NC0031879_Wasteload Allocation_19860509

06.
NCe03/NI
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Dennis Ramsey, Head
Operations Branch
Water Quality Section
May 9, 1986
THROUGH: Roy M. Davis, Regional Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management
W
Forrest R. Westall ` SDv f?-vJ
Water Quality Regional Supervisor , /J
FROM: Gary T. Tweed, P.E.
/
Environmental Management v
SUBJECT: City of Marion
Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wasteload Allocation
McDowell County, North Carolina
D
I
1MAY 2 1:: a J
":..- ;;r IFY st"TION
crs,;,'Qi+.S ERANC,H
In recent months the McDowell County Board of Commissioners
has made application for a NPDES Permit to construct a wastewater
treatment facility to serve the North Marion area along Garden
Creek. The proposal calls for a facility to discharge to the
Catawba River above Lake James. The Lake James Environmental
Association is requesting a public hearing on the proposed permit.
In conversations with the association they feel that the area
should be served by a pump station,force main with disposal at
Marion's Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. This
alternative has been looked at in the past and Marion once tried to
annex the area and was unsuccessful. The City now has concerns
about future ability to expand at the Corpening Creek Plant.
Presently there is about a 1.0 MGD surplus capacity at this
facility. Should Marion agree to except the North Marion project
the question has arisen as to what ultimate flow the Corpening
Creek Facility could be expanded.
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, P.O. Box 370, Asheville, N.C. 28802-0370 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Dennis Ramsey
Memorandum
May 9, 1986
Page Two
In October, 1983, Marion's wasteload allocation was revised
establishing levels of removal at secondary. A copy of the Model-
ing Group's Report is enclosed. It is requested that a determina-
tion be made as to effluent limitations for flows beyond 3.0 MGD.
Allocations are needed for 4.0 MGD, 5.0 MGD and 6.0 MGD. Also,
should allocations be restrictive then an option would be to
install anoutfall line to North Muddy Creek approximately one mile
downstream (see attached map). In reviewing the allocation the
discharge to North Muddy Creek should be evaluated.
This information is needed as soon as possible since the data
will be necessary for decisions to be made by Marion with respect
to accepting the North Marion project. Should you have any
questions, please advise.
GTT:ls
Enclosure

'°
me
10
e����0�m,�� 1pon ment~
darion,
yo� ���� "r In
��' ���� �� CO
-
P.O.
��BOX 249, NEBO, NC 28761
May 6, .1986/'
'
Division of Environmental Management
Interchange Building
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28802
Attn: Mr. Gary Tweed
Ref: NPDES No. NC0065595
Dear Mr. Tweed:
Yl��
�w �
. /
1rv� C�`��
.`_ �-
`
The Lake James Environmental Association is opposed to
1ssueing a discharge permit for a North Marion Wastewater
Treatment Facility. '~We believe there are other
alternatives that have not..,' been fully investigated. We
therefore request a pub�ic-hear,ing be held pri-or to a final
determination -regarding the �proposed permit.
Our association` would like to suggest a meeting with
representatives from ' your office and McDowell Count-U to
discuss why the existing Corpening Creek Waste Treatment
Plant could not service the North Marion area. The LJEA
mould also like to discuss plant design criteria if a neu
plan� for North Marion is built.
Sincerely,
IV
�kmeis A. Shup.ng
President
R
/- E I V-E D'
Western
k^gko`ui Office
Asheville, Caroli-%&
.,..~^_,.-~-",r%",,,""^,'"^.d"%,. ^~, ...",,~^.,--- --?�...-~.If AO .--..

4w-J
aelitown
r'ark ors.: ..
Chxl„t4 •
,
.3cut nrion '.J
7
i
1n
•
-SoW3ge
Posal
ti
'
1
r / / 0. 1
.•S
•J f2' I
•
J
412
"2'
27M,LS -"32'
i M ! ....
472
1353
l_..2.F__ e 1C. lei
.1'
Co ,--"cam
G I,
.:
_---�""
•
(
Gt.EA+`NOOD
a
z
1
•
::Hare, J
Oem ,\
(GL E NWOOD)
4655 :If SW
SCALE 1:2". OOc'
.— r ' ,:14
•
- — l
/
,ts
vOa.TI -'
-- r7. 4;?' IPj_fo C-=S
Ra yPa*-A gs `I •3 �,
I ,
CONTOUR !NTERVAL 40 FEET
DOTTED L,N':S REPRESENT 20 FOOT C0-.rouRS
OArUM !S MEAN SEA LEVEL
U°57 GRID AND 1962 MAt:NE7IC NO6TH
DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET
T,.IC MAG Nt.-I(iN(1i MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS

