NC0069311_Speculative Limits_19930524

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER :SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0069311
Franklin County WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Approval
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
May 24, 1993
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re'rerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 24, 1993
Michael Acquesta, P.E.
Peirson & Whitman Architects and Engineers, P.A.
P.O. Box 52099
Raleigh, NC 27612
Subject: Franklin Water and Sewer Authority
NPDES No. NC0069311
Speculative Limits
Franklin County
Dear Mr. Acquesta:
EI--1NFR
The Technical Support Branch has received your request for speculative limits for
the possible expansion of the Franklin Water and Sewer Authority wastewater treatment
plant (FWASA WWTP). As stated in your letter, FWASA is investigating the potential
expansion of the existing plant from 0.5 MGD to as much as 1.5 MGD on Cedar Creek in
the Tar River Basin.
The drainage area at the point of discharge is estimated to be 25.3 square miles. The
estimated flows at the discharge site are as follows: 7Q10 (summer) = 1.9 cfs, 7Q10
(winter) = 6.21 cfs, and Q (average flow) = 25.3 cfs. These flows are based on estimates
of currently available flow information; streamflows may be updated when a formal
application is requested by the City.
A model was performed for the proposed expansion flows. The plant was assumed
to be of essentially domestic wasteflow (<10% industrial). Based on these assumptions, the
following limits were predicted for the FWASA WWTP at the expanded flows:
Flow (MGD): 1.0 1.25 1.5
sum/win sum/win sum/win
BOD5 (mg/1): 30/30 30/30 30/30
NH3-N (mg/1): 2/8.1 1.8/6.9 1.6/6.0
DO (mg/1): 5/5 5/5 5/5
TSS (mg/1): 30/30 30/30 30/30
Chlorine (1.1g/1): 28/28 28/28 28/28
Toxicity testing
Qtrly P/F: 45% 50% 55%
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

These results are for preliminary planning only. Final results will be presented upon
formal application for a permit. Updated pretreatment information will be necessary at that
time. Based on 1992 pretreatment information, the facility would be requiredto monitor for
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, and silver. A nickel limit of 174 µg/1 would be
imposed at the flow of 1.25 MGD and 160 µg/1 at 1.5 MGD. These requirements could
change in the future based on industrial additions, plant removal efficiencies, and effluent
monitoring data.
FWASA is a member of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association and is not subject to
nutrient limits at this time. As you may know, a final decision on whether nutrient limits
will be applied at a future date is dependent on the success of the Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) Strategy for the Tar -Pamlico Basin and the outcome of Phase I studies under the
multi -party agreement. Since the results of these studies are unknown at this time, DEM
recommends that FWASA begin planning for nutrient limits.
Again, these limits are speculative only. If you have any further questions regarding
this matter, please call Susan Wilson or me at (919) 733 - 5083.
Sincerely,
Ruth Swanek, Supervisor
Instream Assessment
Water Quality Section
RCS/saw
cc: Tim Donnelly, RRO
Dwight Lancaster, FWASA

These results are for preliminary planning only. Final results will be presented upon
formal application for a permit. Updated pretreatment information will be necessaxy at that
time. Based on 1992 pretreatment information, the facility would be required monitor for
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, and silver. A nickel limit of 174 µg/1 would be
imposed at the flow of 1.25 MGD and 160 µg/I at 1.5 MGD. These requirements could
change in the future based on industrial additions, plant removal efficiencies, and effluent
monitoring data.
FWASA is a member of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association and is not subject to
nutrient limits at this time. As you may know, a final decision on whether nutrient limits
will be applied at a future date is dependent on the success of the Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) Strategy for the Tar -Pamlico Basin and the outcome of Phase I studies under the
multi -party agreement. Since the results of these studies are unknown at this time, DEM
recommends that FWASA begin planning for nutrient limits.
Again, these limits are speculative only. If you have any further questions regarding
this matter, please call Susan Wilson or me at (919) 733 - 5083.
Sincerely,
05,66kAa
Ruth Swanek, Supervisor
Instream Assessment
Water Quality Section
RCS/saw,
cc: Tim Donnelly, RRO
Dwight Lancaster, FWASA

PEIRSON
WHITMAN
ARCHITECTS
AND
ENGINEERS,
PA.
ESTABLISHED 1938
5510
MUNFORD ROAD
P. O. BOX
52099
PHONE
919/782-8300
FAX
919/783-7642
11NX
5109280511
RALEIGH
N.C.
27612
USA
APR 1 4 199
.w3
April 12, 1993
Ms. Ruth Swanek
Water Quality Section
N.C. Division of Envirora ental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Speculative Discharge Limits
(War Creek WWTP
Franklin Water and Sewer Authority
Franklin County, North Carolina
Project No. 0657
Dear Ms. Swank:
fir
As the engineer for the Franklin Water and Sewer Authority, we have
been directed by its Board of Directors to begin the planning process
for and expansion to the existing Cedar Creek 0.50 MGD Wastewater
Treatment Plant. To that end, I would like to request separate
discharge limits for 1.00 MGD, 1.25 MGD and 1.50 MGD flows at the sane
point as the existing plant.
If you need any additional information from me, please do not hesitate
to call.
Very truly yours,
MSA/ks
cc: Dwight Lancaster, FWASA

