NC0020401_201 FACILITIES PLAN_19860805

WDES ®OCUb4EMT SCAMMIMC COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit: NC0020401
Hickory - Northeast WWTP
Document Type: Permit Issuance
Al
Authorization to Construct (AtQ
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date: August 5, 1986
This doc�tneat Sus ysriated�n resise passer-i�nare any
coatent on the re���r-use side

,r
1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 5, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alien Wahab
FROM: Randy Dodd ZC. .''
THRU: Meg Kerr rrrf—
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Hickory Northeast WWTP
201 Amendment
I have reviewed the subject amendment and would like to offer the
following comments :
1 ) Throughout the report, the term "outfall" is used to
refer to the collection and outfall system. Have plans
been received regarding the diffuser system?
2) Design inflow concentrations seem to be high for largely
domestic wastewater.
3) What is the expected effluent quality of the various
treatment alternatives?
4) On page 12, it is stated that "New effluent limits based
on the design flow of 6.4 mgd will be established by NCDEM."
Is the plant being designed for 6.0 mgd or 6.4 mgd?
5) What is the purpose of the paragraph on page 13 discussing
the areal water yield of the Falling Creek basin? Note
that a design flow is developed on pages 8 - 11 .
6) Is any information available regarding expected nutrient
concentrations in the effluent from the various alternatives?
Since Lake Hickory receives a heavy nutrient load, we are
concerned about the potential for an eutrophic response.

r
~ I
Allen Wahab
August 5, 1986
- page two -
With regard to this issue, I have attached portions of
the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's report-
This information is attached because of their significant conclusion
that plants can be designed and operated for biological nutrient removal
at costs comparable to conventional plants .
Please advise if questions.
RCD:mlt
Attachment

X`4
POINT-SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY
The available information reviewed in the preceding section indicates
that the best way to achieve water quality improvements in the saline
portion of the Chesapeake Ray in the immediate future is to reduce the
amounts of nitrogen entering the Bay system during the growing season. It
seems especially prudent tb reduce the quantities of ammonia-nitrogen
entering the system because lof the multiple effects they have on water
quality, i .e. , oxygen depletion., potential toxicity, and growth
enhancement.
Wastewater treatment plant discharges, the primary source of ammonia-
nitrogen at all times, and of total nitrogen during the algal growing
season, are the most easily controllable sources of nitrogen entering the
Bay. Control strategy. then, seemingly dictates that the reduction of
point sources of nitrogen be given top priority.
The role of phosphorus in promoting algal growth, particularly in the
tidal freshwater portions of the Bay, should not be overlooked, however.
Also, the release of phosphorus from the Bay sediments under anaerobic
conditions accentuates the nitrogen limitation effects during the growing
season and adds to the overall enrichment of the system. Comprehensive _
long-term control strategy should include reduction of both point and
non-poiflt sources of phosphorus.
Historically, wastewater treatment engineers in the USA have relied on
inorganic chemical precipitation for phosphorus removal , and "two sludge"
systems incorporatir-a methanol addition for nitrogen removal . Chemical
precipitation of phosphorus is very reliable and can achieve the desired
effluent quality, but it increases the cost of wastewater treatment by
adding the cost of the chemicals and substantially increasing waste sludge
disposal costs. The capital cost of "two sludge" system, is exceptionally
high and the cost of methanol greatly increases operating costs.
Consequently, regulatory agencies historically have been reluctant to
impose phosphorus limitations, and nitrogen limits have been imposed under
only the most extreme conditions.
Fortuitously for the Chesapeake Bay situation, recent developments in
activated sludge wastewater treatment technology have provided sufficient
information for the design and operation of treatment systems that utilize
biological nutrient removal processes to achieve both nitrogen and
phosphorus removal simultaneously with Biolsy"l Oxygen Demand (B00)
removal (See Appendix A). F r h
into new lants for very little if any, increase in Cost over that
re uired or BOO rmval alone a can be ad existingla for a
sma Traction_
o e cost of the original lasts. For example,
pre I imTnary engineer g eslgn eva Nation for the upgrading of the 40 MGD
Lambert's Point Primary Treatment Plant in Norfolk, Virginia to secondary
treatment , concluded that the construction of a system that would remove
nitrogen and phosphorus in addition to 80D would he within 10% of the costs
of a system removing only ROD. Also, tht, Pontiac , Michigan 3.5 MGD East
17

Bou 1I,Vd rd 1, 1.111t W.]1 +•r r I c1 1 rnrt i t .I r .+ 1 I .�t rf.-r*tovcd only Boo
biologically and phf.%phorus by irep ialts a(( ition, to a facility that
removes both BCD and phosphorus biologically ane nitrifies seasonally, for
a cost of only S50,000. The new facility consistently removes phosphorus
to concentrations well below 1 .0 mg/L. A proposal was recently suhctitte.d
to the VirSinia State 6:ater Control Board by the Hampton Poads Sanitation
District for the retrofit and operation of their 7 NGD York River Plant for
nitrogen, phosphorus , and e00 removal , and the projected conversion cost
was only S137,000.
eioiogicai nutrient removal processes are inherently more energy
efficient than purely aerobic BOO removal processes, in terms of aeration
requirements, and systems incorporating biological nitrogen and phosphorus
removal can potentially be operated, with greater energy efficiency than
systems removing BOO alone. In fact, systems that accomplish nitrification
in addition to BOD removal can be operated for ?0 to 40% less energy by
conversion to nitrogen and phosphorus removal . For example, Best, et al .
[(1984) converted a nitrifying activated sludge plant operated by the Thames
Water Authority to nitrogen removal by der.itrification and reduced the
total energy costs of the plant-by 17% over a 12 month period. Randall et
al . (1985) have shown that biological phosphorus removal can reasonably
reduce the operating energy costs by an additional 20%.
Thus, technology is available for the reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus discharges simultaneously with BOD reduction at little or no
increase in cost compared to plants that remove BOO only, and do not
nitrify. it would tie reasonable to take advantage of :.uch treatment
improvements under any circumstances, but it ' is particularly appropriate to
implement this technology throughout the Chesapeake Ray area considering
the critical needs and the potertiai benefits.
Although there are more than 50 full-scale wastewater treatment plants
in nine different countries around the world where nitrogen and phosphorus
removal has been, and continues to be, accomplished simultaneously with BOD
removal , it is recognized that there has been a lack of reliable
information about the processes. economics, and performances of the plants,
and that historical circumstances have predisposed the engineering
community to skepticism, particularly in regard to excess biological
phosphorus removal . Appendix 8 presents the background necessar, for an
understanding of the biological nutrient removal processes and includes
discussions of observed performances at the full-scale plants.
Other treatment techniques are also available for the removal of
nitrogen and phosphorus, and may be more economical to implement in some
areas. For example, where land area is available spray irrigation can be
used with considerable success, particularly for phosphorus removal . The
disposal of municipal sewage by spray irrigation on forested and pasture
lands has been extensively studied at Pennsylvannia State University.
Design specifics are available from their Institute on Land and Water
Resources. Also, an extensive land disposal project at Muskegon, Michigan
has been in operation for more than 10 years and now serves 18
municipalities and five large industries. Extensive monitoring has
18

