NC0021920_Environmental Assessment_19941122

NPDES DOCUHENT !;CANNIN` COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0021920
Whiteville WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Special Order by Consent
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 22, 1994
This document ins printed on reuase paper - ignore any
content on the resrerse aside

Division of Environmental Management
Biological Assessment Group
November 22, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To:
Through: Jimmie Overto
Trish Finn Mac ,-w -
From: David Lenat Vince Scher
Subject:
Ken Eagleson
Biological Monitoring of White Marsh Swamp,
above and below the Whiteville WWTP (NC0021920),
Columbus County, September 1994, Subbasin 030758
BACKGROUND
The Town of Whiteville (NC0021920) has requested an expansion of their discharge
into White Marsh Swamp from 2.5 MGD to 3.0 MGD. There is little information,
however, on the effect of the present discharge and the Rapid Assessment Group (Carla
Sanderson) requested a biological assessment of White Marsh Swamp:- Because of the
anticipated problems in sampling White Marsh Swamp, both the field office (Steve West)
and the plant operator (Jim Parker) furnished assistance in sampling.
STATIONS (Table 1, Figure 1)
The topographic maps show White Marsh Swamp as a single channel surrounded by a
a large floodplain (up to 1 mile in width). In reality, however, there are several
channels, and the amount of flow in each channel is a function of rainfall. There are
many beaver dams in White Marsh Swamp, which further complicate flow patterns. The
town of Whiteville is slowly trapping out the beaver and removing the dams, but this
project has not been completed.
This area had experienced heavy rainfall (up to 4 inches) in the week prior to our
sampling, and water levels were above normal for late summer. Visible flow could be
seen in both the main channels and throughout the adjacent floodplain, but there is
probably little or no flow under normal summer conditions. No samples were collected
from White Marsh Swamp during the basin wide surveys (1991) due to absence of visible
current. The conductivity measured at the upstream site was at the low end of the range
from the self -monitoring data (40 to >200).
We had hoped to sample immediately above and below the discharge point, but this
part of White Marsh Swamp is backed up by beaver dams and also would be difficult to
sample because of deep silt deposits. On the advice of local personnel, we sampled at the
wastewater plant's usual upstream/downstream locations:
Station 1. US 74/76/130 Bus, about 1 mile upstream of the Whiteville WWTP.
There are at least three channels in this area, and the middle of the largest channel
was too deep for sampling in chest waders. We were, however, able to sample in
some smaller channels and throughout the floodplain. The presence of abundant
growths of freshwater sponge indicated that the area sampled had not been dry prior
to the recent heavy rainfall. Reconnaissance of the largest channels (visual
collections) did not reveal any additional invertebrate taxa in this habitat. For this
reason, it is thought that the samples collected during September 1994 adequately
sampled the invertebrate fauna. Fish collections, however, may have missed some
species which were restricted to deep water. The very low dissolved oxygen

