NC0020648_Wasteload Allocation_19950105

N'PDE:i DOCUNEN7' SCANNINL COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0020648
Washington WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Correspondence
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
January 5, 1995
Tizis document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the resrerse side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
W .
PERMTI• NO... NCO020648
PERMITTEE NAME: The City of Washington
FACILITY NAME: Washington WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal with Modification
Major -1 Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 2.5 MGD j _ = r t, r
Domestic (% of Flow): 96.2 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 3.8 %
Comments:
Requesting flow increase to 3,2 MGD and moving outfall to Tar River
rn ooer
RECEIVING STREAM: Kennedy Creek
Class: C-NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-03-07
Reference USGS Quad: E 30 SE (please attach)
County: Beaufort
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 3/31/95 Treatment Plant Class: 1V
Classification changes within three miles:
(Pamlico River) PL'D
01T
Requested by: Charles Alvarez Date. A _
Prepared b ✓ Date: 1149�
Reviewe by: Date: I
309 a S ✓et. ' R. S
Modeler
I Date Ree.
I #
_5-cp
1 I 3l 4
1 8040
Z Drainage Area (mi) I i Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC q0 =% -rna 12, 1
Instream Monitoring �" ° ' c on ► yx ie
Upstream Y Location
Downstream y Location
Cr
cc
Effluent
Characteristics
W.Znneckl Cr Caloolwl
Tcr. ,per CT.
m m
BOD5 (m )
i1
6
(moo
NH3-N (mg/1)
a
'� fuV
AI
41w
D.O. (mg/1)
le
le I toff
— (wD
TSS (mg/1)
O
- i7
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
200
200
2M
20X)
pH (SU)
(.R-q
(D'
U-ci
&
�oica Ren duco
ch�o 1
11
1�(
29(
) 29I
RICE`
a
al
INa1
e✓ �t Ip
IY)o ,l r
Zr1 .e
MC'n,bf
I &A ✓
Pf
Comments: � � 0 \\
(t,,hl li-n {, relnnnie\ Ih WJ T. r%rer.
I.m.t.> On- filch (DhD�o/w Lo and IDtal nih'tc,&L have ✓KY beers_
included of ah,s lvne 5tricx sOLL FGcd1h.� 15`!j( .+iC.pc 1An � 4he
Ta, - iacmico N3w !,»pie,ne #ghat _hal iy; 9 Gdgpted au.m'C;

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 8040
Facility Name:
Washington
NPDES No.:
NCO020648
Type of Waste:
96.2% domestic
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal w/mod (expansion
& reloc to Tar)
Receiving Stream:
Kennedy Creek and relocate to Tar River
Stream Classification:
C-NSW
Subbasin:
030307
County:
Beaufort
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
WaRO
USGS # Tidal
Requestor:
C. Alvarez
Date:
Date of Request:
10/31/94
Drainage Area (mi2):
Topo Quad:
E30SE
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility currently into Kennedy Creek (2.12 MGD) at advanced tertiary limits. Per WaRO these
limits should remain until discharge relocated to Tar River. Facility will not be allowed to expand
above 2.12 MGD until relocation is completed due to water quality problems in Kennedy Creek.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
iGt/ 7 /OuGir n4 i i < Sttc� Wr i�j c ee
Recommended by: 0& C. & Date:
fia� a
wu ,(w A/M /,colt
/l r/
h'RegionalSupervisor: /'<-- /r- 117L,� Date:
Permits & Engineering: N�� h7T/t yLti�� Date: l2 30
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
DEC 17 1994
INN 1G5 - fc ifeee t Fo e'-Thorpe, 2 InFD+rned hlrn 4hCd- Wash & rD
2- d, d CA ,-
3rnbi) 614 lrmr PAD
.}S 4 -Lhe-IxAd 15 IM4V)Us'f Mttl.S�rnnrn�.
lk -0.,ci I) gulp 1514 6m.1, 4 hold lord it 4kLu e1<100nd pa5t 3,2 M6D.
eve (^oa1nC4� also Co✓uurreLl. 2c)

Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Kennedy Creek
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
2.12
2.12
5
10
1
1.8
6
6
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
17
17
2
4
Kennedy Creek
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
2.12
2.12
5
10
2
4
6
6
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
17
17
2 2 ULV
4 8 (a)Q)
Limits Chanfes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
Tar River
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
2.5
2.5
15
15
4
4
5
5
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
28
28
Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor
Tar River
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
2.5
2.5
15
15
4
4
5
5
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
28
28
Tar River
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
3.2
3.2
5
5
4
4tub ))
5
5 lt)
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
28
28 ltu0)
Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
Monitor Monitor Monitor Monitor
Parameter(s) Affected
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Acute Quarterly
Existing,Limit: Chronic Quarterly at 90% (keep while in Kennedy Ck)
Recommended Limit: Acute Quarterly PAP at 90%
Monitoring Schedule: Feb, May, Aug, Nov
Existing L�
Kennedy Ck
Tar River
Daily Max.
Daily Max
Flow (MGD):
2.12
2.12, or 2.5
Cadmium (ug/1):
2
NL
Chromium (ug/1):
50
NL
Copper (ug/1):
Monitor
NL
Nickel (ug/1):
88
NL
Lead (ug/1):
25
Monitor
Zinc (ug/1):
Monitor
Monitor
Cyanide (ugll):
5
NL
Phenols (4/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/l):
Recommended Limits
Kennedy Ck
Flow (MGD):
2.12
Cadmium (ug/1):
LTMP
Chromium (ug/1)..
LTMP
Copper (ug/1):
Monitor
Nickel (ug/1):
LT1VII'
Lead (ug/1):
LTMP
Zinc (ug/1):
Monitor
Cyanide (ug/1):
LTMP
Phenols (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
LTMP
Silver (ug/1):
LTMP
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
DMR data less than detection
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Tar River
2.5 or 3.2
LIMP
LTMP
LIMP
LTMP
LIMP
LIMP
LIMP
LIMP
LIMP
X Cd, Cr, Ni, CN, Pb
X Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
•2
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: above discharge on Kennedy Ck ;Grimesland after relocation
Downstream Location: at mouth Kennedy Ck & Hwy 17; Hwy 17 after relocation
Parameters: temperature, DO, conductivity, fecal coliform
Special upstream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Monitoring after relocation coincides with National Spinning monitoring. Facilities may coordinate
monitoring to avoid duplication of effort.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
N no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Limits on total phosphorus and total nitrogen have not been included at this time since the
facility is particpating in the nonpoint source trading option outlined in the Tar -Pamlico NSW
Implementation Strategy adopted December 14,1989 and subsequently revised February 13,1992.
If compliance with any element of this strategy, or subsequent approved revisions to the strategy,
is not maintained, the Division reserves the right to reopen this permit to include nutrient limits. If
requirements other than those limited in this NPDES permit are adopted as part of a future revision
to the strategy, the Division reserves the right to reopen this permit to include the other requirements.
Expansion of discharge should not be allowed until facility relocates to Tar River.
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) Y_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)

