The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0086436_permit issuance_19990527State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director '\lay 27, 1999 Mr. Marshall Roberts Buncombe County Schools 175 Bingham Road Asheville, North Carolina 28806 NCDENR Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance Permit No. NC0086436 Cane Creek Elementary School Buncombe County Dear Mr. Roberts: -In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on June 1, 1998, the Division is forwarding herewith the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983. The conditions in this final permit include: • effluent limitations, • monitoring requirements, • reporting requirements, and • additional terms and conditions governing the facility's discharge. The Division received no comments during the public review period; hence, the conditions in this final permit are the same as in the draft permit you reviewed. If any effluent limitations, measurement frequencies, sampling requirements or other special conditions contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding. Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of Water Quality. Part II, EA. addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone (919) 733-5083 FAX (919) 733-0719 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper k� NPDES Permit Issuance Permit No. NCO086436 Cane Creek Elementary School Page 2 This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mike Templeton at telephone number (919) 733-5083, ext. 541. Sincerely, Original Signed By David A. Goodrich Kerr T. Stevens Director Enclosure: NPDES Permit No. NCO086436 cc: Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit Central Files NPDES Unit Permit No. NCO086436 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Buncombe County Schools is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at M fMtk Cane Creek PWASchool Cane Creek Road at Lower Brush Creek Road Buncombe County to receiving waters designated as Cane Creek in the French Broad River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof. The permit shall become effective................................................................................July 1, 1999 This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on ..... December 31, 2000 Signed this day ................May 27, 1999 Original Signed By David A. Goodrich Kerr T. Stevens, Director Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET Buncombe County Schools is hereby authorized to: Permit No. NC0086436 1. Design a 0.012 MGD wastewater treatment facility to serve the Buncombe County Schools, Cane Creek Elementary School, located at Cane Creek Road at Lower Brush Creek Road in Buncombe County; 2. Upon receipt from the Division of Water Quality of an Authorization to Construct, construct and operate said treatment facility; and 3. Discharge treated wastewaters from said facility into Cane Creek, a Class C water in the French Broad River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map. t 'q U)9P Met :=z /h —7 _J) '4 f a 7 > w, 71 Discharge Point _k V Buncombe County Schools TG School VVff Came Creek Elementaryoo P ��,e`ed�G.. Del NC0086436 AlI'XI ' W At� \'V 0" _FnS 7, 26 V, w lk N' 0 N 'z z /- rc� A k N N LN traupe uajo�, •"N' N: 7- - Z 0 C' E r77' HO Latitude: 350 28' 53" Longitude: 820 26' 04" USGS Quad #: F9NW River Basin #: 04-03-02 Receiving Stream: Cane Creek Stream Class: C Buncombe County Schools Cane Creek Elementary School NCO086436 Buncombe County A(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Permit No. N00086436 Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS Flow Biochemical Oxygen Demand, BOD5, 200 C Total Suspended Solids Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) pH Temperature, °C Total Residual Chlorine NH3-N, mg/L EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Monthly Average I Daily Maximum 0.012 MGD 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Shall be within the range of 6.0 and 9.0 standard units at all times 28.0 ug/L There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Measurement Frequency Weekly Sample T p Type Instantaneous Sample Location Influent or Effluent Weekly Weekly Grab Effluent Grab Effluent Weekly Grab Effluent Weekly Weekly Grab Effluent Effluent Grab 2/Month 2/Month Grab Grab Effluent Effluent • e AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION o ON �►�C: %� BIUNCOA/IBE COUNTY " ✓�" '` SS. NORTH CAROLINA ;- PUBLIC ivu ,mac NORTH TE ENVIR NMENTq� NgGEM. MA I P 9RALNOX2 NOT16T'C 2762-0` �NT SUESTqEN0I " DESPERMITOn' ri. _ rz s00 and other Vuuc jful. st the Ns and r low- mLions, the North Carolina ent onmentol <: Manage Commission prapab- es to Issue a permit to dis c charge to the persons list- ed below - effZive' 7/ f d tlonsbiect to special c on- ment ns wishing to com- proposEd °r abiect to the are invited oeterminctions in writing to submit some . a�es�s rio rater fhoen °d- Lions ."Jul aetermfr Posed egarding regarding, meeting mar be Publi Where the Director'oft ll Division of Environments Management finds - a gig llficant degree of public nterestin a Of per November 18+ 1991 Before the undersigned, a Notary public of said County and State, duly commissioned authorized by law to administer oaths qualified and appeared Kim S. WorleY, personally sworndA , who, being first duly poses and says: that he (she) is the Legal Billing Clerk of TheAsheville Citizen -Times Company, engaged in publication of a news known as The Asheville Citizen_Times paper se, class mail in the1City issued, and entered as s, of Asheville, in said Count y and is authorized to make this affidavittand sworne (she) statement; that the notice or other legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was published in The Asheville Citizen - Times on the following dates: November 18, 1998 And that the said newspaper in which said notice, Paper, document or legal advertisement were published were, at the time of each and every publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597'of the General Statues of North Carolina. This 20th day of November, 1998 (Sigma a of person maki,, e a (davit) Sworn to an subscribed before me the 20th Noday of ve ber, 1998 (No r 1 Y Public) MY Commissi n expires the 17tb 2003. day of August NCDENR / DWQ FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT Buncombe County Schools NPDES No. NCO086436 Facility Information (1.) Facility Name: Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP (2.) Permitted Flow: 0.012 MGD (6.) County: Buncombe (3.) Facility Class: 2 (7.) Regional Office: Asheville (4.) Facility Status: (New or existing) New (8.) USGS Topo Quad: F9NW (Fruitland, NC) (5.) Permit Status: (i.e., New, Modification, or Renewal) New Stream Cha-racterlstres (1.) Receiving Stream: Cane Creek, upstream from Lower Brush Creek Road crossing (2.) Subbasin: 40302 (7.) Drainage Area (mi2): 42.4 (3.) Index No.: 6-57-(9) (8.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 9.6 (4.) Stream Classification: C (9.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 14.4 (5.) 303(d) Listed: No (10.) 30Q2 (cfs): 20.4 (6.)305(b) Status: No (11.) Average Flow (cfs): 59 (12.) IWC (%): 0.2 Summary The subject facility is a proposed 800-student elementary school with cafeteria, gym, and showers. Wastewater from the facility will be domestic in nature. Buncombe County Schools evaluated eight non -discharge options, and their preliminary. evaluation supports that the discharge of treated effluent to surface waters is the most cost- effective and environmentally sound alternative for the project. Cost estimates for the surface discharge option were based on providing a 12,000 gpd extended aeration -type package treatment system with flow equalization, effluent disinfection (C12), and dechlorination. Final disposal of sludge wasted from this facility will be handled in an approved facility by an independent contract hauler. Discharge will be to Cane Creek, a Class C water in the French Broad River Basin. Much of the system upstream from the school site is also designated as trout waters. The creek has an estimated 7Q 10 flow of 9.6 cfs at the point of discharge. Modeling and calculations indicate that secondary treatment limits are adequate for oxygen -consuming wastes; and that the creek has sufficient capacity to receive the discharge without violating the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, ammonia, residual chlorine, and fecal coliform bacteria. The proposed permit conditions are summarized in the following table. These conditions are similar to those for other Buncombe County Schools facilities (and other schools). One exception is the chlorine limitation, which is lower than for some of those facilities due to changes in the Division's disinfection policy. NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Buncombe County Schools NPDES No. NCO086436 Page 2 Proposed Candftm Parameters Afreoted Basis for Condi#ion(s) Effluent limitations Flow Permit application BOD, TSS NPDES rules for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater: T15A: 2B .04065 pH, TRC, fecal coliform Division policy Monitoring requirements All T15A: 2B .0505 & .0508; Division Policy (flow) Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/18/98 Permit Scheduled to Issue: 01/04/99 State Contact If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Mike Templeton at (919) 733-5038, extension 541. NPDES Recommendation by: Signature Date Regional Office Comments This space is used by the Regional office personnel to identify specific concerns in reference to issuance of the subject permit. Page 2 Version: October 27, 1998 NPDES Permit No. NCO086436 Permit Type New 303(d) listed (YIN) N Abbr. No. 86436 Discharge Status Proposed 305(b) listed (YIN) N Permittee Buncombe County Schools SIC #1 4952 Drainage Area (sq. mi.): 42.4 Contact Mr. Marshall Roberts SIC #2 Salutation Mr. Roberts SIC #3 S7Q10 (cfs): 9.6 Address 175 Bingham Road WW Code #1 03 W7Q10 (cfs): 14.4 City Asheville WW Code #2 30Q2 (cfs): 20.4 State North Carolina WW Code #3 QA (cfs): 59 ZIP 28806 WW Code #4 IWC (%): 0.2 Facility Name Cane Creek Elementary School WW Code #5 Address Cane Creek Road - NCSR 3136 Basin Code City Fairview Major 04 State North Carolina Minor 03 ZIP 28730 Subminor 02 Location 1 Cane Creek Road at Latitude Location 2 Lower Brush Creek Road D 35 County Buncombe M 28 Receiving Stream Cane Creek S 53 Classification C Longitude River Basin French Broad D 82 Subbasin No. 40302 M 26 WWTP Status new S 04 Design Q 0.012 MGD Type Ownership PC-M Regional Office Asheville Facility Type Minor Letter cc #1 Bob Barr, Ledford Engineering Main Tmt Unit Code No WWTP constructed to date. Letter cc #2 USGS Quad Map No. F9NW Quad Map Name Fruitland, NC Permit Writer Mike Templeton Facility Class 2 Ext. 541 Signature Block 1 Michael E. Templeton Signature Block 2 NPDES Unit Signature Block 3 MET, 11/6/98 IWC CALCULATIONS Facility: Owner: Permit No.: Design Avg. Flow (MGD): Receiving Stream: 7Q10 (summer, CFS): 7Q10 (winter, CFS): WQ Std, Cl (ug/L): WQ Std, NH3 (summer, mg/L): WQ Std, NH3 (winter, mg/L): Upstream Cl (ug/L): Upstream NH3 (mg/L): Residual Chlorine Proposed Cane Creek Elem. School Buncombe County Schools NCO086436 0.012 Cane Creek, 040302, 6-57-(9) 9.6 14.4 28 1 1.8 0 0.22 Ammonia as NH3 (summer) 7Q10 (CFS) 9.6 7Q10 (CFS) DESIGN FLOW (MGD) 0.012 DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) 0.0186 DESIGN FLOW (CFS) STREAM STD (UG/L) 28.0 STREAM STD (MG/L) UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L) IWC (%) 0.19 IWC (%) Allowable Concentration (ug/1) 8,791 Allowable Concentration (mg/1) Fecal Limit (based on 331 : 1 7Q10: Qw) Ammonia as NH3 (winter) 7Q10 (CFS) Not Required DESIGN FLOW (MGD) DESIGN FLOW (CFS) STREAM STD (MG/L) UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L) IWC (%) Allowable Concentration (mg/1) 9.6 0.012 0.0186 1.0 0.22 0.19 404 14.4 0.012 0.0186 1.8 0.22 0.13 1,225 86436 IWCs for NH3, Cl2 MET, 9/29/98 E * DE A *** Discharger BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM. Subbasin 040302 Receiving Stream CANE CREEK Stream Class: C Summer 7Q10 9.6 Winter 7Q10 : 14.4 Design Temperature: 25.0 ILmileH l ft/mE I VELOCITY I DEPTH t@20° Kd Ka @20 ° ----- Idesignj Idesignj jdesKNignf i Segment 1 1 0.55 14.60I 0.354 11.35 10.35 10.28 I10.37 I 9.30I 0.44 Reach 1 Flow I cfs Segment 1 Reach 1 Waste 0.019 Headwaters 9.600 Tributary 0.000 * Runoff 0.180 CBOD NBOD D.O. mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 45.000 90.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 7.440 2.000 1.000 7.440 2.000 1.000 7.440 * Runoff flow is in cfs/mile SUMMER MODEL RESULTS Discharger : BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM. Receiving Stream : CANE CREEK --- ---- ----- --- ------ ------ --------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 7.85 mg/1.