SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION

SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

Pr ep ar ed fo r
T ow n o f Ca r y
O c to b er 6 , 20 0 6
SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT
Pr ep ar ed fo r
T ow n o f Ca r y
O c to b er 6 , 20 0 6

5410 Trinity Road

Palisades II, Suite 320
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
919-233-9178
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................................III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Sewage Spill Assessment Team ..................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Interviews Conducted with Project Participants ............................................................................................1-1
1.3 Documents Reviewed...................................................................................................................................1-1
2. TIMELINE OF EVENTS ..........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Sequence of Events Leading Up To the Spill ...............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Sequence of Events Following the Spill........................................................................................................2-1
3. POTENTIAL REASONS AND INFLUENCING FACTORS FOR THE SPILL .........................................................3-1
3.1 Engineering and Geotechnical Evaluation of Failure ....................................................................................3-1
Engineering Evaluation.................................................................................................................................3-1
Geotechnical Evaluation. ..............................................................................................................................3-5
3.2 Engineering Considerations During Response to the Sewage Spill .............................................................3-8
3.3 Measures that Could Have Eliminated or Mitigated the Cause and Consequences of the Spill ...................3-8
3.4 Preventive Actions to Avoid a Pump Station Failure and Spill ......................................................................3-9
4. ORGANIZATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS..........................................................................................4-1
4.1 Four Phases of Emergency Management ....................................................................................................4-1
Prevention.....................................................................................................................................................4-1
Preparation. ..................................................................................................................................................4-1
Response......................................................................................................................................................4-3
Recovery.......................................................................................................................................................4-3
4.2 National Incident Management System ........................................................................................................4-3
4.3 Sewage Spill Assessment within the Framework of Emergency Management ............................................4-3
4.3.1 Prevention Phase..............................................................................................................................4-3
Prevention and Mitigation Actions.................................................................................................................4-4
Other Issues and Concerns. .........................................................................................................................4-4
4.3.2 Response Phase ..............................................................................................................................4-5
Prevention and Mitigation. ............................................................................................................................4-5
Other Issues and Concerns. .........................................................................................................................4-5
4.3.3 Recovery Phase ...............................................................................................................................4-6
5. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......5-1
5.1 The Water Quality Resource ........................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Prevention and Response ............................................................................................................................5-5
5.3 Discharge prohibition ....................................................................................................................................5-6

i
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
Table of Contents Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

5.4 Loss of Use...................................................................................................................................................5-7

5.5 Bacteria and other pathogens.......................................................................................................................5-8
5.6 Nutrients .....................................................................................................................................................5-12
5.7 Biosolids .....................................................................................................................................................5-13
5.8 Non-biodegradable solids ...........................................................................................................................5-14
5.9 Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, personal care products, and other human-originating
chemicals....................................................................................................................................................5-14
5.10 Mercury and Other Metals ..........................................................................................................................5-15
5.11 Monitoring and Next Steps .........................................................................................................................5-15
6. RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID SIMILAR EVENTS IN THE FUTURE.............................................................6-1
7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................7-1
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................................ A
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY PROJECT TEAM................................................................................................ A
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................................ B
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................................... B

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................................................ C
SCHNABEL REPORT .............................................................................................................................................. C

ii
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
Table of Contents Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Plan View of New Pumping Station from Contract Drawings .........................................................3-2
Figure 3-2. Enhanced Plan View of Excavation.............................................................................................. 3-3*
Figure 3-3. Section Through Pump Station Excavation .................................................................................. 3-3*
Figure 3-4. Detail of Failed Pipe Section ..........................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-5. Excavation for Placements of Concrete, June 22, 2006.................................................................3-5
Figure 3-6. Soil Failure Envelope, approximately 10 feet into Slope, June 2006..............................................3-7
Figure 5-1. Neuse River Basin..........................................................................................................................5-2
Figure 5-2. Neuse River Basin in Wake County, North Carolina ......................................................................5-3
Figure 5-3. Swift Creek Land Management Plan ..............................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-4. Locations of Post-Spill Monitoring Data Collection Points ............................................................5-10
Figure 5-5. Long Term Data Set Showing Fecal Coliform Counts-West Side of Lake Wheeler .....................5-11
Figure 5-6. Long Term Trends in Fecal Coliform Counts - East Side of Lake Wheeler ..................................5-12

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Assessment Team..........................................................................................................................1-1
Table 4-1. Example Information Included in an Emergency Response Plan...................................................4-2
Table 5-1. Summary of Probable Impacts for Water Quality Standards ..........................................................5-6
Table 5-2. Post-Spill Monitoring Data Supplied by City of Raleigh ..................................................................5-9
Table 5-3. Concentrations of Other Human Derived Compounds .................................................................5-15

*Figure follows page number noted.

iii
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 23, 2006, the discharge pipeline from the Town of Cary (Town) Swift Creek Pump Station failed.
Over the next several days, the Town (the project’s owner), the project design engineer Black & Veatch
International (Engineer of Record, or EOR), and the project construction contractor Laughlin-Sutton
Construction Company (Contractor) worked around the clock to effectuate a solution. On June 28, a
temporary bypass around the failed pipe section was completed and bypass pumping commenced. On
July 20, repairs to the pipeline were completed and the pump station was returned to service. As a
consequence of the failed pipe, an estimated 8 million gallons (mg) of raw wastewater spilled from manholes
along the Swift Creek Interceptor, eventually flowing into Lake Wheeler, and some portion on into Lake
Benson.
The failure that resulted in the spill was due to the separation of an existing pipe joint between the 36-inch tee
and 36x30 reducing fitting on the discharge line from the Swift Creek Pump Station. The assessment team
determined that the separation resulted from removal of soil in the vicinity of the force main without
providing adequate restraint of the force main during the excavation. There were engineering, geotechnical,
organizational and institutional factors that contributed to the pipe failure and consequent spill of untreated
wastewater.
The contract documents prepared by the EOR for construction of the expansion to the Swift Creek Pump
Station required safeguards for the protection of the existing pipeline and other existing facilities during
construction including a detailed note specific to the pipeline on the drawings, a requirement for an
Excavation Support System (ESS) for the lowest part of the pumping station foundation, and installation of
movement monitors to be installed on the pipeline prior to and during excavation. Prior to the spill the
excavation of the lower footing proceeded in general accord with the ESS, except that the specified
movement monitors were not installed.
In the days immediately prior to the spill the Contractor excavated for and constructed a set of footings
between the pipe and the lower foundation that was protected by the specified ESS. The slope of the
excavation adjacent to the failed pipe was steepened to near vertical without any special restraint or
monitoring of the pipeline. A geotechnical investigation performed by the investigation team through a
review of soils reports, project drawings and the photographic record showed that the excavation was
unstable and on the brink of failure in the days immediately prior to the actual event.
During construction of the project, the staff from the three organizations who were on the project site
regularly reportedly believed that restraint of the existing piping system was not needed except during the
actual connection of a new pipe from the expanded facility to the existing pipe. Following significant storm
events preceding the spill, the EOR’s representative notified the Contractor, both orally and in writing, with
copies to Contractor’s site office and to the Town, of concerns regarding slope stability of the entire
excavation but apparently without specific note of the danger to the existing pipeline. Concern for
assumption of additional liability may have overshadowed the duty to act on readily available information
(steep side slopes, proximity of the excavation to the buried thrust block, and saturated soil,) and protection
of the pipeline was left to the Contractor as part of the Contractor's responsibility for the means and methods
to be used in constructing the project.
Following the failure, the Town, the EOR, and the Contractor took immediate action to repair the failed pipe
using materials and equipment on hand. Although well-intentioned and collaborative among the three

E-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
Executive Summary Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

parties, the initial repair effort was principally reactive, did not involve engineering, and failed soon after
implementation. Several days later, the temporary bypass was completed, followed some time later by the
permanent repair. The investigation team reviewed the incident and response of the parties in each of four
stages: Prevention, Preparation, Response, and Recovery. The assessment team has made recommendations
for organizational and institutional improvements in each of these four areas. The Town is presently
incorporating a National Incident Management System (NIMS) into its Emergency Response Program (ERP)
which should significantly improve performance in these four areas.
“The assessment team performed an evaluation of potential short-term and long-term impacts on
water quality in the Swift Creek basin and downstream in Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson. As a first
step, the assessment team determined that the previous estimate of the spill volume of approximately
8 million gallons appears reasonable, but gave it a range of 6 million to 9 million for the purpose of
estimating pollutant loads. There are several pollutants of concern that could further be addressed
now and in the future. These include pathogens; nitrogen and other nutrients that might lead to
eutrophication in the lakes; pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, and personal care
products. There remain some questions regarding deposition of solids that would require visual
inspection, and / or sampling of the Lake bottom and further study to quantify, but this is not
considered to be a high priority. The working assumption that groundwater transport is from the
water table to the stream valley should be scrutinized on a local scale with hydraulic gradient studies
to be protective of wells that are close to the Lakeshore.
Any program to restore public confidence in the watershed resources should include the
development of a regionally coordinated program of monitoring and watershed management,
because in the long-term watershed loads cause more significant impacts than this single event.
Monitoring and management should target eutrophication and improved water clarity as endpoints.
This not only has direct benefits for dissolved oxygen, aesthetics, and taste and odor, but can also
reduce bacteria counts by accelerating ultraviolet disinfection. Mercury impacts were evaluated and
considered to be low; it is recommended that the community continue to implement a regionally
coordinated strategy of monitoring mercury in fish and communicating fish consumption advice. "

E-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of Brown and Caldwell’s assessment of
the wastewater spill.

1.1 Sewage Spill Assessment Team

The wastewater spill assessment team consisted of engineers, operations specialists, and water quality
specialists from various Brown and Caldwell offices, principally in North Carolina, California, and Minnesota.
The principal members of the assessment team are:
Table 1-1. Assessment Team
Individual Specialty
Denis O’Malley, Assessment Team Leader Construction Management
Rick Carrier, P.E., Project Manager Design Engineering
Garr Jones, P.E. Quality Assurance
Rick Arbour, Certified Operator Operations and Business Practices
Chris Hardin, P.E. Geotechnical Engineering
Khalil Abusaba, Ph.D. Water Quality
Marshall Taylor, P.E. Water Quality
Frank Stephenson, P.E., Carolina Operations Manager Quality Assurance

1.2 Interviews Conducted with Project Participants

As part of our assessment, we interviewed personnel from the three project participants (Town of Cary, the
project owner; Black & Veatch, the project design engineer and Engineer of Record; and Laughlin-Sutton, the
general contractor constructing the project) as well as other engineers, subcontractors, and other project
stakeholders such as regulatory agencies, property owners, and other governmental bodies. Those
interviewed are listed in two tables in Appendix A, the first sorted by organization and the second sorted by
individual. Follow-up interviews and observations were conducted at the Operations Center.

1.3 Documents Reviewed

A bibliography of many of the documents provided to the assessment team is included in Appendix B. The
bibliography is fundamentally a list of documents to which the authors or assessment team referred during
the work. The singular exception is e-mail. Because e-mail are prolific and, because of their convenience,
often contain non sequiturs, we have included only discrete e-mails in the bibliography and cited them as
references when necessary.
Not all items in the bibliography are necessarily cited in the report. Those that are cited are listed as
references at the end of the report.

1-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

2. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

A report1 was prepared by Black & Veatch following the event that provides a summary of the events leading
up to the breach of the pipeline at the Swift Creek Pump Station and a detailed description of the response
activities subsequent to the breech. Town personnel prepared a summary of personnel and activities in an
Excel spreadsheet.2 Our review of these documents indicates an excellent correlation of the two. Further,
the interviews with personnel from the three project participant organizations also corroborate the validity of
those two documents. Therefore, and in the interest of brevity, a summary is presented here.

2.1 Sequence of Events Leading Up To the Spill

Rainfall at the Swift Creek Pump Station site was unofficially recorded at 3-1/2 inches and 4 inches on June 5
and June 12, respectively. Tropical Storm Alberto, the first tropical storm of the 2006 hurricane season,
formed on June 10 in the Caribbean Sea as a tropical depression. The storm moved north, making landfall in
Florida on June 13.
Alberto produced heavy rain across Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. On Wednesday, June 14, the
Town of Cary unofficially recorded over 8 inches of rain at the Swift Creek Pump Station construction site.
Swift Creek itself rose to approximately elevation 309, submerging the existing wet well and the new wet well
excavation.
Following clean-up and dewatering of the pumping station excavation, the Contractor resumed work on the
project and excavation in the vicinity of the existing force main. On Friday, June 23, the Contractor placed
the concrete footings closest to the force main and left the site for the weekend. That evening a high
intensity, short duration storm event occurred beginning about 4:30 p.m. after all personnel had left the
construction site for the day.
Shortly after 5 p.m., the Town received an alarm indicating the Swift Creek Force Main had lost pressure.
Town Utilities Services Maintenance personnel dispatched to the site observed a breach of the pipeline
releasing raw wastewater.

2.2 Sequence of Events Following the Spill

Senior personnel from the Town were advised and they, in turn, notified Black & Veatch and Laughlin-
Sutton personnel. After overcoming personal and communications challenges, representatives from each of
the project participant organizations coordinated and worked collaboratively and continuously through the
night to acquire equipment and materials to mitigate and control the spill until the evening of Saturday,
June 24.
Initial efforts to mitigate and control the spill, and return the pump station to service, utilized materials and
equipment readily available at the site. Unfortunately, the repair efforts were unsuccessful. At about 6:30
Saturday evening, the Town initiated a pump and haul operation to transport wastewater in tankers to another
drainage basin to mitigate further discharge from the pump station. At approximately 8 p.m., in the interest
of safety and concern for the well-being of those working at the site, all personnel were directed to stand
down and return the next morning.