Facility Name Permit # &2CQ"C_w91C Pipe # �D
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is qD To (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarLcrU monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Feb (rdq App. kfav Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final efflu t discharge below all treatment processes.
i
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form,,AT- 1(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 d cfs
Permitted Flow . is MGD
IWC 1QQ %
Basin & Sub -basin -1
Receiving Stream Ai Cad,
County �P�ri,i4
Recommended r
I -
i
Date Ill oLqq
QCL PIF Version 9191

Facility Name h rLPermit # 4XC0� )0 y! Pipe #
ACUTE TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests.on a quaner basis using protocols defined in the North Carolina
Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Detemliiiing Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent
Concentration." The monitoring shall be performed as .a Fathead Minnow ime hales romelas 24 hour static
test, using effluent collected as a 24 hour composite. The effluent concentration at which there may be at no time
significant acute mortality's 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). Effluent
samples for self -monitoring purposes must be obtained during representative effluent discharge below all waste
treatment. The first,test will be performed afterthirty.days.,from.the effective date of"ths permit during the
months o N.0
All toxicity testing results required as part of this.permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGE6C.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-2 (original) is to'be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy...Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed_ Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with -monitoring requirements...: ,
7Q 10 cfs
Permitted_ Flow c9 MGD
IWC . %
Basin & Sub -basin O
Receiving Strgam : C r Mvei,
County
2AL PIF Fathead 24 Version 9191
Recommended by:
;�IA r
Date Ito W

Facility tame- l YldbrL Permit # =n DOWE Pipe # W.—
A. + UTE TOXICITY . PASSNAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a am=r basis using protocols defined in the North Carolina
Procedure Document entitled "Pass/Fail Methodology For Determining Acute Toxicity In A Single Effluent
Concentration.... The monitoring shall be performed as a Fathead. Minnow (Pimephales romela 24 hour static
test, using effluent. collected.as a- 24 hour composite. The effluent concentration at which there may beat no rime
significant acute mortality is 90% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). Effluent
samples for self -monitoring -purposes must be obtained during representative effluent discharge below all waste
treatment.;_,,_ ;first:test performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the
months o : W
. .. f
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (M]14'). for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGE6C.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-2 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, . N. C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until; such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above. •'
Should any test .data, from" either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: . Failure.to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as nninimum control organism
survival and appropriate; ,environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(witlun 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with�monitoring requirements. .
7Q10 ,� cfs
Permitted Flow 211 MGD
Basin & Sub -basin
Receiving Stream eY
- C49
County
QAL PIF Fathead 24 Version 9191
Reco ended by:
",euk C, a sn�al_c
Dam 11.1.10194

" ' Gfij of ltkt5hrn �.
ALdy Cz
p-�D3m
r@25
I)Icllq,q,
cDznl,v rrlodcl.roc. done as ka,-",f o� CA wid,caled 4-ha� 10:1
drlufic ach,evec( (��hrn ���,ll wop- 4-ho
io)c,id=Qauo able)
ern,ruz allowa de. conc. utk a.�, Ooe✓,4 while k�dl
C✓ee� d toeho� T lUlli /ecei ve- 5 oj cj ,'v-t QS �rm •{
oq alw tndtc4e,� di/kAon is icui toAko.- dream- clr��hcal�an
CACwtr FI'DaX- C-NSc) &
('gc1m urn- all valee5 -c ddechctL jr, /all 12-_mo5, ;�a(a bad_)
(� A& have WI0 'fb'eeI)
q qI CLLI Lfed . zero on. ConIg r_k-'k?n.%uf _Qm Q
AID (%uvemerd ,r) perrnd al- anV_Loca m or Glow.
Chramium--_aL( volu.t,�) /c dkle cw— „K-_-lam 1.2 mas.
/No recuwemertl- ir, t)erm,k _
/VILW 7 -CCU. yctluK-)_ < ottLechC�t [z mas.
nlb re uirerraer�f ,V, peYrnll.
C an de- aC( value < ctdecho-o ih lasf- 12 mc,5.
No rN�uiremc'O ,n perrnlf
.CZctCI - atvalut3 ctcfechott rn lCt,-)f /Z mos. (zn 3Ig3 ane vela
3,,uu��ie. .in iclal
NO vee�ire�Vnt rn lDerlrj� ram z8 1�
qn oW cice. y141p<
dt! Wt ay mor A'73).
At 41ucc. pa.tam.ez.,,s < d kcb-6sti H/L preh ecdi 4,f._ cW ti -
7)1#ed as ,yell.
ArKil�Sti ✓leedS is be dry Cq r c- zinc,_ Wir Dnl- c
prel (eafined det%). -

''G "off l�J�h,rr
z en' CE --> Tar P
�-y
j11q1q<1
'Pe✓ pm, Ccrre5pc)ndMce eyl)a-rz ino a)il/ n _ be allowed
Lwhl effluext piped la %,- Wiivel - lrkep , AA& y Gk- r a. is moo.
- 11 ouffa// % nof ,suq need h)
Q,SSiJcn 611 l,m,l5 a)br c t,)igW 'I-P ge--7IV /m,`s
la`R.Q 813i 93 (,�-►� �co�.eu¢ec� �✓m�f,
Ii/l.el9V- JIm Mt4JI,8ao-- dbd not &010 5tah5; call hOve
-- . ar 0 act-, Calf ,)t&- utk .
I11219�- T _-ffia0.e, 5L 1D ve Ell w (IUM ,a>< bm l) Q3
- 1 � —� ren�arft. ��wrv�aA y CreeK .
� y
ter a5reemu�fo_ a perm, � _ k>11 3ve. tl)L�Dl I-L3 0( /,5/4 ukk
Tcu kr Rwpamlom-

