The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0020451_wasteload allocation_19921125NPDES DOCUWKNT SCANNIMG 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: November 25, 1992 This document is priaXtea on reuse paper - ignore any ooateat on the reverse side .pro State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director November 25, 1992 Mayor A.B. Weaver Town of West Jefferson P.O. Box 490 West Jefferson, NC 28694 Subject: NPDES Permit Application NPDES Permit No. NCO020451 Town of West Jefferson WWTP Ashe County Dear Mayor Weaver: In accordance with your request received on November 20, 1992, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is returning your NPDES Permit application for modification of your treatment facility. A copy of your application has been submitted to our Central Files for future reference. Should you desire to reactivate your permit request, please advise the Division of Environmental Management in writing and resubmit the complete application with the appropriate application processing fees. Please note that construction or operation of wastewater discharge facilities without a permit may be considered a violation of the Division of Environmental Management regulation 15 NCAC 2H .0101 and the North Carolina General Statutes (GS 143-215.1). Your NPDES permit NCO020451 for the 0.369 MGD plant is still in effect. If you have any questions, please contact Randy Kepler at (919) 733-5083. Sinwel�, CV� (VA. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office Mr. Jim Patrick, EPA Central Files RECEIVED Technical Support Branch Danny B. Bridges, McGill Associates P.O. Box 2259 Asheville, NC 28802 NOV 3 J 1902 Pollution Prevention Pays �f �%%3SUPPORT BRANCH P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 91 An Equal Opportunity Affvmative Action Employer NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION PERMIT NO.: NC0020451 PERMITTEE NAME: FACILITY NAME: Town of West Jefferson West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Facility Facility Status: Existing Permit Status:-Modi#icatian Major Pipe No.: 001 Design Capacity: Minor 0.369 MGD Domestic (% of Flow): 90 % Industrial (% of Flow): 10 % �V Comments: ,117 � �1 Mod. is the increase in flow to 0.75 MGD �p�\ RECEIVING STREAM: an wed tributary to little Buffalo Creek Class: C-Trout Sub -Basin: 05-07-02 Reference USGS Quad: B 13NW (please attach) County: Ashe Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office Previous Exp. Date: 5/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: Classification changes within three miles: no change within three mileswithin three miles. Class III a. Requested by: Randy Ke lei Date: Z� c Prepared by: A. Date: Review Date: I O 5�a Modeler Date Rec. # -loo Drainage Area (mil ) /. ,? Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 3. 6 7Q10 (cfs) o. 6 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) o. 9 30Q2 (cfs) /, 2 Toxicity Limits: IWC 1% % Acut bionic Instream Monitoring: Parameters Upstream Location Downstream Location Effluent Characteristics Summer Winter BOD5 (mg/1) 30 NH3-N (mg/l) �u.»t{✓ D.O. (mg/1) s TSS (mg/1) 30 F. Col. (/100 ml) �6D pH (SU) 7�A) (o L U /je N: Lt.3- o ! re, s7 /,L i o, ua Comments: �.Q Facility Name: NPDES No.: Type of Waste: Facility Status: Permit Status: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: Subbasin: County: Regional Office: Requestor: Date of Request: Topo Quad: FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION Request # West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Facility NCO020451 90% Domestic /10% Industrial Existing Me"eatieft Lwc.4 UT Little Buffalo Creek C-Trout 050702 RECEIVED N.C. Dept. of EHNI NOV 9 1992 7084a, Winston-Salem Regional Office Ashe Stream Characteristic: Winston-Salem USGS # Kepler Date: 8/25/92 Drainage Area (mi2): 1.8 B13NW Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0.6 Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.9 Average Flow (cfs): 3.6 30Q2 (cfs): 1.2 IWC (%): ,66 g9 Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) West Jefferson is located in the New River Basin where there is a proposal before the EMC to reclassify portions to ORW. Facility has requested modification to 0.750 MGD, however WSRO says request has been rescinded. Tech Support will recommend limits/monitoring requirements for both Qws, 0.369 MGD and 0.750 MGD. Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: Recommended by ° ° A. �b Date: 10/28/92 Reviewed by !0/29�9L Instream Assessment: Regional Supervisor: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: UDate: DEC 0 3 1992 CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Existing Limits: Monthly Average Summer Winter Wasteflow (MGD): 0.369 BODS (mg4): 30 NH3N (mg/1): monitor DO (mg4): 5 TSS (mg/1): 30 Fecal Col. V100 ml): 1000 pH (SU): 6-9 Residual Chlorine (µgft 4.4 Temperature (C): monitor TP (mg/1): monitor TN (mg/1): monitor Recommended Limits: Monthly Average Summer Winter WQ or EL Wasteflow (MGD): 0.369 BODS (mg/1): 30 WQ NH3N (mg/1): monitor DO (mg/1): 5 WQ TSS (mg/1): 30 Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 pH (SU): 6-9 Residual Chlorine (µg/l): X4- f WQ Temperature (C): monitor TP (mgp): monitor IN (mg/1): monitor Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected Change in 7Q10 data Wa em& Change in stream classification Relocation of discharge Change in wasteflow Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) Instream data New regulations/standards/procedures Fecal Coliform, chlorine New facility information (explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data, interacting discharges) (See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable) Type of Toxicity Test: Existing Limit: Recommended Limit: Monitoring Schedule: Cadmium (jig/1): Chromium (µg/1): Copper (µg/1): Nickel (µg/l): Lead (µme): Zinc (µg/l): Cyanide (µg/I): ' :. o - a7ll fii i Cadmium (µg/1): Chromium (µg/I): Copper (µg/I): Nickel (µg/I): Lead (µme): Zinc (}tg/l): Cyanide (µg/1): Mercury (µg/1): Silver (µg/1): TOXICS/METALS Chronic Pass/Fail 45 49 JAN APR JUL OCT Daily Max. monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor 11.1 Daily Max. 0.8 102 monitor 180 51 monitor ,W/1 0.025 monitor Limits Changes Due To: Change in 7Q10 data Change in stream classification Relocation of discharge Change in wasteflow New pretreatment information Failing toxicity test Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) WQ or EL WQ wV L? rr-er�-Jbriny% WQ WQV /hpwton 0 WQ IFIGIRWIR Cd,Cr,Ni,Pb,Cn,Hg _X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed. •' — No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations. INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Upstream Location: 50 ft. upstream of discharge Downstream Location: At the Mouth of the tributary Parameters: Temperature, DO, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity," Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Has the facility dem nitrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes No If no, which parameters cannot be met? Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office recommendations: If no, why not? Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N) (If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan) Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments. . ► , Facility Name W EJf ^��s-%%�, tJ�7) Permit # �°02-6Y5/ Pipe # o°/ CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in: 1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions. The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is JI-% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of ,4nl fRi _ YUZ- 0 C?__ . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original),is to be sent to the following address: Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch North Carolina Division of Environmental Management 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, N.C. 27607 Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. 7Q10 -cfs Permitted Flow 6.30 MGD IWC % 'Basin & Sub -basin NEW oz Receiving Stream GuK County 61 t R mmended by: 4-,-k-4 Date /-0Ar19� QCL P/F Version 9191 'ow- . !%71sz uci/r G✓a,P� � Z @ . 3G 9 �fcf0 o / v @ 6.75° �fG� � 7,0r-P crAn P, ) C4.Xf4e sS) ya.Cdi 1./7 7910 -n lilt. Y,.�, p,-✓ -J..c. (/..��.U�f /�,�,N.„,�..,,1 �v..,�r 6w c<�,.u.;r c�„.�a,'I✓ I i / P /l/� w�' 4 �f � y, A" 1.7 -y/ � p a 10/27/92 ver 3.1 Facility: NPDES Permit No.: Status (E, P, or M) : Permitted Flow: Actual Average Flow: Subbasin: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: 7Q10: IWC: Stn'd / Bkg Pollutant AL Conc. (ug/1) (ug/1) Cadmium S Chromium S Copper AL Nickel S Lead S Zinc AL Cyanide S Mercury S Silver Al Selenium S Arsenic S Phenols S NH3-N C T.R.Chlor.AL Pollutant Cadmium S Chromium S Copper AL Nickel S Lead S Zinc AL Cyanide S Mercury S Silver AL Selenium S Arsenic S Phenols S NH3-N C T.R.Chlor.AL 0.4 50.0 7.0 88.0 25.0 50.0 5.0 0.012 0.06 5.00 50.00 NA 17.0 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W W. JEFFERSON WWTP(2) NC0020451 M. 0.4 mgd 0.3 mgd '050702 UT LITTLE BUFFALO CR1--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI 1 0.6 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I 48.80 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic] Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Cone. Violationsl % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)I 92% 0.0 76% 0.0 82% 0.1 32% 0.0 81% 0.0 77% 0.1 59% 0.0 86% 0.0 94% 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% l 0% •----------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D Effluent Effluent Conc. using Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL Load Criteria Influent (#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 PRDCT'D Effluent using PERMIT Influent (ug/1) 0.03 0.820 0.419 0.536 1.14 102.452 3.057 56.316 0.21 14.343 .11.320 19.748 0.71 180.316 15.422 81.154 0.72 51.226 1.526 43.740 1.19 102.452 20.988 58.992 0.07 10.245 3.949 6.423 0.00 0.025 0.017 0.025 0.01 0.123 0.325 13.813 0.03 10.245 0.000 0.000 0.27 102.452 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.834 -------- 0.01 --------- 0.0 -------- I 0.015 I -------- 5.0 --------- I I 0.03 0.5 0.529 I i 70.0 I I 0.14 0.1 0.247 I 40.0 ] N 0.05 0.2 0.269 I 40.0 ] P 0.02 0.5 0.519 1 50.0 I U 0.21 0.5 0.578 I 283.0 I T 0.02 0.0 0.035 I 5.0 1 0.00 0.0 0.000 I ] S 0.01 0.5 0.519 I I E I I C ] I T I II I I 0 � I I I N I PRDCT'D I I --------- MONITOR/LIMIT --------- I I 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- 1 Instream I Recomm'd ] Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM I' using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED ] Eff. Mon. Monitor. I OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent ] based on Recomm'd ? ] (ug/1) Loading Loading Data ] OBSERVED (YES/NO) I -------- 2.44 -------- Limit -------- Limit ---------I Limit --------- 1 NCAC -------- I YES ] A 34.16 Monitor Limit Limit ] NCAC YES I N 19.52 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES 1 A 19.52 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC NO I L 24.40 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES 1 Y 138.11 Monitor Monitor Monitor ] Weekly YES I S 2.44 Limit Limit Limit 1 NCAC NO I I 0.00 Limit Limit I ] S 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I 0.00 I I R 0.00 I ] E 0.00 I 1 S 0.00 1 1 U 0.00 Limit ] 1 L I I T I I I S I west jefferson wwtp AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.6000 cfs NH3 Effl. Conc: '39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.3690 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 19145.91 ug/l 19.14591 mg/l NH3 Limit: 1818.253 ug/l 1.818253 mg/l AMMONIA ANALYSIS (WINTER) 7Q10: 0.9000 cfs NH3 Effl. Conc: 39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1800.00 ug/l Upstream NH3.Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.3690 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 15288.60 ug/l 15.28859 mg/l NH3 Limit: 4286.231 ug/l 4.286231 mg/l west Jefferson wwtp CHLORINE 7Q10: 0.6000 CL2 Effl. Conc: 0.0050 AL (17/19 ug/1) : 17.0000 Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000 Design Flow: 0.3690 Predicted CL2 Downstream: 2.44 0.002440 CL2 Limit: 34.83372 0.034833 ANALYSIS cfs mg/1 ug/l ug/l MGD ug/l mg/l ug/l mg/1 west jefferson wwtp CHLORINE 7Q10: 0.7000 CL2 Effl. Conc: 0.0050 AL (17/19 ug/1) : 2.0000 Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000 Design Flow: 0.3690 Predicted CL2 Downstream: 2.25 0.002248 CL2 Limit: .4.447766 0.004447 ANALYSIS cfs mg/1 ug/l ug/1 MGD ug/l mg/l ug/1 mg/1 0567Y to�p�g y 79/a o. 99 0. s7gtas o.sbsUSN a,Gc{s ow � /. 2 ��7 w�yaa 3ro 30pt = /,/ cfs "I C6.756-7f,.SS) _ /.//v C0,75o*/,Ss) l 0,G cis /,/6 f O,(,C-6 659*/OD =G6 Z,41911eo� E 10/08/92 vet 3.1 Facility: MPDES Permit No.: Status (E, P, or M): Permitted Flow: Actual Average Flow: Subbasln: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: 7Q10: INC: Stn'd / Bkg Pollutant AL Conc. (ug/1) (ug/1) --------- Cadmium -- -------- S 0.4 Chromium S 50.0 Copper AL 7.0 Nickel S 88.0 Lead S 25.0 Zinc AL 50.0 Cyanide S 5.0 Mercury S 0.012 Silver AL 0.06 Selenium S 5.00 Arsenic S 50.00 Phenols S NA NH3-N C T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 Pollutant Allowable Load (t/d) --------- -- ------- Cadmium S 1 0.03 Chromium S 1 1.14 Copper AL I 0.21 Nickel S 1 0.71 Lead S 1 0.72 Zinc AL 1 1.19 Cyanide S 1 0.07 Mercury S 1 0.00 Silver AL 1 0.01 Selenium S 1 0.03 Arsenic S 1 0.27 Phenols S I NH3-N C I T.R.Chlor.AL I T 0% I C S R E V I E W WEST JEFFERSON WWTP NC0020451 M O.B mgd 0.3 mgd '050702 UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI--------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI 1 0.6 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY 1 65.96 ► I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violatlonsl a (4/d) (4/d) (4/d) (i/d) (4/d) I (ug/1) (4vio/4sam)l -------- 92% -------- 0.0 -------- 0.0 -------- 0.01 -------- 0.0 -------- I 0.017 I "'----- 102.0 --------- 1 1 76% 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.7 0.737 1 70.0 1 1 82% 0.1 0.0 0.15 0.2 0.299 1 180.0 1 N 32% 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.3 0.363 1 79.0 1 P Olt 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.7 0.727 1 240.0 1 U 77% 0.1 0.1 0.20 0.6 0.756 1 595.0 1 T 59% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.042 1 35.0 1 06% 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.001 1 1 S 94% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.7 0.727 I 1 E Os 1 C O4 1 T O4 I I 1 O4 I I 0 O4 I I N I ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D I I --------- MONITOR/LIMIT --------- I I 1--ADTN'L RECMM TN'S-- I Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd I Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM 1 CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. 1 Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomn'd 2 I (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) I -------- 0.606 --------- 0.430 -------- 0.611 -------- 67.28 -------- Limit -------- Limit ---------I Limit --------- -------- I I NCAC YES I A 75.006.E 3.249 78.525 46.17 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES I N 10.613 11.616 23.911 118.72 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES 1 A 133.419 16.086 109.493 52.11 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO I L 37.903 1.897 61.322 158.30 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES I Y 75.806 20.661 77.121 392.45 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I S 7.581 3.985 7.552 23.09 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC YES I I 0.018 0.017 0.031 0.00 Limit Limit I I S 0.091 0.336 19.365 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I 7.581 0.000 0.000 0.00 I R 75.806 0.000 0.000 0.00 I E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I S 0.000 0.00 U 0.00 Limit I I L T 5 .10/08/92 ver 3.1 Facility: NPDES Permit No.: Status (E,'P, or M): Permitted Flow: Actual Average Flow: Subbasin: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: 7Q10: IWC: Stn' d / Bkg Pollutant AL Conc. (ug/1) (ug/1) --------- Cadmium -- -------- S 0.4 Chromium S 50.0 Copper AL 7.0 Nickel S 88.•0 Lead S 25.0 Zinc AL 50.0 Cyanide S 5.0 Mercury S 0.012 Silver AL 0.06 Selenium S 5.00 Arsenic S 50.00 Phenols S NA NH3-N C T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 Pollutant Cadmium S I Chromium S I Copper AL I Nickel S I Lead S I Zinc AL I Cyanide S I Mercury S I Silver AL I Selenium S I Arsenic S I Phenols S I NH3-N C I T.R.Chlor.AL I I I I Allowable Load (#/d) 0.03 1.14 0.21 0.71 0.72 1.19 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.27 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W W. JEFFERSON WWTP(2) NCO020451 M 0.8 mgd 0.3 mgd '050702 UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI --------- PRETREATMENT DATA --------- -----I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI 1 0.6 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY 1 65.96 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic] I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations] I % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)I I-------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- I -------- --------- I I 92% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.015 I 5.0 I I 76% 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.5 0.529 I 70.0 I I I 82% 0.1 0.0 0.14 0.1 0.247 I 40.0 I N I 32% 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.2 0.269 I 40.0 I P I 81% ' 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.5 0.519 I 50.0 I U I 77% 0.1 0.1 0.21 0.5 0.578 I 283.0 I T I 59% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.035 I 5.0 I I 86% 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.000 I I S I 94% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.5 0.519 I I E I 0% I I c I 0% I I T I 0% I I I I 0% I I 0 I 0% I I N I I I I I I I I I - ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D--------- MONITOR/LIMIT--------- 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ? (ug/1) (ug/1) .(ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) ----------------------------------------------------------I----=---- - 0.606 0.419 0.536 3.30 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC YES 75.806 3.057 56.316 46.17 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES 10.613 11.320 19.748 26.38 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES 133.419 15.422 81.154 26.38 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO 37.903 1.526 43.740 32.98 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES 75.806 20.988 58.992 186.66 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES 7.581 3.949 6.423 3.30 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO 0.018 0.017 0.025 0.00 Limit Limit I 0.091 0.325 13.813 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 7.581 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 75.806 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 0.000 0.00 I 25.774 0.00 Limit I I I • I west jefferson wwtp AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.6000 cfs NH3 Effl. Conc: 39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 25798.30 ug/l 25.79829 mg/l NH3 Limit: 1402.580 ug/l 1.402580 mg/l AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.9000 cfs NH3 Effl. Conc: 39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1) : 1800.00 ug/l Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 22077.82 ug/l 22.07781 mg/l NH3 Limit: 3023.225 ug/l 3.023225 mg/l 10/8/92 Updated w/ USGS low flow px-eee (WINTER) Updated w/ USGS low flow p-r e • west jef£erson wwtp CHLORINE ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.6000 cfs CL2 Effl. Conc: 0.0050 mg/l AL (17/19 ug/1): 17.0000 ug/l Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted CL2 Downstream: 3.30 ug/l 0.003297 mg/l CL2 Limit: 25.77419 ug/l 0.025774 mg/1 RECEIVED N.C. Dept. of EHNR Facility Name: NPDES No.: Type of Waste: Facility Status: Permit Status: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: Subbasin: County: Regional Office: Requestor: Date of Request: Topo Quad: FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION Request # West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Facility NCO020451 90% Domestic /10% Industrial Existing Modification UT Little Buffalo Creek C-Trout 050702 Ashe Stream Char 0 C T 15 1992 Winston-Salem 7084Regional Office Winston-Salem USGS # Kepler Date: 825/92 Drainage Area (mi2): B13NW Summer7Q10 (cfs): Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Average Flow (cfs): 30Q2 (cfs): IWC (%): Low flow procedm 1.8 0.6 0.9 3.6 1.2 66 Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) Facility requesting modification of existing NPDES from Qw of 0.369 MGD to 0.750 MGD. West Jefferson is located in the New River Basin where there is a proposal before the EMC to reclassify portions to ORW. Expansion limits are based on the proposed watershed management „ strategy. "Special Note: USGS flows have been reviewed per the new low flow procedure and the summer 7Q10 flow has been revised from 0.7 cfs to 0.6 cfs. This slight reduction has had some effect on limits for metals and toxics . Special M Recommended by: A, U Date: 10/9/92 Reviewed by Instream Assessment; Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineerin RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: NOV 1 1 1992 Existing Limits: Wasteflow (MGD): BODS (mg/1): NH3N (mg/1): DO (mg/1): TSS (mg/1): Fecal Col. (/100 ml): PH (SU): Residual Chlorine (µg/1): Temperature (C): TP (mg/1): IN (mg/1): Wasteflow (MGD): BODS (mg/1): NH3N (mg/1): DO (mg/1): TSS (mg/1): Fecal Col. (/100 ml): PH (SU): Residual Chlorine (µg/1) Temperature (C): TP (mg/1): IN (mg/1): CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Monthly Average Summer Winter 0.369 30 monitor 5 30 1000 6-9 4.4 monitor monitor monitor Monthly Average Summer Winter 0.750 5 1.5 5 10 200 6-9 - 26 monitor monitor monitor Limits Changes Due To: Change in 7Q10 data Change in stream classification Relocation of discharge Change in wasteflow Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) Instream data New regulations/standards/procedures New facility information e WQ or EL WQ WQ,AT WQ Parameter(s) Affected Chlorine BODS, TSS Fecal Coliform (explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data, interacting discharges) (See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable) 3 Type of Toxicity Test: Existing Limit: Recommended Limit: Monitoring Schedule: TOMCS/METALS Chronic Pass/Fail 45 66 JAN APR JUL OCT Existing Limits Daily Max. Cadmium (µg/1): monitor Chromium (µg/1): monitor Copper (µg/1): monitor Nickel (µg/l): monitor Lead (µg/1): monitor Zinc (µgill): monitor Cyanide (µg/1): 11.1 Recommended Limits Daily Max. Cadmium (µg/1): 0.6 Chromium (µg/1): 76 Copper (µg/l): monitor Nickel (µg/1): 133 Lead (µg/l): 38 Zinc (µg/1): monitor Cyanide (µg/1): 7.6 Mercury (µg/l): 0.018 Silver (µg/1): monitor Limits Changes Due To: Change in 7Q10 data Change in stream classification Relocation of discharge Change in wasteflow New pretreatment information Failing toxicity test Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) WQ or EL WQ WQ WQ WQ WQ WQ Parameter(s) Affected Cd,Cn,Ni,Pb,Cr,Hg _X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed. OR No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations. 6 4 .a INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Upstream Location: 50 ft. upstream of discharge Downstream Location: At the Mouth of the tributary Parameters: Temperature, DO, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Adequacy of Existing Treatment Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes No If no, which parameters cannot be met? Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office recommendations: If no, why not? i Special Instructions or Conditions Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N) (If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan) Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director &gional Offices October 8, 1992 Asheville 704/251-6208 Mr. Danny B. Bridges, P.E. McGill Associates, P.A. Fayetteville P.O. Box 2259 919/486-1541 38 Orange Street. Asheville, N.C. 28802 Mooresville 704/663-1699 Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits for Town of West Jefferson Expansion NPDES Permit No. NCO020451 Raleigh Ashe County 919/571-4700 Dear Mr. Bridges: Washington 919/946-6481 Your request for speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansion of the Town of West Jefferson facility to 0.750 MGD has been completed by the Wilmington staff of the Technical Support Branch. The speculative nature of this analy- 919/395-3900 sis must be emphasized because of its completion without review or comments from the staff of our Winston-Salem Regional Office. Upon their review, addi- Winston-Salem tional information could be provided that was not input during this analysis. 919/896-7007 In order to receive final permit limits, a formal application will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits and Engineering Unit. Per North Caro- lina's anti -degradation policy (15A NCAC 2B.0201 (c)(1)), each application for a new NPDES permit or NPDES permit expansion to discharge treated waste will require documentation of an effort to consider non -discharge alterna- tives pursuant to North Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (c)(2). There is a pending proposal before the Environmental Management Commis- sion (EMC) to assign an outstanding resource water (ORW) classification to a portion of the South Fork New River. As a upstream tributary to this river segment, Little Buffalo Creek and its dischargers would be affected by an expanded basin management strategy. Based on the information available, these limits are proposed for expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of a river segment designated as ORW: BOD5 (mg/1) 5 NH3-N (mg/1) 1.5 DO (mg/1) 5 TSS (mg/1) 10 Fecal Coliform (#/100ml) 200 PH (SU) 6-9 Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Letter to Mr. Bridges - page 2 - It should be noted that the tentative NH3 limits were evaluated and are based on the protection of the unnamed tributary to Little Buffalo Creek against instream toxicity. North Carolina is currently evaluating all NPDES dischargers for ammonia toxicity and following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance to protect the waters for an instream criteria of 1 mg/1 in the summer and 1.8 mg/l in the winter, under 7Q10 conditions. Based on data submitted to the Branch's Pretreatment Unit, effluent lim- its were developed for metals at the expanded wasteflow. The tentative daily maximum limits are: Cadmium 0:6 ug/1 Lead 40 ug/l Cyanide 8 ug/l Chromium 80 ug/1 Nickel 141 ug/l Mercury 0.019 ug/l Monthly effluent monitoring requirements will also be included for cop- per, zinc, and silver. The instream waste concentration (IWC) at 0.750 MGD is 62% and a chronic toxicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring will remain a condition of the NPDES permit. The facility should continue instream monitoring above and below the outfall pipe for the parameters of temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and conductivity. The allowable concentration of total residual chlorine (TRC) in your effluent is 27 ug/1 for protection against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or alternate form of disinfection - such as ultraviolet radiation - should allow the facility to comply with the TRC limit. The Division of Environmental Management is currently planning a basin - wide water quality management initiative. Our schedule for implementation in the New River Basin is 'set for 1995. The plan will address all sources of point and nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to protect or restore water quality standards. In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload allocations may be affected. Those facilities that already have high levels of treatment technology are least likely to be affected. . The final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are any additional questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Jackie Nowell or Ruth Swanek of my staff at (919) 733-5083. Sincerely, 4J.revor Clements, Asst. Chief Quality Section JTC/JMN cc: Don Evans Don Safri-t Steve Mauney Central Files than those described for the Low Density Option are allowed if stormwater control systems which are wet detention ponds designed to control the runoff from all built -upon areas generated from one inch of rainfall are properly installed, operated and maintained. Discharge Restrictions: It is proposed that no new or expanded NPDES permitted discharges be allowed directly to the segment to be designated as ORW. This is consistent with the standard freshwater ORW management strategy which prohibits new or expanded discharges. However, for this particular reclassification, it is also proposed that specific requirements designed to maintain water quality conditions downstream be applied to all new or expanded wastewater discharges in upstream areas. (Expanded discharges are considered those that increase their permitted pollutant loading.) The proposed requirements which would be applied to all new or expanded discharges in the New River Basin upstream of the designated ORW segment are as follows: 1) All discharges upstream of the designated ORW will be permitted such that the following conditions are maintained in the ORW segment: (a) the total volume of treated wastewater for all upstream discharges combined will not exceed 50 percent of the total flow in the designated ORW segment under low flow (7Q10) conditions; (b) a safety factor will be applied to any chemical allocation such that the effluent limitation for a specific chemical constituent wild be the more stringent of either the limitation that would normally be applied at the point of discharge, or the limitation that would be given to the discharger if it had to meet one-half of the normal standard at the upstream border of the ORW segment (see Figure 1. on page 9 for an example); (c) a safety factor will be applied to any discharge of complex wastewater (those containing or potentially containing toxicants, such as process industrial wastewater or wastewater from plants receiving process wastewater from an industry) to protect for chronic toxicity in the ORW segment by setting the whole effluent toxicity limitation at the higher (more stringent) percentage effluent determined by comparing the percentage effluent at the point of discharge and twice the percentage effluent if the discharge were at the upstream border of the ORW segment (see Figure 1. on page 9 for an example); 2) New or expanded NPDES permitted wastewater discharges located upstream of the designated ORW will be required to meet the following permit limitations and conditions: (a) Oxygen Consuming Wastes: Effluent limitations will be as follows: biochemical oxygen demand = 5 mg/l, and ammonia = 2 mg/l; (b) Total Suspended Solids: Discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) will be limited to effluent concentrations of 10 mg/l for trout waters and to 20 mg/1 for all other waters; (c) Emergency Requirements: Failsafe treatment designs will be employed, including stand-by power capability for entire treatment works, dual train design for all treatment components, or equivalent failsafe treatment designs; (d) Nutrients: Where nutrient overenrichment is projected to be a concern, appropriate effluent limitations will be set for phosphorus or nitrogen, or both. PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF LOWER OLD FIELD CREEK AND CALL CREEK (WEST PRONG OLD FIELD CREEK) Introduction As part of DEM's water quality studies in the New River Basin, it was determined that the lower portion of Old Field Creek and the entirety of Call Creek (West Prong Old Field Creek) warrant the assignment of an Excellent water quality rating. A habitat evaluation of Old Field Creek upstream of the confluence of Call Creek indicates that due to nonpoint pollution source impacts, this segment would not receive an Excellent rating. In addition to the water quality studies, fisheries investigations have revealed that reproducing populations of brook and brown trout exist in this watershed. An electrofishing sample taken in Call Creek exposed a large number of relatively large brook trout. This is considered to be an outstanding fishery resource. Proposal Call Creek (West Prong Old Field Creek) from its source to Old Field Creek, and Old Field Creek from the confluence of Call Creek to the South Fork New River is proposed for reclassification from Class C Trout to Class C Trout ORW. The ORW management strategy that would be applied to these waters is contained in the next section. Because this is a small watershed with upstream waters that do not qualify for ORW designation, it 3 OSd7oz /a�7�9z o' 750 Alw 0, 36 9 NCO, 3 (0 9l n o GOP 7T,,1_ / %Sod ov u 6PD cl 0, 3,5 %Mr3 JCC G� cIl✓ //2�/6 (/h Z = 3S`7y 3wK. 0,33 WN" H 0, 3J/61�/�"1 I 4,,14 c�7 179orM5 0.77 c� / y3U /,M , A ll it �✓a A� 6 0, 75o .