-- The End CBOD is 2.02 mg/l. . The End NBOD ------------------------------------------------------------------------ is 1.13 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 7.43 0-00 1 Reach 1 45.00 90.00 0.00 0.01200 SUMMER Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi D.O. 1. CBOD NBOD Flow 1 1 0.00 7.43 2.08 1..17 9.62 1 1 0.10 7.54 2.07 1.16 9.64 1 1 0.20 7.64 2.06 1.15 9.65 1 1 0.30 7.72 2.05 1.14 9.67 1 1 0.40 7.79 2.03 1.14 9.69 1 1 0.50 7.85 2.02 1.13 9.71 Seg # I Reach # Seg Mi D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow WINTER MODEL RESULTS Discharger : BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM. Receiving Stream CANE CREEK --- - ---- ---- - -- - ------ - - ------------------------------------------- The End D.O. is 10.65 mg/1. The End CBOD is 2.05 mg/l. The End NBOD is 1.16 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 10.14 0.00 1 Reach 1 45.00 90.00 0.00 0.01200 GENERAL INFORMATION Facility Name: 6�I„l rL NPDES No.:. Type of Waste: Facility Status: Receiving Stream: Stream Classification: Subbasin: County! Regional Office: Topo Quad: FLOW INFORMATION USGS # Date of Flow Estimates: Drainage Area (mi2): Summer 7Q10 (cfs): Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Average Flow (cfs): 30Q2 (cfs): IWC at Point of Discharge (%): Cummulative IWC MODEL INPUT INFORMATION LENGTH OF REACH (miles) IN LENGTH (miles) WASTE CHARACTERISTICS FLOW (MGD) CBOD (mg/1) NBOD (mg/1) D.O. (mg/1) RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS 7Q10 (cfs/mi) QA (cfs/mi) CBOD (mg/1) NBOD (mg/1) I(rdg/1) 1) ARY CHARACTERISTICS ) g/I) g/1) I)pm) MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS C07 iUNE IC 6u►�cpr�.Q � 4-Z , 7 9,t05 7.0.6 0-7- 55 56 = Z 1 W� IsM an Name of facility co , SCt�GOLS CPtNE CAlff-Y.- Et. EW S CE f— t fi`t sc�FeoL Facility: Cane Creek Elem. School WWTP NPDES#: NCO086436 Receiving Stream: Cane Creek Comment(s): 40302 Low Flow Record Station Number: Hydrologic Area Number: Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: Qave Low Flow Record Station: s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 30Q2 Low Flow Record Station: le number not available 03.4473.4000 HA10 42.70 miles squared 59.80 cfs 9.70 cfs 14.50 cfs 20.60 cfs must be < 400 sq. miles Drainage Area New Site: F 42.40 sq. miles MAR New Site: 1.4 Qave per Report Equation: 59 cfs s7Q10 per Report Equation: 9.58 cfs w7Q10 per Report Equation: 14.36 cfs 30Q2 per Report Equation: 20.42 cfs Continue Drainage Area Ratio: 0.99 : 1 new DA / Da at gage Continue Weighted Ratio: 0.99 : 1 Over -ride Inappropriate Site ( y )::I �I Drainage Area New Site: MAR New Site: Weighted Qave per Report Equation: Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation: Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation: Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation: 42.40 miles squared 1.4 59 cfs 9.63 cfs 14.40 cfs 20.45 cfs CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT RcD-ENR SUBJECT N-- CAROLINA Do-www T D. ErMRONME T AND NArUKAL Rest n crs BASIN BY DATE SHEEP' OF PROJ. NO. COUNTY CHKD BY DATE OEM MINE ■�■�� ■■�■■�INMENE■.■.■■■ ■■ IN MINE MINE■ANN ■� �� ,1 's >ti ' 4 7 'r1 y a �� A C3 1 •/ 91 i' INS ME��i�l�i� ■MINE 0MINE ■0 , 1 1 ♦ a�� ♦ I y • , I I NOME�� 0 mmmmmmmm� SEEM ��nM MEMO A74LA.. PROJECT NCDENR SUBJECT Nair» C ROUKA Do -AM + ,or EemoNmcxi M+c NIPtrA4 Ftm30uRCC3 BASIN BY CALCULATION SHEET DATE. COUNTY CHKD BY SHEET' OF PROJ. NO. DATE � .. �E� OEM nMEMOMMI on ' Rl�tY11a MEME ME MMM nEI I �MEN MENEM � ■ �ME E 0 4 D= O.SkL L # 0344-13fco0 %xr � 0�[4�34floo DN,= 4Z.7 -i �- by o ,s:1� QW = ,011 MCA Dkl= 4L 3 ra`z w7wo = 14-.4 c$s 3oQ7 11 n ! 5 � 3 te 3oQz = as i I � 1 � I � i 1 I r' r Slam _ .155 Nll f ►,ot wQ�o ?,QZ. 4,iCal-f3 Co, rt c_ l k = to ,Z-4 w�. c� - � -4wo 3o�2Z = 1 �J L� 0 l0 uwL Z" \o iQIO C,�s { 0'(0 -t- o =30 = 43Az 0 SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No XX IF YES, SOC NUMBER TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT 40 WATER QUALITY SECTION u� ATTENTION: Mike Templeton t DATE:September 16, 1998 N NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION COUNTY Buncombe PERMIT NUMBER NCO086436 47 -� PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Facility and Address: Cane Creek Elementary School Cane Creek Road-NCSR 3136 Fairview, North Carolina 28730 Mailing: Buncombe County Board of Education 175 Bingham Road Asheville, North Carolina 2. Date of Investigation: September 25, 1997 3. Report Prepared By: Max L. Haner 4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: 5. Directions to Site: Access to the proposed site is from Cane Creek Road (NCSR 3136), approximately 1.5 miles west of its intersection with Upper Brush Creek Road (NCSR 3142) near the Fairview Community in Buncombe County. 6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points: Latitude: 350 28' 53" Longitude: 820 26' 04" Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map. U.S.G.S. Quad No. F9NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Fruitland,N.C. 7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? X_ Yes No If No, explain: 8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Not in flood plain Page 1 9. Location of nearest dwelling: >100 feet (est) 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Cane Creek a. Classification: Class "C" b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad, 040302 C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Agriculture, wildlife PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS 1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted .012 MGD b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment facility? N/A C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity N/A d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years: e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities: f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: The proposed 12,000 GPD system will consist of an extended aeration type package unit with flow equalization, effluent disinfection (C12) and dechlorination. Discharge will be to Cane Creek. g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None Known h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): in development approved should be required not needed 2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Final disposal of sludge wasted from this facility will be handled in an approved facility via independent contract hauler. This matter must be resolved upon submittal of an ATC. a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ Permit Number Residuals Contractor Telephone Number b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER C. Landfill: d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): Page 3 3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): N/A - No ATC issued to date 4. SIC Codes (s) : 4952 Primary 03 Secondary Main Treatment Unit Code: No WWTP constructed to date PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? N/A 2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None 3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate) Date Submission of Plans and Specifications Begin Construction Complete Construction 4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated. (See Recommendations Below) Eight non -discharge alternatives were evaluated on both a 20 year & 40 year cost worth basis in the engineering proposal/NPDES permit application package (as follows). Preliminary evaluation would support that the discharging wwtp is the most cost effective, environmentally sound wastewater treatment alternative for this project. a.Connection to Regional Sewer System - $ b.Connection to Privately Owned System - c.Individual Subsurface System - d.Community Subsurface System - e.Subsurface Drip Irrigation - f.Spray Irrigation - f.Effluent Reuse - g.Pump Station/Force Main Sewer Other disposal options: 5. Other Special Items: None Page 3 20 year 40 year 2,121,377 $ 2,134,404 N/A 335,171 343,262 N/A 390,305 413,822 472,629 507,546 N/A 473,751 491,167 PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed discharge to Cane Creek in the French Broad River Basin should not result in significant adverse environmental impact. If a detailed review of the alternative analysis evaluation continues to support the NPDES permit option, ARO recommends that the permit go to public notice with intent to issue. of Tauter Quality Regional Supervisor 9 //'�' /� �) Dat Page 4 UNITED STATES TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY MAPPING SERVICES BRANCH 168 3 (o 4555 /// SW — 69 TEEN 20 1-S W) 370 74 371 25' 372 1.0 MI. TOU.S.14 a \- s 05j( Or Lo (9, 1-7 �u a J/; A 'A u , 1) •4 6. �ak Giove Ch wtoou UL# I Moij I/C pel !v < < n, -14 ("k,/ in) K Aj p . 10 —�j -7 'i . f tit 55 T, L 7 RATING SCALE FOR CLASSIFICATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS Name of Facility: WAU IAUWr I_LCV L(_ JLNpOL. Owner or Contact Person: 8UA<0A1QC 6p1LAI S Mailing Addre 1 -is 1 !a rRM S41 (¢ N County: �"Cmi(we_Telephone:_. L8 Z — S8 7 (o Present Classification: New Facility ✓ Existing Facility NPDES Per. No. NC00 3 Nondisc. Per. No.WQ Health Dept.Per No. Rated by: L. Telephone: (Tje)ZV-&1-6,Mate: 9-rS--9d' Reviewed by: Health Dept. Telephone: %crnr.��1 Regional Office Telephone:��/-��eYi Central Office Telephone: ORC: Grade: Telephone: Check Classification(s): Subsurface Spray Irrigation Land Application Wastewater Classification: (Circle One) 1 II III IV Total Points: 3 (o ------------------------------------------------------------- IMPLANT PROCESSES AND RELATED 1IPMENT WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION SI-W ! NOT RE CONSIDERED WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OFCLASSIFICATION ALSO SEPTIC TAwc SYSTEMS CONSISTING Cad YOF SEPTIC TANK AND GRAVITY NITRIFICATION LINES ARE EXEMPT FROM CLASSIFICATION, SUBSURFACE CLASSIFICATION (check all units that apply) 1. septic tanks 2. pump tanks 3. siphon or pump -dosing systems 4. sand filters 5. grease trap/interceptor 6. oil/water separators 7. gravity subsurface treatment and disposal: 8. pressure subsurface treatment and disposal: SPRAY IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATION (check all units that apply) 1. preliminary treatment (definition no. 32 ) 2. lagoons 3. septic tanks 4. pump tanks 5. pumps 6. sand filters 7. grease trap/interceptor 8. oil/water separators 9. disinfection 10. chemical addition for nutrient/algae control 11. spray irrigation of wastewater In addition to the above classifications, pretreatment of wastewater In excess of these components shall be rated using the point rating system and will require an operator with an appropriate dual certification. LAND APPLICATION/RESiDUALS CLASSIFICATION (Applies only to permit holder) 1. Land application of biosolids, residuals or contaminated soils on a designated site. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CLASSIFICATION The following systems shall be assigned a Class I dassificafion, unless the flow is of a significant quantity or the technology is unusually complex, to require consideration by the Commission on a case -by -case basis: (Check ii Appropriate) 1. Oil/water Separator Systems consisting only of physical separation, pumps and disposal; 2. Septic Tank/Sand Filter Systems consisting only of septic tanks, dosing apparatus, pumps,sand filters, disinfection and direct discharge; 3. Lagoon Systems consisting only of preliminary treatment, lagoons, pumps, disinfection, necessary chemical treatment for algae or nutrient control, and direct discharge; 4. Closed -loop Recycle Systems; 5. Groundwater Remediation Systems consisting only of oil/water separators, pumps, air -stripping, carbon adsorption, disinfection and disposal; 6. Aquaculture operations with discharge to surface waters; 7. Water Plant sludge handling and back -wash water treatment; 8. Seafood processing consisting of screening and disposal. 