NC0074471_Wasteload Allocation_19880708

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCOO 7LIV-2
FACILITY NAME: Amw (XNy&_Z
Facility Status:
(circle one)
Permit Status:
RENEWAL MODWIC.AT N ' NEW
(circle one)
Major
Minor,.
Pipe No: oME (oc;��
Design Capacity (MGD): L 250
Domestic (X
of Flow):
Industrial (X
of Flow):
Comments:
406 ��o►.,,s,o 4
j6 Pe
RECEIVING STREAM: "Aw-
Class: ws rtsw
Sub -Basin: vim- oG " o l C�+�c�r tF- L)
ReferenceUSGS Quad: 15'H`a Cs�+�;5s'adsi attach)
County: C�Xn
Regional Office: As Fa Me Ra Wa WI QWS
(circle one)
Requested By: �'��� n 1-Mangy—Date:
Prepared By: _ ' SC6 _7Date:
Reviewed By:
Drainage Area (mi2
) _
Modeler
Date Rec.
,Tv tl j
6 S
1 16-76
,
Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 7.0 -
7Q10 (cfs) 0,3 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % (circle one) Acute / Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
le- 'u�_,
con�uc%��� 1 �eca< <oli�orrl
Upstream
V
Location
I'
Downstream
Location
-N1'QkvJ0tV �� br,�g_
lvlontlnly Jn t'wt.
w,/l4t4r
0400cm6f
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BODE (mg/1)
I
NH; N (mg/1)
3
G
D.O. (mg/1)
5
TSS (mg/1)
30
F. Col. (/100ml)
1600
pH (SU)-q-
(� (
Z
Z
Comments: Teter ►Jm —C,,— WSR-fl , , 8bol`'S — �.ws

FOR APPROPRIATE DISCHARGERS, LIST COMPLETE GUIDELINE LIMITATIONS BELOW
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Daily Comments
Average Maximum
Type of Product Produced I Lbs/Day Produced I Effluent Guideline Reference

r
KERNERSV/LL 4956 If N£ 5 mi. O (BELEWS CREEK) �•
AM
iJ B -� - "� 11 y,�_ '-�_ �•• `) r
5
so `i—" �� j n of • ^ n l/
���\
j �/ '", `� `•, �� : ` 1 � / - � i , , ; � o \�\ -� 'j� 'T�^, ( `f���',.\ �\ _�,�yi. � �.tip), i :(.
_ ��5
/_ 4
�, ' . •\ lJ ' \`�' O _ �� pit, 1L'_ ) _ '..� -'1 - , a', �_� �V�

--------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FOR
Permit Number
: NCO074471
Facility Name
: HAW RIVER PLANTATION
Type of Waste
: DOMESTIC
Status
: PROPOSED
Receiving Stream
: HAW RIVER
Stream Class
: WSIII-NSW
Subbasin
: 030601
County
: GUILFORD
Drainage Area
Regional Office
: WINSTON-SALEM
Average Flow
Requestor
: DAVID FOSTER
Summer 7010
Date of Request
: 6/20/88
Winter 7Q10
Quad
: C19NW
30Q2
+ nip &4706
RECEIVED
5f
' r ?,'k8''icYftiiigptitlCk
(sq mi)
: 7.
(cfs)
: 7.0
(cfs)
: 0.3
(cfs)
: 1.4
(cfs)
: I,$
------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS -------------------------
Summer Winter
Wasteflow
(mgd):
0.250
0.250
5-Day BOD
(mg/1):
11
22
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/1):
3
6
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1):
5
5 J
TSS
(mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml):
1000
1000
pH
(SU):
6-9
6-9
TP
mg%1)
2
2
/e
g\v.,$
r��QN I TQR I N►� - � -0111 --------------
------ -Citi 04
Upstream (Y/N): Y Location: 100 FEET UPSTREAM FROM DISCHARGE POINT
Downstream (Y/N): Y Location: AT THE HIGHWAY 68 BRIDGE
COMMENTS
RECOMMEND INSTREAM MONITORING FOR TEMPERATURE, DO, CONDUCTIVITY, AND FECAL
COLIFORM. MONITORING SHOULD BE DONE WEEKLY IN THE SUMMER (APRIL - OCTOBER)
AND MONTHLY IN THE WINTER (NOVEMBER - MARCH).
*ke meoS,;A, ew 4r41AS tre.
�to�eMee%+ wi I1 �l�i� 4�16 -410S-too3'S -Nk;S reASchabl4�441 - [�, eA0S&obPt S tiMh� :Fr -%,s NSw3
Z-f vn -fo 211ew 4411 SJ
Recommended by __ k - Scv-4 ---
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
Date
Date
Date
Date
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY _JUL 3 0 1988

