NC0072877_Staff Comments_19901012

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Mr. David K. Newsom
Tate Lanning & Associates
Six Forks Commons
P.O. Box 18345
Raleigh, NC 27619
Dear Mr. Newsom:
October 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Town of Newton Grove Wastewater
Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. NCO072877
Downstream Monitoring Point
Sampson County, North Carolina
Our office is in receipt of your map showing the new location of the Town
of Newton Grove's Wastewater Treatment Plant and the proposed downstream
sampling location.
The proposed downstream sampling location appears suitable provided
access is provided by the land property owner. The map shows the proposed
locations as discussed at our July 10, 1990, meeting with Mr. Tate Lanning and
Newton Grove town officials.
Should you have any questions, feel free to notify Mr. Grady Dobson,
Environmental Engineer, Fayetteville Regional Office, at [phone].
Sincerely,
fggion4aj12Suer,��Sor
s"
MJN/GD/tf
cc: Don Safrit
Trevor Clements
Wachovia Building, Suite 714 • Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

P
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 6, 1990
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Trevor Clements
Technical Support
Water Quality Section
FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional Supervisor
Fayetteville Regional Office
SUBJECT: Newton Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Proposed Discharge Location
Sampson County
Please find attached a request from the Town's engineers to evaluate the
subject location. Considering the dry conditions the survey crew observed,
would it be advisable for someone from your staff to look at this receiving
stream? The Fayetteville Regional Office has scheduled a meeting in Newton
Grove for July 10, 1990 at 10 AM to discuss our expectations of the Town
concerning this discharge permit.
Please advise us of any comments you may have on this matter.
MJN/mla
JUL 0 9.1990i
TECHMCAL SuPP(?F'.T BRANCH

TATE LANNNG & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CML ° MUNICIPAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
J. TATE LANNING, JR., PE., R.L.S.
Mr. Grady Dobson
Fayetteville Regional Office
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health
Wachovia Building, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
7!!j
Fq ETTEVILE REGOFFICE
Natural
Re: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Newton Grove, North Carolina
Dear Grady:
July 2, 1990
Enclosed herewith is a plan and profile plot of Beaver Dam Swamp at the loca-
tion of the proposed outfall line from the referenced treatment facilities.
The plot is based on notes from a survey made June 26, 1990. A copy of the
notes is included for your use.
Please note that the swamp at this location is approximately 540' wide and has
no single, well-defined flow channel. The surveyors identified several
branches of the swamp, two of which were dry at the time of the survey. Be
aware that the survey was made during a very dry period, and that the observed
water levels were probably below normal.
We have developed two (2) alternative alignments for the proposed outfall line
on the enclosed plot. The first alternative is indicated in red on the
enclosed plot. In this alternative, the proposed outfall line is extended to
the first "wet" run (approximately Station 5+58) identified in the above -
mentioned survey. The second alternative is identified in green on the
enclosed plot. In this alternative, the proposed outfall line is extended to
the edge of the swamp (approximately Station 4+20) as identified in the survey.
I believe this point to be the low water level the majority of the time;
however, it was dry during the survey.
Please study the two alternatives presented above and advise as to their
suitability. I would be happy to arrange a site visit if you believe it would
be helpful. Your original site visit I believe was upstream of this location
where the swamp channel is better defined. As you know, the new site is
approximately 1,200' south of the original site.
Yours very truly,
TATE LANNING & ASSO S
avid WNeso.
DKN/cs
enclosures
Six Forks Commons o 211 Six Forks Road ^ PO. Box 18345 ^ Raleigh, N.C. 27619 ° [phone]

