NC0079561_Speculative Limits_19970810

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 10, 1997
The Honorable Brenda Cook
Mayor, Town of Elk Park
P.O. Box 248
Elk Park, NC 28622-0248
' LT. !MAI
74 9
�EHNR
SUBJECT: Proposed Expansion and Relocation of Elk Park WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO079561
Avery County
Dear Mayor Cook:
I am writing in response to Mr. Michael Waresak, P.E., of McGill Associates
request for speculative effluent limits for the Elk Park WWTP proposed expansion to 0.300
MOD and relocation of discharge to Elk River. This request has been reviewed by the
Instream Assessment Unit (IAU) of the Technical Support Branch in the Division of Water
Quality.
Please be advised that response to a speculative request does not guarantee that the
Division will issue an NPDES permit to discharge treated wastewater. In accordance with
the North Carolina General Statutes, the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative
with the least adverse impact on the environment is required to be implemented.
Nondischarge alternatives, such as spray irrigation or connection to a regional treatment
and disposal system, are considered to be environmentally preferable to a discharge.
Therefore, prior to submittal of an NPDES application, a detailed alternatives analysis must
be prepared to assure that the environmentally sound alternative was selected from the
reasonable cost effective options. In order to receive final permit limits, a formal
application indicating the proposed WWTP design capacity and a justification for the
facility will have to be submitted to the Division's Permits and Engineering Unit.
The proposed discharge location on the Elk River, just above the confluence of
Little Elk Creek has a drainage area of 35.3 mi2, an estimated summer 7Q10 now of 8.4
cfs and an average flow of 71 cfs. This segment of the Elk River has a stream
classification as B-Tr which means it is suitable for primary recreation, such as swimming,
diving, wading and other full body contact activities, and trout propagation.
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

Letter to Mayor Cook
page 2
Based on available information, the tentative limits for conventional constituents for
the Elk Park WWTP at the expansion flow of 0.300 MGD are:
Summer
Winter
BODS (mg/1)
30
30
NH3-N (mg/1)
15
monitor
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
200
200
pH (SU)
6-9
6-9
Chlorine (µg/1)
28
28
In reviewing your request for speculative limits for the subject discharge point, we
have been made aware of the active use of the receiving stream for full body contact
activities such as tubing, wading, swimming and baptisms on a regular basis. As a result
of the close proximity of the proposed discharge to these activities, the Division is
concerned that the public reaction to the discharge will be controversial and as a result, the
town should take proactive actions to involve the community in the selection of a location
suitable for the discharge. Serious consideration should be given to incorporation of
advanced treatment levels (tertiary treatment levels for BODS, NH3, TSS and fecal
coliform) if the town decides to pursue a discharge permit at the proposed location.
Narrative effluent limitations will also be required for temperature and turbidity.
Temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5 degrees C due to
discharge ... and in no case to exceed 20 degrees C. The turbidity in the receiving water
will not exceed 10 NTU in streams designated as trout waters.
It should be noted that the summer NH3-N limits recommended for this plant are
based on protecting the receiving stream against instream toxicity. North Carolina is
evaluating all NPDES dischargers for ammonia toxicity following the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidance to protect the waters for an instream criteria of 1 mg/1 in
the summer and 1.8 mg/1 in the winter, under 7QI0 flow conditions.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is requiring chlorine limits and
dechlorination 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 with the total
residual chlorine limits recommended above.
DWQ has recently completed the basinwide water quality management initiative for
the Watauga River Basin. We will attempt to further address all sources of point and
nonpoint pollutants where deemed necessary to protect or restore water quality standards.
In addressing interaction of sources, wasteload allocations may be affected. Those
facilities that already have committed to high levels of treatment technology are least likely
to be affected.

