NC0087891_Permit Issuance_20110602

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resourcess
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
June 2, 2011
Nathan Bennett
County Manager
Yancey County Court House
l 10 Town Square, Room 11
Burnsville, NC 28714
Subject: Issuance of Renewal Permit
NPDES Permit NCO087891
South Toe River WWTP
Facility Class II
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
During the public comment period for this draft NPDES permit renewal, the Division received
comments from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Western Carolina Alliance and the
French Broad Riverkeeper, from US Fish and Wildlife Service, from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
and from Starli McDowell with Toe River Valley Watch.
In addition, as part of the 404 Certification renewal process for the proposed wastewater treatment plant
outfall construction, US Fish and Wildlife Service supervised a new mussel survey. The US Army Corp of
Engineers subsequently approved the 404 Certification renewal in April 2011 and incorporated the US Fish and
Wildlife Service survey recommendations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, in a letter dated April 5, 2011 to
the US Army Corp of Engineers, concluded that the proposed wastewater plant construction project may affect,
but not likely to adversely affect, the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel and that any take would be discountable and
insignificant.
The Division has expanded the final permit ammonia as nitrogen monitoring to follow the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommendations. Both US Fish and
Wildlife Service and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission requested access to the NPDES permit
reported data. This data is public information and is readily obtained by either contacting the Division's Central
Files in Raleigh or contacting the Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection.
Page 1 of 3
.1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org •
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
No�rthCarolina
Naturally

Division personnel have- reviewed all comments and , -recommendations • concerning this - ''draft
NPDES pennit, and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly, we are,
forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently amended).
Summary of Changes in Renewal Permit from Existing Permit
1) Total Residual Chlorine monitoring and erfuent limit were replaced with a conditional narrative since
the.racility uses UV disinfection and has stand by power. •
2) Effluent Sheet A. (1) narrative was revised to include receipt ofAuthorization to Construct, submittal of
Engineer Certificate, and proposed diffuser reference.
3) Supplemental to Permit Cover Sheet narrative was revised to include component list of proposed
treatment equipment.
4) Special Condition A. (2) Outfall Survey requirement was completed, removed no longer applicable.
Changes in Final Permit from Draft Permit based on comments received
5) Effluent Ammonia monitoring frequency was increased to weekly.
6) Instream Ammonia monitoring was expanded to year round with seasonal monitoring , frequencies.
Summer is defined as April I — October 31, sample frequency is weekly. Winter is defined as November
1 — March 31, sample frequency is 2/month. A narrative . footnote establishing sampling protocol was
added.
7) A conditional narrative for requesting summer monitoring frequency reduction to 2/month after 2 years
of data have been reported and if no impact to the mussels is shown was added.
8) Instream sample location narrative was amended to state approximately 25 ft to provide better align
and,flexibility with stream configuration and last survey listed mussels location.
9) Special Condition A. (2) (former Special Condition A. (3)) Ammonia Reopener narrative was amended
to include additional action if instream Ammonia concentration exceeds criteria to protect mussels and
this discharge is the identified source.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained in this permit are
unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days
following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714). Unless such demand is made, this decision shall be final
and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or permits
required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other federal or local
governmental permits that may be required.
Page 2 of 3
f

If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Ron Berry at telephone number (919)
807-6396 or at email [e-mail].
H. Sullins
Attachments
Cc: Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section (revised fact sheet)
McGill Associates, P.A. (email)
David Honeycutt, PE email: [e-mail]
Southern Environmental Law Center (email)
DJ Gerken email: [e-mail]
US Fish and Wildlife Service (email)
Bryan Tompkins email: [e-mail]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (email)
David McHenry email: [e-mail]
Toe River Valley Watch (email)
Starli McDowell email: stars][e-mail]
Central Files
NPDES Unit
Page 3 of 3

Permit NCO087891
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
• PERMIT '
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission,
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,.
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
South Toe River WWTP
Wyatt Town Road
Micaville, North Carolina
Yancey County
to receiving waters designated as South Toe River in the French Broad River Basin in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV
hereof.
The permit shall become effective July 1, 2011.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on February 29, 2016.
Signed this day June 2, 2011.
t? men H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0087891
A
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby
revoked. As of'this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer
effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate and discharge.fiom this,facility arises under the
permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
is hereby authorized to:
1. Afier receiving an Authorization, construct a 0.125 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting
of :
- Bar screen
- Influent composite sampler
- Two (2) 115,000 gallon Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) systems
- One (1) 26,000 gallon post equalization basin
- Two (2) tertiary filter systems
- UV disinfection system
- Effluent flow meter with recorder
- Effluent composite sampler
- 12 port diffuser system
- One (1) 63,000 gallon digester
- Sludge truck load out station
- Stand by generator
The facility shall be located at the South Toe River WWTP on Wyatt Town Road, Micaville, Yancey
County, and;
2. Discharge from said treatment works (via Outfall 001) into the South Toe River, a Class C-Trout
water in the French Broad River Basin, at the location specified on the attached map.
01

•1
� • - • 1 � i gyp• �"-
w r,- • _ w, _i- - ', — , '+i ` ••'` ► ,1 .�' .� n'!�•+._ 1t � f t ''�- !r'•{fir � ..
� __ - � t�v�h1:5 f'rfi/ r , ? . I,af �•;,� • " eY �• :ti I - � =• - , i r _ 'r •.
1 1 •�'� •- •. _`r •r} 1 f��-` �•!e� •� ,,`- •, •-•_ 1 � -1 •• -{_. y•- I, <_,•�_'� .;-f �� Ali y
�r11I S� ." 'P'/ I' � ' ••'w• ..1 1 • /
*14
,.,, '', >r`'S-__ --",1�141•/ '�y 41! i . Y Y V 9 , ! I �t' ' Y: rM'• -•1 - '.. Jar t • ."a ,', •' "' w
:11�1 %r11 �-� � I•' + � � Yt f_• ,� _ jr.,- l.,r f� rr.1f �I!• la _ r, -- - Sf 1 :
�a ;a . .,.�-►_ °', Headworks •
, a! Trs 1 et1' I 1 r'' •'' ��
Ir .. _ _.�..-;_mil'` �*►� '
--..•�' �! ,..` .�_� _- 4, .� Sample
! � �1. �. �W�r • .s.
If
State Road 1 307
'�`'�I �.� L---;�♦
• tti,r '��71 1� _ �',,,".,_=- wrl� '' 1 0� +�I �•` rti I t,,�•~'K.r ,r.�r�♦ �• ����,• _ f•
r .. V ._ _. �""w i'�i � •,,! �w ; �• I - �S .. 8S • ' /'.• ,t -R., t J.+. •. .• •. '�r •, 1
r • will Y�►NI'it .`It
If Oo?
- . lei Diffuser
UT r� �;_ �..-. 1- a
1 } stream �,. 1 �, y , -
SampleChit,: 1�r•'--�� 1 -.
off 4
OP If
_w..•_� �Cea1-.. ti,, • �, �� L LN 1 T. J E7 If ► - �• ` ` •� _ ti• + • _ - - . '+`�y ti�A�� • �'1 J, ', • `y `-• `
• •,��1.r'- 1• �+•� ,�. '-r `' _.�'i� a ;'�• -Iw ti�.i � - •..i •_ '',�• •1.., y1�1�r� •,, � • '!�I�-+-�-r � 1�� ;• _ -
- — ,' _ 1 i • �~r!1. � � � � � • �i' '--.1 •�1" , � �i � - fir• �} `�1 •� ', • :� � •iQ�l '' .' . _ _
t ,•' lam=` •�' :•'^+�•. jr
• • ••�':. � . -�� . f � � 1 'r�. ti I. r _ _ .
,. • 'ram 1 ' �t "`' } r �r.,��• r I •••''�,yr. -� Is 1 * ,•..r �r►
•'• •+.,.. , - } '1''�1 a,.. • tir1 i 4 •. iy 1,', 1 -.'_ •`. r_! - w J. t - f�;'.
+, ,�,it • ti''•. . �.. f i`R4 , t q y f • ,rs
.�.. IS 1,1 •�`'',.. + •e, .• ' � �'- • ! •r .. • '^ � 1 . t•, r�.•!°r'•ri.t � • •. , f; �,-- M�t�� � �T, "'-'4.7 I��+y
'jam% . y J t � _ f !•r ... __ -y.� - y ! t °"' J/fir♦� t j'ti� .
r�� � •Irk _. •f. - � �'+, • r � i I ' I r + _ �. t' w t • ._ - r • � � - • - t. 1. t � r ' _ r - ..,
Vz
Ar
I If
t {{ J71
r•'jF(,,l�'I�y/�j' -`�' • -. f' t ` ,' f •'• i f 1'--'•.rw. r� 1' r • i. -•• L, -' ^ � 1_ = -- 'er I • -,� •�r' L. = � 1 !' ,
j ' �/�{��11 _ :.- t � I ' `•�'..'r''', � `O
r• i� 1�.� T t I t 1 �1 1'I'1 '.'J "i..�_•� t 1 f,
u !♦ 1" ~ t'r. • 1 .� . !� '�• ' ( j 1r/ 1 i ._• �1 I� •��'1, •1..�-+ -... L �� �`.1 /F f 1•
It
;t,: _ --; c:":•ir.It x;c'��ry•� t�F7p�y�P1 e`ct� •ir: ��►:.. 1. ' =�"� =;•= _ " '`'y
USGS Quad: DIONW Micaville, NC
Outfall Facility,1 , �' '.�"~ r � •' � ��> Ik ` � r;,� ,~
�!•� xtiYa - S 11 r- r r r1rrS3...
Latitude: 35° 55` 8.8f1 N 350 55` 6" N r`
Longitude: 82 12 26.2 W 82D 12 29 W :•-. ,;y, .. ~:
:r
Facility Location
Stream Class: C, Trout North
Subbasin: 04-03-06 HUC: 06010108 South Toe River WWTP NC0087891
Receiving Stream: South Toe River Yancey County

Permit NCO087891
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Beginning on the effective date of this permit, after receipt of the Authorization to Construct and
submittal of the Engineer Certificate, and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge
treated wastewater through a diffuser from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored
by the Perrnittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
EFFLUENT LIMITS
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
I
Weekly
Average
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location
Flow
0.125 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2
30.0 mg/1
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Solids 2 (TSS)
30.0 mg/l
45.0 mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E, I
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Weekly
Grab
E
pH
Not less than 6.0 S.U. nor
greater than 9.0 S.U.
Weekly
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
Weekly
Grab
E
NH3 as N, mg/1
Weekly
Composite
E
NH3 as N, mg/1
(April 1= Octtober 31)
Weekly
Grab
U, D
NH3 as N, mg/l
(November 1— March 31)
2/Month
Grab
U, D
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l (DO)
Weekly
Grab
E*
Total itirogen, m_g/1(TN)
TN = 02- + N 03-N)+ TKN
Semi -Annual
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus, mg/1(TP)
Semi -Annual
Composite
E
Notes:
1. Sample locations: E- Effluent, I- Influent, U- 25 feet approximately upstream of diffuser, D-
approximately 25 feet downstream of diffuser.
2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective
influent value (85% removal).
3. Samples shall be collected at approximately the same time, allowing for time to move between
sample locations.
4. The Permittee may request reduced instream NH3-N summer (April 1 — October 31) monitoring to
2/Month after 2 full years, if downstream data shows instream ammonia levels are protective of
mussels, or if the WWTP discharge shows no increase between upstream/downstream ammonia
concentrations.
If chlorine or a chlorine disinfectant derivative are used then a Total Chlorine Residual limit of 28 µg/l
limit shall go into effect. The Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection must be contacted
during normal business hours and alerted when chlorine or a chlorine disinfectant derivative are used..
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Pen -nit NC0087891
A. (2) AMMONIA REOPENER
The Division may re -open and modify this permit if required in the event that the Division:
o Adopts new freshwater quality standards for ammonia.
o Develops a site -specific management strategy pursuant to T15A NCAC 2B .0110 in order to
protect endangered or threatened aquatic species in the receiving water.
If instreann monitoring indicates ammonia concentrations are above protective concentrations for mussels
and the WWTP is identified as the cause, the Pennittee will be -required to evaluate options to reduce
effluent ammonia concentrations (including outfall redesign), and report to the Division within 120 days
of notification by the Division.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO087891
Revised: 5131111
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
East Yancey Water & Sewer District - South Toe River WWTP
Applicant Address:
County Court House, 110 Town Square, Room 11,
Burnsville, NC 28714
Facility Address:
Watt Town Road, Micaville, NC `
Permitted Flow
0.125 MGD
Type of Waste:
100% domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Class II /Active; Renewal (Plant not built, A to C under review)
County:
Yancey County
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
South Toe River
Stream Classification:
C, Trout
Subbasin:
04-03-06
Index No.
7-2-52-(30.5)
Drainage Area (mi ):
59.9
303(d) Listed?
No
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
26.5
Regional Office:
Asheville
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
34.5
State Grid / USGS
Quad:
D10NW
Micaville, NC
30Q2 (cfs)
50.9
HUC:
06010108
Average Flow (cfs):
176.0
Permit Writer:
Ron Berry
IWC %):
0.73%
Date:
Revised.5131111
BACKGROUND
The East Yancey Water & Sewer District has applied for renewal of its NPDES permit to
discharge 0.125 MGD of 100% treated domestic wastewater to the South Toe River in the French
Broad River Basin. A population of 1,156 will be serviced by this regional treatment facility. The
facility has not been built but the Permittee has applied for an Authorization to Construction (A
to Q. This segment of the South Toe River is classified as C, Trout and is not impaired.
However, the South Toe River is a habitat for the endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel.
The South Toe River flows into the North Toe River 5.7 miles downstream from this discharge.
Mining activity along the North Toe River contribute to turbidity concerns in the North Toe
River. Upstream from the discharge, starting at the source of the South Toe River to a point 2.5
miles upstream of this discharge, is classification as B, Trout, ORW.
%i1�TORY
The Permittee received a NPDES permit to discharge 0.125 MGD of 100% treated domestic
wastewater in April 2005. It was determined that secondary treatment standards were applicable
and a level B model indicated the waste load allocation was acceptable for the receiving stream.
The minimum summertime downstream dissolved oxygen level was predicted to be 7.66 mg/1,
well above the applicable standard 6.0 mg/l. Based on the IWC of 0.73% a maximum allowable
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) was calculated and included in the permit.
A special condition was included to reopen the permit if either a new ammonia water quality
standard was adopted or if a site specific ammonia standard was developed. The applicable
ammonia strategy for this discharge has not changed. Additional instream sampling for ammonia
as nitrogen (NH3-N) and TRC were included in the permit.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC00 87891
Page 1 of 4