` [---�
MEN
MEN
SEES MEN
NEWS
A
-

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 10, 1990
MEMORANDUM r
,l
To: M.J. Noland R nal Supervisor
� P
Fayetteville egion I Office 1 3 1990
From: Don Safrit,
Supervisor, Permits & Engineering Unit
Subject: Town of Newton Grove
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility
Sampson County
Thank you for your memorandum of May 31, 1990 concerning NPDES
Permit No. NCO072877 issued May 2, 1988.
I am sympathetic to your concerns regarding whether or not a surface
water discharge is the most sensible disposal option for the Town of
Newton Grove. However, I assume that the Town's consultant explored the
various disposal options prior to pursuing an NPDES Permit. Since we have
already issued a permit for a discharge, you and I both realize the
difficulties of revocation of a permit due to current philosophies as
opposed to those of only two years ago.
There is one way we can possibly achieve the goal of detering the
Town from a discharge. It should be safe to say that the Town would want
to treat and dispose of their wastewater in the most environmentally
sound and economical fashion. Based upon the requirements of the NPDES
Permit, the non -discharge alternative of spray irrigation may indeed be
the better alternative. Their willingness to evaluate other methods of
disposal will depend on how much time and money they have invested and
how we can present the potential compliance problems the Town would
encounter with a discharge system.

I
I stand ready to assist you in this presentation to the Town; however,
I feel it would be appropriate for the Fayettevile Regional Office to
schedule such a meeting or discussion (or notify them of your concerns
through a letter). The recommendation to require justification that no
non -discharge alternatives are feasible prior to issuance of an
Authorization to Construct under the NPDES Permit will require the
concurrence of the director before the Permits and Engineering Unit would
honor such a request.
If you would like to discuss this matter or need any assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: George Everett
Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements

NAGEMENT
... jaw, Jalrir I
Water Quality Section
FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional Supervisor
Fayetteville Regional Office
Tr -
SUBJECT: Proposed WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO072877
Newton Grove, Sampson County
An NPDES permit was issued for the subject proposed discharge on May 2,
1988. As ar as m aware, this facility was not required to submit an
Engineering Proposal which would include an Engineering Economic Analysis.
I'm also unaware that an authorization to construct has been issued to build
the necessary treatment works. p
It is my opinion that the required effluent limits (see attached) are too
stringent for this facility to consistently meet and the Town should therefore
utilize spray irrigation. As a final point for consideration, the design flow
is 0.2 MGD and the 7Q10 flow is .097 MGD. With these considerations in mind,
it is recommended that the Town be required to justify that spray irrigation
is not feasible prior to issuance of an authorization to construct.
If there is any need for additional information or clarification, please
a/on 14- 44",t� out,
4a� aA
Ckt-�e� . �Je CO3(.A-& 1,3V44J4 4441::�
s
1 U"t�.�L •� W U�o-
A,0 v�
+.1990

J
O 04 STATjv
au+r•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor George I Everett, Ph.D.
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary June 6, 1990 Director
Mr. David K. Newsom
Tate Lanning & Associates
Six Forks Commons
P.O. Box 18345
Raleigh, N.C. 27619
Subject: The Town of Newton Grove WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO072877
Sampson County
Dear Mr. Newsom,
I am writing in response to your letter sent May 28, 1990, concerning the
instream monitoring requirements for the subject facility. With your letter,
you attached a map of the final discharge location approximately 2000 feet
below the original requested location (where SR 1800 crosses Beaverdam Swamp).
The modeling analysis has been re-evaluated for the final location and predicts
water quality to be protected at this location with the final effluent limits.
This location will be finalized in the NPDES permit.
Concerning your specific requests relating to the downstream monitoring point,
I offer the following:
(1) The downstream sampling location was determined based on the predicted
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration occurring from your discharge.
This location at the mouth of Beaverdam Swamp appears to be swampland
and, according to your description, inaccessible. Therefore, the Divi-
sion of Environmental Management (DEM) will change the location for
downstream sampling to the nearest accessible location near the mouth of
Beaverdam Swamp.
(2) A large part of run-off flow typically occurs during the cooler, wetter
months. DEM focuses on data collected during the dry, warmer months
when runoff is less likely to occur. Therefore, runoff from the hog
operation will not be an issue during the critical low flow periods.
The permit will not be revised until the Town of Newton Grove submits a map with
a suitable location for the downstream monitoring point to the Division. Please
contact Grady Dobson at the Fayetteville Regional Office for guidance in locat-
ing the new location for sampling.
PoUudon Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fmol Onnnrhinity Af ffnative Action ElnDlover

If you have any further questions concerning these matters, please contact Don
Safrit or Trevor Clements at [phone].
' Ser�el
George Evere
GTE/CMS'
cc: Don Safrit
Mick Noland
Central Files
WLA File