• j /t.
/1,(1
iu
kr
_74
f--
Awl
gd
cti, tvg
l'`//77-1. . ./Z-?477`)Z. fr
,•"/
tel<2- 1?/1C-;"- 217 -;; :! • 4.7-_.)
;/(C 4 47/ v6--- • ;11/ z_ p21721-- 4-4/
! 7 /7 kA4• •C 1—I vs, <-
4.- 0 A.f-•L-7/ 7
) AI FAO 11!F-or2
_Ffif/e-/7-Y PAp':7 (-)F • - - /7zc

•
1 /27 . (f , C--'JG•(iJ
t'11 )
-70 C 7/Ar A'r f-2o t5
•C
t
!- •
c O53177ov � ^p . .'�,:•
;; • �/,
9,v.f 5. 3
M ��' / M40
rZ Ipuo,si1
�.r
-

-79"2,0 = G. Z- r1-5
•
' 7 0 • 4-
DAta Cg
1,1 .
c' 1. 1 ___—..
_—....-1,it:...._. 1..
-----_,
la L , 1 C
7910,1-- 2:
'7c?Jo.„0 — 7p5= z.f51-
y Ft I2::: Ft! t
/ 'cf.
• (..itee_c &P.12. 5:32 /15 CAC...)
1,9. Z, 3
• -k04_40 (c4 = 77,7f. (:),/12./±L210 (//74 g /44
20±g ) •
I
.2,01 (2-t- o,4-] , 37:57 - )
- — - _
Q/./f.)(f, -1 j 1.q 2.2 •
‘., -
54- . 2.)
"
3) • -471,-
I ,
12-2
,
: .
. ..•••
:
i ., .
. . -
..
.
14,-7
I • 5-
5.. 3
'2. • 2
11 ,5 .
.0. 16
s'' t.,S
• 6, .5
_
,}
0
_QA 12-0
Z .2-
.
. . -.2.,
3. -)
. 1
i
--.,
0 3 ,
..
--.;;;..,...w,-, 'LLI 5
;.,,,.:.-..: 04; f r...
• 1 10-D
.
.
0 • e2
, 52-
0
.
0 • C2-
17,-f .6 9A.
4.9
2,__.
1
I
I .
17
7.— -2.3_(,,
__•_ .
c,. €:1) El/kJ ir E. /.__Tel.oz ficA -CS)

Pc-
f
5
wee
C�k-
'.16)
• �d.�_ ! 3 ADC..
1�'�� �W 1�?7 • �
1Oril.g
q
9)
4)2 iW I2 D.A. (15CD '1!e-cs
g2,.z
- .• 79:. ;,-
4'7. 9 — (9.7 4- 3'7 ,= 7'

. boD = L3 .60P 0
(Rot- trf Nt 5
Facility F-WA-S� (s?Gc •) Wastef low (MGO)
coo., 1
LIl
COCZt
CD
Summer/Winter (circle one)
,
4
1
•
L
4
I
I
I
� v
A
,
11,
1
11.
i
.t�
20
41.
,
•
-1-
AP
. �Q
r
t
NH3-N (mg/1)
Potential effluent limit combinations:
Boos
NH3•N