A permit requirement to complete a site -specific impact survey on the endangered Appalachian
elktoe mussel, based on the outfall location prior to construction, was completed in June 2006.
During the survey, a dye study was also conducted. As a result the location for the outfall was
defined. A recommendation to design and add an end of pipe diffuser that aligns on the river bed
at mid stream was incorporated into the treatment plant design submitted to Construction Grants
and Loans. In Addition the Permittee obtained funding and has incorporate UV and tertiary filters
in the final plant design as agreed upon in the 2005 pen -nit cover letter.
UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS a• •
During the draft comment period, renewal of the construction 404 Certification permit was
initiated and several comments on the draft permit were received, resulting in additional review
and resolution before issuing a final permit. The 404 Certification is a permit issued by the US
Corp of Engineers, its renewal was not completed until April 201.1 and allowed the new permit to
be aligned with the subbasin renewal schedule of February 29, 2016.
As a pre -requisite for the 404 Certification renewal, a new mussel survey was required along
with recommendations from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS). The Division concluded
the 404 Certification renewal would most likely impacted the NPDES permit requirements. As a
result, the Division waited for the 404 Certification renewal to be approved, and requested a
letter from USF&WS providing recommendations for any items pertinent to the NPDES permit.
There were some other requirements related to construction that were addressed directly to the
other agencies/parties involved.
The Southern Environmental Law Center provided comments on behalf of the Western Carolina
Alliance and the French Broad Riverkeeper and stated that the draft permit did not adequately
protected the endangered species, that the stream should be reclassified, that this permit should
not be addressed as a renewal but as a new permit, and that the Division and State could be held
liable. One of USF&WS primary legal responsibilities is the monitoring and protection of
endangered species, as such their expertise and involvement in the development of the final
permit provides validation to the final permit. The Division worked diligently with USF&WS as
well as other agencies to address their concerns and recommendations. This is a renewal, and
stream reclassification is not applicable, these items are subject to their own statutory regulations.
Additional comments were received and reviewed from NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) who provided commentary on the importance of this stream location, acknowledged
the positive impacts of the proposed treatment upgrades, recommended more aggressive instream
NH3-N monitoring for modeling purposes, and supported the continuance of the ammonia re -
opener condition. Starli McDowell with Toe River Valley Watch also provided comments.
Where appropriate the Whittier Sanitary District WWTP (Whittier), a similar type discharge and
receiving stream system familiar to US Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies, was used as
a template for conditional narratives.
PROPOSED TREATMENT PROCESS
The final design. submitted for construction utilizes two parallel 114,000 gallon Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR) tanks followed by a common 21,100 gallons post equalization tank.
Influent enters a manual bar screen system and then into a value box that controls the flow to the
SBR tanks. An influent composite sampler collects samples as the wastewater exists the bar
screen. The treated wastewater from the post equalization basin is pumped through either of the
two tertiary filters. Filtered wastewater is then passed through a UV system for disinfection. An
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC00 87891
Page 2 of 4

effluent flow meter system with recording capability is located downstream of the UV system.
The effluent composite collects samples adjacent to the meter. The treated wastewater continues
through a gravity pipe to the outfall diffuser.
A submerged 12 port diffuser with 2 inch diameter ports. and integrated strainers extends
approximately 25 feet into the main river channel. The design distributes the treated wastewater
in the receiving stream water column and directs flow away from the river bed.
The settled solids from the SBR tanks are sent to a 63,000 gallon aerobic digester. As required
solids are pumped and accumulated in the digester. A transfer pump is used to pump the final
sludge waste to a truck load out station. The Permittee has an agreement with the Town of
Burnsville WWTP to take the solids for further processing as a soil conditioner.
The backwash water from the filters is routed back to the headworks and mixed with the influent.
A stand-by generator is available. Other support equipment items such as blowers, pumps,
decanters, and controls are incorporated into the treatment system.
PERMITTING STRATEGY
There is no data to review since this facility has not been constructed. The current permit
required mussel survey was completed, and the location and orientation of the diffuser was
determined. There have been no changes to applicable water quality standards or to the waste
load allocation for this permit. The change to UV disinfection with standby power has made the
TRC requirement conditional.
Recommendations from USF&WS and NCWRC were incorporated into this permit. Where
appropriate the Whittier Sanitary District WWTP, a similar type discharge and receiving stream
system familiar to USF&WS and other agencies, was used as a template for conditional
narratives.
The following changes to the effluent page requirements and narrative will occur:
1) Replace the TRC monitoring/limits with a conditional narrative based on the change to
UV disinfection
2) Remove TRC instream monitoring based on the change to UV disinfection
3) Revise narrative to reflect the proposed outfall diffuser
4) Increase NH3-N effluent monitoring to weekly based on USF&WS and NCWRC
recommendations
5) Expand NH3-N instream monitoring to year round with seasonal frequencies based on
USF&WS and NCWRC recommendations
6) Amend instream sample locations to approximately 25 feet to allow adjustment for
stream configuration and last survey known mussels location based on USF&WS
recommendations
7) Add narrative footnote to define instream NH3-N sampling protocol based on USF&WS
recommendations
8) Add narrative conditional footnote to instream summer NH3-N to allow request for
monitoring reduction to 2/month after 2 years of data reported and if no impact to mussels
based on Whittier permit
The following changes to special conditions will occur:
9) Mussel survey was completed, remove condition no longer applicable
Fa9t Sheet
NPDES NC00 87891
Page 3 of 4

10) Revise Ammonia Reopener condition to include additional action if instream NH3-N
concentration above the standard that protects the mussels are exceeded, and this
discharge is determined to be the source based on USF&WS recommendations
Based on the proposed plant design information from the pending the A to C the supplemental
page narrative was revised.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
In keeping with Division polidies the following changes will be incorporated into the permit:
• Effluent page: replace TRC monitoring, limits, and footnote with conditional narrative.
• Effluent page: remove instream TRC monitoring, not applicable
• Effluent page: revise narrative to include proposed diffuser
• Effluent page: increase effluent NH3-N monitoring to weekly
• Effluent page: increase instream NH3-N monitoring to year round/seasonal
• Effluent page: add conditional footnote for instream summer NH3-N monitoring
reduction
• Effluent page: add footnote to clarify instream NH3-N sampling protocol
• Effluent page: revise instream locations narrative to approximately 25 feet
• Supplemental page: revise narrative to reflect proposed treatment plant components
• Special Condition Outfall Survey: completed , remove condition not applicable
• Special Condition Ammonia Reopener: add conditional narrative for determining
events and actions accountable to the permittee
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice: June 9, 2010
Permit Scheduled to Issue: June 2011
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Ron Berry at (919) 07-6396 or email [e-mail].
NAME: DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC00 87891
Page 4 of 4

RE East Yancey NPDES Permit Renewal March 9 2011
From: Berry, Ron
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:47 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Belnick, Tom
Subject: RE: East Yancey NPDES Permit Renewal
Forrest,
As we discussed our next steps after confirmation of the 404 appproval are to
evaluate all agencies current actions/comments state and federal, to complete
additional internal reviews that may be necessary, to make any adjustments to
the final NPDES permit as warranted, and issue formal responses to the parties
and/or persons who had submitted comments on the draft. uSWFS is sending me a
copy of there response to ACOE. You are sending me a copy of the approved 404
certi fi cati-on i ncl udi ng ' the additional retqui rement5 . Tom and- I -have - di scussed
our next steps.
I do not believe a meeting is necessary at this time.
Ron
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES Complex Permitting unit NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
---Original Messagge-----
From: Forrest Westall [mailto:[e-mail]]
sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 2:16 PM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: Belnick, Tom
subject: East Yancey NPDES Permit Renewal
Hello Ron,
Thanks for giving me a call back today.
Attached is a scan of your letter dated November 5, 2010 concerning the permit
renewal for East Yancey water and Sewer District. The additional mussel
survey was conducted on February 17, 2011. I have attached a copy of the
final report that was issued today. The COE and uSFWs has the report and I
have talked with Bryan Tompkins of the uSFWS and Tasha McCormick of the ACOE
several times over the last few months arranging this survey, developing the
criteria for performing the update, and finally, in getting comments from
these two agencies before issuing the report. These steps have now been
completed.
Based on my conversation with Bryan and Tasha this morninge
, i anticipate that
the final comments from the uSFwS on the 404 permit will completed in the
next couple of days and the 404 permit issued within a couple of weeks,
perhaps sooner.
Based on your attached letter the Division has indicated that a final decision
on the 404 permit will allow you to proceed with the renewal of this discharge
permit.
we have now completed two mussel surveys (2006 and 2011) to confirm that the
location of the outfall and the installation guidelines we have developed will
limit any direct impacts to the River and the mussel populations there to an
Page 1

RE East Yancey NPDES Permit Renewal March 9 2011
acceptable level to allow the construction of the outfall (404
permit/401 Certification). The new 401 certification has already been issued.
The relative size of this discharge in relation to the assimilative capacity
of the River at the discharge point and the use of a diffuser will effectively
mitigate any chemical impact to these waters. The treatment system designed
for this facility has the capability to far exceed the treatment level
described/required in the existing and proposed permits and the project's
design is completed.
we are ready to move forward with this project. our company under the
direction and approval of Yancey county and the water and sewer Board has
proceeded at considerable cost with final design, the securing of all
easements and rights of way to construct the collection system and wwTP. we
previously had secured a 404 permit -and 401 tertification'-for-the collection
system, but due to delays in the project these approvals expired. The COE
previously evaluated comments from t4 USFwsprior to the first permit being
issued. The one outstanding issue was the direct impacts of installing the
outfall/diffuser. Despite the existence of the 2006 survey that was done in
accordance with the original NPDES permit, we redid the survey. The survey.
results did not produce any information that would change the basic conclusion
of the 2006 survey. However, we now have that confirmation in hand and have
modified our installation details and notes to respond to the comments
provided.
As I'm sure Tom remembers we interacted extensively with the resource agencies
(USFwS and wRC) in 2005 to get the permit issued. Based on that action and
the resolution of the comments offered at that time, East Yancey water and
sewer District has proceeded in good faith to fully develop this project. The
Micaville wastewater service project has been under consideration for more
than two decades. The funding for the project was secured over ten years ago.
The journey to this point has been as difficult as any project I'm aware of
and is essentially important to this community.
we have several failing septic systems and the chemical water quality of
Little Crabtree creek (that drains the east side of the town of Burnsville
down to Micaville) is directly affected by poorly operating septic systems
(elevated bacterial levels are well documented in the Regional office). The
community of Micaville, including the elementary school, is directly adjacent
to the streams that drain into the south Toe.
I respectfully request an opportunity to discuss this project with you and
Tom as soon as possible.
Thanks for your consideration,
Forrest
Forrest R. westall, Sr., PE
McGill Associates, P.A.
PO Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
Physical Location: 38 Orange street, Asheville Phone [phone] Fax 828-
253-5612 [e-mail]
Page 2

From: [e-mail] cover email survey USF&w
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Berry, Ron
Attachments: SouthToesec7.PDF
Ron,
with this email I am formally requesting to receive copies of monthly monitoring
results as required by
NCDENR. Copies of monitoring reports are requested to be mailed to me at the
address indicated
below. Also, the USFWS would like to remind NCDENR of our recommendations for
ammonia
monitoring that we believe should be included in the NPDES permit for this project.
Those
recommendations are as follows:
1)Instream ammonia monitoring - Evaluate instream water quality conditions during
periods of low
stream flow and high facility inflow volume to gauge worst case scenarios.
Accordingly, we recommend
that weekly (rather than twice a month) sampling during periods of low stream flows
(typically June -
November) and during the highest inflow periods and be completed coincident with
effluent grab sample
monitoring upstream of the discharge point, at the effluent discharge point, and
just downstream of the
discharge point (preferably about 25 feet downstream of the discharge which is the
location of the
highest density of mussels found during the survey).
2)Ammonia reopener - Because NPDES regulations state that, "if endangered species
are present in the
proposed discharge location, there may be wastewater discharge restrictions", we
believe that any
NPDES permit for the South Toe wwTP project should include a site specific ammonia
reopener clause.
we recommend that NPDES include an ammonia reopener clause stating that the
facility wi 1 l be required
to evaluate options to reduce effluent ammonia concentrations if instream monitorin(
indicates ammonia
concentrations are above the protective concentrations for mussels and the wwTP is
identified as the
cause. site specific ammonia concentrations for protection of the federally
endangered Appalachian
elktoe have been calculated by the USFwS and have been included as a condition in
the Army corps of
Engineers 404 permit as a condition to re -initiate consultation if ammonia limits
are surpassed. (A
justification for how the ammonia toxicity numbers were calculated will be provided
to you upon request.)
A copy of our final letter concluding section 7 consultation with the corps,
including the condition for
ammonia toxicity levels is attached to this email.
3)Temperature and ph - we recommend that temperature and pH data be required as
part of the water
quality monitoring, especially at the discharge and downstream monitoring sites.
Ammonia toxicity -is
highly variable to these two parameters therefore, we ask that data for temperature
and pH be included in
the permit monitoring requirements.
4)USFwS contact - we understand that the current draft permit does not allow
chlorine treatment if a
failure to the uv treatment system occurs. However, we still request to be
contacted immediately if the
Page 1

cover email survey UsF&W
UV effluent treatment system fails and another effluent treatment method is used.
we appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please let me know
if you have any
questions or comments.
Thanks
Bryan Tompkins
U.S. Fish and wildlife service
160 zillicoa street
Asheville, North Carolina 28805
828/258-3939 ext. 240
"One touch of nature makes the whole world kin." — William Shakespeare
Page 2

