus property. The law permits the disposition by advertisement for sealed bid, negotiated offer, advertisement and upset bid, public auction, or exchange (GSA40A-10); or the returning of it to the original owner upon payment (by the original owner) of the full price paid, plus the cost of improvements made, together with interest at the legal rate to the date when the decision was made to offer the return of the property. (GS 40A-70).

10. When and why were sites south and east of US 1 (20, 22, 25, 28) eliminated from consideration?

The WRF site selection process was conducted concurrently with the evaluation of four alternative wastewater management options (Option 1, Option 5, Option 9, and Option 10D) that included construction of either one or two new water reclamation facilities. Sites 20, 22, 25 and 28 were identified as candidate sites for Option 9, which would have required the construction of two new water reclamation facilities: (a) one facility to serve the southern portion of Apex and all of Holly Springs, and (b) one facility to serve the northern portion of Apex and the western portions of Morrisville, Cary and all of RTP South.

Based on the information and data collected, reviewed and evaluated for the four alternative wastewater management options, the Towns, with the concurrence of NC DENR staff, determined that Option 10D was the preferred wastewater management option because it resulted in the least costs and the least environmental impacts. With the selection of Option 10D, and the determination that Holly Springs would not participate in the design, construction and operation of a new water reclamation facility, sites 20, 22, 25 and 28 were eliminated from consideration.

Based on comments from NCDENR, the Partners are refining the data related to 13 of the 30 potential sites, and this additional detail on the site selections processes will be included in an updated Technical Memorandum No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS.

11. How much more would utility customers pay a month if the Partners decided to go with Site 20?

Based on Cary’s share of the project capital costs and the estimated additional annual operating and maintenance costs, a Cary customer who uses 7,000 gallons of water would pay about 3 percent more if the WRF were located on Site 20 instead of Site 14 (Site C).

12. How and when did the Partners go from 12 sites to three sites? When was Site 14 chosen as the preferred site? Where, specifically, are these issues discussed in a Technical Memo?

Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS presents the rationale for selecting the original 29 sites and applying scores to create a short list of 12 sites. Site 14 is identified as the preferred site in TM No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS.

The information used to prepare TM 5.0 was developed as part of the initial work by the partners with Wake County as the lead agency. At the conclusion of that work, the current project partners (Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville) entered into a new agreement to implement the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities. At that time, Holly Springs decided not to send wastewater to the new water reclamation facility for treatment. Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville reviewed the available site selection information and data as presented in TM 5.0 and selected three sites for detailed analysis. Sites located south and east of U.S. 1 were eliminated from further consideration since Holly Springs changed the way it wanted to participate in the project. Then, Site 14 was identified as the southernmost location to be considered for the final evaluation, and the two additional sites were located north of Site 14. Another site added by one of the Partner was evaluated along with the final three.

13. Please explain what the cost factors were and how they were considered in the site selection process.

As presented in TM No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS, during the Phase II site selection process, qualitative impacts to project costs such as road access, soils, site slope, distance to proposed infrastructure, estimated depth to groundwater, and estimated depth to rock were considered (see Page 5-12), but no cost calculations were performed since the purpose of the report was to take a broad, general view of the field of options.

During Phase III of the site selection process, two categories of planning level costs were estimated for each of the three sites: site development costs, which included such items as road access; site preparation for wetlands and slope conditions; proximity to related infrastructure such as water; and, project costs, which included such items as length of influent sewers; length of effluent sewers; regional pumping station costs; effluent pumping station costs.

Based on comments from NCDENR, the Partners are refining the data related to all 30 potential sites, and this additional detail on the site selections processes will be included in an updated Technical Memorandum No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS.

14. When was the estimated $27 million price tag for Site 20 calculated? Why? Why wasn't this cost detail for Site 20 part of the original site selection analysis?

The planning level cost estimate for Site 20 was completed Friday, June 17, 2005. Cost analyses were completed in response to requests received at the June 14, 2005 community meeting at Apex Fire Station No. 2.

As presented in TM No. 5 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS, qualitative impacts to project costs were considered (Page 5-12) during the Phase II site selection process, but no cost calculations were performed for any of the 29 sites. Planning level cost estimates were prepared during the Phase III site selection process, but only for the three sites being considered; since all sites south and east of US 1 (including site 20) had already been eliminated from further consideration, there was no need to run detailed cost calculations.

