NC0020443_Wasteload Allocation_19930824

NPDES DOC /WENT SCANNING COVER SWEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0020443
Columbia WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
August 24, 1993
Thiia dacumeat is printed on reuse paper - ignore nag
coateat oa the reverse side

G J1 w
GOCC6‘esq, ( 1 C#U,Lj ‘i.vr
A._ ....� L (-It . _p..s
‘''''sr-t4 G... .20��--
.7‘ ‘4,
y
7A tom, -44 cf.„ --Otf-6t1 a-1,4-t.;?#- -2-0/
_
Gn az:cr,
(r -•- At- 4.4P , "
(4•1-- /6/0 • /AG to711-44:•-w pdree~z- i•44t- A<*af- /6 11 /de
io ; 6 71
Ems - , A 4_, -1 e ,
t 71 % ' �l ,.IS. /6<-7- ,...,4,.., - -�-- 4 - .
. A& 4 ,i4.-- ,6--- 4--- /5;" le;
IJJ
e,..,..-------,,,J 4-e Ad_ ,t.sf,:...... c.. r - ....:e4.4 1 kJ_ c,eAt el--7_
� --je.._,J7-- - 4- 4L&/.
7-5_6,-0 cam/J t-. A— .

e��i � lea
,7;

RE:CirIVED
flQ1y15 1995
rEGHN�� ourpc;Hr eRAN,,.
G�,
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: YES NO_X_
IF YES, SOC NO.
To:,Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
A tention: CHARLES ALVAREZ
Date: 07/13/93
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TYRRELL COUNTY
Permit No. NC0020443
PART I -- GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: TOWN OF COLLUMBIA
103 MAIN ST.
COLUMBIA,NC 27925
2. Date of Investigation: SITE VISIT NOT MADE
3. Report Prepared by: AR HODGE
4. Contact Person and Telephone Number(s):
CARLISLE HARRELL, TOWN MANAGER [phone]
5. Directions to Site: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BROAD ST. AND MAIN ST. IN DOWNTOWN COLUMBIA PROCEED
NORTH ON BROAD ST. UNTIL IT INTERSECTS HOWARD ST.,
PROCEED EAST ON HOWARD ST. UNTIL IT INTERSECTS
COLUMBIA ST., PROCEED NORTH ON COLUMBIA ST. THE PLANT
IS AT THE END OF THIS ROAD.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35e 55' 13" N
Longitude: 76° 15' 22" W
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment
facility site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad Name COLUMBIA WEST
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with
application ? _X_ Yes No If No. explain:

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included)
FLAT 5 FT.MSL
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 300 FT. ±
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
SCUPPERNONG RIVER
a. Classification: SC
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-01-53
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: FISHING, RECREATIONAL BOATING
PART II -- DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 0.250 MGD
(Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
water Treatment facility? 0.150 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 0.150 MGD
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: BAR SCREEN, GRIT REMOVAL CHAMBER,
PARSHALL FLUME, OXIDATION DITCH CLARIFIER, CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER AND ONE SLUDGE DRYING BED
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: THE INCOMPLETE 201 FACILITIES
PLAN PROPOSES A BAR SCREEN, GRIT REMOVAL CHANNEL,
OXIDATION DITCH(30 HOURS DETENTION) WITH DUAL
ROTORS, DUAL SECONDARY CLARIFIERS, SLUDGE DIGESTER,
SLUDGE HOLDING(90 DAYS), AND EFFLUENT CHLORINATION
FACILITIES
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
Page 2

h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs):
in development approved
should be required not needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify
DEM permit no.
Residuals Contractor
Telephone No.
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
c. Landfill: IS PRESENT METHOD. NEW METHOD HAS NOT
BEEN CHOSEN
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Tratment plant classification (attach completed
ration sheet): DETAILS ON PROPOSED SYSTEM ARE
IN1UFFICIENT TO DO A RATING SHEET
4. SIC Code(s) 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not
particular facilities i.e., non -contact cooling water
diOcharge from a metal plating company would be 14,
not 56
Pri
mary SEE # 3
Main Treatment Unit Code:
PART I]I -- OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction
Grant Funds or are any public monies involved.
(mulnicipals only)? YES
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: IN THAT THIS IS A TIDALLY AFFECTED WATER
BODY THE SAME MONITORING ESTABLISHED FOR THE TOWN OF
MANTEO AND BAY RIVER M.S.D. IS RECOMMENDED. SAMPLE
POINTS SHOULD BE ONE UP -STREAM, ONE DOWN -STREAM, AND
AT THE POINT OF DISCHARGE. THE EXACT POINTS TO BE
LO TED IN THE FIELD.
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates:
Page 3

