NC0066516_Wasteload Allocation_19931206

PERMIT NO.: NCO066516
PERMITTEE NAME: Town of Fuquay-Varina
FACILITY NAME: Terrible Creek WWTP
Facility Status: Proposed
Permit Status: Renewal
Major 1l Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 6.0 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
95 %
5%
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
Comments:
Three 2.0 MGD phases vlanned Please provide limits for the three
phases.
RECEIVING STREAM:Terrible Creek
Class: C-NS W
Sub -Basin: 03-04-03
Reference USGS Quad: E 23 SE (please attach)
County: Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 1/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: 3 or 4
Classification changes within three miles:
none yT'
PLO
Requested by: Grgg Nizich ()w*� Date: 7/16/93
Prepared by: Date:
Reviewed by:L_YYAA
l
5
:t \3
Date: a
Modeler Date Rec. #
irk,
Drainage Area (mi2): 9.90 Avereage Streamflow (cfs): 11.0
s7010 (cfs): 0.0 w7010 (cfs): 0.51 30102 (cfs): 0.96
Toxicity Limit(s): IWC 98.7 % : 2.0 mgd Chronic P / F Limit [Qrtly]
99.4 % : 4.0 mgd Chronic P / F Limit [Qrtly] � 9o%
99.6 % : 6.0 mgd Chronic P / F Limit [Qrtly]yo%
Instream Monitoring:
Upstream Location: Dam spillway
Downstream Location: NCSR 2751 [near mouth of Swift Creek]
Parameters: Temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivib
Monthly Average
Wasteflow (MGD):
Summer
2.0
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
4.0
5.0
10.0
6.0
5.0
10.0
NH3N (mg/I):
DO (mg/1):
2.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
TSS (mg/1):
30
6.0
30
6.0
30
6.0
30
6.0
6.0
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
200
200
30
200
30
200
PH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/I):
6-9
17.0
6-9
17.0
6-9
17.0
6-9
6-9
6-9
Oil & Grease (mg/I):
nr
nr
nr
17.0
17.0
17.0
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
2.0
nr
2.0
nr
2.0
nr
2.0
TN (mg/1):
Copper (µg/I):
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Lead (µg/1):
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Zinc (µg/1):
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
"In light of the extremely limited assimilative capacity for oxygen -consuming wastes in
Middle Creek, no new wastewater outfalls should be permitted within the basin. The existing
municipal facilities, Apex, Cary South and the proposed Fuquay-Varina WWTP should serve
as regional treatment facilities to handle future wastewater needs." [A Water ouality Analysis of the
Proposed and Existing Dischargers to Middle Creek below Sunset Lake]
Reduced instream monitoring has been included in this NPDES permit under the assumption that the Neuse
River Coalition will be formed and approved by the Division of Environmental Management. If the coalition does not materialize or you choose not to participate, the NPDES permit may be reopened by administrative
letter to include additional instream monttonng requirements determined to be necessary to adequately
characterize the effects of the discharge on the Neuse River Basin's water quality.
TSB requests Toxicity Reopener Clause be included in the Permit for Toxic Specific Limits
pending additional Industrial tie-ons.
Due to lack of information as to possible SIU's and quantities of domestic flows, monitoring of possible toxicants in
effluent is recommended to take place through the facility's Pretreatment Long-term Monitoring Plan.