TABLE 1 . COM,PARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL _
Relative Relative Relative
Capital Energy Chemical Relative Waste Removals Achieved
Proces, Cost deeds Needs SAO Production JOD NOD Nitrogen hos horus
Conventional 1 .0 1 .0 none 1 .0 X
w/Nity- fication 1 .2 1 .55 0 or L* 0 .0 X X
if/Two i tage N 2.1 1 .75 H 1 .5 X X X F
kemoval (rathanol ) :
w/One Stage N 1 .1 1 .25 none <1 .0 X X X
Remova', ( Influent BOD)
N
w/Chemical P Removal
Simultaneous 1 .2 1 .0 to 1 .55** M 1 .2. to 1 .7*** X V X
Ter`iary 1 .8 " . H 2.0 X V X
w/Rirlroical P Removal 1 .0 0.8 none 1 .0 X V X
w/Bio! ; Q cal Nutrient 1 .1**** 1 .0 none 0 .0 X X X X
Remova , (N 5 P)
Corpares activated sludge treatment options , Pfluent filtratioF not considered
*If alkalinity is low, may require chemical addition for pH control and/or nitrification completion
"Variatior depends upon extent of nitrification accomplished, i .e. , operating sludge age chosen
" Variation depends upon whether or not primary sedimentation is practiced , 1 .2 to 1 .3 with primary
sedimentation
""Preliminary Engineering Estimate for Lambert' s Point Plant
L = Low M = Medium H G High X - Yes V - Variable

Appendix A
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL
NUTRIENT REMOVAL SYSTEMS IN THE USA
The biological processes for the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus
are. generally considered to be too expensive and/or technically unfeasible
by USA wastewater treatment professionals because of historical
developments and disputes. Arf appreciation for the historical events is
essential to an understanding of this resistance.
Nitrogen removal technology was studied in Europe during the early and
mid-1960's but there was little activity in the United States until
Professor McCarty of Stanford University began a series of definitive
studies in the late sixties. However, he was concerned with the removal of
nitrates from agricultural irrigation water, which contained almost no
biodegradable organics, rather than sewage, and, therefore, he had to
supply the biodegradable organics to achieve denitrification. He
experimented with a wide variety of organics and concluded that methanol
was the compound of choice based on economic and biochemical consideration.
Shortly after McCarty's studies, nitrogen removal from sewage became a
matter of concerr- in some areas. and systems were devised to accomplish it
- biologically. Because- McCarty's data- were—the most readily available,
irrigation water treatment technology was applied to the treatment of
sewage, resulting in plants that were unnecessarily complicated and very
expensive to build and operate. Rather than using the sewage organics for
denitrification, two separate plants including clarifiers were built in
series, the first for the removal of sewage organics and nitrification, and
the second, to accomplish denitrification with the addition of methanol .
This desion approach became accepted practice with the result that in a
short period of time, biological nitrogen removal was considered to be too
expensive to utilize except for extreme circumstances.
This series of developments overlooked the fact that denitrification
using the sewage organics would actually reduce the total aeration
requirements of a nitrifying activated sludge plant. Consequently, a
technology that could have increased the environmental benefits of
wastewater treatment while simultaneously reducing the operating costs was
never implemented in the USA_ However, this technology was widely
implemented in both Europe and South Africa, and there is no technical or
economic reason why it could not be widely- implemented in the USA.
Excess biological phosphorus removal was first studied by Shapiro and
Levin at The Johns Hopkins University in the early 1960's. This led to the
development of the Phostrip process, which has been marketed since that
time. but has had a series of only partially successful applications.
Reascns for the partial failures have been both economic and technical . It
is important ;.o recognize, however, that Phostrip is a sidestream rather
than a mainstream process , and that it utilizes a chemical addition step
A--1

n
for the actual phosphorus removal . P,v sidestream is meant. that the
activated sludge is separated from the wastewater after organic removal and
pumped tr separate tanks for the phosphorus removal steps , then returned to
the organic removal tank.
During the later 1960's, a few conventional activated sludge plants
were observed to be removing phosphorus without chemical addition. The
most celebrated of these, and the most thoroughly studied, was the Rilling
Road Plant in San Antonio. Texas. Efforts to identify the mechanisms
responsible were made and "Alemerous laboratory studies by a variety of
investigators were stimulated. However, very few of the studies were
successful and those that were did not yield sufficient information for
design and oper2tion control.
Studies by Menar and Jenkins at the University of California,
Berkeley, obtained high phosphorus removal , but the responsible mechanisms
involved were identified as being chemical , not biological . Using their
experimental results, Jenkins was able to explain the phosphorus removal at
the Rilling Road plant on the basis of the chemical composition of the San
Antonio water supply, which is entirely groundwater and high in. calcium.
His explanation was disputed and rejected by the San Antonio investigators,
but Jenkins' argument was persuasive to the wastewater treatment
profession. Consequently, research into biological phosphorus removal
ceased in the USA and an entire generation of professionals were taught
that -excess biological .phosphorus removal was- biochemically impossible_
Ironically, biological nitrogen removal studies in the early seventies
by James Barnard, a South African native doing doctoral work at the
University of Texas, led to the ultimate revival of excess biological
phosphorus renoval research. In a mainstream activated sludge system
specific2lly designed to remove nitrogen using the incoming sewage for
denitrification, he observed that he was also removing excess phosphorus.
He dubbed the system "Bardenpho". and upon his return to South Africa
worked with the South African government to develop the system on a
full-scale basis. He subsequently developed the- Phoredox modification of
the Bardenpho, which consisted of five reactors in series rrhich had a
hydraulic retention time of approximately 21 hours. It was capable of 90%
BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus removal without any chemical addition if
properly operated.
The key to excess biological phosphorus removal proved to be
anaerobic-aerobic sequencing of reactors. This provided the conditions
under which bacteria that could remove, store, and utilize excess amounts
of phosphorus could flourish_ The importance of true anaerobic conditions
in the first reactor, i .e., a redox potential of at least minus 400 mv, was
not initially recognized and this led to unstable performance at a majority
of the full-scale plants designed for nitrogen and phosphorus removal . The
reed for true anaerobic conditions was first discovered by Marais and his
co-workers at the University of Cape Town, and led to modifications of the
Bardenpho-Phoredox system, which are called the UCT and the modified UCT
processes. Marais also simplified the system from five to three reactors.
Subsequent experience has shown that systems designed to prevent the
A-2

feedback of nitrites to the anaerobic rrzctor will operate consistently
with high phosphorus removal .
Today the principle of excess biological phosphorus removal is widely
accepteG worldwide. Ironically. Professor Jenkins of U. C. BerkelPu is the
current Chairman of an international group forTw-,d specifically for the
purpose of coordinating and disseminating research results on biological
phosphorus removal . 14-k
A somewhat parallel development of an excess biological phosphorus
removal systen also occurred in the USA. The Anaerobic/Oxic (A/0) system
was patented by Air Products, Inc. , based on research led by S. N. Hong.
This system was originally designed to remove only phosphorus and was
operated at a low sludge age and short (6 to 8 hours) hydraulic retenta''on
time. A later modification to remove nitrogen as well is known as the A /0
process (Anaerobic-Anoxic/oxic).
Fore recently, it has been shown in England and France that existing
conventional activated sludge plants can be easily and economically
modified to achieve both nitrogen and phosphorus removal . It is
particularly important to note that the removals can be accomplished with
wastewater hydraulic retention times of 6 to 10 hours, which makes the___
systems economical from ,a capital cost standpoint, and that conversion ..
results in' about a 20% savings in aeration energy costs. These same
principles can be used to design and operate new plants.
When it is considered that the environmental benefits of nitrogen and
phosphorus removal along with BOD removal can be obtained at approximately
the same cost as BOD removal alone, and that waste sludge production will
not be increased as it is with chemical phosphorus removal , it is clear
that biological nutrient removal systems should be used for wastewater
treatment under all but the most unusual circumstances. It is likely that
additional operator training will be required for successful
implementation, but the price is a small one to pay for the potential
environmental benefits.