. t
'IT
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
James 5 Hunt, Jr., Governor Joseph \' Gr;rnsiey, Secretary
December 27, 1983
Mr. John Marlar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Robert F. Helms
Director
Telephone [phone]
RECEIVED
Water Quality Division
DEC 29 1983
Western Rea,ional Office
6sheville, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Marlar:
In the course of our NPDES renewal process, the Division of Environ-
mental Management reviews the wasteload allocations of existing wastewater
dischargers. In some recent correspondence with you concerning the Town
of Marion's Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge, we
requested that the phosphorus effluent limitation that had currently been
applied be revised. As you know, we revised that effluent limitation. At
the same time, the Division began to evaluate the BOD and NH3-N limitations
for the Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. I would like to briefly
summarize the results of that review.
The current effluent limitations for BOD5 and NH3-N at a 3 MGD waste
design flow are 10 mg/1 and 3 mg/1, respectively. Those effluent limitations:
were based on a sampling study of the receiving stream done in 1973. -In
order to fully understand the scope of our review, I have attached a copy
of a report entitled "Explanation of Wasteload Allocations for the Town of
Marion Corpening Creek WWTP". The study in 1973 was based on discharge
conditions which currently no longer exist. We believe that a more realis-
tic evaluation of the discharge impact would result in significantly less
restrictive effluent limitations. As noted in the report, these effluent
limitations would be 30 mg/1 BOD5 and no limit on NH3-N at 3 MGD. It has
always been our objective to require effluent limitations necessary to com-
ply with all water quality standards, and in this particular case, since it
involves an existing wastewater treatment plant funded under the Clean Water
Act, we would like for you to review the results of our re-evaluation and
determine if you concur that a revision to the effluent limitations is
justified.
If there are specific questions concerning the review, members of your
staff can contact Mr. Trevor Clements at 919/733-5083. If there are any
other questions concerning this review, please give me a call at the same
telephone number. We will look forward to hearing the results of your
evaluation.
Sierely your
cc: Steve Tedder
Bill Mills
Roy Davis POLLUTION PREVENTION PA YS
Trevor Clements
Forrest R. Westai l ,
Operations Branch
Water Quality Section
n Box 27687 a3!e..... N; .. 27611 7627
.1.. �nr•n/ /in nn.�••..i.., Afll.n+n.:.,n d-.ln.. C...n/..•.w-

EXPLANATION OF WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
FOR THE TOWN OF MARION
CORPENING CREEK WWTP
MODELING GROUP - WATER QUALITY SECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OCTOBER, 1983
Fw ie

I. Introduction
The Town of Marion brought on line their new Corpening Creek WWTP
in 1979. This plant, with a 3.0 MGD design capacity, replaced a primary
treatment plant with a design capacity of 1.0 MGD. The difference in
the degree of treatment sophistocation between the plants is great and,
as such, the newer plant discharges a higher quality effluent.
The EPA sampled the receiving waters in 1973, while Marion was still
using the old plant. Parameters estimated using the EPA data were used
in the original allocation for the new Corpening Creek WWTP. However,
the DEM staff now believes that these rates are inappropriate for appli-
cation to Corpening Creek. The report herein provides the rationale for
this change in perspective.
II. Model Analysis and Results
A Level B model analysis was performed by the DEM staff in order to
determine appropriate waste load allocation for the Town of Marion. A
Level B model was also used in the original analysis for the Corpening
Creek WWTP. However, different parameter values were input to the model
for each analysis.
The original analysis for the new Corpening Creek WWTP included the
following parameter inputs:
Q-waste = 3.0 MGD
Slope = 24 fpm
Velocity= .61 fps
This velocity value was estimated using USGS Flow -Velocity correlation
data for a low flow of 1.9 cfs plus 3.0 cfs from the plant. These figures
should have been 1.6 cfs in addition to 4.65 cfs from the plant.
mate.
Depth = .59 ft
•
The equation: Depth = L7Q10/(15 x Velocity)]2 was used for this esti-
K1 = 2.6 base a/day
This value was based upon the EPA 1973 analysis.