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 5, 2011
Ms. Tasha McCormick
Asheville Regulatory Field Office,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. McCormick:
Subject: Proposed East Yancey Water and Sewer District's New Sewer Line Installations along
Crabtree Creek and Construction of a Wastewater Treatment Plant on the South Toe
River, near Micaville, Yancey County, North Carolina
We reviewed the original application for the subject project and provided our comments and
concerns to Mr. Steve Chapin of your office on August 31, 2005 (the original application was for
the sewer lines only and did not include planstproposal for the wastewater treatment plant
[WWTP]). On September 30, 2005, we received a response letter to our comments from
Mr. Vann Waters of McGill Associates. On October 27, 2005, in response to Mr. Waters' letter,
we sent a letter to your office stating that we did not believe the indirect and cumulative effects
had been adequately addressed or mitigated. In that letter we also informed Mr. Chapin that we
believed the indirect and cumulative effects of the project would result in adverse effects to the
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and its designated critical habitat in the South
Toe River, downstream of the project site. Despite our objections, a permit for the subject
project, with a determination of "no effect," was issued by Mr. Chapin on November 10, 2005.
On April 6, 2010, we received a copy of a reapplication letter and Nationwide Permit No. 12
renewal application from Mr. Waters for the subject project. The current reapplication is
necessary because the previous permit has expired. On April 27, 2010, we supplied comments to
your office regarding the new application, which included impacts associated with the
construction of the new Micaville WWTP on the South Toe River. In that letter we requested
that mussel surveys be conducted at the WWTP site and stated that we believed the project "may
affect, is likely to adversely affect" the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe. In addition we
requested that formal consultation with this office be initiated. On June 25, 2010, we received a
response from your office stating that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) was making a
"may affect" determination but recommended that informal consultation be initiated to "arrive at

appropriate measures for protection of the species." Since that time, Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our
staff has had discussions with McGill Associates and the East Yancey Water and Sewer District
(EYW&SD), in consultation with the Corps, to address concerns about the proposed project and
recommend measures that will avoid impacts to the Appalachian elktoe. On March 7, 2011, we
received a final report of the mussel survey conducted in February 2011 at the WWTP site. The
following comments are based on our review of the information gathered and provided to us as
well as project/plan changes made during the informal consultation period. Our comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act; the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
In order to reach a "not likely to adversely affect" determination, we have worked with the
Corps, EYW&SD, and McGill Associates to develop conditions that we recommend as
inclusions in the Corps' permit for this project. The EYW&SD has implemented multiple
changes to the project plans to minimize direct and indirect impacts to the Appalachian elktoe.
Sixteen Appalachian elktoe mussels were found in the vicinity of the proposed outfall during the
February 2011 mussel survey. Because Appalachian elktoe specimens were found in close
proximity to the project construction area and because the project is being constructed in
designated critical habitat, adherence to the following conditions should be strictly followed in
order to avoid adverse impacts to this species:
1. An additional survey will be conducted at the outfall location a few days prior to
construction of the outfall to further ensure that no Appalachian elktoe mussels
occur within the outfall and cofferdam footprint. If mussels are found within the
construction area, the location of the outfall pipe and cofferdam will be adjusted
to avoid impacts to any Appalachian elktoe mussels. The cofferdam will be no
larger than 8 feet wide and will extend no more than halfway across the river. A
representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) should be on
the site during the preconstruction survey.
2. The WWTP will implement ultraviolet (UV) treatment as the primary treatment
method for wastewater at the plant. The plant will also install a tertiary treatment
system in conjunction with the UV treatment. The current draft permit domnot
.,,allow chlorine treatment if a failure to the LTV treatment system occurs.
Immediate contacticoordination with the Service should occur if the LTV treatment
system fails and another treatment method is used.
3. Any and all material used to construct the cofferdam during outfall construction
shall be free and clean of debris and/or dust. All material must be removed from
the river after construction is complete. Also, equipment should be kept out of
streams by operating from the banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to
woody vegetation. The equipment should be inspected daily and should be
maintained in order to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants,
and other toxic materials should be stored outside the riparian management area
of the stream, in a location where the material can be contained. Equipment
2

should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids, and fuel
and should be cleaned before fording any stream. Also, all fueling operations
should be accomplished outside the riparian management area.
4. The stream bank should be monitored for destabilization at and within the area of
the newly constructed discharge pipe. Monitoring should be conducted after
storm events that result in bank -full flow. If destabilization of the stream bank
occurs, the applicant will contact the Service and coordinate with them regarding
the repair method and any related activities.
5. The stream channel within the general area of the outfall pipe will be visually
monitored for any stream channel destabilization, such as bed scour, head -cut,
pipe exposure, etc. Monitoring should be conducted monthly for a period of
2 years. If stream channel destabilization occurs, the applicant will contact the
Service immediately. Because any destabilization of the stream channel could
adversely modify occupied critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe, the
reinitiation of section 7 consultation will be required.
6. In conjunction with the monitoring requirements stated in the applicant's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, consultation with the Service and
the Corps regarding adverse impacts to the federally endangered Appalachian
elktoe shall be reinitiated when: (1) ammonia levels from a single monitoring
event exceed 4.3 mg/L or (2) ammonia levels from two consecutive monitoring
events within a 30-day period exceed 0.3 mg/L (Tom Augspurger, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, personal communication, 2011). The Service will coordinate
with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources to
obtain and review monitoring reports. Note: The calculations for the ammonia
toxicity levels are highly variable and dependent on pH and temperature.
Ammonia toxicity increases as pH and temperature increase. The calculations
included in this condition were based on data retrieved from the Celo gage station
on the South Toe River. This station is located about 4 miles upstream from the
proposed WWTP and was the best source (closest to the project site) for
long-term water quality data available. For that reason, we will
bern_ monitoring
temperature and pH at the site so that a more precise "site -specific" calculation
can be completed in the future.
Fel
e believe the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Appalachian
ktoe and that any take of this species would be discountable and insignificant. Therefore, the
quirements under section 7 of the Act will be fulfilled by implementing the above -stated
nditions into the Corps' permit. These conditions should be strictly followed by the applicant.
However, if at any time it is realized that the plans and measures stated above are not being
implemented, we believe that EYW&SD will be in violation of any Clean Water Act 404 permits
issued by your office. If this determination is made, section 7 consultation must be reinitiated,
and immediate coordination with this office must take place in order to develop a plan to remedy
the problem(s). Also, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical

habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate McGill Associates, EYW&SD, and the Corps for working with us on this project.
Our mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people. By working with you and giving you the
appropriate information early in the planning process, we hope to accomplish this goal. If we
can be of assistance or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Tompkins
at 828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-04-307.
Sinc ely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy to:
Mr. Forrest Westall, McGill Associates
Mr. Ron Berry, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality/Point Source/NPDES

Berry, Ron
From: McHenry, David G.
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 201010:24 AM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: Bryan Tompkins (bryan [e-mail]); Rodgers, Angeline; Fraley, Stephen J; Russ, W.
Thomas
Subject: South Toe River WWTP permit renewal - NCWRC comments
Attachments: NCO087891 renewal South Toe WWTP NCWRC comments Final.doc
Mr. Berry,
Please accept these comments from the NCWRC.
Thank You
Dave
828/452-0422 x24
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
-7-10W 10
b �St,J3S�
rr
Q
1

�i North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
July 8, 2010
Mr. Ron Berry
Division of Water Quality, NPDES Program
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
SUBJECT: South Toe River W WTP
Renewal NPDES Permit No, NC0087891, South Toe River
Yancey County
Dear Mr. Ron Berry:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) reviewed the June 9,
2010 notice about the proposed renewal of the NPDES permit for the South Toe River W WTP in Yancey
County. This facility will initially discharge up to 0.125 MGD of treated wastewater into the South Toe
River. Comments from the Commission on this proposal are provided under provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), North Carolina General
Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.), and the North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 10I.0102.
The South Toe River is one of the most ecologically diverse aquatic habitats in the mountains of North
Carolina. It is designated as a State Significant. Natural Heritage Area and the North Toe/Nolichucky
River system is designated as a Nationally Significant Natural Heritage Area. The blotchside logperch,
(Percina burtoni, US -SC, NC-E) is a fish that is only found in North Carolina in the South Toe River.
Large segments of streams in the Notichucky River system, including the reach of the South Toe River
where the proposed W WTP will be situated, are designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmindonta ravenehana). This state and federally -listed
endangered mussel occurs in the South Toe River both upstream and downstream of the proposed W WTP
site. Our 2003 basin -wide assessment found more of them at one site in the lower South Toe River than
at all other sites in the Nolichucky River system combined. Therefore, the sub -population found here is a
very important component of the overall population.
e**N
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

NCO087891 Page 2 July 8, 2010
Yancey
The Commission is pleased that UV disinfection will be used instead of chlorine -based methods at the /0041�
South Toe River WWTP. Chlorine is acutely toxic to aquatic life and may cause mortality during
treatment plant upsets. Mussel declines have occurred downstream of the Franklin WWTP on the Little
Tennessee River in Macon County and more recently below the Burnsville WWTP on the Cane River in
Yancey County.
Like chlorine, low concentrations of ammonia can be toxic to mussels. Concentrations in the range of 0.3
to 1.0 mg/L total ammonia as N at pH 8 do not appear toxic to freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al.
2003). New WWTPs and facility improvements should employ technology that achieves these low
ammonia concentrations. Therefore, we are pleased that an ammonia permit re -opener will be retained in
the renewed permit so that ammonia standards could later be incorporated if identified by the site specific
management strategy (T15A NCAC 2B0.0110) for the watershed. This strategy is currently overdue.
The diffuser outfall should promote effluent mixing and reduce ambient ammonia concentrations in the
river. According to the notice, the permit will include ammonia monitoring requirement. We support this
and recommend that it entail a period of instream ammonia monitoring during low river flow conditions.
This should provide useful in situ data to compare to the results of waste assimilation modeling and to
compare to the in stream effluent characteristics below the conventional outfall at the comparably -sized
Whittier WWTP in Jackson County.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit action. Please contact me at (828)
452-2546 extension 24 if there are any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,'
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Allen Ratzlaff, Brian Tompkins, John Fridell USFWS
Steve Fraley, NCWRC
Angie Rodgers, NC Natural Heritage Program
Reference:
Augspurger, T., A. E. Keller, M. C. Black, W. G. Cope, and F. J. Dwyer (2003) Water quality guidance
for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 22:2569-2575.
,�1

Ron Berry, Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[e-mail]
Re: Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO087891 for the East Yancey Water & Sewer
Districts' Proposed South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dear Mr. Berry:
We appreciate the opportunity to review Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO087891
("Draft Permit") for the proposed South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Plant
("WWTP"), serving East Yancey County. We are a local non-profit organization serving
Mitchell and Yancey Counties.
Yancey Counties plan to construct the East Yancey Sewer District Waste Water
Treatment Plant on the South Toe River has concerned many people and agencies. The
consequences of negative impacts to this pristine river could be the loss of valuable clean
water and loss of the aquatic life in the river including the Endangered Appalachian
Elktoe mussel.
Toe River Valley Watch is requesting stricter regulations and that the plant be
operated in tertiary standard, above and beyond the routine standard. Stricter regulations
of Ammonia and DOD be put in place by the NC Division of Water Quality. These
stricter regulations for the discharge at the new South Toe plant are needed because of the
value of this river to our community, the remote location of the plant and the presence of
endangered species in the river where the discharge will flow.
Given the recent devastation of the Cane River in spring of 2008 with the failure
of the Burnsville Waste Water Treatment plant and the subsequent adverse impacts to all
the life in the river for 19 miles below the WWTP, Toe River Valley Watch is requesting
these tougher regulations so that this damage to our watershed will be less likely to -
occur --
Toe River Valley Watch has been doing water quality testing on the South Toe
River through the VWIN program for the past three years and the river is one of the
cleanest of the North Carolina streams that are tested by the program.
We again appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely yours,
,kakL-*K1b&uAO
Starli McDowell, President,
Toe River Valley Watch
828-675-4311
On
JUL 1.9 2010
�� "ER QUALI'

t I laJ)— /i,!z»^.illel/j,L
United States Department of the Interior -
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 27, 2010
Mr. Ron Berry, Engineer
NPDES Unit
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Berry:
JUL 292010
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit for the Proposed Construction of the East Yancey Water and Sewer
Disctrict's South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Permit No. NCO087891), Yancey
County, North Carolina
On June 13, 2010, we received a copy of the draft renewal permit for the proposed new National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge to the South Toe River sought by the
East Yancey Water and Sewer District. The facility proposes to discharge treated domestic
wastewater at a rate of 0.125 million gallons per day (mgd) to the South Toe River, a Class C
Trout Water river in the French Broad River Basin. The South Toe River is known habitat for
the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), a federally -listed endangered freshwater
mussel. Our office previously provided the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) comments regarding the planned new discharge on September 10, 2004 and April 20,
2005 (letters from Pete Benjamin to Mr. Dave Goodrich) including measures to minimize
impacts to the Appalachian elktoe and its habitat. Given that the renewal permit is for a facility
that has not yet been constructed, many of our prior comment remain relevant at this time. These
comments are submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S. 1531-1543) (Act).
The South Toe River, from the Highway 19 East bridge (upstream of the project site) to its confluence
with the North Toe River, is designated as occupied critical habitat Appalachian elktoe. The South
Toe River supports one of the healthiest subpopulations of the Appalachian elktoe found in the
Nolichucky system. In addition, the South Toe River is one of the most ecologically diverse rivers in
the state and has been designated as a State Significant Natural Heritage Area. In the past few years
we have observed noticeable declines in population numbers of the Appalachian elktoe in streams that
once contained some of our largest and most stable populations when the species was listed.
Flooding associated with the remnants of hurricanes in 2004 reduced the species' numbers, and
in many cases its distribution, in all of the streams it inhabits. Also, recent surveys in the Little
Tennessee River have documented an ongoing decline (to date this population appears to have
declined by 80 to 90 percent) in Appalachian elktoe numbers. The subpopulation of the

