Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
86 <br /> protect the water quality standards of the river at the lower flow <br /> using a 7 day 10 year low flow estimate. The permit was issued before <br /> at the 1.7 rate. When it is up for renewal, it would be calculated at <br /> what the actual flow of the river is now. Kirk stated a standard is <br /> used to dissolve oxygen in the receiving stream and there is a <br /> mathematical model that can simulate how the waste is decomposed once <br /> it is discharged into the stream. Kirk was asked if 1.7 was <br /> considered a safe rate now and she responded yes. <br /> Commissioner Lloyd inquired what the 7Q10 was for Morgan Creek. <br /> Kirk was not sure, but that it was low. Lloyd continued asking if the <br /> permitting limits were the same for OWASA as for Hillsborough. Kirk <br /> responded that the key was the water quality standards of the <br /> receiving stream and the ability to accommodate oxygen consuming <br /> waste. Kirk emphasized that she does not look at the treatment <br /> facility itself in the issuance of a permit. She looks at the <br /> receiving stream's characteristics and nature and specifies the level <br /> at which the plant must operate to meet the standard for the stream. <br /> Lloyd asked if the Hillsborough treatment plant was one of the most <br /> modern and efficient treatment plants in the southeast and Kirk respo- <br /> nded she could not say. <br /> Commissioner Carey inquired when the Hillsborough permit was up <br /> for renewal and Kirk responded early 1987 . <br /> STATEMENT BY THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH <br /> Mayor Frank Sheffield presented the position statement of the <br /> Town of Hillsborough on the Scotswood Development. The statement was <br /> read in its entirety. A copy of the statement is in the permanent agenda <br /> file in the Clerk' s Office. <br /> Chair Willhoit asked for clarification of the current safe yield <br /> of the combined reservoirs of 2 . 6 mgd which would increase to <br /> something more than 4 mgd. He inquired of Mr. Cordell if the figure <br /> now being discussed is 3 .75. Cordell responded there were many numbers <br /> being quoted. He asked that 4 mgd be thought of as a theoretical <br /> maximum utilization of the three reservoirs on the Eno River. Willhoit <br /> noted that he understood the uncertainity that goes along with an <br /> estimate but he felt they should try to deal with a single theoretical <br /> figure. Wray noted that he felt the figure 4 mgd was based on some <br /> catastrophic occurrence as a "see what we can do situation" . It was a <br /> theoretical exercise and the State does not recommend that with the <br /> existing system and these changes made that this be counted upon as a <br /> dependable number. Chair Willhoit referred to the handout that showed <br /> the capacity of the supply versus demand in which the figure 3 .75 was <br /> listed. He asked if the 3 .75 is basically the same as the figure 4 <br /> mgd referred to. Wray responded it was supposed to be the same <br /> figure, but that it could possibly need some adjustments and very <br /> likley could be less than the 4 mgd. <br /> Planning Board member Yuhasz asked for a definition of "safe <br /> yield" . Wray indicated it was a statistical figure of risk you are <br /> willing to accept. The calculation depends on the level of risk that <br /> is acceptable. The 2 . 2 is a conservative figure meaning 1 year out of <br /> 50 year range. He noted again that the figures 4. 0 and 3 . 75 were <br /> theoretical figures for catastrophic situations and not intended to be <br />