K2 = 9.25 base e/day
This value of K2 was estimated using the Tsivoglou equation for pol-
luted streams:
K2 = 0.49 x Slope x Velocity
A recent analysis for the Corpening Creek WWTP included the following
parameter inputs:
Q-waste = 3.0 MGD
Slope = 24 fpm
Velocity = .367
Velocity was estimated using the DEM regression equation:
Velocity = .127 (Actual Flow)'69(Slope)'1
(Average Flow).24
This equation is based on flow -through time -of -travel dye studies.
Depth = 1.08 ft.
Depth was estimated by the equation previously presented.
K1 = 0.57 base e/day
Deoxygenation was estimated using the Eckenfelder equation:
K1=k1+V
d
where K1 = in -stream deoxygenation rate
k1 = bottle deoxygenation rate constant
V = stream velocity
d = stream depth
N = coefficient of bed activity
K2 = 19.62
The reaeration rate was calculated using a recently modified Tsivoglou
equation.
The original analysis resulted in the following waste load allocation:
Q-waste 3.0 MGD
BOD5 10 mg/1
NH3-N 3 mg/1
DO 5 mg/1

In comparison, the more recent analysis resulted in a wasteload allo-
cation of:
Q-waste 3.0 MGD
B0D5 30 mg/1
NH3-N Not limited
DO 5 mg/1
Thus the wasteload allocation for the Town of Marion has changed
dramatically.
III. Discussion
The change from stringent limits to secondary type limits is signifi-
cant. Since the same model was used for each analysis, differences in model
output can only be explained by the differences in model input. Therefore,
model input should be scrutinized.
Large differences in parameter estimates exist for velocity, K1 and
K2. Parameter estimates for the original analysis were based on actual
EPA data, whereas the values used in the recent analysis were estimated
empirically. In general, the DEM prefers to use actual data. However,
there are extenuating circumstances in this case which favor the use of
the empirical estimates.
The EPA data was gathered in 1973 during average flow conditions.
The extrapolation of their velocity to a figure representing low flow con-
ditions appears to have been poorly performed. In addition, the empiri-
cally based velocity estimate is more conservative, in that it indicates
a longer retention time than previously estimated. For these two reasons,
a velocity of .367 appears more appropriate for usage in the model.
The EPA's value for K1 was also based on their 1973 sample data.
Their high estimate is more characteristic of streams receiving raw sew-
age. It is possible that poorly treated effluent from the old primary
treatment plant resembled raw sewage. This might explain the EPA's rel-
atively high estimate of K1. However the effluent from the new Corpening
Creek plant does not resemble raw sewage. Self -monitoring data from 12/82
to 9/83 indicates that Marion's effluent has the following characteristics:

BOD5 3.72 mg/1
NH3-N .34 mg/1
TSS 17.5 mg/1
DO 8.11 mg/1
Fec. Coli. 4.5 /100 ml
The empirically based estimate for K1 is more consistent with those values
used for similar situations in North Carolina.
The new Tsivoglou equation predicted a noticably larger reaeration
rate (K2) than the original Tsivoglou equation. However, when the original
K2 value was used for comparison, limits very close to secondary limits
were obtained (23 mg/1 BOD5, and 20 mg/1 NH3-N). Thus, the major reason
for the change in Marion's allocation may be attributed to the input of
a smaller deoxygenation rate (K1).
Corpening Creek was modeled using the new reaction rates and Marion's
current effluent characteristics (from the self -monitoring data). Model
output was compared with downstream self -monitoring data. The downstream
monitoring data shows an average 9.2 mg/1 DO. The model predicted a DO
concentration of 8.5 mg/1 at this point (.5 mile downstream of outfall).
Thus, the more recently calibrated model appears to predict current con-
ditions well. Under the former parameter estimates, the DO prediction
would have been substantially lower, and subsequently less accurate.
For the aforementioned reasons, the DEM recommends that the more re-
cently determined limits be applied to the Town of Marion's discharge
permit. The derivation of these limits is more consistent with those
derived elsewhere in the state. A modeling analysis appears to verify
their use.

t4 1�vt4
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT
PERMIT--NC0031879 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 8 211 -8310 LOC---E
FACILITY--MARION WWTP, TOWN OF DESIGN FLOW-- 3.0000 CLASS--
LOCATION--MARION REGION/COUNTY--01 MCDOWELL
50050 00310 00530 00610 31616 50060 00300 00340
MONTH Q/MGD BOD RES/TSS NH3+NH4- FEC COLI CHLORINE DO COD
82/12 1.8677 2.43 11.2 .46 23.3 .312 8.80 54.3
83/01 2.1714 7.09 30.3F .31 8.5 .500 9.71 63.7
83/02 1.3500 5.52 27.8 .19 1.2 .442 9.89 76.3
83/03 2.3653 2.58 9.0 .57 1.2 .330 8.95 66.8
83/04 2.3862 2.25 15.0 .56 1.4 .200 8.66 83.5
83/05 2.2516 1.81 16.7 .35 1.0 .200 7.37 87.6
83/06 2.2700 3.01 11.6 .38 5.0 .100 6.96 66.5
83/07 2.0032 4.16 19.0 .21 1.3F .378 6.93 51.-1
83/08 2.3193 4.95 15.5 .36 1.4 .104 6.72 89.7
83/09 2.2603 3.40 19.0 .09 1.4 .119 7.16 64.1
AVERAGE 2.1245 3.72 17.5 .34 4.5 .268 8.11 70.3
MAXIMUM 4.5000 18.40 136.0 1.26 TNTC 1.500 10.90 150.2
MINIMUM .4000 .40 2.0 .07 .0 .100 6.10 20.6
UNIT MGD MG/L MG/L MG/L #/100ML MG/L MG/L MG/L

