The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0020940_Wasteload Allocation_19830815NPDES DOCUHENT !;CANNING COVER MEET NPDES Permit: NC0020940 Murphy WWTP Document Type: Permit Issuance asteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Report Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: August 15, 1983 This document is printed on reuse paper - igrnore any content on the rezrerse side Facility Name. Existing Proposed tt (/ . NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION f tAAJTP Engineer Date Rec. # Date. Permit No. •)1C 0O 6014'4 Pipe No.: aJ I County • eh: « c� lDesign Capacity (MGD) : �- � Industrial (% of Flow) : Domestic (% of Flow) : /06 `�+ t Receiving Stream: lT /,c✓4S.ree ,€stJ7 . Class: `- Sub -Basin: C Sf — D i " O Z. cn Reference USGS Quad • (Please attach) Requestor : _.. Lt�1ve" i 17%� /%- Reivigenttl Office -- (Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.) Design Temp • 2/9 'cl, Drainage Area• Avg. Streamflow: 7Q10: 1tR7 ck s Winter 7Q10: 30Q2• aa, Location of D.O.minimum (miles below outfall): Slope:.. E Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day, 20°C): K2 (base e, per day, 20°C)• 0 c.. 0 01 L 4?� V) ea 03.1 Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average r Comments �S S P kI 3c) MC/i as() r"Slf G —9 S. O. Original Allocation Revised Allocation Confirmation Prepared By: Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average Comments Date(s) of Revision(s) (Please attach previous allocation) r Reviewed By: Date: REQUEST NO. 646 ****?K**************** WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM ******************* FACILITY NAME TYPE OF WASTE COUNTY REGIONAL OFFICE RECEIVING STREAM 7010 : 187 CFS DRAINAGE AREA MURPHY WWTF' DOMESTIC CHEROKEE ASHEVILLE HIWASSEE RIVER W7010 : SQ.MI. CFS REOUESTOR : LAVE ADKINS SUBDASIN : 04-05-02 3002 : STREAM CLASS IC CFS ************************ RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS **********************:K WASTEFLOW(S) DOD-5 NH3-N D.O. PH FECAL COLIFORM TSS (MGD) : 0.5 (MG/L) : 30 (MG/L) : (MG/L) : (SU) 6-9 (/100ML): (MG/L) : 30 FECAL COLIFORM LIMITS DELETEL' DILUTION RATIO GREAT ENOUGH. 04( (//64 *******************************************************:*:******************** FACILITY IS : PROPOSED ( ) EXISTING (/) NEW ( ) L]:MITS ARE : REVISION (�) CONFIRMATION ( ) OF THOSE PREVIOUSLY ISSUER REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED BY: MODELER SUPERVISORpMODELING GROUP REGIONAL. SUPERVISOR PERMITS MANAGER ---DATE «�� _�3•-- DATE :F3__. DATE _.____._DATE :B�L��-__. isbfat r 4-- tI 4-1% t sr2 0 i.E._�-�. Cyr • DISCHARGER RECEIVING STREAM 71110 DESIGN TEMPERATURE SEGMENT 1 LEACH 1 * * MODEL SUMMARY DATA #* MURPHY HIWASSEE :1.87 CFS 23 DEGREES C. SUBBASIN STREAM CLASS: WINTER 7R10 . WASTEFLOW . !LENGTH 1 SLOPE 1 VELOCITY !DEPTH ! Ki 1MILES 1FT/MI 1 FPS 1 FT 1 /DAY 1 1 1 1 1.001 5+001 1.005 1 1 1 040502 r CFS .49 MGL! Kri l SOB 1 K2 1 NetPS1 /D Y 1 MG/M2L! 1 /UAY 1 MG/L/D 1 ! 1 1 1 1 5.00 1 0+44 1 0.00 1 ! ! ! 1 0.01 1 1 4+721 0.001 1 ALL RATES ARE AT 23 DEGREES C. *** INPUT DATA SUMMARY *** SEGMENT FLOW 1 CBOL! 1 NBOL! 1 D.O. 1 CFS 1 MG/L 1 MG/L 1 MG/L 1 1 REACH 1 1 WASTE 0.759 HEALiWATERS 1 187.000 TRIBUTARY 1 0.000 RUNOFF * 1 1.000 58.000 2.000 0.000 JJ 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 t RUNOFF FLOW IS IN CFS/MILE 5.000 7.800 0.000 7.800 ********** MODEL RESULTS ********** DISCHARGER . MURPHY RECEIVING STREAM :HIWASSEE RIVER >X****************************************************** ************** * THE END D.O. IS 7.97 MG/L ********************************* #******************: **************** THE END CBOD IS 2.17 MG/L **********:***************************** **:******** #*******l******* *** THE END NBOD IS 0.00 MG/L **********:.*************** c* €********** **** **********?Et *************** THE D.O. MIN. OF SEGMENT 1 IS 7.79 MG/L THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 0 WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 58 MG/L OF CBOD THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 0 MG/L OF NBOD THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D.O. 1S 5 MG/L THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING SEG 1 REACH 1 �ISy 0.49,y MCI) y�y �y yy y dry j��+ ,y y�e� ***,*r*i********a***************************** *********? �C ** *4:** * *********il `^ / DISCHARGER + MURPHY RECEIVING STREAM + HIWA88EE RIVER WASTEFLOW � ,49 SEG NO | REACH i SEG MI | DO | CBOD | NBOD { FLOW | 1 | 1 | 0^001 7,791 2.231 01001 187.761 1 \ 1 \ 0^101 7.811 2^221 0^001 187^861 1 | 1 | 0^201 7^831 2,211 0.001 187,961 1 \ 1 | 0.301 7^851 2.21| 0.001 188,061 1 | 1 | 0^401 17^871 2.20| O.00| 188^16| 1 | 1 | 0,501 7.881 2^201 0^001 188,261 1 | 1 | 0,601 7^901 2^191 O^OO\ 188^361 1 | 1 | 0^701 7.921 2,181 0.001 188^461 1 | 1 \ 0.801 7^931 2,181 0^001 188^561 1 | 1 | 04901 7,951 2,171 O.00| 188.661 1 ! 1 | 1.001 7,971 2.171 0,001 188^761 / / Page 1 Of 4 SEWAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF MURPHY, NORTH CAROLINA Environmental Impact Statement in Compliance with Provisions of the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Act of 1971 I. Applicant The Town of Murphy, North Carolina which includes the Mayor and Board of Commissioneers, Post Office Box 130, Murphy, North Carolina 28906, Telephone No. 704-837-2510. This statement is prepared by Ralph D. Johnson, Jr., P. E., W. R. Dickson & Company,. Inc., 347 North Caswell Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204, Telephone No. 704-334-5348. II. Description of Proposed Project TITLE 1977 Proposed Sewer Improvements - Town of Murphy, North Carolina. The proposed project contains three parts'- (1) the 12" ductile line to the Main Pump Station, (2) an interceptor to an existing line that discharges to a branch (3) a pump station and an interceptor for some waste systems that have failed. The proposed system will discharge this waste to the Murphy System. The latter