05/21/93 ver 3.1 TOXICS REV I E W
Facility: fwasal
NPDES Permit No.: nc0069311
Status (E, P, or M) : m
Permitted Flow: 1.000 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 0.320 mgd
Subbasin: '030301
Receiving Stream: cedar creek I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA---- I
Stream Classification: c-nsw I ACTUAL PERMITTED' I
7Q10: 1.9 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY I
IWC: 44.93 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic 1 OBSERVED of Chronic)
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria I
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations)
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) 1 (ug/1) (#vio/#sam) 1
Cadmium S 2.0 1 67% 0.0021 0.0009 0.0030 0.0001 0.0022 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 1 82% 0.0275 0.0075 0.0350 0.0017 0.0292 1 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 86% 0.1546 0.0126 0.1672 0.0704 0.2250 1 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 42% 0.0847 0.0000 0.0847 0.0007 0.0854 1 1 P
Lead S 25.0 ( 61% 0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 0.0016 0.0058 1 ( U
Zinc AL 50.0 i 79% 0.4110 0.0840 0.4950 0.0859 0.4969 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 69% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 1 I
Mercury S 0.012 1 67% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 1 75% 0.0106 0.0000 0.0106 0.0002 0.0108 1 1 E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 45% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 1 1 I
NH3-N C 1 0% 1 1 0
T.R.Ch1or.AL 17.0 1 0% 1 1 N
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream 1 Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 FREQUENCY INSTREAM
1 Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Pollutant 1 Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/l) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 0.08 4.452 0.371 0.272 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 A
Chromium S 1 3.59 111.290 2.359 1.968 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 N
Copper AL 1 0.65 15.581 8.766 11.796 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 A
Nickel S 1 1.96 195.871 18.396 18.549 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 L
Lead S 1 0.83 55.645 0.613 0.847 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 Y
Zinc AL 1 3.07 111.290 38.927 39.076 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 1 S
Cyanide S 1 0.21 11.129 0.000 0.163 0.00 Monitor 1 1 I
Mercury S 1 0.00 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S
Silver AL 1 0.00 0.134 0.992 1.011 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 I
Selenium S 1 0.06 11.129 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 R
Arsenic S 1 1.17 111.290 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 E
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 I U
T.R.Ch1or.AL 1 37.839 0.00 1 1 L
I I I T
i I I S

05/21/93 ver 3.1 TOX I CS REVIEW
Facility: fwasal
NPDES Permit No.: nc0069311
Status (E, P, or M) : m
Permitted Flow: 1.250 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 0.320 mgd
Subbasin: '030301
Receiving Stream: cedar creek I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA ----
Stream Classification: c-nsw I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI
7Q10: 1.9 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + I FREQUENCY
IWC: 50.49 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic I OBSERVED of Chronic
Stn'd / Bkg I Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total I Eflluent Criteria
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load I Conc. Violations
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) 1 (ug/l) (#vio/#sam)
Cadmium S 2.0 1 67% 0.0021 0.0009 0.0030 0.0001 0.0022 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 1 82% 0.0275 0.0075 0.0350 0.0017 0.0292 1 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 86% 0.1546 0.0126 0.1672 0.0704 0.2250 1 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 42% 0.0847 0.0000 0.0847 0.0007 0.0854 1 1 P
Lead S 25.0 1 61% 0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 0.0016 0.0058 1 I U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 79% 0.4110 0.0840 0.4950 0.0859 0.4969 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 69% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 1 I
Mercury S 0.012 1 67% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 I 75% 0.0106 0.0000 0.0106 0.0002 0.0108 1 I E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 45% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 1 1 I
NH3-N C 1 0% 1 1 O
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 1 0% 1 1 N
Pollutant
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM
Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 0.08 3.961 0.371 0.272 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 1 A
Chromium S 1 3.59 99.032 2.359 1.968 0.00 Monitor Monitor I 1 N
Copper AL 1 0.65 13.865 8.766 11.796 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 A
Nickel S 1 1.96 174.297 18.396 18.549 0.00 Limit Limit 1 1 L
Lead S 1 0.83 49.516 0.613 0.847 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 Y
Zinc AL 1 3.07 99.032 38.927 39.076 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 S
Cyanide S 1 0.21 9.903 0.000 0.163 0.00 Monitor 1 1 I
Mercury S 1 0.00 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I S
Silver AL 1 0.00 0.119 0.992 1.011 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I
Selenium S 1 0.06 9.903 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 R
Arsenic S 1 1.17 99.032 0.000 0.000 0.00 I I E
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 S
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 1 U
T.R.Chlor.AL 1 33.671 0.00 1 1 L
I I I T
I I I S

