NC0020559_SPECULATIVE LIMITS_19981030

NPDES DOCVNENT SCANNIM& COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NCO020559
Henderson WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
October 30, 1998
4/larA( J
This docAzmeat is printed on A-etMe papex- sa-Y
content 40oxx the resrerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment ;w
and Natural Resources R
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.; Director N.CDENR
October 30, 1998
Mr. Thomas Spain
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits
NPDES No. NCO020559
Nutbush Creek WWTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Spain:
Reference is made to the August 25, 1998 request submitted by Timothy Baldwin, P.E. of McKim &
Creed, for speculative effluent limits for the City of Henderson. The city's Nutbush Creek WWTP
currently has a permit to discharge 6.0 MGD of treated wastewater to Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke
River Basin. The requested speculative limits at various locations for a total of 7.0 MGD are reflective of
the City's 20-year flow projection.
The Division has reviewed the request, evaluated the various discharge options, and provides the
following responses.
ProRosed Discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -.Pamlico River Basin
There are several issues you should be aware of pertaining to this proposal:
1) The entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in 1989 in
response to the problems associated with nutrient loading (from both point and non -point sources)
and the resulting eutrophication and algal blooms in the Pamlico River estuary. There are several
ponds and lakes along the length of Sandy Creek. These impoundments will trap nutrients and
cause localized eutrophication, adding to an existing basinwide problem.
2) Sandy Creek forms the headwaters of Swift Creek. Swift Creek supports the only viable
populations of the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana) in the world, a
federally endangered species. Swift Creek also supports the best populations in North Carolina of
five other mussel species listed by the state as threatened. Presently, the pending status of Swift
Creek as an Outstanding Resource Water may disallow any future discharges to this system.
3) Results of an evaluative model predicted dissolved oxygen concentrations less than the water
quality standards at flows as low as 1.0 MGD. This can be attributed to long detention times and
low re -aeration constants as a result of the presence of several ponds and lakes downstream of the
proposed discharge site. For a discharge of the size proposed, there is insufficient assimilative
capacity to maintain dissolved oxygen levels above the state's water quality standards.
For the preceding reasons the Division can not allow a discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin as a possible option for the City of Henderson.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled 1 10% post -consumer paper

Town of Henderson 6/16/98 request
Speculative Limits
Page 2
Relocation to the. mainstem of the Nutbush Creels Arm of Kerr Reservoir
Based on the 1996 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, Kerr Reservoir is
threatened as a result of elevated nutrients, algal blooms, and violations of the State standard for
dissolved gasses. Data collected in 1994 ranked the lake as being mesotrophic, while the headwaters of
the Nutbush Creek arm itself is nearly hypereutrophic.
The Division believes a relocation of the discharge to the:main•stem of Kerr Reservoir would have an
appreciable affect on the recovery of upstream arms of the Reservoir. If the City of Henderson's
discharge was relocated downstream ofNCSR 1308, all upstream lake arms could experience a
substantial reduction in nutrient input. Therefore, the Division fully supports an investigation into
relocating the discharge downstream ofNCSR 1308.
To properly evaluate the effect of relocation, a nutrient response model is required,for Kerr Reservoir.
Unfortunately the Division currently has neither the staff nor the resources to make this evaluation.
However, if the City of Henderson wishes to make such an evaluation, the Division will provide guidance
as to the proper techniques for model development. Since it is difficult to predict the results of this type
of model, the Division cannot guarantee that limits for a relocated discharge to the mainstem will vary
significantly from those at the current discharge location.
Expansion at the Existing Location
The existing discharge is to the headwaters of Nutbush Creek, approximately three miles upstream from
the Kerr Reservoir. The current permit allows a discharge of 6.0 MGD with summer limits for BOD5 and
NH3 as N of 5 and 2 mg/1 respectively. The 7Q 10 flow at the discharge location is 0.2 cfs and the
average stream flow is 3.5 cfs. The City of Henderson WWTP effluent dominates the stream flow with
the current discharge constituting 98% of the instream waste concentration.
The Division has concerns whenever a discharge comprises such a large percentage of the receiving
stream. For this reason, the Division must limit any expansion to Nutbush Creek to the existing loads.
This will result in more stringent permit limits for several parameters at a discharge of 7.0 MGD.
Effluent limits for an expansion to 7.0 MGD at the existing facility are attached. Please note these
differences when compared to existing limits.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
The City will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before applying for a permit
modification.. Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities using public
funds or public (state) lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wastewater flows
(1) equal or exceed 0.5 MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q 10 flow of the receiving stream. The
Division will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until the
Division has approved the EA and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state
Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the -expanded flow: It should
provide a comprehensive analysis of potential alternatives to expansion, including a thorough. evaluation
of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation,. water
conservation, and inflow and infiltration reduction are considered to be environmentally preferable to a
surface water discharge.
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred alternative must be the practicable
waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to
be implemented. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the environment, you must then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Steve-Zoufaly of

Town of Henderson 6/16/98 request
Speculative Limits
Page 3
- the Water Quality Planning Branch can provide additional information regarding the requirements of the
N.C. Environmental Policy Act. You can contact Mr. Zoufaly directly at (919).733-5083, ext. 566.
I trust this response offers sufficient guidance for the city's proposed expansion. If you have any
additional questions about the speculative limits, feel free to contact Steve Pellei at [phone],
extension 516.
Sincerely,
���-4- ��
David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
cc: Timothy Baldwin, P.E. of McKim & Creed
5625 Dillard Dr., Suite 117, Cary, NC 27511
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Central Files
[NPDES_P.ermit.F.iles

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FINAL
Permit No. NC0020559
During the period beginning upon expansion above 6.0 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
m m
• m
• • W'p - m mIP ''� 'g •
rr �
• m • -
��
r •
�. • • -
go
" Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at NCS Highway 39, D1 - Downstream at the power lines, D2 — Downstream immediately above the
confluence of Indian and Crooked Creeks.
The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
2 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall no be less than 6.0 mg/I.
3 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4 Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the effluent.
5 Compliance for Total Phosphorous shall be based upon a quarterly average of weekly samples. Effluent and Instream monitoring shall be conducted on the same
day.
s Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; March, June September and December, See Part I, Section A, Special Condition 1.
7 Chlorophyll -a shall be monitored weekly during the months June through September, during the remaining months of the year, no monitoring is required.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
.r.,
Instream Mop' itonng shall be in accord with the requirements specified in Part 1, Section A, Special Condition 2 "Instream Monitoring Requirements" .
t,

