NC0086657_Speculative Limits_20010906

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Micheal F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D, Acting Director
NC�Q��J�% NC3oi
NCDENR
September 6, 2001
Mr. Tom Storie, Public Works Director
Town of Burnsville
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
Subject: Speculative Limits for Bumsville/Micaville WWTP
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Storie:
This letter is in response to your request for speculative effluent limits for the expansion
of the Burnsville WWTP. Please accept our sincere apology for the delay in the response. The
expansion flows of 0.3 and 0.5 MGD were targeted for two discharge points on Little Crabtree
Creek. The staff of the NPDES Unit of the Point Source Branch has reviewed this request.
Please be advised that response to this request does not guarantee that the Division will
issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater into these receiving waters. It should be
noted that expanding facilities, involving an expenditure of public funds or use of public (state)
lands, will be required to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wasteflows exceed or
equal 0.5 MGD. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect
on the quality of the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. DWQ
will not accept a permit application for a project requiring an EA or EIS until: (1) the document
has been approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and, (2) a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been sent to the state Clearinghouse for review and
comment or an EIS has been approved. The Division of Water Quality's Planning Branch can
provide further information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
Please contact Milt Rhodes of the DWQ Planning Branch at [phone] ext. 366 if you have
questions on this subject.
Burnsville will also be required to complete an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA)
that must be submitted with the application for the NPDES permit. The EAA should contain a
clear and strong justification for the expanded facility and an analysis of potential alternatives,
which should include a thorough evaluation of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge
alternatives or alternatives to expansion, such as spray irrigation, water conservation, inflow and
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

Burnsville/Micaville WWTP Speculative Limits
Page 2
infiltration reduction, or connection to a regional treatment and disposal system, are considered
to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge. In accordance with the North
Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least
adverse impact on environment is required to be implemented.
The proposed Burnsville/Micaville WWTP will discharge into Little Crabtree Creek.
This segment of the river has a stream classification of C-Trout. The best usage of these waters
is for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, including fishing and fish,
wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary recreation or
as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. The trout
designation dictates that these are waters which have conditions which shall sustain and allow for
trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis.
Both discharge points for the Burnsville/Micaville WWTP are into Little Crabtree Creek.
Site #1 (Little Crabtree Creek approximately 0.5 miles above the confluence of the South Toe
River) has a drainage area of 21.7 square miles, with an estimated average flow of 48 cfs, a
summer 7Q10 of 6.3 cfs and a winter 7Q10 of 9.0 cfs. This discharge point would be less than
100 feet below the Taylor Togs, Inc (N00023566) outfall. The connection of this 0.010 MGD
discharger to the proposed WWTP should be evaluated. Site #2 (Little Crabtree Creek near
Windom) has an estimated drainage area of 11 square miles, with an estimated average flow of
24.2 cfs, a summer 7Q 10 of 3.2 cfs and a winter 7Q 10 of 4.6 cfs. This site is approximately two
miles upstream of Site #1. There are no other dischargers near this site, however, the Taylor
Togs discharge was included as a downstream wastewater input in this site's water. quality
model.
Based on available information, the tentative effluent limits for oxygen -consuming
constituents of the Burnsville/Micaville WWTP discharge at the expansion flows of 0.3 and 0.5
MGD are included on the attached effluent sheets. Effluent limits for protection against
ammonia toxicity are also recommended.
A requirement for quarterly chronic toxicity testing would become a condition of the
NPDES permit if industrial wastewater were to be accepted in the WWTP. Chronic toxicity
limits at Site #1 below the Taylor Togs discharge for 0.3 MGD and 0.5 MGD would be set at 7%
and 11 % waste strength, respectively. Chronic toxicity limits at Site #2 near Windom for 0.3
MGD and 0.5 MGD would be set at 13% and 20% waste strength, respectively. If necessary, an
evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other toxicants will be addressed
at the time of a formal permit application.
The Division of Water Quality is requiring chlorine limits for all new or expanding
dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for disinfection. The process of
chlorination/dechlorination or an alternate form of disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation,
should allow the facility to comply this requirement.

Bumsville/Micaville WWTP Speculative Limits
Page 3
Final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a permit application has been
submitted to the Division. If there are any additional questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact Jackie Nowell of my staff at [phone] ext. 512.
Respectfully,
David A. Goodrich
NPDES Unit Supervisor
Attachments
cc: Forrest Westall/Asheville Regional Office
Bobby Blowe, Construction Grants
Michelle Woolfolk, Modeling/TMDL Unit
Central Files
NPDES Permit File

A. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS - BURNSVILLE/ MICAVILLE WWTP (SITE # 1)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfa11001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Permittee as specified below:
t �...:'.�d. x
1
CHARACTERISTICS
�:�. "-��`�' �� ts_.;.-. .t�..R # :� � -ia. ,���
:_,R �. !.•_ 1 3zw.��', ter'' k:
¢
�...Y4�. � ���
j �°'•i i r_ � ,,.,x:-'Si.�tr.�'• rs� c-s.-^.ii" " ^.� ^"�'Z."'...'�i��'�-' 7... '_
� Lam:. .w� �
'srs : ry» c ar s'?-� a"� ,a art r?i- zkr, r ks�
�
�
^� t,..._ �E. t
a� k"E ff- " �'i�'
�w. 4�:� , �,
i� YX"N,rS S:
'x..
,
f'w.�".=.u�i���s�s'"�u�,s..�ik:�.ttY�1i7 F. %ii..
! - - T'f,.^.'. is �'t: -�..{'Y.
{..{�f{on itV k , F eeCiV �iDaily$��
.+ I-''. ii•. 44Y+I i'"` .' 9'�r..
, ,� ar:s", ^; r9.,^fhatar, «
�vera
�t�• ..-�
A_����..:A . : 1, xS;.S�sI=S.'h'h�r��.t'2.�,� Li'.::�i'•tiy�«.s:.i�:.i�:i 'tY'�%s� ^..�"
; ;,=r.�.:=..a,t,4� x•. ..r:�as.:r• ;j+-. _ _ .. lr` s.{ :Q::w 3^�;:ar ♦ 3. '15
Measurement %.,µFSampleM E _ Sam Ie:Location{
'LI 7 Y � � • TM:R ,} _
`.-r fviy ^tf, v °, i�};:a}s a x N,
.i r
i
e�aximum:Fre
..i`.tit
;i
uenc ;x T e4..`a..:
Flow
0.3 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
10.9 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
(April 1— October 31
NH3 as N
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
November 1— March 31
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
Effluen
H3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlodne4
28 Ng1L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
200 / 100 ml
400 ! 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
eometric mean
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Pass/Fail @ 7%; This limitation applies only if industrial wastewater
accepted by facility
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

B. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS - BURNSVILLE/ MICAVILLE WWTP (SITE # 1)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Permittee as specified below:
CHARACT� RISTICS 1
... :°2:•'F.t+,rt•
[ :C.f.
..
,{,, .4•
�5. �! S°.{".'. �u�:l'"2'] � �'
1 r = f z
- .A'
MIT
;weir 3 •s1�C^'`
': -1
..'7.F"'
� Mdbfhl s
x
'fY�
k �•i:H -: ":��
:C A•
�i" �.i„YZi �
.
era e....
Da�fy
k�Y
� $.. i� �� flit`
• . x
dmax!mum
Mea e ent f
•�,""`°'
�t^-w^.e.-:-..+a�1...
re uenc
1 ii
Sam le ,
'7t 67" Re�pHr�..bt+
e 3
-; ;r; Sam Ie Locations z
p r.
�:"4. t
•r � + 'r�i_ ..a^ .�::
-1 ..
#� f
z:. ,.r +3...
�..: ��'
Flow
0.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20°C2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31
6.9 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1— March 31
20.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
Effluen
H3'
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 Ng/L
Meek
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
eometric mean
2001100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Pass/Fail @ 11%; This limitation applies only if industrial wastewater
accepted by facility
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

C. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS - BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP (SITE *2)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Permittee as specified below:
a_.
.r... :.',q•3S? +.]A i
CHRACTERISTICS
x:
�j
'.. . ,.. .... w.........-. ....
�i'x-.� ..
...;ki�li`,d'szr:
o I
n#b yj11.�
Aber, a
LIMIT
y}.::4 M? ,`y fir•^• i
=[L&I
�7.t'^
��A'S1r i.3'^.JF i r
ylyA"!' F:,
kl:P�Dail
wee �}y
A era eMax�mumF,r
ONITORI
= }�1yAxT""tMs"
s. -3-> trt r as
`. i 1€ �s.� '� l . 7. ='101?1irs'.+�.
a urement =} Sam ..le.� F t
.4ta;k:s».":raffstYin%4r' q 'tr `97%
a s F. Sa Ie Lhca
a.,�F .+elld+°R04 . is`
aerieT e_ e M
Flow
0.3 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20,C2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1— October 31
6.4 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
November 1— March 31
17.4 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
Effluen
H3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 Ng/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Dail
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
2001100 ml
4001100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
I Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Pass/Fail @ 13%; This limitation applies only if industrial wastewater
accepted by facility
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

D. SPECULATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS - BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP (SITE #2)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Permittee as specified below:
�..
CHARACTERISTICS:
ilei :'
. z}, z S�,y � 'fir•'
lw
�,
_ .. �:e ._ Lis �a u
C;� r .+.u.: `t't s • _ ;F��. s'e t
i =�Weekl _
; .,;.::
m cr? z��. xu7 f: nnr� Ellis
r, s.e..::<;^e-..:s�sxx'eor� 6� .:a�+.. ':zre' ,+
y
Sa LocationM
• x
onl Y' y ally
.�i.�i � . ..::.Z:�!3•d' �� '�
;Measure ent& ple
x
ys�..l j�'�! � � M�� _'•k �.:.i� YGr,Sik., 'R
—'t
uAvera eMaximur:>�
"S
Flow
0.5 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5-day, 20oC2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Residue 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
4.2 mg/L
Weekly.
Composite
Effluent
(April 1- October 31
NH3 as N
11.0 mg/L
Weekly
Composite
. Effluent
November 1- March 31
Dissolved Oxygen
Weekly
Grab
Effluen
H3
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 Ng/L
2/Week
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
(NO2+NO3+TKN)
Total Phosphorus
Semi-annually
Composite
Effluent
Temperature, °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
2001100 ml
400 1100 ml
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
eometric mean
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. Influent, Effluent
2. The monthly average effluent BODS and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
4. Monitoring requirement and limit applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection.
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) Pass/Fail (Qa 20%; This limitation applies only if industrial wastewater
accepted by facility
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Burnsville/Micaville WWTP Speculative Limits Request jmn
Little Crabtree Creek C-Tr D10NW
040306
Yancey County
Facility requesting spec limits for expansion flows of 0.3 and 0.5 MGD at two discharge locations
in the Little Crabtree Creek. Spec request was first submitted in March 24, 2000 but due to
personnel changes and leaving was not completed. In April 2001, request was resubmitted by
McGill and Associates. (Note that permit file contains correspondence and emails on this
request, permit writer should read these for history).
Estimated for flows at Site #1(Little Crabtree Creek approximately 0.5 miles above
confluence with South Toe River; just below the Taylor Togs discharge)
DA= 21.7 mil
QA= 48 cfs
s7g10=6.3 cfs
w7g10=9.0 cfs
Estimated for flows at Site #2 (Little Crabtree Creek near Windom)
DA=11 mil
QA= 24.2 cfs
s7g10=3.2 cfs
w7g10=4.6 cfs
Little Crabtree Creek is not listed on the 303d list for the French Broad River Basin.
Summary of Model results
Must protect for a DO instream standard of 6 mg/l because of the Trout classification for Little
Crabtree Creek. Level B model indicates that Little Crabtree Creek can assimilate the wastewater
at both flows of 0.3 and 0.5 MGD at both sites. Secondary limits of BOD5 = 30 mg/1 will protect
at both sites, however summer and winter NH3 limits are based on protection against NH3
toxicity. No effluent DO limits are needed at either flow.
Site # 1 Model
One segment with three reaches.
First reach, 0.08-mi. length, at the Taylor Togs discharge of 0.010 MGD,
Second reach, 0.4 mi. length, with proposed Burnsville/Micaville WWTP @ 0.3 MGD; 0.5
MGD,
Third reach, 1.0 mile length — South Toe River flow.
Ran summer and winter models for both flows of 0.3 MGD and 0.5 MGD. Model runs for both
flows predicted summer DO minimums were above 7 mg/l. All predicted winter DO minimums
were above 9.1 mg/l. NH3 limits recommended were based on toxicity protection for both flows.
No winter NH3 limit needed for @ 0.3 MGD.
Site # 2 Model
One segment with three reaches.
First reach, 2-mi. length, proposed Burnsville/Micaville WWTP discharge @ 0.3 MGD; 0.5
MGD,

Burnsville/Micaville WWTP Speculative Limits Request
Page 2
Second reach, 0.4 mi. length, Taylor Togs discharge of 0.010 MGD,
Third reach, 1.0 mile length — South Toe River flow.
Ran summer and winter models for both flows of 0.3 MGD and 0.5 MGD. Model runs for both
flows predicted summer DO minimums above 6 mg/l. Summer model run @ 0.5 MGD predicted
DO minimum of 6.2 mg/l. Model runs predicted winter DO minimums were above 8.2 mg/l.
NH3 limits recommended were based on toxicity protection for both flows. No winter NH3 limit
needed for @ 0.3 MGD. Winter NH3 limit @ 0.5 MGD is 20 mg/L.

1;2/0/
Peon
� ��fG3o6
S m
�9
Asirw , lcg4ow
6, 3MG0 0, 5-MGn
i
JcgA
qua
"G,ack-74
m7VIJ
209¢1
o
f

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger ` T. WWTP Subbasin : 040306
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 3.2 Winter 7Q10 : 4.6
Design Temperature: 12.0
LENGTHI SLOPEI VELOCITY DEPTH Kd I Kd Ka Ka KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @20° Idesign @200 Idesign
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 2.00 32.00 0.392 0.96 0.27 0.39 18.97 22.58 0.27
Reach 1
Segment 1 0.40 19.00 0.338 1.03 0.21 1 0.31 1 9.71 1 11.55 0.16
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1.00 14.80 0.912 1.71 0.25 0.35 1 9.97 1 11.87 0.16
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
Flow
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 0.775
Headwaters 4.600
Tributary 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 0.015
Tributary1 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 0.000
Tributary 34.500
* Runoff 0.000
CBOD I NBOD D.O. I
mg/l mg/1 mg/1
45.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
149.900
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.700
45.000 90.000 0.000
2.000 1.000 9.700
2.000 1.000 9.700
0.000 0.000 0.000
2.000 1.000 9.700
2.000 1.000 9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

0
MODEL RESULTS
WINTER
MODEL @0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER LITTLE CRABTREE CR.
Discharger
I WWTP
Receiving Stream
T
'E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.23
mg/1.
The End CBOD
is 2.70
mg/1.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.86
mg/1.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
8.30
---------
0.00
------- ----
1
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
49.90
0.00
0.50000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
RWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream
:
LITTLE
CRABTR
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
3.2
Winter
7Q10
: 4.6
Design Temperature:
23.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design I
@200
I design I
@200 I
design
Segment 1
2.00
32.00
0.313
0.92
0.41
0.36
19.22
18.01
0.63
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.270
0.99
0.33
0.29
9.84
9.22
0.38
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.00
14.80
0.745
1 1.65 1
0.38 1
0.33
110.36 1
9.70
0.38
Reach 3
t
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.775
45.000
18.900
0.000
Headwaters 3.200
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
26.500
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL @ 0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:'
WWTP
Receiving Stream
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.15
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.79
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.31
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint
Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
6.21
---------
0.00
------- ----
1
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
18.90
0.00
0.50000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

SUMMER
MODEL @ 0.300 MGD, SITE
p
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8.16 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.44 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.28 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
Segment
1
----------------------
6.74 0.00 1
----
Reach
1
45.00
Reach
2
45.00
Reach
3
0.00
WLA
WLA
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
28.30
0.00
0.30000,
90.00
0.00
0.01000
0.00
0.00
0.00000
CD(°r -r,

•
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE
CRABTREE CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
3.2
Winter
7Q10
: 4.6
Design Temperature:
23.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps ft
I
design I
@200
I design I
@200 I
design
Segment 1
2.00
32.00
0.294
0.91
0.40
0.35
18.09
16.95
0.63
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.254
0.98
0.33
0.29
9.26
8.68
0.38
Reach 2
---------------------------------------------------------=----------------------
Segment 1
1.00
14.80
0.739
1.65
0.38
0.33
10.28
9.63
0.38
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
z
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
c f s
mg/ 1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.465
45.000
28.300
0.000
Headwaters
3.200
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
26.500
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

0
s;
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
1
1
0.00
1
1
0.10
1
1
0.20
1
1
0.30
1
1
0.40
1
1
0.50
1
1
0.60
1
1
0.70
1
1
0.80
1
1
0.90
1
1
1.00
1
1
1.10
1
1
1.20
1
1
1.30
1
1
1.40
1
1
1.50
1
1
1.60
1
1
1.70
1
1
1.80
1
1
1.90
1
1
2.00
1
2
2.00
1
2
2.10
1
2
2.20
1
2
2.30
1
2
2.40
1
3
2.40
1
3
2.50
1
3
2.60
1
3
2.70
1
3
2.80
1
3
2.90
1
3
3.00
1
3
3.10
1
3
3.20
1
3
3.30
1
3
3.40
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi
D.O.
6.74
7.22
7.55
7.77
7.93
8.04
8.11
8.17
8.20
8.23
8.25
8.26
8.27
8.28
8.29
8.29
8.30
8.30
8.31
8.31
8.31
8.28
8.26
8.25
8.24
8.23
7.78
7.84
7.89
7.93
7.97
8.01
8.05
8.08
8.11
8.13
8.16
D.O.
CBOD
7.46
7.39
7.33
7.27
7.21
7.15
7.09
7.03
6.98
6.92
6.86
6.80
6.75
6.69
6.64
6.58
6.53
6.47
6.42
6.37
6.31
6.48
6.43
6.38
6.33
6.28
2.52
2.51
2.51
2.50
2.49
2.48
2.47
2.47
2.46
2.45
2.44
CBOD
SUMMER
MODEL @ 0.300 MGD, SITE 1
NBOD
4.46
4.41
4.35
4.29
4.24
4.18
4.13
4.07
4.02
3.97
3.92
3.87
3.82
3.77
3.72
3.67
3.62
3.57
3.53
3.48
3.44
3.80
3.77
3.73
3.70
3.66
1.32
1.32
1.32
1.31
1.31
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.29
1.29
1.28
NBOD I
Flow
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.67
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
30.18
Flow

