NC0037834_Wasteload Allocation_19860116

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNINC COVER :SLEET
NC0037834
Archie Elledge WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 16, 1986
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the resrerse side

s4 AL KArc Op-fl- kN i4. aPTF.R ft
LJ-S .
PLEAK
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name: CO OF d /NS' 1/- S►4/,Ei'1 - E a 41,N6 u 4) nO
Existing Q'
Proposed O Permit No.:
Piceo 3710y
thgineer t e tte .
7z�8 �a4-981
7 4 v/k^3_
Pipe No.: tro / County: Poresv,7f
See I s i O
Design Capacity (MGD): 3(,_0 Industrial (% of Flow): 7/DX. Domestic (% of Flow): 15
Receiving Stream:
SAL44,1 C
Class:
Reference USGS Quad: G /7 5 (Please attach) Requestor:
C,J-s &Zsr
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Sub -Basin:
0 3 -d7-ay
.2(P Overra,4
Regional Office 661(49
Design 'Amp.: 2.' D e
7Q10 (cfs)
cx7
Drainage Area (mil) : 4 6-
Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 19 e--
L cation of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall):
Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day):
Avg_ Streamflow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs)
79 4s
Slope (fpm)
K2 (base e. per day):
Effluent
CharacteristicsAverage
Nbnthly
AJ�....1-0.l,:
1WD.5.- •
19
1
30
,! 1
Nita- til
3+
11
. 9
An/ i
Do
s
r1
s
Win 11
1-SS
30
vv5i 1
30
"th
Fecc( Cot a -0 evn
1000
loon.)
loco
/roc IN(
p4A
6--1
Su _
b--Qj
SU
O
A.LtreA
Comments:
Effluent -
Characteristics
:.!onthly
lverage
cbmments
0tnroMtu
4,7_ q I
t&LoVN: i
t _ 11/ CP.�
4.
4 Z tvtc_
Re i' t
`
(.,oval-`f-�-ru" ���
i/V►ov,65%.- (^
Reviewed By:
Date:
il
/ JR,

' Request No. : 2498
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Aequestor
Date of Request
Quad
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FOAM
�
� WINSTON-SALEM AACHIE-ELLEDCE WWTP
\
� EXISITINC
� SALEM CREEK
�C
� 03O7O4
� FOPSYTH
� WIHSTON-SALEM
� DALE OVEACASH
�
�
� C17SE
Wasteflow (mgd)
5-Day BOD (mg/l)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
TSS (mg/l)
Fecal Coliform (0/100ml):
Drainage Area (sq mi)
7Q1O (cfs)
Winter 7W10 (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs)
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
SUMMER
30.0
19
3
5
30
1000
pH (SU) : 6-9
CHA UM � 62 62
..... .......... ............ ................ /0 ... ....... .... .... .... ... .... ........ ........
---��
WINTER
30.0
@0
9
5
30
1000
6-9
: 79
RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. NRCD
JAN Er 186
Dkvisionof
Environmental Management
Winston-Salem Reg. Office
............ .................... .... .... .... ................ .... .............. ... ....... ............ ........ .... ................ - COMMENTS ------------------------------
AE[%8iMEND MONITORING FOR COPPER AND ZINC. AQUATIC BIOASSAYS HAVE NOT
INDICATED ACUTE TOXICITY, SO NO ACTIONS LIMITS WILL BE ESTABLISHED AT THIS
TIME. A AEOPENEP CLAUSE SHOULD BE ADDED TO ALLOW FOR CHANGES BASED UPON
WATER QUALITY STUDIES. DISCHARGER SHOULD PROVIDE LONG-TERM BOD DATA.
��
/ ��' ��o]
. _ ��-- - --_LEVEL_ ~~ '') ^^--.- . ' . . '-,' '-_ .
Recommended by
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor
Regional Supervild,
Permits & Engineering_
Date_ __
Date _
D ate_I

