The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0020451_wasteload allocation_19900619 NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING 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 19, 1990 This document is printed on reuise paper-ignore ariy content on the reverts amide Z (� o Ty.srnrF 4 t0¢�y�C} M,p m uj V GINM State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Winston-Salem Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor Margaret Plemmons Foster William W. Cobey,Jr., Secretary Regional Manager DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT June 19, 1990 Y a'' M E M O R A N D U M JU19 2 ® 1990 TO: Betsy Johnson Technical Support Group TECHNICAL SUTP?ORT BRANCH FROM: Jim Johnston t Environmental Chemist SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of West Jefferson NPDES Permit No. NCO020451 Ashe County SOC Case No. 90-29 The Town of. West Jefferson' s methods used to collect instream DO DATA has been evaluated by this Office on June 15, 1990. It was found that the DO samplings were not done in accordance with standard methods or DEM SOP. The operator informed me that the instrument was checked by using the Winkler Method about every two weeks. No records of calibration are kept. The DO for upstream, downstream and effluent varied on June 15, 1990. by only .1 ml which appeared to be unusual since at the time the sample was taken the downstream was cloudy from solids coming from the effluent. The Town uses a Model DO-1 made by Sensitron Associates. This Office will confirm the accuracy of this instrument on our next trip to Ashe County. If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. JJ:ms 8025 North Point Boulevard, Suite 100,Winston-Salem, N.C.27106-3203 •Telephone 919-761-2351 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Ii i ! I � i EZFO " �S�c r2�Awesfi- 9v - a 9 ` lncr e-O Ss�— -CY22;1.._ en ve P . I i 4J0.-7 f-- r1l / e a c/ iiI PGiaLe a/ C�I�YJ• G� �i w, Jo L 7 L A", ��N�ti/e a— ter r10 h�c+7✓t m e lccx/s ScC„l a)i r)G art ! C /5T/NG 4=/M/7-5 � i F/ow 0w ` >0S I q-S 60D .3D _ �S�✓1 ru � �r�ieLr�� i ✓1/�f�/Il ' 3 o I . /000 { � - " Ir I\C� Ll, 7 �`1�i �Q°ccC Qv� o� �n9rl Sfc4.J ylr l - ioyl- 5b As oVu Jl-V, Qcfe llr I r� // 0 e e �s Y.9i cb - / °. 7 SS � \oG. ti (pRr 1`(CES c w79q: 4.9vk5l p — R n 33 33 S us6s 9 DA= . lkAa.13 CA• L(r eh lot t4a 1.6 � ai., J &A= 3A Cis W 16H0`D.Etas v S&5;81 Vct • — 3 - (,0 Yo -off—fit �s�� l��,.�:-� f��o = �, o C��5_►�1 ol> &1c2 Do et 13 �^ e, SD �_� CJ� Jc_l LCLr J7Cr'GyLGC �Lo �r�a�C w. U = S LA-k-G 1 l elf- �,.`v'�} , "� `` ^+4.- �..,, n- '�.c .. ,F. ,' ,.: •sR - �•s- F �,+ ,� �� .Y} ,�. a '�y, ,'fir •� 'a-" � g��_ Y � M1. rt '',s �'4��.r4... � � .?')may � r��# � � �i��r. iN T�°' ''� ♦ �.• r .'b .� � �� ri,K, > .BEY '• �.w Y�� $.. .t. :- .. r � k ..rFi4' yip,'. - ;': ''7 •Y�6 r\•.•," �,,, -' fy� .T. 11 rb .} P .a.'f7, a � i •' } • j!!:nawl) OA&R Y y V. M1iT 1 `1� ii<: -••fir-•..,. � k.: it : „ ,� .,. : �a". ✓ � .' *:.l ; ,j��.,. fay E i. £� .s„ ,. •#; .tkv." h • UAW mc d, s J. % 4 r 41 a 4 1 ++++++++++ ver 3.1 T O X I C S R E V I E W Facility: WEST JEFFEROSN WWTP NPDES Permit No.: NC0020451 Status (E, P, or M): E Permitted Flow: 0.3690 mgd Actual Average Flow: 0.2900 mgd Subbasin: •050702 Receiving Stream: UT LITTLE BUFFALO CRI---------PRETREATMENT DATA--------------I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I Stream Classification: C-TR I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI I 7Q10: 0.7000 cfs Intl. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY I INC: 44.9664 i Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronicl Stn'd / Bkg Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria I Pollutant AL Conc. Ell. Lead Load Load Load Load I Conn. Violatlonsl (ug/1) (ug/1) 4 (4/d) (t/d) (f/d) (4/d) (f/d) (ug/1) (tvlo/isam) I --------- -- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------- 1 Cadmium S 0.4000 0.9200 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0030 0.0030 102 I Chromium S 50.0000 0.7600 0.0200 0.0005 0.0205 0.0600 0.0800 41 I I Copper AL 7.0000 0.7500 0.3500 0.0300 0.3800 0.1200 0.4700 1 631 N Nickel S 88.0000 0.3200 0.0200 0.0010 0.0210 0.0300 0.0500 126 P Lead S 25.0000 0.8100 0.0100 0.0040 0.0140 0.0090 0.0190 I 151 U Zinc AL 50.0000 0.6200 0.1400 0.0003 0.1403 0.0300 0.1700 336 T Cyanide S 5.0000 0.5900 0.0400 0.0030 0.0430 0.0300 0.0700 23 2.0 Mercury S 0.0120 0.0000 I S Silver AL 0.0600 0.0000 I E Selenium S 5.0000 I 0.0000 I C Arsenic S 50.0000 0.0000 I T Phenols S NA I 0.0000 I I NH3-N C I 0.0000 I 1 0 T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0000 I 0.0000 I N I I I I I I I I I 1--------------- ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D ---------MONITOR/LIMIT--------- I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S-- Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor. Pollutant Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd 7 (i/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data I OBSERVED (YES/NO) --------- -- --------- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------I --------- -------- I Cadmium S 0.0310 0.8896 0.0165 0.0992 45.8657 Monitor Limit Limit I NCAC YES I A Chromium S 1.2903 111.1942 2.0330 7.9337 18.4362 Monitor Monitor Limit I NCAC NO i N Copper AL 0.1734 15.5672 39.2554 48.5527 283.7379 Monitor Monitor Monitor I Weekly YES I A Nickel S 0.8015 195.7017 5.9007 14.0493 56.6577 Monitor Monitor Limit I NCAC NO I L Lead S 1 0.8150 55.5971 1.0992 1.4917 67.8992 Monitor Monitor Limit 1 NCAC YES Y Zinc AL 0.8150 111.1942 22.0301 26.6937 151.0871 Monitor Monitor Monitor Weekly YES S Cyanide S 0.0755 11.1194 7.2850 11.8593 10.1174 Limit Limit Limit NCAC YES I _S I 0.0001 0.0267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I S Silver AL 0.0004 0.1334 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Selenium S 0.0310 11.1194 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 R Arsenic S 0.3097 111.1942 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I E Phenols S I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I S NH3-N C I 0.0000 0.0000 U T.R.Chlor.AL I 37.8060 0.0000 L T S 1e �S VJOttY ,o C)q 01 5— 00 r7 c) 00 3 Gpb� r06(� � � �� oq� q C� ' J - �Oa L- 3 a(M a003� ) 5� no03 ao( <,OZ� <,06� '018 L 6 003 �aJ a0b� n063 -G-3 60Z a(Z� 603� 0039 o GZ5 0 001 a,d? �h .0 3g o . 06 3 �6�s , 33te o z�0 0. �,(�o�ILhl� G,61owa�1�, 600y� o S� ,a, r l 1 INSTREAM SELF-MONITORING DATA MONTHLY AVERAGES Discharger: (,J6J.7-/' Permit No. : NC00 c70�5 Receiving Stream: (}T e,,* e 4z o C"-,-k Sub-basin: n5_07- 0_-2— Upstream Location: 5z) Downstream LocationJ� ;��o-F 4,.;e z.p C ( do Upstream Downstream DATE TEMP D.O. COND TEMP D.O. RiW& COND DEC-90c NOV-90 OCT-90 SEP-90 AUG-90 JUL-90 JUN-90 MAY-90 APR-90 MAR-90 FEB-90 5' r �-� ?a /� k , ` JAN-90 �,� l�fL l0° /a3 �) DEC-89 Wiq /00 /SS- Yf aye NOV-89 -dl- n/PL 7 0 11.1 OCT-89 Ida /VA ao . m N Z > oo AWK /9S> SEP-89 /V9_ AlR >/ooK Af AUG-8 9 /r,02 N R /oo (a l , Na, >lao/< Irk JUL-89 ,? lv.A >000 AIR, 1 i V g_ >/604 A//z JUN-8 9 A(k MAY-89 APR-8 9 , MAR-89 n FEB-89 JAN-89 DEC-88 NOV-88 OCT-88 SEP-88 AUG-88 JUL-88 JUN-88 MAY-88 APR-88 MAR-88 FEB-88 JAN-88 DEC-87 NOV-87 OCT-87 SEP-87 AUG-87 JUL-87 JUN-87 MAY-87 APR-87 MAR-87 FEB-87 JAN-87 lVe lea. Isk �� Request Form .for In-stream Assessment for 67B NAME OF FACI��LITY- / ✓-�?