9. Single-family discharging systems, with the exception of Aerobic Treatment Units, will be classified 9 permitted after July 1, 1993 or if upon inspection by the Division, it is found that the system is not being adequately operated or maintained. Such systems will be notified of the classification or reclassification by the Commission, in writing. The following scale is used for rating wastewater treatment facilities: (circle appropriate points) ITEM POINTS (1) Industrial Pretreatment Units or Industrial Pretreatment Program (see definition No. 33)...................................................4 (2) DESIGN FLOW OF PLANT IN gpd [not applicable to non -contaminated cooling waters, sludge handling facilities for water purification plants, totally closed cycle systems(see definition No. 11). and facilities consisting only of hem (4)(d) or Items (4)(d) and (11)(d)] 0 - 20.000................................................................................................................................................1 20,001 - 50.000..:...................................................................................................................................2 50,001 - 100.000.....................................................................................................................................3 100.001 - 250,000...................................................................................................................................4 250,001 500,000 ........................................................................................................:..........................5 500.001 1,000,000 ................................................................................................................................8 1,000.001 - 2,000,000...........................................................................................................................10 2.000.001 (and up) rate 1 point additional for each 200.000 gpd capacity up to a maximum of .................30 Design Flow (gpd) (3) PRELIMINARY UNITSIPROCESSES (see definition No.32) (a) BarScreens...............................................................................................................................................I or (b) Mechanical Screens, Static Screens or Comminuting Devices..........................................................................2 (c) Grit Removal..............................................................................................................................................1 or (d) Mechanical or Aerated Grit Removal.............................................................................................................2 (a) Flow Measuring Device................................................................................................................................I or (f ) Instrumented Flow Measurement................................................................................................................2J (g) Preaerallon.........................................................................................................................................:.....2 / (h) Influent Flow Equalization..........................................................................................................................2 V/ (i) Grease or Oil Separators - Gravity................................................................... 2 .............................................. Mechanical................................................................................................................................................3 Dissolved Air Flotation...............................................................................................................................8 ()) Prechlorination.........................................................................................................................................5 (4) PRIMARYTREATMENTU ITS(PROCESSES (a) Septic Tank (see definition No. 43)............................................................................................................2 (b) Imhoff Tank..............................................................................................................................................5 (c) Primary Clarfflers.........................................................................................................................................5 (d) Settling Ponds or Settling Tanks for Inorganic Nontoxic Materials (sludge handling facilities for water purification plants, sand, gravel, stone, and other mining operations except recreational activities such as gem orgold mining)........................................................................................................................................2 (5) SECONDARY TREATMENT U I TSrPROCESSES (a) Carbonaceous Stage (i) Aeration -High Purity Oxygen System...............................................................................20 DiffusedAir System.......................................................................................................10 Mechanical Air System (fixed, floating or rotor)..................................................................a SeparateSludge Reaeration.............................................................................................3 Tridding Filter HighRate.......................................................................................................................7 StandardRate..............................................................................................................5 PackedTower................................................................................................................5 Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Flher............................................................10 (IV) Aerated Lagoons..........................................................................................................10 (v) Rotating Biological Comactore......................................................................................10 (vi) Sand Filters -intermittent biological..................................................................................2 Recirculatingbiological.....................................................................................................3 (vil) Stabilization Lagoons....................................................................................................5 (Vitt) Clarifier...........................................................................................................................5 ✓ (Ix) Single stage system for combined carbonaceous removal of BOD and nitrogenous removal by nitrification (see definition No. 12)(Points for this hem have to be in addition to hems (5)(a)(1) through (5)(a)(01), utilizing the extended aeration process (see definition No.3a)...........................................2 utilizing other than the extended aeration process............................................................8 (x) Nutrient additions to enhance BOD removal.....................................................................5 (XI) Biological Culture ('Super Bugs')addhion........................................................................5 (b) Nitrogenous Stage (I) Aeration - High Purity Oxygen System.............................................................................20 DiffusedAir System.......................................................................................................1 0 Mechanical Air System (fixed, floating or rotor) ........... ..... I...............................................8 SeparateSludge Reaeration............................................................................................3 (il) Trickling Filter -High Rate...................................................................................................7 StandardRate...............................................................................................................5 PackedTower................................................................................................................5 Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Filter.............................................................10 (iv) Rotating Biological Contactors......................................................................................10 (v) Sand Filter - Intermittent biological...................................................................................2 Recirculating biological.....................................................................................................3 (VI) Clarifier ..........................................................................................................................5 (6) TERTIARYORADVANCEDTREATMWTUNRSJPRDCESSES (a) Activated Carbon Beds - whhoutcarbon regeneration....................................................................................................5 withcarbon regeneration.......................................................................................................15 (b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed - without carbon regeneration.................................................................................................5 ,with carbon regeneration.....................................................................................................15 (c) Air stripping..............................................................................................................................................6 (d) Denftrtfication Process..............................................................................................................................10 (a) Electrodialysis............................................................................................................................................5 (f) Foam Separation.......................................................................................................................................5 (g) Ion Exchange............................................................................................................................................5 (h) Land Application of Treated Effluent (see definition No. 22b) (not applicable for sand, gravel, stone and other similar mining operations) by high rate Infiltration..................................................... _................... 4 (1) Microscreens.............................................................................................................................................5 (]) Phosphorous Removal by Biological Processes (See deflnitlon No. 26)........................................................20 (k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration............................................................................................................2 with aeration.................................................................................................................5 (I) Post Aeration - cascade ..............................................................................................................................0 diffusedor mechanical (m) ........................................................................................................2 Reverse Osmosis..................................................................................................................................... (n) Sand or Mixed -Media Filters - low rate .......................................................................................................2 highrate (o) ......................................................................5 Treatment processes for removal of metal or cyanide...................................................................................1 (p) 5 treatment processes for removal of toxic materials other than metal or cyanide i s .............................................. (7) SLIDGETREATMFNT (a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated (anaerobic)...............................................................................................10 Aerobic........... .............................................................. 5 ................................................................... Unheated (anaerobic)................................................................................................................. .............. 3 Sludge Stabilization (chemical or thermal) ..................................................... (c) lt.............................................................................................................................................................5 Sludge Drying Beds - Gravity ........ 2 Vacuum Assisted............ (d) 5 Sludge Elutriation.......................................................................................................................................5 (e) ...................................................... I....................... Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal).....................................................................................................5 (f)' Sludge Thickener (gravity)..........................................................................................................................5 (g) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit [not applicable to a unit rated as(3)(i)] (h) .............................................................a Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage) (i) .............................................................................................2 ✓ Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated...................................................................................................................5 Non -aerated ......................................................................................:: (j} ..................................................2 Sludge Incinerator (not including activated carbon regeneration) (k) ................................................................10 Vacuum Filter, Centrifuge, or Filter Press or other similar dewatering devices ...................................................10 (8) RESIDUALS UTILIZATION/DISPOSAL (including incinerated ash) (a) Lagoons .............................. :...................................................................................................................2 (b) Land Application (surface and subsurface) (see definition 22a) by contracting to a land application operator or landfill operator who holds the land application permit orlandfill permit........................................................................................................................................2 (c) Dedicated Landfill(burial) by the permittee of the wastewater treatment facility 9 DISWECTICIN ( ) ...............................................5 (a) Chlorination................................................................................................ ((b) c) Dechlorination.......... ................................................................................................................................. .5 ✓ Ozone............................................................................................................................... (d) 5 Radiation..................................................................................................................................................5 (10) CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM(S) ( see definition No. 9) [not applicable to chemical additions rated as hem (3)(1), (5)(a)(xi), (6)(a), (6)(b). (7)(b), (7)(e). (9a), (9)(b) or (9)(c) 5 points each: List b ..................................................................................................................................5 ................................................................................................................................... 5 (11) MISCELLANEOUS UNiTSJPRO...SSES............................................................... ....................................................................5CC- (a) Holding Ponds, Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds for Organic or Toxic Materials Including wastes from mining operations containing nitrogen or phosphorus compounds in amounts significantly greater than Is common for domestic wastewater............................................................................................ (b) ...4 Effluent Flow Equalization (not applicable to storage basins which are inherent in land application systems) 2 (c) ...... Stage Discharge (not applicable to storage basins Inherent in land application systems) (d) ..................................6 Pumps.............................................................................................................................. (e) Stand -By Power Supply '"•"" ••""""""'3 PPY• •• (f) •� Thermal Pollution Control Device ................................................................................................................3 ....... ........................ TOTALPOINTS.......................................................................... CLASSIFICATION ClassI......................................................................................................... 5-25 Points Class 11.........................................................................................................26-50 Points ClassIII ........................................................................................................51-65 Points ClassIV .......................................................................................................66-Up Points ------------------------------------------------- Facilities having a rating of one through four points, Inclusive, do not require a certified operator. Facilities having an activated sludge process will be assigned a minimum classification of Class if. Facilities Raving treatment processes for the removal of metal or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class if. Facilities having treatment processes for the biological removal of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class Ili. ----------------------------------------------------- .0004 DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply throughout this Subchapter. (1) Activated Carbon Beds. A physicallchemical method for reducing soluble organic material from wastewater effluent; The column -type beds used in this method will have a flow rate varying from two to eight gallons per minute per square foot and may be ei4her upflow or downflow carbon beds. Carbon may or may not be regenerated on the wastewater treatment plant site; (2) Aerated Lagoons. A basin in which all solids are maintained in suspension and by which biological oxidation or organic matter is reduced through artificially accelerated transfer of oxygen on a flow -through basis; (3) Aeration. A process of bringing about intimate contact between air or high purity oxygen in a liquid by spraying, agitation or dfffuslon;(3a) Extended Aeration. An activated sludge process utilizing a minimum hydraulic detention time of 18 hours. (4) Agricuhuraliy managed site. Any she on which a crop is produced, managed, and harvested (Crop includes grasses• grains, trees, etc.); (5) Air Stripping. A process by which the ammonium Ion is first converted to dissolved ammonia (pH adjustment) with the ammonia then released to the atmosphere by physical means; or other similar processes which remove petroleum products such as benzene, toluene, and xylene; (6) Carbon Regeneration. The regeneration of exhausted carbon by the use of a furnace to provide extremely high temperatures which volatilize and oxidize the absorbed Impurities; (7) Carbonaceous Stage. A sVge of wastewater treatment designed to achieve 'secondary' effluent limits; (8) Centrifuge. A mechanical device In which centrifugal force Is used to separate solids from liquids or to separate liquids of different densG'as; (9) Chemical Addition Systems- The addition of chemical(s) to wastewater at an application point for purposes of Improving solids removal, pH adjustment, alkalinity control, etc.- the capability to experiment with different chemicals and different application points to achieve a specific result will be considered one system; the capability to add chemical(s) to dual units will be rated as one system; capability to add a chemical at a different application points for different purposes will result in the systems being rated as separate systems; (10) Chemical Sludge Conditioning. The addition of a chemical compound such as lime, ferric chloride, or a polymer to wet sludge to coalesce the mass prior to its application to a dewatering device; (11) Closed Cycle Systems Use of holding ponds or holding tanks for containment of wastewater containing inorganic, non -toxic materials from sand, gravel, crushed stone or other similar operations. Such systems shall carry a maximum of two points regardless of pumping facilities or any other appurtenances; (12) Combined Removal of Carbonaceous BOD and Nitrogenous Removal by Nitrification- A single stage system required to achieve permit effluent limits on BOD and ammonia nitrogen within the same biological reactor, (13) Dechlorinatlon. The partial or complete reduction of residual chlorine in a liquid by any chemical or physical process; (14) Denhrification Process. The conversion of nitrate -nitrogen to nitrogen gas; (15) Electrodialysis. Process for removing Ionized salts from water through the use of ion -selective Ion -exchange membranes; (16) Filter Press. A process operated mechanically for partially dewalering sludge; (17) Foam Separation. The planned frothing of wastewater or wastewater effluent as a means of removing excessive amounts of detergent materials through the introduction of air in the form of fine bubbles; also called foam fractionation; (18) Grit Removal. The process of removing grit and other heavy mineral matter from wastewater; (19) Imhoff Tank. A deep two story wastewater tank consisting of an upper sedimentation chamber and a lower sludge digestion chamber. (20) Instrumented Flow Measurement. A device which Indicates and records rate of flow; (21) Ion Exchange. A chemical process in which ions from two different molecules are exchanged; (22) Land application: (a) Sludge Disposal. A final sludge disposal method by which wet sludge may be applied to land either by spraying on the surface or by subsurface injection (i.e., chisel plow); [not applicable for types of sludge described in (11) of this Rule]; (b) Treated Effluent. The process of spraying treated wastewater onto a land area or other methods of application of wastewater onto a land area as a means of final disposal or treatment; (23) Microscreen. A low speed, continuously back -washed, rotating drum filter operating under gravity conditions as a polishing method for removing suspended solids from effluent; (24) Nitrification Process. The biochemical conversion of unoxidized nitrogen (ammonia and organic nitrogen) to oxidized nitrogen (usually nitrate); (25) Nitrogenous Stage. A separate stage of wastewater treatment designed for the specific purpose of converting ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen; (26) Phosphate Removal, Biological. The removal of phosphorus from wastewater by an oxic/anoxic process designed to enhance luxury uptake of phosphorus by the microorganisms; (27) Polishing Pond. A holding pond following secondary treatment with sufficient detention time to allow settling of finely suspended solids; (28) Post Aeration. Aeration following conventional secondary treatment units to increase effluent D.O. or for any other purpose; (29) Post Aeration. (Cascade) A polishing method by which dissolved oxygen is added to the effluent by a nonmechanical, gravity means of flowing down a series of steps or weirs; The flow occurring across the steps or weirs moves in a fairly thin layer and the operation of the cascade requires no operator adjustment- thus, zero points are assigned even though this is an essential step to meeting the limits of the discharge permit; (30) Powdered to Granular Activated Carbon Feed. A biophysical carbon process that utilizes biological activity and organic absorption by using powdered or granular activated carbon- Virgin or regenerated carbon is feed controlled Into the system; (31) Preaeration. A tank constructed to provide aeration prior to primary treatment; (32) Preliminary Units. Unit operations in the treatment process, such as screening and comminution, that prepare the liquor for subsequent major operations; (33) Industrial Pretreatment. (a) Pre-treatment Unit, Industrial. The conditioning of a waste at its source before discharge, to remove or to neutralize substances Injurious to sewers and treatment processes or to effect a partial reduction in load on the treatment process which is operated by the same governing body as the wastewater treatment plant being rated; b) Pre-treatment Program, Industrial - must be a State or EPA required program to receive points on the rating sheet; (34) Primary Clarifiers. The first settling tanks through which wastewater is passed in a treatment works for the purpose of removing settleable and suspended solids and BOD which is associated with the solids; (35) Pumps. All influent, effluent and in -plant pumps; (36) Radiation. Disinfection or sterilization process utilizing devices emitting ultraviolet or gamma rays; (37) Reverse Osmosis. A treatment process In which a heavy contaminated liquid is pressurized through a membrane forming nearly pure liquid free from suspended solids; (38) Rotating Biological Contractors. A fixed biological growth process in which wastewater flows through tanks in which a series of partially submerged circular surfaces are rotated; (39) Sand Filters: (a) Intermittent Biological. Fiftratlon of effluent following septic tanks, lagoons, or some other treatment process in which further blodecomposhlon is expected to produce desired effluents; Hydraulic loading rates on these filters are computed in gpd/ac and have a resulting low gpnVsf (less than one); b) Recirculating biological - the same type of sand filter as defined in Subparagraph (39) (a) of this Rule with the added capability to recycle effluent back through the sand filter; (40) Sand or Mixed -Media Fitters. A polishing process by which effluent limits are achieved through a further reduction of suspended solids; (a) tow rate -- gravity, hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates in the one to three gpm/sf range; (b) high rate -- a pressure, hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates in the five gpm/sf range; At arty rate, the loading rate will exceed three gprr✓sf; (41) Secondary