NC0021229_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19940616

NPDES DOCYNENT SCANNIMO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0021229
Old Fort WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Speculative Limit s
Permit
History
Document Date: June 16, 1994
T2zis document is Printed oa reuse Paper-igazore any
oanteat on the reverse side
1

State of North Carolina '
Department of Environment,
,t Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental ManagementA&
r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 16, 1994
The Honorable Robert F. Wilson
Mayor of Old Fort
P.O. Box 520
Old Fort, N.C. 28762
Subject: Town of Old Fort Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
NPDES Pemrit No. NCO021229
McDowell County
Dear Mr.Wilson:
Your request for speculative effluent limits for the proposed expansion of the Town
of Old Fort WWTP from 0.8 MGD to 1.2 MGD has been completed by the staff of the
Technical Support Branch. In order to receive final permit limits, a formal application will
have to be submitted to the Division's Water Quality Permits and Engineering Unit.
Based on available information, the tentative limits for conventional constituents
are:
Summer Winter
Wasteflow(MGD) 1.2 1.2
BOD5(mg/1) 30 30
NH3-N (mg/1) 3 8
Dissolved Oxygen 5 nr*
TSS (mg/1) 30 30
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1) 200 200
pH (SU) 6-9 6-9
Chlorine(µo) 28 28
*nr- no minimum DO required
It should be noted that the tentative NH3-N limits are based on protecting Curtis Creek
against instream toxicity. North Carolina is evaluating all NPDES dischargers for ammonia
toxicity following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance to
protect the waters for an instream criteria of 1 mg/1 in the summer and 1.8 mg/1 in the
winter, under 7Q10 flow conditions.
The Division of Environmental Management(DEM) is now recommending chlorine
limits and dechlorination for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of
chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in your effluent is 28 µg/1 to
ensure protection against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an
alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to
comply with the total residual chlorine limit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equa!Cpportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10%post-consumer paper

Letter to Mr.Wilson
page 2
The instream waste concentration (IWC) at the expanded flow of 1.2 MGD is 28%.
A chronic tonicity testing requirement with quarterly monitoring will remain a condition of
the NPDES permit. A complete evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for
metals and other toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal NPDES
application. Information concerning these constituents is not readily available,but the
Town can assume that effluent limits and/or monitoring for cadmium, lead,cyanide,
copper, zinc, chromium, and nickel will be assigned
DEM is implementing a basinwide water quality management initiative. Our
schedule for the Catawba River Basin is set for 1995. The plan will attempt to address all
sources of point and nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to protect or restore
water quality standards. In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload allocations may be
affected Those facilities that already have committed to high levels of treatment technology
are least likely to be affected
This information should provide some assistance in your planning endeavors.
Final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a formal permit application has
been submitted to the Division. If there are any additional questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek or Jackie Nowell of my staff at(919) 733-5083.
inc rely,
Donald L. afrit, E.
Assistant f for.T is Support
cc: Forrest Westall
Mike Waresak, P.E.,McGill Associates
Central Files
LWL:A.File�

/S.. 77
y. 09 — "V f< 0.517 3 d x z> �?p"l� = 0- SZ
N/l"'b = w(3�.t5 •mod/�/ ��/Z/I �. 9roi y z• L
l-
Oo = p Ft rr✓ CC-011 If /�rrU1 /
fle,t/adO
AlBdp
old
J7fli�:9,$cfl
7oyz.�as�6
v t'
J7 MdC6 q�. i G'ZCP
r-7ogli, i 5 17y 0:/Z-zr-d'
t
GgTA /Zv
D 17m. W B_n _
9/� =LG.6 ch I bff
S7 0 -An.77 c6
A — o
D.1',ss/r,` laq:z.SJ
q:77AC6 J 94= .Y7
�! JJy2 :Z2.9 c6 q
S79Nt/5.9�,j .cf—So�m-_d._7y

i
�CAaN 40)
3_
!� sl ; /7. ���
�) (oc,z -ioT7 _ Zs
ss. 1.5s
�f /7?s-/G.B D'ys 2 0. �S s7yr v = /.ss i•s3 9 c
M
ass
C-6
s 7? w: d, 7z �{
/3 c
f
36
Alk
jo S e96
ry✓
30
ao-n
f
�f
i

OLD FORT WWTP
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010(CFS) 4.9 7010(CFS) 4.9
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 1.2 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 1.2
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 1.86 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 1.86
STREAM STD(UG/L) 17.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(y,) 27.51 IWC (%) 27.51
Allowable Concentration(ug/1) 61.78 Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 3.05
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010(CFS) 7.45
Fetal Limit 200/100ml DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 1.2
Rabo of 26:1 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 1.86
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(%) 19.98
Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 8.13
NC0021229 6/3/9 4

PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW 06/03/94
-----------------------------
Discharger. OLD FORT WWTP NPDES Permit No.: NCO021229
Receiving stream: CURTTS CREEK Subbasin: 030830
Stream Class: C-TR
7Q10: 4.9 cfs
Design flow: 1.2 mgd
Actual flow: 0.348 mgd
Percent industrial: 17.0% %
IWC: 27.5 %
Actual Actual Total Permitted Total Observed
Domestic Industrial Actual Industrial Permitted Effluent
Pollutant Standard Removal Load Load Load Load Load Cone.
(119/1) Eff. (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (ug/1)
--------- ---------- ------- --------- ------- ------------ --------- -------- --------
Cadmium OAS 0.00 0.000
Chromium 50 S 0.00 0.000
Copper 7 AL 0.00 0.000
Nickel 88 S 0.00 0.000
Lead 25 S 0.00 0.000
Zinc 50 AL 0.00 0.000
Cyanide 5 S 0.00 0.000
Mercury 0.012 S 0.00 0.000
Silver 0.06 AL 0.00 0.000
Arsenic 50 S 0.00 0.000
Predicted Predicted Predicted
Allowable Effluent Effluent Instream Based on Based on Based on
Allowable Background Effluent Conc Conc Cone ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED
Load Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent
0bs/day) (119/1) (119/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data
--------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Cadmium 0.01 0 1.454 0.000 0.000 0.000
Chromium 1.47 0 181.720 0.000 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.21 0 25.441 0.000 0.000 0.000
Nickel 2.58 0 319.828 0.000 0.000 0.000
Lead 0.73 0 90.860 0.000 0.000 0.000
Zinc 1.47 0 181.720 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cyanide 0.15 0 18.172 0.000 0.000 0.000
Mercury 0.00 0 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000
Silver 0.00 0 0.218 0.000 0.000 0.000
Arsenic 1.47 0 181.720 0.000 0.000 0.000

