NC0021229_INSTREAM ASSESSMENT_19960102

NPDES DOCUWENT SCANNiNC COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NCO021229
Old Fort WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
201 Facilities Plan
4- Instream Assessment (67B)
Speculative Limits
Permit
History
Document Date: January 2, 1996
WIXIM document is printed on reuse paper-ignore any
content on tine reverse side

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Jackie Nowell
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 1996 12:04 PM
Subject: OLD FORT SOC
To: Carla Sanderson
Per your question about the requested BOD5 limit of 50 mg/l for the SOC. I talked with Jeff
Bouchelle about these limits and he had a memo from Mike Parker of ARO who indicated
that Old Fort and the Region had already discussed this point back and forth. Old Fort's
engineers had previously wanted BOD5 limits of 75 mg/1 monthly avg. and 100 mg/1 weekly
avg. ARO had a difficulty talking them down to the 50 mg/l. Evidently the Town has said
they would not enter into an order if there were numbers that they could possibly violate
during the life of the SOC. The limits requested were based on some historical high values
that the Old Fort facility had experienced. (i.e. TSS mo. avg. of 202 mg/1 in 4/92, 290 mg/1
in 3/92). He didn't provide the historical BOD5 data for the 50 mg/1 request. Old Fort
basically wants a buffer so that they won't violate.
Previously, had an SOC request inhouse and it was denied by the ARO because of the limits
that the Town had requested. Jeff understands IAU concerns about the high limits, but he
seemed to think that ARO had already fought this battle with Old Fort and that this was the
best that could be done. I also asked about whether BOD and TSS would definitely go as
high as the limits requested and he said that they would not necessarily have to be that high
during construction. He also said that the order would be about two years in length, from
March 1996 to Jan. 1998 with construction of a sludge facility, sludge press, clarifier and
aeration basin. Also funding in excess of $2 million had already been approved from
various agencies for the facility improvements.
Since our model results indicate that even with a Qw as high as 1.2 MGD and the BOD5 limit
of 50 mg/1, the DO'standard is still protected @ 5.3 mg/l, I recommend we submit our
assessment with the requested limits. Let's talk if any more questions.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 2, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roy Davis
FROM: Jacquelyn-M--Nowell
THRU: Donald L. Safr Cam'
Ruth Swanek rc>
Carla Sanderson :
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for SOC 67(b) Request
The Town of Old Fort WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0021229
McDowell County
Summary and Recommendation
The Instream Assessment Unit has reviewed the request for an instream assessment
for the Town of Old Fort WWTP. The Town is requesting a Special Order of Consent
(SOC) during construction for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The
existing design flow is 0.800 MGD and will be expanded to 1.2 MGD. The requested
SOC flow is 60,000 GPD, with a predicted constituency of 90% industrial wastewater
from a textile and 10% domestic wastewater. Requested SOC limits for BODS and TSS are
50 mg/l and 225 mg/l, respectively.
The results of the Level B model analysis indicated that according to the EMC 67
(b) criteria, the predicted dissolved oxygen concentration in Curtis Creek was not
significantly affected by the additional flow. The EMC 67 (b)criteria, which states that the
discharge will not increase the DO minimum by more than 0.5 mg/1 or will not extend the
stream length of the DO minimum by more than 0.5 miles, was not violated with the
addition of 60,000 GPD. Our analysis determined that the facility can accept the additional
flow under the requested SOC limits.
Back re ound
The Town of Old Fort discharges into Curtis Creek in the Catawba River Basin and
has a stream classification of C-Trout. An updated estimate of the summer 7Q10 flow has
been calculated to be 4.9 cfs with an average flow of 30.6 cfs.
A review of compliance evaluation data shows that for the past two years, Old Fort
has met its wasteflow and BODS limits. However, there were eight contraventions of the
TSS limit from August 1993 to March 1994.
Analysis and Discussion
An instream assessment was performed using the Level B model framework. The
current design flow of the Old Fort WWTP is 0.800 MGD. The yearly average wasteflow
of 0.4803 MGD is used as the pre-SOC flow. The post SOC flow used is 0.5403 MGD,
this allows for the additional 60,000 GPD of industrial and domestic flow that will be