Submission of Plans and Specifications
I.
Begin Construction
Com lete Construction
Date
4. AlLternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility
evaluated all of the non -discharge options available.
P1 ase provide regional perspective for each option
ev luated. THIS ANALYSIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED WHEN
201 PLAN IS COMPLETED
Sp
ay Irrigation:
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
Subsurface:
Other disposal options:
5. Ot er Special Items:
PART IV -- EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: THIS EXPANSION
REQUEST IS MADE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 201 FACILITY PLAN.
THE PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ORDER FOR THE TOWN TO SECURE
FUNDING AND/OR LOANS. THE PLAN WAS REVIEWED AND HAS BEEN
FOUND LACKING. THE REVIEW COMMENTS WERE SENT TO THE TOWN
OF 06/16/93 WITH NO RESPONSE YET RECEIVED. THE COMPLETED
201 PLAN IS NECESSARY FOR A MINIMUM REVIEW, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT IS FUNCTIONING AS THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
EVALUATION.
I AM UNABLE TO RECOMMEND THE MODIFICATION REQUEST BE
GRANTED WITHOUT REVIEWING THE FINAL 201 PLAN.
Signature of report preparer 4 -E
Water uality Regional Supervisor ,Z,,c
Date 7 % 1 9f 4 5
NC0020
43
Page 4

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0083241
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Town of Columbia
Columbia WWTP
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: New
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.225 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
have existing .150 MGD facility. will pump effluent to new WWTP
and then use old treatment plant for chloro/dechlor and same outfall
RECEIVING STREAM: the Scuppernong River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-01-53
Reference USGS Quad: D33NE
County: Tyrrell
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed b
WQ.a-
Charles Alvarez
Date: 5/18/93
Date: 03
Date: Lei 3-6 �3
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
Y
5//q/93
74653
Drainage Area�(mi` )
7Q10 (cfs)
Av
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
g•
Streamflow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs)
Acute/Chronic
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
/ S (w q)
NH3-N (mg/1)
% (.w9)
D.O. (mg/1)
6 (c p J
TSS (mg/1)
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
260
pH(SU)
.—3.S
1A-.1)3--,/1-11
?u9(''''-
-/-eir,-- 7 e 1 —
471 k i 1 . - , ,-
/
1-
Comments:

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Columbia WWTP
NC0083241
100% Domestic
Proposed
New
Scuppernong River
C
030153
Tyrrell
Washington
Alvarez
5/19/93
D33NE
WASHIRNGTON OFFICE
JUN 1 61993
Request # 7468 D. E rt�.
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Tidal
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting expansion of NPDES permit from 0.150 MGD to 0.225 MGD. Per P&E, a
new permit will be issued since Columbia will pump existing 150,000 GPD to new WWTP with
additional 75,000 GPD; will use old treatment plant for chlorination/dechlorination and will
discharge from the same outfall and location. Tech Support recommends BPJ limits for the
expansion flow for the protection of water quality and potential pollution problems. Documented
water quality problems (low DOs) upstream of Columbia outfall.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
,/),.(C
CUP
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date: 6/3/93
Date: Oh j5‘3
Date: (1%/7/q3
Date: 6/4/l 3
JUL 0 7 1993
f
f

