NC0020231_INSTREAM ASSESSMENT_19901031

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNiNO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NCO020231
Louisburg WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Data Monitoring Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
a•1'+bl'i eU'PlWLYY`�ii'CrYN r
i.�s-..''zi'r�:.rrMMr:_.rw srr.+,4a.►.-�.sr:st...:. . --
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
October 31, 1990
T MIR 9104YL"m02%t 10 JPX4=t4eMd 401M x a-W&Wa papetr - I&WWora Sa-Y
co7nt4WMt oxM thAB X'e'WeeW"e 014a

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 31, 1990
To: Tim Donnelly ,,� QQ
From: &san_A—Wilson N'1
Through: Trevor Clements
Ruth C. Swanek
Carla Sanderson
Subject: Instream Assessment
Town of Louisburg
NPDES Permit No. NCO020231
8WW-ille County
SOC No. 90-05
Technical Support has received the request for an instream assessment for the Town of Louisburg
and has completed the review of the Tar River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Louisburg
has requested modification of its BOD5, TSS, D.O., and whole effluent toxicity limits. In
addition, the Town wishes to increase its flow under the Order during the construction of the
upgradediWWTP. Currently, the permitted flow for Louisburg is 0.8 MGD, with the facility
averaging 0.6627 MGD into the Tar River. The facility has approached or exceeded its permitted
flow in the past due to inflow/infiltration problems.
An instream assessment was performed to detemune the maximum allowable flow the Town can
add which will protect against further degradation of the stream according to 67(b) criteria. The
modeling analyses for this assessment predicted dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels to drop well
below 3 mg/1 downstream of the discharge for both the pre- and post-SOC flow. EPA Criteria
Document for D.O. indicates that the threshold for the protection of fish survival is approximately
3.0 mg/l. Increased amounts of wasteflow are expected to drive the stream to more frequent
violations of the dissolved oxygen threshold for which aquatic life experience mortality.
The results of the analyses indicate that the Town may add 42,300 gallons per day of additional
flow under its requested limits of BOD5 = 60 mg/l, TSS = 90 mg/l, and D.Q. = 4 mg/l, without
violating the stipulations of 67(b). EMC criteria state that no industrial sources should be added
under an Order. DEM has interpreted this as "no toxics in toxic amounts". Therefore, it is
recommended that this SOC be limited to domestic type waste additions only. Technical Support
concurs with the Region's recommendation that no flow limit be included in the SOC due to the I/1
problems.
Technical Support also recommends that the Town of Louisburg be granted its request for
monitoring of whole effluent toxicity until .tune 30, 1991 as specified in the draft Order.

r
Background Inform
The Town of Louisburg discharges into the Tar River, which is rated as a "WS-III, NSW" stream
in the Tar River Basin. The drainage area at the point of discharge is 437 square miles. The 1986
USGS flows are as follows: 7Q 10 = 14.0 cfs (summer), average stream flow = 460 cfs. The
stream bed gradient at the point of discharge is 1.48 feet per mile.
Due to the potentially fraudulent data for the Town of Louisburg prior to April 1990, the plant's
impact to the Tar River was difficult to assess. The post April data indicated extreme
noncompliance with regard to BOD5, TSS, and D.O.
The plant has applied for a permit to expand to 1.1 MGD, in addition to applying for a renewal of
its existing limit of 0.8 MGD; this plant expansion, currently under review, would have to meet
summer (winter) limits of 12 (24) mg/1' BOD5 and 4 (8) mg/l NH3-N. The Town may eventually
apply for a permit to expand to 1.5 MGD, in which case an Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement would have to be performed. Both the renewal and the
expansion require Louisburg to perform an industrial waste survey to determine the need for a
pretreatment program.
The facility is currently required to conduct monthly acute full range toxicity tests (as required by
Administrative letter). The facility has shown acute toxicity and will be required to conduct chronic
quarterly pass/fail tests at 8% effluent upon renewal of their 0.8 MGD permit.
Analysis and Discussion
A Level-B model was run with the limitations that Louisburg WWTP can achieve (i.e. BOD5 = 60
mg/l, D.O. = 4.0 mg/1) using their average effluent flow of 0.6627 MGD, during the past year, as
a baseline condition. The BOD5 and NH3-N parameters were input to the model as CBOD and
NBOD using multipliers of 1.5 for BOD5 and 4.5 for NH3-N. When these effluent characteristics
were input to the model, the predicted D.O. sag was 1.61 mg/1 at the 6.0 milepoint. Although
instream data do not indicate D.O. levels below 5.0 mgll, this datum cannot be relied upon because
of its potential inaccuracy and because the downstream monitoring point is approximately two
miles farther than the predicted D.O. sag point. It is very possible that during the SOC period, the
D.O. may drop as low as or lower than 1.61 mg/l.
Technical Support used the above baseline condition model run to compare to an increase in flow
that would meet the 67(b) criteria. The Level-B modeling analysis predicted that a total effluent
flow of 0.7050 MGD with BOD5 = 60 mg/l and D.O. = 4.0 mg/l, would meet the criteria. The
D.O. was below the instream standard of 5 mg/l for 13.88 miles during the pre-SOC flow; during
the post-SOC flow (0.7050 MGD), the D.O. was' below the standard for 14.31 miles. Therefore,
the predicted increase in the length of the sag between pre- and post-SOC flow was predicted to be
0.43 miles (which is less than the 67(b) criteria of 0.5 miles). Any flow additions above a total of
0.7050 MGD exceeded this stipulation. The net decrease in the predicted D.O. sag was found to
be less than 0.5 mg/l, which also met the 67(b) criteria.
cc: Steve Tedder
Ken Eagleson
Kent Wiggins
Pretreatment