Figure 1. Sampling locations, White Marsh Swamp, Columbus County, September 1994.
There are at least four main channels in White Marsh Swamp below the WWTP. The amount of rain determines which
channels have flowing water.
US 701
A A A AAA A A A A w A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A AAAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A.
A A w A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A •
A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA AA A AAA
♦ A A A A A A A A A. A A A A A A A A A A A.
A A AA A A A A w A A A A A AAA A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
► A A A A A A AAA A A A w A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A AA AAA A A A A A A A A A
A A A AA A A A A A AA A AAA A A A
AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A w A A A
♦ A A A A A AAAAA A A A A A A A A A •
A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A
A A A A A A AA A A/* A A AAA A A A•
A A AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A•
A A A A A AA AA A A A A AA AA A A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A .
AAAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA
A A A A` A A A A A A. A A A A A A A
AA A A A 7.A A AAAAA AAA A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A
♦ A A A AA A A A A A AA A A A A A A A
A A A A A A AA A A AA A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A 'A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A•
A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A AA A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA.
A♦AwAA
AAAA A AA w • wAAAwwwwwAwwwwAwA.Bus74/76/130
A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A AA w A A A A A A A A A A A A A
AA A AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A
A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A•
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A •
•/* A AA A A AA A A A A A AA AA A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A I.
•/* A AA AA /* A A A AAA A A A A A A A A.
Whiteville
A •A�A�A�;White Marsh Swam p AAAAA AAww AAI
• A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA
Sewage disposal •AA A AAAAAAAAAAAAA AA AA AA AA AA AAAw AA AAAAI
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A .
♦"...% A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A w A A A A A
0..A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A w I
A AA A A AA A A AA A A A A A AA A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A I
A AA A A AA A A AAA A A A AA.. AA
AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
• A A A A AA A A. A A A A A A AA A A
A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A
A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A w A A A A A AAA A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A w .
A A A A A A A A A A A AAA AAAAAA A•
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A 1 A A A A A A A A A AAAAA A A A A
A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A
AAAA AAA A A A A A w A A A A A
A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A 7 A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
IIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIlIMMIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIIIIdl1BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUMMIIMIIII011 • IIQ[1 ll�lll�lil�l�l Il II�II9IIQII2II9IIQII Ili111f111fIt19Ill!
Railroad • A w A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A AI
. A A A Old iV ►i11 ♦/(id Grade A A A w A A AA A A A A A A w A A w A A A w A
A A A A A A A A w A A A A A A A A
A n A A A A• ♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A ••♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
•
A A A A A A A A AA ♦ A A A A A A AAA AAAAA A A A A A A A A A
AA A A A A A A A A A A A ♦ A ♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A AA A AAA A A A A A A• A A ♦ A A A A w A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Al A I
A A A w A A A A A AA AA. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A••A •A A A •A AA A A A A A A w A A A A A AA AA A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A ♦ A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A A A A A ••
A AAA A A A A A A A AA A AA A w A. AA A A A A A A A A AAA. A A A A A A A
A w A A A A AAA AA AA A A. A w AA A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A A A •
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A • A A A A A A AA AAA A A A A A A A A A A
Ad w A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AI
AA A A A A A A A A A AA A A AA AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA
A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAAA A A A A A A A A A A
♦ A A AAA A A A A AAA AAAAAAA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A w A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A AAA A A A A A
• A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A I
♦ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A AA A A A •
• A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A w A A A A A A A A •
A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA AA A A A Ad
A A AA w A A w A AA A A A A A A A A A A

recorded at this site (2.9 mg/I) would be expected to severely restrict the diversity of
the aquatic fauna.
Station 2. At old railroad grade, about 3/4 miles below the Whiteville WWTP.
This site can be reached by driving partly along the old railroad bed, and then
walking in about 1/2 mile. Three other streams/channels must be forded before
reaching this point. Until the summer of 1994, the WWTP incorrectly sampled one
of these other branches as their downstream site, invalidating much of the self -
monitoring data. Only a slight increase in conductivity (63) was observed at this
site relative to Station 1, although the first channel along the railroad grade
(draining a portion of Whiteville) had a conductivity > 100. This first channel is
one of the locations that had been used for the self -monitoring data.
There is an old beaver dam just above the sampling site, although a portion of
the dam was removed so that flow is no longer affected. Fish were collected both
above and below the beaver dam, but invertebrate samples were restricted to that
portion of the swamp below the beaver dam. An attempt was made to select
habitats comparable to Station 1. Very little sponge growths were observed at
Station 2. The low dissolved oxygen recorded at this site (2.0 mg/1) should severely
restrict the diversity of the aquatic fauna, although some sponges can tolerate DO
concentrations <2 mg/I (Harrison 1974).
Table 1. Station descriptions and Water Chemistry, White Marsh Swamp, 29 Sept 94,
Columbus County.
White Marsh Swamp
Stations: 1 2
Location US 74/76/130 Bus Old RR Grade
1 mile ab WWTP 3/4 mile be WWTP
Width (m) 100+ 50
Depth (m)
Average 1.0 1.0
Maximum >2.0 >2.0
Canopy (%) 90 90
Aufwuchs Abundant sponge Slight
Substrate (%)
Boulder
Rubble
Gravel
Sand 5 5
Silt 80 80
Debris (Logs, Leaves) 15 15
Temperature (°C) 19.7 20.9
Specific conductivity (umhos/cm) 55 63
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 2.9 2.0
pH 6.2 6.0
Residue (mg/1)
Total 120 130
Suspended 5 1
Turbidity (NTU) 3.3 2.2
Nutrients (mg/1)
NH3 0.05 0.05
NO2 <0.01 <0.01
Total P 0.05 0.10
Comments above road Old beaver pond (now breached)