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (41):
Temperature (°C):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Temperature (°C):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.150
30
monitor
nr
30
200
6.8-8.5
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.225
15
4
6
30
200
6.8-8.5
28
monitor
monitor
monitor
Limits Changes Due To:
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow BOD5, NH3,DO, Chlorine
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regultions/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanationof any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
WQ or EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
Parameter(s) Affected
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If 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
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (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)
Additional information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Hoyves, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 14, 1993
Mr. F. Tyndall Lewis, P.E.
McDavid Associates,Inc.
109 East Walnut
P.O. Box 1776
Goldsboro, N.C. 7533
Al I I:15 I rifiroA
Ir-1 NI Ft
Subject: : Speculative Discharge Limits for the Town of Columbia
NPDES Permit No. NC0020443
Tyrrell County
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The Technical Support Branch has completed an evaluation of the speculative analysis requested in
your letter dated February 6, 1993. Please direct any questions you may have concerning the Columbia
WWTP to Jacquelyn Nowell of our staff. Many issues regarding your request have prevented an earlier
response; please adcept my apology for the delay.
Our info lion indicates that the Town of Columbia recently requested a Special Order of Consent
(SOC) from DEM for the construction of additional sludge handling facilities. The Town is also
requesting an incrase in effluent limits for BOD5 and TSS for excess sludge that may "escape" during
high rainfall and peak plant flows. The Division has recommended that the SOC be granted to complete
these improvemen s.
While evaluating speculative limits for the Columbia WWTP expansion, our search found some
water quality prob ems had been documented on the Scuppernong River. Dissolved oxygen problems
have been reported above Riders Creek, upstream of Columbia's discharge. While it would appear that
Columbia is not cappsing of the problem, the receiving stream has to be protected from potential pollution
sources. Please be laware that the effluent limitations recommended in this letter are tentative and have not
yet been reviewed by the Washington Regional Office (WaRO). Further investigation by WaRO may
result in a modific tion of these recommended limits. We recommend the following best professional
judgment (BPJ) li 'ts at the expanded flow:
BOD5 =15 mg/1
NH3-N = 4 mg/1
DO=6mg/1
TSS =30mg/1
Fecal Coliform = 200/100m1
pH = 6-9 SU
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

Page 2
Mr. F. Tyndall Lewis, P.E.
Town of Columbia
June 14, 1993
Under a relatively new Division of Environmental Management (DEM) procedure, dechlorination
and chlorine limits are now recommended for all new or expanding discharges proposing the use of
chlorine for disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in Columbia's effluent is 28 ug/1 for protection
against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination could be required treatment that should
allow the facility to comply with the total residual chlorine limit.
The DEM is currently planning a basinwide water quality management initiative. The schedule for
implementation in the Chowan-Pasquotank River Basin begins in 1998. The plan will address all sources
of point and nonpoint pollutants. In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload allocations may be
affected. Those facilities that already have high levels of treatment technology are least likely to be
affected. The Town of Columbia may want to consider the implementation of this basinwide strategy in
planning their expansion.
As previously mentioned, the above limits are speculative and final limits will be provided upon
receipt of an application for permit expansion. If you have any questions concerning these limits, please
contact Ms. Jackie M. Nowell of my staff at [phone].
ely,
onald L.
Asst. Chief for
Water Quality Section
cc: Washington Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Central Files
WLA Files

INC.
Mc DAVID ASSOCIATES , INC .
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • LAND SURVEYORS
HOME OFFICE • 120 NORTH MAIN STREET/ P.O. DRAWER 49, FARMVILLE, N.C. 27828 (919) 753- 2139
109 EAST WALNUT / P.O. BOX 1776 , GOLDSBORO, N.C. 27533 • 716 SOUTH MAIN/P..O. BOX 738, KENANSVILLE,N.C. 28349
GOLDSBORO PH. (919) 736- 7630 • KENANSVILLE PH. [phone]
February 6, 1993
2
Mr. Trevor Clements
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
FED 6
Wjc. WNW e41611
SUBJECT. Waste Load Allj ation
Town of Columbia
Tyrrell County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Clements:
et!
The Town of Columbia plans to construct a 225,000 GPD wastewater treatment plant to
replace its existing 150,000 GPD facility. The Town is currently preparing a 201 Plan and
intends to obtain financing through the State Revolving Loan Program.
McDavid Associates is simultaneously designing the proposed new facility and would like
a waste Load allocation as soon as possible. The receiving stream is Scuppernong River, which
bears a Class C classification. Location maps are attached which illustrate the location of the
existing plant and discharge location. The existing outfall and discharge Location will remain
the same.
Please expe,,dite your review of this matter and provide the waste load allocation as
quickly as possible.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sirc�rei,
McDAVID ASSOCIATES, INC.
Tr,v.W414.4,
F. Tyndall Lewis, PE
Goldsboro Office
FTL:
Enclosures
cc Town of Columbia
Roger Thorpe, DEM, Wilmington
Dar, Blaisdell., DEM, R:deigl,
1):1WP31 DA 1 \FrT.%93
CG._t'MBIA-93 S3'F-LOAU:l4.I::;,QCATON.LTG 930205

6 - (1-4-e
%e
/7
• P
d.
0, / /Ploy
(Ant-
6,-14,4c:tC
4,10
/ 56
(-5 ,
) CY/7 r(-ei
d
7/74,2-z- y /5A1/4,
r • •
7 -
47,

