Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0062413_Wasteload Allocation_19911002NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0062413 Linville Ridge Country Club WWTP Document Type: Permit Issuance asteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Compliance Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: October 2, 1991 This document is printed fart reuse paper - ignore any can -teat on the reYerse side DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Dale Overcash FROM: THRU: Carla Sanderson Jacquelyn M. Nowell October 2, 1991 SUBJECT: UT West Fork Linville River Flows for Linville Ridge Development NPDES No. NC0062413 Avery County Per your comments on the May 10, 1991 memo to you concerning the subject facility, attached are two USGS sites near the existing discharge point where pos- itive 7Q10 flows have been estimated. I have also included a map of the sites so that the distance from the current site can be seen. If there are any questions, please contact me. cc: WLA File • DATE 0/5/ REQUEST No. 9/9� USGS Flow Data Request Requested by: 7L6 �( SITE No. 1 County AvRiver Basin efts NRCD Sub Basin 0 3`'83`' Map No. or Name Cafe l - Station No. 6.2/ 38Z 3'S SJ Secondary or Primary Road No. Stream Name f Data Requested: Drainage Area Av Frage low_k _ 30 Q 2 Winter 7 Q 10 ____— Summer 7 Q 10 submit ; request and map in duplicate. Stream Name SITE No. 2 NRCD Sub Basin County A_;- 03o '30 River Basin Map No. or Name C/fsf Station No. 02 /312 Secondary or Rimary Road No. „ir Data Requested: Drainage Area Aver ge Flow ✓ 30 Q 2 ✓ Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10 ✓ when making a request for data, plPase SITE No. 3 County River Basin NRCD Sub Basin Map No. or Name Station No. Secondary or Primary Road Stream Name Data Requested: Drainage Area Average Flow__.___ 30 Q 2 .—.._ Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10—. S ga Moe,�taia=Ch � J /y O� 'V - I •*) . _ �♦ ti • • 7 •t2m p', lte2l �' • Q r m / I x / E}:i Pan( 12__ s� ::ate' t . 13' +ypf.w r s t LOW irk ... j-.t: ;'• ;. ' f • • 1 am'RPW 17 -v'' ~= /' 4279 — , (,Baer 1 nob .=, TarigTeV d cam }! - r n. / . — `''^ ��, �\'-"• • 9 1 .ter. :. n �� ',v ' • .'1 t•- °• _ / 1 �L - .I 2-7 ;•`L=• 'Linville •V F L, • p\ ` • il. - -"ofAB / • R 1 h / /-yam / •L. . ti Q )/; Nbu �_qri et — , Golf Course • REQUEST NO: 9195 SITE NO: 1 DATE: 9/26/91 SOURCE: NRCD ACTION: EXISTING STREAMFLOW CONDITION: STATION NUMBER: 0213828890 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: W F LINVILLE R TRIB NR LINVILLE, NC LOCATION: AT HDWTRS AND 2.2 MI N OF LINVILLE, NC LATITUDE: 360610 LONGITUDE: 815202 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: C11SE COUNTY CODE: 011 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03050101 NRCD BASIN CODE: 030830 DRAINAGE AREA: 0.24 AVERAGE FLOW: 0.58 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] 7010 MIN FLOW: 0.09 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.18 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.12 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.14 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] NOTES: [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. The range indicates approximate interval in which the actual value may lie [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Because of the probable degree of inaccuracy of the estimate only a range is given. [D] Approximately. Streamflow Condition Codes [R] Regulated [N] Natural ****** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ""*** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Data Index -- Entered by: AF REQUEST NO: 9195 SITE NO: 2 DATE: 9/26/91 SOURCE: NRCD ACTION: EXISTING STREAMFLOW CONDITION: STATION NUMBER: 0213828895 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: W F LINVILLE R TRIB AT MTH NR LINVILLE, NC LOCATION: AT MTH AND 1.8 MI N OF LINVILLE, NC LATITUDE: 360548 LONGITUDE: 815248 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: C11SW COUNTY CODE: 011 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 03050101 NRCD BASIN CODE: 030830 DRAINAGE AREA: 0.76 AVERAGE FLOW: 1.8 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [B] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.28 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [ ] (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.63 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [ ] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.46 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [ ] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.51 RANGE: cfs to cfs Percent [ ] NOTES: [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. The range indicates approximate interval in which the actual value may lie [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Because of the probable degree of inaccuracy of the estimate only a range is given. [D] Approximately. Streamflow Condition Codes [R] Regulated [N] Natural ****** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Data Index -- Entered by: AF State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Asheville Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL: MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY SECTION MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: May 21, 1991 Dale Overca. h , �uperv=. sor NPDES Group Forrest R. Wes Water Quality R-': " `la:. Supei:v:i4Jor Paul R. White, I. . E. PR Environmental En;.ineer Ann B. Orr Regional Manager • L CEIVED MAY 3 1 1991 `EChNi`;.L SUPPORT BRA. Linville Ridge Development_. Permit No. NCOO624a3 Engineering Report: on Discharge Alternatives Avery County We have reviewed the engin-:ring report on Linville Ridge and feel that it is a reasonably complete evaluation of the alternatives as required by their permit. The permi. tee should be reminded that the stricter limits pertaining to POD-5 and dissolved oxygen take effect at the existing discharge point beginning July 1, 1993. If a permit modification is desired reflecti.rv; a relocated discharge point, this request should be made as soon as possible to allow ample time to process the waste load allocation request for the proposed discharge point, to process the permit modification, and to design, obtain approval, and construct the required facilities. If the permittee desires to construct. the required facilities to meet the stricter effluent limitations at the existing discharge point, it is likewise recommended that the process be initiated immediately so that the necessary modificat'.ons will be in place well ahead of time to assure proper operation pi-: or to the effective date of the stricter limits. If you would like to/discus<< th_.s fi,.rth-�r please call. xc: Trevor Clements Interchange Building. 59 Woodfin Place. A \heville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone 704251-tQ08 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Entplovcr DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM May 10, 1991 TO: Dale Overcash !L-/ THRU: Trevor Clements Ruth Swanek i:[- Carla Sanderson FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowellam SUBJECT: Review of Discharge Alternatives Study for Ridge Development Company NPDES Permit No. NC0062413 Avery County Linville The Technical Support Branch has completed its review of the discharge alternative study for the subject facility. The engineer- ing report was an evaluation of the four nondischarge alternatives listed in Condition G of the NPDES permit. We concur with the engineering firm that the best alternative for the Linville Ridge Development Company is "to pipe the discharge :downstream to a location of positive 7Q10 flow" and to add a ter- tiary sand filter to the plant. Our flow data indicate an old USGS station (June 1984) on the UT West Fork Linville River with a summer 7Q10 flow of 0.1 cfs. However, because this station is nearly seven years old, the flow information would need to be updated with a cur- rent estimate when the facility requested relocation of the dis- charge. Please contact me if there are additional questions concerning this matter. CC: Roy Davis Central Files Au"d yIt4 L Lei-va--& "at Pe.v ate,.,-Q"�- g A—.-7--- ,t /97.4-31 c, /o.,.e. -791,41.), A/41Z ‘,..3.1"- XAirt.....: (..r.D 74 C i-pi.. )4 .14.,1.7 14.4,... -4.------ A- , c 7iV 1.> , it/, [AT,i- 9"-.. i A,•&. _ , - / 4.44-1- „,..., . o o VI 05J " k') i' -1,4- or (d)r 1....,:ege, .,.z.,. ,,, /,‘„„;,ee.. Az,_ Q.. 4.4,,,z,, 24. tiz)cm,' z- 6 6 c..A / s 79ao o • ! 3cl z : o . Z 00/4/ f.Z. 7C 43,A. 2 /4 ay,eL -h 0 %/%I.l! �t\\ \\1W1I11F9/y'17 J. CRAIG CRANSTON. P.E. THOMAS H. ROBERTSON. P.E. ELDRIDGE A. WHITEHURST, JR.. P.E. Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS OLD ENGINE COMPANY NO. l POST OFFICE BOX 452 ELLIS STREET AUGUSTA. GEORGIA TELEPHONE (404) 722.1588 TELECOPIER (404) 722-8379 April 3, 1991 Citul --.)" 4 AP0 Tsio 72-1- 6.1- As PAL. RECE!VEDNT.AAWAY oAMES B. CRANFORD. JR.. P.E. APR ri GODEFROY. P.E. LMAXWELL,111 BARBARA L PHIFER. P.E. RANK PURNELL PERMITS & ENGINE M. swANN. LS. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 RE: Linville Ridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Avery County, N.C. Our File No. 90-268 Permit No. NC0062413 Gentlemen: On July 2, 1990, you issued a new NPDES permit for the waste water treatment facility which serves the clubhouse at the Linville Ridge Development in Avery County, North Carolina. Pursuant to Part III, Item D, we are submitting herewith an Engineering Report evaluating non -discharge alternatives. On behalf of the owner of the development, Linville Ridge Development Company, we are transmitting two (2) copies of this report in keeping with the requirement that such a report be pre- pared and submitted within twelve months of the issue date of the new permit. We believe that the report is self-explanatory. However, if you have any questions or wish to discuss the information further, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, CRANSTON, ROBERTSON & WHITEHURST, P.C. Eldridge A. Whitehurst, Jr. , P.E. EAW/jk cc: Mr. Michael H. Dilley, Vice President (3) r r r r r L/NVILLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE A L TERNA TI VES STUDY AVERY COUNTY NORTH CAROUNA An Engineering Report RECEav7 APR PmITS & FNGINFFRIN(; PREPARED FOR LINVILLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY `,`ttti11111/t!