NC0021547_Environmental Assessment_19910814

NPDES DOCUHENT !iCANNIN` COVER !SHEET
NC0021547
Franklin WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
August 14, 1991
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerne side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
August 10, 1991
Mr. Terry G. Painter
McGill Associates
206 Depot Street - Suite B
Waynesville, NC 28786
Dear Mr. Painter:
RF(RRF.111FD
AUG 1 5 1991
_
BRANCH
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
This is in response to the submittal of a draft
environmental assessment from McGill Associates for theTown
of Franklin's proposed wastewater treatment plant expansion.
The subject EA has been reviewed by the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (EHNR) and comments are
enclosed. It is requested that you review and respond to the
enclosed comments in both a letter of response to me and through
appropriate revisions in the EA as noted below.
1. Wildlife Resources Commission
The Commission had three comments having to do with the
description of the plant size and making sure that sediment and
erosion control measures are effectively implemented. In
response to the plant size comment, the size of the plant
expansion should be put on the front page of the EA in the "Need
for Project" section (I had read through five pages of the
document before finding the figure). Your cover letter should
provide assurances that sediment and erosion control will be
appropriately addressed as required by the Division of Land
Resources.
2. Division of Land Resources
In light of Land Resources comment and Wildlife's, it is
recommended that the language in section a.3) on page 8 of the EA
be strengthened. As a minimum, it is recommended that it be
revised to read "Design, implement and enforce an a
State -approved erosion control plan." Please also respond to
Asheville
704/251-6208
Fayetteville
919/486-1541
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Regional Offices
Raleigh Washington
919/733-2314 919/946-6481
.Wilmington Winston-Salem
919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Terry J. Painter
August 14, 1991
Page 2
the item checked off on the Land Resources project review
sheet concerning high quality waters (the Little Tennessee
between the Cullesaja and the Nantahala Rivers is classified as C
Waters and not HQW).
3. Division of Water Resources
Please answer the comments made by Mr. Sutherland.
4. DEM - Technical Support Branch (Rapid Assessment Group)
Please make the revisions necessary in the EA to address this
group's specific comments outlined in their memo dated July 29,
1991.
Once the response letter and EA revisions have been made,
please submit the letter and twelve copies of the revised EA to
me for State Clearinghouse Review. I will prepare the Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) and handle submission to the
Clearinghouse. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Alan R. Clark
Environmental Review Coordinator
Enclosure: EHNR Comments
FrankEA.Ltr/SEPA4
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Melba McGee
Forrest Westall

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section/Rapid Assessment Group
July 29, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Alan Clark
Through: Ruth Swanek
From: Dave, o 0 9 'eh V1
Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Assessment for the Town of Franklin WWTP
NPDES #NC0021547
Macon County
o'1oy'o I
The environmental assessment for the proposed expansion of the Town of Franklin
WWTP was reviewed by this office. Overall, the improvements in the treatment process should
provide increased water quality. However, some concerns associated with water quality should
be addressed in the final environmental assessment:
1) Eutrophication in the Little Tennessee River should be minimal as mentioned in the
draft report. However, Lake Emory (located immediately downstream of the discharge) is
considered a "significant" lake by NCDEM and results from samples collected in 1988 indicate
it is eutrophic with elevated levels of phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll -a, and solids.
Although the cause(s) of these high concentrations are unknown, an increase in monitoring for
nutrients would be warranted to determine the contribution from this WWTP.
2) Industrial wastestreams - including landfill leachate - are not well defined. A more
detailed description of the types and amounts of industrial waste should be included in the final
report.
3)_Although_the report_ mentions_dechlorination will occur, details are not_ iven. A brief
explanation of the method chosen to dechlorinate should be provided in the final assessment.
4) During construction, erosion control measures should be taken to ensure the turbidity
levels in the Little Tennessee River are kept below 25 NTU. This is especially important given
the documented water quality problems in Lake Emory.
cc: Central Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
J G. Martin, Governor
James
July 16, 1 91
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
24,4111,,
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM JUL 1 8 1991
TO: Melba McGee ,niviCRL SUPPORT BRANCH
FROM: Alan Clark
SUBJECT: Draft EA for Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion in the Town of Franklin, Macon County
The Town of Franklin proposes to expand its wastewater
treatment plant from an existing capacity of 0.75 million gallons
per day (MGD) to 1.65 MGD. Enclosed are ten copies of an
environmental assessment for that proposed expansion. Please
circulate the EAs to the appropriate agencies and provide me with
their comments.
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Enclosures
Franklin.Mem/SEPA4
cc: Terry Painter, McGill Associates
Don Safrit
Trevor Clements
Forrest Westall
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

