NC0038997_Wasteload Allocation_19930325

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO038997
PERMITTEE NAME: Roaring Gap Club, Inc.
FACILITY NAME: Roaring Gap Club Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Minor _q
Design Capacity: 0.013 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
on application states that discharge never reaches Mitchell River,
approx. one mile to river
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Mitchell River
Class: B-Trout ORW
Sub -Basin: 03-07-02
Reference USGS Quad: B 15NW (please attach)
County: Alleghany
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 6/30/93 Treatment Plant Class: I
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
EE
Nam%bw-1rp_D i MAR.eu A 3/�*193 . P9
Requested by: Randy Kepler Date: 12/9/92
Prepared by: Date: 2- tt `°t
Reviewed by: U - Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
7 z-1-z
Drainage Area (mi ) L o • Avg. Streamflow (cfs): - b . 1
7Q10 (cfs) 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) C 30Q2 (cfs) 0
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream
Downstream
Location
Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
p
F. Col. (/100 ml)
Z©0
ZDa
pH (SU)
_
�9
L,a,X
0
l
The facility discharges into a stream with 7Q10/30Q2=0 cfs. Removal of the
discharge will be required if a more environmentally sound alternative is
available. An engineering report evaluating alternatives to discharge is due
180 days prior to permit expiration along with the permit renewal
application. As part of the report, the cost of constructing a treatment facility
to meet limits of 5 mg/1 BOD5, 2 mg/1 NH3, 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen, and
17 ug/1 chlorine must also be included if there are no alternatives to a surface
discharge. Upon review of the results of the engineering report, the Division
may reopen and modify this NPDES permit to require removal of the
discharge, modified treatment designs, and/or revised effluent limitations
within a specified time schedule.

/�COD�f��97
} p
_ 6kl
� �q
f R�riU/�1� �Af' CLUB
ter. o, 4-
3'�o7oZ '
or
-
�c�SS
f� z
a

ti 3
-RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNP
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:
Roaring Gap Club
NPDES No.:
NC0038997
Type of Waste:
Domestic - 100oIo
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
UT Mitchell River
Stream Classification:
B-Tr ORW
Subbasin:
030702
County:
Alleghany
Regional Office:
WSRO
Requestor:
R. Kepler
Date of Request:
12/9/92
Topo Quad:
B 15NW
Request #
7272 Winston-Salem
Regional Office
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
<0.1
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Average Flow (cfs):
<0.1
30Q2 (cfs):
0.0
IWC M:
100.0
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
The facility discharges into a stream with 7Q10/30Q2=0 cfs. Removal of the discharge will be
required if a more environmentally sound alternative is available. An engineering report evaluating
alternatives to discharge is due 180 days prior to permit expiration along with the permit renewal
application. As part of the report, the cost of constructing a treatment facility to meet limits of 5
mg/1 BODS, 2 mg/l NH3-N, 6 mg/1 DO, and 17 µg/1 chlorine must also be included if there are no
alternatives to a surface discharge. Upon review of the results of the engineering report, the
Division may reopen and modify this NPDES permit to require removal of the discharge, modified
treatment designs, and/or revised effluent limitations within a specified time specified time
schedule. (The previous WLA indicated positive flow -but the discharge was thought to be directly
to the UT Mitchell River). The analysis of alternatives is highly recommended due to the ORW
classification of Mitchell River.
The Roaring Gap discharge is seas t. The facility has had 4 BODS, and 2 TSS violations. The
1/20/88 memo to Trevor Clements indicates that the discharge flows 2000 ft before it reaches the
UT (if it ever reaches the UT). Instream monitoring is not practical due to inaccessibility.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: �,F�lt4a � "Z3== Date: 13
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: Date: 1 1 153
Regional Supervisor: -� — Date: > -S` - ,�_3
Permits & Engineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: FEB 1 7 1993

2
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):
Toxicity testing:
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended 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):
Toxicity testing:
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.013 0.013
30 30
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
10
10
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.013 0.013
30 30
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
10
10
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
WQ or EL
Parameter(s) Affected
new zero flow policy
_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.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Ad�uacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demoated 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?
Special Instructions or Conditions
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.