NC0043974_Wasteload Allocation_19921211

NPDES WASIE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0043974
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Gates County Schools
Gates Co Sch - Buckland Elem
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.006 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
Refer : Basinwide / Streamline WLA File
Completed By Permits & Engineering
At Front Of Subbasin
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Cole Creek
Class: C-NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-01-01
Reference USGS Quad: B31NE
County: Gates
Regional Office: Washington Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 6/30/93 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Chaves Alvarez
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
(305),w.16.5/33
(�QI�Z toc�
10/22/92
Date:
Date:
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
(Walt"
7/6 G
Drainage Area (mil ) ( i .0
Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 1.0
7Q10 (cfs) Q. b Winter 7Q10 (cfs) d. 0 30Q2 (cfs) 0. 0
Toxicity Limits: IWC /co % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters no TcdAP Fc-ua L- C000vc..Ti ury ue
Upstream Location lest 5o ' Above 0cYt611
Downstream Locations ten,* 1ov' bIbt.J
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1)
.0
io .0
NH -N (mg/1)
3
z.o
y.0
D.O.(mg/1)
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1)
30,0
3v-0
F. Col. (/100 ml)
zvv
za0
pH (SU)
6 - 9
6-1
-•s pW0,5plNUEU5 Cive4
I. o
is 0
-r-aIT12.0e 3 /.6
3.0
3 •0
The facility discharges into a stream with 7Q10/30Q2=0 cfs. Removal of the
discharge will -be required if a more environmentally sour _ait me ative is
available. An enginee g repot:t evaluating alterna
180 days prior to permit expiration—• eir
application. As part of the re
to meet limits of 5 m : t1
17 ug/1 chlorin - -
discharge d
o discharge is due
with the permit renewal
cost of consfnrcting_a treatment facility
5, 2 mg/1 NH3, 6 mg/1 dissolved ox gen, and
st also be included if there are no alternatives to a surface
pon review of the results of the engineering report, the Division
may reopen and modify this NPDES permit to require removal of the
discharge, modified treatment designs, and/or revised effluent limitations
within a specified time schedule.
0

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request #
Gates County School - Buckland Elementary
NC0043974
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
unamed tributary to Cole Creek
C - NSW
03-01-01
Gates
Washington
Alvarez
10/22/92
B31NE
WASHINGTONED OFFICE
7166 f 1'a 1 U 1992
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
Di Ii1„
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
DMR shows consistently high values for BOD, TSS, NH3-N, Fecal Coliform, DO, Total -
nitrogen, Total -phosphorus. Often no values for chlorine
The facility discharges into a stream with 7Q10/30Q2=0 cfs. Removal of the discharge will be. .
required if a more environmentally sound alternative is available. An engineering report evaluating
alternatives to discharge is due 180 days prior to permit expiration along with the permit renewal
application. As part of the report, the cost of constructing a treatment plant at the discharge point to
— meet limits of 5 mg/1 BODS, 2 mg/1 NH3, 6 mg/1 DO, 17 µg/l chlorine, lmg/1 Total -phosphorus,
and 3 mg/1 Total -nitrogen -should also be included if there are no alternatives to a surface discharge.
Upon review of the -results of the engineering report, the Division_rmay reopen and modify this
NPDES permit to require removal of the discharge, modify treatment designsand/or revise effluent
limitations within a specified time schedule.
/Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
�l-
Recommended by: -. --.-- - Date: a /3/5
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: Date: ( 1
Regional Supervisor: Date: l//(7/7Z-
Permits & Engineering: s Date: 1 r( Z3/C2i
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: DEC 1 1 1992
^Farrell Keough
l

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 m1):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (14/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/I):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Limits Changes Due To:
PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
0.006 0.006
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
1000.0 1000.0
1.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
-For-wee-yews-
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.006 0.006
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200.0 200.0
6-9 6-9
1.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
Change in 7Q10 data
New regulations/standards
New procedures
New facility information
Change in stream classification
Other
WQ or EL
Era
WQ
WQ
WQ
Parameter(s) Affected
Fecal Coliform
After
Mon
Su
3.0
t t : - years:
ly vera:
er W.
0.0q
10
4.
.0
er WQ or EL
6
0.0
9
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: at least 50 ft. above outfall (if dry, state NO FLOW on sheet)
Downstream Location: at least 100 ft. below outfall me,o6uri, even lir A-IO10 4 n\ cl,+54tta"€ o
Parameters: Temperature, DO, Fecal Coliform, bn6,001V i -�
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.