NC0025305_Engineering Alternatives Analysis_20000810

N600 Z 5305
rm
Fun
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE APPROACHES
MMI
Prepared for:
University of North Carolina
rwq Cogeneration Facility
CB#1800, Cameron Avenue
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-1800
rm
Prepared by:
AWARE Environmental Inc.®
9305-J Monroe Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28270-1490
AEI Job No. N301-12
fa+ AEI Document No. 30112001
f=1 Rev. 2
August 2000
OR
INq

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Description Page tio.
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................. i
miq 1:0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1
mri 2.0 EVALUATION OF DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES...............................4
A. Modification of Existing OWASA Discharge.................................5
1. Increase OWASA Discharge at Existing Sewer Connection ...... 7
r, 2. Hold and Discharge to Existing Sewer Connection....................8
3. Discharge to OWASA Municipal Sewer System at Alternative
SewerTie-in..............................................................................11
Mq B. Relocate Outfall to Morgan Creek ....12
.............................................
C. Modify Existing Biomonitoring Requirements..............................13
1. In -stream Monitoring................................................................13
''l 2. Alternate Biomonitoring Criteria..............................................14
3. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study.............................................14
4. Reuse/Recovery of Wastewater................................................1 5
PEI
3.0 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY.......................................16
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
P"
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Comparative Construction Cost Estimates and Project Schedules
B 1999-2000 UNC-Cogen Flow Data
C 1992 OWASA Pritchard Branch Sewer Line Capacity Evaluation
D Sewer Line Flow Testing Costs
E Comparison of Effluent Biomonitoring vs. In -Stream Biomonitoring Laboratory
Results
F Preliminary Macroinvertebrate Study Results
fm
FIM
am

ran
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
rm The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill operates a Cogeneration Facility (UNC-Cogen),
mm
which is located at Cameron Avenue in Chapel Hill. UNC-Cogen produces steam and electricity
for the UNC Campus and University of North Carolina Hospital.
The water discharged from the UNC-Cogen facility is of a very high quality (TOC less than 10
mg/1 with very low metals, TSS, and oil and grease). UNC-Cogen discharges this water in
accordance with the provisions of an NPDES permit (NC Permit No. NC0025305). As part of
MR the NPDES permit requirements, UNC-Cogen must meet a very stringent chronic Ceriodaphnia
biomonitoring (toxicity) test. However, a high quality water is very sensitive to the chronic
Pm Ceriodaphnia biomonitoring tests. The permit requires compliance with whole -effluent chronic
toxicity limits at an in -stream waste concentration (IWC) of 90%, which represents the most
M stringent criteria for this test imposed by the State.
Pin UNC-Cogen has experienced difficulties in meeting the whole effluent chronic toxicity limits.
As a result, UNC-Cogen entered into a Special Order by Consent (SOC) (EMC WQ 94-35) with
r"' the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) from May 1995 through March 1, 1997 that resulted in the
rerouting of a high conductivity waste stream and the completion of a toxicity reduction
rm evaluation (TRE).
PIR
Based on the results of the TRE, several sources of effluent toxicity were identified. The primary
effluent toxicity source at the UNC-Cogen facility was caused by conductivity and has been
eliminated. The principal cause of problems with the toxicity test remaining at the facility is the
boiler condensate. The boiler condensate contains boiler water feed, condensate treatment
additives and low concentrations of metals which leach from the steam piping. Based on the
fm TOC content in the final effluent (< 10 mg/1) and the manufacturer's toxicity data for the boiler
feed chemicals, the boiler feed chemicals are not present in the effluent at concentrations
M, sufficient to cause toxicity. The polymer and other treatment plant chemicals have also been
P" 1

eliminated as potential sources of toxicity. Based on the THE evaluations it appears that the
MR failure of the effluent toxicity tests is being caused by very low concentrations of metals,
particularly copper and zinc, and the sensitivity of the test when being performed with very clean
Pon water at a 90% IWC.
The typical levels of copper and zinc in this stream is:
copper 24 ppb
MIR
zinc 116 ppb
These levels are well below safe drinking water standards.
The effect of low levels of copper and zinc on the toxicity test has been magnified by on -going
water conservation practices at the UNC-Cogen facility. These activities have continued to result
in a significantly cleaner effluent. Since the toxicity of copper and zinc is increased in cleaner
waters with low organic carbon, hardness, alkalinity and suspended solids levels, the
improvements in water quality by UNC-Cogen have resulted in aquatic toxicity at extremely low
copper and zinc levels.
The primary source of the copper and zinc is leaching of these metals from metals surfaces in the
''' steam distribution and condensate return system. Due to the relatively low levels of copper and
zinc present, it is very difficult to significantly reduce the discharge of these metals through
source reduction.
On -going toxicity control methods in operation at UNC-Cogen consist of powdered activated
carbon (PAC) addition with pH control. UNC-Cogen has made extensive strides in treating this
discharge, however, there are on -going problems in maintaining consistent compliance with the
min bio-monitoring criteria. These problems are related to the good quality of the discharge stream
and the sensitivity of the bio-monitoring test procedure.
FM
MM
MR 2

I
%1
AWARE Environmental (AEI) was requested to research and evaluate alternative discharge
approaches for this stream. The objective of this evaluation is to identify the most feasible
alternates for further evaluation.
�, 3

rAn
SECTION 2.0
FM EVALUATION OF DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
fon AEI, in conjunction with UNC-Cogen, defined and provided an initial screening analysis of a
number of discharge alternatives. The initial screening of these options included the feasibility
F' of implementation, regulatory acceptance, construction cost, and implementation timetable. If
the alternative was found to be feasible to implement, preliminary cost estimates were prepared
P"
and preliminary engineering analysis were conducted to provide an indication of the cost and
implementation schedule of the alternative based on current information. There were some
options, such as those requiring modification of the NPDES permit, for which preliminary cost
estimates could not be prepared. These options were evaluated based on an identification of the
regulatory steps required for implementation.
The specific discharge alternatives which were evaluated included:
P"
1. Discharge to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) municipal sewer system
through the existing OWASA discharge location; either with intermittent NPDES discharge
or complete OWASA discharge;
rom 2.
Discharge to the OWASA municipal sewer system at an alternative sewer tie-in;
3.
Relocate the existing outfall to Morgan Creek;
FUR 4.
Modify the existing biomonitoring requirements to an in -stream biomonitoring criteria;
5.
Modify the existing biomonitoring requirements by a modification of test criteria;
6.
Modify the existing biomonitoring requirements to an alternative compliance criteria. This
alternative concentrated, primarily, on the use of instream macroinvertebrate monitoring
instead of biomonitoring; and
7.
Modification of UNC-Cogen operations to provide extensive recycle/reuse of wastewater.
Each of these alternatives has been evaluated for feasibility and the advantages and
Fan
disadvantages of each alternative has been defined. Where possible, comparative construction
FM cost schedules and comparative project schedules have been determined. Preliminary pipe
W" 4

M routes, schematics, detailed comparative construction cost estimates and comparative project
P"
schedules are included in Appendix A.
A description of each alternative is presented in the following sections. Section 3 of this report
pw� includes a summary of the various alternatives, while Section 4 lists the various
FM
recommendations for more detailed studies.
The flowrates used for the various alternatives are based upon 1999-2000 flow rates for the
wastewater treatment plant discharge and the discharge to OWASA, as well as the permitted
OWASA sewer flows of 145,000 gpd and 150 gpm. There was not a complete set of 1999 measured
OWASA data. The available OWASA flow data is from sewer billings from 1997-2000, which was
the basis used to evaluate the flow to OWASA. These flows are based on monthly averages from
sewer billings, in addition to OWASA flow monitoring reports from 1997-1998. The OWASA flow
data for 1997 to present averaged 82 gpm (118,100 gpd). This is well below the permitted maximum
values. As is shown by the flow monitoring reports the maximum OWASA flow rate of 150 gpm is
regularly reached and/or exceeded for short periods during normal plant operations. The maximum
WI
flow to OWASA from sewer billings, was 168,786 gpd at flow rates up to 285 gpm recorded in the
flow monitorinPq g reports. A maximum average flow of 89.4 gpm was recorded from the flow
monitoring station. The wastewater treatment plant flow averaged 37,000 gpd with a peak flow of
raq 0.119 mgd, or 83 gpm. To provide an estimate for future growth, it was assumed that the wastewater
flow would increase proportionally to the projected stream generation. This approach provides
r-On future flow increases of 14% by 2005, 25% by 2010, and 46% by 2016. The available flow data for
sewer and wastewater flow is summarized in Appendix B. A summary of current and projected
P" flows is included as Table 1.
,C, A. Modification of Existing OWASA Discharge
The UNC-Cogen facility presently discharges sanitary and selected process wastewater streams
On to the OWASA municipal sewer system through a sewer connection located in the south west
corner of the facility. The facility discharges to the Pritchard Branch of the OWASA sewer
F&I system, and this ultimately discharges to the OWASA Mason Farm WWTP. UNC-Cogen
currently has a maximum permitted flow of 145,000 GPD, a maximum permitted flowrate of 150
"a' gpm, and a maximum permitted temperature of 175°F. Based on preliminary discussions with
M 5

furl
Table 1
Pon
Current
ran
Projected 2005
son
Projected 2010
ri"
RM Projected 2016
MR
Current and Projected Wastewater Discharge
UNC Cogeneration Facility
Sewer Discharge
NPDES Discharge
Total
GPM GPD
GPM
GPD
GPM
GPD
Average:
82
118,109
26
37,000
108
155,109
Min:
46
65,900
1
2,000
47
67,900
Max:
117
168,786
82
118,000
199
286,786
Average:
93
134,503
28
40,000
121
174,503
Min:
52
75,047
1
2,000
54
77,047
Max:
133
192,213
93
134,000
226
326,213
Average:
103
147,873
35
50,000
137
197,873
Min:
58
82,507
2
3,000
60
85,507
Max:
146
211,320
103
148,000
249
359,320
Average:
120
172,333
35
50,000
154
222,333
Min:
67
96,155
2
3,000
69
99,155
Max:
171
246,276
119
172,000
290
418,276
Notes: 1. Current Sewer Flows Based On Monthly Billings 1997-6/19/00
2. Current NPDES Discharge Based on MR-1 Reports from 1/1/99 - 5/31/00
3. Projected Flows Based on Anticipated Future Increases in Steam Generation

W
(W
OWASA, the UNC wastewater is acceptable for discharge based on water quality concerns.
However, based on a sewer capacity review of the Pritchard Branch conducted by OWASA in
1992, this branch is flow limited to approximately 385 gpm, and is already at capacity due to
M-1 current permitted UNC flow (150 gpm) and the surrounding residential area (250 gpm used).
Possible access to a different OWASA sewer branch, the Tanbark Branch, is possible from the
W1 front of the UNC-Cogen facility at Graham and Cameron Street.
Appendix C is the flow capacity analysis of the Pritchard Branch conducted by OWASA in 1992,
and is still considered to accurately reflect the current conditions. The existing discharge is flow
limited at two locations, underneath Highway 54, a major four -lane throughway, and the line
immediately upstream from Highway 54. These are shown in the sewer route diagram included
in Appendix A. In 1994, DOT replaced these lines, with 8" DIP piping installed. For this study,
Pin it is assumed that the original pipeline inverts have remained unchanged. Three alternatives to
increase the allowable flow to OWASA were considered. These alternatives are:
fain 1. Modification of the Pritchard Branch sewer line;
2. Discharge of additional streams into the Pritchard Branch (existing connection) based on
Pin hold and off-peak release with intermittent NPDES discharge, and
3. An alternative tie-in to the Tanbark Branch.
These alternatives are described independently below.
L Increase OWASA Discharge at Existing Sewer Connection
Based on the 1992 sewer capacity review by OWASA, two (2) 8" diameter pipe sections,
totaling about 500 feet long, limit the capacity of the line to which UNC-Cogen discharges. One
pipe section, approximately 150 ft long, travels under Highway 54, the other pipe section is
immediately upstream from Highway 54. Based on the 1992 flow capacity analysis conducted
by OWASA, the minimum capacity of the other pipe sections in the sewer branch is 572 gpm,
which is sufficient to handle the maximum projected UNC wastewater flow through 2016,
assuming a constant residential flow of 250 gpm throughout. In order to provide additional flow
capacity, the sizes of the two constricting sections could be increased, either by replacing the
00 7

rA1
%a',
existing pipe or installing an additional sewer line. Either an additional 6" pipe or a single 10"
Mn diameter pipe would provide for the extra flow from UNC-Cogen.
FM
The major obstacle to expanding the sewer is the difficulty of enlarging the pipeline that travels
underneath Hwy. 54. Conversations with the DOT indicate that any piping modifications would
require boring under the roadway to avoid impacting traffic flow. Two possibilities were
considered: pipe bursting to replace the existing sewer line with a larger pipe, and boring a new
pipeline. It is AEI's understanding that the 8" sections were replaced in 1994 by DOT, and are
of ductile iron pipe construction. Based upon conversations with several contractors specializing
in pipe bursting/pipe boring, pipe bursting cannot be performed on ductile iron pipe. For this
reason, the boring and installation of a new additional pipeline was considered. Modification of
the sewer line will require coordination, review and approvals from OWASA, as well as a permit
from DOT for the road crossing which will include submittal of detailed plans and specifications
to DOT.
DOT permit review time can vary between 30-120 days, depending on the permit required, and
Fl� in all cases will require OWASA to be involved in the DOT permit. Bidding and construction
would also have to be coordinated with OWASA to proceed. An initial estimated project
P, schedule is included in Appendix A. Assuming a worst -case DOT permit review of 120 days,
this results in a schedule of 96 weeks, or almost 2 years, to modify the sewer. The comparative
` " construction cost is estimated to be $166,000.
VK) Comparative operating cost estimates were prepared to compare the operating costs to the
FW,
am
operation of the wastewater treatment plant. The comparative costs are summarized in Appendix
A. Assuming that sewer surcharges do not change from existing rates, the operating cost is
estimated at $49,000, less than 32% of the estimated 1999 treatment plant operating cost.
2. Hold and Discharge to Existing Sewer Connection
Instead of expanding the piping, another option is to hold wastewater on site and increase the
a, discharge to OWASA during off peak hours, such as between 12:00 AM — 6:00 AM, when the
Faq 8