Appalachian elktoe in the Cane River has been all but eliminated. These losses significantly
increase the importance of the South Toe River to the survival and recovery of the Appalachian
elktoe. Degradation to the South Toe River would be detrimental to the status and recoverability
of the Appalachian elktoe. We are extremely concerned about any potential adverse effects the
wastewater outfall, sewer line and outfall construction, and effluent discharge could have on the
Appalachian elktoe and its designated critical habitat in the South Toe River.
Given the natural resource value of the proposed discharge location, additional scrutiny of any
new discharge is warranted. Specific comments and concerns relative to the proposed NPDES
renewal permit follow:
1). We appreciate that alternatives to chlorine disinfection have been embraced in the renewal
permit. We comment the applicant for obtaining funding for and implementing UV disinfectant
treatment into the project design as chlorine disinfection systems are not ideal for effluent
treatment in critically important aquatic habitats.
2). The Service previously recommended that an instream mussel survey be completed in the
vicinity of the proposed outfall (prior to its construction) to a) determine potential impacts to
Appalachian elktoe mussels resulting from facility construction and operation and b) guide the
ultimate placement of the pipe to minimize any identified impacts. We appreciate that DWQ and
the applicant embraced this recommendation completing both an instream mussel survey (above
and below the proposed discharge location) as well as a dye study. That assessment, completed
by Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc. (Boaze 2006), indicated that Appalachian elktoe mussels
were found upstream and downstream of the outfall site. Because Appalachian elktoe mussels
were found within the survey area of the outfall location and because four years have passed
since the last survey, we recommend that a new survey be completed at the outfall site prior to
outfall/diffuser construction and implementation. The survey should look intensively at the reach
of river potentially affected by the project, extending at least one stream width upstream and four
stream widths downstream. Documentation of the location of these resources relative to the pipe
placement at the proposed facility is essential in order to accurately assess the potential direct and
indirect impacts to federally -listed species from facility construction and operation and help
ensure protected mussels aren't injured or killed during construction.
3). We appreciate that instream ammonia monitoring is included as a permit condition. We
previously recommended that such monitoring occur at a minimum during periods of low
streamflow in addition to routine effluent monitoring requirements (at least until sufficient data
are available to assure that the discharge does not threaten existing water quality conditions) at a
sufficient frequency to determine potential impacts to mussels. We recommend that the upstream
and downstream monitoring be conducted weekly (rather than twice a month as required in the
draft permit) during periods of low flows (June — November) and during the highest inflow
periods and be completed coincident with effluent grab sample monitoring. Instream monitoring
at location(s) downstream is particularly important to monitor effectiveness of in -stream diffuser.
2

4). Water quality models performed by the NCDWQ indicate that the anticipated dilution
capacity of the South Toe River is likely sufficient to prevent impacts to existing water quality
under normal conditions; however, we remained concerned that any failure in the wastewater
treatment system or limited dilution during low -flow conditions could result in higher than
predicted instream concentrations of parameters of concern. Therefore, we recommend that
NCDWQ use instantaneous low flow conditions to conservatively model instream waste
concentrations to develop permit conditions. If instream concentrations remain below protective
ammonia concentrations for mussels (which we would be pleased to provide for DWQ's
consideration) for a sufficient demonstration period, a reduced monitoring frequency may be
appropriate. We recommend that NCDWQ expand the "ammonia reopener" language in the
permit to indicate that the facility will be required to evaluate options to reduce effluent ammonia
concentrations (e.g., re-evaluate outfall placement to maximize dilution, re-evaluate ammonia
treatment within the plant) if instream monitoring data (see bullet #3) indicates ammonia
concentrations are above protective concentrations for mussels and the WWTP is identified as
the cause.
The Service appreciates the extended opportunity to provide comments on the draft NPDES
renewal permit for the East Yancey Water and Sewer District WWTP facility. We would be
pleased to meet with your staff and facility representatives at the site to discuss these concerns.
Please keep us informed of the status of this proposed action, including any official
determination or additional documentation for technical review. If you would like to meet, or if
you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Sara Ward (x. 30) or Tom
Augspurger (x. 21) at 919/856-4520.
Sincerely, �
JCL_ Cam_ "%""
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc:
Brian Cole, FWS, Field Supervisor, Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
Steven Fraley, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
David McHenry, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Angie Rodgers, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
3

Fact Sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey Water Sewer District -South Toe River WWTP Nc0087
From: Berry, Ron
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 4:33 PM
To: Menzel, Jeff
subject: RE: Fact sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey Water & Sewer
District -South Toe River wwrP NC0087891
Thanks for the catch, I will fix it on the final.
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Menzel, Jeff
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:47 PM
To: Edwards, Roger; Berry, Ron
Cc: Price, Bev; Frazier, Wanda
Subject: RE: Fact Sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey Water & Sewer
District -South Toe River
WWTP NCO087891
Ron,
i think that "SNR tanks" should be changed to SBR tanks.
There are no other comments.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff Menzel - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional office
Division of water Quality - surface water Protection Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to
the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Edwards, Roger
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 4:25 PM
To: Frazier, Wanda
Cc: Menzel, Jeff; Price, Bev
Subject: FW: Fact sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey Water & Sewer
District -South Toe River
WWTP NCO087891
Please provide comments for this permit renewal. Since Town of Burnsville is
handling solids for this facility
and I suspect possibily operations please check with Bev and Jeff.
Thanks,
From: Berry, Ron "1
Page 1

Fact Sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey water Sewer District -South Toe River wwTP NOW
sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Edwards, Roger
Subject: Fact Sheet and Draft NPDES permit for East Yancey water & Sewer
District -South Toe River
WWTP NCO087891
Roger
Attached are your copy of the draft cover letter, draft permit, and fact sheet for
the NPDES permit
renewal for East Yancey water & Sewer District South Toe River WWTP. Please have
your group review
and let me know if you have any comments. You can sent me an email with your
comments or reply
"no comment" if acceptable.
Thanks, Ron
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Page 2

North
ASHEVI JL.F.
CTIZEN TEV1ES
VOICE. OF THE MOUNTAINS • CITIZEN-TTMFS.com
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SS.
NORTH CAROLINA
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and
State, duly commissioned, qualified and authorized by law
to administer oaths, personally appeared Elyse Giannetti,
who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: that she is
the Legal Billing Clerk of The Asheville Citizen -Times,
engaged in publication of a newspaper known as The
Asheville Citizen -Times, published, issued, and entered as
first class mail in the City of Asheville, in said County and
State; that she is authorized to make this affidavit and
sworn statement; that the notice or other legal
advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
published in The Asheville Citizen -Times on the
following date: June 101" , 2010. And that the said
newspaper in which said notice, paper, document or legal
advertisement was published was, at the time of each and
every publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statues of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the
General Statues of North Carolina.
Signed this loth day of June, 2010
Sworn to and subscribed before me the 1 Oth day of June,
2010/
My Co+ission expires the 5`h day of October, 20
= NOTA,,�y
[phone] 1 [phone] FAX -
14 O. HENRY AVE. I P.O. BOX 2090 1 ASHEVILLE, NC 28802 1 [phone]
stp PUBuc

oJCJV 6 70q /
Rm d, (!rd 8A.),n
United States Department of
CC- Por,,C, co s
14 a
the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
�I
r. i er
Z
Asheville Regu atory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Baker:
April 27, 2010
0 uc , �,,7
D
WAY 112010
I
DENR-WATER QU
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Subject: East Yancey Water and Sewer District (EYW&SD) Sewer System Improvements
located along Little Crabtree Creek and in the South Toe River, near Burnsville,
Yancey County, North Carolina
�\ P-q? I —
On April 6, 2010, we received a copy a of reapplication letter and Nationwide Permit No. 12
pp
(NWP) renewal application from Mr. Vann Waters of McGill Associates for the subject project.
On August 31, 2005, we reviewed the original application for this project and provided our
comments and concerns to Mr. Steve Chapin of;your office. On September 30, 2005, we
received a response letter to our comments from Mr. Waters. On October 27, 2005, in response
to Mr. Waters' letter, we sent a letter to your office stating that we did not believe the indirect
and cumulative effects had been adequately addressed or mitigated. In that letter we also
informed Mr. Chapin that we believed the indirect and cumulative effects of the project would
result in adverse effects to the Appalachian elktoe and its designated critical habitat in the South
Toe River downstream of the project site. Despite our objections, a permit for the subject
project, with a determination of "no effect," was issued by Mr. Chapin on November 10, 2005.
The current reapplication is necessary because the previous permit has expired. The following
comments are based on our review of the current NWP application and past correspondence with
your office and Mr. Waters. Our comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The original 2005 NWP application for the subject project had requested a permit for stream
impacts from subaqueous (trenched) stream crossings associated with the .construction of a
q Jq J tb gravity sewer line. According to the information we received with the current application, the
EYW&SD has modified the project plans and will avoid two of the previously proposed stream
1 1 t Y►� .21 L \ gin: r La m� G� S�Y`�-�-m
.�IG� / " 'v S 4--e— S liY7/.�s�.
6/zero

crossings, which will reduce stream impacts by about 40 linear feet. The current plan is to install
12-inch gravity sewer lines along U.S. Highway 19 between Burnsville and Micaville, install
12-inch gravity sewer lines north of Micaville to the proposed wastewater treatment facility, and
install 8-inch gravity sewer lines south along North Carolina 80 to Hickory Springs. The gravity
sewer lines will cross Little Crabtree Creek (a direct tributary to the South Toe River), Ayles
Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Little Crabtree Creek via open-cut/subaqueous-trenching and
aerial -crossing methods. Also, the section of the proposed gravity sewer line that will be
installed from Micaville to the proposed wastewater treatment plant will be installed along the
South Toe River. The- EYW&SD is also proposing to construct a wastewater outfall in the South
Toe River at the new wastewater treatment plant located north of Micaville. The applicant is
proposing 125 linear feet of stream impacts in the current application.
Federally Listed Species — The South Toe River, at its confluence with Little Crabtree Creek, is
designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana). The South Toe River supports one of the healthiest subpopulations of the
Appalachian ellctoe found in the Nolichucky River system. In the past few years we have
observed noticeable declines in population numbers of the Appalachian elktoe in streams that
contained some of our largest and most stable populations when this species was listed.
Flooding associated with the remnants of hurricanes in 2004 reduced the species' numbers, and
in many cases its distribution, in all of the streams it inhabits. Also, recent surveys in the Little
Tennessee River have documented an ongoing decline (to date this population appears to have
declined by 80 to 90 percent) in Appalachian elktoe numbers. The subpopulation of the
Appalachian elktoe in the Cane River has been all but eliminated due to toxins and other water
quality problems that are believed to be associated with the faulty treatment system at the
Burnsville Wastewater Treatment Plant. These losses significantly increase the importance of
the South Toe River to the survival and recovery of the Appalachian elktoe. Freshwater mussels,
such as the Appalachian elktoe, are extremely sensitive to many of the pollutants (chlorine,
ammonia, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, etc.) commonly found in municipal and industrial
wastewater releases. Degradation to the South Toe River would be detrimental to the status and
recoverability of the Appalachian elktoe. We are extremely concerned about any potential
adverse effects the wastewater outfall, sewer line construction, and effluent discharge could have
on the Appalachian elktoe and its designated critical habitat in the South Toe River. For these
reasons, we strongly recommend that alternatives to a direct surface water discharge into the
South Toe River be reconsidered.
According to our records, a survey for Appalachian elktoe was performed at the wastewater
outfall site in 2006. The results of that survey indicated that Appalachian elktoe mussels were
found upstream and downstream of the outfall site. Because Appalachian elktoe mussels were
found within the survey area of the outfall location and because 4 years have passed since the
last survey, we recommend that a new survey be completed at the outfall site. The survey should
look intensively at the reach of river potentially affected by the project, extending at least one
stream width upstream and four stream widths downstream. Until a detailed survey of the
project area is conducted for the Appalachian elktoe the requirements under section .7 o the Act
will not Re -Milled. in accordance with the Act, it is the responsibility of the appropriate fe eral
agency or its designated representative to review its activities or programs and to identify any
such activities or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
2

Section 7 of the Act requires federal agencies to assess the potential direct and indirect effects,
including potential secondary or cumulative effects, to federally listed species and/or designated
critical habitat of actions they fund, permit, or carry out. The analysis of the impacts of the
proposed project should include the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the wastewater
outfall construction and function, as well as effects of the proposed sewer lines, and any
activities that are "interrelated to, or interdependent with, the proposed action under
consultation."
Based on the proposed project plans and the information presented above, we believe that a "may
affect, likely to adversely affect" determination is appropriate for this project. If it is determined
that the proposed activity may adversely affect any species federally listed as endangered or
threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts — In addition to the direct effects, we are concerned
that the indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project have not been avoided and/or
minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Unless proactive measures are taken in the early
planning stages, we do not believe these impacts will be minimized. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a "Guidance Memorandum to Address and
Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and
Water Quality" that we support and encourage you to use for this project. Specifically, we
recommend that you use the section entitled "specific mitigation measure for waters containing
federally listed species"; the document can be accessed on the Internet at:
http://www.ncwildlife.orglpg07 wildlifespeciescon/pg76_impacts.pdf.
This project has the potential to increase the density of development and impervious surfaces
along, and in close proximity to, the South Toe River. Associated runoff from development can
contribute excessive amounts of pollutants that can suffocate and poison freshwater mussels and
other aquatic resources within, and downstream of, a project area. Therefore, adopting
ordinances that protect wide forested riparian corridors and the 100-year floodplain and that
adequately treat storm water in development areas is essential to the protection of water quality
and aquatic habitat in developing landscapes. We recommend the following measures to further
avoid or minimize the potential adverse affects of the proposed project:
1. New residential and commercial developments that use the proposed sewer
system should be required to implement buffers that are a minimum of 200 feet
wide along perennial streams and that are a minimum of 100 feet wide along
intermittent streams that contain, or influence streams that contain, federally
listed species. Forested riparian buffers serve as filters for contaminants,
lessen storm -water velocities, supply thermal protection, protect stream -bank
stability, provide important nutrients and woody cover for aquatic life, and
improve the quality of water and wildlife habitat.
2. Sewer lines and associated structures should be constructed outside the
above -described buffer widths. When it is not possible to implement the
recommended buffer widths for new sewer lines, we suggest that the sewer
3

lines be sited as far as practicable from streams and be constructed of a
substance equal to the durability of ductile iron.
3. No development in the floodplain should result from the new sewer system.
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to consider and protect
floodplain functions.
4. An adequate plan for the control and treatment of storm water should be
implemented for each development that occurs as a result of the new sewer
system.
5. We are concerned with the stream -crossing technique (open -cut trenching) that
is being proposed for the sewer line installation. From our past experiences
with similar projects, we believe this technique increases the likelihood of
future lateral movement of the stream (which could undercut or erode around
the utility line), and the correction of these problems could result in additional
future maintenance and impacts to the stream. Therefore, we recommend the
use of directional boring at all stream crossings in order to prevent stream
impacts (we acknowledge that for gravity sewer lines this could require
pumping stations). All utility crossings should be kept to a minimum, and all
utility infrastructures should be kept out of riparian buffer areas. Directional
boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and
riparian buffers. If this method cannot be used and trenching is determined to
be the only viable method, the crossing should be made perpendicular to the
stream flow. Also, we recommend the development of a stream -bank
monitoring and maintenance program that would allow for the prompt
stabilization of stream banks near the utility crossing (should any stream -bank
erosion or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
6. Given the proximity of this project to aquatic environments, we want to
emphasize that stringent measures to control sediment and erosion should be
implemented prior to any ground disturbance and should be maintained
throughout project construction. Vegetated areas along stream and river banks
allow for a variety of extremely valuable functions that include providing fish
and wildlife habitat, moderating water temperature, stabilizing banks, limiting
erosion, improving water quality by filtering pollutants and excess nutrients
from the water, and minimizing the impacts of flood events. Construction
activities near streams, rivers, and lakes have the potential to cause water
pollution and stream degradation if measures to control erosion and sediment
are not properly installed and maintained. In order to effectively reduce
erosion and sedimentation impacts, Best Management Practices should be
designed, installed, and maintained during land -disturbing activities. A
complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for
developing site -specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent
with the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution
4

Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available on the Internet at:
http: //www. dlr. enr.state. nc. us/pages/publications. html.
We are extremely concerned about the potential impacts of the effluent that
will be released from the new wastewater treatment plant. We strongly
encourage consideration of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection for the effluent.
Chlorine is toxic to many kinds of aquatic life, and the reaction of chlorine
with organic material in water can form carcinogenic compounds.
Dechlorination can be used to remove residual chlorine from wastewater prior
to its discharge. While dechlorination is critical in the treatment of effluent to
prevent impacts to aquatic life, the compounds produced by dechlorination,
while preferable to chlorine, are also toxic to aquatic organisms. UV
irradiation is an effective disinfectant and, unlike chlorine, does not create
byproducts, toxicity, or hazardous materials concerns. We also recommend
the use of alternative treated effluent disposal sites. Treated effluent can be
used to irrigate agricultural land and urban green spaces (such as golf courses,
highway medians, and industrial areas), and it can also be used by industries in
cooling or processing applications.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-04-307.
Sincerely,
6- P 44--
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Vann Waters, McGill Associates, P.A., P.O. Box 2259, Asheville, NC 28802
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Tom Belnick, North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 1611 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

00
Belnick, Tom
From: Edwards, Roger
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:40 AM
To: Pohlig, Ken; Belnick, Tom; Chernikov, Sergei
Cc: Menzel, Jeff; Janet Cantwell
Subject: RE: Question on the Outfall for: South Toe River WWTP, Yancey County, NPDES Permit
NCO087891
Ken,
The diffuser for effluent outfaII is a typical request from Wildlife agencies when Appalachian Elk Mussel habitat is down
stream. Since the engineer designed the diffuser proceed with approval, even though it is not required in the NPDES
permit.
Thanks,
Roger Edwards - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Surface Water Protection
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Notice: E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
therefore may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Pohlig, Ken
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Belnick, Tom; Chernikov, Sergei
Cc: Edwards, Roger
Subject: Question on the Outfall for: South Toe River WWTP, Yancey County, NPDES Permit NCO087891
Tom or Sergei:
(I'm sending this a 2nd time to CC Roger Edwards up in Asheville also)
I have a question on the Outfall for the South Toe River WWTP, Yancey County, NPDES Permit NC0087891.
We are getting close to (finally) approving the ATC for this new South Toe River WWTP, a small 0.125 MGD WWTP.
Here is the question (at the end):
The design for the Outfall into the river is a 12-inch diffuser pipe half -buried in the river bed (which...., for diffuser
designs, is not that unusual.) However, we have issued ATC's for a few diffuser pipes into rivers, and in all the cases that
I can remember, the NPDES Permit has always specified that a diffuser be placed into the river. In fact, normally the
Engineer won't design such a diffuser unless required to do so by the NPDES Permit.
In this case, the NCO087891 Permit makes no mention of a diffuser into the South Toe River... (at least the copy I have).

The NPDES Permit does require them to perform a site specific study for the Appalachian Elktoe Mussel, which they did,
and we have a copy of that report. In the report they also performed a dye study in the river, and provided photos of
the test. From the photos, the river appears to me to be a nice mountain stream... maybe 50 feet wide, and shallow
enough to walk across in boots up to your waist. There are many places in the photos where there are small rapids from
rock, and the river being quite shallow in these places. The Engineer claims that the location where they plan to put the
diffuser pipe is normally 3.5 feet deep.
Maybe this is no big deal, and it's ok. But I thought I'd bring this to your attention.
Does this diffuser pipe into the river sound ok?
Ken Pohlig
Construction Grants & Loans Section
715-6221

Berry, Ron
From: Pohlig, Ken
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Berry, Ron
Subject: RE: Info on East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority AtoC-NPDES Permit NC0087891
Attachments: East Yancey W&S District Issued ATC#087891A01_DRAFT_June_2010.doc
Ron
Sure: Please see the attached Word file for the DRAFT ATC.
Note: We've had this ATC ready to go for some number of months, but have not been able to issue it because of some
outstanding "other agency" permits, which they also need. The one that is really holding things up is a "Trout Buffer
Waiver"...
Here is an older e-mail from the Engineer (Randy Hintz with McGill)... which sort of explains this mess:
Hi Ken,
The resubmittals were all sent in several weeks ago. We haven't heard anything from the DOT or the Corps after our
initial contacts. So I think that is a good thing. I expect we will receive those any time now. The Trout Buffer Waiver is
quite a different story. Like the others, that was submitted several weeks ago. However, we have learned that DWQ has
put a moratorium on the issuance of trout buffer waivers until an ongoing litigation (not related to this project) can be
resolved. The last we heard was that this case was to be heard by the State Supreme Court on or around March 22.
Based on the outcome of that ruling DWQ will react accordingly ..... hopefully begin issuing trout buffer waivers again. We
have offered to meet with Mel Nevils to discuss project, but have not set up an appointment yet pending the outcome of
the court ruling.
Thanks, Randy
Randall D. Hintz, PE
McGill Associates, P.A.
55 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Again, because this is a funded project through CG&L, we're not suppose to issue anything until all other agency permits
get issued, or at least are about to be issued.... For fear that the project won't happen, and we're out our money.. State
Grant money in this case.
Ken Pohlig
CG&L
From: Berry, Ron
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Pohlig, Ken
Subject: Info on East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority AtoC-NPDES Permit NC0087891
Ken,

This permit is up for renewal. They have submitted an AtoC. What is the status? Can you send me a copy of the draft
AtoC so I can see the narrative on the equipment and treatment features? Thanks for your help.
Ron
Ron Berry ron.berrv(@ncdenr.aov
Engineer
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Coieen H. Sullins
Director
DRAT 1 June 10, 2010
Mr. Nathan Bennett, County Manager
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
Room 11, Courthouse
Burnsville, North Carolina 28741
Dear Mr. Bennett:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
SUBJECT: Authorization to Construct
A to C No. 087891 A01
East Yancey Water & Sewer District
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Yancey County
Project No. E-SRG-T-05-0141
A letter of request for an Authorization to Construct was received November 3, 200812 by
the Division of Water Quality (Division), and final plans and specifications for the subject
project have been reviewed and found to be satisfactory. Authorization is hereby granted for the
construction of the new 0.125 MGD Wastewater Treatment Plant, with discharge of treated
wastewater into the South Toe River in the French Broad River Basin.
This authorization results in the design and permitted capacity of 0.125 MGD, and is
awarded for the construction of the following specific modifications:
The 0.125 MGD East Yancey Water & Sewer District WWTP consisting of: a headworks
structure including a cylindrical (mechanical) bar screen rated at 0.464 mgd peak flow,
manual by-pass bar screen; dual sequencing batch reactors (SBR), each reactor sized at
0.115 MG with 5 Hp floating mixer, decanter, fine -bubble diffusers and dual 50 gpm
sludge pumps; a 0.026 MG post equalization tank with three (3) 87 gpm pumps and
coarse -bubble diffusers; three (3) 273 cf n blowers and one (1) 81 scm blower; dual
effluent disk filters, each rated at 0.3125 mgd peak flow; dual bank effluent ultraviolet
disinfection system, with each bank rated at 0.3125 mgd peak flow; effluent flowmeter
and composite sampling station; a 0.063 MG aerobic digester/holding tank with decanter,
coarse bubble diffusers and 200 gpm sludge transfer pump; a 668 f Laboratory building;
150 kW backup emergency generator with automatic transfer switch; plant SCADA
system; and associated site work, electrical work, and yard piping, in conformity with the
project plans, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved
by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 One
Location 512 N. Salisbwy St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NortllCarolina
Phone: 919-8G7-b:-O t FAX 919-8G7-64521 Cwtomer Service 1-87'-�` z3-r74c�
Internet www.ncwatecx.�Is#���.org Nahmallil
A.n Equal opportunity 1 Affirrnstive Action EmploM
I=
RM
Im
XW
Ow
am

I TBL Laboratory
I .
i.
P.O. Box 589
Lumberton,NC 28359
Report:,/ ��
L/i 17 .9c
Phone[phone]
FAX: [phone]
r—Collected by:�
(print):
Collected
�by (signatu :
ISample ID
Alternate oillmg information:
ra iai wbl .un[amenrrese
rvabve
I Cnam of Custody
Page _ of
I
I
I
Prepared by:
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE CORP.
lZs`.
45
12065 Lebanon Road
r:f
Mt. Juliet TN 37122
rro)ect name: Phone [phone]
C Phone[phone] lient Project tt: ESC Key: I I r•.'
FAX [phone]
r,h
Site/Facility ID#: P.O.#:
1.
Rush? ( Lab MUST Be Notified) Date Results Needed: r `xx__ dei'.TB'LAB(lab use only)
Same Day.......200% No. �• I -
Next Day........ 100%
Two Day .........50% W
FAX? —No—Yes of r
Cnlrs, r'.
Comp/Grab 7Wtnx, Depth Date Time
�Coolorl#:
Sfflpped Via
RemarkslConlaminant I Sample o (lab only)
CC]—
rr
L 2
015 PLi M1 L
C00 F• t, I '
0
10
14 dd
Walnx: SS - Soil/Solid
GW-Groundwater VOW - Waste Water
DW. Drinking Water OT-Other
elements:
c
v�
H
p
Flow
Other
Relinquish
Dale:
Time:
Revel d by: (I nature
amp es re
❑ FetlEx pniil0on:
(lab use only)
ature
Date:
Time:
9M45�'
Rece Ignplu
Temp:
4RO,.uis
(?s'.
��
by: (signatu '
Dale:
-Tr a I
Time:
Rece Ned Tor lobby.
(Slgnature)
Dale:
Time: pH hecked:
I NCF:
---�

Mr. Nathan Bennett, County Manager an
DRAFT June 10, 2010
Page 2
This Authorization to Construct is issued in accordance with Part III, Paragraph A of
NPDES Permit No. NC0087891 issued April 13, 2005, and shall be subject to revocation unless
the wastewater treatment facilities are constructed in accordance with the conditions and
limitations specified in Permit No. NC0087891.
The sludge generated from these treatment facilities must be disposed of in accordance
with G.S. 143-215.1 and in a manner approved by the Division.
In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may
be required by the Division, such as the construction of additional or replacement wastewater
treatment or disposal facilities.
The Asheville Regional Office, telephone number [phone], shall be notified at ..,
least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of operation of the installed facilities so that an on site
inspection can be made. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made during the
normal office hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding State
Holidays.
Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a ON
certification must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility
has been installed in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Authorization to Construct and the
approved plans and specifications. Mail the Certification to: Construction Grants & Loans, am
DWQ/DENR, 1633 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1633.
Upon classification of the facility by the Certification Commission, the Permittee shall
employ a certified wastewater treatment plant operator to be in responsible charge (ORC) of the
wastewater treatment facilities. The operator must hold a certificate of the type and grade at
least equivalent to or greater than the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment .�
facilities by the Certification Commission.
The Permittee must also employ a certified back-up operator of the appropriate type and o'
grade to comply with the conditions of T15A:8G.0202. The ORC of the facility must visit each
Class I facility at least weekly and each Class II, III and IV facility at least daily, excluding
weekends and holidays, must properly manage the facility, must document daily operation and an
maintenance of the facility, and must comply with all other conditions of T15A:8G.0202.
A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the WM
Permittee for the life of the facility.
During the construction of the proposed additions/modifications, the permittee shall no
continue to properly maintain and operate the existing wastewater treatment facilities at all times,
ow

an
Mr. Nathan Bennett, County Manager
DRAFT June 10, 2010
Page 3
and in such a manner, as necessary to comply with the effluent limits specified in the NPDES
Permit.
..
r
You are reminded that it is mandatory for the project to be constructed in accordance
with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act, and when applicable, the North no
Carolina Dam Safety Act. In addition, the specifications must clearly state what the contractor's
responsibilities shall be in complying with these Acts.
Prior to entering into any contract(s) for construction, the recipient must have obtained all am
applicable permits from the State.
am
Failure to abide by the requirements contained in this Authorization to Construct may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C. No
The issuance of this Authorization to Construct does not preclude the Permittee from
complying with any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by am
other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
One (1) set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you have am
any questions or need additional information, please contact Seth Robertson, P.E. at telephone
number [phone].
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
kp: sr
no
am
am
cc: Randall D. Hintz, P.E. — McGill Associates, P.A., 55 Broad Street, Asheville, NC 28801 a -
Yancey County Health Department
DWQ, Asheville Regional Office, Surface Water Protection
DWQ, Technical Assistance and Certification Unit
DWQ, Point Source Branch, NPDES Program
Daniel Blaisdell, P.E.
Ken Pohlig, P.E.
SRG File
om
000

Berry, Ron
From: David Honeycutt [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 9:04 AM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Belnick, Tom
Subject: RE: Follow up questions on East Yancey Water & Sewer District equipment layout
Attachments: East Yancey Topo Map.pdf; East Yancey C2.pdf
Ron,
I've numbered the responses below to correspond to your numbering. Let me know if you have any further questions.
1, 2 and 3. The plant will have a 60 degree Trapezoidal flume at the effluent with a chart recorder and totalizer. No
influent meter is proposed. The flume is shown on the schematic I sent to you previously.
4. Influent composite sampler will be located at the bar screen channel. Effluent composite sampler will be located at
the trapezoidal flume.
5. Yes, as we discussed the effluent piping will include a diffuser.
6. End of the diffuser will be approximately 25' from the normal edge of water.
7. See attached site location map with USGS Quadrangle information and Site Plan from sheet C2 of the project plans.
We have not identified wells within % mile of the property boundary for this renewal. The area around the plant site has
not changed since the original application and the site location is adjacent to the South Toe River and likely down
gradient from any nearby wells. Let me know if this is sufficient or if additional information is required.
Thanks,
David L. Honeycutt, PE
Project Engineer
McGill Associates. P.A.
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Berry, Ron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:04 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Follow up questions on East Yancey Water & Sewer District equipment layout
David,
The information and schematic you provided were very helpful. As a follow up I need to know:
1) Will the facility have one or both an influent meter and an effluent meter?
2) Does the meter have recording capability?
3) Please provide a brief description of the meter type and location. For example, "Parshall flume after bar
screen". I will add to the schematic.
4) Where will the influent and effluent composite samplers be located? I will add to the schematic.
5) On the renewal application EPA Form 2A page 5 Item A.9.g. "no" is checked. Based on our last communication
should this be "yes"?
6) What is the expected distance from the shore of the South Toe River to the end of the diffuser?
7) On page 7 Part B Item B.2. this map is missing from the application. Please provide. Email a copy if easier.
For item B.3. I will insert the schematic you provided.
If you have any questions let me know.