/r'f ,\`` C /. SEAL •' PREPARED BY Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. 452 ELLIS STREET -- P.O. DRAWER 2546 -- AUGUSTA, GEORGIA 30901 Engineers --- Planners --- Surveyors w .afiiiMars MMUILCINCN MARCH 1991 J LINV ILLE RIDGE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES STUDY 1-V i1. 1 ;.) 1991 ?PERMITS F FNaINFFRINC PURPOSE This repor t has been prepared to present the results of a study evaluating nondischarge alternatives for the effluent from the existing wast e water treatment plant at Linville Ridge ur ose of this study has been to determine Development; The p p of the whether there is a feasible alternative to disposing effluent from the treatment facility which is now discharged into the West Fork of the Linville River immediately adjacent to the plant. GENERAL Linville Ridge Development is a second home, recreational development locat ed in Avery County, North Carolina. The development is comprised of some 1,500 acres of land situated approximately two miles north of Linville, North Carolina on the west side of Highway hwa 105 at its intersection with Highway 184. The location is mo re clearly shown on Figure 1. Amenities to the degolf course, swimming pool complex, tennis development inclu a 9 courts and cl ubhouse facilities. While there are few, if any, year round resident sthere will be some 450 homes and/or multi- , family units upon full build out. Waste water for all residential units is accomplished by means of septic tank and ground absorption systems. grill 1983 a and pro shop facility was constructed at the golf course. Waste water from this facility was handled by 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 means of a septic tank and ground absorption system permitted by the Avery County Health Department. Then, in 1985 the clubhouse was constructed to house dining rooms, lounges, locker room facilities, golf carts, and sales and accounting offices. This facility has some 35,000 square feet of space. The estimated waste production from the facility when fully utilized is some 12,600 gallons per day. WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT On August 21, 1985 the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development issued an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for a 15,000 gallon per day discharge into the West Fork of the Linville River for a plant to serve the clubhouse. Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. prepared plans for a 0.015 MGD plant at the proposed site on the Linville Ridge property, and an "authorization to construct" the plant was issued by NRCD on April 28, 1986. On May 21, 1986, a 0.015 MGD Modular Extended Aeration Waste Water Treatment Plant was put into service. This plant has operated since that time with effluent discharges ranging from 1,000 gallons per day in the winter to 8,000 gallons per day in the summer months. ALTERNATIVE STUDY REQUIREMENTS When Linville Ridge Development Company applied for a renewal to its NPDES Discharge Permit, a new permit was issued on July 2, 1990. As part of this new permit a requirement was added stating that "within 12 months of the issue date of this permit, the permit holder shall submit an engineering report evaluating nondischarge alternatives. As a minimum, the following i alternatives should be addressed: (1) moving discharge point to a positive 7Q10 flow stream, (2) subsurface disposal, (3) spray irrigation, and (4) connecting to an existing or imminent sewerage system." It should be noted that the permit also now places stricter limits on effluent quality after 1993. If no alternative to the current discharge can be shown to be a viable alternative, a modification will still have to be made to the plant to improve effluent quality. ALTERNATIVES 1. Relocating Discharge Point: The nearest gauging station on the Linville River is located in the Community of Linville, North Carolina, some two miles south of the Development. The seven day, ten year (7Q10) flow at this location is 2.1 cfs as reported by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) office in Raleigh, North Carolina. The 7Q10 flow is a statistical calculation of the lowest average flow at a location for any seven days during a ten year period. Since the station is located just upstream from the confluence of the West Fork of the Linville River and the main branch of the Linville River, the low flow based upon measurements at the gauging station actually does not account for the West Fork. However, if one assumes that the characteristics of the drainage basin of the West Fork a 7Q10 can be drainage areas. treatment plant are similiar to those for the main channel, extrapolated based upon a comparison of By doing this the 7Q10 at the current site behind the 18th green is 0.015 cfs. