NC0065358_wasteload allocation_19910312

NPDES WAS1'L LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0065358
PERMI FIEE NAME:
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Hidden Forest Estates Partnership / Hidden
roR,c-s-T ESTATES M Ff 1P
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: 0.10 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
/0e4,0 o r1- 6 J!' 1 b/116-
A 7D G (G/ rt/ 4 cited d a// 3/96.
RECEIVING STREAM: Unnamed tributary to Deep River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-06-08
Reference USGS Quad: D19NE, Pleasant GardEN (please attach)
County: Randolph
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 4/30/91 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within 3 miles
y 6i'qc—i.v
Requested by: --JeffreCnrlta
Date:
I
Prepared by: ZeZ-p,Date:3
Reviewed by: Scna(,t Date: 3
oD� siS(tie .0 4 /2623/
w akt L__ � 3
40/4247
4.1 /3'6f9C
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
, eA -
A z..5(41 t
0 0
2- k
Drainage Area (mi2 ) 0.4( Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 37
7Q10 (cfs) (7 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) O 30Q2 (cfs) c
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters Do, Teti, fecal 0-P li:•.1-1
Oesct
Upstream ✓ Location /oZ�.eef
Location NC- 07(20
Downstream
Effluent
Characteristics
f sr 3 `i rs
4"1,31.0, „atar
er
5,,,.
r
3.s
„;.tr,,
!c.
BOD5 (mg/1)
/a?
a2a
NH3-N (mg/1)
9
f47
/
! 7
D.O. (mg/1)
S-
s-
(p
4-
TSS (mg/1)
3e)
3v
30
3 0
F. Col. (/ 100 ml)
0 o
0200
ozpt
02ev
pH (SU)
‘-i
C -7
'el
-~9
6140,E u C i.)
m ixt
. D/ 7
171 (i)
` 7
m 7zy2
(443 /I)
sti74142
eMW34;illf
COMMENTS
ZERO FLOW POLICY: Recommend removal. Facility must submit an engineering
report within 12 months evaluating alternatives to discharge. If there are
no alternatives, limits will change after 3 years to 5(10) & 1(1.8) for
BOD5 & NH3-N for summer (winter). Instream monitoring may be dropped when
the facility agrees, in writing, to a schedule for removal.
Facility will receive letter addressing chlorine toxicity.
p4ivp liw4{137)2 4.4of 1AsciY/ ,tG,F

-1-
Facility Name
NPDES No.
Type of Waste
Facility Status
Permit Status
Receiving Stream
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
:Hidden Forest Estates MHP
:NCO065358
:Domestic
:Existing
:Renewal
:UT to Deep River
Stream Classification:C
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Topo Quad
:03-06-08
:Randolph
:Winston-Salem
:Angela Griffin
:1/25/91
:D19NE
1991
pp41-is P 'P.ii:t .rpaw:
Request # 6021
RECEIVED
N.G. Dept. NRCD
F E B 1 1991
Winston-Salem
Stream Characterist. 'orri Office
.01
USGS # 02.0995.0790 Date 1990
Drainage Area: 0.4 sq.mi.
Summer 7Q10: 0.0 cfs
Winter 7Q10: 0.0 cfs
Average Flow: 0.37 cfs
30Q2: 0.0 cfs
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility has had difficulty meeting its BOD5 and NH3-N limits in the past.
One BOD5 violation in 1990. Discharge is to a zero flow stream. Recommend
ZERO FLOW POLICY. Facility must submit an engineering report within 12
months evaluating alternatives to discharge. If there are no feasible
alternatives, the limits will change after 3 years to 5 & 1 (10 & 1.8) for
BOD5 & NH3-N for summer (winter). Dechlorination will be required after 3
years. Instream monitoring may be dropped when the facility agrees, in
writing, to a schedule for removal. ETCL4Ki 1441%0 o►K t h:, In.
Special Scheduled Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
t -- 1S cit`s t/..tc d L—e pro .0 �M1'; 1n eL cluc:�?tNs> �.c w1
5 ,zm �� tA) h: LAA V16-5 1--eex Lk, it tme, tk by leil l p"r -1 1 vie-( ayl S CoCecti
C r e a s a'ON :i . 1+ e 14- 444,A ` .E 1i'417c4:1 :: c.. t.i w4= IC- Z t- bn >koa l A
bt 411' t'Y1 rY► k rr►,tr r`rvx-orvii . tl Si i I doe tv t a d A v,. & 4t, < icy,4 ✓ en
-)(r hLPn' f, ' ?.:1). el . Z4f, ,.e rr -ra rec rO, fir% of 11 i -
0,-. ( . �.f�f ,, ,...:ke,�1 .-.-'b�, 4 ,-P 1 -'` Y, 3 .41,in ii Lf n& 1-- 4 �,. � ro If Li- ..v H ( b t: ve rtj
I
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
AWAAJ se..14
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
Date: ?/
Date: Date:
Date: 3 —/-5 /
Date: 317 r ( f