r )D 5
6/27J VZ
4I�� R; �f
uSGS 0 0209nLArej£S
6(2sc1`6%
Dh= O•ss
(2h= 0,6
7010S = O.o cfs
701ow= 0.15 cfs
3002 - 0.15 cks
tA-,G5 -0 0209324cs ZS
6, zg(cGfC
VA= $,03
M,2
QAt 5,00
c�S
79105 = 03
tFs
IQIOr✓= 1,6
c;s
t, 3002 = Q
cfs
froposel
?aw 12;O r Nu/1lalim
Qw = 250 M60,a
���5 okes�wlc E�enten�Q►I Sc�tool
k
usG.s sco2o9324894
6/zg/ss
Dh=
QA = 0. s As
76110s=0.0Ju
70104= 0.015J5
30Q2= 0,0754
kI
usGs tt O2o93247go
612g1s9
D4= 7.0o Ml us6s # (ST 3248Ss7
s GIz ssg
QA = 7.O cf5 DA 0.35 cFs
7QtU5 = 0,3 cfs Qh = 0.4 cfs
7Qcow= 1,4 cfs 70105 = 0 cfi
3c 2Z= I•S cFs 7Q(ow = 0.075, cv.
- (OQZ : 0.0'75 cES
I
t
r
056s tt OZO324842
�(zslsti
D�= II.2o �iZ
QA- tl fs
oak R;�)e KIJacy acpaGfvty
4cooyGog3
Q. = 0.040 Win}e r:
Do = 6 f4JA DO : 6 r^j%i
0. C�
Cie-CccIA
US65 It 020932441(2
b /2u/scs
DA=2.39 M2
OA = z.4o c-G
Mo 5 = 0,o7S cfz
7gto w = 0 • S A
30Q2= O•S -Cs
` CuIP, Inc,
• 7Q101 =0•S cFs
t� 701ow Z.c(s Cu�I T'ckin
Z 7,w5;0A
30Q2= Zcf cfs NC 006957�
Ikon—Exis{-Ant
usGs # ozo9324 940
612rlYt
DAF 16s mt'2
06 = I,G is
70105 t 0•0-1S cfs
701O L4 = 0, i c r=s
3oa2 - o.H cfs
F 14�01A je1a Ty wRs
P' o c- /I Ft c t' T- r t-L,,
ESL \`1c 5 JI ntct Wr�s
C(�O� avlr) AJ 3 (fib -e CL
low rt14e-r••ii'�^
bC�v,✓ 6ack510un�-

i � �
��._�__...,--- _--—�----� — --- v � i
� ��4.i
,.
---- — -- ..,_... �c�__
� '
.S
.. �.
��
�'
.. j I i :-
_ �_._...._,__------y.�..._ _.. _ _ ._ .. .. _ _.._ _.`-_..�_. _._�.__.�_ _._.�_____---
i � ��.
y,. .. � .. � .._ _. �__._— —�
��- �' r � - �,� +;, -
-�— _ TM __ _ _......___._.__.�:�y_..._--- — — -—
.—.
. � .,
I
_� ,
I
^� � � _ _
I
___.:�:::.5.�..�_ ._. _ .�_ Ste_. _ _ ....r�..�:{�.1_.�.�. t. ... _. _ _�i.. . _ �i.:..rr�.
.... _ a
..� a.Sc � � .7�.,� 1N�9'3�..1b►� ^i�

�pw RtVt�-PuaAC4 dam,
4w Moui� ak Rock 05--1c ( r/\ q-Wv auOC-LI[an 0110�C(,
wh;lC,�1��
✓a e-r JF
%-4Q� q13 sn en ti&off ��c
no olu �or o� %►� S.O �^��( STcraM Sf�n��c�,
Caka.. s pf�SLeMs T wt�� Cas k 4� �� •-t,U4� t f
NoFc
4.,. -fk,- Mom( ma, 4,J
se✓ cC-
-DOD s
Fdul;�y
�Lar
��r.�c� Ulol �ic'anS eve..
T
tn-L
c5olo A'1�- NB6D tc 6* klu
s,mn—I
^PIZ
wi114
evi (S aft �ndcc4G 4,, LL
well gJoDVt
bAcN/I.�
ltu,tjS
5,Z$ mt -,,
SLkffryC, '1kt(,t �JS
SMI
awt'le
Rive
"fit
has ci►o �( �a�JGfS ���nn n�
�nn�L �1n'�
m91.1
aols,
Smmcdca4l 94r ill
I^,rc afc
�ISD
Un�P�tlu��c�
Sevtca� +rILA8k(k'es i� covJ, T►,,,_ r3v1�N well
��pf��Cd
$00n f th s Mo1s1 toda,

SUMMER
BOD5=11 MG/L NH3-N=3 MG/L
DO=5 MG/L
MODEL RESULTS
Discharger
:
HAW RIVER PLANTATION
Receiving Stream :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HAW RIVER
The End D.O.
is 7.24
mg/l.
The End CBOD
is 2.78
mg/l.
The End NBOD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is 1.22
mg/l.
WLA
WLA
WLA
DO Min
CBOD
NBOD
DO
Waste Flow
(mg/1)
------
Milepoint Reach #
----------------
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
----
(mg/1)
--
(mgd)
----------
Segment 1
5.05
0.78 1
Reach 1
16.50
13.50
5.00
0.25000
Reach 2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach 4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : HAW RIVER PLANTATION Subbasin : 030601
Receiving Stream : HAW RIVER Stream Class: WSIII-NSW
Summer 7Q1O : 0.3 Winter 7Q1O : 1.4
Design Temperature: 26.
ILENGTHi SLOPEI VELOCITY I DEPTHI Kd i Kd I Ka I Ka I K:N I KN i KNR I KNR I
1 mile I ft/mil fps 1 ft Idesigni ;20' Idesignl @201 Idesignl 1201 Idesigni ;208 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i i i 1 I I I I I I I I I
Segment 1 1 0.781 7.781 0.100 1 0.66 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 1.60 1 1.401 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 I i 1 (0, OVI) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i I I I I I I I I I I i i
Segment 1 1 1.441 7.781 0.100 1 0.74 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 1.60 1 1.401 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 (0.086) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I i I 1 1 1 1 1 i I i i
Segment 1 1 2.161 7.781 0.100 1 0.85 1 0.29 1 0.22 1 1.60 1 1.401 0.48 1 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 1 CO, 040) I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I i
Segment 1 1 0.901 11.111 0.102 1 0.90 1 0.30 1 0.23 1 2.32 1 2.041 0.48 i 0.30 1 0.48 1 0.00 1
Reach 4 1 1 i I I I I i I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
Flow
I CBOD I
NBOD I
I
cfs I
mg/l I
mg/l I
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste I
0.3ee 1
16.500 1
13.500 1
Headwaters)
0.300
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
Tributary 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
1.000 1
* Runoff 1
0.000
1 2.000 1
1.000 1
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 1
Tributary 1 0.075 1
* Runoff I O.Oe7 I
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 1
Tributary 1 0.075 1
* Runoff 1 0.104 1
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0.000 1
Tributary 1 0.000 1
* Runoff 1 0.104 1
0.000 1
4.000 1
2.000 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
2.000 1
0.000 1
2.000 1
2.000 1
0.000
3.000
1.000
0.000 1
1.000 1
1.000 1
0.000 1
1.000 1
1.000 1
D.O.
mg/1
5.000
7.300
7.300
7.300
0.000
7.300
7.300
0.000
7.300
7.300
0.000
7.300
7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