Instream Assessment for Old Fort SOC
page 2
added during the period of the SOC. The effluent limits recommended for the SOC are 50
mg/l of BODS and 225 mg/l of TSS.
Two models were run at the flows of 0.4803 MGD and 0.5403 MGD. Waste
inputs into the models included 100 mg/l of CBOD (50 mg/l of BODS * 2.0) and 90 mg/l
of NBOD ( NH3 value of 20 mg/l * 4.5) at the two flows. The model results predict DO
minimums of 6.46 and 6.35 mg/l, respectively. This is a difference of 0.09 mg/l in the
instrearn DO levels and does not demonstrate a significant depression of the instream DO
level per 67(b) criteria.
Recommendation
Based on the model results, the Instream Assessment Unit recommends approval
of the 60,000 GPD of additional wasteflow for the Old Fort WWTP and the SOC limits of
50 mg/l of BODS (monthly avg.); 75 mg/l of BODS (daily maximum) and 225 mg/l of
TSS (monthly avg.); 338 mg/l of TSS (daily maximum). All other permitted limitations,
and effluent and instream monitoring requirements shall remain the same as in the current
NPDES permit.
cc: Jeff Bouchelle
Central Files
WLA File

Table 1. Instream Assessment Summary for the Town of Old Fort
Wasteflow Assump im
Design Capacity 0.800 MGD
Pre-SOC Flow 0.4803 MGD
SOC Flow Requested 0.060 MGD
Pre-SOC + SOC Flow 0.5403 MGD
Model Input Summary
Headwater conditions:
s7Q10 flow 4.9 cfs
w7Q10 flow 7.4 cfs
Average flow 30.6 cfs
Design Temperature 25 `C
CBOD 2.0 mg/l
NBOD 1.0 mg/1
DO (90% saturation) 7.44 mg/l
Wastewater Inputs:
Pre- SOC Qw 0.4803 MGD
Requested SOC Qw 0.060 MGD
Recommended SOC Qw 0.5403 MGD
CBOD 100 mg/l
NBOD 90 mg/l
Model Output Summary
Qw DO Net Distance DO Net
(MGD) min. Change <5.0 mg/l Change
(mgq) (mg/1) (mi.) (mi.)
0.4803 6.46 NA 0.0 NA
0.5403 6.35 0.09 0.0 0.0

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 20, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roy Davis
FROM: Jacquelyn M. NowemS�
THRU: Donald L. Safrit /
Ruth Swanek ✓
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for SOC 67(b) Request
The Town of Old Fort WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0021229
McDowell County
Summary and Recommendation
The Technical uppo ranch has reviewed the request for an instream assessment
for the Town of Old Fort WWTP. The Town is requesting a Special Order of Consent
(SOC) during construction for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The
existing design flow is 0.800 MGD and will be expanded to 1.2 MGD. The requested
SOC flow is 60,000 GPD, with a predicted constituency of 90% industrial wastewater
from a textile and 10% domestic wastewater. Requested SOC limits for BODS and TSS are
50 mg/l and 225 mg/l, respectively.
The results of the Level B model analysis indicated that according to the EMC 67
(b)criteria, the predicted dissolved oxygen concentration in Curtis Creek was not
significantly affected by the additional flow. The EMC 67 (b)criteria,which states that the
discharge will not increase the DO minimum by more than 0.5 mg/1 or will not extend the
stream length of the DO minimum by more than 0.5 miles, was not violated with the
addition of 60,000 GPD. Our analysis determined that the facility can accept the additional
flow under the requested SOC limits.
Back rg ound
The Town of Old Fort discharges into Curtis Creek in the Catawba River Basin and
has a stream classification of C-Trout. An updated estimate of the summer 7Q 10 flow has
been calculated to be 4.9 cfs with an average flow of 30.6 cfs.
A review of compliance evaluation data shows that for the past two years, Old Fort
has met its wasteflow and BODS limits. However, there were eight contraventions of the
TSS limit from August 1993 to March 1994.
Analysis and Discussion
An instream assessment was performed using the Level B model framework. The
current design flow of the Old Fort WWTP is 0.800 MGD. The yearly average wasteflow
of 0.4803 MGD is used as the pre-SOC flow. The post SOC flow used is 0.5403 MGD,
this allows for the additional 60,000 GPD of industrial and domestic flow that will be

Instream Assessment for Old Fort SOC
page 2
added during the period of the SOC. The effluent limits recommended for the SOC are 50
mg/1 of BOD5 and 225 mg/l of TSS.
Two models were run at the flows of 0.4803 MGD and 0.5403 MGD. Waste
inputs into the models included 100 mg/l of CBOD (50 mg/1 of BOD5 * 2.0) and 90 mg/l
of NBOD (NH3 value of 20 mg/1 * 4.5) at the two flows. The model results predict DO
minimums of 6.46 and 6.35 mg/l, respectively. This is a difference of 0.09 mg/l in the
instream DO levels and does not demonstrate a significant depression of the instream DO
level per 67(b) criteria.
Recommendation
Based on the model results, the Instream Assessment Unit recommends approval
of the 60,0aa00 GPD of additional wasteflow for the Old Fort WWTP.
/d
JAL AdA
cc: urn
Central Files
WLA File