a
TOWN OF FUQUAY-VARINA
1300 East Academy Street
Ev
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina 27526
[phone]
MAY.WWA, NNYW CAR06NA `
July t, 1993
Permits & Engineering Unit
Division of Environmental Management
NC Dept Environment, Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Request for Renewal
NPDES permit No. 0066516
Town of Fuquay-Varina, Wake County
Gentlemen:
The Town of Fuquay-Varina has spent vast amounts of time, effort and
funds to secure a NPDES discharge permit on Terrible Creek. The
process was begun in 1986 in response to the Town of Cary's issuance
of a discharge permit for :6.0 mgd into Middle Creek to which Terrible
Creek is tributary. Fuquay-Varina desires to maintain its current
discharge permit capacity to support future development in the Neuse
River basin.
Fuquay-Varina's original discharge permit application followed the
requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. A very protracted
environmental review of the project resulted in the issuance of a
Finding of No Significant impact (FONSI) by the Department of
Administration in 1991. A discharge permit was issued subsequent to
the FONSI.
The Town has purchased a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site on
Terrible Creek. The Town has annexed and rezoned the site.
Preliminary design of the WWTP and its interceptor sewers is underway.
Additional environmental documents for the interceptor sewers are
being prepared currently. Therefore, the Town is actively working
towards an Authorization to Construct the proposed facilities.
The Terrible Creek discharge is vital to the Towns future growth and
development. There are large amounts of land adjacent to the Town or
in the Town's extra -territorial jurisdiction which are in the Terrible
Creek basin. Logic would suggest that the wastewater generated by
future development would be more economically treated within the same
drainage basin.
r
r
.r
r;,

•f
Permits & Engineering Unit
July , 1993
Page 2
The Town's existing Kenneth Creek WWTP is
appTerroachible ng
itsdi hydraulic
aulic
capacity. Since the Town has securedt
permit, end expansion of the
viewKenneth
ConstructionTofwthedTerzible Creek
Protracted environmental re a
Tp was deemed more prudent than uthe rsuit Of CreeksNPAESEdischarge
Creek WWTP. Therefore, without
permit, the lengthy process of expanding the Kenneth Creek WWTPnew
would
be required, and the Town toriumewouldebeforcd idevagtatingnto a otouthenTown's
sewer connections. A morn
tax base.
We strongly request that the Town's earliexe theeTownDhaspermit
alreadYe
renewed as submitted. As explained
complied with the State Enviare acc`�tivelyal 1pursuing icy Act fan Authorization mto
through lengthy review. We are a
Construct the WWTP and interceptors- our current situation dictates
construction in the very n
Sincerely,
L.W. Bennett, Jr.
Town Manager
Enclosures
co, Mayor Alfred Johnson
Jonathan Howes
Preston Howard
William Diehl
10