METHODS
Benthos. Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled at both stations using DEM's
standardized qualitative collection method. This method uses a wide variety of collection
techniques (10 samples) to inventory the aquatic fauna and produce an indication of
relative abundance (Rare, Common, Abundant) for each taxon. No sand was present at
these sites, so an extra log wash was substituted.
Several metrics can be used with these qualitative samples to detect any water quality
problems, including EPT taxa richness (EPT S: taxa richness for the most intolerant
groups), EPT abundance (EPT N), and total taxa richness calculations. At this time, we
cannot assign ratings to swamp streams, and we do not expect large numbers of EPT taxa
in this type of stream. For this reason, the most reliance will be placed on between -site
differences in total taxa richness.
Water quality assessments also may evaluate the relative tolerance of
macroinvertebrate species, especially the abundance of "pollution indicator" groups. This
type of information is summarized with a Hilsenhoff-type biotic index. Both tolerance
values for individual species and the biotic index vary from 0 to 10, with higher numbers
indicating more tolerant species or more polluted conditions. There are no biotic index
criteria for swamp streams, but we assume that an increase in the biotic index value
indicates a decline in water quality.
Fish. DEM's method for fish community collections in swamp waters consists of
using two collection teams, each with one person using a backpack electrofishing unit
and one person netting up fish. Sampling is conducted for a period of one hour and all
habitat types are sampled that can be reached by wading.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Tables 2-4, Appendix 1)
Chemistry. There were few measured differences in water chemistry between sites
above and below the Whiteville WWTP. The downstream site showed a slight increase
in conductivity and total phosphorus and a slight decline in dissolved oxygen. Both sites
exhibited an unusual pattern of low conductivity coupled with low disssolved oxygen.
Benthos. Comparisons of Stations 1 and 2 indicated that the downstream site on
White Marsh Swamp had lower total taxa richness (38 vs. 49) and a higher biotic index
(8.66 vs. 7.73). Both changes suggest lower water quality at Station 2. Rare taxa,
however, (Table 3) were found at both sites.
To what extent do these values differ from other North Carolina swamps? Studies of
similar swamp streams during the summer months found a median taxa richness of 31
and a median biotic index of 7.51. EPT taxa richness in most swamp streams was very
low during the summer (usually 1-2 taxa) and dissolved oxygen values were often less
than 2.0 mg/l. These comparisons suggest that only the high biotic index value at Station
2 is outside of the expected range for North Carolina swamp streams during the summer
months.
Neither site had dominant taxa that were indicative of organic loading and low
dissolved oxygen. Chironomus did increase at the downstream station, but only 10
individuals were recovered at this site. Caenis and Hyallela azteca also increased at the
downstream site. Although these taxa are fairly tolerant, their abundance may be related
to the nearby pond -like habitat created by the beaver dam. A more significant change
may be the decline at Station 2 observed for freshwater sponges and several Mollusca
(Amnicola, Laevapex). Sponges have are often found under condition of low dissolved
oxygen, but are less tolerant of other pollutants (Harrison 1974).