Table 1. Instream Assessment Summary for the Town of Old Fort
Wasteflow Assumptions
Design Capacity 0.800 MGD
Pre-SOC Flow 0.4803 MGD
SOC Flow Requested 0.060 MGD
Pre-SOC + SOC Flow 0.5403 MGD
Model Input Summary
Headwater conditions:
s7Q10 flow 4.9 cfs
w7Q10 flow 7.4 cfs
Average flow 30.6 cfs
Design Temperature 25 'C
CBOD 2.0 mg/1
NBOD 1.0 mg/1
DO (90% saturation) 7.44 mg/l
Wastewater Inputs:
Pre- SOC Qw 0.4803 MGD
Requested SOC Qw 0.060 MGD
Recommended SOC Qw 0.5403 MGD
CBOD 100 mg/1
NBOD 90 mg/I
Model Output Summary
Qw DO Net Distance DO Net
(MGD) min. Change <5.0 mg/I Change
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mi.) (mi.)
0.4803 6.46 NA 0.0 NA
0.5403 6.35 0.09 0.0 0.0

DEC-05-1955 15:56 FROM Pa heville RO DEHNR TO WTER QUALITY P.01
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
59 WOODFIN PLACE
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
PHONE/704/251-6208 FAX/704/251-6254
TO:
FAX#• ozz- 733 S9�`3 (J
FROM: .all fk /\p,N�U�l
DATE: �' c=.S �
# OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: �n
MESSAGE: U—questions please call 704/251-6208
Mn � 5%
0.06
�, z 6o.

DEC-05-1995 15:56 FROM Asheville RO DEHPR TO WATER QURLITY P.02
R^quest Form for In-stream Assessment for 67B
/N C-oo pa 2-Z--9
NAME OF FACILITY_ L�]yVN_`
COUNTY&�oLA>q _^^ REGION�4a 't (�_ DESIGN'FLOwSUBDASSN_�__,_-`__
1 --------------
RECEIVING STREAM. r/�cti�IS Cl�•.a.<< - c-,o+Ab41% Rzv
C- Z Aj%
BACKGROUND DATA ;
A. why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?)
i
B. History of SOC requests ! �,fN rJp"° O' �.�� � M •c..
i 1 . Monthly Average waste flow F (rp'�8, � A z y,J
prior to any SOC mgd
i Time period averaged thru
i
i 2 . Previously approved SOC ' s :
1
Date: flow: ._.__.mgd
Date; flow-
total of previously approved scc flow:
3 . Flows lost from plant flow: mad
(facilities that have gone ---`—""-
off line)
4 . Current SOC request flow- m9d
5 . Total plant flow post-SOC
(Sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses) flow; mgd
6 . Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? why/why not?

DEC-05-1995 15:57 FROM RsheVille RO DEHNR TO WATER QLPLITY P.03
INHIMINNEPW
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 nore than a year.
CURRENT_SOC-REQUEST
A . Request is for domestic or industrial waste? if it is a combin-
ation, please specify percentages .
449, 000
Sam
B . what type Of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
C. The region proposes the followiqg SOC limits :
pv
SOD5 j--fl mg/1 7� *IL%-
NH3��_
DO�� mgll
TSS 22 S -mg/1 $ 38
fecal coliform-`__ __�_q/100m1
pH _ SU
other parameterspt.rj".Al�u+.� 27y��____L�
D . what is the basis for these limits?
jj
IDRS� �Orlwa+u�
(I
i
Ii