05/21/93 ver 3.1 T OXICS REVIEW
Facility: fwasal
NPDES Permit No.: nc0069311
Status (E, P, or M) : m
Permitted Flow: 1.500 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 0.320 mgd
Subbasin: '030301
Receiving Stream: cedar creek I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA ----
Stream Classification: c-nsw I ACTUAL PERMITTEDI
7Q10: 1.9 cfs 1 Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY
IWC: 55.03 % 1 Domestic PERMITTED Domestic 1 OBSERVED of Chronic
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load 1 Conc. Violations
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 % (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) I (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)
Cadmium S 2.0 I 67% 0.0021 0.0009 0.0030 0.0001 0.0022 1 I
Chromium S 50.0 1 82% 0.0275 0.0075 0.0350 0.0017 0.0292 1 I I
Copper AL 7.0 1 86% 0.1546 0.0126 0.1672 0.0704 0.2250 1 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 42% 0.0847 0.0000 0.0847 0.0007 0.0854 1 1 P
Lead S 25.0 1 61% 0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 0.0016 0.0058 1 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 79% 0.4110 0.0840 0.4950, 0.0859 0.4969 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 69% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 1 I
Mercury S 0.012 1 67% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 1 75% 0.0106 0.0000 0.0106 0.0002 0.0108 1 1 E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 45% 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 1 1 I
NH3-N C 1 0% 1 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 1 0% 1 1 N
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream I Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on I FREQUENCY INSTREAM
I Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Pollutant 1 Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent I based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 0.08 3.634 0.371 0.272 0.00 Limit Monitor I 1 A
Chromium S I 3.59 90.860 2.359 1.968 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 I N
Copper AL I 0.65 12.720 8.766 11.796 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 I A
Nickel S I 1.96 159.914 18.396 18.549 0.00 Limit Limit 1 1 L
Lead S I 0.83 45.430 0.613 0.847 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I Y
Zinc AL I 3.07 90.860 38.927 39.076 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I S
Cyanide S I 0.21 9.086 0.000 0.163 0.00 Monitor 1 1 I
Mercury S 1 0.00 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 I S
Silver AL 1 0.00 0.109 0.992 1.011 0.00 Monitor Monitor I I
Selenium S I 0.06 9.086 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 R
Arsenic S I 1.17 90.860 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 1 E
Phenols S I 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 I 1 S
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 I U
T.R.Chlor.AL 1 30.892 0.00 1 1 L
I I I T
I I S

Discharger : FWASA
Receiving Stream : CEDAR CREEK
MODEL RESULTS
SUMMER
QEFF=1 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=2 MG/L, DO=5 MG/L
The End D.O. is 6.64 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 8.82 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.54 mg/1.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 5.54 2.70 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tl0 D7o. 'nl t, L N o i 1Jf4 N &SEE ! T OF -7 f 2 R /i I1 ; �i,1
/ I o `' ! f� F . �- �� r T' l---C 1 , r � �� r10 _, a l`I'.' r7-7 0
sAv0p wASA
VwAsA W
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : FWASA Subbasin : 030301
Receiving Stream : CEDAR CREEK Stream Class: C-NSW
Summer 7Q10 : 1.9 Winter 7Q10 : 6.2
Design Temperature: 26.0
ILENGTHI SLOPE' VELOCITY 1 DEPTH' Kd I Kd 1 Ka I Ka I KN 1
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps I ft Idesign l @204 Idesign l @204 Idesign'
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I
Segment 1 1 0.801 14.701 0.222 11.03 10.35 1 0.26 1 6.68 1 5.861 0.48
Reach 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 I I 1 I I 1
Segment 1 1 1.90I 5.301 0.170 1 1.27 10.29 10.22 1 1.85 1 1.621 0.48
Reach 2 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I
I I I I 1 1 I 1 I
Segment 1 I 0.901 11.501 0.214 1 1.16 10.32 1 0.25 15.06 1 4.441 0.48
Reach 3 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I
I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
Segment 1 I 1.30I 6.501 0.182 11.27 10.30 10.23 1 2.43 I 2.131 0.48
Reach 4 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I
I I I I I I 1 1 I
Segment 1 I 0.601 6.501 0.188 11.35 1 0.30 10.22 12.51 1 2.201 0.48
Reach 5 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I
I Flow I CBOD 1 NBOD I D.O.
I cfs 1 mg/1 I mg/1 I mg/1
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 1.550 1 45.000 I 9.000 I 5.000
Headwaters) 1.900 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.130 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.400 1 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.160 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.160 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000

Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.730 I 2.000 1 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

