NC0024201_Plan of Action_19940701

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024201
Roanoke River WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Plan of Action ,.
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
July 1, 1994
This document is: printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the rezrerse wide

•
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
JULY 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO
Steve Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
THROUGH : Kenneth Schuster,
Regional Supervisor
FROM �� Timothy L. Donnelly, P.E.
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
SUBJECT : ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT WWTP
Discharge Location
NPDES Permit No. NC0024201
Halifax County
HISTORY: The Roanoke Rapids WWTP has an NPDES Permit No. NC0024201
that allows up to 8.34 MGD of treated wastewater to be discharged
into Chockoyotte Creek, with a requirement to relocate the
discharge to the Roanoke River upon plant expansion or prior to
permit expiration. The RRO has noted that the discharge is not
disinfected. The new NPDES Permit requires disinfection along with
relocation to the river properly prior to May 31, 1997 (permit
expiration). The Sanitary District is currently studying the
proposed relocation and has asked for a reconsideration by the
Division.
The RRO inspected the discharge point on June 23, 1993, and noted
the location of the discharge approximately 150 feet up Chockoyotte
Creek. The area for construction and relocation would be very
difficult, expensive, and perhaps dangerous.
PLAN OF ACTION: As per our discussion on June 28, 1994, the
Division is willing to reconsider the relocation issue based on the
high costs projected to relocate the discharge compared to possible
limited environmental advantages (and some possible disadvantages).
The final decision will be made after a study by the Environmental
Sciences Branch in conjunction with the Technical Support Branch.

Steve Tedder
Page -2-
The study will consider three possible options:
1. Relocate the discharge to the center of the river
with a diffuser.
2. Relocate the discharge to the best possible point
on the side of the river.
3. No change in discharge location.
By copy of this memo, I am requesting confirmation of the proposed
study from the appropriate Water Quality units. The study needs to
be completed ASAP as the Sanitary District is going through the 201
Funding process now. Please contact Judy Garrett at 571-4700 to
schedule the study.
cc:
Jay Sauber
Ruth Swanek
Judy Garrett
Bobby Blowe

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 28, 1994
Mr. John H. Maynard, Jr., P.E.
Piedmont Olsen Hensley
P. O. Box 31388, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Maynard:
A17;qA
QIEE-1NJI'
tiP;
1!9
Roanoke Rapids
201 Facility Plan
Roanoke Rapids, NC
Bond Project
/1;iri NCH
Attached, please find a copy of an interoffice memorandum addressing relocation of
the discharge point for the Roanoke Rapids wastewater treatment plant. As you will note, the
memo recommends that consideration be given to maintaining the existing discharge point.
Due to the speculative nature of this memo, and the lack of any impact study, we recommend
that at this time you continue to plan on relocating the discharge point. If it becomes
apparent that the expense and danger involved in relocating the discharge over -weigh the
benefits of relocation, an amendment demonstrating the cost effectiveness of maintaining the
existing discharge point will be necessary.
Please note that the memo is not meant to imply that NPDES Limits for the existing
site (Chockoyette Creek) will be the same as for the proposed relocation site at the Roanoke
River. Speculative limits for Chockoyette Creek are currently being generated and are
anticipated within 30-days. These limits could be more stringent than those listed in the
Facilities Plan.
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
If there are any questions concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me
at [phone].
Sincerely,
gAg „
Robert Brown, Project Manager
Facilities Evaluation Unit
Enclosure
RB:vk
cc: Macon Reavis - Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Raleigh Regional Office
Allen Wahab
Cecil Madden
Juan Mangles
FEU
Bond File