DEC-05-1995 15:57 FROM Asheville RO DEFtR TO kATER QUPLITY P.04
GKEX88/MP 12/05/95
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE . 1
PERMIT--NC0021229 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 9411 -QSIO LOC---E
FACILITY--OLD FORT , TOWN DESIGN FLOW-- . 8000 CLASS--2
LOCATION--OLD FORT P.EGION/COUNTY--Oi MCDOWELL
50050 00310 00530 00610 31616 50060 TGP99 00010
MONTH Q/MGD 601) RES/TSS NH3+NH4- FEC COLI CHLORINE CERI7DPF TEMP
LIMIT F . 8000 F 30.00 F 30 .0 NOL F 200.0 F 77 . 000 NOL NOL
94/ 11 .4924 4 . 90 21 . 5 .23 8 .4 1 .000 26.03
94/ 12 .4290 4 . 70 16 . 5 . 20 17 . 3 1 . 000 1 22.25
95/01 . 5161 4 .85 19 .0 . 18 . 0 1 . 000 20.66
95/02 . 5041 5. 50 27 . 5 . 00 31 .6 1 .000 22. 04
95/03 .4928 4 . 25 23 .0 . 10 6 .3 1..000 1 23 .95
95/04 .4325 6. 10 29 . 0 . 18 109 . 9 1 . 100 26.52
95/05 .4509 3 . 15 11 .0 . 15 . 0 1 .000 28.03
95/05 . 5007 3 . 23 15 .4 . 06 64 . 1 1 . D00 29.30
95/07 . 3766 3 .471 15 . 3 . 29 44.4 2 . 916 1 30.78
95/08 . 5706 4 . 06 11 . 0 .05 10 .6 2 . 133 31 . 84
95/09 . 5186 2 .49 11 .3 . 15 6.4 2 . 000 30 .40
AVERAGE .4803 4.24 18. 2 . 14 27 . 1 1 . 377 1 26.52
MAXIMUM 1 . 1681 24 . 00 35.0 1 . 00 17700.0 24 .000 1 34 .60
MINIMUM .0815 LESSTHAN 5.0 LESSTHAN LESSTHAN 1 . 000 1 16. 50
!SNIT MGO MG/L MG/L MG/L #/ 100ML UG/L PASS/FAI DEG.0

DEC-05-1995 15:5? FROM Asheville RO DEHNR TO WATER a-A-ITY P.05
GKEX68/MP 12/05/95
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 2
PERMIT--NCO021229 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 9411 -9510 LOC---E
FACILITY--OLD FORT, TOWN DESIGN FLOW-- . 8000 CLASS--2
LOCATION--OLD FORT REGION/COUNTY--01 MCOOWELL
00400 00500 00665 00720 01027 01034 01042 01051
MONTH PH TOTAL N PHOS-TOT CYANIDE CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER LEAD
LIMIT 9. 0 6 . 0 NOL NOL NOL NOL
94/ 11 7 . 3-6 .8 4.0000 .0000 .0000 24 .0000 . 0000
94/ 12 7 . 5-6 . 9 1 . 800 2 .6000 4.0000 .0000 11 .0000 36.0000 .0000
95/01 7 . 5-6 .6 1 .5000 . 0000 . 0000 .0000 . 0000
95/02 7 .4-6 . 8 4 . 600 2 . 8000 2.0000 .0000 .0000 54 .0000 .0000
95/03 7 . 5-6 . 9 3 . 0000 :0000 .0000 31 .0000 . 0000
95/04 7 . 5-7 .0 .0000 .0000 107 .0000
95/05 7 . 8-6 . 9 5 . 200 2.0000 3 .0000 .0000 42. 0000
95/06 7 .4-6 . 8 .7500 . 0000 33 .0000
95/07 7 . 4-6 . 9 5 . 900 2 . 1000 . 7500 1 . 1500 45.0000
95/08 7 .4-6 .4 .4000 . 2000 90.0000
95/09 7 .4-6 .6 3 . 7500 1 .5000 $2,0000
AVERAGE 4 . 375 2 . 3750 2. 1045 .2590 2.2000 49.4545 .0000
MAXIMUM 7 .800 5 . 900 2 . 8000 12 .0000 6 .0000 11 .0000 110.0000
MINIMUM 6.490 1 . 900 2 . 0000 2.0000 11 .0000 24 . 0000
UNIT SU MG/L. MG/L UG/L UG L VG/L UG/L U6 L

DEC-05-1995 15:57 FROM Rsheoille RO DEH R TO 6ATER a_lAL.ITY P.06
GKEX86/MP 12/05/95
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT PAGE 3
PERMIT--NC0021229 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 9411 -9510 LOC---E
FACILITY--OLD FORT , TOWN DESIGN FLOW-- . 8000 CLASS--2
LOCATION--0L0 FORT P.EGION/COUNTY--01 MCDOWELL
01067 01092
MONTH NICKEL ZINC
NOL NOL
94/ 11 . 0000 180.0000
94/ 12 . 0000 $9. 0000
95/01 . 0000 78.0000
95/02 . 0000 216.0000
95/03 . 0000 82. 0000
95/04 193 . 0000
95/05 83 .0000
95/06 $8. 5000
95/07 67 .5000
95/08 77 .5000
95/09 141 .5000
AVERAGE . 0000 116.0000
MAXIMUM 216.0000
MINIMUM 51 .0000
UNIT U1.77 UG/L
TOTAL P.06