I
SUMMER
QEFF=1 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=2 MG/L, DO=5 MG/L
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. 1 CBOD I NBOD I Flow I
1 1 0.00 6.27 21.32 4.59 3.45
1 1 0.08 6.33 21.10 4.54 3.46
1 1 0.16 6.38 20.88 4.48 3.47
1 1 0.24 6.43 20.67 4.42 3.48
1 1 0.32 6.47 20.46 4.36 3.49
1 1 0.40 6.51 20.25 4.31 3.50
1 1 0.48 6.55 20.04 4.25 3.51
1 1 0.56 6.58 19.83 4.20 3.52
1 1 0.64 6.61 19.63 4.15 3.53
1 1 0.72 6.64 19.43 4.09 3.54
1 1 0.80 6.67 19.23 4.04 3.55
1 2 0.80 6.73 17.49 3.73 3.95
1 2 0.99 6.47 17.03 3.60 3.98
1 2 1.18 6.25 16.58 3.46 4.01
1 2 1.37 6.07 16.15 3.33 4.05
1 2 1.56 5.92 15.73 3.21 4.08
1 2 1.75 5.80 15.32 3.09 4.11
1 2 1.94 5.71 14.92 2.98 4.14
1 2 2.13 5.64 14.53 2.87 4.17
1 2 2.32 5.59 14.16 2.76 4.20
1 2 2.51 5.56 13.79 2.66 4.23
1 2 2.70 5.54 13.44 2.56 4.26
1 3 2.70 5.54 13.44 2.56 4.26
1 3 2.79 5.72 13.29 2.53 4.27
1 3 2.88 5.89 13.14 2.49 4.29
1 3 2.97 6.03 12.99 2.46 4.30
1 3 3.06 6.16 12.85 2.42 4.32
1 3 3.15 6.27 12.71 2.39 4.33
1 3 3.24 6.37 12.57 2.35 4.34
1 3 3.33 6.46 12.43 2.32 4.36
1 3 3.42 6.54 12.29 2.29 4.37
1 3 3.51 6.62 12.16 2.26 4.39
1 3 3.60 6.68 12.02 2.23 4.40
1 4 3.60 6.68 12.02 2.23 4.40
1 4 3.73 6.63 11.87 2.18 4.40
1 4 3.86 6.59 11.72 2.14 4.40
1 4 3.99 6.56 11.56 2.09 4.40
1 4 4.12 6.54 11.42 2.05 4.40
1 4 4.25 6.51 11.27 2.01 4.40
1 4 4.38 6.50 11.12 1.96 4.40
1 4 4.51 6.49 10.98 1.92 4.40
1 4 4.64 6.48 10.84 1.88 4.40
1 4 4.77 6.47 10.70 1.85 4.40
1 4 4.90 6.47 10.56 1.81 4.40
1 5 4.90 6.59 9.34 1.69 5.13
1 5 4.96 6.59 9.29 1.68 5.13
1 5 5.02 6.60 9.24 1.66 5.13
1 5 5.08 6.60 9.18 1.65 5.13
1 5 5.14 6.61 9.13 1.63 5.13
1 5 5.20 6.61 9.08 1.62 5.13
1 5 5.26 6.62 9.03 1.60 5.13
1 5 5.32 6.63 8.97 1.59 5.13
1 5 5.38 6.63 8.92 1.57 5.13
1 5 5.44 6.64 8.87 1.56 5.13
1 5 5.50 6.64 8.82 1.54 5.13
Seg # I Reach # I Seg Mi I D.O. I CBOD I NBOD I Flow I

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : FWASA
Receiving Stream : CEDAR CREEK
SUMMER
QEFF=1.25 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=1.8 MG/L, DO=5 MG/L
The End D.O. is 6.53 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 10.34 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 1.65 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 5.42 2.70 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
45.00 8.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : FWASA
Receiving Stream : CEDAR CREEK
SUMMER
QEFF=1.5 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=1.6 MG/L, DO=5 MG/L
The End D.O. is 6.46 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 11.73 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 1.69 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 5.37 2.70 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
45.00 7.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000

Discharger : FWASA
Receiving Stream : CEDAR CREEK
MODEL RESULTS
WINTER
QEFF=1 MGD, BOD5=30 MG/L
NH3-N=8.1 MG/L, DO=5 MG/L
The End D.O. is 9.51 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 6.01 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 4.40 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 8.42 0.00 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
45.00 36.50
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 7, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO Charles Lowe iits
FROM: Susan A. Wilson
THROUGH: Ruth Swanek'2'
Carla Sanderson a
SUBJECT: Tawn-of-Frarklin- (NPDES No. NC0069311)
Cedar Creek, Tar River Basin
Franklin County
The Technical Support Branch has the following comments with regard to the Town of
Franklin's inquiry on the proposed permit limits:
Item 3), p. 2. The Technical Support Branch has received new information from the
Pretreatment Unit concerning metals at the Franklin WWTP. Based on the new
information, Technical Support recommends that the facility monitor for chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, zinc, and silver. No requirement (monitor or limit) is
recommended for cadmium and cyanide based on the new information and discussions
with the Pretreatment Unit. The monitoring frequency should be consistent with the
classification of the facility.
Please refer to the attached memo from Dana Folley, Pretreatment Unit, to me regarding the
headworks monitoring program.
cc: Tim Donnelly, RRO
Dana Tolley (no attachment), Pretreatment Unit