SUMMER
MODEL FOR OLD FORT EXPANSION
TO 1 . 2 MGD
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 7 . 96 mg/l .
The End CBOD is 6 . 74 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 1 . 93 mg/l .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste F1i
(mg/1 ) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1 ) (mg/1 ) (mg/1 ) (mgd)
------ --------- ------- ---- ---- -- ---------
Segment 1 6 . 77 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 60 . 00 13 . 70 5 . 00 1 . 20001
Peach 2 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00001
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00001

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP Subbasin 030830
Receiving stream : CURTIS CREEK Stream Class : C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 4 . 91 Winter 7Q10 : 7 . 45
Design Temperature: 25 . 0
ILENG? I HOFEI HLOCHY I DEPTNI };d I Fd I Ka I Fa I EN I RN I FNR I ERR I
I mile I ft/oil fps I ft Idesignl 1200 Idesignl @200 Idesianl @200 Idesignl C01 I
----------•----•--•-----•------•-------•---•--•--••---------------•------- •.... ....................
I I I I I i I I I I ! I I
Segment 1 1 0.201 36.401 0.445 1 1.01 1 0.53 1 0.12 132.53 1 29.171 0.13 1 0.50 1 0.13 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
Segment 1 1 0.901 17,401 0,493 1 1.55 1 0.33 1 0.30 112,42 1 11.141 0,44 1 0.30 1 0,44 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
Segment 1 1 1.601 11.401 0.504 1 1.58 1 0.38 1 0.30 112.70 1 11,391 0.44 1 0.30 1 0.44 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•----------------•-------•-------------------•---------•---------...........--•-------•-••----•
I Flow I CBOD I NBOD I D .O. I
I cfs I mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 1 . 860 1 60 . 000 113 . 700 1 5 . 000
Headwatersl 4 . 900 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 i 0 . 000
Tributary 1 10 . 800 i 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff i 0 . 370 1 2 . 000 I 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 0 . 720 ( 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff 1 0 . 290 I 2 .000 1 1 . 000 1 7 . 440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL FOR OLD FORT EXPANSION
TO 1 . 2 MGD
Seg Reach n Seg Mi D .O . CBOD NBOD Flow
1 1 0 . 00 6 . 77 17 . 96 4 . 49 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 01 6 . 82 17 . 95 4 . 49 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 02 6 . 86 17 . 93 4 . 49 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 03 6 . 91 17 . 92 4 . 48 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 04 6 . 95 17 . 91 4 . 48 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 05 6 . 99 17 . 89 4 . 47 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 06 7 . 03 17 . 88 4 . 47 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 07 7 . 06 17 . 87 4 . 46 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 08 7 . 10 17 . 85 4 . 46 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 09 7 . 13 17 . 84 4 . 45 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 10 7 . 16 17 . 83 4 . 45 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 11 7 . 20 17 . 82 4 . 44 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 12 7 . 23 17 . 80 4 . 44 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 13 7 . 25 17 . 79 4 . 44 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 14 7 . 28 17 . 78 4 . 43 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 15 7 . 31 17 . 76 4 . 43 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 16 7 . 33 17 . 75 4 . 42 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 17 7 . 35 17 . 74 4 . 42 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 18 7 . 38 17 . 73 4 . 41 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 19 7 . 40 17 . 71 4 . 41 6 . 76
1 1 0 . 20 7 . 42 17 . 70 4 . 40 6 . 76
1 2 0 . 20 7 . 43 8 . 04 2 . 31 17 . 56
1 2 0 . 30 7 . 50 7 . 99 2 . 30 17 . 60
1 2 0 . 40 7 . 57 7 . 94 2 . 28 17 . 63
1 2 0 . 50 7 . 62 7 . 89 2 . 27 17 . 67
1 2 0 . 60 7 . 66 7 . 84 2 . 25 17 . 71
1 2 0 . 70 7 . 70 7 . 80 2 . 24 17 . 74
1 2 0 . 80 7 . 74 7 . 75 2 . 22 17 . 78
1 2 0 . 90 7 . 77 7 . 70 2 . 21 17 . 82
1 2 1 . 00 7 . 79 7 . 65 2 . 19 17 . 86
1 2 1 . 10 7 . 81 7 . 60 2 . 18 17 . 89
1 3 1 . 10 7 . 80 7 . 39 2 . 13 18 . 61
1 3 1 . 20 7 . 82 7 . 34 2 . 12 18 . 64
1 3 1 . 30 7 . 84 7 . 30 2 . 11 18 . 67
1 3 1 . 40 7 . 86 7 . 26 2 . 09 18 . 70
1 3 1 . 50 7 . 88 7 . 22 2 . 08 18 . 73
1 3 1 . 60 7 . 89 7 . 18 2 . 07 18 . 76
1 3 1 . 70 7 . 90 7 . 14 2 . 05 18 . 79
1 3 1 . 80 7 . 91 7 . 10 2 . 04 18 . 82
1 3 1 . 90 7 . 92 7 . 06 2 . 03 18 . 84
1 3 2 . 00 7 . 93 7 . 02 2 . 02 18 . 87
1 3 2 . 10 7 . 93 6 . 98 2 . 00 18 . 90
1 3 2 . 20 7 . 94 6 . 94 1 . 99 18 . 93
1 3 2 . 30 7 . 95 6 . 90 1 . 98 18 . 96
1 3 2 . 40 7 . 95 6 . 86 1 . 97 18 . 99
1 3 2 . 50 7 . 96 6 . 82 1 . 96 19 . 02
1 3 2 . 60 7 . 96 6 . 78 1 . 94 19 . 05
1 3 2 . 70 7 . 96 6 . 74 1 . 93 19 . 08
Seg Reach TM Seg Mi D .O. CBOD NBOD Flow