Ron
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

C S �. F� I0.DT\
' �'
YI•
F1f�. M• • ' NM •. [. 1.-T V'
kc
19.17
LIC
F y
E�J
T.Q.. a0...G
rIJ7
CF
, 1
N''T RELEkSEC F.Ti
' Ct 1.GT JCi-sJv
U
LZ
H
W n
w :
W
QN inLU
-
W � ^
Q
eye.,•
s1 q
yK>
SHEE
C2

TOE
v 1_
I,..,xxxl _I o sari �
� � - C;RAP}ll(rm56ui1'iT•. INCH=20(H)I•E}i'I t cc; >j'
{I 1
B- -_ Hughes Cem --
,� _ 1 Baeohu•;
Pl+m drancli Cn Sl Pmine: % "\
PROPOSED
WASTEWATER
r - TREATMENT PLANT
LOCATION
n._•
I• Mlle 5
VJII' CAM
I Al
bt ce f,F -. vyh, e \Y F�1 IifA LH(.816 %�� n N - �3 e H fi.•��,fe2?' 1; 818
2458 ''�
. Cerrr' Alewdale -
��" •i �'ItC2�'lllP Str.rm -. �^ �' CFudal '
/-
\ 1
at,il', nura
1
,.gyp LR 304 r, f
fIONAL FOREST
v
' wti
1111/ V 4lca"o on"N
i _.' L�.VP.- U,,AIERI'REAIMENT PLANT DAIS Mcv .m° SHEET
EAST YANCEY ° ` "`°s` °"'
cacc er on
oc seven TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
� S S 0 (T 1 4 T r. S WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT "1 xt,El, _ p
I[ A, IN 1LANNI ruc t�u D L
,. • , YANCEY COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA .+ o_ .r « r,, m.dn

Berry, Ron
From: David Honeycutt ([e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:46 PM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: Edwards, Roger; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-
NC0087891
Attachments: Outfall Diffuser Detail.pdf; Mussel Survey.pdf; East Yancey NPDES Permit Schematic.pdf
Ron,
1. I've attached a copy of the mussel survey with attachments.
2. A model was not done with the diffuser design. The diffuser location was based on the visual dispersion of dye
testing as shown in the mussel survey.
3. The diffuser is multiport with a total of 12- 2" ports per the attached outfall detail. It includes strainers on each
port to prevent animals and other large objects from entering the outfall pipe.
4. Attached flow schematic for your reference. There are no chemical addition points since the system uses UV
disinfection.
Let me know if you have any further questions or need me to mail hard copies of any of this documentation. Thanks,
David L. Honeycutt, PE
Project Engineer
McGill Associates. P.A.
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Berry, Ron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:14 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Edwards, Roger
Subject: RE: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-NC0087891
David,
The information you provided was helpful and very informative. As far as additional documentation for the NPDES
renewal application at this time we are requesting:
1) A copy of the recommendations from the mussel survey report. We will use the information from your email as
confirmation of dates and involved parties, and design implementation.
2) Was a model done in conjunction with the diffuser design? If yes, what is the near field boundary? What
pollutants parameters was used in the model? What water quality standard limit was used in the model?
3) Is diffuser multiport? If yes, how many ports. Any concerns about maintaining the prescribe depth of water
about diffuser? Any special design features on diffuser, for example as added protection to animal population
in stream?
4) Even through Ken Pohlig has your engineering information for your drafted AtoC, to meet the minimum
application requirements a flow schematic showing flows, equipment arrangement, chemical addition points (if
any) is needed.
If you have any questions let me know.
Ron Berry [e-mail]

Engineer
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: David Honeycutt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Berry, Ron
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-NC0087891
Ron,
I worked on the design for the East Yancey Wastewater Treatment Plant (W WTP). The permittee has conducted the
mussel survey indicated in the 2005 cover letter. Fish and Wildlife Associates, John Boaze, conducted the survey on June
21, 2006 and Mark Cantrell, with US Fish and Wildlife Service was also present. The permittee also held a meeting with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and NC Wildlife Resources Commission on June 2, 2006 to discuss the project and coordinate the
survey. I can provide you a copy of the survey if needed. The recommendation was to place the outfall midchannel with
a diffuser. This recommendation was incorporated into the design.
The project has been submitted to Construction Grants and Loans for an Authorization to Construct (ATC). Funding was
obtained for adding filters and UV disinfection to the facility and these items have been incorporated in the design. We
are currently working on obtaining permits including 401/404, NC DOT Encroachment Agreement and a Trout Buffer
Waiver. As you are likely aware the Trout Buffer Waiver process is on hold pending resolution of a lawsuit. We had
hoped to begin construction on the project late this summer and have it in service by mid 2011 however, that schedule
is tentative pending the permit approvals. Ken Pohlig is the reviewer with CG&L and is aware of the permit situation. I
believe he has the ATC drafted and you may be able to get the description you need directly from him. Let me know if
that is not the case and we can send you a flow schematic with the information you listed.
A description of the sludge process and capacity of the belt filter press for the Town of Burnsville was included in the
Residuals Management Plan. The Town produces a class A compost for distribution. Can you be more specific on what
additional detail is needed?
Thanks for reviewing the renewal application and please don't hesitate to contact me or Nate Bowe if you have further
questions.
David L. Honeycutt, PE
Project Engineer
McGill Associates, P.A.
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Berry, Ron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Nathan D.Bowe

. -
Cc: Edwards, Roger
Subject: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-NC0087891
Mr. Bowe,
I have been assigned this permit renewal and have completed a preliminary review of the renewal application you
submitted on behalf of the permittee. We need some additional information to process this application. The South Toe
River is a habitat for an endangered mussel and makes this renewal a major concern by DENR and several interested
parties.
When the permit was issued in 2005 the cover letter stated "the permittee will conduct a mussel survey prior to outfall
pipe constructions" and "the permittee has agreed to incorporate UV disinfection and effluent filters, should funding
become available for this alternative prior to plant construction." What is the status of these items? What is the status
of this project? What is the anticipated start up date? If not in the present design, is the permittee planning on the
addition of UV and/or tertiary filtration in subsequent construction phases?
If a design for the treatment plant has been determined and/or submitted/approved for its ATC we need a flow
schematic showing individual equipment items volume capacity and function, headwork components, chemical addition
points, flow meter locations, composite sample locations, pumps/blowers locations and functions. Is the proposed
outfall a submerged pipe, diffuser, open pipe discharging to the surface? To what point does the outfall pipe extend into
the stream? This information will be used to amend various narratives related to, or in the renewal permit.
The application included a letter from The Town of Burnsville to haul the sludge, dewater it, and incorporate the dry
sludge into their residual management system. We need a clear description of the Town of Burnsville residual
management system.
If you have any questions let me know.
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

-Berry, Ron
From: David Honeycutt [davidh [e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:22 AM
To: Bent', Ron
Cc: nathan.bennett?yanceycountync.gov; [e-mail];
randy [e-mail]; roger.edwards [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-
NC0087891
Ron,
I worked on the design for the East Yancey Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The permittee has conducted the
mussel survey indicated in the 2005 cover letter. Fish and Wildlife Associates, John Boaze, conducted the survey on June
211 2006 and Mark Cantrell, with US Fish and Wildlife Service was also present. The permittee also held a meeting with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and NC Wildlife Resources Commission on June 2, 2006 to discuss the project and coordinate the
survey. I can provide you a copy of the survey if needed. The recommendation was to place the outfall midchannel with
a diffuser. This recommendation was incorporated into the design.
The project has been submitted to Construction Grants and Loans for an Authorization to Construct (ATC). Funding was
obtained for adding filters and UV disinfection to the facility and these items have been incorporated in the design. We
are currently working on obtaining permits including 401/404, NC DOT Encroachment Agreement and a Trout Buffer
Waiver. As you are likely aware the Trout Buffer Waiver process is on hold pending resolution of a lawsuit. We had
hoped to begin construction on the project late this summer and have it in service by mid 2011 however, that schedule
is tentative pending the permit approvals. Ken Pohlig is the reviewer with CG&L and is aware of the permit situation. I
believe he has the ATC drafted and you may be able to get the description you need directly from him. Let me know if
that is not the case and we can send you a flow schematic with the information you listed.
A description of the sludge process and capacity of the belt filter press for the Town of Burnsville was included in the
Residuals Management Plan. The Town produces a class A compost for distribution. Can you be more specific on what
additional detail is needed?
Thanks for reviewing the renewal application and please don't hesitate to contact me or Nate Bowe if you have further
questions.
David L. Honeycutt, PE
Project Engineer
McGill Associates. P.A.
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
From: Berry, Ron [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Nathan D.Bowe
Cc: Edwards, Roger
Subject: Questions on NPDES Renewal Application for East Yancey Water and Sewer Authority-NC0087891
Mr. Bowe,
I have been assigned this permit renewal and have completed a preliminary review of the renewal application you
submitted on behalf of the permittee. We need some additional information to process this application. The South Toe

River is a habitat for an endangered mussel and makes this renewal a major concern by DENR and several interested
parties.
When the permit was issued in 2005 the cover letter stated "the permittee will conduct a mussel survey prior to outfall
pipe constructions" and "the permittee has agreed to incorporate UV disinfection and effluent filters, should funding
become available for this alternative prior to plant construction." What is the status of these items? What is the status
of this project? What is the anticipated start up date? If not in the present design, is the permittee planning on the
addition of UV and/or tertiary filtration in subsequent construction phases?
If a design for the treatment plant has been determined and/or submitted/approved for its ATC we need a flow
schematic showing individual equipment items volume capacity and function, headwork components, chemical addition
points, flow meter locations, composite sample locations, pumps/blowers locations and functions. Is the proposed
outfall a submerged pipe, diffuser, open pipe discharging to the surface? To what point does the outfall pipe extend into
the stream? This information will be used to amend various narratives related to, or in the renewal permit.
The application included a letter from The Town of Burnsville to haul the sludge, dewater it, and incorporate the dry
sludge into their residual management system. We need a clear description of the Town of Burnsville residual
management system.
If you have any questions let me know.
Ron Berry [e-mail]
Engineer I
DWQ/Point Source/NPDES
NCDENR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Office: Archdale Building Room 925N
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

0.125
MOD
MH BAR SCREEN
INFLUENT
VALVE VAULT
0.0625
MGD
PUMP
STA71ON
0.0625
MGO
S3R TANK NO. 1
VOL 1K000 GAL
PERMANENT STANDBY
GENERATOR MATH AUTOMATIC
TRANSFER SMATCH
WASTE SLUDGE
VOL
SBR VOL11�4 000 GAK NL. 21,000
GA 00
FILTER BACKWASH AND
DIGESTER SUPERNATANT
POST
EQUBON
DIGESTER
VOL 63,000 GAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
0.125
MOD
0.001
MOD
UV
DIS[NFEC71
7RUCI
LOADIN
STATIC

T5
EYW8SD East Toe WWTP Assume upstream TRC level = 0
NCO087891 Assume upstream Fecal level = 0
Prepared By: RDB Check Box if WTP Facility ❑
Enter Design Flow (MGD): 0.125 Enter Upstream NH3-N Level (mgj
Enter s7Q10(cfs): 26.500
Enterw7Q10 (cfs): 34.500
Total Residual Chlorine Ammonia (NH3 as N) Limit MAX
(summer) 35.0 mg/L
7010 (CFS)
26.5
7Q10 (CFS)
26.5
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
STREAM STD (UG/L)
17.0
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (
0
UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL {
0.220
IWC (%)
0.73
IWC (%)
0.73 NON-POTW
Allowable Conc. (ug/1)
28
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)'
NO LIMIT NO LIMIT
(MONTHLYIDAILY)
Ammonia (NH3 as N)
(winter)
7Q10 (CFS)
34.5
Fecal Limit
200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
0.125
(If DF >331; Monitor)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
0.19375
(If DF <331; Limit)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)
137.77 UPS BACKGROUND LEVEL (
0.220
IWC (%)
0.56 NON-POTW
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)"
NO LIMIT NO LIMIT
(MONTHLY/DAILY)
' MONTHLY AVG LIMIT
Check other limit docs such as basin plan or model
NPDES Servor/Current Versions/IWC
6/2/2010

I E4,34 yavicel w&s
IUPt<-� 1-ytwJ L)-,-fir
i G(Pi/l /3 I h 4e4,a> T oViJ &,Im, � leneimV
�� � �( d�N� VVl C rl �/1 ✓ahr�ltN'i�,� �n�/ CfH� Flo YK b✓Ak
Zs8��Z�
S1tvlcew 0A /
SIiZ� i�
Ch� Fl-e5
1- J�)
�Aa