c
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
June 28, 1994
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
MEMORANDUM
TO
THROUGH
FROM : Randy Jones
Raleigh Regional Office Z
SUBJECT : Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
201 Facilities Plan
Halifax County
I was asked to review and comment on a document titled
"Amendment to the 201 Facilities Plan for the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District", which is dated March 1994, and was prepared by
Piedmont Olsen Hensley. I have reviewed this document and have
found that it addresses a multitude of issues that are generally
associated with the wastewater needs of the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District (RRSD) and specifically an upgrade of the Roanoke Rapids
WWTF.
Bobby Blowe, Chief
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Timothy Donnelly, P. E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
'ter tscvED
d+
JUL
1994
(" SIR;iiji,A l::{;Y{:: t LOANS 1IVR
The primary objective of the amendment is to identify measures
that will enable the WWTF to meet future discharge limits and the
requirements of the 503 sludge regulations. In that regard,
optimization of plant operations is discussed along with specific
alternatives for upgrading the facilities treatment capabilities.
One of the conclusions that I find somewhat surprising is that
additional hydraulic capacity is not warranted at this time. The
document states that this conclusion was reached by reviewing the
long term records of the plant's hydraulic influent waste stream,
area population growth rates, and reduced water consumption by
large industrial water users in the area. My primary question
involves the projected population growth rates for the area, which
are low. The best that we can do is accept the projections as
developed by the experts.
In March 1993, the Division provided the RRSD with speculative
limits for the WWTF. These limits were based upon an expansion of
the facility to 12.0 MGD. The speculative limits included CBOD
limits of 17.0 mg/1 and 25.0 mg/1 summer and winter respectively,
a•fecal coliform limit of 200 mg/1, and a total residual chlorine
limit of 28 micrograms/1. The speculative limits did not include
a specific limit for NH3-N.
THIS BELONGS TO QPF/ 4Pf

Roanoke Rapids 201 Memorandum
June 28, 1994
Page 2
The present facilities do not have disinfection. The document
acknowledges that disinfection will be required in the future,
that a chlorine residual limitation will have to be met, and that
the permit requires the outfall to be relocated to the Roanoke
River. The RRO is having second thoughts about the relocation of
the outfall. We are proposing a study that will assess three
alternatives: (1) not -moving the outfall; (2) moving the outfall
downstream of the confluence of Chockoyotte Creek with the Roanoke
River; and (3) moving the outfall to the Roanoke River and
requiring a diffuser (this alternative will be expensive due to the
difficulty of construction). At the time that the document was
developed, the Interim Roanoke River New or Expanding Discharge
Policy was not developed, so the specified limits of that policy
were not available. This policy specifies BOD5 limits of 15.0 mg/1
and 30.0 mg/1 and NH3-N limits of 4.0 mg/1 and 8.0 mg/1 summer and
winter respectively. The letter which transmitted the speculative
limits in March 1993, stated that the relocation of the discharge
from Chockoyotte Creek to the Roanoke River prior to the current
permit's expiration date of May 31, 1997, would not affect the
current effluent limitations; therefore, it is not really clear to
me, but I must assume that the new and expanding policy would not
apply to this facility if no expansion is proposed.
The two construction alternatives that were evaluated
primarily focus on providing increased hydraulic aeration times.
The present retention time is approximately 4.2 hours. Alternative
1 proposes modifications that will result in approximately 9-10
hours of aeration time being provided. Alternative 2 proposes
modifications that will result in approximately six hours of
aeration time being provided. Alternative 2 is identified as the
accepted alternative. The document concludes that six hours of
aeration time will be satisfactory to achieve the anticipated
limits; however, as stated earlier, the question of the
applicability of the interim limits may be a factor.
Let me know if you wish to discuss this matter further.
file: RORAP201.ME

iedinontOIsenHens1ey
Offices:
Greenville. SC
Raleigh. NC
Atlanta, GA
Chattanooga. TN
ti�� Pjy9;
.
EngineersIArchitects!Sury
July 25, 1994
Mr. Tim Donnelly, P.E.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
RE: Roanoke River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
NPDES Permit NC-0024201
Piedmont Olsen Hensley Project Number 39164.30
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
0
P.O. Box 31388, Raleigh, NC 27622-138
2301 Rexwoods Drive, Suite 200, 27607
[phone] Fax: [phone]
Plant personnel have collected data over a three-week period to produce a "D.O. Profile" of
Chockoyotte Creek between the canal aqueduct and its confluence with the Roanoke River. Gathering
of this information was suggested by you at the site meeting on June 23. Enclosed is a sketch
showing the sample points and the data sheets. Should you have any questions concerning this
survey, please contact Mr. Gregg Camp, Plant Supervisor, at [phone].
We were pleased to hear that the Department is scheduling additional study work with respect to the
cost benefit which might be derived by relocating the discharge point of the effluent outfall. The
District is proceeding with all other design efforts to upgrade the plant efficiency as described in the
201 Amendment submitted to DEM in March 1994. A 50 percent review of plans will be scheduled
very shortly with final plans and specifications submitted in late September.
The District and our Raleigh office are anxious to work with you to help resolve any remaining
concerns with this matter.
Yours truly,
PIEDMONT OLSEN HENSLEY, INC.
Karl L. Harrod
/ps
Enclosures
cc: Allen Wahab, P.E., with enclosures
G. Macon Reavis, Jr.
Gregg Camp
Morris Brookhart, P.E.
John H. Maynard, P.E.