4
MODEL RESULTS
WINTER
MODEL @ 0.3 MGD, SITE 2
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.24
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.41
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.82
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
8.81
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
78.30
0.00
0.30000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE
CRABTREE
CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
3.2
Winter
7Q10
4.6
Design Temperature:
12.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mile
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design I
@200
I design
@200 I
design
Segment 1
2.00
32.00
0.375
0.95
0.26
0.38
18.15
21.60
0.27
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.323
1.02
0.21
0.31
9.28
11.05
0.16
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.00
14.80
0.906
1 1.71 1
0.25 1
0.35
1 9.92 1
11.80
0.16
Reach 3
t
Flow
CBOD
cfs
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.465
45.000
Headwaters
4.600
2.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
NBOD
D.O.
mg/1
mg/1
78.300
0.000
1.000
9.700
1.000
9.700
1.000
9.700
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
.2.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
34.500
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

•
WINTER
MODEL @ 0.3 MGD, SITE 2
Seg #
( Reach #
Seg Mi
( D.O.
CBOD
NBOD I
Flow
1
1
0.00
8.81
5.95
8.10
5.06
1
1
0.10
9.26
5.92
8.06
5.06
1
1
0.20
9.60
5.90
8.03
5.06
1
1
0.30
9.85
5.87
7.99
5.06
1
1
0.40
10.03
5.85
7.96
5.06
1
1
0.50
10.17
5.82
7.92
5.06
1
1
0.60
10.28
5.80
7.89
5.06
1
1
0.70
10.35
5.77
7.85
5.06
1
1
0.80
10.41
5.75
7.82
5.06
1
1
0.90
10.45
5.72
7.78
5.06
1
1
1.00
10.49
5.70
7.75
5.06
1
1
1.10
10.51
5.67
7.71
5.06
1
1
1.20
10.53
5.65
7.68
5.06
1
1
1.30
10.54
5.62
7.65
5.06
1
1
1.40
10.55
5.60
7.61
5.06
1
1
1.50
10.56
5.58
7.58
5.06
1
1
1.60
10.57
5.55
7.55
5.06
1
1
1.70
10.57
5.53
7.51
5.06
1
1
1.80
10.58
5.50
7.48
5.06
1
1
1.90
10.58
5.48
7.45
5.06
1
1
2.00
10.58
5.46
7.41
5.06
1
2
2.00
10.55
5.58
7.67
5.08
1
2
2.10
10.55
5.56
7.64
5.08
1
2
2.20
10.54
5.53
7.62
5.08
1
2
2.30
10.54
5.51
7.60
5.08
1
2
2.40
10.54
5.49
7.57
5.08
1
3
2.40
9.81
2.45
1.84
39.58
1
3
2.50
9.86
2.44
1.84
39.58
1
3
2.60
9.92
2.44
1.84
39.58
1
3
2.70
9.97
2.44
1.84
39.58
1
3
2.80
10.01
2.43
1.84
39.58
1
3
2.90
10.06
2.43
1.83
39.58
1
3
3.00
10.10
2.42
1.83
39.58
1
3
3.10
10.14
2.42
1.83
39.58
1
3
3.20
10.17
2.42
1.83
39.58
1
3
3.30
10.21
2.41
1.83
39.58
1
3
3.40
10.24
2.41
1.82
39.58
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

WINTER
MODEL @0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER LITTLE CRABTREE CR.
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.23
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.70
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.86
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
8.30
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
49.90
0.00
0.50000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream
:
LITTLE
CRABTREE
CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
3.2
Winter
7Q10
: 4.6
Design Temperature:
12.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design I
@200
I design I
@200 I
design
Segment 1
2.00
32.00
0.392
0.96
0.27
0.39
18.97
22.58
0.27
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.338
1.03
0.21
0.31
9.71
11.55
0.16
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.00
14.80
0.912
1 1.71 1
0.25 1
0.35
1 9.97 1
11.87
0.16
Reach 3
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.775
45.000
49.900
0.000
Headwaters
4.600
2.000
1.000
9.700
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
34.500
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL @ 0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.15
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.79
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.31
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
6.21
----------------
0.00 1
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
18.90
0.00
0.50000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream
:
LITTLE
CRABTREE
CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
3.2
Winter
7Q10
: 4.6
Design Temperature:
23.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mile
ft/mi
fps
ft
design
@200
design
@200
design
Segment 1
2.00
32.00
0.313
0.92
0.41
0.36
19.22
18.01
0.63
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.270
0.99
0.33
0.29
9.84
9.22
0.38
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.00
14.80
0.745
1 1.65 1
0.38 1
0.33
10.36 1
9.70
0.38
Reach 3
I
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.775
45.000
18.900
0.000
Headwaters
3.200
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
26.500
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
MODEL
@0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER
LITTLE CRABTREE CR.
Seg ##
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O. I
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
8.30
8.20
8.05
5.38
1
1
0.10
8.88
8.17
8.02
5.38
1
1
0.20
9.31
8.13
7.98
5.38
1
1
0.30
9.62
8.10
7.95
5.38
1
1
0.40
9.86
8.06
7.92
5.38
1
1
0.50
10.04
8.03
7.88
5.38
1
1
0.60
10.17
8.00
7.85
5.38
1
1
0.70
10.27
7.96
7.82
5.38
1
1
0.80
10.34
7.93
7.78
5.38
1
1
0.90
10.40
7.90
7.75
5.38
1
1
1.00
10.44
7.86
7.72
5.38
1
1
1.10
10.47
7.83
7.69
5.38
1
1
1.20
10.49
7.80
7.65
5.38
1
1
1.30
10.51
7.77
7.62
5.38
1
1
1.40
10.52
7.73
7.59
5.38
1
1
1.50
10.53
7.70
7.56
5.38
1
1
1.60
10.54
7.67
7.53
5.38
1
1
1.70
10.55
7.64
7.49
5.38
1
1
1.80
10.55
7.60
7.46
5.38
1
1
1.90
10.56
7.57
7.43
5.38
1
1
2.00
10.56
7.54
7.40
5.38
1
2
2.00
10.53
7.65
7.64
5.39
1
2
2.10
10.52
7.62
7.62
5.39
1
2
2.20
10.52
7.59
7.59
5.39
1
2
2.30
10.51
7.56
7.57
5.39
1
2
2.40
10.51
7.53
7.55
5.39
1
3
2.40
9.81
2.75
1.88
39.89
1
3
2.50
9.87
2.74
1.88
39.89
1
3
2.60
9.92
2.74
1.88
39.89
1
3
2.70
9.97
2.73
1.88
39.89
1
3
2.80
10.01
2.73
1.88
39.89
1
3
2.90
10.06
2.72
1.87
39.89
1
3
3.00
10.10
2.72
1.87
39.89
1
3
3.10
10.14
2.72
1.87
39.89
1
3
3.20
10.17
2.71
1.87
39.89
1
3
3.30
10.20
2.71
1.87
39.89
1
3
3.40
10.23
2.70
1.86
39.89
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

r
SUMMER
MODEL
@ 0.5 MGD, SITE 2
UPPER
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
Seg #
Reach # (
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
6.21
10.38
4.49
3.98
1
1
0.10
6.84
10.30
4.44
3.98
1
1
0.20
7.27
10.22
4.38
3.98
1
1
0.30
7.57
10.14
4.33
3.98
1
1
0.40
7.77
10.06
4.27
3.98
1
1
0.50
7.92
9.98
4.22
3.98
1
1
0.60
8.02
9.90
4.17
3.98
1
1
0.70
8.08
9.82
4.12
3.98
1
1
0.80
8.13
9.74
4.07
3.98
1
1
0.90
8.17
9.66
4.02
3.98
1
1
1.00
8.19
9.59
3.97
3.98
1
1
1.10
8.21
9.51
3.92
3.98
1
1
1.20
8.22
9.43
3.87
3.98
1
1
1.30
8.23
9.36
3.83
3.98
1
1
1.40
8.24
9.29
3.78
3.98
1
1
1.50
8.25
9.21
3.73
3.98
1
1
1.60
8.25
9.14
3.69
3.98
1
1
1.70
8.26
9.07
3.64
3.98
1
1
1.80
8.26
8.99
3.60
3.98
1
1
1.90
8.26
8.92
3.55
3.98
1
1
2.00
8.27
8.85
3.51
3.98
1
2
2.00
8.24
8.99
3.85
3.99
1
2
2.10
8.21
8.92
3.81
3.99
1
2
2.20
8.20
8.86
3.78
3.99
1
2
2.30
8.19
8.79
3.75
3.99
1
2
2.40
8.18
8.72
3.72
3.99
1
3
2.40
7.78
2.88
1.36
30.49
1
3
2.50
7.83
2.87
1.35
30.49
1
3
2.60
7.88
2.86
1.35
30.49
1
3
2.70
7.93
2.85
1.34
30.49
1
3
2.80
7.97
2.84
1.34
30.49
1
3
2.90
8.00
2.84
1.33
30.49
1
3
3.00
8.04
2.83
1.33
30.49
1
3
3.10
8.07
2.82
1.33
30.49
1
3
3.20
8.10
2.81
1.32
30.49
1
3
3.30
8.13
2.80
1.32
30.49
1
3
3.40
8.15
2.79
1.31
30.49
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
( Flow

s
Burnsville/Micaville WWTP
wat uim^: Cw1'/ e"
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
3.2
7010 (CFS)
3.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
12.69
IWC (%)
12.69 Iv&6
Allowable Concentration (ug
133.99
Allowable Concentration (m
6.37 (Zf3-9
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
4.6
Fecal Umit
200/100ml
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
Ratio of 6.9 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
9.18 N"
Allowable Concentration (m
17.43 (79,3)
NCO086657
8/9/01

- d
w
Burnsville/Mlcaville WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
3.2
7Q10 (CFS)
3.2
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (1
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
19.50
IWC (%)
19.50
Allowable Concentration (ugj
87.19
Allowable Concentration (m
4.22 68'.1)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
4.6
Fecal Limit
200/100mi
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
Ratio of 4.1 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
14.42 NAD
Allowable Concentration (m
11.18 (1 ?1?
NCO086657
8/9/01

MODEL INPUTS FOR LEVEL B ANALYSIS
GENERAL INFORMATION
Facility Name:
&141514
o
NPDES No.:
6G S
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
J{Q
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
Q fed 3 u8
County:
Regional Office:
Topo Quad:
/0
FLOW INFORMATION
USGS #
Date of Flow Estimates: c'/40 �/
S�yrs
Sim
Drainage Area (mi2):
h I
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
3,2 c.
6, 5
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
6 Ch
9,0.
Average Flow (cfs):
ay, LCh8
30Q2 (cfs):
rWC at Point of Discharge (%):
/0, 7 • /,
Cummulative IWC (%):
MODEL INPUT INFORMATION slfr Z
LENGTH OF REACH (miles)
�, 0
0,
/, C o
INCREMENTAL LENGTH (miles)
0•/
o,
d,/
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW (MGD)
0,3
O,S
Owe wo
CBOD (mg/1)
iwiS
S
NBOD(mg/1)
Zo°°.� %8i
8,4ly%
6
D.O. (mg/1)—
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
7Q10 (cfs/mil)
o
0
QA (cfs/mil)
,
o
u
CBOD (mg/1)
a1
Z
Z
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TRIBUTARY CHARACTERISTICS arm -ICE X.
7Q10 (cfs)
CA
QA (cfs)
—
-
sy %cfi
CBOD (mg/1)
_
NBOD (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
,
SLOPE (fpm)
Name of facility

H rrL IV ui7\ 1
z
,%�- TE zlj,,✓
P1ainstGm _ B!'anGh
s�ap� Caicu I Oion S
1
eZ• 7
-- 0
r u f
elcv disc'
. yo .disc Slope
� 0 8
Z, %y,
Ov �• %Ml4
distAftc.c.

SUMMER
MODEL Q 0.3 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.14
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.51
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.63
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
7.37
----------------
0.08 2
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 2
45.00
48.60
0.00
0.30000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

t
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP Subbasin : 040306
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 6.3 Winter 7Q10 : 9.0
Design Temperature: 23.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd I
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps I
ft
designj
@200
I design
@200
I design
Segment
1
0.08
32.00
0.348
1.10
0.40
0.35
21.41
20.05
0.63
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Segment
1
0.40
19.00
0.316
1.20
0.33
0.29
11.53
10.80
0.38
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Segment
1
1 1.00
14.80
0.729 1
1.74
1 0.37 1
0.32
110.14
9.50
0.38
Reach 3
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Headwaters
6.300
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
0.465
45.000
48.600
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
26.500
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
MODEL @
0.3 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.70
2.11
1.22
6.32
1
1
0.01
7.73
2.10
1.22
6.32
1
1
0.02
7.76
2.10
1.22
6.32
1
1
0.03
7.79
2.10
1.21
6.32
1
1
0.04
7.81
2.10
1.21
6.32
1
1
0.05
7.84
2.10
1.21
6.32
1
1
0.06
7.86
2.10
1.21
6.32
1
1
0.07
7.89
2.10
1.21
6.32
1
1
0.08
7.91
2.09
1.21
6.32
1
2
0.08
7.37
5.04
4.46
6.78
1
2
0.18
7.55
5.00
4.43
6.78
1
2
0.28
7.70
4.97
4.39
6.78
1
2
0.38
7.82
4.94
4.36
6.78
1
2
0.48
7.91
4.91
4.33
6.78
1
3
0.48
7.76
2.59
1.68
33.28
1
3
0.58
7.81
2.58
1.67
33.28
1
3
0.68
7.86
2.58
1.67
33.28
1
3
0.78
7.91
2.57
1.66
33.28
1
3
0.88
7.95
2.56
1.66
33.28
1
3
0.98
7.99
2.55
1.65
33.28
1
3
1.08
8.03
2.55
1.65
33.28
1
3
1.18
8.06
2.54
1.64
33.28
1
3
1.28
8.09
2.53
1.64
33.28
1
3
1.38
8.12
2.52
1.63
33.28
1
3
1.48
8.14
2.51
1.63
33.28
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

WINTER
MODEL @ 0.3 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DOWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.22
mg/1.
The End CBOD
is 2.42
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.94
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
9.42
----------------
0.08 2
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.30000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP Subbasin : 040306
Receiving Stream : LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK Stream Class: C-TR
Summer 7Q10 : 6.3 Winter 7Q10 : 9.0
Design Temperature: 12.0
LENGTH SLOPE VELOCITY I DEPTH Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN
mile ft/mi fps ft design @200 design @200 design
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 0.08 32.00 0.455 1.15 0.26 0.38 22.01 26.19 0.27
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 I 0.40 19.00I 0.406 11.25 0.21 10.31 111.66 13.88I 0.16
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1.00 14.80 0.899 1.81 0.24 0.34 9.84 11.71 0.16
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
Flow
cfs
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.015
Headwaters
9.000
Tributary
0.000
* Runoff
0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 0.465
Tributary 0.000
* Runoff 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 0.000
Tributary 34.500
* Runoff 0.000
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
45.000
90.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.700
45.000
0.000
2.000
190.000
1.000
9.700
2.000
1.000
9.70
0.000 0.000 0.000
2.000 1.000 9.700
2.000 1.000 9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

WINTER
MODEL @
0.3 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DOWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1
1
0.00
9.68
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.01
9.71
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.02
9.74
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.03
9.77
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.04
9.80
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.05
9.83
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.06
9.86
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.07
9.88
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
1
0.08
9.91
2.07
1.15
9.02
1
2
0.08
9.42
4.17
5.51
9.48
1
2
0.18
9.61
4.16
5.49
9.48
1
2
0.28
9.78
4.15
5.48
9.48
1
2
0.38
9.91
4.13
5.47
9.48
1
2
0.48
10.03
4.12
5.45
9.48
1
3
0.48
9.77
2.46
1.96
43.98
1
3
0.58
9.83
2.45
1.96
43.98
1
3
0.68
9.89
2.45
1.96
43.98
1
3
0.78
9.94
2.45
1.95
43.98
1
3
0.88
9.99
2.44
1.95
43.98
1
3
0.98
10.03
2.44
1.95
43.98
1
3
1.08
10.07
2.43
1.95
43.98
1
3
1.18
10.11
2.43
1.95
43.98
1
3
1.28
10.15
2.43
1.94
43.98
1
3
1.38
10.19
2.42
1.94
43.98
1
3
1.48
10.22
2.42
1.94
43.98
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD I
NBOD
Flow

SUMMER
MODEL Q 0.5 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE
WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 8.12
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.88
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.65
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
7.05
----------------
0.08 2
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 2
45.00
31.00
0.00
0.50000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger :
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE
CRABTREE CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10 :
6.3
Winter
7Q10
: 9.0
Design Temperature:
23.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
mile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps ft
I
design I
@200
design
@200 I
design
Segment 1
0.08
32.00
0.348
1.10
0.40
0.35
21.41
20.05
0.63
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.326
1.20
0.33
0.29
11.92
11.17
0.38
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1 1.00 14.80 0.734 1 1.75 1 0.37 1 0.32 110.21 1 9.56 0.38
Reach 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cf s
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Headwaters
6.300
2.000
1.000
7.720
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste
0.775
45.000
31.000
0.000
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
26.500
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cf s/mile

Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
1
1
0.00
7.70
2.11
1
1
0.01
7.73
2.10
1
1
0.02
7.76
2.10
1
1
0.03
7.79
2.10
1
1
0.04
7.81
2.10
1
1
0.05
7.84
2.10
1
1
0.06
7.86
2.10
1
1
0.07
7.89
2.10
1
1
0.08
7.91
2.09
1
2
0.08
7.05
6.78
1
2
0.18
7.29
6.74
1
2
0.28
7.48
6.70
1
2
0.38
7.63
6.66
1
2
0.48
7.76
6.62
1
3
0.48
7.73
2.97
1
3
0.58
7.78
2.97
1
3
0.68
7.83
2.96
1
3
0.78
7.88
2.95
1
3
0.88
7.92
2.94
1
3
0.98
7.96
2.93
1
3
1.08
8.00
2.92
1
3
1.18
8.03
2.91
1
3
1.28
8.07
2.90
1
3
1.38
8.09
2.89
1
3
1.48
8.12
2.88
Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
SUMMER
MODEL Q 0.5 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
NBOD
Flow
1.22
6.32
1.22
6.32
1.22
6.32
1.21
6.32
1.21
6.32
1.21
6.32
1.21
6.32
1.21
6.32
1.21
6.32
4.46
7.09
4.43
7.09
4.40
7.09
4.37
7.09
4.34
7.09
1.70
33.59
1.70
33.59
1.69
33.59
1.69
33.59
1.68
33.59
1.68
33.59
1.67
33.59
1.67
33.59
1.66
33.59
1.66
33.59
1.65
33.59
NBOD
Flow

WINTER
MODEL @ 0.5 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Receiving Stream :
LITTLE CRABTREE CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 10.19
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.71
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 2.54
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
Milepoint Reach #
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
------
9.12
----------------
0.08 2
----
----
--
----------
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.01000
Reach 2
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.50000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
:
BURNSVILLE/MICAVILLE WWTP
Subbasin :
040306
Receiving Stream
:
LITTLE
CRABTREE
CREEK
Stream
Class:
C-TR
Summer 7Q10
:
6.3
Winter
7Q10
: 9.0
Design Temperature:
12.0
LENGTH
SLOPE
VELOCITY
DEPTH
Kd
Kd
Ka
Ka
KN
------------
mile
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ft/mi
fps
I ft
design
@20°
design
@200
design
Segment 1
0.08
32.00
0.455
1.15
0.26
0.38
22.01
26.19
0.27
Reach 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
0.40
19.00
0.416
1.25
0.22
0.31
11.95
14.22
0.16
Reach 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Segment 1
1 1.00
14.80
0.904
1 1.81 1
0.24 1
0.34
1 9.89 1
11.77
0.16
Reach 3
Flow
CBOD
NBOD
D.O.
cfs
mg/1
mg/l
mg/l
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste
0.015
45.000
90.000
0.000
Headwaters
9.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste
0.775
45.000
90.000
0.000'
Tributary
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tributary
34.500
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff
0.000
2.000
1.000
9.700
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

Seg #
Reach #
Seg Mi
I D.O. I
CBOD
1
1
0.00
9.68
2.07
1
1
0.01
9.71
2.07
1
1
0.02
9.74
2.07
1
1
0.03
9.77
2.07
1
1
0.04
9.80
2.07
1
1
0.05
9.83
2.07
1
1
0.06
9.86
2.07
1
1
0.07
9.88
2.07
1
1
0.08
9.91
2.07
1
2
0.08
9.12
5.47
1
2
0.18
9.36
5.45
1
2
0.28
9.55
5.43
1
2
0.38
9.72
5.41
1
2
0.48
9.85
5.40
1
3
0.48
9.73
2.75
1
3
0.58
9.79
2.75
1
3
0.68
9.85
2.74
1
3
0.78
9.90
2.74
1
3
0.88
9.95
2.73
1
3
0.98
10.00
2.73
1
3
1.08
10.04
2.72
1
3
1.18
10.08
2.72
1
3
1.28
10.12
2.72
1
3
1.38
10.16
2.71
1
3
1.48
10.19
2.71
Seg #
Reach ##
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
WINTER
MODEL @ 0.5 MGD, SITE 1
JUST DWNSTRM OF TAYLOR TOGS
NBOD
Flow
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
1.15
9.02
8.18
9.79
8.16
9.79
8.14
9.79
8.12
9.79
8.11
9.79
2.57
44.29
2.57
44.29
2.57
44.29
2.56
44.29
2.56
44.29
2.56
44.29
2.55
44.29
2.55
44.29
2.55
44.29
2.55
44.29
2.54
44.29
NBOD
Flow

Burnville/Micaville WWTP
PLt4STA4i dyr- T4Y uX 7zs CS)
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
6.3
7Q10 (CFS)
6.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (U
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.27
IWC (%)
6.87
IWC (%)
6.87 ABou
Allowable Concentration (ug/
247.32
Allowable Concentration (m
10.89 jq f(
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
9
Fecal Limit
200/100mi
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
Ratio of 13.5 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
4.91
Allowable Concentration (m
32.38 --
NCO086657 8/9101

Burnville/Micaville WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
6.3
7Q10 (CFS)
6.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (U
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.27
IWC (%)
10.95
IWC (%)
10.95 NAp
Allowable Concentration (ug/
155.19
Allowable Concentration (m
6.93 (3/,a5-)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
9
Fecal Limit
2001100m1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.5
Ratio of 8.1 :1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.775
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL
0.22
IWC (%)
7.93 NIO
Allowable Concentration (m
20.15C '7°
NCO086657
819/01

41
08/09/2001 13:35 FAX [phone]
McGILL ASSOCS. 1@001
bo, rk,5 "Vvel-f-
McGifl
A S S O C I A T E S
April $0, 2001
Mr. David Goodrich
North* Carolina Department of Environment,
Heal and Natural Resources
Division of dater Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27626-0535
! RE: Town of Burnsville
Request for Speculative Effluent
Limitations
Dear have:
I' On the behalf of the Town of Burnsville, we are requesting speculative effluent
limitations for the two discharge a points shown on the enclosed map. We would like
P P
speculative effluent limitations for discharges of 0.30 MGD and 0.50 MGD . The influent
wastewater is expected to be typical municipal wastewater.
We appreciate your assistance with this very important issue. If you have any
quesa ns, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
DANA J. BOLDEN
Enclosure
cc: Tom Storie, Public Works Director
932A0nemrsld$a0aprM001.doc
n g i n e e r i n g ° P l a n n i n g 4P F i n a n c e
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 24RR02 •. SS Broad Street, Asheville. NC 2880J
828-252.0575 • FAX .828-2S2-2518

yh".ge' (�• ��
m � ; :,% •'6rzberee �t✓` A�ry�� l� � � �M 16 I � i w , � � i � ��a�
4e
UaNEngp CN4PGN � — , 1 n / " /� '�� •• F
(J v
-74 4' s`j'j{j�jp(��,( - �(I //��I1`I t
'( /��(�'1�-- W':'4Gst<C'Eer1�I'�l 2 / �----
"73
6CF
if
1 i
,I 32Qp L z ROCmspn Cem
\/ ot

MOO
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
August 1, 2000
Sent via fax - 1 page total
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Storey
Town of Burnsville
From: Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NPDES Unit staff
Subject: Status of spec limits request
0
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Storey, I received a call from the DENR Secretary's Office regarding the status of this project. They
asked me to respond to your query after updating them.
Your request for speculative limits was assigned to Mark McIntire, a former Environmental Engineer H
with the NPDES Unit. Mark left DENR on June 2nd, but agreed to work part-time to complete his
remaining projects. Your speculative limits request is among his remaining projects, and he will
complete it as soon as possible. The NPDES Unit Supervisor will be meeting with Mark later this week
to discuss a timetable for completion of Mark's remaining projects.
Mark's projects have not been assigned to another engineer because there isn't one available. The
NPDES Unit has had at least 3 positions (from a staff of 13) consistently vacant since October 1998,
with 5 positions vacant for much of last year. The remaining staff members are carrying very heavy
workloads. Reassigning Mark's work to one of them would force another set of projects to be set aside.
Mark (like two other staff members who departed before him) has agreed to help his former co-
workers during a very lean time, and we're grateful for his help.
As soon as I have more information on the likely completion date for your request, I will forward it to
you. Thanks for your patience and understanding as we operate with a depleted staff.
If you have any additional questions, contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed
below.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 511 (fax) 919733-0719
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET@ hftpJm2o.enr.sta1e.nc.us/NPDES [e-mail]

NCDENR-DWQ Fax:[phone]
Transmit Conf . Report **
Rug 1 '00 14:15
NCDENR-DWQ ---> 88286827757
No.
0003
Mode
NORMRL
Time
0'47"
Pages
1 Page(s)
Result
0 K

Re: Burnsvil% Permit application
Subject: Re: Burnsville Permit application
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 200011:05:24 -0400
From: Charles Weaver <[e-mail]>
To: Laura DeVivo <[e-mail]>
Laura, nothing is currently happening with this request, for the reasons outlined below. I'll call Mr. Storey and let him
know why.
Burnsville originally submitted a permit application in February 1999. (The package was forwarded to NPDES from the
Construction Grants & Loans section.) Mark McIntire was the engineer assigned to review the application. There was
some intial confusion over exactly what Burnsville was requesting - a new WWTP at a new location (requiring a separate
NPDES permit) or a new WWTP at the existing location (a major modification of the existing permit). The application
was for a new WWTP to replace the Town's current one, which has numerous problems.
On 2/25/99, Mark wrote a response letter to the Town. He outlined deficiencies in the Town's evaluation of alternatives
to discharge of wastewater and requested additional information.
On 11/17/99, Wanda Frazier of the Asheville Regional Office sent e-mail to Mark indicating the ARO's concurrence
with Burnsville's revised application. The ARC) endorsed a new WWTP location for Burnsville.
On 11 /22/99, the State Clearinghouse approved the revised permit application for Burnsville, saying that "no further
clarification" on the alternatives analysis would be necessary for their purposes.
On 3/28/00, the Town requested speculative limits for the proposed new WWTP. Speculative limits are issued for
proposed municipal WWTPs, as they will involve public funds. By issuing spec limits, DWQ can help prevent
construction of facilities in areas where no permit could be issued. Spec limits say (in effect) "If you build a plant at
location X, your limits will probably be V. Burnsville would have been better served in 1999 by a spec request than a
permit application. Until the modeling work for the spec limits is done we can't act on a permit application.
The spec request is the last piece of correspondence in the file.
Mark McIntire left DWQ on June 2, 2000. He's working with us to complete the projects assigned to him at the time of
his departure, including the spec limits for Burnsville. Given our ongoing staff shortage, there isn't anyone to whom this
can be reassigned. We've consistently had 3 vacancies (from a staff of 13) since October 1998, with 5 vacancies
for much of last year.
I'll be talking with Mark this week - I'll see if he has any new info on this.
Let me know if you need any additional information.
CHW
1 of 1 7/31 /200011:05 AM

/Im
@McGill
A S S O C I A T E S
March 24, 2000
Mr. David Goodrich
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Dave:
111 \ MAA 2 8 2000
RE: Town of Burnsville
Request for Speculative Effluent Limitations
On the behalf of the Town of Burnsville, we are requesting speculative effluent limitations
for a discharge t rabtree Creek as shown of the enclosed portion of the Micaville USGS
Quadrangle map. We would like speculative effluent limitations for discharges of 0.30 MGD and
0.50 MGD. The influent wastewater is expected to be typical municipal wastewater.
We appreciate your assistance with this very important issue. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
DANAJ.BOLDEN
Enclosure
cc: Tom Storie. Public Works Director
The Honorable Marvin Holland, Mayor
Michelle Lawhern, County Manager
93240/Ie1ters/dg24mi00.dm;
C 75u1 �,ZZ
nro5m 7—Z—�a
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802 • 55 Broad Streei, Asheville, NC 28801
828-252-0575 • FAX [phone]

�
-
l
;11�vIMF, ;J
� �> -
\
1,
� �,
rl �--�
�, � •�
�
C
�
,.� /,'
p�
,� =:�
v
Ste,_ � ✓°4:1�
oposed Discharge Poi,d , �S- ' •� _
- L
�
�'l-..
� I
vJ��-
,—/\LJ
A Mt
3-B Yopoguads Copyright 0 1999 OeLom Yanouth, IM 04096 Source Data: WE I-�950 it Scale: 1 : 24,000 Detail: 13-0 Data: BEB4

Re: Bum%ville/Micaville...
Subject: Re: Burnsville/Micaville...
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:41:58 -0500
From: Wanda Frazier <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
To: Mark Mcintire <[e-mail]>
Mark,
Sorry about the confusion. In talking with the Town (Tom Storie & the
operators) and looking around the existing WWTP site, it is evident that there is no
place to go with a plant upgrade/expansion. The WWTP is locked in by a state road,
other neighbors' property and the river. Moving to a new site and building a new
WWTP is definately the way to go. The new site will allow them to move the
composting operation and improve plant performace at the existing WWTP.
Let me know it you need more opinions/info.
Mark Mcintire wrote:
> I guess I wasn't as
> alternatives, which
> Upgrade the existing
> Micaville; or
> Continue to operate
> serve Micaville.
Thanks,
Wanda
clear as I should have been. Given the following two
do you think is the best:
facility with an expansion and provide collection system to
the existing plant while building an additional plant to
> Thanks for you response.
> Mark
> Wanda Frazier wrote:
> Mark,
> Burnsville definately needs a
> is falling apart and can't handle
> additional growth.
new WWTP and discharge permit. Their old WWTP
the incoming flow now, much less
Thanks,
Wanda
> Mark Mcintire wrote:
> Wanda,
> Hope things are going well in Asheville. Thanks for returning my phone
> call last week. Sorry I haven't gottan back to you until now. I was
> writing to get your opinion on something. We've received a request from
> Burnsville for a new discharge permit serving the Micaville area. They
> completed an EAA for the project and it turns out that the new plant
> will only be about 5 a more expensive over the long term than connecting
> to the existing plant. Based on your knowledge of the situation there,
> do you think it would be beneficial for us to push them to extend their
> collection system to the Micaville area, or should we proceed with a new
> discharge for that area?
1 of 2 11/17/1999 2:58 PM

Re: Burnsville/Micaville...
fa
> Thanks for any input you can provide.
> Mark
> Mark D. McIntire
> Environmental Engineer
> NPDES Unit - Division of Water Quality
> 1617 Mail Service Center
> Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
> [phone], extension 553
> mailto:[e-mail]
> Wanda Frazier - Wanda. [e-mail]
> North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
> Asheville Regional Office
> Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
> 59 Woodfin Place
> Asheville, NC 28801
> Tel: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
> Mark D. McIntire
> Environmental Engineer
> NPDES Unit - Division of Water Quality
> 1617 Mail Service Center
> Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
> [phone], extension 553
> mailto:[e-mail]
Wanda Frazier - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Wanda Frazier <Wanda.Frazier@a ncmai1.net>
NC DENR - Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2 of 2 11 / 17/ 1999 2:5 8 PM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 25, 1999
The Honorable Marvin Holland, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
Post Office Box 97
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RE50URCE5
Subject: Additional Information Request
Town of Burnsville
NDPES Permit # NCO086657
Yancey County
Dear Mayor Holland:
On February 5. 1999. the Division received a permit application for a new 0.3 MGD
wastewater treatment facility serving the town of Burnsville. A review of that application has
indicated that additional information is needed regarding alternatives to the proposed discharge to the
South Toe River. The Environmental Assessment did evaluate alternatives, however the evaluation
does not provide sufficient justification for issuance of an NPDES permit. Before further processing
of the NPDES permit application can occur, evidence that alternatives were reviewed in detail must be
provided.
As stated on page 3 of the Environmental Assessment, alternative 2 would involve the
extension of a water line to the Micaville area and construction of pump stations to serve the area.
The economics of this alternative must be compared to those for alternative 5, construction of a new
0.5 MGD facility. An evaluation of alternative 2 should include an inventory of realistically potential
wasteflows so as to support the claim that expansion of the existing Burnsville WWTP may be
necessary should it begin accepting wastewater from the Micaville area. Both alternatives must
include an inventory of all capital and recurring costs with sites to the sources of those costs.
Additionally, a twenty-year present value must be calculated for both alternatives. Finally, some
indication that non -discharge alternatives were evaluated must be provided.
1 am forwarding a copy of this correspondence to Mr. John Coxey. P.E. at McGill Associates,
P.A. if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
me at telephone number [phone]. extension 553.
Sincerely
Mark McIntire
NPDES Unit
Cc: NPDES Permit File a
Asheville Regional Office, Water Quality
PAN EQUAL OPPORTULNITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 'EMPLOYER 50%ERECYCLED/ 9 0%POST-CONSUMER PAPERS

Author: Jay Lucas at NRDEMCGP
Date: 2/2/99 1:58 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: Cecil Madden
Subject: Burnsville-Micaville and Old Fort
------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------------------------
I have reviewed the project scope of both of these PERs. Neither one
exceeds the regulations for minimum criteria and an environmental
review will not be required.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment 4•
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor D E N R
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
To: Jeanette Fumey
State Clearinghouse
From: Gloria Putnam
DWQ SEPA Coordinator
Subject: Town of Burnsville-Micaville Wastewater Treatment Systems Improvements
Yancey County
DENR# 99C-0682, DWQ# 12430
The Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed McGill & Associates' August 19, 1999 response
to our July 9, 1999 comments on the proposed Burnsville-Micaville Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
Division is satisfied with the response and requires no further clarification on the alternatives analysis
provided through this intergovernmental review process.
If I can be further assistance, please contact me at 919-733-5083, extension 567.
Cc: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
Mark McIntire, NPDES Unit
Wanda Frazier, ARO

NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCOEVITT
SECRETARY
A. PRESTON HOWARD,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 2, 1999
MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
To: Charles Weaver
Environmental Engineer
NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
From: Cecil Madden, Supervisor 1�
Design Management Unit v ---
Construction Grants & Loans Section
Subject: Town of Burnsville
New 300,000 GPD WWTP
Permit No. NC00
High Unit Cost Grant
Yancey County
Transmitted herewith are five copies of the NPDES Application, one $400 check,
the Engineer's transmittal letter and one copy of the engineer's preliminary engineering
report and one copy of the environmental assessment.
A preliminary review of the document by our Facilities Evaluation Unit indicates
that the proposed project is a minimum criteria project and does not need to be circulated
through the State Clearinghouse. The Town proposes to construct a new 300,000 GPD
W WTP.
We have no plans and specifications at this time; however, we will be issuing the
issuing the Authorization to Construct once all reviews are complete and the NPDES
permit has been issued.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please advise if any questions.
can be reached at [phone] or at [e-mail].
cc: FEU
DMU
SRG
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS SI LOANS SECTION
P.O. BOX 29579, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0579
PHONE [phone] FA% 919-715-6229
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Author: Jay Lucas at NRDEMCGP
Date: 2/2/99 1:58 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: Cecil Madden
Subject: Burnsville-Micaville and Old Fort
------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------------------------
I have reviewed the project scope of both of these PERs. Neither one
exceeds the regulations for minimum criteria and an environmental
review will not be required.