Facility Name:
, Permit Number:
Engineer:
Subbasin:
Recleving Stream:
USGS quad #:
Request Number:
Date:
Expiration date:
Town of Fuquay-Varina
NCO066516
Nizich
03-04-03
Terrible Creek
E23SE
7547
7/19/93
1 /31 /94
Terrible Creek WWTP
Existing WLA checked:
x
Staff Report:
x plus Report on Middle Creek 10 / 92
Topo checked:
x
USGS Flows confirmed:
PIRF / APAMS:
nr
IWC Spreadsheet:
Stream Classification:
x
Nutrient Sensitivity:
x
Instream Data:
Proposed facility
This facility was originally issued a permit in 1986 with limits of adavanced secondary treatment, (i.e. 6 mg/I BODS,
3 mg/I N1­13-N, 6 mg/I DO, and 1,000 / 100 ml, etc.]. Since that time, extensive monitoring, modeling, and reports have
been made on Middle Creek, (Terrible Creek is a tributary to Middle Creek) and this has in turn changed our
recommended limits to advanced tertiary with 0.5 - 2 mg/I total phosphorus and a potential for nitrogen limits from 3 - 6
mg/l. The town, obviously, was very upset by this and questioned many aspects of it, including the 7Q10 and final nutrient
removal rates. Extensive review by our staff and the USGS was done for the 7010 with the same resulting zero 7Q10
summer value. The bottom line was that with a proposed 6.0 mgd plant, the facility would dominate the stream -flow at low
flow periods even if the 7Q10 was found to be a slight bit higher. With regards to the nutrient issue, a 2 mg/I total
Phosphorus limit was applied with a monitoring requirement for Nitrogen and a caveat of more stringent nutrient controls
in the future applied.
Slu's Parameter
Guilford Fibers Business Unit [Proposed] Polyester Resin Chips and Finish Oil OCPSF facility (town considers domestic)
Pretreatment
The last permit has limits and monitoring requirements for metals and organics for a company called RayChem,.
(which will probably not tie -on), but very little documentation as to what SIU's would tie -on. The SIU .mentioned above
would probably tie -on from their old plant in the Cape Fear Basin, (NC0028118). I have requested an evaluation from
Pretreatment.
8/27/93 Dana Foley has recently finished a headworks analysis on this facility, (recieved 8126/93), but unfortunately was
not able determine what the percent domestic and percent industrial, The facility proposed to tie -on is an OCPSF facility,
but none of their OCPSF flow would be sent to this plant; the quantity of flow proposed to be sent is not finalized..
**Since this facility is not yet constructed, and such a large amount of uncertainty about the constituents in their
effluent exists, Dana and I determined that the best approach would be to recommend that Copper, Lead , and Zinc be
monitored per the Pretreatment Long-term Monitoring plan, and the permit contain Toxicity Re -opener Language such that
if they go on-line before their five-year permit is up, we can re -assess their waste load and apply any necessary
requirements upon them at that time. I will also continue their Chronic Toxicity Test requirement as a mechanism for
determining effluent problems. **
The PIRF I recieved is based on spurious data and all removal rates are "literature" values, thus I felt it was
unnecessary to run a PIRF Spreadsheet since the results would be so suspect.
Middle Creek Report October,1992
The bottom -line of this report is in the summary:
"If the four existing dischargers reach their permitted loads (Cary at 6.4 MGD), the model predicts that
instream DO concentrations will sag to 1.4 mg/I. However, the model indicates that it will be difficult under
any management strategy to meet the 5.0 mg/I stream standard for dissolved oxygen under critical conditions
because of existing physical conditions (e.g., low streamflow and slow velocities). Even with no discharges, a
DO sag to 3.1 mg/I is predicted, if background and runoff BOD concentrations remain as high as found during
the calibration study. The model was also run assuming all permitted discharges will implement "Best
Available Technology" (BAT) to achieve tertiary treatment (i.e., BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3-N =1 mg/I, and DO = 6-7
mg/1). With these effluent limits, the added wasteflow and dissolved oxygen is expected to cause the DO
concentrations to sag 3.1 mg/I below Cary and to 3.0 mg/I below Fuquay-Varina. The DO profile is higher for
the actual average loading scenario than the no discharge or BAT scenario due to Cary's addition of highly
treated wastewater (1991 summer averages: BODs = 1.45 mg/I, NH3-N = 0.1 mg/I, and DO=8.3 mg/I).
"In light of the extremely limited assimilative capacity for oxygen -consuming wastes in Middle Creek, no
new wastewater outfalls should be permitted within the basin. The existing municipal facilities, Apex, Cary
South and the proposed Fuquay-Varina WWTP should serve as regionalNatment facilities to handle future
wastewater needs." [A Water Quality Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Dischargers to Middle Creek below Sunset Lake]

Terrible reek MIDDLE CREEK
SR 1387
2 R 1404
F.,
SR 1507
Sq r.s„
NEUSE RIVER
NO 50 A
usgs gage
SR
Mill Branch
4 3
SR 1375
6 1 ills Branch
anther Bran
Little Creek
Permitted Facility
Flow (mgd)
Limits
Existing?
1
Cary South WWTP
6.4(16)
6/3/6
Yes
2
Wyndridge
0.15
12/1/5
N
3
Amherst Subdivision
0.02 (.053)
9/1/6
Yes
4
Pleasant Grove
0.0065
18/12/5
N
5
Brighton Forest
0.277
6/3/6
N
6
Levinson Steel
0.025
712/5
N
7
Fuquay-Varina WWTP
6
5/1/6
N
8
Springhaven
0.15
9/7/5
N (ATC Issued)
9
R.P. Holding
0.4
25/2/6
N
10
Countryside MHP
0.025
1 a/5/5
Yes
11
Wake Technical College
0.02
18/5/5
Yes
SWIFT CREEK