-2-
Existing Limits
Wasteflow (MGD) :
BOD5 (mg/1) :
NH3N (mg/1) :
DO (mg/1) :
TSS (mg/1) :
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) :
pH (SU) :
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1) :
Recommended Limits
Wasteflow (MGD) :
BOD5 (mg/1) :
NH3N (mg/1) :
DO (mg/1) :
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml) :
pH (SU) :
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1) :
TN (mg/1) :
Chlorine (mg/1) :
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
0.1
12/22
9/19
5
30
1000
6-9
monitor
monitor
1st 3 years
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
0.1
12/22
9/19
5
30
200
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIRMENTS:
Upstream: Y Location: 100 feet upstream
Downstream: Y Location:_SR-1-9-3-t-- N'� 2zo d
Limits Changes Due To:
Instream Data
Ammonia Toxicity
Chlorine
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
HQW
New 7Q10 flow data
Special Modeling Studies
New facility information
ZERO FLOW POLICY
Daily Maximum
after 3 years
Monthly Average
Summer/Winter
0.1
5/10
1/1.8
6
30
200
6-9
220
Parameter(s) Affected
monitor
monitor
0.017
BOD5, NH3-N, DO, (hlor;Nc,

dde
R. v e r C C 1)
e f _ 120s e/ ,4[Ps74_5' ' y �i d CA— a, el /G'173 -Al
12647-5,- i�, asf`� D 0D --_-VrDia 42.,-, %�
-iv, 0 I f Alit) Ton ce .
lei
ti
L471,16.(
U SG S L c ei f`
&a, OR5 a,_v7Wo
D-A U- `I
Coq
}o5
C)
?Q0,,,., T 0
3c T (� Z
Qw, . Co M6-7
u€t, Crobs. N C.
P cile.ti(Q.t of /' e - .
U
1C/57ti6 L/Pr1i
5(1761e2 IAA 41-x r2

INSTREAM SELF -MONITORING DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Discharger: /"alydert ;eags es MAP
Receiving Stream: --bell giver.
Upstream Location: tb ` I
Upstream
DATE TEMP D.O. BOD5
DEC-90
NOV-90 __ 11� $ /Za o
OCT-90 6 -L-
SEP-90 jl („5-6) 3"
AUG-90 7.3 (G.5) /'Z,OO
JUL-90 t �- 7.7(��' S
JUN- 9 0 $ 8• � C�� 31 0
MAY- 9 0 " Z(ref) /Qe
APR-90
MAR-90
FEB-90
JAN-90
DEC-89
NOV-89
OCT-89
SEP-89 r(o W7_)
AUG- 8 9 Lc, r. 3 C?,$)
JUL-89 ac. 7.sz?.t)
JUN- 8 9 aS" 6.1(G)
MAY-89
APR-89
MAR-89
FEB-89
JAN-89
DEC-88
NOV-88
OCT-88
SEP-88
AUG-88
JUL-88
JUN-88
MAY-88
APR- 8 8
MAR-88
FEB-88
JAN-88
DEC-87
NOV-87
OCT-87
SEP-87
AUG-87
JUL-87
JUN-87
MAY-87
APR-87
MAR-87
FEB-87
JAN-87
Permit No.: NC00 �3S'
Sub -basin: 453-06,--0F
Downstream Location Sp ds (low....
6.000
S000
Downstream
TEMP D.O. BOD5
1ILL
x v
_ _EL .
eoN1J
ire:60 C.
/Zod
a�
/aQo
3a
G8=1$'.3 C .. �l
C) A4g,
aG, 774:0
-Le0)

cc: Permits and Engineering
Technical Support Branch
County Health Dept.
Central Files
WSRO
Date Jan. 3, 1991
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County Randolph
NPDES Permit No. NC0065358
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Mr. Dewey Chapple, Jr.
Hidden Forest Estates Partnership
P. O. Box 15411
Winston-Salem, NC 27113
2. Date of Investigation: December 11, 1990
3. Report Prepared by: Sherri Vaden Knight
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
Richard Jenkins, Operator [phone]
5. Directions to Site:
From Greensboro Follow Hwy 220 south to the Level Cross
exit. Turn left onto SR 2101 and cross over Hwy 220.
Take the first access road to the left and follow into
the park. The wastewater treatment plant is located in
the second hollow beside Hwy 220 and underneath large
utility lines.
6. Discharge Point - Latitude: 35 53' 42"
Longitude: 790 49' 18"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicated treatment plant
site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No. D-19NE or USGS Quad Name Pleasant
Garden
7. Size (land available for expansion and upgrading):
There are approximately 61 acres in the entire tract of
land. There is currently ample space for upgrading
should the need occur.