Appendix B
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESSES
AND OBSERVED PERFORMANCES
Biological Nitrogen Removal
h t.
Biological nitrogen removal consists of the separate reactions of
nitrification and denitrification. These processes are well known and
thoroughly documented in the literature. Nitrification is a two step
autotrophic bacterial reaction that is generally described by the following
equations:
+ Ni trosomonas �'•~-� +
2NH4 + 302 -} 2NO2 + 4H + 2H2O
Ni trobacter '�s'"''�
2NO2 + 02 2NO3 [2]
Overall : NH+ + 20 Nitrifiers _ NO- + 2H+ + H 0 [3]
4 2 3 2
During the oxidation of arranonium to nitrate by the bacteria, a total of'
eight electrons are transferred and accepted by-oxygen. This requires 4.57
pounds of oxygen for each pound of ammonium oxidized (the nitrogenous
oxygen demand - NOD).
Except for very high rate activated sludge systems, some nitrification
nearly always takes place during the biological treatment of municipal
wastewaters. The extent of nitrification will vary considerably throughout
the year depending on the temperature with minimum activity during the
winter months unless operations are adjusted to maintain it. In recent
years, effluent standards in many areas have been amended to include limits
for the quantity of unoxidized nitrogen that can be discharged in an effort
to protect the oxygen resources of the receiving body of water. Complete
nitrification is now standard treatment at many facilities although it is
not in most areas of the Chesapeake Bay, particularly Virginia. This has
resulted in substantially increased oxygen requirements, and therefore
energy costs, of biological wastewater treatment. Specifically, complete
nitrification will generally increase the costs of aeration by 50 to 60%.
The ability of many bacteria to use the-end products of nitrification,
i.e. , nitrite and nitrate, as electron acceptors in place of dissolved
oxygen during the metabolism of organic compounds is also well-known and
thoroughly documented in the literature. The process is known as
denitrification and can be described by the following equations , which were
developed by McCarty (1969) using methanol (CH 3 OH) as the organic
substrate: r 'I
B-�

6NO3 + 2C11301i -6NO , + 2C:0„ + 411?0 1-4 1
f
6NO2 + 3CH3UH --- - 3N2 + 3CO3, + 3H.,0 { 60H f 0 Zb r'
Overal l : 6NO3 + 50,011 ---+ 3N., + 5CO2 + 711L0 + 60H- (61
As the equations show, complete denitrification reduces nitrate to nitronPr.
gas. which becomes part of tke atmosphere and is no longer a pollitt.ant, and
adds alkalinity (OH-) to Tithe water, thereby replacing part of that
destroyed during nitrification.
The total number of electrons transferred during the r•ee!uction of
nitrate to elemental nitrogen gas is five. Considering that eight were
transferred during the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate usinf. dissolved
oxygen, the oxygen equivalence recovered from the use of nitrate as an
electron acceptor for the stabilization of organic matter is 5/8(100)
62.5%. That is to say, whereas oxygen had to be supplied for
nitrification, the nitrate formed can be used to stabilize organic
compounds during denitrification and reduce the arrount of oxygen needed for
subsequent organic (W) stabilization if the ROD of the influent .
wastewater is used instead of methanol . Although 62.57'. of the NOD can
theoretically be recovered, cellular nitrogen reguirements by the
denitri.fiers durino r_ rowth reduces the actual recovery to approximrtely 50%
(van Handel , et al . , 1981 ).
Considering oxygen "recovery" through denitrification (when influent
wastewater is used as the organic carbon energy source instead of methanol )
the economics shift sharply in favor of denitrification. Not only is the
cost of methanol eliminated, but a substantial fraction of the influent
wastewater is stabilized which reduces the amount of oxygen that must be
supplied for BOn stabilization_ The difficulty encountered in attempting
to apply denitrification in conventional wastewater treatment systems is
that with standard flow patterns, unless organic compounds needed for
denitrification are present, nitrate and nitrate are absent. When nitrate
is present, the necessary organic compounds are present in insufficient.
quantity.
Fortunately, the economies of denitrification can be ehtainee ty
recycling nitretes to an anoxic (without oxygen) reactor that precedes the
aeratrd reactor of an aetivatee{ sludge system. The Bardenpho system
(Figure 1 ; was specifically designed for this purpose and has been
thoroughly demonstrated on a full-scale basis. An oxidation ei tch (race-
track) configuration is even more ideal if the influent wastewater enters
at the Freper location because it eliminates the need for recycle pumping
(Figure 2). Utilization of denitrification systems for the treatment of
nitiricipal wastewater will typically decrease the rvPrall energy cost- Ly 15
to 25':.
Stated ann' her wav, once nitrification ha-, hrrn cccompli-r.hrr+, if
dc-vitrific6tion is not. implemented, a 15 to '57 reductirr, in energy- casts
8-2

PRIMARY AEROBIC SECONDARY
ANOXIC REACTOR ANOXIC
REACTOR fWACTOR
MIXED LIQUOR RECYCLE MAJrCTCCTOTION
RFR
WA M FLDW
INFLUENT
SETTLER
EFFL
+ SU104C RECYCLE s
Figure 1. The Bardenpho process for biological nitrogen
removal.
LEGEND
OAerobic Zone
Anoxk Zone
SLUDGE RETURN ®Anoerobfc Zone
` •:- � . INFLUENT
BARRIER WASTEWATER
CLARIFIER
Turbine Aeration
Figure 2. Oxidation Ditch design for nitrogen
removal.
B-3

is wasted arc4 the system is unnecessarily costly to operate.. For many
industrial wastewaters the potential savings resulting from deritrification
would be much greater.
Biological Phosphorus Removal
Compared to denitrification, the potential reduction ir aeration costs
that can be accomplished by biological phosphorus removal reactions is
less-well known, but experimental results at Virginia Polytechnic I ' utP
and State University (Randall , et al., 1985) TRt ate that the savings
be substantial (on the ord6l of 20 to 30A) .
The key to biological phosphorus removal is the linkage of anaerobic
and aerobic units in the same activated sludge system. The anaerobic unit
must receive the influent wastewater flow and the activated sludge must he
exposed to true anaerobic conditions. i ,e. , negative oxidation reduction
potential (ORP) of less then -200 my as measured by a silver chloride
electrode, for a significant period of time prior to exposure to highly
aerobic conditions_ This shifts the growth advantage to the phosphorus
removing (poly-P accumulating) bacteria. When these conditions rre met,
fermentation of the influent BOD occurs -in the anaerobic unit and the
fermentation products are immediately complexed and stored by the poly-P
bacteria using energy from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bonds previously
formed under aerobic conditions. Phosphates are released- to solution
during this reaction as the ATP is reduced to adenosine diphosphate (ADP).
The ability to anaerobically store BOD gives the poly-P bacteria a
substantial advantage over the other aerobic organisms in an anaerobic-
aerobic system, because they remove the most readily biodegradable BOD
during passage through the anaerobic unit, which makes it unavailable to
the other aerobes. Upon entering the aerobic unit, the poly-P bacteria use
the stored BOD for growth, excess energy is produced, and ADP is oxidized
to ATP to store the energy. This results in the uptake of phosphorus in
the aerobic reactor. l�R�ake is in excess o� h��previouslY rPleaSec!�tQ
com nsate for hat lost throu h slud a wastin The sequence is
remarkably efficient for t e po y-P bacteria, whit accumulate eleven ATP's
for each one expended during substrate storage. Thus, they proliferate at
the expense of the other bacteria producing an activated sludge that has
the ability to remove large amounts of phosphorus.
The reactions describing the sequence, assuming acetate as the organic
available for storage, are (Seibritz, et al . , 19&30):
Anaerobic Reactor
acetate + 2ATP + Co-A —}acetyl Co-A + 2ADP + ?Pi [7]
2acet�l Co-A + 2ADP + 2Pi toacerate + 2ADP + 2Co-A [811
Overall : 2. acetate + 2ATP --4-acetoacetate + 2ADP + ?.Pi [9)
a-4

