NC0071897_wasteload allocation_19950207

,1 J2,7
N/jam L
i
rIte

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO. PE101ITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WAFER QUALITY SECTION
1� ATTENTION: CHARLES ALVAREZ
DATE: February 7, 1995
l
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Henderson
PERMIT NUMBER NCO071897
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and. Address: Hend.erson's Rest Home
602 Brookside Camp Road
Hendersonville, NC 28792
2. Date of Investigation: February 6, 1995
3. Report Prepared By: Paul White
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Alfred Mayo
704-692-2220
(not contacted)
5. Directions to Site: From the intersection of Brookside Camp
Road (SR 1528) with Howard Gap Road (SR1006) east of I-26 and
Mountain Home, travel approximately 100 feet east on
Brookside Camp Road to the entrance. The wastewater
treatment facility is at the end of the drive behind
buildings on the left. The discharge point is approximately
300 feet northeast of the facility and 200 feet south of
Brookside Camp Road just downstream of the confluence of two
streams.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 22' 48" Longitude: 820 28' 20"
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
Page 1

7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
_X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): WWTP is on top
of a ridge 30 feet above the receiving stream. Slopes to 200-..
Not in flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 50 feet
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT Featherstone
Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad 04-03-02
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Receiving stream has 7Q10 = 0, 30Q2 > 0. Stream has
sandy bottom and 20 gradient. Downstream uses include
aquatic and wildlife habitat, fishing, agriculture. The WS-
IV protected area for the proposed City of Asheville water
supply begins 2.3 miles downstream on Mud Creek.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.007 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? 0.007 mgd
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity 0.007 mgd
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
none
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: Existing
facilities consist of a bar screen, a 9100 gal. aeration
basin, a 40 sq. ft. clarifier with sludge and skimmer
returns, a 1140 gal. sludge holding basin, dual 3.0 sq. ft.
tertiary filters, chlorine contact tank, and post aeration
facilities.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: none
Page 2

g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: ammonia, chlorine,
cleaning agents.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): n/a
in development approved
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: septage
hauler.
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
C. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): II
4. SIC Codes(s): 8051
Primary 11 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 0617
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? no
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
none
3.
Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate) none
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Page 3

4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all
of the non -discharge options available. Please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated.
An NPDES permit was recently issued for a facility 0.5 mile
away. The alternatives analysis for that application did not
reveal any feasible alternative to discharging. Therefore it is
unlikely that one exists for Henderson's Rest Home.
Spray Irrigation: insufficient area on site.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: none available. The
feasibility of this option may change when a sewer line is made
available along Mud Creek.
Subsurface: ARO is not aware of investigations related to
subsurface disposal on site, but other systems in the area have
failed.
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the permit be reissued for the facility.
)00,Al Ruin:
Signature of Report Preparer
a er Qualit Regional Supervisor
7
Date/ /
Page 4