Pi1
rpm
discharge from residential users is much lower. This would allow UNC to increase the OWASA
r=1 discharge without impacting the residential neighborhood or requiring construction of additional
piping.
The main disadvantage of this option is that UNC will continue to have an NPDES discharge on
`a' an intermittent basis during peak flow conditions, thus requiring operation of the treatment plant
and permit compliance. Based on discussions with DWQ, the biomonitoring requirements for an
intermittent discharge are much less restrictive than for continuous discharge. For an intermittent
discharge, typical biomonitoring requirements include 5 tests on the first 5 discharges, with the
biomonitoring test being changed to a 24 hour LC50 (lethality test) using fathead minnow. This
is a less restrictive test that monitors survival of fish over 24 hours, instead of the current chronic
test that monitors reproduction of water fleas over 7 days. Based on the success of the LC50 test,
monitoring only may be required once per year, or a toxicity permit limit may be set. Based on
the available data UNC would be able to comply with this criteria.
In order to implement an intermittent discharge scenario at UNC, UNC must make a request to
OWASA for a flow variance from the present 145,000 GPD maximum daily flow and the
maximum rate of 150 gpm. The elimination of the 150 gpm maximum flow rate would allow an
ran increased discharge during the hours that the system has greater capacity. The recent data shows
- - an average UNC sewer discharge of 82 gpm. This would indicate that under present conditions,
MCI OWASA can accommodate the NPDES discharge with only a very intermittent discharge under
stormwater conditions. A worst case scenario would be maintaining the permitted maximum
`ER' flow of 150 gpm all day. This would result in a maximum daily flow is 216,000 GPD, and
would provide an additional 71,000 GPD capacity over the current permitted maximum daily
ran flow. In evaluating this alternative, the worst case scenarios are used since the measured data is
Oki
RIM
from monthly average sewer billings. Based on the projected flows in Table 1, this scenario
would handle the average flows through 2010.
Under these conditions a comparison of this additional capacity to the 1999 discharge flow
shows that this additional capacity would have eliminated 97% of the 1999 NPDES discharges,
,q 9

LN
0
resulting in only nine (9) days of discharge during 1999, with some of these discharges as a result
""' of a hurricane. Using the 1999 NPDES flow as a basis for the future projected wastewater
discharge and a worst case assumption that only 71,000 gpd capacity is available, this scenario
'u' would result in intermittent discharge of 24 days, 34 days, and 59 days of discharge in 2005,
2010, and 2016, respectively. Appendix B contains a summary of the 1999 NPDES discharge
ran flow as reported in the MR-1 reports to DWQ. Thus, a variance in total flow from the 145,000
rim
gpd limit and an increase in allowable flowrate above 150 gpm between 12am-6am would
provide a feasible operational system throughout current plant projections. This variance also
has the advantage of modifying the biomonitoring criteria to a 24 hour acute test which would
result in biomonitoring compliance for NPDES discharge, while still providing UNC with the
most operational flexibility.
The main disadvantage is that this option will probably require the continued operation of the
WWTP to ensure treatment during peak flow periods. Associated construction costs to
implement this option is dependent upon OWASA requirements to monitor flow, and may
- require a flow monitoring study or flow monitoring at the Hwy. 54 manhole, as well as possible
�► installation of pumps to pump treated effluent either to OWASA or to storage. On a temporary
basis, UNC can probably implement this option using the existing equalization basin transfer
M pumps without significant construction to achieve at least partial elimination of the discharge. A
schematic for this option is included in Appendix A. The existing settling basin capacity is
approximately 26,000-33,000 gal each. This can be used to provide up to 1 day flow storage per
basin. Additional emergency storage capacity is provided by the two equalization basins, with
approximately 64,000 gal capacity each. In Appendix A an comparative cost estimate was
prepared for permanent installation of transfer pumps, piping and control valves. This
comparative construction cost is $90,300. The implementation schedule is primarily dependent
upon OWASA approval for a variance rather than the construction activities.
Val
�► A comparative operating cost estimate was prepared based on the worst -case 2016 discharge
scenario, which has the maximum operation of the treatment system. The operating costs are
P,
FM 10

r01
r=.
summarized in Appendix A. The operating cost is estimated at $105,500, approximately 68% of
the estimated 1999 WWTP operating cost.
3. Discharge to OWASA Municipal Sewer System at Alternative Sewer Tie-in
As an alternative to modifying the OWASA sewer line under Highway 54, the sewer lines in the
ram front of the UNC-Cogen facility discharge to the Tanbark Branch line. The existing flow rate
and the capacity for this line is unknown at this time. In order to determine the flow capacity for
this line, a sewer flow capacity analysis is necessary in both the Graham Street and Franklin
Street lines to determine current sewer flows, together with a survey of two manholes recently
uncovered on Franklin St. to verify pipe inverts.
AEI conducted a preliminary flow capacity analysis of the Tanbark Branch Line along Graham
St. and Franklin St. based on available pipe sizes and elevations from OWASA. Based on this
analysis, this line has a maximum capacity of 308 gpm.
A preliminary flow estimate using standard flow estimates for residences and commercial
establishments indicates that this sewer line may have enough capacity to accommodate the
SWI
additional UNC flow. This flow capacity must be confirmed by a flow study, as any flow
pan contribution due to stormwater, inflow and infiltration (I&I) is unknown. UNC would have to
sponsor this study and this flow capacity study would have to be approved by OWASA, and
include monitoring manhole flows for several months to include rainy -season data.
�► Based on conversations with contractors that have previously completed flow studies for
OWASA, the cost for a flow study is approximately $5,200 per month per manhole (see
F" Appendix D). This option would also require construction of a pump station to pump the
wastewater from the wastewater treatment plant to the sewer manhole on Graham St.
In order to implement this option, several steps are required to evaluate the feasibility. First, the
inverts of two manholes on Franklin St. need to be surveyed to determine the sewer pipe inverts.
These manholes were formerly covered and have recently been uncovered. The pipe inverts are
necessary to determine if these manholes restrict flow. Next, a flow study of this line must be
,� 11

MI
M1
conducted to verify actual flow rates and remaining capacity. This study has to be done during
'i' rainy periods such as in the fall, to identify flow contributions due to stormwater. Based on the
results of the flow study, if sufficient additional capacity is available, then UNC-Cogen can
FM proceed with requesting permission to tie -into the sewer.
ran
If the results from the capacity analysis are favorable, UNC-Cogen would construct a wastewater
piq
pump station and pipeline across the facility to the existing sewer manhole near Graham Street.
A preliminary route for the pump station piping and the Tanbark Branch sewer are attached in
Appendix A. Comparative cost estimates and project schedules are slightly lower than to modify
the existing bottleneck, at a schedule of 76 weeks, and a construction cost of approximately
$1455000.
A comparative annual operating cost estimate is estimated to be $56,300, slightly higher than the
expansion of the existing sewer connection due to additional monitoring costs and maintenance
Pa, of the pump station.
r-191 B. Relocate Outfall to Morgan Creek
Currently, UNC-Cogen discharges wastewater to an intermittent stream feeding to Morgan
fowl Creek. Because of the low stream flow, UNC-Cogen is required to conduct its biomonitoring
testing at an in -stream waste concentration (IWC) of 90%. This very high IWC is one reason the
biomonitoring test for UNC-Cogen is so sensitive. Based on a review of the available USGS
stream monitoring data, the low flow (7Q 10) in Morgan Creek is 4.1 MGD. By relocating the
UNC-Cogen discharge to Morgan Creek, UNC-Cogen could reduce the in -stream waste
Vm
concentration (IWC) of its wastewater to 2.9% (at a peak wastewater discharge of 0.119 MGD)
or less instead of the current IWC of 90%. This reduced IWC criteria would result in compliance
with the biomonitoring requirements.
AEI estimates that this relocation would require installation of a 4,200 ft pipeline (0.8 mi.). In
order to accomplish the outfall relocation, this alternative requires both extensive regulatory
MR review and construction. Construction is required to install a pipeline and discharge structure to
Pa, 12

Morgan Creek through residential areas and crossing Highway 54, which is also addressed as
P" part of the OWASA tie-in.
Fu' Relocation of the outfall would be treated by DWQ as a major permit modification, which will
be subject to public notice and review. In addition, local right-of-way access for the pipeline
`" would have to be obtained, as well as DOT approval for both access and to bore under Highway
54. As a first step, this alternative would need to initiate discussions with DWQ to identify
FaT
information needed to proceed. This alternative requires both the highest construction cost and
Mn
longest project schedule, at almost $600,000 and would require approximately 2.5 years to
complete. A preliminary pipeline route is included in Appendix A.
C. Modify Existing Biomonitoring Requirements
Other alternatives considered and discussed with DWQ include modification of the
biomonitoring requirements. These alternatives included in -stream biomonitoring, and use of
,an alternate biomonitoring criteria.
run 1. In -stream Monitoring
- During the April 3 and April 6 biomonitoring sampling, one sample was also collected from the
ran receiving stream, approximately 500 ft. downstream from the UNC sample point (adjacent to
Brookside Dr.). Of the two samples, the effluent sample indicated a reproduction reduction of
29%, while the sample downstream indicated a reproduction reduction of 0.67%. This indicates
that there is no apparent toxicity of the sample in the stream. Laboratory analytical sheets are
M attached as Appendix E.
FINI
AEI discussed the option to allow in -stream biomonitoring sampling with the DWQ. DWQ was
fm
indecisive since the use of in -stream monitoring has not been used by the State. This will make
regulatory approval of this option difficult to achieve. If it were decided to proceed with this
option additional stream biomonitoring screening samples should be collected. These data
should be compared with compliance sampling as a direct comparison of the two different
P14 sampling points. As this is a procedural change, there are no construction costs. The primary
MCA 13

MR
- cost are for additional biomonitoring samples and engineering costs associated with obtaining
FMA State approval for the method change.
M9 2. Alternate Biomonitoring Criteria
The possibility of other modifications of the biomonitoring criteria were discussed with DWQ.
Rol One modification suggested was use of lethality biomonitoring (%) instead of the current chronic
biomonitoring criteria (use of mortality instead of reproduction). Based on conversations with
Pq
DWQ, this alternative would not be readily accepted by the State for a continuous discharge, but
can be pursued for an intermittent discharge (This is presented in Alternative A.2).
ran
Another alternate discussed is the possible use of another organism for biomonitoring instead of
FM
Ceriodaphnia Dubia. Use of an alternate organism can be accepted by DWQ provided that we
FOR can submit the following information:
• Test protocol procedure
• Identify at least one laboratory that can perform biomonitoring testing with that
organism,
r^1 • Show that reproducible data can be obtained with a reference toxicant
Based on our conversations with DWQ, we do not recommend pursing these alternatives at this
time. These will be difficult and costly to implement. There appear to be other options available
`'I' which would be more cost effective for UNC-Cogen.
3. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study
One possible alternative to biomonitoring is to conduct a periodic Benthic macroinvertebrate
study on the receiving stream instead of biomonitoring the UNC-Cogen discharge. This study is
a review and identification of macroinvertebrate life present in the stream to determine the
impact on the stream, using procedures from the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit. This is an
alternate form of biomonitoring, and would be performed once per year instead of the quarterly
chronic toxicity test.
FMI
,M, 14

qM
A macroinvertebrate study involves the collection, quantification and identification of
W macroinvertebrate life present in the stream. The specific species in the stream are identified.
The various species are rated using guidelines from the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit, and
1=1 provide an indication of stream quality. The study on the receiving stream would be compared to
a reference "pristine" stream to determine the level of impact. The choice of reference stream
`M would also be determined during the macroinvertebrate study. AEI conducted a preliminary
review of the receiving stream on April 7, 2000 and identified genera that indicate that the stream
PR is suitable for conducting a macroinvertebrate study. The results of this review is summarized in
M
Pq
Appendix F. These studies are typically undertaken during the summer as a worst case basis.
Based on the AEI preliminary review of the received stream, the next step is to proceed with a
formal Macroinvertebrate study and identify a suitable reference stream using a state certified
facility. If the study indicates little impact on the receiving stream, then it would be possible to
proceed with meeting with the DWQ to discuss the preliminary results and address how to
FER proceed with requesting a modification of the NPDES Permit.
fun The costs associated with this option are primarily the macroinvertebrate study costs and
engineering costs associated with obtaining DWQ approval for the method change. The initial
�+ costs associated with the macroinvertebrate study is $15,000425,000. The study should be done
during the summer, with the pursuit of state approval of the permit modification during the
second half of this year.
` q 4. Reuse/Recovery of Wastewater
Some potential for wastewater reuse is present at the facility, such as using wastewater in the
cooling towers. Unfortunately, no convenient large irrigation sources, such as golf courses or
wooded areas were identified, thus this option was not strongly investigated. Recycle or reuse
FM
options may prove useful to reduce peak water discharge, which may be useful when combined
with some of the sewer discharge options, and should be considered on a task -by -task basis.
M
,� 15

rAn
PR
SECTION 3.0
M FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY
In evaluating the comparative feasibility of each option, the sum of three factors were
considered: the level of effort required for regulatory approval, construction costs, and estimated
Fal implementation time. For all alternatives, wastewater loadings were estimated based on future
stream generation projections.
F"
Regulatory approval requirements were estimated based on conversations with regulatory
' agencies as appropriate for each alternative. Order -of -magnitude construction costs were
p,
Psi
estimated for comparative purposes, and are based on current available information.
Implementation time was estimated based on AEI's previous experience with similar projects,
and discussions with contractor's and regulatory personnel.
Each alternative was discussed in the previous section. The advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative are summarized in Table 2 attached. Preliminary drawings, detailed comparative
construction costs and project schedules are included in Appendix A.
M, An increase to the allowable flowrate and/or total flow to OWASA is the easiest option to
MR
implement in at least a temporary operating mode. This would allow UNC to operate as an
intermittent discharge facility, with less restrictive biomonitoring requirements. Intermittent
discharge operation is a feasible option for both current and projected wastewater loadings. The
effluent should be tested using the less restrictive biomonitoring requirements to verify that UNC
can meet the new criteria.
Of the alternatives to eliminate the wastewater discharge, both OWASA alternatives have
comparable construction costs and schedules. The critical factor is to determine the available
capacity in the Tanbark Branch along Graham and Franklin St. to determine if the available
capacity in the sewer is present. Expanding the existing Pritchard Branch line at Highway 54
rm provides sufficient capacity for the projected wastewater loadings.
16