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i The USGS considers any flow rate below 0.05 to be 0 flow. In order to determine at what point downstream from the current treatment plant discharge site on the West Fork that the drainage basin would be large enough to provide a positive 7Q10 flow, a trial and error study was done utilizing an existing 1" = 200' topographic map of Linville Ridge with a five foot contour interval. Points along the stream were selected and each drainage basin area calculated. Each was then compared to the drainage basin in for the gauging station in Linville on a prorated basis. It was determined that the closest location downstream which would provide a positive 7Q10 flow of 0.055 is just downstream from the #10 green. This location is a distance of some 2,000' from the current discharge point as shown on Figure 2. The work required to pipe the effluent discharge from the treatment plant to a new location downstream below the loth green would involve installing 6" PVC pipe along the edge of the 18th and then loth fairways. It is anticipated that no manholes would be used and that cleanouts located at bend points and at 400' intervals would be installed. The estimated cost to install such a line is $20,000.00. It should be noted here that an additional cost which would be incurred with this alternative involves the addition of a tertiary filter at the existing treatment plant. The use of the piping alternative would mean that the additional, more restrictive limits on the quality of the effluent would come into play as previously noted. The modification of the existing plant to incorporate a tertiary sand filter would cost in the neighborhood of $20,000.00. 2. Subsurface Disposal: During the early planning for the clubhouse and studying of possible methods by which to treat the waste generated by the facilities, consideration was given to handling the waste by means of a septic tank and absorption field. Based on the type of soils generally found on the property of Linville Ridge and the amount of flow estimated per day, it was preliminarily determined that an absorption field There golf of approximately 17,000 S. F. was would be required. no location in the vicinity of the clubhouse course which could provide the required area but and was not too close to streams, wells or other facilities not suitable for close proximity to an absorption field or that was not thought to have shallow rock and/or marginal soils present. Consideration was given to piping the sewage down the face of the steep escarpment below the clubhouse to other undeveloped property. However no areas were found below the clubhouse which appeared to be flat enough, devoid of rock, or far enough away from water courses to satisfy the requirements for such a large system. With the current development of virtually the entire area of Flat Top Mountain above the escarpment in the vicinity of the clubhouse, and the development of a good deal of the lands below the escarpment, there is even less chance of finding an adequate site now. A field reconnaissance of the the property and review of existing topographic maps has failed to yield any promising sites. This does not even consider the fact that in most cases for marginal soils, a backup site is also required. In summary, there does not appear to be an appropriate location on undeveloped Linville Ridge property for a large enough absorption field for subsurface disposal of the plant effluent which would meet current North Carolina criteria • for such facilities. 3. Spray Irrigation: Spray irrigation is a method of disposal which involves the collection of the effluent leaving the treatment plant and the spraying of this effluent upon suitable vegetated lands. In many locations, spray irrigation is well suited for use with a golf course facility because the existing irrigation lines can be utilized for the operations, and the materials in the effluent are good for promoting the growth of grass and other vegetation. The requirements to be met in utilizing spray irrigiation to dispose of treatment plant effluent are enforced by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management. In order to comply with the regulations the Linville system would need the following additional facilities: a. An aerated flow equalization facility at the existing plant with a capacity of 25% of the plant design flow. b. Modification of the existing plant so as to provide duplicate treatment units in the plant such that in the event that one set of units fails the other one will be able to continue operation. c. The installation of a tertiary sand filter to reduce the total suspended solids to meet more stringent requirements required for spray irrigation. d. A five day lined detention pond in which the effluent • would be stored before spray application. e. A pumping facility to pump the effluent from the five day pond into the golf course irrigation system and through the sprinkler system. f. An automatically activited standby power source such as a disel operated generator to provide power in the event of a power outage and to prevent improperly treated waste water from entering the five day detention pond. Other considerations in utilizing spray irrigation include a requirement that spraying only occur between 11:00 p.m. and 3 hours prior to the daily opening of the course; a 100' vegetative buffer zone between the edge of spray influence and the nearest dwelling; signs posted at the pro shop stating the course is irrigated with treated waste water; a certified operator on call 24 hours per day; and a rate of application not exceeding 1 and 3/4 inch per week on the area being sprayed. We have looked at the driving range irrigation system and believe that the effluent could be disposed of by utilizing only this area. Several valves would need to be installed to isolate the irrigation lines in the driving range from the rest of the system. The cost of modifying the existing plant as required to utilize spray irrigation is very site specific but a preliminary cost of $100,000.00 is estimated. 