GKEX7 8/t»IY �°k'NSt�ea�Nl 11/01/83
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION ANALYSIS REPORT
PERMIT--NC0031879 PIPE--001 REPORT PERIOD: 8 211 -8310 LOC---D
FACILITY--MARION WWTP, TOWN OF DESIGN FLOW-- 3.0000 CLASS--
LOCATION--MARION REGION/COUNTY--01 MCDOWELL
00310 31616 00300 00340
MONTH BOD FEC COLI DO COD
82/12 1.33 347.4 9.78 13.1
83/01 2.15 26.8 10.63 15.8
83/02 3.23 23.4 11.01 17.7
83/03 2.01 66.2 9.95 11.8
83/04 1.45 355.7 9.74 4.7
83/05 2.49 1.0 8.65 14.5
8 3/0 6 1.78 581.5 8.35 16.6
83/07 1.06 192.5 7.92 14.1
83/08 1.00 417.6 7 .7 6 32.5
83/09 1.03 416.9 7.90 10.1
AVERAGE 1.75 242.9 9.16 15.0
MAXIMUM 11.00 TNTC 12.00 49.0
MINIMUM .20 .0 6.20 .0
UNIT MG/L #/100ML MG/L MG/L
Wro1e. 6to10 pI4i puonS'k'Pedwl L�caii.

70
! i 110000 FEET
5.
t' ;l • •
t It
GLENWOOO 0.9 MI.
RUTHERFORDTON 18 MI.
:dited, and published by the Geological Survey
)
ys wnd
arkers
apel/\•_
Chapel
C
n�•
1412 13
57'30" -
899/X
t �
/ 385.
400
f.
ENW a'
ii
I "I4 (c:
SCA

,11 1?o e// 61e. nnly
Avg. 7-10
location
I). A, Flow Flow
'J?. ;. 14 Tort]; Fork Catawba River at SR 1552, 4.0 miles NE of Marion 95.6 17
02.1381-.5575North Muddy Creek 2.6 miles above ]licks Branch near Glenwood 1.4 2.2 0.3
n2.1.395.5583 North Muddy (reek 2.1. mile:; :31;ove Hicks Branch near Marston 1.7 2.7 0.4
r::� . 1 30t 5. 56i1 felt rt ll muddy Creek Tributary /l I_ , 1.9 miles SW of Marion 0.6 1.0 0.1
r;'.13'15.5625 "fort', 'tiu]dv (reek Tributary ?' 1., 0.1 mile above 1-40 near Marion 1.9 3.0 0.5
02.1395.-750 No.rtl, Muddy Creek at U.S. ]lwv 221. at Glenwood 8.5 14 2.5
.'.' 725.59 Nort'l Nucl'v Creek at SP 1794 at Glenwood 9.39 - 2.6
)'.1.3'6. l!. 'inr?'• `,1d,17 t--ei,'r n.i mile above N.C. ]Hwy 226 near 'Marion 24.7 - ...
n'.. 316.. 3'r. ..,1 !' 'lt 'I.' clec at ''.C. 1'wy 226 near. Glenwood 33 51) 8.6
ri^ '16. "', f '.�.1 1 1v r 1C 2) 7 t- Glenwood 33.6
._ 77 -,r •l ll, t: e ,'- :;, �7,�:, 3.6 miles NI? of t'
)_ 1 ",7 . '" 1 ' Buddy Creek at SR 1747 near Nebo 44.6 - 12
27.' 3'.i .'.? ,� ,jnrt �t ';jr`llJ'Cl.l-1.�P1. at T-40 near Little Mountain56 - 15
f'.133`;.14'1l: (1111drfrk Creel: 0.3 mile '>eir,w N.C. Hwy 126 at Nebo 0.5 0.8 0.1
'1 .11°7.46' 'lout', Muddy '.ree]' at t-40 near Little Mountain 39.7 19
f `, '7.: `1r•11111 Muddy Creek at Sfl 1764 near Bridgewater 33.4 - 16
`2.1 •',"-. 7'1:)0 "lint h Mudd;' Creek :•ributar_i ''1, 3.8 miles north of Dysartsville 0.2 0.3 0.05
n%.1 230. 6020 T i ee Mile Creek 1.9 mile above Bucharan Creel( and at Little Switzerland 0.2 0.5 0.05
02.1379.80I0 Tom Cree]: at mouth near ;Marion 10 19 2.4
n2.1396.4275 Youngs Fork at 1-40 near. Marion 4.7 7.0 1.2
r)1.1186.44 Youngs Fork above WTP at Marion and 2.0 mile above mouth 6.25 - 1.6

