NC0021474_201 FACILITIES PLAN_19901129

NP®ES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0021474
Mebane WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Engineering Alternatives Analysis
01 Facilities Plan,
Instream Assessment (67B)
Correspondence re: draft permit
Permit History Date Range:
Document Date: November 29, 199
This document is printed oa reuse paper-more a.ay
content oia the reverse side

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 29, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Reginald Sutton
FROM: Alan Clarkwk4
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment for Mebane' s WWTP
Expansion, Alamance County
The Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject document.
Comments from the Technical Support Branch are attached. In
addition to those comments, the following comments are provided.
The secondary impacts section of the EA should be expanded.
Enlarging the service area of the plant could facilitate
development in currently undeveloped areas and promote population
increases. These factors could result in changes in land use,
development of prime or unique agricultural lands, added
use-demands on parks, incremental increases in air pollutign,
increased surface runoff to creeks and lakes and pressure to
build in wetland or floodplain areas. Chances are that these
impacts will not be so significant that an EIS would be required.
However, the EA needs to address these issues and state
whether these secondary and cumulative impacts will be
significant.
The EA also needs to determine whether any rare, threatened
or endangered species will be impacted.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
ARC/kls
Attachments
cc: Trevor Clements--,

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Clark
THROUGH: Mike Scoville WDS
Ruth Swanek RCS
Trevor Clementse
FROM: Betsy Johnson 2U-
SUBJECT: 201 Facilities Plan Amendment for City of Mebane' s
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Alamance County
The Technical Support Branch has received the 201 Facilities
Plan Amendment for the City of Mebane' s Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion from the Planning Branch for review. The major issues
associated with the expansion are: the additional wasteflow,
eutrophication, potential toxic constituents, and color. Though
the flow issues are addressed fairly well, eutrophication, toxics
and color are not emphasized in the assessment .
1 . The "Environmental Consequences" section, pp. 43-47, should
include a section on "water quality" since this is our main
concern. Subsets of "water quality" should be color, toxics, and
eutrophication. The water quality section should inc]sude a
discussion of the assimilative capacity of Moadams Creek, i.e. ,
the effect of the discharge on instream dissolved oxygen levels
with respect to existing and future wasteflows. DEM' s low flow
policy should be discussed.
2 . Section M, "Introduction of toxic substances", p. 46, should
be expanded. The facility' s past toxicity problem and resolution,
specifically the improvements to the pretreatment program should
be described. The difficulties with cadmium and mercury should
also be discussed. The report should identify toxic substances in
each of the industrial dischargers to the municipal plant, i .e. , a
chemical specific breakdown should be provided. The whole
effluent toxicity test requirement should be described in more
detail. Dechlorination and chlorine toxicity should be discussed.... "-7*t-�s
3 . Section N, "Eutrophication •of receiving waters", p. 46,
should be expanded upon. There should be a discussion of the
existing eutrophication problem, i .e. , Lake Latham. It should be
stated that DEM initially requested a Total Phosphorus limit of
0 .5 mg/1 to reduce eutrophication in the lake. The agreement made
with DEM whereby Mebane would remove the dam at Lake Latham in
exchange for a Phosphorus limit of 2 mg/1 should be included.

4 . Color was not mentioned as an issue. Textile waste often
contains dyes which are not removed by conventional wastewater
treatment . North Carolina' s water quality standard for color (15
NCAC 2B . 0211 (b) (3) (F ) ) restricts colored wastes to "only such
amounts as will not render the waters injurious to public health,
secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely
affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the
waters for any designated uses" . As such, a discussion of the
color and environmental impacts associated with Mebane' s effluent
should be included.
5. Section 0, "Secondary impacts", p. 46, should include a
discussion of erosion and sediment control activities associated
with the construction.
6. The "Mitigative Measures" section, p.47, should be expanded
upon. "Water Quality" was not listed and is the most important
issue. Subsets of water quality should be eutrophication,
toxicity and color.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the listed
comments, please contact me at extension 516.
cc: Steve Mauney
1

i
- - --- - - fit ---- ----------- - ---- ----- ------ - _ -- --- - -
I !
i
_._-- - - �0 1- `�l an -�w r���e_-�� _V�'leba.,s_1.J.1.J-.T.�' w� I.o.-_'a'__ .�..5 -NI v-_d)..-•--
- „S_WCv
rp
i
I
_ _ _ i.��k;c.S- - -- - --=/���_�°,t_�['-�-'��--�a-,.��.<��-�•-� ,ems--�-�� _
,-- - — Ili -_ O •-5-.,,��1-�-ti=,-•s--- -- --- ----- ----