WINTER
MODEL FOR OLD FORT EXPANSION
TO 1 . 2 MGD
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 9 . 94 mg/1 .
The End CBOD is 5 . 55 mg/l .
The End NBOD is 3 . 23 mg/l .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste F1(
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach 7 (mg/1 ) (mg/1) (mg/1 ) (mgd)
------ --------- ------- ---- ---- -- ---------
Segment 1 7 . 42 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 60 . 00 36 . 45 0 . 00 1 . 20001
Reach 2 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00001
Reach 3 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00001

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : OLD FORT WWTP Subbasin 030830
Receiving Stream : CURTIS CREEK Stream Class : C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 4 . 91 Winter 7Q1O : 7 . 45
Design Temperature : 14 . 0
ILENGTHI SLOPE] VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Ed I Ka I Ka I EN I KN I KNR I KNR I
I mite I ft/nil fps I ft Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl @201 Idesignl VP I
.................-.............-.....................................................................
I I I I I i I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.201 36.401 0,564 1 1.05 1 0.35 1 0.47 132.42 1 36.941 0.32 1 0.50 1 0.32 1 0.00 1
Reach 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
Seemenc 1 1 0.901 17.401 0.649 1 1.62 1 0.25 1 0.33 1 5.72 1 9.931 0.19 1 0.30 l 0.19 l 0.00 1
-------•---•-----•--...--•-----•-•--------•---•......---•••••-••----•......--•-----•-
Reach 3 1 l I I I I I I 1
...................................................•--.................................__............
I Flow I 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 1 . 860 1 60 . 000 1 36 . 450 1 0 . 000
Headwaters ) 7 . 400 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
Tributary 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
* Runoff 1 0 . 000 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 16 . 100 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
* Runoff 1 0 . 520 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000 1 0 . 000
Tributary 1 1 . 130 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
* Runoff 1 0 . 390 1 2 . 000 1 1 . 000 1 9 . 280
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
MODEL FOR OLD FORT EXPANSION
TO 1 . 2 MGD
Seg # Reach r Seg Mi D. O. CBOD NBOD Flow
1 1 0 . 00 7 . 42 13 . 65 8 . 12 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 01 7 . 51 13 . 64 8 . 12 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 02 7 . 60 13 . 64 8 . 12 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 03 7 . 68 13 . 63 8 . 11 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 04 7 . 77 13 . 63 8 . 11 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 05 7 . 85 13 . 62 8 . 11 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 06 7 . 92 13 . 62 8 . 10 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 07 8 . 00 13 . 61 8 . 10 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 08 8 . 07 13 . 61 8 . 10 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 09 8 . 14 13 . 60 8 . 10 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 10 8 . 21 13 . 60 8 . 09 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 11 8 . 27 13 . 59 8 . 09 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 12 8 . 33 13 . 59 8 . 09 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 13 8 . 39 13 . 58 8 . 08 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 14 8 . 45 13 . 58 8 . 08 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 15 8 . 51 13 . 57 8 . 08 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 16 8 . 56 13 . 57 8 . 08 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 17 8 . 62 13 . 56 8 . 07 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 18 8 . 67 13 . 56 8 . 07 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 19 8 . 71 13 . 55 8 . 07 9 . 26
1 1 0 . 20 8 . 76 13 . 55 8 . 07 9 . 26
1 2 0 . 20 9 . 09 6 . 22 3 . 58 25 . 36
1 2 0 . 30 9 . 17 6 . 19 3 . 57 25 . 41
1 2 0 . 40 9 . 24 6 . 17 3 . 56 25 . 46
1 2 0 . 50 9 . 30 6 . 15 3 . 55 25 . 52
1 2 0 . 60 9 . 36 6 . 12 3 . 53 25 . 57
1 2 0 . 70 9 . 42 6 . 10 3 . 52 25 . 62
1 2 0 . 80 9 . 47 6 . 08 3 . 51 25 . 67
1 2 0 . 90 9 . 51 6 . 06 3 . 50 25 . 72
1 2 1 . 00 9 . 56 6 . 03 3 . 49 25 . 78
1 2 1 . 10 9 . 60 6 . 01 3 . 48 25 . 83
1 3 1 . 10 9 . 58 5 . 84 3 . 37 26 . 96
1 3 1 . 20 9 . 62 5 . 82 3 . 36 27 . 00
1 3 1 . 30 9 . 66 5 . 81 3 . 35 27 . 04
1 3 1 . 40 9 . 69 5 . 79 3 . 35 27 . 07
1 3 1 . 50 9 . 72 5 . 77 3 . 34 27 . 11
1 3 1 . 60 9 . 75 5 . 75 3 . 33 27 . 15
1 3 1 . 70 9 . 77 5 . 73 3 . 32 27 . 19
1 3 1 . 80 9 . 80 5 . 71 3 . 31 27 . 23
1 3 1 . 90 9 . 82 5 . 69 3 . 30 27 . 27
f 1 3 2 . 00 9 . 84 5 . 68 3 . 29 27 . 31
1 3 2 . 10 9 . 86 5 . 66 3 . 28 27 . 35
1 3 2 . 20 9 . 87 5 . 64 3 . 27 27 . 39
1 3 2 . 30 9 . 89 5 . 62 3 . 26 27 . 43
1 3 2 . 40 9 . 90 5 . 60 3 . 26 27 . 47
1 3 2 . 50 9 . 92 15 . 59 3 . 25 27 . 50
1 3 2 . 60 9 . 93 5 . 57 3 . 24 27 . 54
1 3 2 . 70 9 . 94 5 . 55 3 . 23 27 . 58
Seg n Reach Seg Mi D .O. CBOD NBOD Flow