Page 1
Note for Farrell Keough
From: Dana Folley
Date: Fri, Jul 30, 1993 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: Fuquay-Varina
To: Farrell Keough
NC0028118. Your recommendation sounds good to me. I'll still follow up with the Town
Pretreatmetn Contact to confirm, and will let you know if I find anything different.
-Dana F.
From: Farrell Keough on Fri, Jul 30, 1993 2:20 PM
Subject: Fuquay-Varina
To: Dana Folley
Everything I've read seems to indicate that this plant will not replace their old one, but it will
take on the old plants SIU's. At this point I want to recommend the same PIRF requirements
for this plant as for their old one. What is the NPDES # of the old plant and what are your
feelings about this approach?

I.
NPDES PP.E,TRFFFATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FARM
I.
FACIi.ITy NAME: G � i NPDES NO. NCO '
I
I
t
RFXXIES'I'ER' U DATE: �/ � / 13 REGION: : �� � 0 '
I
PST CONDITIONS COVERING PREI'REATMENI'
This facility has no SIUs and should not
This facility should and/or is developing
Please include the following conditions:
This facility is currently implementing
Please include the following conditions:
SI'r. • CANT INDUSTRIAL
#6. •,
have pretreatment language.
a pretreatment program.
Program Development
Phase I dlle
Phase II due
Additional Conditions
(attached)
a pretreatment program.
Program Implgnentation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
i
1 SIU FI,(]W
- TOTAL:
PPS ec I
'
I
-
Fxr�ODMPOSIMON: T
;
'
METAL FIN'AING:O.OlS
(}..UaS
'
1
U = CL:..:
MGD I
I
I
I
I
I
I
� I
I
MGD
I
HEAD;qORKS REVIE-,�,7
IS Q(So OCPGhl�t
I
�tOC'SYt 15��/tC+✓CAL'
f PARAMETER
PASS
1THROUGH
sAPYe
;L
I
ALLOW]JUE
DAILY LOAD I1'' BNS /sD
ACTUAL
Cd
'
----------
D�STIC V �Q
M�j
PER 11 � INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL I
I Cr
Cu
v
- _ • 0
1 Zn
CN
-----__
d•d4� rK Q
b -
` OK�
--�._
_
I
P
Phenol
------ -
6 �� Q
--�
_ _
� '
�__
Other
----
_
— ---
c
,�,/-? /Ia

NOV O 2 1993
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 ®EHNR-RAL RO
Request # 7547
Fuquay-Varina Terrible Creek Waste Water Treatment Faci,�,itry� RECEIVED
NCO066516 WR'SHINGTON OFFICE
95% Domestic 5% Industrial
Proposed
Renewal
Terrible Creek
C-NSW
03-04-03
Wake
Raleigh
Nizich
7/19/93
E23SE
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
NOV 1 71993
D. E M.
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
02.0879.6590
Date:
1991
Drainage Area (mi2):
9.90
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Winter 7Q 10 (cfs):
0.51
Average Flow (cfs):
11.0
30Q2 (cfs):
0.96
IWC (%):
98.7% : 2.0 mgd
99.4% 4.0 mgd
99.6% 6.0 mgd
"In light of the extremely limited assimilative capacity for oxygen -consuming wastes in Middle Creek,
no new wastewater outfalls should be permitted within the basin. The existing municipal facilities, Apex,
Cary South and the proposed Fuquay-Varina WWTP should serve as regional treatment facilities to handle
future wastewater needs." to Water Quality Analysis of the Proposed and Existing Dischargers to Middle Creek below Sunset Lake]
Reduced instream monitoring has been included in this NPDES permit under the assumption that the Neuse River
Coalition will be formed and approved by the Division of Environmental Management. If the coalition does not
materialize or you choose not to participate, the NPDES permit may be reopened by administrative letter to
include additional instream monitoring requirements determined to be necessary to adequately characterize the
effects of the discharge on the Neuse River Basin's water quality.
Due to lack of information as to possible SIU's and quantities of domestic flows, monitoring of possible toxicants
in effluent is recommended to take place through the facility's Pretreatment Long-term Monitoring Plan.. 4
TSB requests*e any Reopener Clause be included in the Permit�o v 7o1Ci L S�LCCjc Li wuis �ewci;
advl fiam -aJ ZVKdvS4A, JTie-&0.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: q
Ij
0
Uff
1el'i3
Farrell Keough
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: �� --- ----Date: �©
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES i\10V 1 iJ