�'Ihl crF Abjuh -�
Xr�tAad ce- =� Tu r P.
vltao7
�i-
Allowable_ tit 4,w� C6 _ % uG /j
7DA P. CO) 3,2 AMD = iD�rG�IQJ
/-InC
�llout le u�� Ck- ccGl P
i cU i2 @ 3, z mb xo u�cl P�1
l�o r'eWit-e",r74) will
CIre✓l Pbr iaI/
i2 C�Sc
e�
)6,,uuc/,.� Ce- OlcuC. pted
>J
aUCuoable
JC,✓e Mof7i
17f�,

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Fadlify Name
Washington
Parameter
Cowper
Parameter•
Zinc»
NPDES #
N00020648
Standard •
7
go
Standard •
5090
Qw MGD
3.2
70109 cfs
n
BDL=1/2DL
Actual Data
RESULTS
n
BDL=1/2DLActual
Data
RESULTS
1WC %
100.00
1
2.5
<5
I SW Dev.
1.354006401
1
45
45
SW Dev.
10.07
RecWng Stream
Kenn_ej. Ck/ Tar River
2
3
3
Mean
2.833333333
2
40
40
Mean
44.67
Stream Class
C-NSW
3
1.5
<3
C.V.
0.477884612
3
40
40
C.V.
0.226
4
2.5
<5
4
45
45
FINAL RESULTS
5
7
7
-
- _ -
=5
55
--- —65
Copper -
- -
6
2.5
<5
I Mult Factor=
2.4
6
55
55
Mult Factor •
i 1.7
Max. Prod Cw
16.8
ugA
7
2.5
<5
Max. Value
7
ligfi
7
50
50
Max. Value
65
Allowable Cw
7.0
ugfi
8
2.5
<5
Max. Prod Cm
16.8
gall
8
35
35
Max. Pred Cw
110.6
9
2.5
<5
Allowable Cw
7.0
jLgA
9
35
35
Allowable Cw
60.0
Zinc
10
2.5
<5
10
41
41
Max. Prod Cw
110.5
ugn
11
2.5
<51
11
30
30
Allowable Cw
60.0
ugA
12
2.6
<51
12
65
65
1119/94 PAGE'
vs

LONG TERM MONITORING PLAN REQUEST FORM
FACILITY: Ct-tb v 1 W as k tll'�o k-% W UJ'f P
NPDES NO.:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REGION: w 020
P&E REQUESTOR:
PRETREATMENTCONTACT:rD., &a- ,-
DATE OF REQUEST:
INDICATE THE STATUS OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM:
�COa"
h P�DE�
P eireji'-'er4
1) THE FACILITY HAS NO SIU'S AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PRETREATMENT LANGUAGE.
VTHE FACILIT(HASDR>6ni9t0PjW A PREATREATMENT PROGRAM.
3) ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REGARDING THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ATTACHED.
PERMITTED FLOW:
% INDUSTRIAL
% DOMESTIC
Pretreatment Unit Staff (Region)
eff Poupart (WSRO)
om Poe (FRO, ARO, WiRO)
luPs pp-�� o . 063 M G�
Dana Folley (RRO, RO
Joe Pearce (MRO)
S l K f, d _a 6•.a,ve- IZ— ( e'er lw-q -zo ,...z..� Di w-�
c,%L Are.. Q.trw . — n-o-F ae b i a3 5 o K rc e. d 'P r 'e�lzxls -
L`f P
Poch- Col�C`,Ct, YU,P6,��,CN, ���'&off,i3s,nN3,�P
-a-- -, -
* ,t , TwlI?s- w,ll � s-�fia Jxo-or New,a WJ ck 4
a-p- � �a .,�) ov, �Dmks � �4t4-4?-s- 9371)

City of Washington
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889-1988
Jason Dull
DEHNK
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
WASHINGTON, NC
All -America City
I
Fax: [phone]
Dear Jason,
Here is the information on the metals we are testing for which have not been
recorded on our DMR's. We will begin listing them on our DMR's as requested by
Dana. If there is anything else you need don't hesitate to call.
David L. Rhodes
44, 11;;�7 ;;�
Operations Manager

Oxford Laboratories,
Inc.
Analytical and Consulting Chemists
1316 South Fifth Street
I
DATE RECEIVED 03_01_94 � Wihnin n N.C. 28401
DATE REPORTED 0 3- 0 9- 9 4 (910) 763-9.793
9 4 W 5 5 9 9 Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
P.O. # Y237
P. 0. BOX
I` 988
WASHINGTONI
NC 27889
I�
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF
& EFF 3-1-94
1. INFLUENT 3-1-94
2. EFFLUENT 3-1-94 V
RESULTS
1 2
-`Arsenic, as As, PPM
C.
<.005 <.005
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
.0006 <.0002
Molybdenum, asl,imo, PPM
<.005 <.005
Selenium as Set PPM
<.005 <.005
Cadmium, as Cd,'' PPM
X <.002
Chromium, As Cr,' PPM
X <.010
Nickel, as Ni,''PPM
X <.010
Total Cyanide,'jas CN. PPM
X <0.005
Lead, as Pb, PPM
X <.010
Copper. as Cu. PPM
X <.005
Zinc, as Zn. PPM
X .050
ROGER C. OXFORD, CHEMIST