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF INSTREAM ASSESSMENT FOR LOUISBURG WWTP
Headwater Conditions:
7Q 10 (cfs)
14.0
Qavg (cfs)
460.0
Design Temperature (°C)
26.0
CBOD (mg/1)
2.0
NBOD (mg/1)
1.0
D.O. (mg/1)
7.3
Wastewater Inputs:
Flows --
Pre-SOC Flow 0.6627 MGD
(past year average)
Additional Flow 0.0423 MGD
Post-SOC Flow 0.7050 MGD
(although SOC will not restrict to this
because of 1/1 problems)
Wastewater Characteristics --
CBOD (1.5 * requested BOD5 limit) 90.0 mg/l
NBOD (4.5 * existing NH3-N limit) 90.0 mg/l
D.O. (requested limit) 4.0 mg/1
Model Output Summary:
DO min.
Net Change
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Pre-SOC 1.61
NA
Past-SOC 1.33
0.28
Distance (mi) Net Change
<5.0 mg/1 (mi)
13.88 NA
14.31 0.43

t�O� /11oE
�pu15i2� ►n1 1 ©3�3o V
1 A2 x ✓ 2 WS - IL A15 (IJ
Soc r-o2 .I/UG22M c j �D!N ASS �j. o. T��� 7 y
e
U
tr.' �•� 6 5- ' � ,� , �`- A r :9. '7 41vo 70 I ,
ve v AT 00
A vc-F r I rt rJ� �o� ��/ � 5 � y 2
rAct(.lr� /(As &o/3c r5 so cord #,4 / ,<N Vo�.�Tp f)
CuP ` •,..ITLV / A✓6 1143 /v ✓At-UCS < / 3 4 - :,��4�� ,�7 isr,✓AI
pip Al,,7- WAAIT fj1,/y A/F/3 -,Al Uiu F ,A[ $c,)C (p,,2 o,/z
11,p 7-o 6X7rN(i Al/d l�Sr 67rk ) ,R%11T�1� , CC � � /k'u' : .Q 2i15T" iif Sfi 5�
us4S •gbZoelBZ'�So18�3
DA=
700, ° 4-.7,15
20
SLOPE
Lwcf-rq
5,ope
521 b 11 - S� IOoI 581 - 566
qR ao 6 6 D
7910, 20 c,.6 ti ti
i Cdlos 4.7 3, z
T2ig
QA to 7 I SS
5R 161 I . 17p'os- 17
q4v4- s71ay4
's3x(,
sus 1
r
D•A
7c?tos : 3.2 c^�5
QAvu = SS c
14x'Pr jCW5 -4 AtOPM, FaFVIZ 4eP Fb(L i.1 M4> FiPcvJ
s6E krrAc-10 Pb I- e9Ac9 &s 1- 4
�i SAV60 As Lout soG - dtZ.