r
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existina Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
2.0
BOD5 (mg/l):
5.0
10.0
NH3N (mg/1):
1.0
2.0
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
J
Fec fCol. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17.0
17.0
Oil & Grease (mg/1):'
nr
nr
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
Recommended Limi
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
wQ orE.
Wasteflow (MGD)
2.0
BOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
wQ
NH3N (mg/1):
+-w-o
-"4'0
wQ
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
wQ
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17.0
17.0
wQ
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr. -
nr
,
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
WQ
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
i+
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream.data ;
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 6 for miscellaneous. and special conditions, if applicable)

a
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
ExistinLy Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
4.0
EOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
NH3N (mg/1):
1.0
2.0
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17.0
17.0
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
Recommended Limi
Monthly Average
Summer-
Winter
WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
4.0
BOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0 ,
WQ
NH3N (mg/1);
4=(Pa.0
2*4..D
wQ
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
WQ
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/l):
17.0
17.0
WQ
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
TP (mg/1);
2.0
2.0
WQ
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data ,
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 6 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existine Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
6.0
BOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
N113N (mg/1):
1.0
2.0
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/l):
17.0
17.0
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
TN (mg/1):
monitor
monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
wQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
6.0
BOD5 (mg/1):
5.0
10.0
wQ
N113N (mg/1):,
4*OX
2=0 4-D
wQ
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
wQ
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal. Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH.(SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17.0
17.0
wQ
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
TP (mg/1):
2.0
2.0
wQ
TN (mg/1):
R@W:
monitor
monitor
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data ; .
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
(explanation of any modifications to past modeling analysis including new flows, rates, field data,
interacting discharges)
(See page 6 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F Test
Existing Limit: 90% for all flows
Recommended Limit: 90% for all flows
Monitoring Schedule:. March, June, September, and December
Existing Limits
Daily Max.
COD (mg/):
Cadmium (ug/1):
monitor
Chromium (ug/1):
monitor
Copper (ug/1):
monitor
Nickel (ug/1):
monitor
Lead (ug/1):
monitor
Zinc (ug/1):
monitor
Cyanide (ug/1):
monitor
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane (ug/1):
monitor
Mercury (ug/1):
monitor
Silver (ug/1):
monitor
Recommended Limits
Daily Max. wQ or EL
COD (mgl)e nr
Cadmium. (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Co er u - monitor
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1): monitor
Zinc (ug/1): - monitor
Cyanide ugn);
Phenols (ug/1):
Mercury (ug/1):
Silver (ug/1):
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information x all metals and organics
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
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.
WS
_x_ No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future. allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Dam spillway
Downstream Location: NCSR 2751 [near Swift Creek mouth]
Parameters: Temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivity
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.

Facility Name Fuquay-Varina Terrible Cr. WWTP Permit # NC0066516 Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder
shall perform auarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition..
The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Mar., Jun., Sep., and Dec. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP313.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the
effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste
stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately
until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months
specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened
and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. h
7Q10 0.0
Permitted Flow 2.0
IWC 9&7
Basin & Sub -basin
Receiving Stream
County
QCL P/F Version 9191
cis
MGD
03-04-03
Terrible Creek
Fake
_Recommended
Date
-ES
Keough
t`i°t 3