L-';
, fI
.!-
^'iitrv. /4Z eP %1,,,_ r 4‘%/ N(

Page 1
Note for Jackie Nowell
From: Jackie Nowell
Date: Thu, May 27, 1993 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: Scupernong River - Tyrrell County
To: Carla Sanderson
According to WLA notes (4/91), an ambient station five miles above Columbia reported low
summer DO values. There have been no special studies have been done recently, last BMAN
data taken in 1983. The 305b Report (88-89) indicates that the Scuppernong River to Riders
Creek is impacted by nonsource problems, also indicated that chlorophyll a is a problem.
However, all these things are occurring above Columbia's outfall, they can't be attributed to
the discharge. Columbia's discharge has a couple exceedances for TSS and fecal, but no
consistent permit violations recently.
I don't know, maybe the Washington RO can shed some light on what could be the cause of
the Scuppernong Rivers problems.
From: Carla Sanderson on Thu, May 27, 1993 3:01 PM
Subject: FW: Scupernong River - Tyrrell County
To: Jackie Nowell
Jackie, regarding Don's note below - did you come across any glaring problems when you
were reviewing the wasteload for the Town of Columbia?? (effluent or otherwise).
From: Don Safrit on Thu, May 27, 1993 2:56 PM
Subject: Scupernong River - Tyrrell County
To: Greg Thorpe
Cc: Carla Sanderson; Harlan Britt; Preston Howard; Ruth Swanek; Steve Tedder
Greg, (Preston, Harlan, Steve, Carla & Ruth - FYI)
The 14th floor has taken an interest in the Town of Columbia in Tyrrell County and more
specifically, the Scuppernong River. One of the interns working with John Humphrey is
from that area and his project is to see what can be done to improve water quality in the river
(supposively can't swim in it).
If you could, please see if you can find any background information that may help us out in
determining what may be contributing to the wq problems - ie, 303b, special studies, etc...
Current wasteload information does not indicate that Columbia is the source of the problem.
(SOC Instream Assessment dated 4/14/93).
Thanks, Don

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 21, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowell ,9,1
THRU: Ruth Swanek
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Town of Columbia WWTP 201 Facilities Plan
Tyrrell County
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the subject document and has the
following comments. In Section 3.3 Effluent Limitations, it is mentioned that a wasteload
for the additional wasteflow of 225,000 GPD has been requested from this Branch. We
are still evaluating the Columbia expansion and have not determined appropriate effluent
limitations at this time. Because of the estuarine nature of the Scuppernong River, and
reported substandard dissolved oxygen levels instream, our primary concern is the impact
of the additional wasteflow on the receiving waters. After further consultation with the
Washington Regional Office, we will provide tentative effluent limitations to the Town of
Columbia.
We defer comments on the effects of the plant construction on the adjacent wetlands
to John Dorney of the Planning Branch.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
cc: Roger Thorpe
WLA File

,►/
-•
• -•y,--y+-
-
�`.a.,. -.s- —
•
.
40.
.-. i Bx
yr. -a-i- _.y_ 4.... I
,
-.w u
-•n
'Fol
C;r 0
4 a-'= ...'.
�+-ww
(River
1 Neck
•
Foul . l
\3 .( I.
Piling o_
10
•'' Foul -
11.- yr- ;� ' • •-,..-*-- --- -a- - .+- ..,-
y. -
d_ —
N
/0 N
+•II
II
4
i
,
II
II
lvl
•
•
r1
I _•
II -- - - -.
If
Il _
_n -- - —: — --- — 3979
- -
- �"`��P
-.� - ► + - --.,mac - •► -• . 4.
--
--
_ -r• 1M-. ;I.+ yr. �- + �.. -.i.
-.I. .y.. .•r - _.. ..y-.";i:..:,
a
.. .. w3
az
CO• n
_ n
+�,"a, a`��h} U
n
II \
I l ,
II I
It
a
° .ww Z
�---
.,._..,E.- _ - - .-•,-'---▪ ";_ y=
9 ��., " _ ., :-..:I'
I\I -ram ....... -W- .y.- .W- DIY•
_ w -
S Cry----___----' IT
Oil'• '..
•.I
O
ti
975
-
EY\\sT\N (r-
&C- KC"s
E-c\5T) N Cr-