. F-mq
NEE.3-1
VUR The relocation of the outfall to Morgan Creek has the longest schedule, highest construction cost,
and greatest regulatory and public impact. For these reasons, we would not recommend pursuing
+R this alternative at this time.
To modify the applicable biomonitoring requirements, the less restrictive fathead minnow LC50
test for an intermittent discharge is the best choice. The critical factor is to proceed with the
fathead minnow LC50 test to evaluate potential compliance issues. Should continuous discharge
continue, then the alternate that has the best chance of regulatory acceptance is the
macroinvertebrate study in lieu of biomonitoring. One option is to proceed with an initial
macroinvertebrate assessment and identification of a reference stream during the summer as a
worst -case condition.
F,
One other alternative that may be possible to pursue is to use in -stream sampling for
biomonitoring.. This will be difficult for the DWQ to approve. At this time, continuing with in -
stream biomonitoring screening tests in conjunction with compliance tests is recommended.
_ Based on the DWQ response, we do not recommend pursuing alternate toxicity tests or other
biomonitoring criteria at this time. Recycle/reuse options were not strongly considered in this
study, as there are no local sources that could accept all of the UNC-Cogen wastewater, thus
toxicity would still be an issue.
FM
P"
MR
P"
fm
17

fZ9
pal
RR
F9
"K,
P"
n
P"
fm
fm
Table 2
Evaluation of Wastewater Discharge Alternatives
Alternative
1. Flow Increase to Current
OWASA Outfall
Summary oI Aavantages ana Llsaavantages
Advantage
1. Eliminates NPDES permit
requirements
2. Support of DWQ
2. Off-peak Flow Increase to
Current OWASA Outfall with
On -site Holding
3. Discharge to OWASA's
Tanbark Branch using
Graham/Franklin Street Sewer
4. Relocate Outfall to Morgan
Creek
5.1 Modify Existing Biomonitoring
Requirements - In -stream
Monitoring
5.2 Modify Existing Biomonitoring
Requirements -
Alternate Biomonitoring
Intermittent discharge
5.3 Modify Biomonitoring
Requirements -
Macroinvertebrate Study
5. Recycle/Reuse
1. Intermittent Discharge Reduces
Toxicity Criteria
2. Easily Implemented
3. LittIe Construction Necessary
for Temporary Implementation
4. Lowest Permanent Construction
Cost
5. Support of DWQ
6. Eliminates NPDES permit
requirements
7. Support of DWQ
8. Reduces IWC, and provide
toxicity requirements which can
consistently be achieved
9. Possible Improvement in
passing toxicity
10. Requires little or no
construction cost
11. Possible improvement in
passing toxicity
12. Requires little or no
construction cost
13. Easier toxicity test
14. Support of DWQ
15. Best acceptability by DWQ
since they have suggested this
approach
16. Represents "true" impacts on
stream
17. Study taken less frequently
18. Reduces wastewater discharge
18
Disadvantage
1. Construction and boring
required to increase pipe size
2. Coordinate/permits from
OWASA and DOT
3. Approximate 2 years
implementation time
4. Need OWASA Approval
5. Requires On -site Holding of
Wastewater
6. Treatment System Maintained
7. Requires flow studies to verify
available capacity
8. Requires pumping flow to front
of Cogen facility
9. Approximate 2 years
implementation time
10. Highest capital costs:
11. Major permit modification
requiring extensive state review,
public notice and easements;
12. Longest project schedule
13. Hwy. 54 Road Crossing (see
Alt. 1)
14. DWQ approval may be difficult
15. WWTP operation still an issue
16. Requires Confirmation Testing
17. Trials and studies needed
18. DWQ approval difficult
19. Demonstrate compatibility
with Daphnia Test
20. Toxicity and WWTP operations
still an issue
21. Confirmatory trials needed
22. Stream quality needs to be
confirmed by outside consultant
23. Reference stream needs to be
determined
24. Toxicity and WWTP operation
still an issue
25. Will not eliminate wastewater
discharges
26. Toxicity will still be an issue

MR
SECTION 4.0
PX,
RECOMMENDATIONS
,=, AWARE Environmental Inc. evaluated a number of alternatives for handling water discharges
and achieving consistence compliance with biomonitoring criteria. Based on the results of our
Fm evaluation, AEI recommends the following initial courses of action.
1: The recommended approach is continued OWASA discharge utilizing a controlled discharge
concept. Specifically, UNC-Cogen would discharge at a 150 gpm rate from 6am to 12am
and with an additional flow rate during periods when there is low domestic/residential
demand (12am-6am). This will allow the OWASA system to remain within capacity
limitations. UNC-Cogen would continue to have an intermittent discharge NPDES permit
which will result in a biomonitoring limit consistent with the nature of the discharge. To
initiate UNC-Cogen should:
• Begin scoping meetings with OWASA for flow variances and/or night time flow
rate increase; and
• Collect additional biomonitoring screening samples for 24 hr. LC50 fathead
minnow studies to compare biomonitoring to current testing, including screening
at various carbon dosages.
2. There are several alternative secondary approaches depending upon the options UNC wishes
to pursue. The following actions should be initiated if problems develop in the recommended
r� option. These options include:
• Conduct a macroinvertebrate study and identify stream water quality. Based on
the results of study, DWQ could change to an instream macroinvertebrate permit
requirement. Note that the " worst -case" macroinvetebrate study is best done
during the summer months;
• Collect in -stream biomonitoring screening samples with compliance effluent
samples as a direct comparison.
• Based on results of OWASA flow variance request, proceed with scoping meetings
with OWASA to either conduct a flow study on the Tanbark Branch or to
eliminate the current flow restriction at Highway 54.
30112r001
19

APPENDIX A
COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATES AND PROJECT SCHEDULES

ran
ran
RM
rAn
ram
ton
Fmq
Fun
mn
rvm
Om
rml
OR
CAM
w
ri
PER
Construction Cost Estimate
UNC
Expand Sewer Piping Under Highway 54
Description
No.Units
Unit Meas.
Per Unit
Total
Highway Bore and Casing Pipe
200
LF
$300
$60,000
Excavation of Boring Pits: 20'x30'x6'
534
CY
$6
$3,200
HDPE Pipe 10"
400
LF
$20
$8,000
Trenching
200
LF
$30
$6,000
Manholes
3
EA
$1,200
$3,600
Clearing and Grubbing
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Additional Flow Tie -In: Piping
$10,000
$10,000
Pumps
$13,500
$13,500
Installation
$3,000
$3,000
Subtotal
$112,300
Construction Misc., OH and P
18%
$20,200
Contengincy
30%
$33,700
Grand Total
1
$166,200

rMl
Mn
M"
OM
MM
L11
fan
M
f=,
PRI
Miq
M)
Construction Cost Estimate
UNC
Pump to OWASA At Existing Connection
Description
No.Units
Unit Meas.
Per Unit
Total
WWTP Pumps: 2 FLYGT CP-3102, 110
GPM @40ft.
1
LS
13,500
$13,500
Installation (GT EST.)
$2,500
EQB Pumps: 1-FLYGT CP-3102/Basin
2
EA
7,500
$15,000
(GT EST.)
Installation (GT EST.)
$3,000
Trenching: 4" pipe
300
LF
$25
$7,500
Above Ground Pipe
60
LF
15
$900
Replacement Mixer Est.
1
LS
4600
$4,600
Control Valves (4) GT Est.
4
EA
3500
$14,000
Subtotal
$61,000
Construction Misc., OH and P
18%
$11,000
Contengincy
30%
$18,300
Grand Total
$90,300
r=,

w
m
m
fun
run
FER
ram,
rAq
w
Fm
Construction Cost Estimate
UNC
Install New Sewer Connection To Tanbark Branch
Description
No.Units
Unit Meas.
Per Unit
Total
Connect Flow Study: Est. 3 mos. @ 2 manholes
6
EA
$5,200
$31,200
@ $5200/mo.
Survey 2 Manholes
LS
$1,000
$1,000
Pump Installation - FLYGT 110 GPM 40 TDH
LS
$13,500
Pipeline: 4" PVC & Trenching (assume 3' deep)
1000
LF
$25
$25,000
Casing Pipe at Railroad
50
LF
$40
$2,000
Jacking and Boring
50
LF
$1,000
$5,000
VWVTP Modification (GT EST.)
LS
$5,000
Pump Station: 10x10x10 concrete
1
LS
$12,000
$12,000
(Same as 1996 Est.)
Subtotal
$97,700
Construction Misc., OH and P
18%
$17,600
Contengincy
30%
$29,300
Grand Total
$144,600
fmn

m
rIIq
PRI
m
m
rm
PM
f"
rm
rp"
Min
m
Construction Cost Estimate
UNC
Relocate Discharge To Morgan Creek
Description
No.Units
Unit Meas.-
Per Unit
Total
Pipeline Relocation: 10" Sewer
4200
LF
$50
$210,000
Outfall Structure
LS
$4,000
$4,000
Highyway 54 Toad Crossing and Casing
200
LF
$300
$60,000
Boring Pits
LS
$3,200
$3,200
Manholes: est. every 50 feet
84
EA
$1,500
$126,000
Subtotal
$403,200
Construction Misc., OH and P
18%
$7,300
Contengincy
30%
$121,000
Grand Total
$597,200

Sin
Pon
rm
rm
owl
Im
COMPARATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
UNC COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NC
Sewer Expansion at Existing Discharge
Task
1. Scope Meeting with OWASA
2. Preliminary Design
3. Scope Meeting with DOT
4. Surveying/Engineering Design (Detailed
Plans and Specifications)
5. Submit to OWASA for Review
6. Final Modifications and Comments
7. Submit to DOT with Encroachment
Agreement
8. DOT Response
9. Modifications
10. Final Submittal and Approval
11. Advertise for Bid
12. Bid Phase
13. Bid Award; Contract Approval
14. NTP Issued
15. Construction Phase
16. Startup; shutdown
Duration
(weeks)
2
6
2
12
4
4
2
16
4
8
2
8
4
2
16
4
Basis: 1. 120 Day DOT Review Assumed
2. OWASA/DOT Review Assumed Separate (Worst Case)
3. No Major Encroachment Issues
4. 16 Week Construction Estimated
Cumulative Time
(weeks)
2
8
10
22
26
30
32
48
52
60
62
70
74
76
92
96
rMl

rAq
Mn
COMPARATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
,_, UNC COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NC
re"
om
PM
F,
Fan
W
Flow Variance and Construction of Transfer Pumps
Task
Duration
Cumulative Time
(weeks)
(weeks)
1.
Scope Meeting with OWASA
2
2
2.
Prepare Request for Variance, Permit Modification
6
8
3.
Submit to OWASA
4
12
4.
Implement Temporary Discharge System
8
20
5.
Engineering Design
8
28
6.
Advertise for Bid
2
34
7.
Bid Phase
4
38
8.
Bid Award; Contract Approval
4
42
9.
NTP Issued
2
44
10.
Construction Phase
10
54
11.
Startup; shutdown
2
56
Basis: 1. OWASA Review Times Estimated
2. 10 Week Construction Estimated
3. DWQ Permit Modification Process Independent of Critical Path

f"q
r:1
ran
Im
ram
Imn
COMPARATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
UNC COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NC
OWASA Tie-in At Alternative Connection
Task
Duration
Cumulative Time
(weeks)
(weeks)
1.
Scope Meeting with OWASA
2
2
2.
Preliminary Design
6
8
3.
Conduct Flow Study
12
20
4.
Submit Flow Study Results to OWASA with
4
24
Request for Flow Increase
5.
OWASA Approval, Begin Engineering
8
32
Design
6.
Submit to OWASA for Review
4
36
7.
Final Modifications and Comments
4
40
8.
Final Submittal and Approval
4
44
9.
Advertise for Bid
2
46
10.
Bid Phase
6
52
11.
Bid Award; Contract Approval
4
56
12.
NTP Issued
2
58
13.
Construction Phase
16
74
14.
Startup; Shakedown
2
76
Basis: 1. Flow Study Shows Capacity Exists
2. Flow Study to Include Some Rainy Season Data
3. Regulatory Review and Construction Time Frames Assumed
riq

FIq
COMPARATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
UNC COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NC
Relocate Discharge to Morgan Creek
Task
Duration
Cumulative Time
(weeks)
(weeks)
1. DWQ Scope Meeting
2
2
2. Preliminary Engineering
8
10
3. Submit Permit Modification Request
4
14
4. DWQ Review/Public Notice Process
16
30
5. Approval — Engineering Design
16
46
6. Final DWQ Submittal/DOT
16
62
Submittal/Building Permit
7. Final Modifications and Comments
8
70
8. Final Submittal and Approval
12
82
9. Advertise Bid
10. Bid Phase
12
94
11. Bid Award; Contract Approval
4
98
12. NTP Issued
13. Construction Phase
26
124
14. Final Startup; Shakedown
6
130
Basis: 1. DWQ Review/Public Notice Estimated at 16 weeks
2. Separate DOT/City Submittal Assumed (worse case)
3. 26 week Construction Estimates
MR

fW-1
091
COMPARATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
UNC COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NC
-
Modify Existing Biomonitoring Requirements
'
To Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study
Task Duration
Cumulative Time
(weeks)
(weeks)
1.
Conduct Preliminary Macroinvertebrate Study; 8
8
Identify Reference Stream
004
2.
Arrange Meeting with DWQ, Develop Study 4
12
Plan
3.
DWQ Review and Approval 12
24
'^
4.
Conduct Additional Study (if needed) 6
30
5.
Summarize Results; Submit Report 4
34
6.
Request Permit Modification 4
38
Basis: 1. Conduct Preliminary Study Prior to State Meeting
2. 90 Day DWQ Review Assumed
0=,