L
v
o
"a
�tsk rl 3 'SbS -�
ccc
IoRT \
1.4 0 0 t—D TrE) P- ' LEI✓)
-)c 1 <- .30 4a5 1c--�oyds
_TC
d wwTp
Tr
t 1
argcof. - R4Qrex.
Cr. = N0Q0clanec{ PAP
DDI.I I/✓IOTER (CD -G EN. •P1.-.4/JTJ
/
i
t i
pp � 1
r ` l!J
`Am 1 PotNT�'�
(bite,' 34- -- 7/ i i n4-

4.
J U L— 1 9— 9 4
co- 30-n914
,)r
T U E
- P1aN4 e �'1v.F t`� 4-1.AArr\e
a - LocA e c'hl (U - LtrvAr ePixil
3- ve.aNcl e.r e.K rvliK- et ;-1(CO.
ti - mou.k n o-c‘ -1 he cr•ce.K
- 6 C-F f=rc ,,, 1x.', Kc , c, ppcsi-1 e.-1 \ 1
nE.1 L�v� 1.1 �` Oj (� . 1 1- al J v'C ci C� SIC , 1., „ ?r:�C`.�•" 1
C Y f k- �r c� L, Clorect. C (141- �C: C -k L� P c 1
OJu r�-Y EGA.
� w � �.� t 1:Lt � p m O r- ca a: .0/D n
`Jc��> �1cc� he1
NJ n1 11 11Lti r•l c114.
p r c.‘_)o v e `: /1Co .
-
r>O-v-r� 0�1 C�eEK�
ckb\c: •1‹.•N Jo bet-1o1-J` rl dLie • c? '\e,-1Ct,EJ.
5 (.0 (o
--}-Sct-s)-i
Li
W.
Pom
bNJOW
M1 Q� `
Ace( Gkei-1„
a �✓ WR 4-A. (v-+ o U �%<

f 53 _ay
--
'JE.r' cam(\EK 0 rt
3 - -.1 ; V C�,r [� c t t9 C` Y `f.'C' K v-11; X
i 5 - f pproK . 6R -Porn D0LN, oceot,ile sl he..
t.34 pipe..
4 CO - i 1\1 c,) t.` -e.ex(> e A acc t-t ` t
1 - GYrx1e- Ctit_t.� `.�1�{�`V�7:�1 �"�G^'�� O'�� (1.`C.
lo)6J��Ic
ti.eK•CL
• rI
)1)1(z-A foci• w c.. rt G 0 n 0, cA mci CA! .3.,(') I
& -b-t ,-I to 0.4
or-1 a. . c- K . �.����te be.�oc�� `', c+r �•��x,�,i cl (�,.
t.t-t-(0..blG 40 Jc) VC_Lio e- d 1 cl�E_ -{c 1v oc:l
i; v ✓ C =S = d35o

1-5-94
r 1
4a= B.10
13- 6.05
�D = 1 . B4 ''
t# `•1 '7. 8,14
Say-y-10; cxY, -) 5
qi 1 - Et# 01 lL G tAA- •�u.r-e
- 014 L - t l(.)��,a4 s �c rr
i vv t- t c ' -- e.c3 �. �. r�_� K-`+M; k- cla t. %!4 (C0. n \
#� 1 mou..-k ) DC�.C`
14- 5 - t7 �,-c �C • c`` -e-t" C- h 1 k r3 pp o ;� T "� kne.
Et�Et�iT i ' . 1 I
L ere* 1c i SiCACI. G�9e 0. -Cc - 60 wcc_ri tl `i Cec IJ 11 to) 6.1 e • 1.1
1 " Cpre e K• ow"\ Sti C' ..Clly..;hc..L'c,n, c C{t(e, !n�- G:.o�•
\c'S : c.r ,\&c1 14....)ce.1.1 :o.r`t cl IO:;JC'°.r,�.
It is t 1 Cc ►, l Cj t..4.X1/4 !' er. 8 CO •
LttVIQoICG A & �jc Ou •! 1 dtcc.
LADaA car- A L t n e J ,. r 1•-r L,
a-