'ct 0ePti.
1929
4 -
t,000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETRE
:AN LOW WATER
FAN 14I1:11 WAIER
•
/__-\ -�: r _
_` ll,� Dunbare - -
Landing-
0 -� TT J -HIV T T1
L--- --=1-- -
383 17'30" ' 384
1 MILE
-L.
•
INtER1ORl-GEOLUl:1l:AL SURVEY. L910N, V111..INI•— 1977
NEW LANDS .f 5 mi.38700om.E 76°15'
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Heavy-duty .. Light -duty
Medium -duty —._--====== Unimproved dirt
0 U. S. Route 0 State Route
COLUMBIA WEST, N. C.
N 3552.5--W 7615 / 7.5
QUADRANGLE LOCATION

scuppernong
STOREf
Station #
Date
Deep
Temp
TK
DO
DK
Ch
CK
Fecal
FK
TP
M698000C
2081166
2/3/83
0
8.2
7.8
2
0.16
M698000C
2081166
2/3/83
13
8
7.8
M698000C
2081166
4/18/83
0
13.8
3.8
1
440
0.16
M698000C
2081166
4/18/83
12
13.8
3.6
M698000C
2081166
5/23/83
0
21
1.9
2
60
0.13
M698000C
2081 166
6/21/83
0
25
4.5
7
50
0.14
M698000C
2081166
7/20/83
0
28
1.4
3
10
0.14
M698000C
2081166
8/30/83
0
25
1.5
11
20
0.21
M698000C
2081166
9/15/83
0
23.7
1.8
1
K
110
0.18
M698000C
2081166
10/24/83
0
18.3
1.7
2
10
0.07
M698000C
2081 166
1 1 /17/83
0
11
1.5
1
K
1 0
K
0.12
M698000C
2081166
12/15/83
0
12
7.8
1
K
150
0.21
M698000C
2081 166
1/30/84
0
7.8
4.1
1
K
10
0.15
M698000C
2081 166
1/30/84
9
7.7
3.9
M698000C
2081166
2/13/84
0
7
5.5
2
120
0.21
M698000C
2081166
3/28/84
0
13.2
4.4
60
0.12
M698000C
2081166
4/16/84
0
16.2
4
30
0.1
M698000C
2081166
5/10/84
0
17.5
1.6
220
0.25
M698000C
2081166
6/26/84
0
28.5
1.7
10
K
0.16
M698000C
2081166
7/17/84
0
24
1.9
200
0.38
M698000C
2081166
8/28/84
0
25
1.4
50
0.3
M698000C
2081166
9/25/84
0
20
1
10
K
0.13
M698000C
2081166
10/22/84
0
20
1
40
0.13
M698000C
2081166
1 1 /27/84
0
9
4.7
10
0.08
M698000C
2081166
1/1 0/85
0
5
4.8
270
0.29
M698000C
2081166
2/25/85
0
10
3.8
10
0.17
M698000C
2081166
3/6/85
0
12
4
30
0.18
M698000C
2081166
4/24/85
0
20
10
K
0.22
M698000C
2081166
5/6/85
0
23
5.2'
10
K
0.15
M698000C
2081166
6/6/85
0
25
511
20
0.09
M698000C
2081166
7/30/85
0
25
1.2,
20
M698000C
2081166
7/30/85
0.3
0.09
M698000C
2081166
1 0/31 /85
0.3
16.5
1.1
10
0.16
M698000C
2081166
1 1 /1 9/85
0.3
19
0.1'
10
K
0.22
M698000C
2081166
12/16/85
0.3
9
3.2
70
0.13
M698000C
2081 166
1/22/86
0.3
5
4.1
10
0.15
M698000C
2081166
2/20/86
0.3
10
6
40
0.19
M698000C
2081166
3/10/86
0.3
10
7.6
20
0.14
M698000C
2081 166
4/21/86
0.3
17
3.5
10
0.16
M698000C
2081166
5/7/86
0.3
19
1.4
10
K
0.14
M698000C
2081166
6/24/86
0.3
26
2.5
30
0.07
M698000C
2081166
7/24/86
0.3
28
2.2
40
0.14
M698000C
2081166
8/14/86
0.3
26
1.9
30
0.22
M698000C
2081166
9/3/86
0.3
22
4.2
10
K
0.21
M698000C
2081166
10/27/86
0.3
17
3.4
10
K
0.09
Page 1