Aerobic Reactor
acetoacetate + 402 + 8NADRED + 22ADP -�
4CO2 + 8H20 + 8NADox + 22ATP [101
For municipal wastewaters the acetate must be formed by anaerobic
fermentation. When it occurs, energy is obtained by the anaerobic bacteria
during fermentation, cell mass is produced, and the organic loading to the
subsequent reactors is redYted. When " the loading is reduced, the oxygen
requirements are also reduced and this results in an energy savings.
Summary
In summary, while the addition of nitrification will typically
increase the oxygen requirements (NOD) of a municipal activated sludge
system by about 55%. the utilization of the influent BOO to accomplish
denitrification will result in a recovery of 50% or more of the NOD, and
biological phosphorus removal will reduce the BOO stabilization oxygen
requirements by 20 to 30%. Thus, the final balance of oxygen requirements
for an activated sludge system removing BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus is
approximately the same as for a system removing only BOO__ The oxygen
requirements of a biological nutrient -removal system are substantially less
(55%) thane those--' of " an activated sludge system- removing 000 and
accomplishing complete nitrification.
Biological Nutrient Removal process Configurations and Full-Scale
xperience
Several mainstream process configurations are available which combine
biological nitrogen and phos horus removal processes. The most prominent
are the modified Bardenpho ?Phoredox) (Barnard, 1975), the University of
Cape Town (UCT) and modified UCT (Siebritz et al . , 1982) , and the NO and
A /0 processes (Hong et al . , 1979). Representative flow schemes are given
in Figures 3 through 7. The Bardenpho and A/0 - A2/0 processes are
proprietary but the UCT systems are not. The greatest amount of full-scale
operating experience has been obtained with the Modified Bardenpho
configuration, mostly in southern Africa, but other full-scale
installations of each are currently in operation. Operating results have
shown that correct design and operation can accomplish nitrogen removal to
less than 3 mg/L and phosphorus removal to less than 1 mg/L in the same
system.
The nine countries known to have full-scale, operating mainstream
biological nutrient removal plants, and the known numbers of plants, are:
South Africa (31+), Zimbabwe (8) , JISA , Japan (?) , France (2+), England
(1 ) , Denmark (1 ) , Namibia (1), and Canada (1 ). The plants range in size
from less than I million gallons per day (MGD) to about 40 MGD. The most
significant observations and developments are:
B-5

f
PRIMARY AEROBIC SECO0IDARY
AMOxIC REACTOR AMWC
REACTOR REACTOR
NXED LIQUOR RECYCLE REAERATION
AMAER0131C a REACTOR
REACTOR WASTE
FLU
INIFL VENT SETTLER
EFf1LE?i
SLUGGC RECYCLE a
,.
Figure 3. The Phoredox process for biological nitrogen and
phosphorus removal. .also called the Modified
Bardenpho process.
ANAEROAIC ANOXIC AEROBIC
REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR
MIXED LIQUOR
RECYCLE
WASTE FLOW
SETTLER
INFLUEN EFFLUENT
sLUooE RECYCLE s
Figure 4. The 3-stage Phoredox process for biological
nitrogen and phosphorus removal.
ANAEROBIC AN07QC AEROBIC
REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR
RECYCLE slcED LIQUOR
RECYCLE
WASTE FLOw
SETTLER
INFLUEN EFFLUENT
yl�1DOE RECYCLE
Figure 5. The UCT process for biological nitrogen
ind phosphorus removal.
E3-6

A#WIFROBIC ANOXIC AEROBIC
REACTOR REACTORS REACTOR
MIXED LIQUOR RECYCLES
a
r , WASTE RAIN
4ETTLER
1 WiLUE NT EMUENT
sLUME RECYCLE .
Figure G. The modified UCT process for biological nitrogen
and phosphorus removal.
Aw�rrr Iw�.M AwM+
Figure 7. AZ/O Process.
B-7

--The 40 MGC modified Bardenpho Goudkoppies plant at Johannesburg, South
Africa , has been successfully operated for several vrars. For
example. from January 10 through Juiy 11 , 111112, it. c+ischarged average
effluent concentrations of 0.66 mg/L total phosphorus (TP), 0.36 mg/L
orthophosphate (OP) , 2.78 mg/L total KjelCahl nitrooer. (TKN), ar(i 1 .6
mn/L nitrate nitrogen. The mean design value for 9�- re'liabiiit_v for
the same period was 0.45 mg/L OP, 2. 7 mg/L mg/1- TKN, and 3.1 mg/L
nitrate. Freezing temperatures are frequently experienced in
Johannesburg during June and July.
•• Kerdachi and Roberts 0 982) have shown that very simple process
configurations can achieve the same results 'as the multi-stage
modified Bardenpho► sy6tem if they are properly operated. By
controlling the air input to the fixed-platform turbine aerators in
the square. completely-mixed, single reactor of a 1 MGL plant operated
by the City of Pinetown, a suburb of Durban, South Africa, they have
consistently achieved the following reductions and effluent qualities
for several years:
PO4-P Influent 10.5 mg/L Effluent 0.8 mg/L
N143-N 30.0 " <0.5 "
TKN 56.0 " 1 .5 "
NO 3-N 0 <0.5 "
_ BOB - 390 <10 " -
COD 700 35 "
-A 0.37 MGD sequencing batch reactor plant serving the city of
Culver, Indiana, produces average monthly effluent concentrations of
0.3 - 1 .7 mg/L NH.,-N, 0.4 - 1 .7 mg/L NO,-N, and 0.3 - 1 .0 mg/L TP on a
year-round basis. )
--Best, et al. (1984) have shown that large-scale conventional
activated sludge systems can be simply and economically codified for
simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal . They accomplished the
necessary configuration by first converting adjacent plug flow tanks
to an oxidation ditch (race-track) flow pattern for nitrogen removal ,
and then added baffling in the influent zone for phosphorus removal .
During the first full year of operation with both modifications, they
achieved 95% nitrification, 6E% denitrification, are- 47% TP removal on
a year-round average. The utilization cf denitrification reduced
enerQv consumption by 17%.
• A 6 MGD modified Bardenpho plant at Kelowna , British Columbia, Canada ,
has been further modifies for the treatment of low strength sewace
after primary sedimertation, and is currently removing TP to less than
B-8

1 .0 mg/L and total nitrogen (TN) to less than 5.0 mg/L before effluent
filtration. This plant incorporates continuous ORP and dissolved
oxygen (DO) monitoring, is computer-controlled, and has been used
experimentally to generate information for the improved design of
biological nutrient removal plants. It has also demonstrated
excellent performance in a very cold climate.
8-9

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 4, _1986
MEMORANDUM
TO: Allen Wahab ,r
FROM: Randy. Dodd 1�-D
THRU: Meg Kerr
Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Hickory Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
201 Amendment
I have reviewed the -201 Amendment, and comments are attached.
I have also attached portions of a report from the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program regarding
biological nutrient removal .
RCD:mlt
Attachments
cc: Rex Gleason
Dennis Ramsey