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 31, 1990
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Don Safrit Q s
Water Quality Section
FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional y
Fayetteville Regional Office '+
SUBJECT: Proposed WWTP :11..
NPDES Permit No. NCO072877
Newton Grove, Sampson County
An NPDES permit was issued for the subject proposed discharge on May 2,
1988. As far as I'm aware, this facility was not required to submit an
Engineering Proposal which would include an Engineering Economic Analysis.
I'm also unaware that an authorization to construct has been issued to build
the necessary treatment works.
It is my opinion that the required effluent limits (see attached) are too
stringent for this facility to consistently meet and the Town should therefore
utilize spray irrigation. As a final point for consideration, the design flow
is 0.2 MGD and the 7Q10 flow is .097 MGD. With these considerations in mind,
it is recommended that the Town be required to justify that spray irrigation
is not feasible prior to issuance of an authorization to construct.
If there is any need for additional information or clarification, please
advi sa.
MJN/tf
Enclosures
cc: Trevor Clements
Prp� i�
JUi\� 0 4 1990

TATE LANNWG & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CIVIL ° MUNICIPAL °
ENVIRONMENTAL
J. TATE LANNING, JR., P.E., R.L.S.
Mr. Trevor Clemments
Technical Support Unit
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
& Natural Resources
Re: NPDES Permit NC0072877
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility
Newton Grove, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Clemments:
May 28, 1990
At the suggestion of Mr. Grady Dobson of the Fayetteville Regional Office, we
are requesting that your staff pinpoint the location of the downstream sampling
point as required under the referenced permit. The permit states that the
downstream sampling point shall be collected 1.1 miles downstream of the
proposed discharge point and above the mouth of Beaverdam Swamp. I have
indicated this general vicinity on the attached map.
You may wish to consider the following items when pinpointing the sample point:
(1) As you can see from the attached map, the area surrounding the mouth of
Beaverdam Swamp is swampland, and assessing this area for sampling would
be very difficult.
(2) There is a large hog production facility between the proposed discharge
point and the apparent sample point location. This facility appears to
include animal waste lagoons and an irrigation system for land application
of treated wastewater. It seems possible (especially during rainy
periods) that runoff from this operation could taint samples taken down-
stream of this facility.
We would appreciate your consideration of these factors when establishing the
sample point location. If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Yours very truly,
TATE CANNING & ASSO ES rr-mi.►sl
David K. Newsom
DKN/cs
enclosures: Location Map/Copy of NPDES Permit
?PL'd1 E 4xG4
cc: Mr. Grady Dobson
Fayetteville Regional Office - DEM
Six Forks Commons ° 211 Six Forks Road ° PO. Box 18345 ° Raleigh, N.C. 27619 - [phone]

NaO VWY
MEMO
Im
DATE:��.y�l' ,�Q
SUBJECT:; `fYW1�+✓` (-M `
l
4 U 1 64C I
yvt�/ � VVI- Y-V0
.5`� C51wJ Ise rho wV
5 I.3 "'�I Typ-k (kS V"uUAL" -'
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources

5
vP
MEMO �,..
(-(s-}. !31)-4
RZ
31
SUBJECT
p53
I-�
. 31
e MSTA7E o
North Carolina Department of Environment,
„. Health, and Natural Resources
n
>
d o
a
n
n
'D o
11
o r
o r
a r
o r
o r
o r
o r
o r
b

'
SUMMER
MODEL RUN 5/4/90 FOR
AMMONIA
TOX
LIMITS
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
Receiving Stream
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 5.85
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.54
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.23
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
5.41
0.90
----
1
----
--
----------
Reach 1
7.50
5.85
5.00
0.20000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
Receiving Stream
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature: 27.
Subbasin : 030619
Stream Class:
Winter 7Q10 :
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@204
Idesignl
@20;1 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 1.101
I
5.701
0.100
I
1 0.56
I I
1 0.32 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 1
I
1.031
I
0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.551
I
5.701
0.100
I
10.65
I I
1 0.31 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 1
I
1.031
I
0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.401
I
3.101
0.100
I
1 0.70
I I
1 0.30 1
0.22
I I
1 0.65 I
I
0.561
I
0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow I
I
cfs I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.310 I
Headwatersl
0.150 1
Tributary 1
0.000 I
* Runoff 1
0.010 1
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.156 1
* Runoff I 0.016 1
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.075 I
* Runoff I 0.030 1
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/l I
7.500 I
5.850 1
5.000
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.170
2.000 I 1.000 I 7.170
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

