NC0083178_Wasteload Allocation_19931015

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0083178
Sugarcamp Fork WTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File
- Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Staff Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
October 15, 1993
Thus document is printed on reuse paper - igaare any
content on the reverse side

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Coleen Sullins
Susan Robson
October 15, 1993
FROM: Jacquelyn M. Nowe11,
THRU: Ruth Swanek
Carla Sanderson
SUBJECT: Comments on the Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer District
NPDES Permit No. NC0083178
Buncombe County
The Rapid Assessment Group has reviewed the information provided on the subject
facility by the Aquatic Toxicity Unit and the Asheville Regional Office. Additional
information on Praestol 186K was also solicited from Rick Durham and Michael Douglas
in the Water Supply Section. While neither of them was familiar with the coagulant, I was
told that all drinking water additives used within the state have to be on the approved list by
the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). A preliminary review by the Water Supply staff
did not find Praestol on the approved list. I also telephoned the NSF and asked specifically
about Praestol 186K, and was told that it is not certified as a drinking water additive at this
time. NSF staff recommended that Stockhausen, the manufacturer, should be contacted to
verify the current status of this information. This could present some problems since
correspondence indicates that Praestol is already being used by another water treatment
plant in the state.
Current Division procedure indicates that a toxicity test would not normally be
applied to a discharge of water filtration backwash. However, based on the information
found, the ARO recommendation that a toxicity limit be applied to this particular water
treatment plant, may be justified. The appropriate toxicity test would be the Chronic
Ceriodaphnia Pass/Fail at 8% with quarterly monitoring. The toxicity limit of 8% is based
on the proposed maximum decant flow of 33,750 GPD from the Woodfin water treatment
plant. Attached is the toxicity form to be placed in the NPDES permit pending the approval
of the Branch Head..
Please contact me if there are additional questions.
cc: Max Haner, ARO
Melissa Rosebrock, AQ TOX

Facility Name Woodfin Sanitary Water and Sewer Dist. Permit # NC0083178_ Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is _8% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
_OCT JAN APR JUL . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final
effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0.61 cfs
Permitted Flow 0.03375_ MGD
IWC 8
Basin & Sub -basin FRB02
Recommended by:
Receiving Stream Reems Creek
County Buncombe Date 10/15/93
QCL PIF Version 9/91

/b,e 7„„ 7,„44„,
/f6/c, it ti
7
/n f-
ezyy 7,,
j : (o. a 3375 f /, Ss—J
Q375" /. ) D /cA
=7.97ait."I Z _
'`054 �� o, a 337cf J; J; +: ii141,1ft z 4,;14.
1
p.
Lis
Antirom
"4`/t)

1 ac - f� 1. v? d;7 d/ ////ro
�l�/d4. � �� 4 Co?/g /n/ iz syr,:viN hti�t/
laCCJJi/Y adC 'Jt1 t-.'4'7?-47 aif 1 Yy-fvo-77 c
0 �y
£ k�,esC.e //hJ� /N J.�sC . U IW •.'
rt f.-4 ..Z I. eP,4 7/..Palfc cp / aft, ,a p d id*
Deny- ldcl
-ELIEEP
ddca Jfri taw, •,ar v
47
w77'004 ,r �!.

Ar/
- 7/S- 3237
t/ at- L., carruT RtgAt.,72xj. DJ
d• /1Gc fi ALSf4,x (NfF Cte, +ate.. +'.►-
"Jeatli&
/ .d
E1�r�n f�,. v� /�✓f' //C /G a. , %if/C-,"
40. _ ow.. Imo'"
l eau_ �l fp //
769- 8o/9) ,& W
4:4-•- 57- r. 1 s'w a..
4"t/41747
Y •
Y '.
y
it-- ,. - 7 ;-:. ,...+-- - ,- ' 3 •
.1,..' -£.
, J 7 �
-
d��'
V11s.�

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 26, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Susan Robson
Melissa Rosebrock
FROM: Jackie Nowell
SUBJECT: Flow estimates for Woodfm WTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0083718
Buncombe County
I have completed the evaluation of flow estimates for the Reems Creek discharge
site for the subject facility. Using the USGS report, "Low -flow Characteristics of Streams
in North Carolina", the estimated flows are as follows:
Drainage Area = 2.76 mi2
Average Flow = 3.86 cfs
Summer 7Q10 = 0.61 cfs
Winter 7Q10 = 0.96 cfs
30Q2 = 1.33 cfs
If there are any additional questions, please contact me.