QA= 7.o cM
1610 I.2. 0-4-4
�OLe'3�(ne.�oa
DR=33wt�L
c 6D C-t3
7Q0 8 4 c45
DR=S(vmi
AQ o.= S c S
"Ti me OF RkVEL- ESTat14TE
FRo M MMa CAM V345T0 To
MbtTt+ o f MuoP4 C
02.133t .toov
� = 91. %
Oik = 2.0 c-Es
70,0 • 37 G-C-S,
DR= 39.1
Qpr=
701O =let e

.TIME off' T1 t. E M Ftewl
Os= 1,2c-,
cm. = 7,a c
ikt,atil
t
c =2-, s MLD
746 go -=-€z-1.2)/ws�►�
A„1 Ro
+5�
.74 ens/w►:
s.0.4)
Z�? chit.;
MA41461N 1-0 oOl- of to te CAME
1,3 okt.0),5 -(0 7,,,,eft:4, k4./ 4,44 d\t‘c)al
„EL..
L = ?. v+ti‘
7' ,b Caw = Co .W c
COA Tr; o L = 37, C c'S
--7/10 pO _ 6),q /7.3 r., e7
14% tZO = ,Z, it- . er-6 Au;
sLek = 12o76'1vtA' v• I7.
Ttav% [phone]t/U1
R 3
±i bo '
74so T to 1.046.4
7/do Ro
(0-ek_ _ 'Jo' ��t 06' = 8, 1 7 4P
gig;
•
•
8-7 e_4
0 38 ( (97.a m; z)
217 / co. t C
Ceve)Q- `Tret,„,kk Tom.
(51' 4e y x 3tefx: ac' r'5,t40
(.6 es, 3wo
5UO
col;
.
wArz•
6,3 0,14)
(d4-0 6�1�
{ o1- 5.
- P
3,1 Rr (�YZ) 4r"
- t0iNir
33- Z hw-S
Ittr

Mt Of fRpVtL 2511604V mom j4kRivt WugP Ta Mb'fl O'1= M��`1i CAEEf
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA **A 3-11 gS
DISCHARGER mari.on wwtP
RECEIVING STREAM coreeni.ne creek.
7010 CFS
RESIGN TEMPERATURE : 24 DEGREES C.
SIJBBAS.T.N
STREAM CLASS:
WINTER 7010 i CFS
WASTFFI..0 W MOD
I LENGTH I SI..OF E I VELOCITY I DEPTH 1 Kt 1 K 1. I K2 1 K2 1 tin 1
!MILES I FT/MI I FPS I FT 1 /IDAY I P20 1 /DAY 1( 20 I /T.DAY 1
SEGMENT 1
REACH 1.
1.301 28.001 0.518 1 . , . 28.481 76.101 0,001
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
*_
SEGMENT 1
REACH 2 1
I I (q A -1r
7.301 17.601 0.535
I 1
SEGMENT 1 4.001 8.701 0.609
REACH 3 1 I
1
741 0.001
1
5.091 4.661 0.
I i
1
33, 2 (r -- I 4•r

w t a a
Ogot 8e-9-2-15G
( .0; t f ,
-s-CA" tiv‘ ( "rr6"41
Ms
os ��, _ CoTut emeL w u 're Mocth<v'
-te.) oltod.e.V` =, iao --
4 �r
�►I i i3o LL u_4 qr.
c �
v SITefitAM 0.110 w1'6r k - ,
Q-et vas
t i i 7 0 A .. 6 0 : 4 A (A.:AAA T'AA610 Xttvi.e.4 4dti- CoRSa :
(4.. 13T(0 , $1 L k O
A=6'ZS bA=g•67
Qk=g Qrk `17-c
•to - I'‘ 414o =2•Z
x)4Ant 44.0 = 3-5.4.42. -:-... (.4 r `L
q-jio v,de) _ /(Q z ,tie = •ZS e4f a
f M v4,,t .