4 T U E
S .. 33 P. _ P. - Sa n i t v.r D i 5•t r i c* P - ig5
• 1- Pl am-f�..�.t�-
`�"
•�c� " n i U c s� W0.� 't`� C��t � L '11� +�C�Gter
a N ct C.x'.t'F k. M i X - e C t.O t�I S vvitti tM
• 5 - fl p c» . 51-i- . cy-c r-n be -
• C.-(F (.u.c:•. wtT Pitt .
.� • - Cvt.� K. 1 r.( s i cyG C:Y t.' t1,r.�,�. �C'tLil f.'• t�(� (Iv tc.�
"1- Cv -' k vw:.-k-Y;c'e (ops4vv'.ar.-;) of- d ��� cL'co
41_8 - C,ArecC-c,1; r.Ie 1C\cci- Cvc,s at-t-; C ycc k..
pica\c:s e ��'v-�,reN 9s0.1r, 0 10'. ISrN m.
5lL t.r t t c..‘ Ot- t-c rn i e m F z C O ° }—
f oc`•,� rc r�- �1v�IC� rj1 CL'1'1 <tt�'1P
b1E -10 Pkc �.1•���nti ' .
i et- C.FSY 8111
Fi' t+- p = �i 0`7 F
5-k cL�rey.k.k 'lam. c •J B -11'` �y-
��i�:•`� i•C �+.�..t c�✓' ae �• �t o Ca vo (� (-A
V O q cc. N i 4E,-
C.-)( I U:C .1r)

CItr:
r0. •.r)
11o1- r`fljJc_
C ►r 0. 4,3 e1 C. ' C e. LC.
4 - try ck..A tel oc Cree.e.•--C(AAef`g p‘'pE
1�.
C�C1(�:o
�c'`1l «)Cc N
�o- C��E�� tiN1t�.� L L(e a,rCo. .
t
cc' l 1 t
Y11; X ee“*-^)
(I: coo el -10q ` -35`l'^'`
CFS r
t-
CV)

JUL--- 1 9-94 TUE 8 _ 34 P. .. P. .. So.r, r i s t r P _ Ft7
li.22._Q1---‘5 -bct_,,,‘ fiLf±C.L.1,...:L,...,'-
3t1 - 5;90 a J Pn�k����C.N-\ f 1us,,,e_
`k,--ec4
4 3,. 7, 1 j ' 6"1CI)NkoC'Y ail.clC.C'Ct:(4 r,,1 r' 0c7t...:N' ''''=Rr"'Y
a 4 . rw 1s 41, LI f 11Y1 c k '- oc „:„..c.t (L•
- -?,5 6 - ,Acy,,,., . $.c.i-vs-c,-,-, toct,J k r, c �, \. At.1e
r
1.S-1 egi.,...., ,..1.-V .R.,.,_-,-, c ..
j( ' = '7.5.� •.
'41 i l.S .►; C e //.•:' W e 6' tJ .° ii 2t 1,t)0.1 a
• - C K aL�.� : C1G° -( �p��-r-rr.�- g`?t cic j c
(ales
N A 1..�`ce 11 : 000,vn Cti06 kl `tic -1
Clow• citA ctn: ci 1,3e-v-rvN —Tev, S° T-
oo {kJE t\c c 6-\=%crat,.,..cr._,
10 T t.t1�j,�. `�c+ 4 i)E cr. Ci 11.1 c� VI C. [ � W ckA r r-
aL�
Str 4 TX'\o 3 kc��r R.u` •G
f.( 1YGLiti� L3 4r N f
1 �Lt25,
Locs.1 c.- y�'��� 4 •41 j ,•- "C
(4 aScG

' Off),rk 5 ± -6
p
t)Zocict t-.) ,r)(v---
4 *Z - C o �•.:\ `J i c] c� �t tic c_: rE �-•
at, LI 61),::,40'•c•-ri.)
3 r
i J c.,-- c e 'e 1n7't k Cho �.a .v SA oza.)
11. bt' G-,e•4tC =
btti k e 7CJ-..); \e•V
re
1,(cAe5 : `..a• Q kx: WC6''J . ooD(, c, i...ts 1 30e tr,
.c...kou_c ,\,,c,.\- --- _,:-..,, ,.p
. i-e---1
L; .\,� .00-, - , I_1l-t `Ll liti. 6.
L4.1c• l c• y- I t:c:.\ a C •l 1uc `a ..J :.,'1 c`1'Cre L _clE