2-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
2: Timeline of Events Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

On Sunday, June 25, the project participants met at the site and agreed to spend the day formulating a plan,
rather than continue to attempt to make repairs with materials and equipment on hand. A plan was developed
and, during a meeting that evening, the project participants agreed upon it.
Beginning early Monday morning, June 26, the participants worked continuously and collaboratively through
early Wednesday morning June 28, to construct a permanent bypass connection on the existing failed
pipeline. The bypass was completed early Wednesday morning and the town initiated bypass pumping.
Repair of the failed pipeline commenced.
On Thursday, July 20, repair of the pipeline was completed and the town placed the Swift Creek Pump
Station and its reconstructed pipeline back into operation.

2-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

3. POTENTIAL REASONS AND INFLUENCING

FACTORS FOR THE SPILL

There are technical, organizational, and institutional reasons and influencing factors for the wastewater spill.
The technical issues are presented in this section while the organizational and institutional issues are discussed
later.

3.1 Engineering and Geotechnical Evaluation of Failure

An engineering evaluation of the design, in-place construction, and sequence of events was performed. In
general, it was found that the spill was caused by the removal of soil in the vicinity of the force main without
providing adequate restraint of the force main during the excavation.

Engineering Evaluation. The assessment team reviewed the EOR’s design development reports,
the documentation of the force main failure, and initial construction documents with regard to the cause of
the spill. An excerpt from drawing SW2, from the Contract Documents prepared by the EOR, showing the
proposed pumping station construction, is presented on Figure 3-1. A new pumping station was to be
constructed adjacent to the existing Swift Creek Pump Station, which was to remain in service without
interruption during the construction.
The existing Swift Creek pumping system conveys wastewater from the gravity sewer system in Swift Creek
basin to the Cary South Wastewater Treatment Plant where it is treated and discharged. The existing Swift
Creek pumping station includes three submersible pumps that deliver the wastewater via a pressurized piping
system or force main.
All the wastewater conveyed by the existing Swift Creek pumping station is delivered through this 36-inch
force main system, which is shown with a single-line depiction on the design drawing (see annotation on
Figure 3-1). The pipeline is located less than twenty feet from the proposed pumping station. The failure of
this pipeline during construction of the new pumping station is the subject of this investigation.

3-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

3-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

A clearer illustration of the force main and the constructed elements at the time of the failure is provided on
Figures 3-2 and 3-3. In general, the Contract Documents prepared by the EOR required the Contractor to
install the new pumping station and connect it to the existing force main while maintaining the existing
pumping station in operation. Section 02200 of the Contract Documents required the Contractor to install
an Excavation Support System (ESS) as part of the lowest part of the pumping station foundation. The
specifications prescribed that the ESS be designed by a registered engineer and was reviewed and approved
by the EOR. The specifications did not specifically require the design of the ESS to address the stability of
the excavation sides slopes above the lower part of the excavation and in the vicinity of the force main. A
specific requirement to monitor the location of the force main during excavation of the installation of the
ESS and during the excavation of the lower footing at elevation 264 was included in the ESS specification
page 02200-12: “The CONTRACTOR shall monitor the existing 30-inch pipe south of the excavation for
movement during installation and use of the ESS ….” A note is included on drawing SW2 of the Contract
Documents that requires the Contractor to restrain the existing force main:
“CONTRACTOR SHALL TEMPORARILY RESTRAIN THE EXISTING ISOLATION VALVE
PRIOR TO DISTURBING THRUST BLOCK OR SOIL IN THIS AREA. AFTER VALVE IS
RESTRAINED TO SATISFACTION OF ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE
EXISTING THRUST BLOCK AND PLUG AND INSTALL NEW PIPING AS INDICATED.
TIE TO EXISTING 30” SHALL BE MJ BELL.”
The excavation of the lower footing proceeded in general according to the ESS, except that the specified
movement monitors were not installed. An ESS was not specifically required by the Contract Documents for
the construction of a series of footings between the lower foundation work and the force main. The
specifications and drawings also did not require that the Contractor address excavation stability during the
installation of the footings in the vicinity of the force main.
A more detailed drawing of the failed pipe section is shown on Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4 was compiled from
reports and photographs of the spill and from record drawings of the initial construction. The original design
and construction of the force main relied on a concrete thrust block and frictional earth pressure to restrain
the piping system. The general failure that resulted in the spill was due to the separation of an existing pipe
joint between the 36-inch tee and 36x30 reducing fitting. The failure appears to be have been caused mainly
by the reduced capacity of the thrust block system resulting from removal of soil immediately adjacent to and
around the existing pipe and thrust block. The separation at the first 36-inch pipe joint rather than one of the
30-inch pipe joints is to be expected as the force necessary to restrain a joint is proportional to the area of the
joint (i.e., the force on the 36-inch section is 1.44 times the force on the 30-inch section). It appears that the
entire section of 30-inch pipe and the thrust block to the east of the failure remained intact following the
initial failure.

3-3
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

3-4
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Geotechnical Evaluation. A geotechnical slope stability evaluation was performed to establish

the reasons for the failure (often referred to as the “mode of failure”) of the soil system that resulted in the
failure of the pipeline. To evaluate the geotechnical conditions and slope stability that influenced and/or
caused the failure of the subsoils beneath the thrust block and force main, the assessment team considered
the following:
1. Influence on soil conditions/slope stability caused by the excavation of the soil to a side slope of
0.5 horizontal (H) to 1.0 vertical (V) to install the building footings in the near vicinity of the existing
thrust block. Figure 3-5 is a photograph that indicates that the pipeline was either very close to being
exposed or actually exposed by the steep excavation.
2. Potential failure scenarios that may have been present as the soils supporting the force main and
thrust block transferred from passive to active earth pressure coefficients.
3. Influence on slope stability of saturated near surface soils and a rise (increase in elevation) of the
water table resulting from the frequent rain events in the weeks and days prior to the pipeline failure.

Figure 3-5. Excavation for Placements of Concrete, June 22, 2006

To understand the results of the slope stability evaluation, it is necessary to provide some background on the
factor of safety that is accepted by geotechnical engineers and the construction industry for this type of
evaluation. The factor of safety represents a ratio of the driving forces to the resisting forces in the
soil/groundwater matrix using a limiting equilibrium evaluation method. The minimum factor of safety for
slope design typically ranges from 1.25 to 1.5 depending on the critical nature of the facility that is being
supported. A factor of safety of 1.0 or less indicates an imminent or pending failure condition. A factor of
safety of less than 1.0 indicates that failure would occur before the slope reaches the configuration evaluated,
e.g, depth of excavation.

3-5
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

The slope stability analysis conducted by the assessment team considered both the total and the effective
stress conditions that would be present in the soil and groundwater matrix. Total stress is the soil pressure
per unit area experienced by the soil and groundwater matrix. Effective stress is the total stress minus the
porewater pressure present in the soil and groundwater matrix. The geotechnical evaluation of the excavation
and slope stability adjacent to the force main included determining the factor of safety for both total and
effective stress conditions.
The assessment team developed cross sections for the slope stability analysis from the site photos before and
after the force main failure, information in the Black & Veatch report1, geotechnical information and data
about the in-situ soils from the Tierra report4. The slope stability evaluation in the vicinity of the force main
included evaluation of the factor of safety against rotational slope failure before and after the soil was
excavated to install the building footings. The slope stability evaluation included evaluation of potential
failure scenarios with both saturated and unsaturated groundwater conditions and slope sidewalls at 0.5H to
1V and 1.5H to 1V. An explanation of the various failure scenarios that were evaluated is included in the
report from Schnabel Engineering in Appendix C.
The results of the slope stability evaluation indicated the following:
1. The short-term, total stress factor of safety is 1.0 for the cut slope 0.5H to 1V without the influence
of groundwater. This indicates imminent failure in a static, non-saturated condition.
2. The long-term, effective stress factor of safety is 0.8 with the groundwater level at an Elevation 290
or less. This indicates immediate failure as the slope transitions toward the long-term condition.
3. The long-term, effective stress factor of safety is 0.8 with the groundwater level at the toe of slope at
Elevation 296. This indicates immediate failure and virtually no difference from the factor of safety
when the groundwater level is significantly below the surface.
Based on the results of the slope stability evaluation and a review of the pertinent project information, the
assessment team concluded that the slope was at failure conditions after the slope was cut to 0.5H to 1V and
could stay up only for a short time (i.e. several hours to several days). However, the long-term, effective
stress factor of safety typically rules for cut slopes that are excavated to a slope angle steeper than the soil’s
effective stress friction angle. This means that the unsupported and partially saturated soil slope adjacent to
and/or beneath the force main/thrust block was already in the process of failure (more driving forces than
resisting) as soon as the slope was cut was cut to 0.5H to 1V. Based upon the slope stability evaluation, the
assessment team concluded that, after the soil was removed from the slope to make room for the footing
excavation, it was only a matter of time until the evidence of slope failure and movement of the thrust block
occurred.
The slope stability evaluation indicated the top of the failure surface to be 8 ½ to 10 feet from the top of the
slope at 0.5H to 1V. It is interesting to note that the location of the failure surface from the slope stability
evaluation is very similar to failure conditions identified in site photographs taken after failure, but before the
force main was repaired (see Figure 3-6). The soil properties for the slope stability analysis were estimated
from the test boring logs and soil index properties in the Tierra report4. A sensitivity evaluation of the unit
weight, cohesion and internal friction angle was conducted to ensure a representative evaluation of the slope
stability at the time of the force main failure. A back calculation analysis was also performed to confirm the
validity of the estimated soil properties.

3-6
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Figure 3-6. Soil Failure Surface, Approximately 10 feet into Slope, June 2006
Although the primary cause of the failure appears to have been the removal of soils near the pipe and thrust
block system, there are a number of other factors that may have contributed indirectly to the failure:
1. The existing piping system appears to have had two defective construction elements. The existing
thrust block, which would be considered the primary source of restraint for the system, was
approximately 1/3 the size that was indicated on the 1987 record drawings prepared by Diehl and
Phillips5 and about 1/5 the size of the replacement block depicted on the Black & Veatch Contract
Documents. Visual inspection of the thrust block concrete found it to be in sound condition. In
addition, when the existing piping was uncovered following the spill, the bolts on the failed pipe joint
were reportedly smaller than customary and were found to be loose. Although the bolts are not a
significant element in the restraint system, the mechanical joint may have leaked more following the
initial failure than would have been expected thereby accelerating the ultimate failure through loss of
soil caused by the leakage.
2. The record drawings for the original construction5 appear to show the existing force main 14 feet
away from the existing structure. The drawings in the Contract Documents showed the existing pipe
was approximately 17 feet away. The Contractor reported the existing pipe was approximately
14 feet from the outside of the new pumping station structure.
3. The rainfall may have contributed by softening the exposed soils.

3-7
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

3.2 Engineering Considerations During Response to the

Sewage Spill
Review of the records and recollections of those interviewed indicate that the initial repair was performed
largely through the use of Contractor and operational experience to best use materials and equipment on
hand. It was principally reactive and largely did not involve engineering.
The repaired and reconstructed facilities, including the revised pipe location and installation of the bypass
pumping connection, were engineered solutions. That construction is now out of the way of the Contractor.
A surge (water hammer) analysis has not been completed on the new configuration.
There are organizational and institutional perspectives on the response to the wastewater spill. Those are
discussed later.

3.3 Measures that Could Have Eliminated or Mitigated the

Cause and Consequences of the Spill
The assessment team reviewed the EOR’s design documents as well as previous design development reports
and initial construction documents to answer the question of how the causes and consequences of the spill
could have been eliminated or mitigated. This section addresses the engineering and geotechnical
considerations while organizational and institutional issues are discussed later.
Elements of the engineering design and construction process that could have mitigated or eliminated the
failure include:
1. The field staff from the three project participant organizations apparently believed that restraint of
the piping system was not needed except during the actual tie-in to the pipe. Development and
inclusion in the contract documents of a specific sequence of construction and plan for maintenance
of operations during construction would likely have ensured at least temporary restraint of the pipe
prior to any excavation. Installation of a temporary restraint system might have revealed that the
thrust blocks were inadequately constructed in the original construction.
2. Both the as-constructed location and size of the existing thrust block could have been detailed better
on the record drawings and in the contract documents. This would have necessitated exploratory
excavation during the design period, either by the designer or the owner.
3. More frequent communication and intervention by the EOR during construction may have
eliminated the problem. The project participants, including the EOR, Contractor, and Town, had
individual knowledge of the pipe location and proximity to the excavation and had the opportunity
to intervene. Clear communication of the critical and dangerous nature of the piping arrangement
through the contract documents to the field personnel might have eliminated the failure.
4. Involvement of experienced construction engineers from the Town and other engineering and
contractor resources could have better responded to the spill and helped in the development of the
solution more quickly.
5. Engaging Tierra or another geotechnical engineer for geotechnical service during construction, rather
than only as an independent testing laboratory, could have heightened the awareness of field staff to
the dangerous condition caused by excavation in the vicinity of the force main.
6. The role of the representative from North Carolina, Department of Labor, Consultative Services was
apparently misunderstood by the Contractor and others on the site. Roles and responsibilities of
such personnel need to be clearly defined and understood by all. The representative’s responsibilities
were limited to safety and health concerns and did not include geotechnical issues. His comments

3-8
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
3: Potential Reasons and Influencing Factors for the Spill Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

that addressed confined space entry were apparently misunderstood to include adequacy of shoring
and slope stability.
7. When evidence of changing groundwater and/or soil conditions was observed, an experienced
geotechnical engineer consulted by the Contractor would have readily identified the instability of the
side slopes.

