NC0059200_Wasteload Allocation_19940225

t G car�r� t T cL J &) cvw AS
V U—LA Gc: L t_
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0059200
PERMI'1"1'BE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Carolina Investment Group
Carolina Investment Group
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.04 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
Refer : Basinwide / Streamline WLA File
Completed By Permits & Engineering
At Front Of Subbasin
RECEIVING STREAM: unnamed tributary to Thorpe Lake Hurricane Creek
Class: B
Sub -Basin: 04-04-02
Reference USGS Quad: G6NW (please attach)
County: Jackson
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 6/30/94 Treatment Plant Class: Not built.
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Ma4k Wiggins
l✓ o 34 / 44.5
(n)52, Ca_ W0.
Date: 2/21/90
Date: - cet •e,Y Ll, I°t5Lj
9 0/31/ h0-8-r\ Date:. c /1
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
eks
(212,193
rlrl 00
Drainage Area (m' 2 ) r) , zt�
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) 0.1 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0 . f 5 30Q2 (cfs) 0.7.0
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters P€ imueq,,dosfs vee4- n,ti,1g
Upstream / Location
Downstream ✓ Location
A Lox . 1 OD � FA0Vf cU SCI AR6Q
FrintYr1, VNNAVArk'1 'in,tlpdt-ARH
-*o �kaepc 1 Ak
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
15.0
zS-G
NH3-N (mg/1)
Li • C
4 • o
D.O. (mg/I)
5• o
S. C)
TSS (mg/1)
3v
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
z d o
z o o
pH (SU)
- ct
<, . er
RE3,puAL
ciA.',o9,rdc (M li'
22.0
7...8.0
Pko*p1,02.-US ( MO/\
Man11+ R
Ftiotat-Ay 4_
N CT W Q ".I i rvkc 7,0
Fvv1M1 r+'6h :
M. 6 niv+c, o
,•

SCALE 1:24 000
0 1 MILE
t..Y.=4... I
0 7000)FEET
1 0 1 KILOMETER
• % '.�-'`ter-'f , �;... r ��� / ,� } BM LHT 1553C
3510
..__i , ` ,•r Kit•'`,•; �� .%,
•
r▪ -, ; -rY 443 / i.�.
% . / \ 't \
1}'ii' -� till _i. :ti_J� /.�f r\ • 1:. /. _1f�J v1 ' M��
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
LIGHT -DUTY ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE -
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE UNIMPROVED ROAD
Map # G6NW Sub -basin 40402
Stream Class WS-III & B HQ*
Discharge Codes 05 06
Receiving Stream UT to Thorpe Lake/Hurricane Creek
Design Q 0.02 MGD Permit expires 11/30/02
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
Trillium Links & Village
NC0059200
Jackson County

Page 1
Note for Farrell Keough
From: Mack Wiggins
Date: Feb, 161994 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Carolina Investment Group
To: Farrell Keough
Farrell I submited a WLA back on 12/16/93. Its a 100% domestic renewal. Process to
streamline. Thanks, MACK.
From: Farrell Keough on Wed, Feb 16, 1994 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Carolina Investment Group
To: Mack Wiggins
can I streamline this? (I'm out of the office until tomorrow)
From: Carla Sanderson on Feb, 16 1994 7:17 AM
Subject: Carolina Investment Group
To: Farrell Keough
Farrell - Please check with Mack on this WLA to see if it should have been on the stream line
list
Z(1-2-/11 ThtkAcii. wJ w.E- AiklitsemN, NO'pR,6blex,., wI is'bimok,(tNt

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Carolina Investment Group
NC0059200
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
unnamed tributary to Thorpe Lake
WS-III (correction)
04-04-02
Jackson
Asheville
Wiggins
12/20/93
G6NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region,
Facility has constru
limit was applied. Plea
Request # 7700
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
03.5074.9125
1989
0.210
0.13
0.15
0.74
0.24
32.3 %
nbt discharged. Facilities exist for dechlorination, thus the 28.0141
comment as to facilities ability to meet this limit.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: Date:
Regional Supervisor: Date:
Permits & Engineering: Date:
Farrell Keough
Date: 1N Fe110.4e41LY,
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

