NC0073741_Wasteload Allocation_19950306

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0073741 Meu,7 %,y I%//e/
ManIggewAition Subdivision
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload AllocationTh
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 6, 1995
This document is printed oa reuse paper - igriore any
content on the reYerse side

az 7 0 0, A66
6o65 = 3o
morn eior
Lb; AR-
7- 00
roca( AIL
/ut
•
-64 4o
7110061 --V-r4 Ade it- c.e/11 441-7q.6 ee-
,./1.06C‘' •,zi"._ 0,0V nJ6A/, Afr,(,d
, C.,/ /- .,/ ',/,...„. ..... 6', . / c,, K "'it C.,;,.e..,-, _-,-,1 ee'e"--, • .2.7
y•
Izex..ei.0J _e_4( zyr..14:7--
at)i)epi-- ..ve d ,iet/o---- __644"ede,e..e.v 4?1-
"wed 4 ..----- c reyar _ clikx.,1
aozzix-e-it ,-)5`4,t-tti Li, e(;4.iti ' C =i:el› _..---;ao---4. -1Y,-;_i
, ict
/1 - bet,t, -/-.4-1 --(i`ealL„ -17,..d , 7-f1C-ra
-Z: Al 40- .4 40-71.1 0 ,6 rc: 41 64' 4c- ..;i-..,,--_:,
i i • .' / / ,,
__-, a.de , , .ti., i , , i ..,_,, 24,_ . ) c,1624/ _,c)
_i -t- -
,
--; .,;‘,i t.t-,;€/91-• q-0--ivi.. t..., Z.,:e I ,•,"' t'..
, t
. v
• -
1' yezzi
',11/1
7J 7,0
g-evcil. 80491 ki-Jeir
;
1)11 S-
7 I°V c-Fs -1-EA)e-r of ut
(5 = 7:9D: (
(>2)700 0?-7 oq
305.2 = crs
4,Ae'f.gyi 36V6
tri ;
44
, .8, 16 Ai
/cVe..eral zr6ter;,_ 4
./"

0a6A: coLe.,
Aoxi/21 e le.tifertef Q 0-/t4tt4 rite,if
ovit- 4 > c a=it.tazwy
144." Af
or ov 416d

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
No
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Susan Robson
DATE: March 6, 1995
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Henderson
PERMIT NUMBER NC0073741
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
2. Date of Investigation:
3. Report Prepared By:
Mountain Valley
Hydrologic, Inc.
P. 0. Box 18029
Asheville, N. C.
Subdivision
28814-0029
December 28, 1994
Paul White
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Thomas J. Barr
(not contacted)704-254-5169
5. Directions.to Site: Facility is located east of Etowah, about 1
mile south of Hwy 64 on SR 1171 (Cummings Road) , adjacent to the
west side of the road. The discharge point is about 50 feet
behind the plant.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 350 18' 58"
Longitude: 820 34' 44"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. F8SE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Horseshoe
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
Yes No If No, explain: Little if any area is available
for expansion at the current treatment plant site. However,
additional area may be available near the subdivision.
Page 1

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The treatment
plant is at the foot of a ridge adjacent to the French Broad
River. It is built on fill, but may be affected by 100 year
flood.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: 200 feet
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: French Broad River
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 040302
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Receiving stream flood plain is used for timber and
agriculture. Uses of the receiving stream in the immediate
area include aquatic and wildlife habitat, fishing, hunting,
canoeing, and agriculture. The WS-IV protected area for the
City of Asheville's proposed intake begins approximately 3.5
miles downstream. The Asheville Buncombe Water Authority has
requested that this section of the French Broad River be
reclassified to WS-IV.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted. Existing permit is
0.040 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? 0.040 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity 0.020 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
Permit WQ0000399 was issued on July 8, 1994 for sewers
projected to contribute 6,850 gpd to the treatment system.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: Existing
facilities consist of a 5,500 gallon sludge holding tank; a
19,700 gal. aeration basin; an 84 sq. ft. clarifier with
sludge return and a 7.5 foot weir at each end; a V-notch weir
with continuous recording flow measurement; a 440 gal.
chlorine contact chamber; and effluent discharge line to the
French Broad River.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: An A/C was issued September 14, 1990 for dual
20,000 gpd facilities, although the existing facility had
already been constructed at that time. No expansion of
facilities is currently underway.
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Ammonia, chlorine,
household chemicals.
Page 2

h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): n/a
in development
should be required
approved
not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: None
specified.
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): Contract
operator typically contracts with septage hauler to pump
sludge from facility on an as needed basis.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): II
4. SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities
i.e., non -contact cooling water discharge from a metal plating
company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 05 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code:
060 7
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) n/a
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Date
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.
Spray Irrigation: Adjacent land may be available for spray
irrigation.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Not feasible.
Subsurface: Adjacent land may be available for subsurface
disposal, however, failing septic tanks was listed as reason for
applying for initial permit.
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The facility was originallypermitted for construction as a
40,000 gpd plant. Instead, a 20,000 gpd plant was installed.
Revised plans and were received for dual 20,000 gpd plants and an
engineer's certification was received for one 20,000 gpd plant.
Based on this, a revised A/C was issued on September 14, 1990 for
dual 20,000 gpd plants. A sewer line permit was issued on July 8,
1994 for 6,850 gpd. The maximum monthly flow in 1994 was 7000
gpd.
On October 29, 1992, the permit was transferred to Thomas J.
Barr with HydroLogic, Inc. HydroLogic is also the contract
operations firm. Asheville Regional Office files contain a
document indicating that HydroLogic, Inc. received a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide sewer service to 46
lots in Mountain Valley Subdivision. Design flows from 46 lots at
360 gpd/lot would be around 16,500 gpd. Apparently only a small
portion of the lots are contributing flows. However, a
conversation with Mr. Barr in 1993 indicated that other homes in
addition to the 46 lots currently listed may need to connect in
the future due to failing septic tanks.
Since only 20,000 GPD of the 0.040 MGD permitted capacity has
been constructed, it is recommended that only 20,000 gpd be viewed
as "existing". Based on the low flows to date, the possibility of
alternatives to discharge, and due to the fact that the existing
treatment capacity is 20,000 gpd, it is recommended that
justification for the requested flow be received prior to renewal
of the permit at 0.040 MGD. Unless the flow can be justified, the
permit should be renewed at 0.020 MGD. If the information
received for the renewal in 1993 is still considered sufficient to
renew the permit at 0.040 MGD, a separate effluent limitations
page should be included for 0.020 MGD, as was done in the current
permit.
Page 4

Also, a requirement should be included for submission of
plans and specifications for expansion, or justification for not
expanding, when plant flow reaches 80% - 90% of permitted
capacity. Although the current permit now requires submission of
plans and specifications for the next 20,000 gpd phase, it is
recommended that this be further clarified since an A to C exists
for two 20,000 gpd plants. Additional plans are needed since the
ARO does not have adequate approved plans for the two plants,
including flow splitting and flow measurement.
Pvi Q cu,Ge
Signature of Report Preparer
W terQual ' '�y RegSo�Supefvisor
vF ie q3
Date
Page 5

(-- hforse ShC%--Elentl—
/ N
(CtivriliN WILL()' Sui3 A
\'44 HY2R01-061c- , /Ale.
1 WWTP 4- PY
NC-00737W