•
SUMMER
MODEL RUN 5/4/90 FOR AMMONIA
TOX LIMITS
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. (
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
5.71
5.71
4.27
0.46
1
1
0.10
5.64
5.59
4.13
0.46
1
1
0.20
5.58
5.47
4.00
0.46
1
1
0.30
5.53
5.36
3.87
0.46
1
1
0.40
5.49
5.25
3.74
0.46
1
1
0.50
5.46
5.15
3.62
0.47
1
1
0.60
5.44
5.04
3.50
0.47
1
1
0.70
5.42
4.94
3.39
0.47
1
1
0.80
5.41
4.84
3.28
0.47
1
1
0.90
5.41
4.74
3.17
0.47
1
1
1.00
5.41
4.64
3.07
0.47
1
1
1.10
5.42
4.55
2.97
0.47
1
2
1.10
5.85
3.91
2.48
0.63
1
2
1.15
5.86
3.87
2.44
0.63
1
2
1.20
5.86
3.84
2.40
0.63
1
2
1.25
5.87
3.80
2.36
0.63
1
2
1.30
5.87
3.76
2.32
0.63
1
2
1.35
5.88
3.72
2.28
0.63
1
2
1.40
5.89
3.68
2.25
0.63
1
2
1.45
5.89
3.65
2.21
0.63
1
2
1.50
5.90
3.61
2.17
0.63
1
2
1.55
5.91
3.57
2.14
0.63
1
2
1.60
5.92
3.54
2.10
0.64
1
2
1.65
5.93
3.50
2.07
0.64
1
3
1.65
6.06
3.34
1.96
0.71
1
3
1.75
6.02
3.28
1.89
0.71
1
3
1.85
5.99
3.21
1.83
0.72
1
3
1.95
5.96
3.15
1.77
0.72
1
3
2.05
5.93
3.09
1.71
0.72
1
3
2.15
5.91
3.03
1.66
0.73
1
3
2.25
5.89
2.97
1.60
0.73
1
3
2.35
5.88
2.91
1.55
0.73
1
3
2.45
5.86
2.86
1.50
0.73
1
3
2.55
5.85
2.80
1.45
0.74
1
3
2.65
5.85
2.75
1.41
0.74
1
3
2.75
5.84
2.69
1.36
0.74
1
3
2.85
5.84
2.64
1.32
0.75
1
3
2.95
5.85
2.59
1.28
0.75
1
3
3.05
5.85
2.54
1.23
0.75
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

• r
s
•
•
WINTER
MODEL RUN 5/4/90 FOR
AMMONIA
TOX
LIMITS
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
Receiving Stream
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O.
is 7.53
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 3.11
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 4.68
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
------
7.53
---------
3.05
------- ----
3
----
--
Reach 1
15.00
35.55
5.00
0.20000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger :
Receiving Stream
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature: 16.
Subbasin : 030619
Stream Class:
Winter 7Q10 :
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
- - - - - - - -
I mile I ft/mil fps I ft Idesignl @2014 Idesignl @204 Idesignl
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.-.- - - - - - - -
Segment
1
I I
1 1.101
I
5.701
0.119
I
1 0.94
I I
1 0.18 1
0.22
I I
1 1.12 1
I
1.221
I
0.22 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.551
I
5.701
0.120
I
10.98
I I
10.18 1
0.22
I I
1 1.13 1
I
1.241
I
0.22 1
Reach
- - - - - - - -
2
- - -
1 1
- - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - - -
1
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
1 1
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
1 1
- - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - - -
1
- - - - - - -
Segment
1
I I
1 1.401
I
3.101
I
0.100
1 1.11
I I
1 0.17 1
0.21
I I
1 0.51 1
I
0.561
I
0.22 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow 1
I
cfs I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I
0.310 1
Headwaters)
1.250 1
Tributary I
0.000 I
* Runoff I
0.010 I
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.156 1
* Runoff I 0.016 I
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.075 1
* Runoff I 0.030 I
CBOD
I NBOD I
D.O. I
mg/l
I mg/l I
mg/l I
15.000
135.550 I
5.000
2.000
I 1.000 I
8.880
2.000
I 1.000 I
8.880
2.000
I 1.000 I
8.880
0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880
2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880
0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880
2.000 I 1.000 I 8.880
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