3.4 Preventive Actions to Avoid a Pump Station Failure and

Spill
There are engineering actions that are recommended to help prevent future spills from the Swift Creek force
main system, or from other pump stations.
1. Undertake a new surge analysis both to reflect the current configuration and the configuration that
will be in place following tie-in of the new pumping station. The surge (water hammer) analysis upon
which the design was based was developed during preliminary engineering; it does not reflect the
piping configuration installed in response to the spill.
2. Perform a condition assessment for the existing force main particularly in the area of existing
air/vacuum valves and the discharge location. The force main reportedly partially drains upon each
pump off/on cycle thereby creating favorable conditions for hydrogen sulfide corrosion. If
corrosion has progressed to the point of potential failure, immediate corrective actions should be
taken. If significant corrosion is evident, consider accelerating design and construction of the future
parallel force main planned for 2007 to allow the existing force main to be taken out of service for
refurbishment.
3. For modifications to existing facilities, confirm that record drawings for subsurface conditions, at a
minimum, are accurate. For projects in construction, emphasize the importance of accurate record
drawings to the designers and contractors.
4. Protect critical systems with jointly-developed contingency plans for construction activities in and
around operating facilities.
5. Provide geotechnical engineering services to designers and contractors during construction to assure
proper assessment of in situ subsurface conditions.
6. Consider protection of critical facilities in the flood prone areas. Although the flooding associated
with tropical storm Alberto does not appear to have had a significant role in the failure, the flood
waters were reportedly within inches of major electrical components and could have seriously
damaged the pumping system thereby resulting in a similarly catastrophic spill.
7. The Town ultimately installed a temporary bypass pumping connection to allow the use of portable
pumping equipment to deliver wastewater via the existing force main system. Installation of similar
connections at critical wastewater pumping stations could help speed installation of temporary
pumping systems to remove a pumping station from service, in response to either a planned outage
or one resulting from an emergency. The use of this bypass can be facilitated by the purchase of one
or more trailer-mounted, engine-driven, self-priming pumping systems.

3-9
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

4. ORGANIZATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

During the evaluation of the Swift Creek Pump Station failure, the assessment team considered organization
and institutional factors that may have been partially the cause or an influencing factor in the failure and
subsequent sewer system overflows (SSO).
Organizational factors or issues tend to be short term issues in an organization that are specific to different
departments. Institutional factors and issues are business practices that are embedded within an entire
organization that may have not kept pace with growth as the organization has evolved over time. The
assessment team identified the organizational and institutional issues during the document review, the on-site
interviews and on-site observations at the Operations Center. They are also derived from knowledge,
experience and application of Emergency Response Planning (ERP) in the utilities industry as well as
industry-wide best business practices for pumping stations, force mains and gravity sewers in wastewater
collection systems. This section describes the four phases of emergency management and presents our
findings and recommendations within the framework of these four phases.

4.1 Four Phases of Emergency Management

There are four phases of emergency management commonly recognized by the utility industry and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Prevention. What business practices, policies and procedures are used during the design and
construction of capital projects to prevent emergencies, during construction? Once constructed, how are
preventive and corrective maintenance business practices used to increase asset reliability and availability that
in turn, reduces the risk of future emergencies due to asset failure and loss of function?

Preparation. This phase recognizes the fact that emergencies will always occur in public utilities even
when the prevention phase is effective. Hurricanes cannot be prevented, nor can manmade events always be
controlled. A contractor “digging” up a force main is a case in point. This phase prepares for the emergency
by identifying and preparing for emergencies caused by natural events as well as for manmade emergencies.
The preparation phase is both system and asset specific for normal and extraordinary emergency events.
Development of an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is completed in this phase to be implemented in the
next phase, Response. Examples of information that would be included in the ERP are provided in Table 4-1.

4-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
4: Sewage Spill Assessment Within the Framework of Emergency Management Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table 4-1. Example Information Included in an Emergency Response Plan

Emergency Numbers (an emergency can be cross- Electric, gas, water, cable, telephone, locators
jurisdictional or have more than one provider of Key personnel that have decision making authority to respond
services) Police, Fire Medical
Notification Procedure – Internal Divisions and Safety, Loss Control, Industrial waste, Finance, Public Information
Departments
Notification Procedure – External Police, Fire, Regulatory, Community, Media, Other Jurisdictions
Other Sections Site Security, Mutual Aid Agreements
Emergency Resources, Equipment, and Systems Pre-approved list of contractors and contacts
General
Electrical & Mechanical
Equipment and materials suppliers
Local Industry
Other utilities
Other communities
Engine Driven Generator Sets
Portable - match to pump stations and inventory applicability to specific stations
Logistics
Tow vehicles& drivers, Fuel, Operators, Cables & hookups
Load tested, preventive maintenance performed, & ready for use
Onsite
Load test
Transfer switch operation
Fuel availability and quality
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
Example Hose, Piping, Fittings Inventory 4, 6, 8, & 10, inch flexible hose with quick connect fittings stored on pallets
and staged appropriately
Aluminum irrigation pipe
Irrigation contractors
Fittings and valves needed for bypassing
Suction hose
Submersible Pumps
Power, Motor Control, Cables, Floats, Lights
Operating Characteristics
Head and capacity
Suction lift
Example of Electrical Control and Pump Information
Physical size for access
Types
Engine Driven
Electric Submersible
Hydraulic
Trailer-mounted, engine-driven, self priming pumps

The Preparation Phase is a major component of the National Incident Management System (NIMS; described
later in this section) protocol and must be incorporated as the program is developed.

4-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
4: Sewage Spill Assessment Within the Framework of Emergency Management Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Response. This phase is primarily the implementation of the established Emergency Response Plan.
Depending on the severity of the emergency, the Incident Command System (ICS) may also be implemented.
Under normal emergencies, the Town’s Public Works Utilities (PWUT) would typically respond, while
extraordinary emergencies, which might be broader, would likely involve other departments, and potentially
other local jurisdictions, state, and/or and federal resources.

Recovery. The fourth phase is restoring the system to normal operation and remediating the effects and
impacts of the emergency. Depending on the nature of the emergency, Recovery can begin at any time once
the situation is stabilized or the event has passed. The Recovery Phase focuses on maintaining and/or
restoring public health and safety concerns, and restoring the functionality of the asset or facilities beyond the
temporary measures taken during the Response Phase. This phase generally would require the completion of
a Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) to determine cause(s) of failure and the steps to be taken to prevent
a reoccurrence. The FMEA would be included in the prescribed final reporting requirements. These would
also include assessment of impacts, for example, calculating and varying flow volumes.

4.2 National Incident Management System

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a FEMA program that provides for a structured
protocol for the four phases of Emergency Management. Most emergency situations or events are addressed
locally with local resources, as was the case with the incident under review. When there is a major incident,
help may be needed from other jurisdictions, the state, and/or the federal government. NIMS was developed
so responders from different jurisdictions and disciplines can work together better to respond to natural
disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism. NIMS benefits include a unified approach to incident
management; standard command and management structures; and emphasis on preparedness, mutual aid and
resource management
The Town staff is currently undergoing NIMS on-line training and will complete that in the near future.
Following the training, staff will develop and implement a NIMS specific to the Town, which will become a
key piece in an expanded Emergency Response Program for the Town.

4.3 Sewage Spill Assessment within the Framework of

Emergency Management
As noted previously, there are four phases of emergency management commonly recognized by the utility
industry and FEMA. The assessment team evaluated the organizational and institutional issues related to the
wastewater spill within the framework and context of these four phases. The objective was to identify areas
that may have contributed to the incident and, perhaps more importantly, to identify potential modifications
to the Town’s business practices to minimize the probability of future events and, when they do occur, assure
effective, efficient response and service restoration.

4.3.1 Prevention Phase

The Town Engineering did not have direct responsibility for the Swift Creek Pump Station expansion project.
While there was collaboration between Engineering and PWUT during the design, the project management
during construction was assigned to the Utility System Maintenance (USM) Division, whose representative
had frequent on-site contact with the EOR and Contractor. During project construction, USM was
concerned with maintaining the operational capability of the pump station. It appears they may not have had
the technical background or the necessary charge regarding engineering or construction. Instead they relied
on the EOR to take care of construction related issues. They may also have been time limited depending on

4-3
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
4: Sewage Spill Assessment Within the Framework of Emergency Management Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

other daily priorities. On projects affecting critical assets, the appropriate level of expertise should be used to
best protect the interests of Town. This institutional issue has reportedly been addressed as larger capital
improvement construction projects are now managed by Town Engineering. It should be documented as a
Standard Procedure so the interdepartmental roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood.

Prevention and Mitigation Actions. During the design phase, the Town needs to ensure
that the construction contract documents incorporate language necessary to maintain the functionality of
critical assets during the construction and have a contingency Emergency Response Plan in the event of
failure. This should reflect the NIMS framework being developed.
Once an asset is designed and constructed, Preventive Maintenance (PM) is necessary to maintain the desired
function of the asset. PM is a proactive activity. PM procedures are developed and executed as part of the
Preventive Phase. Corrective Maintenance (CM) is maintenance that is performed to restore asset
functionality after a failure has occurred. If the failure consequences are severe, it becomes high priority
Emergency Maintenance (EM). CM is a reactive activity. EM procedures are developed in the Preparation
Phase and executed in the Response and Recovery Phases.
The Public Works Utilities Department (PWUT) has well developed Preventive and Corrective Maintenance
programs that they use to perform programmed PM and CM on the wastewater collection system. PM and
CM activity is tracked using a Computerized Maintenance Management System that generates work orders
and records historical data when completed. Preventive maintenance at the pump stations is structured so
more critical stations receive a higher level of preventive maintenance. Gravity sewers are cleaned on a
programmed basis and inspection/condition assessment is performed using Closed Circuit Television
(CCTV) and/or other methods. Defects identified during the inspection/condition assessment are then
scheduled for; increased PM, spot repair, rehabilitation or replacement. Preventive maintenance activity is
tracked and reported. The Town also ensures that the maintenance program complies with North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) permit. Of particular note in assessing the
town’s level of professionalism, NCDENR has adopted some of the Town SSO Response Procedures for
state wide use. The Town developed a Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program that is recognized nationally.
The staff responsible for the program has participated in the development of workshops and FOG Program
documents for the Water Environment Federation as well as for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
A Right of Way/Easement Maintenance program maintains access to Town field assets.
PWUT has an inventory of emergency response materials that includes pumps, hose and fittings, portable
engine driven generators and other equipment. This inventory is being added to this year with the
procurement of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, generators and other equipment as it is identified.

Other Issues and Concerns. The assessment team identified other assets that may be at risk.
1. The Swift Creek Force Main should be evaluated for potential failure due to corrosion based on
observations of existing piping during recovery.
2. The Walnut Creek Pump Station and Force Main may also be at risk and should be evaluated.
On a broader scale, a formal condition assessment program should be developed and implemented for Town
pump stations and pressure pipe.
During the interviews and field observations at the Operations Center, some concern was expressed for the
future sustainability of the preventive maintenance program due to the number of vacancies in staff positions
and the growing backlog of priority work. Growth of the system has also added to the workload. The Town
needs to evaluate resources available versus the resources needed to sustain the high performance levels
established.

4-4
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
4: Sewage Spill Assessment Within the Framework of Emergency Management Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

4.3.2 Response Phase

The Town has an Emergency Response Plan in place. That plan relies, in part and somewhat indirectly, upon
the real time monitoring of the field operating conditions of the Swift Creek Pump Station (all pump stations
use SCADA) and upon the availability of standby crews to respond to alarms and customer service requests
after normal work hours.

Prevention and Mitigation. The SCADA system first recorded the loss of pressure in the force
main and, subsequently, the high wet well condition caused by the pumps shutting down and the force main
failure. The alarm was sent immediately to the primary standby crew who then responded to evaluate the
alarm within 30 minutes of receiving the alarm. The crew’s knowledge and experience allowed them to
rapidly assess the situation and began immediate mobilization of the appropriate Town staff.
Town staff decided to divert approximately 1 million gallons per day (mgd) of flow from the Swift Creek
Pump Station influent line to the Walnut Creek Pump Station, and from there to the North Water
Reclamation Facility. The decision to divert was made at 1845 or 1 ½ hours after the loss of pressure alarm.
This action mitigated the amount of the SSO to surface waters.
By 1900, key PWUT staff members were at the Operations Center evaluating the information from the field
staff and began mobilizing the external and internal resources needed to respond, including the Contractor
and the EOR. Staff also began mobilizing a local contractor in the event the Contractor could not be
contacted. The Contractor was successfully contacted and responded immediately so the local contractor was
recalled.
The response to the incident was very rapid because of the real time SCADA information, because staff was
already responding to other alarms in the field, and because key staff had remained at the Operations Center
because of the wet weather event that preceded the Swift Creek Pump Station pipe failure.
The dedication and professionalism of the Town staff was illustrated by several staff returning from vacation
and other staff calling in to assist in the response.