2
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.04
BOD5 (mg/1): 15.0 25.0
NH3N (mg/1): 3.0 6.0
DO (mg/1): 5.0 5.0
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6 - 9 6 - 9
Residual Chlorine (14/1): monitor monitor
Oil & Grease (mg/1): nr nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQorEL
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.04
BOD5 (mg/1): 15.0 25.0 WQ
NH3N (mg/1): 3.0 6.0 WQ
DO (mg/1): 5.0 5.0 WQ DO
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6 - 9 6 - 9
Residual Chlorine (14/1): 28.0 28.0 WQ
Oil & Grease (mg/1): nr nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Limits Changes Due To:
Parameter(s) affected:
Residual Chlorine
facility on cusp of 'new and existing' rules and has
dechlorination capabilities.
x_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: approximately 100' feet above discharge point
Downstream Location: at mouth of unnamed tributary to Thorpe Lake
Parameters: Temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysisif
modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name:
Permit Number:
Engineer:
Subbasin:
Recieving Stream:
USGS quad #:
Request Number:
Date:
Expiration date:
Carolina Investment Group
NC0059200
Wiggins
04-04-02
unnamed tributary to Thorpe Lake
G6NW
7700
12/20/93
6/30/94
Existing WLA checked:
Staff Report:
Topo checked:
USGS Flows confirmed:
PIRF / APAMS:
IWC Spreadsheet:
Stream Classification:
Nutrient Sensitivity:
lnstream Data:
x
x
x
nr
nr
x
na
03.5074.9125 '89
ws -III&B
discharge is into an impoundment
facility not yet built
Brief of WLA Analysis
Previous WLA's
1984: facility first received a Permit with secondary limits and a dissolved oxygen limit of 5.0 mg/I.
1989: two wasteloads were sent out during this review. The first was based on a model of the facility with secondary
limits. It looks as if the second wasteload analysis was done in an attempt to deal with the eutrophication
problems that might arise due to this discharge. The modeling analysis for nutrients at that time involved breaking
up of the impoundment into equal segments, (in this case 200' segments) and modeling accordingly.
Unfortunately, this method bases its units, (Le. Reaches) on arbitrary distinctions and uses velocities, (calculated
as though this was a stream) as the other variable. Converting this information to our present Nutrient SOP, we
have the below residence times, (all well under the 14 day retention time).
1991: letter received from Tom Massie about proposed discharge. Letter states that the East Fork of the Tuckasegee,
(tributary to Thorpe Lake) is already designated as HQW, due to water withdrawals by Western Carolina
University, and this may reflect future plans for West Fork area and tributaries to Thorpe Lake; as of yet this is not
designated HQW. Massie requests we require better than secondary limits as well a stand-by power. — After
checking with the Classifications group, I have determined that this waterbody is in fact a WS-III & B.
1994: the facility has been recently built with dechlorination capabilities as well as tertiary filters. I have called the
Region to see if the addition of a chlorine limit is achievable by the facility.
using Mike Scoville's notes, (1989 WLA) and our current nutrients to impoundments SOP:
cross sectional yesldence
Emil width (ft / ave) depth (ft / ave) area 30Q2 velocity lima
R 1 100 2.33 233 0.24 0.00103 — 0.01 days
R2 300 6.99 2097 0.24 0.0001144 — 0.1 days
R3 * 575 11.65 6698.75 0.24 0.0000358 — 0.3 days
R4 * 900 16.31 14,679 0.24 0.00001635 - 0.7 days
* R3 and R4 was omitted due to influences of dispersion, flow through lake, turbulent boundary, etc., [per Scoville's notes]
Staff Report
Mentions that Thorpe Lake will probably become HQW and this discharge is within 1/2 mile of the lake, but does not have
an IWC of over 50%. Per a mail message from Ruth, (9 / 10 / 93) IWC should be ignored and we should drop the safety
factor requirement as well as the toxicity test requirement.

Residual Chlorine
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design now (cfs)
Stream Std (µg/l)
Upstream bkgrd level (µg/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (µg/l)
Allowable Concentratbn (nsgll)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 2.1 :1
0.1
0.04
0.062
17
0
32.3%
52.6
0.053
200/100m1
0.1
0.04
0.062
1
0.22
32.3%
2.6
0.2
0.04
0.062
1.8
0.22
29.2%
5.6
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/1)
Upstream bkgrd level (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
Upstream bkgrd level (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/l)

. Si
Tom L. Massie
Box 41 Macktown Road
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
June 7, 1990
Mr. Dale Overcash
DEHNR
Division of Environmental Management
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Overcash:
\1 ON ..
;,.
~,,
JUN131990
I wish to provide some input into a wastewater discharge permit for the Communities
of Signal Ridge, owned by Carolina Investment Group, for 120,000 gpd into North
Creek. I own property on Norton Creek approximately 1.5 miles below the discharge
point where the creek empties into Lake Thorpe. Let me say first, I am not opposed
to issuance of a permit; however, I would like to see several additional measures
required for this and other discharge permits for Norton Creek.
The additional measures are things which are above the normal requirements for a
Class C watershed as Norton Creek is currently designated. The "extras" include
emergency backup power supply to prevent discharge of untreated wastes directly
into the stream and lake during power outages; a requirement for tertiary filtra-
tion instead of just secondary treatment; and consideration of reduced effluent
limits (i.e., 15/15 limits vs standard 30/30 limits). My rationale for these addi-
tions are as follows:
While Norton Creek currently is designated a Class C Trout Stream, DEHNR is already
considering requests to designate Lake Thorpe as High Quality Waters (HQW). This
designation is logical since Lake Thorpe and tributaries compose the west fork of
the Tuckasegee River, and the East Fork has already been designated HQW by the
Environmental Management Commission this spring. Western Carolina University uses
the Tuckasegee River as its potable water source, below the convolution of the
East and West Forks. Discussions with individuals in the Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Section reveal that preliminary test results indicate that Lake Thorpe
meets the threshhold criteria for HQW status. If this happens, then all tributaries
of the lake must meet the same more stringent requirements of HQW's for all waste-
water discharge permits. Requiring "Signal Ridge" to do so before construction pro-
tects the public and saves the developers the expense of retro-fitting the facility.
The requests for emergency power sources, tertiary filtration, and reduced limits
will bring the plant into compliance with the more stringent guidelines.
Additionally, several sociological factors are involved with the issuance of this
permit. There has been significant public opposition to wastewater discharge per-
mits in the Glenville and Cashier's areas in the recent past. Requirement of these
extra precautions can significantly placate public opposition, while indicating
community interest and promoting goodwill on the developer's behalf. Misconceptions
as to the effect on recreational activities like swimming and fishing, can be abated

z
1 ..
•
JUN 1
1990
Page Two 1'ijti..:;
June 7, 1990
through more stringent requirements beyond secondary treatment.
As a final request, I ask your office to consider more stringent requirements on
all wastewater discharge permits considered in the future on tributaries of Lake
Thorpe. These requirements may depend upon the designation of Lake Thorpe as a
HQW, but do not have to. Consideration of uniformly applying such recommendations
as I have made to all existing permits which have not been constructed to date as a
prerequisite of permit renewal or authorization to construct would be appreciated
and prudent.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this project.
Tom L. Massie