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 31, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: J. Trevor Clements
SUBJECT: Winston Salem Archie-Elledge WLA
I do not have enough confidence in the current Level C model
for Salem Creek to use it for developing a wasteload allocation
for the Archie-Elledge WWTP. The level C model was developed in
1980 by Technical Services with data that was collected in 1976.
The treatment facility has been upgraded since 1976 and, therefore,
the study does not represent current conditions. In addition, a
thorough review of the level C model-- and the study that it was
based upon-- revealed several inconsistencies:
1. CBOD concentrations measured below the discharge increased
substantially at the first two stations instead of decreasing. The
reason for this was not documented. My speculation is that this
might have been due to either sampling error, contributions of CBOD
from the sludge at downstream stations, or something in the waste
inhibiting degradation. In any event, model calibration was
influenced by this strange relationship.
2. The raw data also indicates a substantial increase in suspended
solids at station 5 (two stations below the discharge). This increase
is hard to account for, since no major tributaries or other dischargers
are located in the area. Was the stream bottom being scoured or
disturbed?
3. The level C model behaves poorly relative to theory. The model
is extremely insensitive to NH3N changes allowing for an allocation
of up to 120 mg/1. This is absurd.

File
December 31, 1985
- page two -
I recommend that a water quality intensive study be performed
in order to recalibrate the model. Particular attention should be
given to CBOD concentrations and SOD. In the interim, a modified
level B model will be applied to determine permit limits. Physical
measurements from the original intensive survey (e.g. channel depth,
velocity, and reaeration) will be implemented in the model to provide
better representation of the system than would occur using the typical
empirical equations. A reopener clause should be added to the permit
to allow for changes in the WLA based upon knowledge gained during
the intensive survey. Also, a long-term BOD should be run on the
effluent.
JTC:mlt

*** MOD1::.L. SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger WINSTON-SALEM ARCFII:E-ELLEDGE WWTP
Subbaairi 030704
Receiving Stream SA1...EM CREEK Stream Class: C
1t 10 15 Winter 7tip10 : 18
Design Temperature 24 °C 30t12
1LENGTHISLOPE 1 VELOCITY :DEPTH 1 K1 1 KI 1 K2 I K2 : KN 1 KN 1 KNR I KNR
1 mile Iftlmi : fps I ft : /day : e20° I !day 1 e20° I /day I P20° I /day I P20° I
Segment 1 I 2.40: 4.501 0.850 : 2.44 : 0.48 : 0.40 14.77 I 4.37: 0.00 : 0.00 10.00 I
Reach 1 1
Segment 1 : 1.20: 5.501 1.030 12.33 1 0.51 1 0.42 : 3.61 I 3.311 0.00 : 0.00 10.00 1 0.00 I
Reach 2
Segment 1 : 4.90: 3.501 0.650 1 3.18 10.45 1 0.37 12.89 I 2.65: 0.00 : 0.00 1 0.00 10.00 :
Reach 3 1
*** INPUT DATA SUMMARY ***
1 Flow 1 C80D 1 NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs I mg/1 1 agli I agll I
Segment 1 Reach 1 I
Waste 1 46.500 151.000 1 0.000 1 5.000 1
Headwaters: 15.000 1 2.600 I 0.000 I 7.650 :
Tributary I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000 1
* Runoff I 0.230 I 2.000 I 0.000 I 7.650 :
Segment 1 Reach 2 1
Waste I 0.000 : 0.000 1 0.000 : 0.000 :
Tributary 1 12.000 I 2.000 I 0.000 : 7.650 I
* Runoff I 0.160 1 2.000 I 0.000 I 7.650 I
Segment 1 Reach 3 I
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 : 0.000 1 0.000 1
Tributary I 7.400 1 2.000 I 0.000 I 7.650 I
t Runoff I 0.160 I 2.000 1 0.000 1 7.650 I
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