o/2Z/90
I Ow56u2G W wTil D�n3oE
Til2 P-4 JC-rc , 0, 5 -9 ) N5W 5AvJ
0c.cU(r O,L( " �}�94eA D y HA 5, 4 15 Fo r a l t o-701 m G_i)
OF: FLOW. S D�r,> Nor ADO T40 s To i Ner2 4V4i�A4E FLOW
-r T?o T46 67(b) ColtPA2t 5oN- 1 4ErL�az l 7f1CV Wr t_L
N o- r3 E A-6cE To {i DD AU- 0' i e
p - 4 F7��_J.
aScoUCAec_T//Ar /N -%12 ApavC,4710AJ F92 AIIEVIAL OF .7 �*FV
-i �m A CAIC& IN 17MAWIU1.0 1,/w/' ,,oY 51PA-_i _(pGy✓6
`✓ftoWl� /,CO7 iPr r'',(Ay — 1-14 06 ( c,TJEn! TA,57 7-0,y ✓'N1 Al- elh,IC�,.
r
fiPPRD ✓I L- f'12,v r s .97A t To Lb jbp y —
srAj�#- ) ov .

A 4:70
zo al 92,7,�,
zo
1,9
6p— ro
Flw
-7
qA 4%J
WA
Or
J IA.
P-9-A
. GAVC-.
0-
VJO
Qnda
PLL
FPP- AND C.,j',SWATtVe3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James G. Markin, Govemor
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Trevor Clements
THROUGH: Arthur Mouberry
FROM: :J-Tim Donnelly
October 8, 1990
IJ
SUBJECT: Instream Assessment Requests
Town of Louisburg WWTP
Special Orden by Consent
NPDES Permit No.-NCob20231
Franklin County
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
nr-
OCT 1 7 1990
Attached are requests for three (3) instream
assessments for the Town of Louisburg WWTP, containing 3
different amounts of additional flow and 3 corresponding
sets of interim limits. We are currently negotiating an SOC
with the Town due to noncompliance with the NPDES Permit.
The Town wants to expand the WWTP to 1.5 mgd. An
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental, Assessment
will be required prior to issuance of a permit at this flow.
The Town has requested a permit for a flow of 1.1 mgd. This
request is currently under review. The Town has also
requested an additional 200,000 gpd of additional wastewater
during the period of the SOC. In the attached letter, the
Town's engineer has proposed speculative .limits based on the
different flows. This office has not yet determined what
amount of flow to include in the SOC. The attached SOC
contains 200,000 gpd of additional flow, but this is subject
to change.
This office will recommend approval of any additonal
flow in the SOC only after the issuance of a permit
containing a flow limit of 1.1 mgd.
Laboratory data prior to April 1990 indicate that the
Town of Louisburg WWTP was essentially in compliance with
the final effluent limitations. However, an investigation
by this office as to the validity of this data indicates
that a large portion of the data submitted for the 14 months
prior to April 1990 has been fabricated or altered. EPA's
3800 Barrett Drim, Suite 101 • Raleigh, N.C. 27609
Telephone [phone] • FAX Number [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AfBrrnative Action Employer

Memorandum from Tim Donnelly to Trevor Clements
Page 2
Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney's
Office are currently investigating this matter. All of this
previous laboratory data is questionable and should not be
used for modeling purposes.
The Town of Louisburg plans to implement measures to
reduce solids in the effluent. They have obtained an A to C
to place the additional secondary clarifier into service in
series to increase secondary clarifier detention time.
However in a meeting in our office last week, the Town
indicated that they will not implement this modification due
to its cost($30,000), and will instead use this clarifier
and an unused primary clarifier to increase sludge holding
capacity to improve solids removal from the facility. The
Town also proposed improvement in polymer and aluminum
chloride addition and increased operation and maintenance of
the facility (24 hour per day) by hiring more staff. Due
to problems with�I/I, the plant may have monthly averages
during wet months which exceed 1.1 mgd. Therefore, we are
proposing that no flow limit be included in the SOC. fThe
Town has begun a program to identify and eliminate sources
of I/I during the period of the SOC
If you have questions concerning the subject request or
if you need additional information for your review, please
contact Judy Garrett.