Gage
Facility: old fort wwtp
NPDES#: nc0021229
Redeving Stream: Httta-ffM cI­hsY«u'
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number: Sao
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Oave Low Flow Record Station:
s7O10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
Inappropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 17.00 sq.miles Gage
MAR New She: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Oave per Report Equation: 30.60 cfs
s7010 per Report Equation: 4.91 cfs
w7O10 per Report Equation: 7.45 cfs
3002 per Report Equation: 10.53 cis
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 4DIV/01
I new DA/Do at gage I #DIV/01 Site
Weighted Ratio: #DIVl01
Over-ride Inappropriate Site:1 Appropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 17.00 miles squared
MAR New She: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Oave per Report Equation: #DIV/01
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation: no input from above
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: no input from above
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: no input from above

Gage
Facility:
NPDES#:
Recieving Stream: catawba river
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number: Site
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: 14.10 miles squared
Gave Low Flow Record Station: 25.38 cfs
s7010 Low Flow Record Station: 270 efs
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 4.80 cfs
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station: 8.60 cfs
Inappropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 54.00 sq.miles Gage
MAR New She: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Gave per Report Equation: 97.20 cfs
s7010 per Report Equation: 15.77 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation: 23.40 cfs
3002 per Report Equation: 33.44 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 3.83:1
[new DA/Da at gage I Continue Site
Weighted Ratio: 0.06:1
Over-ride Inappropriate Site: Appropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 54.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Gave per Report Equation: 97.20 cfs
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation: 15.46 cfs
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation: 23.11 cfs
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 33.41 cfs

Gage
Facility:
NPDESti:
Recieving Stream: catawba river
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number: Site
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: 14.10 miles squared
Oave Low Flow Record Station: 25.36 cis
s7010 Low Flow Record Station: 2.70 cis
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 4.80 cis
3002 Low Flow Record Station: 8.60 cis
Inappropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 37.00 sq. miles Gage
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Qave per Report Equation: 66.60 cis
s7Q10 per Report Equation: 10.77 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation: 16.09 cis
30Q2 per Report Equation: 22.91 cis
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 2.62 :1
I new DA/Da at gage I Continue Site
Weighted Ratio: 0.46 :1
Over-ride Inappropriate Site: Appropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 37.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Cleve per Report Equation: 66.60 cis
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation: 9.08 cfs
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: 14.49 cis
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 22.75 cis

Gage
Fadlity:
NPDES#:
Redeving Stream: catawba river
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number: She
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: 14.10 miles squared
Qave Low Flow Record Station: 25.38 cfs
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 2.70 cfs
w7010 Low Flow Record Station: 4.80 cts
3002 Low Flow Record Station: 8.60 cfs
Inappropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 55.10 sq.miles Gage
MAR New She: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Qave per Report Equation: 99.18 cfs
s7Q10 per Report Equalion: 16.10 cfs
w7Q10 per Report Equation: 23.87 cfs
3002 per Report Equation: 34.12 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 3.91 :1
[new DA/Da at gage[ Continue Site
Weighted Ratio: 0.03:1
Over-ride Inappropriate Site: Appropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 55.10 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Oave per Report Equation: 99.18 cfs
Weighted s7010 per Report Equation: 15.93 cfs
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: 23.71 cfs
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation: 34.10 cfs

Gage
Facility:
NPDES#:
Recieving Stream: catawba river
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number: Site
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: 14.10 miles squared
Oave Low Flow Record Station: 25.38 cfs
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 2.70 cts
w7O10 Low Flow Record Station: 4.80 cis
3002 Low Flow Record Station: 8.60 ds
Inappropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 58.00 sq.miles Gage
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Qave per Report Equation: 104.40 cis
s7Q10 per Report Equation: 16.95 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation: 25.11 cfs
30Q2 per Report Equation: 35.91 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 4.11 :1
[new DA/Da at gage I Inappropriate Site Site
Weighted Ratio: -0.04:1
Over-ride Inappropriate Site: Appropriate use of locations
Drainage Area New Site: 58.00 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.8 cfs/miles squared
Weighted Oave per Report Equation: Inappropriate Site
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation: Inappropriate Site
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation: Inappropriate Site
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation: Inappropriate Site