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR SPECULATIVE RESPONSE
NPDES No. NCO020559
Facility n orma ion
FacilityName:
City ot Henderson-NutbushCreek
Permitted ow (MGD):
toCounty:
Nutbush Crk
Vance
Facility ass:Regional
ice:
RRO
ae >ty ermit tatus:
pecu ative eq
opoQuad-
is s oro NC
'Stream
Characteristics -Current Location
ReceivingStream:
Nutbush Creekin the Roanoke Basin
Cream Classitication:
C 23-8-(1)
inter (cis):
u asm:
c s :
(4.) Drainage Area (mi ):Average
Flow c s
Summer c s
o :
o
tream Characteristics — Relocation. to . err. eservoir
ReceivingStream:
Main Stem of NutbushCreek rm in Kerr Res near
Stream assx ication:
inter c s :
lake
u asm:
(cis):
lake
(4) Drainage Area (m):
geowcs:i
lake
Summer c s
lake
o:
Varies
ream, Characteristics - New Discharge at Sany Creek'-j
ReceivingStream:
Sandy Creek below Rowlands Pond (Tar -Pamlico)
Stream ass ication:
C—NSW 28a8-1-(1)
inter (cis):
u asin:
030302
—(7.TTffW (cis).
(4) Drainage Area (mi ):Average
Flow (cis):
Summer c s
o :
aries
Background:
These speculative limits are in response to the City of Henderson's request for limits for three
scenarios as outlined in the 8/25/98 letter from McKim & Creed. To accommodate 7.0 MGD
(their 20-year flow projection) requested limits for three scenarios:
1. Expand to 7.0 at the existing location,
2. Relocate the 7.0 MGD to the mainstem of Kerr Reservoir,
3. Build a small plant (3.0 MGD) to service the southeast side of the City, and
discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico Basin.
Please see attached letter for the Division's response.
The information provided below will highlight the investigations of these three options.
Relocation to Kerr Reservoir
Based on the 1996 Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan, Kerr Reservoir is
support threatened due to elevated nutrient, algae blooms, and violations of the State standard for
dissolved gasses. Data collected in 1994 ranked the Lake as being mesotrophic, while the
headwaters of the Nutbush Creek arm itself is nearly hypereutrophic.
Version: October 21, 1998 20559 SPEC INFO Page 1

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR SPECULATIVE RESPONSE
NPDES No. NCO020559
NCSR 1308 which crosses the reservoir is built upon earthfill embankments and acts much like a
dam, restricting flow and flushing. Given that there is no apparent flow regime to this arm of the
reservoir a model would be required to evaluate the impact of a relocation.
No specific management strategies were mentioned for either Kerr Reservoir or the City of
Henderson's WWTP. The Basin Plan did state that DWQ is currently working with the City of
Henderson to resolve the issue of nutrients. Based on instream data significant reductions in
nutrients have been achieved from the implementation of nutrient limits and WWTP upgrades.
New Discharge at Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico Basin
Sandy Creek instream data near Gupton showed no chemical instream problems over the past 5
years. The minimum DO was observed to be 6.3 mg/l. See attached WQ data summary.
However, Sandy Creek near SR 1412 returned a Fair Bioclassification. Currently there are 16
dischargers in the subbasin with 2 dischargers above 0.5 MGD.
A level B model constructed by Pellei in September 1998, predicted instream DO would drop to
2.79 mg/1 for a 3.0 MGD discharge downstream of Rowland Pond. Running the model with a
1.0 MGD discharge predicted a DO of 3.11 mgll in Club Pond even with stringent effluent limits
of 5/2 (BOD5/NH3) and minimum DO of 6. Therefore this option will not be allowed based on
predicted violations of WQ standards.
Expansion at the existing location in Nutbush Creek
The existing discharge is to the headwaters of Nutbush Creek approximately 3 miles upstream
from the John H. Kerr Reservoir. The current permit allows a discharge of 6.0 MGD with
summer limits for BOD5 and NH3 as N of 5 and 2 mg/1 respectively with a TP limit of 0.5 mg/l.
The 7Q10 flow at the discharge location is 0.2 cfs and the average stream flow is 3.5 cfs. The
City of Henderson WWTP effluent dominates the stream flow with the current discharge
constituting 98% of the instream waste concentration.
The primary concern, since the discharge comprises such a large percentage of the receiving
stream, is the impact of phosphorus. Conditions in the headwaters of the Nutbush Creek arm
appear hypereutrophic. While Henderson's upstream values were normal, downstream
monitoring in the arm showed WQ violations. Supersaturated levels of DO with high
corresponding pH values were persistent. In addition, downstream chl a values ranged from 5 to
75 mg/1 with most values in the 20s and 30s.
For this reason, any expansion to Nutbush Creek must be held at the existing load for TP. This
will result in permit limits (summer) for BOD5 and NH3 as N of 5 and 2 mg/1 respectively, with
a TP limit of 0.4 mg/1 at a discharge of 7.0 MGD. Effluent limits for an expansion to 7.0 MGD
at the existing facility are attached.
Version: October 21, 1998 20559 SPEC INFO Page 1

C- )qc,'Jtnz �ua`td I O/P- 6 /? �
U
fa 73
�2•S
Cp,S
2S 32o
2A -7�
Z11, 0
1,3
t2,
44.7
—36 7,
�7 -7
4/-7 11.4-
140
12,0
V �j

9' 15000
n
0
m
a.
0
w
E
10000
5000
0
YEAR 1960 1970 1980 1990, 1995 1997 1996
*1995 = special census
*1997 = state estimates
`1998 = special census
.I�

MODEL INPUTS FOK LMVML-
INFOR N
Waste:
Status:_k
�,Ving
�ieaM:
Classification:
�bbasin: __ �riSl — �� —
4 ck
ounty: x�
ce..
fz4onal Offi ­_7 la-2--5-Sc-
ToPO Quad:
FLOW--IN-FORMATION
,USGS #
Date of
Drainage Area (In'
Summer 7Q10 (Cfs):
Winter 7
Average Ffo;� (Cfs):,
.4 LAKC
370Q2(cfs)* ___ Discharge j�qC ' at Point i
Twc N..
cummulative 1.57
INFORMATION 0, k
-pLrr INK I
MODEL
(miles)
LENGTH & (miles)
DENTAL LENGTH
ARACTINCREI'v RISTICS -------
'WASTE CH E
FLOW (MGD) D
CBOD (mg/j) 4,
NBOD (TI19/1)­�­'_'
D.O. 9/1) -- Ej�jSTI S
�RACT
RUNOFF C-1Y
7Q10 (Cfs /mi) t.)s 5'
CBOD (Mg/1
NBOD (mg/ I
�Z;
D. - (MgM i'; Ics
TRIBUTARY ci-JARACT
7Q10 (cfs)
QA (Cfs)
CBOD (rag/1'
NB
D.O. (mg/1)
SLOPE, (fpm)
Name of facility
wg�_B'111 `
lmu'ba )I
�,,b jfttbC-t-
sakt'op)
le Of
cygen
wate.
strear
I

