NC0086436_Issuance of Permit_19990527

1 State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 4 •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary NCDENR
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
'play 27, 1999
Mr. Marshall Roberts
Buncombe County Schools
175 Bingham Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No.NC0086436
Cane Creek Elementary School
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Roberts:
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on June 1, 1998,the Division is
forwarding herewith the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated December 6, 1983.
The conditions in this final permit include:
• effluent limitations,
• monitoring requirements,
• reporting requirements, and
• additional terms and conditions governing the facility's discharge.
The Division received no comments during the public review period; hence, the conditions in this final
permit are the same as in the draft permit you reviewed.
If any effluent limitations, measurement frequencies. sampling requirements or other special conditions
contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty(30)days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of
a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the
office of Administrative Hearings, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh,North Carolina 27611-7447.
Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of Water Quality.
Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership or control of this
discharge. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the
permit.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone[phone] FAX[phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

r 1NPDES Permit Issuance k',
Permit No.NC0086436
Cane Creek Elementary School
Page 2
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality,the Division of Land Resources,the Coastal Area Management Act,or any
other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Mike Templeton at telephone number
[phone],ext. 541.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens
Director
Enclosure: NPDES Permit No.NC0086436
cc: Mr.Roosevelt Childress,EPA
Asheville Regional Office,Water Quality
Point Source Compliance Enforcement Unit
Central Files
NPDES Unit

•
A
ih
Permit No. NC0086436
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Buncombe County Schools
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
m(Polk
Cane Creek Otkifittiditi School
Cane Creek Road at
Lower Brush Creek Road
Buncombe County
to receiving waters designated as Cane Creek in the French Broad River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts
I, II, III, and IV hereof.
The permit shall become effective July 1, 1999
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2000
Signed this day May 27, 1999
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

a
Permit No. NC0086436
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Buncombe County Schools •
is hereby authorized to:
1. Design a 0.012 MGD wastewater treatment facility to serve the Buncombe County Schools,
Cane Creek Elementary School, located at Cane Creek Road at Lower Brush Creek Road in
Buncombe County;
•
2. Upon receipt from the Division of Water Quality of an Authorization to Construct, construct
and operate said treatment facility; and
3. Discharge treated wastewaters from said facility into Cane Creek, a Class C water in the
French Broad River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.

.
...._,......„ •
I
r .. ; ,J .... `�\.-;•-.-:11)\'-, ... ; • . ` , 1 ro/ ,
>• ` ; •. • ,f (1��, , 113.1AhRCK 24 {et ' /.„.,0 7,7„,....,,,,:
1 � r !
/ (I,‘11,-V_,:c...
1` 4.
' X300J ./\ / i� ..�• i: (�` i/• 1 /,
- �� �` `�\J •' I/--�.\
•' a \.'T1t _.CI 7,N)• (/),
1' ..- ' •( 7. ( • •,---.e` ^✓ l/`�
,,�\.�,Lti rin•Ch J c • • -, \_„,..._ �:'. I.1%.1., 1�— -//1.-: '� -- '' .,?'-'(-2—...7'.---._':8_,V.1.1 ,i'_•`' •
---• ,„ r
\(..-_,...--,4.,
.--,;-....,..„_.2:-:.--„_-::. _---, ....s
,...,_ ......_,7, ' . e..rs i \\:-.•-•.- -77,,YkYi '‘ . 7.---d
° - iti-/ • i / \\\*. 'i 7,--r'. • s''' '',ri . _. -----\... ": ./ lic_...-- ' I
t• �A , / •a Y `Cai, Groee Ch - / ��-'� I 1
^ i./.��-t• �' C �• i \ `t it ,- \ `�'.' / (•!,...1...-/-• t /`J"'� '�� PJ e.
w 1 V'\ •,'. -�/ u_,, _ r, , /....":.;..--.• 4,,,,,,..
,//' �. .
, / � v,.,��
__ . _.„..___. ______.__.„. .,
...........,. ..,,,,,
--.- __:. • ,......_• .....„,,..........„,..... ..,.......1-szA,5:-..=., \,..,
1 ,Ini /,�!/i•,►y \ j x\�. 1 �° + Discharge Point
pi/ • buncombe County Schools
// ,.GPS •\ i `s • ~�' { i,• Cane Creek Elementary School WINTP
,'�TweedCC,. •e,1,7‘.... /• -i•L' .% r `hd.�:.• \ NCOO86436
•
.. to.; \ ,'\ 1 �/• ,;_ • -tea;\ ',-'.r''
..—i--.4-—e•-,,--.:'
a5v• -/^ -•"-.-
A. `- - ',,I1 0 • .-moi. -- . .: t•1za• ,\. — `\ v
T' A
r-.
=�;_� � -,..,..,_z.,___-_----•„_,-,-..
^ - - _ i• 1�1I4kU
o ; 1:3-FBB 7� 25 — ' b% • ' \ m`s �-•••=m0-',.."- ; `c , �� \ /
_ 0aI = • \ •\ s . j
• /- -i :� .--_-_-:.---,. ...--„,-.:L_--
ilii ,• '" ,___ _.- '.. w /' f,. . 2. ...r.i. : Ya .,• ...2........„1.k._.....,,,,___.,...,,,,,
. .,..etz,„,..?z,,.), ,r_....„.. :. _„...„,.....,_,.„.:, . , ...,
_ ._ .� \• _ ,
,‘, ,.......^Pz_—_---
• • � �-/ VL �� = �./i ``\ �I•', � ' , `�' r'ems' . ' I •. Gs' , - \: `_r. 1� j
'...,... ..._. 7.,.. (.... (..,\X,. -,\_p_______....„,......m.T......-- •-ry/ii,ec/▪ -77, :f.......„- •-z.'-r," • J ' • ",-;::: • -...4tt -- ' -7.-j•-• - •' ' '0 . '
''' ‘), S.x .. ==..Nti.;....4... A..5...p 1\1:4,, ... -;ic ,.... ,' i:•„:: -•, ;",,- 7-_-..r%)_____;t___,..c.:-.____\.:_3: _ ,.,. ..,,, :... -... .„_-_: ,.--,..;;.,z,A‘......,.54.,,,_.w.,.,...,j. 1 ilirfry ,
'rte., ( ",. , _-,,, �f. � . �v ii �: -_. • 7'-.7:-J n• �l �,` '\ - \ ¢•.: e -, �.x .,(1,-,k;_-7, ..
; �` \
cz„...:- ,---- .2.
, ,, ,..-___:_:::::....,,,..--_,..
•
,.,
,-,,,.. ,.......-,,, , ,, , „_,•,,„..-- ,...,. .. „..
.--1.:,-„_-_ -_ :- ,. -
,.. \.) ._, . ..,, ...........„ :....--; •,,,,...,G7-- .‘,„ ]..' ; 1?,•,—..-... — — -.. -- . ..._-- __•.,,A- ...:„..... .... ,1/4.--Q. _.-----------,---_____„...,. „....,,.,..„.._40,.___
N -.)--4:
.,...,.:fo.
:,\.(.. .-.. ...:,-...,-i_:,_------- ._.. t.,0 -. ._b---.--_ELE__- . „.\-:,,.:,-F..ztf..1,-,_:-......_,--s„.,..1.„,r.„,,i
..,..„
1.1:L ''• • it ,.,,,r, ,‘,.. _ v • ,.
Latitude: 35° 28' 53" Buncombe County Schools
Longitude: 82° 26' 04" Cane Creek Elementary School
USGS Quad#: F9NWARP NC0086436
River Basin#: 04-03-02 Buncombe County
Receiving Stream: Cane Creek
Stream Class: C

Permit No. NC0086436
A(1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the expiration date, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater
from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS Measurement Sample
Monthly Average Daily Maximum Frequency Sample Type Location
Flow 0.012 MGD Weekly Instantaneous Influent or
Effluent
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, BOD5, 20° C 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Weekly Grab Effluent
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 mL 400/100 mL Weekly Grab Effluent
pH Shall be within the range of 6.0 and 9.0 standard Weekly Grab Effluent
units at all times
Temperature, °C Weekly Grab Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine 28.0 ug/L 2/Month Grab Effluent
NH3-N, mg/L 2/Month Grab Effluent
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
r

1 , �%
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION BEL: U
AFF
O
57) BIUNCOMBE DVv 9UDGEr
N S COUNTY
S.
NORTH CAROLINA
P•USTATE On. F�c
1; NORTH CAROLINA
•
EMANA(,SSIN VI ON L Before the undersigned, a Notary Public
COMMISSION
Y of said
RALEI HBOX 2 762 County and State, duly
NOTIFICgTIONO commissioned,
STATE INTTOISSUEq authorized by law to administerqualified and
NPDES PERMIT oaths,personally
On the basis of thorough appeared Kim S. Worley, who, being
staff review and applica-
tion first dui
tion of Article 21 sworn, deposes and says: Y
ter 143,General Statutes o that he (she) is the Le
North Carolina, Public Billing Clerk of T gaI
j LOW 92 Soo and other low- heAsheville Citizen-Times
standards and r Times
tions, the North egul° ( Company, engaged in publication of a newspaper
Environmental- Carolina known as The
meat Commission tooppoos Asheville
es to issue o permit to tlis Citizen-Times, published,
, charge to he persants Ilst-I issued, and entered as second class
! arid below effective 'c mail in the
and subject to sPeC(al con- I of Asheville, in saidCity
• ed
d�'�°"S'
is authorized to County and State; that he (she)
, Persons wishing tot corn- make this affidavit and sworn
• Propo upon iors object to the
•
sed' determinations statement; that the notice or
are invitedto°the submit other legal
in writinaaf advertisement, a true co
All mments�nece copy of which is attached
Prior to that dote will hereto, was published in The
considered in the formula Asheville Citizen-
tion of final Times on the following
tionsdetermine dates: November
PO Permit.regarding-A"'�public
And that the said 18, 1998
meeting may Pubiic newspaper er in whichi
where the Director of`hie P P said notice, i
•
ision of Environmental Paper, document or
r1agement finds' legal advertisement were
'sig-
nificant degree p Sig- published
interest in a prD °f public were, at the time of each
m'`'""'i p° dPef' publication aand every
A Copy of the draft newspaper meeting all of the
is�s available by permit En- requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of
Ili writing or T
P.O.vIroBox 9531 m nL the General Statues of North Carolina and was a
O. BOX 29
gh
North Carolina 276.:pg qualified newspaper within the meaning
(919)T7015.
The aes --�t r�. ` 1-597 of the General Statues of No of Section . c
information °n and Other
in-
spected at-thA7ay In North Carolina.
during: normal locations
hours.Copies of theinfor-
mationoffice
e This 20`h dayof
able on file are, ovaq: November, 1998
tlmerit of he costs of and
-
duct,o. Allreq 'such-•corn-_
• should make rrefejerenc1::7-- 4/� ``/ /
ber listed be permit num rd-
(Signa e of person makingg a';dav' �/
low, �[)
gsllii
er •
Date uiiase i>' d 1
itm,
for A.PrestonaHoward:Jr. "� Sworn to an subscribed before me the 20th day of
7
' ,P•E`Director (Z)
Nove r ber, 1998
nom,-5:;:,.`.,,.Df 4is ion of
•,i.,, Environmental
` `:i. ;/ 4,=rMondgement
I Public nota ,�,
issue notice of intent to .ePI/i
mit e a Staf a NPDES per-
: t .A
• following;�.. (No • Public) P. — � 7
I Bu to the N0.win
My Commiss en expires the 17`�day of August
Buncombe CO 2003.
' Schools, .175 Bingham
Asheville, NC 28806,
has applied for a new
m for a facility locateper-
mit
at
I Creek. Elementary
School,f Canetheat intersection
Lower BrsCreek Rood and
south of Fairview,Bun-
be Coun
MGdischarge up to
oa0.012
of treated domestic i
ual wastewater from one
Class C"
Cone Creek, a - • (
French g stream in the
which hBr�d River Basin
a 7Q,O flow of
,, 20 CCs Nnd a 30Q2 flow and
his diter scharge
but I I
future allocations"
affect
the watershed, °ns- within . , 1 q:- .. _ n
1111111.11111
November l8 1998 I -� -- L— I -'
-`(8940)
-

i
NCDENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
Buncombe County Schools
NPDES No.NC0086436
Facility Information
(1.)Facility Name: Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP
(2.)Permitted Flow: 0.012 MGD (6.)County: Buncombe
(3.)Facility Class: 2 (7.)Regional Office: Asheville
(4.)Facility Status: New (8.)USGS Topo Quad: F9NW
(New or existing) (Fruitland,NC)
(5.)Permit Status:
(i.e., New, Modification, New
or Renewal)
Stream Characteristics
(1.)Receiving Stream: Cane Creek,upstream from Lower Brush Creek Road crossing
(2.)Subbasin: 40302 (7.)Drainage Area(mi2): 42.4
(3.)Index No.: 6-57-(9) (8.)Summer 7Q10(cfs) 9.6
(4.)Stream Classification: C (9.)Winter 7Q10(cfs): 14.4
(5.)303(d)Listed: No (10.)30Q2(cfs): 20.4
(6.)305(b)Status: No (11.)Average Flow(cfs): 59
(12.)IWC(%): 0.2
Summary
The subject facility is a proposed 800-student elementary school with cafeteria, gym,and
showers. Wastewater from the facility will be domestic in nature.
Buncombe County Schools evaluated eight non-discharge options, and their preliminary
evaluation supports that the discharge of treated effluent to surface waters is the most cost-
effective and environmentally sound alternative for the project. Cost estimates for the surface
discharge option were based on providing a 12,000 gpd extended aeration-type package
treatment system with flow equalization, effluent disinfection(C12), and dechlorination. Final
disposal of sludge wasted from this facility will be handled in an approved facility by an
independent contract hauler.
Discharge will be to Cane Creek, a Class C water in the French Broad River Basin. Much of the
system upstream from the school site is also designated as trout waters. The creek has an
estimated 7Q10 flow of 9.6 cfs at the point of discharge. Modeling and calculations indicate that
secondary treatment limits are adequate for oxygen-consuming wastes; and that the creek has
sufficient capacity to receive the discharge without violating the state water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen, ammonia, residual chlorine, and fecal coliform bacteria.
The proposed permit conditions are summarized in the following table. These conditions are
similar to those for other Buncombe County Schools facilities (and other schools). One exception
is the chlorine limitation,which is lower than for some of those facilities due to changes in the
Division's disinfection policy.

NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Buncombe County Schools
NPDES No. NC0086436
Page 2
Proposed Cond s `-Parameters Affected Basis for Condition(s)
Flow Permit application
NPDES rules for secondary
Effluent limitations BOD,TSS treatment of domestic wastewater:
T15A:2B.04065
pH,TRC,fecal coliform Division policy
Monitoring requirements All T15A:2B.0505& .0508;Division
policy(flow)
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 11/18/98
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 01/04/99
State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please contact Mike Templeton at(919) 733-5038,extension 541.
NPDES Recommendation by:
Signature Date
Regional Office Comments
This space is used by the Regional office personnel to idents specific concerns in reference to issuance of the subject permit.
Page 2
Version: October 27, 1998

k NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET
Buncombe County Schools
NPDES No.NC0086436
Page 3
Regional Recommendation by:
Signature Date
Reviewed and accepted by:
Regional Supervisor:
Signature Date
NPDES Unit Supervisor:
Signature Date
Page 3
Version:October 27, 1998

r
NPDES Permit No. NC0086436 Permit Type New 303(d)listed(YIN) N
Abbr.No. 86436 Discharge Status Proposed 305(b)listed(YIN) N
Permittee Buncombe County Schools SIC#1 4952 Drainage Area(sq.mi.): 42.4
Contact Mr.Marshall Roberts SIC#2 S7Q10(cfs): 9.6
Salutation Mr. Roberts SIC#3 W7Q10(cfs): 14.4
Address 175 Bingham Road WW Code#1 03 30Q2(cfs): 20.4
City Asheville WW Code#2 QA(cfs): 59
State North Carolina WW Code#3 IWC(%): 0.2
ZIP 28806 WW Code#4
Facility Name Cane Creek Elementary School WW Code#5
Address Cane Creek Road-NCSR 3136 Basin Code
City Fairview Major 04
State North Carolina Minor 03
ZIP 28730 Subminor 02
Location 1 Cane Creek Road at Latitude
Location 2 Lower Brush Creek Road D 35
County Buncombe M 28
Receiving Stream Cane Creek S 53
Classification C Longitude
River Basin French Broad D 82
Subbasin No. 40302
WM 26
WTP Status new S 04
Design Q 0.012 MGD Type Ownership PC-M
Regional Office Asheville Facility Type Minor
Letter cc#1 Bob Barr,Ledford Engineering Main Tmt Unit Code No W WTP constructed to date.
Letter cc#2 USGS Quad Map No. F9NW
Quad Map Name Fruitland,NC
Permit Writer Mike Templeton Facility Class 2
Ext. 541
Signature Block 1 Michael E.Templeton
Signature Block 2 NPDES Unit
Signature Block 3
MET,11/6/98

IWC CALCULATIONS
Facility: Proposed Cane Creek Elem.School
Owner: Buncombe County Schools
Permit No.: NC0086436
Design Avg. Flow(MGD): 0.012
Receiving Stream: Cane Creek,040302,6-57-(9)
7Q10(summer,CFS): 9.6
7010(winter,CFS): 14.4
WQ Std,CI(ug/L): 28
WQ Std,NH3(summer,mg/L): 1
WQ Std, NH3(winter,mg/L): 1.8
Upstream CI(ug/L): 0
Upstream NH3(mg/L): 0.22
Residual Chlorine Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10(CFS) 9.6 7Q10(CFS) 9.6
DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 0.012 DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 0.012
DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 0.0186 DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 0.0186
STREAM STD(UG/L) 28.0 STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(UG/L) 0 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(%) 0.19 IWC(%) 0.19
Allowable Concentration(ugh') 8,791 Allowable Concentration(mg/I) 404
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10(CFS) 14.4
Fecal Limit Not Required DESIGN FLOW(MGD) 0.012
(based on 331 : 1 7Q10: Qw) DESIGN FLOW(CFS) 0.0186
STREAM STD(MG/L) 1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL(MG/L) 0.22
IWC(%) 0.13
Allowable Concentration(mg/I) 1,225
86436 IWCs for NH3, Cl2
MET,9/29/98

•
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM. Subbasin : 040302
Receiving Stream : CANE CREEK , Stream Class : C
Summer 7Q10 : 9.6 Winter 7Q10 : 14 .4
Design Temperature: 25 . 0
•
ILmENGlTH1
ieft/mi( �Lfps Dft I design @20° design e200 deKKd Ka Ka sign
Segment 1 0 .55 14 .60 0 .354 1 .35 0.35 0.28 10 .37 9 .30 0.44
Reach 1
$
Flow
cfs mg/1 g/1 mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 0. 019 45. 000 90. 000 0. 000
Headwaters 9 . 600 2 . 000 1. 000 7.440
Tributary 0 . 000 2 . 000 1. 000 7.440
* Runoff 0 .180 2 . 000 1. 000 7.440
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

4 .
SUMMER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM.
Receiving Stream : CANE CREEK
The End D.O. is 7. 85 mg/1. /
The End CBOD is 2 . 02 mg/1. •
The End NBOD is 1.13 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 7.43 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 45. 00 90. 00 0 .00 0.01200
.

y
SUMMER
I Seg # 1 Reach # 1 Seg Mi 1 D.O. 1 . CBOD 1 NBOD 1 Flow
1 1 0.00 7.43 2.08 1.17 9.62
1 1 0.10 7.54 2 . 07 1.16 9.64
1 1 0.20 7. 64 2 .06 1.15 9.65
1 1 0.30 7.72 2.05 1.14 9.67
1 1 0.40 7.79 2.03 1.14 9.69
1 1 0.50 7.85 2 .02 1.13 9.71 •
Seg # 1 Reach # 1 Seg Mi 1 D.O. 1 CBOD 1 NBOD 1 Flow
•
•
•
•

. •
WINTER
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : BUNCOMBE CO. SCHOOLS, CANE CREEK ELEM.
Receiving Stream : CANE CREEK�
The End D.O. is 10.65 mg/1.%07/
g/1.v7 „
The End CBOD is 2 .05 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.16 mg/1 .
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 10 .14 0 . 00 1
Reach 1 45.00 90. 00 0. 00 0 . 01200
•

•
•. ' MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS 'f ± - -g124
GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility Name: 6\AKv.-JM�( C Co. ISLbbeOL..2, CPW� L� LICr^. SctkooL
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste: 11)0K IL
Facility Status: ?11-0eCgEb
Receiving Stream: . DUNE C.Q I
Stream Classification: I C
Subbasin: 04030 Z
County! duN.00r.4E
Regional Office: I /cS1tEV 1 LA_L
Topo Quad: ; l9
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS# I 034P-3-4001
Date of Flow Estimates:
Drainage Area (mi2): . I 4-1 %7'
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): j 9,(o5
Winter 7Q10(cfs): I I-Ato I C6T,
Average Flow (cfs): �f �K4Z}=5 ,e)
30Q2 (cfs): I to.(,
IWC at Point of Discharge (%): I o.Z.- hS7Q1;)
Cummulative IWC(%):
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION
I.FNGTH OF REACH(miles) I ,55
INCREMENTAL LENGTH(miles) I , ( j I
WASTE CHARAC.1'ERISTICS
FLOW (MGD) .o1Z
CBOD (mg/1) 11,5X 30 : qc
NBOD (mg/1) ;4. Z.o = 90
D.O. (mg/1) 0
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs/mi) y9' = I6
QA(cfs/mi) l'<3-5y/ 5 = BZ
CBOD (mg/1) 1 Z
NBOD (mg/1) I
D.O. (mg/1)
TRIBUTARY CHARACI ERISTICS
7Q10(cfs) I I I
QA(cfs)
CBOD(mg/1)
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (rftg/I) I
SLOPE (fpm) l4.
t •
Name of facility 3UNCOIk1S1 CO , SafeoLS
CANECom - E $j&. ScooL

Facility: Cane Creek Elem. School WWTP
NPDES#: NC0086436
Receiving Stream: Cane Creek
Comment(s): 40302
gage number not available
Low Flow Record Station Number:I 03.4.473.4000
Hydrologic Area Number: HA10
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station: 42.70 miles squared
Qave Low Flow Record Station: 59.80 cfs
s7010 Low Flow Record Station: 9.70 cfs
w7Q10 Low Flow Record Station: 14.50 cfs
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station: 20.60 cfs
must be<400 sq.miles
Drainage Area New Site: 42.40 sq. miles
MAR New Site: 1.4
Qave per Report Equation: 59 cfs
s7Q10 per Report Equation: 9.58 cfs
w7Q10 per Report Equation: 14.36 cfs
30Q2 per Report Equation: 20.42 cfs
Continue
•
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.99 : 1
[new DA/Da at gage Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.99 : 1
Over-ride Inappropriate Site (y):
Drainage Area New Site: 42.40 miles squared
MAR New Site: 1.4
Weighted Qave per Report Equation: 59 cfs
Weighted s7Q10 per Report Equation: 9.63 cfs
Weighted w7Q10 per Report Equation: 14.40 cfs
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation: 20.45 cfs

CALCULATION SHEET
��� � SHEET OF
���� PROJECT PROJ. NO.
NCDENR SUBJECT
RO... TAMON.mr", a BASIN COUNTY
BY DATE CHKD BY DATE
I I I I j
II 1 i ! � H
i � 111 III
1 II1 IIH 1 1 11 I 1
j I I ' m 1 1 1 1 ►
1 1 1 I 1 I
14-,.(Nu 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
I- 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
_ Ci _.I @. 3 e p. , c- moo . 0347i-T134cbo I b= 42.7-1
1 I I
--1 -4 d drz5- 45-J-TD g ciL 41 I PP-od036 t3k-k-444E 1
1 11 11 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Irl = Io.Iz-9 yZ
1111111111III I U.¢E 0,15
K - 2, D1. - e. =1 4z.4r v,L�I
I . 1 1 I I I 1 I I
; II I1I 1 11 111 II
ILII II 1 I I I I II II
= tA .I W4LI I . 1
I I 1 I i I I I I I I
I I I I V I I -_ I 22_4 ►..2- •1 14I i I = 159.41-I v - I I
1111 II 1 I . I I L 11
1 I
I S4i\o = 0.1155 K - 1 0.1tas Es°).%)'‘°' = 100 idsl
II 1 1 149C_ I 11,991_ 1
11 1
w1 t.�z I- o,z;s1(sSI.4- - 14�.¢ _cs
1 I
$00,1 = 0,344)-(4 '° + 034f- (53.141 - 2-0,4. 45
I I I
I
1 TI I . _ I .
1 .

AA CALCULATION SHEET "
SHEET OF
..-------I=� PROJECT PROJ. NO.
NCDENR SUBJECT
No.rn,c wouw.Dv a.m r or
ENl$oN e rA.0 N TUR.-Rev BASIN COUNTY
BY DATE CHKD BY DATE
I I I 1 H I i I I !
j
1
1 S ($ 21) -1 -i HL - Z,l Z� { =1 ISI.6 I li, . 1
{ I I'34 �* 1 1 1 I
II I j
1 I 1 I 1111
. I I f.- i. _ N CCA 3t CIO . ,C\SLI ri -4 3
I I 11NLO(,)W10 .1-9b L- c s L�.. S: b,0031- 4iU
1 1 II 11 III
111111111 1111 III 1 I III
11 II II Il II
. I 1 1
1 • 1 I I 1 1
l 1
1111111111 1111111 1 II
l i I 1 J I 1 1 1 I 1 _
I I I I I ( I I .
1 I I I I l I . I I
1111111 I I 111 ' 1 III 111
l I 1II 1 I
II
II I I 1
III 1III IIj II
III 1111
� I I
I I I { •
ll I II I II .