Facility Name Fuquay-Varina Terrible Cr. WWTP Permit # NCO066516 Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity .using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder
shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition.
The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Mar., Jun., Sep., and Dec.. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
performed in association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the
effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine ' is employed for disinfection of the waste
stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits,. then monthly monitoring will beginimmediately
until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months
specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened
and modified. to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements.. A
7Q10 0.0 cfs
Pemutted.Flow 4.0 MGD
IWC 99.4 % .
Basin & Sub -basin 03-04-03
Receiving Stream Terrible Creek
County Wake
QCL P/F Version 9191
Recommended
Date
Z5
Farrell Keough
1991

5
Facility Name Fuquay-Varina Terrible Cr. WWTP Permit # NCO066516 Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality is 90 % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder
shall perform ,quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition.
The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
Mar., Jun., Sep., and Dec. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted
final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physicalmeasurements
performed in association with, the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the
effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste
stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately
until such time that a single test -is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months
specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened
and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test- conditions as specified in the 'cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will
constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. A
7Q10 0.0 cfs
Pennnitted Flow 6.0 MGD Recommended by `�►
IWC . 99.6 % _
Basin & Sub -basin 03-04-03
Receiving Stream Terrible Creek
County Wake _Date
QCL P/F Version 9191
Farrell Keough
ZS Oc4ecie , ►at53

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No ✓
If Yes, SOC No.
_ To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: (Greg Nizich)
Date August 13, 1993
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County Wake
Permit No. NC0066516 Renewal
r c �SUppCRr 9RAN i
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
-Varina Terrible Creek
of Fu ua
1. Facility and Address: Town q y
WWTP
c/o 1300 E. Academy Street
Fuquay-Varina, N.C. 27526
2. Date of Investigation: August 13, 1993
3. Report Prepared by: Michael C. Wicker
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:L.W. Bennent,
Town Manager, 919-552-3178
5. Directions to Site: Hwy 401 South from Raleigh, left on
SR2751 (Hilltop Rd.), travel to Terrible Creek bridge
proposed discharge and WWTP site is to the right
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 35036'50" Longitude:78°43'32"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. E24SW U.S.G.S. Quad Name Angier, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application ?
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
The site slopes moderately ( less than 10% ) upward from the
creek to the proposed treatment plant site, which is above
the flood plain. The lower area appears to be wetland and
plant acccess may have to cross this area. A 404 permit may
be necessary.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: There are a few houses which
are several hundred feet from the proposed treatment plant,
and one which is about 300 feet from the proposed discharge.
1

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
If Yes, SOC No.
Yes No
ti -
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Terrible Creek
a. Classification: C NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Neuse 03:04:03
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: The creek bed is about 20 feet
wide, and the creek was about 1 foot deep and fast flowing at the
proposed discharge site at the time of the visit. Upstream
dischargers to Terrible Creek include a swimming pool backwash at
Bentwinds Country Club which formerly held an NPDES permit . No
other facilities are noted. The NPDES permit for Willow Springs
Elementary School has been rescinded. It formerly discharged
upstream. No downstream dischargers are known. Cow pastures are
located downstream and run-off may affect future downstream
monitoring.
Terrible Creek flows into Middle Creek. These waters are rated
Fair -Good and Support -Threatened in the Neuse River Basin Study.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 6.0
MGD(Ultimate Design Capacity) with 2.0 MGD phased increments
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 6.0 MGD with 2.0 mgd phased
increments
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? facility not constructed to date
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two years:
none to date
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
none to date
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: 6.0 MGD WWTP to be constructed in 2.0
MGD increments consisting of mechanical bar screens, aerated grit
chamber, aerated flow equalization basins, instrumented flow
measurement, extended aeration/nitrification/denitrification
basins, chemical conditioning, final sedimentation clarifiers,
tertiary filters,ultraviolet disinfection, post aeration, aerobic
sludge holding, sludge thickening facilities, and sludge land
application and associated pumps, piping, laboratory facilities,
and stand-by power.
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
industrial constiuents in waste stream, ammonia in waste
stream