SUMMER
THIS MODEL IS
WITH CLUB
POND
INCLUDED
►�oDFt ;
----------- MODEL RESULTS
----------
=\-A
Discharger
:
CITY OF HENDERSON, NEW
WWTP,
W/CLUB POND
Receiving Stream :
SANDY CREEK NEAR NCSR
1519
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 7.95
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 1.30
mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 0.24
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO Waste
Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment
1
2.79
1.11 7
Reach
1
7.55
4.50
5.00
3.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
S
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Segment
2
3.47
0.00 1
Reach
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
CITY OF
HENDERSON,
NEW WWTP, W/CLUB PONDSubbasin ' :
030302
Receiving
Stream
:
SANDY CREEK NEAR NCSR 1519
Stream
Class:
C-NSW
Summer 7Q10
:
0.61
Winter
7Q10
: 1.47
Design Temperature:
26.0
SLOPEJmileH
VELfpsTY
DEPTH
Ka
Idesigni
KN
ILENGT�
ft/mi
I
ldesignl
@200
Idesigni
@ 20°
Segment
1
0.74
13.50
0.441
0.89
0.44
0.34
12.22
10.72
0.48
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Segment
1
0.02
17.00
0.009
8.00
0.26
0.20
0.31
0.2B
0.46
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Segment
1
0.02
17.00
0.009
8.50
0.26
0.20
0.31
0.28
0.48
Reach
3
Segment
1
0.04
17.00
0.009
8.50
0.26
0.20
0.31
0.28
0.48
Reach
4
Segment
1
0.07
17.00
0.007
9.50
0.26
0.20
0.24
0.21
0.48
Reach
-------------------------------------------
5
Segment
1
0.12
17.00
0.006
10.50
0.26
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.48
Reach
6
Segment
1
0.12
17.00
0.005
11.20
0.26
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.48
Reach
----------------------------------------
7
Segment
1
0.12
17.00
0.005
11.20
0.26
0.20
0.17
0.15
0.48
Reach
--------------------------------
8
Segment
1
0.06
17.00
0.010
9.50
0.26
0.20
0.35
0.31
0.48
Reach
--------------------------------
9
Segment
2
0.60
33.30
0.548
0.81
0.68
0.52
37.42
32.64
0.79
Reach
1
Segment
2
1.57
12.74
0.383
0.97
0.40
0.30
10.01
8.79
0.48
Reach
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

r-
2
2
2.03
7.95
1.30
0.24
5.49
Seg #
I Reach ##
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD I
NBOD
Flow
1
1.
0.00
5.27
6.91
4.09
5.26
1
1
0.03
5.39
6.89
4.09
5.26
1
1
0.06
5.50
6.88
4.08
5.26
1
1
0.09
5.61
6.86
4.07
5.26
1
1
0.12
5.72
6.85
4.06
5.27
1
1
0.15
5.82
6.84
4.05
5.27
1
1
0.18
5.91.
6.82
4.04
5.27
1
1
0.21
6.00
6.81
4.03
5.27
1
1
0.24
6.08
6.79
4.02
5.27
1
1
0.27
6.16
6.78
4.01
5.27
1
1
0.30
6.24
6.77
4.00
5.28
1
1
0.33
6.31
6.75
4.00
5.28
1
1
0.36
6.38
6.74
3.99
5.28
1
1
0.39
6.45
6.72
3.98
5.28
1
1
0.42
6.51
6.71
3.97
5.28
1
1
0.45
6.57
6.70
3.96
5.28
1
1
0.48
6.63
6.68
3.95
5.29
1
1
0.51
6.68
6.67
3.94
5.29
1
1
0.54
6.73
6.66
3.93
5.29
1
1
0.57
6.78
6.64
3.93
5.29
1
1
0.60
6.83
6.63
3.92
5.29
1
1
0.63
6.87
6.62
3.91
5.29
1
1
0.66
6.92
6.60
3.90
5.30
1
1
0.69
6.96
6.59
3.89
5.30
1
1
0.72
6.99
6.57
3.88
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.99
6.57
3.88
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.95
6.55
3.86
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.91
6.53
3.83
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.86
6.50
3.81
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.82
6.48
3.78
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.78
6.46
3.76
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.74
6.43
3.74
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.70
6.41
3.71
5.30
1
2
0.74
6.66
6.39
3.69
5.30
1
2
0.74
6.62
6.37
3.66
5.30
1
2
0.74
6.58
6.34
3.64
5.30
1
3
0.74
6.58
6.34
3.64
5.30
1
3
0.74
6.54
6.32
3.62
5.30
1
3
0.74
6.50
6.30
3.59
5.30
1
3
0.75
6.46
6.28
3.57
5.30
1
3
0.75
6.42
6.25
3.55
5.30
1
3
0.75
6.38
6.23
3.52
5.30
1
3
0.75
6.34
6.21
3.50
5.30
1
3
0.75
6.31
6.19
3.48
5.30
1
3
0.76
6.27
6.16
3.46
5.30
1
3
0.76
6.23
6.14
3.43
5.30
1
3
0.76
6.20
6.12
3.41
5.30
1
4
0.76
6.20
6.12
3.41
5.30
1
4
0.76
6.13
6.08
3.37
5.30
1
4
0.77
6.06
6.03
3.32
5.30
1
4
0.77
5.99
5.99
3.28
5.30
1
4
0.78
5.92
5.95
3.24
5.30
1
4
0.78
5.86
5.90
3.20
5.30
1
4
0.78
5.79
5.86
3.16
5.30
1
4
0.79
5.73
5.82
3.12
5.30
1
4
0.79
5.67
5.78
3.08
5.30
1
4
0.80
5.61
5.74
3.04
5.30
1
4
0.80
5.55
5.70
3.00
5.30