of w.sr9i
*** M(:)I:w:i.. SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger W:I:NS rC)N..-SAL..E M AIC FI:CE:••••I:i:L..L..I :DGI::: WWTP 0'�0 r0 1
Subbasifl '4
Receiving Stream SAI...EM CREEK Stream Class: C
71;1 1. 0 15 Winter r (4 i. () : 18
Design Temperature :I.5 °C 30(42
:LENGTHISLOPE 1 VELOCITY :DEPTH 1 K1 1 K1 I K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR KNR 1
1 mile :Mai 1--- fps 1 ft 1 Iday 1 820° 1 Iday 1 820° 1 Iday 1 820° 1 Iday 1 820° 1
Segment 1 1 2.401 4.501 0.850 1 2.44 1 0.32 : 0.40 1 3.92 1 4.371 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1
Segment 1 I 1.20: 5.501 1.030 12.33 1 0.33 1 0.42 1 2.97 1 3.311 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1
Segment 1 1 4.901 3.50: 0.650 : 3.18 : 0.30 : 0.37 1 2.38 1 2.65: 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 :
Reach 3 1
*** INPUT DATA SUMMARY ***
1 Flow 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 D.O. 1
1 cfs 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1
Segment 1 Reach 1 1
Waste 1 46.500 1102.000 1 0.000 1 5.000 1
Headwaters) 18.000 1 2.600 1 0.000 1 9.200 1
Tributary 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1
t Runoff 1 0.270 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200 1
Segment 1 Reach 2 1
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1
Tributary 1 23.000 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200 1
* Runoff 1 0.240 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200 1
Segment 1 Reach 3 1 1
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1
Tributary 1 9.700 I 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200 1
* Runoff 1 0.240 1 2.000 1 0.000 1 9.200 1

PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
Cityof' Winton -Salem
May 28, 1985
Mr. Paul Wilms, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: NPDES Permit No. NC0037834
Dear Mr. Wilms:
RECEIVF'D
MAY 31 1985
E.r3:ra ur.%. *ur esl
Nse
RECEIVE[
AA, •S
vrE?� SECf lO�:
; UNS 8h ANC
Per Division of Environmental Management regulations, the City, by this letter,
is requesting renewal of the subject permit. The existing permit expires
December 31, 1985.
With this letter the City is also requesting that new limits be given this
permit that would allow a higher BOD5 discharge and a lower NH3-N discharge
for both sunnier and winter limits.
The present limits are as follows:
Summer
16 mg/1
30 mg/1
4 mg/1
BOD
SS
NH3-N
Winter
20 .mg/1
30 mg/1
12 mg/1
Based on the stream quality standards, Winston-Salem requests the following
limits be written into the new permit:
BOD
SS
NH3-N
Summer
19 mg/1
30 mg/1
.3mg/1
Winter
29 mg/1
30 mg/1
9 mg/1
As can be seen from the prior discharge. data, the NH3 N discharge Is consistently
very low (less than 1.0 mg/1), therefore, by lowering the NH2-4 limit and
increasing the BOD limit this will provide more flexibility for plant
operations while still 'maintaining the effluent discharge within the permitted
limits. This will be especially critical to the Elledge Plant operations when
Box 2511, Winston-Salem. North Carolina 27102

Mr. Paul Wilms
Page 2
May 28, 1985
the new Muddy Creek Plant is placed in operation in. January of 1986 as
approximately 40Z of the existing flow to Elledge will be diverted to the
Muddy Creek Plant.
If you have anyquestions, please advise.
Sincerely,
P. W. Swann
Assistant City Manager/Public Works
cc: Tom Griffin
%e Byer.ly
Winston-§alem Regional Office, DEM

Describe sludge handling and disposal scheme; Sludge is treated by anaerobic
digestion followed by digested sludge lagoons. Final sludge disposal
is land application onto permitted farmland. Drying beds available
but used spar ng y.
. Population/Processes Served (For industry, indicate production schedule;
continuous, 5 day-16 hr., etc.):
The flow is 50% Industry, 50% Domestic. Industry contributes
approximately 85% of the BOD (lbs.). Industrial flow is negligible
on weekends.
3. Influent & Effluent Characterization and Operating Condition (See Attached
Data Summary):
Influent (average annual value) BOD 422 mg/1, COD 868 mg/1, TSS
426 mg/1, and NHq-N 13.8 mg/1. Effluent (average annual value)
Flow 23.7 mgd, BOD 10 mg/1, COD 127 mg/1, TSS 17 mg/1 and NH3-N 1.3 mg/1.
4. WWTP Operator in Responsible Charge:
Name Mr. Lee Byerly, Plant Superintertator Certificate IV
PART IIY Ortir,R PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Monitoring Changes: It is requested that the new permit be issued for
carbonaceous BOD instead of BOD5. Oil and grease should be changed
from composite to grab.
2. Source of Water Supply: City Water
3. Other: N/A