TOWN OF FRANKLIN, NORTH CAROLINA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Existing Environment. All construction activity related to the expansion of the
Town of Franklin's Wastewater Treatment Plant will occur on property owned
by the Town of Franklin. This property contains the existing 0.75 MGD
wastewater treatment facility. The following maps show the general location
of the existing wastewater treatment facility, existing plant location on the
property and the expansion location in reference to the existing facility as well
as the existing property.
The topography of the site slopes moderately southeast to northwest, toward
the Little Tennessee River. The average slope over the site is between two and
three percent.
Since this is an expansion to an existing plant, the land use in the immediate
vicinity of the plant will not be affected. The land surrounding the plant is
either wooded, used for agricultural purposes or is in the process of
construction for the new Macon County landfill. The soil conditions have been
altered by the grading operation for the construction of the existing plant and
can be classified as Udorthents. The existing area is either grassed or is
covered by stone paving.
Any detrimental impact on surface water quality during construction should
be eliminated due to the fact that all construction activity, with the exception
ofthe 24-inch effluent line, will take place a minimum of 100feet from the Little
Tennessee River. Within this 100-foot wide area there exists the present
wastewater treatment plant as well as a minimum of a 40-foot wide vegetated
buffer zone. No construction work will occur in wetland areas or within the
100-year flood elevation, with the exception of the 24-inch effluent line. No
problem is expected with groundwater due to the fact that during soil boring
operations at the site no groundwater was encountered as deep as 25 feet.
2. Need for the Proiect. The existing plant has a NPDES permit for 0.75 MGD.
Maximum day flows are now and have in the past, periodically, exceeded this
limit. In recognition of this, the Town of Franklin retained the services of
McGill Associates, P.A. to perform a Preliminary Engineering Report to project
the wastewater treatment plant design flow through the year 2010.
The current facility presently treats wastewater that is produced by the
existing sewer service area that generally covers the Town and some adjacent
areas that are currently outside the Town limits. Population growth over the
past 30 years as well as projected population growth to the year 2010 were
acquired from the N.C. Office of Budget and Management and have been utilized
asthe basis for predicting future wastewater flows. The figures are listed in
TABLE - 1.
1

, - ... ..-,..., • '.Fi"› ) i 0‘.- ••••;%
--..- \ /)‘\ • ..
...„..s,.,?„.•
,..\,..,,,-..,,,„:„Tis
- _.
•. p., .......,.4)..
,,.,.a.„......,..,,,
‘,„..,,,,...,,,.,,,,:........
)..,;„.
•„, ... ik k 1..
i vl1"
I •e,
,
\•„...„ . . ,.,...4 ...r,
/--:st:.4...,-_;:
....::..... 11 i: hiilf :.- ,„...,
., ii
•
%., ,..i ..,....- .
I :
1
r
4"se •
kc.:•••;\ " • •
t . •
- \
\• •
t
t t:
j*:./
•
•••%!(II
ntlis
SInaeta •
Chapel
• . • ** „ • • :I.\
01. •
• e: 1 •
1
-2) ... ••••••.‘iv--.11), 1),--/
... L./ ......,.......,
,.: 1
• . • Y *. • '.„ .
. :. ;...' i " 4 .. ‘
.... i
• . c : l -,A - t A.
..".
, . ..\
,
(i I , • ... .1,
\ i ./.", I %
. .• • •
:.\ ' • 1 i , •••1 •
•.‚ .0'. 4. cul•o'' • r• ;,),, ...
.•. , • ..!
., .. t
Jk ..-- ..,..., „ J / .. ; ,-.. . '
, Gr.v. Ch ...,... ,.•-....A. .... 4. , • . 1 ,
• . ••
•I• s • 1 ( .
..._ • . '• 1 . -a 'i 0% , •••• !I %. . i - • 1
I. II ;III - \•• 1 0 t ' • ‘(li !. ) 1 ''. r •••-• i•
• 1 • : i 1 !. ,.. 1 ' • • . •
.
.. ...... 1 1.-' . t. 0 !‘1, 1 , .3
.. , .. (41...... .% I ( ..,.1 ..
1...i.t•1 • : . (1 I 1 i • 1 V 11 ..
.. • A • . • ill 6
v...• l. t ' ./7 % *•*.si.. : I '' • It '
• +. ' •': t I..... • . , . i •
(f Onv"Il •"•, s‘i ( I • \ 1
i• i'''''''..'"' ' i.. t% .•
. . • ' ` . -linb : .111 ---y,--- ' . —
•:. . . I
.
V. \ •..-•...
..-..—% • 1„, ..
. . . )
(g••••••( 1,4 .; .....• .' 1,' . ,•
'•?..;•.ott. Om' 1% \ i I-
,‘ g i 4:.:4.'•/,' //' .!: 1 ', C. .. • g i • \ ?e •
''• 0
•• i , ( .•• *".. 1.
( ( r:17/ ,., 1 .• •••• I. i . 4. •' P...... . tr.,-*,cli c•-i........ 0:
i. // ,, ( . / i .! i .. .: '. • .. \.!. i •. \ .k., : ...
( I 1) I • *It )i 1 • • ,Nr., , .7. 1 .,‘ ',..-: .
I IC .' I \ t N' •••. III
:.. :.,.
(. .. . i t..4 .1 IP • ' . :::••••• • li. • % /
LOCATION MAP
TOWN OF FRANKLIN
MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

HOUSE
W
N
N
Z
Z
W
1—
I2' EFFLUENT
i
PUBLIC'
WORKS
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
6' WAT ER
LINE
WET WELL)
TREATMENT PLANT
(AERATION, SEDIMENTATION)
-—....................
--"44F_--- ............. Q'BYPASS--...ss- _J
EXISTING FENCE and
PROPERTY LINE
6'wATER LINE
ACCESS ROAD
1O-FORCE MAIN
EXISTING
TREATM
TOWN OF
MA'
NOT
EXISTING FENCE and
PROPERTY LINE