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 30, 1986
MEMORANDUM
fi
TO: Randy Dodd �CH
Water Quality Section
•i j,��1�4Jr .
THRU: Allen Wahab, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
FROM: Stephanie Richardson
Project Manager
SUBJECT': Northeast Plant Upgrade
Hickory, NC
Project No. C370389-01
Attached is a copy of an amendment to the subject plan which
explains the planned expansion and discharge for the Northeast
Plant. Please review and advise of any problems.
SR/jh
Attachment
cc: LPMU
GPF

F
V
r `
Falling Creek Outfall System
The existing Falling Creek outfall system which serves the North-
east portion of the service area consists of over 16 ,000 L .F . of 15-
t
inch sewer with a capacity of 2.3 MGD and seven pumping stations . The
existing 15-inch line does not have sufficient capacity to meet exist-
ing needs and experiences periodic overflows. Replacement of this out-
fall is necessary for the expected growth of this area to proceed in an
orderly manner.
3.0 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
EPA Regulations (40 CFR 35.2030) require that the planning period
for determining the most cost-effective alternative for a facilities
plan shall be 20 years. The amount of Federal grant assistance to be
received for a project is based on the project cost of a facility which
- -- would serve existing needs only. Therefore, population projections and
subsequently design flows must be determined to predict the existing
needs flow which will be present at start up of the proposed facil-
ities. It is anticipated that start up of the facilities to be pro-
posed in this plan will occur in 1990; therefore, the design year for
this plan amendment is 2010.
Population projections were therefore generated for the present
year, existing needs year (1990), and the design year (2010) .
Information obtained from the City Planner and the Western Pied-
mont Council of Governments (WPCOG) was used in establishing the
estimated current study area population as well as for projecting
future populations.
The actual number of existing dwelling units located in the study
area was established based on information furnished through a 1983
4 -
Y�

i
6.0 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
E
a
The proposed wastewater treatment plant must be able to adequately
I
treat wastewater with characteristics specific to the Hickory area.
The expected characteristics of the Hickory wastewater influent are
listed below:
1
Average Flow . . . . . . . . . 6.0 MGD
Peak Flow. . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 MGD
B005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 mg/l
. Suspended Solids (SS) . . . . . 350 mg/l
NH3-N. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 mg/l
i
I
' Effluent limits are based on the capacity of the treatment facil -
ity and on the ultimate carrying capacity of the receiving stream. The
following existing effluent limits have been established by NCDEM for 1
_ the Northeast plant. ,s -cam
BOD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 mg/1
Ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 mg/1
v,,,", •.�'�-°��"
4
Y NH3-N. . . . . . . . . . . . 18 mg/l
Fecal Coliform . . . . . . . 2001100 mg/l
pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 S.U.
{� 5,,
d� ..-----
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/1 0
C_';
J
ells �;tea'
New effluent limits based on the design flow of 6. 0 MGD will be �G ,
established by NCDEM.
a
f
7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
.y
The proposed project will consist of construction of the Falling
Creek Outfall System, an influent pump station and force main, and the
upgrade/expansion of the existing treatment plant. The following para-
- 12 -

a
graphs will describe each aspect of the project and the various alter-
natives considered.
Falling Creek Outfall and Influent Pump Station
The Falling Creek Outfall system and influent pump station consist
of six major items. There wiJ1 be approximately 6 ,800 LF of 21-inch
r sanitary sewer, 8,016 L.F. of 18-inch sanitary sewer, 3 ,970 LF of 15-
inch sanitary sewer, 400 LF of 12-inch sanitary sewer, and 2,340 LF of
8-inch sanitary sewer, approximately 93 manholes and other appurte-
nances as may be required as part of the project. The other major
element is a pump station and a force main to be located near the
Northeast Wastewater Treatment Facility. The pump station is sized to
handle the approximately 6.0 MGD flow expected at the site.
it
;i
f In establishing the flow limitations for the project, the follow-
ing criteria was used ? The Falling Creek drainage basin consists of
3,648 acres. Using 5(10 gallons per acre, per day, and using the re-
quired
2.5 multiplier, the flow expected within the Falling Creek Basin Ij
is 3,167 gallons
g per minute. In addition to this flaw, there is a
partial flow from the Snow Creek Basin, which is pumped into the Fall -
ing I
ing Creek Basin. This consists of approximately 775 gallons per
minute, making the projected flow for this project 3,942 gallons per
minute (approximately 6.0 MGD) .
Northeast Wastewater Treatment Facility
The proposed wastewater treatment facility will be designed for an
average flow of 6 .0 MGD. Existing facilities at the plant will be
utilized to the extent possible. Any new construction will be located
either on the existing site or adjacent to it on property currently
owned by the City of Hickory.
13 -
4
4

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural'Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
July 30, 1986
Mr. Jerry T;-dggs, Director
of Public Utilities
City of Hickory
P. O. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
SUB=: Effluent Limits
Hickory North Plant
Hickory 201 Facilities Plan
Project No. C370389-01
Dear Mr. Twiggs:
Our Water Qualitv Section has run the model for discharge of 6 mgd
to Lake Hickory. The model was based on the diffusion of effluent into
the main channel of the lake. Results indicate that secondary limits
will be issued for the subject plant.
There is concern however about the long tern effects on Lake Hickory.
Please be aware that the Lake will be closely monitored. Lake- degradation
resulting from the plant's daily operation or due to upsets could result
in more stringent limits being issued in the future.
If questions arise or if we can be of assistance, please contact
Stephanie Rom`chardson at (919) 733-6900.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
T. ALLEN WAHAB
T. Allen Wahab, Supervisor
Local Planning Management Unit
SR/jh
cc: C. E. Maguire, Inc. A
resville .Regional Office S4__ `l k*zn )
r
dy Dodd, Water Quality Section �(o• �-
Coy Batten a *f
Walter Taft
LPMLT
GPF
Pollution Prevention Pars
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-7 3-ro15
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Acuon Employer Q N � P �

r
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 30, 1984
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dick Peace
Mooresville Regional Office
FROM: Randy Todd
THRU: Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Hickory NE WWTP reconnaisance and survey
During a recent site visit; Technical Services staff members noted
that the Hickory NE WWTP was discharging at two distinct locations:
The plant has an extended outfall to Cake Hickory, but the discharge
pipe cannot handle the effluent flow under current operational- conditions.
The plant, therefore, also discharges to Falling (reek at the plant site.
Based on Hickory's monitoring data, it appears as if the effluent flow
is greater than the pipe capacity {roughly 2.2 mgd) 80%-90% of the time.
Technical Services is planning on completing an intensive survey
on the Hickory NE WWTP within the next several weeks. This survey will
be designed to determine wasteload allocations for both discharges.
Please advise if you have any questions.
RD:cs

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 23, 1985
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Thurman Horne
Mooresville Regional Office
FROM: Randy Dodd PC [�
THRU: Meg Kerr 10-
-Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Hickory NE WWTP Outfall
Technical Services staff members noted that the Hickory plant was
discharging at two distinct locations during an intensive survey performed
last summer. The plant is permitted for a 5 mgd discharge to the Falling
Creek embayment of Lake Hickory. From visual observations and an estimate
of the capacity of the pipe, it appears as if the pipe to Lake Hickory is
only capable of discharging roughly 2.2 mgd. When the plant is receiving
more than 2.2 mgd, there is an additional discharge to Falling Creek
immediately adjacent to the plant. I have attached a map with the
location of this discharge.
I also have some concern about the ability of the wastewater to mix
with the receiving waters in Lake Hickory_ The wastewater tends to pool
in a small area because of the local hydraulics.
Please advise if you have any questions.
RD:mlt
Attachment