Stream : �U j _ /<< --
(no.cnStcm -'Yl- B.r'o.ACk
slope CJcu �4t,on S
I1UW
Qivcc
760 Ffi
S,IN Mlle.
160 — 7S0 Pi-
_ ItAt
Ui' 40,
Hall Ri✓f F
"
,q3 m If
.16 M Ic
� MIIL
uu
o ff-�rn; IC
IA
1 .R,
YA.G ty
P--r1(
2
Cum
eIf-V
dtst
dtst
�SI o
g00
O
1,Z3
g,13
�
7av
1,z3
►,3q
-7Iq
-7go
2.6 z
77v
,82
7,58
i ,32
76 a
WSJ
6`0
670
.(a
100
gb p
, Iv
16
GZ,S
S 2, �3
�'f(a
,`i S
I
S�i,StZ
U 0
6
40
23
L13, `?
qIv
I,o3
,36
Z7, 78
VDU
v
as,00
I,I`I
81yo
7
TKO
Z.

4 o MGM = 06 2 JS

r•.
ale✓a{�v� �t��
c c
.
■9
N
0
mmisisilis
EEM
NOMBMae
0
s
0
am
no
0
MINI
-
mom
an
slam
mom
ONES
a
no
am
man
HIS
MINE
mom
man
Elm
MME=
ULEILIN
a
Oman
NIEMEN
man
man
a
NzI
0
a
m
am
me
an
SEE"
WOMENOMMUMM
an
smam
a
-NJ
a
son
sommoommore
ll
111121F
ME
IliallE,
Mimi
ME
ME
mon�mmom
munill!
1108
mom
MAIN
row
am
an
MMMMIll
LM
I
am
MOM am
0
Ewan
an
MUlaws
an
an
SENSE
an

_ ele.v drat'
dt s-t .si o 4L
tzs
StrecLm : �o�� �cc�nch azo og
�06 166,67
(no, i (A s t e m �,— gco'AA ,,,
slope CaIcu 0-ti0n s
I
q 3o - 8qy �t
,z� Mc Ic
C�q00 -7Ro_ �M,
J
�- - qv 1 c
,�1
,zs
V,sc�c-
91,;
C' gOO
O gq�
� ggl
d 970
> �o
J
�D
glb.
`6la
80�
�qJ•
Ao
Flo
�Iv
I
oG
IG6 ,`'►
goo
20
oe�
izs
,rcq0
'22
�iq
IF10
53
,Ig
ss,s6
8G0
71
I
,G qz
ii SZ�
t5
66,G�
gW�
21
4 7, GZ
g3o
zo
36
z ,78
720
1,56
If�
ss,s�
1�6c0
o
HIM
!
o
2,OZ
25
Lj0,00
7
21
Is
10,53
ld1
3 ,2Z

awe ,Oogt
oo lq(
DA = z s
07541
T
Vl-- oc �� '�Jc'vz l Ru l d F
0.6 1.1 ,l,Ic
7Q(OS Ro
7,2Pv) Rb IS — .oG6 c ,O15
{ ( ,,' It
Qh2
%)(05 060 C�S jr�r
\7D(D W P- 0
.z►�
ri