8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
The terrain is gently to moderately rolling. The
treatment plant is located above the normal flood plain
and is itself an above ground plant.
9. Location of nearest dwelling:
There are no dwellings currently within 300 feet of the
treatment system. However there are vacant spaces at
approximately 250 feet.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT Deep
River
a. Classification: Class C - This stream is tributary
to the proposed Randleman Dam project which may
result in a change in classification in the
future.
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Cape Fear 03-06-09
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: There is a private pond located
immediately downstream of this discharge. The
pond is located just to the west of Hwy 220. The
maximum pool elevation of the proposed Randleman
Dam project was surveyed to be just below the
pond.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. Type of wastewater: 100o Domestic
0o Industrial
a. Volume of Wastewater: 0.100 MGD permitted
Authorization to Construct: 0.027 MGD
b. Types and quantities of industrial wastewater:
N/A
c. Prevalent toxic constituents in wastewater:
Unknown - Assume chlorine
d. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only) N/A
in development
should be required
approved
not needed X
2. Production rates (industrial discharges only) in pounds
N/A
a. highest month in the last 12 months
b. highest year in last 5 years
3. Description of industrial process (for industries only)
and applicable CFR Part and Subpart:
N/A

4. Type of treatment (specify whether proposed or
existing):
Existing 0.027 MGD treatment system consisting of an
influent surge tank with bar screen, a 40,000 gallon
aeration tank, 15,500 gallon clarifier, an aerated
sludge holding tank, a chlorinator and contact tank, a
1,000 gallon post aeration tank, effluent flow
measurement and stand-by power.
5. Sludge handling and disposal scheme:
Sludge is pumped from the system when needed by Mr.
Jenkins, the Operator and is generally taken to the
City of Greensboro's wastewater treatment facility.
6. Treatment plant classification: Class II
7. SIC Code(s) 6515
Wastewater Code(s) 08
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction
Grants Funds (municipals only)? N/A
2. Special monitoring requests: See Evaluation &
Recommendations
3. Additional effluent limits requests: See Evaluation &
Recommendations
4. Other:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although this facility has met monthly average permit
limits fairly consistently during the past year (1
documented BOD violation), there have been documented
problems downstream of the discharge. The plant did
experience difficulties meeting limits during the first year
of operation, most likely due to underloading of the plant.
A pond is located (Stewart) just west of Hwy 220 and
receives all of the effluent from the treatment plant. The
WWTP was the only nutrient source found on the tributary.
The pond has been manually drawn in on the attached map and
was most likely built around the time (or just before) the
initial application was submitted. The pond has experienced
numerous algal blooms and at times, related fish kills.
High levels of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus have been
documented in the pond. The WWTP should be monitoring Total
N and Total P quarterly, but has not done so in the past.
The monitoring was initiated in November 1990.

A stream flow request received from USGS in October
1990 indicates that the 7Q10 and 30Q2 flows are zero. On
August 2, 1990 WSRO personnel (Knight, Russell) documented
that the stream above the discharge point had no continuous
flow and only isolated pools existed.
In the most recent CSI, the former permittee (Richard
Scheid; cc: Dewey Chapple) was notified that if the flow
estimate was zero, that the renewed permit could contain
much more stringent limits and that an engineering report
for the evaluation of non -discharge alternatives would be
required. Since a zero flow estimate has been made by USGS,
the permit should contain a specific date for this report to
be submitted. It will be difficult if not impossible for a
mobile home park of this size to utilize subsurface systems.
The soil quality is not known at this time. Spray
irrigation will probably be the only possible non -discharge
alternative and land restrictions may make this option
impossible.
The downstream pond should be protected from additional
nutrient loads which will make further algal blooms
probable. The pond owner suggested piping the discharge
around the pond, however DOT and perhaps other agencies
would have to be involved. Large power lines are immediately
overhead of this area. The permittee would probably not see
much relief in permit limits even at the downstream
discharge location. Another alternative might be to reroute
the stream around the pond, however the pond owner feels the
discharger would shoulder the financial burden of such an
action.
The proposed Randleman Dam project should also be
considered in this renewal as the maximum pool elevation
which was recently surveyed is within site of the Stewart
pond.
Current policy for active dischargers to zero flow
streams requires the aforementioned non -discharge report
submittal and gives more stringent limits (5 mg/1 BOD5 and
2 mg/1 NH3N) during the last 2 years of the permit period.
This policy does not address the immediate problems
occurring downstream in the pond. It is felt that this
problem should be addressed in any permit renewal.
Signature of repor preparer
Water Quality Su rvisor

50
1750000 FEET
M�
0-1
605 50' 606 ASHEBORO 12 MI.
1
Ann
rw,
(RANDLEMAN)
5055 /V SE
SCALE 1:24 000
0
Al�>S
.mow;,
608
-,- ''' -- -------j.c-,
'''\
RANDLEMAN 4.6 M1.i
ASHEBORO 10 MI.
1 MILE
47'30'