Comparative Annual Operating Cost Breakdown
On -Site Treatment vs. Sewer Discharge Options
UNC Cogeneration Facility
Wastewater Treatment Sewer With Intermintent Complete Sewer Discharge At
System'Discharge2 3 Discharge' 4, Alternate Tie -In
Locatinn2.5
Laboratory
$43,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
Operations/Maintenance
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
Chemical Cost
$14,000.00
$3,400.00
$0.00
$0.00
Sludge Disposal
$88,400.00
$44,200.00
$0.00
$0.00
Sewer Fee
$0.00
$46,100.00
$49,300.00
$49,300.00
TOTALS
$155,400.00
$105,500.00
$49,300.00
$56,300.00
Notes: 1. Based on 1999 Flow Data and Following Assumptions:
Chemical Cost Based on 50 IWO PAC @ $0.75/lb, and
Sludge Disposal Costs Average of 1998&1999
2. Based On Worst Case Projected 2016 Flows
3. Intermitent Discharge Option Assumes:
Testing Reduced by 75%
Chemical Cost Based On 5 Ib/D PAC x 306 D/Yr,
and 50 IWO PAC x 59 D/Yr, and PAC @ $0.75/lb
Sludge Disposal Assumed Reduced By 50% (Worst Case)
Sewer Fee Based On $2.55 Per 1000 Gallon
Current Sewer Discharge Not Included In Sewer Fee
4. Complete Sewer Discharge Option Assumes:
Testing Cost Same As Current Discharge
Sewer Fee Based on $2.55 per 1000 Gallon
5. Alternate Tie -In Assumes:
Testing Cost Annual Instrument Calibration
Estimated Pump Station Maintenance Costs

L
CAMERON AVE.
v�%
'77
-arm, R,
n
A
Z,=
W!,
e , p,
e
?S, Xf
-71
fy
'I ttA -6�
N N, 1%
%
y
f
1z
L
, J. 4
ZNjr. , ,-
1-7
Z
;p�,
v,
-vt iLX'/
4
--,tm
2/
q
k
SEWER LINES TO BE
4 P-
ENLARGED
1.
6V ALTERNATIVE I
MORGAN CREEK CURRENT OWASA OUTFALL
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE APPROACHES
UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY
TO MORGAN CREEK CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY DRAWN BY: J.K.S.
(NOT SHOWN)
DATE DULY 2000
DESIGNED BY REVISED
July 28, 2000 3:56:34 p.m. PROJECT NUMBER AMMr-- DRAWING NO.
Drawing: 30112SO3.DWG.DWG N301 -1 L 305-1 moNRCCL RM CHARLOTTE, NC 28270

.
INFLUENT• pH
CONTROL
f
I
FLOCCULATION
TANK
UNC
r
SPUTTER
AT R
OIL/W E
NPDES
COGEN
WASTEWATER
BOX
SEPARATOR
DISCHARGE
I
AS NEEDED
' I
I SETTLING EFFLUENT pH
I BASIN CONTROL
I
I
WASTEWATER
I
I
I
I
TREATMENT PLANT
I
I
EQUALIZATION BASINS
I
I
I
(FOR EMERGENCY
STORAGE ONLY) I
I INSTALL PUMPS IN
SETTLING BASIN TO
----------------------------------11�----�
PUMP TO SURGE
t
BASIN / SEWER
SURGE BASIN
I
I
EXISTING OWASA
DISCHARGE
REROUTE EXISTING
OVERFLOW FROM
LEGEND
EFFLUENT pH CONTROL
TANK TO INFLUENT pH
CONTROL TANK
ALTERNATIVE 2
EXISTING
HOLD & RELEASE TO OWASA
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE APPROACHES
PROPOSED
UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
>< VALVE
SCALE N.T.S. APPROVED BY : DRAWN BY:
DATE JULY 2000 DESIGNED BY REVISED
July g: 2000 4:23Dw p.m.
Drawing: 301212AL2.DWG.DWC
PROJECT NUMBER 1 A�r�1�1NC-8 DRAWING N0.
I V 301 I
9305—J MONROE RD. CHARLOTTE. NC 28270

s �-� UNCOVkR ED—
P,
MANHOLE.
RiJEY FOR
'M 003
n Z, INVERTS
001
- I -
!"R A
ef
j
3- FP -ANKLIN STREEi
IF,
,V
SEWE 14
T Nr
STUDY! -fd
i 4 FOR F�41
A,
UN6
-L,4;, jI , , i,;f i , _:, I - — 11 ;" 1 1 D
MANHOC6,,
SU#tVEY` Fb1R`
AU N-r f
1 INVERTS_
f PP�_
R.
3 14
—J�
'P, - Z I
. . �
Q
L
f
r1L 1.j
7
ag
LJ
L
j
i v
A I
4-44
4 7
4
0—
. i"M
t-o
Ile
-7j
IULJ Ij
L
ab
Z
�,j 7
L
Ly
'c; v
Ju
oc,
r ; F- ;V-i i
L
j 4;
41 PP
U+
V kv� :n
4p,
v
x n.
i3
Afe
-,
r--T
ALTERNATIVE 3
DISCHARGE TO OWASA WITH
-4
,,P POSED ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE APPROACHES
DISC RGEi
T
v
J
IF, L
91, V, c. UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY
CAMERO
N AVENUE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
'7
SCALE N.T.S. APPROVED BY DRAWN BY:
F- JULY 2000 DESIGNED BY
DATE REVISED
ON11; NERATFOR�FACILMY
PROJECT NUMBER M A AFAR DRAWING NO.
July 28, 2000 4:12:56 m.
Drawing: 301212AL3A.DWG.Dp.WG N 301-12 A&IM ff ko INC

. J
i 1 t i ! ^a �i �� / � ,�� I ter. G �'• '• '! ` r -- ■"t. u i
:u �� �•
(r1 u L ee ^ • -ii a �Yti
:'{ �: � �... • '�� r I 1' � _ - _ I _ - . _ _ _ u1 \ / � tit
( 1] • ' / � r` .-•.� �-",9 I r '. �/ ! ": • �'� �-L...1• Y � oc`.Tbc 3- - - •- - �' r �. `' • . y
I VII(
Ll
i ,S �%7 / \ Y ( ~ ' i ,1 - ' 1I„� I� • -:a! t ti :� y ♦ I 1 ,t e
{ /� d .*yr \\ •gyp•\Y c i`s _ 1 I E 1', �.'3?=� ;: - I '.r,,� p(� t r r� 5oa. 3 3cP.
! �M 1
a �1 s• ! i --- ---
f1 / .ri 1• .`
IS I W'^ Z�II l' Z ..-.--..--.
1 - y ,/J /�� 1 •1. A ' I }' vl.¢I .Y I :4��i �q -0( : ! .Z 6%t II �,Y'
I c _ ^ � / /-•��.�4:� �i_: •1 1!f �� c'Y Wks 1♦ 'I I yyW 11 I � •r+� % I i
i N L /� !r ' •i �."'1 W 1 W: �; til l,i Lai { s r O •� GI • I • r-Z-6: N .L' •4t �'� Qt. LW 2
'�' (D r Fp r �a
�-r:C, ram'•- _ _ + "Jjr .__ -Y�`r . ._�J•' 4/ !.. s - Jr! • ./•" -•1'�:\f L• ..1 I =--_gD'-_�� I' 15i..''�\ :y A 3�-c�l �iI . �:ti :a •��•=Q- K- 3j
------... ---_- ry
W<c ,
•, I ;t 1,
jl Il" .~r.� rv=i _•'.P- 1 , 1
----------
le/ti.%._ 4 ', : ' i . I I �•�— r• ►- ` rN i 1• ry L r-�
ilk
a i 1
Lv
kk
it
�' _•; �• / _-1'7- -_..! ____g%- __-' '__ .-- _ _ .:. .-F _. •.--T_ _T•- e �S. .'CI C= ro
s_
tk
f 'l -APPROXIMATE:-,
- __fir ;� �: '�•%, - I- �._�� !
ROUTE OF
. FORCE MAIN':
_ � ' / ; is r �•+ � �� �,
J I r I P T16N
+ ALTERNATIVE 3
DISCHARGE TO OWASA WITH
July 28, 2000 4:12:31 p.m.
Drowing: 301212AL3.DWG. DWG
UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE N.T.S. APPROVED BY DRAWN BY:
DATE JULY 2000 DESIGNED BY REVISED
PROJECT NUMBER A �� jw DRAWING NO.
N 301-12 AL r. I"e

r • - .1 � , - r `III / rc; t r ++,, sr � .:- �s-e,,.,.#
I i �f' �� ( � P`� "^�3 V '� '4 ( i'!. �•�C rt•^�y'4 v :�°'r� �'� 1.i
+ r t �..-.-.'err t e S :"""'} •� r! � �f �', t ' f'[ � +� f .-='\�„aa� •t'� � �� � r r` ,,,,..--.�. { l�': H f / ��� � S -' � � r
� rri �'' �,,� - fs f t { r '���,ra' � � � � �� i �•4 �'` !"1 � •� '-!j^ {lr^j� 4#
7,
err"
� f
AOP
"'�, r ��a, ti, . 1,�.✓'�a� ✓�� l ! R i r , _ �� � �'s.e i - � � 1� + � �i.�s j f 1..
�./� �.. •'d-. 1 .. -• j 1 , � V �':�``-. -., ,— (f ��`((� t� ti �+ 1 � . � � }l/ � � � �� ,1 ,K. C7 ti i `^".�� � •.C.._.: as �� �� ��'i 1` '! r r ' /
B L_�` : t 1 "`f �`•,� Kr {� j r' ` i � :."' r� s .�� '•`„ter -+s _� °' � � � , �i Nr
��r,. fr� \,_ it '""f drj �� � j\� \,•-•Or f% t �I I;i i. �r�_ „- ` _-' `.� ��� {•� _ � 1 ti � � �'.rr' � "-,.. � �� =i ""._..�' l " (rr
r of
1_2
yll
1 1'4 --� , `�] ``i f 1 '-'-"� r"''y � .� � � (�1' �t �,*,� o/e ` �r•��' •' � .ems � `4. 14y + i
all
'/ 1l ``--�=•-.� � � �j Jim c.�-- �f''�.R,'"s' -'-''' li , r' r' r� � f .,� �} "•' � � r"' /" 1M-�. %' r`�•��'.,. .--, '•'°'"'� "�
_ i 1 ,lam• � i � ;ram !' fr m -a.._, zV i �. try ., - , r '+ i i f � r e'x
''+,, � �.�.1. � f r�.�..-_...'. ,,,� "% !' t '' �`", � �r r � -� r ��\`��l ��'./ � ' V + � i r •' i ��f `� "^���� � = 4: V;1• .�. K �-`•....' '1 1t ;� �r a �.t j/'�A7••a--- � � ..�''n . ` i
_ V i� �r I ( / y t` i .i ` -•� �' i I i1"�r . /f; r-•„ �\�.-.1 f-.�C...�f-' '�✓1"•..z.� 17ti ` �-�.� ,.,rr , f! ti , k _ `•eC
•''-' f 1 -4! j ' 'I r -`•'%l {`f`; �l ``f.r.n�-.....,-•'�,\ J .-•^" t: ! 1 'r , .._.^'P !r lfrl ! ' ,7 ry { r ff"^' ti /f . )r ^, ti �J j•., 1�,�� "+., r .:(.. S,f'r
i ,•w� . '4 { �• rr�� 'r lit ~ iii 4` ""--^_� ' / ! :k._•_ i r r� / . rI ! >� - _. ,, r- !
Y pEt V
Graha
�..`�"c
.y '-' � ��y� . �''i ,o - � S;� I \ -g '�. 5 } yr C;,, �•P"� ' ���{i i{'I /�Af rt ',r/' � � . , tti.._`' -,�;1 �t�a .- a�i ' r` �-e' `-�''t' `1
i / r '� { / r. •-....7,�w`J.,_-�� ''., " 1itV�' .��'h, i fd, r J ()!/r ��rrl 1 S � �I�•' fl t ; ,-�"�,-�`c'��-�4./'"'� i fas D t� r-'~' w ' ��a \�,, `= ,�' __ �
l F I F 3ti
� i f � m � 1 ` t--,._._ ~..� 4 � r _.".�", l ! / I (tk� � �� •� i ..- ' .`1.' ' � S � \ �1. i..�. j r' +- �'N -`\ l�, '
} i •mob., 4 i,��l.r ' I i rl ,';rr i .»"'_..�. .-__...�--'` >: lr,' ,
\,it � J ��iD �'l [ �I/'\_�"`.,^---..-��,��r ..1 � . �' �4:. % 1^' .�' j `V �.-�- r �' � � !'! v -�. ° ✓si $ �-_� S .. �l i��...% }I�r ;" t=y � t
t }s, �,�� � �YY-1, aS}{� -`=""e��.��� /i.✓'.� �� �'`" �'`-- ' .L`-�/7. i i ��;4 3. �/ �-,✓'` T/f 1 { ' ; � '� _`-., ^� i ''.. �i J� � / I , ��,'•, 1
'± .—... `'� t �' ,,� ;,�:-•-�"�;� .i = :�f'f-^-.�-�,'s, . �.;. "'�., _'�.�:_.-, r' '�`,, � 1 f'fi � .- _ ,� ��'� % j''I-� .i�._.,� dL�^•;M i k
' st '.. ..:---1 � •n,,y..` ^�.,4 ,� a, W m �,., `....��r,' l � ./f r •"'+...r. 1.--'��
s''~�'� - �� �'+t --'�"J ` `'� � ' m a ar Yi �j f fl j;��pfta� �` i '��-''� ]'�; �.o'"_-`��-_tl �,...:.. �'{ � ! yr�f t %-•rr',�. ,/ i� i 8 .-J 1 f ''
"_..." ''4 •. i�'/ l J '�A s ° fff ( 7 a".. r �•- �`.ti-..i tD /,\,- ��'��w i �V /,` .,,t;' i •f% ':F- �".•" �'' i€ r &b-�'" v',�.ay.•s.^_^•`••
-�'f•.✓-"` � '� ' � -'rig r�S f ! t%` v _ ,�� ". '�``� ( `tea•: �-•�t '•:. 1 �• ..rz? ' J -, �! �: 7 4l �r ••s'..-,,w f
� � .e.�'?r 1 `� +• i � �... ,��'`-.�-.;��: \:...--- �l h"�� � } i / r. I i•�..-" � ,�� •h--.../Fi ! (,y/��,�,�,f � ' •i , � i { "J fi.1' �+' �-'_"_..
.--^,•..-..-- �,� t i / � _ / m i�'��.�� 'f {� I � t �. ''"..v-�' ' `.-- _".""���-•. `"..._..., j` �., '� �! r:✓✓!! 'f „j; !j•'�1 � Jf � ;i `r' _,�'S,. � ' w "'""` �•` �l �r � 1s �.�`-'' 't' ~" ``'.`'-� ',•--a^.
1 ■ i r �. • ! ! 1 ii�� ''""'""�.�� {_ aY � , ; � t '� ` F'.�'.'�".-„ .1 }� (� + y`,... 3.� i i '\�`'"' 't :-=r'-,`"^.-.�.�^-1
_� f. 9 7 r ' V ` , �">> ./"""ram �V $I �,->'1.--.`'�` � 3 ' � t r` .^""' �.' '1i, \ �Y.�f� •'S � j� '�; ti . .- �id�e ,� .. r t V4 ! -._s^1 `."--.� }} t I - / �• E
k�,..•i--•-..• r=�'---• ,,.�.� � ,I ,� �t�,� '/ �.._`ti ,� .Y-- �-w",,.� �; \� � i!f :+�i \''� `�1 ��. ;i - i � r��,, � i �'.'.' 1/-.. . ff y � 1 � t` �}I �` r a --' ' ,, ) t , ,,_,.��.-, �� r . r '*Y - ''' / r 1'
\� � '\'`\ t I ; � , �';r" '1 � fs.,i,.l' •�'1 '�.J�it+ �:�.;:, `, � ` �, �� .� 1 _., ��, � Jj ! _..a..S 1. - s �. y�,,,� ��'�.�-'
\,
V �i,\ l , ...i`� r � j � ,•� p t..1: �{ �^f•.,,,,,,, � ! ',� `. \ ��� 3., � 9 , • r � V. r �._ :.% ''' i i V }L ` , �s �D 4y.,. �.+ f �
i>r r1��.� �� { �� .- •'��,�,�f� � � 1 �.._�t� �• lf:f�r ,�, r ;°�L_E,,�•`" ; \�� 1 rr;:{ `\ ti`�� �'�' '_; `�._..-ft \�.. .��if� .` i r p �.�tD ' ;'rlt.
'.;✓'� � °_ n ° m '+ ' t� 1 .J�~ 4�'"�'� 1 `tom ��"-� �- � ,�t_•� �,�``'_.�• �. •.•��''�\.- i ?ice �% 1 #"'::��..f % 1 i
', ` i. r, / j �; r f7r . ..-r , .,� \1 �..y`.. / 'f ,�^•y, �� , �� ��,., rl1 1 /,r"-'+ �-^�-.� , 1• - __'-� f.
+- �i 'j// i! 1 .� 5�, � _/�'i\' ,,,� � r_• ���.,.� ` �.__. �{1'.�
Dtf Lf'�-•� E �.,: ? �u i�, J/'• . � � 1 r % .--r - --w. ✓ .`%"f ..�,� �•--r��,\ ``.��- I +-""''`^�,.,,,� \... ,... •- `.•.,��,,.�'p'r 4
/,
ALTERNATIVE 4
RELOCATE OUTFALL TO MORGAN CREEK
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE APPROACHES
UNC-CHAPEL HILL COGENERATION FACILITY
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
REFERENCE: SCALE APPROVED BY DRAWN BY:
BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS QUADRANGLE APROX. 1"=1500' J.K.S.
MAP: CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA. DATED DATE JULY 2000
1993. DESIGNED BY : REVISED
July 28, 2000 4: D1:01 p.m. PROJECT NUMBER ���� DRAWING NO.
Drowing: 30112SO2.DWG.DWG N 3�J1-12 330.5—J MONROE RD. CHARLOTTL NC 28270