�..Q �1y3 09/28/92 ver 3.1 Facility: NPDES Permit No.: Status (E, P, or M) Permitted Flow: Actual Average Flow: Subbasin: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: 7Q10: IWC: Stn' d / Bkg Pollutant AL Cone. (ug/1) (ug/1) --------- Cadmium -- -------- S 0.2 Chromium S 25.0 Copper AL 3.5 Nickel S 44.0 Lead S 12.5 Zinc AL 25.0 Cyanide S 2.5 .Mercury S 0.006 Silver AL 0.03 Selenium S 2.50 Arsenic S 25.00 Phenols S NA NH3-N C T.R.Chlor.AL 1 17.0 Pollutant cadmium S I Chromium S I Copper AL I Nickel S I Lead S I Zinc AL I Cyanide S I Mercury S 1 Silver AL I Selenium S 1 Arsenic S I Phenols S I NH3-N C I T.R.Chlor.AL I I I I Allowable Load (#/d) 1.58 65.94 12.31 40.96 41.64 68.80 3.86 0.03 0.32 1.58 15.82 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W W. JEFFERSON WWTP(2) NC0020451 M 0.8 mgd 0.3 mgd �050702 UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI --------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I C-TR HQW (Ogw) I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI 1 117.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I - FREQUENCY 1 0.98 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Cone. Violations) I % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)I I-------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- I -------- --------- I I' 92% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.015 1 5.0 I I 76% 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.5 0.529 70.0 I I 1 82% 0.1 0.0 0.14 0.1 0.247 I 40.0 I N 1 32% 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.2 0.269 I 40.0 I P I 81% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.5 0.519 1 50.0 1 U I 77$ 0.1 0.1 0.21 0.5 0.578 I 283.0 I T I 59% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.035 I 5.0 I I 86$ 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.000 I I S I 94% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.5 0.519 1 I E 1 0% I I C 1 0% I I T I 0% I I I I 0% I I 0 I 0% I I N I I I I � I --'ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D--------- MONITOR/LIMIT --------- 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd Cone. using using Cone. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using' ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd 2 (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) -----------------------------------------------------------I----------------- 20.329 0.419 0.536 0.05 Monitor Monitor Limit I NCAC NO 2541.129 3.057 56.316 0.69 Monitor Monitor I NCAC NO 355.758 11.320 19.748 0.39 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Monthly NO 4472.387 15.422 81.154 0.39 Monitor I NCAC NO 1270.565 1.526 43.740 0.49 Monitor Monitor I NCAC NO 2541.129 20.988 58.992 2.78 Monitor Monitor I Monthly NO 254.113 3.949 6.423 0.05 Monitor Monitor Monitor I NCAC NO 0.610 0.017 0.025 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 3.049 0.325 13.813 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 254.113 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 2541.129 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 0.000 0.00 I 1727.968 0.00 Limit 1 I I . I I, SUMMER DO PROFILES OF WEST JEFFERSON WKTP EXPANSION TO 0.750 MGD, MODIFYING KA AND SOD MILEPT EXPANSION EXP. W/ TOX DO CHNG I EXP. W/ TOX KA = 25 DO CHNG I EXP: W/ TOX SOD=1000 DO CHNG I EXP. W/ TOX SOD,BOD5=15 DO CHNG I 0.00 6.31 6.31 0.00 I 6.31 6.31 0.00 1 6.31 6.31 0.00 I 6.31 6.31 0.00 I 0.10 6.98 7.23 0.25 1 7.23 6.72 -0.51 I 7.23 6.64 -0.59 I 7.23 6.77 -0.46 I 0.20 7.31 7.68 0.37 1 7.68 7.00 -0.68 I 7.68 6.88 -0.80 1 7.68 7.09 -0.59 1 0.30 7.48 7.91 0.43 1 7.91 7.21 -0.70 I 7.91 7.04 -0.87 1 7.91 7.31 -0.60 I 0.40 7.57 8.02 0.45 1 8.02 7.35 -0.67 1 8.02 7.17 -0.85 I 8.02 7.47 -0.55 1 0.50 7.63 8.08 0.45 1 6.08 7.46 -0.62 I 8.08 7.26 -0.82 I 8.08 7.58 -0.50 I 0.60 7.67 8.11 0.44 1 8.11 7.54 -0.57 1 8.11 7.32 -0.79 I 8.11 7.66 -0.45 1 0.70 7.69 8.13 0.44 I 8.13 7.60 -0.53 I 8.13 7.38 -0.75 1 8.13 7.72 -0.41 I 0.80 7.72 8.15 0.43 1 8.15 7:64 -0.51 I 8.15 7.42 -0.73 1 8.15 7.76 -0.39 I 0.90 7.74 8.16 0.42 I 8.16 7.68 -0.48 1 8.16 7.45 -0.71 1 8.16 7.80 -0.36 1 1.00 7.76 8.17 0.41 1 8.17 7.71 -0.46 1 8.17 .7.48 -0.69 1 8.17 7.82 -0.35 I 1.10 7.77 8.18 0.41 1 8.18 7.74 -0.44 1 8.18 7.51 -0.67 I 6.18 •7.84 -0.34 I 1.20 7.79 8.19 0.40 1 8.19 7.76 -0.43 1 8.19 7.53 -0.66 1 8.19 7.86 -0.33 1 1.30 7.81 8.19 0.38 1 8.19 7.78 -0.41 1 8.19 7.55 -0.64 1 8.19 7.87 -0.32 1 1.40 7.82 8.20 0.38 1 8.20 7.80 -0.40 1 8.20 7.57 -0.63 I 8.20 7.89 -0.31 i 1.50 7.84 8.21 0.37 1 8.21 7.82 -0.39 1 8.21 7.58 -0.63 I 8.21 7.90 -0.31 1 1.50 7.81 8.10 0.29 1 8.10 7.80 -0.30 I 8.10 7.61 -0.49 1 8.10 7.86 -0.24 1 1.60 7.73 8.12 0.39 1 8.12 7.92 -0.20 I 8.12 7.73 -0.39 1 8.12 7.95 -0.17 1 1.70 7.67 8.13 0.46 1 8.13 8.00 -0.13 1 8.13 7.81 -0.32 1 8.13 8.01 -0.12 1 1.80 7.65 8.15 0.50 1 8.15 8.06 -0.09 1 8.15 7.87 -0.28 1 8.15 8.05 -0.10 I 1.90 7.63 8.15 0.52 I 8.15 8.10 -0.05 1 8.15 7.91 -0.24 1 8.15 8.08 -0.07 i 2.00 7.63 8.16 0.53 1 8.16 8.13 -0.03 1 8.16 7.93 -0.23 1 8.16 J 8.10 -0.06 1 2.10 7.64 8.17 0.53 I 8.17 8.15 -0.02 1 8.17 7.95 -0.22 1 8.17 6.11 -0.06 I 2.20 7.64 8.18 0.54 I 8.18 8.16 -0.02 1 8.18 7.97 -0.21 1 8.18 8.12 -0.06 1 2.30 7.66 8.18 0.52 1 8.18 8.17 -0.01 1 8.18 7.98 -0.20 1 8.18 8.13 -0.05 1 SUMMER DO PROFILES OF WEST JEFFERSON WWTP EXPANSION TO 0.750 MGD, MODIFYING KA AND SOD MILEPT EXP. W/ TOX SOD 1500 DO CHNG I EXP. W/ TOX SOD,BOD5=15 DO CHNG I 0.00 6.31 6.31 0.00 I 6.31 6.31 0.00 I 0.10 7.23 6.60 -0.63 I 7.23 6.73 -0.50 I 0.20 7.68 6.81 -0.87 I 7.68 7.03 -0.65 I 0.30 7.91 6.96 -0.95 I 7.91 7.23 -0.68 I 0.40 8.02 7.07 -0.95 I 8.02 7.38 -0.64 I 0.50 8.08 7.16 -0.92 I 8.08 7.48 -0.60 I 0.60 8.11 7.22 -0.89 I 8.11 7.56 -0.55 I 0.70 8.13 7.27 -0.86 I 8.13 7.61 -0.52 I 0.80 8.15 7.31 -0.84 I 8.15 7.65 -0.50 I 0.90 8.16 7.34 -0.82 I 8.16 7.68 -0.48 I 1.00 8.17 7.36 -0.81 I 8.17 7.71 -0.46 I 1.10 8.18 7.39 -0.79 I 8.18 7.73 -0.45 I 1.20 8.19 7.41 -0.78 I 8.19 7.74 -0.45 I 1.30 8.19 7.43 -0.76 I 8.19 7.76 -0.43 I 1.40 8.20 7.45 -0.75 I 8.20 7.77 -0.43 I 1.50 8.21 7.46 -0.75 I 8.21 7.78 -0.43 I 1.50 8.10 7.52 -0.58 I 8.10 7.76 -0.34 I 1.60 8.12 7.64 -0.48 I 8.12 7.85 -0.27 I 1.70 8.13 7.72 -0.41 I 8.13 7.91 -0.22 I 1.80 8.15 7.77 -0.38 I 8.15 7.95 -0.20 I 1.90 8.15 7.81 -0.34 I 8.15 7.98 -0.17 I 2.00 8.16 7.84 -0.32 I 8.16 8.00 -0.16 I 2.10 8.17 , 7.86 -0.31 I 8.17 8.02 -0.15 I 2.20 8.18 7.87 -0.31 I 8.18 8.03 -0.15 I 2.30 8.18 7.88 -0.30 I 8.18 8.03 -0.15 I l flo-7 °ze d �c. ,, %I+Yr.� ails„✓ d,ViJtmz I'VAf7YrJJ��1 � /�fi./J o/✓ f.Xf7�A Lc�. ��f�J�+S r✓iNr�Rd/ (J�J�� y 1fi17Ld v�/J%Yt.4„t d �t G Jr G O SrL- / cfi!( bi ✓.rc� /T rkct7LiGie Vn�/�J• Dc�,rJ�- l/.+�rY ny �'�l,yM1, (/ fj ?J'i [n1j /Z �✓� t�vde%A ar.9./ 7✓/I/i� dclryt, e„ t `j �. ✓/J'%L,.f— // / J / 141, /•✓'/rL - W'!LE �� / rr A'/-! X/ v# ;v (� Cl�w..u1-1 SDtr•. fly /,A, tf " LwC' —11;e i�1 ! `A�t' ^", •'�'K .I✓G T"Ic G1fLj ' / ��A'S/ L O / L4 d/ E18rArl '✓tJrlk i ?9 Ao 4P 4lti7- 7wf, / 44) 44.X d (� $ 221 44 97 w � �✓,�G/��...�,�-.�-. �-� ,�-f �- ��"�-ice �� 445L 74 09/10/92 ver 3.1 T O X I C S R E V I E W Facility: WEST JEFFERSON WWTP NPDES Permit No.: NC0020451 Status (E, P, or M) : M Permitted Flow: 0.8 mgd Actual Average Flow: 0.3 mgd Subbasin: 1050702 Receiving Stream: UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI --------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I--=-EFLLUENT DATA---- I Stream Classification: C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I 7Q10: 0.7 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I IWC: 62.42 $ I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I Pollutant AL Conc. I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violationsl --------- -- (ug/1) ---------------- (ug/1) I I -------- (#/d) -------- (#/d) -------- (#/d) ---=---- (#/d) --------- (#/d) I -------- (ug/1) -------- (#vio/#sam)I --------- Cadmium S 0.4 1 92% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 I 0.017 1 102.0 I 1 Chromium S 50.0 I 76% 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.7 0.737 I 70.0 I I Copper AL 7.0 I 82% 0.1 0.0 0.15 0.2 0.299 I 180.0 I N Nickel S 88.0 I 32% 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.3 0.363 I 79.0 I P Lead S 25.0 I 81%. 