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO020290
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Burnsville
FACILITY NAME: Town of Burnsville WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor -4
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.80 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
73.8 %
26.2 %
RECEIVING STREAM: the Cane River
Class: C-Trout
Sub -Basin: 04-03-07
Reference USGS Quad: D9NE (please attach)
County: Yancey
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 12/31/96 Treatment Plant Class: Class III
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Mark McIntire
01
Prepared by: Mi4fe(Z12
Reviewed by:
i
Date: 6/5/96
Date: ,3G
Date: l cI
i r
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
s -t'3 -
4A I— 1(0
S4 C,14
Drainage Area (min3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): I
7Q10 (cfs) 1 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) ain 30 2 cfs
Q ( ) 9-0
Toxicity Limits: IWC (0 % Acute hro c
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters it er G
upstream 0-6oye- Pl'x -f w
P ion
Downstream At U 5-/ 1 ation
tuft tuent
Characteristics
BOD5
NH3-N (mg/l)
D.O. (mg/1)
Summer/A/x
3y
TSS (mg/1)
30
F. Col. (iioo In])
Zoo
PH (SU)
6-1
Pee C� �
a7�
DEG (it,
[-rAl
Winter
0 0 0 0 0 0
o���o
•0 •E .E .0 .0 oo . .0
lk cb
it o
Q
,voa��`.c��
UUUz NU.'EiZ
LL LL ,
Comments: 41nf)'11-5 -pole t� h� It lbTP_.c�

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452
PAGE 01
a.
O," T--i4-19% 09:49 ' r l warms ours..
TYPC of Was=
Row"Sty_ as
'on:
a�bbasian:
I' � �N i : Dri. r
S!�
TOW Que.-
FAU ►S " r
Town Of Bur
M0020290
73.S% dom!'26.2% fia
Cana
04-03-07
Ash�ie
fork
��/
M
Wa. Moon m
OPFcQach tip, GQMwPor&.A= wfth rc&n, EPA,, f.)
Pos "Fax Note 7671
�-
p °gash`
ro
p}gnQ #
Phono #
Fax t►
Fax #
A •
USQSW
now from im
n� (rtn�;
56.9
SUMM r 7QiO (cfh):
Wmttr
0.0 '
7QIQ (c�fs :
2&0
A now (ch):
�445)=
97.0
3
IWC Mt
40.0
AM�nMY,
N R mp= the facffity has beep norz-camp ,nt av�tb i� 39 cm of the
pest 40 month violet = of their daily max. limf have ocmr ed w
notes ;of yiota dm ut � cm limmhi� Hilt #s� a
fib opi3tnxrthlX average psrnerit vYo 'an:rang sor ss well- 3 and
D4 the f fifty his ceded soyids handUi :problems as the cause for �'MS via atxo in thg
�t p �,$ with � Mont Mtr-M is Y cited as t 5e for the Cblotine
a�td violations- '� region has staged in th'M 'ropvrt th= me phut Ys capah%,pf
Vonsistetsdidy meting 4B pernait Hmils.
�ucut cfaThe rom� 'ty test ai �69� has oa��Y �ood.Tob at rr�aoving B5 tb�
y been passed u);r tip Past 4 yam.
4n o�aifln Cloyated m Meb tbe. Cane River both up and dowrrsmeam of
CmVe rgc have f�xn xr. ortcd i� � , Q� dw pa$c fro YOM rOPU ed e�aent m
ezuW
t ior�� ahotfe the deteeL n vet have bOM =&wxad (an e$ uemi Mg co •
ug1i,, vra$ in DM '95J. A M=m7 Eaitis
Special SchCdUIDRegairements and additional comm= fi n 1�a`viewars:
M
'V�77
�u�
Jere

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452
Q��1'-1 -159C 09:49 FROM DEM WATER WUALr rY SECTION TO
PAGE 02
PRO P. 031,101?
o�'N,'e;
2
f Roaom Ltd W �y; �� ' /� ftj f(�
P
.Rcvie� by
In crarb 1�.4se�smarAt
nagioW Supmisw-
Puts a Baginwrw
bLMURN TO TEC MCAL. SuPioRT i3y..

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452 PAGE 03
QCT--1•��1996 09; 49 FRCC1 DEM WATER QUF LI TY SECTION To A90 p_ 04-W
P,
t✓CiNYMMONAL .PARAMETERS
5dialpTamu
Monthly Avemp
Summed
wcr
wW
fl
SOM (mV7)=
30.0
13��):
�'tOautOdr
TSS
30.0'
W. (/'100 AI):
200
Residual
Qilmitr, );
279.0
M44dGreaw(MO:
30.0
Tew(C):
monitor
TP (*A:
Motdwr
TN M •
Mordtor
moronic toxIciV uw;
6%
dauy maw
•
�f�
mt
>:
BOD5 (tt g
30 0
.
W13N ():
monitor
EL
ISS (mom:
30.0
,
Scal C& (1100 ml):
200PH
,
f
EL
c,wOrIft }:
278.0 *
Q
w ard
30.0
TP {tom� }:
monitor
EL,
I {MAV0)
mon1wr
E.
C:haro»i,c
daily max
.
No Urait changes mwm mer4a
mexplanab= oany math ccaA^
to past madoft
aaalysis imluding now fiow%, rates, fidd data,
CSee page4 for mssc 1t�...,**� md special coafidons, ifpae)

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452
D—14-1996 e9: M FRom mI wATM QUALITY 6EcrroN To
PAGE 04
Ann P - 051-9?
Tgpc OfTocdck- Vest:
=CO
Lead (tX
d�gn)=
.h?mury (a)-
Silver 090.
RecyrnzyMM
{(g:
cmi'7iser (ugil);
MCM
(WA). ):
Mnc (upm:
Silver (USM.-
LUit d awges dW Ito:
4
Tt3 CSVilriE ALA
chronic tour. Adodaphnia) F F
6%
6%
Mawh, Aw, Sept., Dec.
D&Uy Max
6.0
816.0
monitor
monitor
ntanitar
OZ*
M06t*r
Monitor
Daily h+i x WQ or EL
6.0 WQ
monitor
inotdtor
roonhor
monitor
monitor
0.
monitor
A taT tandsl RTWysb was MA using 1993-19% (gyro AprM DUR data. The
MMMUM ]PM1Hc Wdi6iu um cvnwnft un was w4 bdoW ft dbwab� therefore apermitlimit
As not ]HQwevart cMuenc cat wunflons of cbromi= am 14b ono -ugh tp warrant
continued monitorin& bMm= m0wury conconUoAons above tits orate sMad bqp b acm
POMd by ffie fac *ty. 0cc 49unl hie Levels of mmwcry, uP to 6-0 ug f4 have been mcmumd in
d C eMML $$scd on the available data a m=ury Umit is to Ommen&d. iVO 4tha p it
ch2nP$ Arczwou=udcd.
etcr(s) as watts quaULU
imited. FOr $arae parameters, the ava#labxe lcxid city of
the immediaL- re�vmg watts tit cons=sd. This may O fecx fuum waves
effiuent bmitufim for uMdonal diwhama whin tabs poston of the wanwiva bated
to
—.. No am water gturlity FuDi a 4 but WS discharge may 4ffoa future a)tomt ms.

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452
PAGE 05
OCT-Lei-MG 09; S0 F1o1 DFM WATER OUPI I TY SECTION To FRO P. 06.-'07
5
LOT AM MONMRiMO REQUMBMM
Dbwnstltrtttf! Lpctio� n: at US 9 briaboveFine dge
e
m 8 mp $ Cat
SPOcid irt.4=n mo dtodng loc Wotts *r taonit *tquettcies:
The cum=pcmit=quims laatmm moaitoting for tho fonowlag pararact m; DOD.1% 0 ,
Cd� Ct, cylmide, Pb, Zn, N4 A&, and lfg. With tha maption ofHg, insee= meters
concentrations 40=tio be atalevel, wtuch wiunot dtU=hom the wended aces of the dmterefpre„ mercury is the only met ncediog additional monitorinBascd on the avwlabk data
film am BODS c0=eatmfi-0 us appaw t4 be at a. normal tea cotsnd k 2 • L) bo& up =d
downsuvam of the
NtISORLLANBOUS WORMATiON & SFBCIAL CONATCI09,'+T$
Has ttt,G facHity de monsftled the ability to meet the proposed new 1mrYt�s +with g
f errt
mMos� Yes ____ No
Xf ao, which pammew-m 040not be met?
Would a "phasing fm" of tha new limifa be appropriate? 'Yes No ..,_
please provide a shedule (and buts for that scb&hda) with the regionat
officc mcommendifionx
If no, why not?
Wasteiolad seat to EPA? (Wo r) (Y or N)
M Yes, then ate sch=uiic, taxfcs sFradShe4 copy of model, or, if not modeled, tin Old
assumpdons that wmm made, sad description of how it ft utto basinwide n1an)
jw—A,dd OY19l Wonrmdon art d ed? - --- (Y or N) If yes. explain with attacbmae m

10/17/1996 11:06 7042516452 PAGE 06
OCr-3.4-1996 69: 50 FROM DEM WATER MUAL Y 1Y SECTION TO
PRO P.07.-V7
a �
Nme pore& #� pipe �
` 3NTC TOM'':rr' PAM'��:A1L PrRMIT LT!1". (QRTV.T..Y�
do zi= exhibit oluunie wjdV using t pxr�c;e.i�tr�s �tckir� in:
F.O C hlarth Ift"comae e�intpt biooaay a = (math �
��' �� SCpt=bcr 1999) nr abseWat vc�oas, c �Y
ettt Ooncenmdw At whi& dww "Y ba, no oba� ywo ��tlti of
�.�t�»_% (fined as vta�tt tw �#� or a
zu o iri theNvnh Carolina = doom= _ c pQtQt bo�i �t e'
ff-aefl;--1-2
fty dc=ys � tD e h P w�i�h the wit cDrx�o�p, The i tc.�e w,'II �
P'Ment iumt aampH'ig tl& w3
dsschSrp blow ail fta== pwomaL
All toxicity tes w'g F subs ngc�i:+ad as l tb�s & cood dw wily bo entend on ft EMU= • -I� for ib�. oo3dt l2 whkii it was peif=Xd. wi gg tha paw coda 7Wp3a. p
han y� Fww A -I (fig) is to k Ott to dz .&U0wing aMms;
Aumdar Ana ial
Math (koHna Division of
1n
Ra%ighi,ny
M+C. 276W
Test datashall becomplete and =0=tc ad include aH mppt& assodcb� byszc maser a�io3i with the t�7niarY as wa as dw�ase dare. Tam rCsidnal hToainc ed'ti a= m
sample must be surcd and .
reported =i e�hlorine 3s cmplo d f� &gnfecdon ofthe w tm �W
������� Z Ut $ faitmm sa
spdrfod . thpt� ried�the$ shoett js Pa.
dtrPon p�ssh$this tnmhia�ssy� WE
Mv�to q�cy ude months ac�d 40aep ra�waj
Should any test data ft M this inE Or Usti prfc=ed by the Ni th CNVE= DiWm of
Bnvktal M'artagement dieatG 96 to the 700d g SUMA thus
Momad tofncl tdc alMnato mamtaring Mquim=ats or ru�uits. permit�4Y be nod sad
NONE: FaiIm7e to eve = co►aditions a� ed its tha oYtod do�cumcnr; soeh as mimes c�rn4vl
grv'vt+l and a p� .
m e v nrat cx t slit CQ"Sdtutc an imWfd test and •
TeftSting��rithin 30 clads of initial :M0! itmie,W eve. FaUM tv subuut suitable w iestii ��M
naocomp AV00 with rnMitoring req jb;,
s
Pmmimd
Jwc ACD
A03 & SUt0- iasitt
QCL P/F V03 on 9w
TUML P.07

@McGM
A S S O C I A T E S
January 29, 1999
Mr. Don Evans
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Construction Grants and Loans Section
Post Office Box 29579
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0579
Dear Don:
Al(m 8aa 5-7
# 205-114
P/m, 00
/L!C�vnRc
RE: Burnsville/Micaville Wastewater System
Town of Burnsville
Yancey County, North Carolina
On behalf of the Town of Burnsville, please find enclosed for your review five (5) copies
of an NPDES permit application to construct a new 0.3 mgd wastewater treatment facility with a
discharge to the South Toe River. Accompanying the application are the following items:
• Five (5) copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report/Alternative Analysis
• Five (5) copies of the Environmental Assessment
• A check for $400 to cover the processing fee
As we discussed on the telephone regarding this project, we have received speculative
permit limits and these limits have been included in both the preliminary engineering report and
the environmental assessment. We are currently in the process of completing the grant application
for the North Carolina Clean Water Bond Program and are. planning to submit the grant
application by February 9, 1999. A project schedule is attached to this letter detailing other target
dates for the project. We will be contacting your office within the next few days to schedule a
meeting in Raleigh to discuss specific requirements related to the grant application.
E n g i n e e r i n g • P l a n n i n g • F i n a n c e
.McGill Associates. P.A. - P.O. Box 2259. Asheville, NC 28802 • 55 Broad Street, Asheville. NC 28801
704-252-0575 • FAX [phone]

I
MCGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
N.C. Department of Environment and
Voucher Invoice Type Date Reference
2798 96338 Permit Invoice 01/27/99 NPDES Permit Application Fee
Check Number
Date: 1/29/99 Check Amt:
Balance Discount
$400.00 $0.00
2676!�og
$400.00
pay Amount
$400.00

Don, as you requested on a separate project, we have not submitted the NPDES permit
application to the discharge permitting group of NCDWQ, but have submitted it through your
office instead as part of the upcoming grant application package. If you have any questions
regarding any of the information included with this transmittal, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, P.E.
MJW:mjw
Enclosures
cc: Mayor Marvin Holland
Tom Storie
Kelly Pipes
Rick Herndon
93240/de29jan9.doc

PROJECT SCHEDULE
REVISED JANUARY 28, 1999
EAST BURNSVILLE-MICAVILLE
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Begin design - field surveys for easement and property January 25, 1999
acquisitions
Submit NPDES Permit Application to State for approval January 29, 1999
Submit PER, Environmental Assessment February 9, 1999
and grant application to State
Complete topographical surveys April 1, 1999
Submit Plans and Specifications to State for approval May 1, 1999
Complete preparation of plats for easement and August 1, 1999
property acquisition
Advertise for Construction Bids August 1, 1999
Receive Authorization to Construct from State August 15, 1999
Receive Construction Bids September 2, 1999
Complete acquisition of easements and WWTP property September 15, 1999
Award Construction Contract September 30, 1999
Begin Construction October 151 1999
Complete Construction March 1, 2000
93240.00/bridges/misc/schcdrev2.doc

:IM-W
NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND commuNrlY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMIVIISSION
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION 1. APPLICATION AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Unless othmm" speared on tNs form an Iteme eve to be completed K an item b not applicable lndira► * *-
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS
INDICATED. REFER TO BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS.
Pfease Print or Type
�. Legal Name of Applicant 101 Town of Burnsville
(see Instructions)
2 _ Mailing Address of Applicant
(see Instructions) P.O. Box 97
Number & Street lwa
102b Burnsville
NC
1020
Zip Coda 102d 28714
3 Applicant's Authorized Agent
(see Instructions) • . s,: J.
T'
Name and Title 103a _ Marvin Holland
Mayor -- .
Numberzl<Street 10ob P . G. Box 97
City 103c
Burnsville .. ,.. .. ..
1o3d NC
AState - 28714.
,� _._ .... loos_ 828 2-2420 :..
-
w - _ Area
4Number
'-.:.. ,: Previous Application ' _. _ ..._ _ _ . Code . s
If *previous appptication fora _-- -
;'-.'-?;x; Qermit under National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
--�- System has been made give -
the date of appkaSon. YR DAY
i certify that Cam famll ar with the information contained in this application and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such •
information is true, complete; and accurate.-
•:.�_ ._ ..�... ... __ _..,._.._�___ - - Mayor . . .. :..... r-,�.,;•��
Marva n o and 1 io2e
.,..�._ Printed.Name of Person Signing--,.. `_. _ : TM° I; r' `.
102E . .
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent•- -- ---- _ YR Mi0 " 0! AY —
Date Application Signed
•North C-. kDa General Statue 143.215.6 (b f 2) provides that Any person who knowin* makes an false statement •
represent8hon� or certification in an appiica�ory neoord� report, plan, or other document toes or r red to be maintalh d under
Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Commission implementing that Articles or who falsifies, tampers mMthI
or knowin ty renders inaccurate any recording or monitoringg device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article
21 or regulations of the Environmental Management Comm-ission.implementing that Article, shall be ui�y or a misdemeanor .
punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001
or for a similar offense.
provides a punishment by a fine or not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, )

S► Facility (see lnStruCti0n3)
Give 0 name, ownersh'rp, at
phYSiCa€ ioCattOn Of the plan
otheroperating facility where
diacharge(s) presently ooaur(s)
or Namoecarr.
Ownership (Pubic, Private
or both Public and Private)
Check block it a Federal
106a
106b
facility
1050
and give GSA Inventory
Control Number
105d
Location:
Number do Street
1050
' yr
,i
city
1051
CW Ity-
106g
...�.1�77
...
,s�- Site
105h
R =Di do AnotherMunic1pal
Faa'aty see Instructions)
a. Ind€cate if part of your dscsarge
106a
Is into a municipal waste bans-
-' 'port ssyysstem under anotherre-
s : �= _ .3 ponsr�le organization. Ryes,
,:�;,, ~complete the rest of this €tern
-
d conVnue with €tam 7. I no,
- .. go directly to item 7.
_ ...,_ . .
_
t f1•{'C Y..1.. ••
'
�... fi Responsible Otgan€zatiorr
' Discharge
Reoa€vmg
Name
ift . _
• Number & Street
low
City
10Md
low
j♦t'Q`
;" Facility Which Receives
1069,
•. r; : f.. Discharge,
Give the name of the facRy
(waste treatment plant) which re-
places and is ultimately respon-
sible for treatment of the
• discharge from your facirdy.
Average Daily Flow to Facility
106h
~
7. .: Rkillity Discharges, Number and
€nstnrcdons)
;
Wj Bischarge Volume (see
pecif�yy the numberof dscharges
ti... 4 de=BW €n thisapplacation and the
ap
- ' :....
Tlkvolume lost
'
of waterdischar or
W each of the categories txxow.
.4 Esti ride average volume perday in
M106n, gallons per day; Do not include
€ntermittent or noncontinuous,
overflows, bypasses or seasonal ds-
charges from lagoon's, holding
eta
P
East• Burnsville=Micaville WWTP (New Facility)
Approximately 2 miles north of wy 19E9
near S'.R. 1308_(see location map).
® PUB PRY BPP
13 FED*
N/A
N/A
❑Yes. ® No
N/A k
-
� ^�Y`: •i.•AZ•./ •1��il:i6lriut ti.. ��VY� _ -
' . � -. .... -.. •.- � •-
^ lit_ .. w .. .• - ••^ : .._.... _ .
r -v•�•
r •tinnrr-._ lit a '"r �.�•- '
-. .. `J {. r 'i , f. r� ♦ 7.1 _ •1 .. .. i� V-� H .11 : 1 �.. • i•t„ • . 20 .
. .. �;1+��.:�t'w.t:l�;�1�•7;:.-:J-.".'+ii:.E+C•'.i.:taal:
•C!:�.'�:iti;'!:i!-.i• •-
- t�v-. air .� `4j'1 i�r. .ti � � .ir. ti.-'1/•1�.. w �i' '.�••�'F+� i.�-7 i�.7 -
.