Y
Y
1�
A�
ri
�1
^1
^1
Y
APPENDIX B
1999 UNC-COGEN FLOW DATA

P"
r1"
rmn
FM
M"
faq
MCI
L
twl
FE"
(09
rMM
PM
UNC - Cogeneration Facility
1999-2000 Watewater Treatment Plant Discharge Flow
Date
Flow MGD
1 /1 /99
0.026
1 /2/99
0.038
1 /3/99
0.060
1 /4/99
0.037
1 /5/99
0.026
116/99
0.022
117/99
0.018
1/8/99
0.018
119/99
0.026
1 /10/99
0.034
1 /11 /99
0.030
1 /12/99
0.037
1 /13/99
0.029
1 /14/99
0.035
1 /15/99
0.049
1 /16/99
0.044
1 /17/99
0.019
1 /18/99
0.059
1 /19/99
0.054
1 /20/99
0.054
1121 /99
0.064
1122/99
0.047
1 /23/99
0.032
1 /24/99
0.066
1 /25/99
0.062
1/26/99
0.035
1 /27/99
0.015
1/28/99
0.024
1 /29/99
0.024
1 /30/99
0.021
1131 /99
0.022
2/1 /99
0.039
2/2/99
0.032
213/99
0.036
214/99
0.032
215/99
0.022
2/6/99
0.019
2/7/99
0.019
2/8/99
0.022
2/9/99
0.009
2/10/99
0.002
2/11 /99
0.035
2112/99
0.026
2/13/99 10.023
2/14/99
10.023
Date
Flow MGD
2/15/99
0.030
2/16/99
0.025
2/17/99
0.026
2/18/99
0.038
2/19/99
0.037
2/20/99
0.033
2/21 /99
0.023
2/22/99
0.023
2/23/99
0.020
2/24/99
0.027
2/25/99
0.030
2/26/99
0.038
2/27/99
0.024
2/28/99
0.027
3/1199
0.024
3/2/99
0.024
3/3/99
0.029
3/4/99
0.024
3/5/99
0.024
3/6/99
0.023
3/7/99
0.022
3/8/99
0.022
3/9/99
0.028
3/10/99
0.020
3/11 /99
0.024
3/12/99
0.023
3/13/99
0.020
3/14/99
0.041
3/15/99
0.055
3/16/99
0.016
3/17/99
0.009
3/18/99
0.011
3/19/99
0.010
3/20/99
0.029
3/21 /99
0.065
3/22/99
0.049
3/23/99
0.021
3/24/99
0.009
3/25/99
0.013
3/26/99
0.010
3/27/99
0.009
3/28/99
0.030
3/29/99
0.038
3/30/99
0.035
3/31 /99
0.036
Date
Flow MGD
4/1 /99
0.064
4/2/99
0.034
4/3/99
0.032
4/4/99
0.033
4/5/99
0.030
4/6/99
0.045
4/7/99
0.031
4/8/99
0.031
4/9/99
0.030
4/10/99
0.040
4/11 /99
0.036
4/12/99
0.027
4/13/99
0.026
4/14/99
0.034
4/15/99
0.016
4/16/99
0.023
4/17/99
0.024
4/18/99
0.018
4/19/99
0.022
4/20/99
0.035
4/21 /99
0.027
4/22/99
0.067
4/23/99
0.084
4/24/99
0.074
4/25/99
0.069
4/26/99
0.048
4/27/99
0.041
4/28/99
0.068
4/29/99
0.073
4/30/99
0.055
5/1 /99
0.049
5/2/99
0.048
5/3/99
0.054
5/4/99
0.050
5/5/99
0.043
5/6/99
0.027
5/7/99
0.043
5/8/99
0.049
5/9/99
0.045
5/10/99
0.047
5/11 /99
0.041
5/12/99
0.038
5/13/99
0.033
5/14/99
0.026
5/15/99
10.019

FBI
M"
M
f•,
PSI
PM
F;1
fa►
FNi
pir,
Date
Flow MGD
5/16/99
0.035
5/17/99
0.031
5/18/99
0.038
5/19/99
0.032
5/20/99
0.036
5/21 /99
0.036
5/22/99
0.038
5/23/99
0.033
5/24/99
0.035
5/25/99
0.035
5/25/99
0.035
5/26/99
0.029
5/27/99
0.029
5/28/99
0.029
5/29/99
0.028
5/30/99
0.033
5/31 /99
0.031
6/1 /99
0.030
6/2/99
0.030
6/3/99
0.035
6/4/99
0.030
6/5/99
0.029
6/6/99
0.029
6/7/99
0.030
6/8/99
0.033
6/9/99
0.030
6/10/99
0.030
6/11 /99
0.030
6/12/99
0.030
6/13/99
0.029
6/14/99
0.028
6/15/99
0.051
6/16/99
0.056
6/17/99
0.030
6/18/99
0.038
6/19/99
0.029
6/20/99
0.029
6/21 /99
0.029
6/22/99
0.038
6/23/99
0.026
6/24/99
0.034
6/25/99
0.022
6/26/99
0.039
6/27/99
0.035
6/28/99
0.031
6/29/99
0.031
6130/99
10.029
7/1 /99
10.031
Date
Flow MGD
7/2/99
0.033
7/3/99
0.037
7/4/99
0.033
7/5/99
0.033
7/6/99
0.024
7/7/99
0.029
7/8/99
0.030
7/9/99
0.035
7/10/99
0.035
7/11/99
0.040
7/12/99
0.048
7/13/99
0.052
7/14/99
0.060
7/15/99
0.035
7/16/99
0.022
7/17/99
0.043
7/18/99
0.035
7/19/99
0.034
7/20/99
0.029
7/21 /99
0.027
7/22/99
0.035
7/23/99
0.048
7/24/99
0.061
7/25/99
0.042
7/26/99
0.027
7/27/99
0.032
7/28/99
0.032
7/29/99
0.035
7/30/99
0.048
7/31 /99
0.044
8/1 /99
0.048
8/2/99
0.035
8/3/99
0.014
8/4/99
0.016
8/5/99
0.048
8/6/99
0.022
8/7/99
0.015
8/8/99
0.040
8/9/99
0.045
8/10/99
0.038
8/11 /99
0.032
8/12/99
0.030
8/13/99
0.028
8/14/99
0.051
8/15/99
0.063
8/16/99
0.046
8/17/99
10.039
8/18/99
10.047
Date
Flow MGD
8/19/99
0.036
8/20/99
0.043
8/21 /99
0.030
8/22/99
0.030
8/23/99
0.029
8/24/99
0.026
8/25/99
0.038
8/26/99
0.045
8/27/99
0.041
8/28/99
0.030
8/29/99
0.030
8/30/99
0.032
8/31 /99
0.034
9/1 /99
0.032
9/2/99
0.033
913/99
0.034
9/4/99
0.046
9/5/99
0.098
9/6/99
0.118
9/7/99
0.078
9/8/99
0.077
919/99
0.060
9/10/99
0.027
9/11 /99
0.024
9/12/99
assume >.071
9/13/99
0.020
9/14/99
0.031
9/15/99
0.067
9/16/99
0.094
9/17/99
0.067
9/18/99
0.053
9/19/99
0.044
9/20/99
0.039
9/21 /99
0.031
9/22/99
0.017
9/23/99
0.040
9/24/99
0.028
9/25/99
0.023
9/26/99
0.018
9/27/99
0.066
9/28/00
0.052
9/29/00
0.062
9/30/99
0.079
10/1 /99
0.079
10/2/99
0.058
10/3/99
0.036
10/4/99
0.038
10/5/99
10.034
NGD
F;i

rAI;)
MR
FMR
rAq
fmn
fal,
on
P"
r#a
pvq
wi
run
r��
m
Date
Flow MGD
10/6/99
0.035
10/7/99
0.035
10/8/99
0.039
10/9/99
0.035
10/10/99
0.048
10/11 /99
0.041
10/12/99
0.034
10/13/99
0.044
10/14/99
0.040
10/15/99
0.026
10/16/99
0.054
10/17/99
0.053
10/18/99
0.056
10/19/99
0.045
10/20/99
0.068
10/21 /99
0.037
10/22/99
0.025
10/23/99
0.032
10/24/99
0.034
10/25/99
0.024
10/26/99
0.040
10/27/99
0.030
10/28/99
0.024
10/29/99
0.046
10/30/99
0.039
10/31 /99
0.039
11 /1 /99
0.035
1112/99
0.068
11 /3/99
0.052
11 /4/99
0.033
11 /5/99
0.034
11 /6/99
0.032
11 /7/99
0.033
11 /8/99
0.032
11 /9/99
0.033
11 /10/99
0.029
11 /11 /99
0.032
11 /12/99
0.033
11 /13/99
0.031
11 /14/99
0.032
11 /15/99
0.035
11 /16/99
0.031
11 /17/99
0.035
11 /18/99
0.031
11 /19/99
0.029
11 /20/99
0.027
11 /21 /99
0.030
11 /22/99 10.035
Date
Flow MGD
11 /23/99
0.030
11 /24/99
0.029
11/25/99
0.031
11 /26/99
0.047
11 /27/99
0.043
11 /28/99
0.056
11 /29/99
0.022
11 /30/99
0.029
12/1/99
0.049
12/2/99
0.045
12/3/99
0.061
12/4/99
0.034
12/5/99
0.030
12/6/99
0.035
12/7/99
0.032
12/8/99
0.032
12/9/99
0.048
12/10/99
0.031
12/11 /99
0.016
12/12/99
0.016
12/13/99
0.027
12/14/99
0.057
12/15/99
0.029
12/16/99
0.031
12/17/99
0.044
12/18/99
0.047
12/19/99
0.047
12/20/99
0.029
12/21 /99
0.024
12/22/99
0.047
12/23/99
0.062
12/24/99
0.035
12/25/99
0.054
12/26/99
0.033
12/27/99
0.006
12/28/99
0.048
12/29/99
0.053
12/30/99
0.042
12/31 /99
0.069
1 /1 /00
0.039
1 /2/00
0.039
1 /3/00
0.039
1 /4/00
0.023
1 /5/00
0.036
1 /6/00
0.057
1 /7/00
0.051
1 /8/00
0.041
1 /9/00 10.041
Date
Flow MGD
1 /10/00
0.062
1 /11 /00
0.037
1 /12/00
0.037
1 /13/00
0.037
1 /14/00
0.037
1 /15/00
0.040
1 /16/00
0.051
1 /17/00
0.048
1 /18/00
0.053
1 /19/00
0.053
1 /20/00
0.051
1 /21 /00
0.036
1 /22/00
0.038
1 /23/00
0.042
1 /24/00
0.039
1 /25/00
0.048
1 /26/00
0.048
1 /27/00
0.039
1 /28/00
0.040
1 /29/00
0.040
1 /30/00
0.061
1/31 /00
0.054
2/1 /00
0.040
2/2/00
0.047
2/3/00
0.047
2/4/00
0.034
2/5/00
0.027
2/6100
0.026
2/7/00
0.020
2/8100
0.029
2/9/00
0.043
2/10/00
0.031
2/11 /00
0.035
2/12/00
0.045
2/13/00
0.026
2/14/00
0.026
2/15/00
0.026
2/16/00
0.028
2/17/00
0.029
2/18/00
0.041
2/19/00
0.033
2/20/00
0.035
2/21 /00
0.030
2/22/00
0.053
2/23/00
0.039
2/24/00
0.010
2/25/00
0.024
2/26/00 10.029
FBI

