NC0083313_Wasteload Allocation_19930806

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
BROOKSIDE VILLAGE WWTP
NC0083313
Domestic - 100%
Proposed
New
Featherstone Creek
/C
/ 040302
Henderson
Asheville
Request # 7460
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Goris Date:
5/12/93 Drainage Area (mi2):
F9NW Summer7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
i
Low Flow
Procedure
1993
3.3 (estimated)
0.78
1.23
4.95
1.7
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Proposed facility requests NPDES permit. Technical Support recommends issuance of permit with
limits of BOD5=10 mg/l, NH3=2 mg/l, and DO=6 mg/1 per management strategy of the Mud
Creek/Clear Creek QUAL2E Model. Previous factsheet.sent_7/_1/93.did not incorporate this ,
strategy. C-4- k �✓ , i f Gw..�d,.isaL
w PL F�" &.v4- A
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: /N. Date: 7/14/93
Reviewed by
Instream Assessmeni
Regional Su sor
Pemuts.5 E gmeerii
AUu c v ""
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

1
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Recommended Limi
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.005
BOD5 (mg/1):
10
WQ
NH3N (mg/1):
2
WQ
DO (mg/l):
6
WQ
TSS (mg/1):
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
pH (SU):
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µgh):
28
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
TP (mg/1):
nr
TN (mg/1):
nr
Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within
this portion of the watershed.
•Q
X_ No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Special Instructions or Conditions
Instream Monitoring:
Upstream:
Downstream:
Parameters:
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO083313
PERNIITTEE NAME: Brookside Village Assoc.
FACILTTYNAME: Brookside Village WTP
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: New
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Minor �J
0.005 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
11 '.
RECEIVING STREAM: Featherstone Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 04-03-02
Reference USGS Quad: f 9 AIW (please attach)
County: Henderson
Regional Office: Asheville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Mud Creek Wrox. 2mi downstream is WS-IV.
Requested by: Sean Goris Date: 5/11/93
Prepared by: �1 •_ Date:
Reviewed Date: 3
a
Modeler
I Date Rec.
I #
22" �J
I S a a
o
Drainage Area (mil ) 3.3 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): `f
7Q10 (cfs) o. %8 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) /. 23 30Q2 (cfs)_;
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring: A W%d8i Fizvcl, /Mite 4br✓
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (m )
/0
NH3-N (mg/l)
D.O. (mg/1)
!o
TSS (mg/1)
30
F. Col. (/100 ml)
,200
ppH(SU)
6-9
Pi
n
minr. Q.�.;n..Ae / CTrmmlinn WI A file
Comments: at front of subbasin
�i rzoprost�—PEOFWAIL

6 �MIle 3 /1l-,� `AIL ^I`�-' /J /O\`11 i•( 1�` Oa Fo11t t'\!
14
t
\1 FV 44
2060
,
n.INtoi n.ta n Sa sny
0
��. ewase dlsp6dz,lp �[t ��
We�I-3•
U
'xq, \
364 1,:•ouu.,: r, l-ro 1.
°" .O 50N V 11:.G I
and edited by T.
ennessee Valley Authority
-?d by the Geological Survey
�y NOS:NOAA, USGS, and TVA
"y !'VA ir- 1965 by pi-oto.^,ramrnetric methods using
,togralphs taken 1964 and by reference to TVA-USGS
,L: dated 1942. Map field checked by TVA, 1965
-,rojecOwl� 1927 North American datum
G
D r
l I^
k
oo.,
0` c f 00003313 J�
NEAtEQSOIJ'S `
_-
1�csT...0 :r"�
t GIN I _-_ _ 5-__-
4 I F 7 I�j / -_-_
V(."`-`0_
tI!-.5"MILS OASHEC LIN-o
NATIONAL GE

%/r @ l%,/ I /-l%rj� _
6 cC
0.2 - - 0 ?,l-( () — ?.0" 6

/3 rfi.n J J (.
J�
4L
n
GYP. /,LcF
�fl0
o. J 3,
DI/11'Al V,/, O. 7Y - l
,.7j
i'
s7y, r
O, S7�T
r
O. 7��3
—3,57cf3
aa77r
r � D

BROOKSIDE VILLAGE WWTP
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NIi3
(summer)
7Q10 (CFS)
0.78
7010 (CFS)
0.78
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.005
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.005
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.00775
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.00775
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (UG/L)
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
0.98
IWC (%)
0.98
Allowable Concentration (ug/1)
1727.97 '
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
79.50
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
1.23
Fecal Limit
200/100m1
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.005
Ratio of 100.6:1
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.00775
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (%)
0.63
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
252.56
NC0083313 6/30/93

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
f=`Iwo.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
BROOKSIDE VILLAGE
APRIL, 1993
.J
Prepared by:
WILLIAM G. LAPSLEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1635 ASHEVILLE HIGHWAY
HENDERSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
% GA�
i
60
Q' SEA p
Siti.