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
1316 South Fifth Street
DATE RECEIVED 0 4- 0 8- 9 4 Wilmington N.C. 28401
1' DATE REPORTED 04-18-94
9 4 W 6 5 8 8 [phone]
Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
P.O. # Y237
P. 0. BOX -19i88
WASHINGTON,�NC 27889
�I
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
I'
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF, EPP,
DITCH 4-6-94
1. EFFLUENTLI 4-6-94
-2 . INFLUE01111 4-6-94
3. OXIDATION DITCH 4-6-94
RESULTS
1
2
3
metal Cyanide, as CN, PPM
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Zinc, as Zn, PPM'
.055
.095
1.94
Cadmium, as Cd, PPM
<.002
<.002
.007
Chromium, as Cr,'fPPM
<.010
<.010
.055
Copper, as'Cu, PPM
<.005
.030
.660
Nickel, as Ni, PPM
<.010
<.010
.070
Lead, as Pb, PPM,
<.003
.007
.170
Silver, as Ag, PPM
<.010
<.010
.130
Arsenic, as -As, PPM
<.005
<.005
.011
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
<.0002
.0002
.0050
Molybdenum, as Mo, PPM
.007
.008
.030
Selenium, as Se,,-PPM-
ii
<.005
<.005
.014
626 ate--- <S;�
ROGER C. OXFORD, CHEMIST

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
1316 South Fifth Street
C-) Wilmington, N.C. 28401
DATE RECEIVED 05-03-94 [phone]
DATE REPORTED 0 5-12-94 Fax [phone]
94W7155
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
P.O. # Y237
P'. 0-. BOX 1488
WASHINGTON.IiNC 27889
ATTENTION:.JERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF & EFF
5-2-94
1. EFFLUENT, 5-2-94
2. INFLUENT11 5-2-94
RESULTS*
1
2
tal Cyanide, a's CN, PPM
<0.005
X
Cadmium, as Cd, PPM
<.002
X
Chromium,, -as Cr, PPM
<.010
X
Nickel, as Ni, PPM
<.010
X
Lead, as Pb, PPM,
<.010
X
Copper, as Cu, PPM
.007
X
Zinc, as Zn, PPM
.055
X
.Arsenic, as As, PPM
<.005
<.005
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
<.0002
<.0002
Molybdenum, as Mo, PPM
<.005
<.005
Selenium , as Se, ,,PPM
< .005
<.005
ROGER C. OXFORD, CHEMIST

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
_ 1316 South Fifth Street
'r DATE RECEIVED 06-01-94 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
DATE REPORTED 06-28-94 [phone]
jl 9 4W7 861 Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASIINGTON
P.O. # Y237
P . 0. BOX; -1988
WASHINGTON.
NC 27889
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF
& EFF 6-1�-94
1. INFLUENT' 6-1-94
2. EFFLUENT,, 6-1-94
RESULTS
1'
1 2
Arsenic, as As, PPM
<.005 <.005
(.j-,Ircuryo Hg, PPM
as
<.0002 <.0002
Molybdenum, as Mo. PPM
<.005 <.005
Selenium, as Se.jjPPM.-
<.005 <.005
Cadmium, As Cd, PPM
%<.002 g
Chromium, .as Cr, PPM
<.010 X
Nickel; as Ni, PPM-
<.010 X
Copper, as Cu,.PPM
<.005 X
Zinc, as Zn, PPMii
.045 X
Total Cyanide, as CN, PPM
<0.005 X
Lead,. as.Pb, PPM
<.003 X
NOTE: THIS IS A!CORRECTED
REPORT TO GIVE LEAD RESULTS.
ROGER C. OXFOR , CHEMIST

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
DATE RECEIVED 06-01-94
1316 South Fifth Street
DATE REPORTED 07-07-94 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
9 4W 7 8 61 (910) 763,9793
Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON P.O. # Y237
P. 0. BOX 1988
WASHINGTO*N NC 27889
ATTENTION:IIJERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: IMF & EFF 6-1-94
1. EFFLUENT 6-1-94
2. INFLUENT 6-1-94
RESULTS
1 2
Arsenic, as As PPM
<.005 <.005
( Mercury, as Hg, PPM
<.0002 <.0002
Molybdenum, as Mo. PPM
<.005 <.005
Selenium as Se PPM
<.005 <.005
Cadmium, as Cd, PPM
<.002 X
Chromium, as Cr. PPM
<.010 X
Nickel, as Mi. PPM
<.010 X
Copp er as Cu PPM
<.005 X.
Zinc, as Zn. PPM
.045 X
Total Cyanide.i'as CN. PPM
<0.005 X
Lead. as Pb, PPM
<.003 X
NOTE: THIS IS!,A CORRECTED
REPORT TO GIVE CORRECT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION.
ROGER C. OXFORD, CHEMIST

Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
a 1316 South Fifth Street
�. DATE RECEIVED 0 7 - 0 5 - 9 4 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
DATE REPORTED 07-19-94
�. 94W8588 [phone]
Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON P.O. # A588
P. 0. BOX 1988
WASHINGTON,,NC 27889
ATTENTION: BERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 3 WASTEWATER 7-5-94
1. INFLUENT 7-5-94
2. EFFLUENT 7-5-94
3. OXIDATION DITCH 7-5-94
ital Cyanide, As CN, PPM
C
Zinc, as Zn, PPM',
Cadmium, as Cd,,PPM
Chromium, as Cr, l PPM
Copper, as Cu, PPM
Nickel.-as-Ni. PPM
Lead, as Pb, PPM
Silver, -as :Ag, . PPM
Arsenic, as As, PPM
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
Molybdenum, as MQ, PPM
Selenium, as Se, iiPPM
RESULTS
1 2 3
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005
.180 .040 1.95
<.002 <.002 .0.09
.075 <.005 .095
.070 <.003 .950
<.005 <.005 .060
.009 <.003 .170
.009 <.002 .190
<.005 <.005 .014
<.0002 <.0002 .0045
.010 .007 .055
<.005 <.005 .010
El
R
C. 0%FORD, CHEMIST

ord Laboratories, Ine, Analytical and Consulting Chemists
1316 South Fifth Street
DATE RECEIVED 08-02-94 Wihnington, N.C. 28401
DATE REPORTED 08-10-94 [phone]
9 4 W 9 2 5 3 Fax [phone]
PAGE 1 OF 1
!CITY OF WASHINGTON P.O. # A588
P'. 0. BOX- 1988
WASHINGTON.`NC 27889
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF & EFF 8-1-94
.r
:..1. EFFLUENT! 8-1-94
2. INFLUENTII 8-1-94
Cadmium, as Cd. PPM
chromium, as Cr, PPM
Nickel, as Hi, PPM
Lead, as Pb, PPM
1?
Copper; as cut PPM
Zinc, as Zn, PPM,
Arsenic. *as As, * PPM
Mercury,- as Hg, OPM
Molybdenum. as Mo. PPM
Selenium, as Se,'PPM
Total Cyanide, as CH, PPM
RESULTS
1
2
<.002
X
<.005
X
<.005
X
<.010
X
.003
X
.040
X
<.005
<.005
<.0002
<.0002
<.005
<.005.
<.005
<.005
" <0.005
X
ROGER 0%F0Z9RD. CHEMIST

