NC0020451_Report_19910625

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0020451
West Jefferson WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Correspondence.
Re:
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
June 25, 1991
Thin docume3mt A.% printed cum areuae paper - *@►more aay
content oX'W the re-Srerse iaide

i
TrGV3 r- cfs
05,41 7 0 Z.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
June 18, 1991
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everertf Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Steve Tedder
Sr
SUBJECT: Project No. 91-041.0; EA
Town of West Jefferson's
RECE'VED
J UN 2 5 1991
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANu,�H
for Proposed Expansion of
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Division of Environmental Management's Water Quality
Section has reviewed the subject document and offers the
following comments.
The EA states that the plant has been out of compliance in
recent years and that it has been estimated that up to 40% of the
water reaching the plant is a result of infiltrat-ion (and
inflow?). In light of the apparent severity of the inflow and
infiltration (z/I) problem, the EA should not be approved for
release to the Clearinghouse until a section on inflow and
infiltration has been added. This section should detail the
existing problems and the efforts to identify and correct them.
Has an I/I study been done recently? If not, it would seem
appropriate to do so. Also in line with this discussion, it is
recommended that an alternative be considered of correcting I/I
and reducing the size of the proposed expansion accordingly.
The EA contains no information on the existing and proposed
waste limits. These limits should be included and a table
comparing the waste loading with the old and new limits should be
prepared. As a minimum, this should include flow, BOD and NH3.
What is the 7Q10 flow in Buffalo Creek? What percentage of the
7Q1'0 flow do the existing and proposed flows comprise?
The EA states that the SOC with the state requires that
financing be obtained, plans and specifications be submitted and
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733.2314 919/946- 481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Melba McGee
June 18, 1991
Page 2
commencement of construction be accomplished by August,
1991. However, our Winston-Salem Regional office advises that
the SOC has not yet been signed and that the proposed SOC dates
differ markedly from the August 1991 date. Also, the draft SOC
talks about two phases. Phase one would bring the plant back
into compliance. Phase two would address plant expansion. These
matters needs to addressed more accurately and completely in the
EA. It is understood that signing of the SOC has been on hold
largely due to uncertainties over financing the needed plant
improvements.
Below are some additional comments/questions on Part 4 of the EA_
(a) Changes in Land Use
What effect, if any, will the plant expansion have on growth
in the West Jefferson area? Does the town have zoning or
land use regulations to guide this growth?
(e) Scenic and Recreational Areas
Is the present plant discharge having a negative impact on
resources deemed valuable to tourism?
(j) Water Supplies
What is the nearest water supply intake below the plant?
What effect, if any, is the present discharge having on this
water supply?
(m) Introduction of Toxic Substances
All wastewater treatment plants discharge some level of toxic
wastes if nothing other than household wastes (cleaners, paints,
refinishing materials, dark room fluids, etc.). This should
be acknowledged in the EA. In addition to these wastes, the
plant accepts potentially toxic wastes from pretreatment
facilities. The type and amount of toxicants that have been
permitted by the town should be summarized. A summary of the
town's pretreatment program would also be helpful. Has the
plant passing its quarterly toxicity tests over the past
year?
The preceding comments pertain primarily to the proposed
expansion of the subject plant to 750,000 gallons per day. An EA
will be needed prior to approval of a discharge permit for the
expanded flow because the resultant increase in flow would exceed
one-third of the 7Q10 of the receiving stream. However,
upgrading of the plant to meet the existing permit limits without
expanding the flow capacity would not require an environmental
assessment based on the Department's minimum criteria_

,4
Melba McGee
June 18, 1991
Page3
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project and will continue to work with the Town to improve the
plant. Please refer questions on these comments to Mr_ Alan Clark
of the Division's Water Quality Planning Branch.
91-0910.mem/SEPA3
cc: Larry Coble, WSRO
Trevor Clements, Technical Support
Kevin Bowden, Compliance Group
Don Evans, Construction Grants