JU1_- 1 -A4 TUE
1).O. 'S
3.51
1c)
5. (.Lt3
8_ 3 5 P. _ P.. _ San i t a r D i o r i c, r P g
SCt9'�
•(-Lkfm--
iue. CIA ' Co t41 (TOLT..0.n.
4.3
i 1 \ U E.Yr c.'i tc r. Yl 1; tiC coc1 Ct0 NI `R rf\
1T
4j - C•CrCC K i t C...1 ;;Ic_c•6•.41.4.1cC t3 ;-ti) CAI 0 c{;fC
C� �"1 c cIC C� :��i V''�'c.c'Y,) Gl' cik-ke c+�vrrL
6 :1-r u:c•o 30cm s ' OOgm
lei a - "ram = 9 5 `T-
.. CY,•it,O r�•-1'a�c�.�•� �'Ic�• ��.�G� (c.
t u • 1 `
ctkj\<. �o �' o c� c ��.� n� ��� LLc, z, -i
1_ t 1 1 C1
�'C\t •.� �'C V �'� 0. • .`0 .S '..� u„� c? 1 U 1>> :y c7: ' �' �• r_ P.�
J �
tc�F C-F'D.13tc
1 �=30,,E°C
it. 30,s-ct
it- to oZ `1 cC.
(Q `Cs.

QLI
' PV3. lc I.LC
(1),1.5-\o-)
� 1' � tse ✓ Lt�rLa �.v- a �i l �.�
5 - sF4 -rre.• kh J 1= oppo St -)C 4-
- ey,e w1.t4- icys;ct chic i14t()140cii_��i►�1
- cLle.
N cri s.._. ,Az \cc 1oc- .,` C. cam) l : co Fen ct,J d I.30pm
P _
T 4k�, C\ou l gicl Ian - 1E:cID c (0° F
J- • i girl" focvn +M . i- - cbcv t`cr., O (e,
l'k'-.'(k6tr1 -6 a be.(0..id cl c,e:L-\4
V
Cf-S38
tJkr`t 1 z Riot,

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Rapid Assessment Group
April 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart
From: Farrell Keough:
Through: Carla SandersonC2
Subject: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
201 Facilities Plan Review
NPDES Permit No. NC0024201
Halifax County
I have reviewed the 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District dated
March, 1994. The city received a letter with speculative wasteload allocation limits in March, 1993. The
speculative limits addressed a flow expansion to 12 mgd. This report adequately covered the new
requirements that would take effect upon this expansion as well as any other requirements they currently
have in their NPDES Permit.
The Technical Support Branch does have two comments to make with regards to this report.
1) The plan to include possible addition of "BPR", (which we assume to be Biological
Phosphorus Removal - on page 3 - 13) is excellent planning. This area is under study, and
at this point the effects of nutrients on this system is unknown.
2) This report evaluates three (3) options for discharge relocation, (pages 5 -32 through
5 - 36). No conclusive decision was determined about any of these options presented. The
Technical Support Branch cannot recommend this 201 Plan without a definite resolution to
the discharge relocation.
Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment.
cc: WLA files

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section / Intensive Survey Group
March 22, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Ruth Swanek Through: Jay Sauber YOYCV‘"
From: Howard Bryant 71444. -
Subject: Long-term BOD Analysis forRoanoke Rapids WWTP effluent (ROA4)
County: Halifax
NPDES # NC0024201
Receiving Stream: Roanoke River
Sub -basin: 030208
DAY BOD NH3-N TKN-N NOX-N TNN
0 0.04 1.8 4.80 6.6
5 5.38 0.03 1.6 4.80 6.4
1 0 - 12.29 0.13 1.9 4.90 6.8
15- 15.53 0.10 0.2 5.30 5.5
20- 1.8.11
25 20.36
30 22.24 0.06 1.8 5.00 6.8
35' 23.86
40 25.28
50 27.82
60 29.24 0.06 1.2 5.80 7.0
70 30.51
80 31.51
90 32.38 0.06 1.6 5.80 7.4
100 33.34
110 34.15
120 34.80 0.04 1.2 5.80 7.0
140 36.01
Date Collected: October 5, 1993
1030
cc: Central Files
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Collected by: Low
pH:7.6
Let t SOF ...S F rr mope
K=o.o.4
boo,_-. 34.9
5.8- 4.8 = 1-0
A Myt-Ai
.,o s u.s 9.5 N8o0�
1t (�reve,C,. a AtctS foe, Io35
tW MoIEtt)IAe, W61kt)
36•oi- y.5 . 31,51
BaO,t� N800,tt- C.15004l.
41. 3 t-5 I - f., o cSoD
exr,t b
Test evaluation: excellent
Seeded:seeded
N3oo-(5.-w•$1*45= y-5
FlN7,L �x - iomp�c * �,ocM-Talc. Froao2
`it'` °QtuimzEs 15 6 I c 8oO = (39. 4 i - 4. S) _
13COAL's WOO
LZA _91 J
u60q: G600 QS'ID = 6.65

