NC0047597_Wasteload Allocation_19750102

DATE:
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE ALLOCATION NEEDED:
MEMO TO: Al a,1� Klimek
FROM:
SUBJECT: Effluent limits for Permit Review
DISCHARGE IDENTITY: r{
COUNTY:
SUB-BASIN: 63- ,j
RECEIVING STREAM: i(r � /-w CLASS: G
7/10 MINIMUM FLOW: o,/k (I SLOPE: feet/mile
LOCATION OF DISCHARGE: /_. - /Ztc< ^x. _ ,c• P �'!y , , I >!
DESIGN CAPACITY:
EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter Limits
UOD L
✓SOD l qI
5 0
jTKN Z ^ 5�� e'13 iAd?I-
SS
Coliform (Fecal )
PH
Temperature
REMARKS:
.�,✓.... , iY+{
. i ,

r
AWT PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
1. Name of city: Durham
2. Name of Facility: Farrington Road Wastewater Treatment Plant
3. Effluent Limitations: Q - 10 MGD
BOD5 = 7 mg/l
Suspended Solids - 30 mg/l
Phosphorus = see attached explanation
Ammonia Nitrogen = 2 mg/l •
Total Nitrogen = N/A
Other pH = 6-9
DO = 5 mg/l
Fecal Coliform = 1000/100 ml
4. Proposed wastewater treatment unit processes - preliminary treatment, primary
clarifiers, single-stage activated sludge, final clarifiers, and chlorination-post
aeration.
5. Total costs of the treatment facility
Capital $1091739000
Yearly O&M $ 6259756
Present Worth $1698039818
6. Incremental AWT costs (above secondary) Since system is single-stage AWT plant,
increment above secondary not easily
Capital $ 9902660 broken out - approximation was made
Yearly 0&M $ 1369460
Present Worth $29436,657
7. Comparison of the total annual household expenditure for all of the
proposed treatment works with the median local household income
annual household expenditure _ 110.15 0.0053 = 0.53%
Median local income $20t9O7
8. Have violations in Water Quality Standards been clncumented for parameters
related to the need for AWT?
No
Do no- know

Explanation of No. 3 - Phosphorus Effluent Limitations
The Farrington Road Outfall is located in the Flood Pool Level of
Jordan Lake. Due to the proximity of this outfall to the lake, phosphorus
requirements may be imposed in the future, if necessary, to protect the
water quality in Jordan Lake.

4
* X Yes See Additional Explanation
X D.O.
ammonia
phosphorus
X coliform bacteria
other
9. What is the basis of the AWT requirement?
If justification is based upon need to protect public health,
go to #10.
X If justification is based upon need to meet Water Quality
Standards, go to ##11.
If justification is based upon need to comply with effluent
limitations established by International agreement (e.g. , Great
Lakes Agreement), stop.
If justification is based upon need to comply with State law or
regulation, go to ##12.
If justification is based upon need to comply with an enforcement
order or court order, go to ##13.
If other, explain, and go to ##14.
10.A. Which pollutants must be removed to protect public health?
10.B. What are the receiving water uses which must be protected?
10.C. Is the specified level of treatment necessary to protect public health?
Yes
No
Go to ##14.
11.A. Is the receiving water an intermitten stream?
Yes
X No

Explanation to No. S
From a non-point source study with a sampling station on New Hope Creek
near Farrington, water quality was found to be poor, especially during base
flow conditions. D.O. values of less than 4.0 mg/l were noted during the
summer months. Coliform counts of greater than 1000/100 ml were noted. These
problems were attributed to multiple point sources upstream.*
The Farrington plant will replace four existing treatment plants located
in the New Hope Basin, that are major from North Carolina Water Quality Inventory
305(b) Report 1977-page II A-37 dischargers to the basin.

r
11.B. Are water quality criteria, which AWT is necessary to protect, consistent
with Red Book (Quality Criteria for Water)?
X Yes
No
11.C. Was the summer seven-day, ten-year flow used as the design condition?
X Yes
If no, give design condition.
11.D. Is the effect of nonpoint sources likely to be negligible and not interfere
with the attainment of desired beneficial uses after AWT is achieved? •
* X Yes
No
Do not know
11.E. Is the AWT requirement based upon a guideline or formula considering factors
such as dilution?
Yes
X No, go to W.F.
a. Is the effluent requirement written into Water Quality Standards?
Yes
No
Go to #14.
11.F. Is the AWT requirement based on a wasteload allocation study?
_2Yes
No. Explain other procedure for determining AWT limits to
achieve water quality standards, and go to #14.
a. Was the wasteload allocation documented and are the results reproducible?
X Yes
No

Explanation to 11.D.
The receiving stream and its tributaries drain a portion of Durham's and
Chapel Hill's developed areas. As a result, during some rainfall periods the
non-point impact to the stream could be significant, however, we anticipate
that the stream can maintain its desired beneficial uses, particularly during
dry weather flows.