4. Connecting to Existing or Imminent Sewage System: The utilization of an existing system for the effluent from' the Linville Ridge plant has been considered by identifying the closest plants to Linville Ridge and by contacting the owner and/or operator to determine whether there is sufficient capacity and whether the plant would be willing to take on additional flow. Furthermore an estimate of costs to get the effluent to the plant has been made where applicable. Existing plants are located at Sugar Mountain Development north of Linville Ridge, at Grandfather Mountain Development across Highway 105 to the east of Linville Ridge and the Community of Linville south of Linville Ridge. No imminent plants are known at this time. The Sugar Mountain waste water facility is located approximately 2 miles by road measurement from the Linville Ridge Treatment Plant. The plant has a current capacity of 0.5 MGD (as of August 1, 1990), and it is operating at approximately 3/4 capacity. We understand that the owner also has plans to request an increase in the discharge permit to increase the plant capacity an additional 0.5 MGD. This plant would probably take the Linville Ridge discharge if it could be piped to the plant. This would require a pumping station, a holding pond, emergency backup power source, and the installation of a force main over the crest of Flat Top Mountain into the Sugar Mountain Valley. Furthermore, the installation of the force main could require the obtaining of easements from private individuals as well as the developer of Sugar Mountain in order to reach the system flowing into the plant. could be obtained, this scheme would cost estimate of some $125,000.00 or more. The Grandfather Mountain treatment plant is located approximately one mile from the Linville Ridge plant and has a capacity of 0.07 MGD (as of August 1, 1990). The plant is currently operating at over 90% capacity, and it is expected that continued growth at the Grandfather Mountain Development will take up this remaining capacity. Thus, it is believed that the Grandfather Mountain treatment facility is not a viable alternative to handling the Linville Ridge clubhouse effluent. The Community of Linville has a waste water treatment facility very near the gauging station on the Linville River. This plant has the capacity of 0.5 MGD and is currently operating at near capacity (as of August 1, 1990). The plant is located some 2.8 miles from the Linville Ridge facility Even if the easement a preliminary and the cost of transporting the effluent to this plant would be very high even if excess capacity was available. SUMMARY: It is apparent that the utilization of an existing off -site facility for the treatment and disposal of the Linville Ridge Clubhouse Plant effluent is not a viable alternative because the lack of capacity or the expense in accomplishing the transportation of the effluent. Furthermore for the one plant which might be utilized there are no guarantees that necessary easements could be obtained. Unfortunately Linville Ridge does not have'the right of condemnation which municipalities enjoy to solve such problems. The option of utilizing subsurface disposal is not considered a viable alternative because of the marginal nature of the soils for use in absorption fields; the large amount of land required for the primary field and an alternate field given the number of small streams and springs on the property, especially in the undeveloped areas; and the lack of any relatively flat areas in the remainder of undeveloped property which lend themselves to such a large absorption field. It would appear that the use of spray irrigation or the piping of the effluent downstream to a point of positive 7Q10 flow would be workable alternatives. However, spray irrigation cannot always be accomplished on frozen grounds or in periods of high rains, both of which are likely in this locality. Such conditions would cause an effluence discharge into the West Fork of the Linville River anyway. Thus, the best alternative appears to be to pipe the discharge downstream to a location of positive 7Q10 flow. It is of note that the requirement to add a tertiary sand filter to the plant would be necessary for both the spray irrigation scheme and the downstream piping scheme. In order to meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit in 1993, the planning and design of a tertiary filter and piping downstream are recommended.