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.7 0.727 I 240.0 I U Zinc AL 50.0 1 77% 0.1 0.1 0.20 0.6 0.756 I 595.0 I T Cyanide S 5.0 1 59% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.042 1 35.0 I Mercury S 0.012 1 86% 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.001 I I S Silver AL 0.06 I 94% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.7 0.727 I I E Selenium S 5.00 1 0% I I C Arsenic S 50.00 I. 0% I I T Phenols S NA I 0% I I I NH3-N C I 0% 1 10 T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 I 0% I I I I N I I--------------- I ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D I --------- MONITOR/LIMIT --------- I 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- I j Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd I I Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM I I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor. 1 Pollutant I Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ? I I (#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) I --------- Cadmium -- S I--------- 1 0.03 -------- 0.641 --------- 0.430 -------- 0.611 -------- 63.66 -------- Limit -------- Limit ---------I Limit --------- I NCAC -------- YES I I A Chromium S 1 1.26 80.108 3.249 78.525 43.69 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES I N Copper AL I 0.23 11.215 11.616 23.911 112.35 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I A Nickel S 1 0.78 140.9819 16.086 109.493 49.31 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO I L Lead S I 0.79 40.054 1.897 61.322 149.80 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES I Y Zinc AL I 1.31 80.108 20.681 77.121 371.38 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I S Cyanide S I 0.07 8.011 3.985 7.552 21.85 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC YES 1 I Mercury S I 0.00 0.019 0.017 0.031 0.00 Limit Limit I 1 S Silver AL I 0.01 0.096 0.336 19.365 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I Selenium S I 0.03 8.011 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I R Arsenic S 1 0.30 80.108 0.000 0).000 0.00 I I E Phenols S I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I S NH3-N C i 0.000 0.00 I I U T.R.Chlor.AL I 27.237 0.00 Limit I I L . I I I T I I I I I S I 09/10/92 ver 3.1 T 0 X I C S R E V I E W Facility: W. JEFFERSON WWTP(2) NPDES Permit No.: NCO020451 Status (E, P, or M): M Permitted Flow: 0.8 mgd Actual Average Flow: 0.3 mgd Subbasin: 1050702 Receiving Stream: UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI --------- PRETREATMENT DATA -------------- I ---- EFLLUENT DATA---- I. Stream Classification: C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI 1 7010: 0.7 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I IWC: 62.42 t I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic( Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I Pollutant AL Cone. I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violationsl (ug/1) (ug/1) I % -------- (#/d) -------- (#/d) -------- (#/d) -------- (#/d) --------- (#/d) I -------- I (ug/1) -------- (#vio/#sam)I --------- I --------- Cadmium ---------- S -------- 0.4 I I 92% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.015 I 5.0 I Chromium S 50.0 I 76% 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.5 0.529 I 70.0 I I Copper AL 7.0 I 82% 0.1 0.0 0.14 0.1 0.247' I 40.0 I N Nickel S 88.0 I 32$ 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.2 0.269 I 40.0 I P Lead S 25.0 I 81% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.5 0.519. I 50.0 I U Zinc AL 50.0 I 77% 0.1 0.1 0.21 0.5 0.578 I 283.0 I T Cyanide S 5.0 I 59% 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.035 I 5.0 I Mercury S 0.012 I 86% 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.000 I I S Silver AL 0.06 I 94% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.5 0.519 I I E Selenium S 5.00 I 0% I I C Arsenic S 50.00 I 0-% I I T Phenols S NA I 0% I I I NH3-N C I 0% I 1 0 T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 I 0$ I I I I N I I --------------- I I ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D I I --------- MONITOR/LIMIT--------- I 1--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. Pollutant I Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ? I (#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading -------- Loading -------- Data ---------I I OBSERVED --------- (YES/NO) -------- --------- Cadmium -- S I--------- I 0.03 -------- 0.641 --------- 0.419 -------- 0.536 -------- 3.12 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC YES Chromium S I 1.26 80.108 3.057 56.316 43.69 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES Copper AL I 0.23 11.215 11.320 19.748 24.97 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES Nickel S I 0.78 140.989 15.422 81.154 24.97 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO Lead S I 0.79 40.054 1.526 43.740 31.21 Monitor Limit Limit l NCAC YES Zinc AL I 1.31 80.108 20.988 58.992 176.64 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES Cyanide S I 0.07 8.011 3.949 6.423 3.12 Limit Limit Limit I NCAC NO Mercury S I 0.00 0.019 0.017 0.025 0.00 Limit Limit I Silver AL I 0.01 0.096 0.325 13.813 0.00 Monitor Monitor I Selenium S I 0.03 8.011 0.000 0.000 0.00 I Arsenic S I 0.30 80.108 0.000 0.000 0.00 I Phenols S I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I NH3-N C I 0.000 0.00 I T.R.Chlor.AL I I I I 27.237 0.00 Limit I I i I SUMMER KA=25, SOD=1500, NH3 TOX = 1.4 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------- The End D.O. is 7.88 --------I ---------------------- mg/l. 7------------ The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. _ The End NBOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- is 2.29 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 ------ 6.31 ---------------- 0.00 1 ---- ---- -- ---------- Reach 1 60.00 6.75 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin : 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl @20;� Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I I I 1 0.60 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I I 25.001 0.63 1 Reach 1 -------=------------------------------------------------------------7----------- I I I I I I I I 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 0.372 I I I 1 0.81 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 I Flow I CBOD I cfs I mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 1 60.000 I Headwaters► 0.700 1 2.000 1 Tributary 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 * Runoff 1 0..330 1 2.000 I Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 1 Tributary 1 0.770 1 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 NBOD 1 D.O. 1 mg/1 I mg/1 I 6.750 1 5.000 1.000 1 7.720 1.000 1 7.720 1.000 1 7.720 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER KA=25, SOD=1500, NH3 TOX = 1.4 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi ► D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 6.31 32.07 3.98 2.24 1 1 0.10 6.60 31.31 3.96 2.28 1 1 0.20 6.81 30.59 3.83 2.31 1 1 0.30 6.96 29.88 3.76 2.34 1 1 0.40 7.07 29.20 3.69 2.37 1 1 0.50 7.16 28.54 3.62 2.41 1 1 0.60 7.22 27.90 3.56 2.44 1 1 0.70 7.27 27.28 3.49 2.47 1 1 0.80 7.31 26.67 3.43 2.51 1 1 0.90 7.34 26.09 3.37 2.54 1 1 1.00 7.36 25.52 3.31 2.57 1 1 1.10 7.39 24.97 3.25 2.61 1 1 1.20 7.41 24.4.4 3.20 2.64 1 1 1.30 7.43 23.92 3.14 2.67 1 1 1.40 7.45 23.42 3.09 2.70 1 1 1.50 7.46 22.93 3.04 2.74 1 2 1.50 7.52 18.33 2.59 3.51 1 2 1.60 7.64 18.04 2.55 3.54 1 2 1.70 7.72 17.75 2.51 3.57 1 2 1.80 7.77 17.46 2.47 3.61 1 2 1.90 7.81 17.18 2.43 3.64 1 2 2.00 7.84 16.91 2.39 3:67 1 2 2.10 7.86 16.65 2.36 3.71 1 2 2.20 7.87 16.39 2.32 3.74 1 2 2.30 7.88 16.13 2.29 3.77 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I WEST JEFFERSON WWTP AMMONIA ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.7000 cfs NH3 Effl. Conc: 39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1000.00 ug/l Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 24424.97 ug/l 24.42496 mg/l NH3 Limit: 1469.677 ug/l 1.469677 mg/l AMMONIA ANALYSIS (WINTER) 7Q10: 0.8000 cfs`' NH3 Effl. Conc: 39.0000 mg/l AL (1/1.8 mg/1): 1800.00 ug/l Upstream NH3 Conc.: 220.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted NH3 Downstream: 23191.59 ug/l 23.19159 mg/l NH3 Limit: 2887.311 ug/l 2.887311 mg/1 WEST JEFFERSON WWTP CHLORINE ANALYSIS 7Q10: 0.7000 cfs CL2 Effl. Conc: 0.0000 mg/l AL (17/19 ug/1) : 17.0000 ug/l Upstream CL2 Conc.: 0.0000 ug/l Design Flow: 0.7500 MGD Predicted CL2 Downstream: 0.00 ug/l 0 mg/l CL2 Limit: 27.23655 ug/l 0.027236 mg/l 9 SUMMER MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO 0.750 ----------MODEL RESULTS --M-D----- b 3 I Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE'BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 7.66 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. The End NBOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- is 23.08 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) . Segment 1 ------ 6.31 ---------------- 0.00 1 ---- ---- -- ---------- Reach 1 60.00 90.00 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 a *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROUT Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl @20V Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I I I 1 0.60 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 153.37 1 I I 50.001 0.63 1 Reach 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 0.372 I I I 1 0.81 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Flow I CBOD I NBOD 1 1 cfs I mg/l 1 mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 160.000 1 90.000 1 Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 Tributary 1 0.380 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 I 1.000 I Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 Tributary 1 0.770 1 2.000 1 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 I * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile D.O. 1 mg/1 1 5.000 7.720 7.720 7.720 0.000 I 0.000 1.000 1 7.720 1.000 I 7.720 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD 1 1 1 0.00 6.31 32.07 1 1 0.10 6.98 31.31 1 1 0.20 7.31 30.59 1 1 0.30 7.48 29.88 1 1 0.40 7.57 29.20 1 1 0.50 7.63 28.54 1 1- 0.60 7.67 27.90 1 1 0.70 7.69 27.28 1 1 0.80 7.72 26.67 1 1 0.90 7.74 26.09 1 1 1.00 7.76 25.52 1 1 1.10 7.77 24.97 1 1 1.20 7.79 24.44 1 1 1.30 7.81 23.92 1 1 1.40 7.82 23.42 1 1 1.50 7.84 22.93 1 2 1.50 7.81 18.33 1 2 1.60 7.73 18.04 1 2 1.70 7.67 17.75 1 2 1.80 7.65 17.46 1 2 1.90 7.63 17.18 1 2 2.00 7.63 16.91 1 2 2.10 7.64 16.65 1 2 2.20 7.64 16.39 1 2 2.30 7.66 16.13 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I SUMMER MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO 0.750 MGD NBOD I Flow 1 47.14 2.24 46.08 2.28 45.05 2.31 44.05 2.34 43.09 2.37 42.15 2.4.1 41.24 2.44 40.36 2.47 39.51 2.51 38.68 2.54 37.87 2.57 37.09 2.61 36.33 2.64 35.59 2.67 34.87 2.70 34.17 2.74 26.89 3.51 26.37 3.54 25.87 3.57 25.38 3.61 24.90 3.64 24.43 3.67 23.97 3.71 23.52 3.74 23.08 3.77 NBOD I Flow 1 SUMMER MODEL W/ NH3 TOX LIMITS= 1.4 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8.18 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. The End NBOD ------------------------=--------------------------------------------- is 2.29 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach ------- # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) Segment 1 ------ 6.31 --------- 0.00 1 ---- ---- -- ---------- Reach 1 60.00 6.75 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter-7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I -------------------- I mile I _7----------------------------------------------------------- ft/miI fps I ft Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl @201/2 Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I I I 1 0.60 1 0.75 1 0.65 .I I 153.37 1 I I 50.001 0.63 1' Reach 1 ------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 1 11 1 1 7------------------------- 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 I 0.372 I I I 1 0.81 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 ---------=-------------------------------------------------------=-------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow I CBOD I 1 cfs I mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 1 60.000 1 Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 Tributary l .0.380 1 2.000 l * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 I Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0..770 I * Runoff 1 0.330 I NBOD I D.O. I mg/1 I mg/1 I 6.750 1 5.000 1.000 l 7.720 1.000 1 7.720 1.000 1 7.720 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.10 1 1 0.20 1 1 0.30. 