NC0085481_Wasteload Allocation_19960318

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NCO085481
FACILITY NAME:
Pender County Schools
Penderlea School
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: New l (_u
Major
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: /O
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
Comments:
This is a non -permute
wastewater since the
tom- -riL 50r, w" f
Minor I
ooa C-01)
100 %
0.01 MGD
,ucooa
RECEIVING STREAM: Crooked Run -Nis eveek—
Class:_Cg5tt/ - ANM
Sub -Basin: 09 0629 oB-o(.- ZZ
Reference USGS Quad: 126NE (please attach)
Pender
Regional
Previous Exp. Date: 00/00/00 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Mark McIntire Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
SGb
L3 �G
3ti
Drainage Area (mil ) "'g Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
7Q10 (cfs) 0, 0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs) /�iVG
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring: ,5 /' Al
Parameters / P/{� p �%J/ • TP, G
Upstream 5'0 i1ItV Location
Downstream //L Location
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (m )
S O
/O. O
N-H3-N (mg/1)
—
D.O. (mg/1)
(o
.S
TSS (mg/1)
?J C2
3 0
F. Col. (/100 nil)
ZO O
Zd O
PH (SU)
G 9
�9
Prepared by: Date: : / Comments:
Reviewed by: Date: el
9�,

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requester:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Penderlea School
NCO085481
Domestic - 100%
Existing
New
Crooked Run
C Sw
- 03-of,-ZZ
Pender
Wilmington
Mark McIntire
1/22195
126 NE
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Request # 8438
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
approx. 4
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
positive
IWC (%):
100%
This facility has been operating without a permit, certified operators, or effluent monitoring
since the 1930s. The plant provides service to Penderlea School as well as Holt Hosiery Mill. The
waste stream from the mill is listed as 100% domestic. BPI was used in determining the drainage
area (D.A.) for this facility since much of the D.A. is ditched. The 1991 USGS "Low Flow
Report" estimates that a minimum D.A. of 35 mi2 is required to support a positive 7Q10 flow in
this area. The report estimates that a 2 mi2 D.A. is required to support a positive 30Q2 therefore
the 30Q2 at the discharge site is probably slightly positive. However, with the drainage ditches in
the watershed this may or may not be the case.
A staff report was not reviewed for this WLA.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: 1�_�� �®h_ Date: v� G1

Regional Supervisor. CZ l C./ V--� -�Jt r '/U/ i i— Date:-2— - Z cj - c7
Permits & Engineering: �l a vATI�G( l� Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT BY: MAR 2 i ft

3
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.01
0.01
BODS (mg/1):
5
10
WQ
NH3N (mg/1):
2
4
WQ
DO (mg/1):
6
5
WQ
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
EL
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
EL
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
17
17
WQ
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.
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: 50 feet upstream
Downstream Location: 100 feet downstream
Parameters: Temp, D.O., fecal
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL 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.

fendefleA
111600:?5' l # FYM
4 = o, o/
Cr�ol�ei 1�tt S� "
03-o�-.z�aa
9h51vg 4 Al L ✓i
CeY/! �'E � a��-L 1� 70f5 f �t"1 G �f�G:��v�dltv/?r fvr;'.rg /�' •'l��G
1114 �✓rol/> Sere /o J%���✓�r�P�
✓arsfe �fd�'�?y,t ;vf�� / f�Iti� l✓ SLI ��✓5 � /
/v//U'lv ✓vLL�t �y � //. /71-4 I ttt li /%l<i'gf f l �✓(/!�j a� ur t / c�/a�
7`K� %�1TL°f1 j fit'/f:✓lTq/l /i(%G�// oilfl�y
�'�� %iGLS�i�/talf (G�i%?�%� �'/"scaY�i✓✓z� {lam Gfl�/�Cf'�/s'�z�d
/lead /zIv-3 era /mil t�
m/ Am (ice( 6 . `mac Gf a
/ieeJ4 -/o Ati
Ce�r�atY' /✓on UeS��I Gvt�SGUl���lr��t2ee�s ��r/e l.�c.�
h,'/'Gp' ��� a�u1L GZK Gt�GfG✓t�lRf YCS ��G�S.S Glir�t� fif
Wad O'� feYrylirz�;� t��t a Sit rTvu, tti,�t a�.'�'12.t+ 9,�
1�cc, 11 f� Gi�?i� .7✓r i T fa�ar�rTOY�`� 16 � ��� lii •