Other Issues and Concerns. During the response, organizational and institutional issues
became evident that may have had a slight impact on the incident but need to be evaluated further in the
context of avoidance of future catastrophic system failures. As noted previously, the full implementation of
the NIMS structure will address these issues.
Once on site, representatives from the Town, EOR and Contractor focused on an immediate repair that
would return the station to operation as soon as possible. While there was a high level of confidence this
repair would be effective, some time was lost in initiating contingency alternatives to the repair; such as the
pump and haul operation and the temporary bypass. Ideally, the decision to implement one or both of those
plans could have been initiated Friday evening, June 23 as the condition assessment developed. This might
have saved a few hours for the implementation of the pump and haul operation and up to two days for the
bypass pumping. The NIMS framework should include identification of failure modes for critical facilities
and develop pre-planned contingencies such as pump and haul and bypass. Resources then need to be
identified to execute the contingency plans.
Some critical activities relied on the experience and knowledge of the Town staff. This experience and
knowledge, often called institutional knowledge, must be captured as soon as possible. The reality is that
many key staff will be approaching retirement within the next ten years. This information can be used
immediately to begin succession planning and also incorporated into the structured NIMS system the Town is
implementing.

4-5
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
4: Sewage Spill Assessment Within the Framework of Emergency Management Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Acknowledgement of the institutional knowledge thus leads to acknowledgement of the need for a formal
succession planning strategy to be developed and implemented. As part of that planning strategy, the Town
can continue to obtain and collect system attribute information and to populate GIS and other information
system databases with that data. Examples are:
ƒ Manhole location
ƒ Invert elevation
ƒ Rim elevation
ƒ Low points in upstream gravity sewers
ƒ Storage capacity in upstream gravity sewers at different flow conditions
ƒ By-pass capability
A SCADA upgrade project is currently underway. Elements of the new SCADA system need to be included
in the NIMS implementation
Communications was also mentioned as sometimes confusing and frustrating during the initial response
period, for example, multiple staff performing the same task. Based on internal and external interview
comments, communications plan and/or protocols for both internal and external notification need to be
more clearly defined. Using these protocols, the Town will maximize the use of available resources internally
across the organization, (for example, among PWUT, Engineering, and Public Information Officer) and
externally to the public and those affected by a catastrophic event. This communication plan should be
developed and documented as part of the NIMS implementation.
One practice in reasonably common use among agencies is to request users in the affected service area to
reduce water consumption during an incident such as the pipe failure. Potentially, this could reduce the
volume of overflows. Practices such as these should be included in the communication plan developed in the
NIMS framework.

4.3.3 Recovery Phase

Once the bypass system was functional, staff began the Recovery Phase which included:
ƒ Design and construction for the permanent repair of the failure
ƒ Remediation of SSO site soil
ƒ Evaluation of water quality issues
ƒ Post incident critiques and root cause failure analysis
ƒ Quantification of bypass and SSO volumes
ƒ Final reporting
ƒ Other activities as necessary to execute the Recovery Phase
The post incident analysis focused on the technical issues, the effectiveness of the Town ERP and identified
needs in several organizational and institutional areas such as internal and external communications,
optimizing Departmental/Divisional resources, and policy procedure documentation. The Town has already
implemented changes in several areas as a result of the on-going internal collaborations. They have also
initiated changes to improve technical issues identified.
It is important to note here that each failure of this type has its unique aspects. The experience gained in
dealing with each event will include lessons learned. These must be incorporated into the Response Plan and
other documents to improve the quality of the Response Plan. It is also of paramount importance,
continually emphasized, that these documents not be treated as archival monuments but rather should be
living documents subject to frequent review and revision.

4-6
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

5. ANTICIPATED SHORT-TERM AND

LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section summarizes the water quality impacts of the June 23 to June 28, 2006 wastewater spill into Swift
Creek in Wake County, North Carolina. Background information on the watershed characteristics, previous
receiving water monitoring data, post-spill monitoring data, wastewater flow and influent characteristics,
other spills in the region, and other relevant information was gathered and reviewed. Data gaps were
identified by interviewing stakeholders and seeking additional input or available information. Stakeholder
interviews also helped assure that the scope of the investigation would address the issues of all interested
parties.
A simple box model/residence time approach was used to describe the fate and transport of dissolved and
solid constituents of the discharge, and estimates of constituent loads were used to characterize the potential
for impacts to water quality. Using simple conceptual models of pollutant effects, a prioritized list of issues
and next steps was developed, including recommendations for monitoring needs and a conceptual level
analysis of potential remedial actions. The results of the impacts analysis are summarized below:
• The water quality resource
• The nature of pollutants of concern present in raw wastewater
• Characterizing impacts due to the spill

• Monitoring needs and next steps to restore public confidence in the use of the resources

5.1 The Water Quality Resource

The Swift Creek Watershed is classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as a
Class-III Water Supply Watershed. This means that it has the potential to serve as a potable water supply and
is a low to moderately developed watershed. WS-III watersheds also support the beneficial uses of water
contact recreation, fishing, wildlife habitat, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The
Swift Creek watershed is also classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Watershed (NSW) by the NCDWQ, meaning
that it needs additional nutrient management because it is subject to excessive growth of microscopic and
macroscopic vegetation. Swift Creek is located within the upper Neuse River Basin, and as such is subject to
the Neuse River NSW Rules.
The Swift Creek Watershed includes two lakes owned by the City of Raleigh that serve as recreation and
auxiliary water supply. Lake Wheeler provides boating, water skiing, inner tubing, and fishing recreation,
while Lake Benson recreation is limited to surface boating and fishing. Stakeholder interviews, including with
the City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Director, confirm that water contact recreation is extremely popular
among residents. Recreational trails planned by the City of Raleigh for the Swift Creek Watershed will form a
continuous loop connecting Lake Johnston to the north with Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson. Because of the
high recreational value of this watershed, maintaining public confidence in the safety of water contact
recreation is one of the highest watershed management priorities. Recommendations are provided later in

5-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

this report regarding reestablishing and maintaining public confidence in the safety and aesthetic quality of
Lakes Wheeler and Benson.

Figure 5-1. Neuse River Basin. (Dashed line details area around Swift Creek Watershed)

5-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Swift
Creek

Figure 5-2. Neuse River Basin in Wake County, North Carolina

Lake Benson was used as a water supply reservoir for Raleigh until the mid 1980s. The City of Raleigh’s
Public Utilities Commission is planning to resume use of Lake Benson for water supply, and therefore has a
direct interest in the protection of potable water quality. Because of its protected status, the Swift Creek
watershed is subject to the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, which specifies buffer zones around critical
watershed areas and other zoning measure intended to resolve the competing interests of water quality
protection and logical urban growth and development. About 2/3 of the land area in the watershed is
characterized as developed.6 Because potable water is not currently being produced at the Lake Benson
Water Treatment Plant, the Cary spill produced no short-term impact upon this use category. Although
detrimental long-term impacts are not expected, there are recommendations presented later in this section
that address continued monitoring of the potential impacts.
There are a number of homes served by private wells in the vicinity of Lake Wheeler. Therefore, protection
of groundwater quality is also important to the community. The Arcadis preliminary report6 on Water Quality
Impacts concluded that the spill caused “negligible, if any” impacts to private groundwater wells. That finding

5-3
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

was based on the general flow of groundwater from the water table into the stream valley, and the
measurement of bacteria in surrounding wells. This review generally supports that conclusion, but
recommendations are provided for follow-up studies that could provide additional verification of the safety
of local groundwater supplies.

Figure 5-3. Swift Creek Land Management Plan

(Source://[Link]/planning/landuse/[Link].)
Downstream from Lake Benson, Swift Creek provides habitat for the Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon). Interviews with United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) staff confirm that this is the only
federally listed endangered species likely to be affected by water quality impacts in this watershed. The City of
Raleigh is discussing appropriate mitigation and monitoring for the Dwarf Wedge Mussel in relation to
potential habitat loss due to resumption of water supply use of Lake Benson. There is little reason for
concern for the impact of the spill upon the aquatic habitat and species in Lakes Wheeler and Benson with
the possible exception of habitat in the upstream section of Lake Wheeler above Penny Road. Monitoring
and potential remediation are discussed later in this report.
In summary, the primary uses of water that needed assessment for water quality impacts are:

• Water contact recreation

5-4
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

• Water supply

• Groundwater recharge
• Fishing

• Aquatic life habitat

This list of uses was developed and vetted with Town staff, Wake County Department of Environmental
Health, Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department, Raleigh Public Utilities Commission, NCDWQ, the
USFWS, and the Neuse River Foundation’s Riverkeeper.

5.2 Prevention and Response

This section discusses both prevention, that is, knowing the pollutants of concern and applicable standards,
and response, monitoring impacts as a basis for making the recommendations summarized at the end of this
section. Water quality standards and pollutants of concern that needed assessment were discussed with
stakeholders during interviews. Table 1 shows a list of probable impacts for standards and pollutants based
on information gathered in the interviews and subsequent analysis. The standards, pollutant concerns, and
rationale for each of these findings are discussed below, organized by standard or pollutant.

5-5
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table 5-1. Summary Of Probable Impacts For Water Quality Standards And Key Pollutants Of Concern, September 2006
Standard or pollutant Probable short term impact Probable long term impact

Low – The discharge has been stopped and future

No discharge of untreated High – The discharge occurred thus violating the probabilities of discharge of similar or greater magnitude are
waste standard low, particularly after implementing management and
infrastructure improvements

Water Contact – High

Water Supply – Low Low, after implementing regionally coordinated monitoring,

Lost Use
Aquatic Life – Low communication, and pollution prevention

Wildlife Habitat - Low

High – particularly in the upstream reaches of Lake

Wheeler above Penny Road. Medium to Low
Bacteria and pathogens Low
elsewhere directly attributable to the spill but there are
continuing concerns that require monitoring.

Biosolids Uncertain Low

Low – nutrient loading is a small fraction of reasonable

estimates of watershed loading. Potential for Low – localized impacts in upper reaches of Lake Wheeler
Nutrients
significant localized impacts existed but adverse still a significant concern.
conditions were not observed.

Non-biodegradable solids Uncertain Low

Pharmaceuticals /
Endocrine Disrupting Uncertain Low
Compounds (EDCs)

Mercury Low Low

5.3 Discharge prohibition

As a WS-III watershed, discharge of wastewater is prohibited according to 15A-NCAC-02B.0215(3)(a):
“Sewage, industrial wastes, non-process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none except for those
specified in Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this Subchapter; and none which shall have an
adverse effect on human health or which are not effectively treated to the satisfaction of the
Commission and in accordance with the requirements of the Division of Environmental Health, North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; any discharger may be required by the
Commission to disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially present in their wastes and
chemicals which could be spilled or be present in runoff from their facility which may have an adverse
impact on downstream water quality; these facilities may be required to have spill and treatment failure
control plans as well as perform special monitoring for toxic substances.”
NCDWQ staff stated in that this standard and the loss of use standard, discussed below, are the primary
bases for their evaluation of the severity of the incident.
For evaluating impacts, the spill volume that exceeded this standard is estimated to be between 6 and 9
million gallons (Mg), with a best estimate of 8 Mg used for the purpose of calculating pollutant loads
discharged. This range accounts for three scenario’s of discharges and the estimated volumes include the
estimates of inflow and infiltration of rain water that diluted the volume of raw wastewater discharged.

5-6
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

The short term impact of this exceedance is high – this was the third largest spill in the region in recent
history. The long-term impact, that is, the likelihood of recurrence, can be significantly diminished by
improved managerial and infrastructural changes. The analysis in this report describes the factors that led to
the discharge and makes recommendations for improvements that are expected to lead to prevention of
future violations of this standard.

5.4 Loss of Use

15A-NCAC-02B.0211(2) states that Class C watersheds shall be suitable for aquatic life propagation and
maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Discharges that preclude
any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality
standard. With reference to water contact recreation, NCDWQ staff stated that the lost use standard applied
regardless of whether the lost use was based on real or perceived risk.
The primary lost use at least partly contributable to the spill appears to be water contact recreation. A key
indicator for lost use discussed by the Raleigh Parks and Recreation director is the days of lake closures for
general recreation and cancellation of planned activities such as camps and other organized activities. The
director strongly believes that his customers deserved some means of assuring restoration of public
confidence in the use of the recreational resources of the Lake. No summary of lost days and cancellations
has been provided. Some of that lost use was due to closing of Lake Wheeler for recreational activity and
additional lost use may have occurred due to public perception of risks. Due to development in the
watershed, and due to the wildlife (waterfowl) use of Lake Wheeler, it is extremely difficult to confirm that
recreational closures in the days following the spill were fully contributable to the spill.
In the long term, restoration of public confidence would be enhanced by a regionally coordinated program of
water quality monitoring and effective public outreach and communication. This requires the cooperation of
a number of interested parties, including:
ƒ Wake County Environmental Services
ƒ Raleigh Public Utilities Commission
ƒ Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department
ƒ Town of Cary Public Utilities Commission
ƒ Town of Garner Parks and Recreation Department
A watershed management initiative directed at monitoring, pollution prevention, and public education
implemented by interested parties would also need to coordinate with:
ƒ United States Fish and Wildlife Service, (USFWS)
ƒ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
ƒ North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
ƒ North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR)
ƒ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ƒ Neuse River Foundation
ƒ Research Institutions such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Duke University, North
Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina.
USFWS and other environmental stakeholders did not express direct concerns about lost wildlife uses, but
referred to the more general regional issue of habitat quality monitoring for the Dwarf Wedge Mussel related
to planned water supply diversions from Lake Benson. Raleigh Public Utilities Commission questioned the
potential for some constituents to impact the quality of potable water. This is discussed in more detail in

5-7
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

section 2.7 (Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, and personal care products). The potential for
short term impacts is low, due to the slow transfer of water from Lake Wheeler to Lake Benson, and the fact
that Lake Benson is not currently in use as a water supply. The potential for long term impacts to lost water
supply use is low so long as appropriate monitoring measures are in place.
Groundwater wells do not appear to be threatened, based on the general principle of the regional
groundwater movement from the water table towards the stream valley, in addition to preliminary well tests
conducted by Wake County. Gradient studies conducted near water supply wells that are within 500 feet of
the lake, especially near the deeper eastern shoreline, would confirm that the stated assumptions about
groundwater flow are correct in all situations. As a first step toward this, the Town of Cary has begun a GIS
search to identify and communicate with residents with houses located near the lake shore. Further
monitoring and analysis of those wells within 500 feet of Lake Wheeler will confirm the prior analyses and
build confidence that the potential problem has been fully addressed.