✓2"� --- ---- SUBBAS IN 5�� O�� d.2 COUNTY `Y�' - REGION �,r/�/��_ DESIGN FLOW RECEIVING STREAM BACKGROUND DATA . : i A. Why 'is SOC . needed? (Facility is- out of complian'aI'h� hich effluent limits? 'r' TSS Q_ s APR 1 9 1990 B . History of SOC requests : ECH'MU 4E ve3� y"vSti� 63�+s'SZaLrrl 'l . Monthly Average waste flow �! prior to any SOC .-2 , — mgd 2 . 8'OC flow added : Date : _ flow:— -mgd Date : flow: mgd Date : flow: mgd total of previously approved SOC flow: 3 . Flows lost from plant flow:_ mgd 4 . This SOC request flow: , -mgd 5 . Total plant flow post-SOC (sum of original flow and SOC flow minus losses) flow: 3 --mgd 6 . Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Why/wily not? ��u=o .1o' ire ea.`'~"'.�' �,Q,� '7 *eA-- r s �. 7��! — ��f O 3 06 dry C. C. Please attach DMR summary for past year for all permitted parame- ters . If possible , include reports from previous years if facility has been under SOC for more than a year . -THIS SOC A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a combin- ation, please specify percentages . J. . Domes B: What type of indus.try? Please attach any pertin t data. (�/L�CNOGv�✓ C. The region proposes the following SOC limits : B0D5 .5 '� _ _mg/l NH3—, " _mg/1 DO mg/1 TSS_— _(q0 --mg/l fecal coliform //00 O #/100ml p H —_9 S U SUMMER EXISTING CONDITIONS ------- MODEL RESULTS ---------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8. 62 mg/l. The End CBOD is 13.43 mg/l. The End NBOD is 6.71 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 7.25 0 .00 1 Reach 1 100.00 50 . 00 5.00 0 .29000 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: 20 . 0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I I mile l ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @201h Idesignl @20Va Idesignl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 1.501 77 .421 0 .352 1 0.58 1 0.56 1 0.56 149.10 1 49. 101 0 .50 1 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 0.801 34 .781 0 .316 1 0.79 1 0.39 1 0 .39 119.76 1 19.761 0 .50 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/l I mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 0.449 1100 .000 1 50.000 1 5.000 Headwatersl 0 .700 1 2 .000 1 1.000 1 8.180 Tributary 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 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 8 .180 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8 .180 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile s SUMMER EXISTING CONDITIONS Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 7.25 30 .80 15.40 1 .53 1 1 0.10 8 .03 29. 90 14. 97 1 .56 1 1 0.20 8.36 29. 04 14.55 1. 60 1 1 0 .30 8 .51 28 .21 14.15 1 . 63 1 1 0.40 8 .58 27.42 13.77 1. 66 1 1 0.50 8 . 61 26. 66 13.41 1. 69 1 1 0. 60 8 . 63 25. 94 13.06 1.73 1 1 0.70 8. 65 25.24 12.72 1 .76 1 1 0.80 8. 66 24.57 12.39 1 .79 1 1 0. 90 8. 68 23. 93 12.08 1 .83 1 1 1. 00 8. 69 23.31 11.78 1.86 1 1 1:10 8.70 22.71 11.50 1.89 1 1 1.20 8.71 22.14 11.22 1. 93 1 1 1.30 8.72 21.59 10. 95 1. 96 1 1 1.40 8.72 21.06 10. 69 1. 99 1 1 1.50 8.73 20.54 10.44 2 . 02 1 2 1.50 8.58 15.43 7. 84 2 .79 1 2 1.55 8.58 15.30 7 .76 2 . 81 1 2 1. 60 8.58 15.16 7 . 69 2 . 83 1 2 1. 65 8.58 15. 03 7 . 61 2 . 84 1 2 1 .70 8.58 14 .90 7.54 2. 86 1 2 1.75 8.58 14 .77 7.46 2 . 88 1. 2 . 1.8.0 8.59 14 . 64 7.39 2 . 89 1 2 1.85 8.59 14.51 7.32 2 . 91 1 2 1. 90 8.59 14.38 7.25 2 . 