Clarifiers. A tank which follows the biological unit of treatment plant and which has the purpose of removing sludges associated with the biological treatment units; (42) Separate Sludge Reaaration. A part of the contact stabilization process where the activated sludge is transferred to a tank and aerated before returning it to the contact basin; (43) Septic Tank. A single -story settling tank in which settled sludge is in contact with the wastewater flowing through the tank; shall not be applicable for septic tank systems serving single family residences having capacity of 2.000 gallons or less which discharge to a nitrification field; (44) Sludge Digestion. The process by which organic or volatile matter and sludge is gasified, liquefied, mineralized or converted into more stable organic matter through the activity of living organisms, which Includes aerated holding tanks; (45) Sludge Drying Beds. An area comprising natural or artificial layers of porous materials upon which digested sewage sludge is dried by drainage and evaporation; (46) Sludge Elutriation. A process of sludge conditioning in which certain constituents are removed by successive washings with fresh water or plant effluent; (47) Sludge Gas Utilization. The process of using sewage gas for the purpose of Pleating buildings, driving engines, etc.; (48) Sludge Holding Tank (Aerated and Nonaerated). A tank utilized for small wastewater treatment plants not contalning a digester In which sludge may be kept fresh, and supernatant withdrawn prior to a drying method (i.e. sludge drying beds); This may be done by adding a small amount of air simply to keep the sludge fresh, but not necessarily an amount that would be required to achieve stabilization of organic matter. A nonaerated tank would simply be used to decant sludge prior to dewatering and would not allow long periods (several days of detention) without resulting odor problems; (49) Sludge Incinerators. A furnace designed to bum sludge and to remove all moisture and combustible materials and reduce the sludge to a sterile ash; (50) Sludge Stabilization (Chemical or Thermal). A process to make treated sludge less odorous and putrescible, and to reduce the pathogenic organism content; This may be done by pH adjustment, chlorine dosing, or by heat treatment; (51) Sludge Thickener. A type of sedimentation tank in which the sludge is permitted to settle and thicken through agitation and gravity; (52) Stabilization Lagoon. A type of oxidation lagoon in which biological oxidation of organic matter is effected by natural transfer of oxygen to the water from air (not a polishing pond); (53) Stand -By Power Supply. On site or portable electrical generating equipment; (54) Static Screens. A stationary screen designed to remove solids, including non -biodegradable particulate (floatable solids, suspended solids and BOD reduction) from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems; (55) Tertiary Treatment. A. stage of treatment following secondary which is primarily for the purpose of effluent polishing; A settling lagoon or sand or coal filter might be employed for this purpose; (56) Thermal Pollution Control Device. A device providing for the transfer of heat from a fluid flowing in tubes to another fluid outside the tubes, or vice versa; or other means of regulating liquid temperatures; (57) Thermal Sludge Conditioner. A conditioning process by which heat Is added for a protracted period of time to Improve the dewaterabillty of sludge by the solubilizing and hydraulizing of the smaller and more highly hydrated sludge particles; (58) Toxic Materials. Those wastes or combinations of wastes, Including disease -causing agents which after discharge and upon exposure, Ingestion, Inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring; Toxic materials Include, by way of Illustration and not limitation: lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, vanadium, arsenic, zinc, ortho-nitro-chlorobenzene (ONCB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyl tdchloroethane (DDT); and any other materials that have or may hereafter be determined to have toxic properties; (59) Trickling Filter. A biological treatment unit consisting of a material such as broken stone or rock over which wastewater is distributed; A high rate trickling filter is one which operated at between 10 and 30 mgd per acre. A low rate trickling fitter is one which is designed to operate atone to lour mgd per acre; (60) Trickling Fifter (Packed Tower). A plug flow type of operation In which wastewater flows down through successive layers of media or filtrate malarial; Organic material Is removed continually by the active biological fixed growth In each successive layer. This method may produce 'secondary' quality effluent, or may be adapted to produce a nitrified effluent; (61) Vacuum Fifer. Centrifuges, or Filter Presses. Devices which are designed to remove excess water from either digested or undigested sludge prior to disposal or further treatment. LEDFORD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED Consulting Engineers, Geologists & Land Surveyors 306 West Haywood Street P.O. Box 2217 Asheville, NC 28802 (828) 255-7596 1-800-654-8891 FAX (828) 255-0770 October 19, 1998 Mr. Michael Templeton NPDES Unit NCDENR P.O. Bog 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-0535 Re: NPDES Permit Application No. NCO086436 Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP/Buncombe County Dear Mr. Templeton, This letter is in response to your 8/7/98 letter attached for the above referenced project. Our response to your request for the additional information is as follows: 1. The description of the proposed school is a 800 student elementary school with cafeteria, gym and showers. The wastewater is domestic waste and we do not anticipate any other waste loadings. The design flow was based on a 800 student Q 15 gpd/student for 12,000 gpd. 2. Map showing proposed site and contours. As our office discussed with you the alternative sites were assumed to be adjacent to the school property if the land were available. I trust this information and original submittal will allow you to complete your review and approval of the proposed discharge permit. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, ark T. Ledford Enclosures Cc: Marshall Roberts File 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 August 7, 1998 Mr. Marshall Roberts Director of Facility Services Buncombe County Schools 175 Bingham Road Asheville, North Carolina 28806 e�� NCDENR Subject: Receipt of NPDES Permit Application Permit No. NCO086436 Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP Buncombe County Dear Mr. Roberts: The Division of Water Quality received your permit application package for the proposed Cane Creek Elementary School discharge on June 1, 1998. The package includes: • NPDES permit application, Short Form D; • application fee of $400 (check #711160); • Engineering Alternatives Analysis; • wastewater treatment system design criteria and process flow diagram; and • location map. Surface Discharge Option I understand that funding for the school project is being held back until the Division provides some assurance the proposed discharge will be approved. Here is the status of my review to date. I trust this will address those concerns. I have completed a preliminary review of the package and discussed it with Mr. Max Harter of our Asheville Regional Office. It appears that the proposed WWTP-surface water discharge is both technically feasible and cost-effective. Considering the discharge flow, stream flow, and typical effluent characteristics, the discharge is not likely to create water quality problems in the receiving stream. I will finish reviewing the alternatives analysis in the next several weeks and, if warranted, prepare a draft permit. The permit will be offered for public review, and we must consider all comments before taking formal action on the permit. Therefore, even though the proposal looks acceptable to this point, I cannot commit to any particular outcome for your application, because this would pre-empt my alternatives review and the public involvement process. P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone (919) 733-5083 FAX (919) 733-0719 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper Buncombe County Schools Permit No. NC0086436 Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP Page 2 Request for Additional Information Please provide the following information to supplement your original permit application and alternatives analysis: 1. A detailed description of the proposed school project, including: • description of facilities to be constructed; • sources of wastewater and, if other than domestic, expected characteristics; • basis for the design wastewater flow (number of students, etc.); and • plans and schedule for future expansion(s) of the facilities and WWTP. 2. Maps showing the project site, area topography, proposed school and related facilities, potentially affected communities (e.g., sewer hookups), WWTP and outfall locations, disposal sites for each alternative, and other significant features. Regarding the design flow, state rules require that the following flows be used to determine the minimum design daily flow for schools: With cafeteria, gym, and showers 15 gal/student With cafeteria only 12 gal/student With neither cafeteria nor showers 10 gal/student Be aware that the Division's regional office must also provide recommendations from the Regional Supervisor prior to final action by the Division. I am, by copy of this letter, requesting that the regional office prepare a staff report on this project. We will notify you of any comments or questions or any additional information necessary for the application review. If you have any questions, call me at (919)733-5083, extension 541. Sincerely, Michael E. Templeton NPDES Unit cc: Bob Barr, Ledford Engineering (by FAX) Asheville Regional Office / Water Quality Section (with application) NPDES Files � ' LEDFORD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED ^ 4-t Z Z Z-17 2-P4502- C-'n �/ - V&M IZ� C, cv-4 VVEARE SENDING YOU OShop drawings OCopy of letter hed O Under separate cover via O Prints O Rana O Change order O ---_ DATE ATTENTION r O Samples � the following items: O Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED aochecked below: ��"' �~,. approval O For your use O As requested � REMARKS D0/ ` or O Approved assubmitted O Resubmit —_"_---_��V� O Approved asnoted O Submit ---------copieufo,disthbobon O Returned for corrections O Return --_-----corrected prints El For review and comment Ej 0 FORBIDS DUE lg— O PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN T0US COPY0��^~� S|GNBD:��=��—�' EQUIPMENT LIST: Ba rscreen Flow Equalization Chamber Aeration Sludge Holding Clarifier Chlorine Contact Flow Measurement Dechlorination Post Aeration CANE CREEK SCHOOL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA yes 10,000 gal useable volume 18,000 gallon (36 hour detention) 2,500 gallon 2,580 gallon 600 gallon tablet feeder continuous ISCO 3210 tablet feeder 500 gallon 2. Design parameters and NPDES Permit limits: a. Equalization basin: Required for all facilities. Working volume = 20 to 25% of average daily volume. For school having flow within 8 hours use 4. Verify aeration requirements: a. Detention time = volume 18 000 al x 24 hours/ da > 24 hours, use 36 Q(l 2,000) GPD b. Calculate BOD loading: lb BOD/ day = 200 mg/1 x 8.34 x Q(0.012 ) MGD = 20.02 #'s BOD /day; Use 21 #'s / day Cane Creek School Page 2 Design Criteria 5/11/1998 C. Calculate air needed for BOD removal: CFM for BOD removal = 2,100 CFM/# BOD x 21 Ws BOD/Day 1440 min/day = 29.19 CFM; USE 30 CFM d. Calculate air needed for mixing: CFM for mixing = 25 CFM -_aeration tank-(] 8,000) gallons 1000 CF x 7.48 gal/CF = 60.16 CFM; USE 61 CFM Use larger CFM for calculating total air requirements. 5. Sludge Holding Tank: Treatment system designed to treat wastewater @ 200 mg/I BOD. BOD limit is 30 mg/l Assume 2% Solids content 0.65 lb sludge per .lb BOD removed a. lb sludge/day = (200 mg/l — 30 mg/1) x 8.34 x 0.012 MGD x 0.65 lb sludp, lb BOD removed. = 11.06 lb sludge/day; use 12 Ib. sludge/day b. a, 2% solids, volume = 12 lb. sludge/day (0.02 x 8.34) = 65.9 gallons/day 30 day storage requirement = 66 gallons/day x 30 days = 1978 gallons USE 2,500 Digester Size Cane Creek School Page 3 Design Criteria 5/11/1998 a. Calculate air needed for digestion: CFM = 20 CFM - Sludge tank volume 2500 al (1000 CF x 7.48 gal/CF) = 6.68 CFM; USE 7.0 CFM b. Verify sludge opacity: PE = Population Equivalent = (12000)GPD (100 GPD/person) = 120 Per capita sludge capacity= 2500 gallons (120 x 7.48) = 2.78 ; > 1 CF/person , OK 6. Total air requirements: a. Equalization 7.0 CFM (use separate blower) Aeration Tank 61 CFM Sludge Holding Tank 7 CFM Air Lifts @ 10 CFM/airlift 30 CFM Post aeration @ 20 CFM/1000 CF volume 6 CFM. TOTAL 104 CFM b. Blowers Provided: 2 blowers aeration tanks — 1 additional blower for equalization tan] C. Each blower unit shall be equipped with a check valve and gate valve. 