HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0020940_Wasteload Allocation_19830815NPDES DOCUHENT !;CANNING COVER MEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0020940
Murphy WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
asteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
August 15, 1983
This document is printed on reuse paper - igrnore any
content on the rezrerse side
Facility Name.
Existing
Proposed
tt
(/ .
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
f
tAAJTP
Engineer
Date Rec.
#
Date.
Permit No. •)1C 0O 6014'4 Pipe No.: aJ I County • eh: «
c� lDesign Capacity (MGD) : �- � Industrial (% of Flow) : Domestic (% of Flow) : /06 `�+
t
Receiving Stream: lT /,c✓4S.ree ,€stJ7 . Class: `- Sub -Basin: C Sf — D i " O Z.
cn
Reference USGS Quad • (Please attach) Requestor : _.. Lt�1ve" i 17%� /%- Reivigenttl Office
-- (Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design Temp • 2/9 'cl, Drainage Area• Avg. Streamflow:
7Q10: 1tR7 ck s Winter 7Q10: 30Q2•
aa,
Location of D.O.minimum (miles below outfall): Slope:..
E Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day, 20°C): K2 (base e, per day, 20°C)•
0
c..
0
01
L
4?�
V)
ea
03.1
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
r
Comments
�S S
P kI
3c) MC/i
as() r"Slf
G —9 S.
O.
Original Allocation
Revised Allocation
Confirmation
Prepared By:
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
Date(s) of Revision(s)
(Please attach previous allocation)
r Reviewed By:
Date:
REQUEST NO. 646
****?K**************** WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM *******************
FACILITY NAME
TYPE OF WASTE
COUNTY
REGIONAL OFFICE
RECEIVING STREAM
7010 : 187 CFS
DRAINAGE AREA
MURPHY WWTF'
DOMESTIC
CHEROKEE
ASHEVILLE
HIWASSEE RIVER
W7010 :
SQ.MI.
CFS
REOUESTOR : LAVE ADKINS
SUBDASIN : 04-05-02
3002 :
STREAM CLASS IC
CFS
************************ RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS **********************:K
WASTEFLOW(S)
DOD-5
NH3-N
D.O.
PH
FECAL COLIFORM
TSS
(MGD) : 0.5
(MG/L) : 30
(MG/L) :
(MG/L) :
(SU) 6-9
(/100ML):
(MG/L) : 30
FECAL COLIFORM LIMITS DELETEL'
DILUTION RATIO GREAT ENOUGH.
04( (//64
*******************************************************:*:********************
FACILITY IS : PROPOSED ( ) EXISTING (/) NEW ( )
L]:MITS ARE : REVISION (�) CONFIRMATION ( ) OF THOSE PREVIOUSLY ISSUER
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED BY:
MODELER
SUPERVISORpMODELING GROUP
REGIONAL. SUPERVISOR
PERMITS MANAGER
---DATE «�� _�3•--
DATE :F3__.
DATE
_.____._DATE :B�L���-__.
isbfat
r 4-- tI 4-1% t sr2 0 i.E._�-�.
Cyr
•
DISCHARGER
RECEIVING STREAM
71110
DESIGN TEMPERATURE
SEGMENT 1
LEACH 1
* * MODEL SUMMARY DATA #*
MURPHY
HIWASSEE
:1.87 CFS
23 DEGREES C.
SUBBASIN
STREAM CLASS:
WINTER 7R10 .
WASTEFLOW .
!LENGTH 1 SLOPE 1 VELOCITY !DEPTH ! Ki
1MILES 1FT/MI 1 FPS 1 FT 1 /DAY
1 1 1
1 1.001 5+001 1.005
1 1 1
040502
r
CFS
.49 MGL!
Kri l SOB 1 K2 1 NetPS1
/D Y 1 MG/M2L! 1 /UAY 1 MG/L/D 1
! 1 1 1
1 5.00 1 0+44 1 0.00 1
! ! ! 1
0.01
1
1
4+721 0.001
1
ALL RATES ARE AT 23 DEGREES C.