93 1 2 1. 95 8. 60 14 .26 7.18 2 . 94 1 2 2.00 8. 60 14 .14 7.11 2 . 96 1 2 2.05 8. 60 14. 02 7 . 04 2 . 98 1 2 2 .10 8. 61 13. 90 6. 97 2. 99 1 2 2 .15 8 . 61 13.78 6. 91 3. 01 1 2 2.20 8 . 61 13. 66 6.84 3.03 1 2 2.25 8 . 62 13.55 6.78 3.04 1 2 2.30 8 . 62 13.43 6.71 3.06 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow s ,i SUMMER SOC CONDITIONS ---------- MODEL RESULTS ---------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 8.55 mg/l. The End CBOD is 16.11 mg/l. The End NBOD is 8.09 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 7.08 0 .00 1 Reach 1 100.00 50. 00 5.00 0.36900 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: 20.0 ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I I mile I ft/miI fps I ft Idesignl @2014 Idesignl @203h Idesignl ---------------------------=---------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 1.501 77 .421 0 .370 1 0 .58 1 0.58 1 0.58 150 . 00 1 50. 001 0.50 1 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 0.801 34.781 0.325 1 0.79 1 0.40 1 0.40 120.38 1 20.381 0.50 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/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 0.572 1100.000 1 50. 000 1 5.000 Headwatersl 0.700 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 Tributary 1 0.380 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 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 8 .180 * Runoff 1 0.330 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 8.180 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile r SUMMER i' ..;SOC CONDITIONS Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0.00 7 . 08 35. 93 17. 97 1. 65 1 1 0.10 7 .89 34. 93 17.49 1. 68 1 1 0.20 8.25 33. 97 17 .03 1 .72 1 1 0.30 8.41 33.05 16.59 1 .75 1 1 0.40 8.49 32.17 16.17 1 .78 1 1 0.50 8.53 31.32 15.76 1 . 82 1 1 0. 60 8.56 30.50 15.37 1. 85 1 1 0.70 8.57 29.72 15.00 1 . 88 1 1 0.80 8.59 28. 96 14. 63 1 . 92 1 1 .0. 90 8. 60 28.23 14.28 1 . 95 1 1 1.100 8. 61 27.53 13. 95 1 . 98 1 1 1.10 8. 63 26. 85 13. 62 2. 01 1 1 1 .20 8 . 64 26.20 13.31 2.05 1 1 1.30 8 . 65 25.57 13.01 2.08 1 1 1.40 8 . 66 24. 96 12.71 2.11 1 1 1.50 8. 67 24.38 12.43 2 .15 1 2 1.50 8.54 18.47 9.41 2 . 92 1 2 1.55 8.53 18.31 9.32 2 . 93 1 2 1. 60 8.53 18.15 9.23 2 . 95 1 2 1. 65 8.52 17. 99 9.14 2 . 97 1 2 1.70 8.52 17 . 84 9.06 2 . 98 1 2 1.75 8.52 17 . 68 8 . 97 3. 00 1 2 1.80 8.52 17 .53 8. 88 3.02 1 2 1. 85 8.52 17.38 8.80 3.03 1 2 1 . 90 8 .52 17.23 8.72 3.05 1 2 1 . 95 8 .52 17.09 8. 63 3.07 1 2 2. 00 8 .53 16. 94 8.55 3. 08 1 2 2.05 8.53 16.80 8.47 3.10 1 2 2.10 8.53 16. 66 8.39 3. 11 1 2 2.15 8.54 16.52 8.32 3. 13 1 2 2.20 8.54 16.38 8.24 3.15 1 2 2.25 8.54 16.25 8 .16 3.16 1 2 2.30 8.55 16.11 8. 09 3. 18 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi J D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow WINTER EXISTING CONDITIONS ---------- MODEL RESULTS ---------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 10.42 mg/l. The End CBOD is 13.28 mg/l. The End NBOD is 6.86 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 8.44 0 .00 1 Reach 1 100.00 50.00 5. 00 0 .29000 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: 12 . 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 @204 Idesignl @20V2 Idesignl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 1.501 77.421 0.377 1 0 .59 1 0.41 1 0 .59 142.01 1 50 . 001 0 .27 1 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 0.801 34 .781 0 .338 1 0.80 1 0 .28 1 0.41 117 .77 1 21 . 151 0.27 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/l Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 1 0.449 1100.000 1 50 . 