The costs presented below are based on a planning level estimate of the additional costs that would be incurred by the Project Partners if the Water Reclamation Facility were located at Site 20 instead of Site 14.
Additional Costs for Facilities to be built by 2011 (Phase 1):

Beaver Creek Force Main - $6,784,000 (additional 11,555 feet of 48-inch force main)
Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility - $2,656,500 (site development such as road access, stream protection, grading, etc.)
Effluent Pump Station - $2,072,100 (larger pumps)
Effluent Pipeline - $5,329,300 (additional 10,275 feet of 48-inch force main)
Water Line to Site - $1,032,800 (additional 10,800 feet of 12-inch water line)
Additional Power Costs (per year) - $60,000
Additional Phase 1 Operation and Maintenance Costs - $41,400/year
Additional Costs for Facilities to be built by 2020 (Phase 2):

Beaver Creek Force Main - $4,770,200 (additional 11,555 feet of 36-inch force main)
Effluent Pipeline - $4,663,200 (additional 10,275 feet of 42-inch force main)
Additional Phase 2 Operation and Maintenance Costs - $27,700/year
Total Additional Costs - $27,308,100

15. If Progress Energy donated the land on Site 20, would that be enough cost savings to make Site 20 the preferred site?

No. Even if land were donated, there would still be more than $20 million in increased capital costs as well as increased operating expenses for the life of the facility.

16. Can Cary condemn land owned by Progress Energy?

Yes, but we don't need to since the company doesn't own the preferred site.

17. Why not wait an additional 30 days before acquiring the land for the plant?

As the lead agency, the Town of Cary has a legal obligation to keep this project on track in order to meet the State’s mandate of having the plant operational by January 2011. The schedule is already so compressed that two processes -- design, which depends on land acquisition, and permitting must occur at the same time. Now that all of the Partners have agreed to the preferred site, Cary must move forward the design process in the form of land acquisition.

Specifically, an additional 30 days’ delay affects the following sequence of activities, which are scheduled to be completed in full by December 2006:
Selecting an engineering design firm for final design
Initiating site and control surveys for preparation of site development plans and specifications
> Preparing site development plans and specifications (access road; site utility roads; utility installation [water, electric, communications]; rough grading; sedimentation and erosion control; site-access control)

The other process, permitting, is controlled by the State of North Carolina. In this process, all interested parties are heard and their concerns evaluated by the State, an objective third party. The State is tasked with ensuring that the best and fairest balance of all interests is factored into the decision-making process. Ample additional opportunities for public comment are part of the State’s process.

Moving ahead with land acquisition now has no negative impact on interested parties’ participation in the State’s official permitting process. In fact, negotiating outside of the State’s official process inappropriately and unfairly raises the profile of one special interest over all the others.

Even so and while not required, Cary officials listened to New Hill residents and delayed a vote on acquiring the site for two weeks in order to receive more feedback from them. Cary heard from New Hill at the June 9, 2005 Council meeting, at the June 14 public information meeting, and on June 22, 2006 in a small group meeting with representatives of New Hill’s new community alliance. Cary’s elected officials also received the 80+ comments generated from the June 14, 2006 meeting.

Questions about the project have been posted and continue being posted and answered on the partnership Web site to ensure that everyone has equal access to the same answer for each question.

18. Why can’t one of the Project Partners build the water reclamation facility on town land since it is to serve them and not us too?

First, as discussed under “Utility Service” Question 1, the Towns of Apex and Holly Springs have planned for providing water and sewer service to their respective planning areas near the preferred site, which includes all of the greater New Hill community.

On the question of land ownership, it was always our hope that the facilities could be built on land already owned by one of the Project Partners. When the Project Partners identified the 29 sites that were evaluated in TM No. 5.0 of the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the DEIS, a few sites were wholly or partially within one of the Project Partners’ municipal boundaries or Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (which is approved by Wake County). Unfortunately, there were no other sites within the Partners’ municipal boundaries that were large enough to be viable for this purpose.

The selected site is within the Town of Apex Urban Service Area, which is determined by Wake County. Urban Service Areas represent areas where Wake County envisions that municipalities will ultimately provide utility service.

19. Have the Partners acquired the land for the plant site?

Yes. After following the applicable provisions of the partnership agreement and in accordance with State laws, the Town of Cary acquired about 211 acres in New Hill (commonly referred to as Site 14) on August 11, 2005 at a final cost of $6,750,000. The Partners are currently in the process of negotiating with Progress Energy for the acquisition of an additional 24 acres for the construction of an access road to Site 14 from Shearon Harris Road.