. I.
AUMMY U 5b
RN
TO., Surface Water
Surboe Impoundment with
no Efterit
Underground Percolation
Well (Injection)
Other
Total Item 7
If 10"? Is specified, describe
of to discharges from this
facifibf, are Intermitten; such as from
ovedoworby%s Ints,orare
seasonal or bypass lagoons,
holding' ws. etc., complete item 8.
'
F Intermifitmi: Disdwju
a Facil ss pints
Im
irxQeVnmu berof bypass
points for the facility that are
law
po Ints#69 instruc6ons)
b. Faeft Overffow Points
• Indicate the number of overflow
Odribloasurface waterforthe
i
facility (seenstructions)
SeasofW or Periodic Discharge
Points Indicate the number of
points where seasonal discharges
C zi: holding ponds
E
Ny
eh
7Z
Collection System Type
tramte to We and length (in
.....Mlies) of the collection system used
by this facility. (see instructions)
Storm
swhw
.C;ombiried Saftq and Sloan
77
Both Separate San" and
Wined Sewer Systems
Both Separate Storm and
~
CoMbIned Sewer Systems
7
to
view
Municipalities of Area Served
instructions)
A,
Total.PopulatIon Served
107al
107bl
ION
107dl
10701
10711
107gl
loft
1086
low
i_ IOM
1110a
110a
110a
1103.
1110a
Number of
Points
0
0
o
0
10782
t
110*2
1107C2
107C12
10702
lom
TOW Volume Dls&w*,"
Million Gallons Per Day
OvIi
0
N/A
z ;.A5
lihS. 04' OL
SST."-'
SAN
0 BSC
SSO
7-Frll
Actual Populati6n
Name Served
Burn sV i 1.1 e - -1000
Micaville Twns p 110b. 200 f
Yancey C-6 ifn t
110b
• 110b
1100

I'UM AU h GY U
I I 11r. .
11. 1
lizi
11. Total6stimmaatadusO.gLnvd average daily waste 111
low from all Industrial soumm
Note: M major industries (as defined In Section IV)
dscMfgng to the murido systern must be
listedIn Section IV.
M.. Permits, Uoenses and Applications N/A ses and applications related to discharges from this faclity (see
Ust all g e)dsng, pending or denied permits, ken
InshudPr1s)
IssLing
Agency
For
Ag&W
Use
T ype of
Peftnit or
Ucense
ID Number
Date
Filed
YR/MO/DA I
Dale
Issued
AM
YFUMOIDA
Dab
led
W1
YR/MO/DA
M-R'111 M =1'1�:%Nti
M, Maps and Dr*ngs
See attached
jt
Attach al reciulmd maps
and drawings b the back
of Us application.
(pee instructions)
14. Information
N/A
-Adcirmw
-------------------- Item
W.- -- v7'Number
InformaVoWr"'
q-
L tn

STANDARD FORM A » MUNICIPAL
SECTION 11. BASIC
DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
for dscharge indicated In Section I. Berm 7 and 8. that is to srirfaa'waters:-This
Complete this section each present or proposed
Includes dscharges to other municipal sewerage systems In which
Discharges to must
the waste water does not go through s treatment woft prior to -
be described there are also dt"hV_ ges to surface waters from
being dt d to sudaee waters. wells when
this fallt�yy. arate descriptions of each discharge we required wen if severe! dt es originate In the same tadiity. e, values
V$t �n. Is decif values
for an scharge should be representative of the WON*
previous months of p this a proposed
should reflect best engineering estimates.
,
:.. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS
INDICATED. REFER TO BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS.
r
-_
1. Discharge Serial No. and Name
001
a Discharge Serial No. 2DIa
(see hstructions)
i• . j
pwjre� Name 201b
South Toe River Di schar e
C•rve the name of dscharge, N
any (see instructions)
... .....:�
a Pmvrous Discharge Serial No Me
N/A
"a re NPDES permit
t nation was made for this ds
...... _ ... _
• (Item 4, Section 1) provide
discharge serial
'
previous
number.
�a
:., •• " ~' ��
2 Drscha Operating Dates
F ?t t .'-�a:� u[;:- r r��f.� ►�" ,,
2000 03
• a Disc to Bon Date 2oea
If the discharge has never
�. _ , .
YR MO„`, `�'"
:.g ocawt�rre/d,�,�but forsome
yawned
.1
a •r!'•' :�TJ �wzjox future data, gin the date Y N
gin
•, is �- i . .� .. .: •-
. , . _ •�: =� • ;f:•` ., ...:+ • t.ti -.: T� c?. `t w`:_'`=� i. -%.f • ..
-_ dscharge beg(
. "•• 't; wry n•
'
.`: .. � it l r`.N :�aji•.y i;�:,�.i3:f iyz, ;-...-A,
` h Discharge to End Date If the 202b
N/A '
~�: stY dsdhacye is schedu{ed tc be
• ' the next 5
�. dsoontinued within
YR M
- .�--_�=� =�� 40.Z7M ��• A•
: .
.. years. give the date (WWn best
M i�:4`��.,._�'�`'�`{
to ; estimate) the discharge wilI end
:�;: •• 3g1►i�'
;
Give reason for dscontinufng
this discharge In item 17.
Discharge Location Name h
oundadeswithin which
r[ts^• .�, ~
,�.a+"%Y�•�N� r"; `
th$ pointof discharge is bcateck
4• p.1�^"�• N
i-.:�:Sa�t"S'-'AA..
203a
Rc
Stab
f'y►,;.. County,
•S t 203
Yancey
'�- (!f appCrcable) City orTown 2ooc
N/A QAiI
f Point Description
r k -Mwhargo
z see ens etions
s� -�-0
c �5
Y
into (chock one)
.
#
w Stream (includes ditches, arroyos, 2 Xa
.
® SIR
and other watercourses
_
'L-___�_�-. _ ... ,
.. ❑ EST " 'w.( ...- :L'.• ;.�^-•` :i•
I
,. .
LKE
a (. �. ...
Ocean...
(•'�. :..•-rye :-<:I7L••l '.1 �:••YMr
❑ OCE -
' Well (injection)❑
,:.
WEL�
'
` • Od�ec:
001N. i : ^•1 r
'tf'oth9' a is checked, specify IYPe 204b
j =' ``. :1 . r'`rc
1 Discharge Point - LaVLong
State the precise location of the
point of dscharge to the nearest
s
second (see instructions)
• 20sa
Latitude
35 .4 DEG. 5_6-_ MIN...• . -:,' SEC
hongidude 205b
8 DEG 1�_MIN. 0�_SEC
.

K)H AUENGY Ubdh
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
Dischar
ge R000lving Water Name
Name the waterwW at the point of Ma S0Uth'T6e-.- R I ve .,..,:..,*"cbeharge.(see instructons)
9 the discharge Is through an ouftl that extends M N/A
beyond the shoreline or is below the mom low
water fine, complete Item 7,
m For Agencv Use or
ajor I minor I Sib
I W-1
For Agency Use
3 032
7
Offshore Discharge
a Discharge Distance from Shore M N/A last
b. Discharge Depth Below Water M
If dliohirgq Is from a bypass or an overflow point or b a seasonal discharge from a lagoon, hokffnj
'..,9,0r 10.asapplicable and continue with Item 11.
8L Bypass Discharge (we Instmdons)
a Bypass O=rmnoe
r TIE
Ctie* when bypass occurs ' 'i
Wet weather 208a1 ❑ Yes 0 No
2OW No .,:t
Dry weather YO S
Bypass tL
� -V - . : -
ss Frequency Give the
A
actual or �pprwft
u.,
W" ate number
d bypass Incidents per. yo
Wetweather 20eb1 Me$'
par year
Dry weather 208b2- mes peryear
Bypps Duration Give the TTaver-
age bypass duration In hours. -Two .0 tip.? =.—
Wet weather 208ol
S,
hi 4 Dry weather 2M tilaq W.
d Bypass Volume Give the
average volume per bypass
incident in thousand gallons
Wet weather 20".
= thousand gallons perinck3ent
Dry weather w h*bn!
thousand gatons p
a Bypass Reasons Give masons 20e9
why bypass occurs
Pioceod to Item 11.
'Overflow Discharge (sea Instruction s
-TO NYA
Overflow Occurrence Chodc
a- -... whe
n overflow occurs
Wet weather 209a1 ❑ Yes No
Dry weather 0
N Yoe
r. ixOverflow Frequency Give the
actual or approximate
incidents per year
Wetweaftr —Lemes poFyear
Dry weather 20"_times per year
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
Dischar
ge R000lving Water Name
Name the waterwW at the point of Ma S0Uth'T6e-.- R I ve .,..,:..,*"cbeharge.(see instructons)
9 the discharge Is through an ouftl that extends M N/A
beyond the shoreline or is below the mom low
water fine, complete Item 7,
m For Agencv Use or
ajor I minor I Sib
I W-1
For Agency Use
3 032
7
Offshore Discharge
a Discharge Distance from Shore M N/A last
b. Discharge Depth Below Water M
If dliohirgq Is from a bypass or an overflow point or b a seasonal discharge from a lagoon, hokffnj
'..,9,0r 10.asapplicable and continue with Item 11.
8L Bypass Discharge (we Instmdons)
a Bypass O=rmnoe
r TIE
Ctie* when bypass occurs ' 'i
Wet weather 208a1 ❑ Yes 0 No
2OW No .,:t
Dry weather YO S
Bypass tL
� -V - . : -
ss Frequency Give the
A
actual or �pprwft
u.,
W" ate number
d bypass Incidents per. yo
Wetweather 20eb1 Me$'
par year
Dry weather 208b2- mes peryear
Bypps Duration Give the TTaver-
age bypass duration In hours. -Two .0 tip.? =.—
Wet weather 208ol
S,
hi 4 Dry weather 2M tilaq W.
d Bypass Volume Give the
average volume per bypass
incident in thousand gallons
Wet weather 20".
= thousand gallons perinck3ent
Dry weather w h*bn!
thousand gatons p
a Bypass Reasons Give masons 20e9
why bypass occurs
Pioceod to Item 11.
'Overflow Discharge (sea Instruction s
-TO NYA
Overflow Occurrence Chodc
a- -... whe
n overflow occurs
Wet weather 209a1 ❑ Yes No
Dry weather 0
N Yoe
r. ixOverflow Frequency Give the
actual or approximate
incidents per year
Wetweaftr —Lemes poFyear
Dry weather 20"_times per year

0.
N.
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
a Overflow Duration Give the
average coed ow duration in
hours."•-
Wet weather
rrJ
Dry weather
d Overtbw Volume Give the
averagevolume per overflow
inddent in thousand galona
Met weather
Dry weather
Proceed to Item 11
fa ' Seasonal Periodc Discharges
i a . SeasonaWenode Disc�ar e
! ; Frequency It discharge is inter=
I rrittent from a holding pond,
- tag=.eh, give the actual or
appro)dmate number fines
this discharge oxum per year.
- h SeasonaVPeriodC Discharge
VdrSume Give the average
='volume perdischarge
occurrence in thousand
t< gallons.
ti � �• �L•Y - '
ac�_aSon311Per10dC D1sCt18rge
Duration Give the average data•
Son of each discharge
�`'occumenoe In days.
x ' d Serial Redodc Discharge
Ooainence-Months Check the
r nnoritFls during the yearwhen
th_e dscharge normally ocaiM
. _
4 i
fig{ i1. DiTreatment
y9� a, Qischaa Treatment
�:� Descrip on
' Oescnbe waste abatement prat
<�s
Noes used on this discharge
with a brief narrative. (See
instructions)
+1 )-• yam. - -
. -_hours
c.: f ':, � �.-�w'���� :.��•a
209c1
209d1
ftxa nd gallons perirrcident '
209d2
thousand gallons perh*knt
210a N/A times per year .
210b tllOUswW gallac►s per dsctuLW occurrence
.q
210C 'days 411
_ t ► .
210d M❑ JAN ❑ FEB z M. t ,�
❑ APR I ❑ MAY ❑ JUN
❑ JUL, ❑ AUG ❑ SEP `
❑ OCT ❑ NOV ❑DEC
t
i
•• tom`` .,
211a Treatment to consist of
primarytreatment using a- bar screen,
followed bY biolo ical. treatment
using 'activated sludge process with `
1
ration basins followed b secondary'
clarification chlorination, and
dechlorination using sulfur- dioxide. .-
Sludge to be treated.by'aerobic
digestion and dewatered by a belt
filter Press. Final slud a disposal
_is by land application.

jiat,
1.1 ..
1-UHAUhNOY
U15UMAKUr. t5r.MML NUMBER
Discharge Treatment codes
211b S9 ASE, N. PG, dechlor-
Using the codes fisted In Table I
of the Instruction BooWq%
dewAm the waste abatement
pr+oossses appred to this ds-
the ombrin whIch
=In
r, if possible.
Separate al codes with
commas except where Washes
we used to designate parallel
ff this c6scharge, Is from a municipal waste
treatment plant (not an overflow or bypass).
oc�"te Items 12 and 13
1z Plant PeOm and Operation Manuals
Check which of the Wowing are
currently available
I�: a Engineering Deign Report
212a
h Operation and Mainbrianoe
2i2b
El
Manual
Plant Design Data (see Instructions)
Plant Des* rbw (Mgd)
213a
0.3
b, Plant Design SOD Removal 0
01
213b
85
Q Plan t Design N Removal
2130
50 I
Plant Design Removal
213d
•P
0 4-1 5
.
.85
.... J Plant Design SS Removal (0/6)
2130
:a
Plant Began Operation (ymo
2131
dsti M
Plant Last Major Revision (Yeal
2139
N/A
V
tv
—1- Ti
r
Vt�w Wamtr-Q,
;5�—i* no
V.

DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
- Parameter and Code
214
How
Million gallons per day
50050
Un-ris
00400
emperature kyAnterj
t, OF
7402d
--Temperature summer
ip OF
t
7,W
Fecal plococo Bactsna
.' Number/100 ml
74054
(Provide it available)
orm utactena
Number/100 ml
i 74056
;(Provide N available)
Totaloo i orm Bactena
Number/100 ml
. 74056.
(Provide R available)
UQU
} -clay
mgil
r . 00310
erica n Ida
O) '.
mgA
.'
00340
f (Provide it available)
1- OR
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
'(Provide a it available)
(Either analysis is acceptable)
Chlonne-Total Residual
m9n
50060
N/A - New Facility
14. Description of Influent and Effluent (see Instructions)
n uen uen
Average Monthly Monthly Or/Vnarysw mwYa
Value Average Ave age
Value Value
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) .(7)

-
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
14. Description of Influent and Effluent (sea Inslnrcti0113) (Continued)
' k
t..
nrouent uen
Annual nes es a envy
umnType
Parameter and Code
Average: Average Monthly Monthy olAnaysis
Aa
Value VaAie Average ' Ave age
214
Valua Value
..... ..
_ 1 .. 2 3 4 5
oSolids
i mo
o sso i
t
i
gA
,
im
mw
llolalsuspenowSolicis-
' mv
.:.
'
mVl
W545
Ammonia (as N)
gn
00610
(Provide if available)
._
0.
mgA
mgA
(Provide it available)
as
ii{t
�/meMr�
Y
VN 0/
4�- (Provide it available)
as
-
00615
(Provide it available)
mill
00565
(Provide it available)
sso ve gen
o . c-_
=_ mgA
. .