"mp
xford .. Laboratories, Inc.
Analytical and Consulting Chemists
. -
DATE
1316 South Fifth Street
RECEIVED 09-09-94 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
DATE
REPORTED 09-14-94 [phone]
9 4W 110 9 Fa$ [phone]
�j
PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
P.O. #-A588
P., "0. .BOX 1988
i
WASHINGTON.'INC 27889
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF & EFF
9-8-94
1. INFLUENT 9-8-94
2.-EFFLUENT 9-8-94
RESULTS
1 2
Total Cyanide, as CN, PPM
X <0.005
-admium. as Cd. PPM
X <.002
Chromium,- as Cr.l: PPM -
X <.010
Nickel. as Ni. PPM
t'
X <.010
Lead. -as Pb, PPM'I
X <.010
Copper, � -as Cu, PPM
X <.005
Zinc, as.Zn, PPM,
X .045
Arsenic,; as As,- PPM
<.005 <.005
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
<.0002 <.0002
Molybdenum. as Mo. .PPM
<.005 <.005
Selenium. -as Se, 'I PPM
<.005 <.005
ROGER C. OXFORD CHEMIST

a
Oxford Laboratories, Inc. Analytical and Consulting Chemists
1316 South Fifth Street
DATE RECEIVED 10-06-94 Wilmington, N.C. 28401
DATE REPORTED 10-13-94 [phone]
9 4 W 17 6 5 Fax [phone]
11 PAGE 1 OF 1
CITY OF WASHINGTON
-P. 0. BOX 1988
WASHINGTON, NC 27889
I
ATTENTION: JERRY CUTLER
'I
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: INF & EFF 10-5-94
1. INFLUENT'' 10-5-94
2. EFFLUENT 10-5-94
it
A.-2-senic, as As PPM
Mercury, as Hg, PPM
Molybdenum, as Mo. PPM
Selenium, . as Se, l;PPM
Coppe_r,_-as, Cu. PPM
i. as Zn, PPM
Lead, -as .:Pb, PPM
Nickel, as Ni, PPM-
Chromium, as Cr, PPM
Cadmium,- as Cd, PPM
Total Cyanide, asj',CN, PPM
P.O. # A588
jr, ,, RESULTS
1
2
<.005
<.005
<.0002
<.0002
<.010
<.010
<.005
<.005
' X
<.010
X
.050
X
<.010
IX
<.010
X
<.010
X
<.002
X
<0.005
ROGER C. OXFORD. CHEMIST

City of Washington
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889-1988
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Ms., Colleen Sullins:
WASHINGTON, NC
All -America City
1-0
Fax: [phone]
September 23, 1994
Enclosed are the original and two copies of an application for
modification of the NPDES permit for the City of Washington's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) and a $400.00 application fee. The application
is for expansion of the WWTP to 3.2 mgd and relocation of the discharge
to the Tar River. On November 1, 1993, the City received a modified
permit to expand to 2.5 mgd and relocate the discharge through National
Spinning Company's existing discharge to the Tar River. However, the
permit was never in effect because National Spinning Company did not
allow the City to tie into its discharge. Therefore, the City intends
to construct its own outfall to the Tar River. Also, the City is
required to submit a renewal application, since the existing permit
expires',in March 1995. The existing discharge permit is NCO020648.
Also enclosed are three copies of plans and specifications and a $200.00
applicat''on fee for authorization to construct the outfall and proposed
sludge modifications to treat and store sludge from National Spinning
Company. In a telephone conversation on September 9, 1994, Michael
Alle'n indicated that a non -discharge permit to pump sludge from National
Spinning Company would not be required if the sludge is not mixed with
the City's sludge or process water. The City and National Spinning
Company will work together to obtain a non -discharge permit to land
apply the sludge. A copy of design calculations for the project were
mailed to Don Safrit on September 2, 1994. Additional calculations for
the sludge facilities will be sent to you directly from our engineers,
Black & Veatch.
Please contact us if you have any questions on this project.
Sinc rely,
L
A��
Russell Waters
Enclosures
cc: Larry Pearce

r
a
I
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
g g
Wate ii Quality Section
Attn: Charles Alvarez
Date: November 4, 1994 ,
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Beaufort County
Permit No. NCO020648
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: City of Washington WWTP
P.O. Box 1988
Washington, NC 27889
2. Date of Investigation: site has been visited many times
3. Report Prepared by: Al Hodge
4. Person(s) Contacted and Telephone Numbers):
Jerry C. Cutler, Treatment Facilities Superintendent; 919/975-9310
Larry Pierce, Black & Veatch; 910/672-3600
5. Directions to Site: from US Highway 264 within the city limits of Washington, turn south
on Plymouth St.; office and control room are in the Water Treatment Plant
building (northwest corner of Second and Plymouth Streets); treatment plant is just south
of the intersection of Second and Plymouth Streets.
6. Discharge �Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Existing discharge (Kennedy Creek) :
Latitude: 350
31' 42" N
11
ProposedDischarge(Tar River):
Latitude 350 32` 53" N
Longitude: 760 32' 39" W
Longitude: 77 0 04` 54` ` W