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
November 10, 1992
To: Susan Wilson
Technical Support Branch, Instream Assessment Unit
Through: Julia Storm
Technical Support Branch, Pretreatment Unit
From: Dana FolleD
Technical Support Branch, Pretreatment Unit
Subject: DEM Response to POTW Comments on Draft NPDES Permit
Franklin Water & Sewer Authority (FWASA) (NPDES No. NC0069311)
Wake County
In FWASA's May 16, 1992, letter providing comments on its draft NPDES permit, the POTW requested
to have the requirement to develop and implement a long-term monitoring program delayed until the next
NPDES permit reissuance, 2.5 years from now. The Pretreatment Unit does not support this request and
offers the following reasons:
1. The requirement to develop and implement the long-term monitoring plan comes from federal
regulation 40 CH(122.21(j) that requires that all POTWs with a pretreatment program provide a technical
evaluation of the need to revise local limits. This regulation came into effect in July of 1990, and in the
last three annual pretreatment coordinators workshops, the POTWs were informed that the requirement of
development and implementation of a long-term monitoring plan would be included in the next NPDES or
Nondischarge Permit received by the POTW.
2. As to FWASA's concern with the short amount of time for data collection before its permit would
require submittal of headworks analysis calculations using that data, we feel 1.5 years for data collection is
sufficient. Some POTWs have been given less time to design and implement the plan before new
headworks calculations are required. For example, it is the pretreatment unit's current policy that when a
POTW must reissue its pretreatment permits, which requires new headworks calculations, and those
calculations are based on literature removal rates and inhibition criteria due to the POTW's lack of site -
specific data (i.e., a long-term monitoring plan), the Division will only approve those reissued
pretreatment permits for 18 months. The POTW then has those 18 months to a) design and implement a
long-term monitoring plan, b) update its headworks analysis calculations using the data, and c) reissue the
permits as necessary. Most POTW's under SOC are given a 12 month data collection period after
approval of a long-term monitoring plan. Incidentally, FWASA is in the "permit reissuance" situation
mentioned above right now as its SIU permit expires December 31, 1992, and thus FWASA would be
required to develop and implement a long-term monitoring plan at this time even if its NPDES permit were
not up for renewal.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at x523 or Julia at x522.
DRF/fwasa ltmp(note to modeler).001
cc: Regional Office
Central files

Franklin Water & Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 685
FRANKLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27525
[phone] -
May 12, 1992
Mr. George Everett, Director
Environmental Management Commission
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
aa
of t \g92
Y .i
J� �
Re: Draft NPDES # NC0069311 C,• - : .;
Franklin Water and Sewer Authority '
Cedar Creek Regional WWTP MM. 21 �‹
PI
14,i j iT i• i^'
Dear Mr. Everett •
40
In regards to the draft NPDES permit # NC0069311 for
Franklin Water and Sewer Authority there are several
comments and objections.
Until January 1992 the Franklin Water and Sewer Authority's
(FWASA) position of Executive Director had been vacant for
about one and one half (1.5) years. The Director is the ORC
for the WWTP and is responsible for budgetary planning,
staffing, policy and overall operation of the WWTP. Until
the position was filled several contract operators were
employed as the ORC. While these operators did a good job
as far as plant operations, they were not full-time
employees and subsequently; information that was essential
for proper planning was not available for use. one example
of this is the letter dated October 30, 1991 in which the
plant classification changed from a Class II to a Class III.
In the process of getting started at a new job and Trying to
familiarize myself with all aspects of the job the
reclassification was not known to me until the draft permit
was issued. `
The FWASA WWTP is a 0.5 MGD package treatment plant which
has an average daily flow of approximately 0.25 MGD. The
implementation of a pretreatment program, which consists of
one (1) industry, and the addition of a caustic feed system
for better pH control were two (2) of the main factors in
the plant reclassification and both additions were
implemented to insure better plant performance. The WWTP
became a Class III plant by two (2) points.
FWASA is a small organization which has four (4) employees
and fourteen (14) sewer taps. In the absence of a director
the needed training of personnel in lab procedures, the
budgeting of a lab technician, and the increased cost of

operating a lab and contract lab services did not come into
consideration until the draft permit was issued. In view of
these circumstances, I would like to make the following '
requests:
1) that daily monitoring requirements for
conventional pollutants be reduced to no more than three (3)
times per week;
2)____that the weekly monitoring for metals be reduced
to monthly;y
6 3) that the daily maximum limits for the metals be
waived until sufficient data has been collected to determine
if these metals are in the discharge. If they are present
at levels above the daily maximum, FWASA will need to
determine their source and/or the best way to reduce their
concentration;
4) that weekly average discharge limitations be
established for the metals and that the daily maximum metal
limits be changed to limits based on acute values; and,
5) that the increased monitoring be delayed until
additional training and budgetary concerns can be addressed.
The draft permit also requires FWASA to implement a
monitoring program in accordance with the Pretreatment
Program Implementation section. Since the Division has
moved towards basin wide permitting, the new permit is
effective for two and one half (2.5) years instead of five
(5) years. The Pretreatment Section specifies that the
implementation of the monitoring program begin within six
(6) months of the effective date of the permit and that the
headworks analysis based on the collected data be submitted
six (6) months prior to the expiration date of the permit,
which allows for one and one half (1.5) years to actually
conduct the monitoring and to include the costs in the
budget. For these reasons and those mentioned previously,
it is requested that:
1) the headworks monitoring program be delayed until
January 1995.
Should you require additional information or have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Franklin WASA
Dwig t Lancaster
Executive Director
DTL/11