Table 2. Taxa richness (by group) and summary statistics, White Marsh Swamp,
Columbus County, September 1994.
Group/Parameter Station: 1 2
Ephemeroptera 3 2
Plecoptera 0 0
Trichoptera 0 0
Coeeoptera 3 1
Odonata 5 6
Megaloptera 2 1
Diptera: Chironomidae 16 12
Misc. Diptera 1 1
Oligochaeta 5 2
Crustacea 4 7
Mollusca 3 2
Other 6 1
Total Taxa Richness 49 38
EPT Richness 3 2
EPT Abundance 7 11
Biotic Index (0-10) 7.73 8.66
Table 3. Shifts in dominant (=Abundant) species at White Marsh Swamp sites with NC
biotic index tolerance values.
A. Favored at Station 1, above the WWTP
Freshwater sponges (not tabulated or identified to genus, no tolerance value)
Chironomidae: Clinotanypus pinguis (8.7), Tanytarsus sp 2 (6.7)
Mollusca: Amnicola (5.3), Laevapex fuscus*(7.5)
B. Favored at Station 2, below the WWTP
Ephemeroptera: Caenis (7.4)
Chironomidae: Chironomus (9.6)
Crustacea: Hyallela azteca (7.8)
*Field notes indicate that this species was much more abundant at Station 1.
Table 4. Unusual taxa records at White Marsh Swamp sites, September 1994
Station: 1 2
Odonata
Epiaeschna (heros?) +
Chironomidae
Genus nr Nimbocera +
Omisus pica +
Zavreliella varipennis +
Hemiptera
Neoplea striola +
Hirudinea
Philobdella gracilis +
Phagocata sp. +

Fish. The results of the fish community sampling are questionable because it was not
possible to sample the main channel of White Marsh Swamp. However, some areas with
good fish habitat were sampled at all sites. Very few fish were present even in these
areas of optimal habitat, indicating a stressed environment at both the upstream and
downstream sites.
Table 5. Fish Species List from collections made at White Marsh Swamp, September 1994
Family,
species (common name)
Station
White Marsh Swamp White Marsh Swamp
US-74 Business at old RR grade below
Whiteville WWTP
1 2
Umbridae
Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) 1
Catostomidae
Erimyzon oblongus (Creek Chubsucker) 1 1
Aphredoderidae
Aphredoderus sayanus (Pirate Perch) 4 3
Poecilidae
Gambusia holbroold (Mosquitofish) 13 22
Centrarchidae
Enneacanthus gloriosus (Bluespotted Sunfish) 1 4
Elassomatidae
Elassoma zonatum (Banded Pygmy Sunfish) 3 1
CONCLUSIONS
Both the invertebrate and fish communities of White Marsh Swamp had low numbers
of species, with dominance by tolerant taxa. This was true of sites both above and below
the Whiteville discharge. The very low dissolved oxygen concentrations at both sites (2-
3 mg/1) would limit the diversity of the fauna, although such conditions are not unusual in
North Carolina swamp streams during summer months. The only change that might be
related to the Whiteville WWTP was a decline in the abundance of freshwater sponge and
several molluscan taxa below the discharge.
REFERENCES
Harrison, F.W. 1974. Sponges (Porifera: Spongillidae). In: Hart, C.W., Jr. and S.L.H.
Fuller, Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates, Academic Press, pp. 29-66.
Subbasin 030758
cc: Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assessment Group
Steve West, Wilmington Regional Office
Jim Parker, Town of Whiteville
Central Files
1
1494

Appendix 1. Taxa list and relative abundance, White Marsh Swamp above (#1) and below (#2) the Whiteville WWTP,
Columbus County, September 1994. R=Rare, C=Common, A=Abundant.
Taxon Station 1 2
EPHEMEROPTERA
BAETIS FRONDALIS R R
CAENIS SP A
PARALEPTOPHLEBIA SP C
STENONEMA INTEGRUM C
COLEOPTERA
COPTOTOMUS SP R
DINEUTES SPP C
HYDROPORUS SPP R C
ODONATA
ENALLAGMA SPP C
EPIAESCHNA SP (HEROS?) R
ERYTHEMIS SIMPLICICOLLIS R
LESTES SP R
LIBELLULA SPP R R
NASIAESCHNA PENTACANTHA C R
PACHYDIPLAX LONGIPENNIS C A
TETRAGONEURIA SP R
MEGALOPTERA
CHAULIODES RASTRICORNIS C C
SIAL.IS SPP C
DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE
ABLABESMYIA MALLOCHI R
ABLABESMYIA PELEENSIS R
CHIRONOMUS SPP R A
CLINOTANYPUS PINGUIS A
CORYNONEURA SP R
DICROTENDIPES SIMPSONI A A
GENUS NR NANOCLADIUS B R
GENUS NR NIMBOCERA R
GLYPTOTENDIPES SPP A A
LABRUNDINIA SP R
LABRUNDINIA P]LOSELLA C R
LARSIA SP R R
NANOCLADIUS SP R
NATARSIA SP R
OMISUS PICA R
POLYPEDILUM ILLINOENSE R
POLYPEDILUM TRITUM A A
PARACHIRONOMUS SP C
STENOCHIRONOMUS SP C
TANYTARSUS SP2 A
TRIBELOS SP R
ZAVRELIELLA VARIPENNIS R
MISC. DIPTERA
CHRYSOPS SPP
PALPOMYIA (COMPLEX)
OLIGOCHAETA
CAMBARINCOLA SPP R
DERO SP R
ILYODRJLUS TEMPLETONI R
LUMBRICULIDAE C R
NAIS SP R
SPIROSPERMA NIKOLSKYI R