Attach USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad Name: _Washington_ NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? Yes X No _ If "No,"
explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included)
flat; site is within the flood plain of Kennedy Creek; all treatment units except chlorine
contact/post aeration chamber are elevated above the flood plain
9. Location of nearest dwelling: approximately 750 ft. southeast of treatment plant
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Tar River
a. Classification: C NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-03-07
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses:
discharge is located in the tidally -influenced transition zone between the freshwater
Tar River and the estuarine Pamlico River; receiving stream classification changes
to SC NSW at the US 17 bridge approx. 1.2 miles downstream of the proposed
discharge; the classification of the Pamlico River changes to SB NSW approx. 2
miles further downstream
Tar River (C NSW) provides habitat for and supports propagation of a number of
freshwater and estuarine fishes and other wildlife and provides a migration route
for anadromous fishes(river herring, striped bass, American shad, and hickory
shad); uses include primary recreation(swimming) I do understand that these waters
are not classified for full body contact. However, there is a use in this area and the
effluent limits should reflect this use.secondary recreation (boating and fishing)
Pamlico River (SC NSW and SB NSW segments) provides important habitat for a
wide variety of estuarine fish, shellfish, and other wildlife; Pamlico River is used
for commercial crabbing and gill netting; other downstream uses include primary
recreation (full -body contact), and secondary recreation(fishing and boating)
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be Permitted:
b. Current permitted capacity:
c. Actual Treatment Capacity:
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
3.2 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
2.50 MGD
3.20 MGD (Current Design Capacity)
Page 2

m
d. Date(s) and construction allowed by Authorizations to Construct issued in past two
years09/ 17/92 Constructions Grants- secondary clarifiers full -radius scum removal
system
11 /01 /93 permits and engineering- upgrade from 2.12 MGD to 2.5 MGD(this
improvement will treat 3.2 MGD) to include filters, methanol feed, sludge
stabilization system, reuse reservoirs, sludge mixing tank, convert aerobic digester to
aeration basin, and associated pumps
64/ 11 /94 permits and engineering - influent metering vault, mechanical screen,
grit removal chamber, flow sputter box, and clarifier No. 3
e. Description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
automatically raked bar screen, automatic aerated grit removal, biological
treatment by activated sludge oxidation ditch, two parallel secondary clarifiers with
full radius scum removal and pumped sludge return, two parallel chlorine contact
chambers with flow paced gaseous chlorine feed, sulfur dioxide dechlorination system,
post aeration, lime storage tower and feed system, caustic soda and polymer feed
system, aerobic digester, concrete sludge storage lagoons, three tertiary deep -bed
denitrification filters with methanol storage/feed system, sludge recirculation pump
station
f. Description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: new discharge line with
diffuser, A to C is presently being processed which will convert existing aerobic
digester to sludge stabilization basins
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The following substances are expected to be
in the,,effluent: chloride, fluoride, chromium, iron, zinc, and surfactants.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
In: development Approved X
Should be required Not needed
2. Residuals Handling and Utilization/Disposal Scheme
ii
a. If residuals are being land applied, specify DEM permit number: WQOW 1026
Residuals Contractor: applied by City of Washington
Telephone Number:
b. Residuals Stabilization: PSRP X
c. Landfill:
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92
Page 3
PFRP _ Other

a
ca
3 . Treatmen Plant Classification (attach completed rating sheet) : Class IV
4. SIC Codes): 4952
Wastewater Code(s):Primary 05 Secondary 211251,27,30,40750257761,76,78786
Main Treatment Unit Code: 10403
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 (indicate): none
4. Alternatives Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the non -discharge
options available? Provide Regional perspective for each option evaluated.
11
Spray Irrigation: Has been dismissed as to costly
Connection to Regional Sewer System: None available
I'
Subsurface Disposal: Not a realistic option
Other Disposal Options: INDUSTRIAL REUSE OF EFFLUENT BY NATIONAL
SPINNING WAS PROPOSED AND REJECTED; THE DIVISION SHOULD
REQUIRE MORE IN-DEPTH REUSE EVALUATIONS
5. Other Special Items:
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 4

7-1
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: THE CITY IS A MEMBER
OF THE TAR-PAMLICO BASIN ASSOCIATION. GIVEN THE DIVISION'S
AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION, NO NUTRIENT LIMITS ARE
RECOMMENDED FOR THE EXPANDED DISCHARGE INTO THE TAR RIVER,
ALTHOUGH SUCH LIMITS MAY BE ADDED LATER IF IT IS DETERMINED
NECESSARY THROUGH EXISTING CHANNELS OR THE YET UNDEVELOPED
HYDROQUAL MODEL.
THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED TAR RIVER DISCHARGE IS PRESENTLY USED FOR
FULL BODY CONTACT ACTIVITIES. THE EFFLUENT LIMITS AND THE
MONITORING SHOULD REFLECT THIS USE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THE AREA
SHOULD BE POSTED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE LOCATION OF THE
DISCHARGE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THE PERMIT REQUEST BE GRANTED.
NPDES Permit Staff Report
Version 10/92 Page 5
Signature of report preparer
k--
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
�LI�/�y
Date

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 2, 1994
10 LyJ Lei" p
TO: Monica �
THROUGH: Don Sal
rit
FROM: ' C j
SUBJECT: Washington WWTP Expansion EA Review
I have reviewed the subject document and have the follow comment:
The first four pages of Appendix F which describes the CORMIX model application of the
Washington outfall should be replaced with the information provided to our office on August 30,
1994.
If you have any questions, please call me at extension 503.
I�
�q
klS'- U cd,N s� Q Gw

BLACK & VEATCH
!t
110 West Walker Avenue, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0728, (919) 672-360Q Fax: [phone]
� * r 1994
=t
City of Washington B&V Project 19975.350
WWTP Improvements B&V File F
September 1, 1994
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Revisions in Latest Submittal
Attention: Ms. Monica Swihart
Gentlemen:
To facilitate your review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion, we have
summarized the modifications made prior to resubmitting the EA on August
16, 1994.
The "Necessity" section was modified to address comments from the Office
of Waste Reduction and Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). The third
paragraph includes a statement that a major sewer rehabilitation would
not be cost effective. The fifth paragraph now states that all
alternatives are environmentally feasible. Also, the sixth paragraph
states the reuse of effluent is the most environmentally sound method of
disposal. The last paragraph of this section states that the need for
the outfall is based on the requirement of the City's existing NPDES
permit.
The DMF requested more data from the stream monitoring be included. The
"Existing Environmental Conditions" section now summarizes data over a
four year,, period.
The "Environmental Impact" section was revised for several concerns.
The "wetlands Impact" subsection was revised to reflect the impact of
burying the outfall across the peninsula.
The "Water Quality Impact" subsection was revised significantly to
address concerns raised over the expected permit limits listed in the
EA, the Tar Pamlico Basin Association, nutrient loading, algae blooms,
and expected diffusion based on the CORMIX modelling.