APR 29 1992
DIV. OF Eti'v1R0► a� OF110E M4df.
R1RECfa
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391.
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
April 20, 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: George T. Everett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: Fred A. Harris, Chief
RE:
The
the
the
Division of Boating an Inland Fisheries
NPDES permit applications
APR 30 1992
WATT QUALITY
SECiiON
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed
latest package of NPDES permit applications and provides
following comments:
r
NPDES
Education
einst
and S
listed"spe
this permi
per 'tee
'lim t# and
pert d. A
isin'fecti
equ}.r d t
t is/ cr -
No. NC0050431. Edgeco
he Tar River spiny
a) is a fe- rally
ft Creek n Edgec
s
f
2. HP
Educat
is a
habit
Piste
der
u der an
ch o'ina
declvt=I p
the e
1
1 •
e
t
s
to
i
a
c-
so
n m-
pro
S No.
GI
n
n. h
a
ra ly
n Bea
e ie
th
OC
on
i
m 1
•
0
es are fpund
it should b:
consistent
cont'nue t
if c lorin
tho. deb- nation
the extremely impor
•
in S
de
y m
NC 381. C
e Ca • \ear s
lis ed "endan
Cre?k, ha
are a so r
t Chat
ue to e
s the p
of eff
important es
•
e
am e
pir
opos
1 en'
0
0
be
ift C
e mine
its p=
so duri
is the
t
•e
' Co. Board of
r"'�- sel (Elli ' o
1st.. endanger
• nty. Oth
-ek. Befo -
that the
s�t NPD S
ri the
�o p
eff
of
•
tham Count
(Notro
In
ere
ham
sent
tral
on Dece
• disin
ould b
ouces
spec'
unty.
in Be.r
H gh Sch
b r 1
ctio
re•
s
p
n
se
ue
m
p.
p
xt
t s
esour
it c
Other s
C eek.
•ol 1=
1994
meth •
uired t
s creek
ecies
tate
enewing
tial
rmit
Id be
s in
of
stocholas)
itical
ate
It is
•perating
If
protect
03

MEMO to George Everett
April 20, 1992
Page Two
•
o nty.
ederal i y
abitat i
fisted sp
iver belo
s o ld be • e
c nss east y
co ti e to
if ch • ina
decil■rinat
a
the
tre
back-up de
e
1
do
ion
on
No. NC 00
he spotf
listed
the Li
cl e s a
n
hr
tl
e
1547. Town
chub (C ..,
teased
Tene
l:o pr
Be
t at
s
ran 1 n.
er in d
e is p
o duri
s the
f efflu
ortant
in-tion u
s
se
.fi=
th
NP
f Franklin,
-lla monach
e with it
iv-r. Oth-�
e Lit 1.
g th's
e 1 p-r
e -
t i
ren
pot
S pe
g th:- n
rop.sed
nt shoul
t .
dis
e:. ources
i- should
t
wi
ti
mi
erm
nfe
re
th
s
1
r'
st
Te
perm
itte
is an
riod.
on me
fired
su
•
al
see
it
ti
-te
ne
t,
e he
d ca
1
ho
o pr
basin.
equired.
4. NPDES No. NC 006-311. Franklin Water and Sewer
Authority, Franklin County. The dwarf wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) is a federally listed endangered
species found in Cedar Creek, Franklin County. Before
renewing this permit, it should be determined that the
potential permittee has consistently met its past NPDES
permit limits and can continue to do so during the next
permit period. Also, if chlorination is the proposed
disinfection method, dechlorination of effluent should be
required to protect the extremely important resources in
this subbasin. A back-up dechlorination unit should also
be required.
o,
ect
cc: John Alderman
Jack Donnelly
Mrs. Linda K. Gantt, USFWS
Brian Cole, USFWS