r IA-
N
z.
WIIOLEEVCLUENT TOXIC[I'1' CESI ING OISELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Mon.Apr IR, 1994I:A('II I'f1' RI'OIIIRP.MPNI' YC1R JAN ITn MAR AI'P MAY IIIN llll. AIIG SPP (XT NOV
FAIT- bl FAIL PASS PAIL Nl Pn56
y p0 ._ PASS PASS _- — PASS ---
nt'I'IbILN'I',\I.t'IIRMICN,[nlip/IpI 1`IilihI Clllt 1.1\I:M1& 91 PASS PASS PASS -- toss --- -- -_
RCWY13379NI 0cgin:12/1/91 licquuu y:Q I'll; A 11M MAY AUG NOV Nonlon'P: --- PASS --- -- 0.50 -- --- e,<B
92 --- PASS --
Cuumy:NIWIIANOVf:R Rcgiun.N'IPO Subbasin�.Cl`P+_J 1e,9 --- 10.W -- --- 8.48 --
I'F:LW spcchl
94 --- 16.9]SIG
Order:
_- --. PASSmy _.
OCRACOKFSANITARY )ISI'RICI LET AC TA 247IR NO SIGN MOR'P AT 90% B1 _. PASSmy PASSmY PASSmy PASSmy
�/� N"nCont — ---
N'CN41S30/NI negina 111'it �I'up,a"fY:Q I1',O MAY AUG NOV P: _- _- PASSmy --- -- PASSmy — _ Pn35my.
92 -- PASSmy --- PASSmy _. PASSmy
CountyalYOR Rcglan:WARD Subhnsin:PAMOS _ 93 --. PASSPnY --- -- PASSmy ..
1p
Pool, 96 PASSmy
]VIU:. MC(9)'Nn - .- M - tit
PERM—CUR-1 IM_ 29 Y 90 --- M1� — PP55 Pn35 _-_ PASS -- LASS7
LOIDIQRIWWT'I �t PASS ' M PASS -- PASS GTE
�NCW2I29N01 OFt":7/I S/9 I Pk TQ In C UnR IUN'SHP Df:C—NonComP: 9 ._ ASS -- y�P_ASS PA55 -
tiou IY.MCIXT ILL Pcgui t.ARO Subb.z n:f,TpJO PA55 -- PA55
Spai,l 93-PASS
)
1',1':O.SO -, omer: I94i ._ QAS&7
7QIOi 4i40 ' R\'Cl%'_1 1.967 ___ -.. PASS(s) --- -- PASS(,) --- --- PASS --
I'1!RMCIIR...W90% Y B0 --- tit PA55(,) -- --- PASSIS) ---
UWASNMASON FARM bt tit - --- ._
91 -- PASS.P -- _
Lourn,ORAN Ocgin'3/I/91 Pa:O¢ucy:Q I1lb A I910 MAY All(:NOV NmtConT: 92 --- PASS(s) PASS(,) --- -- PASS(,) "" __ PASSPASS -
GOVoIy;ORAN(IIi Rcginn:PRO Subhasin:CPP06 93 --- PASS(,) --- - PENNNGM -- -- PASS(,) --
PF:S.W Sprrial 96 _. PASS
7Q 10:10 IWC(%):9t.S4 Order: — ..-
90 --- M FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS PASS FAIL F,PASS
OXI'ORO SOIL I'IISIUI:xi PERM CUR LIM:009 ... PASS -- --- PASS PASS
91 - FAIL PASS PASS
NCW25054/001 6egn,7/1A, I'mqurncy:Q P/F A 19J0 MAY AUG NOV NmtCnmp:MNCL1i ,-- FAIL FAIL FAIL,FAIL PASS ---
92 --- PASS --
CountyGRANVILIJ Region:PRO Subbasiml'AR01 PASS — --- PASS --- -- PASS ---
County 93 --� PASS -- "-
7QUy17 Order. 94 -_ GTE.GTE
]QIn.-(LW IWC(%):1 W.N — _. ' _.
BO --
I'I1RA1:2411R FI'IID AC MONIT Ii1'IS LC50(GRAn) IniE n > �""
INNDn-11091111A111'GOIt I'. 91 7 6 H >1 >101 - 1
NQIOY0.04/tllll Ilrµin:NlAlt IAupanry,FInVU/A NnnC"oyu _' >1N1 >1001 >1001 >1001 >1NI ... _-
]3 0
Subbnsin:R0A0X 92 H ]0.201 63.101 H
Count :IIALII:AS Region:ItltO 93 73.461 -- -- -' --- --- -- --- --- ---
ill:: S,,eial
Order: 96 -- >60.01
PERM CUR LIM:%% W --- — P F -_ PASS
' I'ARKT(>N lV W I'P 91 --. --- PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS PASS M
NCN ' 'V1 1 Begin:5/AO Vnn'tu u,y:0 PIP A IAN APR JUL OCf NonComP: ._ PASS -- -- PASS — PASS -_
g tinbhasin:L(IM53 92 PASS PASS PASS FNLSIG.FAII PASS
County:ROBFSON l Rc•i"n.PRO 93 PASS -- - FAIL,PASS ---
I'1c:0.2 spatial —
ON<c 00 PASS
7Q10:0.0 IWC(%k1W.0 _ -- —
1'E.MSROKE WWIT PERM ACICHR LIM:241IR P?NO AC FIND @90%I CIIR 90 _ __ _ — __ — — _. — -_ -_
NCCO2710N1301 UrgnPJWIA)2 PmryrncY:Q P/F A IAN APR AIL OCT NOnComp:SINGiE — _- — ..- _ - N
82 —
County'ROnIisON Pcgiom FRO StAlInt,lSOC:i6/LN2-I ... ---
Special 3prdirl SOC:6/Iftf)2-17/ll19d NO TOX RIiQ 9< _. _ -
7QI0114 . IWC(rm):1.3 Order. --- ._ .- --- --
BO ..-
, .. ---
' I'IiN'I'IICOSI'Ah III)LINESS CIIUI(CII I'IiPM CUR LIM61%(GRAE) _ """ -" -� ---
91 ... ... N _.
NCN46809/001 O<Fim3/In)1 rm9uc"rY:Q PA; A NiO MAY AUG NOV NonCom 92 p: -_ -.. PASS M —
-_ ... PASS NRM
C.ounty:GUI1,F(IRp Region:SVSRO Abnasin:Cl'ItlI 93 -- H H -' """ H --
Pr:0.02 . 5pmi.1 94 _. M
c
7Q 10:007 IWC(%):30.6 OrJr - --_ _-_ _
NONE - NONE' LATE NONE'
---
PERM:4S1IR LC50 AC LIM 42% Y 90 NONE -" - NONE' --- -_ NONE' -- -- NONE' -- ---
I'I'.RDUIlINC.IdiWIS'ION91 NONE' --- ---
OCFJAN APR JUL NonCOmp:SINGI.1i >90.0,
NCW28535/WI Ocgin:ll/1192 1'mqucn<y''Q A, 02 NONE' --- _. >90.0- --- --- >900- - .-_ ___
WAHO Subhzein:ROA0S --- >90.0' a9o0'
Cnunty:OER'1IG Itrgmn: 93 a9o.0' --- -- >OOA' --
1'1; 3.0 Sper'nl 94 >90.0' --
7010:O.N IWC(9k IN.N Order:
0 2 ro u,i.c L llu,c,=,:ig"Ihcant Ann„mpllana a. Y pre 1990❑m.Avnilublc - .
awo,n D-D;,r,nlin edn,nnllnnng rcWln:lnr,I.S.Conducting nd"rdiroumdy
LRGP.NU:
PntlucnrY=Slnnimnng fagnvncy:Q'Q":umrly:M-Mnntbly:6M-Oimnnthly;SA-Sc,: +nnuallyt A-An,uall`:OWO-Only wbcndiscb nUn =([uncm Cnm ll:nmc H<gninmrnl
1`Ii1tM=POrnil Regnim:nrn I.If1'=Aunt ti>umirclx'ucr-'I'argm,n: m ac+la mn:"bl glc failure Mm"ha lon e"tl"gno"lo""" .IAN.AIR,IIII_OCI N: ng' P
=15,I„ xdb n'onim,l ]1110=11r, i.inF as:cn lo,.nnw ai n(rf') A=qunnoly" coloring in Yul'^"CIIR=Chronic '
nrrb' rm=la,m.aawni<m,l rrt�nc=n<"t<
r r t
1'1'=1'rnnirird lJuw(MGI» IWC?.=lnnmam wnac cnnwmmtinn ' Ioil
...r„b,.n'\r..,.... •.r,..:...bN:"i>rr.',nv Me.id andmo'.f-IItV Chonic wlue l'-Mn"nlity of,lanl ocrtcmae<m hiebw cpnnmrnion;at-I'crfonicd M1v DIiM Au Tox Gmu\Inrr J>Ia.vaJnFl.for mnntn l g unn SIG=OP( F "m needed
I" ]n nm
vr,,nnenn-tY Ir. '.'.r Fni unl Cia<!vrr,nq:1. n u[i