E
N Of
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
N/A - New Facility
15. Addtionai Wastawatar Chatacteristic:s ,
Check the box next b each parameterIf k Is Present in the effluent (see Instructions)
arame
m wn
POOR
ream
scams r
tesen
(216)
(215)
(215)
rom
lum
• 71870
01037
01069
.
n
Chromium
Titanium
. 00940
01034
01152
per.
rn
00720
01042
01102
uon
Iron
zinc
00961
01045
01092
sum
LOW
gr
.... 4 00745
.
_
01051
74061 .
w
., umrnum
. 01105
01055
74052
n y
en,ury
9�
oloV
oo5eo
Moybdenum
es a
• ..: '...`: 01002 . .
01082
74063
01012
_
01067
32730
Uanurn
01007boron
er
Mon
a Eoac
01=_
..
,:,. .... rum - .....
._........._.
,_....._ __.....
...,.._ .
_.._ .._.._ ..._._
.. .
01W
4.
z � r� ` ..:.,,.....,.,:.... _. .. � ..sue ..•. y•..K,., . _ _,. - . _.. .. ,. .. _. .- _
#Provide specific compound and/orelementIn item 17, 9 known.
Pesticides (lnsecttddes fungtddes' and mdentiddes}must be rieport$d in terms of 1he a�eptab�e common names spedfied In
Acceptable Common Ajames and Z&Gical Names for the ingn9 fent Statement on Pesticide f the 2 nd Edition, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20260, Jtme 1972, as mquired Subse'dtion 162.7 (b) of the Regulations for the
Enforcemet ofthe FederW insec t dde, Fungidde, and Rodenbdde Acf.

DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
1a Plant Controls Check N the folowing
plant oontr+ois ate available for this
"7 cisohaW 216
•'� Aitemate •power source for mayor
_... ,v pumping hdity inducling those
for collection system aR stations E] APS
t Alarm for power orequlpment
faliurre _. ® ALM
17. AdcsftW Information
em --------------
Number Dosenepon
- t
r ham••. fi. ,�• • • •1h. .-I �. •. .,-
' +3 '�`�•(• t �.- •,i.. `"---•'?� ... .• ... -. .x. r. .� —a-.:.s+•...r..�.....r:..r:v'Ar.•-,w.....•..--....,c-...:.,.. .... .�....F r•......•►+w•�.•w.w►t+►�:•.- ... .-._ ....ww•� - _
..Mawr-.' .�. -... ...-._.. ._ .- ... ._..._ �• ••� .ram... ..--.--.,r ...,. .. ,....- .. .. ...-w...: .a: �......
T�� r_ •.. .. •... �..•.. •C .'._.:p. t +.':...t- ram, .1. ,wN.�•, 'J.� .. r.^ .
'143SS`AslipliJLai� la�iy.i'- .. � •. ._. T.:•, °. .? ? t. . . - .•�^ �' '4 .�:GI..� ^ _ _

■.�1�h.Lci�►�i
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION III::. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS AND SCHEDULES OF IMPLEMENTATION
This section wires Information on any uncompleted Implementation sdhedule which has been irn for construction of waste
Imatment tacils. Requirement schedules ma have been established by local, Stab, or Fedetaf egendes orby court action. IF
YOU ARE SUBJECT TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES EITHER BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT .
LEVELS SEPARATE AUTHORITY
UN TIS (ITEM Icy SUBSCHEDULES EAFf EMSE8 ON�aFOTR EACH CONSTRUCTIONOF;
Improvements Required
.. a.___ Dis char 1.3s da Numbers 300
Aff_..:. serial numbers, assi In
- _ -- Section 11, that are covered by
this implementation schedule
' h Authority Imposing Require- 301a 0 ,
I ment Check the appropriate
Item
Indicating the authority
for the implementation schedule
_ t It ttie identical implementation
-a air•- by =
,._ has been Ordered
F- more than one authority, chedc
the appropriate items. (see
Instructions)
r , =c* developed plan 3016 ®
.....,�. _:,. L�A�� eawi t.�ll� ❑ARE
' fV• ViI�I Basin n OBAS ,
State approved implementation SOSschedule
Federal approved waberquality - []WQS ` F: .: =_ . ^, _ ., ` •" .;
standards implementation plan
' Federal enforcemmt pmoedure ❑ ENF
o}action ..
1. �wrSte oourtorder ❑CRT `
'- J 'f'�'-1 •rFederal court order • ❑FED 3 •f: •• •'.� �.ttY �. :t ^.7i�,�.. I^t� -
;= t
+ a Improvement Description Specly 3-character Dods for the General Action _
psption in Table I that best desCrbes.the improvements required the`: �_ -y •. a;.-� =- _
1 1 - -
-Y implementation schedule. If more than one schedule applies to the faa W- because �-
-�----: of a staged construction schedule, state the stage o�toonstnrction beiing described_
�Y w• here with the approopriate general action Dods. Submits separate Section 11I foreacti . n,
�- ......: stage of construction planned. Also, Est all the 3 cfharacter Specific Act;onj codes which
describe in more detail the pollution abatement practices that the Implementation schedule requlses. .a•
t 3•oharacter general action 301C
1 •VI 't f fY
description
34aracter speafc action 301d P $ � S LD -
2
Implementation Schedule and 3. Actual Complete Data
,
Provide dates imposed by schedule and any actual dates of completion
for implementation steps i'isted below.
Indicate dates as accurately as possible. (see instructions)
'
Implementation Steps 2. Schedule
(yrlMo/Day)
3. Actual Completion MIMOJDay)
-
a Preliminary plan complete 3M
-h
8 1 1/ 98
99
303a
-J 98
�J�
;:- .~.
Final plan complete 3Mb
_J 1
3oeb
N/A
_
m Financing complete & contract 302c
9 32 99
mo
r
n
d Site aoquired 302d
_ 1_._.'1 99
3o3d
a. Begin aonstandon 302e
10 / 151
303e
�_1---
f• End construction 3o2f
3 11 00
.
g Begin discharge 3009
- - 0
=9
--I-f--
:.
h Operational level attained 302h
.._!_!
303h
�1�---

FOR AGENCY US
STANDARD FORM A -.MUNICIPAL
SECTION' IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Section IV for each
Submft a description of each major industrial facility dischaming to dw municipal system, using a separate Sec,
facility daied 0 ' Indicate the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classfta&M ISIC) Code for the Industry, the major product or raw
%on from " Industrial facifty
matedal,the w 6 thousand gallons per day), and to characteristics of the wastewater duhar&d
Into the municipal system. Consult Table III or standard measures of products or raw materials. (seeInstructions)
t Major Contributing Fac(Tdy
(see Instructions) Glen Rave . n Mills,, Inc.
Name 401a
Number & Street
401b
city
4010
County
401d
Stala..
401e
Zip Code
401f
Primary Standard Industrial
402
aassification Code(see hstructions)
Pdmary Product or Raw Material
(See Instructions)
Product
403a
Raw Material
4. 1h rne, of water
Sow Indicate time
crWhamed Into the mmunicipalsys-
tern In usand gallons per day
404a
*
'ind whether this di schanp is
intermittent or continuous.
404b
..,Pretreatment Provided
406
,fncicatay
pretreatment Is prior b
provided
`" ' " entering the municipal system
Characteristics of Wastewater'
(see Instructions)
E. Main Str—e—et
Burnsville
Yancey
NC
28714
22,
units(see
Textiles 4WG*
40
4M
24.0 _ta=nd gallons perday
[].!ntetmittentont) Continuous
[]'No
New-'.-'--FaCi- :1'.ty-'-
ti
ENT M11

. MrM -_T:
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
—SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL. WASTE CONTRIBUTION To MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
•gon I each mayor industrial bdit stem. using a separate
SOOdOn IV for each
pubmft a ddWp o y dwMrging to ft murid the mayor mdud or raw
- - from fed2ty diisdilplon. Inckato the a cogjt Standard lrdustdW classfficatl*n (SIVOT for ft IndusbYs mt
oisaxlOW1100rd the characteristics of the wastewater d8d%r*
and mate (6ee
mateRal, industrial iaa'iity
the how system.n t c
Jdpal
Into dw mur C*6suftTable III or stwoftn! measures of products or raw
Major Contdbutlng Facility
(see instructions)
Name Qla Outboard Marine Corporation
•
Number & Street
city
County
Zp Coda
Z., .....jPrimary Standard Industrial
lamifimlonCode(weinsbuctions)
Odmaty Product orRaw Material
see lnsbuctlons)
d
Pioduct
Raw Material
'n Mw Indicate the volume of water
&Wcha Into the munidpW sys-
flem In =d gabw per daY
ind'whetherthis clisdump.b
tatmittentorcontinuow.
nt Provided
If
1. 4r prietreatment is provided pdor b
1A
entering the muNdpal system
.Characteristics of Wailiwato
(See insbuctlons)
401b
4010
401d
4019
4011
4Ma
409)
4 -1-
-noc:
Burns—ville
Yancey
NC
.28714
a
331
unhs(pqe
Table 11D.
W-5
Boat eMi ne*
4M
4WO
ts ts
par
4Wd
21.5 toiwd gdlms per &y
❑ InteaWtIdnKint) `Confri�
N
Ye o
t
e
efer
NAm a
crams
I
NumberWvaIue
--------------

t�
I FORAGENG
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
4�
SECTION IV. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
:i=a separ,
do Secdon IV foroach
Submit a &WpSon of each malOr k-&sMW facility dwMrgbg to the munid a to try$" vdictorraw
facility dd3ddPG6n- Indicate the 4 digit Standard lrkWtfW Claisi�l SlCr=forml
material. 0% flow (in thousand gal Per dy), and the characteristics of the wastewater dsduuO)d fmmto, product wity.
Into dw murjdpal system.. Consult Table III or standard measures of products or raw materials. (we Insbudkxw)
1 ' �~ ,Major Contributing Facility
(see instructions)
Name 401a Taylor Togs
Number & Street 401b .........
sty, Micaville
county401d Yancey
4019 NC
Zp cocle 401f
4M 22--'
ly Standard Industrial
I dits-sifica6on Code(ftO hstrUcfiOns)
in
Pilmaly Product o r Raw Material UnIts
Tabid f
see instructions) bruc")
4M H
4M
Textileg 4=
4Mb 14MI
0 .4 MW Indicate
33.'.3. dc ons par day
acharged into the Sys -
the volume of We
i municipal
tam in thousand gallons per daY r ja
404a
md whether this disdmw. 3
IntenrJ
termittlentorcontinuoW.
I
itreatment Provided indicate If
406.
®-Yes
:treatment is ppyided prior b
tering to municipal sY98M
16
-
jLjactorisqcs of Wastewater.
a
RROZZWK
rameter.
q
Name
-
0 r
arame r
Number

ffWE
W

JOB BAST �3�Rn/1'y/�.G�— /f'l1 ��✓�C.LE G✓/✓I�p
SHEET NO,
X•
qMcGill
A S S O C I A T E S
Engineering Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
SS Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 •828-252-0575 • Fax [phone]
CALCULATED BY �0221 DATE
DESCRIPTION NW-12�p pefy6�✓ol/C
SCALE N11 -rlx' PROJECT NO. ! SETT- -rjl 010
E
1
Zwv
!
.0.
3 n f
4
3ME�
i
I ` S'I S
AA
/NF�� 7
�E
f
I
I
I
I
T>Se uk%1 6-1c . 1:7r"°
I
1
f
!
vv c
✓
i
f
j
I
'
I
_
i
I
ECf�
o,�rt ?I
o
,�✓
I A
I
Sip/I
i
�a ND
1
f
I
I
�
�
3T
C
f
I
!
I l
I
fJf
R
,
f
f
I !e-2
I sf
Is
I
I
I
I
!
I
Gr�D
R
�
I
I
o o
I
SC�t�
A7
C`
r_
- f- --
f
!
I
I
,

Ann
p"
PR1
t�1
pq
MR
fm
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
BURNSVILLE - MICAVILLE
WATER & WASTEWATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
M..McGH1
A S S O C I A T E S
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, P.E.
r*�
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
93240.00
Revised January,1999
p"

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
1-2
II.
PROJECT AREA
3-4
III.
EXISTING FACILITIES
5-6
IV.
NEED FOR PROJECT
7-9
V.
ALTERNATIVES
10 -13
VI.
PROJECT COSTS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
14 -18
VII.
PROPOSED WATER & WASTEWATER FACILITIES
19 - 23
VIII.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
24 - 26
PROJECT LOCATION MAPS
APPENDIX

am
ow
an
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the potential benefits for water
OR and sewer system improvements to serve the Micaville community east of the Town
0"
of Burnsville in Yancey County, North Carolina. The facilities would be owned and
operated by the Town of Burnsville. Currently, all of the sewer flow from the east
side of Burnsville flows to a pump station adjacent to US 19-E near the Outboard
Marine Corporation manufacturing plant and is then pumped to the west toward the
gravity sewer portion of the Town's system. The gravity lines then flow to the
wastewater treatment plant on Pine Swamp Road, located on the west side of Town.
F, An additional treatment plant on the east side of Burnsville, with a related gravity
interceptor line, would allow the elimination of the existing Town pump station along
with some privately owned pump stations currently in operation. At the present time,
private pump stations are operated by the Yancey County Board of Education at the
Burnsville Elementary School, by the Ford dealership on US 19-E and by the
Yancey Fish and Steak House on US 19-E. All of these stations pump to the Town
1W pump station at OMC. The location of the private pump stations are shown on the
enclosed map. A new 300,000 gallon per day wastewater treatment plant in the
FM Micaville area would also allow for sewer services to be provided to many homes
and businesses currently without sewer. The additional capacity in the new
treatment plant combined with a reduction in volume of flow entering the existing
plant and an extension of a water line to the Micaville area would greatly expand the
ability of the Town of Burnsville to provide water and sewer service for the existing
customers and to be able to adequately handle future demands to insure economic
Im
growth for the entire community.
M
M
Page 1
on

0"
OR
In addition, the report also evaluates extending water and sewer service south on
Highway 80 near Micaville to serve the existing Hickory Springs industry. These
MA
proposed utilities will allow Hickory Springs to expand their operations in the future,
on if desired, and should also spur additional industrial development along the Highway
80 corridor, potentially creating additional employment opportunities for the local
,m residents.
rI
MR
Am
1W
R"
W
OW
This report will provide information on the costs of the proposed improvements and
the benefits the proposed improvements would bring to the citizens of Burnsville
and the surrounding areas.
Page 2
F"

Pq
PR
SECTION II PROJECT AREA
ow
Im
The Town of Burnsville is a mountain community in Western North Carolina with a
am
population of approximately 2,000 people. Burnsville is the county seat of Yancey
County and borders Madison, Buncombe, McDowell and Mitchell counties with the
pip
State of Tennessee to the north. Located in the Toe River Valley, it ranges in
elevation from approximately 2500 feet to approximately 6600 feet which is the top
of Mount Mitchell, the highest peak east of the Rocky Mountains. The entire Toe
fA" River valley shares an economic base which consists of various manufacturing
facilities employing people from the entire valley, not just the Burnsville area. The
F" Town is connected to the proposed route of the Interstate 26 extension by an
excellent road, US 19E, making the Burnsville area accessible for both existing and
future industries. In addition, the Town is located near several major tourist
attractions and the Blue Ridge Parkway, meaning the area is visited by thousands of
�+ people annually. Tourism is a major component of the local economy.
M The industries located in and around Burnsville include manufacturing and textiles
which provide jobs to the people of Yancey, Mitchell and Madison counties. In
MR addition to the manufacturing jobs, a large portion of the employment is service -
related, providing goods and services to both the local residents and the thousands
MR of visitors to the area.
M
The economic well-being of the surrounding community depends to a great extent
on the ability of the Town of Burnsville to provide basic services to the
manufacturing and business facilities in the area. Specifically, the future of the
existing Taylor Togs and Hickory Springs manufacturing plants in Micaville to
Page 3
MR

on
OM
continue to provide jobs and to expand is dependent on the availability of water and
IM sewer facilities in the area. A wastewater treatment facility would provide service to
several other businesses in the Burnsville/Micaville area, including Hickory Springs
,M on Highway 80, as well many residential customers.
ffiq The addition of water and sewer service on the east side of Burnsville is vital to
insuring the economic future of the Town and the entire valley, with the additional
414 advantage of providing service to more customers, which is beneficial both to the
citizens of Yancey county and to the surrounding environment.
Page 4

F1
0"
am
9M
pq
am
SECTION III
WASTEWATER
EXISTING FACILITIES
At the present time, the Town of Burnsville operates a 0.8 MGD wastewater
treatment plant on Pine Swamp Road, located on the west side of town. The
wastewater plant is currently treating flows of approximately 0.45 MGD. Therefore,
the existing plant would require an expansion if it were to treat the projected 0.3
MGD associated with this project. Additionally, the Town itself is centered on a high
point in the area, meaning any sewer flow from the east side of Town has to be
pumped to the top of the gravity portion of the sewer system where it flows to the
existing treatment plant. A limited amount of gravity sewer and a sewage pump
station is located on the east side of town near the Outboard Marine Corporation
(OMC) manufacturing plant.
In addition, another pump station was installed further east by the Yancey County
Board of Education which provides service to the recently constructed Burnsville
Elementary School. The force main for this pump station runs along the shoulder of
US 19E to the wet well for the OMC pump station, where it is pumped again. At this
time, there are no other connections to the pump station at the elementary school.
There is also no other sewer service provided by the Town east of the OMC pump
station.
In addition to the pump station at the elementary school, there are two other private
pump stations and force mains on the east side of Burnsville. The Yancey Fish and
Steak house developed problems with its septic system and had to construct a pump
Page 5
ON