*** INPUT DATA SUMMARY ***
SEGMENT
FLOW 1 CBOL! 1 NBOL! 1 D.O. 1
CFS 1 MG/L 1 MG/L 1 MG/L 1
1 REACH 1 1
WASTE 0.759
HEALiWATERS 1 187.000
TRIBUTARY 1 0.000
RUNOFF * 1 1.000
58.000
2.000
0.000
JJ
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
t RUNOFF FLOW IS IN CFS/MILE
5.000
7.800
0.000
7.800
********** MODEL RESULTS **********
DISCHARGER . MURPHY
RECEIVING STREAM :HIWASSEE RIVER
>X****************************************************** ************** *
THE END D.O. IS 7.97 MG/L
********************************* #******************: ****************
THE END CBOD IS 2.17 MG/L
**********:***************************** **:******** #*******l******* ***
THE END NBOD IS 0.00 MG/L
**********:.*************** c* €********** **** **********?Et ***************
THE D.O. MIN. OF SEGMENT 1 IS 7.79 MG/L
THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 0
WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 58 MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 0 MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D.O. 1S 5 MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING SEG 1 REACH
1 �ISy 0.49,y MCI) y�y �y yy y dry j��+ ,y y�e�
***,*r*i********a***************************** *********? �C ** *4:** * *********il
`^
/
DISCHARGER + MURPHY
RECEIVING STREAM + HIWA88EE RIVER
WASTEFLOW � ,49
SEG NO | REACH i SEG MI | DO | CBOD | NBOD { FLOW |
1 | 1 | 0^001 7,791 2.231 01001 187.761
1 \ 1 \ 0^101 7.811 2^221 0^001 187^861
1 | 1 | 0^201 7^831 2,211 0.001 187,961
1 \ 1 | 0.301 7^851 2.21| 0.001 188,061
1 | 1 | 0^401 17^871 2.20| O.00| 188^16|
1 | 1 | 0,501 7.881 2^201 0^001 188,261
1 | 1 | 0,601 7^901 2^191 O^OO\ 188^361
1 | 1 | 0^701 7.921 2,181 0.001 188^461
1 | 1 \ 0.801 7^931 2,181 0^001 188^561
1 | 1 | 04901 7,951 2,171 O.00| 188.661
1 ! 1 | 1.001 7,971 2.171 0,001 188^761
/
/
Page 1 Of 4
SEWAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Impact Statement
in Compliance with Provisions of the
North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1971
I. Applicant
The Town of Murphy, North Carolina which includes the Mayor
and Board of Commissioneers, Post Office Box 130, Murphy, North
Carolina 28906, Telephone No. 704-837-2510. This statement is
prepared by Ralph D. Johnson, Jr., P. E., W. R. Dickson & Company,.
Inc., 347 North Caswell Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204,
Telephone No. 704-334-5348.
II. Description of Proposed Project
TITLE 1977 Proposed Sewer Improvements - Town of Murphy,
North Carolina.
The proposed project contains three parts'- (1) the 12"
ductile line to the Main Pump Station, (2) an interceptor to an
existing line that discharges to a branch (3) a pump station and
an interceptor for some waste systems that have failed. The
proposed system will discharge this waste to the Murphy System.
The latter two systems will permit existing establishments from
closing from the lack of adequate waste. treatment.
III. Public Necessity for Proposed Project
A. The proposed project is designed to provide adequate
waste treatment for an area of Cherokee County and the Town of
Murphy that are presently having extreme difficulty keeping their
waste treatment systems operative. As a matter of fact some
systems are collecting their waste and haul it by truck to the
waste treatment plant. The septic tank systems do not operate
because the ground does not perculate due to an under layment
of hard rock below the top soil. It is very much 'to the public
interest and necessity that these problems are adequately solved.