000 1 5.000 Headwatersl 0.800 I 2.000 1 1. 000 1 9.700 Tributary 1 0.430 1 2.000 1 1. 000 1 9.700 * Runoff I . 0.350 I 2. 000 1 1.000 1 9.700 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0 .000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0 . 000 Tributary I 0 . 860 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 9.700 * Runoff I 0 .350 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 9.700 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile WINTER EXISTING CONDITIONS Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow 1 1 0. 00 8 .44 28.23 14.11 1 . 68 1 1 0.10 9.44 27.51 13.79 1 .71 1 1 0 .20 9. 93 26.82 13.47 1.75 1 1 0 .30 10.18 26.16 13.17 1.78 1 1 0 .40 10.31 25.53 12.88 1. 82 1 1 0.50 10 .38 24. 92 12. 60 1. 85 1 1 0 . 60 10.41 24.34 12 .33 1. 89 1 1 0 .70 10.44 23.77 12.07 1. 92 1 1 0 . 80 10.45 23.23 11.82 1 . 96 1 1 0 . 90 10.46 22.71 11.58 1 . 99 1 1 1. 00 10 .47 22.21 11.35 2 . 03 1 1 1.10 10 .48 21.72 11.12 2 . 06 1 1 1.20 10.48 21.25 10. 91 2.10 1 1 1.30 10.49 20 .80 10.70 2.13 1 1 1.40 10.50 20 .36 10 .49 2.17 1 1 1.50 10.50 19. 94 10 .30 2.20 1 2 1.50 10.28 14. 90 7. 69 3.06 1 2 1.55 10.30 14 .79 7 . 63 3.08 1 2 1. 60 10.31 14 . 68 7 .58 3. 10 1 2 1. 65 10.33 14 .57 7 .52 3.12 1 2 1.70 10.34 14 .47 7 .47 3.13 1 2 1.75 10.35 14.36 7 .41 3. 15 1 2 1.80 10.36 14 .26 7 .36 3. 17 1 2 1.85 10.37 14 . 15 7 .31 3.19 1 2 1. 90 10.38 14 . 05 7 .25 3.20 1 2 1. 95 10.39 13. 95 7 .20 3.22 1 2 2.00 10.39 13. 85 7 .15 3.24 1 2 2.05 10.40 13.75 7 .10 3.26 1 2 2.10 10.41 13. 66 7.05 3.27 1 2 2.15 10.41 13.56 '7 .00 3.29 1 2 2.20 10.41 13.46 6. 95 3.31 1 2 2..25 10.42 13.37 6.91 3.33 1 2 2.30 10 .42 13.28 6.86 3.34 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow . WINTER Sp{ -CONDITIONS ---------- MODEL RESULTS ---------- Discharger : WEST JEFFERSON WWTP Receiving Stream : UT LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 10.37 mg/l. The End CBOD is 15. 92 mg/l. The End NBOD is 8.24 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 8 .21 0.00 1 Reach 1 100.00 50 . 00 5. 00 0 .36900 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: 12.0 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 @20;1 Idesignl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 1 1.50I 77.421 0 .394 1 0.59 10.42 1 0. 60 I42. 01 150.001 0.27 1 Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I Segment 1 I 0. 80I 34.781 0.347 1 0.80 1 0.28 1 0.41 118 .28 121.751 0.27 I 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/1 I mg/l I Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste ( 0.572 1100 .000 1 50.000 I 5.000 Headwatersl 0.800 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 9.700 Tributary I 0.430 ► 2.000 I 1. 000 I 9.700 * Runoff I 0.350 I 2.000 I 1. 000 I 9.700 Segment 1 Reach 2 Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0. 000 Tributary I 0.860 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 9.700 * Runoff I 0.350 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 9.700 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile l . Y WINTER T-* CONDITIONS Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD NBOD I Flow 1 1 . 0.00 8.21 33.11 16.55 1. 80 1 1 0.10 9.25 32.30 16.19 1. 84 1 1 0.20 9.79 31.53 15. 84 1.87 1 1 0.30 10.07 30 .79 15.50 1. 91 1 1 0.40 10.22 30 . 08 15.18 1. 94 1 1 0.50 10.30 29.39 14.86 1. 98 1 1 0. 60 10 .34 28.73 14.56 2.01 1 1 0.70 10.37 28.09 14.27 2.05 1 1 0. 80 10.39 27.47 13. 99 2 .08 1 1 0 . 90 10.40 26.88 13.71 2.12 1 1 1. 00 10.41 26.31 13.45 2 .15 1 1 1. 