•
C_00 �at3�o
, 91128195
•
ccr
, Dtc.Fo.3v
Car.e,Crue ES wvp
Sc4s'r.s�,.ek Rd, aw = ,01Z /Ylb
Dkb MSL
4.7 QAC-- 59.4 cfs
1� #0344734c0o s 2 t)= 9 t cis ESt.
^y 3o©Z
•
.ire.`f �• 3-014-t3scooDp\
i.54 C?-lke 2`c i_ ,(loJ.'.r.
(oc�
30 Z = zo.B �5
03441Ticao
t 6\= I.3 l v,,,Lz.
V4= I.a4-Gs

6kutco►&Iris CAD. Sot3.3L4
14c-00e/043C°
tik I OK= to 2_1 -Z 423-44-1-'S-4§200
QA= )( ------____
DAA _ -�� i.2
r ' S40,43 =
IA
J W'X10 =
�
�, 3oQZ =
i
I
k. f� b _ • z_ nuc - iz.1 - o,Z1 = 4%,4-5-1-4
Qac =' 5C) c-
_____\:- -N.. I
SWlo- Seto =
loan_ - 3Q 61.2. = ','...0,4 A
, ` \ , 1 '..-N i4OtT�Il..1. slot() ?.°Q-.9‘%-._.......1Is - nl�
t.
' ate= _ '‘)1
1
1
3oaZ -2 , , .
p.pC = 42A A- c�,to + o.30 =4-3,,, t,
v.�
���� Qom= fro `'��
EzotK,A1Ary ^ ` _ 4s
*Oates = 14 , c) c�s
WV) • u� _• � X MSR. I,o��• 30 02._ = Z0,6 cPS
V11-€210 - .7-57-to\r
Z. _ . 344- Ak I') ti

UNITED STATES FRUITLAND QUADRANF
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY t NORTH CAROLINA
MAPPING SERVICES BRANCH 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPH
4555 111 SW
� 7
� f 3V1699 C(POQÁ '•
EN207-SWI 30 I. Ml.�TO U.S. 74 371 ' s \ 372 �` l.o M. TO U.S.74 373 „� 990?
90vFEET 3J74
j'
!, Vs �\� y RCK 2t ; '� v
n 700 / '\ I.:,%c) .i
336 Of _ 0\
' v'a ''. / ‘iii -- .ii...e/-4101. ;, ,': 1
.2" � _.;?‘ . ., ,,1\-e-----,.• u s 4fli,(1
,
. --.4 7 _, ,,,,,
r ,,,“.
—" \4‘'*111Fil 1 / 1* i,-;), /,,/' A ---ciilirilVoe‘ -,_,_c. • ak \\‘„
),'-f6'
L ' 7 , -1 V f/' (I x_ i vokt( -\‘.4,,, ift,o., ‘__,,,- „,-ilicv:
)1 *to r'f''-___, -, _,,,.. . PCINEo&L.- .k,,Cr- -4 St(7-j=. N.,,
, , - l
Iv*, 7'.\
oi ( .;'..- /17",4%
,il''
79:i,:',L_!1,
- \ y,3(4_ Q (i/Al.tel �DZ�D i -,�
.-,4( ��•,..._ L. I �i. ` � ill 0 ,, :iti /jily: ° � ��i• ��
‘. ,
..
, N--1,Niti_4•... ..., __ . ii AV....% ( 4,....„:m,, ,..„,.,, ,o,A,,,,,_#, i j,_....,„ ir
,,:_,
,.),,,, ,(1, , ,:,, ,
• ,
,..
".4;1.-4 -- k_. --)1,/L.,,,,j.1*(
r^k %.°Tf-3 i--
/ il \ ''. ''
'4i4 I
Q � D � �
Te, C .pel Piry
/ _ rtisvgcr� 1DVis- l
°I. z .r,°-7\ )\'% v° 1,-) if:'lir), C i ,,_ ---- 71.r;---- --N.,_, ‘ L;'-- -r-) I 0"Mre -___/-•.-A' !fi--e
/\ \ • " / (4*&° rf4Pf 11104L4 \17f-A4CrIr )) . 4jA\/.\-r' t\11k*(. i
ic‘ -7J j 114-04001 /0 q fr,,,,....\_...,_ ,,,,,ek-7-- p vt('-, \>4- -,Zrr-"-,._..,..., ,A' ,-V ',_ C -r,...._.,. .(,.,_,_,,, f 0 ',,
( \ _. --' / ,.,_---7z.---,--,,4/ ..- ..- .,, _=.-z,--,„--,----,--"ilv,„..,-,---"I' ---, 7/ '\----''()I'lf---- --- '- -:'-'7. _, _,: '
--"‘,\`z•-iL,,,
e/'(1fr,-o'210-r_,/-r;,-7
‘�� v - ./� �' �v r4,.\-\- J------2---,.f-,4;-17'.4-'V----/*-, ,,-,-/./).,0,y i)',.
�. 0:1
.oma` - �__? �1. _5 f< w�f I,1 ` .^�_y -
x.it__ ,ii'
1 rf\ --tfly-A,..--,_"J. , r"ir'\,_,--,-,5L„,or- ,-,c-,-, , __. , - t-7,-:-4.;,.___N. --, )( ..-17't, itli7 \.`1 c Mt...4
, 07/: , . ,/,„,4,L,_ "_-_,A,k(Cc ,,‘----- ",. %/,L ,-4k
-. Aci. .
- A
> ri
r---`"�� J�.�-�,, , -�.-clo,--, -_1 ,'-.4 , -,;---_,.-- . f,,._-,,--I i � ,��, �N �-- _ . .A*/ Crk•L- I—1
t, 4 ,v_- ---1 \ :.) _
r ;/";," / . am. _ �� . V-44.---1-1 ,,
19 6 \- .f(-;- o

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No XX
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
Lo
WATER QUALITY SECTION co
ATTENTION: Mike Templeton rn
DATE:September 16, 1998 N u `
M r,
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION S mom''
COUNTY Buncombe
PERMIT NUMBER NC 0 0 8 6 4 3 6 ca _---
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Cane Creek Elementary School
Cane Creek Road-NCSR 3136
Fairview, North Carolina 28730
Mailing: Buncombe County Board of Education
175 Bingham Road
Asheville, North Carolina
2. Date of Investigation: September 25, 1997
3 . Report Prepared By: Max L. Haner
4 . Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
5. Directions to Site: Access to the proposed site is
from Cane Creek Road (NCSR 3136) , approximately 1 . 5
miles west of its intersection with Upper Brush Creek
Road (NCSR 3142) near the Fairview Community in
Buncombe County.
6. Discharge Point (s) , List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35° 28' 53" Longitude: 82° 26' 04"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. F9NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Fruitland,N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included) : Not in flood
plain
Page 1

9. Location of nearest dwelling: >100 feet (est)
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Cane Creek
a. Classification: Class "C"
b. River Basin and Subbasin No. : French Broad, 040302
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: Agriculture, wildlife
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted . 012 MGD
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? N/A
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity N/A
d. Date (s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: The proposed 12, 000 GPD system will consist of
an extended aeration type package unit with flow
equalization, effluent disinfection (Cla) and dechlorination.
Discharge will be to Cane Creek.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None Known
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only) :
in development approved
should be required not needed
2 . Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Final disposal
of sludge wasted from this facility will be handled in an approved
facility via independent contract hauler. This matter must be
resolved upon submittal of an ATC.
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify) :
Page 3

3 . Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet) :
N/A - No ATC issued to date
4 . SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Primary 03 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: No WWTP constructed to date
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
or are any public monies involved. (municipals only) ? N/A
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
None
3 . Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate)
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4 . Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all
of the non-discharge options available. Please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated. (See Recommendations Below)
Eight non-discharge alternatives were evaluated on both a 20 year
& 40 year cost worth basis in the engineering proposal/NPDES
permit application package (as follows) . Preliminary evaluation
would support that the discharging wwtp is the most cost
effective, environmentally sound wastewater treatment alternative
for this project.
20 year 40 year
a.Connection to Regional Sewer System - $ 2, 121,377 $ 2,134,404
b.Connection to Privately Owned System - N/A
c. Individual Subsurface System - 335, 171 343, 262
d.Community Subsurface System - N/A
e.Subsurface Drip Irrigation - 390, 305 413, 822
f.Spray Irrigation - 472, 629 507, 546
f.Effluent Reuse - N/A
g.Pump Station/Force Main Sewer 473, 751 491, 167
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items: None
Page 3

PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed discharge to Cane Creek in the French Broad River
Basin should not result in significant adverse environmental
impact . If a detailed review of the alternative analysis
evaluation continues to support the NPDES permit option, ARO
recommends that the permit go to public notice with intent to
issue.
e of -sport Prep rer
, Adr!!''Ae(ALCifftriLlAnv
ater Quality Regional Supervisor
9 /lo gl
Dat
Page 4

.
-
. .
UNITED STATES
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
MAPPING SERVICES BRANCH
0555///SW
I 368 369 (OrEEN 201-SW) ;370 l.• mi. 70 U.S.74 371 25' in r:7
1 Ml. Tlk
'-' s,,,, --. ),) '' • •Ci\..\.n '''' ' 1 " ). '111 . '1‘' 7 iii17:cK,21,.721__4 i .111„...„4„,,,, o U.S.74
,• •
- ,_
1 j
/ fi• '----- ••
./.. e•• ---
‘ 1r/.q. 1.• ili S.* f." .1 S''k_ '3 le N• I
,c2,\ •_ 'r.,.•-7! ,----",-C
1,1.1;,0 ,\
-.-••" --A•
\ •.1 z 4 LA " ALlik, ' ‘,...‘-- \_,,_,_
.._:-cir ..7
\ , s • . , k-
..,
....-A,,,
,i —
Vgipi4 i„,,iip
, tit)
1., R • ,-,P;ii/ / ‘, ,-.. • cf-\,_jj'*A-Ap .
killikilliN:114144S6(
\-23.• ANL •
' i
i• • T-E\-JAeva Y
4. -'•'•. gie;"-'1- - ‘ '/' •P • .81 --- • ''
- • --1••• 'a.
II •
.JA n
/ 1
1 .,z...d.
. ...Ike-----= " •2 , ) \ - / -7'/ Vir,.:' - l' N. •
• -. .f. \' ' - ) \ ,AV:Alr \ • . a . 4 ., --,
^4E \
i \.•.°41 . . / ''../._, \......j j...‘C''
' 'll • 'jilk -\ COI),'7 • ..11 .-.".,'-''' ,,_.
11 ,..
k., ' / /CA • / , VI,
)
1 .7, \ . •
41 ••Nri\...:1.) ( i ,,
r ‘i)
%,.___„, -- ,_ -- , •.4 . -....r- riV„....‘„. 4,,lei,‘"
< ' ' ' . ')•C z's.nr\i' qf - 4 - \ i---'----4'-1) ill
„ p" . I ' 1-v-----,S'\ • ; ':.', ‘ •!-\-,1\ -,r,fre: ------ /r----71( ,--t -r---' , '
/ e. C. .el'-'," • , \ / rp 01,, -1-4 r 1.\44____,----;„, (,__,,i) e•, .., ,(C-:i i 1 _,-si,
•• . I ''• .._1 CV
1 1 (c)// 0 ) • \ ,-, ,-- --:--------7,--,-,----- -N,.' ,._( ., ps(„.t-,---• ' -.1%-,.., i \.:-. )1//
_,- 14.;'• — ‘,. ii )9\i 9: . --(' —A1-1\-\ Ilkg-' ( q cz=4. _-&0_ -_,.*, ,-.‘10,77,)Air /
..il „41 k ‘111 / IV-lek- - ' ‘. \ S' `# 5 (/ .4.--s••••• • 4......-.k7—".•,...;„,- -life, ' .1), rr-
(------
\ _i ,-------- ._;,( r'# .‘- \.. r__' ,e-‘‘ ''N, ___. • ,e;)_ ,r •_ -+-ii., -* ON ./.,%.,--4 T
/0 ---,
I B \ __,--,------ ----- ).0‘. . 4.4 7--- -----.C••••- --- --A '- lj, --- --..'•'---"'I/__-- di,1/4 '''''.#41(---, / /e...10. iii ''-',4PN)') '
"\ ----- N..\\ AAL----'-,--"1-°- -dA,"
!140 °.-„, .,r. 8.---7: * 7--'--- -•- 4- \ Iipt**4- - rf"*-1 41--c--11,'. .../01-;,`,- i -- '-?;
_x _ /----,----4A -7f---,1/4
,i..J( (r.i....._)W-,
(-- _, „;,_ (--1-;-_-.;"*41..r.--'\--- " \)\ .--- ---------/- ' ',a, ..1;•'-',. ."-_*:-:---6 I- ( ..'('''''' ...,-i'l 1 ./II l./.-
E-/-- .',,,f,e ,-, ,,-ii,/fr-- \1r--_/-\, v' kVil/;`, - ---5 ct,_ j - •-,4 "2- /it) ILD-
-)
,.....,,,,
,,r---1 ‘ ---- •-,.---- \--,-, r---- it ,). , - ., ‘ -1, ‘z__.,---=_,- i •liet•ii- . - pis' )--...-c----,v---1--r
y_S---
.• 1_ 1---1 r-"'•---.1- 1,,. ..ji 9 --0, -.-Ni
0 7/_,---....,:' fr.---•_.-_' ."--__. 0,,---- ,---.1- c.-/ ---\„\- .\-' II.o. ‘ \zt---. ) -_ `• ' ri-f
.• --514 .n.,---j-• -____ e..-, ---„ ,), (Lc-2.7. ... )) ,,, 4 __,,,______,_,,,_____,t,,t,
\,, (_),eko ,\r..:_(.4::::•,. ir- ,,-/-f---,-----------,„...4 ,„r.„, ..., . T---1,4----cg--- -----„s....4,),,., •-----_,._, re - l'. ../r1"--• -I -- - ‘----- 1/4\ e\ \
5- l -r-Ak ,, 4 '(d NI( tr Aitc-' -`7-__) '-' -__----7 -1* .5.4 tt. • ,z.v _cil _ ---,I
, A a•--_-_-_, _-__....„‘\
'v - , (, --,--:-' '1.-\-r--_ - ..„„v, _," N - r"t-- 44---J\ • ), -:' --il 44 .i&iff .A ) -r--.'.--------'.
r*••••••1 -N__,--,--A., '1 „..-N\.,-,,:ijf•V.____ ) . .,%,‘ _ c
04 if-) • -- \
./ , - e-r-' I V ' 11 • '
r,_/ ,..._, , / , iii,:-----• N
, t,.., .4,....f.e. .._.4, 4. ',.•,-\ ._.,- ..---. "..4n„, ,,,,..,- ,--. J , ,\2 ).-. ,
\-..\\ ‘...., r.„...-- A •-, c
,1 TA:„. ; -. -4 Ify-il. 1---z.\- ,:w---,--„ )-1—,... -..-._• -.2 4,,, c( 54/7-0›/Te . !io. k)_v____I- \
-1 _
ki) , ) ) .%,_;,,,)„,1 , /(S\_•,,, Aro /sr,,,i - , dv,),,A., j\_;-, ,k;_,
N ‘),.,„.4.-, .f (-;,, ________4(, ,, r____-<-- •,
f-skl\fic 4 fr-5-\ .,--,\-, 2/0&)) r,_ ,---f, ,..,/,;\- _-,,, -, -----/6.\) • itt. •Ii , \_ ----- %. ,
— V _ 1 A, -'t- i—7 . ' ,,_,A-• ( \ • i \ - et.r. ___ ---)
ir 004 /13 (S,-)1.-- -/-\ N,-,A, nr,_,,,,,,---,....,..,vi _AA'---1-2-/-'-'•°- i/ 4
• (3, 7. , ,_- -, ,-------_:- .
/ - i.,/ri,-*J\r--- ‘,i•C) '-' -' ',, ,.„.:4I-4 -Xei e r i(4.411.- _(
-1)
....,i ,-/3,jV/-' , r .;,..,1--=',--- --1 ' ,-- %) ( ft- __(-------- - — "------ 8--,"c- ‘ ___....._:-ir"--.--;•-•--- - c)-----„„„__-----..--- ---T-f. • ..„,Th_
5.,.: '1
-
() ,cv, ,, ', - 1 ' .• -si.z•\'- -
\ N '\' / • 2--._: ::-_,7..-,\,;.30 --. ........V-i1,y--....,/ _ \ -\ ; :. e ...,,,z, -i;, , \.:.,„.....,,.,...-_.. .‘.. ,.
.\ r, -'. - . • ‘\\',-' , W , 7 --_:-•ri.;-•/. - -----)_,--1----=','..--—-:.-_,." ,--=--,-, , -.\i.1_, -i((- _t-•‘, - -;, ,.,_ ,
1- A-1- I - - 1 l'i----,\-..smr\s)?_ \ ----s • __O•- -• ,----=;"' -_''.,-_;-.-1--)))\----•:--.--),› A i \'.':1----:-.. 11 ‘ IA -1_
/-\
... "