•
WINTER
MODEL
RUN 5/4/90 FOR AMMONIA
TOX LIMITS
I Seg #
I Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
8.11
4.58
7.87
1.56
1
1
0.10
8.08
4.54
7.77
1.56
1
1
0.20
8.05
4.49
7.68
1.56
1
1
0.30
8.03
4.45
7.59
1.56
1
1
0.40
8.01
4.41
7.50
1.56
1
1
0.50
7.99
4.36
7.41
1.56
1
1
0.60
7.98
4.32
7.32
1.57
1
1
0.70
7.96
4.28
7.24
1.57
1
1
0.80
7.95
4.24
7.15
1.57
1
1
0.90
7.94
4.20
7.07
1.57
1
1
1.00
7.94
4.16
6.99
1.57
1
1
1.10
7.93
4.12
6.90
1.57
1
2
1.10
8.02
3.92
6.37
1.73
1
2
1.15
8.02
3.91
6.33
1.73
1
2
1.20
8.02
3.89
6.29
1.73
1
2
1.25
8.02
3.87
6.26
1.73
1
2
1.30
8.02
3.85
6.22
1.73
1
2
1.35
8.02
3.83
6.18
1.73
1
2
1.40
8.02
3.81
6.15
1.73
1
2
1.45
8.02
3.79
6.11
1.73
1
2
1:50
8.02
3.77
6.07
1.73
1
2
1.55
8.03
3.76
6.04
1.73
1
2
1.60
8.03
3.74
6.00
1.73
1
2
1.65
8.03
3.72
5.96
1.74
1
3
1.65
8.07
3.65
5.76
1.81
1
3
1.75
8.01
3.61
5.67
1.81
1
3
1.85
7.95
3.57
5.59
1.82
1
3
1.95
7.90
3.53
5.51
1.82
1
3
2.05
7.86
3.49
5.43
1.82
1
3
2.15
7.81
3.45
5.35
1.83
1
3
2.25
7.77
3-.41
5.27
1.83
1
3
2.35
7.73
3.37
5.19
1.83
1
3
2.45
7.70
3.33
5.11
1.83
1
3
2.55
7.66
3.29
5.04
1.84
1
3
2.65
7.63
3.26
4.97
1.84
1
3
2.75
7.60
3.22
4.89
1.84
1
3
2.85
7.58
3.18
4.82
1.85
1
3
2.95
7.55
3.15
4.75
1.85
1
3
3.05
7.53
3.11
4.68
1.85
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD
I Flow

SUMMER
MODEL RUN WITH EXISTING LIMITS
AND NEW LOCATION
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF NEWTON GROVE WWTP
Receiving Stream : BEAVERDAM CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 5.33 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.72 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.95 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
---------------------- ----
5.10 0.70 1
----
Reach
1
7.50
9.00
5.00
0.20000
Reach
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF NEWTON GROVE WWTP Subbasin : 030619
Receiving Stream : BEAVERDAM CREEK Stream Class: C-SWAMP
Summer 7Q10 : 0.15 Winter 7Q10 : 1.2
Design Temperature: 27.
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@20%
Idesignl
@20;fi Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.701
I
5.701
0.100
I
1 0.56
I I
1 0.32 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 1
I I
1.031 0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
I I
1 0.551
I
5.701
0.100
I
1 0.65
I I
1 0.31 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 I
I I
1.031 0.51 I
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.401
I
3.101
0.100
I
1 0.69
I I
10.30 1
0.22
I I
1 0.65 I
I I
0.561 0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I
Flow I
I
cfs I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
0.310
Headwatersl
0.150 1
Tributary I
0.000 I
* Runoff I
0.010 I
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 1
Tributary I 0.156
* Runoff I 0.016 I
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.070 I
* Runoff I 0.030 I
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
mg/1 I
mg/l I
mg/l I
7.500 I
9.000 I
5.000
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
2.000 I
1.000 1
7.170
2.000 I
1.000 1
7.170
0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170
2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170
0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 1 7.170
2.000 1 1.000 1 7.170
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