State of North Carolin-
Department of Environment, Health, and
Division of Environmental Mana�
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, Not
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 8, 1990
Mr. Larry L. Callahan �(
Haw River Plantation
935 E. Mountain Street
Kernersville, NC 27284
Subject: NPDES Permit Limitations for the Proposed Haw River Plantation
(NPDES No. NC0074471, Guilford County)
Dear Mr. Callahan:
I am writing to inform you of the progress being made by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) in the reevaluation of the proposed Haw River
Plantation discharge to the headwaters of the Haw River. As part of this reevaluation,
the wasteload allocation for this discharge was revised based on new information
regarding the stream's hydraulic characteristics. The previous wasteload allocation was
performed using DEM's Level-B water quality model which was found to be
inappropriate for the section of the Haw River in question. Based on channel
characteristics observed by staff on a recent visit to the proposed discharge site, a
QUAL2E water quality model was developed specifically for this part of the Haw River.
This new model has indicated the need for revisions of the effluent limits to be contained
in the NPDES permit for this facility, should construction be authorized.
The revised modeling analysis indicates that violations of the instream dissolved
oxygen (DO) standard in the Haw River below NC 68 are expected to occur even without
the proposed discharge. The DO downstream of the proposed discharge point is predicted
to sag to approximately 4.0 mg/I, which is normal for slow -moving, swampy waters.
The additional oxygen demand of the proposed discharge is predicted to cause the DO sag to
occur more quickly in the stream and to be more severe. The predicted DO profiles of
different scenarios are shown in the first graph. It can be seen that the introduction of
wastewater to the Haw River, even at BOD5 concentrations as low as 5.0 mg/l, is
expected to have a notable impact on the instream DO. It should also be noted here that
EPA's Criteria Document for Dissolved Oxygen (1986) indicates that a DO concentration
of 3.0 mg/I is generally accepted as the lower threshold for fish survival; this level is
expected to be violated due to the discharge at effluent BOD5 concentrations of
approximately 15 mg/I or greater.
The first series of model runs were performed using assumed rates for BOD decay
(Kd), organic nitrogen hydrolysis (Korgn), ammonia oxidation (Kn), reaeration (Ka),
and sediment oxygen demand (SOD) based on past experience and accepted literature
values deemed appropriate for this section of the Haw River. The proposed discharge is
at milepoint 0.02 on the graph, and the DO sag shown is located below NC 68, where the
river slows considerably and widens into a bottomland wetland. The small spike at mile
2.3 reflects the input from Rock Branch.
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

8.00
Kd = 0.1/day
Korgn = 0.1 /day
7.00
Kn = 0.3/day
Ka = 0.5
_
SOD = 0.05
6.00
, r�\
Co 5.00
No Discharge
BOD5 = 5 mgA
Im9n) 4.00
1
\
BOD5 =15 mgA
,`
` `
/ • BOD5 - 30 mgA
3.00
_ J
2.00
.I
1.00
0.00
0.50 1.00
1.50 2.00
2.50
Mile
The following graph depicts the expected DO profiles for the same wasteload
scenarios as the first graph, except with lower, more conservative model reaction rates.
As can be seen, the same impacts are expected to occur. The rates in the second group of
model runs are much lower than would be expected, and were input to the model as a
sensitivity check. The results show that, even at very low decay rates, the
characteristics of the Haw River in this area are such that there is little or no
assimilative capacity.
Ib
(mgA)
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Kd = 0.05/day
Korgn = 0.05/day
Kn = 0.15/day
Ka = 025
SOD - 0.03
No Discharge
\` BOD5 =5mgA
BOD5 = 15 mg/l
• `- 1 _ L�,' BOD5 = 30 mgA
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
250
We

The results of the m-1pling analysis further demonstrate the need to fully
evaluate non -discharge alternatives. However, if you can sufficiently prove to the
Division that there are no feasible wastewater disposal alternatives, an authorization to
construct will be considered for a modified NPDES permit with limits that reflect state-
of-the-art technology as follows:
Flow (MGD)
0.096
0.096
BOD5 (mg/1)
5
10
N H 3-N (mg/1)
1
2
DO (mg/1)
6
6
TSS (mg/1)
30
30
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
200
200
pH (SU)
6-9
6-9
Total Resid. Cl- (ug/1)
28
28
2
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
2
I hope this information helps you in your assessment and comparison of
alternatives. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel
free to contact Trevor Clements of my water quality staff at [phone].
Sinc e ,
/ , C e�
George T rett
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Central Files