NC0040045_Wasteload Allocation_19920507

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0040045
Bill's Truck Stop WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Staff Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
May 7, 1992
'Thies document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re‘rerete side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0040045
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Bill's Truck Stop
Bill's Truck Stop
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.006 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100* %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
Relocation of outfall 3100 feet downstream from last modification of
outfall.
* "showers, bathrooms, and the restaurant"
RECEIVING STREAM: South Potts Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-04
Reference USGS Quad: D17SE, Lexington W.
County: Davidson
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 8/31/93 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
C to High Rock Lake
Requested by: Randy Kepler Date: 3/9/92
Prepared by: Date: S/co192--
Reviewed by: Date: 5/71 �d1
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
SAtiJ
3`tootz.
(All
Drainage Area (mi2 ) (3. fJ Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 1 ?.�"
7Q10 (cfs) o, 7 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 2. 05 30Q2 (cfs) 2.
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream , _ Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
3o
30
NH3-N (mg/1)
MO i 3102
pito J 1_of -
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
2. oo
2 00
pH (SU)
io _ cl
( _q
TP
/E4.o, t-rcg
/vwftt 3 rez
Thf
"IND0t-rog
AioMIro/
Ott. ff Gc5.456 (mad)
A..-oN iro2
t toNt'reTL-
PLOUrFfl
Comments: Mori 5171.1lJ46Arr t.lnarr5 MMY 13g una-emEN'TVD tN
'W E Furua DuE ro 1rJE nu r orate oc Fi I4N flock L-R Ice- Mo170t-.

February,26 1992
Subj ec : Second Permit Modification
Dear Sir.
We request a second modification to our dischargz.
permit, NO0040045. Because in our construction to
get our new discharge line to South Potts Creek.
We ran into three major , telephone cables right in
the middle of our right 'of way and we cant reach
South Potts Creek by that route.
We need to move our discharge point 1300'
downstream at Interstate 85 to reach South Potts
Creek and to be clear of any utilities.
Bob Walser
operator Bills Truck Stop

.1
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
•
Bill's Truck Stop
NC0040045
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
South Potts Creek
030704
Davidson
WSRO
R. Kepler
3/9/92
D17SE
Request # 6811
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
1 YY C (%):
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNI
OR 2 2 1 t
Winston-Salem
Regional Offscs
%_D ;-,
HA9 Equaiipns
c: � == r•, t
%:, c�
L
▪ c—� - ci
▪ tr
Co J�
13.0
0.76
2.05
12.4
2.66
#.
,_
jWasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
L — Facility is discharging to a 7Q10=0.0 cfs stream. The facility had applied for a permit modification
to relocate to the mainstem of S. Potts Creek where secondary limits would be implemented. The
facility now wishes to relocate its outfall down I-85 to avoid utility lines found during relocation of
the outfall (down SR 1147).
South Potts Creek is a tributary to High Rock Lake. The new Level B model at I-85 indicates that
the facility should receive secondary limits. Also, the dilution ratio is high, so no ammonia/tox
choice will be given.
The facility should be warned that more stringent limits may be implemented in the future due to
the outcome of the High Rock Lake model. Nutrient limits may also be required in the future.
cSp_ecial S%iedule Requirements ands additional comments from Reviewers:
�.co...n.\\e�N �C � �[�� ��w ♦Tced�Sc uc:��1 0- C� �'. �
QsAi�Q,�`y, -\\\e. ALA ��►� \\:&\ t'04\52 F\c %; \5M. SiOn 4:„Rt. �caA
C�Q•
mQ sc,-tNoa•-•K\ . �R�R �A� u� S�vwn
4A-3o`ga-
QQQ 4A of n
Recommended by: �i�o�-,� 0.
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
Date: 4-1419
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date: y / l t
Date:
Date: f
—3o-5' 2—
MAY 15 1992

• '_
2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
existing Limits: At UT S. Potts Crk After relocation
Monthly Average Monthly Average
Summer Winter Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10 30 30
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4 monitor monitor
DO (mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200 200 200
pH (SU):6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1): 30 30 60 Daily 30 30
max
TP (mg/1)
TN (mg/1):
Recomme%ded Limits:
rYUora-fo
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.006 0.006
BOD5 (mg/1): 30 30 WQ
NH3N (nig/1): monitor monitor
DO (mg/1);
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col;, (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): ;', 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1): 30 30 60 Daily
max
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Limits Changes Due To:
Change inl'7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
yvtkitA`T✓
Parameter(s) Affected
No change from previous
outfall location
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New faciliy information
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 l `r 'tations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
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 V No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes
No 1/
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
-7`ne_,
`arc * r
Special Instructions or Conditions
SU,t�s��e 5a_X\tzx c..e N. \\ Q.
ckvtN. \A\--Nzl
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) _N (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? _N (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