I Seg #
I Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. i
CBOD
1
1
0.00
5.71
5.71
1
1
0.07
5.61
5.62
1
1
0.14
5.53
5.54
1
1
0.21
5.45
5.46
1
1
0.28
5.38
5.38
1
1
0.35
5.32
5.31
1
1
0.42
5.26
5.23
1
1
0.49
5.21
5.16
1
1
0.56
5.17
5.08
1
1
0.63
5.13
5.01
1
1
0.70
5.10
4.94
1
2
0.70
5.62
4.20
1
2
0.75
5.61
4.16
1
2
0.80
5.59
4.12
1
2
0.85
5.58
4.08
1
2
0.90
5.57
4.03
1
2
0.95
5.57
3.99
1
2
1.00
5.56
3.95
1
2
1.05
5.56
3.91
1
2
1.10
5.55
3.87
1
2
1.15
5.55
3.84
1
2
1.20
5.55
3.80
1
2
1.25
5.55
3.76
1
3
1.25
5.71
3.58
1
3
1.35
5.65
3.51
1
3
1.45
5.59
3.44
1
3
1.55
5.54
3.37
1
3
1.65
5.50
3.31
1
3
1.75
5.46
3.24
1
3
1.85
5.43
3.18
1
3
1.95
5.40
3.12
1
3
2.05
5.38
3.06
1
3
2.15
5.36
3.00
1
3
2.25
5.34
2.94
1
3
2.35
5.33
2.88
1
3
2.45
5.33
2.83
1
3
2.55
5.32
2.77
1
3
2.65
5.33
2.72
I Seg #
i Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD
SUMMER
MODEL RUN WITH EXISTING LIMITS
AND NEW LOCATION
I NBOD I
Flow I
6.39
0.46
6.24
0.46
6.10
0.46
5.96
0.46
5.82
0.46
5.69
0.46
5.56
0.46
5.43
0.46
5.31
0.47
5.18
0.47
5.07
0.47
4.05
0.62
3.98
0.62
3.92
0.62
3.85
0.63
3.79
0.63
3.72
0.63
3.66
0.63
3.60
0.63
3.54
0.63
3.48
0.63
3.43
0.63
3.37
0.63
3.13
0.70
3.03
0.70
2.93
0.71
2.83
0.71
2.73
0.71
2.64
0.72
2.55
0.72
2.47
0.72
2.39
0.73
2.31
0.73
2.23
0.73
2.16
0.73
2.08
0.74
2.02
0.74
1.95
0.74
I NBOD I
Flow I