MQ
station in order to remain in business. Likewise, when a new Ford dealership was
built along US 19-E east of Burnsville, it also had to build a pump station. Both of
the force mains for these pump stations run along the shoulder of US 19-E and
empty into the wet well of the OMC pump station operated by Burnsville. The
remainder of the area east of the OMC station is currently outside the Town Limits
and not provided with sewer service, although much of the area already has
Burnsville water available.
OM
W_
fm
Currently a 12-inch water line extends from the Burnsville Town limits to the Windom
area east of Town. This line has the capacity to serve all existing customers along
the Highway 19 and Highway 80 corridors in this area.
The Town's water plant is a 1.0 million gallon per day facility. The reserve capacity
of the plant is such that it is feasible to serve customers in the Micaville area.
go
Pq
MR
0"
Ow
rAq
so
Page 6
OM

am
om
am
W4
SECTION IV
NEED FOR PROJECT
As discussed previously, the ability of the Town of Burnsville to provide water and
ow
sewer service is of vital interest to the economic well being of the citizens of both the
I,
M
Town and the surrounding community. The Taylor Togs manufacturing plant in
Micaville currently employs 270 people and has plans for future expansion which
would provide additional jobs. Their small existing wastewater treatment facility has
a capacity of 10,000 GPD and discharges to Little Crabtree Creek. This facility is
currently at the limit of its capacity, which limits any further expansion and the jobs
an expansion would provide.
There are other businesses along US 19-E and in Micaville, including the Hickory
P, Springs plant along Highway 80, which are currently unable to expand due to the
lack of water and sewer service east of Burnsville and the unreliability of septic fields
ow due to much of the area being in the flood plain. The Mountain View Motel has, in
the past, needed to operate under a pump and haul permit due to a failed septic
Mq field, and they are currently looking at treatment alternatives in order to stay in
business. At this time, the Silver Bullet store and restaurant uses a sand filter sewer
treatment which is not currently recommended by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Other businesses and developments in the
0' area are limited due to much of the land along US 19-E being in the flood plain and
M
om
unsuited for septic systems. A letter from the local health district documenting septic
system problems in the area has been included in the Appendix. Alternatives being
considered usually involve treatment and discharge which would ultimately mean
multiple discharge points in the creek. Even if all of these discharges are allowed by
Page 7
as

OM
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, it would be detrimental to
fm water quality in the area.
Additional waste treatment capacity east of Town in the Micaville area would also
allow for future growth in this area without the expense of constructing and
maintaining additional pump stations, which incur high annual operation and
maintenance costs. Also, the diversion of a portion of the existing flow to the new
facility will create additional treatment capacity at the existing treatment plant,
�+ allowing further connections on the west side of town without a costly expansion of
this facility.
An extension of a water line to Micaville would additionally open up the area for
future development.
O" The construction of a wastewater treatment facility on the east side of Burnsville
would allow for the removal of the existing pump stations mentioned above,
am eliminating the high costs and maintenance required to keep them operating
properly.
OW
There are environmental concerns pertaining to sewer service on the east side of
am
Burnsville. Currently, with the exceptions mentioned previously, all of this area
am utilizes septic tanks for sewer service and wells for water supply. There are known
to be problems with septic fields in this area due to much of the area being in the
,M flood plain, meaning the potential for groundwater contamination is a very real
threat. Any further growth in this area will have to rely on individual treatment
OW facilities and several discharge points into a small creek, which are not likely to
am
receive State approval. The construction of a new wastewater treatment facility
Page 8
no

P"
No
would allow the future expansion of the Town's sewer system to include many of the
homes and businesses which might face severe problems in the near future.
go
IM Additional environmental problems would result if power failures should occur at the
pump stations. Without immediate action, the pump station wet wells would
am overflow, resulting in the spillage of raw sewage into nearby creeks. Construction of
a treatment plant and the required collection lines would provide a better opportunity
Oft to prevent this from occurring.
M, Providing a sewer collection and treatment system as well as extending a new water
line to the Micaville area will serve to create new jobs at the Taylor Togs and Hickory
MM Springs plants as well as to serve existing businesses and residences of the area.
MR
MO
aA
Page 9

M"
MR
SECTION V
op
ALTERNATIVES
ow The following are alternatives for the construction of new sewer facilities in the East
Burnsville-Micaville area.
Altemative 1
03,
No additional sewer facilities provided for the Micaville area. Existing homes and
ffiq businesses could continue to rely on septic fields for sewage treatment and wells for
water supply.
M"
This alternative would create environmental concerns due to much of the area being
in the flood plain of Little Crabtree Creek and soil types being unsuitable for septic
fields. According to the County Health Department, the area has experienced
numerous septic tank problems. This could cause possible contamination of
groundwater and water supply wells in the area.
.a
OUR
0n
This alternative would inhibit significant growth in the area east of Burnsville. It
would also risk the potential loss of the existing jobs at Taylor Togs along with any
jobs from future expansion of the Taylor Togs and Hickory Springs plants.
Alternative 2
The area could be served by the construction of sewer pump stations to provide
sewer service to the area. A pump station at the Micaville area and an intermediate
pump station would be required to handle the proposed service area. The
intermediate pump station is required due to the large elevation difference and the
high headloss created by the long force main. Also, the existing pump station at
Page 10
am

OR
OMC would have to be upgraded or replaced to handle the additional volume that
would be generated by the additional volume of wastewater.
fm
This alternative would increase the Town's operating and maintenance costs for the
system due to the additional pump stations. Emergency power would have to be
available for all the pump stations to avoid any sewage spills during power failures.
Additional gravity collector lines would still have to be built if any significant service
area is to be established and revenues increased to cover construction costs.
M51 In addition, all of the additional sewage flows would continue to go to the Town's
existing wastewater treatment facility, which creates the need for additional
MR operation and maintenance costs at that plant and expansion of the facility to handle
any future growth. The existing plant is currently receiving an average flow of
Mn approximately 450,000 gpd, and has a rated capacity of 800,000 gpd.
M"
`R Altemative 3
This alternative includes the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant at
Site 1 (original site) off S.R. 1307 in the Micaville area east of the Town of Burnsville
with a discharge of treated effluent into the South Toe River. Gravity collector lines
extending to the existing gravity portion of the Town's sewer system would be
constructed to provide service to the East Burnsville and Micaville area.
0" This alternative assures that future economic growth can continue for both sides of
OM
fm
customers. This alternative provides the most maintenance free system for the
Town, minimizing the dependence on pump stations and provides a large customer
base in an area which can expect future population growth. This alternative also
Page 11
am

PM
X0
MR
allows several pump stations to be taken off-line, which will provide more reliable
and less costly sewer service to the area.
From an environmental aspect, this alternative also provides a good option, since it
provides sewage treatment to customers now using failing septic tanks which are a
MR potential source of groundwater contamination of wells and water pollution. Many of
the potential customers are now facing problems with their current systems and
M would welcome the opportunity to connect to the new sewer system. Unfortunately,
a few property owners in the area have strongly objected to the proposed
M" wastewater treatment plant site, resulting in this option being eliminated as the
0"
selected alternative.
Altemative 4
F`' This alternative would be construction of the gravity collection lines and the
construction of a wastewater treatment facility in the Micaville area which would
F" utilize spray irrigation instead of discharging to the South Toe River.
Om This alternative does provide sewer service to the area and also allows several
sewer pump stations, both public and private, to be taken off-line. This would
MR provide more reliable service to the East Burnsville - Micaville area relieving the
M"
M
area of its dependence on pump stations.
This alternative has high construction costs however, due the necessity of building
the treatment plant and then installing an effluent pump station and a large amount
of irrigation pipe and sprinklers to spray the effluent onto a suitable site instead of a
simple discharge to the river. The State also required a wettwinter weather storage
FM basin be provided to store the effluent during times when effluent cannot be applied
to the land. A minimum of 15 days of storage, or 4.5 million gallons is recommended
W for this area. In addition, there would be much additional land required that would
P"
Page 12
am

M+
have to be suitable for land application of the effluent water. This additional land
makes this alternative even more expensive. Assuming a loading rate of 0.10 gpd/sf
am
for irrigation and 150' property setbacks as required by the State, this method would
am require approximately- 95 acres for spray irrigation. The additional costs for this
method is dependent on the proximity of the irrigation field to the treatment plant.
M, Due to the topography of the area, it is unlikely one site can be found that is
sufficient, meaning several sites may be required.
�► Altemative 5
Due to the strong objections raised by a few surrounding property owners for the
proposed Alternative 3 wastewater treatment plant site, a second plant site was
evaluated.
This alternative includes extending the gravity sewer line downstream from Site 1
along the South Toe River approximately 5000 feet to a new pump station which
would pump to another alternate wastewater treatment plant site off S.R. 1308. The
discharge of treated effluent would be into the South Toe River.
OW
This alternative is similar to Alternative 3. This wastewater treatment plant site is
relatively secluded by forest land and hillsides, and, therefore, should not generate
objections from surrounding property owners.
VM
The following economic analysis to calculate the present worth of the proposed
MR improvements compares the various based on the capital costs and projected
operation and maintenance costs.
MR
FM
MR
Page 13
Im2

M
am
SECTION VI PROJECT COSTS AND
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
am ALTERNATIVE 1 No construction - No construction costs or present worth
M
ALTERNATIVE 2
Construction Costs
11,000 LF of 10" Sewer @ $40.00/1-F
$444,000
•
3 pump stations @ $100,000/EA
300,000
-
26,400 LF of 8" Force Main @ $27/1-F
712,800
22,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer @ $60.00/1-F
1,320,000
•
13,000 LF 12-inch water line extension
455,000
•
12,500 LF 8-inch water line extension (Hwy 80)
375,000
12,000 LF 8-inch sewer line extension (Hwy 80)
660,000
•
Backup Generators - 3 @ $35,000/EA
1051000
-
Expansion of existing WW`TP plant
900,000
r•►
TOTAL
$592719800
r,
Property Acquisition for WWTP expansion
25,000
•
Easement Acquisition for pump stations
30,000
•
Preliminary Engineering
20,000
Engineering
325,350
•
Construction Administration
90,000
•
Legal/easement Acquisition for sewer lines
80,000
•
Contingencies and miscellaneous
527,180
VT
O&M Costs (Annual)
•
Increase O&M for OMC Pump Station
$ 5,000
Estimated O&M for Water Line
4,500
•
O&M for 2 Pump Stations @ $13,000/EA
26,000
•
Estimated O&M on Force Main
5,000
•
Increased O&M at Existing WWTP ($0.25/gal)
75,000
Estimated O & M on gravity sewer
6,500
TOTAL O&M COSTS
$1229000
am
Present worth of O&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period
Capital Cost
P"
MR Page 14
• , ---
6.369
am

M
W
w, ALTERNATIVE 4
Construction Costs
Wastewater Treatment Plant
1,000,000
•
22,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $60.00/LF
11320,500
•
121500 LF 8-inch water line extension (Hwy 80)
3750000
•
12,000 LF 8-inch sewer line extension (Hwy 80)
660,000
•
Spray Irrigation Piping (52,000 LF 2" pipe @ $81F)
416,000
•
1320 Sprinkler Heads @ $50 ea.
66,000
�+
Spray Irrigation Pump Station
100,000
•
15 day storage lagoon (4.5 MG)
11800,000
•
6" Pipe to Spray Irrigation Field (estimated 5000' @ $27/1-F)
1351000
139000 LF 12-inch water line extension
45
TOTAL
$6,3279500
•
Property for Wastewater Treatment Plant
$251000
•
95 Acres for Spray Irrigation @ $5,000/acre
475,000
Preliminary Engineering
20,000
•
Engineering
376,200
•
Construction Administration
104,200
•
Legal/easement Acquisition
601000
•
Contingencies and miscellaneous
6321750
-------------------------
M
0&M Costs (Annual)
• O&M for Water Line $4,500
• 0&M for Effluent Pump Station $15,000
• Estimated 0&M on Force Main 1,000
Estimated O&M for Sewer Lines 6,500
• Estimated O&M for WWTP 75.000
TOTAL O&M COSTS $1029000
Present worth of O&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period 1,271,124
CaQital Cost 8,020,650
M
Page 16
Oft

0"
P"
ALTERNATIVE 5
Construction Costs
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
11000,000
Influent Pump Station with back-up generator
160,000
• 1,000 LF of 8" Force Main @ $27/LF
27,000
• 1,000 LF access road to Pump Station
70,000
'�'
• 2700 LF access road to WWTP
189,000
• 10,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $70/LF
700,000
• 22,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $60.00/LF
1,320,000
121000 LF 8-inch Sewer Line @55.00/LF (Hwy 80)
660,000
• 131000 LF 12-inch Water Line Extension
4551000
• 12,500 LF 8-inch Water Line Extension (Hwy 80)
375,000
TOTAL
$4,9569000
• Property for Wastewater Treatment Plant
$ 1601000
• Preliminary Engineering
20,000
Engineering
3071200
• Construction Administration
1071600
• Legal/easement Acquisition
84,000
-►
Contingencies and miscel.laneous..........::.:................:..................4951600
................ .............. .......
ft...............
�
... :s
...
O&M Costs {Annual)
• Estimated O&M for Water Line
41500
• Estimated O&M for Sewer Lines
81400
Estimated O&M for WWTP
75,000
• Estimated O&M for Pump Station
13.000
TOTAL O&M COSTS
$1001900
Present worth of O&M @ 5% interest for 20 year period
Cost
6,4�7Capital
6,13,400
P"
Pft
M
Page 17
om

P4
am BURNSVILLE-MICAVILLE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
am
Alternative Description Present Value
Om 1 Do not construct water and sewer improvements $ 0
2 Pump sewage to existing WWTP and expand WWTP $ 718891720
Am
3 Construct new WWTP, discharge to South Toe River $ 6,355,250
MR 4 Construct new WWTP, discharge by spray irrigation $ 9,291,774
5 Construct new WWTP, discharge to South Toe River $ 7,387,837
"" (Site No. 2)
I"
am
go
00
an
F"
Page 18
am

n
f"
am
SECTION VII PROPOSED WATER AND
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
WASTEWATER
The Town of Burnsville proposes to build a 300,000 gallon per day wastewater
treatment plant as outlined in Alternative No. 5 in the previous section on a tract of
land off S.R. 1308 north of Micaville, with a discharge point on the South Toe River.
Alternate No. 3, while less in cost, was eliminated from consideration due to public
controversy over environmental concerns about the South Toe River. S.R. 1308
intersects US 19-E between Burnsville and the Town of Spruce Pine at Micaville and
the proposed site is approximately 2.0 miles from the intersection with 19E. The
proposed plant is sized to accommodate the existing customers in the east
Burnsville area which are currently pumped to the gravity portion of the sewer
system in addition to the new customers which can be easily served by the
interceptor line to the new plant. Table 1 shows the customer base projections
assuming the addition of 50 new customers every five years with an average use of
6,000 gallons per month, assuming a mixture of residential and business customers
using current averages for water customers in Burnsville. There is a great potential
for additional customers in the east Burnsville/ US 19-E area even without
population growths as lateral collector lines are added to serve neighborhoods,
F' trailer parks and businesses currently without acceptable sewer service. The
proposed facility would be a package design utilizing an activated sludge treatment
process. The package design will use steel structures built at the factory and
assembled on the job site by the contractor. This offers a savings in construction
costs compared to conventional construction with concrete structures. The
M
am
Page 19
No

O1
fm
treatment process will include both chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent
prior to discharge into the North Toe River.
Initial construction will also involve installation of a 12-inch interceptor gravity sewer
to serve the Micaville area including the existing Taylor Togs manufacturing plant.
Further expansion of the gravity sewer will be continued up Little Crabtree Creek as
it follows US 19-E into Burnsville. The gravity sewer will extend into Burnsville far
enough to provide sewer service for the OMC plant and Glen Raven Mills
manufacturing. This will allow the existing pump station at OMC to be taken out of
service. All of the exiting gravity sewer on the east side of Burnsville currently
discharging into the wet well at the pump station will be connected to the new sewer
�+ collector lines and will flow to the new treatment plant at Micaville. Construction of
the interceptor line will allow the pump station at the Burnsville Elementary School
and other private pump stations to be removed from service also. There will be
many customers that can connect to the new gravity interceptor line without the
installation of extensive lateral collector sewer lines. In some cases, relatively short
sections of laterals will be able to provide service to many additional customers. In
addition to these improvements, an 8-inch sewer line will be extended south on
Highway 80 to the Hickory Springs plant to provide opportunities for this facility to
expand operations in the future. The location of the above facilities are shown on the
attached map.
Speculative NPDES Permit Limits have been requested and received from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for a 0.3 mgd discharge to the South
Toe River. The letter from NCDWQ has been included in the Appendix. These
speculative limits are applicable to both Alternatives No. 3 and No.S, which is the
recommended alternative. The speculative permit limits will be considered during
the design of the facility to provide adequate treatment to meet the effluent
�► requirements. The speculative permit limits are listed below:
MR
Page 28
04

M
MA
SPECULATIVE PERMIT LIMITS FROM NCDWQ
BOD5 30 mg/I
•+ NH3-N monitor
TSS 30 mg/I
Fecal 200/100ml
pH 6-9
Chlorine 28ug/I
0"
W_
It is proposed to extend a 12-inch water line approximately 13,000 LF from the
Windom area east of Burnsville along Highway 19 to Micaville. This line will provide
service for the corridor, eliminating the use of wells which are susceptible to
groundwater contamination. It will also provide service to the Micaville community,
�., and the Taylor Togs and Hickory Springs manufacturing plants. An 8-inch water
line is proposed to be extended south on Highway 80 to serve the Hickory Springs
facility. The line extension is shown on the attached map.
0,
Ow
M
M"
Oa
Page 21
Aw

PM
MR
0"
A"
USEFUL LIFE OF PROJECT
It is expected that the useful life of the water and sewer lines will be at least 50 years, while
the life of the wastewater. treatment plant will be 20 to 25 years.
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
As NPDES Permit will be required for the wastewater treatment plant discharge
Construction permits will be required from North Carolina Division of Environment and
Natural Resources for the water and sewer lines and the wastewater treatment plant. An
erosion control permit will be required. It is expected that a Corps of engineers permit will
be required for certain areas of the sewer construction. The NPDES permit application for
the wastewater treatment plant discharge has been submitted for approval. The remainder
of the permits will be submitted after design of the facilities has been completed.
05 PROJECT SCHEDULE
0"
MM
F"
0"
M
Am
The design period for the project will be approximately 5 months. The construction period
will be 12 to 16 months.
PROJECT UTILIZATION
Each beneficiary will utilize 100% of the project water and wastewater improvements, with
the exception of Hickory Springs. Hickory Springs is expected to utilize all elements of the
project at 100% within five (5) years of completion of the project, depending on actual
expansion of operations.
Page 22
MR