Lc- �.G� �3 :N 6/9f� C�h = D'�✓J�= �� ��
3 �le
�OL /Cf� sue/ 60 GPo
I � �,Q,..� o�en,�, U+,-d'�y��tov� 6. 8 � /• Z r7G✓J
n -rJ
�Xl� e.. it-]��..�'.....A / �1�,.�� �C/�.,,(/ An�� �i.�rl�+-'� ��-^-•--••�
I /vim
9195—, o. ygo> sryGn
Co
D, d'� 446-0 o . Syo 3
Gill
�`- YEA Nub c
i, / O

i
Opp; � / fdrw&i �
_��q� o,�ou = � 9� ?d✓l�= S�(��=/,uu ,✓fr`j,.P'o ��GTr�i
1 0,
a, o9M /e �
Ile r o cFrsoc 3 —
e 5's(03/ i _ale
r
Soc . I /. z28 ( 5. 36 d/Q ocG�svc
W ( r a 0,0�
; i
I ;
i
I
.I
i
�I
'I
, I
'I
�i

SUMMER
PRESOC FLOW W/ BOD5=50, NH3=
90,
----------' MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger OLD FORT WWTP
Receiving Stream CURTIS CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 7 . 92 mg/l .
The End CBOD is 5 . 32 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 4 . 00 mg/l .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
------ --------- ------- ---- ---- -- ---------
Segment 1 6 . 46 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 100 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 48030
Reach 2 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP Subbasin 0308
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK Stream Class : C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 4 . 91 Winter 7Q10 7 . 45
Design Temperature : 25 . 0
ILENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Ed I Ka I Ka I KN I KN I KNR I KNR I SOD I SOD I
I mile I ft/mil fps I It Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
Segment 1 I 0.20I 36.401 0.389 10.98 1 0.50 10.40 128.41 125.481 0.73 1 0.50 1 0.73 10.00 1 0.00 10.00 I
Reach 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 I 0.901 17.40I 0.469 1 1.54 1 0.37 10.30 111.83 110.611 0.44 10.30 1 0.44 10.00 10.00 1 0.00 I
Reach 2 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 I 1.601 17.40I 0.481 1 1.57 10.37 10.30 112.13 110.881 0.44 10.30 10.44 10.00 10.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Flow 1: 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 . 744 1100 . 000 1 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Headwatersl 4 . 900 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Tributary 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 110 . 800 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 440
* Runoff 1 0 . 370 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 440
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0 . 000 I 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 720 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff 1 0 . 290 Ii 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff flow is in' cfs/mile