Old Fort WWTP- Speculative Request
Curtis Creek
030830
Town has submitted a request for speculative limits for an expansion from 0.8
MGD to 1.2 MGD. Existing limits are 30/30 for conventional pollutants, Fecal of 200, w/
limits for the following metals:
Cadmium= 1.8 µg/l
Lead= 114 µg/l
Cyanide=23 µg/l
Chlorine=77 µg/l
Effluent monitoring for chromium,copper, nickel and zinc are also a part of the existing
permit.
Review of compliance data: Avg. Wasteflow of 0.4445 MGD.
Eight (8)TSS limit violations from 7/93 to 3/94, All other limits for BOD,Fecal, Cl, and
metals have been met for the past 12 months. With the exception of TSS, the plant would
appear from the data to be well operated.
Instream Assessment was done for Old Fort in November, 1993 for an increase in
flow and TSS limit. SOC Flow was for an additional 20,000 GPD and TSS limit was for
200 mg/l. Tech support recommended evaluation of 200 mg/l request since max. TSS
value at that time had been only 120 mg/l. Talked w/Jeff Bouchelle of Compliance and he
said that SOC has been sent to public notice with request for denial and had been denied.
Said that ARO had indicated that they were willing to work with the Town on another SOC
but that the Town would have to comply with the things that the Region asked them to do.
In the past, Old Fort had not followed through on improvements as they had been directed
to do, therefore ARO had also requested denial of the SOC. He indicated that another
request for assessment may be coming back through in the future.
Old IWC was 22%,Current Toxicity Test- Chronic Ceriodaphnia Quarterly Monitoring
New IWC would be 27% @ 1.2 MGD. 1.2 MGD * 1.55 = 1.86 =
(1.2 MGD * 1.55) +4.9 cfs 6.76
= 0.275 * 100 = 27.5%

WGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
I
CONSULTING ENGINEERS d
March 9, 1994 i i,rs..,5
1R1510,
Mr. Trevor Clements
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 29535 -
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Town of Old Fort WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO021229
Dear Mr. Clements:
The Town of Old Fort is in the preliminary planning stage of expanding its wastewater treatment
plant from 0.8 mgd to 1.2 mgd. The plant is located in McDowell County and discharges to Curtis
Creek at the location shown on the attached map.
In order for the Town to proceed with preliminary engineering, we respectfully request that you
provide us with speculative NPDES permit limits for design flow of 1.2 mgd. We would appreciate a
timely response to this request so that the Town can more accurately define the processes required for
the planned expansion.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
MIKE WARESAK, P.E.
MW/drj
Enclosure
cc: Wayne Stafford
Jackie Blalock
93145.01
P.D.E30X 2259 704/252-0575 38 ORANGE STREET
ASHEVILLE,NC 29802 704/252-251B [FAX] ASHEVILLE,NC 2BB01

� _"�w�`.' ,'� AS1 I it I .• � `��1`'`-'- ,.I' ._l � `��r --.'z �/.� .��
—
{
I
M • p�j • 4 C 4
WT
`���� ( c `6J�i , ��Jti `\ �6s3�i/=�_!� 1235 ✓ /_J� f` n` \•'. �i�IV%�.lfsyrs -:
'92 •(MOFFTF NR.L) A34•.T°N C nm 194 10' 1 195 '96
4ssnnsw
SCALE 1:240M
i a I MILE Primary
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET hard sur
I s 0 1 KILOMETER Seconda
hard su,
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET /
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
• N.0 )
TMIC ue• enu°I me wlT NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS

SAMPLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets(DSS)
' Old Fort, WWTP Filename: Old—Fort_DSS_EFF
NPDES # 21229 Date rev: 3/24/94
Page: 1
(� � Reported
Ol�p" I� Laboratory
I ' Q = Flow Actual Method
Sample Date Time Person NOTES: M=Metered Results Detection
ID,or Sample Sample Collecting E=Estimated Limit
Count Collected Collected Sample mgd gal/day mg/1 <? mgQ
1 2/2/93 JLB LTMP M 0.4175 417,500 5.60 1.00
2 2/3,N3 JLB LTMP M 0.4371 437,100 8.40 1:00
3 2/4/93 JLB LTMP M 0.4574 457,400 10.00 s t:00
4 5/3/93 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 5.00 1.00
5 5/4i93 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 5.20 1.00
6 5/5/93 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 6 00 1.00
7 8/2/93 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 13.00 1:00
8 8/3N4 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 38.00 3.00
9 8/4r73 JLB LTMP by Pace Inc. 28.00 1'.00
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20 J'
21
22
23
TNS = Total number of samples=> 3 9
NurnBDL= Total number below NIDL=> p
MAX= Maximum data value(mg, ) =>I 457,4001 38.0
Avg.ignor.BDL= Average data value, Ignore all BDL values=> 437,333 13.2
Avg.incl.BDL= Average data value, Include BDL values as detection => 132
Avg.half.BDL= Average data value, Include BDL values as 1/2 dctection=> 13.2
Avg.zcro.BDL= Average data value, Include BDL values as zero=> 13.2

,) SAMPLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets (DSS)
Old Fort, WWTP Filename: Old—Fort_DSS_EFF
Date rev: 3/24/94
NPDES # 21229 Page: 2
TSS Aluminum Ammonia
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/l <? mg/1 mg/l <? mg/l mgp <? mg/l
1 2/2/93 32 1.00 0.113 O.alo
2 2/3/93 38 1.00 0.208 0.010
3 2/4/93 40 . 1.00 0.246 U10
4 5/3 93 15 1.00 0.21 0.100 0.32 0.05
5 5/4/93 12 1001 ND 0.100
6 5/5/93 12 17001 ND 0.100
7 8/2 93 45 I.00 0.14 0.100
8 8/3/94 280 100 0.24 , 0.100
9 8/4 93 180 E00 0.57 0.100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18xx
19
20 .
21
22
23
TNI
Nu M DX= 280 0 0.5700 0.3200
Avg.ignor.BDL= 72.7 0.2467 0.3200
Avg.incl.BDL= 72.7 02496 0.3200
Avg.half.BDL= 72.7 0.2481 0.3200
Avg.zcro.BDL= 72.7 0.1919 0.3200

SAMPLE Location => POT�V Effluent Data Summary Sheets (DSS)
Old Fort, WWTP File name: Old-Fort—DSS—EFF
NPM it21229 Date rev: 3/24/94
Page: 3
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/l <? mg/1 mg/l <? mg/1 mg/l <? mg/l
I 2/2/93 BDL < O.DOl' 0.004 D.001'
2 2/3N3 BDL < O.00t 0.005 b.001'
3 2/4/93 BDL < 0.001 0.005 0.001
4 5/3/93 ND D.001 ND b.020
5 5/4 93 ND b.001 ND 0.020
6 5/5/93 ND O.00li ND D.020
7 8/2 93 ND O.00li 0.011 0.020
8 8/3 9a ND O.DOi 0.009 0.020
9 8/4/93 ND 0.001 0.036 0.020
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TNS - 9 9
NumBDL= 91 3
MAX- 0.0000 0.00001 0.0360
Avg.ignor.BDL.- #DIV/0! #DIVro! 0.0117
Avg.incl.BDL= #VALUE! DIV/0! 0.0122
Avg.haILBDL= #VALUE! NDIVro! 0.0119
Avg.zero.BDL= ItVALUE! 0.0000 0.0078

SAMPLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets (DSS)
Old Fort, WWTP Filename: Old-Fort_DSS_EFF
NPDES # 21229 Date rev: 3/24/94
Page: 4
COD Copper Cyanide
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory i Laborator
y
Actual Method Actual Method i Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection i Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/l <? mgp mgA <? mg/1 G ' mg/l <? mg/l
1 2/2/93 120 50.0 0.106 0.001 G BDL < 0.002
2 2/3/93 89 50.0 0.130 0.001` G BDL
3 2/4/93 150 50.0 0.159 O.00I G I BDL < 0.002
4 5/3/93 58 5.0 0.012 0.010 G 0.004 W)02
5 5/4/93 34 5.6 ND 0.010 G 0.002 0:002
6 5/5/93 34 5.0 ND 0.010 G IND 0.002
7 8/2/93 97 50.0 0.037 0.001 G 0.(XA 0.002
8 8/3N4 120 50.0 0.028 0.001 G 0.003 0.002
9 8/4/93 94 50.0 0.230 G 0.003 0.002
10
11
12,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nu MAX= 150.0 0.230 0.004
Avg.ignor.BDL= 88.4 0.100 0.003
Avg.incl.BDL= 88.4 0.101 0.005
Avg.haICBDL= 88.4 0.100 0004
Avg.zero.BDL= 88.4 0.078 0.002

/SAMPLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets (DSS)
Old Fort, W WTP File name: Old_Fort_DSS_EFF
NPDES # 21229 Date rev: 3/24/94
i Page: 5
Lead Mercury Nickel
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID, or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mgp <? mg/1 mg/1 <? mg/t mg/l <? mgp
1 2/2/93 0.004 O.00E BDL < 0.0002 BDL
2 2/3/93 0.006 0.001 BDL < 0.0002 BDL. < 0.010
3 2/4/93 0.009 D.001' BDL < 0.0002 BDL
4 5/3/93 0.005 0.001`' ND 0.002 ND 0.010
5 5/4/)_; 0.003 O.00T ND W, 2 ND 0.010
- 6 5/5/93 0.003 0.001 ND 0.002 ND 0.010
7 8(2/m)3 ND 0.010O
8 8/3/)4 0.010 O.D01 ND 0.002 0.088 0.010
9 8/4/93 0.006 O.00I ND Q M2 ND O.OIO
10
I1
12
13
14
o
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TNS _-
NumBDI_
M A _- 0.010 0.00000 0.088
Avg.ignor.BDl. 0.006 #DIV/0! 0.088
Avg.incl.BDI. _: 0.006 #DIV/0! 0.168
Avg.half.BDL = 0.006 #DIV/0! 0.128
Avg.zcro.BDI, 0.005 0.00000 0.010

pLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary sheets (Dss)
�r WWTP File name: Old_Fort_DSS_EFF
.Id Fort, Date rev: 3/24/94
Npf)ES # 21229 Page: 6
Phosphorus Silver Zinc
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/1 <? mgA mg/l <? mg/1 mg/l <? mg/l
1 2/2/93 2.50 0.100 BDL < 0.001 0.066 D 01.0
2 2/3/93 2.50 0.100 BDL [ 0.001' 0.099 0.010
__. _ro
3 2/4i93 3.00 0:100 BDL [ 0.001' 0.099 . 0.010
4 5 3/93 2.00 0:010 ND 0.010 0.094 00L0
_. _.
XW
0 01005 5/4pJ3 1.80 00ND
6 5/5/93 2.00 0.010 ND 0.010 0.060 0.D10
7 8/2/93 2.40 0.010 ND 0.001' 0.058 bMO
8 8/3/94 3.10 0.010 ND 0.001' 0.300 0 010
... . . . ....................
9 8/4/93 2.70 VM0 ND 0.001 0.097 O..OIO
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NumMAX— 3.100 0 0.33
Avg.ignor.BDL= 2.444 #DIV/01. 0.101
Avg.incl.BDL= 2.444 #DIV/0! 0.101
Avg.half.BDL= 2.444 #DIV/01 0.101
Avg.aero.BDL= 2.444 0.000 0.101

S � ,4PLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets(DSS)
Old Fort, WW I'h File name: Old_Fon_DSS_FFF
Date rev: 3l24 94
% NPDES # 21229 Page: 8
Nitrate Nitrite+Nitrate Other
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/l < mg/l mg/l < mg/l mg/l < mgp
1 2/2/93 0.10 0.100
2 2/3 93 BDL < 0_I00
3 2/4/93 BDL < 0.100
4 5/3/93 0.41 0.100
5 5/4/93 0.58 0.100
6 5/5/93 0.26 0.100
7 8/2/93 0.14 0.100
8 8/3/94 0.15 0.100
9 8/4/93 0.13 0 100
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TNS = 3 6
NumBDL
MAX— 0.1 0.58 0
Avg.ignor.BDL= 0.10 0.28 #DIV/0!
Avg.incl.BDL= 0.30 0.28 _ #VALUE!
Avg.half.BDL= 0.20 0.28 #VALUE!
Avg.zaro.BDL= 0.03 0.28 #VALUE!

SAMPLE Location => POTW Effluent Data Summary Sheets (DSS)
Old Fort, WWTP File name: Old—Fort_DSS_UF
/ NPDES # 21229 Date rev: 3124/94
Page: 7
Total (N) Keldjahl (N) Nitrite
Reported Reported Reported
Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory
Actual Method Actual Method Actual Method
Sample Date Results Detection Results Detection Results Detection
ID,or Sample Limit Limit Limit
Count Collected mg/l < mg/l mg/I < mg/l mg/l < mg/l
1 2/2/93 5.7 0.100 5.6 0.100 BDL
2 2/3/93 7.0 0100 7.0 0.100 BDL G 0.020
3 2/4/93 8.5 0.100 8.5 0.100 BDL G 0.020
4 5/393 4.51 0.700 4.1 0.050
5 5/4ry3 3.88 O.IQO 3.3 O.OSq
6 5/5/93 3.96 0.100 3.7 0.050
7 8/2ry3 8.14 0.100 8.0 0.050
8 8/3/94 28.2 0.100 28.0 0.050
9 8/4/93 26.1 O.IQO 26.0 O.b50
10
11P.
12
13
14
15
iz
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nu MAX 28.20 28.00 0
Avg.ignor.BDL= 10.67 10.47 #DIV/0!
Avg.ind.BDL= 10.67 10.47 #DIV/0!
Avg.half.BDL= 10.67 10.47 #DIV/0!
Avg.zcro.BDL=I 10.67i 10.47 0.00

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roy Davis \
FROM: Jacquelyn M-Nowell,"
THRU: Ruth Swanek �C 5
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment for the Town of Old Fort
NPDES Permit No. NCO021229
McDowell County
Summary and Recommendation
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the request for an instream assessment
for the Town of Old Fort . The Town is requesting an SOC for an increase in flow and the
TSS limit. The design flow of the Old Fort plant is 0.800 MGD and the request is for
20,000 GPD of domestic and industrial/commercial flow. The requested SOC limit for
TSS is 200 mg/l.
The Town has consistently met the flow limit with the maximum flow reported as
approximately 690,000 GPD. With an average flow of 0.362 MGD, it would appear that
the SOC flow of 20,000 GPD can be excepted by the facility. A review of compliance data
for the past twelve months shows that Old Fort has exceeded the TSS limit four times,with
a maximum monthly value of 120 mg/l. The requested SOC limit of 200mg/l of TSS
would seem to be excessive considering the highest reported value. It is recommended that
the SOC limit for TSS be reevaluated to determine if a lower value can be requested.
The EMC 67(b)criteria was not evaluated for this request since SOC limits for
BOD5 or NH3, the oxygen consuming constitutents, were not requested.
cc: Kent Wiggins
Central Files

Request Form for In-Stream Assessment
NAME OF FACILITY Town of Old Fort SUBBASIN CTB 030830
COUNTY McDowell REGION ASHEVILLE DESIGN FLOW 0 . 800
RECEIVING STREAM Curtis Creek
BACKGROUND DATA•
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?
TSS
B. History of SOC requests :
1 . Monthly Average waste flow
prior to any SOC 0 . 4074 (yr 1992 ) mgd
2 . SOC flow added: Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: mgd
total of previously approved SOC flow: mgd
3. Flows lost from plant flow: mgd
4. This SOC request flow: 0 . 020 mgd
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses) flow: 0 . 4274 mgd
6 . Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Yes
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 more than a year.

THIS SOC
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste If it is a combin-
ation, please specify percentages.
10,000 gpd domestic
10 , 000 gpd industrial/commercial (to be pretreated to be equivalent
to domestic)
B. What type of industry? please attach any pertinent data.
Industrial/commercial flow aliquot is not specific to any industrial
or business activity. It is requested to allow for small additional
flows from existing customers or new businesses .
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BOD5 30 mg/l
NH3 no limit mg/l
DO no lim)itn mg/l
TSSC
/ ( mg/l DnQ1
fecal coliform 200 #/100 ml /v\
pH 6-9 SU