10 10.42 25.75 13.20 2. 19 1 1 1.20 10.43 25.21 12 . 95 2.22 1 1 1.30 10.43 24. 69 12.71 2.26 1 1 1.40 10.44 24.19 12.48 2.29 1 1 1.50 10.45 23.70 12.26 2.33 1 2 1.50 10 .24 17.85 9.22 3.19 1 2 1 .55 10 .26 17.72 9.15 3.20 1 2 1. 60 10 .27 17.59 9.09 3.22 1 2 1. 65 10.29 17.46 9.02 3.24 1 2 1.70 10.30 17.33 8. 96 3.26 1 2 1.75 10.31 17.21 8.89 3.27 1 2 1.80 10.32 17.08 8 .83 3.29 1 2 1.85 10.32 16. 96 8 .77 3.31 1 2 1. 90 10.33 16.84 8 .71 3.33 1 2 1. 95 1'0.34 16.72 8 . 65 3.34 1 2 2.00 10.34 16. 60 8 .59 3.36 1 2 2.05 10.35 16.49 8.53 3.38 1 2 2.10 10 .35 16.37 8.47 3.40 1 2 2.15 .10 .36 16.26 8.41 3.41 1 2 2.20 10.36 16.14 8.35 3.43 1 2 2:25 10 .37 16.03 8.29 3.45 1 2 2.30 10.37 15. 92 8.24 3.47 Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow s t CVM elev 41st o drat si S-tream Slope. COAC Ltia s 0 4-J d _J v 7��J DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT May 18, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Coble, Regional Supervisor Winston-Salem Regional Office FROM: Betsy Johnson . - Technical Sup an,t //Branch THROUGH: Carla Sanderson(�j Trevor Clements QZ Fbr SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of West Jefferson. NPDES Permit No. NCO020451 Ashe County SOC Case No. 90-29 Summary and Recommendations Technical Support has completed an instream assessment for the Town of West Jefferson. -The Town has requested an SOC because their facility is out of compliance with its TSS and BOD5 limits. The Town would like to relax its limits for BOD5, TSS, and DO while accepting additional flow. With the addition of 0.079 MGD to the existing 0.29 average MGD, the plant will reach its permitted flow of 0.369 MGD. A Level-B analysis was performed to assess the impact of the additional flow and relaxed BOD5 limits. The modeling analysis for this assessment indicates that the additional wasteflow under the proposed interim limits will not cause a violation of EMC 67(b) criteria as long as the facility meets its DO limit. In light of cyanide, cadmium, and lead criteria violations and since EMC criteria states that no industrial sources should be added under an Order, it is _ recommended that this SOC be limited to domestic type waste additions only. Additional recommendations: 1. ) Renovation of facility design and determination of construction milestone dates should consider future probable NPDES permit requirements (i.e., new fecal coliform requirement of 200#/100 ml, ammonia toxicity limits of 1.95 mg/l in summer and 2.21 mg/1 in winter) . 2.) Facility should perform daily monitoring for metals on its SIU discharge, plant influent, and plant effluent for a one month period. Data should be used to update the POTW Headworks Analysis. A long-term headworks monitoring program should be developed and implemented (see attachment) . Facility design should consider the possiblity of additional metals limits. 3.) The region should confirm that West Jefferson's methods used to collect instream DO data conform to Standard Methods or Division standard operating procedure (SOP) . -2- `s Backcrround Information The Town of West Jefferson WWTP discharges into an unnamed tributary of Little Buffalo Creek, a class "C-Trout" stream in the New River Basin. The tributary drains approximately 1.8 square miles at the discharge site. The USGS estimates the following flows at the discharge location: summer 7Q10=0.7 cfs, winter 7Q10=0.8 cfs, and average flow=3.1 ,cfs. The stream is fairly swift moving at the discharge site with a stream bed gradient of 77.4 feet per mile. The Town of Jefferson's