1 5
0.80
5.55
5.70
3.00
5.30
1 5
0.81
5.41
5.61
2.91
5.30
1 5
0.81
5.28
5.52
2.83
5.30
1 5
0.82
5.16
5.43
2.75
5.30
1 5
0.83
5.04
5.34
2.67
5.30
1 5
0.84
4.92
5.26
2.59
5.30
1 5
0.84
4.81
5.17
2.52
5.30
1 5
0.85
4.71
5.09
2.45
5.30
1 5
0.86
4.61
5.01
2.38
5.30
1 5
0.86
4.51
4.93
2.31
5.30
1 5
0.87
4.42
4.85
2.24
5.30
1 6
0.87
4.42
4.85
2.24
5.30
1 6
0.88
4.27
4.72
2.14
5.30
1 6
0.89
4.12
4.59
2.03
5.30
1 6
0.90
3.99
4.47
1.94
5.30
1 6
0.91
3.87
4.35
1.85
5.30
1 6
0.92
3.76
4.24
1.76
5.30
1 6
0.93
3.66
4.13
1.68
5.30
1 6
0.94
3.56
4.02
1.60
5.30
1 6
0.95
3.48
3.91
1.52
5.30
1 6
0.96
3.40
3.81
1.45
5.30
1 6
0.97
3.34
3.71
1.38
5.30
1 6
0.98
3.27
3.61
1.31
5.30
1 6
0.99
3.22
3.51
1.25
5.30
1 7
0.99
3.22
3.51
1.25
5.30
1 7
1.00
3.14
3.40
1.18
5.30
1 7
1.01
3.07
3.29
1.11
5.30
1 7
1.02
3.02
3.19
1.05
5.30
1 7
1.03
2.96
3.09
0.99
5.30
1 7
1.04
2.92
2.99
0.94
5.30
1 7
1.05
2.88
2.90
0.88
5.30
1 7
1.06
2.85
2.80
0.83
5.30
1 7
1.07
2.83
2.71
0.79
5.30
1 7
1.08
2.81
2.63
0.74
5.30
1 7
1.09
2.80
2.55
0.70
5.30
1 7
1.10
2.79
2.46
0.66
5.30
I 7
1.11
2.79
2.39
0.62
5.30
1 8
1.11
2.79
2.39
0.62
5.30
1 8
1.12
2.79
2.31
0.59
5.30
I 8
1.13
2.80
2.24
0.55
5.30
1 8
1.14
2.81
2.17
0.52
5.30
1 8
1.15
2.82
2.10
0.49
5.30
1 8
1.16
2.84
2.03
0.47
5.30
I 8
1.17
2.86
1.97
0.44
5.30
1 8
1.18
2.89
1.90
0.41
5.30
1 8
1.19
2.92
1.84
0.39
5.30
1 8
1.20
2.95
1.79
0.37
5.30
1 8
1.21
2.98
1.73
0.35
5.30
1 8
1.22
3.01
1.67
0.33
5.30
1 8
1.23
3.05
1.62
0.31
5.30
1 9
1.23
3.05
1.62
0.31
5.30
1 9
1.23
3.08
1.61
0.31
5.30
1 9
1.24
3.12
1.60
0.30
5.30
1 9
1.24
3.16
1.58
0.30
5.30
1 9
1.25
3.19
1.57
0.29
5.30
1 9
1.25
3.23
1.56
0.29
5.30
1 9
1.26
3.26
1.54
0.28
5.30
1 9
1.26
3.30
1.53
0.28
5.30
1 9
1.27
3.33
1.52
0.28
5.30
1 9
1.27
3.37
1.51
0.27
5.30

1
9
1.28
3.40
1.50
0.27
5.30
1
9
1.28
3.44
1.48
0.26
5.30
1
9
1.29
3.47
1.47
0.26
5.30
2
1
0.00
3.47
1.47
0.26
5.30
2
1
0.06
4.49
1.47
0.26
5.31
2
1
0.12
5.28
1.46
0.26
5.31
2
1
0.18
5.89
1.45
0.26
5.32
2
1
0.24
6.37
1.45
0.26
5.33
2
1
0.30
6.74
1.44
0.26
5.33
2
1
0.36
7.03
1.44
0.26
5.34
2
1
0.42
7.26
1.43
0.26
5.35
2
1
0.48
7.43
1.42
0.26
5.36
2
1
0.54
7.57
1.42
0.26
5.36
2
1
0.60
7.67
1.41
0.26
5.37
2
2
0.53
7.67
1.41
0.26
5.37
2
2
0.63
7.72
1.40
0.26
5.38
2
2
0.73
7.75
1.40
0.25
5.39
2
2
0.83
7.79
1.39
0.25
5.39
2
2
0.93
7.81
1.38
0.25
5.40
2
2
1.03
7.84
1.37
0.25
5.41
2
2
1.13
7.86
1.36
0.25
5.42
2
2
1.23
7.88
1.36
0.25
5.43
2
2
1.33
7.89
1.35
0.25
5.44
2
2
1.43
7.90
1.34
0.25
5.44
2
2
1.53
7.91
1.33
0.25
5.45
2
2
1.63
7.92
1.33
0.25
5.46
2
2
1.73
7.93
1.32
0.25
5.47
2
2
1.83
7.94
1.31
0.25
5.48
2
2
1.93
7.94
1.30
0.25
5.49
2
2
2.03
7.95
1.30
0.24
5.49
Seg #
Reach ##
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD I
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
5.27
6.91
4.09
5.26
1
1
0.03
5.39
6.89
4.09
5.26
1
1
0.06
5.50
6.88
4.08
5.26
1
1
0.09
5.61
6.86
4.07
5.26
1
1
0.12
5.72
6.85
4.06
5.27
1
1
0.15
5.82
6.84
4.05
5.27
1
1
0.18
5.91
6.82
4.04
5.27
1
1
0.21
6.00
6.81
4.03
5.27
1
1
0.24
6.08
6.79
4.02
5.27
1
1
0.27
6.16
6.78
4.01
5.27
1
1
0.30
6.24
6.77
4.00
5.28
1
1
0.33
6.31
6.75
4.00
5.28
1
1
0.36
6.38
6.74
3.99
5.28
1
1
0.39
6.45
6.72
3.98
5.28
1
1
0.42
6.51
6.71.
3.97
5.28
1
1
0.45
6.57
6.70
3.96
5.28
1
1
0.48
6.63
6.68
3.95
5.29
1
1
0.51
6.68
6.67
3.94
5.29
1
1
0.54
6.73
6.66
3.93
5.29
1
1
0.57
6.78
6.64
3.93
5.29
1
1
0.60
6.83
6.63
3.92
5.29
1
1
0.63
6.87
6.62
3.91
5.29
1
1
0.66
6.92
6.60
3.90
5.30
1
1
0.69
6.96
6.59
3.89
5.30
1
1
0.72
6.99
6.57
3.88
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.99
6.57
3.88
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.95
6.55
3.86
5.30
1
2
0.72
6.91
6.53
3.83
5.30
1
2
0.73
6.86
6.50
3.81
5.30

C-U
P Vq/ —c
6 0
z 6
k
b�s 0
SCE:
-- .,C2w_c,�►__h�iNE__
O�towiuC�—'------CLUB_—�i4.[_.
VA 'tL-
-•-....._..-------li_�TUR.e��_._r.�o2v�Al----f�a��;...--
�'-Q--ACll'._--- --_-_- -—+RoN.._�Np._I�E'�'ou2CLJ"_
S '4 AC_---
--------- -
—G-O s-
..........
z )13o Do- fl,.
Go A SIN
—3400S
:S c 3— i-
( j4 V3, (4 Flo, s L , co
-rA.T
e.
1 L