SUMMER
PRESOC FLOW W/ BOD5=50, NH3=
90,
I Seg # I Reach # i Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0 . 00 6 . 46 14 . 93 12 . 74 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 01 6 .51 14 . 91 12 . 72 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 02 6 .56 14 . 90 12 . 71 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 03 6 . 61 14 . 89 12 . 69 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 04 6 . 66 14 . 88 12 . 68 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 05 6 . 70 14 . 87 12 . 67 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 06 6 .74 14 . 86 12 . 65 5 . 64
1 1 . 0 . 07 6 .78 14 . 84 12 . 64 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 08 6 . 82 14 . 83 12 . 62 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 09 6,. 86 14 . 82 12 . 61 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 10 6 .,90 14 . 81 12 .59 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 11 6 .'93 14 . 80 12 .58 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 12 6 . 96 14 .79 12 .56 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 13 6 . 99 14 .77 12 .55 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 14 7 . 02 14 . 76 12 .53 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 15 7 . 05 14 .75 12 .52 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 16 7 . 08 14 . 74 12 .51 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 17 7 . 11 14 .73 12 .49 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 18 7 . 13 14 . 72 12 . 48 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 19 7 . 15 14 . 71 12 . 46 5 . 64
1 1 0 . 20 7 . 18 14 . 69 12 . 45 5 . 64
1 2 0 . 20 7 . 35 6 . 36 4 . 93 16 . 44
1 2 0 . 30 7 . 43 6 .32 4 . 89 16 . 48
1 2 0 . 40 7 . 49 6 .28 4 . 86 16 . 52
1 2 0 . 50 7 .55 6 .24 4 . 82 16 .56
1 2 0 . 60 7 .59 6 . 20 4 . 78 16 .59
1 2 0 . 70 7 . 64 6 . 16 4 . 75 16 . 63
1 2 0 . 80 7 . 67 6 . 12 4 . 71 16 . 67
1 2 0 . 90 7 . 70 6 . 08 4 . 68 16 . 70
1 2 1 . 00 7 :!73 6 . 04 4 . 64 16 . 74
1 2 1 . 10 7 . 75 6 . 00 4 . 61 16 . 78
1 3 1 . 10 7 . 74 5 . 84 4 . 46 17 .50
1 3 1 .20 7 . 77 5 . 80 4 . 43 17 .53
1 3 1 . 30 7 .79 5 . 77 4 . 40 17 .56
1 3 1 . 40 7 . 81 5 . 74 4 . 37 17 .58
1 3 1 .50 7 . 82 5 . 70 4 . 34 17 . 61
1 3 1 . 60 7 . 84 5 . 67 4 . 31 17 . 64
1 3 1 .70 7 . 85 5 . 64 4 .28 17 . 67
1 3 1 . 80 7 . 86 5 . 60 4 .25 17 . 70
1 3 1 . 90 7 . 87 5 .57 4 .22 17 . 73
1 3 2 . 00 7 . 88 5 .54 4 . 19 17 . 76
1 3 2 . 10 7 . 89 5 .51 4 . 16 17 . 79
1 3 2 . 20 7 . 89 5 . 48 4 . 13 17 . 82
1 3 2 . 30 7 . 90 5 . 44 4 . 11 17 . 85
1 3 2 . 40 7 . 91 5 .41 4 . 08 17 . 87
1 3 2 . 50 7 . 91 5 . 38 4 . 05 17 . 90
1 3 2 . 60 7 . 92 5 . 35 4 . 02 17 . 93
1 3 2 . 70 7 . 92 5 . 32 4 . 00 17 . 96
I Seg # Reach # I Seg Mi I D .O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