It is estimated that approximately 3,000 persons will
receive benefit from this project. Many of these, however will
not receive benefit until the 12" line (the 1st part of this
project) is extended up Valley River to eliminate the McCelland
Street Pump Station. The waste from this station overflows and
does not reach the waste treatment plant.
B. Public Health Need
The service area for most of this proposed project is
now being served by private waste treatment systems that are not
functioning. The area is well developed and overflows from their
systems can contaminate the environment and create a serious health
hazard. The proposed system would transport the waste to a treatment
plant that will minimize the danger of pollution.
• Page 2 of 4
C. Compatibility with Local and Regional Planning
The proposed system is compatible with the 201 Facilities
plan that is being prepared by W. K. Dickson & Company.
IV. Probable Impact of Proposed Project on the Environment
This project will be beneficial to the environment. Adverse
effects, if any, would be of a temporary nature and occur during
the construction phase of the project. These effects would occur
mostly where lines are constructed near major traffic thoroughfares.
In these cases the effects cannot be avoided.
A. Water Resource Impacts
The proposed project will collect and transport waste to
an existing waste treatment plant. The water quality of the Valley
River and Hiawassee Lake will be enhanced by the collection and
treatment of waste that is now likely to be discharged to the
stream without treatment.
The seven day ten year low flow at the Murphy treatment
plant is estimated to be about 200 cfs. This estimate is based on
the sum of the 7/10 low flows on stream gages above Murphy on the
Valley and Hiawassee Rivers for. which records are availalbe. There
are no known users of the Hiawassee River (below Murphy) for a
source of drinking water. The 1st user is expected to be in
Tennessee.
B. Land Use Impacts
For the most part the project is to be constructed in
roads and stream bottoms that are not suitable for development.
By being constructed near public byways failures in the system
will be readily detected and correction can be made expeditiously.
C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Impacts
The project will enhance wildlife and marine resources
by the removal of waste would eventually get to the stream and be
harmful to the streams aquatic life as well as the wildlife that
drink or come into contact with the streams water. The proposed
project will improve the quality of the water quality of the
Valley River.
D. Solid Waste and Sludge Disposal Impacts
Spoil and other solid waste resulting from the
construction of this project will be buried along the sewer line
right of way or be hauled to the County dump where it will be
buried.
E. Air Pollution and Noise Impacts
•
The construction project will not increase air pollution
in the area. The noise of construction are anticipated to be
minimal and short termed.
Page 3 of 4
F. Socio-economic Impacts
The acquisition of rights of way andreal property
required for the construction of the project will not result in
the displacement of families or disruption of business, institutions,
recreational areas and other public utilities. The project should
enhance living conditions for economically deprived by making it
possible for more industry to locate in the area and thereby
expanding job opportunity.
V. Significant Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be
Reasonably Avoided Should the Project be Implemented
The project contains no known significant adverse
environmental effects.
VI. Measures Proposed to Minimize Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
to the Environment
The only known adverse impacts in this project are the
insignificant unavoidable ones that occur in the construction
process. The siltation and erosion of construction may or may
not occur since this is dependent upon wet weather during or
immediately after construction. Should wet weather occur after
construction the restoration procedures should keep erosion and
siltation to a minimum.
VII. Feasible Alternatives to the Proposed Project
- There are no known feasible alternatives.
VIII. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's
Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term
Productivity
The purpose of this project is to provide an adequate
sewerage system to a community that is in some areas densily
populated. Without this system the community would be deprived
of achieving health standards that are adequate for normal life.
The short-term inconveniences and overall adverse effects are
insignificant compared to the maintenance and enhancement to the
long-term productivity of the area.
IX. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes
Which would he Involved if the Proposed Project Should be
Constructed
The only known irreversible and irretrievable environmental
changes would be the construction materials used in the project.
Although these materials are salvageable,.additional damage
would be done to the environment to retrieve them.
Page 4 of 4
•
X. Known Objections to the Project Relating to Adverse
Environmental Effects
There are none.
XI. Other Pertinent Information
There is none.