Letter to Mayor Cook
page 3
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].
qon
erely,
ald L. S t, P.
Assistant Chief for Te
Water Quality Section
DLS/JMN
cc: Forrest Westall
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Bobby Blowe
Central Files
WLA File

UMcGiff
A S S O C I A T E S
June 18, 1997 ^y
I 'i {'
r Dgvifl Goodrich
No
No Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Post Office box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Town of Elk Park
NPDES N NCO079561
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
The Town of Elk Park currently has a NPDES permit to discharge 100,000 gpd to the
Little Elk Creek. On behalf of the Town of Elk Park, we respectfully request the following
information from your division:
1. The additional amount of discharge that would be allowed
to Little Elk Creek if the Town were to submit a request to
modify their NPDES permit.
2. Speculative permit limits to discharge 300,000 gpd to the
sour , Elk River, assuming the current 100,000 gpd permitted
C I"'' discharge to Little Elk Creek is eliminated and routed to the
Elk River. The proposed point of discharge is
approximately three quarters of a mile away from the
current point of discharge and is shown on the attached
map.
These requests have become necessary due to proposed increased development in the
service area.
Engineering • Planning • Finance
McGill Associates, P.A. • P.O. Bor 4187, Sevierville, TN 37864. 154 North Henderson Avenue • Suite 102 • Sevierville, TN 37862
423-908-0575 • FAX [phone]

Mr. David Goodrich
June 18, 1997
Page 2
We appreciate your assistance with this very important issue. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call either Danny Bridges or myself.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATESP.A.
VOL*q
MICHAEL J. WARESAK, P.E.
MJW/drj
cc: Brenda Cook
Connie Gwinn
Mike Parker
Enclosure
85106.02/bridges/dgl8junT doe

r v \
�`.� i �!_ - �` _�� f •, / � � t-Can o e �'�_ �
Heal
�J `/ \ \ .\ ' ✓1 _ ,\\� �� ,i1 S / �\` •..-: ice— _ ,
4003
10
, � ! y �^ ,`• � i ,`�I l ����� _ I (.- • f�i 11„//" tt ; ^�� �tl,�j`�\-�'„'`'1 f4 t t it '�
40C2
O p0 J 't
..lam II _ •_! ! 1 • i�v
WLl--J
/ ' 1 Ili-• - .`'-'\_� • , / •`% /' • • . • a • : • • I ^ �.�,, �/e •t15 i+C//' �i �`,^ �``\ `,.\ \`
4001 � ,��-_r�i }' ���,� � ; _ •. �.�, � / r� � / � O )\ �©:� \� a Substati fl •,1 • � .� �ij � � � ., ,
�C
/ ///' •Vie(% !!�.\ % • • �� /' //Ii l f I 1�J/'�`•'"� / i ` O \`Ic
LoFOIUJ
ip
000
F if
Q
Dy
3999
( �� .�.�, \ \` \\ ` I �., \ 11 � ` ` • ��•r--�. � _ � r'� ^ � I 'i✓,. I r/ 111\D1 jl ��/ ��
! � 1t� �� t � �� _ �V �\ �� .dry • • l r� � �% �,I" �' ,� �t/��� �' `C, v�l � ���,
i %1
It
440
�� , '� 1 ��• �% '�9 ( �• t � �' � ' + / � V/// , / :� it Lf'v
/ '. ' �• �. � C� '\`\ �`\ fir' /.".' �✓--, ----.
- 1! 1 .\ ✓"
82004' all N. C. > 1 &000 FEET 1412 1%E41 :-1., It 413 57/30" �414
1
o$y0 Mapped and edited by Tennessee Valle) Authority j u t•
s Published by the Geological Survey * '
Control by NOSINOAA, USGS, and TVA MN GN 1000
i
Topography by photogrammetric methods using aecial E
photographs taken 1953. Field examination by TVA, 1960. 62 MILS 0.33•
IOMILS
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum

Town of Elk Park WWTP Speculative Request jmn
7/29/97
Existing Location: Little Elk Creek C Tr
Proposed Relocation: Elk River B Tr
The WWTP at the existing site is not discharging yet. According to Forrest Westall it will
be starting up soon. Previously there was a lot of concern and controversy about the
building of the existing plant. Original discharge point had to be moved downstream of
trout farms. All that was corrected prior to issuance of the permit.
Per telecon w/ Forrest, this expansion and relocation is because of a development being
planned near Elk Park. They are looking at the option of connecting to the Elk Park
WWTP, as well as the Towns of Newland and Banner Elk, as other choices. They are
trying to choose the most cost effective way. Regarding the concerned citizens, he said that
they had lost all their appeals on stopping the original plant and they would probably be
concerned about the expansion and relocation also. This project is still very speculative
with no indication as to which way it would go. A lot of work would have to be done to
the existing Elk Park WWTP for expansion of the discharge. ARO would like to be
notified of the speculative limits prior to being sent to the Town.
Existing limits:
Summer Winter
Qw 0.100 0.100
BODS 30 30
NH3 4.2 11
TSS 30 30
Fecal 200 200
TRC 28 28
Narrative limits for temperature and turbidity.
Previous USGS sites for Elk River and tribs were done in 9/90 per USGS request from
SAW. Will update these flows using regression equations from USGS report. (See
attached.)
Notes from 6/91 letter in file: existing discharge point is 0.7 miles upstream of confluence
of Little Elk Creek and Elk River. A primary fishing location for Old Elk River Fishing
Club near confluence. Also baptismal sites for several churches also below the confluence.
Comments received indicated that River used for tubing, wading and other body contact
activities.
This segment of Elk River was classified as B-Trout effective April 4, 1994 designating it
for primary recreation and trout propagation.
Per NCAC 2B .0219 says that no sewage which is not effectively treated to the satisfaction
of the Commission. Must consider proximity to bathing areas etc. Waste must be reliably
treated to ensure the protection of primary recreation. What are those limits?? Secondary
BODS?
Jc(L�C�.+�Y�Gvwu.+•.'/ fwd Jv✓ /w•-/l N M /^uy �2u�-�
J
9^V9 N-nMi �. k •.ive� 'N �&'e"-<-'nw, .c�na at�ta. pwc�v�—
ou�
d,s�wy

Elk Park WWTP Expansion Spec (p.2)
Results of Level B model for Elk Park @ 0.300 MGD:
Summer and winter BODS limit = 30 mg/l
NH3 toxicity limit of 15 mg/l needed in the summer. Can monitor for NH3
in the winter.
Recommend fecal=200/100ml and chlorine limit of 28 µg/l.
Temperature for trout waters shall not be increased by more than 0.5
degrees C d e to the dischar a of heated liquids and in no case to exceed
20 degrees C.
Turbidity in the receiving water will not exceed 10 NTU is stream
designated as trout waters.
Because of the Class B designation, we may want to consider giving limits
for advanced secondary treatment ie 15/4/6 for the protection of swimmers
in area. 1996 staff report indicates that swimming takes place in the
river,right below the confluence of Little Elk Creek and Elk River. This
proposed discharge is located right at that same confluence.

proposed elk park wwtp
Residual Chlorine
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (CFS)
8.45
7010 (CFS)
8.45
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.466
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 (%)
6.22
IWC (a/a)
6.22
Allowable Concentration (ug/l)
325.92
Allowable Concentration (mgA)
15.17
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (CFS)
12.2
Fecal Limit 2001100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.3
Ratio of 18.21 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.465
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (MG/L)
0.22
IWC (°/a)
3.67
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
43.25
NCO079561 7129197

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream:
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number.
Hydrologic Area Number.
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Gave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7Q10 Low Row Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
elk river
13.00 cfs
20.00 cfs
must be < 4W sq. miles
Drainage Area New Site:
35.30 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
2.0 cfs/miles squared
Gave per Report Equation:
71 cfs
s7010 per Report Equation:
11.42 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation:
17.05 cfs
3002 per Report Equation:
24.29 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: 0.84 :1
[ new DA / Da at gage J Continue
Weighted Ratio: 0.78 :1
Over -ride inappropriate Site (y ):
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Gave per Report Equation:
Weighted 0010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted 3002 per Report Equation:
35.30 miles squared
2.0 cfs/miies squared
71 cfs
8.45 cfs
12.22 cfs
18.39 cfs

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream: skalley br
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number.
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Qave Low Flow Record Station:
s7010 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
3002 Low Flow Record Station:
nurnour not avaiiauie
HA10
must be < 4W sq. miles
Drainage Area New Site:
L
1.59 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
2.0 cfs/miles squared
Qave per Report Equation:
3 cfs
s7010 per Report Equation:
0.50 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation:
0.79 cfs
3002 per Report Equation:
1.09 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: #DIV/01
[ new DA / Da at gage ] #DIV/01
Weighted Ratio: #DIV/01
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Qave per Report Equation:
Weighted 67010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
1.59 miles squared
2.0 cfs/mlies squared
#DIV/01
no Input from above
no Input from above
no Input from above