current NPDES permit expires in May, 1994. When the permit comes up for renewal, it may contain more stringent limits than the existing permit. The average concentration of ammonia currently discharged exceeds the allowable level (1.95 mg/1) . As long as the plant is passing its toxicity tests, no reduced ammonia limits will be needed. The new fecal coliform standard of 200 colonies per 100 ml will be incorporated in the new permit. During the SOC period, any construction to upgrade the plant should include these future treatment needs. Analysis and Discussion Compliance monitoring indicates exceedances of BOD5 and TSS on a monthly basis. Instream monitoring indicates extremely high fecal coliform levels and low DO values upstream and downstream of the discharge. Since the Town of West Jefferson has been in compliance with its DO limit for the past year, Technical Support sees no basis for dropping the DO limit. The Level-B model was run with the existing effluent conditions of the West Jefferson facility (i.e., 0.290 MGD, 50 mg/l BOD5, 11.13 mg/1 NH3-N, and 5 mg/l DO) as a baseline condition. The BOD5 and NH3-N parameters were input to the model as CBOD and NBOD using multipliers of 2.0 for BOD5 and 4.5 for NH3-N (see Table 1) . When these effluent characteristics were input to the model, the predicted DO sag was 7.25 mg/1 at milepoint 0, the discharge site (see Table 2) . The model was then run with the same inputs for BOD5, NH3-N, and DO using the increased SOC flow of 0.369 MGD to check against the 67(b) criteria.. The Level-B modeling analysis predicted that the requested flow and limits (0.369 MGD with 50 mg/1 BOD5, 11.13 mg/1 NH3-N, and 5 mg/1 DO) will meet the EMC 67(b) criteria for allowable degradation during an SOC. Specifically, the DO sag drops to 7.08 mg/l, a decrease of 0.17 mg/l. The model predictions may be overly optimistic compared to actual stream conditions. Instream data for January and February indicate DO levels above and below the discharge site less than 5 mg/l which is not a normal condition for winter months (and trout waters) . Unfortunately, there is not enough instream data to determine actual stream conditions (DO was not collected as required before January 1990) . It is imperative that instream monitoring be continued during the SOC .period in order to calibrate future models. The region should verify that the collection methods conform to standard operating procedures (SOP) . In June, 1989, West Jefferson received new permit limits which included limits and monitoring for metals. Since then the plant has violated its cyanide limit on two occasions (September 1989 and February 1990) . In addition, the plant effluent levels of cadmium and lead have exceeded the allowable levels on 4 occasions each. A revised analysis of the headworks and effluent data indicates -3- that, the West Jefferson facility requires effluent limits for cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in addition to the limit for cyanide. The Pretreatment Unit reports that West Jefferson has one SIU which was out of compliance during the last semi-annual reporting period. As they are the likely source of the metals violations, pretreatment requirements should be added to the SOC (see attached pretreatment language) . Requirements should include, submission of an industrial waste survey, daily monitoring for metals on its SIU discharge, plant influent, and plant effluent for a one month period, and an updated POTW Headworks Analysis. A long-term, headworks monitoring program should be developed