TOXICS REVIEW
11/26/92
ver 3.0
Facility: FWASA
NPDES Permit No.: nc0069311
Status (E, P, or M): e
Permitted Flow: 0.50 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 0.22 mgd
Subbasin: '030301
Receiving Stream: Cedar Creek
Stream Classification: c-nsw
7Q10: 1.96 cfs
INC: 28.3 %
PRETREATMENT D A T A =-= _ ___- EFFLUENT DATA
ACTUAL ACTUAL PERMITTED 1
or Ind. + Ind. + 1 ACTUAL ACTUAL
Default ACTUAL Domestic PERMITTED Domestic i Maximum Weekly
Standard Acute 1 Removal Allowable Domestic Industrial Total Industrial Total 1 Daily Average
Pollutant AL Criteria I Eff. Load Load Load Load Load Load 1 Value Value
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 % (4/d) (4/d) (4/d) (l/d) (4/d) (t/d) 1 (ug/1) (ug/1)
Cadmium S 2.0 1.79 I 67% 0.0750 -O 0021 L1 0.0009 0.0030 o,000l4O49834 0.0055
Chromium S 50.0 984 I 82% 3.4357 0.0275 0.0075 0.0350 - .1,685- 0.1960
Copper AL 7.0 9.2 1 86% 0.6184 0.1546 0.0126 0.1672 0.0704 '.. 0.2250
Nickel S 88.0 789 1 42% 1.8766 0.0847 0.0000 0.0847 0.0007 0.0854
Lead S 25.0 34 1 61% 0.7929 0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 0.0016 0.0058
Zinc AL 50.0 65 1 79% 2.9449 0.4110 0.0840 0.4950 0.08591- D 0.4969
Cyanide S 5.0 22.0 I 69% 0.1995 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014
Mercury S 0 012 2.4 1 67% 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Silver AL 0.060 1.2 1 75% 0.0030 0.0106 0.0000 0.01 0.0002 0.0108
Selenium S 5.0 20 1 0% 0.0618
Arsenic S 50.0 360 1 45% 1.1244 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
Phenols S NA
--ANALYSIS --------------- A N A L Y S I S R E S U L T S =_`_____------___ __-_----=----
Monitor / Limit / Special Condition*
I Allowable Allowable) Predicted Predicted
I Effluent Effluent 1 on ACTUAL on PERMIT.
Bkg 1 Conc. Conc. 1 Influent Influent 1 ACTUAL PERMITTED Daily Max. Wk. Avg. I Based on Based on
Pollutant Conc. 1 CHRONIC ACUTE 1 Data Data 1 Influent Influent Effluent Effluent 1 Actual Actual
(ug/1) 1 (ug/1) (ug/1) 1 (ug/1) (ug/1) 1 Loading Loading Data Data 1 Daily Max. Wk. Avg.
I I I I
Cadmium S I 7.058 6.317 I-0-:54"9 1.f1O9- 1 Monitor -Unit I
Chromium S I 176.452 3473.697 1 3.495 19.573 1 Monitor Lam,.-1 I
Copper AL I 24.703 32.538 1 12.986 17.476 1 Monitor Monitor 1
Nickel 5 310.555 2784.406 1 27.254 27.479 1 Monitor Monitor I
Lead S 1 88.226 119.211 1 0.909 1.255 1 Monitor Monitor I
Zinc AL 1 176.452 229.528 1 57.669 57.891 I Monitor Monitor 1 _ ,.
Cyanide S 1 17.645 77.639 1 0.000 0.241 1 Monitor ilr� KF / I Or r�F�!_ Fir.)
Mercury S 1 0.042 8.470 1 0.000 0.000 I I(�o,J�r :{AVE a C�
Ts{ov rj r{�
Silver AL I 0.212 4.341 I 1.470 1.498 Monitor Monitor I
Selenium S 1 17.645 70.581 1 0.000 0.000 I
Arsenic S 1 176.452 1270.452 1 0.000 0.000 I I
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 I
Actual
Actual I INSTREAM MONITORING
12/1/q,E- - CANT Pfu^.1 705 our
co126cr

NPDES PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
FAC TT JTY NAME: 'L&) / s A
REQUESTER: W , I
NPDES NO. NCO 0 ! 3 _L'_
DATE: j/ / /6 ?/ 9 2- REGION: Rie()
PERMTT
CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREATMENT
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /
Additional Conditions
This facility(attached)
is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
P.ujiam Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
IGNIFICANr INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIGs) ODNTRIBU IONS
SIU FLOW - TOTAL:
0,019
- COMPOSITION: TEXTILE:
METAL FINISHING:
OTHER:
HEADWORKS REVIEW
PASS
PARAMETER :THROUGH DAILY
:ALLOWABLE Dc E51'1C
Cd 0.0gi9 <SDL o . oo21
Cr -A b7-ko 0. 02?5
Cu o.154E4
Ni 1.a'f3z 0.08{a
Ph D.Bogj
Zn 4 . o o'{_z
CN
P Q i3� 0.06
Other AL.
A-J
• 03
0.00c,
D .CO
0.0D
D,0106
P6720. 1 rta
0.o.51 M®
o.O MOD
0.004
IIJAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL)
PERr'IMTED INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL
O. 0 03 f o ;k' 0. 0009 67
0.1G4ss o.o6;05 elfS'A
0. o-1•ogf B.61A6 g6
O. 0 o0?- - 4.1�
0.00/6 - 61
b.O 9 0.084 49
0.00jy
MGD
MCD
M®
MOD
map
0 0
o.000a
64
45
40 6
5
RECEIVED: l l / j6 / REVIEWED BY: RETURNED: j/ / atjj /12,_