Facility:
NPDES#:
Receiving Stream: little elk creek
Comment(s):
Low Flow Record Station Number.
Hydrologic Area Number:
Drainage Area Low Flow Record Station:
Gave Low Flow Record Station:
s7Q10 Low Flow Record Station:
w7010 Low Flow Record Station:
30Q2 Low Flow Record Station:
numu@f not avallU010
HA10
must be < 4W sq. miles
Drainage Area New Site:
L
4.21 sq. miles
MAR New Site:
2.0 cfslmiles squared
Qave per Report Equation:
8 cfs
s7010 per Report Equation:
1.33 cfs
w7010 per Report Equation:
2.08 cfs
3002 per Report Equation:
2.80 cfs
Continue
Drainage Area Ratio: #DIV/01
[ new DA / Da at gage ] #DIV/01
Weighted Ratio: #DIV/01
Over -ride Inappropriate Site (y ):
Drainage Area New Site:
MAR New Site:
Weighted Gave per Report Equation:
Weighted 67010 per Report Equation:
Weighted w7010 per Report Equation:
Weighted 30Q2 per Report Equation:
4.21 miles squared
2.0 cfslmlles squared
#DIV/01
no Input from above
no input from above
no Input from above

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : ELK PARK WWTP
-Receiving Stream : ELK RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D .O. is 8.41 mg/l .
The End CBOD is 3.61 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 3.21 mg/1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mgd)
Segment 1
7.32 0.00 1
Reach 1
45.00
67.50
0.00
0.30000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***

Discharger : ELK PARK WWTP
Receiving Stream : ELK RIVER
Summer 7Q10 : 8.45
Design Temperature: 23.0
Subbasi n : 040201
Stream Class: B TR
Winter 7Q10 12.22
ILENG THI SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd I Kd I Ka I Ka I KN I KN I K11R I K11R I SOD I SOD I
I mile I ft/mi ( fps I ft Idesignl @201 Idesignl @20° Idesign) @20° Idesignl @20° Idesignl @20° 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.101 31.101 0.390 1 1.24 1 0.23 1 0.20 123.30 1 21.831 0.63 1 0.50 1 0.63 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 I 1.0DI 31.101 0.416 1 1.28 1 0.23 1 0.20 117.95 1 16.821 0.63 1 0.50 1 0.63 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 1.001 31.101 0.426 1 1.30 1 0.23 1 0.20 118.37 1 17.211 0.63 1 0.50 1 0.63 '1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
Flow 1
CBOD
1 NBOD 1
I
cfs I
mg/1
I mg/1 I
Segment 1 Reach
1
Waste 1
0.465 1
45.000
1 67.500 I
Headwaters)
8.450 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
Tributary (
0.000 1
2.000
1 1.000 1
* Runoff (
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 i
Tributary 1 1.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000 I
Tributary ( 0.500 I
* Runoff 1 0.000 I
D.O.
mg/l
0.000
7.720
7.720
7.720
0.000 i 0.000 I 0.000
2.000 I 1.000 ( 7.720
2.000 1 1.000 I 7.720
0.000 I
2.000 I
2.000 I
* Runoff flow is in cf s/mil e
0.000 I
1.000 I
1.000 i
0.000
7.720
7.720
SUMMER