1 1 0.40 1 1 0.50 1 1 0.60 1 1 0.70 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.90 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.10 1 1 1.20 1 1 1.30 1 1 1.40 1 1 1.50 1 2 1.50 1 2 1.60 1 2 1.70 1 2 1.80 1 2 1.90 1 2 2.00 1 2 2.10 1 2 2.20 1 2 2.30 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi SUMMER MODEL W/ NH3 TOX LIMITS= 1.5 D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 6.31 32.07 3.98 2.24 7.23 31.31 3.90 2.28 7.68 30.59 3.83 2.31 7.91 29.88 3.76 2.34 8.02 29.20 3.69 2.37 8.08 28.54 3.62 2.41 8.11 27.90 3.56 2.44 8.13 27.28 3.49 2.47 8.15 26.67 3.43 2.51 8.16 26.09 3.37 2.54 8.17 25.52 3.31 2.57 8.18 24.97 3.25 2.61 8.19 24.44, 3.20 2.64 8.19 23.92 3.14 2.67 8.20 23.42 3.09 2.70 8.21. 22.93 3.04 2.74 8.10 18.33 2.59 3.51 8.12 18.04 2.55 3.54 8.13 17.75 2.51 3.57 8.15 17.46 2.47 3.61 8.15 17.18 2.43 3.64 8.16 16.91 2.39 3.67 8.17 16.65 2.36 3.71 8.18 16.39 2.32 3.74 8.18 16.13 2.29 3.77 D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow SUMMER MODEL W/TOX LIMITS & KA=25 MODEL RESULTS Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8.17 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. The End NBOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- is 2.29 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach ------- # (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) -- (mgd) ---------- Segment 1 ------ 6.31 --------- 0.00 1 Reach 1 60.00 6.75 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin : 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO,CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/miI fps I ft Idesignl @20;� Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I' 1 0.60 I I 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I 25.001 I 0.63 1 Reach 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 0.372 I 1 0.81 I I 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I 23.271 I 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Flow I CBOD I NBOD I D.O. I cfs I mg/l I mg/1 I mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 1 60.000 1 6.750 1 5.000 Headwaters► 0.700 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 Tributary 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.770 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff 1 0.330 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile 0 SUMMER MODEL W/TOX LIMITS & KA=25 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I 1 1 0.00 6.31 32.07 3.98 2.24 1 1 0.10 6.72 ._31.31 3.90 2.28 1 1 0.20 7.00 30.59 3.83 2.31 1 1 0.30 7.21 29.88 3.76 2.34 1 1 0.40 7.35 29.20, 3.69. 2.37 1 1 0.50 7.46 28.54 3.62 2.41 1 1 0.60 7.54 27.90 3.56 2.44 1 1 0.70 7.60 27.28 3.49 2.47 1 1 0.80 7.64 26.67 3.43 2.51 1 1 0.90 7.68 26.09 3.37 .2.54 1 1 1.00 7.71 25.52 3.31 2.57 1 1 1.10 7.74 24.97 3.25 2.61 1 1 1.20 7.76 24.44 3.20 2.64 1 1 1.30 7.78 23.92 3.14 2.67 1 1 1.40 7.80 23.42 3.09 2.70 1 1 1.50 7.82 22.93 3.04 2.74 1 2 1.50 7.80 18.33 2.59 3.51 1 2 1.60 7.92 18.04 2.55 3.54 1 2 1.70 8.00 17.75 2.51 3.57 1 2 1.80 8.06 17.46 2.47 3.61 1 2 1.90 8.10 17.18 2.43 3.64 1 2 2.00 8.13 16.91 2.39 3.67 1 2 2.10 8.15 16.65 2.36 3.71 1 2 2.20 8.16 16.39 2.32 3.74 1 2 2.30 8.17 16.13 2.29 3.77 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi.1 D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I 0 SUMMER MODEL RESULTS Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK -----------------------------------------------------------------'----- The End D.O. is 7.98 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. The End NBOD is 2.29 mg/l. --------------=------------------------------------------------------- WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) ------ Milepoint Reach ---------------- # (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) -- (mgd) ---------- Segment 1 6.31 0.00 1 Reach 1 60.00 6.7 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 0 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I' Ka I Ka I KN 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/mil fps I ft. Idesignl @20V2 Idesigni @20V Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421• I 0.454 1 0.60 I I 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I 25.001 I 0.63 1 Reach 1 ---------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781. I 0.372 1 0.81 I I 1 0.48 1 0..42 I I 124.84 1 I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Flow I CBOD I I cfs I mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste I 1.163 1 60.000 I Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 Tributary l 0.380 l 2.000 1 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 l Tributary l 0.770 l * Runoff l 0.330 1 NBOD l D.O. I mg/l l mg/l 1 6.750 l 5.000 1.000 1 7.720 1.000 l 7.120 1.000 1 7.720 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 2.000 1 1.'000 1 7.720 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER IGc. %2S'� Jed = �o o NF1; {�X �.•.. Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.10 1 1 0.20 1 1 0.30 1 1 0.40 1 1 0.50 1 _ 1 0.60 1 1 0.70 1 1 0.80 1 1 0.90 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.10 1 1 1.20 1 1 1.30 1 1 1.40 1 1 1.50 1 2 1.50 1 2 1.60 1 2 1.70 1 2 1.80 1 2 1.90 1 2 2.00 1 2 2.10 1 2 2.20 1 2 2.30 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi J D.O. I CBOD 6.31 32.07 6.64 31.31 6.88 30.59 7.04 29.88 7.17 29.20 7.26 28.54 7.32 27.90 7.38 27.28 7.42 26.67 7.45 26.09 7.48 25.52 7.51 24.97 7.53 24.44 7.55 23.92 7.57 23.42 7.58 22.93 7.61 18.33 7.73 18.04 7.81 17.75 7.87 17.46 7_.91 17.18 7.93 16.91 7.95 16.65 7.97 16.39 7.98 16.13 D.O. I CBOD NBOD 3.98 3.90 3.83 3.76 3.69 3.62 3.56 3.49 3.43 3.37 3.31 3.25 3.20 3.14 3.09 3.04 2.59 2.55 2.51 2.47 2.43 2.39 2.36 2.32 2.29 NBOD Flow 2.24 2.28 2.31 2.34 2.37 2.41 2.44 2.47 2.51 2..54 2.57 2.61 2.64 2.67 2.70 2.74 3.51 3.54 3.57 3.61 3.64 3.67 3.71 3.74 3.77 Flow I SUMMER KA=25, SOD=1000, NH3 TOX=1.9 BOD5=15 ---------- MODEL RESULTS ------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ----------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8.13 mg/l. The End CBOD is 8.67 mg/l. The End NBOD is 2.29 mg/l. Segment 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------- WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd) ---------------------- ---- 6.31 0.00 1 ---- -- ---------- 30.00 6.75 5.00 0.75000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin : 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I ------------------------------------------------ I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl -------------------------------- @20V2 Idesignl @2034 Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 I 0.454 1 I I 0.60 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I. I 25.001 0.63 1 Reach 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 I 0.372 1 I I 0.81 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- I I I I I I I I I I Flow I CBOD I I cfs I mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 1 30.000 I Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 Tributary 1 0.380 I 2.000 1 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 1 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 1 Tributary I 0.770 1 * Runoff I 0.330 1 NBOD I mg/l 1 6.750 I 1.000 I 1.000.1 1.000 1 D.O. 1 mg/1 I 5.000 7.720 7.720 7.720 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.720 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile 0 SUMMER KA=25, SOD=1000, NH3 TOX=1.4 BOD5=15 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 6.31 16.52 3.98 2.24 1 1 0.10 6.77 16.14 3.90 2.28 1 1 0.20 7.09 15.78 3.83 2.31 1 1 0.30 7.31 15.43 3.76 2.34 1 1 0.40 7.47 15.09 3.69 2.37 1 1 0.50 7.58 14.76 3.62 2.41 1 1 0,60 7.66 14.44 3.56 2.44 1 1 0.70 7.72 14.14 3.49 2.47 1 1 0.80 7.76 13.84 3.43 2.51 1 1 0.90 7.80 13.54 3.37 2.54 1 1 1.00 7.82 13.26 3.31 2.57 1 1 1.10 7.84 12.99 3.25 2.61 1 1 1.20 7.86 12.72 3.20 2.64 1 1 1.30 7.87 12.46 3.14 2.67 1 1 1.40 7.89 12.21 3.09 2.70 1 1 1.50 7.90 11.97 3.04 2.74 1 2 1.50 7.86 9.78 2.59 3.51 1 2 1.60 7.95 9.63 2.55 3.54 1 2 1.70 8.01 9.49 2.51 3.57 1 2 1.80 8.05 9.34 2.47 3.61 1 2 1.90 8.08 9.20 2.43 3.64 1 2 2.00 8.10 9.06 2.39 3.67 1 2 2.10 8.11 8.93 2.36 3.71 1 2 2.20 8.12 8.80 2.32 3.74 1 2 2.30 8.13 8.67 2.29 3.77 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow r SUMMER MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO .750 TOX LIMIT, KA=25, SOD =1500- ---------- MODEL RESULTS ---------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 7.88 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.13 mg/l. The End NBOD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- is 2.29 mg/l. WLA WLA WLA DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) -- ---------- (mgd) Segment 1 ------ 6.31 --------- 0.00 ------- 1 Reach 1 60.00 6.75 5.00 0.75000 Reach 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00000 6 J *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin . : 050702 Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl. @20'V2 Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I 1 0.60 I I 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I 25.001 I 0.63 1 Reach 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Segment 1 I I 1 0.801.34.781 I 0.372 I 1 0.81 I I 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I 23.271 I 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 Flow I CBOD I NBOD I D.O. 1 1 cfs I mg/l I mg/1 I mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste " 1 1.163 1 60.000 1 6.750 1 5.000 Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 .1 1.000 I 7.720 Tributary 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 Tributary 1 0.770 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 -* Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER - MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO .750 TOX LIMIT, KA=25, SOD =1500 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 6.31 32.07 3.98 2.24 1 1 0.10 6.60 31.31 3.90 2.28 1 1 0.20 6.81 30.59 3.83 2.31 1 1 0.30 6.96 29.88 3.76 2.34 1 1 0.40 7.07 29.20 3.69 2.37 1 1 0.50 7.16 28.54 3.62 2.41 1 1 0.60 7.22 27.90 3.56 2.44 1 1 0.70 7.27 27.28 3.49 2.47 1 1 0.80 7.31 26.67 3.43 2.51 1 1 0.90 7.34 26.09 3.37 2.54 1 1 1.00 7.36 25.52 3.31 2.