Hello Ron,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the pre -draft permit for the East Yancey Water and Sewer District
(EYWSD). I am providing the following comments on behalf of the permittee and based on our review of
the pages provided. I would point out that this is a permit renewal and that the District has proceeded in
good faith using the existing permit conditions to plan for the new facility. This planning includes the cost
and effort needed to operate and maintain the plant once it is placed into operation. The development of
this project and the public sewer service it would bring to this currently un-sewered community has been
many years in the making. Significant water quality issues in several of the streams in the service area,
including the South Toe River below the confluence of Little Crabtree Creek are the result of several
factors, including poorly operating on -site systems serving existing development in the watershed. Water
quality should be improved by the installation of the new facility and the extension of public sewer service
to replace existing on -site systems within the service area. This is a very important project to this
community and to Yancey County.
Most if not all of the conditions in the pre -draft permit that were revised from those in the existing permit
were added to address comments about the potential impact of the facility's discharge into elk toe mussel
habitat designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As you know, we worked with the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and USFWS to develop 404 permit conditions to address their concerns
about how the discharge may affect elk toe that are downstream of the discharge point and those
individuals that may be within the general area of the outfall/diffuser installation. In the previous NPDES
permit issuance process, we provided elk toe survey information and agreed to provide a diffuser for the
discharge to minimize the effects of the release of treated water into the River. At the direction of the
ACOE and USFWS, we performed an additional elk toe survey in 2011 of the waters in the general area
of the outfall. On the basis of this survey, our revised installation plans and our adoption of the
recommended installation guidelines provided by the USFWS and the ACOE, the ACOE issued approval
with additional conditions for the proposed 404 fill activities related to the outfall and the sewer system
stream crossings in the collection system. I submitted you and Tom copies of this documentation and the
approval by the ACOE. We worked in cooperation with Mr. Bryan Tompkins with USFWS to resolve the
potential impact issues concerning the elk toe and to develop conditions and requirements in the 404 that
would provide assurance to the agency that the resource would be protected and that no "taking" would
occur. We are committed to meeting these conditions and have communicated the importance of
compliance to our client and permit holder, EYWSD. We will also assure that the prescribed
requirements are properly reflected in the plans and specifications for the project and will communicate to
the selected contractor the importance of meeting these.
All that being said, we are concerned about several conditions in the pre -draft permit. These concerns
are not related to the principles we have agreed to abide by in completing this project and in maintaining
good operation of the system when it is placed into service, but related to the procedural constraints
included. In some of our comments I have referenced the Whittier Sanitary District Permit that was
reissued in 2010 and that also discharges into elk toe habitat waters. These concerns are described in
the following list:
L The "summer/winter" monitoring periods are inconsistent with the agency's definition of these
periods and application of these periods within other permits (Whittier permit included). There is
no compelling reason to re -define this monitoring period from its existing definition. Summer and
winter has been defined for several decades within the NC discharge rules. The in -stream
monitoring requirements are "grab" samples taken no more often than weekly. The results can
only be described as a general indication of the chemical conditions within the receiving waters at
the time of sampling. These samples are certainly important and provide useful information, but
the period shift in this permit is not appropriate and would not provide any beneficial clarification
on the results. The existing summer/winter periods should be used.
USF&WS requested time frame for summer/winter, WILL CHANGE TO MATCH WHITTIER
(APRIL - OCTOBER SUMMER)

The requirement for in -stream temperature and pH monitoring is inconsistent with other permits
for facilities with this in -stream waste concentration level and represents a significant expansion
of in -stream monitoring as compared to other facilities in similar waters. The Whittier permit
doesn't include this monitoring. While I understand that there is a relationship between T, pH and
base NH3-N levels which results in the level of unionized ammonia which is the toxic component
of ammonia concentrations in the water, the 404 permit'condition is related to specific in -stream'
NH-3 levels that were developed based on a review of available T and pH data on the South
Toe. Those assumptions used the more conservative (from a water quality standpoint) range of T
and pH to calculate the review levels in the 404 permit. The Division maintains a monitoring
station on the South Toe at Celo where there is a long record of T and pH that would provide a
better database for looking at in -stream ammonia standards at a future time. The pH and T in -
stream requirements should be removed.
USF&WS requested parameters, ?????
y The upstream and downstream locations for NH3-N monitoring should be revised to reflect the
physical reality of the site. 25 feet is fine (if the word approximately is applied) for the upstream
location since the river's geometry at that point will reasonably accommodate this location. The
25 feet downstream -is not appropriate. The discharge location (as recommended from the
mussel survey and approved by USFWS) is in a relatively "still" area of the river and just below
the point of discharge (within 25 feet or so) there is a set of rapids. The downstream location
should state: "D-approximately 50 feet downstream in an area of the river on the same side as
the outfall." The Whittier permit defined both as within "approximately 50 feet" upstream or down,
the down was to be on the same bank as the outfall (no diffuser is used for the Whittier
discharge). The actual location of the downstream point will be established following completion
of the facility.
USF&WF requested the stream sample location, ?????
;- The permit should include a provision for reducing in -stream NH3-N monitoring in the summer
period. The Whittier permit includes the provision that "The Permittee may request reduced
instream summer monitoring (back to 2/Month) after 2 full years, if downstream data shows
instream ammonia levels are protective of mussels, or if the WWTP discharge shows no increase
between upstream/downstream ammonia concentrations." This monitoring approach provides an
opportunity to demonstrate there is limited likelihood of a problem, but still retains monitoring to
make sure that some mechanism stays in place to check on in -stream levels. This condition
should be included in the EYWSD permit.
WILL DO SAME AS WHITTIER
Y Footnote 3 on limits page (A. (1)) is confusing. The word "coincidental" has two separate and
conflicting definitions. I believe the objective is that the grab samples (in -stream) should be
collected at approximately the same time with consideration given for the practical aspect of the
individual sampling to move from one location to the other. This issue is normally not addressed
in the permit and the reality of sample collection is that grabs are collected on the same day and
as near as the person collecting them can make the process, at the same time. This is likely
something that doesn't need to be specified here. However, if it is determined that it needs to be,
I suggest that the statement be modified to simply reflect that the in -stream samples must be
collected on the same day and as close as possible at the same time. I know that the footnote
only applies to the in -stream samples, but for clarity I would state that again in the wording of the
footnote —if it is used at all.
WILL SIMPLY AS SHOWN

The use of chlorine as a substitute disinfectant is not anticipated at any time or under any
conditions. However, if an emergency situation was to arise and disinfection was considered
necessary to protect the public, the permit holder would contact DWQ for approval of use in that
circumstance. The reality of this possibility is so remote and unanticipated that it isn't a real
concern. First, the use would have to be a real emergency that places the public in danger.
Failure of the UV system isn't expected except in tie most dramatic set of events possible: total
loss of electrical service from the power company and failure of the standby generator. Second,
the conditions for such events would likely occur under extreme natural disaster situations which
would not most likely allow contact with an official at DWQ's regional office within any reasonable
time. Third, there would be no compelling reason to disinfect since public contact with the water
is unlikely at the time of such a situation and there is no downstream water supply which would
be affected by a lack of disinfection. The notice to USFWS is not appropriate at all. There is no
mechanism under the rules of the agency or the NPDES program to include a notification process
to another agency (except to EPA as related to EPA's delegation of NPDES authority). The
enforcement of this condition is also problematic since a failure to meet a permit condition is
enforceable by DWQ, but compliance with this point would be determined by USFWS. This is
third party compliance. There is simply no basis to require notification of USFWS. If DWQ wants
to put in place a notification process to USFWS if this situation should ever occur, that would be
an agency decision.
y Condition A. (3) is entirely inappropriate for the permit. As noted above, compliance of an
NPDES permit is a DWQ responsibility and this condition places a compliance requirement on the
permit holder that can only be determined by a third party. The history of DMR submittal has
always been a point of contention for the normal reporting process between agency and permit
holder. This condition places the permit holder responsible for an activity not under the direct
control of DWQ. We recognize the need for USFWS to be able to review this data from time to
time, but this is not a process consistent with the 404 permit nor is it reasonable under the
NPDES program. The reports are public record and available for review. Also, DWQ could
submit these reports to USFWS after they are received and loaded into the BIMS. The 404
condition addresses this point as follows: "The Service will coordinate with the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to obtain and review monitoring reports."
This clearly states that the access and review of this data is between the two agencies and not
the permit holder.
The EYWSD facility at Micaville is a small domestic only treatment facility with a significant amount of
dilution and assimilative capacity at its point of discharge under low flow conditions. The design of the
facility includes provisions for tertiary treatment which should result in effluent quality much better than
allowed by the permit. The facility under reasonable and effective operation should not result in any
significant degradation of existing water quality in the receiving stream. Significant constraints on the
installation and operation of the facility exist to minimize any impact on aquatic life in the river and the
mussel habitat. The permit should reflect a consistent and reasonable level of monitoring.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Forrest

qMcGM
A S S O C I A T E S
October 16, 2009
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mrs. Sprinkle:
n
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
RE: East Yancey Water and Sewer District
NPDES Permit No. NCO087891 Renewal
Yancey County, North Carolina
On behalf of the East Yancey Water and Sewer District and per the renewal notice from Mr.
Charles Weaver, Jr. dated August 21, 2009, please find enclosed for your review the following items
relating to the above referenced project:
• NPDES Form 2A signed by Mr. Nathan Bennett, Yancey County Manager
• Residuals Management Plan for the future East Yancey Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Residuals Acceptance letter from the Town of Burnsville
The purpose of this application is to renew NPDES Permit No. NCO087891 in support of the
construction of a new wastewater treatment facility serving the East Yancey Water and Sewer District.
Construction of the facility has yet to begin, so obviously there have been no changes since the original
pennit was awarded.
Should you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me by
phone or email.
Sincerely,
McGILL ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Nathan D. Bowe, E.I.T.
Engineering Associate
Enclosures
cc: Nathan Bennett, Yancey County Manager (w/ enclosures)
Harry Buckner, P.E., McGill Associates
01743\ds I6oct09.doc
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. AC 28801
828-252-0575 • Fox: 828-252-2518