I Seg # ( Reach #
Seg Mi I
1 1
0.00
1 1
0.01
- 1 1
0.02
1 1
0.03
1 1
0.04
1 1
0.05
1 1
0.06
1 1
0.07
1 1
0.08
1 1
0.09
1 1
0.10
1 2
0.10
1 2
0.20
1 2
0.30
1 2
0.40
1 2
0.50
1 2
0.60
1 2
0.70
1 2
0.80
1 2
0.90
1 2
1.00
1 2
1.10
1 3
1.10
1 3
1.20
1 3
1.30
1 3
1 .40
1 3
1.50
1 3
1.60
1 3
1 .70
1 3
1.80
1 3
1.90
1 3
2.00
1 3
2.10
Seg # Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D . O. I
CBOD
NBOD I
Fl ow I
7.32
4.24
4.47
8.91
7.36
4.24
4.46
8.91
7.39
4.24
4.46
8.91
7.43
4.24
4.46
8.91
7.47
4.24
4.45
8.91
7.50
4.24
4.45
8.91
7.53
4.23
4.44
8.91
7.57
4.23
4.44
8.91
7.60
4.23
4.43
8.91
7.63
4.23
4.43
8.91
7.65
4.23
4.42
8.91
7.66
3.94
3.99
10.21
7.83
3.93
3.95
10.21
7.96
3.92
3.92
10.21
8.06
3.90
3.88
10.21
8.14
3.89
3.84
10.21
8.20
3.88
3.81
10.21
8.24
3.87
3.77
10.21
8.28
3.85
3.74
10.21
8.31
3.84
3.70
10.21
8.33
3.83
3.67
10.21
8.35
3.81
3.64
10.21
8.32
3.73
3.51
10.71
8.34
3.72
3.48
10.71
8.36
3.70
3.45
10.71
8.37
3.69
3.42
10.71
8.38
3.68
3.39
10.71
8.39
3.67
3.36
10.71
8.40
3.66
3.33
10.71
8.40
3.64
3.30
10.71
8.41
3.63
3.27
10.71
8.41
3.62
3.24
10.71
8.41
3.61
3.21
10.71
D.O. i
CBOD
NBOD (
Flow I
MINTER

W m ft
----------
MODEL RESULT; ----------
Discharger : ELK PARK WWTP
-Receiving Stream : ELK RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End D.O. is 8.46 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 3.12 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 3 . 17 mg/1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1) Mi1epoint Reach # (mg/1)
------------------------ ----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment 1
7.44 0.00 1
Reach 1
45.00
90.00
0.00
0.30000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***

Discharger : ELK PARK WWTP
Receiving Stream : ELK RIVER
Summer 7Q10 : 8.45
Design Temper•atur•e: 23.0
Subbasi n : 040201
Stream Class: B TR
Winter 7Q10 12.22
ILENGTH1
SLOPE)
VELOCITY
I DEPTH) Kd I Kd
I Ka I
Ka I KH I KN
I KNR I KHR
I SOD I SOD I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I vile I
ft/mi)
fps
I ft ldesignl @20°
(design) @200 Idesignl @201
Idesignl @200
(design) @201 1
Segment 1
I I
1 0.101
I
31.101
0.507
I I I
1 1.29 1 0.23 1 0.20
I
121.90
I I I
1 20.511 0.63 1 0.50
I I
1 0.63 1 0.00
I I I
1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I
I
I I I
I
I I I
I I
I
Segment 1
I I
1 1.001
I
31.101
0.548
I I I
1 1.34 1 0.23 1 0.20
I
123.64
I I I
1 22.151 0.63 1 0.50
I I
1 0.63 1 0.00
I I I
1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1
1
Segment 1
I I
1 1.001
I
31.101
0.562
I I I
1 1.36 1 0.23 1 0.20
I
124.27
I I I
1 22.731 0.63 1 0.50
I I
1 0.63 1 0.00
I I I
1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3
------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
1
1 1 1
1
-----------------------------------------
1 1 1
1 1
1
{ Flow {
CBOD I
NBOD {
D.O. 1
1 cfs {
mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1
Reach 1
Waste
1 0.465 1
45.000
( 90.000 1
0.000
Headwaters) 12.200 {
2.000 {
1.000 {
7.720
Tributary
{ 0.000 {
2.000
1 1.000 1
7.720
* Runoff
{ 0.000 {
2.000 {
1.000 (
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 2
Waste
{ 0.000 {
0.000
( 0.000 1
0.000
Tributary
1 2.080 1
2.000
{ 1.000 (
7.720
* Runoff
{ 0.000 {
2.000
{ 1.000 1
7.720
Segment 1
Reach 3
Waste
( 0.000 1
0.000
{ 0.000 {
0.000
Tributary
{ 0.790
1 2.000
1 1.000 {
7.720
* Runoff
{ 0.000 1
2.000
1 1.000 {
7.720
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mil e