Select Vance County Dams
SDP 9/18/98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Structural
Hydraulic
Normal
Crest
Max Qw
Normal
Max Imp
Surface
Aver.
DAM NAME
RIVER
Constuct
Height
Height
Freeboard
Length
rm Spillway Pool Cap
Cap.
Area
Depth
OR STREAM
Completed
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
CFS
AC -FT
AC -FT
AC
ft
FOX RESERVIOR DAM
SANDY CREEK
1920
10
8
2
ROWLAND LAKE DAM
SANDY BRANCH
1900
20
20
0
200
150
330
495
77
92
CLUB LAKE DAM
SANDY CREEK
1900
15
14
1
50
13
200
240
WELDON LAKE DAM
CATTAIL CREEK
1850
20
19
1
200
330
60
72
5.7
10.5
SOUTHERLAND LAKE
SANDY CREEK
1880
14
14
0
300
240
288
5.9
40.7
AYSCUE LAKE DAM
DICKIES CREEK
1970
30
20
10
420
990
336
403
12.8
26.3
413
240
288
columns 1 thru 10 info from DLR, Scott Harrell
column 11 by planimeter of USGS map
1
2
9
11
Normal
Surface
Flow
Segment
Segment
DAM NAME
RIVER
OR STREAM
Pool Cap
Area
Inc
Inc
Depth
Width
Area
Vel
Vol
travel
time
CLUB LAKE DAM
SANDY CREEK
AC -FT
60
AC
5.7
cfs
5.3
mi
ft
ft
ft
AC
fps
AC-ft
HR.
Reach 1
Reach 2
S1R2
S1 R3
0.02
106
8
70
0.170
0.009
1.36
3.0994
Reach 3
S1R4
0.02
106
8.5
70
0.170
0.009
1.44
3.2931
Reach 4
S1R5
0.04
211
8.5
70
0.339
0.009
2.88
6.5862
Reach 5
S 1 R6
0.07
370
9.5
75
0.636
0.007
6.05
13.802
Reach 6
S1R7
0.12
634
10.5
85
1.236
0.006
12.98
29.638
Reach 7
S1R8
0.12
634
11.2
95
1.382
0.005
15.48
35.333
Reach 8
S1R9
0.12
634
11.2
95
1.382
0.005
15.48
35.333
0.06
317
9.5
55
0.400
0.010
3.80
8.6755
SUM
3010
5.7
59.5
135.8
for HA5
Area
8.57
9.50
11.52
15.89
7Q10
0.61
0.65
0.72
0.85
7Q10w
1.47
1.60
1.86
2.40
30Q2
1.88
2.05
2.40
3.14
Qavg
7.71
8.55
10.37
14.30

I �
j ! i
i �
j j
j
j
(US6S
'taro
�
'3b
-
i �NaY
7•.�
V_jE�Lr'
ueag_;A�c�T
!62o��t7tpoo
I
)
�
I
� i 1
+I
)
i
�iI II �II� ►
� ! ,,t, i I , , � I
)
j I
j
i I
i �!_ i
! ! I I I j IZ • �'
j ,o ='©.r,)
to
r
�
7a10—C.cs--o6� .tt=O.oS4�r/Mi ; IAA =°ia
cRa { j
� = �I3 • Sip' � ! � 3ocn = 2, o f I tt I
( I
! I
! i � { ��'
i cw s
i
• '3z� � � � ��� gyp!-
j
��,(�
E
!
�
i
CNE�;
DA=11 5z�iY
7 jow 0.
7f
�'5
��i C l
. I j i j
Slav V,
2.03
I
j i
r
?QR3 _ v,DS
I i
R'o '7Qtn = (Q•bs-o.?t�.i}"= 4 063 ��t%n � I
7QIbW 4
! 2.
i i at'
I'.i
; - IO,��
I
I ! �QQZ,
i
I

tAA Ott --?(U Ft SIC-
tit
10
2 Sk PI(k i S2-! F,I 131Sv; ( I ( I I I 5400lt2
I iSL.PC A�E Ct -s3.-2
CL-0.16 LAKE
US GS -lb 00
40- WE=
-C,
1-4-0
l f I 1
L StRI
S L-OP I p (�q E)�' = 1 11,-74 ffA
f

A 2,s--� '�)+ z
7Q Cp w i, 4-7 J--s
�)Av� 4 -?.1 t
0. 53
0 2? DA
• 3Lb � n.63
�o0z = D•
2.6'0 0IF

4
l
v MCKIN4&CREED
v
August 25, 1998 M&C 1406-0001.OR
Mr. Steve Pollei
NPDES Unit
NCDENR tM
Division of Water Quality co
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 N
RE: Request for Speculative Limits I
Dear Mr. Pollei: "o
cn
Pursuant to our original request of June 161h and subsequent clarification of August 10"' (in
response to your correspondence of July 31") and our recent telephone conversation, we have
reviewed and revised our previous request for limits. I've enclosed copies of the previous
correspondence for your convenience.
We can restrict our request for limits for the Sandy Creek discharge to a single alternative of
3.0 MGD. Also, we can restrict our request for alternatives in Nutbush Creek to 7.0 MGD at
the existing facility discharge location, and 7.0 MGD at each of the two downstream discharge
locations shown on the attached USGS quadrangle photocopy.
Please feel free to exercise your judgment in commenting upon the downstream location
number 1 if it quickly appears that there would be no tangible difference in this location from
the existing discharge point, and you believe it to be an academic exercise to run the model for
this point. I presume the stream flow characteristics at downstream location number:2. will be
sufficiently different to have a material effect on certain parameters.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P,A.
Timothy J. Baldwin, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager
Enclosures
cc: Tom Spain
David Goodrich
t it
�'r1 RSA
O i.O
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
TES 919,233.8091 FAX [phone] www.mckimcreed.com

vM�'IQMf�CREED
August 10, 1998
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
NCDENR
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Request for Speculative Limits
NPDES No. NCO020559
Nutbush Creek WWTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
M&C 1406-0001.OR (10)
Thank you for your response of July 31, 1998 to our request for speculative limits. The
following will address and clarify the issues raised in your correspondence.
Number of Evaluations Requested
We can appreciate the workload of your office with respect to the number of
evaluations requested. Unfortunately, in order to completely address the alternatives
with the City and allow them to make an informed judgment for future expansion
direction, there are a number of alternatives which merit investigation. Flow projections
performed as part of the comprehensive master planning study which is under way
have predicted a 20-year requirement for 7 mgd. As you are aware, the City has a
tiered discharge permit with limits up to 6 mgd at its current location. Therefore, there
are a number of alternatives involving expanding from 4.14 to 6 mgd, or to 7 mgd,
combined with the prospects of a relocated or supplemental discharge location. We
have discussed these options with the City and will further discuss them to determine if
we can streamline the number of permutations necessary.
2. Location of Proposed Discharges.
In my correspondence, I noted that the existing discharge may be retained at the
existing location. An alternative suggested by the City was to relocate the discharge to
the main stem of the lake. I had asked if, on a judgment call basis, this would appear
to have any positive effect on the discharge permit limitations. Informal conversation
with one of your modeling staff indicated that they did not think that this would result in
a major difference in the discharge permit limits given. Frankly, I expected this to be
dealt with on a qualitative basis initially, if this is in fact the result. However, if a
tangible benefit is to be derived from a relocation, then we would have to request a
more specific determination, and we can provide more specific geographic information
at that time. I believe I indicated that we are not predisposed to any specific location,
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
Trr 919.233.8091 FAX [phone] www.mckimcreed.com