'y^,. - •i:_ '`,�t't�'a'` '•..I Yrs>'- �1j ? h r ,y wr-rtl"Kty 1H,�' a�iS}'S� 'yf- ',•� ,1114#•' " .7 �4•,�:r,r `�.,F"y il� -k r:,r .:'at
,s. M � � !- v t 7-,•r
_ _ -h. - tt'i`r` ,i 1•rT. t k*at 4. r", ,g S F fr 7u n q �„ > Iss''a`t."i�` 'i'�t ` ',y; �3,#ts'. �K"*k
,'.. .r ;hr �r i!,' J'J• .' i -:i rtfF. .. k�N[r-i, t.h la •.F" .•z,., n
°!: 5 y # JJ �R�' +t t�� S
'.r:. a. r J { t} ' :{- , w s i X5 K .fR r,+, '�'fiff X•t'biKy; .�1 -t r�' F W`�,!
1 - r r - _ r,' }_„^t 1-',. + _ .+ ^t.. �' �*•UL a+yf t 'rh r �.�e7t :i1?�'t ni s s�sf 5r�• tfae"�;y `t �=t ��
C� p ti 1 ri n:tv
•,H• r� (� `: 1 1.. M1 '.�" C Y 4• �t.T�.' k�#dkY.I�r` r'rS`l� r �•,M• y,-
.fJyf. � I .r -y, t l i,�,�;k0 J,.�' � - J'7 {_ r{. �: i F�,i• F?t �.;.t S'R ..(I .'ay a'"r��'Mr l`r"'4'.:�`~ t} �M~w'N �i�"'r;r"`t, ,`r-�:�•r.::
+" , _1 �� t-n 't• 'If°7j` '?.' j '1,1r r j,nr i.,e�. ,• + h r?}',�' .Y bt-'.��r e. 'n 1' 1(•S•µ'ir ti'�, 5} 'its",
z i �± -•t: � .. N t, r '.•, S r�t E# s '' }�'���+1- I.�' a r•r'3+ „• � 1{}
rl � 1 W. ' ..!t �xx,rl� r':`" 1-�'�' �h ri-it t- <rl +{ns.J•t JfyK�'»Js.r:: 1 �trn� '14� �m +lra>.ya 'I�r��' -`.a"�.-s�♦� �q'_• .a '� '�^{< Jr •ate a,, s 1.,� v ,• 1 �} f ! s3�� .ti •i..t.' � tr+5,+.'t!'kr - '4i�;k 'k.ka,� 1??, �9-id.c
' i'� r. - ��( fi t r'. { :�•. r.:• �.• - J E-"1., t t{k 4`•- f r K 'ti'` ';•y. s 1 r i,r aJN!Y ...
F r f T�� �''r"•�: .�'_+',� � 'r � p r;� � r�"�� .F�"P'�,} a 4' *;FFSt,�rg�'^r a+'J�*'"�_�!- r 9'r
`,t r.`, •=utilr r. J -e?. .•},2- r a rt :.r, _t• t t °l r.+ a31r e - .,}a,� J.( u�,rr.0 GJ. .ie�'It r
s' +,,,.k i { � r vx' �✓��+ M s`x' tRSp �c- s ijr , t G .i• / --'G�
.^-'L„c' ,rr'n'fiCi T •tea f Y.J.r-7 k`:- : la. ± 7';rs .,1 �Aa i #r P -tr"Xf t:tF^ ''t,r"0` yy 2 Z.L ;A-4r3`- va•i. ..
�
11
'>� ��, `r .ti _�Z � s:t..t� "�•;-�,�x. �''fi.•. e44,t}t�i'^ :.a:•`r.
J
•� ."' � , ,�it• 7jr � r.7{=.: �3:�•'+.r,^�cr,: •,C••��.f�;� < :i:�y � ,ti� g,! �� �?' �;`s �+��•.. �.r<r���, f�� � �, 'C ��,
�. 1 t:. �r JFJ .tit `,, j, t.'=i.T • ;r r�.�'1f +:'�••. } Ci �y + r ,�k_ .p.,1 n tr S;S. J.-'.r'' •,.�'ar =C,^>•f
� ��w: °' ...F;. 1T'c• ,. f J':?. l' 'r -yf,.,� w .•:'k F c ,�,.}k'1 e to 4=trdr'�.Fi*^f,"'�- ,*n`t`r �. '`•,4 �� ct��" :+ � r;�
',N: �>?+""�1.� ;r;T.:x: 'x�.�- rry,,=-`7 S ��.A; •,k. ,r�r.'Ait + ��,�-i',�,- '�;�"rF'i.- , wy�,•,�:�' ` "'�y�S'6%..lii'Ot •, .
i. c
r .r � ��y�_�'��s .'1F�1 F lk�',t�3'.� t st}�'�'t��4
VlO
tU
us h � iJ11 •.1 � +•}. .• �".',' ^X _ 1 'r : v5 7 a 1y, rx �, �1['}, •. �My.
• rr'd, a , 1. ••kr" ,r Q .`3 �(r"'?" j. ,.`tia• a, �`,, 1 ., °yft; �^•i•'..4_ _`�r
`� �p i .•"'i f C r -,_,t:f' -;fr yYrf; yF -e he,5
}t' t +§
> . T
IA"A
RQA
•ti ?-', y ` 'y r t t T . �, i�. '� �r+;Q'ff. rW'�Je ,ti° fir' f g.� ht",r'j A�-��p` '>"jy,r"y,' i C`yG ,fix.'--5 1^ r, ''"°C"'•;,'�'�'ty-'`//+��'W�
.yyt t "t'tsf•`�"yfr,Y ` it;}� y'�" y •3y� a + - , ' R• ,r ..
.•.I=. �' Y' i .dct: 'N t fl' i� r" '�, })ys.,F. `r4i!•'•�+}. '.1. �'. .!. Icy. cz y "17}fi'..n•Y .rt . -�i ,fn-h �r � 5
'f � �„'a,"'_� h•}rL'. `. .-r "'i � r -; f »y ," 1 t1 ,� AdY F, M.. irvq�r ,,,{ - k7
,J�TpyQ,',;:s, t 'ty'S :f 1 ftx+,-x,•'�. _.}'f.T:•.r N.1 �' 'tt;b ZS 4ur,r+ 3•`�1'• ry P`'.y�. �,�d; i'�� .. if,�_r i Y .� W � •�r 4 It hfl•��''4 �-� �Y.�
a � ',3i� �+�� '-, .j•`' fir•' � rt.� , �� r ''ati '`�4,?�r =,��ti �yc� r'�r'?,� ,}�4• '# •`''�
��..:�:r•is--Mi. '' 17l C t�' u ,',}, r{•+ k;; .�, J.: ' t+�1J. %<'fjyiJ. f'�y�t! 'S{r.it ''y.it. x1'. '! r? trYuS -
{ 1r ,tp F Hf,rt„ ,f •.K.�s•• 5 �'t;� �''r, ..y.
.'?Yd��' r�.",j'ram' f �1 .x. 13)"rir ..�,tn�i<' ,1'f!yr +r� aF ,°4 +.•j,•�,�s��� ,`�"/'. ;. " ' t ?, f'
tLS '.`,�" t.;.•it,;r.'6•r+�� '}r'�'. .' -•rl,+•..o-1 ,Fr l rI' r. +• t e'"1:�{'` s• `".i. '4.4 'a»V'it" `{ F '� •.0
K „iy N --f 1 t '•<? f. ! fl 1r.?+r f ; jR2 r�leisg, �r ! -i .# , 3 x = cr s C•.� .�
1" it `x,. ,.s.7y^i io ,ia':-..�.( '<, 1,.. 4:� "� sj,;y;w3 i9l.-"� 4i'ti tr��l,'r. '•rt ,,rylf4' 1i*. rti•`4-s: `:; "Y ' I''= .'� �,r•Lv aM #"r'y } ','
r �; '' ''J"-1 - '•^. ' '+ r .�^ "`, i- Sr s,.} .w!s �a �,r r" f � 3'J?"�,
•a���, ryr ��h �•
-11
- ',j.�-,4�" r'i r 'i- 3t�'• r1Jr "'� t 0 `�yr' lt�,�...r .»ti ,�1 5'�lr'k. ! �� t?�'i V' n r."{�.'G*•L;t 7 ( ,,,.�!i;,.,r
t`�. _�. ��:�t, '� 1;S ¢ '�''` h L'.,r.r5r��.f� 1,r� "•`! f h.�"`=,,-��Y.i.Silm�"} '.}'�rlh�.le y„•'��94r:,ph '�,,}L,1't :� �yy no''. r.'b i�'
y 3 •� -'� � S ,'�rR.ir,•. r.�, ••��• {ai •� C "�\,wri,'r�k•l�""
f . -:-s ��tt"" s[ r `� '"X r� i„J t�. `t r
r.:hstw4l 1 ` 't tr�7Ff ",r„ •L.','Y k- F �' nr1 r4s.�.1;•, .',•{{`t, ],sC l,;h k' 1^f, �, t 5 �" Y. ^
1{h .Ji3s,�J .rt ,�: I.t.n T;• �y},•Y yht•!+'�5.31{f