•
RATING SCALE FOR CLASSIFICATION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
C4(i Name of Facility: 4. Sc.4.00(..
Owner or Contact Person: U.AZOltdde.OgivIci S c
Mailing Addre L`?S J 4-'3k M l A`'5 I.1(t, N C LA'PO(C.
County: Telephone: 0718 Zss— Sol 7 6
Present Classification: Al L4- New Facility ✓ Existing Facility
NPDES Per. No. NC00 �¢ Nondisc. Per. No.WQ Health Dept.Per No.
Rated by: nu. Pao Telephone: (8s41')2s/lo2o ate: s-rc-9d
Reviewed by: Health Dept. Telephone: _.
ir�,u �, l� iAz.�..t�4 Regional Office Telephone: cal"25"/-6 to f
1) Central Office Telephone:
ORC: Grade: Telephone:
Check Classification(s): Subsurface Spray Irrigation Land Application
Wastewater Classification: (Circle One) I III IV Total Points: 3 Co
1N-RANT PROCESSES AND RELATED CONTROL EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLASSIFICATION.ALSO SEPTIC TAW SYSTEMS CONSISTING ONLY OF SEPTIC TAN(
AND GRAVITY NITRIFICATION LNNES ARE EXEMPT FROM CLASSIFICATION,
SUBSURFACE CLASSIFICATION SPRAY IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATION
(check all units that apply) (check all units that apply)
1, septic tanks 1. preliminary treatment (definition no. 32 )
2. pump tanks 2. lagoons
3. siphon or pump-dosing systems 3. septic tanks
4 sand filters 4. pump tanks
5. grease trap/interceptor 5. pumps
6, oil/water separators 6. sand filters
7. gravity subsurface treatment and disposal: 7. grease trap/interceptor
8. pressure subsurface treatment and disposal: 8. oil/water separators
9, disinfection
10. chemical addition for nutrient/algae control
11. spray irrigation of wastewater
In • addition to the above classifications, pretreatment of wastewater in excess of these components shall
be rated using the point rating system and will require an operator with an appropriate dual certification.
LAND APPLICATION/RESIDUALS CLASSIFICATION(Applies only to permit holder)
1. Land application of biosolids, residuals or contaminated soils on a designated site.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
The following systems shall be assigned a Class I classification,unless the flow is of a significant quantity or the technology is unusually
complex,to require consideration by the Commission on a case-by-case basis: (Check if Appropriate)
1. OiL/water Separator Systems consisting only of physical separation,pumps and disposal;
2. Septic TanWSand Filter Systems consisting only of septic tanks, dosing apparatus, pumps,sand filters, disinfection
and direct discharge;
3. Lagoon Systems consisting only of preliminary treatment, lagoons, pumps, disinfection, necessary chemical treatment for
algae or nutrient control,and direct discharge;
4. Closed-loop Recyde Systems;
5. Groundwater Remediation Systems consisting only of oil/water separators, pumps, air-stripping, carbon adsorption, disinfection
and disposal;
6. Aquaculture operations with discharge to surface waters;
7. Water Plant sludge handling and back-wash water treatment;
8. Seafood processing consisting of screening and disposal.
9. Single-family discharging systems,with the exception of Aerobic Treatment Units, will be classified if permitted after July 1,
1993 or if upon inspection by the Division,it is found that the system is not being adequately operated or maintained. Such
systems will be notified of the classification or reclassification by the Commission, in writing.

The following scale is used for rating wastewater treatment facilities: (circle appropriate points) '
REM POINTS
(1) Industrial Pretreatment.Unnkii or industrial Pretreatment Program(see definition No.33) 4
(2) DESIGN FLOW OF PLANT IN gpd(not applicable to non-contaminated cooing waters,sludge handing facilities for
water purification plants,tota*y closed cycle systems(see definition No.11),and facilities consisting only of item
(4)(d) or Items (4)(d) and (11)(d)) .
0 - 20,000 1 /
• 20,001 - 50,000 • 2
• 50,001 - 100.000 .3
100.001 - 250,000 r,,, .4
250,001 - 500,000 .5
500.001 - 1,000,000 ,8
1,000.001 - 2,000,000 , 10
• 2.000.001 (and up)rate 1 point additional for each 200.000 gpd capacity up to a maximum of 30
Design Flow (gpd)
(3) PRELIMINARY UNITS/PROCESSES(see definition No.32)
(a) Bar Screens 1 ,/
or
(b) Mechanical Screens,Static Screens or Comminuting Devices 2
(c) Grit Removal 1
or
(d) MechaNcal or Aerated Grit Removal 2
(e) Flow Measuring Device 1
or
(1) Instrumented Flow Measurement 21
(g) Preaeratlon 2
(h) Influent Flow Equalization - 2 1�
(I) Grease or Oil Separators - Gravity .2
Mechanical .3
Dissolved Air Flotation ,8
(I) Prechlorination .5
(4) PRMARYTREATMENTUNITS/PROCESSESS
(a) Septic Tank (see definition No. 43) 2
(b) Imhoff Tank. .5
6
(c) Primary Clarifiers. .5
(d) Settling Ponds or Settling Tanks for InorgaNc Non-toxic Materials(sludge handling facilities for water
purification plants,sand.gravel,stone,and other mining operations except recreational activities such as gem
or gold mining) .2
(5) SECONDARY TREATMENT UNITS/PROCESSES
(a) Carbonaceous Stage
(I) Aeration-High Purity Oxygen System 20
Diffused Air System 10
Mechanical Air System (fixed, floating or rotor) »........»...»...»...5
Separate Sludge Reaera lion .3
(II) Tridding Filter
High Rate 7
Standard Rate ,5
Packed Tower .5
(III) Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Filter..........................................._.........._...10
(iv) Aerated Lagoons 10
(v) Rotating Biological Contactors 10
(vi) Sand Filters -intermittent biological 2
Recirculating biological 3
(vii) Stabilization Lagoons .5
(viii) Clarifier .51
(ix) Single stage system for combined carbonaceous removal of BOD and nitrogenous removal by
nitrification(sur definition No. 12XPoints for this item have to be in addition to Items
(5)(a)(I) through (5)(a)(viii). I
utdizkp the extended aeration process(see definition No.3a) .2
utilizing other than the extended aeration process. 8
(x) Nutrient additions to enhance DOD removal .5
(xl) Biological Culture (*Super Bugs')addition 5
(b) Nitrogenous Stage
(I) Aeration - High Purity Oxygen System 20
Diffused Air System 10
Mechanical Air System (fixed, floating or rotor) .8
Separate Sludge Reaeration .3
(II) Trickling Fiter-High Rate 7
Standard Rate .5
Packed Tower .5
(Ili) Biological Aerated Filter or Aerated Biological Filter....................»...........»........»...»........».10
(iv) Rotating Biological Contactors 10
(v) Sand Filter-Intermittent biological 2
Recirculating biological 3 I
(vi) Clarpier .5
(6) TERTiARYORADVANCED TREATMENT UNITS/PROCESSES
(a) Activated Carbon Beds-
without carbon regeneration .5
with carbon regeneration 15
(b) Powdered or Granular Activated Carbon Feed-
without carbon regeneration .5
with carbon regeneration 15
(c) Air stripping ,5
(d) Denitrification Process 10
(0) Electrodialysis .5
(I) Foam Separation. .5
(9) Ion Exchange A
(h) Land Application of Treated Effluent(see definition No.22b)(not applicable for sand,gravel,stone
and other similar mining operations) by high rate Infiltration......_...»...._..._........_.............»....»...»...»...»....4
(I) Microscreens .5
(1) Phosphorous Removal by Biological Processes(See definition No.28) 20
(k) Polishing Ponds - without aeration. 2
with aeration .5

I •
(I) Post Aeration - cascade 0
diffused or mechanical 2
(m) Reverse Osmosis ,5
(n) Sand or Mixed-Media Fitters - low rate 2
high rate 5
(o) Treatment processes for removal of metal or cyanide 15
(p) treatment processes for removal of toxic materials other than metal or cyanide 1 5
(7) SLUDGETREATMl3NT
(a) Sludge Digestion Tank - Heated (anaerobic) 10
Aerobic _5
Unheated (anaerobic) .3
(b) Sludge Stabilization(chemical or thermal) .5
(c) Sludge Drying Beds-Gravity 2
Vacuum Assisted S
(d) Sludge Elutriation .5
(e) Sludge Conditioner (chemical or thermal) .5
if/ Sludge Thickener (gravity) .5
(g) Dissolved Air Flotation Unit [not applicable to a unit rated as (3)(I)) 8
(h) Sludge Gas Utilization (including gas storage)
(I) Sludge Holding Tank - Aerated 2 ✓
Non-aerated - 2
(J) Sludge Incinerator(not including activated carbon regeneration) 10
(k) Vacuum Fitter,Centrifuge,or Filter Press or other similar dewatering devices 10
(8) RESIDUALS UTILIZATION/DISPOSAL(induding incinerated ash)
(a) Lagoons .2
(b) Land Application (surface and subsurface)(see definition 22a)
by contracting to a land application operator or landfill operator who holds the land application permit
or landfill permit 2
( ) (c) Dedicated Landfiil(burial) by the permittee of the wastewater treatment facility .5
( DISINIFECTICN9)
Chlorination ,$1✓
(b) Dechlorination .5 V/
(c) Ozone .5
(d) Radiation .5
(10) CHEMICAL ADDITION SYSTEM(S)(see definition No.9)[not applicable to chemical additions rated as Item(3)0).
i (5)(a)(xi). (6)(a), (6)(b), (7)(b), (7)(e). (9a), (9)(b) or (9)(c) 5 points each:
List .5
.5
5
(1 1) MISCELLANEOUS UNITS/PROCESSES5
(a) Holding Ponds,Holding Tanks or Settling Ponds for Organic or Toxic Materials including wastes from mining
operations containing nitrogen or phosphorus compounds in amounts significantly greater than Is common
for domestic wastewater .4
(b) Effluent Flow Equalization(not applicable to storage basins which are inherent In land application systems) 2
(c) Surge Discharge(not applicable to storage basins inherent In land application systems).. ... . 5
(e) Stand-By Power Supply .3
(1) Thermal Pollution Control Device .3
TOTAL POINTS
CLASSIFICATION
Claes I 5-25 Points (0.
Class II 28-50 Points
Classll 51-65 Points
Class IV 68-Up Points
Facilities having a rating of one through four points,Inclusive,do not require a certified operator.
Facilities having an activated sludge process will be assigned a minimum classification of Class II.
Facilities having treatment processes for the removal of metal or cyanide will be assigned a minimum classification of Class II.
Facilities having treatment processes for the biological removal of phosphorus will be assigned a minimum classification of Class III.
.0004 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Subchapter.
(1)Activated Carbon Beds. A physical/chemical method for reducing soluble organic material from wastewater effluent;The column-type beds used In this
method will have a flow rate varying from two to sight gallons per minute per square foot and may be etther upflow or downflow carbon beds. Carbon may or
may not be regenerated on the wastewater treatment plant site;
(2)Aerated Lagoons. A basin in which all solids are maintained in suspension and by which biological oxidation or organic matter is reduced through artificially
accelerated transfer of oxygen on a flow-through basis;
(3)Aeration. A process of bringing about intimate contact between air or high purity oxygen In a liquid by spraying, agitation or dlffusion;(3a) Extended
Aeration. An activated sludge process utilizing a minimum hydraulic detention time of 18 hours.
(4)Agriculturally managed site. Any site on which a crop is produced,managed,and harvested(Crop includes grasses,grains,trees,etc.);
(5)Air Stripping. A process by which the ammonium ion Is first converted to dissolved ammonia(pH adjustment)with the ammonia then released to the
atmosphere by physical means;or other similar processes which remove petroleum products such as benzene,toluene,and xylene;
(6)Carbon Regeneration. The regeneration of exhausted carbon by the use of a furnace to provide extremely high temperatures which volatilize and oxidize the
absorbed Impurities;
(7)Carbonaceous Stage. A stage of wastewater treatment designed to achieve'secondary'effluent limits;
(8)Centrifuge. A mechanical device In which centrifugal force is used to separate solids from liquids or to separate liquids of different densPtes;
(9)Chemical Addition Systems-The addition of chemical(s)to wastewater at an application point for purposes of improving solids removal,pH adjustment,
alkalinity control,etc.;the capability to experiment with different chemicals and different application points to achieve a specific result will be considered one
system;the capabilitto add chemical(s)to dual units will be rated as one system;capability to add a chemical at a different application points for different
purposes will result In the systems being rated as separate systems;
(10)Chemical Sludge Conditioning. The addition of a chemical compound such as lime,ferric chloride,or a polymer to wet sludge to coalesce the mass prior to
its application to a dewatering device;
(11)Closed Cycle Systems. Use of holding ponds or holding tanks for containment of wastewater containing inorganic:,ran-toxic materials from sand,gravel,
crushed stone or other similar operations.Such systems shall carry a maximum of two points regardless of pumping facilties or any other appurtenances;
(12)Combined Removal of Carbonaceous BOD and Nitrogenous Removal by Nitrificatbn-A single stage system required to achieve permit effluent limits on BOD
and ammonia nitrogen within the same biological reactor,
(13)Dechlorination. The partial or complete reduction of residual chlorine In a liquid by any chemical or physical process;
(14) Denftrllcatlon Process. The conversion of nitrate-nitrogen to nitrogen gas;