Mr. David A. Goodrich
August 10, 1998
Page 2
aside from the general inquiry as to whether or not a relocation would be technically
and environmentally advantageous in your opinion.
3. Proposed Discharge to Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico Basin
We are aware of these limitations involving a new discharge. Again, for the sake of
due diligence, we need any input which you may give us in order to present the most
up-to-date information to the City Council for consideration. We are aware of the
NEPA and SEPA requirements for environmental assessments for wastewater
systems. Certainly, an environmental assessment would be performed prior to
submission of an application for a modified or new NPDES permit. It is customary to
perform an engineering evaluation of available alternatives, utilizing readily available
environmental information therein, and that a detailed environmental assessment be
performed for the preliminarily selected alternative.
4. Request by the Permittee
The City of Henderson is preparing the requested authorization letter, and a revised
request for speculative limits will be issued under the City's signature.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
any questions or comments, or require additional information.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
Timothy J. Baldwin, P.E.
Sr. Project Manager
/der
cc: Mark Warren
Tom Spain
FACLERICAU dOMW1%IOM108yb.doc
� MCMM&CREED

CITY OF HENDERSON
Post Office Box 1434
180 Beckford Drive NLMAM CMWASHWATFR
Henderson, North Carolina 27536-1434 TREATMENT PLANT
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
liLiI::
Mr. David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
DENR Water Quality Section
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
Re: Request for Speculative Limits
NPDES No NCO020559
Nutbush Creek WWTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Goodrich,
I am writing in response to your letter dated July 31, 1998, in
reference to speculative limits requested by Mr. Tim Baldwin of
McKim and Creed for the evaluation of seven different flow
variations for wastewater discharge at four sites.
The City of Henderson has employed McKim and Creed to complete a 20
Year Master Sewer Plan.
Evaluating the different flow variations and sites is a critical
part of selecting the best environmentally sound and economic
alternative for the City of Henderson's wastewater treatment needs.
Mr. Tim Baldwin of'McKim and Creed is authorized to act on behalf
of the City of Henderson for all requests of speculative wastewater
treatment effluent limits.
I have requested that Mr. Baldwin contact you directly to resolve
the concerns listed in your letter so this important part of our
plan can be completed in a timely manner.
If you have any questions or comments, you can contact me at 252-
431-6081.
Thank you for the assistance you and your staff are providing for
the City of Henderson.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Spain
WWTP Director
c: Eric Williams, City Manager
Mark Warren, Asst. City Manager
Frank Frazier, City Engineer
Linda Leyen, Chief Plant Operator
Reggie Hicks, Pretreatment/Lab Spvr.
Less Hall, McKim and Creed
Tim Baldwin, McKim and Creed

SUMMER
MODEL INCLUDES CLUB POND
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
CITY OF HENDERSON, NEW
WWTP,
W/CLUB POND
Receiving Stream :
SANDY CREEK
NEAR NCSR
1519
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 7.88
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 0.68
mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 0.12
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment
1
------
3.11
---------
1.03
-------
7
----
----
--
----------
Reach
1
7.50
4.50
5.00
1.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Segment
2
4.16
0.00
1
Reach
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
AT I 1AA&b M."i 1` a .15 3.)l MJ/f �

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger CITY OF HENDERSON, NEW WWTP, W/CLUB PONDSubbasin : 030302
Receiving Stream SANDY CREEK NEAR NCSR 1519 Stream Class: C-NSW
Summer 7Q10 0.61 Winter 7Q10 : 1.47
Design Temperature: 26.0
LENGTHI SLOPE VELOCITY DEPTH Kd Kd Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @20° design @200 design
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 0.74 13.50 0.227 0.80 0.37 10.28 6.29 5.52 0.48
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 0.02 17.00 0.007 8.00 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.21I 0.48
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 0.02 17.00 0.006 8.50 0.26 10.20 0.21 0.18I 0.48
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.04 17.00 0.006 8.50 0.26 1 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.48
Reach 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.07 17.00 0.005 9.50 0.26 10.20 10.17 I 0.151 0.48
Reach 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.12 17.00I 0.004 �1O.SO 0.26 10.20 10.14 0.12 0.48
Reach 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.12 17.00I 0.004 111.20 0.26 0.20 10.14 ! 0.12 0.48
Reach 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1 0.12 17.00 0.004 111.20 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.48
Reach 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.06 17.00 0.007 9.50 ( 0.26 0.20 0.24 1 0.21I10.48
Reach 9
------------------------------_--------------------------------------------------
Segment 2 0.60 33.30 0.285 0.72 10.51 0.39 �19.49 17.10 0.79
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 2 1.57 12.74 0.203 0.87 0.34 1 0.26 5.31 f 4.661 0.48 1
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i

Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1.550
7.500
4.500
5.000
Headwaters 0.610
2.000
1.000
7.300
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.300
* Runoff
0.054
2.000
1.000
7.300
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 4
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 5
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 6
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 7
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 8
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 1
Reach 9
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
Segment 2
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Headwatersl
0.650
2.000
1.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.117
2.000
1.000
0,000
Segment 2
Reach 2
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
* Runoff
0.083
2.000
1.000
0,000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 31, 1998
Mr. Thomas Spain
City of Henderson
P.O. Box 1434
Henderson, North Carolina 27536
e��
NCDENR
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits
NPDES No. NCO020559
Nutbush Creek WWTP
Vance County
Dear Mr. Spain:
Reference is made to the request submitted by Timothy Baldwin, P.E. of McKim & Creed, for speculative
effluent limits for the City of Henderson. The City's Nutbush Creek WWTP currently has a permit to discharge
6.0 MGD of treated domestic wastewater to Nutbush Creek in the Roanoke River Basin. The requested
speculative limits at various locations for a total of 7.0 MGD are reflective of the City's 20-year flow
projection. We have reviewed the request and provide the following response.
There are several issues that require resolution prior to the Division preceding with its evaluation. The issues
are:
Number of Evaluations Requested
The request would require the evaluation of 7 different flow variations between 4 different sites. The Division
does not have the resources and personnel to make this many evaluations and return a response to you in a
timely manner. Typically the Division will evaluate 2 or 3 different discharge locations or flows as a courtesy
to towns and municipalities. We request that the Town reduce the number of evaluations requested such that we
may respond promptly.
Location of Proposed Discharges
The Division requests that you mark the location of the proposed relocation to the main stream on Nutbush
Creek on a USGS map (Scenario B). Does this proposal involve a discharge directly to the Ken Reservoir? In
addition, the Division requests that the Town not consider the discharge upstream of Roland Pond to avoid
potential eutrophication of the pond.
Proposed Discharge to_Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico Basin
There are several issues you should be aware of pertaining to this proposal:
1) The entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in 1989 in
response to the problems associated with nutrient loading (from both point source and non -point sources)
and the resulting eutrophication and algal blooms in the Pamlico River estuary. As part of the effort to
reduce nutrient loading in the basin, the EMC adopted Phase II of the Tar -Pamlico NSW Strategy in
December 1994.
For Nutrients: The Phase 11 NSW agreement for the basin includes provisions for permitting new facilities
(see A-IV-25 of the basin plan). Specifically, it states that facilities > 0.05 MGD will get a TP limit of 1
mg/l (monthly avg.). New facilities > 0.5 MGD will get that limit plus a 6.0 mg/l nitrogen limit (monthly
avg.). In addition, the additional nutrient load must be offset by reductions in nitrogen from nonpoint
P.Q. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled 110% post -consumer paper