NCDEM
Ms. Monica Swihart
Page 2
B&V Project 19975.350
September 1, 1994
Correspondence from the review agencies will be added to the appendices
to show reasons for the modifications.
Appendix F was modified to address concerns over the completeness and
accuracy of the model runs. We are working with Betsy Johnson on
further revisions to the summary memo. Also, an example model run was
included to assist Ms. Johnson in recreating the models. National
Spinning Company's diffuser was modelled to get a rough idea of the
dilution of their effluent at the location of the City's proposed
outfal l .
Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns about these
modifications.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
Michael B. Shafer
cc: Ruth Swanek
Don Safrit
Russell Waters

BLACK & VEATCH
110 West Walker Avenue, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0728, [phone] Fax.I919I b7,2-3640 -
City of Washington B&V Project 19975.350
WWTP Improvements B&V File F
August 15, 1994
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Subject: Environmental Assessment
Attention: Ms. Katy West
Gentlemen:
We have revised the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the WWTP
Improvements project in Washington, North Carolina to address the issues
raised in your memorandum to Melba McGee dated July 19,1994.
1.) We have specifically stated that the non -discharge alternatives
are environmentally feasible. Our cost estimate shows that the costs of
the non -discharge alternatives are an order of magnitude higher than the
cost to expand the existing facilities. Although our cost estimate does
not strictly follow the guidelines, we believe it is sufficient to show
the non -discharge alternatives to be unreasonably costly.
2.) The need for expanded capacity is indicated by the fact that the
WWTP has exceeded 80% capacity for average monthly flow on several
occasions. The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) requires
action to be taken to handle additional flows from development in the
service area. The 3.2 mgd capacity is the highest flow the present
facility can handle without major modifications. The permit limits you
requested will be determined by the Permits and Engineering Unit of the
DEM after we have submitted theNPDES permit application. Justification
for the 2.5 mgd limits is provided in the enclosed letter from Steve
Tedder dated June 11, 1993. Furthermore, we have enclosed the revised
wording concerning the Tar Pamlico Basin Association.
3.) River sampling data for 1990-1993 has been included in the EA
table showing the average values for each month is enclosed.

Page 2
NCDEHNR B&V Project 19975.350
Ms. Katy West August 15, 1994
4.) The wetlands impact will be minimized by burying the pipe across
the peninsula and returning the peninsula to its original grade.
Specific measures to minimize construction disturbances will be
finalizedIn the Coastal Area Management Act permit process.
5.) The 100 :1 dilution factor was for . a point 4000 f t downstream. The
wording has been modified to clarify this point. Also, we ran some
models on National Spinning's diffuser to approximate the dilution of
their effluent at the proposed City diffuser. The summary of these
model runsl� is enclosed for your review.
6.) Enclosed is an additional paragraph of the EA to address concerns
about algae blooms.
7.) The commercial and recreational landings for the Pamlico River
were -inadvertently omitted and have been inserted in the Appendix.
We would like to have your comments on these modifications prior to
resubmitting the EA for review. Please contact us at your earliest
convenience to discuss these issues.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
Michael B. Shafer
Enclosures
cc: Don Safrit
Monica Swi hart
Russell Waters

BLACK & VEATCH
110 West Walker Avenue, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204.0728, (919) 672.360Q Fax: [phone]
City of Washington B&V Project 19975.350
WWTP Improvements B&V File F
Environmental Assessment September 1, 1994
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
101 West''Capitola Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Attention: Mr. Bennett Wynne
Gentlemen".
As discussed in our telephone conversation on August 31, 1994, the
Environmental Assessment (EA) has been revised to address the issues
raised in' the memo from Franklin McBride dated July 25, 1994. The
design of the outfall has been changed to bury the pipe across the
peninsula. Therefore, the long-term hydrology will not be affected
because the peninsula will be returned to original grade after
construction. Furthermore, the movement of small mammals will not be
affected.
We feel your recommendation for sediment sampling for metals on a
routine basis is excessive. This requirement is not typicallyrequired
for NPDES'permits in the state, particularly for discharges which do not
have high concentrations of metals. However, specific monitoring
requirements will be determined by the Division of Environmental
Management after a formal NPDES permit application is submitted.
Should you have any more questions or concerns, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
L
Michael B. Shafer
cc: Don Saf r i t
Monica Swihart
Russell Waters

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica S
THROUGH: Don S t
FROM: Ruth Swanek �CS
SUBJECT: City of Washington EA
I have reviewed the City of Washington's environmental assessment (EA) and offer the following
comments:
1. On page 11 of the document, it states that the Association was formed to regulate dischargers'
nutrient loading , and will impose nutrient limits. This is not true. The Association was formed
after the Tar -Pamlico River Basin was classified as nutrient sensitive waters. Any facility which
joined the Association would have nutrient limits waived. The Association as a whole was given
nutrient loading targets. Any year the targets were not met, the Association had to pay money into
a fund to develop nonpoint source best management practices. For more information, the City
should refer to the document entitled "Tar -Pamlico NSW Implementation Strategy" which was
adopted on December 14, 1989 and subsequently revised on February 13, 1992.
2. Page 11 of the document states that the effluent should be diluted by a factor of 100:1 based on
plume modeling. The model described in Appendix F does not support this claim.
3. Not enough information is provided in Appendix F for us to review the CORMIX results.
Outfall plans, model input, and the output printouts should be included.
If you have any questions, please call me