scuppernong
Station #
Date
PK
TKN
TNK
N
NHK
2081166
2/3/83
0.7
2081166
2/3/83
2081166
4/18/83
1.1
2081166
4/18/83
2081166
5/23/83
1
2081166
6/21/83
0.9
2081166
7/20/83
1
2081166
8/30/83
1.6
2081166
9/15/83
1.1
2081166
10/24/83
0.8
2081166
1 1 /17/83
1.1
2081166
12/15/83
1.1
2081166
1/30/84
0.9
2081166
1/30/84
2081166
2/13/84
1.7
2081166
3/28/84
0.8
2081166
4/16/84
0.8
2081166
5/10/84
1.8
2081166
6/26/84
0.9
2081166
7/17/84
1.2
2081166
8/28/84
1.3
2081166
9/25/84
0.8
2081166
10/22/84
0.6
2081166
1 1 /27/84
0.8
2081166
1/10/85
1.2
2081166
2/25/85
1.2
2081166
3/6/85
1.2
2081166
4/24/85
1
2081166
5/6/85
0.9
2081166
6/6/85
0.5
2081166
7/30/85
2081166
7/30/85
1.9
2081166
10/31/85
1.4
2081166
1 1 /19/85
1.2
2081166
12/16/85
1.2
2081166
1/22/86
1.7
2081166
2/20/86
1.4
2081166
3/10/86
0.7
2081166
4/21/86
1
2081166
5/7/86
0.9
2081166
6/24/86
0.6
2081166
7/24/86
0.8
2081166
8/14/86
1.1
2081166
9/3/86
1.2
2081166
10/27/86
0.8
Page 3

scuppernong
STOREY
Station #
Date
Deep
Temp
TK
DO
DK
Ch
CK
Fecal
FK
TP
M698000C
2081166
1/28/87
0.3
3
7.1
1
0.1 1
M698000C
2081166
4/30/87
0.3
15
3.4
5
0.11
M698000C
2081166
7/29/87
0.3
28
2.3
497
0.18
M698000C
2081 166
1 1 /2/87
0.3
13
1.6
,
1
0.1 1
M698000C
2081 166
1 /21 /88
0.3
6
7.9
1
K
0.11
M698000C
2081 166
4/1 9/88
0.3
14
3.9
s
1
K
0.11
M698000C
2081 166
7/21/88
0.3
25.5
6.8
10
0.12
M698000C
2081166
10/3/88
0.3
24
7.8
4 2
0.05
M698000C
2081 166
1/24/89
0.3
9
4.6
4
0.09
M698000C
2081166
4/10/89
0.3
13
3.6
0.12
M698000C
2081166
7/26/89
0.3
24.5
0.3
9
0.29
M698000C
2081166
10/19/89
0.3
4
0.19
M698000C
2081166
10/19/89
0.3
19
2.4
M698000C
2081166
1/1 6/90
0.3
8
6.3
1
0.08
M698000C
2081166
4/3/90
0.3
14
4.3
2
0.17
M698000C
2081166
7/12/90
0.3
30
1.8
6
0.15
M698000C
2081166
10/3/90
0.3
22
1.7
7
0.17
M698000C
2081166
1/14/91
0.3
11
3.1
1
K
0.11
M698000C
2081166
4/1 1 /91
0.3
21
3.6
4
0.1 1
M698000C
2081166
7/30/91
0.3
25
1.6
2
0.19
M698000C
2081166
1 0/21 /91
0.3
16
2.6
2
0.16
M698000C
2081166
1 /1 6/92
0.3
9
4.5
1
K
0.1
M698000C
2081166
4/13/92
0.3
14
4.8
6
0.1
M698000C
2081166
7/23/92
0.3
28
0.8
5
0.13
M698000C
2081166
1 0/21 /92
0.3
1
K
0.09
M698000C
2081 166
1/27/93
0.3
8
6.8
3
0.15
Page 2

scuppernong
Station #
Date
PK
TKN
TNK
N
NHK
2081166
,
1/28/87
0.8
2081166
4/30/87
0.7
2081166
7/29/87
1
2081166
1 1 /2/87
0.8
2081166
!
1 /21 /88
0.8
2081166
4/19/88
1
2081166
7/21/88
0.8
2081166
1
10/3/88
0.5
2081166
1/24/89
0.9
2081166
4/10/89
1.1
2081166
7/26/89
1.6
2081166
10/19/89
1.6
2081166
10/19/89
2081166
1/16/90
1
2081166
4/3/90
1.4
2081166
7/12/90
1.2
2081166
10/3/90
1.2
2081166
1/14/91
0.8
2081166
4/1 1 /91
1.2
2081166
7/30/91
1.4
2081166
10/21/91
1.5
2081166
1
1/16/92
1
2081166
4/13/92
1
2081166
!
7/23/92
0.8
2081166
10/21/92
0.9
2081166
1/27/93
0.9
Page 4