5.5 Bacteria and other pathogens

Raw wastewater contains fecal coliforms, enterococci, shigella, and other harmful bacteria that can lead to
disease outbreaks through water contact recreation. Bacteria can lead to the disease symptoms directly, as
with shigella and cholera outbreaks that cause diarrhea, or indirectly by carrying human viruses that cause
diseases such as gastroenteritis. Abundance of enterococci has been correlated with swimming-related
outbreaks of gastroenteritis.7
Fecal coliforms are indicators of environmental risk due to water contact exposure to pathogens. The
following water quality criterion applies to protection of human health by water contact recreation as
specified in 15A-NCAC-02B.0211(3)(e):
“Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml
(MF count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during any 30 day period, nor
exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during such period; violations of
the fecal coliform standard are expected during rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is
expected to be caused by uncontrollable nonpoint source pollution; all coliform concentrations are to
be analyzed using the membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions
necessitate the tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution
technique shall be used as the reference method.”
Protozoans such as giardia and cryptosporidia are also of concern. They occur in raw wastewater, but also can
be transported from watershed sources of animal fecal matter 8,9 Both protozoans can cause diarrhea and
abdominal cramping, though giardia infections are often asymptomatic. These pathogens exist in water as
cysts that are transmitted to people through the oral route, for example water inadvertently ingested while
swimming or water skiing. Cysts can persist in water for up to a year before they die.
The City of Raleigh has a monthly monitoring program that includes pathogens. Enterococcus has been
measured monthly since 2001. Giardia and cryptosporidium cysts have been measured quarterly since 2001.
Fecal coliforms have been measured monthly from 2001 to 2004. Monitoring data provided by the City of
Raleigh replaced fecal coliforms with total coliforms and E. Coli for the period 2005 to present. Additional
post-spill monitoring data, shown in Table 5-2, were provided by the City of Raleigh PUC, the Town of
Cary, and the Wake County Department of Environmental Health. These data help understand short term
and long term impacts of bacteria, and identify uncertainties that can be resolved through monitoring.
Short term impacts of the spill are demonstrated by the substantial exceedances of the 400 counts/100 ml
standard immediately after the spill particularly in the western arm of Lake Wheeler. The time distribution of

5-8
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

the data suggests that it takes about a day for bacteria from the spill and other storm water sources entering
from Swift Creek to reach the eastern side of the lake.

Table 5-2. Post-spill monitoring data supplied by the City of Raleigh and the Town of Cary helps characterize short term
water quality impacts on pathogens criteria.
Marsh LW1 LW2 LW3 LW4 LW5 LW6 LW7 Spillway
Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal Fecal
Date #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml #/100ml
6/24/2006 20000 a 8300 2100 3367 <10 2 <2 6 -b
6/25/2006 - 8100 1130 190 110 110 365 305 625
6/26/2006 2500 610 280 420 30 - 20 10
6/27/2006 1010 590 650 210 150 100 - 80 10
6/28/2006 - - - - - - - - -
6/29/2006 145 170 165 105 110 10 - <10 <10
6/30/2006 60 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10
7/1/2006 - 20 - - - - - - -
7/2/2006 - 50 - - - - - - -
7/3/2006 - 5 - - - - - - -
a - Bold and italicized values exceed the 400 count / 100 ml standard, which is not to be exceeded more than 20% of the time.
b - Indicates no data
This observation is consistent with residence time calculations for the lake. During peak flows observed in
storm events, the entire water volume of Lake Wheeler west of Penny Road is replaced in about a day by
inflowing storm water. In contrast, the volume of the main recreational lake is replaced much more slowly, so
the transport of bacteria by the spill takes a day or more by wind-driven mixing and lake circulation.
Attenuating factors that help explain the short term impacts characterized in Table 5.2 include dilution,
settling, and bacteria die-off. The volume of Lake Wheeler, about 7,200 Acre-feet or 2.3 billion gallons, is
about 300 times greater than the volume of spill, about 8 Mg. So it makes sense that the initial upstream
bacteria counts of 1,000 - 20,000 / 100 ml are much lower when diluted into the entire volume of the lake.
Fecal coliform bacteria do not generally survive very long in the ambient environment, so once a bacteria
source is shut off the bacteria count would be expected to drop, especially in the surface waters where
ultraviolet light speeds up die off rates. Bacteria also attach to particles, so as suspended solids coagulate and
settle bacteria counts are removed from surface waters. While in some circumstances these bacteria will
survive and reproduce in sediments, such conditions are not characteristic of Lake Wheeler.
The time distribution of the bacteria counts shown suggest that the majority of the short-term impacts
occurred during the first day of the spill, and that subsequent interim measures diminished pollutant loads.
This should be kept in mind for load estimates based on days of the spill – the majority of the uncontrolled
discharge may have occurred during the first two days following the pipe separation at the pump station.

5-9
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Figure 5-4: Locations of post-spill monitoring data collection points. Map source: City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Commission.

The potential for long-term impacts can be put into perspective by examining post-spill monitoring data in
the context of monthly monitoring for fecal coliform. West of Penny Rd., on June 24 and 25, the exceedances
of the standard were the largest in the monitoring data set provided (Figure 5-5). East of Penny Rd., in the
downstream (eastern) reach of the lake, the exceedance of the standard was comparable in magnitude to
previous occurrences of runoff during which wastewater spills did not occur (Figure 5-6). In both segments,
the frequency of exceedances is about the same, five to six over the past five years of data. While the data are
not adequate to evaluate long-term attainment of the 20 percent threshold, it is clear that pre-spill events can
also influence attainment of bacteria standards.
Preliminary data were provided by the City of Raleigh on giardia and cryptosporidium monitoring from
historic and post-spill monitoring. The historic data are best interpreted as presence / absence findings, and
so frequency over time is more meaningful than point data. Giardia cysts have been detected eight out of
nineteen times in the past five years west of Penny Rd., and downstream two out of nineteen times in Lake
Wheeler. Cryptosporidia cysts have been detected three out of sixteen times in both segments. There is not
sufficient information to tell whether frequency of detection has increased post-spill, but is does appear that
under pre-spill conditions giardia is detected more frequently west of Penny Rd. The possible existence of
spatial gradients in the Lake that pre-dated the spill should be looked into more carefully.

5-10
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 (col / 100 ml)

1
10
100
1000
10000

Fecal Coliforms
2/27/2001
3/14/2001
4/2/2001
5/1/2001
6/4/2001
7/11/2001
8/6/2001
9/11/2001
10/8/2001
11/5/2001
12/10/2001
1/29/2002
2/25/2002
3/25/2002
4/24/2002
5/28/2002
6/19/2002
7/23/2002

P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]

8/28/2002
9/24/2002
10/22/2002
1/22/2003
2/26/2003
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts

3/19/2003
4/23/2003

5-11
5/27/2003
6/24/2003
7/28/2003
8/26/2003
9/29/2003
10/28/2003
11/17/2003
12/11/2003
02/23/2004
03/25/2004
04/27/2004
05/25/2004
06/28/2004
Lake Wheeler - Penny Rd.

07/26/2004
08/24/2004
09/27/2004

monitoring conducted by the City of Raleigh.

10/26/2004
11/15/2004
12/13/2004
01/24/2005
02/21/2005
03/21/2005
05/23/2005
06/20/2005
07/25/2005
08/29/2005
09/26/2005
10/24/2005
6/24/2006
6/25/2006
6/26/2006
6/27/2006
6/29/2006
6/30/2006
7/1/2006
source: City of Raleigh. Light colored bars indicate post-spill data, dark bars indicate monthly

7/2/2006
7/3/2006
Figure 5-5: Long term data set showing fecal coliform counts in the west side of Lake Wheeler. Data
Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

10000
Lake Wheeler -
Downstream

1000

100
Fecal Coliforms
(col / 100 ml)

10

1
2/27/2001
3/14/2001
4/2/2001
5/1/2001
6/4/2001
7/11/2001
8/6/2001
10/8/2001
11/5/2001
12/10/2001
1/29/2002
2/25/2002
3/25/2002
4/24/2002
5/28/2002
6/19/2002
7/23/2002
8/28/2002
9/24/2002
10/22/2002
1/22/2003
2/26/2003
3/19/2003
4/23/2003
5/27/2003
6/24/2003
7/28/2003
8/26/2003
9/29/2003
10/28/2003
11/17/2003
12/11/2003
02/23/2004
03/25/2004
04/27/2004
05/25/2004
06/28/2004
07/26/2004
08/24/2004
09/27/2004
10/26/2004
11/15/2004
12/13/2004
01/24/2005
02/21/2005
03/21/2005
05/23/2005
06/20/2005
07/25/2005
08/29/2005
09/26/2005
10/24/2005
6/24/2006
6/25/2006
6/26/2006
6/27/2006
6/29/2006
6/30/2006
Figure 5-6: Long term trends in fecal coliform counts in the eastern side of Lake Wheeler based on
data supplied by the City of Raleigh. Light colored bars indicate post-spill data, dark bars indicate
monthly monitoring conducted by the City of Raleigh

Bacteria die off over time, so once a source is shut off the impact is attenuated. In the long term, actions to
attain water quality standards for bacteria should focus on source assessment and reduction in the watershed,
monitoring in the lake and communication of the results, and as discussed in the next section, nutrient
management strategies to maintain water clarity. With this approach, long term impacts from pathogens due
to the spill are likely to be low.

5.6 Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to surface waters can stimulate the growth of unwanted algae and other
vegetation, a process known as eutrophication. Excessive algal blooms can have the direct effect of impairing
aesthetic appearances, and indirectly can lead to depressed dissolved oxygen and associated odors and
degraded habitat value because of microbial decomposition of decaying plant matter. As noted above, Swift
Creek is listed as a Nutrient Sensitive Watershed, and is subject to the Neuse River Rules for nutrient
management (15-NCAC-02B.0232-0242).
Nutrient impacts should be considered at both the basin-wide and local watershed scale. Estimated loads of
nutrients released from the spill into Lake Wheeler can be compared to estimated watershed loads into Lake
Wheeler. However, at the basin-wide scale, relating nitrogen discharged from the spill to loads at the Neuse
River Mouth is difficult because transport through the Swift Creek watershed through the Neuse River is

5-12
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

slow relative to biological uptake and transformation processes. Because of this, recommendations for
recovery focus on practical watershed management approaches to nutrient management based on the Neuse
River Rules and the Swift Creek Land Management Plan and regional strategies to monitor and reduce
nutrient impacts in the long term.
For WS-III watersheds the applicable numeric water quality standard for nitrogen as defined in 15A-NCAC-
02B.0215(3)(h)(i)(E) is nitrate nitrogen (10 mg/L). However, this is a drinking water standard, rather than an
ecosystem protection endpoint. Target concentrations to avoid nuisance algal blooms may be lower and
involve both other forms of nitrogen and other nutrients.
Preliminary estimates of nitrogen loads discharged can be made based on influent nitrogen concentrations (41
to 45 mg/L) and an estimated range of 6 to 9 Mg of wastewater discharged. The best estimate of nitrogen
load discharged from the spill event is 1300 kg, with a likely range of 900 to 1500 kg. For perspective, if all of
the 8,371 developed acres of the Swift Creek watershed above Holly Springs Rd. attained the Neuse River
Rule goal of 3.6 pounds per acre per year for new development10 , the annual nitrogen load would be about
14,000 kg, about 10 times more than the nitrogen introduced into the system by the spill..
1,300 kg of nitrogen is a potentially significant short term impact, in particular if the source of nitrogen is
readily available to stimulate algal growth. Because of the relatively long residence time of Lake Wheeler,
nitrogen impacts would likely be focused on that Lake, and may be delayed until springtime bloom conditions
or later. Monitoring of chlorophyll, focused studies of nutrient cycling dynamics, and potential mitigations for
lake eutrophication such as aeration may be appropriate if short term impacts become apparent. In the longer
term, watershed management to attain goals set by the Neuse River Rules is a more significant factor affecting
nutrient loads to Swift Creek watershed.

5.7 Biosolids
Biosolids are a concern because they carry bacteria and other pathogens, and because they provide a ready
source of carbon, nitrogen, and other nutrients that can put biochemical oxygen demand on a system. One of
the key questions about biosolids in this system is their settling rate and fate. It is important to know whether
the biosolids discharged were distributed over the entire lake, or whether they settled in the western arm of
Lake Wheeler. This is explained later in this section with a simple residence time conceptual model, which
leads to some of the monitoring recommendations presented later.
Biosolids and non-biodegradable solids (Section 5.8, below) are subject to the Standard for solids, 15A-
NCAC-02B.0211(3)(c):
Floating solids; settleable solids; sludge deposits: only such amounts attributable to wastewater,
industrial wastes or other wastes as shall not make the water unsafe or unsuitable for aquatic life and
wildlife or impair the waters for any designated uses.
Similar to the nitrogen load, the load of suspended solids can be calculated from the Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) of wastewater influent (220 to 250 mg/L) and the same range of estimated discharge volumes (6 to 9
Mg). The best estimate is 7,000 kg biosolids discharged, with a possible range of 5,000 to 9,000 kg. For
comparison, 5600 cubic meters of sediment accumulate in Lake Wheeler every year on average,
corresponding to 15,000,000 kg of sediment, roughly 2,000 times the biosolids load discharged from the
event. Just as the volume of the lake substantially diluted the volume of the spill, the mass of sediment
involved in watershed sediment transport processes may make it difficult to discern the presence of any
biosolids, particularly after sufficient time has elapsed for microbial digestion, degradation, and re-working of
colloidal matter to occur.