WINTER
e� Seg # Reach #
( Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow
1 1
0.00
7.44
3.58
4.27
12.66
1 1
0.01
7.46
3.58
4.26
12.66
1 1
0.02
7.49
3.58
4.26
12.66
1 1
0.03
7.51
3.58
4.26
12.66
1 1
0.04
7.54
3.57
4.25
12.66
1 1
0.05
7.56
3.57
4.25
12.66
1 1
0.06
7.58
3.57
4.25
12.66
1 1
0.07
7.60
3.57
4.25
12.66
1 1
0.08
7.62
3.57
4.24
12.66
1 1
0.09
7.64
3.57
4.24
12.66
1 1
0.10
7.66
3.57
4.24
12.66
1 2
0.10
7.67
3.35
3.78
14.74
1 2
0.20
7.85
3.34
3.75
14.74
1 2
0.30
7.99
3.33
3.73
14.74
1 2
0.40
8.10
3.32
3.70
14.74
1 2
0.50
8.18
3.31
3.67
14.74
1 2
0.60
8.24
3.30
3.65
14.74
1 2
0.70
8.29
3.30
3.62
14.74
1 2
0.80
8.33
3.29
3.60
14.74
1 2
0.90
8.36
3.28
3.57
14.74
1 2
1.00
8.38
3.27
3.55
14.74
1 2
1.10
8.40
3.26
3.52
14.74
1 3
1.10
8.36
3.20
3.39
15.54
1 3
1.20
8.39
3.19
3.37
15.54
1 3
1.30
8.40
3.18
3.35
15.54
1 3
1.40
8.42
3.17
3.33
15.54
1 3
1.50
8.43
3.17
3.30
15.54
1 3
1.60
8.44
3.16
3.28
15.54
1 3
1.70
8.44
3.15
3.26
15.54
1 3
1.80
8.45
3.14
3.24
15.54
1 3
1.90
8.45
3.14
3.21
15.54
1 3
2.00
8.46
3.13
3.19
15.54
1 3
2.10
8.46
3.12
3.17
15.54
Seg # Reach #
( Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

a WEN DTX 1
aSg�
0
4-1
d
1000
• � to M
elty 4ist
.�$so o
St�ea n� : .��� ���✓ 2s �0 1. z8
Zs�� o?, 37
M -
2,7600 3, d
`' ` 4 t S't t r•� B C a n C
SIo e- Calcu 1 atic n S
� d
2-Ir
/.28 a,
2d yo - 2 8w
.2. 37
_ /► LBM� /.o 9 ��
3. y5 - Z,37
2 g So -- 274 o _ /Z�
31
disc'
S10 a
3
3G.7
v
d i StAAcC.

Staff Review and Evaluation
NPDES Wastewater Permit
FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Town of Elk Park
NPDES No. NCO079561
Design Flow (MGD) 0.1
Facility Class II
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Stream Name
Little Elk Creek
Stream Class
C-Trout
Sub -basin
04-02-01
Drainage Area (mil)
2.23
S7Q10 (cfs)
.6
W7Q10 (cfs)
.87
30Q2 (cfs)
1.3
IWC (%)
20.5
Proposed Changes
Parameters Affected
Basis for change(s)
Monitoring Frequencies
BOD5, TSS, NH3, Fecal, TRC,
Temperature, Conductivity, pH
2B .0500 Regulations
Remove Temp. Condition
Temperature
Not a thermal discharge
Compliance Schedule:
Special Condition(s): NH3 limits staying at 4.2 & 11 from calculations on WLA 7/22/92.
Removed temperature condition that stated to not increase the stream temperature by 0.50C.
Permits & Engineering Comments:
Recommend renewal of NPDES permit with the above changes.
Prepared by:
Regional Office Evaluation and Recommendations:
Sl xis Co9Uf' 1 �1,J Ckonn cUrU�rsa �lon
t1Ih jq6 I z/I6Ig6
I
okly
/ / /- Y ��'
PLOTTED

-7-756
of
� � �" t � Elk G���- k c t � ,�v w'
C ---�-• �-� ��
AV
A� �iti. nd�.r �Ik P�„r� y. 2i ss. y
2,��
1, 1 (•6
C.
z ,z
_�--V4S
I4 % 7} 13 z_
.__.._.._.
---.-�
132
= (G 37
l � 1
`7 • � u• � �
-50 A 1/� S c (� � � ,� p
k
--