Fun
FM
FM
piq
FM
fan
M
FEA
MR
M
FM
ran
r",
rAM
Date
Flow MGD
2/27/00
0.033
2/28/00
0.038
2/29/00
0.038
3/1 /00
0.036
3/2/00
0.034
3/3/00
0.034
3/4/00
0.036
3/5/00
0.037
3/6/00
0.035
3/7/00
0.035
3/8/00
0.038
3/9/00
0.037
3/10/00
0.034
3/11 /00
0.038
3/12/00
0.035
3/13/00
0.035
3/14/00
0.020
3/15/00
0.018
3/16/00
0.028
3/17/00
0.030
3/18/00
0.031
3/19/00
0.031
3120/00
0.056
3/21 /00
0.029
3/22/00
0.057
3/23/00
0.033
3/24/00
0.034
3/25/00
0.032
3/26/00
0.030
3/27/00
0.053
3/28/00
0.039
3/29/00
0.035
3/30/00
0.039
3/31 /00
0.038
4/1 /00
0.035
4/2/00
0.024
4/3/00
0.030
4/4100
0.041
4/5/00
0.036
4/6/00
0.033
4/7/00
0.035
4/8/00
0.046
4/9/00
0.050
4/10/00
0.041
4/11 /00
0.047
4112/00
0.038
4/13/00
0.049
4/14/00
0.041
Date
Flow MGD
4/15/00
0.036
4/16/00
0.043
4/17/00
0.054
4/18/00
0.035
4/19/00
0.068
4/20/00
0.042
4/21 /00
0.053
4/22/00
0.035
4/23/00
0.032
4/24/00
0.021
4/25/00
0.040
4/26/00
0.046
4/27/00
0.029
4/28/00
0.033
4/29/00
0.053
4/30/00
0.041
5/1 /00
0.020
5/2/00
0.040
5/3/00
0.030
5/4/00
0.031
5/5/00
0.031
5/6/00
0.033
5/7/00
0.032
5/8/00
0.031
5/9/00
0.034
5/10/00
0.036
5/11/00
0.029
5/12/00
0.031
5/13/00
0.030
5/14/00
0.028
5/15/00
0.028
5/16/00
0.030
5/17/00
0.028
5/18/00
0.030
5/19/00
0.041
5/20/00
0.028
5/21 /00
0.048
5/22/00
0.058
5/23/00
0.074
5/24/00
0.049
5/25/00
0.033
5/26/00
0.054
5/27/00
0.034
5/28/00
0.038
5/29/00
0.035
5/30/00
0.037
5/31 /00
0.054
Average Flow: .037 (MGD)
Minimum Flow: .002 (MGD)
Maximum Flow: .118 (MGD)
All Data Is Based On 1999-2000 MR-1
Reports

I I I I 3 I I I I J I I I I ] J l I
UNC Cogeneration Facility 1999 - 5/31/00 Chronological Flow
0.140
0.120
0.100
A 0.080
0
M 0.060
0.040
0.020
TO MI
12/16/98 3/26/99 7/4/99 10/12/99 1 /20/00 4/29/00
Date

1997-2000 Sewer Discharge From UNC Congeneration Facility to OWASA
Service Period
Number Of Days
Total Flow (1000
al)
Average Flow
GPD
Average Flow
GPM
Average Flow
GPM**Flow
Maximum
GPM**
Sep-97
30
4,722
157,400
109
89.4
218.6
Oct-97
31
3,525
113,710
79
87.42
244.49
Nov-97
30
3,372
112,400
78
Dec-97
31
3,728
120,258
84
84.67
199.79
Jan-98
31
3,719
119,968
83
78.74
193.93
Feb-98
28
4,726
168,786
117
76.43
285.8
Mar-98
31
4,500
145,161
101
87.51
227.59
Apr-98
30
1,977
65,900
46
67.55
224.51
May-98
31
2,818
90,903
63
84.94
233.19
11 /19/1999
3,129
11 /15/99-12/15/99
30
3,647
121,567
84
12/15/00 - 1 /11 /00
27
2,458
91,037
63
1 /11 /00 - 2/9/00
29
2,960
102,069
71
2/9/00 - 3/9/00
28
3,181
113,607
79
3/9/00 - 4/10/00
32
3,777
118,031
82
4/10/00 - 5/15/00
35
4,102
117,200
81
5/15/00 - 6/19/00
36
4,743
131,750
91
Average Flow:
Minimum Flow:
Maximum Flow:
* From Sewer Billings
** From OWASA Flow Monitoring Report
118,109
82
82
228
65,900
46
68
194
168,786
117
89
286

ria
MR
FMM
OR
ran
M)
ran
ONO
ram
FM
Projected Steam Growth
UNC Cogeneration Facility
Year
Total
Thermal
Load
(103 LBS)
Boiler No. 6
(103 LBS)
Boiler No. 7
(103 LBS)
Boiler Nos. 5
and 8
(103 LBS)
Total Steam
Load
(103 LBS)
Percent
Increase
Assumed
Projected
Wastewater
Increase
1999
2,338,662
1,341,149
1,341,149
30,677
2,712,975
0.00%
0.00%
2000
2,430,150
1,381,226
1,381,226
31,877
2,794,329
3.00%
3.00%
2001
2,430,150
1,381,226
1,381,226
31,877
2,794,329
3.00%
3.00%
2002
2,498,766
1,411,527
1,411,527
32,777
2,855,831
5.27%
5.27%
2003
2,607,408
1,459,887
1,459,887
34,202
2,953,976
8.88%
8.88%
2004
2,647,434
1,477,812
1,477,812
34,727
2,990,351
10.22%
10.22%
2005
2,756,076
1,526,734
1,526,734
36,152
3,089,620
13.88%
13.88%
2006
2,756,076
1,526,734
1,526,734
36,152
31089,620
13.88%
13.88%
2007
2,7781948
1,537,077
1,537,077
36,457
3,110,611
14.66%
14.66%
2008
2,881,872
1,582,633
1,582,633
40,179
3,205,445
18.15%
18.15%
2009
2,996,232
1,629,166
1,629,166
53,135
3,311,467
22.06%
22.06%
2010
3,087,720
1,663,642
1,663,642
69,445
3,396,729
25.20%
25.20%
2011
3,179,208
1,696,847
1,696,847
88,656
3,482,350
28.36%
28.36%
2012
3,270,696
1,726,697
1,728,697
110,904
3,566,298
31.45%
31.45%
2013
3,367,902
1,760,703
1,760,703
138,544
3,659,950
34.91 %
34.91 %
2014
3,470,826
1,793,130
1,793,130
171,070
3,757,330
38.49%
38.49%
2015
3,573,750
1,824,152
1,824,152
206,725
3,855,029
42.10%
42.10%
2016
3,682,392
1,855,389
1,855,389
247,697
3,958,475
45.91%
45.91%
run

0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0
0.080
o
u.
0.060
0.040
0.020
0 000
UNC Cogeneration Facility 2005 Projected Flow
S N
♦♦♦ • wow ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , , � Z♦ , � . , � ♦ ♦
♦ fw
12/21 /98 2/9/99 3/31 /99 5/20/99 7/9/99 8/28/99 10/17/99 12/6/99
Date
24 Days With Flow Greater Than 0.07 MGD

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
EMKIMIA
0.04
0.02
UNC Cogeneration Facility 2010 Projected Flow
1 w
•, • ♦1♦i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ,� ♦ M♦
♦ I , ♦♦
f�
12/21 /98 2/9/99 3/31 /99 5/20/99 7/9/99 8/28/99 10/17/99 12/6/99
Date
34 Days With Flow Greater than 0.07 MGD

UNC Cogeneration Facility 2016 Projected Flow
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0
c�
0.1
0
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
12/21 /98 2/9/99 3/31 /99 5/20/99 7/9/99 8/28/99 10/17/99 12/6/99
Date
59 DaysWith Flow Greater Than 0.07 MGD

08-'11/00 10: 30 FAX [phone] OWASA 9001i 016
r�
400 Jones Ferry Road
Post Office Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510 Orange s
- Phone: [phone] ext. 248 Sewer Authority
Fax: [phone]
r� mdarr9owasa.org
pin
rm&� F.ax
r�
To: George TyrianlAware Environmental From: Mary Darr
Fax [phone] Date; August 11, 2000
Phone: [phone] Pagem 16
Re: UNC Cogen. Wastewater Discharge CC;
❑ Urgent O For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply Ll Pleases Recycle
rial
-Comments;
George:
This is the information t could find in our files. I hope that it is helpful.
Mary
mm
r�

08.'11/00 10:30 KAX 919 968 4464 OWASA
- Orange Water and Sewer Authority
OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road
P.O. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
[phone]
October 1, 1997
Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
- Cameron Avenue 179A/CB ## 1800
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
MR
Dear Mr. Du3ose:
SUBJECT: UNC POWER PLANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
9 002i 016
FILE COPY
Transmitted herewith is the September, 1997 report of the temperature and flow monitoring data
taken at the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of
the discharge for this period are as follows:
September
Average flow rate 89.4 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 218.6 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 92.2 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 153.1 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and UNC which
regulates this discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate 150 gallons per minute
Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
Please advise if additional information is needed.
ao
Attachment
Sincerely,
4K.thry4n.'Kalb, P.E.
General Manager of Operations
An Equal Opportunity Employer .

]'l ' 11 l ]I ], I I ] ]' �
Power Plant Monitor
Output for September,1997
FLOW
250
200
ISO
too
• � �- - r-fit---
0 I
091011" 091031" 0910"7 09/07197 09/M9/97 09/1U97 09/13/97
0911S/97 04/17H7 09/19V97 09121N7 04/73197 09R3/97 04/27/97 09/29197 .
"M197 09/04/97 09106W 09/0Sf97 09/10W 0911V97 09/14/97 0911&" 091MM 09/2W97 09nW7 09a4197 09126M 09nV97 MOM
Date +
FLOW TEMPERATURE
AVERAGE 89.36 GPM AVERAGE M9218 •F
MAXIMUM 218.60 GPM MAXIMUM ---- 192 18 OF
MINIMUM 29.00 GPM M MM IM -- fi3.97 OF�
TEMPERATURE T
200
---,
ISO
w 100
j o
i
so
i
0
SEPT 97.WiC4
10/01/97

08-'l1%00 10:81 FAX [phone] OWASA
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
�+ OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road
P.Q. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
[phone]
November 14, 1997
9 004 016
FILE COPY
Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179AOCB # 1800
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC POWER PLANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Transmitted herewith is the October, 1997 report of the temperature and flow monitoring data
taken at the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of
the discharge for this period are as follows:
October
Average flow rate 87.42 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 244.49 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 70.41 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 154.29 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanita
ry Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and UNC which
MCI regulates this discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate 150 gallons per minute
Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
Mq
Please advise if additional information is needed.
ao
Attachment
Sincerely,
Kathryn R. Kalb, P.E.
General Manager of Operations
Air Equal Opportunity Employer
riq

0
Power Plant Monitor
Output for October, 1997
0
O
FLOW
tM
250
200
W
150
i 100 I
50
' o J_
14/01N7 f0/0319T 10/p5N7 10107N7 10/09/97 10/11/97 10113/97 10/15N7 iQ/17A7 10/19A7 10111/97 t0123A7 1Q/23/97 10MA7 ICV2997 10/31/97 y J 1
1010?/97 IN0497 10106197 1QlQgN7 lQ/10N7 10/12/97 WNW 101107 10/IW7 10/20/97 10/22/97 1QR4197 10%26/97
-------_.�_____.- - - ---- - _ Datc IO/26A7 IQ/aQr97 !
TEMPERATURE
AFLOW
VE�4. 87.42 GPM AVERgGE
MAxIWM— - - _ _ �244.49 GPM -- 70.41 'F
MINIMU_M..—.. � _ 2t.81 GPM M,___AJ�MUM - � 154.29 T _
MINIMUM 49.85 T
TEMPERATURE-
i 200_
'
150 _ I
100-
0
1 l r Oki
,� ;
Ar
IOl01/97 10103/97 10VO5ro7 10107197 10✓09197 10111/97 10/13/97 1Q/13/97 10/17/97 10/19/97 10121197 _ - -
1010Y97 100"7 10/06/97 10/08/97 10/10/97 MUM 10/14/97 10/1N97 10/IE/97 1W20/97 10=97��10NA7� 10R6/g7 W21 y�9 0fmn7 A7 --�
Date
0
0
-r
OCT_97.WK4
0
11/14/97
I ' I

03 11%00 10:32 FA. 919 963 4464 O%ASA
9 006%016
Orange Water and Sewer authority
OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road
P.O. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
[phone]
January 6, 1998
FILE Copy
Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179A/CB f# 1800
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC POWER PLANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
Transmitted herewith is the December, 1997 report of the temperature and flow monitoring data
taken at the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of
the discharge for this period are as follows:
December
Average flow rate 84.67 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 199.79 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 48.59 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 68.56 dearees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and. UNC which
regulates this discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate ISO gallons per minute
. Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
Please advise if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
r
Kathryn R. alb, P.E.
ao General Manager of Operations
Attachment
An Equal Oplacrtunity Employer