SUMMER
POST SOC FLOW, BOD5=50, NH3=
90
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 7 . 89 mg/l .
The Ehd CBOD is 5 . 74 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 4 . 37 mg/l . 1 ; '
-------------------------------'---------------------------------------
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flo
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
------ --------- ------- ---- ---- -- ---------
Segment 1 6 .35 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 100 . 00 90 . 00 0 . 00 0 .54030
Reach 2 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP Subbasin 0308
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK Stream Class : C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 4 . 91 Winter 7Q10 7 . 45
Design Temperature : 25 . 0
ILENGTHI SLOPE! VELOCITY I DEPTH! Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I KN I KHR I KNR I SOD I SOD I
I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl' @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 Idesignl @20 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.201 36.401 0.394 1 0.99 1 0.50 1 0.40 128.76 1 25.801 0.73 1 0.50 1 0.73 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.901 17.401 0.471 1 1.54 1 0.37 1 0.30 111.88 1 10.661 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1.601 17.401 0.483 1 1.57 1 0.38 1 0.30 112.18 1 10.921 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Flow ! CBOD I NBOD I D.O. I
I cfs I mg/l I mg/l I mg/l I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0 . 837 1100 . 000 1 90 . 000 1 0 . 000
Headwaters ! 4 . 900 ' 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Tributary 1 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff ! 0 . 000 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0 . 000 I 0 . 000 I 0 . 000 I 0 . 000
Tributary ! 10 . 800 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff ! 0 . 370 2 . 000 ! 1 . 000 1 7 .440
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary I 0 . 720 ! 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff 0 .290 I 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 I 7 . 440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
POST SOC FLOW, BOD5=50, NH3=
90
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D .O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0 . 00 6 . 35 16 . 30 13 . 99 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 01 6 . 41 16 .29 13 . 97 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 02 6 . 46 16 .28 13 . 96 5 .74
1 1 0 . 03 6 .51 16 .27 13 . 94 5 .74
1 1 0 . 04 6 .56 16 .25 13 . 93 5 .74
1 1 0 . 05 6 . 61 16 .24 13 . 91 5 .74
1 1 0 . 06 6 . 65 16 .23 13 . 90 5 .74
1 1 0 . 07 6 . 69 16 .22 13 . 88 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 08 6 .73 16 .20 13 . 86 5 .74
1 1 0 . 09 6 .77 16 . 19 13 . 85 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 10 6 .181 16 . 18 13 . 83 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 11 6 .'85 16 . 17 13 . 82 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 12 6 . 88 16 . 15 13 . 80 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 13 6 . 91 16 . 14 13 . 78 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 14 6 . 94 16 . 13 13 .77 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 15 6 . 97 16 . 12 13 . 75 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 16 7 . 00 16 . 10 13 . 74 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 17 7 . 03 16 . 09 13 . 72 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 18 7 . 06 16 . 08 13 . 71 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 19 7 . 08 16 . 07 13 . 69 5 . 74
1 1 0 . 20 7 . 11 16 . 05 13 . 68 5 . 74
1 2 0 . 20 7 . 32 6 . 88 5 . 40 16 .54
1 2 0 . 30 7 . 40 6 . 83 5 . 36 16 .57
1 2 0 . 40 7 . 46 6 .79 5 . 32 16 . 61
1 2 0 . 50 7 .52 6 .74 5 .28 16 . 65
1 2 0 . 60 7 .57 6 .70 5 .24 16 . 69
1 2 0 . 70 7 . 61 6 . 66 5 .20 16 .72
1 2 0 . 80 7 . 64 6 . 62 5 . 16 16 .76
1 2 0 . 90 7 . 67 . 6 . 57 5 . 12 16 . 80
1 2 1 . 00 7 :,70 6 . 53 5 . 08 16 . 83
1 2 1 . 10 7 . 72 6 . 49 5 . 04 16 . 87
1 3 1 . 10 7 . 71 6 . 31 4 . 88 17 . 59
1 3 1 .20 7 . 74 6 .27 4 . 85 17 . 62
1 3 1 . 30 7 . 76 6 .23 4 . 81 17 . 65
1 3 1 . 40 7 . 78 6 .20 4 . 78 17 . 68
1 3 1 .50 7 . 79 6 . 16 4 . 75 17 . 71
1 3 1 . 60 7 . 81 6 . 12 4 . 71 17 . 74
1 3 1 . 70 7 . 82 6 . 09 4 . 68 17 . 76
1 3 1 . 80 7 . 83 6 . 05 4 . 65 17 . 79
1 3 1 . 90 7 . 84 6 . 02 4 . 62 17 . 82
1 3 2 . 00 7 . 85 5 . 98 4 .59 17 . 85
1 3 2 . 10 7 . 86 5 . 95 4 .56 17 . 88
1 3 2 .20 7 . 87 5 . 91 4 .52 17 . 91
1 3 2 .30 7 . 87 5 . 88 4 . 49 17 . 94
1 3 2 . 40 7 . 88 5 . 84 4 . 46 17 . 97
1 3 2 . 50 7 . 88 5 . 81 4 . 43 18 . 00
1 3 2 . 60 7 . 89 5 . 78 4 . 40 18 . 03
1 3 2 . 70 7 . 89 5 .74 4 . 37 18 . 05
I Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I DiO. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes X No
IF YES, SOC NUMBER EMC 95-06
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION:
DATE: October 24, 1995
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY McDowell
PERMIT NUMBER NCO021229
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address : Town of Old Fort
Post Office Box 520
Old Fort, North Carolina 28762
2 . Date of Investigation: March 20, 1995
3 . Report Prepared By: Michael R. Parker
4 . Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Jackie Blalock
704/668-4621
5 . Directions to Site: From the center of Old Fort, travel east
on U. S . Highway 70 approximately 1 . 5 miles to the Collins &
Aikman plant . Old Fort' s WWTP is located on the service road
running behind the Collins and Aikman plant .
6 . Discharge Point (s) , List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 38 ' 43 " Longitude: 820 09' 32 . 5"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. EIONW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Old Fort, N. C.
7 . Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:
Page 1

8 . Topography (relationship to flood plain included) : Flat adjacent
to floodplain .
9 . Location of nearest dwelling: Greater than 500 feet .
10 . Receiving stream or affected surface waters: .Curtis Creek.
a. Classification: C-trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No. : CTB 30
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses : Fishing, fish and wildlife propagation, wading,
boating, irrigation.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1 . a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 1 . 2 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? 0 . 800 MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity 0 . 800 MGD
d. Date (s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years :
WQ0007441 A to C for Sludge Compositing Facility 93/09/20 .
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: The existing
wastewater treatment facility consist of an influent pump
station, mechanically cleaned bar screen, grit removal,
oxidation ditch, two clarifiers, chlorination and
dechlorination facilities and flow recording and totalizing
equipment .
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities : It is proposed to construct an new grit chamber
and influent pump station, convert the existing oxidation
ditch to a flow equalization basin, construct a new 1 . 2
million gallon aeration basin, construct a new clarifier and
replace the existing sludge drying beds with a sludge belt
press and lime stabilization facility.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None noted.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only) :
in development approved XX
should be required not needed
Page 2