GENERAL INFORMATION
1. FACILITY NAME -
COUNTY -
REPORT PREPARER'S NAME -
N.C. P.E. Certification No. -
ADDRESS OF PREPARER -
Brookside Village
Henderson
Gary T. Tweed, P.E.
8464
William G. Lapsley and
Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 546
Hendersonville, N.C. 28793
It is proposed to replace four failing septic tank drain field
systems with a package wastewater treatment facility
consisting of a secondary extended aeration wastewater
treatment facility 5,000 GPD followed by a tertiary filter if
required to meet effluent requirements for a discharge to
Featherstone Creek in the French Broad River Basin. A copy of
the proposed system layout is attached to this report.
3. The project is to serve an existing 19 unit, 37 bedroom
condominium project. Wastewater flow has been developed on
the basis of 37 bedrooms at 120 GPD/bedroom totaling 4,440
GPD. A 5,000 GPD facility is planned.
The project is not to be phased and the full 5,000 GPD
facility is to be installed.
1. The existing condominium complex has four buildings each with
its own septic tank and drainfield system. All four
drainfields have failed and an attempted repair in January
1993 has not been successful. The repaired drainfields began
surfacing immediately after installation of the new drainfield
and wastewater is flowing across the ground surface to a
nearby unnamed tributary to Featherstone Creek. The Health
Department does not feel that the system can be repaired by
additional drainfield. It appears that the system has failed
due to a high water table in the area. Surfacing ground water
just above the drainfield is occurring in the condominium
parking lot area.
Several options for repair to the facility were considered as
follows:

Option 1 - Utilize the existing wastewater treatment facility
at Mountain View Rest Home. Mountain View Rest Home is served
by an existing 5, 000 GPD tertiary package plant discharging to
the same unnamed tributary approximately 1,500 feet upstream
of Brookside Village. Mountain View Rest Home was contacted
concerning the possible expansion of their facility to serve
Brookside Village. The owners of Mountain View were not
interested in a joint venture and this option was no longer
pursued. In addition the unnamed tributary has a 0 7Q10 and
0 30Q2 flow which according to current Division of
Environmental Management requirements an expansion of the
existing Mountain View facility would not be allowed.
Option 2 - Utilize the existing wastewater treatment facility
serving Henderson's Rest Home. Henderson Rest Home is served
by an existing tertiary package treatment facility discharging
to an unnamed tributary to Featherstone Creek. This unnamed
tributary also has a 0 7Q10 and 0 30Q2 flow. The facility
would not be allowed to expand and this option was dropped.
Option 3 - Expand the existing drainfield into vacant land
across the unnamed tributary from Brookside Village. The
property owner of the vacant land was contacted and will not
sell or lease part of his property. Therefore expansion into
the vacant land area is not feasible.
Option 4 - Provide a sanitary sewerage lift station and force
main to the wastewater treatment facility serving Fletcher
Hospital and Academy. Fletcher Hospital and Academy does not
accept wastewater discharges from outside there complex. This
had been attempted with other projects in the past much closer
than Brookside Village and Fletcher Hospital and Academy will
not provide sewer service to facilities outside there complex.
This option has been dropped from further consideration. In
addition it is the consultant's opinion that the cost of the
pump station and two miles of force main would substantially
exceed the proposed on site facility cost and would not be
cost effective.
Option 5 - Spray Irrigation. There is insufficient space on
site and as with subsurface disposal there is no available
adjacent property which would make spray irrigation feasible.
Option 6 - Utilize any planned area wide wastewater treatment
facilities. William G. Lapsley and Associates, P.A. provides
engineering services for Henderson County. There are no
planned area wide wastewater collection and treatment
facilities being planned which would be available during the
next four years for Brookside Village. Even though there is
a need in this area for community wastewater collection
facilities the County has no plans to provide sanitary sewer
service for this area.

Option 7 - Provide and on site wastewater treatment facility
discharging to Featherstone Creek. This option has been
chosen and cost estimates have been provided below.
COST
The proposed wastewater treatment facility will consist of a
5,000 GPD extended aeration package wastewater treatment facility
and tertiary filter if required and effluent chlorination with
of f luent pump station and f orce main of approximately 1, 500 f eet to
Featherstone Creek. Sludge holding facilities will be provided.
Featherstone Creek is the closest stream with a positive 7Q10, 30Q2
flow. Preliminary cost estimate of this option is as follows:
ITEM
51000 GPD Extended Aeration Package Plant
5,000 GPD Tertiary Filter
Effluent pump station/force main
Easement Acquisition
Engineering
Total
OPERATING EXPENSES
Certified Operator Annual Cost
Monitoring Annual Cost
Electrical Annual Cost
Maintenance Annual Cost
Total Annual Cost
COST
$50,000
$25,000
$25,000
$ 5,000
$12,000
$117,000
$ 4,000
$ 2,500
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 11,500
PRESENT WORTH COST
$117,000 + $111500(9.8181)USPWF 20 yr @ 8% _ $229,908

RECOMENDATIONS
Brookside Village wastewater treatment system consisting of
four septic tank drainfield systems has not operated properly and
repeated efforts to repair and salvage the system have not been
successful. Several options have been evaluated and the only
option available at this time is to provide an on site discharging
type wastewater treatment facility. The only stream in the area
suitable for a discharge is Featherstone Creek. It is recommended
that Brookside Village apply to the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management for a NPDES Permit for an on site wastewater treatment
facility and discharge of treated wastewater to Featherstone Creek.
Upon issuance of the permit then Brookside Village should authorize
the design of the proposed treatment facility and seek an
authorization to construct for the proposed facility.