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility, Renewal
NCO087891
FORM
2A NPDES FORM 2A APPLICATION OVERVIEW
NPDES
APPLICATION OVERVIEW
French Broad
Form 2A has been developed in a modular format and consists of a `Basic Application Information" packet
and a "Supplemental Application Information" packet. The Basic Application Information packet is divided
into two parts. All applicants must complete Parts A and C. Applicants with a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.1 mgd must also complete Part B. Some applicants must also complete the Supplemental
Application Information packet. The following items explain which parts of Form 2A you must complete.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Basic Application Information for all Applicants. All applicants must complete questions A.1 through A.B. A treatment works
that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States must also answer questions A.9 through A.12.
B. Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Z 0.1 mgd. All treatment works that have design flows
greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day must complete questions B.1 through B.6.
C. Certification. All applicants must complete Part C (Certification).
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges effluent to surface waters of the United States and meets
one or more of the following criteria must complete Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data):
1. Hasa design flow rate greater than or equal to 1mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the information.
E. Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment works that meets one or more of the following criteria must complete Part E (Toxicity Testing
Data):
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd,
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place), or
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to submit results of toxicity testing.
F. Industrial User Discharges and RCRAICERCLA Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
significant industrial users (SIUs) or receives RCRA or CERCLA wastes must complete Part F (Industrial User Discharges
and RCRAICERCLA Wastes). SIUs are defined as:
1. All industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and
40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N (see instructions); and
2. Any other industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the treatment works (with certain
exclusions); or
b. Contributes a process wastestream that makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the treatment plant; or
C. Is designated as an SIU by the control authority.
G. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined sewer system must complete Part G (Combined Sewer
Systems).
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE PART C (CERTIFICATION)
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 1 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility, Renewal French Broad
NCO087891
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART A. BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR ALL APPLICANTS:
All treatment works must complete questions A.1 through A.8 of this Basic Application Information Packet
A.I. Facility Information.
Facility Name South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility
Mailing Address County Court House 110 Town Square Room 11
Burnsville. North Carolina 28714
Contact Person Mr. Nathan Bennett
Title County Manager
Telephone Number 828 682-3971
Facility Address Watt Town Road. Micaville. North Carolina
(not P.O. Box)
A.2. Applicant Information. If the applicant is different from the above, provide the following:
Applicant Name
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
East Yancey Water and Sewer District
County Court House. 110 Town Square. Room 11
Burnsville. North Carolina 28714
Mr. Nathan Bennett
Telephone Number 828 682-3971
Is the applicant the owner or operator (or both) of the treatment works?
® owner ® operator
Indicate whether correspondence regarding this permit should be directed to the facility or the applicant.
❑ facility ® applicant
A.3. Existing Environmental Permits. Provide the permit number of any existing environmental permits that have been issued to the treatment works
(include state -issued permits).
NPDES NCO087891 PSD
UIC Other
RCRA Other
A.4. Collection System Information. Provide information on municipalities and areas served by the facility. Provide the name and population of each
entity and, if known, provide information on the type of collection system (combined vs. separate) and its ownership (municipal, private, etc.).
Name
East Yancey Water
and Sewer District
Population Served Type of Collection System Ownership
1.156 Separate Municipal
Total population served 1.156
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-5 & 7550-22. Page 2 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility, I
Renewal French Broad
NCO087891
A.S. Indian Country.
a. Is the treatment works located in Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
b. Does the treatment works discharge to a receiving water that is either in Indian Country or that is upstream from (and eventually flows
through) Indian Country?
❑ Yes ® No
A.S. Flow. Indicate the design flow rate of the treatment plant (i.e., the wastewater flow rate that the plant was built to handle). Also provide the
average daily flow rate and maximum daily flow rate for each of the last three years. Each year's data must be based on a 12-month time period
with the 12'" month of "this year occurring no more than three months prior to this application submittal.
a. Design flow rate 0.125 mgd
Two Years Ago Last Year This Year
b. Annual average daily flow rate N/A NIA NIA
C. Maximum daily flow rate NIA NIA NIA
A.7. Collection System. Indicate the type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment plant. Check all that apply. Also estimate the percent
contribution (by miles) of each.
® Separate sanitary sewer 100 %
❑ Combined storm and sanitary sewer
A.B. Discharges and Other Disposal Methods.
a. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to waters of the U.S.? ® Yes (when constructed) ❑ No
If yes, list how many of each of the following types of discharge points the treatment works uses:
i. Discharges of treated effluent One
ii. Discharges of untreated or partially treated effluent
iii. Combined sewer overflow points
iv. Constructed emergency overflows (prior to the headworks)
V. Other
b. Does the treatment works discharge effluent to basins, ponds, or other surface impoundments
that do not have outlets for discharge to waters of the U.S.? ❑ Yes
If yes, provide the following for each surface impoundment:
® No
Location: NIA
Annual average daily volume discharge to surface impoundment(s) NIA mgd
Is discharge ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
C. Does the treatment works land -apply treated wastewater? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, provide the following for each land application site:
Location: NIA
Number of acres: NIA
Annual average daily volume applied to site: NIA mgd
Is land application ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater to another
treatment works? ❑Yes No
®
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 3 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility; Renewal French Broad
NCO087891
If yes, describe the mean(s) by which the wastewater from the treatment works is discharged or transported to the other treatment works
(e.g., tank truck, pipe).
N/A
If transport is by a party other than the applicant, provide:
Transporter Name NIA
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number
For each treatment works that receives this discharge, provide the following:
Name NIA
Mailing Address
Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number
If known, provide the NPDES permit number of the treatment works that receives this discharge NIA
Provide the average daily flow rate from the treatment works into the receiving facility. N/A mgd
e. Does the treatment works discharge or dispose of its wastewater in a manner not included
in A.8. through A.8.d above (e.g., underground percolation, well injection): ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, provide the following for each disposal method:
Description of method (including location and size of site(s) if applicable):
Annual daily volume disposed by this method: N/A
Is disposal through this method ❑ continuous or ❑ intermittent?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 4 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility, Renewal French Broad
NCO087891
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES:
If you answered ',Yes" to question A.8.a, complete questions A.9 through A.12 once for each outfall (including bypass points) through
which effluent is discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. If you answered "No" to question
A.8.a, go to Part B, "Additional Application Information for Applicants with a Design Flow Greater than or Equal to 0.1 mgd."
A.9. Description of Outfall.
a.
Outfall number 001
b.
Location NIA
(City or town, if applicable)
(Zip Code)
Yancey
North Carolina
(County)
(State)
35' 55' 07" N
82` 12' 28" W
(Latitude)
(Longitude)
C.
Distance from shore (if applicable) NIA
ft
d.
Depth below surface (if applicable) NIA
ff
e.
Average daily flow rate 0.125 (design)
mgd
f.
Does this outfall have either an intermittent or a periodic discharge? ❑ Yes
® No (go to A.9.g.)
If yes, provide the following information:
Number f times per year discharge occurs:
Average duration of each discharge:
Average flow per discharge:
mgd
Months in which discharge occurs:
g.
Is outfall equipped with a diffuser? ❑ Yes
® No
A.10. Description of Receiving Waters.
a. Name of receiving water South Toe River
b. Name of watershed (if known) French Broad
United States Soil Conservation Service 14-digit watershed code (if known): unknown
C. Name of State Management/River Basin (if known): French Broad
United States Geological Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging unit code (if known): unknown
d. Critical low flow of receiving stream (if applicable)
acute NIA cfs chronic N/A cfs
e. Total hardness of receiving stream at critical low flow (if applicable): N/A mg/I of CaCO3
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 5 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Renewal
French Broad
NCO087891
A.11. Description of Treatment
a. What level of treatment are provided? Check all that apply.
® Primary ® Secondary
® Advanced ® Other. Describe: Disc Filter
b. Indicate the following removal rates (as applicable):
Design BOD5 removal or Design CBOD5 removal 85 %
Design SS removal 85 %
Design P removal NIA %
Design N removal NIA %
Other N/A %
C. What type of disinfection is used for the effluent from this outfall? If disinfection varies by season, please describe:
Ultraviolet
If disinfection is by chlorination is dechlorination used for this outfall? ❑ Yes ❑ No NIA
Does the treatment plant have post aeration? ❑ Yes ® No
A.12. Effluent Testing Information. All Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following
parameters. Provide the indicated effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent Is
discharged. Do not include information on combined sewer overflows in this section. All Information reported must be based on data
collected through analysis conducted using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA1QC requirements of
40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate QA1QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a
minimum, effluent testing data must be based on at least three samples and must be no more than four and one-half years apart.
Outfall number: 001
MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALUE
PARAMETER
Value
Units
Value
Units
Number of Samples
pH (Minimum)
NIA
s.u.
VA
pH (Maximum)
NIA
s.u.
Flow Rate
NIA
Temperature (Winter)
NIA
Temperature (Summer)
NIA
For pH please report a minimum and a maximum daily value
MAXIMUM DAILY
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
MUMDL
POLLUTANT
METHOD
Number of
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
BOD5
NIA
CBODS
N/A
DEMAND (Report one)
FECAL COLIFORM
NIA
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
N/A
END OF PART A.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22 Page 6 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED: RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility, Renewal French Broad
NCO087891
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART B. ADDITIONAL APPLICATION INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS WITH A DESIGN FLOW GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL TO 0.1 MGD (100,000 gallons per day).
All applicants with a design flow rate z 0.1 mgd must answer questions BA through B.6. All others go to Part C (Certification).
B.I. Inflow and Infiltration. Estimate the average number of gallons per day that flow into the treatment works from inflow and/or infiltration.
0 gpd
Briefly explain any steps underway or planned to minimize inflow and infiltration.
Facility not yet constructed.
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This
map must show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit more than one map if one map does not show the entire
area.)
a. The area surrounding the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
b. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment works and the pipes or other structures through which
treated wastewater is discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if applicable.
c. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
d. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1) within % mile of the property boundaries of the treatment
works, and 2) listed in public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
e. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored, treated, or disposed.
f. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail,
or special pipe, show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all
backup power sources or redunancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units, including disinfection (e.g.,
chlorination and dechlorination). The water balance must show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily flow
rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
B.4. Operation/Maintenance Performed by Contractor(s).
Are any operational or maintenance aspects (related to wastewater treatment and effluent quality) of the treatment works the responsibility of a
contractor? ❑ Yes ® No
If yes, list the name, address, telephone number, and status of each contractor and describe the contractor's responsibilities (attach additional
pages if necessary).
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Responsibilities of Contractor.
NIA
B.S. Scheduled improvements and Schedules of Implementation. Provide information on any uncompleted implementation schedule or
uncompleted plans for improvements that will affect the wastewater treatment, effluent quality, or design capacity of the treatment works. If the
treatment works has several different implementation schedules or is planning several improvements, submit separate responses to question B.5
for each. (If none, go to question B.6.)
a. List the outfall number (assigned in question A.9) for each outfall that is covered by this implementation schedule.
b. Indicate whether the planned improvements or implementation schedule are required by local, State, or Federal agencies.
❑ Yes ® No
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 7 of 22

a,
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Renewal
French Broad
NCO087891
C. If the answer to B.5.b is "Yes," briefly describe, including new maximum daily inflow rate (if applicable).
NIA
d. Provide dates imposed by any compliance schedule or any actual dates of completion for the implementation steps listed below, as
applicable. For improvements planned independently of local. State, or Federal agencies, indicate planned or actual completion dates, as
applicable. Indicate dates as accurately as possible.
Schedule Actual Completion
Implementation Stage MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY
- Begin Construction 06/01/2010
- End Construction 06/01 /2011
- Begin Discharge 06/01/2011
- Attain Operational Level 09/01/2011
e. Have appropriate permits/clearances concerning other Federal/State requirements been obtained? ® Yes ❑ No
Describe briefly: Appropriate permits have been obtained and may require renewal before construction.
Receipt of the Authorization to Construct is pending
B.S. EFFLUENT TESTING DATA (GREATER THAN 0.1 MGD ONLY).
Applicants that discharge to waters of the US must provide effluent testing data for the following parameters. Provide the indicated
effluent testing required by the permitting authority for each outfall through which effluent Is discharged. Do not include information
on combine sewer overflows in this section. All information reported must be based on data collected through analysis conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods. In addition, this data must comply with QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR Part 136 and other appropriate
QA/QC requirements for standard methods for analytes not addressed by 40 CFR Part 136. At a minimum effluent testing data must be
based on at least three pollutant scans and must be no more than four and on -half years old.
Outfall Number: 001
MAXIMUM DAILY
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL
MUMDL
POLLUTANT
METHOD
Number of
Conc.
Units
Conc.
Units
Samples
CONVENTIONAL AND NON CONVENTIONAL COMPOUNDS
AMMONIA (as N)
N/A
CHLORINE (TOTAL
N/A
RESIDUAL, TRC)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
N/A
TOTAL KJELDAHL
N/A
NITROGEN (TKN)
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE
NIA
NITROGEN
I OIL and GREASE I N/A I I I I I I i
i PHOSPHORUS (Total) I N/A I i i I I I I
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS NIA
(TOS)
OTHER N/A
END OF PART B.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22
Page 8 of 22

D
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
South Toe River Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Renewal
French Broad
NCO087891
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART C. CERTIFICATION
All applicants must complete the Certification Section. Refer to instructions to determine who is an officer for the purposes of this
certification. All applicants must complete all applicable sections of Form 2A, as explained in the Application Overview. Indicate below which
parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting. By signing this certification statement, applicants confirm that they have reviewed
Form 2A and have completed all sections that apply to the facility for which this application is submitted.
Indicate which parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submitting:
® Basic Application Information packet Supplemental Application Information packet:
❑ Part D (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
❑ Part E (Toxicity Testing: Biomonitoring Data)
❑ Part F (Industrial User Discharges and RCRAICERCLA Wastes)
❑ Part G (Combined Sewer Systems)
ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations.
Name and official title Mr Nathan Bennett
Signature Z�� /<::�
Telephone number [phone]
I D/ f 1 ecwQ
Date signed +7?
Upon request of the permitting authority, you must submit any other information necessary to assure wastewater treatment practices at the treatment
works or identify appropriate permitting requirements.
SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO:
NCDENR/ DWO
Attn: NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22.
Page 9 of 22

Residuals Management Plan
East Yancey Wastewater Treatment Plant
The East Yancey Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will include a sludge holding tank.
Residuals will be stored for a period of time, until they are hauled to the Town of Burnsville's
WWTP and dewatered in their belt filter press. The Town of Burnsville has an agreement with
the East Yancey Water and Sewer District to operate the proposed East Yancey WWTP.
Burnsville personnel will haul sludge via sludge trucks from the sludge loading station at the
East Yancey WWTP to the Burnsville WWTP.
Per 15A NCAC 02H a minimum of 30 days of solids storage is required. Due to the remote
location of this plant and the method of sludge disposal it is recommended to provide 75 days of
storage. Solids will be produced at a rate of 100 lbs/day based on an average flow of 125,000 gpd
and 0.8 lbs solids per 1000 gallons of wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering 3
Edition, pg 773) (125,000 gpd x 0.8 lbs solids / 1000 gal. = 100 lbs solids / day). Assuming a 1.5 %
solids concentration (Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering 3 Edition, pg 774)
approximately 59,050 gallons of sludge will be produced in 75 days (100 lbs solids / day x I/ (62.4
lbs / cubic foot water x 1.015 (specific gravity of 1.5% sludge) x 0.015 (solids content) = 105.26
cubic feet per day = 787.3 gpd * 75 days = 59050 gal sludge produced in 75 days). The proposed
sludge holding tank is sized to hold approximately 62,800 gallons (32' x 17.5' x 15' water level =
8400 CF = 62,832 gallons) which is greater than 59,050 gallons therefore the sludge storage
requirement is met.
The belt filter press at the Burnsville WWTP was installed in 2000. It was designed to handle
sludge not only from the Burnsville WWTP, but also from the future East Yancey WWTP. The
maximum solids produced at the Burnsville WWTP were calculated to be 664 lbs/day (800,000
gpd x 0.83 lbs/ 1000 gal. = 664 lbs/day). However, the belt filter press was sized based on a total
flow rate of 1.1 mgd to account for solids coming from the future East Yancey WWTP
(1,100,000 gpd x 0.83 lbs/1000 gal. = 913 lbs/day). The 913 lbs/day capacity of the belt filter
press is therefore large enough to handle sludge from both the Burnsville WWTP (maximum
solids rate of 664 lbs/day) and the East Yancey WWTP (100 lbs/day).
Page 1 of 1

Z00 Z [ 6 1 Z_ 0N la; :11 9T : tT alu 900Z/ZZ/ZT
' �g"`� �' • Town of Burns�le : • = • c�f�Jf�•
1 � r Ruth.
.. F- 'ti � ► ,� ,.. C`�e�rlc�: Gill
�• �car�c;i+'iarti� �Q � t ,y fi'y. . •=' H thc`•-$oc�api�.
br r� Dticc'. 1►Ie
y:. P.E.
ti • � ,Aasoc:lates,, -P.A.
strr
298,01: 4'
RE: East Yancey Water and Sewer Diftric' f
Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Residuals Acceptance
- r: Fitz: .
le.Townof Bsxnsville bas agreed to accept up to 18,500 ga-Hons•.per-amonh o 0.2? `5
M. galions per: yca r of waste biological sludge from the above � �e�tional p�po�d I~ S,fAQiO
W. "tCWRter Oea�tmerrt
., ".gp��: • pleat. �• _
As understand; the waste -sludge will contain a concentration of a pro na (y o "
we ;., s
1ids::Prad,�ed liy the wastewater treatment plant. We currently have :the-i.Oxcess ac, y
• OV 16 in, our- residuals management system to dispose of the appr© e :•1.5 ,coonsa pf +�
:hd ,per anoath expected to be produced by this project.
1. .� .. ,•.• � ,.• .+.
, We . require that the appropriate regulatory req and prnvi ins 'be et ; o
uirrsg„ -
;'trawQrt, deve,. and discharge the waste sludge directly to our shndge dew
cods:associated with'these requir=ents, along with operational time and materiel to Pro ss
- w .siuc ge: w�l:be: incorporated into the scope of the East Yancey,,prcject a€ no:a;ost: to e
' �• . 1 a. `
Should you have -any questions or require any additional information, p1pase Teel fgwej, p
.wd :n a
Sincerely, ,A
•: WV
- • . Tom Storie
Director of Public Wdrks
'
f;� :E; - '•' is i'', � • ,��u. a•; .r
•? i • .. •� �: `fir ''j9'•.
?'TP!%ttarslsludgeaccegtance.doc
fi C T5o , 97 BnrnsAk,- North Carohna 28714 ° Phone (828)
eta Mn"_ inn T orzzma4na .in KvAn i 1 C,')-7Pq-A7A 1 T :bT CPM7. /7.;. /i. T