Town of Henderson 6/16/98 request
Speculative Limits
Page 2
sources so that there is no net increase in nitrogen load to the basin. This is accomplished through
funding of BMPs as described in the agreement. The details of membership in the association can be
discussed with the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association if a discharge into this basin is still desired.
2) Sandy Creek forms the headwaters of Swift Creek. Swift Creek supports the only viable populations of
the Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio (Canthyria) steinstansana) in the world, a federally endangered
species. Swift Creek also supports the best populations in North Carolina of five other mussel species
listed by the state as threatened. Presently the pending status of Swift Creek as an ORW may impact
future permitting of all dischargers. This issue must be resolved prior to permitting any new dischargers
in this area.
3) Interbasin transfer issues must be resolved through the Division of Water Resources. You may contact
Mr. Tom Fransen at 715-0381 to pursue discussions on interbasin transfer issues.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
The City will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts before applying for a permit modification.
Anyone proposing to construct new or expanded waste treatment facilities using public funds or public (state)
lands must first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wastewater flows (1) equal or exceed 0.5
MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. The Division will not accept a permit
application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until the Division has approved the EA and sent
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the expanded flow. It should provide a
comprehensive analysis of potential alternatives to expansion, including a thorough evaluation of non -discharge
alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation, water conservation; and inflow
and infiltration reduction are considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge.
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred alternative must be the practicable waste
treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be
implemented. if the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the quality of
the environment, you must then prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Steve Zoufaly of the Water
Quality Planning Branch can provide additional information regarding the requirements of the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act. You can contact Mr. Zoufaly directly at [phone], ext. 566.
Request by the Permittee
In an effort to streamline our process and return a prompt response, the Division requests that all
speculative requests be submitted by the permittee or be accompanied by a letter from the permittee
stating that a consultant is authorized to act on their behalf
I trust this response offers sufficient guidance for the City's proposed expansion. Once the items noted above
have been addressed, you may submit a revised request for speculative limits. If you have any additional
questions about these limits, feel free to contact Steve Pellei at [phone], extension 516.
Sincerely,
David A. Goodrich
Supervisor, NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
cc: Timothy Baldwin, P.E. of McKim & Creed
Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
'NPDES=Permit Files
NPDES 030302 Basin Files

DENRIDWQ
FACT SHEET FOR SPECULATIVE RESPONSE
NPDES No. NCO020559
Facility Inform. ation
FacilityName:
City o en erson-
ut usCreek
Permitted ow (MGD):
to
Nutbush Crk
5.County:
Vance
Facility ass:Regional
ice:
Facility/Permit tatus:
pecu ative Req
opoQuad:
is s oro NC
Stream Characteristics
Receiving tream:
Sandy Creek in the Tar -Pamlico River(Proposed)
Stream assi ication:
- 2s-78-1-(1)
inter c s :
u asin:
c s
(4.) Drainage Area (mi ):Average
Flow c s :
urnmer c s
o :
varies
Response:
Please see attached letter.
Instream:
Sandy Creek instream data near Gupton showed no chemical instream problems over the past 5
years. The minimum DO was observed to be 6.3 mgll. See attached WQ data summary.
However, Sandy Creek near SR 1412 returned a Fair Bloc] assiiication. Currently there are 16
dischargers in the subbasin with 2 dischargers above 0.5 MGD.
Other Issues:
Please see attached letter.
Version: July 30, 1998 20559 SPEC INFO Page 1

Ica] Monitoring -Summary Report
Paee 1
Y CK AT SR1432 NR GUPTON INACT-841015
Carolina Division of Water Quality
Stadon Number: 0208273350
Basin: TAR
Drainage Area (scl.mi.):
Secondary Number. TAR027C
Subbasin: 030302
Average Flow (cfs):
Third Number. TAR0271A
Reg. Office: RRO
7Q10 (cfs):
STORET Number. 03830000
County: FRANKLIN
Summer 7QI0 (cfs):
Water Quality Class: B NSW
I
I ' . 30Q2 (cfs).-
Criterion NC State %
First Last
Parameter Name Type Criterioi n Det Crit Crit
Min Med Max Sample Sample .
Dissolved Oxvizen (mVI)
FA
1 5
49
u1u 6.3 11 8.7
12.8
712J93
9/23/97
[pH (SM 11
FAQ
1 6.0-9-01
4911uu
6.411 7.11
7.6
7122/93
9/23197
!Conductivity (µ.Mhos) juI
N/C
uL
OIL___]L__]l
4011 681 92 7/22/93
9/23/97
IChlorophvil a (Corr_)(4z/l�
FAQ
40
N/S
1 11
L__L�jUI�- I_
I
Fecal Coliform (n/100m1) j
FHH
2001
u4L8.31
u 44-8 1100 7122/93
9/23/97
Total Phosphorus (moll) j
NIC
uuuu
0.01 0.041 0.11 7/22/93
9/23/97
Ammonia -Nitrogen (mgA) j
N/C
48
uL__J"LIQ1j
0.041 0.11 7/22193
9/23/97
INitratelNitrite N (mvJl)
I
NIC
L.M
jL_J"L0.0Ijj
L 5
0.0951 0.4 17122193
9/23/97
T Kieldahl Nitrogen (mJl) J1I
NIC
uuuu
o.111
0.31
0.9
7/22/93
9/23/97
Turbidity (N FM 11
FAQJJ
50
L -
LUL-d"
2.5
6-61
36
7/22/93
9/23/97
IHardness (mJl) __
j 1
NIC
1 4811
0
L_JL_JL
12 11
241
46
7/22/93
9/23/97
!Total Residue (mgll�uuI
NIC
I N/S 11
1 1 LJ 11 1 _
I
Total Susoended Res (mJl)
NIC
1 47
L 41"L____
"l
21
13
7/22193
9/23/97
jAluminum (uJl) ]I
I NIC
uuuu
50
110
1300
7/2J93
9/23/97
1Arsenic (µJl) j
FA
501
481
0
[ ___
101
101
10
7/22/93
9/23/97
1Cadimum (µJl)
FA
uuL
4-8
48 01""1
21
7122/93
9/23/97
(Chromium (uJl)
FA
501
48
L_--JL�
2511
�2`1
J 25
7/22193
9/23/97
Copper AL (u--A) ]I
FAL
1 71
481
20
L 2
4.2
L 11
21
16
7/22/93
9/23/97
Iron AL (µall)
FAL
1 1000
481
34 7a.8 5601
1300
3200
7/22193
9/23197
Lead (µg/l)
FA
25
L�
48
L I of wil
lol
10
7/22/93
9/23/97
IMercury (µall)
FAQ
1 0.0121
48 uL_� 0.2
0.21
0.2
7/22/93
9/23/97
Manganese (uJl)
NIC
uuuL__]
82
1401
170
7/22/93
2/6/97
Nickel ( Jl) 11
FAQ
1 88
u
48IL ALu
loll
101
10
7/2J93
9/23/97
Zinc AL (µall)
FAL
1 501
26 Lu
8.3
1011
101
220
7/2J93
9/23/97
Summer Summary_(April-October)
Parameter Name
Samples
Samples �, Det Minimum Median Maximum
Dissolved Oxv_ oen (mall)
--jI 3111 011 6.31 8.211 9.8
H(SU)
I I 31L 0 6.41 7.21 7.6
Total Phosphorus (mzA)
11 301 211 0.011 0,041 0.11
Ammonia -Nitrogen (me/l)
11 3011 511 0.011 0.041 0.11
INitrate/Nitrite-N (mg/1)
11 30 1 511 0.0111 0.061 0.26
Conductivity (µ.Mhos)
11 3011 Oil 4111 92
Chloro hull a (Corr)( gA)
NIS [ ..... j 11 1
ITotal Suspended Res (me/l)
I L 29 L__JIl_.._ �1L___ 2]13
Abbreviations: n=number of samples; Det=number of samples less than the detection limit; AL --action level; N/S=no samples
Crit=number of samples above or below the criterion; % Crit=percentage of samples above or below the criterion; NIC=no criterion
Notes: Median values are calculated using the detection level for samples classified as below detection. The Median value for Fecal
Coliform is actually the Geometric Mean value. Data include only surface samples. Samples recorded at less than detection are
considered at detection level for this summary. Criterion Type Codes: FAQ --Freshwater Aquatic Life; SAQ--Saltwater Aquatic Life;
FHH--Freshwater Human Health; SHH--Saltwater Human Health; FAL--Freshwater Action Level; SAL --Saltwater Action Level:
SA --Saltwater SA Criterion; TR--Trout Water Criterion; WS--Water Supply Criterion; WSH--Water Supply II Criterion; WSM-Water