6/30LI ?o
NPDES PRETREAT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
I
FACILITY NAME: 'p),J OF C.OW 1 t 1,4 NPDES NO. NC00 2 0 Y Y 3
Y Ia E:L.L. c.o. (,..) a 1 k. 2<4 r o w
REQUESTER: c2.L lts Mverrez.. DATE: '2. / 21 / 93 REGION: OA 40
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREATMENT
pa-- . Vole123
This facility has no SIUs and should not haveetreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /
Additional Conditions
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
x
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW
- TCTAL: MGD
- CO POST ION: TEXTILE: MGD
METAL FINISHING: MGD
OTR • : MGD
FEB tat 5
•c.t.,3't;i,i44(1%_ trtq: ►..se:.:.,,,;�;
HEAI7WORKS REVIEWl
MGD
MGD
MGD
PARAMETER
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
Phenol
Other
PASS
.1THROUGH DAILY LOAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
DOMES1'iC PERMITTED . INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL
RECEIVED: / 73 REVIEW -AD BY:
R.MURNED: / /o/ f3

STATION: 02081166
SCUPPERNONG RIVER AT NCSR 1205 NR COLUMBIA
DATE
TEMP
CO
%SAT
NH3N
TKN
NOX
TP
CHL A
pH
COND
SAL
01/22/86
5
4.1
32.1
0.6
1.7
0.59
0.15
6.4
280
0
02/20/86
10
6
53.2
0.71
1.4
0.82
0.19
6.8
234
0
03/10/86
10
7.6
67.4
0.15
0.7
0.58
0.14
7.1
325
0
04/21/86
17
3.5
36.2
0.27
1
0.24
0.16
6.8
267
05/07/86
19
1.4
15.1
0.17
0.9
0.14
0.14
6.7
336
06/24/86
26
2.5
30.8
0.07
0.6
0.03
0.07
6.6
2254
1.2
07/24/86
28
2.2
28.1
0.13
0.8
0.09
0.14
6.7
2350
1.3
08/14/86
26
1.9
23.4
0.48
1.1
0.07
0.22
6.8
225
09/03/86
22
4.2
48.1
0.35
1.2
0.77
0.21
170
10/27/86
17
3.4
35.2
0.15
0.8
0.11
0.09
6.6
3596
2
01/28/87
3
7.1
52.8
0.12
0.8
2.8
0.11
1
6.4
173
04/30/87
15
3.4
33.7
0.22
0.7
0.72
0.11
5
6.6
204
07/29/87
28
2.3
29.4
0.14
1
0.05
0.18
49
6.7
263
11/02/87
13
1.6
15.2
0.04
0.8
0.09
0.11
1
6.5
285
0
01 /21 /88
6
7.9
63.5
0.26
0.8
3
0.11
1
6.4
235
04/19/88
14
3.9
37.9
0.25
1
4.2
0.11
1
6.1
183
07/21/88
25.5
6.8
83.1
0.18
0.8
0.31
0.12
10
6.9
337
0
10/03/88
24
7.8
92.7
0.01
0.5
0.01
0.05
42
6.8
3672
2
01/24/89
9
4.6
39.8
0.22
0.9
1.6
0.09
4
6.8
343
0
04/10/89
13
3.6
34.2
0.39
1.1
1.3
0.12
6.3
186
0
07/26/89
24.5
0.3
3.6
0.7
1.6
0.15
0.29
9
5.5
116
0
10/19/89
0.51
1.6
0.62
0.19
4
10/19/89
19
2.4
25.9
6.5
168
0
01/16/90
8
6.3
53.2
0.2
1
1.7
0.08
1
6.3
147
0
04/03/90
14
4.3
41.7
0.62
1.4
2.3
0.17
2
5.6
104
0
07/12/90
30
1.8
23.8
0.34
1.2
0.27
0.15
6
6.4
162
0
10/03/90
22
1.7
19.4
0.5
1.2
0.11
0.17
7
6.4
212
0
01/14/91
11
3.1
28.1
0.11
0.8
2.8
0.11
1
6.2
166
0
04/11/91
21
3.6
40.4
0.24
1.2
1.2
0.11
4
6.6
151
0
07/30/91
25
1.6
19.4
0.45
1.4
1.5
0.19
2
6.3
125
0
10/21/91
16
2.6
26.4
0.49
1.5
0.28
0.16
2
6.4
212
0
01/16/92
9
4.5
38.9
0.23
1
1.5
0.1
1
6
185
0.1
04/13/92
14
4.8
46.6
0.25
1
0.72
0.1
6
5.9
268
0
07/23/92
28
0.8
10.2
0.25
0.8
0.01
0.13
5
6.4
409
0
10/21/92
15
1.2
11.9
0.12
0.9
0.17
0.09
1
6.2
366
0
01/27/93
8
6.8
57.4
0.16
0.9
2
0.15
3
5.5
134
0
04/22/93
17
3.3
34.2
0.12
1
0.2
0.1
1
6.3
133
0
07/28/93
34
2.5
35.4
0.18
1
0.06
0.16
32
7.1
185
0
10/19/93
20
1.7
18.7
0.06
0.6
0.11
0.05
6
6.1
517
0
04/27/94
20
2.5
27.5
0.31
1.4
0.27
0.1
2
6.3
198
0
07/21/94
30
3
39.7
0.47
1.2
0.33
0.08
2
4.3
306
0
10/17/94
17
1.8
18.6
0.12
1
3.2
0.21
1
6
249
0
11/28/94
11
2.7
24.5
0.14
1
0.98
0.1
1
6.4
323
0
12/15/94
11
3.4
30.8
0.13
0.8
0.39
0.09
1
6.6
550
0