{ i ^•'. - f :�' ,j ,:���" }+ -;"ir`' aM'k. 4 •! -•m.rr,f`4'rrr•riL Cw ''f. 'ti.' ? .. •5
a ��' t �'. �4. J J- t '}�✓ ,} =Yt - - i Y ti t. 6� �eJy 5 'lp
r�3 r,+v'rS"' �.y1 � h, +' t ti � 4,• �, r` '•r ri i•� ;�N'r �,1• FC�;r r r -J' !�.c- ;, s .�- j'�.t�R ..,/Y}a,_3
- ' +- �,+. � �_ i'{.- > � ,t` .� ':-!4'�� t'.�� d.3i" •$ 4 •°,�"� 1 ,�'C?431. ai'� 4 dam: ��' _� �.r. c" �' � et j' �i• '� Ss��t�'r �°'`« ,y ,, ,Y r nz S•',s_*'"��ir�, C,.-u,., �. 'r��i,;slti rt '_`tir��i"?lj���.a4 � }e �(�y:�s, ,Cv�,�i.:�s�+'r�.yy;�'�,���.�s �? �;
f M f ' '! i"'•; r` F t r -t 'TVh�' 4 ^.., ,
fie .e�: `�JtY t �ZY"'" e;s k- 'i '.^ :?"...
'' '�'�=•C?t.x �`::'` .r; ',+rf;:'t,y,•r �:nr;Q�n.5'7 fv �~ S*'-� �t " ; I i T}h ''.:i:�s .{' Yai ,��.�.f r x,i 11 .rY^r."S'l' �,kli-+-!i.,=
y •F f H. ,1 .r.y}du ,'. -T ✓! x7' 4: +p ;' xyit"Y b 7:F i 1. -PI
• 's4x:f Z �„•,•4 ,i -!Y t }aa. :7f`° ! .i�7�g�,r`', t`=<�• 1 t.l '{ ;�:' ,ti•'k 1 T-c a1F+s L..,. `. �' r�s...E' ."' •�>r:t T�. i I4R,,�• '. 'r'
,� .:�i, .i;, i S '; 4. "t •+ 'jy'Sr^:G- .J i.` ;(�j,;L'C. �i� �.'q 7•�Tr 'k`U S f 'h�r= j r f�^` `<f
. .;ii,�• }'' .K}' d.. '•'., 2Mj` +r d•' _ Ai^t' i ?Y'}F. ' i "at1jf,t . . xt ..r. f�.�,a
.i i=; *ik �;' y� tzi) L t�o 1�a �6�N -':�'. r �:+ Fk�,�I
',i- ]- "•';.".F, n 1 - rF F / .r,�4�7 �:, /,�`{ •r p5.. K=gr+, �r:� { jr ;�' Fr�Il7,.� 'kr 1•.c' - x'' `r '' F '�tR�,.� `�y sl ..f,� • �'�J1fi rt '1' 1 rh,f+$;•r�' .
1•' r}..Fr�J}�'��1e''��.1 ..y� •}. •t YY$ ,`�j�•y.:'�•yt`••'F S .t��{f:GT� S �� � yi'�:- H�� 7}fit t�•ar+ ,� t`;',-���y..
e� �ra a.r.��� a, `` �,t= y .. "�`t(` !•. v w ,R!4, l� Y'�v ,f rFT r,� `•��6 4i7 t�,si. N L....
i y �r $'' .. T r> t .(• - ;.lv' < +rt,'?' ,f� 3 LLt9'irA tics, S� �' c rh
r'Y � �s:"`'i' ESL= .+. �,L'i•� Yt•;'�'t:.t Ir i�'�irt �' ' , `.r.,�, {��,"r' n'� ,: 1 T.v�{..v��t' .. t i�'3 •.fir►,c'vt � .s
'; tr" t' „'� f :• JS'E--: y��ra�y1la+rt.f Ax -3`� i�er�.4t �.n r� f1r t1•.''L4 4Rc l/'.:+a�"+�
f �} - 1-cY af_F+s,at^ ,. y• _
11$k r{,_..FMf r.'+ '4• '� �M.s�' q} n,,"" �t ilF'f +v+ ,z�yt 1,..'1 ,�• -5 ., ';`� ,'J• - r y ^ �R,r-1 •'i31 S 7 �} T, <h t �..rf •'.s
1 r'" fit, �,-tt � " �'`•� � `,�Fe 4r �;'a tS� �yl��'ti S�•t a•,� �'. c .r `' �`A .�s
�T4 aw�r � ,y v ��r.- .fc f rr•'•r f� 't �� r i t !L-� � � ��•� .s:..t.
•.,tl '`�w.. ���r pc;FY.I. r.>"��ll fl '�. .�1ef 'n,SF r1 X �.• ST f. .ds `tn�`i .,tt'� �' l..ti `' 4dt ?{�J'
I r~''t. -n;�• •"F,' i`'t 4 .iy.'�*1• �!S'q;•� ��-� -F d, +s.� �#`+7."'"�.r e.�, y;. T '�, yr�F: r 3{'f§t,s ;,,,� j�'��' Fa'} rE..-
' * ,. _.� f.#=' � �t�, i, c T � k �n,o-a��*1��''�' �• `�" '�.a' ,.�_ 1 a�> r ��,�35' i Jr M, •
lf/' �r f ..,,Ft, •� •�t' �._•�:'- At .S,e �'.e'� ,- � i .s� �;' yil �"��"'�°�,t�:y�f+ -1 }.�M x v�'� x�'w�- i:r� � .,t',�+i 'm`�i• .
.a i� '�...r. �^"� ` 1 •h�'_. 7t � ,.C+i h{�� �{n�w''f, is �.r0.�' r• -7��,21� s: t � x'`-�;�-'17
�I. .�,.. :J rrf-c: V7 v, l'�+1 1'. � ��� tl J �}r...j� ,fi{' '��;es�- ��,•�'@4�y,"'� ��r�.lt!v", '"^�"'� f.L A.. �. t' ,� �.
'.. i -r,. -+ ,._ L r .�' I�',` ((**-S�f 3, 1 'j' +, i Y.f `5i , .J �f{' y' G. f' "�'1'�- .Ei. Sx uh• `� e',.
~ �. i � dd :t � 3T.r �l ''r`�3p,c.t• � �.o�:4it31+t,]�� �'�s�' J: f �'I '" �,� �
cir " .'Y �•.:r,i :.ty'rt?..X•,} ?sdfi rr• s'4 r .'nd''r +,r' .r~'?F,�'} QL,'•, "''CTi. �.L!'}�• n`Sr'.t d .'+' r
(• � {e;`1 tiM ru S x, ,�'E tea." - ;S�.en.. `'� �r "I' i .t•` �i,M:''`C j,.- ��
�"� i ) ` R/r4t ? ' 4-i- .tF t 1r°
f ✓! r w i e ,_ i n:
i•S:>s.`r• ���� #T w+: �it�1�•� � �s� � ��' ,�t� ���,w�"ar1f..,, �"'^`•�E�r.. .�: p. r�Fj{�s' �� +4,.ru,�g *t-•.tr 'r
i'i.,. r �F `•1,f6 J. 'I F.�i :¢ "L_ + .�r31 - '� � * •Y A ..
'�l`SJ� y � l"tI^Sr i'%'S '4'.� ' ~"":�i �s'?'W.^ .• }l!F_.��M!'`e�'�".,r:`+'i` t r`�,.J4, `i,-
'r; r.E rr+~; �+ �'T F �'•g �..L7 y.y,,,]f i Ir�`. ,q�,v. .�!, �z'• `?ae �'•
w.k;.kyryT
i- -`� �/�-:i+A r ,'+�'; '�;�. �'•"-.7..1'� 4 ' r`.,f,�`;�i>•••.1rr h'+i } '�r"='FF k, ,•G`3L:#37't'i•¢'laY-r'..{i3falr��,k '."q: a•� rt 1�e. �l}. �,,M
r y. J ';;� 3 ' yJ r t "r �^ 's" �:a `'r 7 �C�r,� ;7� 7t•at+n'�•4 .JveC.'..,f.•3,, J' a flit' 4+r�y ...
Y_ a �. ��k`j7�` tJ`�'1•• S, YH � g '` ;I�ct�-�F!'•��n��,.ac•,tr`r>.y.f+�,'S '' ��r�`•r'."-5S'! '2 C"'..'i1�,r1,.1�,�a�'1.q�— s ,r I t •3.A ��.
F S t'�s�h`,j;•,n��;. t•t� f: r<�� -:¢i �11"iT•�'�t�.,�#,'�T!'�`���`':Ja. ��°:'�'ft,�,`yrwi�s .�,d�+�+.g�.{"'r}�"§ ���{'e' ',� i5 ,S ,� ., � i •3���,
..=»«..�.:Lrs.:.,c.� :,.�.�t"i.s-r-����•.`.a,.:._.... _ �� / ,,,:,�� .:t��?,n ,;1 � wf,1�;tt,,.�2ti� '�i;:r,ea' j 9^ � r.� y ¢` f �
..JLI.:SGrG..;:>:�s., R .��. :'* a M1Pt:•.,y�:'�"1 _ittl+'.-.';'��- m.�t •� .}g-t�+v i^
•