�.: , � Y si. r r,: o•. r� tit. \ ' _ , , ? a,;: f. tr... •♦ � O rl'r.. • :.. .
w i+ p►
AL
97f it
ewp
._
37,
8
65
to
• .` rc :fit :� 266
'• , ' • •I �� �'Y b` �ts , •wee •+�r• • �• r �c 'i`�•�`i x� +-�i,' t •• �•,/�
46
VZ
X.
LP UqA
• •e TJ1 r':M� , rt
Q395 ,
9A
. . •Yd ' •• = •��,j w - i �r .: ' `^! .;� �• . ....• ?s 22t5� `` '4 -y... ,.i r
go
167
5191
,• ;�
,� •,• ♦ !rt `� (• •. • t . =x y' `.Arm;tom..
ar
;6 4� v'; ��� - • . = 1865 •.A . 3875 . .� 5 95 9
-6892,
�� !A , A✓ It!
776 2724 �°� i 4744 ii �'� 7723 .
o Y� s
io 97 2 �'s Obi e$25605`0a� �92`'� �!.�' - • �' • .
766 L 6� �i 't • •s ? ,
5 • ao /2 C�6 cis 9507 I R
i7 r �'' y • a;- 5576
`k.
3563'��' .�•m �' ap`.yo1' 00
r7562 �o •: _ 4 4:0488 •`'� x/ / 6436 2`
SON•�8'4 M a�,,. S39 ':Z �ti pi
1359 -
f a y •
ey,~ �� 9•✓ 2��` ��' 4384 - `oo 7335CM A
1�1�
i6o 2 F o 2330 1.5
•°' �'� `` �° �� ' ,
r�► ,�
PJ`ay 2292`�6�. ,v`��Z ',4380. "
a 0 8148 .� 0158 iQ2� ia' - `ya 2 .5�2©4,
3174�
�3 3 `9� �� . - �?�;Q•� .-PORTION'OF
4 'mod 60l . �`' o ,�='W- 2
2 r � �? PARCEL SEE
1130
ti MAP, 9660(02)
91l0 s I �o `��o� .� 2054 4064 .. : • ,:::
I _--

A Water Quality Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Discharges
to Mud and Clear Creeks in Hendersonville, NC
Henderson County
Prepared by
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
DRAFT
Novermber 1992

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEM has developed a field calibrated QUAL2E model of Mud and Clear Creeks
to determine the existing and potential impacts on the receiving waters of the permitted
discharges. A major issue is the overallocation of assimilative capacity indicated by b4
modeling and the results of instream biomonitoring in portions of the basin. There is
currently no instream self -monitoring required of the Hendersonville WWTP, the only
major facility discharging to Mud Creek. This report examines the impact of the
Hendersonville WWTP's proposed expansion from 3.2 to 6.0 MGD and the effluent
limitations necessary to protect water quality. In addition, there are seventeen other
facilities which currently discharge wastewater to Mud and Clear Creeks. Twenty-two
additional facilities are permitted to discharge to Mud and Clear Creeks and their
tributaries within the bounds of the QUAL2E model but have not yet constructed
treatment facilities.
The analysis centered on the evaluation of the DOBOD relationship in Mud and
Clear Creeks. Existing water quality monitoring data, along with the results of the
QUAL2E modeling, indicate that Mud Creek below the Hendersonville WWTP is a
marginal system with respect to assimilative capacity. With the seventeen existing
discharges at their pemutted loads (Hendersonville at 6.0 MGD), the model predicts a
DO sag to 2.6 mg/l at the mouth of Mud Creek. The model indicated that reducing
Hendersonville's limits to BOD5 = 10 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l, and DO = 6 mg/l, and
assuming all discharges to Allen Branch, East Flat Rock Development, East Henderson
High School, and Blue Ridge Technical College connect to Hendersonville would protect
the 5.0 mg/l stream standard for dissolved oxygen under critical summer conditions.
With no discharges, a DO sag to 5.8 mg/l is predicted due to the warm water
temperatures and low stream bed slope.
Effluent toxicity issues were also examined. A few significant industrial users
discharge to Hendersonville WWTP and General Electric, the only other major
discharge, is expected to tie-in to the Hendersonville WWTP in the future. Both
facilities have had toxicity problems in the past. Hendersonville will receive revised
metals limits and toxicity testing requirements upon permit renewal.
All new and expanding discharges should implement treatment consistent with°
that required for Hendersonville, i.e., meet limits of BOD5 = 10 mg/l, NH3-N = 2 mg/l,
and DO = 6 mg/l. This strategy should encourage regionalization of wastewater
treatment and reduce the proliferation of small package plants. In addition, self -
monitoring requirements will be added to permits and an ambient water quality
monitoring site at the mouth of Mud Creek will be added to DEM's existing monitoring
network.