(15)Electrodialysis. Process for removing Ionized salts from water through the use of ion-selective Ion-exchange membranes;
(16)Filter Press. A process operated mechanically for partially dewatering sludge;
(17)Foam Separation. The planned frothing of wastewater or wastewater effluent as a means of removing excessive amounts of detergent materials through
the introduction of air In the form of fine bubbles;also called foam fractionation;
(18)Grit Removal. The process of removing grit and other heavy mineral matter from wastewater;
(19) Imhoff Tank. A deep two story wastewater tank consisting of an upper sedimentation chamber and a lower sludge digestion chamber.
(20)Instrumented Flow Measurement. A device which Indicates and records rate of flow;
(21)Ion Exchange. A chemical process in which Ions from two different molecules are exchanged;
(22) Land application:
(a)Sludge Disposal. A final sludge disposal method by which wet sludge may be applied to land either by spraying on the surface or by subsurface injection
(i.e.. chisel plow);[not applicable for types of sludge described In(11)of this Rule);
(b)Treated Effluent. The process of spraying treated wastewater onto a land area or other methods of application of wastewater onto a land area as a
means of final disposal or treatment;
(23)Microscreen. A low speed,continuously back-washed, rotating drum filter operating under gravity conditions as a polishing method for removing
suspended solids from effluent;
(24)Nitrification Process. The biochemical conversion of unoxidized nitrogen(ammonia and organic nitrogen)to oxidized nitrogen (usually nitrate);
(25)Nitrogenous Stage. A separate stage of wastewater treatment designed for the specific purpose of converting ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen;
(26) Phosphate Removal,Biological. The removal of phosphorus from wastewater by an oxicJanoxic process designed to enhance luxury uptake of phosphorus
by the microorganisms;
(27) Polishing Pond. A holding pond following secondary treatment with sufficient detention time to allow settling of finely suspended solids;
(28) Post Aeration. Aeration following conventional secondary treatment units to Increase effluent D.O.or for any other purpose;
(29) Post Aeration. (Cascade) A polishing method by which dissolved oxygen is added to the effluent by a nonmechanical,gravity means of flowing down a
series of steps or weirs; The flow occurring across the steps or weirs moves in a fairly thin layer and the operation of the cascade requires no operator
adjustment;thus,zero points are assigned even though this Is an essential step to meeting the limits of the discharge permit;
(30) Powdered to Granular Activated Carbon Feed. A biophysical carbon process that utilizes biological activity and organic absorption by using powdered or
granular activated carbon; Virgin or regenerated carbon is feed controlled Into the system;
(31) Preaeratlon. A tank constructed to provide aeration prior to primary treatment;
(32)Preliminary Units. Unit operations in the treatment process,such as screening and comminution,that prepare the liquor for subsequent major operations;
(33) Industrial Pretreatment.
(a) Pre-treatment Unit. Industrial. The conditioning of a waste at Its source before discharge,to remove or to neutralize substances injurious to sewers and
treatment processes or to effect a partial reduction in load on the treatment process which is operated by the same governing body as the wastewater
treatment plant being rated;
b)Pre-treatment Program.Industrial-must be a State or EPA required program to receive points on the rating sheet;
(34) Primary Clarifiers. The first settling tanks through which wastewater Is passed in a treatment works for the purpose of removing settleable and suspended
solids and BOD which is associated with the solids;
(35) Pumps. All influent.effluent and in-plant pumps;
(36)Radiation. Disinfection or sterilization process utilizing devices emitting ultraviolet or gamma rays;
(37)Reverse Osmosis. A treatment process In which a heavy contaminated liquid is pressurized through a membrane forming nearly pure liquid free from
suspended solids;
(38)Rotating Biological Contractors. A fixed biological growth process In which wastewater flows through tanks In which a series of partially submerged circular
surfaces are rotated;
(39)Sand Filters:
(a) Intermittent Biological. Filtration of effluent following septic tanks, lagoons,or some other treatment process in which further bbdecomposition is
expected to produce desired effluents;Hydraulic loading rates on these liners are computed In gpolac and have a resulting low gpm/st(less than one);
b)Recirculating biological-the same type of sand filter as defined in Subparagraph(39)(a)of this Rule with the added capability to recycle effluent back
through the sand filter,
(40)Sand or Mixed-Media Filters. A polishing process by which effluent limits are achieved through a further reduction of suspended solids;
(a)low rate—gravity,hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates in the one to three gpm/sf range;
(b)high rate—a pressure,hydraulically loaded filter with loading rates in the five gprVsl range;At any rate,the loading rate will exceed three gpm/sf;
(41)Secondary Clarifiers. A tank which follows the biological unit of treatment plant and which has the purpose of removing sludges associated with the
biological treatment units;
(42)Separate Sludge Reaeration. A part of the contact stabilization process where the activated sludge is transferred to a tank and aerated before returning it
to the contact basin;
(43)Septic Tank A single-story settling tank In which settled sludge is In contact with the wastewater flowing through the tank;shall not be applicable for
septic tank systems serving single family residences having capacity of 2,000 gallons or less which discharge to a nitrification field;
(44)Sludge Digestion. The process by which organic or volatile matter and sludge is gasified,liquefied,mineralized or converted into more stable organic matter
through the activity of living organisms, which Includes aerated holdng tanks;
(45)Sludge Drying Beds. An area comprising natural or artiticial layers of porous materials upon which digested sewage sludge Is dried by drainage and
evaporation;
(46)Sludge Elutriation. A process of sludge conditioning in which certain constituents are removed by successive washings with fresh water or plant effluent;
(47)Sludge Gas Utilization. The process of using sewage gas for the purpose of heating buildings,driving ergines,etc.;
(48)Sludge Holding Tank(Aerated and Nonaerated). A tank utilized for small wastewater treatment plants not containing a digester In which sludge may be
kept fresh,and supernatant withdrawn prior to a drying method(i.e.sludge drying beds);This may be done by adding a small amount of air simply to keep the
sludge fresh,but not necessarily an amount that would be required to achieve stabilization of organic matter. A nonaerated tank would simply be used to
decant sludge prior to dewatering and would not allow long periods(several days of detention)without resulting odor problems;
(49)Sludge Incinerators. A furnace designed to bum sludge and to remove all moisture and combustible materials and reduce the sludge to a sterile ash;
(50)Sludge Stabilization(Chemical or Thermal). A process to make treated sludge less odorous and putrescrble,and to reduce the pathogenic organism
content;This may be done by pH adjustment,chlorine dosing,or by heat treatment;
(51)Sludge Thickener. A type of sedimentation tank In which the sludge is permitted to settle and thicken through agitation and gravity;
(52)Stabilization Lagoon. A type of oxidation lagoon in which biological oxidation of organic matter is effected by natural transfer of oxygen to the water from
air (not a polishing pond);
(53)Stand-By Power Supply. On site or portable electrical generating equipment;
(54)Static Screens. A stationary screen designed to remove solids.Including non-biodegradable particulate(floatable solids,suspended solids and BOO
reduction)from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems;
(55)Tertiary Treatment. A stage of treatment following secondary which is primarily for the purpose of effluent polishing;A settling lagoon or sand or coal finer
might be employed for this purpose;
(56)Thermal Pollution Control Device. A device providing for the transfer of heat from a fluid flowing In tubes to another fluid outside the tubes,or vice versa;
or other means of regulating liquid temperatures;
(57)Thermal Sludge Conditioner. A conditioning process by which heat Is added for a protracted period of time to Improve the dewaterabinty of sludge by the
solubilizing and hydraulizing of the smaller and more highly hydrated sludge particles;
(58)Toxic Materials. Those wastes or combinations of wastes,Including disease-causing agents which after discharge and upon exposure.Ingestion,Inhalation
or assimilation into any organism,either directly from the environment or Indirectly by Ingestion through food chains,will cause death,disease,behavioral
abnormalities,cancer,genetic mutations,physiological malfunctions(including malfunctions In reproduction)or physical deformations,In such organisms or their
offspring;Toxic materials Include,by way of Illustration and not limitation:lead,cadmium,chromium,mercury,vanadium,arsenic,zinc,ortho-nitro-chlorobenzene
(ONCB),polychlorinated blphenyis(PCBs)and dichlorodlphenyl trlchioroethane(DDT);and any other materials that have or may hereafter be determined to have
toxic properties;
(59)Trickling Filter. A biological treatment unit consisting of a material such as broken stone or rock over which wastewater is distributed;A high rate trickling
filter is one which operated at between 10 and 30 mgd per acre. A low rate trickling filter is one which is designed to operate at one to four mgd per acre;
(60)Trickling Finer(Packed Tower). A plug flow type of operation In which wastewater flows down through successive layers of media or filtrate material;Organic
material is removed continually by the active biological fixed growth In each successive layer. This method may produce'secondary'quality effluent,or may be
adapted to produce a nitrified effluent;
(61)Vacuum Filter.Centrifuges,or Filter Presses. Devices which are designed to remove excess water from either digested or undigested sludge prior to disposal
or further treatment.

LEDFORD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED
Consulting Engineers, Geologists & Land Surveyors
306 West Haywood Street
P.O. Box 2217
Asheville, NC 28802
[phone]
1-800-654-8891
FAX [phone]
October 19, 1998
Mr.Michael Templeton
NPDES Unit
NCDENR
P.O.Box 29535
Raleigh,NC 27626-0535
Re: NPDES Permit Application No.NC0086436
Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP/Buncombe County
Dear Mr.Templeton,
This letter is in response to your 8/7/98 letter attached for the above referenced project.
Our response to your request for the additional information is as follows:
1. The description of the proposed school is a 800 student elementary school with cafeteria,gym and showers. The
wastewater is domestic waste and we do not anticipate any other waste loadings.
The design flow was based on a 800 student @ 15 gpd/student for 12,000 gpd.
2. Map showing proposed site and contours. As our office discussed with you the alternative sites were assumed to be
adjacent to the school property if the land were available.
I trust this information and original submittal will allow you to complete your review and approval of the proposed discharge
permit.
Please call if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
4kT.Ledford
Enclosures •
Cc:Marshall Roberts
File

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Auf
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director NCDENR
August 7, 1998
Mr. Marshall Roberts
Director of Facility Services
Buncombe County Schools
175 Bingham Road
Asheville,North Carolina 28806
Subject: Receipt of NPDES Permit Application
Permit No. NC0086436
Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Roberts:
The Division of Water Quality received your permit application package for the proposed Cane
Creek Elementary School discharge on June 1, 1998. The package includes:
• NPDES permit application, Short Form D;
• application fee of$400 (check#711160);
• Engineering Alternatives Analysis;
• wastewater treatment system design criteria and process flow diagram; and
• location map.
Surface Discharge Option
I understand that funding for the school project is being held back until the Division provides
some assurance the proposed discharge will be approved. Here is the status of my review to date.
I trust this will address those concerns.
I have completed a preliminary review of the package and discussed it with Mr. Max Haner of
our Asheville Regional Office. It appears that the proposed WWTP-surface water discharge is
both technically feasible and cost-effective. Considering the discharge flow, stream flow, and
typical effluent characteristics, the discharge is not likely to create water quality problems in the
receiving stream.
I will finish reviewing the alternatives analysis in the next several weeks and, if warranted,
prepare a draft permit. The permit will be offered for public review, and we must consider all
comments before taking formal action on the permit. Therefore, even though the proposal looks
acceptable to this point, I cannot commit to any particular outcome for your application, because
this would pre-empt my alternatives review and the public involvement process.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone[phone] FAX[phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/10%post-consumer paper

Buncombe County Schools
Permit No.NC0086436
Cane Creek Elementary School WWTP
Page 2
Request for Additional Information
Please provide the following information to supplement your original permit application and
alternatives analysis:
1. A detailed description of the proposed school project, including:
• description of facilities to be constructed;
• sources of wastewater and, if other than domestic, expected characteristics;
• basis for the design wastewater flow(number of students, etc.); and
• plans and schedule for future expansion(s)of the facilities and WWTP.
2. Maps showing the project site, area topography,proposed school and related facilities,
potentially affected communities(e.g., sewer hookups), WWTP and outfall locations,
disposal sites for each alternative, and other significant features.
Regarding the design flow, state rules require that the following flows be used to determine the
minimum design daily flow for schools:
With cafeteria, gym, and showers 15 gal/student
With cafeteria only 12 gal/student
With neither cafeteria nor showers 10 gal/student
Be aware that the Division's regional office must also provide recommendations from the
Regional Supervisor prior to final action by the Division. I am,by copy of this letter,requesting
that the regional office prepare a staff report on this project. We will notify you of any comments
or questions or any additional information necessary for the application review.
If you have any questions,call me at(919)733-5083,extension 541.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Templeton
NPDES Unit
cc: Bob Barr,Ledford Engineering (by FAX)
Asheville Regional Office/Water Quality Section(with application)
NPDES Files

.LEDFORD ENGINEERING INCORPORATED �� ' ��
. cI�eetToa 2-Zr? d F_Ft nF 4RAbkri l 9V4�1
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA LD1
7-86C 2- a0')
[phone] DATE 2 / ^ JOB NO.
FAX [phone] IV" 9
ATTENTION Di 1 C�
�� :��free //�� Maj Q�
TO G V i bJM�I.JQ�Y C !`� �4 RE: ' LCL ' " -
F',o.$ 2R53c GZ,�
RTle /l I ''C 3--7(02.— — DS 3S—
WE
J n
WE ARE SENDING YOU QVttached D Under separate cover via the following items:
>
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples 0 Specifications
O Copy of letter 0 Change order 0
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
4c,k 5 � � D -9g 4- 40o , - , ' Pet . 7///(o
CYC)e- {/,1 '!1 l M`F-)r'l C4 / s l s .
3 Qes I �;.. 1 j (1-4-) .. `�
3 ss�
-+ -1-2 ( C�� r
F1' dA cry-,‘ •
��((lli r,�
4'
OIN l 1998 JD)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: DA/DI -crrno, �r
i approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit _T copfofr ' I1{
E
O For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution
O As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints
>
O For review and comment 0
O FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
4("?
...e..Q511)
JP 1998 ...0
km ,UN
- .," ,t, . .
P SEC i .. . ,
m,
COPY TO /64 . �`/ AIN.
Pie • SIGNED: ` •If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once.