ABANDONED
WELL
J+ousE•
-------------
PROPOSED
OUTFALL
SLUDGE
IV EFFLUENT
TO B_F I
-�----- AlANDONETy' -- -- - - a'BYPAss _-I ►
-� `--,___`� - _ ..---- ► ACLESS RCJ:.D
10'fCRCE ►a-,N
PUBLIC
WORKS
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
TO REMAIN
NEW DRIVEWAY
CONTROL ROOM
.ref 1`_ DRAIN LINE
SLUDGE PUMP
STATION
CLARIFIER
r-1t
AERATION BASIN
AERATION BASIN
ETURN • CHAMBER
GRIT
SLUDGE••
/
•• i
/
wilt!-
10 SEPERATOR
fD-_� 31-3
WET WELL IN
TREATMENT PLANT
FUTURE AEROBIC DIGESTER
AND SLUDGE HOLDING BASIN
0i2
COMMINJTOR
ABANDON
► BYPASS
ABANDON
CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
YARD HYDRANT
MANHOLE(TYPICAL)
2'WATER UNE
EXISTING FENCE and
PROPERTY LINE
YARD HYDRANT
BAR SCREEN
2'WATER LINE
6-WATER LINE
L
PI
E)
PROPOSED
TREATME
TOWN OF
MAY
NOT T(

TABLE - 1
MACON COUNTY POPULATION DATA
YEAR ::•::::.:...
ULA7:(ON
i:GRQWTiffPERIQQ:i
1960
14,935
--
1970
15,788
5.7
1980
20,178
27.0
1990
25,283
20.3
2000
27,944
15.1
2010
31,150
11.5
Source: North Carolina Office of Budget and Management
In order to estimate future flows at the wastewater treatment facility, flow
records for both the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant
along with water and sewer billing records were obtained from Town Officials.
These historical records serve as the parameters for flow projections for
future residential, commercial and industrial contributions.
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Contributions
Historical records show the following average daily flows:
Residential
55.2% / (100) x 0.574 MGD = 0.317 MGD
Com mercial
33.0% / (100) x 0.574 MGD = 0.189 MGD
Industrial
11.8% / (100) x 0.574 MGD = 0.068 MGD
Sincethe Town of Franklin provides water and sewer service to areas outside
the Town limits, it was not possible to use Town population data to derive
residential per capita flow. The February 1990 water bill was examined to
determine the number of residential customers. The examination revealed that
there are approximately 1,938 residential water customers. Based on an
average of 2.5 persons per customer or household, the total number of people
using Town water can be determined as follows:
1,938 Residential Customers x 2.5 Persons/Customer = 4,845 Residents
The residential per capita water demand can then be derived as follows:
317,000 gpd / 4,845 residents = 65.4 gallons per person per day.
2

This number was considered reasonable since it compares favorably with other
similar sized towns in the southeast. For the purposes of this assessment, 75
gpcd will be used for projecting future flows since it has been historically
shown that per capita water usage is increasing.
Although population projections have been estimated for both the Town and
Macon County, there are no published projections for the number of residents
that will require sewer service in the year 2010. In order to estimate the
number of services that may be anticipated, the future service area was
analyzed. EXHIBIT A illustrates the existing sewer service area and the
projected sewer service area for the year 2010.
Thetotal additional sewered service area for the year 2010 was estimated to be
10,100 acres. The approximate area that is sewered at present is estimated to
be 2,170 acres. For the additional sewered area, it is anticipated that the
population in this area in the year 2010 will be only one-half as dense as the
present sewered area. The total "effective" additional sewered area can be
considered to be 5,050 acres (one-half of the total additional area). If the same
population density is then used for the additional "effective" area as exists for
the Town, the resulting sewered population can be derived. It was also
assumed that the entire Town population would be sewered in the year 2010.
"Effective" Additional Sewered Area = 5,050 acres
Town Sewered Area = 2,170 acres
1990 Sewer Population = 4,845
PROJECTED ADDITIONAL SEWERED
Residents:
5,050 Acres / 2,170 Acres x 4,845 Residents = 11,275 Residents
Total Projected Sewered Population in Year 2010 = 16,120 (11,275 + 4,845)
Once the total sewered population was determined for the year 2010, the
projected residential flow could then be determined.
Average Daily Residential Flow (2010)
16,120 Residents x 75 gallons / resident -day x 0.90 (return flow factor) =
1,088,100 gallons per day.
Known published values for return flow normally range from 70-90 percent.
For the purpose of this assessment, 90 percent of the water consumption will
be assumed to be returned to the sewage collection system.
Conversations with Town and Macon County officials indicate there are no
known "wet" industries that will move to the area and require sewer service.
There are two (2) planned hotels for the area with 60 and 120 rooms
respectively. The flow for these two hotels was computed as follows:
180 Rooms x 2 Persons Per Room x 50 Gallons per -Person -per -Day = 18,000
Gallons Per Day.

(1:.;• ,- .. ....W:t .1. •• (,),.,: . . \cy • .• ' : .,
4.
tea" r . .� .1.7.f.....
-:-,_!
ci • .
r
H
tk\\,1/4\
�►+� Vt1\44
• • Obi 1\\\‘-‘40%,,,
�r NN‘lekTk77 Att10.%.".. 7'4'4,;c '
<111.
•
1/4%\\:::
va.‘„‘•••*1‘,1\\ ;t4SN4 .\141t\.\ k
/ •
IA IN.
•
01
(,In 4. .M {.n�
Vt/k },�a� t• tI l.t
•�
%'L` 7i if 1. '•+�\ ''' t.•t :.'i
i •,.
-; .^.i niter; "
'S •
-'•�'. •i\ (1i7'V(.,\;r:' ;(\•
i{ �;\1 ,:: ..
.(1\Lliff:.:il::‘•-:::'...j.?.......:ff.);: ...;;.;--.:..'..'.1.(17.-1(1.i..i:'.:Iki_ti:
, Ti.i.„. •-J
();
u►�
:��wa•ry!� RZ%'11?T/i.� SG, 8�•NE:tA •�.il�� "'�^�/'•.