Y, / 114;1" f
744
5 frr nrPwu,
no f ye,ti�o� t,�� �, fG�i y� f1 s A4-
/oh/ a cup , O
f

rehddorleQ i64.40I/
Naog�q?I
(fooW Kuq NG Sw "
Arad rl ar Aru aild r1ow Ucu /a
Tlu Off_ wan % kx
LZ
51lef 4S /°elk ✓ortir eau
%fug q/u /-ro 1-Fpk? yfafo�2S i;� /4
f6 tlu ✓l99// G/SG S "�o�✓/o/� �y�vY t " �ti�
/'l/ rP�i07?2� I�GL�T%I/,I. G✓�tr h �G+�r
f 35 n ymAa Ao sey/Joll a /WWs> f v&
�wD
�G"� aay-1 d �o5ff� yr 301�Z ,
Sa 114M� :
301�2 = awLleIC4/M)
ht&t was/ ¢ v�

Ia7LIV/f.Y[ON
[�7��f►\�II:Z� ►1 : u : ►: ul ►rf
April 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monica Swihart
THROUGH: Carla Sanders
Ruth Swanek
Don afri ""
FROM: 11M Oc
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment
Holt Hosiery /Penderlea School
Pender County
The Technical Support Branch has reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA)
prepared by Skip Green and Associates for Pender County for the construction of an
advanced tertiary wastewater treatment plant to replace the existing unpermitted wastewater
treatment system. The document was found to address most of the specific concerns
required by an EA, but it was somewhat lacking in specific water quality information. Our
comments are as follows:
The document outlines water quality impacts expected from the construction process,
but does not make any effort to characterize the receiving stream or mention the possibility
of impacts that may be expected from the discharge. It should be noted that Crooked Run,
at the proposed point of discharge (which is not clearly provided in the document), has a
drainage area of less than 6 square miles. According to USGS guidelines the minimum
drainage area necessary to yield a positive 7Q10 flow is 35 square miles in the hydrologic
area of the state in question, so at the proposed discharge point, Crooked Run will have a
7Q10 flow of 0.0 cfs and only a minimal positive flow during 30Q2 conditions. According
to N.C. water quality regulations, as outlined in 15A NCAC 2B .0206 (d)(1), "In cases
where the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream is estimated to be zero.. ", and, "Where the
30Q2 flow is estimated to be greater than zero, effluent limitations for new or expanded
(additional) discharges of oxygen consuming waste will be set at BOD5 = 5 mg/l, NH3N =
2 mg/l and DO = 6 mg/1." It should also be noted that the EA makes no mention of what
specific limits the proposed wastewater treatment system will be designed to meet.
In December 1994 an engineering alternatives analysis was submitted to the Division
evaluating available alternatives for the proposed treatment system The analysis
concluded, to the satisfaction of Water Quality Section staff, that surface water discharge
was the only economically feasible alternative for this project The EA should have
referenced the alternatives analysis at some point so that reviewers would be aware that all
alternatives had been investigated, and could seek out and review the document if
necessary.
The EA also fails to provide any information as to the nature of the influent waste
stream for which the treatment system is being designed The document should have
mentioned that Holt Hosiery's manufacturing process is dry (i.e., has no wastewater), and
Holfs wastewater contribution to the system will be 100% domestic waste.

These comments are not intended to delay the submittal of this EA to the State
Clearinghouse, but are intended to assist the permittee and consultant in the future
preparation of such documents. Given that these concerns have been raised for the record,
it is our opinion that the document is prepared to proceed to the next level in the review
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Environmental Assessment. Please
let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Permits and Engineering
Central Files

STME a
pyiW
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Environmental Management Bob Jamieson
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Water Quality Section Regional Manager
MARCH 121, 1995
Mr. David Criser, P.E.
Century/Von Oesen Consultant Engineers
Post Office Drawer 2087
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Subject: Holt Hosiery Mill/Penderlea School
NPDES Permit Application
Pender County
Dear Dave:
I have enclosed an application for coverage under the NPDES
permitting system. I apologize for the Division's slow response and
thank you for your patience. I have been waiting almost four months
for a reply from the NPDES Permitting Group concerning the
appropriate use of the NPDES permit for this project. I have aot
received any comments from the NPDES group as of this date.
However, I have raised concerns that Permits & Engineering and the
Wilmington Office should be consistent in their actions prior to
sending an application. I do agree that the NPDES route is the most
cost effective alternative and the alternatives analysis appears to
be adequate for making this decision.
It has been two years since I became aware of the unpermitted
wastewater treatment facility. It will probably be the end of the
calendar year before an NPDES permit can be processed through the
system. This treatment plant certainly needs to be permitted.
Considering that the receiving stream has a zero 7Q10 flow and a
slight 30Q2 flow, I had hoped to get comments from the Permits &
Engineering Group concerning the NPDES permit':route. I suggest that
you submit an NPDES permit a l;cation,_. and we shall see if. Permits.
_ - - P PP
Engineering ---has objections to i the ' surface water . discharge -or"'has
comments on'the engineering alternatives analysis.
If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
im Bushardt,. P .
Environmental Engineer
JB:HOLT.395
cc: Wilmington Files
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington. N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity (Affirmative action Employer