0
13.B. Used upon the most recent information available, characterize the
effluent limitation as:
more stringent than necessary to meet waiter quality criteria;
not sufficient to meet designated beneficial uses;
sufficient to allow criteria and designated beneficial uses to
be met with reasonable certainty;
no judgement possible based upon available information.
14. Should there be a further review of the proposed A14T requirement?
Yes
* X No
The basis of the allocation analysis was an intensive water quality study
made in 1973. The model used was calibrated and then utilized for an
allocation. From our experience in such situations, further study would
only serve to reinforce these requirements.
A summary of the 1973 study is included with this report.

' rc<;,•�I ITV rf,r rliY CYr,�l�nlmy
�n0tjtion: Durham — Farrington Road WWTP
j,.,ni, Planning Area: Triangle J
j';N) Planning Area: Greater Durham
{.la'. firs+i,)n _ �Q_- _ N
(ifs)
WTEWIN CRI rEr::f,:
t' 'F�,K:47 LIMITS,- fd
Total -v t,enle.1 ;ol ils (m1l) 3�
('pC.il 1:'•i i tnrt!� (0/I00 ajl)
Minimum DO occurs 1.5 miles
downstream of discharge point
t
(if N;,s;lte TI��.AI �' c�MI�RESOURCES
s

,
t
i
... M'SIMILAUVE CAPACITY DATA:
PARAMETER ALLOCATION
I, (MID) 12.3 '
• Cw (mq/1) 7
2
DOw (mg/1)
OS N/1) 0.5
cs (m4/1) -- 5 �.
Ns (m9/1) 2 +
Dos (mg/1) 7.4
Or (m9/1) 0 f
Cr (m9/1) 0 «t
Nr (m9/1) 0 ;`
DDr (m9/1) 0
K1 (base e) .38
KC (base e) 038
e
Kn (base e) .1— 3
Knr (base e) .13
V (fps) .54
DOsat (rg/1) _ ._.__
K (Pet. mile) 10
Ki (bmse e) 1.52
�! Temp. (00 26
C.
M
Art",
f"'
• y4� .•F
F,4
Q.
.i
►�.'iTS:
R
s• .
r•
r
. r
a `
�i

• Su/rrmfjAY O/� /9 73 ltiATB.p �4A,t/•T% 5razy
i model verification
), General
The New Hope basin schematic on page CPF05-VIII-1 shoe th, ' •cation and design flows
of all point sources of waste. In addition, the 7/10 flows are !;-,en and the location of
i reaches, which are used 1n the mathematical models, are shown.
2. Data
'd Water quality data in the New Ilope River and Third Fork Creek were obtained during an
� ) intensive survey conducted in August, September, and October, 1973. Four samples were taken
at each of 9 stream stations and analyses were made for dissolved oxygen, 8005. SOD O, and
total Kleldahl nitrogen an all samples. Phospohorus, NO2-NO3, metals and conductivity were
also measured at selected stations. Samples were also obtained from the effluents of Durham's
Sandy Creek Plant, New Hope Creek Plant, Third Fork Plant, and the Hope Valley Plant.
Long term BOD analyses, along with Kjeldahl nitrogen data, indicate that ultimate car-
bonaceous SOD is approximately 1.5 times the BOOS and nitrogenous 800 is approximately 4.5
times total KJeldahl nitrogen.
Hydrologic data, including flow rates, stream velocities, stream depths and hydraulic
gradients were obtained during the intensive survey. This data was supplemented with USES
stream gauging data to define velocity verses flow relationships. Table 1 below summarizes I
the hydrologic information required for the SOD and DO models by reach.
Table I Summary of Hydrologic Information
Water Surface
Slope Velocity vs Flow*
Reach (ft/mile) pelationships
1 4.4 v - 0.25QO.23
2 10.0 v - 0.62Q0.16
3 7.5 v ,.62Q0.16
4 3.6 V G.25Q0.23
5 2.0 v C.25Q0.23
6 2,0 v - 0.25Q0.46
•v in fps
Q in cfs
Stream flow was 16t to 20% of average during the intensive survey
Water quality with respect to dissolved oxygen, in the New Hoye River and Third Fork
[reek can be generally described as poor. During annual low flow periods as much as 50% of
the total flow in the New Hope River is wastewater. The amount of wastewater coupled with
the relatively slow velocities produce dissolved oxygen concentrations generally in the
range of 0 to 3 mg/1 in the upper section of the sub-basin and 3 to 5 mg/1 in the lower sec-
tion of the sub-basin. _
J. REACTION RATE COEFFICIENTS
a) BOO removal rates, Kc and Knr were determined from 8005 and TKN data respectively for
each reach.
h) The reaeration rates were determined by Tsivoglou's method
c) The deoxygenation rates, f,I and Kn were determined from the modified Street-Phelps equation.
Table 2 lists the rate coefficients for each iearh.
CPF05-VIII-3 'I