-57 1 1 1.10 7.39 24.97 3.25 2.61 1 1 1.20 7.41 24.44 3.20 2.64 1 1 1.30 7.43 23.92 3.14 2.67 1 1 1.40 7.45 23.42 3.09 2.70 1 1 1.50 7.46 22.93 3.04 2.74 1 2 1.50 7.52 18.33 2.59 3.51 1 2 1.60 7.64 18.04 2.55 3.54 1 2 1.70 7.72 17.75 2.51 3.57 1 2 1.80 7.77 17.46 2.47 3.61 1 2 1.90 7.81 17.18 2.43 3.64 1 2 2.00 7.84 16.91 2.39 3.67 1 2 2.10 7.86 16.65 2.36 3.71 1 2 2.20 7.87 16.39 2.32 3.74 1 2 2.30 7.88 16.13 2.29 .3.77 Seg,# I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow IJ SUMMER MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO 750 BOD=I5,KA=25,SOD=1500,1* 7bx ---------- MODEL RESULTS --- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8.03 mg/l. The End CBOD is 8.67 mg/l. The End NBOD is 2.29 mg/l. ------------------------------------------------- WLA DO Min CBOD (mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) ---------------------- ---- Segment 1 6.31 0.00 1 Reach 1 30.00 Reach 2 0.00 WLA WLA NBOD DO Waste Flow (mg/1) ---- (mg/1) -- (mgd) ---------- 6.75 5.00 0.75000 0.00 0.00 0.00000 *** MODEL SUMMARY DATA *** Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Subbasin : 050702 Receiving.Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK Stream Class: C-TROU Summer 7Q10 : 0.7 Winter 7Q10 : 0.8 Design Temperature: 23.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mile I ft/miI fps I ft Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl Segment 1 I I 1 1.501 I 77.421 0.454 I I I 1 0.60 1 0.75 1 0.65 I I 126.69 1 I I 25.001 0.63 1 Reach 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Segment 1 I I 1 0.801 I 34.781 0.372 I I I 1 0.81 1 0.48 1 0.42 I I 124.84 1 I I 23.271 0.63 1 Reach 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Flow I CBOD I NBOD I D.O. I I cfs I mg/1 I mg/l I mg/1 I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 1.163 130.000 I 6.750 I 5.000 Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 Tributary I 0.380 I 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.720 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.720 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 Tributary I 0.770 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720 * Runoff I 0.330 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.720 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER • MODEL FOR EXPANSION TO .750 BOD=I5,KA=25,SOD=1500,TOX Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 6.31 16.52 3.98 2.24 1 1 0.10 6.73 16.14 3.90 2.28 1 1 0.20 7.03 15.78 3.83 2.31 1 1 0.30 7.23 15.43 3.76 2.34 1 1 0.40 7.38 15.09 3.69 2.37 1 1 0.50 7.48. 14.76 3.62 2.41 1 1 0,.60 7.56 14!.44 3.56 2.44 1 1 0.70 7.61 14.14 3.49 2.47 1 1 0.80 7.65 13.84 3.43 2.51 1 1 0.90 7.68 13.54 3.37 2.54 1 1 1.00 7.71 13.26 3.31 2.57 1 1 1.10 7.73 12.99 3.25 2.61 1 1 1.20 7.74 12.72 3.20 2.64 1 1 1.30 7.76 12.46 3.14 2.67 1 1 1.40 7.77 12.21 3.09 2.70 1 1 1.50 7.78 11.97 3.04 2.74 1 2 1.50 7.76 9.78 2.59 3.51 1 2 1.60 7.85 9.63 2.55 3.54 1 2 1.70 7.91 9.49 2.51 3.57 1 2 1.80 7.95 9.34' 2.47 3.61 1 2 1.90 7.98 9.20 2.43 3.64 1 2 2.00 8.00 9.06 2.39 3.67 1 2 2.10 8.02 8.93 2.36 3.71 1 2 2.20 8.03 8.80 2.32 3.74 1 2 2.30 8.03 8.67 2.29 �3.77 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD ► NBOD I Flow I a State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. 1 William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September3, 1992 � Acting Director Reaional Offices U Asheville Honorable Allen B. Weaver, Mayor @ 199� 704/251-6208 Town of West Jefferson SE? Past Office Box 490 Fayetteville West Jefferson, North Carolina 28694-0490 (ECHNICAL SUFFQRT BRANCH 919/486-1541 Mooresville SUBJECT: Preliminary Engineering Report 704/663-1699 West Jefferson, North Carolina Raleigh Dear Mayor Weaver: 919/571-4700 This office is continuing in the process of reviewing the Washington preliminary engineering report (PER) for subject project. As stated in 919/946-6481 our previous letter, speculative permit limits from the Technical Support Branch should be submitted to this office once they are Wilmington finalized.in order for this office to canplete its review of the PER. 919/395-3900 Please note that the Local Government Commission (LGC) must Winston-Salem approve the loan prior to this office making a loan commitment. The 919/896-7007 town should work with Paul Glenn with the Local Government Comission at 733-3064. Failure to gain LGC approval in a timely manner may result in these funds being reallocated to other projects. In addition, comments on the PER from various review agencies along with oamients on the environmental assessment (EA) are enclosed. The town should address these comments along with the following and return your written responses to this office. Comments 1) The proposed design flow of�0-750 wq wq should be justified exis u1ig20 yeected domestic flow, industrial flow, and flow due to infiltration/inflow (I/I). 2) Give capacity of existing influent facilities (sewers and pure stations). Describe modifications to influent pump station. 3) I/I should be addressed including the cost effectiveness of rehabilitation. Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Honorable Allen B. Weaver September 3, 1992 Page 2 Once the Local Government Commission approves the loan and the above cam ents are addressed., the review of the PER may continue. If you have any questions, please contact Don Evans at (919) 733-6900, extension 619. Sincerely, eR. Blowe, Chief ruction Grants and Loans DE/ta cc: McGill and Associates Trevor Clemments Greg Taylor WGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS July 17, 1992 RECEIVE Mr. Trevor Clements JUL 2 8 1992 Technical Support Branch Division of Environmental Management TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH Post Office Box 27687 ; Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 RE: NPDES Permit Modification Town of West Jefferson Ashe County, North Carolina Permit No. NCO020451 Dear Mr. Clements: The purpose of this letter is to request that speculative limits for the Town of West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment Plant be provided for the purpose of upgrading the existing facility. As of this date, we have sent the NPDES Permit modification package to Ms. Coleen Sullins. The project is being funded by State of North Carolina Revolving Loan Fund and technical plans and specifications are currently being reviewed by the Construction Grants Section. The project is under an S.O.C. schedule therefore, we are asking that once completed, the speculative limits be sent directly to Mr. Don Evans with the Construction Grants Section so that his review of the plans and specifications can be expedited. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A. DANNY B. BRIDGES, P.E. ma cc: Coleen Sullins Don Evans Greg Taylor 90135.01 clmntsl7 P.O. BOX 2259 / 704/252-0575 / 3B ORANGE STREET ASHEVILLE, NC 28802 704/252-2518 (FAX] ASHEVILLE, NC 28801 V SfA y�5 y , a E1 Y' JUL 2 1 1992 .. State of North Carolina p TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH Department of Environment, Health and Atural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 16, 1992 Acting Director Regional Offices Asheville Honorable Allen B. Weaver, Mayor 704/251-6208 Town of West Jefferson Post Office Box 490 Fayetteville West Jefferson, North Carolina 28694-0490 919/486-1541 Mooresville SUBJECT: Preliminary Engineering Report 704/663-1699 West Jefferson, North Carolina Raleigh Dear Mayor Weaver: 919/5714700 This office is in the process of reviewing the Preliminary Washington Engineering Report (PER) for subject project. In order for this office 919/946-6481 to continue review of the referenced PER the town should request speculative permit limits from DEm in addition to the application for a Wilmington NPDES permit. The request for spemlative limits should be directed to 919/395-3900, Trevor Clements, Assistant Chief , Technical Support Branch, and should include the following items: Winston-Salem 919/896-7007 1. Discharge Location with Map 2. Pretreatment Information including Priority Pollutants 3. AMOUnt. of Additional Flow Once this office receives the speculative limits, review of the PER may continue. In addition, the review of the plans and specifications may begin once the PER is approved. Please be advised that the town should proceed in a timely manner as not to hold up loan funds which may be used for other projects. If you have any questions, please contact me at (919) 733-6900, extension 619. Sincerely, Don Evans, Supervisor DE/ta State Revolving Loan & Grant Program cc: McGill Associates bcc: Jreyor LJemments,+ Gre Ta for 9 Y Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Box 29535. Ralei¢h. North Carolina 27626_0545 TPtP t A of o_rtz_�m c DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT June 22, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: Boyd Devane77 THRU: Ruth Swanek FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell �liW SUBJECT: Comments on the Environmental Assessment of West Jefferson WWTP NPDES Permit No. NC0020451 Ashe County The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments and recommendations. 1. The environmental assessment should indicate what the anticipated efflu- ent limitations would be at the expanded wasteflow of 0.750 MGD. Technical Support has not received a request from West Jefferson to evaluate the impact of the additional 381,000 GPD on the UT Little Buffalo Creek. Preliminary informa- tion indicates that the facility would have to meet more stringent ammonia lim- its and revisions to other conventional pollutants will have to evaluated. 2. The constituency of the additional wastewater should be indicated and addressed. Specifically, what percentage of the expansion wastewater will be from industrial sources? Has pertinent pretreatment information been provided and evaluated? 