5-13
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

5.8 Non-biodegradable solids

Urban areas often have non-biodegradable solids mixed into influent streams as a result of people disposing
of consumer products in their household toilets. Inadvertent discharge of such matter into surface waters is a
concern if residual deposits later are mobilized into swimming and boating areas. Rough estimates of
common consumer products, such as cigarette butts, latex prophylactics, and sanitary napkins can be made
based on population and consumption rates, and noting that the bulk of the raw wastewater spill may have
occurred over the first two days of the spill, before pump and haul operations commenced. Based on normal
consumption patterns and estimates of disposal rates, it is likely that the number of non-biodegradable solids
attributable to the spill is at least in the hundreds, more likely in the thousands, and probably less than ten
thousand. Most of that material should be in the deposits in Lake Wheeler upstream of Penny Road. This
can be refined by visual inspection using remote cameras or collection of sediment samples from the Lake
bottom. Note that above surface visual inspections of Lake Wheeler upstream of Penny Road have been
made and no increased density was observed of non-biodegradable solids above that usually observed around
piedmont North Carolina lakes.

5.9 Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds,

personal care products, and other human-originating
chemicals
Raleigh Public Utilities Commission (PUC) staff expressed an interest in the approach to assessing loads of
pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds, personal care products, and other human-originating
organic wastewater contaminant (OWCs). This is an emerging class of compounds known to be present in
wastewater and residential wastewater. Because of the potential use of Lake Benson as a water supply, the
PUC question was posed in the context of assessing long term risks to potable water quality. Little is known
about risk assessment for many of these compounds, and they are not typically monitored in routine
programs administered by the City of Raleigh or other agencies. Because of this lack of background
information, the impacts are uncertain, and the recommendations are largely focused on reducing uncertainty.
A national reconnaissance of OWCs11 provides some background on expected OWC concentrations in
surface waters. Measurement methods are reviewed and concentrations are summarized for 95 compounds,
including antibiotics, prescription drugs, non-prescription drugs, steroids, hormones, detergents,
antimicrobials, and other wastewater-related compounds. One of the better characterized compounds is
caffeine, which is a good tracer of human wastewater, because of its low natural background concentrations
and prevalence in residential and commercial service areas12.
Caffeine remains predominantly in the dissolved state, and so can be used to approximate the fate of other
soluble OWCs. Estimated concentrations for a small subset of these compounds are summarized below, and
they lead to monitoring and risk assessment recommendations. This ratio approach is not predictive in any
quantitative sense. It is a useful conceptual method to estimate order of magnitude concentrations, and
describe where soluble pollutant loads from the spill are today. It helps to inform preliminary risk assessment
questions for future water use and design of monitoring studies.
The preliminary results of mass transport modeling suggest that most of the dissolved constituents of the spill
are still in Lake Wheeler, only a small fraction has been transported downstream to Lake Benson thus far.
This modeled prediction can be verified or refuted by measuring the caffeine concentrations in Lake Wheeler
and Lake Benson. The modeling results predict caffeine concentrations in Lake Wheeler will be 3 to four
times those of Lake Benson, about 0.1 µg/L compared to 0.03 µg/L. These concentrations may be
overestimated, because of many simplifying assumptions made in the model, but the relative difference
between the lakes is very likely accurate, just based on the lake volumes and flow rates out of Lake Wheeler.

5-14
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table 5-3. Concentrations of other human derived compounds found by the USGS (2002) in surface waters, and the
resulting estimated concentrations in Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson based on the ratio to caffeine.
Median from USGS Estimated concentration in Estimated concentration in
Compound Type
(2002), µg/L Lake Wheeler, µg/L Lake Benson, µg/L
Caffeine Drug 0.08 0.1 0.03
Acetaminophen Drug 0.1 0.2 0.04
Ibuprofen Drug 0.2 0.3 0.08
Cholesterol Plant/animal steroid 0.8 1 0.3
Coprostanol Fecal steroid 0.09 0.1 0.03
Testosterone Reproductive hormone 0.12 0.2 0.04
Progesterone Reproductive hormone 0.1 0.2 0.04
Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic 0.07 0.1 0.03

This gives Raleigh PUC staff a simple approach to estimate concentrations of other OWCs. If a more refined
estimate of OWCs is desired, measuring caffeine in the Lakes is a cost effective place to start. However, this
is likely a lower priority compared to pathogens and nutrient monitoring needs.

5.10 Mercury and Other Metals

Mercury and other metals are known to be present in wastewater. Mercury is present because of direct inputs
from dental facilities that use mercury amalgam, and indirect inputs from human body-burdens of mercury
because of diet and use of mercury fillings. There are approximately 14 dental offices in the service area of the
Swift Creek pumping station. Accounting for the number of dental offices and the population of the service
area, the total mercury load discharged would range from a few tenths of a gram to a few grams. As with
nitrogen and solids, this is small compared to expected watershed loads. Other metals are not likely an issue
because of the lack of heavy industry in the service area. The recommended action for mercury is to continue
monitoring mercury in fish and posting consumption guidance consistent with regional mercury management
strategies. Conversion of ambient mercury to the more toxic form of methylmercury within the lake may be
an issue, as it is with most lakes and reservoirs. If so, this would be a watershed management issue, rather
than a spill-related issue.

5.11 Monitoring and Next Steps

One of the key lessons learned from the interviews was the need for improved planning and communication
as part of this process. Those interviewed believed that the Town of Cary should have done a better job
communicating to affected parties immediately after the spill, reflecting a more general need for improved
engagement and communication with the surrounding communities that share watershed resources.
Strengthening working relationships through watershed planning efforts can improve communications, a key
area for dealing with any emergency situation.
Based on the findings of this assessment, the recommended next steps are:
1) Develop and implement a regionally coordinated monitoring program. Essentially all of the
planning to avoid long-term impacts requires some monitoring to make decisions and reduce
uncertainties. This can be done in a way that shares responsibilities among all users of the watershed
resources.
2) Develop and implement a regionally coordinated eutrophication management plan. As noted
in the nitrogen impact analysis, the long term watershed activities will play a far more important role
in lake eutrophication than loads from the spill event. Therefore, watershed load reductions will be
the best way to prevent unwanted algal blooms and associated low dissolved oxygen. In addition to
watershed management to reduce loads, engineered solutions to manage eutrophication could be
considered, such as aeration or sediment removal projects. This is important because it addresses

5-15
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
5: Antic. Short-Term and Long-Term Water Qty. and Envir. Impacts Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

multiple issues: low dissolved oxygen and unsightly algal blooms can be problematic on their own for
recreational aesthetics and taste and odor. But low dissolved oxygen can also accelerate the
accumulation of mercury in the food web, and decreased water clarity slows down the die-off rate of
light-sensitive bacteria. While managing water clarity is a challenge in North Carolina lakes, it is a
high priority for Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson because of their current and potential uses.
3) Conduct a spatial survey of Lake Wheeler bottom sediments. A spatial survey will help
determine whether the west side of Lake Wheeler is an ongoing source of pathogens or if it contains
very high concentrations of objectionable materials that could be mobilized in the future and moved
into the lower reaches of the lake. It appears that historically giardia may be observed more
frequently west of Penny Rd., but this needs to be confirmed, and it may simply be because of higher
suspended sediments in that side of the Lake. Recommended monitoring parameters include
pathogens and bacterial source tracking techniques using RNA/DNA fingerprinting. Visual
inspection using a remote camera will also help determine if non-biodegradable solids are a concern.
4) Conduct a hydraulic gradient study of groundwater wells near Lake Wheeler. The working
assumption that groundwater moves away from the water table towards the stream valley should be
confirmed for deep wells that are within 500 feet of the lake. This is recommended to be
precautionary and respectful of community concerns expressed about the long-term protection of
groundwater supplies.

5-16
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

6. RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID SIMILAR

EVENTS IN THE FUTURE

The following is a summary of the recommendations from the assessment team to minimize and/or eliminate
the likelihood and impact of similar events in the future:
1. Require involvement of the Town Engineering Department, working in collaboration with USM, in
planning, design, and construction of projects involving critical operating facilities.
2. Perform a criticality review of facilities and then an engineering inspection and assessment of critical
facilities to determine if there are facilities that may be at risk due to condition or environment.
3. Require a Sequence of Construction, a Maintenance of Facility Operations plan, and an Emergency
Plan to be prepared and in place by engineer and contractor before construction work on critical
operating facilities commences.
4. For critical operating facilities, conduct necessary excavation and exposure of subsurface facilities
during the design period to assess condition and confirm location and constraints on construction.
5. For projects in construction, emphasize the importance of accurate record drawings to the designers
and contractors.
6. For modifications to existing facilities, confirm that record drawings for subsurface conditions, at a
minimum, are accurate.
7. For projects in construction, emphasize the importance of accurate record drawings to the designers
and contractors. Clearly tie acceptability of record drawings to payment; consider line item for
payment of acceptable record drawings.
8. Clearly communicate through design documents and construction documents the criticality and
constraints for construction.
9. Define roles and responsibilities, including areas of overlap, for participants in construction project.
Consider facilitated partnering (during planning, design, and construction) to enhance formal
communications and to solicit personal commitments to maintaining critical operations.
10. Provide contracting mechanism to ensure geotechnical engineering resources are available to the
Town and its consultants and contractors throughout the construction project. Require that
apparent changes in groundwater and/or soil conditions be referred to the geotechnical resource for
assessment.
11. Conduct a surge analysis for the Swift Creek Pump Station for both the repaired facility as well as for
the final configuration of the existing and expanded facilities. Provide for peer review of the surge
analysis.
12. Perform a condition assessment for the existing force main, particularly in the area of existing
air/vacuum valves and the discharge location to determine if there is evidence of corrosion.
13. Continue and complete NIMS-based training and implement NIMS specific to the Town’s needs.
14. Document procedures for interdepartmental collaboration on project, delineating roles,
responsibilities, and expectations for team members.
15. Construct protection improvements at flood-prone critical facilities.
16. Install pumping connections for temporary bypassing at existing critical pumping stations.
17. Purchase one or more trailer-mounted, engine-driven, self-priming pumping systems for use with
temporary bypassing connections at critical pumping stations

6-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
6: Recommendations to Avoid Similar Events in the Future Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

18. Develop and implement a regionally coordinated management plan to mitigate eutrophication.
19. Conduct a spatial survey of Lake Wheeler bottom sediments to determine whether the west side of
Lake Wheeler is an ongoing source of pathogens or if it contains very high concentrations of
objectionable materials.
20. Conduct a hydraulic gradient study of groundwater wells near Lake Wheeler to confirm the working
assumption that groundwater moves away from the water table towards the stream valley deep wells
within 500 feet of the lake.

6-2
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

7. REFERENCES

1. Black & Veatch International Co., (2006, July) Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion, Review of June 23, 2006 Force Main Failure, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary,
North Carolina.
2. Fisher, Robert K. (2006, September). Draft - Swift Creek Pump Station Response – Events,
unpublished.
3. Black & Veatch International Co. (March 2004). Town of Cary, North Carolina, Swift Creek Pump
Station Expansion Contract Documents (Project Manual and Drawings)
4. Tierra, Inc., (2003, February) Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation Report, Swift Creek Pumping
Station Improvements and Expansion, Force Main Backfill and Testing, prepared for Black &
Veatch International Co., Cary, North Carolina
5. Diehl & Phillips. (1989, May 15). Wastewater Facilities Project – Town of Cary, Walnut Creek
Pumping Station, Drawings produced for the Town of Cary by Diehl & Phillips.
6. ARCADIS G&M, Inc. (2006, August). General Evaluation of Sewage Spill from Swift Creek Pump
Station, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria,
1986. EPA Report # EPA440/5-84-002. Washington, DC.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Giardia: Human Health Criteria Document.
EPA Report # EPA-823-R-002. Washington, DC.
9. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Cryptosporidia: Human Health Criteria
Document. EPA Report # EPA-822-K-001. Washington, DC.
10. North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2003. Assessment Report: Biological Impairment in the
Upper Swift Creek Watershed. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
DWQ, Raleigh, North Carolina. Downloadable from [Link]
11. Kolpin, D., Furlong, E.T., Meyer M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton, H.T.
(2002). Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams,
1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 1202 – 1211
12. Peeler, Kelly Ann. (2004). Caffeine as an Anthropogenic Source Indicator in Freshwater and Marine
Systems. M.S. Thesis in Oceanography, Florida State University, October 20, 2004, 146 pp. Florida
Sea-Grant # R/C-E-44, Downloadable from [Link]
131319/

7-1
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY PROJECT TEAM

A
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

Table A-1 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Organization and Last Name

Organization Last Name First Name Title

Black & Veatch Foulke Randy Project Director/Manager

Black & Veatch Lavallee Christian Project Engineer

Black & Veatch Osburn Pat Construction Observer/Engineer’s Representative

Black & Veatch Willett Bob Senior Design Engineer, Engineer of Record

Diehl & Phillips Hughes Frank Inspector

Diehl & Phillips Phillips John Principal

Hayward-Baker Heckman Bill Shoring System Designer

Laughlin-Sutton Felts Stevie Superintendent

Laughlin-Sutton Pollock Lance Vice President

Laughlin-Sutton Spangler Tim Vice President

Neuse River Foundation, Inc. Naujoks Dean Upper Neuse Riverkeeper

A-1
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table A-1 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Organization and Last Name (Continued)