Appendix 1. Continued.
Taxon Station 1 2
CRUSTACEA
ASELLUS SP3 A A
CRANGONYX OBLIQUUS-RICHMONDIENSIS R C
CRANGONYX SERRATUS A C
HYALLELA AZTECA A
LIRCEUS SP C
PALAEMONETES PALUDOSUS R
PROCAMBARUS SPP A A
MOLLUSCA
SPHAER UM SP C
AMNICOLA SP A
GYRAULUS SP C
LAEVAPEX FUSCUS A C
OTHER
NEOPLEA STRIOLA C
RANATRA SP R
SIGARA (?) SPP R C
HELOBDELLA ELONGATA R
HELOBDELLA STAGNALIS R
HELOBDELLA TRISERIALIS R
HYDRACARINA R R
PHAGOCATA SP R
PHILOBDELLA GRACILIS R

Page 1
Note for Farrell Keough
From: Larry Ausley
Date: Oct 27, 1994 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: FYI
To: Farrell Keough
We have received 3 split samples from Whiteville for 2/93, 4/93, and 7/93. The 4/93 was the
only disagreeing set (All others passed). The 4/93 set received intensive investigation, as is
our practice for an y disagreeing split samples. One lab, correctly by the method, had to
aerate the sample to bring dissolved oxygen saturation below 110%. This did create a
difference in the way the samples were handled by the two labs though both followed
appropriate protocols. As is our practice, we accepted the passing result as all protocols were
appropriately followed by both laboratories. I emphasize that this decision is made only after
an exhaustive review of all bench sheets, quality assurance and chain -of -custody records,
etc. by this Unit. I stress to you, and hope that you'll pass the word along to anyone getting
called on split samples that you should make clear to the facility that failure to report ANY
test results conducted on their effluent is a violation of reporting requirements, whether the
results pass or fail. Due to the sensitivity of this issue, Td also request that any calls ya'll
receive on tox data quality or labs be referred to us, to releive you of the headache and so that
they can get info from the horse's mouth.
Thanks for ther heads -up on your call.
From: Farrell Keough on Thu, Oct 27,199410:11 AM
Subject FYI
To: Larry Ausley
I talked with Asure Spivey, (operator of Whiteville WWTP, NC0021920) and he said that
his toxicity testing was being done by Hydrologic with a consistent Pass - then Fail - then
Pass record. He started splitting samples, sending one to Hydrologic and one to Burlington
labs, with a consistent Passing rate from Burlington Labs and the continued vascillating P / F
rate from Hydrologic. I bring this up because that facility has a good record for operation
and Mr. Spivey said that he had talked with two or three other operators and found the same
situation with them. I don't know what this means; either Hydrologic's methodology is
faulty or Burlington's is.... but I figured you'd want to know this.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
July 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart
From: Farrell Keough
Through: Carla Sanderson
Ruth Swanek �.c S
Subject: Whiteville Waste Water Treatment Plant
NC0021920 Columbus County
Environmental Assessment and Engineering Evaluation Review
1 have reviewed the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Town of Whiteville waste water treatment plant dated
June, 1994. The Technical Support Branch received a request for a speculative analysis for the expansion of
the Town's plant in June, 1994. We are currently reviewing information pertaining to the receiving stream. Due
to the documented water quality problems in this area the Technical Support Branch cannot comment upon any
proposed limits or requirements for any expansion at this facility at this time. However we have many concems
with the submitted Environmental Assessment and Engineering Evaluation as outlined below:
Section 1. Summary , refers to the waste water flows to the treatment plant that 'are over three times
higher in wet weather than in dry weather.' Unfortunately, no details are presented as to collection
system size and length, thus a review by our Permit and Engineering Unit as to allowable I and I rates
is not possible. The sections of our regulations that apply to sewer collection systems, Title 15A -
subchapter 2H - section .0208 authorizes our review and Permit preparation of sewer systems and
expansions. Section .0219 outlines the minimum design requirements; included in this section are
loading specifications, minimum velocities, infiltration rates, and manhole spacing requirements. In
addition, please be advised of section .0217 (a) (11) which describes routine maintenance and
rehabilitation of existing wastewater collection systems which would not require a change in the
sewer collection permit. For questions regarding these regulations, please contact Ms. Carolyn
McCaskill at (919) 733 - 5083. We would also request that a formal review of the collection system
changes be submitted.
In the following paragraph of this same section, the facilities proposed to tie onto this plant are cited.
The types of discharges from these facilities are poorly elaborated upon. Much of the additional flow
would be characterized as industrial. A more thorough review of the possible constituents and
toxics involved in these proposed additional flows needs to include, but not be limited to
percentages of industrial and domestic waste flows, types and quantities of industrial components
involved in these wasteflows, peak as well as average loadings from these additional sources, and
possible Significant Industrial Users, (SIU's) involved at any of these additional facilities proposed to
connect, (the latter to be reviewed by our Pretreatment Staff).
In section 6 an increase in dilution ratio from 0.82 to 0.98 is cited. We would request figures be
presented as to how these ratio's were derived.
In part k. of this same section, a dissolved oxygen limit of 6.0 mg/I is cited. The current Permit for the
Town of Whiteville has a dissolved oxygen limit of 5.0 mg/l. We would request this to be changed
and that the Fish and Wildlife agencies be contacted as to this mistake.