Aou
L
-----------
4-v
InAj C-o j

'
Aln.
Ce
--'
'-------

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No XX
IF YES, SOC NUMBER
TO: PERMITS AND ENGINEERING UNIT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Mary Cabe
DATE: January 16, 1996
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY Avery
PERMIT NUMBER NCO079561
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Elk Park
Mailing: Post Office Box 248
Elk Park, North Carolina 28622
2. Date of Investigation: January 11, 1996
3. Report Prepared By: Michael R. Parker
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Connie Guinn
704/733-9573
5. Directions to Site: From U. S. Highway 19E in Elk
Park, turn right onto Main Street. Follow Main Street
to Elk River Road (NCSR 1305). Turn right onto Elk
River Road and travel north approximately 0.5 mile.
The proposed site is located on the right side of the
road. The discharge point is located approximately 850
feet further downstream, below the intake point of the
trout ponds.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 360 10106" Longitude: 810 58130"
Attach a USGS map extract -and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. C11NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Elk Park, N. C.
Page 1

7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X_ Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The wastewater
treatment plant will not be subject to flooding.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Greater than 100 feet. There is an
existing double wide trailer on the site. The Town will have to
purchase property and move trailer.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Little Elk Creek
a. Classification: C-trout
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Watauga 01
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream
uses: fishing, wading, fish and wildlife propagation,
approximately % mile downstream Little Elk Creek runs into
the Elk River which is classified as B-trout waters.
Swimming takes place in the Elk River below the confluence of
Little Elk Creek.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted 0.100 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater
Treatment facility? 0.100 MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current
design capacity Facility not constructed.
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years:
A to C for WWTP issued on November 27, 1995.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities: NA
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: The Town of Elk Park proposes to construct a
O.100.MGD wwtp consisting of an inlet bar screen, two
(50,000) gallon aeration basins, 2 (16 foot) diameter
clarifiers, a 2,600 gallon chlorine contact tank, gaseous
chlorination and sulfur dioxide dechlorination, 2 (23,180
gallon) aerobic digesters, and stand-by power.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: None anticipated.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): NA
Page 2

a - '
in development approved
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit Number
Residuals Contractor
Telephone Number
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP OTHER
C . Landf ill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): Possibly
contract hauling.
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet):
Class II.
4. SIC Codes (s) : 4952
Primary 01 Secondary 03
Main Treatment Unit Code: 04007
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds
or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? Monies are
being provided by local funds and Farmers Home Administration
funds and CDGB money ($157,000).
2.. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
None
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate) NA
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all
of the non -discharge options available. Please provide regional
perspective for each option evaluated.
Page 3

Spray Irrigation: Land not available.
Connection to Regional Sewer System: Not an option
Subsurface: Not an option
Other disposal options:
5.
Other
Special Items:
NA
PART
IV -
EVALUATION AND
RECONIlMENDATIONS
The Town of Elk Park has made application for renewal of NPDES Permit
No. NCO079561 for the discharge of 0.100 MGD of domestic strength
wastewater into Little Elk Creek. The Town has submitted plans and
specifications for approval to construct an extended aeration type
wastewater treatment facility and approval was granted on November 27,
1995.
When this permit was issued the first time there was significant
objection to the location of the wastewater treatment facility by
individuals living in close proximity to the proposed site. A public
meeting was held with all parties voicing their opinions regarding the
treatment plant location. Also, there has been litigation against the
Town of Elk Park by the citizens against the location of the wastewater
treatment plant. These citizens (Turbyfill Et Al) named the Department
as a party to this civil matter; however, the Court of Appeals
dismissed this judgement against the Department. There continues to be
some type of litigation against the Town of Elk Park regarding this
matter.
I just wanted to make you aware that there has been controversy over
this project an4 there is a good possibility that there will be
objections raised again. However, it is my opinion that this site is
suitable for this wastewater treatment facility and discharge,
therefore, it is recommended that the permit be issued.
If you have questions, please call me at 704/251-6208.
Signature of Report Prepa er
-Pam� Aj�y-
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
(- ! 6- q,6
Date
Page 4