Organization Last Name First Name Title

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Idol Tami Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer
Resources, Division of Land Resources

North Carolina Department of Labor Wilce Rod OSHA Consultant

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Langley Shannon Environmental Specialist
Resources, NC Division of Water Quality

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Wakild Charles Regional Supervisor
Resources, NC Division of Water Quality

Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department Duncan Jack Director

Raleigh Public Utilities Barnes Vanessa Senior Chemist

Raleigh Public Utilities Johnson Betty Microbiologist

Raleigh Public Utilities McMillan Larry Laboratory Supervisor

Town of Cary Coleman William Town Manager

Town of Cary, Administration Moran Susan Public Information Officer

Town of Cary, Engineering Babuin, PhD Michael Environmental Specialist

A-2
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Continued Table A-1 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Organization and Last Name (Continued)

Organization Last Name First Name Title

Town of Cary, Engineering Bailey Tim Director of Engineering

Town of Cary, Engineering Brown Steve Associate Director of Engineering

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Allen Tim Inflow/Infiltration Technician

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Bajorek Mike Public Works Director

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Bilodeau Bob Operations Division Manager

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Bonné Robert (Rob) Utilities Director

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Campbell Paul Wastewater Collection Field Supervisor

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Fisher Robert K. (Kim) Director of Public Works, Utilities

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Gilbert Jake Operations Coordinator

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Holloway John Operations Analyst

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Lauderman Ken Utility Systems Maintenance Supervisor

A-3
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Continued Table A-1 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Organization and Last Name (Continued)

Organization Last Name First Name Title

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Mills James Wastewater Collection System Operator

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Parisher Chris North Plant Superintendent

Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities Tingler Sam Utility Systems Maintenance Division Manager

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Suiter Dale Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Environmental Health Spec. and Environmental Services Team

Wake County Environmental Services Richardson Rob
Leader

_____ Blackwell Carroll Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek

_____ Ginn Fred Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek

_____ Kaydos Wilfred Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek

_____ Schreiner Anton Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek

A-4
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table A-2 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Last Name

Last Name First Name Title Organization

Allen Tim Inflow/Infiltration Technician Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Babuin, PhD Michael Environmental Specialist Town of Cary, Engineering

Bailey Tim Director of Engineering Town of Cary, Engineering

Bajorek Mike Public Works Director Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Barnes Vanessa Senior Chemist Raleigh Public Utilities

Bilodeau Bob Operations Division Manager Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Blackwell Carroll Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek _____

Bonné Robert (Rob) Utilities Director Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Brown Steve Associate Director of Engineering Town of Cary, Engineering

Campbell Paul Wastewater Collection Field Supervisor Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Coleman William Town Manager Town of Cary

A-5
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table A-2 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Last Name (Continued)

Last Name First Name Title Organization

Duncan Jack Director Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department

Felts Stevie Foreman Laughlin-Sutton

Fisher Robert K. (Kim) Director of Public Works, Utilities Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Foulke Randy Project Director/Manager Black & Veatch

Gilbert Jake Operations Coordinator Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Ginn Fred Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek _____

Heckman Bill Shoring System Designer Hayward-Baker

Holloway John Operations Analyst Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Hughes Frank Inspector Diehl & Phillips

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Idol Tami Assistant State Dam Safety Engineer
Resources, Division of Land Resources

Johnson Betty Microbiologist Raleigh Public Utilities

A-6
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table A-2 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Last Name (Continued)

Last Name First Name Title Organization

Kaydos Wilfred Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek _____

Langley Shannon Environmental Specialist North Carolina Department of Water Quality

Lauderman Ken Utility Systems Maintenance Supervisor Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Lavallee Christian Project Engineer Black & Veatch

McMillan Larry Laboratory Supervisor Raleigh Public Utilities

Mills James Wastewater Collection System Operator Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Moran Susan Public Information Officer Town of Cary, Administration

Naujoks Dean Upper Neuse Riverkeeper Neuse River Foundation, Inc.

Osburn Pat Construction Observer/Engineer’s Representative Black & Veatch

Parisher Chris North Plant Superintendent Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

Phillips John Principal Diehl & Phillips

A-7
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Table A-2 Cary — Swift Creek Sewer Spill Assessment Project List of People Interviewed, September 2006,
Sorted by Last Name (Continued)

Last Name First Name Title Organization

Pollock Lance Vice President Laughlin-Sutton

Environmental Health Spec. and Environmental Services

Richardson Rob Wake County Environmental Services
Team Leader

Schreiner Anton Private Resident adjacent to Swift Creek _____

Spangler Tim Vice President Laughlin-Sutton

Suiter Dale Fish and Wildlife Biologist United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Tingler Sam Utility Systems Maintenance Division Manager Town of Cary, Public Works, Utilities

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Wakild Charles Regional Supervisor
Resources, NC Division of Water Quality

Wilce Rod OSHA Consultant North Carolina Department of Labor

Willett Bob Senior Design Engineer, Engineer of Record Black & Veatch

A-8
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

APPENDIX B

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 SWIFT CREEK PUMP STATION SEWAGE SPILL ASSESSMENT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Tim. (2006, June 30). Swift Creek S.S.O., Memo, prepared on behalf of the Town of Cary, Cary,
North Carolina.

ARCADIS G&M, Inc. (2006, August). General Evaluation of Sewage Spill from Swift Creek Pump
Station, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Aycock, E., Benton, D., Booth, K., Creech, J., Stevens, R., Jordan, L., Stewart, S., Ulrich, G.,
Upchurch, A., & Westbrook, J. (1988, September). Swift Creek Watershed Land Management Plan.
Memorandum to Charles Wakild, NRCD, Division of Environmental Management Water
Quality Section Chief.

Black & Veatch International Co. (2006, July). Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion, Review of June 23, 2006 Force Main Failure, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North
Carolina.

Black & Veatch International Co. (2005, July). Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion, Notice to Proceed, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Black & Veatch International Co. (2006, July). Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion, Force Main Backfill and Testing, Response to letter dated July 14, 2006, prepared for
Laughlin-Sutton Construction Company, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Black & Veatch International Co. (2004, August 30). Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion – Design Memorandum, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary North Carolina.

Black & Veatch International Co. (2006, June 13). Change Order Claim Concerning Leakage of 42-inch
Sluice Gate and Installation of pipe, Letter prepared on behalf of Black & Veatch and submitted to
Mr. Lance Pollock.

Black & Veatch International Co. (March 2004). Town of Cary, North Carolina, Swift Creek Pump
Station Expansion Contract Documents (Project Manual and Drawings)

Bonné, Rob. What could be explored further in summary Report, Questions, prepared by the Town of
Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Bypass Line Allowing Cary to Repair Sewage Plant. (2006, June 28), from [Link]

Cary Sewage Cleanup Costs $381,000. (2006, July 20), from [Link]

B-1
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Cary Sewage Spill Capped. (2006, June 27), from [Link]

Cary, Town of. (2002, December). Town of Cary – A Guide for Temporary Employees, Contractors,
Consultants, and Volunteers. Town of Cary, Cary North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2005-2006).Annual Wastewater Report, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary,
North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006, August). Emergency Related Invoices Paid by Town, prepared for Black &
Veatch International Co. Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006, August). Notice of Violation for Town of Cary Sewer Collection System, Wake
County, Letters prepared on behalf of the Town of Cary and submitted to Mr. Shannon Langley,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (Fiscal Year 2005).Full and Part Time Budgeted Position Authorizations attachment B,
prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006).Influent Monitoring Data, January 2006 – July 2006, submitted September 15,
2006 via email by Mr. Leon Holt (Town of Cary) to Ms. Shearin Overton (Brown and Caldwell).

Cary, Town of. (1991, May 16). Plan and Profile of Proposed Speight Branch Interceptor, Drawings
prepared by the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006 June 26). Swift Creek OP Division Chronology, Alarms in Pump Station went off.,
prepared on behalf of the Town of Cary and reported to Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006 June 28). Swift Creek OP Division Chronology, Alarms in Pump Station went off,
prepared on behalf of the Town of Cary and reported to Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Cary Wants Second Opinion on Sewage Spill. (2006, July 27), from [Link]

Cary, Town of. (2004, March 17). Town of Cary, NC – Swift Creek Pumping Station Pump Stations,
Force Mains, and Gravity Sewers Permit Application.

Cary, Town of. Lake Wheeler Slides, prepared by the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2001, January 3). Agreement for Engineering Services, prepared for Black & Veatch
International Company.

Cary, Town of. (2005, April 14). Amendment No.1 Swift Creek Pumping Station Improvements and
Expansion, prepared for Black & Veatch International Company.

B-2
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Cary, Town of. (2004, Revised).Emergency Response Plan, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary,
North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006). Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Master Mitigation Plan, Cary, North
Carolina, Downloadable from
[Link]

Cary, Town of. (2006, August 3). Org Charts, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North
Carolina.

Cary, Town of. Swift Creek Pump Station Circular Charts of Pump Station Running- Flow Meter,
prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2006, August 7) Construction Schedule, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary,
North Carolina.

Cary, Town of. (2004, March). Swift Creek Pump Station Pump Curves, prepared for the Town of
Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

CDM. (2006). Wake County Water and Sewer Plan Update, Downloadable from
[Link]
B5F6E2DF05B5/0/ws_summary.pdf

Childress, C.J.O., and Bathala, N. (1997). Water-quality trends for streams and reservoirs in the Research
Triangle area of North Carolina, 1983-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-
4061, p.18, Down loadable from [Link]

Contaminated Lakes Could Reopen Over Weekend. (2006, June 30), from [Link]

Diehl & Phillips (1989, May 15). Wastewater Facilities Project – Town of Cary, Walnut Creek Pumping
Station and Swift Creek Pumping Station. Record drawings produced for the Town of Cary by Diehl
& Phillips.

Division of Water Quality (2004, January 1). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
20040067, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2004, April 23). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
200400875, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2004, June 23). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
200401240, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina

B-3
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,

North Carolina

Division of Water Quality (2005, April 28). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
2005011242, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2005, July 5). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
200501802, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2006, April 30). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
200601270, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2006, May 20). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form,
200601494, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality (2004, January 12). List of SSO –Durham, Raleigh, Cary, Submitted
September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Division of Water Quality. (2006, August). Notice of Violation for Town of Cary Sewer Collection
System, Wake County, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina, Laughlin-Sutton
Construction Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, and Black & Veatch International Co.,
Cary, North Carolina

Essic, J. (2006). Neuse River Watershed Atlas, Currently located at:

[Link]

Ensor, Douglas, with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1980, November 14). Engineering Report Phase II
Evaluation Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson Dams, Report and Letter submitted to Mr. James R
Butler, Public Utilities Department, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Fisher, Robert K. (2006, July 7). Sanitary Sewer Overflow Swift Creek Pumping Station, Letter prepared
on behalf of the Town of Cary and submitted to Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Fisher, Robert K. (2006, September). Draft - Swift Creek Pump Station Response – Events,
unpublished.

B-4
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Hayward Baker, (2005 June 28). Swift Creek Pump Station Cary North Carolina. Drawings prepared
for Laughlin-Sutton Construction Co., Greensboro, North Carolina.

Hazen & Sawyer, P.C. (2003). Swift Creek PS., Report - Excel spreadsheet prepared for the Town
of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. (1998, February). Study of Expansion and Improvements to the Swift Creek
Pump Station, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Heckman, Bill. (2006 June 12). Swift Creek Pump Station Cofferdam, Cary, NC. Transmittal letter
prepared on behalf of Hayward Baker and submitted to Lance Pollock with Laughlin-Sutton.

Kolpin, D., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., and Buxton,
H.T. (2002). Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams,
1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 1202 –
1211.

Lake Benson Reopened After Sewage Spill. (2006, July 5), from [Link]

Lakes Remain Closed During Sewage Cleanup. (2006, June 26), from [Link]

Laughlin-Sutton (2006, September 12) Swift Creek Pump Station. Letter (tabs 1-4) submitted to
Bob Willet, Black & Veatch, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Madigan, M.T.; Martikno, J.M., and Parker, J. (2000). Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Land

Resources, Land Quality Section, 2004. Lake Benson Dam Inspection Report, May 16, 2006.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Land

Resources, Land Quality Section, 2004. Lake Wheeler Dam Inspection Report, May 16, 2006.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Division of Land

Resources, Land Quality Section, 2004. Lake Benson Dam Inspection Report, May 16, 2006.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water

Quality. (2004). "Redbook" of Surface Waters and Wetlands Standards, NC ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE 15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 & .0300. Raleigh, North Carolina.
[Link]

North Carolina Department of Transportation. (June, 2001). Newsletter – Project Development Process
– Lake Wheeler Dam. (1) 2.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(2004, April 23). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form, 200400875, Submitted

B-5
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(2004, January 1). Collection System Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting Form, 20040067, Submitted
September 20, 2006 via email by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(2004, January 12). List of SSO –Durham, Raleigh, Cary, Submitted September 20, 2006 via email
by Mr. Shannon Langley, North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
(2002).Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Chapter 2: Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-02,
Downloaded from [Link]

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (1997). Number of

residential, business hookups, flow in system, Downloadable from [Link]

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2002). Neuse River
Compliance Association NPDES Permit No. NCC000001, Fact sheet downloaded from
[Link]

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2006). Basinwide Assessment
Report - Neuse River Basin. April, 2006, Downloaded from [Link]

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, (2006). Report to the Environmental

Review Commission on the Status of Water Quality in Water Supply Reservoirs Sampled by the Division of
Water Quality, Downloadable from
[Link]

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, (2006). Report to the Environmental

Review Commission on the Status of Water Quality in Water Supply Reservoirs Sampled by the Division of
Water Quality, Downloadable from
[Link]

North Carolina Division of Water Quality. (2002).Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Chapter
2: Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-02, Downloaded from
[Link]

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. (2002). Guidance Memorandum To Address And
Mitigate Secondary And Cumulative Impacts To Aquatic And Terrestrial Wildlife Resources And Water
Quality. NCWRC, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, NC. August, 2002, Downloadable from
[Link].