In part m. of this same section, it is stated that '[t]he discharge permit requires that the effluent meet
periodic chronic and acute toxicity testing.' The Permit does not in fact require acute toxicity
testing, but does require quarterly chronic toxicity testing at a 45 % concentration of effluent. The
facility's record with regards to this testing is vacillating between passing and failing. We would
request more specific information be given as to the facility's record and claims as to why various
tests have, failed before we would want to review the addition of any industrial flow to such a
sensitive system like White Marsh.
In part n. of this same section, it is stated that '[e]utrophic levels of the receiving stream are low and
have not required that total nitrogen and phosphorus limits be required.' While it is true that specific
numeric limits on these nutrients are not currently required in the Whiteville Permit, we have no
evidence that eutrophication of this system is low. If the Black and Veatch engineering firm has
such evidence we would be interested in reviewing it.
In section 7. Water Quality, a very limited review of possible impacts is presented. The Technical
Support Branch requests that a more extensive review be developed including wetlands affects,
benthic reviews, and any increased loading due to the low flushing potentials and proposed
increases in toxicants.
In section 8. Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures, many generalities are stated. We would
request that issues involved in this proposed discharge and the mitigative measures to prevent any
degradation be more fully explored .
Finally, we would request that the Appendices attached be compiled in a somewhat more
professional manner including more specific information as to how various figures and statements
were arrived at. The figures used to determine many of the statements throughout this document
are handwritten 'notes' contained within these appendices. These figures are crucial for the review
of this document, therefore a clear, concise presentation of them is imperative.
Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment.

•
F4.
BLACK &VEATCH
94
110 West Walker Avenue, Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0728, [phone], Fa: (919) 672-364 t^ �)
City of Whiteville
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Attention: Mr. Donald Safrit
Gentlemen:
B&V Project 24940.300
B&V File B
June 16, 1994
PA 6E2
Black & Veatch has initiated a study to determine expansion needs for
the City of Whiteville's municipal wastewater treatment plant. The
existing plant has a capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day and
discharges to Whitemarsh Swamp (see enclosed maps).
It is anticipated that the wastewater treatment plant will be expanded
to a capacity of 3.0 mgd. The existing discharge point will not be
changed.
Please provide preliminary effluent limits for the proposed expansion at
a wastewater treatment plant capacity of 3.0 mgd. We are presently
preparing an environmental assessment for this expansion.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
f< 4 `` (e, t
W. Max Frazier
jph
Enclosure
NOTE: Please send all correspondence to the above street address.