76•-11
O
O
Power Plant Monitor
Output for December, 1997
FLOW
Mn
20D
150
Qrr 100 __ it ,, 1 •; .1 : !�1 (t ,':1 t ! j ' �.. , , i r i t• 1, :r: — ----- —....
Km
IS
• �!., ,+ q t �� a i?F •i+••'ll 'L� 'A j, ,, I �I 1 ,•1 I • , ' 1�•' •il!• �. !!.{� ( i,~fI� •, I�.! ...
-_ .I �Il!• ilh � I II ;a: pig ilI{I t• jil lye tl ��s� +f ` I .�, I�+{�� .� ° i � 3 f � �{' ( III � i � , • 11� ;'
50 _ f ,: . P'1 � !j ;,
j I� r,,t I _l •3
..� ., • _t+- �: 1 I . � ' f i-�_-'� - `.� 1`.r � • � —;� ,.• ��'` ,. s � ; ; • :f ' t- I• � � �, 1. r i� ; ;' . ,;'
1201/97 17A3/97 12/03/97 —• �_-- _----�.`—� !
12l02/97 12/04WNW 12/0N-- _� ---. I i ��• _
! 2/07/97 I ..b9/97 12/11/97 12/13/97 12/15/97 12117197 12/19/97 I M I/97 12/23ro7 I b2S197 12/27/97 I J29ro7 I 12131ro7
97 12/OE/97 12/10/97 12112/97 17/14/97 12/16/97 12/11V97 12/20/97 12/22/97 12/24197 12/2&V7• 12/207 IV30M
Date
FLOW -- TEMP
ERATURE
AVERAGE 84 67 GPM AVERAGE
MAXIMUM 199.79 GPM - _._._ 48.59 OF --
IINIMUM _ -- MAXIMUM - -- _ 68.56 T
- -- --. -..- -. ---•-_"-- .._---�-- '` 20.48 GPM __. MINIMUM ------ - 40--_._T.._
TEMPERATURE
.700
�.._T_ ,
0 100 L-7
s 1
30
0
12/01/97 12/03/97 12/05/97 12/07/97 171 7 -- i ____._ ..�_._. �__ 1.• -.,_i _
/O9ro7 IJII191
12/02/97 12/ON97 1I/06ro7 illl3ro7 12/15/97 12/17197 12/19/97 12/21/97 12/32/97�►2/25/97 12/27/97 12a9/97 17/31/97 -.—
1JOS197 12/10/97 12/12/97 IJ14/97 12/16/97 12/18/97 12/21)N7 IVU/97 M24/97 12/26/97 12l2i/97 12A0/97 —y
f lst..
-� DEc_OTWK4
0
01/05/98

08"11 00 10:33 FAX [phone] OWASA @ 008/016
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road
P 0. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
[phone]
February 11, 1998
Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179A/CB#1800
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC Power Plant Wastewater Discharge
FW4 Transmitted herewith is the January, 1998 report of the temperature and flow monitoring
en at
the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of he discharge fo
this period are as follows: g r
January
Average flow rate 78.74 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 193.93 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 59.87 degrees.F
Maximum discharge temperature 129.47 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and UNC which regulates this
discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate 150 gallons per minute
Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
Please advise if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Kathryn K Kalb, P.E.
General Manager of Operations
bf
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity Employer

I
Power Plant Monitor
Output for January, 19"
FLOW
250
200
150
too
50
0
01/01M 01103191 01105198 01/07199 01/09/98
01102M 01/04/98 ol/o6igg 01/081gg 01/1 01111/98 01/13/98 01/15MI 01117/98 01/19/" 0)/21M 01/23/99 OW3198 01/27/
WS 01112198 0 1/ 1091 00/1"S olll&#Vg 01/Z0198 01/2219g 01124f" 01/26/gg 98 01,29199 01/31198
1 OM208 0313068
Date
FLOW TEMPERATURE
AVERAGE 78.74 GPM
MAXIMUM AVERAGE59.87 T
MINIMUM 193.93 GPM MAXIMUM 129A7 T
18-93 GPM N111YIMU117 37.50 OF
I EMPERATURE
VA
0
JAN-95.WK4
I
200
150
too
7-
50
0
01/011" 01/03M 01/05/ 01107/91 01/09191 01111/9p 011131 . - 1 1
01/02199 01104/90 01/06/90 o1jol08 01/10/9 9' 01115M 01/11/91 01/19198 01121/98 01/23199 01/25193 0 1127/" olngM 01/31/gg
011"Ns 01/14M 01116nA 0111V98 0112W99 01122198 01124/92 61n6M 0112INS 01/30/91
Date
02/10/98
a t

FM
!_,
M4
U�lf 11 UU 1U:34 FAA 919 968 4464 0W'ASA �j010"0It;
OINASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
Quality Service Since 1977
March 9, 1998
Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179AICB# l 800
Chapel Hill, NC 27S 14
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC Power Plant Wastewater Discharge
Transmitted herewith is the February, 1998 report of the temperature and flow monitoring
n at
the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant featuresof he discharee fo
this period are as follows: g r
January
Average flow rate 76.43 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 285.80 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 45.51 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 188.47 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and UNC which re ulates this
discharge includes the following limits: g
Maximum flow rate 150 gallons per minute
Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
Please advise if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
bf
Attachment
40010SIC, Fc rry Road
PO Box 366 •
Carrbn1'0. ,1C : 7510-0366
Kathryn R. Kalb, P.E.
General Manager of Operations
Equal opporrunit l- Enid 1po rs
Punted an Rrc.cl4-ti Paper
Veicc (919) 968-442 I
FAX [phone]
ir•�r��i: rnr:tsa. nr�
PM

Power Plant Monitor
Output for February,1998
FLOW
350
I
300
250
200
a
� ISO
100 -J 1 �._ _.i _._ ...._.._...._........ ....
c0
OV01/98 02/03/98 02/05/98 OV0719S 02/09/98 0?/1
02/02/98 1/98 02/13/98 pyls/gs 02/17/98 OL14/98 02Q1/ga I r I f
02/04/98 02/06/48 02/009 OV10198 02/12/92 OV14198 01/16/98 OVIV99 02/20/98 02/22n8 02/24/99 02/26/9�702/28/98
Date
FLOW . TEMPERATUREAVERAGE GPM —
MAXIMUM 76.43 GAVERAGE 84.04 's'
MINIMUM GPM MAXIMUM 188.47 •F
_--- _ _ 15.13 GPMMINEMIUM — 45.51 •F
TEMPERATURE
200
150
I - _ -
O 100 - gill*-
j I
50i
i 0 _ — ——
! 02/01/90 02103/99 02/05/98 02/07/98 02/09/98 OVI1/92 02/1119B 01/13/98 0?JI7148 02/19/98 021Z1/41t 02/13/98 01J2S/9g
02/OINB 02l01/98 02/0ti/98 02/08193 02/10/93 02/12/92 02/14M 02/l6l98 02/18/98 02/20l98 02R2/9i 02R4/98 02/26/98/270?l28/98
i_ ... __ _ - - - _._--- ----- --�� Date
K4
I ; I I' I' F
03109►98

uo i 1, uu lu : as r —1 919 968 4464 OWASA Q 012/016
OWASA ORANGE WATER & SEWER AUT
HORITY
Quality Service Srnce 1977
F+
April22, 1998
Rm
Mr. Raymond DuBosc
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179A/CB#1800
p" Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC Power Plant Wastewater Discharge
Transmitted herewith is the March, 1998 report of the temperature and flow monitoring data taken a
t the
UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of the discharge for this
period are as follows:
March
Average flow rate 87.5 J gaIlons per minute
Maximum flow rate
227.59 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 82.28 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 140.94 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement between OWASA and UNC which regulates this
discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate 150 gallons per minute
Maximum temperature 175 degrees F
r Please advise if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Kathryn R. Kalb, P.E.
_ General Manager of Operations
bf
Attachment
A
la,
400 Jog1cs Ferry Road
PO Box 366 - Equ�I U/�pnrtrnun• Cr�ip/niacr Voicc [phone]
Carrhoro, NC 275 10-U366
Printed cm Iiccacled Parer FAX [phone]
11.11'11: 0 W'.7sa. AP?
M

Power Plant Monitor
0
Output for March,1998
0
rn
FLOW
250
200
150
a 100
50
0
4�
P d �'P� ' �SP� ��� ��P� P�� P�� o� `�� ti�� ^ '� ► ��b �b 1�e E P� H� �� �b p�
'� '� 7 7 '! '! "► .�'` ,��� 'S�� 'f�` •��� '��� '!�� "��� '��� 7�`q AO ,�(1� ,�n'L ,y�'� ,��y* ,���Y' ,�(LFl ,�(L'11p ,�(y���q��� _ t���
Date 'Y Y
FLOW
TEMPERATURE
AVERAGE
87.61 GPM AVERAGE 82.2$ OF
MAXIMUM
227.59 GPM MAXIMUM 140.94 OF
MINIMUM
16.06 GPM MINIMUM 45.86 OF
,TEMPERATURE
250
200
I50
0 100
SO
0 ,A
7vp`4`e ,`Nq4 4"�~ `"r 4" 4� dam` 4 `�ti
Datc
:x
.0jkjhh' "c:18200%datalmonthlyWamih_98.xis
0
4/22/98

aLa y03 44b4 0WASA
@ 014 016
owasa ORANGE VY ATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
4
Quality Ser r•?ce Since 1977
June 12, 1998
"q Mr. Raymond DuBose
UNC Power Plant Engineer
Cameron Avenue 179A/CB# 1800
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Dear Mr. DuBose:
SUBJECT: UNC Power Plant Wastewater Discharge
Transmitted herewith is the April and May; 1998 reports of the temperature and flow monitoring data
taken at the UNC Power Plant discharge to the OWASA sanitary sewer. Significant features of the
discharge for this period are as follows:
r April
Average flow rate
g 67.55 gallons per minute
Maximum flow rate 224.51 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature 83.08 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature 150.57 degrees F
May
Average flow rate
Maximum flow rate
84.94 gallons per minute
233.19 gallons per minute
Average discharge temperature
85.85 degrees F
Maximum discharge temperature
149.78 degrees F
The May 24, 1996, Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement betweeli OWASA and UNC which regulates this
discharge includes the following limits:
Maximum flow rate
150 gallons per minute
-- Maximum temperature
175 degrees F
�+ Please advise if additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
AMP
Kathryn R. Kalb, P.E.
General Manager of Operations
400 loncs Fcrry Road
PO Box 366 fi/ua/ Oppo�t��nitr Emp/n�rr
�+a Calrboro. NC 27S 10-0366 Primcd on Recycleci Paper
Voicc (919) 968 -4421
FAX [phone]
1113VIV011117.1j.014
0"

Power Plant Monitor
Output for May,1998
FLOW
2so
200
150
a
,00
50
0
4F h( he $I'- O 4r 4f SOP hP�y�`°��h�`��`y��'►�e�����y`�'�'�h1`yE�h1�`� ��� �� �`� poi ��' ,� f� *P6 .�' �i'� �b �° �� ,,p� �P`
Date
FLOW
TEMPERATURE
AVERAGE 84.94 GPM
NVax,imuM
AVERAGE 85.86 'F
233.19 GPM
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM 149.7$ •F
14.41 GPM
MINIMUM 50.61 OF
TEMPERATURE
250
200
� 1S0
0 100
50
0
•
A h�• �,. �� ��- �0p_ ` OR
y�4v•��e5�e e h`!e0�iey`!y('���,���`�''�`e��i°�`�"�,��� � np� ���0► � c� �� '`�1�
Date
K
AS
6110198

to
Power Plant Mnnitnr
to
Output for April,1998
Q
FLOW
2so
200
ISO
a 100
c7
50
0
°
.�`� ►� ►�,ft' ae� �y� M,�4 .�P° � Pt`� o� .P° ,� ,eft► AP° t{► � P° � �,b ,�c�° d ,� � �' ,�` �' � � �°
Date
FLOW TEMPERATURE
AVERAGE 67.55 GPM AVERAGE 83.08 •F
M'�XrMUM 224.51 GPM M41iQMUM 150.57 'F
MINIMUM 15.13 GPM NIINaVIUM 52.60 'F
TEMPERATURE
250
200
150
O 100
SOWNW
0
Date
6/10/98

m
APPENDIX C
1992 OWASA PRITCHARD BRANCH SEWER
LINE CAPACITY EVALUATION

03/30/00 10:27 F.AS 919 968 4464 OWASA Q001
400 Jones Fury Road
Post OMW Sax 366
Carrboro. NC 275 10Oranc -Water
Phone: [phone] eid. 246
MIP Fax [phone] SewerAuthority
w�►
Fax
'M' To: Geo W Tynan
From Mary Darr
lFUM [phone] Data March 30, 2000
PtMM (704) 84&1697 POW= 2
Ra UNC Cogeneration Factiity CC:
❑ urger O For Review ❑ Pl"" Carnnent D Piesse Reply O Phase ReeyClO
•Comnsentw
George:
Attached is the spreadsheet done by OWASA in IM. A DOT project replaced the sewer fines closest
to NC 54 after this spreadsheet was done. To evaluate the sections of sewer that have the minimum
capacities, !rwert infonre ion for the replaced sewer wail need to be collected and the
reca elated. systemcapacities
May
P"
r.�

SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPACITY FROM
UNC POWER
PLANT TO MORGAN CREEK.OUTFALL
MARCH 19 , 5
19 92
J.W. NE
'
Pipe
Segment
Inv.
Out
Inv.
Length
Pipe
Slope
Manning
Area
Wet. Per.
Hyd. R.
Velocity
Flow
Flow
In
(h.)
Size (")
(96)
"n"
(cuft.)
(ft.)
(sgft.)
(fps)
(MGD)
(GPM)
004 003
-6.27
_
`
459.69
455.13
139.03
8
3.28
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
- - - - -
003 002
455.03
454.61
32.05
8
1.31
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
3.96
141
002 - 001
454.56
442.28
227.59
8
5.40
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
8.04
681
621
001 - 004
442.23
430.45
182.28
8
6.46
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
8.80
1.89
1.81
260
1379
004 - 003
430.24
417.01
178.84
8
7.40
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
9.42
1.12
1375
003 - 002
417.06
415.32
135.48
8
1.28
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
3.92
2 i
1615
002-001
414.93
410.29
26.64
8
17.42
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
14.45
9
001-009
410.08
402.50
252.66
8
3.00
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
6.00
3.26
264
2264MAX
009-008
402.22
395.02
47.93
8
15.02
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
13.42
1.35
1.
93
��
008 - 007
394.82
394.29
43.93
8
1.21
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
3.80
3.03
2102
007 - 006
394.19
390.44
42.31
8
8.86
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
10.31
6 96
006 - 005
390.34
384.76
87.42
8
8.28
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
9.96
2.
.33
115
005-004
384.65
381.99
69.15
8
3.85
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
6.79
2.
1560
004 - 003
381.93
377.49
89.74
8
4.95
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
7.70
1.53
64
003 - 009
377.46
367.96
186.22
8
5.10
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
7.82
1.74
1206
009 - 008
367.86
364.22
132.73
8
2.74
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
5.73
1.7612
008 - 007
364.06
362.12
39.26
8
4.94
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
7.70
1.29
8
007 - 006
362.07
354.99
222.73
8
3.18
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
6.17
1.74
1206
006-005
354.14
346.27
220.27
8
3.57
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
6.54
1.39
967
005 - 001
346.05
337.42
399.91
8
2.16
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
5.09
1.48
025
1797
001-001
337.39
332.01
206.53
8
2.60
0.013
0.349
2.09
0,17
5.59
1.15
001-- 002
331.90
325.28
269.40
8
2.46
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
5.43
1.26
875 875
002 - 001
325.25
32398
88.79
8
1 43
0 013
0 349
209
0 t
4 14
1.22
850
001-004
323.65
322.27
1 1 1 92
8
23
0 013
0 3a1
t 03
0 t Y
3.b4
0,511
U b!
I-Wo
004 - 003
321.89
320.69
107.80
e
1 11
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
3.65
0.82
n0k
572
003-002
32075
307.89
99
.97
0.013
0.349
0.17
12.47
2.81
002 - 001
308.02
301.71
133.91
8
4.71
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
7.51
1.70
1 177
001 -003
301.66
300.21
286.50
8
0.51
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
2.46
0.56
386
�
003 - 004
300.16
299.29
172.63
8
0.50
0.013
0.349
2.09
0.17
2.46
0.55
385 MIN
01
MP
004-001
298.95
297.04
326.1 T
12
0.59
0013
.0
0.785
3.14
0.25
3.47
1.76
1224 i (
?ZLoCAIM
-N`C-,a
k �N-o
L i rJC
I<mq
IN
ik
1Tr5W' .
1 •
I

r
r
APPENDIX D
SEWER LINE FLOW TESTING COSTS
r

PM
rAll
f=1
To: George
P" From: Jason
Peq
Date: May 3, 2000
Subject: Sewer Capacity/Flow for UNC-Cogen
AEI Job N3 01-03
Telephone Conversation:
PK, Mark Thompson (841-8733) and John Hoynacki (803-547-5874) with ADS
ADS does a lot of work with OWASA. They have three ongoing projects there now.
P%+ Basically what we are looking for is a) sewer total capacity in the lines indicated, and b)
total sewer flow in the lines indicated. ADS is comfortable in dealing with OWASA, and
understands there requirements very well. This would be a fairly routine job for them.
ADS will install flow meters are the critical junctions. Because UNC-Cogen will
discharge into one line, the current flow in this line is necessary. In turn, this line
'm discharges into another main, and the flow in this main is required.
Flow meters operate for 30 days, which is acceptable to OWASA. Flows are also
42R correlated to rainfall, collected by a rain gauge. There is probably a rain gauge in use
around the Chapel Hill area; if not, ADS can supply it.
The cost for each monitoring flow meter, run for 30 days, is $5200. This project will
probably require two (2) flow monitoring points, though it may be possible to use only
one. A rain gauge, monitoring for rainfall every 15 minutes, can be supplied for $1000. A
range on costs would be $5200-$11,400, depending on the number of monitoring flumes
employed.

W"
Aware Environmental, Inc.
rq From: George
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 2:33 PM
To: computer _rm
Subject: FW: Chapel Hill - Connection to OWASA System
ral
Pon
From: Becky
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 2:22 PM
To: George
P► Subject: FW: Chapel Hill - Connection to OWASA System
-----Original Message-----
r" From: John Hoynacki [SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 20001:55 PM
To: [e-mail]
0
ra"
A'700001.txt charset
Subject: Chapel Hill - Connection to OWASA Sy
=
windows-1252too
M
r"
cm
rR
r on
Page 1
ATT00002.html:
charset = windows-1252 s tern

ATT00001.txt
rMl
Hello George Tyrian,
r--=+ I was reviewing notes today and did not know if I got back to you
on the
information for flow monitoring in the OWASA/Chapel Hill System.
F=,
I originally talked to Jason Annan and then I believe you about fl
ow
'�' monitoring for a connection to a steam plant or some other type of
plant.
I spoke to John Greene at OWASA about some of the particulars of w
hat he may
be looking for and he said it would take between 4 and 6 monitors.
Om
His only
concern was that if flow monitoring was done now if will not provi
de a wet
weather picture of the system. We have worked with OWASA staff a
lot over
the past 5 years and they know our work and the quality of our wor
k. We can
provide a turn -key project and written provide capacity analysis a
Mn nd
electronic data for your analysis.
go
rM
For you information on Budget/Expense -
if you put in 1 meter for 30 days - cost is aprox. $5,500.
2 monitors for 30 days cost $4,500/monitor/month
M" 3 monitors at $4000/monitor/month
PM4 4 monitors at $3500/monitor/month
5 and greater at $3,200 per monitor per month
W
If this project is still a possibility and if we can provide assis
F=+ tance,
please let me know 803-547-5874
Page 1

ATTOOOOl.txt
Thanks
-" John Hoynacki
Page 2

r
,r
r
APPENDIX E
COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT BIOMONITORING VS.
., IN -STREAM BIOMONITORING LABORATORY RESULTS
r
r
r

ran
/r� 14 LIU FP Tr I TEST . I NC . 9119 S�-i TU HWHf-:t P. U= UL
PM
M
F"
Effluent ToxiCity Report Form - Chronic Pass/Fail and Acute LC50 Date: 04/13/CO
facility: ZMC.-CHAPEL HILL POWER PLANT NPDES#: KC0025305 Pipe#: 001 County: ORANGE i
Work %lyder: 0004-00204 Environmental Sciences Branch
:+Ir,IL ORIGINAL TO: Div. of Environmental management
N.C. Dept. of Emm
POR 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445
Ncrt Carolina CeriodaphZia
Chronic Pass/Fail Reproduction. Toxicity Test Chronic Tes- Results
Calculated t = 0.077
Pan Tabular t - 2.996
CO:�' �'ROL ORGANISMS' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 o Reduction = 0.67
E fi Mortality Avg.Reprod.
# Young Produced 35 25 29135 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 J
0.00 30.00
Control Control
Adult (L) ive (W ead L L L L IL * * *
0.00 29.80
Treatment 2 Treatment 2
rya Effluence 9c�
TREATMENT 2 ORGANISMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Control CV
35.986a PASS FAIL
# Young Produced 134 3C 29 251311 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ti control or -as X !
producing 3rd
Adult (:�) ive (D} ead ILL L L
1 j* f* * * * * brood100% Check one
L * I
_st sample 1st sample end sample Complete This For Either .est
P TesC Start Date: 04/05/00
Control 7.8 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.0 7. 9 Collection. (Start) Date
Sample 1: 04/03/00 Sample 2: 04/06/00
FUR
P
Treatment 2 7.5 ?.7 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.7 Sample Type/Duration /-.
13� /F
s e s Grab Comp. Drraticn D
t e t e t e S S
a n a n a Sample 1 X 24 hrs L A A
r d r d r d L' M M
t t t Sample 2 X 24 h:s = P P
ls- sample 1st sample 2nd sample
D.C.
..........
Hardness (mg/1) 49 ....... ..........
Control 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0
Spec. Cond. (Amhos) 190 268 275
Treatment 2 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.9
Chlorine (mg/l) ::::::.... <0.1 <0. _
i�i :: i:::i
LCSO/Acute Toxicity Test Sample temp. at receipt+'O C) 2.5 :.6
rAq
(Mortality expressed as 1, combining replicates)
Nate: Please
$� :t
k. concentration! Complace This
Seccion. Also
"q ! ; ti , , t t Mortality
/end star -/end
MR
1=a
'LC50 = 146
95* Coff-l"-fiffence Limits
- b
sLarc _.
Method of Determination Control
Moving Average Frobit
Spea_rnar_ Karber - Other - :-iigh
Canc.
nFI D.C.
Organism. Tested: Ceriodap m-1 a aubia Duration (hre) :
Copied from.. DEM for: AT-1 (3/87) rev. 11/95 (DUBIA ver. 4.32)
FM

** £0'39Ud 1U101 **
.O.Q Ha
I o :.o,
1 gbT�
dos �-.zoJ
(Z£'t 'zan Mann) S5/1Z 'na-Z (L8/£) T-.LV uuoj I43 i wc.=3 pazdo0
(szg) uoZ-eznc eTenp a TirgdepoTaa3 :ps4gsL ws :ue5at0
zau-O zagzuy. uL•,u :sadS _� - - s,
!aTgosg — asezantl Buzno;q s-TWT7 aouaF':'tuc, 4S6
uoT2eut=0a9Q jo poupa;l = CSX
iL�tTE�zoyq
osT�l noT�oaS
stgy 6;0a dwco soTjssjuaouo0
I
4 ; 4;
s
_____F
fi
Ss
low
eo
am
wo
ba
aseaTd . a.,oK —
{sa��ozTaa= SuTtt►gmoo 'it sQ passazdbca AZTTQ ;soW)
9' T 0b ..........,(Jo,`'dTaoas �e• dwaq a �dr:e
S qsa,I AzzoYxos aar0-</050'I
SEE Oct 06i � (so�:r1) •puo, -oadg 6'L 6'L 0'8 0'8 T'8, 0'8. Z. �::a;�a2azZ
0'8 0'8 i T'8; Z'8 Z'8j T'8�
.......... ..........
6tr (T/Bui) ssaupz-eH I To.T...o.,
aTdl:Qs puz aIc%::es -ST eldu;vs ast
d d J. s :u 6Z X Z eTdw�es Y
i W X P. P a P a P = �
X if Z s q b Z X T a TdwES :: e u le u 8
S S I a a 2
Q ILo.ZQzna •dwo, gez0 s s s
p;:Z uoT�E.z:�Q/adT►,L L 8" L L' L S' L Z JuawaeQ;X.L
00/90/b0 �4 aTdweS CC/EO/b0 aTduieS
a:ieQ {�x'eiS) so.:ioaTToe 6'L 0'8 0'8 6'L` i 9'L a'L TC.X-3 0:)
= v0/SO/60 :egva Javis Isay Hd
ssaW ..Kdt1a T3 ZZo.! sTLis ate Tdwoe 2Tdwes puz oldwee 0sT .Tftes I
w
SCOT 'I 'I Z Z Z Z Z Z Z I i plea(u) aAT (:',
auO NOMA:) poo q
7XpzE bL'Torpozd
i sSzo ToiZuoo ALZ TZ LT bZ bT ZE'Zz EZ E� TZ ZZ9zpaonpoad ^unox #
'ZIT ssVcT ;609 ' T : II
110 To.70uc0 ZT IT OT 6 8 L 9 S V E Z T ShSIt,-,VV O Z lK3L+lv___ :Z
z �uawasa z� Z �uawa�azs 106
SS'ZZ i 00'0 —
'I Pk a (Q) aAT (:) =TnPV
Tozluoo TO.Z:ZuoJ
1.9'TE ! 00'0
too
6£ LZ £E 0E LZ T£ ZE TE SE S£ LZ EE paonpo:2 6:znox #
• pa�n'a21 ' 6nt[ iC�z TaZ.zoLq �
99'8Z = '.tot�Jilpbg ZT TT OT 6 8 L 9 S b E Z T $XSI1 VV'dO 10MMOJ
905'Z = 2 ieTnq-ey bw
eleTncTzJ
saTrsaH say o :uoz�J ,sa.L AjTotxos =073--npozdag TTe3/ssad
8:uucepci�ae nutTaaeO' :��soH
Sb69-L09LZ euTTosEe u�zoh 'gSTaTp�
Neo3 xaa.zJ �paa� TObb ww
ux,mh 30 •jdaQ -J-H
luawsEvurw ieluawuo TAug ;o • AZQ : 0?, 7VNI`JIHO 71vx
Roua.zg saouaTos TizuawuoszAug - 99CCC-VC00 :.:• tz0 XzCM —
zoszezadns Azolezo z Ts
x
abseu, aYv_;suodsz�l �T .zo ad o ezna 5Ts
sZuaunuoJ
\___x X
' 0XI 'ZS31MI : 2ML 5uTwZo3 ►9d hzo�EzageZ
301MO :A4uncO TOO =#ad%d SOESZOO:)N :#S3QdK SdMd *d MOd TIIH lad i-M-OM
00/E:/i,C :8ae0
OS07 eanDY pue TTes/assd *TUOXM, - =0J 240dau A2Toixoy 4usnT333
36tjriti 01 -6r-9 r28 6T6
'ONI 41S31Id1 �jd r�:60 00, rT ddti/"

APPENDIX F
_ PRELIMINARY MACROINVETEBRATE STUDY RESULTS
r�
r
N

MR
FM
FM
zz
Im
INTERNAL MEMO
TO: GEORGE TYRIAN
FROM: KRISTIN KULOW
AWARE ENVIRONMENTAL INC. a (AEI)
DATE: APRIL 14, 2000
SUBJECT: MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY AT UNC CHAPEL HILL
COGENERATION FACILITY
AEI PROJECT NO. 301-12
On April 7, 2000 Aware Environmental Inc. (AEI) personnel conducted an initial
reconnaissance of the stream created by storm water runoff and effluent from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Cogeneration Facility. George Tyrian and
Kristin Kulow of AEI were accompanied by a representative of the Cogeneration
Facility. The purpose of the visit was to determine the feasibility of conducting a
macroinvertebrate study for use as an indicator of water quality.
Individuals from six (6) insect genera including Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera,
Plecoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Collembola were identified. In addition,
nematodes, snails, and crayfish were also found in the stream during the visit. The
stream was typically shallow and the bottom was a mix of fine sandy, pebbled and
rocky areas. Leaf litter was present in the stream as well as areas of riffles and pools.
pm Based on the observations made during the site visit, it appears that the stream is
suitable for conducting a macroinvertebrate study using the standard operating
procedures set forth by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
am Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section's Biological Assessment
Unit. A biotic index of the stream could then be calculated providing a baseline for
comparision to adjoining tributaries and future stream evaluations.
FOR
04
P"
am