In order to calculate the commercial and industrial flows for the year 2010 a
growth rate had to be established. As shown in Table - 1, the population for
Macon County in the year 2010 is projected to be 31,350. This is approximately
a 28% increase over the 1990 population. Although future commercial and
industrial customers will be added as a result of increased service area, a
smaller percentage increase was deemed appropriate. Without any firm future
plans for commercial and industrial expansion (except for the two (2) hotels)
an increase of 20% was used for commercial while 15% was used for industrial
growth between the years 1990 and 2010.
I nfiltration/Inflow Contribution
The I & I was calculated from the same historical Town records that were
utilized in obtaining current and future residential, commercial and industrial
contributions.
The Town currently is pursuing a sewer system rehabilitation program. It is
uncertain at this time just how much reduction will be realized as a result of
this program. For the purposes of this assessment, the I & I from the existing
sewer service area will be assumed to remain. This is reasonable when one
considers that although some corrections will be made to reduce leakage into
the system, new leaks may develop due to the increasing age of the system.
In order to properly project design flows for presently undeveloped areas and
developed areas presently not sewered, design parameters must be
established. Infiltration and inflow values found in older sewered areas were
not considered appropriate for the areas yet unsewered. Much of the gravity
sewer pipe used in the older areas is vitrified clay with bell and spigot
mortared joints. As has been shown through recent years, PVC pipe with the
rubber gasket push -on joints is better suited for use in sewage collection
systems. Because of the Town's standards for construction of new gravity
collection systems which Include the use of PVC pipe and inspection of same
during construction, the amount of I & I should be kept within reasonable
limits.
For projecting 1 & I for the new service area in the year 2010, it was assumed
that there would be approximately 40 linear feet of sewer line per customer.
The approximate sewered population in the year 2010 is 16,120 residents. It is
estimated that 4,845 residents will be serviced by the old system in the year
2010. Therefore, 11,275 residents will be serviced by the new system. It was
assumed that there would be an average of 2.5 persons per household. Then
the total of "new customers" or households could be determined.
New Customers = 11,275 Residents / 2.5 Residents Per Household = 4,510
Households
New Sewer Line = 4,510 Customers x 40 Linear Feet / Customer = 180,400 Linear
Feet = 34.2 Miles
Future I & I = 34.2 Miles x 175 GPD / Inch -Mile x 8-inches = 48,000 Gallons Per
Day
4

Ct, 1*D°Ii‘r;').° \'°4
t/
As was discussed earlier, the Town of Franklin has agreed to collect and treat
the leachate from the new Macon County landfill. Flow estimates furnished by
Macon County presently indicate a maximum daily flow of approximately 50,000
gpd. It has been agreed that flow discharged to the wastewater treatment
plant would be on a constant basis with the use of a lagoon for flow
equalization at the landfill site.
Table - 2 tabulates all contributions from residential, commercial, industrial,
I & I and landfill flow.
TABLE - 2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 2010 DESIGN FLOW
TOWN OF FRANKLIN
SOURCE FLOW
AVERAGE. DAILY FLOW:.
(GPD)
Residential
1,088,100
Commercial
226,800
Industrial
78,200
Existing Infiltration/Inflow
159 ,000
Future I & I
48,000
Landfill
50,000
TOTALS
1,650,100
As Table - 2 shows and has been previously stated the existing 0.75 MGD will
soon be overloaded.
3. Alternative Analysis
The only alternative is one of no action. This alternative is unacceptable due
to the fact that the present day demands on the plant are periodically
exceeding the design capacity. Also, several areas within close proximity of
existing sewer infrastructure as well as future annexation areas are
experiencing failure of septic tank systems and are requesting the Town
provide sewer service.
4. Effluent Requirements
Effluent requirements that are set for the existing plant will remain the same
for the expansion. This is based on a letter received from DEHNR that was in
response to a request for information in anticipation of compiling this
environmental assessment. EXHIBIT B presents the existing requirements. In
addition to these requirements, with the planned expansion the plant will be
5

Permit No.
EXHIBIT B
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Part I
Page — of _
NC 0021547
During the period beginning on the effective of the permit and lasting unti
expiration, the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specifie.
below:
Effluent Characteristics
Discharoe Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Kb/day (Ibslday) Other Units (Specify) Measurement Sample * Sampl
Monthly Avg. Weekly Avg. Monthly Avg. sleekly Avq, Frequency Type Locatio
Flow
SOD,5Day, 20°C "
Total Suspended Residue °!
NH3 as N
0.75 MGD
30.0 mgll
30.0 mgll
45.0 mgll
45.0 ngll
Continuous Recording I or E
2/Month Composite E,I
2/Month Composite E,1
Monthly Composite E
Temperature Weekly Grab E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN) Semi -Annually Composite E
Total Phosphorus Semi -Annually Composite E
* Sample Locations: E — Effluent, I — Influent
**
The Monthly average effluent BOD, 5Day, 2O°C and Total Suspended Residue concentrations sha
not exceed 15% of the respective influent values (85% removal).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall b
monitored 2/Month at the effluent by grab sample:
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