B-6
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. (2005). North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
Raleigh, NC, [Link]

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. (2004). North Carolina's State and Federally Listed
Wildlife Species. Raleigh, NC, [Link]

National Research Council. (2004). Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC

Parker, D. (2006). USEPA Waterborne Disease Research Summaries; Brown and Caldwell, personal
communication; contains 12 primary sources.

Peeler, Kelly Ann. (2004). Caffeine as an Anthropogenic Source Indicator in Freshwater and Marine
Systems. M.S. Thesis in Oceanography, Florida State University, October 20, 2004, 146 pp.
Florida Sea-Grant # R/C-E-44, Downloadable from
[Link]

Pollock, Lance, (2006, January 26).Swift Creek Pumping Station Expansion Town of Cary, NC Change
Order #1 42” Pipe Revised Quote, Letter prepared on behalf of the Town of Cary and submitted to
Bob Willet Black & Veatch., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Pollock, Lance. (2006 June 15). Swift Creek Pump Station Change Order #10 Soldier Pile Load Test.
Letter prepared on behalf of Laughlin-Sutton Construction Company and submitted to Bob
Willet with Black & Veatch, Raleigh, North Carolina.

PWUT Operations Division. (2005, November, Revision 6). Sanitary Sewer Overflow Cleanup and
Pumping Procedures, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina

Robinson, M. (October, 1981 16). Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson. Letter prepared on be half of
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and submitted to Mr. James R. Butler, Public Utilities Department, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Sewage Spill Much Larger Than Initial Estimates. (2006, June 29), from [Link]

Swift Creek Pump Station - Restart Procedures, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Soil Testing Services of Carolina, Inc. (1979, July). Phase I Inspection Report National Dam Safety
Program, Lake Benson Dam, Wake County, North Carolina. Report for Land Quality Section Division
of Land Resources, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.

Spangler, Timothy. (2006, September 12). Swift Creek Pump Station. Letter report prepared on
behalf of Laughlin-Sutton Construction Company and submitted to Bob Willet, Black &
Veatch., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Tierra, Inc. (2006, January 26). Reuse of Sludge Material – Wet Well, Letter prepared on behalf of
Tierra, Inc. and submitted to Sam Tingler, Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

B-7
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

Tierra, Inc. (2006, January 29). Subgrade Inspection Report – Wet Well Foundation, Letter prepared on
behalf of Tierra, Inc. and submitted to Sam Tingler, Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Tierra, Inc. (2006, June 23). Footing Inspection – Pipe Gallery Pier Footings – Swift Creek Pump Station
Expansion, Letter prepared on behalf of Tierra, Inc. and submitted to Sam Tingler, Town of
Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Tierra, Inc. (2006, June 29). Subgrade Inspection Emergency Force Main Repair – Swift Creek Pump
Station Expansion, Letter prepared on behalf of Tierra, Inc. and submitted to Sam Tingler, Town
of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Tierra, Inc., (2003, February). Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation Report, Swift Creek Pumping Station
Improvements and Expansion, Force Main Backfill and Testing, prepared for Black & Veatch
International Co., Cary, North Carolina.

Tierra, Inc., (2006, June). Sub-grade Inspection-Emergency Force Main Letter, Swift Creek Pumping Station
Improvements and Expansion, prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project. Information clearinghouse for regional surface water
monitoring data,
Downloadable from [Link]

Town of Cary, North Carolina Swift Creek Pump Station Expansion – Meeting Agenda (2006, June 13,
July 18, and August 8).

United States Geological Survey. ( 2006). Real-time flow data from NWI, Accessed at
[Link]

United Stated Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for North Carolina. (2001 – 2005),
Downloadable from [Link]

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
- 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002, Washington, DC, Downloadable from
[Link]

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Aeormonas: Human Health Criteria
Document. EPA Contract No 68-C-02-026. Washington, DC, Downloadable from
[Link]

Wake County Department of Environmental Services. (2006, July). Assessment of Lake Water &
Drinking Water Well Sample Results, Report prepared for the Town of Cary, Cary, North Carolina.

Wake County. (2006). Swift Creek Land Management Plan, Downloadable from
[Link]

B-8
Bibliography Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

William G. Daniel and Associates, Consulting Engineers (1984, January 31) Swift Creek Outfall and
Force Main, Drawings.

Zhang, Pu (2006, May 9). Subsurface Investigation Pipe Gallery Pier Footings. Letter prepared on behalf
of Tierra and submitted to Sam Tingler with the Town of Cary, Cary North Carolina.

B-9
 Swift Creek Pump Station Sewage Spill Assessment

APPENDIX C

SCHNABEL REPORT

C
P:\Cary\131183 - Swift Creek PS Forensics\050 Final Report\Final [Link]
 5104 Reagan Drive, Suite 8
Charlotte, NC 28206

Phone (704) 921-2706

Fax (704) 921-2707
[Link]

September 29, 2006

Brown and Caldwell

309 East Morehead Street, Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28202

Attn: Christopher Hardin

Subject: Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses
Cary, North Carolina
Schnabel Project No. 06390062

Dear Mr. Hardin:

Schnabel Engineering South, P.C. (Schnabel) is pleased to provide geotechnical engineering services to
assist your project. This letter report summarizes our evaluation of the slope stability at the referenced
project site. These services are provided in accordance with our scope of services outlined in our
proposal (Schnabel Proposal No. P6390072) dated September 26, 2006 and authorized by you on the
same date.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on the project. Please contact us if you have questions
regarding this report.

Very truly yours,

Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Richard H. Wargo, P.E. Bon Lien, P.E., Ph.D.

Principal Senior Associate

Attachment:
Figure 1 - Project Site Cross Section (Prepared by Brown and Caldwell on 9/19/2006)

"We are committed to serving our clients by exceeding their expectations."

& & & &
Geotechnical Construction Monitoring Dam Engineering Geoscience Environmental
Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses September 29, 2006
Cary, North Carolina Page 2

INTRODUCTION

We understand that an approximately 50 LF section of slope failure occurred several days after a heavy
rainfall at the referenced project site. The project site cross section utilized in our slope stability analyses
was provided by your office on September 20, 2006 (see Figure 1 in Attachment). To evaluate the
stability of the slopes and referring to Figure 1, we define the following two site slope configurations:

Site Condition A – Prior to Existing

Prior to the trench box excavation, the slope immediately behind the top of the soldier pile
support system was about 1.5H:1.0V. The height of the slope was about 14 feet.

Site Condition B – Steep Slope

During the trench box excavation, an approximate 17-foot wide bench at EL. 295 was excavated
behind the top of the soldier pile support system, followed by a steep, 0.5H:1.0V slope. The
height of the slope was about 14 feet.

SOIL PROFILE AND SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS

A Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Tierra, dated February 28, 2003, was provided by your
office. Based on the subsurface information provided in the report, we used the soil profile as shown on
Figure 1 for the stability analyses. It is our understanding that no additional laboratory testing is possible
because the soils in the vicinity of the failure area were transported during the failure and/or removed to
repair the leaking force main. Subsequently, the soil shear strength parameters used in our analyses are
based upon correlation among the field testing data from Tierra, our database, and local experience.

A summary of the soil shear strength parameters used in our analyses are:

Top Saturated Unit Total Stress Effective Stress

Soil Type SPT-N
Elev. Wt. (pcf) C (psf) Φ (º) C’ (psf) Φ’ (º)
Sandy LEAN CLAY
309.0 11 120 300 12 200 14
(CL)
Sandy SILT (ML) 305.5 10 120 35 15 30 17
Sandy LEAN CLAY
301.5 12 120 300 12 200 14
(CL)
GRAVEL w. Sand (GP) 296.0 40 125 0 38 0 38
Sandy SILT (ML) 291.0 60 120 200 25 80 27
PWR 283.0 >60 130 1000 40 200 45
* C, C’: Cohesion, Φ and Φ’: Internal Friction Angle. PWR: Partially Weathered Rock.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

We used SLOPE/W, computer software developed by GEO-SLOPE International for the slope stability
analyses, evaluating the location and shape of the potential failure slip surfaces, and the associated
minimum factor of safety. Conditions and assumptions used in our stability analyses are:

Schnabel Project No. 06390062 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses September 29, 2006
Cary, North Carolina Page 3

• Assume the ground water elevation at EL. 295. (Note: Comments on this assumption will be
provided at the end of this report.)
• We understand that the soldier pile support system was stable during construction of the
proposed pump station. Accordingly, only the stability of potential slip surfaces passing through
the toe of the slope (i.e., at top of the soldier pile support system) are evaluated.

To evaluate the stabilities of the two defined site slope condition, i.e., Site Condition A (Prior to
Existing) and Site Condition B (Steep Slope), we performed the slope stability analyses for four different
cases with the results as follows:

Case A.1 – Prior to Existing Site Condition, Total Stress Analysis

• Height of Slope = 14 feet; Slope @ 1.5H:1.0V

• Calculated Minimum Factor of Safety (F.S.) = 1.59 (with a toe failure mode; see the critical
slip surface below)

5 FEET

Case A.2 - Prior to Existing Site Condition, Effective Stress Analysis

• Height of Slope = 14 feet; Slope @ 1.5H:1.0V

• Calculated Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.35 (with a toe failure mode; see the critical slip
surface below)

8 FEET

Schnabel Project No. 06390062 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses September 29, 2006
Cary, North Carolina Page 4

Case B.1 – Steep Slope Site Condition, Total Stress Analysis

• Height of Slope = 14 feet; Slope @ 0.5H:1.0V

• Calculated Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.02 (with a toe failure mode; see the critical slip
surface below).
• Critical slip surface daylights at about 10 feet behind top of the slope.

10

Case B.2 – Steep Slope Site Condition, Total Stress Analysis

• Height of Slope = 14 feet; Slope @ 1.5H:1.0V

• Assume ground water @ toe elevation (EL. 295)
• Calculated Minimum Factor of Safety = 0.81 (with a toe failure mode; see the critical slip
surface below). Note: For cases with ground water level lower than EL. 295, the calculated F.S.
is the same.
• Critical slip surface daylights at about 8 feet behind top of the slope.

8 FEET

A back-calculation was performed to estimate the soil shear strength parameters that would yield
a calculated minimum F.S. of 1.0. Results of the estimates are:

Schnabel Project No. 06390062 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses September 29, 2006
Cary, North Carolina Page 5

Effective Stress
Top Saturated Unit
Soil Type Back-Calculated w/ F.S.=1.0
Elev. Wt. (pcf)
C’ (psf) Φ’ (º)
Sandy LEAN CLAY
309.0 120 200 22
(CL)
Sandy SILT (ML) 305.5 120 75 25
Sandy LEAN CLAY
301.5 120 200 22
(CL)
GRAVEL w. Sand (GP) 296.0 125 0 38
Sandy SILT (ML) 291.0 120 80 27
PWR 283.0 130 200 45

DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS

Based upon the results of the above slope stability analyses and evaluation, our comments are:

1. As general practice of geotechnical engineering, for similar types of project, the calculated
minimum factor of safety should be a minimum of 1.25. It is our opinion that the stabilities of
the cases evaluated in this report could be summarized as follows:

Case Evaluated Mini. F.S. Stability Assessment

A.1 Prior Exiting (1.5H:1V), Total Stress Analysis 1.59 Acceptable
A.2 Prior Exiting (1.5H:1V), Effective Stress Analysis 1.35 Acceptable
B.1 Steep Slope (0.5H:1V), Total Stress Analysis 1.02 Marginal/
Pending Failure
B.2 Steep Slope (0.5H:1V), Effective Stress Analysis 0.81 Unacceptable

In general, the result of total stress analysis represents the short term, temporary construction
conditions. However, for cut slope conditions, the stability is governed by long-term, effective
stress conditions. Note that, for Case B.1 and Case B.2, the critical slip surfaces daylight at about
eight (8) feet to ten (10) behind top of the slope.

2. A back-calculation with the Case B.2 site condition, assuming the steep slope was under a
marginal/pending failure condition, was done to estimate the soil shear strength parameters. It is
our opinion that the available subsurface information and data do not support the higher values of
the soil shear strength parameters derived from the back-calculation.

3. We assume a ground water elevation of EL. 295 in our analyses. We understand that during the
construction, dewatering measure was taken to lower the ground water to about EL. 265 at the
trench box excavation location. Because results of our slope stability analyses indicate the critical
slip surfaces exit at the toe of the slope (EL. 295), cases with ground water elevations lower than
EL. 295 will not affect the results of the stability analyses.

Schnabel Project No. 06390062 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.

Swift Creek Pump Station Trench Excavation Slope Stability Analyses September 29, 2006
Cary, North Carolina Page 6

LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared to aid your evaluation of the project site conditions. It is intended for use
concerning this specific project. The analyses and evaluation submitted herein are based on the
information provided by your office and assumptions made in this report. We would appreciate an
opportunity to review additional subsurface information, when available, to provide further evaluation.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality
and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, expressed or implied, is included or
intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or any other instrument of
service.

Schnabel Project No. 06390062 Schnabel Engineering South, P.C.