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No
If Yes, SOC No.
y
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved X
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied,, please specify DEM
permit no. W 0000506 for sludges from existing Kenneth
Branch WWTP , sited for 150.000 gal/vr on 3._25 acres
required, it is anticipated this future sludge from
Terrible Creek will be disposed of similarily
Residual Contractor Wallace Woodall
Telephone No. [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X
PFRP Other
C. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): Class IV
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular
facilities i.e.., non -contact cooling water discharge from a
metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: 05 06 00 03
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)?
This facility is currently on the Construction Grants -and Loans
Priority List for funding in FY98 and is of low priority. Town
funds and/or bonds may initiate construction prior to this date.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: existing monitoring for suspected industrial components
from the pretreatment program data, ammonia and residual chlorine
and chronic toxicity appear necessary -in renewal
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
.indicate)
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction

' SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No
If Yes, SOC No.
Y
4. Alternative Analysis -Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: not economically feasible in this area
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items: It has been recommended previously that
an environmental review be required at each 2.0 mgd increment
expansion.
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The RRO has reviewed the request for renewal of.NPDES permit
no. NC0066516, for the proposed wastewater treatment facilities
to. serve the Town of Fuquay-Varina, discharging into Terrible
Creek ( C NSW ) in the Neuse River Basin.
The proposed facility is necessary as indicated in the
reported flows at the existing Town of Fuquay-Varina's Kenneth
Branch Wastewater Treatment Facility. This existing facility is
operating at over 80% permitted capacity and is subject to the
requirements of-T15A: 02H .0223. DEM has notified the permittee
of this requirement. The proposed facility will help in this
situation.
The existing limits and conditions for the 2.0 mgd, 4.0 mgd,
and 6.0 mgd discharges from this proposed facility .appear to be
in accordance with DEM policy for discharges to 0 cfs 7Q10
streams.
It is recommended the supplemental page to the permit
address the phased construction and requirement for separate ATC
approvals of each phase.
The FNSI issued August 3, -1990 recommended that the
environmental assessment be updated prior to DEM approval of each
future expansion.
The definition of "new" facilities would apply to this
proposed facility and therefore this renewal is subject to
updated information as required under the guidelines set forth in
the 15A 2H.O103 regulations.
The RRO recommends renewal of NPDES permit no. NC0066515 to
the Town of Fuquay-Varina in accordance with the basin wide
permitting plan for the Neuse River Basin.

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
If Yes, SOC No.
Yes No
Signature of report preparer
"'Rater Qu lity Regional Supervisor
Date

s,1' UNITED STATES
0-
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ic 1+1 V, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
78 45' 704000mE. 705 706 MC CULLERS CROSSROAD.'. .1 Mi. 42-30"
35*37'302 1Z 61 7:
ny�
13
I P\
32440DOm-N.
350
01% t
Pji F68ED - --DIScHARG.E
0 iblej,, /,-POINT Oo!
3
-A
"43
V:K
53
6
c-
V
3942
50
'00
. .. .. ............
s 3 6 (png
"41 2 53.
illo. in 0. Ir
RO.
In
J
Igo
a
J ,,qem
ISO,
V
-3'
"40
A
35' 351
64
!�54)
Of
11 .0
lk C,
'o TOWN OF FUQUAY-VARINA
TERRIBLE CREEK WWTP
\ -� ���) \ '; NPDES NO. NC 0066516
PROPOSED DISCHARGE POINT
39:n
ATTACHMENT Z

7-D LLOk- k�A 0�1 Qu VAP-ij,4A wLJI"P
V-" rA ����
�uC3JEc : -v't : CU(Q CAAA�- IM.j - "( C
low *,.�
V-�
AAV, C -oe - c u a,�. c�- a 5"J a.,..� Ll u,,.
u���. v.o Cisr�•an�,� Cal 5 - .04 PPAocz"
cL
Ld
LIA�IA Zh. A.\f Sc n cA-