considered a major facility, i.e., wastewater flow greater than 1.0 MGD and thus
will require whole effluent testing for chronic toxicity as well as annual
priority pollutant monitoring. Also, chlorination and dechlorination to a
maximum concentration of 0.028 mg/I will be required. Presently chlorination
and hence dechlorination is not required.
5. Sludge Disposal
Stabilized and dewatered sludge is presently disposed in the Macon County
solid waste landfill. In the future, it is anticipated that sludge will continue
to be disposed in the landfill.
The sludge treatment process includes aerobic digestion of liquid waste
activated sludge. Diffused air is utilized in the digester to provide oxygen for
biological activity and to provide mixing to keep solids in suspension.
Stabilized sludge from the digester is dewatered on a belt press and the
resultant dewatered sludge is disposed in the landfill.
6. Environmental Consequences
The preferred alternative for this project is to expand the existing plant at the
existing site, utilizing similar treatment process technology. The following
impacts have been considered:
(a) Changes in Land Use There are development projects in progress as
well as planned in areas that are anticipated for annexation. Also, several
hotel/motel projects which will be within the existing service area are in the
planning stages.
(b) Wetlands All construction for this project will occur at upland areas at
least 100 feet from the Little Tennessee River and will not affect any existing
wetlands.
(c) Prime Agricultural Land The improvements to the existing treatment
plant will be made on land owned by the Town and adjacent to the existing
facility. Therefore, the impact this addition will have on prime, unique or
statewide important farmlands would be minimal to none.
(d) Public Lands No public land will be affected since all construction will
be confined to the existing site. The existing site is owned by the Town of
Franklin.
(e) Scenic & Recreational Areas The existing plant is slightly visible from
the Little Tennessee River and the expansion will have the same visibility.
(f) Areas of Archeological or Historic Value The North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources are aware of no properties of architectural, historic or
archaeological significance which would be affected by this project.
(g) Air Quality The treatment process presently used and to be used in the
future expansion is completely aerobic. There will be a very small odor
potential associated with the liquid treatment process.
6

(h) Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality will not be affected. All
process basins are fully contained. Overall groundwater will improve due to
the fact that future annexation areas that currently are experiencing septic
system problems and/or failures will be served by the Town sewer system.
(i) Noise Levels Noise levels will increase slightly due to aerators in the
new aeration basins, however, no private property will be affected due to the
Macon County Landfill being on adjacent property and encompassing the
project property.
(j) Water Supplies No water intakes for water supplies occur downstream
in Macon County.
(i) Fish According to the records of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species within the immediate impact area of the proposed
project. Additionally, a letter from Brian Cole of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service states that two listed species do occur in the
Little Tennessee River (the spotfin Chub and little -wing pearly mussel), the
proposed treatment process and the buffer formed by Lake Emory make it
unlikely that there would be any significant downstream effects.
(I) Wildlife Habitats There will be minimal to no impact on wildlife and
their habitats because the land use is not changing.
(m) Plant Species No plant species will be affected due tothe fact that the
expansion will take place completely within the existing wastewater treatment
plant property which has been graded previously.
(n) Forest Resources Forest resources will not be affected due to the fact
that expansion will take place completely within the existing wastewater
treatment plant property which has been graded previously.
(o) Toxic Substances The only chemicals that will be in contact with the
environment are chlorine and sulphur dioxide. Chlorine is used as a
disinfecting agent and sulphur dioxide is used as a dechlorinating agent. Both
chlorine and sulphur dioxide will be controlled as well as monitored by testing.
(p) Eutrophication of Receiving Waters With low BOD effluent
requirements and no apparent existing problems with dissolved oxygen,
eutrophication of the Little Tennessee River will not be an impact of this
project. Monitoring of NH3 as N, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus will
continue to detect these nutrients. Eutrophication in the river such as the
Little Tennessee is also limited by factors such as, limited sunlight penetration
due to relatively high turbidity levels and constant mixing in the river.
7. Water Quality Development around the Little Tennessee River will grow due
to this expansion and will increase nonpoint source pollution to a small degree.
However, the benefit of eliminating faulty septic tank systems will offset the
negative impacts of development.
8. Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures Construction of the proposed
expansion will cause some minor adverse environmental impacts that can be
mitigated through appropriate control measures, careful design and sound
construction practices. Adverse impacts include:
7

a. During Construction Activity
1) Resources are consumed, including money, energy, land and
construction materials. Mitigation: Public receives useful facility.
2) Air pollution occurs from windblown dust and engine exhaust.
Mitigation: Enforce dust control measures during construction.
3) Soil erosion occurs. Mitigation: Design, implement and enforce an
erosion control plan.
b. Long -Term Impacts
1) In addition to those impacts normally associated with discharge
of treated wastewater effluent, long-term impacts will consist of the
continued and increasing expenditure of labor, chemicals and energy for
operation and maintenance of the treatment facilities. Mitigation: Water
quality of the Little Tennessee River and local groundwater is
maintained.
2) Land use changesfrom agricultural to urban result in changes of
nonpoint pollution loading pattern. Mitigation: Enforce zoning
regulations and existing limitations of construction inside 100 year
floodplain.
Reduction of adverse impacts will be achieved by careful consideration during
the design phase and enforcement of sound construction practices. All local,
State and Federal regulations relating to environmental protection will be
utilized in both the design and construction phases.
9. Secondary Impacts Current ongoing development as well as future
development are the main reasons behind this project. This facility is an
investment by the Town of Franklin to insure that any environmental impact
will be held to a minimum. Secondary impacts will be held to a minimum by
enforcement of federal, state and local ordinances for zoning, storm runoff,
flood plain, erosion and sedimentation. The following summarized the
secondary impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project.
Secondary Impact
Adverse Effect Mitigation Measure
1) None development Greater automobile
emission load
2) Groundwater quality
Enforce automobile
emission standards
if necessary
Improvement likely Replace septic
systems with sewer
3) Surface water quality Increased nonpoint
runoff possible
Enforce existing
zoning and
development
ordinances