7. Clarifier/ Final Settling Tank: a. Calculate detention time: Detention time = volume of clarifier allons x 24 hrs/da 12,000 gpd Detention time>= 4 hours, ok Cane Creek School Page 4 Design Criteria 5/11/1998 b. Calculate surface loading rate: Surface loading rate = 12000 GPD Area ( 49.5) ft2 Should be < 300 GPD/ ft2 for plants < 0.05 MGD; 242.5 gpd/ft2, ok C. Calculate weir loading rate. - Weir loading rate = 12,000)G weir length ( 4'1 1-3/4") ft Weir loading rate shall be < 10,000 GPD/ ft.; 2,410 gpd/ft2, ok 8. Chlorine Contact Tank: a. Contact time: Contact time = tank volume (C00 )gal x24 hrs/day= 1.20 hrs Q ( 12,000 )GPD Contact time shall be > 0.5 hours and should be baffled.; ok b. Method of chlorination: tablet chlorination is satisfactory for Q < 50,000 GPD, ok 10. Miscellaneous, items to be addressed: a. Sludge disposal information should be Provided, indicating how, where and by whom sludge will be disposed. b. Flow recorder and totalizer required as specified in the NPDES permit. C. Plans shall show the 100- year flood elevation. Facilities shall be protected from the 100- yef flood. d. Equalization tank shall be aerated. e. Check security measures, i.e. fence, light, etc. h. Facility should provide source of wash down water on site. CANE CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ® 10.flD0 usEXe� 18,000 GAL GAL (aa NR) eop G 320 '�` RECIEVING STREAM BARSCREEN FLOW EQUALIZATION AERATION CLARIFICATION 2500 GAL CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBER FLOW DECHLOLORI NATION MEASUREMENT SLUDGE HOLDING CHAMBER Cane Creek Middle School Sewer System Project Alternative Analysis Prepared for Buncombe County School Board Asheville, N.C. Prepared by Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc. CI Asheville, N.C. 2 0 5�aa� March 20, 1998 Cane Creek Road Middle School Sewer System Alternative Evaluation For Buncombe County School Board March 20, 1998 Purpose of Report The Engineer has prepared this Sewer System Alternative Evaluation for the proposed middle school on Cane Creek Road at Lower Bush Creek Road as the initial step in applying for a NPDES permit for a package wastewater treatment facility to serve this proposed school. The scope of the evaluation follows the requirements of "Guidance For the Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal Alternatives" as provided by the NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. The scope outlined in that document is very detailed and could be very costly to perform if the additional soils evaluations become necessary. For this reason it is felt that it is more cost effective to perform the evaluation in two phases. The first phase should be a thorough analysis of the sewer system alternatives with comparison of each alternative on the basis of. A) Present value of the life cycle cost of each over the 40-year school building life. B) Reliability of the physical components of the system. C) Environmental risk of each. D) Ability to replace or upgrade system components. E) The feasibility of expanding the school facility. f) feasibility ofchanging the use of the treatment system site. G) Limiting impact on development of land in the vicinity. 1-1) Availability of initial cost funding. 1) Annual operation and maintenance cost. The second phase should be the preparation of the application for the NPDES Permit once the Regional Division of Environmental Management approves this alternative evaluation. A. Cost Evaluation of Dis osal Alternatives L Connection to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work POTW The only treatment works downstream of the proposed school site is the 40.0-MGD MSD WWTP. The existing South Buncombe Interceptor ends as an 18" diameter pipe approximately 4.6-miles from the school site. MSD's recently completed Master Plan projected that future growth through the year 2040 in the Cane Creek Basin would remain typically large lot single family residential with on site septic tank wastewater treatment. It was anticipated that after a significant density of development occurred it might be feasible to extend the interceptor further upstream, financed either by private developers or Buncombe County. if this assumption were correct then the interceptor extension required to reach the school site would be 4,500 feet of 18", 5,820 feet of 15" and 13,920 feet of 8". Estimated 1998 cost is approximately $2,051,000. The high cost of this alternative is approximately ten times the cost of a 12,000-GPD package treatment plant for the proposed school. Therefore the justification for Buncombe County, with possible participation from MSD and private developers, to decide to commit to the interceptor extension would have to be based on other !actors than just meeting the proposed school's needs. The topography of the Cane Creek Valley is very good for conventional small lot subdivisions if the need for septic tanks is eliminated. Therefore it is safe to assume that the extension of a gravity interceptor system would greatly accelerate to development of the Cane Creek Valley. .If this accelerated growth occurs, MSD will find that the remainder of its existing interceptor system downstream will become inadequate to carry the increased flows long before the year 2040. Therefore considerable cost for relief or replacement interceptors would have to be figured into this alternative. User Fees lfthe gravity sewer extension were constructed, the School would have to pay user tees to MSD for the 12,000 GPD expected flow. MSD's current user live is $2.63 per 100 cubic feet. Assuring a 180- day school year, this amounts to 288,800 CF per year and an estimated annual user fee of $7,600. I'r'escnt Worth, C'uat Calcuh�tiun Table 1.0 "Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $ 2,134,404. This is the highest of the alternatives evaluated . 2. Connection to a Privately Owned Treatment Work There is not a privately owned treatment works downstream of the proposed school site. However there are two existing permitted discharges at the Fairview School and the Communication Instruments, Inc. approximately 3 miles upstream of the site. Neither one of these existing facilities have additional capacity for the proposed 12,000 GPD. The three miles separation also presents a major cost impact on tying the two systems together. Assuming that a new 12,OU0 GPD treatment works would need to be provided, it would make more sense for this additional treatment to be provided at the proposed school site where the Cane Creek flows are larger than at the two existing discharge sites. 3, Individual Subsurface Systems The School Board has already performed extensive soil analysis on the 47-acre tract for the proposed middle school. Stanley Fl. Crownover, Ph.D., Soil Scientist, Environmental Health Services of Buncombe County wrote a preliminary report in August of 1997. This report concluded that the only marginally suitable soils were limited to the top 28" of an 18-acre northeastern quadrant on the property, Due to the relatively thin layer of suitable soils, and the relatively flatness of the natural surface cross slope, a long term absorption rate of 0.3-GPD per square feet of distribution system contact area was determined. For 12,000-GPD this means that 40,000 SF of contact area must be provided. A conventional gravel tilled trench with perforated 4" plastic pipe would provide 3.0 SF of contact area per lineal feet of trench. Therefore approximately 13,350 lineal feet of trench would be required. With a typical maximum lateral length of 100 &et either side of main distribution header a typical distribution zone with dimensions of 240' by 218' would contain 4600 LF of trench. This should provide for 4140- GPD. 'Therefore three zones this size would meet the 12,000-GPD requirement at 1.2 —acres per zone, the three zones would take a 3.6-acre site with a dimensions of 720' X 218'. An equal 3.6-acres site down slope from this one should also be set aside for a 100% repair area. To provide an undisturbed 720' by 436' area within the 47-acre tract would eliminate three of the five athletic fields that are planned for this 18-acre quadrant of the site. The cost effectiveness of providing the parking, seating, concessions, lighting, and other utilities for the shared athletic uses would no longer be available. Therefore it is recommended that the best use of this compact piece of land with only marginally acceptable soils for waste treatment would not be for waste treatment but used as the conceptual shared use athletic complex. The School 13oard should search for other eight -acre sites that lie on higher ground, with deeper suitable soils, less soil wetness and preferably steeper surface slopes. Such sites will most likely be available on the north side of'Cane Creek Road or on the southern side of Cane Creek above the flood plain. Construction and Operational Cost of Conventional Subsurface Wastewater Treatinent fi stein A typical subsurface treatment system as described above would require pretreatment of the waste in anaerobic septic tank chambers followed by further solids removal in a free access recirculating sand filter. S e pl i c_'f an k _[des gn The septic tank capacity should be sized to provide a 24-hour average retention time for the wastewater. Therefore about 12,000 gallons of tank is necessary. Tank liquid depth should be no more than six (6) feet. Four tanks in a split series arrangement should be provided to maximize the operational flexibility of closing one of the tanks at a time for maintenance without overloading the treatment system. Each 3,000-gallon tank would therefore have a surface area of 70 SE. A 10 X 7 X 7' deep tank would meet this requirement allowing for I foot of freeboard in the top of the tank-. Typical tank construction would consist of a 12" base slab with anti -flotation ledges beyond the walls, an 8" thick top slab with four access manholes and 8" thick walls and three 6" thick baffle walls to prevent flow short circuits and encourage solids settlement and mixing. Reinforced concrete construction would run about $7,000 per 3,000-GPD tank fur a total of $28,000. Sand Filter Design Any subsurface treatment of septic tank effluent larger than 1000-GPD should have a tertiary/ (TS- 1) sand filter pretreating the septic tank effluent prior to discharging to the distribution lines. The On Site Wastewater Section has approved a pressure dosed recirculating sand filter for meeting this need. The design of the filter shall be such that the effluent passes on the average four times through the sand filter belore being discharged to the subsurface distribution lines. The sand filter surface area can be loaded at a rate of 5.0-GPD/SF of raw septic tank effluent. Therefore, for 12,000-GPD the tank surface would have to be 2400 SF. For versatility in operation and maintenance the sand filter should be divided in lour equal compartments of 600 SF each, or 8' by 75' each. Each Bed will have a 10" gravel underdrain, a 36" thick classified sand bed, and a 6" gravel cover. Construction may be ofconcrete block with watertight membranes and joints. The base slab should be 0" ol'reinlorced concrete. The recirculation dosage shall be timed or an equal 48 times per day cycle. The sand bed shall be covered with a rain proof roof structure or greenhouse. The construction cost is approximately $15.00/SF. Therefore $36,000 should be budgeted for the sand filter. Assuming a 5:1 ratio of littered recycle versus septic tank effluent, a duplex 50-gpm pump station would be needed to dose each of the four filters with 750 gallons every 30 minutes. Approximate cost of the submersible pump station is approximately $20,000. Dis ribution Fuld, The 13,350 Ll' of distribution trench will cost about $3.00/LF to install. The total cost would be about $40,050. The eight (8.0) acres of land would cost at least $20,000 per acre, or $160,000 total. Total Initial C.c�nstruclion Cost The total initial construction cost of a conventional septic tank with tertiary sand filter and trench distribution field is therefore: Septic Tank $ 28,000.00 Sand Filter 36,000.00 Dosing Pump Station 20,000.00 Trench Distribution 40,050.00 Land 160 000.00 $284,050.00 Operati-Qu rand Mtlintenance The operation and maintenance of a conventional septic tank with sand filter and conventional trench distribution field is very simple. A Class I I Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Operator must be contracted to performing the monthly routine maintenance of the sand filter bed and recirculation pumps, take quarterly samples of sand filter effluent BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease, check septic tank scum and sludge thickness on a quarterly basis. This level of operation should require between two and three hours each month. At $25.00 per hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $75 per month or $900 per year. Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0 to 5.0 hp. The sand filter effluent pump located on the school site and pumps to the off -site trench distribution field will probably the same size pump. Each pump is estimated to cost about $ 55/ month to power. Total annual power cost should be approximately $1,320. Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20% of the initial pump cost. With pump cost of about $2,500, this annual cost conies out to be about $500 for each pump. Total annual replacement parts cost should be about $1,000. Total Annual O & M Cost Operator $ 900 .Power $ 1,320 Parts $ 1.000 Total $ 3,220 Testin J and Effluent Monitgdn J The only required or recommended testing for a large subsurface treatment system is usually a quarterly BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease analysis of the recirculating sand filter effluent. Normal laboratory charges are around $100 per sample tested. 'therefore the annual cost of testing would be about $400. Future Re acement of Trgnch Distribution System in the Repair Ares When making a comparison of the expected 40-year fife cycle cost of the several treatment alternatives, it should not be overlooked that the trench distribution system may become clogged over a twenty-year period and need replacement with new trenches in the designated repair area. This one time additional cost of $40,050 at a point 20 years hence should be computed in the present worth cost of this alternative. Present Worth Cost Calculation Table 1.0 "Sutntnary of present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $343,262. This is the second lowest of the alternatives. 4. Community Subsurface S stem The area surrounding the proposed school site is rural farm community with very small widely spaced clusters of housinb. A 30-lot subdivision is across Cane Creek Road from the proposed school site. For the alternative of combining this 30 lot subdivision's wastewater with the proposed school's treatment would require (1) extension of approximately 4000 LP of gravity sewers with individual 4" service lines, (2) some enforceable method to get the existing homes to give up their existing tree septic tank treatment systems and (3) the School `s treatment facility would have to be increased to 24,000 GPD. Since there is no lawful way to force someone to tie to gravity sewer systems unless their individual septic tank fails and can not be replaced in the restrictive soils, it is not felt that this alternative is worth pursuing. It is obvious that the additional cost of the construction of sewers and the larger treatment facilities along with the increased maintenance required by the gravity sewers further reinforces the unacceptability of this alternative. 5. Drip Irrigation -Subsurface The On -Site Wastewater Section has approved a patented "Pere -Rite" System for use as a subsurface drip irrigation system. This system consist of the same pretreatment as the conventional septic tank and sand filter described above, but with a shallow pressurized subsurface irrigation system that delivers a 0.01-gpm trickle into the soil at two toot centers. This pressure drip system is allowed 0.15-GPD/SF with each lineal foot of the 'Xi. inch diameter drip pipe computed as 2 SF of contact area. In other words, 0.3-GPD/LF of drip line. The typical line spacing is 2 feet apart running level with the contours. Therefore to treat 12,000-GPD would require 40,000.LF of Y, drip pipe with the area zoned into eight 5,000 LF zones of about 10,000 SF each. The cost of installing these drip lines by a shallow plow method is approximately $1.25/LF for a total of $50,000. The system also requires an additional $40,000 of computer controlled pumping and solenoid valve equipment. The biggest advantage of the drip system is the compactness ofthe distribution field allows the size of the land tract lobe reduced from eight awes to lour acres, cutting the land acquisitiun to $80,000. Total Subsurface Irrigation System Cost then becomes: Septic Tank $ 28,000.00 Sand Filter 36,000.00 Dosing Pump Station 20,000.00 Computerized Equipment 40,000.00 Drip Lines 50,000.00 Land 80.000.00 $ 254,000.00 Operation and Maintenance The operation and maintenance of drip irrigation system is just more complicated than a conventional trench distribution system. The computer monitoring system provided makes this job a little easier for the operator, however the operator must be aware of the potential clogging problems that the drip lines and their emitters may have. A Class It Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Operator must be contracted to performing the weekly routine maintenance of the sand filter bed and recirculation pumps, take monthly samples of sand filter effluent BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease, check septic tank scum and sludge thickness on a monthly basis. This level of'operation should require between three and five hours each week. At $25.00 per hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $500 per month or $6,000 per year. Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0 to 5.0 hp . The sand filter effluent pump located on the school site and pumps to the off -site drip irrigation field will probably the same size pump. Each pump is estimated to cost about $ 551 month to power. Total annual power cost should be approximately $1,320. Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20% of the initial pump cost. With pump cost of about $2,500, this annual cost comes out to be about $500 for each pump . Total annual replacement parts cost should be about $1,000, Total Annual 0 & M Cost Operator $ 6,000 Power $ 1,320 ` Parts $ 1,000 TotalLP 83 Testin u and Effluent Monitoring Testing requirements for a subsurface drip irrigation system is basically the same as required for a large subsurtace treatment system. This is usually it quarterly BUD, SS , TKN and oil and grease analysis of the recirculating sand filter effluent. Normal laboratory charges are around $100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing would be about $400. l�ture Replacement of Drip (rri�tion System, i.n the Rer�r Arm. As required with any subsurface treatment system, it should not be overlooked that the drip irrigation lines or soil may become clogged over a twenty-year period and need replacement with new drip lines in the designated repair area. This one time additional cost of $50,000 at a point 20 years hence should be computed in the present worth cost of this alternative. PreSent_Woirth_('c�st Calc�tation Table 1.0 "Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $413,822. This is the third lowest of the treatment alternatives evaluated. 6. Suray Irri ration Spray irrigation of a secondary treatment effluent on a nearby pastureland is another on -site treatment option. The pre-treatment of the effluent may be the same as proposed for the drip irrigation system discussed above. Or an aerobic package plant could be used to treat the wastewater prior to spraying. Regardless of the treatment system selected, an additional element in the process is required because the ultimate discharge of the treated effluent is going to surface lands rather than subsurface. This element is providing approximately 60 days of treated effluent storage for times when the land surface is already saturated from rainfall or frozen over. Either one of these conditions would result in little or no absorption into the ground or interception by the grass cover. Therefore almost all of the effluent would run ofl'the irrigation field with little removal of solids or BOD. For 12,000 GPD a 720,000-gallon storage reservoir would be required. This would be most cost effectively provided with an earth lagoon divided into two to four sections for flexibility in storage volumes. Approximately 3600 cubic yards of excavation would be required for this lagoon. At $5.00/ Cy the additional cost would be $ 18,000 plus another $ 3,000 for additional piping and flow control valves, etc. for a total of $ 21,000. The spray irrigation equipment is typically a fixed location, fixed height rotational spray head on a four -foot high riser pipe. The spray heads are located on a sixty -foot grid to allow even distribution of the effluent. Cost of these lines and nozzles and necessary control valves would be about $ 7,000 per acre. For four acres this amounts to $28,000. Assuming an annual effluent loading limit of 3.0 feet/ year per acre of spray field, each acre would handle about 977,486 gallons of effluent per year. Assuming 65 days are lost to rain or freezing conditions per year, this loading would be spread over the remaining 300 days. This equates to about 3258 GPD per acre of spray field. Therefore four acres of spray field must be provided. Another two acres must be provided for buffers and maintenance access. Therefore six acres at $20,000 / acre would cost $ 120,000. Ground Water Mpnitoring_Wells The potential for contamination of surface waters and shallow ground waters from a spray irrigation system, primarily by fecal coliform bacteria, may require the School to install one upstream and two downstream monitoring wells around the spray field. These wells typically cost about $2,000 each. Therefore an additional $ 6,000 should be added to the conceptual initial cost for this alternative. hitial Facility Cost The total initial construction cost for an anaerobic treatment system with spray irrigation discharge would be: Septic Tank $ 28,000 Sand Filter $ 36,000 Dosing Pump Station $ 20,000 Irrigation Pump and Controls $ 25,000 60 Day Storage Lagoon $ 21,000 Irrigation System $ 28,000 Groundwater Monitoring Wells $ 6,000 Land 120000 Total $284,000 OPergion and Maintenance The operation and maintenance of conventional septic tank and sand filter with spray irrigation is more complicated than either of the subsurface treatment systems discussed previously. A Certified Spray Irrigation Wastewater Treatment Operator must be contracted to performing the weekly routine maintenance of the sand filter bed, recirculation pumps, spray nozzles and wetness condition of the irrigation field. The operator must make daily decisions on whether the field is too wet to receive and treat the effluent that day. Operation of the bypass valves to the storage lagoon must be performed if conditions are not right for spraying. This level of operation should require between six and eight hours each week. At $25.00 per hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $800 per month or $9,600 per year. Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0 to 5.0 hp . The pump for the off -site spray irrigation field will probably be a 10 hp pump. Power cost is estimated to be about $ 150/ month. Total annual power cost should be approximately $1,800. Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20% of the initial pump cost. With pump cost of about $7,500, total annual replacement parts cost should be about $1,500. Total Annual O R M Cost Operator $ 9,600 Power $ 1,800 Parts $ 1500 Total ---_ 12 900 TNnting and 1=iiluent Monitors Testing requirements for a surface spray irrigation system is basically the same as required for a large subsurface treatment system with the exception that annual fecal coliform analysis of the groundwater monitoring wells is also required. A quarterly 13OD, SS, TKN and oil and grease analysis of the recirculating sand filter effluent cost around $100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing would be about $400. Present Worth Cost Calcuijition Table 1.0 "Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $507,546. This is the second highest of the treatment alternatives evaluated being exceed only by the gravity sewer extension alternative at $2,134,404. 7. Reuse of Effluent The proposed school has no consumptive water uses that would lend to making the reuse of the 12,000-GPD effluent an alternative to evaluate. 