:::.::::: . ......
? Capper: ar flits:.
02108600 Rockfish Creek near Wallace @ NC 41
4/19/89
4.9
28
8/23/89
<2.0
31
10/31/89
<2.0
44
11/1/90
<2.0
39
4/17/91
<2.0
30
10/14/91
<2.0
31
I . MIN
MAX
MEAN
<2.0
28
4.9
44
2.4
33.8
02108563 Rockfish Creek at 1-40
11/14/91
6.3
34
12/18/91
16.0
60
1 /21 /92
7.3
56
2/17/92
8.9
53
3/13/92
3.6
30
4/8/92
6.8
1500
5/14/92
12.0
48
6/16/92
8.8
43
True color measured @ 220 Pt -Co on 7/28
7/28/92
66.0
88
8/18/92
2.9
17
10/1/92
38.0
60
10/28/92
29.0
45
11 / 18/92
13.0
38
12/15/92
2.6
26
1/14/93
<2.0
22
2/16/93
6.3
37
3/24/93
<2.0
26
4/15/93
7.3
38
6/11 /93
11.0
36
6/30/93
29.0
93
7/16/93
13.0
200
8/23/93 •
29.0
70
9/13/93
43.0
66
10/20/93
24.0
63
11/17/93
19
67
2/8/94
9.8
33
3/29/94
4.6
1
4/13/94
12
41
Color (ADMI @ pH 7.8) was 390 on 6/3
5/3/94
26
76
MIN
MAX
MEAN
<2.0
1
66
1600
15.7
102

MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU :
FROM:
SUBJ:
•
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
29 April 1993
Allen Wahab
Assistant Chief, Engineering Branch
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Roger K. Thorpe /
Water Quality Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
Alton R. Hodge
Environmental En ne lry
Washington Regional Office
Town of Columbia
201 Facilities Plan
Tyrrell County
APR 30 1993
I reviewed the subject document and would offer the following comments
and questions:
a) I would suggest it inappropriate of McDavid Associates, Inc. to use
the Division's November 1991 performance evaluation (P.E.). The
performance evaluation suggests its examination period is very
selective; too selective for the 201 report, in my opinion. The P.E.
uses monthly average flows to determine severity of I&I.
Iwheppnmorshly
s
there is a pronounced inflow problem which is dampened
averages are used. The flows routinely rise 30,000 gallons in a 24 hour
perio and it's not uncommon for flows to rise 100,000 gallons in 24
hours. The Columbia plant, to my knowledge, has never wasted sludge
becau e of the severe washout problem caused by the inflow and
infil ration. I am unable to support any 201 plan that does not have a
detai ed I&I evaluation.
b) I is my opinion the detail used in the evaluation of alternative II
(land application) is less than adequate, even for a first cut.