DIVISION OF EIWIROrN]ENrAL MANAGEMENT + o `� M I —R
June 25, 1986 C? T
Gf?�Grpxtl� �rcon�
MEMORANDUM uJO�c. C� Le -11-
TO: Meg Kerr qm
t �
THRU: Allen Wahab �3JD (J J
j'�
FROM: Stephanie Richardson /(,Q
SUBJECT: North Plant
Hickory, NC
Project No. C370389-01
Y I '
Design is underway to upgrade the subject plant to a 6.4 mgd
facility. A portion of the plan involves the extension of the
existing discharge line 1,500 l.f. into the main channel of
Lake Hickory where effluent will be diffused.
In order to finalize treatment process design, it is
necessary to know the effluent limits which will result from
the increased flow and relocated discharge point. The engineer
cannot proceed until this determination has been made; therefore,
your prompt attention is appreciated.
SR/jh
cc: LPMU
GPF
F 1 V F
;UHN 2 6
Y

01
AR H..I�qj
Ij
3.
13-s to
0�
I
F—i I Q A5 FAS 7
DI LUZ y 7 .� ' ' J � � +w5 /Ic
TAYLORSVILLE
L
K>P.I,:IT
1W.
r
C)ok Hill
of
'A
alL. X 21
Ck I C11
V 2*
% LL2!
Pil.
l L
;t -AI
Jim
SAID Kqo6
7. v
mM;BB? IZ21
114EIW
LUZ
&AMETT-7-.
RIv.I°SO 113G
2
2
5 ,.IQ 0
L.2L
113
IIA
.';
U22
iz-11 1172
AvvER
UJV d
L21
12 )lp
Lull
137 1-3 --OKOU'j
2. 1:3o
lC1
-j K()UT
LI-I L
HICKO
—3
IA KF
!2t
C"
CA
lc.
it
K0 R Y
d d
k
CLARI-OW
718
c�'
cowov P u
T7 % P
w4h.

r
' . • `� _ Lake_ •, :.
STATION
DATE f S
TIME p 1
Dissoltir MGM , o i1. 8 ��.q G . S
V r )
Temperature ( C) 6. 6 O. 30. 0 A'q
o sur'Iu�C. L1 $ 4 7 1-1u 1
Sur-Va►c c- 7 6 g, 1 8.3 �?•.�
pH . ;
Flew (cfs)
Salinity %
Feca 1,MF Z- 10 410 L 1 O
a Total, 14F
14
o .�
w �
o Fecal Tube
o -4
V \
Total Tube
COD (mg/1)
BOD5 m 1
BODl�,n ter m /I
Total 71 6 68 65
•� M VoIatile
bb E F Fixed
Total
w Volatile
cn Fixed
Alkalinity (mg/1) 1H II
Turbidity (NTU) 6, 0 3.3 �2 •9 �, 6
Chi a : Tri. 60 31 1.3 IS
Chloro Chi a : Corr. SD 40 17 ,2-3
(ug/1), Pheophy t in a C 1 C I C l < I
Secchi' Depth (meters) 1 .0 ,y 1 ,H 1 . 7
NH as N , 01 .0.1 L . 01 ' 0 #
N TKN as N
(mg/ ) NO2f NO3. as N 4.01
PO as P ,Q1 , 01 <. O1 4 . 01
P
P: Total as P • 07, 109 . 03 .OZ
1?: Dissolved P • C)

f
•
n x T16c- t -
�\\{
►�L� SdS•a -
�L� �3Li

Ns
-CAT
RAJ
�wA W'� ' �5'� �� � i•T
• A �
f`' , '� �. •� .Chi a �
♦yy/%-_ is ,' , .• \ l `'-J///fI{r(/{^/\���_--��/+��'�\,\\��':Yj��/�+�
I _
`' ,,+` t'.w r '•!s`%:` •', ,a: • '•' •Cam 6rli 11d o '�'. _
s, t+,� •� •, �` � , r■r"�� � r.- ! •a �% Seh
•�.;. .�,. ��' :�, ,.,E �':��:__ � f - 1 �,�,,���
� , t �i fir•M: '`i '� t�r�•i� "�•'�`�• •�+t4' •od4 'l.i 0.
-, .' ?' 1 4 r/"'i' 'fit •/ �. •.t .•, h r 4W, %