and implemented. The facility may be required to meet the following metals limits at the end of the Order or next permit renewal. The region should inform the facility of these allowable metals effluent concentrations. Cadmium 0.89 ug/l Chromium 111 ug/1 Nickel 196 ug/l Lead 56 ug/1 Cyanide 11 ug/l Effluent monitoring will continue to be required for Zinc and Copper. However, if action levels are upgraded to standards, the allowable limit for Zinc will be 111 ug/l; the limit for Copper will be 16 ug/l. -4- s TABLE 1. INSTREAM ASSESSMENT MODEL INPUT SUMMARY FOR THE TOWN OF WEST JEFFERSON. Wasteflow Assumptions Design Capacity 0.369 MGD Pre-SOC 0.290 MGD Additional SOC Flow Requested +0.079 MGD Maximum Allowable SOC Flow 0.369 MGD Model Input Summary Headwater Conditions: summer winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0.70 0.80 Qavg (cfs) 3.1 3.1 Design Temperature 20 12 (degrees Celsius) CBOD (mg/1) 2.0 2.0 NBOD (mg/1) 1.0 1.0 DO (mg/1) 8.18 9.7 Wastewater Inputs: Flows Pre-SOC Flow 0.29 MGD (facility is currently meeting) Post-SOC Flow 0.369 MGD (permitted flow) Maximum allowable flow 0.369 MGD CBOD (2.0 * 50 mg/1 BOD5) 100 mg/l NBOD (4.5 * 11.13 mg/l BOD5) 50 mg/l DO 5 mg/1 -5- TABLE 2. INSTREAM ASSESSMENT MODEL OUTPUT SUMMARY FOR THE TOWN OF WEST JEFFERSON. Summer Model Results Limits: Pre-SOC SOC Wasteflow = 0.29 MGD Wasteflow = 0.369 MGD BOD5 = 50 mg/l = 50 mg/1 NH3-N = 11.13 mg/1 = 11.13 mg/1 DO = 5 mg/l = 5 mg/l limit DO Net Min. Change (mg/1) (mg/1) -------- ------- -------- ------- Pre-SOC 7.25 na Post-SOC 7.08 0.17 Winter Model Results Limits: Pre-SOC SOC Wasteflow = 0.29 MGD Wasteflow = 0.369 MGD BOD5 = 50 mg/l = 50 mg/1 NH3-N = 11.13 mg/l = 11.13 mg/1 DO = 5 mg/1 = 5 mg/1 DO Net Min. Change (mg/1) (mg/1) -------- ------- -------- ------- Pre-SOC 8.44 na Post-SOC 8.21 0.23 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT May 11 , 1990 MEMORANDUM To : Trevor Clements From: Doug Finan,6,i�,d- Subject: Pretreatment Language for the West Jefferson SOC As per your request, the pretreatment staff has reviewed the Town of West Jefferson's current status regarding their pretreatment program and below is the pretreatment language recommended for possible inclusion in West Jefferson's SOC : 1 . Conduct and submit industrial waste survey for the purpose of identifying the sources of toxic pollutants being discharged to the wastewater treatment facility. 2 . Submit a plan for a monitoring program to collect site specific data needed to complete a headworks analysis (HWA) . This program shall cover the data needed to immediately update the City's HWA as well as the long term monitoring needed for future HWA updates . 3 . Revise the monitoring program (based on DEM comments received within 45 days of monitoring program submission) . 4 . Implement the monitoring program as revised based on DEM comments . 5 . After implementation of the "Immediate Update" portion of the long term monitoring program, conduct and submit a Headworks analysis (HWA) for DEM approval . 6 . Review the results of the HWA and modify the City' s sewer use ordinance (SUO) limits and pretreatment permit limits as necessary. 7 . Develop and submit to DEM for approval an enforcement management strategy (EMS) . 8 . Revise the EMS (based on DEM comments received within 45 days of EMS submission) . 9 . Implement the EMS as revised based on DEM comments . 10 . Modify the City's SUO as necessary to allow for implementation of the EMS . If you have any questions on this matter or require any further information, please let me know.