rnm June -Se tember INACT-84I0I5
PamrnererName
Dissolved Ozv .....Samples
H ea (me/I) Sam Ies
S 20
Total Pho horus 20 0 6.7 7.85 9.1.
Ammonia -Nitrogen 6.4 7.I7 7.6 '
Nit<ate/Ninite-N 0.01 0.035
(mQl]) IS � 0.1
Conductivit ( os OAI 0.04
} I S � 0.09
Chloro Ih !! a0.01 0.06
(CO(Carr)( ) I9 4I 0 0.2
[Total Sus ended Res N/S 80
YearI Su (�'�) �r 92
mmaries
Dissolved Ox - �1 ! I.5
erl ms� I3
Year Samples Samples H SU
< Der Minimum
I993l �+ Median Mum Samples
I994 I I 7'2 7 7 I I.2 Year Samples
1995 12 L Of 6.3 8.9 12
1996 I2 O 6 7 8.85 11.8
! 99l L7 � 7 4 . 7 8.85 11.4
Conducti 8.4
� Mhos 12.8
I993 -
I994 - I0 42 8 qL
f,,,�, 9l
I995 I2 1 7I.5 92
I9��� 48 � 2
I2 0 '41 � 89
I997 ]l01 r 42 56 85
Total Sus ended Re55 90
m a/I
4I993
1994 I I�� 81
I995 I2 C �� TIj� , �f _,
I996 111��~, f' 1�13 f
1997 j QIjJ �� ,r
4
< Det
I993 f Sf�� M'n`n'um Median �iazimum
1994 �11 0 6.7� 7.2 7.3
1995 12 6.7 7.1 7.5
1996 Ill 0 6.6 7.095 7.5
1997 f 9+fj �1J 6.4 6.95 7.3
Total phos rn
BUJ 6.4 7.2
hos m� - 7.6
I993 �l "O.O1994
.04 00.0
80.0II99512,L0.
^0.05O.OI .lI996 l8 O.O0j 0.05
003
7 I998
Amma0.]I 005na-Nitrogen ma/.05
I993 � ^1
5 � 0.03
I994 0.07 0.08
lI O.OI�
I995 0.04 0.09
I2 0.0I 0.045
I996 0.09
l2 O,OI
I997 0.04 O.I1
8 �! O.OI O.OIt� Q05

v MCKITV&CREED�
June 16, 1998
Mr. D afrit
NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: City of Henderson
Dear Mr. Safrit:
M&C 1406-0001.OR
co
C_
c�.
w
ao
CD
As you may be aware, the City of Henderson is reaching its capacity limit at the Nutbush Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant). The City has retained McKim & Creed to perform a
comprehensive wastewater planning study. In the performance of the preliminary portions of
this planning, we have forecast a demand for wastewater treatment of approximately 7 MGD at
the end of the twenty-year planning period. Therefore, we respectively request that you
furnish speculative discharge permit limitations for a Plant expansion to that flow limit at the
existing discharge location. The Plant's current discharge permit (NCO020559) authorizes a
total flow of 6.0 mgd to be discharged to Nutbush Creek, following construction of additional
approved treatment works.
Other alternatives will be explored during this study. Two alternatives relevant to this request
are the evaluation of relocating the discharge to a more favorable location, and the
construction of a new treatment facility, either to supplement or even to replace the Nutbush
Creek facility. Therefore, we respectfully request your input, and speculative discharge permit
limitations, for the total planning period flow as follows:
Scenario
WWTP Location
Discharge Location .
Flow (mgd)
A
Nutbush (existing)
Nutbush (existing)
B
Nutbush (existing)
Main Stream (relocated)
7 ;
C
................................................................................................
Nutbush (existing)
Sandy Creek (new)
Nutbush (existing)
Sandy Creek (new)
4.14 I
.................................................
2.86
D**...........................Nutbush
(existing)...........................Nutbush..(existing)..............
Sandy Creek (new)
Sandy Creek (new)
.......................6....
1
E
Sandy Creek (new)
Sandy Creek (new)
7 --�
*`To be considered if 6 mgd is the maximum allowable discharge into Nutbush Creek
YEARS
S. N 406\0001 \Plan ninglProjections06168t1b.doc„6ot
5625 DILLARD DR., SUITE 117, CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
tEL[phone] FAx[phone] www,mckimcreed.com

Mr. Don Safrit
June 16, 1998
Page 2
The City is also concerned about the long-term impact of maintaining the existing discharge
location versus a relocation. We would appreciate any comments or limitations you could offer
regarding the prospective locations with respect to their ultimate assimilative capacity and the
efficacy of a further expanded flow limit.
A general location map is attached. In the case of new/relocated discharge points, these are
flexible and could be adjusted to better accommodate any issues you might have, or to
locations which would enable the issuance of more favorable limits.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments, or require any
additional information. I would be glad to meet at your office at your convenience should you
feel it would be advantageous to do so.
Sincerely,
McKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A
Timothy . Baldwin, P.E.
Project Manager
/der
-- c
cc: Mark Warren caCi
�.
Tom Spain
'� rr
F:SCAD%140650067 VPtanninglProjections\06168tjb.doc., dot 4
v MC
MM
D