NC0066150_Wasteload Allocation_19931014

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO066150
PERNII=NAME: FMRK, Inc.
FACILITY NAME: Brighton Forest Subdivision
Facility Statu� — -� _- pdpasea
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity:
Minor J
0.117 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
111 ',
Comments:
Plant is will most likely be a class II or III. % �f j-C#J4 r fP4-5 Nor
4&,E..r 4en4srevcrs-6 YE7 hlo lowp zAAacE lit, --A - TF/zS
614r,vI-D BE-r"ArEJ A5A k1r.4,pz3G/�Az641 ^DoriW.vy 1n_
CCIUTYUI� FIL,
RECEIVING STREAM:Middle Creek
Class: C-NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-04-03
Reference USGS Quad: E24NW (please attach)
County:_ Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 1/31/94 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
No change within three miles.
Requested
Prepared by:—y— —
Reviewed by: '
�oDti !6.5 33
Goris Date: 7/9/93
_ Date: ,
Date: 1���A�
Modeler
I Date Rec.
#
/ 93
17S17
,
Drainage Area (mil ) 3g.z Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 43.r
7Q10 (cfs) 0, y Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 3.-} 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits:IWC % Acute/Chronic
Upstream Location: 100' upstream of outfall
Downstream Location: US Highway 401
Parameters: Temperature, DO, Fecal Col'Iform, Conductivity
Parameters
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (Mg/1):
5.0
10.0
NF6N (mg/1):
2.0
4.0
DO (mgA):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30.0
30.0
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/I):
17.0
17.0
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
TP (mg/1):
monitor '
monitor
TN (mg/1):
monitor '
monitor
. more stringent controls on nutrients may be required in the future
This discharge is located in a watershed where the assimilative capacity is
exhausted. Therefore, an engineering report evaluating alternatives to the
discharge is due by February 1, 1997. As part of the report, the cost of
constructing a treatment facility to meet limits of 5 mg/l BOD5, 2 mg/I NH3N, 6 mg/I
dissolved oxygen, and 17 ug/I chlorine must be included if there are no
alternatives to the discharge.
No new outfalls permitted. Existing discharges to be targeted for removal where
feasible. Advanced tertiary treatment to be phased in for remaining outfalls.
[Neuse Basin Managment Strategy, Table 6.21

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
Brighton Forest Subdivision
NCO066150
Domestic - 100%
Existing
Renewal
Middle Creek
C-NSW
03-04-03
Wake
Raleigh
Goris
7/12/93
E24NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Request #
[FMRK, Inc.]
751RECEf VED
AUG 12 1993
DEHNR-RAL Rp
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
02.0879.4650
.„
Date:
1986
"
Drainage Area (mi2):
38.2
Summer 7QI0 (cfs):
0.4
-1-t
Winter 7Q10(cfs):
3.7
Average Flow (cfs):
43.0
n
+
,-, o n-.-i
30Q2 (cfs):
a
IWC M:
31.2 %
_
'n
c�
No new outfalls permitted. Existing discharges to be targeted for removal where feasible. Advanced tertiary treatment to be
phased in for remaining outfalls. [Neuse Basin Managment Strategy, Table 6.2]
This discharge is located in a watershed where the assimilative capacity is exhausted. Therefore, an engineering report
evaluating alternatives to the discharge is due by February 1, 1997. As part of the report, the cost of constructing a
treatment facility to meet limits of 5 mg/l BOD5, 1 mg/1 NH3N, 6 mg/1 dissolved oxygen, and 17 ug/l chlorine must be
included if there are no alternatives to the discharge.
Recommend Permit be denied as facility should tie -on to proposed Fuquay-Varina plant [NC0066516]. If this is not
possible, limits outlined above will be assigned.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Farrell Keough
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineerin
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
6EP
3 A06wa7, 1993
1993

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (1100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
0.117
6.0
10.0
3.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
30.0
30.0
200
200
6-9
6-9
17.0
17.0
nr nr
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Summer Winter wQorFL
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.117 `' //
BOD5 (mg/1): 5.0 10.0 wQ 4y. J /' 1'3
N1713N (mg/1): 1.0 1.8 All
DO (mg/1): 6.0 6.0 wQ
TSS (mg/1): 30.0 30.0 EL
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): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
tnye—Axrferri eortholoA$ /wM'ier * rlay 1w
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.) x BOD5 - NH3N
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
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
O
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 100' upstream of outfall
Downstream Location: US Highway 401
Parameters: Temperature, DO, Fecal Coliform, Conductivity
Special instrearn monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
AAd ,quacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the abili to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes_ No /(V/ / .
If no, which parameters c not be met?y
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:
Permit Number:
Engineer:
Subbasin:
Recleving Stream:
USGS quad #:
Request Number:
Date:
Expiration date:
Brighton Forest Subdivision
NCO066150
Gorls
03-04-03
Middle Creek
E24NW
7517
7/12/93
1/31/94
Existing WLA checked: x
[FMRK,Inc]
Staff Report:
x
Topo checked:
x
USGS Flows confirmed:
02.0879.4650 '86
PIRF / APAMS:
nr
IWC Spreadsheet:
x
Stream Classification:
x
Nutrient Sensitivity:
x
Instream Data:
facility not built Middle Creek Report cited
History
Facility not yet built, no A to C on file
Fact Sheet Language
This discharge is located in a watershed where the assimilative capacity is exhausted. Therefore, an engineering report
evaluating alternatives to the discharge is due by June 1, 1996. As part of the report, the cost of constructing a treatment
facility to meet limits of 5 mg/l BOD5, 1 mg/l NH3N, 6 mg/l dissolved oxygen, and 17 ugll chlorine must be included if there are
no alternatives to the discharge.
Basin Managment Plan
"No new outfalls permitted. Existing discharges to be targeted for removal where feasible. Advanced'tertiary treatment to be
phased in for remaining outfalls."
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/l. However, the model indicates that
it will be difficult under any management strategy to meet the 5.0 mg/l 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/l 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., BODS = 5 mg/I, NH3-N - 1 mg/l,
and DO = 6-7 mg/l). With these effluent limits, the added wasteflow and dissolved oxygen is
expected to cause the DO concentrations to sag 3.1 mg/l below Cary and to 3.0 mg/l 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/l, NH3-N = 0.1 mg/l, and DO=8.3 mg/1).
"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 ouallty Analysis of the Proposed and Ex{sting
Dischargers to Middle Creek below Sunset Lake]
Staff Report Comments
"Town of Fuquay - V has existing permit for new WWTP on Terrible Creek - a tributary to Middle Creek. 1.5 miles site to site"