J I RLA,M
SYSTEM,
i Birchwod ►tobile Pom-e Par '
%, • 0.01E mgd
p= • 0.05 cfs
2T.tar.yle Nursing Home ,,,......... ( '
and Triangle Apartments
Y,, • 0.0125 mgd %4% 35.0 mi
ps 0.1 cfsy
33.0 mi
"1Flrini.ley'i Half-hour la 32.9 mi
C 7000 9pA
Qs 0.0 cfs
a,,uri,ar,-Candy CrwW P1v ( i
• 1 0 mgd
• 0.1 cfs , tpl •
In' 3
t,J..rI im - hew Hope ,
• 1.5 myd
1 l cfs `'� L ., .r A�✓ed
y.-.rt•arllrirl F. 1. I , �r''� Q� hhhllf���
p - 5 r. a I. •� Y'
.J•r,am-Nape •n,
M • � 1 ] 1
Qs C.4 _
..,, -•�•n Iriangle Plant
.+.icv:nsh lyd Manur -•°, ' .0 mgd
-
J. . tfa
-+ : �hnt;ro Inc %tiantic Utilities
J.2 mgd
F
(11.1 cfs
/j, • i.;, ifn
n.At 1010 J:Illl'E's
'a•rwood 11 iutolvt<Io`I
,lw 0. 1 myd ...w� Analysis
,s 0. ; cfs mow•, ,t' Analysis
.+11:a:1 ASSCC. ut Ie.+ . Y �Ar ..P� meeaVMd from
+ r':sts and culu-Ists
" 5.OW goJ ,I rl stream.
4F
• C' Cc•s z
vsea,cn 'riangle IrsC„ i
Jw ' 0. 15 mgd
s J ifs
. F 3000 gpd 1 �.
;;s • C0 cfs . � -`.\
Ib PROP FAARI)Mrt)AJ to 1p M'BA• '
Q•, =
Q'S

Table "L Rate Coefficients Determined for Model Verification*
Reach `_c Kn Knr K2.
1 0.29 0. 67 0. 10 0. 10 1. 1
2 0. 52 1 . 31 0. 17 0. 78 d.41
3 0. 52 1. 31 0. 17 0. 78 3.29
4 0. 29 0.67 0. 10 0. 10 1.42
5 0.29 0.67 0. 10 0. 10 0.34
6 0. 29 0.67 0. 10 0. 10 o. 71
i
* All rates to the base e, at 200C
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the observed and predicted DO, BOD5 and TKN profiles
in the New Hope River.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the observed and predicted DO, BOD5 and TKN profiles
in Third Fork Creek.
I
CPF05-VIII-4

+gore I . OBSERVED AND PPEDICT•EC DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE IN THE NEW HOPE RIVER
Reach I -Reach 4 _Reach 5 R
9
r -
I
T
T
o �
� I
A
I
I
Y T
Y Key T
j Oo,ervec Ma,im,.-
¢I Observed Mean
+ I 1 Observed Mi^ imuT
.v Predi_cea
1
36 32
RIVER MILES NEW HOPE CREEK (RIVER)

Figure 2 . OBSERVED AND FREDIC"ED BOOS PROF!LES IN THE NEW HOPE RIVER
q Reach 1 Reach d c
d U U +Q L
C U C V M 1
A d L Y O
.-
L
� (65) ~
i
I i
c
T r a
T V
` I
O
CD IY
0
36 32 28 2a 20 16 12 8 a 0
i
.. RIVER MILES NEW HOPE CREEK (RIVER) j

•r -
Figure 3. OBSERVED AND PPE04'C7EO TOT.41- 'e " LAH '�;,R06EM PROFILES IN THE NEW HOPE RIVER
Reacn Reacr. 4 p?:
c - Oct c
�o
r
or
C _ _
z F
T
b
T �
0 '
i
i A 10
i
a
z
1
z
a .
c
• J
W •
Y
J T
a
0
0 36 32 23 24 ?0 Ifi 12 9 4
RIVER MILES NEW NOPr CRFEK (RIVER)

Fioure 4 . Observed and Predicted Dissolved Or ✓gcn. Profiles in Third Fork Creek
Reach 2 Reach
r
c
Y C
u
v
J
� 7
4-)
4
1 �
u
J
7
J
O
N Key :
i
• Observed Mean
Observed virimuni
I
I

-,k .!,ear-�r++►2.1ww.��Sl%+CKi:.'✓•:Li�6 „r�rM•MMYW �
. cry --sus .'2- '�Y. i�4.► _.- ..��r. ',
1
DIM
i
Figure 5 . Observed and Predicted 80D5 Profiles in Third Fork Creek
Reach 2 Reach 3
c c
G,7
L � v
Q
Cj
:3.
0
cu
M- O C'
= Z
4
Cn
O
3
C
�• 2
T�
'V 2rJ _^
LJ
Ln
m
1
1 -
1