two systems will permit existing establishments from closing from the lack of adequate waste. treatment. III. Public Necessity for Proposed Project A. The proposed project is designed to provide adequate waste treatment for an area of Cherokee County and the Town of Murphy that are presently having extreme difficulty keeping their waste treatment systems operative. As a matter of fact some systems are collecting their waste and haul it by truck to the waste treatment plant. The septic tank systems do not operate because the ground does not perculate due to an under layment of hard rock below the top soil. It is very much 'to the public interest and necessity that these problems are adequately solved. It is estimated that approximately 3,000 persons will receive benefit from this project. Many of these, however will not receive benefit until the 12" line (the 1st part of this project) is extended up Valley River to eliminate the McCelland Street Pump Station. The waste from this station overflows and does not reach the waste treatment plant. B. Public Health Need The service area for most of this proposed project is now being served by private waste treatment systems that are not functioning. The area is well developed and overflows from their systems can contaminate the environment and create a serious health hazard. The proposed system would transport the waste to a treatment plant that will minimize the danger of pollution. • Page 2 of 4 C. Compatibility with Local and Regional Planning The proposed system is compatible with the 201 Facilities plan that is being prepared by W. K. Dickson & Company. IV. Probable Impact of Proposed Project on the Environment This project will be beneficial to the environment. Adverse effects, if any, would be of a temporary nature and occur during the construction phase of the project. These effects would occur mostly where lines are constructed near major traffic thoroughfares. In these cases the effects cannot be avoided. A. Water Resource Impacts The proposed project will collect and transport waste to an existing waste treatment plant. The water quality of the Valley River and Hiawassee Lake will be enhanced by the collection and treatment of waste that is now likely to be discharged to the stream without treatment. The seven day ten year low flow at the Murphy treatment plant is estimated to be about 200 cfs. This estimate is based on the sum of the 7/10 low flows on stream gages above Murphy on the Valley and Hiawassee Rivers for. which records are availalbe. There are no known users of the Hiawassee River (below Murphy) for a source of drinking water. The 1st user is expected to be in Tennessee. B. Land Use Impacts For the most part the project is to be constructed in roads and stream bottoms that are not suitable for development. By being constructed near public byways failures in the system will be readily detected and correction can be made expeditiously. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Impacts The project will enhance wildlife and marine resources by the removal of waste would eventually get to the stream and be harmful to the streams aquatic life as well as the wildlife that drink or come into contact with the streams water. The proposed project will improve the quality of the water quality of the Valley River. D. Solid Waste and Sludge Disposal Impacts Spoil and other solid waste resulting from the construction of this project will be buried along the sewer line right of way or be hauled to the County dump where it will be buried. E. Air Pollution and Noise Impacts • The construction project will not increase air pollution in the area. The noise of construction are anticipated to be minimal and short termed. Page 3 of 4 F. Socio-economic Impacts The acquisition of rights of way andreal property required for the construction of the project will not result in the displacement of families or disruption of business, institutions, recreational areas and other public utilities. The project should enhance living conditions for economically deprived by making it possible for more industry to locate in the area and thereby expanding job opportunity. V. Significant Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Reasonably Avoided Should the Project be Implemented The project contains no known significant adverse environmental effects. VI. Measures Proposed to Minimize Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to the Environment The only known adverse impacts in this project are the insignificant unavoidable ones that occur in the construction process. The siltation and erosion of construction may or may not occur since this is dependent upon wet weather during or immediately after construction. Should wet weather occur after construction the restoration procedures should keep erosion and siltation to a minimum. VII. Feasible Alternatives to the Proposed Project - There are no known feasible alternatives. VIII. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity The purpose of this project is to provide an adequate sewerage system to a community that is in some areas densily populated. Without this system the community would be deprived of achieving health standards that are adequate for normal life. The short-term inconveniences and overall adverse effects are insignificant compared to the maintenance and enhancement to the long-term productivity of the area. IX. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Environmental Changes Which would he Involved if the Proposed Project Should be Constructed The only known irreversible and irretrievable environmental changes would be the construction materials used in the project. Although these materials are salvageable,.additional damage would be done to the environment to retrieve them. Page 4 of 4 • X. Known Objections to the Project Relating to Adverse Environmental Effects There are none. XI. Other Pertinent Information There is none.