References
McGill Associates, P.A., "Preliminary Engineering Report", 1990.
North Carolina Office of Budget and Management, "Population Records and Projected Population Growth"
1990.

v
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
June 26, 1991
Mr. Terry J. Painter, E.I.T.
McGill Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
Dear Mr. Painter:
■
T� ■
mainland=
11111111.11.11.1101
OM ■
o ■
RECEIVED
JUN 2 7 1991
McGILL ASSOC., P.A.
Subject: Preparation of environmental assessment for the proposed
wastewater treatment plant improvementsfor the Town of
Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina
This responds to your letter of May 24, 1991 (received May 28, 1991),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S.. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the proposed action may have on stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
alternative alignments, stream -crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service's review of your environmental assessment on the subject
project would be greatly enhanced if the document contained the following
information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of all available
alternatives, including the no -action alternative.
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area that may be affected directly
or indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3)
Acreage and description of branches, creeks, streams,
rivers, or wetlands that will be filled because of
the proposed project. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands.

(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be
relocated because of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Techniques that will be employed for designing and
constructing any relocated stream channels or for
creating replacement wetlands.
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed
work.
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed
improvements.
Based on our records there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species within the immediate impact area of the proposed
action. Additionally, while two listed species do. occur in the Little
Tennessee River (the spotfin chub and little -wing pearly mussel), the
proposed treatment process and the buffer formed by Lake Emory make it
unlikely that there would be any significant downstream effects.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us informed on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-91-065.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Lee Pelage, Wetlands Regulatory Unit, Environmental Protection
Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365
Field Supervisor, FWS, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, NC

RECEIVED
FEB 1 1 1991
McGILL ASSOC., P.A.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
February 6, 1991
Terry J. Painter
McGill Associates
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, NC 28786
Subject: Town of Franklin WWTP
NPDES No. NC0021547
Macon County
Dear Mr. Painter:
My staff has reviewed your request for comments regarding a proposed expansion of 0.9 MGD
to the Franklin WWTP for a total flow of 1.65 MGD. Since your proposed expansion is greater than
0.5 MGD, an Environmental Assessment will be necessary. Please contact Mr. Alan Clark of the
Water Quality Planning Branch at [phone] for more information.
The Division is initiating a basinwide management strategy for the state. All NPDES permits
within a given basin will be renewed in the same year allowing the Division to examine interaction
among all point and non -point sources of pollutants for that basin. The basin plan for the Little
Tennessee River should be promulgated by 1997 and a draft version will hopefully be available to
the public sometime in 1996. In the meantime, discharge limits will be based on existing
procedures. Due to the dilution ratio of 62:1, the Town of Franklin's existing secondary limits for
BOD5 and NH3-N should be sufficient to protect water quality. As a major facility, i.e., wasteflow
greater than 1.0 MGD, quarterly whole effluent testing for chronic toxicity as well as annual priority
pollutant monitoring will be required. The instream waste concentration (IWC) for the toxicity test
will be 1.6%. In addition, dechlorination to 0.028 mg/1 or alternate disinfection will be required
upon expansion. Metals limits and/or monitoring requirements will be determined based on the
nature of the effluent.
The above limits are speculative and are for use in an engineering review of discharge
alternatives.
Pollution Prevention Pays
I'.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opp'rlunity Affirmative Action Employer

-2-
Final limits will be provided upon receipt of an application for permit modification. If you have any
questions regarding the above issues, please contact Betsy Johnson or myself at [phone].
Sincerely,
revor Clements
s ;istant Chief, Water Quality Section
JTC/eaj
cc: Alan Clark
Don Safrit
Forrest Westall
Central Files
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.U. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 I -7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 25, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Terry J. Painter
FROM: Larry T. Sink/r'S
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements - Town of Franklin, N. C.
The improvements to the existing treatment plant will be made on
land that is owned by the town and adjacent to the existing
facility. Therefore, the impact this addition will have on
prime, unique or statewide important farmlands would be none to
minimal. Your letter also stated that this area had been graded
or disturbed in the past. This would indicate that the natural
soils conditions have been altered to some extent and the soils
may now be classified as Udorthents.
I am not sure of the actual size of this improvement site, but
the possibility of wetland areas may exist due to this area being
close to the river. An on -site evaluation should be made to
determine any wetland areas that may exist. If there are
wetlands, then the impact on these areas should be held to a
minimum or no disturbance at all. If you need more soils
information, please contact the Macon County Soil and Water
Conservation District office.
LTS/tl
RECEIVED
JAN 2 8 1991
McGILL ASSOC., P.A.
I'( ). Box ?7(>.S7, ILtic'i� h. N� �rth Carl ilin,t ? 7 (iI t 7nt;7 .Icic•phi Stu• '1N) 7 i 1 2 302
:1n I clu,tl (>hlk)rtutnty I\fhritt,uive ,\cowl E mph .vcr

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, jr., Director
January 24, 1991
Terry J. Painter
McGill Associates, P.A.
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, N.C. 28786
Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements,
Franklin, Macon County, ER 91-7695
Dear Mr. Painter:
Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1991, concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties
of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
RECEIVED
JAN 2 8 1991
McGILL ASSOC., P.A.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

RECEIVED
JAN 3 1 1991
GILL ASSOC., P.A.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
January 25, 1991
Mr. Terry Painter
McGill Associates, P.A.
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, N. C. 28786
Dear Mr. Painter:
This correspondence responds to your letter of January
3, 1991 requesting our concerns and comments regarding
preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements -.Town of Franklin,
in Macon County. Due to priority projects with statutory
comment deadlines, we regret that we were unable to respond
sooner.
Because we do not have enough staff biologists, we
developed this standardized response to inquiries such as
yours. Although some of the information requests and
comments may not be applicable to your project, I am
confident that you will find sufficient guidance for
preparation of fisheries and wildlife impact assessments in
the environmental document.
To provide a meaningful review of proposed project
impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests that
consultants, project sponsors, or permit applicants provide
the following information:
1. A description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area. Also, a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species should be
included. A listing of designated plant species
can be developed through consultation with Mr.
Chuck Roe of the Natural Heritage Program, N.C.