2 . Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit Number WQ0007441 No sludge has been composted.
WQ0005282 No sludge has been applied.
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
C. Landfill :
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify) :
3 . Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet) :
EXISTING PLANT Class III
PROPOSED PLANT CLASS III
4 . SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Primary 55 Secondary 01
Main Treatment Unit Code: 10003 and 10005
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1 . Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
or are any public monies involved. (municipals only) ?
Farmers Home Administration Grant $1, 092 , 00.0
Appalachian Regional Commission 200 , 000
Farmers Home Administration G.O Bonds (40Years) 1, 169, 000
Total $2 , 461, 000
2 . Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests :
3 . Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates : (Please
indicate)
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications 06/30/95
Begin Construction 05/31/96
Complete Construction 07/31/97
SEE SCHEDULE WITH PERMIT APPLICATION.
Page 3

4 . Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all
of the non-discharge options available. Please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated. NA
Spray Irrigation:
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
Subsurface:
Other disposal options :
5 . Other Special Items :
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Old Fort is requesting a Special Order by
Consent to allow the Town to construct new wastewater
treatment facilities and expand beyond the current flow
of 0 . 8 mgd to 1 .2 mgd. The existing plant is
operating in compliance with NPDES Permit limits at the
present time. Inadequate aeration in the oxidation
ditch and inadequate sludge handling facilities appears
to be the main problems experienced with the facility.
The Town has requested that 50, 000 gpd be allocated to
allow for industrial growth and 10, 000 gpd for normal
domestic growth.
The Town is currently in compliance with NPDES Permit
limits and is monitoring in accordance with permit
conditions.
Toxicity is not and issue in this upgrade and
expansion.
Pretreatment does not appear to be an issue. The Town
has a very good pretreatment program and is in
compliance with that program.
The facility appears to be properly operated and
maintained. A copy of the most recent inspection
report is attached. In January the Town contracted
with EWR, Inc . to dewater sludge from the Towns aerobic
digester to allow the Town to maintain an adequate
solids level in the wastewater treatment plant. The
Town is prepared to bring this company back if and when
it is needed during this construction period.
Infiltration is a slight problem like any other town
but is not causing the non-compliance conditions.
The permit is not under adjudication.
Page 4

To my knowledge there are no special circumstances
concerning the issuance of the SOC. .
See Attachment A for modified parameters .
There does no. appear to be any downstream water quality
impacts to be expected from this project. Expanding
the facility to 1.2 MGD will result in effluent ammonia
limits of 3 mg/l (S) and 8mg/l (W) . The Town and their
engineers are aware of these limits and will design to
comply.
The compliance schedule was developed by the Town and
its engineer and submitted with the SOC application
package. DEM staff of the Asheville Regional have
reviewed this schedule and found it to be reasonable.
The Town submitted proposed interim limits in the SOC
application package which appeared to be a little more
than excessive based on current plant performance. A
meeting was held on March 20, 1995, between the Town,
McGill Associates and DEM staff to discuss this issue.
The Town had proposed interim limits for BOD and TSS of
75 mg/l and 250 mg/l (monthly average) , respectively
and 115 mg/l and 375 (weekly average) , respectively:
The Town indicates that they can comply with final
NPDES Permit limits approximately 90 to 95% of the
time; however, they have concerns about being able to
achieve compliance with the interim limits during
initial start-up of the new extended aeration plant.
The interim BOD and TSS effluent limits were develop by
looking at past performance history of the existing
facility. As indicated above a meeting was held on
March 20, 1995 and it was decided between the Town,
McGill Associates and DEM that the Town could achieve
the following interim limits :
Parameter Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg.
BOD 50 mg/1. 75 mg/1
TSS 225 mg/l 338 mg/l
The reference to total residual chlorine of 77 mg/l and
115 . 5 mg/l monthly and weekly averages, respectively,
were typographical errors . They should have been
77 ug/l and 115 .5 ug/l .
There are no upfront penalties associated with this
SOC.
The Town of Old Fort is in need of this new facility.
The existing oxidation ditch does not always perform as
was designed. The new facility should improve the
effluent quality and inturn improve the water quality
in Curtis Creek and the Catawba River.
Page 5

It is recommended that this Special Order by Consent be
issued to the Town of Old Fort.
Signature of Reort rep e
i
ater Qualit Regi al Supervisor
Date
Page 6