C1)
In
Ln
CC
LA L
wtlltll
1y111I
J1IB1II11111111r. E.
iS = *mttl
WIVallilON
dILIIJhluulln!uInIL
{{1
_11111111111111 M 1111111111:11,
c—1,uuu:nnuautnuuu;unntc J
id= 0
:1111111:1::-F. n'
H. VIRGIL ST
SEABOARD
Si?
43
SR
SR 1174
SYSTEM
BUS
70+
1920
Zf CALHOUN ST
1= di
��i.11111/:
11/111111:
SR 19SS
?11111111p1I11lfl
J�I!1I11r
tilt
PUMPING STATION NO. 1
CITY OF WHITEUILLE
COLUMBUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE 1" = 0.5 MILES
PROJECT AREA I
-EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT SITE

•
S
7
9 10
0
1
u
N
0
O
0
A
B
C
0
E
F
8 t 00
7 + 00
6 + 00
L
IS
INC
SL
WGE
70
ACE
SINS
'o-1 ;� d i
e a i
I
I
REACVE Ex15T 12. PLUG
CONECT SCUM (LINE
INN 56.60.
x12. RED-CER
I I . \-4.
o uW PurP
; ISEE sNT 12;;1--\,... j
1 1
o I
r
6-SCLAT LINE
EXISTING
C.. CLARIFIER
4 + 00 -
3 + 00
2 t 00
EXIST 18. VC
Ex IST ECUALI2ATICN BASIN
EFFLLENT SIRUCTLRE ISEE
SNT 9 FOR MODIFICATION)
rAAN76E
1+00
A B C D E F
SCLA
NE T..ELL
FXISTJNG_
CHLORINE
CONTACT
'CHAMBERS -
EX STING ) ,
CLARII1\1FIER
,...,/)
S
T
EXIST TREATMENT •
B951N FOR 4E0FLUENISEET
E 5N1
9 FOR i00IFIC01l0N
TREATMENT
BASIN
T AERATION SYSTEM
RCOIFICAT10N5
ISEE SN1.5 7 - 91
5 ROTORS
-
EXIST DIVERSION 90x
ISEE 5NT 3 FOR I001FICATICN51
rECNANICAL BAR
SCREEN
EX1S60' VC
1\-- RE10NE SECTION 0F'i0' PI,0
ISEE PLUG OR ST 5RCE0
ISEE SNT 3 FOR EKARCEO
SITE RANI jx
J K L
LAa Ex0ANS10N
ISEE 5N1'S 13.14 A 161
EXISTING
RE -AERATION
BASIN
-r
•
ONERFLON
STRVCIURE ISEE_ 5>R 1 )
NALKWAY
DIVERSION CLRTAIN
ISEE SNT 12)
EXISTING
RETENTION
BASIN
Y
'�
/
.
60.00 15EE SHT Al
FLOW ITETER
8. RAS LINE
EXISTING SCREW LIFT ANO
CENTRIFUGAL PUMPING STATION
MAs AE
PitTT
1 xY
SILT 'FENCE
RAS IET0ELL ISEE SN1•S 4 - SI
M N
1117
(TEST )7'
1
P 0 R S T U \ V W X Y
it
T
CESIONED
DETAILED
Co<OTE0
APPROVED
DATE
CAP.20Y
NOV. J,0
RAF
INF
11/7/90
Black &Veatch
Engln..n-Arehltsels
Ash•tioro, North Carotino
PROJECT NO.
16917
NASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF WHITEVILLE
COLLNR S COLNTY. NORTH CARCLINA
SITE PLAN
SHEET
2 or 21
DATE
.,4 REC:R5 15 IS:UE INO-I
B,
1
CCO. Ow.. N_^ ax•\"