CANE CREEK SCHOOL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
DESIGN CRITERIA
EQUIPMENT LIST:
Barscreen yes
Flow Equalization Chamber 10,000 gal useable volume
Aeration 18,000 gallon(36 hour detention)
Sludge Holding 2,500 gallon
Clarifier 2,580 gallon
Chlorine Contact 600 gallon tablet feeder
Flow Measurement continuous ISCO 3210
Dechlorination tablet feeder
Post Aeration 500 gallon
2. Design parameters and NPDES Permit limits:
a. Equalization basin: Required for all facilities.
Working volume = 20 to 25% of average daily volume.
For school having flow within 8 hours use
4. Verify aeration requirements:
a. Detention time = vol ume(18,000 gal x 24 hours/day)> 24 hours, use 36
Q(12,000) GPD
b. Calculate BOD loading:
lb BOD/day = 200 mg/I x 8.34 x Q(0.012 ) MGD
= 20.02 #'s BOD/day; Use 21 #'s/ day

Cane Creek School Page 2
Design Criteria 5/11/1998
c. Calculate air needed for BOD removal:
CFM for BOD removal = 2,100 CFM/# BOO x 21 #'s BOD/Day
1440 min/day
= 29.19 CFM; USE 30 CFM
d. Calculate air needed for mixing:
CFM for mixing= 25 CFM - aeration tank-(18,000) gallons
1000 CF x 7.48 gal/CF
= 60.16 CFM; USE 61 CFM
Use larger CFM for calculating total air requirements.
5. Sludge Holding Tank:
Treatment system designed to treat wastewater @ 200 mg/I BOD.
BOD limit is 30 mg/I
Assume 2% Solids content
0.65 lb sludge per lb BOD removed
a. lb sludge/day =(200 mg/I — 30 mg/I)x 8.34 x 0.012 MGD x 0.65 lb sludge
lb BOD removed
= 11.06 lb sludge/day; use 12 lb. sludge/day
b. @ 2% solids, volume = 12 lb. sludge/day
(0.02 x 8.34)
= 65.9 gallons/day
30 day storage requirement= 66 gallons/day x 30 days
= 1978 gallons
USE 2,500 Digester Size

Cane Creek School Page 3
Design Criteria 5/11/1998
a. Calculate air needed for digestion:
CFM = 20 CFM - Sludge tank volume (2500) gal
(1000 CF x 7.48 gal/CF)
= 6.68 CFM; USE 7.0 CFM
b. Verify sludge capacity:
PE = Population Equivalent=(12000)GPD
(100 GPD/person)
= 120
Per capita sludge capacity= 2500 gallons
(120 x 7.48)
=2.78 ; > 1 CF/person , OK
6. Total air requirements:
a. Equalization 7.0 CFM (use separate blower)
Aeration Tank 61 CFM
Sludge Holding Tank 7 CFM
Air Lifts @ 10 CFM/airlift 30 CFM
Post aeration @ 20 CFM/1000 CF volume 6 CFM
TOTAL 104 CFM
b. Blowers Provided: 2 blowers aeration tanks— 1 additional blower for equalization tan]
c. Each blower unit shall be equipped with a check valve and gate valve.
7. Clarifier/Final Settling Tank:
a. Calculate detention time:
Detention time = volume of clarifier,(gallons)x 24 hrs/day
12,000 gpd
Detention time>=4 hours, ok

Cane Creek School Page 4
Design Criteria 5/11/1998
b. Calculate surface loading rate:
Surface loading rate = (12000) GPD
Area( 49.5) ft2
Should be<300 GPD/ft2 for plants < 0.05 MGD; 242.5 gpd/ft2, ok
C. Calculate weir loading rate:
Weir loading rate = Q( 12,000)GPD
weir length ( 4'11-3/4") ft
Weir loading rate shall be < 10,000 GPD/ft.; 2,410 gpd/ft2, ok
8. Chlorine Contact Tank:
a. Contact time:
Contact time= tank volume ( 600 )gal x24 hrs/day= 1.20 hrs
Q ( 12,000 )GPD
Contact time shall be> 0.5 hours and should be baffled.; ok
b. Method of chlorination:
tablet chlorination is satisfactory for Q < 50,000 GPD, ok
10. Miscellaneous, items to be addressed:
a. Sludge disposal information should be Provided, indicating how, where and by whom sludge
will be disposed.
b. Flow recorder and totalizer required as specified in the NPDES permit.
c. Plans shall show the 100- year flood elevation. Facilities shall be protected from the 100- yef
flood.
d. Equalization tank shall be aerated.
e. Check security measures, i.e. fence, light, etc.
h. Facility should provide source of wash down water on site.

1 � _ _ I --_' 11--1 ..,, r � • i1-��
•
•
1 1,
1 . I l .'-'.,'.;"ii -•
1
' - - - ... _ _ _ I I ' 1 1 ,-11
t i -l1 41• r
� -
1 I, - - i -- 1 1 1 i'_
- 1:17,7.11= + Ii-..7-- 1 _ �
it 11 • ,
CC33 i
t ! -, - .1 t II 'I• -tilti -'Y
1 i 1+ II
!IJ _1111 _1; .1•-,' -.lr 1,-„!�
• 1 '_ ,-3z -I.
-� '1._+•1 1 •”• 7=, ,1 -1 ice«
-; .Li 1'_—i' ,: ± TTi
--
I •PE 1 I1,I !i(r
{• :---:---'7'It:- --1i --!I- 11.11.- 11- -Ir 11.1- ', '1 • x;-•1-_9
fr
_' _.1-11_ , 1, ;j-_-J-j _:r„ , , 41-„_;'tet? ; i' 1, -i
•I 11 I — ' 1.11 11 ''1 ` �I- 1 4 i1.i; .-1I ` ' ,, •
,
1_j _ 1_ 1 11 1 _II 11 �, -!t
1i--il = •
I"Iy• 'f';.-�1, 'i' 1t- 21.- I _I ••••ii; _ 1j�,+1
, ,i - --' . 1_1
— `1-'l1--`i=—=11= i_I' -Vii_-1I `"i ---!i� ,.:.��i � 1!
_V i-1 ..-..*:17..-_-..:
it T.!...-1
�rl i,-!r,,-:r.i., i1 11 1' i L.."
I , 1;11 ... .,1 I 1
J , II I-I 11 , i ,1 ' I , 11 .,, 1 l
I I i ." 7I
-1 =11 "It '"II --i) --1 , 11 1 - - ;1 1-``
-1 _1• i1 Irl 'I-1--;•—•11--•-•11
t :I '• I, 11 i-il_ I ;', --i1 ,_1=--ii
—moi i=I1 I—. '_
.II—11— 1=_l,_ i1_-_11 :!! _ k Ii--I I -m11 —11-'1
_- I_, ,1. 1__ i '1
�! I [4- •1!_`11=`!.- 11=1 •T-:i1 -ii-.
,�I —.-11-.1i ,,i_-'.+I-_+1_-=_ j=._1j- {-� 11'1- 11 1 X1.1 -,•�I , 11
..' ' +-1'-;;— ;—=i1 - ;moi -7- '; -' � tt
-I 1 (-II q..1-11-11-� ') '1..:_'-i,.-.--I1-:-1 —- III ' 1 '.<� 1'_1-11 e i
-11 11-,-;,—!!--•.-=;: 7-1--1)-7 I s 1.- i1 ., :. 1-
1i _..1 1 . 1i ! II ,
1r.1� j - 111_ .. "-i) 11.1 i7.; ....1 -=1
- 1, I p -0-7(
1
(-
1-• 1) .., '1 If- -1 it-- , 1 --I iI' T• i
, �_
,
I
11 1 - —
I1 1 , --1-ll•
i I , , 1i
11._, '1i -= 7•_•:-.'1-..=;;•:....:•:!! I :i1 - Iii-I
` t' ii- - i '1 ' - #i1', t1 X11 , •i,
- _ ' — II _ i
_- ,; I1--.i-s..17, ,.= I--`4

•
CANE CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
,0.000
--� GAL (a 000 j u -� 600 GN __ 600 . RELIEVING STREAM
BARSCREEN FLOW AERATION CLARIFICATION CHLORINE FLOW DECHLOLORINATION
EQUALIZATION CONTACT MEASUREMENT
CHAMBER
2500 GAL
SLUDGE HOLDING
CHAMBER

Cane Creek Middle School
Sewer System Project
Alternative Analysis
Prepared for
Buncombe County School Board
Asheville, N.C.
Prepared by
Hendon Engineering Associates, Inc.
1 . �/ /
Asheville, N.C. � ' ' �,�
()//4
March 20, 1998 '�'�, 0��,,

Cane Creek Road Middle School
Sewer System Alternative Evaluation
For Buncombe County School Board
March 20, 1998
Purpose of Report
The Engineer has prepared this Sewer System Alternative Evaluation for the proposed middle
school on Cane Creek Road at Lower Bush Creek Road as the initial step in applying for a NPDES permit
for a package wastewater treatment facility to serve this proposed school.
The scope of the evaluation follows the requirements of"Guidance For the Evaluation of
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives"as provided by the NC Department of Environment,Health and Natural
Resources. The scope outlined in that document is very detailed and could be very costly to perform if the
additional soils evaluations become necessary. For this reason it is telt that it is more cost effective to
perform the evaluation in two phases.
The first phase should be a thorough analysis of the sewer system alternatives with comparison of
each alternative on the basis of
A) Present value of the life cycle cost of each over the 40-year school building life.
B) Reliability of the physical components of the system.
C) Environmental risk of each.
D) Ability to replace or upgrade system components.
E) The feasibility of expanding the school facility.
F) Feasibility of changing the use of the treatment system site.
G) Limiting impact on development of land in the vicinity.
1-1) Availability of initial cost funding.
I) Annual operation and maintenance cost.
The second phase should be the preparation of the application for the NPDES Permit once the
Regional Division of Environmental Management approves this alternative evaluation.
A. Cost Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives
1. Connection to a Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW)
The only treatment works downstream of the proposed school site is the 40.0-MGD MSD WWTP.
The existing South Buncombe Interceptor ends as an 18"diameter pipe approximately 4.6-miles from the
school site.
MSD's recently completed Master Plan projected that future growth through the year 2040 in the
Cane Creek Basin would remain typically large lot single family residential with on site septic tank
wastewater treatment. It was anticipated that tiller a significant density of development occurred it might be
feasible to extend the interceptor further upstream, financed either by private developers or Buncombe
County. If this assumption were correct then the interceptor extension required to reach the school site
would be 4,500 feet of 18", 5,820 feet of 15"and 13,920 feet of 8". Estimated 1998 cost is approximately
$2,051,000.

The high cost of this alternative is approximately ten times the cost of a I 2,000-GPD package
treatment plant for the proposed school. Therefore the justification for Buncombe County, with possible
participation from MSD and private developers, to decide to commit to the interceptor extension would
have to be based on other factors than just meeting the proposed school's needs.
The topography of the Cane Creek Valley is very good for conventional small lot subdivisions if the
need for septic tanks is eliminated. Therefore it is safe to assume that the extension of a gravity interceptor
system would greatly accelerate to development of the Cane Creek Valley. If this accelerated growth
occurs, MSD will find that the remainder of its existing interceptor system downstream will become
inadequate to carry the increased flows long before the year 2040. Therefore considerable cost for relief or
replacement interceptors would have to be figured into this alternative.
User Fees
lithe gravity sewer extension were constructed, the School would have to pay user fees to MSD
for the 12,000 GPD expected flow. MSD's current user fee is$2.63 per 100 cubic feet. Assuming a 180-
day school year,this amounts to 288,800 CF per year and an estimated annual user lee of$7,600.
Present Worth Cost Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"
shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$2,134,404. This is the highest of the
alternatives evaluated .
2. Connection to a Privately Owned Treatment Work
There is not a privately owned treatment works downstream of the proposed school site. However
there are two existing permitted discharges at the Fairview School and the Communication Instruments, Inc.
approximately 3 miles upstream of the site. Neither one of these existing facilities have additional capacity
for the proposed 12,000 GPD.
The three miles separation also presents a major cost impact on tying the two systems together.
Assuming that a new 12,000 GPO treatment works would need to be provided, it would make more sense
for this additional treatment to be provided at the proposed school site where the Cane Creek flows are
larger than at the two existing discharge sites.
3. Individual Subsurface Systems
The School Board has already performed extensive soil analysis on the 47-acre tract for the
proposed middle school. Stanley H. Crownover, Ph.D., Soil Scientist,Environmental Health Services of
Buncombe County wrote a preliminary report in August of 1997. This report concluded that the only
marginally suitable soils were limited to the top 28"of an 18-acre northeastern quadrant on the property.
Due to the relatively thin layer of suitable soils,and the relatively flatness of the natural surface
cross slope, a long term absorption rate of 0.3-GPD per square feet of distribution system contact area was
determined. For 12,000-GPO this means that 40,000 SF of contact area must be provided.