Mr. Terry Painter
Page 2 January 25, 1991
Division of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] and Cecil C.
Frost, Coordinator of the NCDA Plant Conservation
Program, P. O. Box 27647, Raleigh, N.C. 27611,
[phone].
In addition, the Wildlife Resource's Commission's
Nongame and Endangered Species Section maintains
databases for locations of vertebrate wildlife
species. While there is no charge for the list, a
service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from Mr.
Randy Wilson, Manager, Nongame & Endangered Species
Section, Division of Wildlife Management, N. C. •
Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188, [phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project.
3. Project map identifying wetland areas.
Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Description of project activities that will occur
within wetlands, such as fill or channel
alteration. Acreages of wetlands impacted by
alternative project designs should be listed.
5. Description of project site and non -wetland
vegetative communities.
6. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat.
7. Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of
the project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat
losses.
8. A list of document preparers which shows each
individual's professional background and
qualifications.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
be avoided. Wetlands are important to a wide variety of
terrestrial, avian, and semi -aquatic wildlife species as
nesting, feeding, and resting areas, as well as key travel
corridors. Wetlands also act as a buffer between surface

Mr. Terry Painter
Page 3 January 25, 1991
waters and adjacent uplands and serve to filter sediment and
other pollutants associated with runoff. Wetland and
riparian areas are especially important in urban and
developing areas as they often represent vestigial wildlife
habitat. Non -wetland and non -riparian alternatives should
be examined during project design. Where wetland losses are
unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation of the
losses.
To avoid wetland impacts the NCWRC recommends the
following. Construction of sewage treatment plants and pump
stations should be located in upland areas. Sewer lines
should also be placed adjacent to upland areas. Crossings
of wetlands and streams should be minimized and located at
narrow areas and made perpendicular to the stream. Any
disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original soils
and contours. Plant communities should be re-established
which would result in plant community succession into
habitat of equal or greater value than that which was
destroyed.
For land application projects, the NCWRC is especially
concerned about impacts to streams within and adjacent to
the site. Sufficient buffer should be maintained between
the site and surface waters. Provisions to monitor impacts
to surface waters should be detailed. We are also concerned
over the potential for bioaccumulation of heavy metals and
toxics in animal tissue. Existing and future monitoring
programs should incorporate this concern.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this
information request in the early planning stages of this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
/1( a
Fred A. Harri , Chief
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
[phone]
FAH/lp
cc: Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Joffery Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist

•
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
January 16, 1991
SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-0091-0-057
McGill Associates, P.A.
Terry J. Pointer
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Pointer:
28786
Reference your January 3,
proposed expansion of the Town
located adjacent to Lake Emory
proposal was discussed with Mr.
on January 10, 1991.
Upgrading of the facility is
grounds with no further expansion
outfall and associated riprap are
with no material encroaching into
permit will be required," provided
manner.
RECEIVED
JAN 2 2 1991
McGILL ASSOC., P.A.
1991, letter requesting comments on the
of Franklin Wastewater Treatment Plant
in Macon County, North Carolina. The
David Baker of my Asheville Regulatory staff
to occur within the existing facility
proposed. The new 24-inch effluent
to be located outside the river channel
Lake Emory. No Department of the Army
that the expansion is accomplished in this
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal. If you have
any further questions, please contact Mr. David Baker at [phone].
Sincerely,
•
C1633".'
ne Wrig t
Chie , Regulatory Branch

1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
January 8, 1991
Mr. Terry J. Painter, E.I.T.
McGill Associates, P.A.
206 Depot Street, Suite B
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
RE: EA Scoping for the Proposed Wastewater.
of Franklin
Dear Mr. Painter:
Reference is made to your letter to me
above project. The comments in your
forest resources will not be impacted
however, woodland is involved or to be
the following information:
Harry F. Layman
Director
Treatment Plant for the Town
dated January 3, 1991, concerning the
letter give the impression that the
as a result of the expansion. If,
affected, then the EA should contain
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of the expansion.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
and/or timber types such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber,
and fully stocked stands of very productive timber within the
project for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed project, so as to be able to determine the productivity
of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
I'.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, '4 tth (.rn.Iina 27011 7n87 icicph(m e 919-; 3a ?Ir,2
ECEIVED
JAN 1 0 1991
McG'LL ASSOC., P.A.
An Equal Opr orturnity :\Itirmativc A(.tir"n I mpl.vcr

Page 2
5. The impact both present and future to any greenways within the area
of the expansion.
6. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen .the need for piling and burning of
debris during construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the project.
7. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of construction limits. Trees
outside of construction limits need to be protected from
construction activities such as --
a. Skinning of tree trunks from heavy equipment operations.
b. Exposure and injury to feeder roots from heavy equipment
operations.
c. Placing of fill dirt around the base of trees which would have
a smothering affect which could eventually cause tree mortality.
d. Accidentally spilling of petroleum products near the base of
trees which could cause mortality.
We would hope that the proposed project would not have any impact to the
forest and related resources in the area of the expansion.
Sincerely,
J?(±th\
Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Macon County Ranger
File