t/C0
1_1..
030701
,
5L44.114. g cP6-c.ca_67/ V AtoP6-1- ee, Az4 P=.51-60
0,-7700 977 Si 7/47
630 - 62.0 g Fel
11.-DAyaz,7__
AZO -0,76 0 , 02 4,b/mi frriom ,oafrosep Piscv. Pr. 7g Raj
3
i3-
0.16 0/.54ii:
. 13 - Z, o
r- 0. 06 dsA:
(Tier 9 k reeve,5 A rei2
--A4tr:-/./VatelD 60
7p,r% = a. 0
LE,,,AE,L j
i
, /_,_,
F
.
Ify4 4
___,9, oz.
0
2piowleo
0 O
-bi
611(,0,46-61,L)
- 6514
6(4.4)
- ?
7 7
3,5- it g
--7--,)
0 /v14-1v/riv_ 0 API
:Will
I

Qgrf
Paolou5Kopp 56D
t.�
t:_16__...570e._
te:Qm g 41c4
//V/.:-%�
D l5MARQ iPG_
paaposeD 7)-41 rE-Potltr
DA
POTr-s
3o7o1
`Th EXI sTt tJ 4
-- 40007)-(t:/W—'RA1 tWv41
I// 5.ft 2,z1,.. Li JLt
IN Lf f2 _op-- C Z DN 5i e ) /iezi4c.v/AL X/S
a
._Q' 4 : " O, 7:6- • / 3 = /Z .
7 �o = 9LEq% ((3,) 53 . b•7G.
Q s
7Q(0 O,Z7 (1 2, oS
3QQ 2 = 0,3 i6 0,3) "5
e +•
EST/M k7GS )
<Ql os - a•
.; 7.9 (O0v = Z.0
3'O 2- - Z.77

96icr 0,00b "„(qi)
au-
yt, ellamp.,aeot>
_ /Aii,sw y_ 1 s OthPs
150-01-P-_c0_ S Ag6-T_o _arq Ff . goo_ _tA --(r)fi! aid 15 LwtP//l?c=D)
5 Amy IUoT & i Li Tv cer SecoIU Jig 2-1
..4/fi
_.__ ______------- --eoz._. --/fit(, _%U1_c c,KEy _60). ' ),-____e_ Lc.-_S __ 1 u,_ Scot __-A� 9.py_--.Fm.) _---__---__-_____ -----
- ------ -- 4 r.o c _in pip__ powN Sg 1_(_ gur. }N rnl . _tay kill thvc: S .
W,i ro PiP6 P9w Al (J---. as; S 1Nc6 , /r_/.5 vol-5 Ai-QY
ii
5r' (vj Scconi./_ y.. k1 i I T_5 . � R-s 19t1 ,Dy /N 1f1 . PigocEs9 °f
A6-teic117-of - CAANN'T 41 ✓Ll6 . &i ilia . sr iAT 'E►l i 4M 'Ts Now,
VJr � c. Po") � �. f em -TP /f (Tf,ey AAA), . g Er /k o11�sTalmcGAIT (-(,_1_tS.__ _
f N 7f-16 Fit —142e MD . onl d kf Rom- MIce ilitc c._ ,

SUMMER
QEFF=0.006 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : BILL'S TRUCK STOP
Receiving Stream : SOUTH POTTS CREEK
The End D.O. is 7.21 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 2.01 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.44 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.20 1.04 1
Reach 1 45.00 90.00 0.00 0.00600
45 1t$l
Laws -TA 41

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
. Discharger : BILL'S TRUCK STOP Subbasin : 030704
Receiving Stream : SOUTH POTTS CREEK Stream Class: C
Summer 7Q10 : 0.76 Winter 7Q10 : 2.05
Design Temperature: 25.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I
I mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft 'design' @20' 'design' @201/2 Idesignl
1 1 1 1 I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1.301 5.901 0.100 10.72 10.28 10.22 11.18 I 1.061 0.44 I
Reach 1 I I I I I I I I I I
1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O. 1
I cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I 0.009 145.000 1 90.000 1 0.000
Headwaters) 0.760 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.440
* Runoff I 0.020 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
QEFF=0.006 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
I Seg # I Reach
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I Seg # I Reach
I Seg Mi
0.00
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.52
0.65
0.78
0.91
1.04
1.17
1.30
Seg Mi I
I
I
D.O. I
7.35
7.31
7.28
7.25
7.23
7.22
7.21
7.20
7.20
7.20
7.21
D.O.
I
CBOD I
2.52
2.46
2.41
2.35
2.30
2.25
2.20
2.15
2.10
2.05
2.01
CBOD I
NBOD 1 Flow I
2.08 0.77
2.00 0.77
1.93 0.77
1.86 0.78
1.79 0.78
1.73 0.78
1.67 0.78
1.61 0.79
1.55 0.79
1.49 0.79
1.44 0.80
NBOD I Flow I