3. In Section 4 under Environmental Consequences, the issue of water quality was not addressed. Biological sampling done by the Division in 1985 indicated that UT Little Buffalo Creek was rated as poor above and below the West Jeffer- son plant. The impact of the additional wastewater to a stream with documented water quality problems should be evaluated. If there are any questions concerning our comments, please contact me. cc: Larry Coble Don Safrit Coy Batten WLA File Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Planning xird Assessment Project Review Form Project Number. I county: Date: Z ❑ Project located in 7th floor library Date Response Due (firm deadline): r� 1 I This project Is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In -House Review ❑Asheville ❑lAll R/O Areas ❑Soil and Water ❑Marine Fisheries ❑Fayetteville Air ❑Coastal Management ❑ Water Planning lWater ❑Water Resources (Environmental Health El Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ❑Solid Waste Management ❑ Raleigh Land Quality EngineerForest Resources ❑Radiation Protection ❑ Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources ❑David Foster ❑Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ❑Other (specify) ❑ Wilmington *Pnvlronmental .pothers Management Winston-Salem R`r_ - 0&4r Manager Sign-Off/Region: _ e f VVA 17-" , Date: In -House Reviewer/Agency: SE;Tii}iq Response (check all applicable) Regional Office response to be compiled nd completed by Regional Manager. louse Reviewer complete individual response. El No objection to project as proposed RECEIVED! ❑ Nll��t recommended for further development for reasons stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited) ❑ No Comment JUN 1 6 1992 El Applicant has been contacted El Insufficient information to complete review ❑Applicant has not been contacted TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH ❑ Project Controversial (comments attached) it El Approve - '- El Consistency Statement needed (comments attached) ❑ Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ❑ Recommended for further development with recommendations for strengthening (comments attached) ❑ Recommended for further development if specific & substantive changes incorporated by funding agency (comments attached/authority(ies) cited) ❑ Consistency Statement not needed ❑ Full EIS must be required under the provisions of NEPA and SEPA ❑ Other (specify and attach comments) RETURN TO: Melba McGee Ps+a Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown_ WEST JEFFERSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WEST JEFFERSON, NC 28694 Submitted to N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management Construction Grant Section State Contact: Coy Batten Division of Environmental Management P.O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 Cooperating Agencies: Town of West Jefferson Region D Council of Governments McGill Associates, P.A. N.C. EHNR; Division of Environmental Management Prepared by: Gregg Stamey Region D Council of Governments P.O. Box 1820 Boone, NC 28607 (704) 265-5434 WEST JEFFERSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14010R Y� MI&I 1. Existing Environment This project involves improvements to the existing West Jefferson wastewater treatment plant. Most of the land within town limits is on level terrain. The Town's wastewater treatment plant is located on Clearwater Drive, on an acre tract not in a flood plain. The primary soil types at the site are Clifton Loam (27D), with 15 to 25% slope, and Clifton Loam (27F), with 25 to 50% slope. All project improvements will be made within the existing wastewater treatment plant itself, and no other land area beyond the project site will be impacted in any way.'' 2. Need The Town of West Jefferson is a small Western North Carolina mountain community (population 1,002) located in Ashe County (22,209). The county -is rural and isolated, without interstate access. During early 1990, the town was place under flow moratorium until such time as it can demonstrate. the ability to accept additional flow without causing violations at the wastewater treatment plant. It is estimated that as much as 40% of the waste processed at the treatment plant is infiltration, and that the plant is operating only at 80% of its capacity. The existing wastewater treatment plant experiences hydraulic overloading during periods of high rainfall. Although, this excess flow is not directly by-passed to Little Buffalo Creek, it affects the biological process of the plant, rendering it partially ineffective. The Town has begun a systematic rehab of its collection system to eliminate a part of this excessive flow. Additionally, the plant has frequently been out of compliance with Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). As a result of this NPDES violation the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has recommended that limited additional connections be made to the Town collection system. Additionally, the Town has .been placed on a Special Order by Consent for making improvements. Phase I of the plant improvements, now under construction, is being accomplished to alleviate the most obvious deficiency,at the plant, which is the lack of an adequate sludge management process. Construction of a new clarifier and aerated sludge holding will serve to provide adequate sludge handling. capabilities. West Jefferson has already received a loan of $300,000 from the State Senate Bill 110 Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund to make Phase I of these wastewater treatment plant improvements. The proposed Phase II expansion at the West Jefferson Wastewater Treatment is to expand the existing hydraulic capacity of the plant from 369,000 GPD to 750,000 GPD in order , to meet growth needs for the next 20 years. The expansion will include an upgrade of existing equipment and the -,);8`��"1 construction of a new aeration basin, modifications to the influent pump station, new blowers, expansion of the chlorine -I yr contact basin, and all necessary electrical. and control .,,,,1s systems. The total Phase II project cost is $606,500. 3. Alternative Analysis The Town of West Jefferson has three possible alternatives. The Town could take no further action, although this is really not a possible option open to West Jefferson. The water quality degradation would increase, resulting in significant public health hazards. The aldermen must abide by the SOC order, and make the necessary improvements at the wastewater treatment plant, or the Town could be fined on a daily basis. The second alternative is to stop work once the circular clarifier has been installed and Phase I of the project is completed. Ultimately, the waste of the waste treatment problems would be resolved, but there would be on hydraulic capacity expansion at the plant. The State would never lift the SOC order until the capacity at the plant was expanded. The final alternative is the intended project. Phase II of the wastewater treatment plant improvements would expand the plant's capacity from 369,000 GPD to 750,000 GPD, providing for excellent facilities to accept new industrial users and meet economic growth demands in West Jefferson for the next 20 years and beyond. . 4. Environmental Consequences (a) Changes in Land Use: The project will not change any existing land use. Project construction will involve only the wastewater treatment plant on land owned by the Town of West Jefferson. No other land would be affected by this project in any way. (b) Wetlands': The wastewater treatment plant is not located on a wetland area. (c) Prime/Unique Agricultural Lands: "No existing agricultural lands are situated near the treatment plant site. (d) Public Lands: All land that the system is run on is legally obligated to the Town of West Jefferson. (e) Scenic and Recreational Areas: The present growth moratorium imposed by the state due to excessive flow could significantly affect the local tourism economy. (f) Areas of Archaeologic/Historic Value: The wastewater treatment plant is not located on any historic or archaeological properties: (g) Air Quality: The air quality will not be affected. (h) Groundwater Quality: Improvements in the wastewater treatment plant can only increase the quality of the groundwater. (i) Noise Levels: The only noise produces will be the minimum amount generated by work crews during rehabilitation and improvements. (j) Water Supplies: If these present problems are not corrected in the wastewater treatment plant, pollution of the groundwater may be a future possibility. (k) Shellfish or Fish _Habitats: Completion of the project will improve the environment in creeks and streams for all wildlife. (1) There are no endangered species that will be affected. (m)- Introduction of Toxic Substances: Not applicable to this project. (n) Eutrophication of Receiving Waters: Again the water quality in West Jefferson could only improve with project completion. t. 5. Mitigative Measures Considering_ the scope of this project, 'impact on the environment will not be considered likely. At present, impacts on the groundwater and the local economy of West Jefferson will only become worse if funds are not located to make the necessary improvements .to the Town's wastewater treatment plant. � ___r.• � .II .�` •',�;^-' �� y, • :��/•�•i _mil fy' — Jolb 4030 44 ,Tower ��.Jj 1 r�::� `��. J<�� II W � • `. ��'� I 1 �I . n I� °�'_ �ozz'-- r-'� f �' � r r _ \��, 11 �� -- iT ------Sew ge° �`�\� r'�jar �I\\� \�' V �• it r ) ; \` i• . Dispo aM :: • • ' :: West ii w i III w �: f • 2'SOIl` l ;;1 ` ; i I ("(/ // ( ff rs ; !�f�� l—`. IILL >o CD CD P n' LaJ �. 0 1-•' ..p �`•'��V% Wank .1 {i +I `� :�'R K /': r N ¢J z e28 t •O 313 aj. '°fop •�/'` •� '.��I i i o �� •� �� \'1`\l_...';\� ff I,� o =ems �� c��l�•,\ a /�/ � .� ' _� :I\• \��\��/ . I.I I ( �/ri r' �� %� �� 27 ;) � c o .� , ]06];` of idu•ayr• `_� .;•/ ! � _ \\ . ,$\,\ f/ � •� '� --� _III l "..o'' `- .`� - /• Al te`q '" jam; -�\\ •3: If �I•\��tJet ferson �QCh j-"' •� •S aq•e JX3380 :,i '• aaa�� '—'Cent, Beaver � Cree 9 � — •�_ bs a-- li :Gem 0 1' r I 36°22'30" 13 cL'Lti •• :, e366 81'30' 456 1 270000 FEET 451 r 0 INTERIOR—G;OLOGICAL SURVEY WASHINGiOd 81 ° 22'30" 1458 27'30"' 459 r 65 66000m EI " E. ROAD CLASSIFICATION Aso Primary highway, all weather, Light -duty road, all weather, y?s60<, MNI hard surface improved surface.. Secondary highway, all weather, Unimproved road, fair or dry cN�I hard surface weather _________ z't?- 44MILS 0.16' U. S. Route. State Route s MILS JEFFERSON, N. C. !TM GRID AND 1968 MAGNETIC NORTH N3622.5—W8122.5/7.5 DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 1968 AMS 4756 IV NW —SERIES V842 W ZONE C ;jiVastcwater v s� srrca tinent 4i J 3 6"' ri o Plant u c 3 Q s 'a 1; ,-ZONE A 1 1.` m a ca N _ 0 0 qt* NORFOLK sourifER 1 O � •• IS RAILROAD ZONE C 7 N d : Q do s 0o I � Znd Z c •:: F W ZONE A I- QI ZONE C o 's cc ,, VAs,. o _ A I� D4RK Si • D rK � 1 a > ZONE C h a SON a� � N ° Q U � y � oU a � _ ✓B � � g . AllZONE C� �LW , 0 _ FAIRVIEW W u +- � Q la �� ' O u 1 ADJUNIFOG AREA S IV A N�[( INSET A F, - sl � J +n Q � o � ZONE C ZONE C QQo ZONE A �o se tlu . -'v . . Wastewater ANNEXD I7E 983 Treatment Plant \ •— 2640' WEST 2640 EAST—+ 1915-21 TOWN LIMITS z 0 V W MIDWAY AVE `y • BIRCH crorrr , � m JAr N// pSJ�d z 6soa 74 -. � / ,�1tlf�y"n� Lr--�tc"Ce.. ci/4� f'� �•tw:�/`t" U' 'fi c� a.,,t� Y1