A conventional gravel filled trench with perforated 4"plastic pipe would provide 3.0 SF of contact
area per lineal feet of trench. Therefore approximately 13,350 lineal feet of trench would be required. With
a typical maximum lateral length of 100 feet either side of a main distribution header a typical distribution
zone with dimensions of 240' by 218'would contain 4600 LF of trench. This should provide for 4140-
GPD. Therefore three zones this size would meet the I 2,000-GPD requirement at 1.2—acres per zone,the
• three zones would take a 3.6-acre site with a dimensions of 720' X 218'. An equal 3.6-acres site down
slope from this one should also be set aside for a 100%repair area.
To provide an undisturbed 720'by 436'area within the 47-acre tract would eliminate three of the
five athletic fields that are planned for this 18-acre quadrant of the site. The cost effectiveness of providing
the parking, seating,concessions, lighting, and other utilities for the shared athletic uses would no longer be
available.
Therefore it is recommended that the best use of this compact piece of land with only marginally
acceptable soils for waste treatment would not be for waste treatment but used as the conceptual shared use
athletic complex. The School Board should search for other eight-acre sites that lie on higher ground, with
deeper suitable soils, less soil wetness and preferably steeper surface slopes. Such sites will most likely be
available on the north side of Cane Creek Road or on the southern side of Cane Creek above the flood plain.
Construction and Operational Cost of Conventional Subsurface Wastewater
Treatment System
A typical subsurface treatment system as described above would require pretreatment of the waste
in anaerobic septic tank chambers followed by further solids removal in a free access recirculating sand filter.
Sepik ntnk 13.0 40
The septic tank capacity should be sized to provide a 24-hour average retention time for the
wastewater. Therefore about 12,000 gallons of tank is necessary. Tank liquid depth should be no more than
six(6)feet. Four tanks in a split series arrangement should be provided to maximize the operational
flexibility of closing one of the tanks at a time for maintenance without overloading the treatment system.
Each 3,000-gallon tank would therefore have a surface area of 70 SF. A 10 X 7 X 7'deep tank
would meet this requirement allowing for 1 foot of freeboard in the top of the tank.
Typical tank construction would consist of a 12"base slab with anti-flotation ledges beyond the
walls,an 8"thick top stub with four access manholes and 8"thick walls and three 6"thick baffle walls to
prevent flow short circuits and encourage solids settlement and mixing. Reinforced concrete construction
would run about $7,000 per 3,000-GPD tank for a total of$28,000.
Sand Filter Design
Any subsurface treatment of septic tank effluent larger than 1000-GPD should have a tertiary/(TS-
1)sand filter pretreating the septic tank effluent prior to discharging to the distribution lines. The On Site
Wastewater Section has approved a pressure dosed recirculating sand filter for meeting this need. The
design of the filter shall be such that the effluent passes on the average four times through the sand filter
before being discharged to the subsurface distribution lines. The sand filter surface area can be loaded at a
rate of 5.0-GPD/SF of raw septic tank effluent.

Therefore,for 12,000-GPD the tank surface would have to be 2400 SF. For versatility in
operation and maintenance the sand filter should be divided in four equal compartments of 600 SF each,or
8'by 75'each. Each lied will have a 10"gravel underdrain,a 36"thick classified sand bed,and a 6"gravel
cover. Construction may be of concrete block with watertight membranes and joints. The base slab should
be 6"of rcinl'orcext concrete.The recirculation dosage shall be timed or an equal 48 times per day cycle.The
sand bed shall be covered with a rain proof roof structure or greenhouse.
The construction cost is approximately$15.00/SF. Therefore$36,000 should be budgeted for the
sand filter. Assuming a 5:1 ratio of filtered recycle versus septic tank effluent,a duplex 50-gpm pump
station would be needed to dose each of the four filters with 750 gallons every 30 minutes. Approximate
cost of the submersible pump station is approximately$20,000.
Distribution Field
The 13,350 LF of distribution trench will cost about$3.00/LF to install. The total cost would be
about$40,050. The eight(8.0)acres of land would cost at least$20,000 per acre, or$160,000 total.
'total initial Construction Cyj
The total initial construction cost of a conventional septic tank with tertiary sand filter and trench
distribution field is therefore:
Septic Tank $28,000.00
Sand Filter 36,000.00
Dosing Pump Station 20,000.00
Trench Distribution 40,050.00 •
Land 160,000.00
$284,050.00
Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a conventional septic tank with sand filter and conventional
trench distribution field is very simple. A Class II Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Operator must be
contracted to performing the monthly routine maintenance of the sand filter bed and recirculation pumps,
take quarterly samples of sand filter effluent BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease,check septic tank scum and
sludge thickness on a quarterly basis.
This level of operation should require between two and three hours each month. At$25.00 per
hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies,this could total about $75 per month
or$900 per year.
Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0 to
5.0 hp. The sand filter effluent pump located on the school site and pumps to the oil=site trench distribution
field will probably the same size pump. Each pump is estimated to cost about$55/month to power. Total
annual power cost should be approximately$1,320.
4

Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20%of the initial
pump cost. With pump cost of about$2,500, this annual cost comes out to be about$500 for each pump.
Total annual replacement parts cost should be about$1,000.
Total Annual 0 . M Cost
Operator $ 900
Power $ 1,320
Parts $ 1,0Q0
Total $ 3.220
Testing and Effluent Monitoring
The only required or recommended testing for a large subsurface treatment system is usually a
quarterly BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease analysis of the recirculating sand filter effluent. Normal
laboratory charges are around $100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing would be about
$400.
Future Replacement of Trench Distribution System in the Repair Area
When making a comparison of the expected 40-year life cycle cost of the several treatment
alternatives, it should not be overlooked that the trench distribution system may become clogged over a
twenty-year period and need replacement with new trenches in the designated repair area. This one time
additional cost of$40,050 at a point 20 years hence should be computed in the present worth cost of this
alternative.
Present Worth Cost Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations,Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"
shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$343,262. This is the second lowest of
the alternatives.
4. Community Subsurface System
The area surrounding the proposed school site is rural farm community with very small widely
spaced clusters of housing. A 30-lot subdivision is across Cane Creek Road from the proposed school site.
For the alternative of combining this 30 lot subdivision's wastewater with the proposed school's treatment
would require(1)extension of approximately 4000 LF of gravity sewers with individual 4"service lines,(2)
some enforceable method to get the existing homes to give up their existing tree septic tank treatment
systems and(3)the School 's treatment facility would have to be increased to 24,000 GPD.
Since there is no lawful way to force someone to tie to gravity sewer systems unless their individual
septic tank fails and can not be replaced in the restrictive soils,it is not felt that this alternative is worth
pursuing. It is obvious that the additional cost of the construction of sewers and the larger treatment
facilities along with the increased maintenance required by the gravity sewers further reinforces the
unacceptability of this alternative.

5. Drip Irrii ation-Subsurface
The On-Site Wastewater Section has approved a patented"Perc-Rite"System for use as a
subsurface drip irrigation system. This system consist of the same pretreatment as the conventional septic
tank and sand lifter described above, but with a shallow pressurized subsurface irrigation system that delivers
a 0.01-bpm trickle into the soil at two foot centers.
This pressure drip system is allowed 0.15-GPD/SF with each lineal foot of the'V inch
diameter drip pipe'computed as 2 SF of contact area. In other words,0.3-GPD/LF of drip line. The typical
line spacing is 2 feet apart running level with the contours. Therefore to treat 12,000-GPD would require
40,000 LF of1/2 drip pipe with the area zoned into eight 5,000 LF zones of about 10,000 SF each.
The cost of installing these drip lines by a shallow plow method is approximately$1.25/LF for a
total of$50,000.
The system also requires an additional$40,000 of computer controlled pumping and solenoid valve
equipment.
The biggest advantage of the drip system is the compactness of the distribution field allows the size
ul'the land tract to be reduced from eight acres to tour acres, cutting the land acquisition to$80,000.
Total Subsurface Irrigation System Cost then becomes:
Septic Tank $28,000.00
Sand Filter 36,000.00
Dosing Pump Station 20,000.00
Computerized Equipment 40,000.00
Drip Lines 50,000.00
Land 80.000.00
$254,000.00
Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a drip irrigation system is just more complicated than a
conventional trench distribution system. The computer monitoring system provided makes this job a little
easier for the operator,however the operator must be aware of the potential clogging problems that the 1/2"
drip lines and their emitters may have. A Class II Subsurface Wastewater Treatment Operator must be
contracted to performing the weekly routine maintenance of the sand filter bed and recirculation pumps,take
monthly samples of sand filter effluent BOD, SS, TKN and oil and grease,check septic tank scum and
sludge thickness on a monthly basis.
This level of operation should require between three and five hours each week. At$25.00 per hour
and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies,this could total about $500 per month or
$6,000 per year.

•
Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0
to 5.0 hp. The sand filter effluent pump located on the school site and pumps to the off-site drip irrigation
field will probably the same size pump. Each pump is estimated to cost about$55/month to power. Total
annual power cost should be approximately $1,320.
Annual allowance for pans and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20%of the initial
pump cost. With pump cost of about$2,500, this annual cost comes out to be about$500 for each pump.
Total annual replacement parts cost should be about$1,000.
Total Annual 0& M Cost
Operator $ 6,000
Power $ 1,320
Parts $ 1.000
Total $ 8.320
Testing and Effluent Monitoring
Testing requirements for a subsurface drip irrigation system is basically the same as required for a large
subsurface treatment system. This is usually a quarterly 130D,SS,TKN and oil and grease analysis of the
recirculating sand filter effluent. Normal laboratory charges are around$100 per sample tested. Therefore
the annual cost of testing would be about$400.
Eginye_Replacemen a.Prip Irrigation System in the Itek►all&
As required with any subsurface treatment system, it should not be overlooked that the drip irrigation lines
or soil may become clogged over a twenty-year period and need replacement with new drip lines in the
designated repair area. This one time additional cost of$50,000 at a point 20 years hence should be
computed in the present worth cost of this alternative.
Pres nLWorth Cost_Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations,Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"shows that
the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$413,822. This is the third lowest of the treatment
alternatives evaluated.
6. Spray Irritation
Spray irrigation of a secondary treatment effluent on a nearby pastureland is another on-site
treatment option. The pre-treatment of the effluent may be the same as proposed for the drip irrigation
system discussed above. Or an aerobic package plant could be used to treat the wastewater prior to
spraying.
Regardless of the treatment system selected,an additional element in the process is required
because the ultimate discharge of the treated effluent is going to surface lands rather than subsurface. This
element is providing approximately 60 days of treated effluent storage for times when the land surface is
already saturated from rainfall or frozen over. Either one of these conditions would result in little or no
absorption into the ground or interception by the grass cover. Therefore almost all of the effluent would run
off the irrigation field with little removal of solids or BOD.

For 12.000 GPD a 720,000-gallon storage reservoir would be required. This would be most cost
effectively provided with an earth lagoon divided into two to four sections for flexibility in storage volumes.
Approximately 3600 cubic yards of excavation would be required for this lagoon. At$5.00/CY the
additional cost would be$ 18,000 plus another$3,000 for additional piping and flow control valves,etc. for
a total of$21,000.
The spray irrigation equipment is typically a fixed location,fixed height rotational spray head on a
four-foot high riser pipe. The spray heads are located on a sixty-foot grid to allow even distribution of the
effluent. Cost of these lines and nozzles and necessary control valves would be about$7,000 per acre. For
four acres this amounts to$28,000.
Assuming an annual effluent loading limit of 3.0 feet/year per acre of spray field,each
acre would handle about 977,486 gallons of effluent per year. Assuming 65 days are lost to rain or freezing
conditions per year, this loading would be spread over the remaining 300 days. This equates to about 3258
GPD per acre of spray field. Therefore four acres of spray field must be provided. Another two acres must
be provided for buffers and maintenance access. Therefore six acres at$20,000/acre would cost$
120,000.
Ground Water Monitoring Wells
The potential for contamination of surface waters and shallow ground waters from a spray
irrigation system,primarily by fecal coliform bacteria, may require the School to install one upstream and
two downstream monitoring wells around the spray field. These wells typically cost about$2,000 each.
Therefore an additional$6,000 should be added to the conceptual initial cost for this alternative.
Initial Facility Cost
The total initial construction cost for an anaerobic treatment system with spray irrigation discharge
would be:
Septic Tank $ 28,000
Sand Filter $ 36,000
Dosing Pump Station $ 20,000
Irrigation Pump and Controls $ 25,000
60 Day Storage Lagoon $ 21,000
Irrigation System $ 28,000
Groundwater Monitoring Wells $ 6,000
Land $120,000
Total $284,000

Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a conventional septic tank and sand filter with spray irrigation is
more complicated than either of the subsurface treatment systems discussed previously. A Certified Spray
Irrigation Wastewater Treatment Operator must be contracted to performing the weekly routine
maintenance of the sand filter bed, recirculation pumps, spray nozzles and wetness condition of the irrigation
field. The operator must make daily decisions on whether the field is too wet to receive and treat the
effluent that day. Operation of the bypass valves to the storage lagoon must be performed if conditions are
not right for spraying.
This level of operation should require between six and eight hours each week. At$25.00 per hour
and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies,this could total about $800 per month or
$9,600 per year.
Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small recirculating pump will probably be 3.0
to 5.0 hp. The pump for the off-site spray irrigation field will probably be a 10 hp pump. Power cost is
estimated to be about$ 150/month. Total annual power cost should be approximately$1,800.
Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20%of the initial
pump cost. With pump cost of about $7,500, total annual replacement parts cost should be about $1,500.
Total Annual 0&M Cost
Operator $ 9,600
Power $ 1,800
Parts $ 1,5Q0
Total $ 12.900 •
Testing and Effluent Monitoring
Testing requirements for a surface spray irrigation system is basically the same as required for a
large subsurface treatment system with the exception that annual fecal coliform analysis of the groundwater
monitoring wells is also required. A quarterly BOD, SS,TKN and oil and grease analysis of the
recirculating sand filter effluent cost around$100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing
would be about$400.
Present Worth Cost Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations, Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"
shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$507,546. This is the second highest of
the treatment alternatives evaluated being exceed only by the gravity sewer extension alternative at
$2,134,404.
7. Reuse of Effluent
The proposed school has no consumptive water uses that would lend to making the reuse of the
12,000-GPD effluent an alternative to evaluate.