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 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Jackie Nowell, Rapid Assessment Group
From: Susan Robson, Permits and Engineering A
Subject: Request for 7Q10 Flow
Woodfin WTP
Buncombe County
NPDES: NC0083178
vA
E)EHNF1
Melissa Rosebrock, Aquatic Toxicology, needs the 7Q10 flow rate for the subject facility.
Attached please find a copy of the topo map of the site.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
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

•
) • ,.,
- 4* •
• -
• .
•
0.
)
Little Snowball ,
Mtn
• --; 4000/ . >,%
/Sno<Aftiall,.-
\,Ga
7'
4800-

iJ L
::..x.
ti
/1-9 —kr -29)c.)
/9. z
/7 23�
/OK - / 49444f = 44/ / 2-.)( 74 m/
l
.2,76
3. f(,
'v
M/
/, U/
7.?0 a. / SS (3,e) = J. 6 / c 4
a, q9
w 7p/� a, �sz ��, �c> = a, 9G .05
)/,cr
3dp Z (3,d'6/ - /, 33c,

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No X
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Jule Shanklin
DATE: May 20, 1993
.NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Buncombe
PERMIT NUMBER NC0083178
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Woodfin Water: Treatment Plant
439 Blackberry Inn Road
Weaverville, N.C. 28787
Mailing: Woodfin Sanitary Water & Sewer District
90 Elk Mountain Road
Asheville, N.C. 28804
2. Date of Investigation: April 26, 1993
3. Report Prepared By: Max L. Haner / ARO
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Woodson Whittemore
[phone]
5. Directions to Site: From the intersection of Reems Creek Road
Road (NCSR 1003) and Blackberry Inn Road (NCSR 2115) in the
Reems Creek Section of Buncombe County, travel east approximately
2.2 miles to Woodfin Reservoir at 439 Blackberry Inn Road
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35° 42' 06" Longitude: 82° 26' 14"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E9NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Craggy Pinnacle, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
XXX_ Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Mountainous,
Not in Flood Plain
Page 1
PLOTTED

9: Location of nearest dwelling: N/A
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Reems Creek
a. Classification: "C-Trout" -- Index No. 6-87-(1)
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: French Broad/ 040302
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Agriculture and Wildlife
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted N/A MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity) (FLOW SHOULD NOT LIMITED)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? N/A
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity N/A
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: Proposed facility will consist of a 150,000
gallon settling basin for removal of inorganic solids from
the backwash of raw water.• filters and cleaning of sediment
basin. Estimated maximum decantflow from basin is estimated
at 33,750 gpd or 100 gpm for 12 hours of plant operation
which totals 72,000 gpd.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Alum to be used as
settling aid.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development
should be required
approved
not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Not specified
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
Page 2

•
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Facility will be rated upon ATC request and approval
4. SIC Codes(s): 4941
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 21 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 5000 (plant not constructed to date)
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? Public
monies will be used for construction of this project.
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
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: Proposed as not feasible due to lack of
ownership of 13+ acres with topography suitable for a project of
this type. Mountainous terrain appears prohibitive which would set
aside easement possibilities.
Page 3

Connection to Regional Sewer System: Proposed as not feasible due
to necessary construction of 29,000 r, F. of sewer at 20 year cost
worth of approximately $1,125,000 compared to approximately $3732
for a discharging system. The cost worth analysis does not
include cleaning of the settling basin and disposal of these
inorganic solids presumably because the low turbidity of the raw
water is expected to minimize alum usage as a settling aid.
Never -the -less, solids are likely to accumulate in the settling
basin and the long term costs of cleaning and disposal of solids
from the settling basin are expected. An amendment to this
specific cost comparison is not expected to be of significance and
therefore, it is not recommended.
Subsurface: Proposed as not feasible due to lack of ownership of
12 acres of undisturbed property with topography suitable for a
project of this type. Mountainous terrain appears prohibitive.
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Concerns discussed in this report which should be resolved prior
to final recommendations for permit issuance relate to potential
effluent toxicity (alum, residual chlorine) and the need of a plan
for cleaning or removing solids from the settling basin. Given
the mountainous terrain, ARO concurs that alternative disposal
options for on -site disposal using adjacent properties are
generally unavailable.
It is recommended that the permit go to public notice and be
issued accordingly upon receipt from the applicant of (1) a
reevaluation of the use of alum as a. settling aid for possible
replacement with another flocculant and (2) a detailed plan for
cleaning and final disposal of solids from the settling basin. It
is further recommended that effluent limits for residual chlorine
and/or toxicity monitoring be included in the permit as
appropriate.
Signature of RR
ater Quality
Page 4
1

3000'
-7
Little Snowball
Mtn
0, /
'Snowball
- - -----
4009,: ' ti