8. Surface Water Dischl re The next alternative to be evaluated is the aerobic treatment of the 12,000 GPD of wastewater in a package extended air treatment system with a NPDES permitted discharge to Cane Creek. The 7Q10 flow for Cane Creek about one mile downstream of the proposed school is 15 CFS in the summer and 20-CFS in the winter. According to the Asheville Regional DEM staff, the most likely required treatment level would be to provide a secondary 30 IVIGL BOD and 30 MGL suspended solids effluent A conventional dual stream 24-hour extended aeration plant with appropriate sludge digestion and chlorine disinfection would meet this requirement. It is recommended for schools with their typical high peak loading occurring at midday, that a flow equalization basin be provided at the head works of the plant to allow mixing, metering and recirculation of raw wastewater with clarifier activated sludge. This will not only prevent a washing of solids out of the system with the extreme hydraulic flow rates during these peak times, but it will help maintain a more stabilized food to mass ratio (F/M) that is so critical to the proper biological bacteria growth. There are many manufactured package plants available for treating 12,000 GPD. Typical cost run approximately $7.50 to $10.00 per GPD. Therefore the expected cost is between $90,000 and $120,000 for a conventional secondary level extended aeration plant. The land area required far a package treatment plant is quite small compared to the other on -site treatment alternatives. An area 100' by 100' would be sufficient. The conceptual site plan for the joint use school and recreational park indicates such an area being set aside for the treatment system. Therefore there is no additional land cost. initial Facility Cyst The total initial construction cost for an extended aeration treatment system as discussed above would be: Package Treatment Plant $ 120,000 Land �L_0 Total Qperation and Maintenance $ 120,000 The operation and maintenance of a package treatment plant is considerably more involved than any of the on -site alternatives discussed previously in this report. A Class It Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator must be contracted to performing the daily routine maintenance of the blowers and pumps, take daily settleometer readings and effluent BOD and SS samples for the automatic sampling station, check sludge blanket levels in the clarifiers, check return sludge flow, check digester settled sludge volume and DO, take DO readings in the aeration basins, record flow meter readings, check chlorine residuals and take samples for fecal bacterial determination and fill out the daily logs. This level of operation should require between five and seven hours each week, At $25.00 per hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $1,000 per month or $12,000 per year. Power cost for the blowers and pumps would be higher than that of the other on -site alternatives primarily because the blowers usually run for longer sustained periods than the pumps. Their motor horsepower is typically in the 3.0 to 5.0 hp range. As discussed previously, each pump is estimated to cost about $ 55/ month to power. Each blower will run about threw times as long as the pumps. Therefore the approximate monthly power usage for the blowers will be about $165. Therefore the annual power cost should run about $2,640. Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump or blower is estimated to be about 20% of the initial pump or blower cost. With pump cost of about $2,500 and blower cost at about $5,000, this annual cost comes out to be about $500 f'or each pump and $1,000 for each blower. Total Annual O_& M Cost Operator $ 12,000 Power $ 2,640 Parts $ 1.50 Total _t6 140 Testing andFFd1uent M`onitorims "Testing requirements for an aerobic extended air plant is much more than any of the other alternatives. Typically weekly effluent DOD, SS, ammonia and fecal coliform analysis. Normal laboratory charges are around $100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing would be about $4,000. Present Worth if Calculation Table 1.0 "Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $316,557. This is the lowest of the treatment alternatives with the individual subsurface system being the next lowest at $343,262. 9. Individual Force Main/ Pum Station To MSD System As discussed previously in Alternate l . above ,the only treatment works downstream of the proposed school site is the 40.0-MGD MSD WWTP. The existing South Buncombe Interceptor ends as an 18" diameter pipe approximately 4.6-miles from the school site. The cost of the gravity interceptors needed to connect to the existing interceptor is estimated at $2,051,000. This alternative will evaluate constructing a 12,000 gpd pump station and 4.6 miles of 4" force main following Cane Creek Road to connect to the existing MSD interceptor. MSD's recently completed Master Plan projected that future growth through the year 2040 in the Cane Creek Basin would remain typically large lot single fancily residential with on site septic tank wastewater treatment. It was anticipated that after a significant density of development occurred it might be feasible to extend the interceptor further upstream, financed either by private developers or Buncombe County. The alternative of extending a 4.6 mile force main along Cane Creek Road would be a less effective, smaller capacity, and interim solution for initiating a sewer collection system in die Cane Creek Basin. The initial construction cost is estimated to be approximately $350,000 (as itemized below) compared to the $ 2,051,000 construction cost of the gravity sewer extension. However the maximum potential capacity of a 4" force main is only 450,000 gpd compared to the 2,350,000 gpd capacity ofan 18" gravity interceptor. In regards to the facilities that would be required by adjacent development to tie into the public system, the typical extension of 8" collector lines to serve developments will have to be augmented by adding a new pump station at the end of the collector line to force the wastewater flow into the proposed 4" force main. This would result in at least tour additional pump stations to be accepted for maintenance by MSD as future developments desire to connect to the sewer system. As discussed previously in Alternate l .,the topography of the Cane Creek Valley is very good for conventional small lot subdivisions if the need for septic tanks is eliminated. If the extension of a gravity interceptor system would greatly accelerate to development of the Cane Creek Valley, then this lower capacity force main system alternative would present a less detrimental impact of the remainder of its existing interceptor system downstream . Construction Cost Estimate 4" Force Main — 24,288 LF a $11.00/LF $ 267,168 120 gpm Duplex Submersible Pump Station 35,000 Emergency Power Generator 25,000 8" Gravity Sewer On Site-1,500 LF @ $35.00/LF 52.50 Total User Fees $ 379,668 If the force main extension were constructed, the School would have to pay user fees to MSD for the 12,000 GPD expected flow. MSD's current user fee is $2.63 per 100 cubic feet. Assuming a 180-day school year, this amounts to 288,800 CF per year and an estimated annual user fee of $7,600 nperatio0 and Main.l��anc� The operation and maintenance of a pump station (including emergency power generation) and force main is probably the simplest of all the alternatives. A Class 11 Pump Station Operator must be contracted to performing the monthly routine maintenance of the pumps. This level of operation should require between two and three hours each month. At $25.00 per hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $75 per month or $900 per year. Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small 120 gpm duplex pumps will probably be 3.0 to 5.0 hp, The pump station is estimated to cost about $ 55/ month to power. Total annual power cost should be approximately $ 660. Annual allowance for pans and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20% of the initial pump cost. With pump cost of about $2,500, this annual cost comes out to be about $500 for each pump. Total annual replacement parts cost should be about $1,000. Total Annual O M ast Operator $ 900 Power $ 660 Parts -$—] 00-0 Total $ 2.560 Testing and Effluent Monitoring The is not any testing or monitoring required for a pump station. Present Worth Cost CalTc hation Table 1.0 "Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems" shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is $ 491,167. This is the third highest of the alternatives evaluated B. Other Evaluation Factors There are many valid evaluation criteria for recommending a wastewater treatment alternative besides the 40 year present worth cost. The attached Table No. 2, "Rating Matrix of Viable Alternatives", compares the six viable alternatives discussed above in regards to their desirability ranking based on the following additional factors: 1. Reliability of physical components of system. 2. Ability to replace or upgrade system components. I Limiting impact on development in the land in the vicinity. 4. Environmental risk. S. The feasibility of expanding the School facility. 6. Feasibility of changing use of treatment system site. 7. Availability of initial cost funding. S. Operational cost. 9. Present value cost of 40 year life cycle. Each of these factors was assigned a percentage weighting factor ranging from 5% to 200/a of a 100% total score. Typically ,the higher the relative importance of the factor the higher the percentage weight given to that factor. Then each of the six viable alternatives were ranked with an individual preference score for each ofthe factors . The score of"5"was the most desirable and a score of "I" was the least desirable. The resulting weighted score should indicate a fair order of recommendation of the six alternatives. The results of this ranking matrix is that the Surface Water Discharge into cane Creek with a !2,000 gpd package wastewater treatment plant is the highest ranking alternative. The second ranked alternative is the Force Main Extension/ Pump Station to MSD's System. C. En ineer's Recommendation The recommendation of the Engineer is that the School Board proceed with the requesting of a NPDES Permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for a 12,000 gpd secondary treatment discharge into Cane Creek. The design of the treatment plant should be begun immediately so that proper coordination with the school site development can be accomplished. TAbLE NO. 1 CANE CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH EVALUATIONS ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS INTEREST RATE: 0 INITIAL PRESENT TOTAL 20 PRESENT TOTAL 40 CONSTRUCTION, 20 YEAR REPAIR ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL WORTH ANNUAL ALOE PRE YEAR WANNUALORTH OF PRESENT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE COST ( AREA COST O 8 M NESTING FEES COST COST WORTH COST I WORTH 1. Connection to Publicly Owned Treatment Works 2,051,0D01 0 0 2. Connection to Privately Owned 0 7,600 7,600; 70,377 2,121,377 83,404 2,134,4{i Treatment Works N/A 3.Individual Subsuface System 264,050 0; 0:N/A O N/A 4.Community Subsurface S stem 40,050 4,120 600 0 4,720 43,708 335,171 N/A 51,799 343.26, 5.Drip Irrigation -Subsurface 234,0D0 50,000 i3,120 600 0 0N/A 0'N/A 5.Spra Irrigation -Surface 284,000 0 13,720 127,049, 390,305 150,567 413,82; T. Reuse of Effluent WA 19,62D 750 0 20,370; 188,629 472,629 223,545 507,54E KSurface Water Discharge -Extended 0' 0 N/A 0 WA keration WWTP 85,000• 3.Individual Force MaiN Pump Station ; i7,i00 4,000I 0 21,100; 195.389 ego m 231 557 tr- 0{ 7,600 10.160 315,. 111,499, 491.1 -1, _c N0.2 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR WASTEWATER CANE CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL TREATMENT BUNCOMBE COUNTY � RATING MATRIX OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES Fi FACTOR I CONNECTION TO INDIVIDUAL DRIP IRRIGATION � WEIGHT % SPECIFIC RATING FACTORS OF TOTAL POTW, GRAVITY LINE EXTENSION CONVENTIONAL SUBSURFACE SYSTEM SUBSURFACE SYSTEM, SPRAY IRRIGATION SURFACE WATER To POTW FORCCONNECTION ql►$, PERC-R E TYPE SYSTEM DISCHARGE PUMP STATION RAW WEIGHTED RANKING RANKING RAW WEIGHTED RANKING RANKING RAW WEIGHTED RANKING RANKING RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW iNEIGHTED RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING Reliability of physical components of 1 Intern__ 1 5 0.75 3 0.45 2 0.3 2 0.3 5 Ability to replace or upgrade system 0.75 5 0.75 2 com nts 15 5 0.75 1 0.15 1 0.15 1 0.15 Limiting impact on development of 5 0.75 5 0.75 3 land in the vicinky 5 0.25 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 5 0.25 5 0.25 4 Environmental Risk 155 0.75 4 0.6 3 0.45 1 0.15 4 0.6 The teasbility of expanding the 5 School Wit . to 5 0.5 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 5 0.5 Feasib ty of changing use of 6 treatmerd system site. 5 50.25 1 0.05 1 0 05 2 0.1 4 0.2 4 0.2 7 AvabblIty of Initial cost funding 1 5 1 0.15 5 0.75 2 0.3 2 0.3 5 0.75 4 4.6 "OpersfiDM7 cost 5; 51 0 25 5 0.25 3 0.15 2 Present Value cost of 40 year fife 0.1 1 0.05 4 0.2 g k 1 1 0.15 4 0.6 3 0.45 2 0.3 5 0.75 2 0.3 TOTAL 100 3.8 3 RATING 1NDEX:ON A SCALE OF 2 1.55 4.6 4.15 1.0 TO 5.0 ;1.0= LEAST FAVORABLE OR DESIRABLE. 5.0= MOST FAVORABLE OR DESIRABLE I ' t I I j i N \j yak eve Cis . _t outfall IN 001 3138 Buncombe County Schools Cane Creek Middle School WWTP Latitude: 35° 28' 53" N State Grid: Fruitdale Lon_itude: 82° 26' 04" W Permitted Flow: 0.012 MGD Receiving Stream: Cane Creek Drainage Basin: French Broad Basin Stream Class: C Sub -Basin: 04-30-02 Facility Location�� not to scale NoYth NPDES Permit No. NCO016416 Buncombe County