TABLE I
MICAVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
�► CUSTOMER BASE PROJECTIONS
0"
P"
MR
PM
004
E2
PM
eon
r"
rc_�]
R"
am
a"
OR
EXISTING. CUSTOMERSN EAST SIDE OF BURNSV[LL
GALLONS/MONTH CUSTOMER
719,000 Glen Raven Mills
645,000 Outboard Marine Corporation
150,000 Burnsville Elementary School
3,000,000 Existing Residential and Business Customers
4,514,000
Page 23
9"

f"
SECTION VIII CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusion of this report is that the area of Yancey County east of
Burnsville, to the community of Micaville, has an urgent need for water and sewer
service that can best be met by the extension of a water line and construction of a
wastewater treatment plant in the vicinity of Micaville and the extension of a gravity
interceptor line along Little Crabtree Creek and US 19-E to the location of the
existing gravity lines which flow to the pump station at Outboard Marine Corporation.
In addition, it is recommended that water and sewer lines be extended south on
Highway 80 to provide service to the Hickory Springs manufacturing plant. This
project will provide both economic and environmental benefits for the surrounding
community for many years to come. Without these facilities, the area east to
Micaville will likely continue to experience economic stagnation due the current
limitations on septic fields and wells in this part of Yancey County. Significant
development of new industries or expansion of existing industries and,
consequently, creation of employment opportunities in the area, is highly unlikely
unless the issues of water and sewer service are addressed.
0"
This project will provide the additional benefit of creating additional capacity at the
Town's existing wastewater treatment and will insure that future growth will be
possible on the west side of Burnsville as well.
V"
The results of the alternatives analysis indicate that Alternative 5 is the most feasible
alternative. In order to make project funding applications to separate State
agencies, the table at the end of this Section provides separate project cost
estimates for the water and wastewater facilities for the recommended Alternative 5.
Page 24
MI

The estimated project cost for the wastewater system improvements is $5,154,300,
and the estimated project cost for the water system improvements is $996,100.
PROJECT FUNDING
The project is expected to be funded as follows:
WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
North Carolina DWQ Clean Water Bond Program
$31000,000
Economic Development Administration (EDA)
$11206,550
North Carolina Clean Water Fund
$ 4442618
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)
$ 2001000
Town of Burnsville
$ 151,566
Yancey County
151,566
TOTAL WASTEWATER PROJECT COST
$591549300
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
North Carolina DEH Clean Water Bond Program 996100
TOTAL WATER PROJECT COST $ 9961100
TOTAL PROJECT COST $691509400
Page 25

EAST BURNSVILLE - MICAVILLE
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
[ALTERNATIVE 5- WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS:`
_ Construction Costs
0.3 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant $1,000,000
Influent Pump Station with Back-up Generator $160,000
1,000 LF of 8" Force Main @ $27/LF $27,000
1,000 LF Access Road to Pump Station $70,000
2,700 LF Access Road to WWTP $189,000
10,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $70/LF $700,000
22,000 LF of 12" Gravity Sewer Line @ $60/LF $1,320,000
12,000 LF of 8" Gravity Sewer Line @ $55/LF (Hwy 80) $660,000
Subtotal Construction Cost $4,126,000
Property for Wastewater Treatment Plant $160,000
Preliminary Engineering $20,000
Engineering $254,300
Construction Administration $77,400
Legal/Easement Acquisition $104,000
Contingencies and Miscellaneous $412,600
TOTAL`'PROJECT COST = WASTEWATER $5,154,300i
ALTERNATIVE 5- POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Construction Costs
T 13,000 LF 12-Inch Water Line Extension
$455,000
12,500 LF 8-Inch Water Line Extension (Hwy 80)
$375,000
Subtotal Construction Cost
$830,000
Engineering
$52,900
Construction Administration
$30,200
Contingencies and Miscellaneous
$83,000
TOTAL PR JEO CT COST - WATER�SYSTEM
$996,10
TOTAL PRO ECTCbST :
;.` $6,150,400

l.' ,,,1 \•.- i( — *`,,`t' Y_ �l- � i , ;, \\ / [ L f' \\'� I%
�. \ �� -t�` ,t; . PI f r'P,. _£ r [ _;a �ed Y� l "
( -•!(, 1 1
�... - \\� \ .�� _ - \ `• \�':\'1 •,' -- i , ;. ` \,`.',
' �,J '\ I`7j1 �`\ .-:. i� � �- ,i� .1�. _ rt n� ,��U , � ". '_ ' _ -.. �' l� •i i `f;.,\ `. � �.j t,,/\'\ cR?' ^\\�.�
�I1,\\` r—. .,�. �' - co =_� _, •�.-'� ���-�'; ' vim- r -� \� �` j
IX
- .f /i- �`� :�- '`i �- J„\-- '' /�, .. I+7 ` '1� ^I'i�` - �1 z•l � .h [ /r �Vli •`C`Eri" i��' 1'( �.�!;; \ti `��`!% ,1`-\r. �� I f!/(, lam. � . - _ �! ,/�, ,.� _t}n� 'n-. ,�t• % / ,,,- G- _ < - - 'I � �•'� � �� -_ \.`/; ��_'�_�-_.c _ �_
'`. ,i� s _" '. �"i � �- --1; � • --- r ,`� 9 .� r _ I i'C' - �. • `�� ` - �� � � _ � ;Y rUPt Crt m * � ��
PROPOSED
1� _ '" w.„ �'�rt�\• I�:.�I\ 1 r - ( f `, �- y(4' �i'{ J I;; J '•�-' (� �: ��:_ PROPOSED 300,000 GPD R�ec%u FORCE MAIN
- -_.-' = • � iii �� � . �', ' N ', { I � _ [ : r� it , ;,�n�l �`� / � -r � ��J� _�- �
•.�� j� 1 J: r _ i s �, ! G ✓ ; \J - WWTP - ALTERNATE 5
i . Jr=- }�, 4t`JJ- 7i(��. �• it 1, ', �� '!/ ��•_�" ;,•IC �; - - /.✓la%• ^F'ti Fe,Cem` �PI❑-
�,_, ,�-. •, �1u/�• a ���--� 4 :X` I `�� .� � -i l �V.� F/o�x �� ,` I � �w•l�`ji �'r`J i7(1. ,, \\'. `--\ ��_� '^!e •..�,8 � ,\\�a,•a',9\,�`
Y� 1 ` .� '"Ill, `.�`• 1._'� 1, i .'`� a �:— } ` °,;�\ 1 r L c°, �� =__- PROPOSED
• ; L_ r i \ a ..1 [{• - yj{{ PUMP STATION
t: � r �`:� l• �' �,::� � -� , it ' �' !�x _EXISTING PRIVATE >> � � �=_ ' � � � � „ � �_ L
PUMP STATIONS
SCHOOL PUMP STATION
TOWN OF BURNSVILLE W. Ili
I�' .� ,,- 7�•ir•';\;i i(�'` tlti'• i- ri ;) � _ . ',, .1,. ��i :I,/ j ���' �!U, ''i ` i. �� - r : n` ,ram r-- r: jam-"/ - i �� 1 +IT•,�
��•'Jti28 \ f - \ �1 I ;'' 1 ,i ;`` C a 11`. /i .\ �l : ('i T�� ` y :;\�' „ / T?< iii,�•`-. r
;� .• \� ���- - _ \\,I, � PROPOSED 12-IrrcH ; • '�t
zrr'- - --'� \ , `• �-�-� "�, �� .�„� PROPOSED 12-INCH
• .
t 81.1 �� _ _ = , 1: % SIO TY S LINE �1 . GRAM EWER NE
z� z ;; j , ,74.
WATER LINE. EXTEN N
�. mil; / _ �• _ _.;el 1 '{^� _ - �� _ \ L..',' �,� ;, - - - ' -II; ��\'l .,,
• ! j -.',, 'i � � J � !" �o '•�' • , \� 7\ti \ � � '' 19,C � � � �r`�r'a •}\ `.• \a e+ � n \ \ �\� : , �" - i ' Ir4 � 11\ `• ° •� t - �� ; - - •'�G ��.r�' `, '. "� ! � �
t MtTc..heli :{' •�,:a� [ e _ :` - e ,��_��"-� .. .. 1 ., - :�, .. ! -\„� Y�' �'�; .. ;� �� y` .��,.� � - -- r =--; _-\ _ � y � �
�E XISTING BURNSVILLE r. % PROPOSED 12-INCH J ' _
7 gyyy j _
' PUMP STATION (OMC) GRAVITY SEWER LINE_' �- F' �� f� �'
BURNSVILLE WATER .� -
�i, �I TREATMENT PLANT a ,,
o $!I/J
r294
1 l ! r , 1' , %� • \ , —/• 's6 r �:•- SilverJ�a
�i ���'`'J_ 1 'y_'1; ) l� „w�```_ _ --_-� - ' :I� \-,. i \;y �` ,...� ��____ _\`�,"'/°�t� � � •J•� �� Y "��li �:.���, � � 1• {
I ' ;�,-\ � rt 4 !!-, � Jj *p'. �" �.: �-il�r!"�, � `I .\' � �� it �- % �' I, � _� ' ,. �' � � � ' •` ��= •1 � '�1
.-� 'i; - - ! ! .dz~4. .:'\O\� ` ` ,S' ,,•- - �1 .1,; ��,. ii°7� tir\ l.'' J�' { 1-�� _ !`- rlbst
H-T- 820 \ i`; ✓^ /'j ��^' i - -,; 1 1�% `jf.r' ` ;��_ / l� �� c '3 ___
IL
/ o } 1 t � k�R 1 r �t % - �� �' ii / 1 `LR`304 ' / .J _ _ } \� �\ __ , _
._ •_` �'re,ek \. 'utw i �- I/-.y �_j �` �� .'° ! �— }��. [ _ ,' \ 4i iz�so;\ .�. - 1 �-- , ;'LL" f -
r.
"1 =.
;.►, it L-A rK9 Ct x , 1`^+ �C
> \{� - `' '.1 �, .��' �I' � ` ` - � �'• f �y _--1� � . 1 _ _'3_ ,. ; . l I �, �-.i `•. J I ��L � �♦ '— ���� I ' (( 1 �? `r �-� 1 ( %�� . °� � ..
^^"1'` �', ; ir• f - '� �_ \ \, _ a,l 1 t• �1 '8 / ~ 1 - 1\ :` it ��'� �� 1 r •t
• I - l I — _
1 w 4 274AY \.,
� i�_ - - � � �•� j%� , �, t ��.,� � • f �J :_. a �, / t � /, i ` � I - a T ' _ _ - J1 . I �-
-. .H H }4?�\ - �.. �� �I 1 1� S\` �� 1 - =' r�= - r,P"' llr--��7a ■ `,` s �y 1
•O"'�l \v Y ! 4 I ._ _ `I • r- / `, 1j I (`, 3' '1 rY IZ V-f� lv t'S I Li N A,,L
1 E - -\ �V 7 �_ �►� t ram: -,, =� --i;_ : r' t\ PS.z- F ;t'/i - PROPOSED 8-INCH
WATER LINE EXTENSION
PROPOSED s INCH \
�� _ l . - � O'. �� �- � •r- � � t • � I I : �-- SEVER LINE
xt `BP+I LHT b2.7
�oW le'n�s I t s-1t_ I2822
BURNSVILLE— MICAVILLE ti � � � _ — j ,S -M11ei 5 n
I
WATER- AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS L
• i(; — TOWN OF BURNSVILLE—
�I— YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROE ITMA
3CrJJ 1 =2000 CufT-' • f ��
I ' Gi
Gartr-
I t -
ea
Li r s I` l6 Eii u z J
Lc\ \ r t _
T- 3 \, V � h
• v� ,o' ,� '' � I�.E� llSL1] IaAI ?I.1�� ', ,' :"

Fm� r
f94
919
APPENDIX
IM
7 Page 27
-Mal

f"
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
He0h and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ED "
December 20,1995
Po, The Honorable Mark Bennett, Mayor
Town of Burnsville
P.O. Box 97
Burnsville, N.C. 28714-0097
or7
4er'�
Subject: Request for Speculative Limits for Burnsville-Micavlle WWTP
Yancey County
fowl
Dear Mr. Bennett:
An analysis for speculative effluent limits for the Burnsville Micaville WWTP at the
design flow of 0.300 MGD has been completed by the staff of the Instream Assessment
Unit. Please be advised that the limits given are speculative. In order to receive final
. . . . . indicating . . justification
.
permit limits, a formal application indicating the WWTP design capacity and a justification
`_' for the facility will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits and Engineering Unit.
Per North Carolina'- .anti -degradation policy (15A NCAC 2B.0201 (c)(1)), each
application for an NPDES permit expansion to discharge treated waste will require
documentation of an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives pursuant to North
Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 2H.0105 (c)(2). .
MR The proposed facility will discharge into the South Toe River which has a stream
classification of C Trout. The estimated drainage area at the discharge point is 84 square
miles. The estimated average flow is 151 cfs, and the summer 7Q10 flow is approximately
35 cfs.
�., Based on available information, the tentative limits at 0.3 MOD are:
�+ BOD5 (mg/1) 30
NH3-N (mg/1) monitor
TSS (mg/1) 30
run Fecal (/100m1) 200
pH (SU) 6-9
Chlorine (µg/l) 28
The Division of Environmental Management (DEMO recommends chlorine limits
and dechlorination for all new or expanding dischargers proposing the use of chlorine for
disinfection. An acceptable level of chlorine in your effluent is 28 µg/l to ensure protection
against acute toxicity. The process of chlorination/dechlorination or an alternate form of
disinfection, such as ultraviolet radiation, should allow the facility to comply with the total
residual chlorine limit.
A complete evaluation of limits and monitoring requirements for metals and other
toxicants will have to be addressed at the time of formal NPDES application. Information
concerning these constituents is not readily available but effluent limits and/or monitoring
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

ARI
Letter to Mr.Bennett
page 2
for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel; zinc or other chemical specific parameters
may be recommended.
FM
We hope this information provides some assistance in your planning endeavors.
As previously mentioned, final NPDES effluent limitations will be determined after a
formal permit application has been submitted to the Division. If there are any additional
questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Ruth Swanek (ext. 503) or
Jackie Nowell (ext. 512) of my staff at [phone].
S' rely,
.,
d-
Donald L. SKE.Assistant
%iuefc " Support
Water Quality Section
DLS/JMN
M4
cc: Forrest Westall
Bobby Blowe
16li M' Coxey, McGill Associates, P.A.
Central Files
WLA File

TOE RIVER HEALTH DISTRICT
• 7homa4 & Singicton. Interim Health Direr w
�0 919 Caeeawood Road - Past office Box 99
i Spruce Pine, NC 2ii777
I
Telephone (704) 76S-2239 Fax [phone]
February 17, 1998
In previous years there have been approximately twelve (12) alternative non -ground
absorption treatment systems installed in the projected target area for this project.
Including satellite pump systems, sand filter discharge and individual package plants.
These were utilized on lots where installing an approved septic system was impossible.
Therefore there is no reason to believe that other problems will not arise in this area
served by this project.
Michael Wilson
Environmental Health Specialist
ch
oMER OFFICES
Avery CO- HW th Depeumt / Mauro Caen MilckAl Co. Health Dgwuneat / Horne Cana Yancey Ca Health Depazmw4 Yancey Co. Homo Cans
+�+ Post office Bo; 325 124 School Road l0 Swiss Avcmx 329 Weal Main sftd
New1s4 NC 286" 18A=villa. NC-2870S - . Burnsville. NC 28714 Bwmvilia NC 28714
Health Depaunot [phone] Health Depsrbmt nO4) 688-237I . [phone] Homo Cara [phone]
Homo Cue (704) 733-1 5S0 Home Cast [phone] CAP [phone]
zoom J.d�aHs'Iv�HxB�NVA Z9Z9Z89i�OL Yd� W 9T 96/ST/30

r�
F,
f"
I"
M"
£0 ' d 1U101
' • TOE RIVER:HEALTH DISTRICT
219 CsftaiWo. od Road • Post Ofioe Box,'99
• • Spn= AnG, NC '21rM
TWepbone [phone] ' Fay (704) 76S-M
3anuar7• 26, 1998
There have been numerous times in the past fev years
when individuals or businesses located along 19B between
Burnsville and Micaville have'been denied improvement permits
or -repair permits due to restrictive soils or space limitations,
r.,
Sites in this area that have been determined unsuitable
for subaurface discharge by this department are:
sites - at Rocky Springs Heights f
Catalano Fordt r .
LF:.V
a Country Carp rea between Old 19B and 19Sjvi].].e Rlemeptary School. - v w (1) .
I- I
�.� �....--_._�•_ Ift. VlCIr motel �.��-� .� # l � _ a/
�ome sites at Windom Cove development
)iaa
lagle' a Office C6mple= P J +^` p (+ ) )
ommercial -properties 009 19L awned by Farrell Hugb�es, _ `#'�
Young, Fred Peterson, Alan Brine, Sdd Cafsilo, Dennisuchanan, JR �+IcTnty_?
reieith Presaell n0
ew church in Micavilld,, n�- wwh�oo 3 �awC �obile home park on Bill Al d Branch".• h J
• Emnsion of Hickory Springs t: r: t.- K
M+ On going problems with aging sewage sI terns in B" Youngs
mobile home park
�)I Old houses along Theee.Qu&eter Creek Crab Tree Creek1
1 new housing developments and mobile home parks in this area...
1
could more effectively use available land area i.e. more P74. ,
homes per acre
w �.6 � '
Thi3 list is not intended to bst
e incluive Of all pro lems
encountered in this area in the past but should be an indicator
Orr proplL that arise in the future.
' heel fitson
Environmental Health SePeialist
Y..f
1 9
.
OTHER OFFICES
+� Avwy CA. i trahh Depart ftm I Rom Caen
Wftha Cb. HcWth Depa:tehistt / Home Coo
Yaeiar C-0. H=M Dep"houm
Yanmy Co. M6M Cleo
hw olEc: M& W
124 Sdool Rmd
10 SMU Av,erme
329 was Main SWA
Newtw& NiC 2M
Bakam a, NC 21703
$uffArAla MC 2t714
9wwwIft NC 29714
Health D"Wunad (704) 7334MI
Wcahh rk-p—M—est . 629-2371.
(7a)6s2*..:
Hatm can (XK) da 7us
items Care(?" 733-1 SS0
Home Cam (704) "&301
� �� �
CAr (704) 6 2-7967
• d gZS? SzbOLZ
01 3ll I ASNW8 d0 NM01 WMW Lb : t t
866Z-60-83d