8. Surface Water Discharge
The next alternative to be evaluated is the aerobic treatment of the 12,000 GPD of wastewater in a
package extended air treatment system with a NPDI S permitted discharge to Cane Creek.
The 7Q10 flow lbr Cane Creek about one mile downstream of the proposed school is 15 CFS in
the summer and 20-CFS in the winter. According to the Asheville Regional DEM staff,the most likely
required treatment level would be to provide a secondary 30 MGL BOD and 30 MGL suspended solids
effluent
A conventional dual stream 24-hour extended aeration plant with appropriate sludge digestion and
chlorine disinfection would meet this requirement. it is recommended for schools with their typical high
peak loading occurring at midday,that a flow equalization basin be provided at the head works of the plant
to allow mixing, metering and recirculation of raw wastewater with clarifier activated sludge. This will not
only prevent a washing of solids out of the system with the extreme hydraulic flow rates during these peak
times, but it will help maintain a more stabilized food to mass ratio(F/M)that is so critical to the proper
biological bacteria growth.
There are many manufactured package plants available for treating 12,000 GPD. Typical cost run
approximately$7.50 to$10.00 per GPD. Therefore the expected cost is between$90,000 and$120,000
for a conventional secondary level extended aeration plant.
The land area required for a package treatment plant is quite small compared to the other on-site
treatment alternatives. An area 100' by 100' would be sufficient. The conceptual site plan for the joint use
school and recreational park indicates such an area being set aside for the treatment system. Therefore there
is no additional land cost.
Initial Facility Cos/
The total initial construction cost for an extended aeration treatment system as discussed above
would be:
Package Treatment Plant $ 120,000
Land $ 0
Total $ 120,000
Operation and Maintenance
The operation and maintenance of a package treatment plant is considerably more involved than
any of the on-site alternatives discussed previously in this report. A Class 11 Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator must be contracted to performing the daily routine maintenance of the blowers and pumps,take
daily settleometer readings and effluent BOD and SS samples for the automatic sampling station,check
sludge blanket levels in the clarifiers,check return sludge flow,check digester settled sludge volume and
DO, take DO readings in the aeration basins, record flow meter readings,check chlorine residuals and take
samples for fecal bacterial determination and fill out the daily logs.
This level of operation should require between five and seven hours each week. At$25.00 per hour
and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies, this could total about $1,000 per month or
$12,000 per year.

r
Power cost for the blowers and pumps would be higher than that of the other on-site alternatives
primarily because the blowers usually run for longer sustained periods than the pumps. Their motor
horsepower is typically in the 3.0 to 5.0 hp range. As discussed previously,each pump is estimated to cost
about $55/month to power. Each blower will run about three times as long as the pumps. Therefore the
approximate monthly power usage for the blowers will be about$165. Therefore the annual power cost
should run about $2,640.
Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump or blower is estimated to be about 20%of
•
the initial pump or blower cost. With pump cost of about$2,500 and blower cost at about$5,000, this
annual cost comes out to be about $500 for each pump and $1,000 for each blower.
Total Annual 0& M Cost
Operator $ 12,000
Power $ 2,640
Parts $ 1.500
Total $ 16.140
Testing and Effluent Monitoring
Testing requirements for an aerobic extended air plant is much more than any of the other
alternatives. Typically weekly effluent BOD, SS,ammonia and fecal coliform analysis. Normal laboratory
charges are around$100 per sample tested. Therefore the annual cost of testing would be about$4,000.
Present Worth Cost Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations,Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"
shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$316,557. This is the lowest of the
treatment alternatives with the individual subsurface system being the next lowest at$343,262.
9. Individual Force Main/ Pump Station To MSD System
As discussed previously in Alternate 1. above,the only treatment works downstream of the
proposed school site is the 40.0-MGD MSD WWTP. The existing South Buncombe Interceptor ends as an
18"diameter pipe approximately 4.6-miles from the school site. The cost of the gravity interceptors needed
to connect to the existing interceptor is estimated at$2,051,000. This alternative will evaluate constructing
a 12,000 gpd pump station and 4.6 miles of 4"force main following Cane Creek Road to connect to the
existing MSD interceptor.
MSD's recently completed Master Plan projected that future growth through the year 2040 in the
Cane Creek Basin would remain typically large lot single family residential with on site septic tank
wastewater treatment. It was anticipated that after a significant density of development occurred it might be
feasible to extend the interceptor further upstream, financed either by private developers or Buncombe
County.
The alternative of extending a 4.6 mile force main along Cane Creek Road would be a less effective,smaller
capacity,and interim solution for initiating a sewer collection system in the Cane Creek Basin. The initial
construction cost is estimated to be approximately$350,000(as itemized below)compared to the
$2,051,000 construction cost of the gravity sewer extension. However the maximum potential capacity of
a 4"force main is only 450,000 gpd compared to the 2,350,000 gpd capacity of an 18"gravity interceptor.
4

In regards to the facilities that would be required by adjacent development to tie into the public system, the
typical extension of 8"collector lines to serve developments will have to be augmented by adding a new
pump station at the end of the collector line to force the wastewater flow into the proposed 4"force main.
This would result in at least tour additional pump stations to be accepted for maintenance by MSD as future
developments desire to connect to the sewer system.
As discussed previously in Alternate 1.,the topography of the Cane Creek Valley is very good for
conventional small lot subdivisions if the need for septic tanks is eliminated. If the extension of a gravity
interceptor system would greatly accelerate to development of the Cane Creek Valley,then this lower
capacity force main system alternative would present a less detrimental impact of the remainder of its
existing interceptor system downstream.
Construction Cost Estimate
4"Force Main—24,288 LF a $11.00/LF $267,168
120 gpm Duplex Submersible Pump Station 35,000
Emergency Power Generator 25,000
8"Gravity Sewer On Site-1,500 LF @$35.00/LF 52.500
Total $379,668
User Feo
[f the force main extension were constructed,the School would have to pay user fees to MSD for
the 12,000 GPD expected flow. MSD's current user fee is$2.63 per 100 cubic feet. Assuming a 180-day
school year,this amounts to 288,800 CF per year and an estimated annual user fee of$7,600
Opct#liQn.Wd._N_laitlIsrl1iwgx
The operation and maintenance of a pump station(including emergency power generation)and
force main is probably the simplest of all the alternatives. A Class H Pump Station Operator must be
contracted to performing the monthly routine maintenance of the pumps.
This level of operation should require between two and three hours each month. At$25.00 per
hour and including an allowance for travel and miscellaneous supplies,this could total about $75 per month
or$900 per year.
Power cost for the pumps would be quite low. The small 120 gpm duplex pumps will probably be
3.0 to 5.0 hp. The pump station is estimated to cost about$55/month to power. Total annual power cost
should be approximately$660.
Annual allowance for parts and lubricants for each pump is estimated to be about 20%of the initial
pump cost. With pump cost of about $2,500,this annual cost comes out to be about$500 for each pump.
Total annual replacement parts cost should be about$1,000.

r
Total Annual 0& M Cost
Operator $ 900
Power $ 660
Parts $ 1.000
Total S 2.560
Testing and Effluent Monitoring
The is not any testing or monitoring required for a pump station.
Present Worth Cost Calculation
Table 1.0"Summary of Present Worth Evaluations,Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems"
shows that the calculated 40 year present worth of this alternative is$491,167. This is the third highest of
the alternatives evaluated .
B. Other Evaluation Factors
There are many valid evaluation criteria for recommending a wastewater treatment alternative besides the 40
year present worth cost. The attached Table No. 2,"Rating Matrix of Viable Alternatives",compares the
six viable alternatives discussed above in regards to their desirability ranking based on the following
additional factors:
I. Reliability of physical components of system.
2. Ability to replace or upgrade system components.
3. Limiting impact on development in the land in the vicinity.
4. Environmental risk.
5. The feasibility of expanding the School facility.
6. Feasibility of changing use of treatment system site.
7. Availability of initial cost funding.
8. Operational cost.
9. Present value cost of 40 year life cycle.
Each of these factors was assigned a percentage weighting factor ranging from 5%to 20%of a 100%total
score. Typically,the higher the relative importance of the factor the higher the percentage weight given to
that factor. Then each of the six viable alternatives were ranked with an individual preference score for each
of the factors. The score of"5"was the most desirable and a score of"1"was the least desirable. The
resulting weighted score should indicate a fair order of recommendation of the six alternatives.
The results of this ranking matrix is that the Surface Water Discharge into cane Creek with a 12,000 gpd
package wastewater treatment plant is the highest ranking alternative. The second ranked alternative is the
Force Main Extension/Pump Station to MSD's System.

v `
C. . Engineer's Recommendation
The recommendation of the Engineer is that the School Board proceed with the requesting of a NPDES
Permit from the North Carolina Department of Environment,Health and Natural Resources for a 12,000
gpd secondary treatment discharge into Cane Creek. The design of the treatment plant should be begun
immediately so that proper coordination with the school site development can be accomplished.

•
TABLE NO.1 ,•
CANE CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL I
SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH EVALUATIONS -
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
INTEREST RATE: 0.0880
20 YEAR 40 YEAR
PRESENT TOTAL 20 PRESENT TOTAL 40
INITIAL ANNUAL TOTAL WORTH OF YEAR WORTH OF YEAR
CONSTRUCTION 20 YEAR REPAIR,ANNUAL ANNUAL USER ANNUAL ANNUAL PRESENT ANNUAL PRESENT
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE COST AREA COST i 0&M TESTING FEES COST COST WORTH COST WORTH
1.Connection to Publicly Owned I _
Treatment Works 2,051,000 0 0 0 7,600 7,600 70,377 2,121,377 83,404 2,134,404
2.Connection to Privately Owned _
Treatment Works N/A 0 0'N/A O N/A
3.Individual Subsuface System 284,050 40,050 4,120 600 0 4,7201 43, 708_1 335,171 51,7991 343,262
4.Community Subsurface System N/A 01 DIN/A 0 N/A
5.Drip Irrigation-Subsurface 254,000 50,000 13,120 600 0 13,720. 127,049 390,305 150,567 413,822
6.Spray Irrigation-Surface 284,000 19,620 750 0 20,370 188,629 472,629 223,546 507,546
7.Reuse of Effluent N/A 0i O N/A 0 N/A
8.Surface Water Discharge-Extended _
Aeration WWTP 85,000 17,100 4,000 0 21,100 195,389 280,389 231,557 316,557
9.brdividual Force Main/Pump Station 1
To MSD System 379,668 2,560 0 7,600 10,160, 94,083 473,751 111,4991 491,167
i
,-

•
0
-
sz
•
i, _c NO.2 a'
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT _
CANE CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL,BUNCOMBE COUNTY -
I RATING MATRIX OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
FACTOR CONNECTION TO INDIVIDUAL DRIP IRRIGATION CONNECTION TO
WEIGHT % POTW,GRAVITY LINE CONVENTIONAL SUBSURFACE SYSTEM. SPRAY IRRIGATION SURFACE WATER POTW,FORCE MAIN/
SPECIFIC RATING FACTORS OF TOTAL EXTENSION SUBSURFACE SYSTEM_ PERCatRE TYPE SYSTEM DISCHARGE PUMP STATION _
RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED RAW WEIGHTED
RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING ,RANKING RANKING
ReliabIlly of physical components of
1 system 15 5 0.75 3 0.45 2 0.3 2 0.3 5 0.75 5 0.75
Ability to replace or upgrade system
2 components 15 5 0.75, 1, 0.15 1 0.15 1 0.15 5 0.75 5 0.75
Limiting impact on development of
3 lend in the vicinity 5 5 025 1 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.05 5 0.25 5 0.25
4 Environmental Risk 15 5 0.75 4 0.6 3 0.45 1, 0.15 4 0.6 4 0.6
The feasibility*?expanding the
5 School facility. 10 5 0.5• 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 5, 0.5 5 0.5
Feasibility of changing use of
6 treatment system site. 5 5 0.25 1 0.05 1 0.05 2 0.1_ 4 02 4 02
7 AvaIlablity of heist cost funding 15 1 0.15 5 0.75 2 0.3 2 0.3 5 075_ 4 0.6
8.Operational cost 5 5 025 5 0.25 3 0.15 2 0.1 1 0.05 4 02
Present Value cost of 40 year ife
9 cycle 15 1_ 0.15 4 0.6 3_ 0.45 2 0.3 5 0.75, 2 0.3
(TOTAL 100 3.8 3 2 1.55
4.6 4.15
RATING INDEX:ON A SCALE OF
1 1 .0 TO 5.0
11.0■LEAST FAVORABLE OR DESIRABLE.
,5.0•MOST FAVORABLE OR DESIRABLE
I

-s.. „--1-. - - '''...-"" i -*•••---of / \,..,\..\A /
41P , ,4" -
1._______3-------/---7
I kw, ) - . ------)7:,
..,.,
:,(0 .
0 0
,(
rr1
)i,, , r .\\yf\ ..., 42
ti 0,\ ,, .). .1: .. \\.
..„
t• i
ii
\__________, \ \ /
..:. . )
__.\. \\\4\ • ---- i ‘ . gib \\Ape, --"11.1..,.,N
0 .. ‘. . ))
J ` ‘k\ V ( I
1` r
\\ '14 \ •
--' \\N\, st,.- . Cra-k" \4?v:
--...„ p,..- 0. ,----- ,..-.2,---
sip
• � s C „ilkr,......
.0..
•
\\___:_iy,
1
Outfall
-, \ _ t
�� J 'c 001
i i ,-", „--_!..0015:7 ' )(-te. , 111Vii.„
r , '---- i R),:e7/ ' i C-4-'- 6.-A
. ,, .
\\,, .
\ -2 ...,
, /7 0
/ „,,,, cr irno ...._....,- s 0 (.---1.--
,.e" _,,,,d/ ,‘.. . ,........._:...:, ...„., _k-2-...1.3...,\Fri\--:\s,
f ( ,'- 3138 :,- / ,i,.---„--.-:„
Buncombe County Schools Facility
Cane Creek Middle School WWTP Location
Latitude: 35°28'53" N State Grid: Fruitdale not to scale
Longitude: 82°26'04" W Permitted Flow: 0.012 MGD
Receiving Stream: Cane Creek Drainage Basin: French Broad Basin North
NPDES Permit No.NC0086436
Stream Class: C Sub-Basin: 04-30-02 .7' Buncombe County