(
A
1

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0021547
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Franklin / Franklin Wastewater T }R,
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.750 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 99.6 % 91.. 71 G
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
* Based on previous WLA, no SIU's listed on submitted application -
PIRF submitted
STREAM INDEX: 2-(20)
o0,1 /o
RECEIVING STREAM: Little Tennessee River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 04-04-01
Reference USGS Quad: G5NW, Franklin (please attach)
County: Macon
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/91 Treatment Plant Class: III
Classification changes within three miles:
>15 mi. (to Nantahala River)
Requested by: Jule Shanklin Date: 12/28/90
Prepared by: < < � � Date: //a S/?J
Reviewed by: ,1„141.I(�i��J;T11►.�.. ate: 2'
-goA 135
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
EAS
‘24 %\ ero
S1010
Drainage Area (mi2 ) a 9 °1 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): rv$�
7Q10 (cfs) 151 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) (gto 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
BOD5 (mg/I)
3 Q
NH3-N (mg/1)
vin o vii ib2
D.O. (mg/1)
tIo i .v,i -1--
TSS (mg/1)
3 0
F. Col. (/100 ml)
/
Wwtn�"Ca ,
pH (SU)
tLUii
L
Comments:

Request No.: 5980
WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM --R Vf
Water Quality Section
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Status:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Quad:
Town of Franklin
NC0021547
Domestic
Existing/Renewal
Little Tennessee
C
40401
Macon
Asheville
Jule Shanklin
7/31/90
G5NW
WWTP
River
Drainage
Summer
Winter
Average
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
EXISTING
Wasteflow (mgd) : 0.750
BOD5 (mg/1) : 30
TSS (mg/1) : 30
pH (su) : 6-9
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml):no limit
Toxicity Testing Req.: none
MONITORING
PARAMETERS: Fecal Coliform
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location:100
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location:500
COMMENTS
JA i'!
Asheville Region ! Office
Asheville, North Carolina
area: 299 sq mi
7Q10: 157 cfs
7Q10: 186 cfs
flow: 682 cfs
30Q2: cfs
PROPOSED
0.750
30
30
6-9
monitor
feet upstream
feet downstream
Facility meets existing limits; one TSS violation (53 mg/1) in 1990.
Renew with existing limits.
Dilution 136:1. Recommend fecal coliform monitoring.
Mean: ny.fd( ST u e2A'l 11'1enu To•-.." woo(() ve yi've a 6 oa 7 . Td lr� j co%'Ja--H^
P/ellienfJ I,'l,t �1 Wvc'l) Le ffvo ,.; are .
96'
1'4 z P ,-o k ter,;
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
ititLA1�.
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY:
tiLL
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:

(Vt✓n GT r/4,11<t n (NL,)TP
Ti4-J
oy-oy-o/
7Tc[ 7 r11 ec �3 CX.SF.;..14 ,.«i5 - bva TSS c i c It�f+'vh3r.)l ; / `� 7°-
J 5 � /
T. L.. 75 .. ,., / 3 c_= ' f c- c -- 1 (... w, , 4 el d ec-1 J .yyi OYuz egV u.s... -,`t- u 5 :/
,[% QH'1ell O PI 0- /'.11, 75 ice%ePZ
1iracnriln
P3.sc-k5 0000 Fsa
PA a 9 7
;z
. 7447°5 ` / 5-7 ('Cs
7Q/0k, _ /(� (-T�
EX/57-/tip c. /.n /7s
F(0 7 S Mo-zD
B oD5, 3 c7 +311
?ss
�oQ2
'Pi1J

iT 1.0rc�.n�ct��'1
M61::+%1%'L. (.. f i LoN
r'Pix pQK��G�
-25- 4- .
(o 5- IMGb
sa-k.e...'4- r��o cst-� ---. w4-L s �.w�-t �t o �r s
V
4,-,..- _ 6 a o t vio mo c\ d.¢d , e, s -\ �.,
— f rug8N tt -. bo
E1J // /7(
or-oY-vr
p.k-reo -<- 1%-
GLIA11._ j ,kt,LA-ci`u cx-t_
J� o

Qvcd-oz- —".44—t
• 7� `k lr'`
� lac v
`CC

.16
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ioLsi CONSULTING ENGINEERS
REPLY TO WAYNESVILLE OFFICE
January 3, 1991
JAN091991
Mr. Trevor Clements
N. C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Technical Support B ranch
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements - Town of Franklin
Dear Mr. Clements:
This letter is in anticipation of producing an Environmental
Assessment for a 0.90 MGD treatment plant expansion to the existing
0.75 MGD treatment plant. The improvements will be accomplished
within the boundaries of the property already owned by the Town of
Franklin, and adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment plant.
The site has been graded previously during the construction of the
existing plant and the expansion will utilize this area, so grading
operations will be held to a minimum.
I have enclosed the following maps for your use: 1) general
area; 2) existing plant location, and; 3) expansion location. We
would appreciate any input and/or questions your agency may have to
assist us in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Your
time and help will be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Ja 0
Term/ J. Painter, E.I.T.
TJP:gs
Enclosures
84182
206 DEPOT STREET, SUITE B
WAYNESVILLE, NC 28786
704/456-4736
ASHEVILLE FAX
704/252-2518
/
38 ORANGE STREET
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
704/252-0575