State of North Carolina " A
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources F!?FA
Division of Environmental Management _
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID FEE
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 23, 1994
Mr. Larry W. Pearce
Black & Veatch
110 West Walker Avenue
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0728
Dear Mr. Pearce:
I have attached some comments received during the Water
Quality Section's review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the City of Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. As
discussed in the attached comments, the EA needs to be revised to
include additional details on the proposed project.
There is insufficient information included on page 7 of the
document regarding the potential wetland impacts from the proposed
project. The document states that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) has been requested to classify wetlands in the project area.
In order to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, the
document needs to incorporate the results of the COE's wetland
delineation. Information regarding the acreage and type of
wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project should be
presented in the EA. A 401 Water Quality Certification would be
required from our Division if there was sufficient proposed filling
of wetlands during project construction to warrant a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Page 4 of the EA should be modified to provide additional
background on the need for the proposed expansion. The document
states that maximum flows are expected to approach 3.2 mgd in the
next decade. Additional information should be given regarding the
basis of these flow projections. It is not clear, for example,
whether these projections are based on anticipated population or
industrial growth. Additional information should also be provided
in the EA on inflow and infiltration control and water conservation
practices.
I recommend that you include only one copy of the October 15,
1993 scoping letter that was sent to the list of agencies in
Appendix B. It would also be advisable to clarify the fact that
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

Mr. Larry Pearce
May 23, 1994
Page 2
the scope of the project has been modified since the agencies
responded to the scoping letter. A brief explanation of the plans
to abandon the reuse component of the proposed project should be
included in the appendix for clarification.
Pending these revisions, the document will be ready to
circulate to the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources for review. Please contact me at [phone],
extension 567, if you have any questions regarding this letter.
/S/i�nncerely,�ii1.',,^
Monica Swihart
Water Quality Planning
WASHWWTPE.ltr ?�
cc: Russell Waters, City of Washington
Roger Thorpe
Coleen Sullins
Ruth Swanek
John Dorney
r

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 23,1994
MEMORANDUM
M. Mo=afzi---�
THROUGH:. Do
FROM:
Ruth Swanek IZO
11
SUBJECT: City of Washington Expansion EA, NPDES No. NC0020648, Beaufort County
I have reviewed the City of Washington's expansion EA and have the following comments:
1. The EA does not give much detail on the project. Approximately 1 1/2 pages was allocated to
describing the alternatives, and it is difficult to determine what exactly is included in each
alternative.
2. The treatment described for the selected alternative of expanding the current plant is sketchy.
For example, the document states that chlorine contact time will be increased. However; no
mention is made of dechlorination facilities. It is current Division policy to require alternative
disinfection or dechlorination of any new or expanding WWTP. An acceptable level of chlorine in
Washington's effluent would be 28 ug/l.
3. On page 8, the document gives a brief description of nutrient treatment. The document should
indicate what type of nutrient concentrations are expected and how the loading compares to that
currently coming out of the Washington WWTP. There is limited assimilative capacity for
nutrients in the Tar -Pamlico estuary, and it is possible that nutrient limits could be required in the
future if water quality does not improve in the estuary.
4. The proposed outfall will be in close proximity to the National Spinning outfall. The City
should discuss any interaction with National Spinning, particularly since the scoping letters
submitted to other agencies indicated that the effluent would be discharged through the National
Spinning outfall.
5. The engineering diagram included in the appendix shows a diffusor outfall, but no mention is
made of the outfall in the EA. In past meetings, DEM recommended that the City install a diffusor.
However, a recent review of nautical charts indicates that the depth of the river near the proposed
outfall site ranges from 3 to 5 feet. It may be difficult to install a diffusor in waters of these
depths. The City should examine the feasibility of installing a diffusor. Use of a mixing model
such as CORNIIX or PLUMES will help evaluate the dilution benefits from installing a diffusor as
well as show the best outfall design to achieve a given level of dilution. The model could also be
run for the National Spinning discharge to help examine the interaction between the two facilities.
6. The EA should contain information on the types of industries it currently has, and if known,
what types of industries will tie on as part of the expansion. Any information concerning the types
of pollutants expected in the industrial waste should be included. A description of the City's
pretreatment program should also be included.
cc: Kevin Miller, WARO
Coleen Sullins, P&E

/ 'IKAOOzo ,e k/30 q Page 8
� `r
Note for Don Safrit
From: Randy Kepler el�
,I�" p' p
Date: Wed, Jun 29, 1994 9:21 AM „lc / Val p , r� _„ cK��P a fOV -
Subject: RE: Mike Shafer W N N/le
To: Don Safrit �W A( Gam'
t.
Cc: Coleen S s p� � ,J -I� , � G, vVJ
S/
(eJust received the letter stating the 180 day window for renewal was approaching and the
cation is due in September. As you probabily know, Washington intends to expand to
3.2 MGD and were going to except National Spinning backed out. Now the construction for
the 3.2 MGD plant is being finished and no outfall. An EA is in house and with Monica S.
Mike S. said that Monica should be sending it up to Clearinghouse in the next few weeks.
His questions were how to handle the NPDES permit renewal and his request for
modification to 3.2 MGD. The EA is scheduled to be completed/approved by the end of July
but might take a little longer and he was concerned he couldn't submit the mod. until it was
done. I told him what he needed to do was send in the application package for both the
renewal and the modification in september even if the EA wasn't completed (still needs to
submit for renewal if the EA is not approved). He should state the Town's position in the
cover letter about the different flows and the relocation of the outfall to the Tar River. We
will include in the permit a schedule for the increase in flow and the relocation of the outfall.
Mike Shafer's biggest concern was our ability to handle the modification with the renewal
package and the fact that the EA may not be finished. Anyway I was able to answer his
questions. If this was confusing (I'm sure it was) please call and I will try to do a better job
describing the conversation.
From: Don Safrit on Tue, Jun 28, 1994 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: Mike Shafer
To: Randy Kepler
Cc: Coleen Sullins; Susan Robson
Randy,
Since you worked on this permit last, could you give this guy a call to see if you can help.
I tried at 5:05 pm and no answer.
Thanks, Don
From: Susan Robson on Tue, Jun 28, 1994 4:55 PM
Name: Mike Shafer
Phone: [phone]
• Telephoned
• Please call
To: Coleen Sullins; Don Safrit
T. of Washington WWTP