03/24/93 ver 3.1 T OXICS REVIEW
e Facility: Roanoke Rapids
NPDES Permit No.: NC0024201
Status (E, P, or M) : P
Permitted Flow: 12.0 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 6.0 mgd
Subbasin: 030208
Receiving Stream: Roanoke I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA ----
Stream Classification: C I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI
7Q10: 1,000.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY
IWC: 1.83 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic 1 OBSERVED of Chronic
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load 1 Conc. Violations
(ug/l) (ug/1) 1 % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) 1 (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)
Cadmium S 2.0 0.0 1 92% 0.070 0.160 0.23 0.800 0.870 1 0.20
Chromium S 50.0 0.0 1 76% 1.230 0.140 1.37 35.490 36.720 1 0.00 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 0.0 1 82% 1.230 1.430 2.66 16.010 17.240 1 0.04 I N
Nickel S 88.0 0.0 1 59% 0.490 0.450 0.94 26.620 27.110 1 0.00 1 P
Lead S 25.0 0.0 1 81% 0.980 1.500 2.48 7.460 8.440 1 0.39 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 0.0 1 77% 5.640 10.160 15.80 16.170 21.810 1 0.13 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 0.0 1 0% 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.00
Mercury S 0.012 0.0 1 0% 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.00 I S
Silver AL 0.06 0.0 1 0% 0.000 1.100 1.10 0.000 0.000 I 0.00 I E
Selenium S 5.00 0.0 1 0% 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.00 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 0.0 1 0% 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.00 I T
Phenols S NA 0.0 1 0% 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 I 0.00 1 I
NH3-N C 1,000.0 0.2 1 0% 1 10
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 0.0 1 0% 1 1 N
Pollutant
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 FREQUENCY INSTREAM
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED I Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 136.02 109.527 0.367 1.390 0.00 Monitor
Chromium S 1 1,133.53 2738.172 6.567 176.010 0.00 Monitor
Copper AL 1 211.59 383.344 9.563 61.977 0.00 Monitor Monitor
Nickel S 1 1,167.81 4819.183 7.697 221.991 0.00 Monitor
Lead S 1 715.91 1369.086 9.411 32.027 0.01 Monitor
Zinc AL 1 1,182.81 2738.172 72.578 100.186 0.00 Monitor Monitor
Cyanide S 1 27.20 273.817 0.000 0.000 0.00
Mercury S 1 0.07 0.657 0.000 0.000 0.00
Silver AL 1 0.33 3.286 21.969 0.000 0.00 Monitor
Selenium S 1 27.20 273.817 0.000 0.000 0.00
Arsenic S 1 272.05 2738.172 0.000 0.000 0.00
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
NH3-N C 1 54751.613 0.22
T.R.Chlor.AL 1 930.978 0.00
Limit
NCAC NO I A
NCAC NO I N
Monthly NO 1 A
NCAC NO I L
NCAC NO I Y
Monthly NO 1 S
NCAC NO I I
NCAC NO 1 S
Monthly NO
NCAC NO I R
NCAC NO ( E
NCAC NO I S
I U
I L
I T
I S

0.)••)4-kivij
11
.34 a $.3 /►lb x 2 s CEoO z 1739 t00.1
tl 3ci -4-(A
11 IAGp 41.$.3I
1-1 cIso.D.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM: Monica Swiharl�,;f Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Number 94-0530; EA Scoping Letter, Roanoke Rapids
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
I-1
Melba McGee, Policy Development
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. We do not advise that an Environmental Assessment
be prepared for this project. The proposed upgrade does not
involve any increase in permitted capacity. The proposed
relocation of the effluent outfall only involves a short extension
from the mouth of Chockoyotte Creek to the Roanoke River. The
relocation is based on our recommendation and the permit has
historically been modelled and drafted as if the treatment plant
were discharging into the Roanoke River.
I have already informed the consultant by telephone that we do
not believe an Environmental Assessment should be required. The
NPDES permitting process is the appropriate mechanism for public
notification of the proposed wastewater treatment plant
improvements.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
on this memo.
cc:
Tim Donnelly
Coleen Sullins
Ruth Swanek
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