SUMMER
NEW LIMITS FOR AMMONIA TOX
AND RELOC. 1000' DOWNSTR
---------- MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger : TOWN OF NEWTON GROVE WWTP
Receiving Stream : BEAVERDAM CREEK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 5.78 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.63 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.31 mg/l.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
------ --------- -------
Segment 1 5.41 0.90 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
WLA
WLA
WLA
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
7.50
5.85
5.00
0.20000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF NEWTON GROVE WWTP Subbasin : 030619
Receiving Stream : BEAVERDAM CREEK Stream Class: C-SWAMP
Summer 7Q10 : 0.15 Winter 7Q10 : 1.2
Design Temperature: 27.
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KN I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mil
fps
I ft.
(design)
@201h
Idesignl
@20;fi Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.901
I
5.701
0.100
I
1 0.56
I I
1 0.32 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 1
I I
1.031 0.51 I
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 I
Segment
1
I I
1 0.551
I
5.701
0.100
I
1 0.65
I I
10.31 1
0.23
I I
1 1.19 I
I I
1.031 0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.401
I
3.101
0.100
I
10.70
I I
1 0.30 10.22
I I
1 0.65 1
I I
0.561 0.51 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I Flow I
CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
1 cfs I
mg/1 1
mg/1 I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.310 I
7.500 1
5.850 I
5.000
Headwaters) 0.150 1
2.000 I
1.000 1
7.170
Tributary
( 0.000 I
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
* Runoff
I 0.010 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 0.156 I
2.000 1
1.000 I
7.170
* Runoff
1 0.016 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
7.170
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
Tributary
( 0.070 1
2.000 I
1.000 1
7.170
* Runoff
1 0.030 I
2.000 I
1.000 I
7.170
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
NEW LIMITS
FOR AMMONIA TOX
AND RELOC. 10001 DOWNSTR
I Seg #
I Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
5.71
5.71
4.27
0.46
1
1
0.09
5.64
5.60
4.14
0.46
1
1
0.18
5.59
5.50
4.02
0.46
1
1
0.27
5.54
5.40
3.90
0.46
1
1
0.36
5.51
5.30
3.79
0.46
1
1
0.45
5.48
5.20
3.68
0.46
1
1
0.54
5.45
5.10
3.57
0.47
1
1
0.63
5.43
5.01
3.47
0.47
1
1
0.72
5.42
4.92
3.37
0.47
1
1
0.81
5.41
4.83
3.27
0.47
1
1
0.90
5.41
4.74
3.17
0.47
1
2
0.90
5.85
4.05
2.63
0.63
1
2
0.95
5.85
4.01
2.59
0.63
1
2
1.00
5.85
3.97
2.54
0.63
1
2
1.05
5.85
3.93
2.50
0.63
1
2
1.10
5.86
3.89
2.46
0.63
1
2
1.15
5.86
3.85
2.42
0.63
1
2
1.20
5.86
3.82
2.38
0.63
1
2
1.25
5.87
3.78
2.34
0.63
1
2
1.30
5.87
3.74
2.31
0.63
1
2
1.35
5.88
3.70
2.27
0.63
1
2
1.40
5.89
3.66
2.23
0.63
1
2
1.45
5.90
3.63
2.19
0.63
1
3
1.45
6.02
3.47
2.08
0.70
1
3
1.55
5.98
3.40
2.01
0.71
1
3
1.65
5.94
3.33
1.94
0.71
1
3
1.75
5.91
3.26
1.88
0.71
1
3
1.85
5.88
3.20
1.82
0.72
1
3
1.95
5.85
3.14
1.76
0.72
1
3
2.05
5.83
3.08
1.70
0.72
1
3
2.15
5.82
3.02
1.64
0.72
1
3
2.25
5.80
2.96
1.59
0.73
1
3
2.35
5.79
2.90
1.54
0.73
1
3
2.45
5.78
2.84
1.49
0.73
1
3
2.55
5.78
2.79
1.44
0.74
1
3
2.65
5.78
2.74
1.39
0.74
1
3
2.75
5.78
2.68
1.35
0.74
1
3
2.85
5.78
2.63
1.31
0.75
I Seg #
I Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 4, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: Grady Dobson
Fayetteville Regional Office
From: Carla Sanderson
Subject: Town of Newton Grove WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0072877
I am writing to inform you of the new limitations which would be required for
the Town of Newton if they applied for a permit renewal at this time. I would
like to apologize for my tardiness in getting this information to you. During
my review for the new limitations imposed when the permit comes up for renewal,
I realized that a model needed to be run with the new ammonia limits to check
for instream violations of the ammonia standard (1 mg/1 in the summer and 1.8
mg/l in the winter). Flow estimates at the location of the WWTP's discharge
indicate almost 10 times as much flow in the winter as in the summer (summer
7Q10 = 0.15 cfs and winter 7Q10 = 1.2 cfs). This produced less stringent limits
for the winter ammonia limitation.
I have included a total residual chlorine limit which would be required if the
facility has not applied for an ATC yet. Chlorine limits will be required on
all new facilities and possibly existing facilities in the future. The chlorine
limit is based on protection of the action level (17 ug/1) instream. The chlo-
rine and ammonia limits will be limited as daily maximums.
Below, I have listed the modified limits for this permit. These are to be used
for planning purposes and are not currently a part of their permit requirments.
Summer Winter
NH3N 1.3 mg/l 7.9 mg/l (Daily Maximums)
Fecal Coliform 200/100 ml 200/100ml (Monthly Average)
Chlorine 25 ug/l <--- 25 ug/l�-- (Daily Maximum)
Please keep in mind that when it is time for this facility's permit renewal
(July, 1991), any newly adopted requirements or limitations may apply.
cc: WLA File