PERSON
AND
WH ITMAN
INC.
ARCHITECTS
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
ESTABLISHED 1938
5510
MUNFORD ROAD
R O. BOX
52099
PHONE
919/782-8300
FAX
919/783-7642
TWX
5109280511
RALEIGH
N.C.
27612
October 4, 1990
Mr. Tim Donnelly
Raleigh Regional Office
NC Division of awironmental Management
P.O. Box 27687:
Raleigh, NC 27.611-7687
Re: WWrP Calculations
SOC Limits
Tour► of Louisburg, NC
P&W: Project No. 0806
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
Please find herewith a handwritten copy of the operation calculations
for the existing Louisburg WWI'P. Please note that the old primary and
secondary clarifiers were not considered when making these
calculations. The old clarifiers are in a state of considerable
disrepair and would not be cost-effective to repair at this time,
since they would have to be abandoned when the new plant is put on
line, anyway. Instead, it is proposed to use the old clarifier
tankage for sludge holding.
As you will note on Page 1 - Summary, the existing plant, when
properly operated at a flow of 0.8 MGD, should be capable of any an
effluent BOD5 of 56 mg/l. The 99 mg/1 TSS, although calculated, would
be too high to achieve 56 mg/l BOD5. Therefore, based on these
calculations, SOC limits at 0.8 MGD of 60 mg/l BOD5 and 60-mg/l TSS
would seem justified. Proper sludge management will be necessary to
maintain the TSS concentration at this level.
At 1.1 MGD, the plant should be capable of an effluent BOD5 of 74
mg/1. Again, the TSS concentration of 131 mg/1 is too high to achieve
74 mg/l BOD5. Therefore, based on these calculations, SOC limits at
1.1 MGD of 75 mg/1 BOD5 and 75 mg/1 TSS would seem justified. Proper
sludge.management will be necessary to maintain the TSS concentration
at this level.
In an attempt to make the SOC palatable to all parties, the Town of
Louisburg would like to change its additional flow request from
300,000 gpd to 200,000 gpd, thereby reducing the total potential
pollutant loading on the Tar River. It is also suggested that dynamic
limits be utilized in the SOC. As flow increases, certain flow
milestones would be associated with certain SOC limits. For example,
at 0.8 MGD, the SOC limits would be 60-60. At 0.9 MGD, the limits
would be 65-65, and so on.
U.S.A.

Page two
If you feel it � to meet with me or the Town regarding this,
please let me know and I will arrange such a meeting. As evidenced in
our meeting yesterday, the Town is working diligently towards a solution
to its wastewater treatment problem and will be spen i.ng.over $5,000,000
in the next few years doing just that. The Town realized and firmly
accepts its envix-ormental responsibility and wishes to work with your
office towards clean water. If you have any questions about this,
please call me.
Very tnily yours
PEIRSON & WHrrMN, INC.
Consulting Enqineexs
Michael S. Acqu , P.E.
MSA/la
Enclosure

..._r..r ...«. .. .,r. ,..w._.
..r««--.-«........_...r-..._-....��.--.._.--_.._._
_.__—.__._--_--_.._ _�-:_—_. _; __ ,_• - --. .- -,
•.-. .-�«_ _� -•-
�_._.«_�__.—.�— 1. �,�.' • ,
...._
1
.<<
a %011y
��,�
e - e �a �h��t✓f %n�f-
_
j
C9u�N o ui c�R
�S�/!�'r/�T�c� •IIE P.i�'!U(/.4%r � �IGt�Ncie�-
il�
B U o
I:E
3 o
II}
.
U
e1v
I i
w' ���� 3JI• a° r,
s. Al.
r. a ce
105

ill
i
u/r M
9w
3
C3 oY rJarl)rP�

cio
Cv
Mc-Q.-------- -

.jKA a elks
ITr lT+-rV� WQ S
-
,!
4164�
Aveemff
_
fern oy.¢
-;-I

� ' • �
� �rX �jWTA.r4
i
a
II�EE
EE:
IV
(�. �� 1
EIrA)
1I _ �.- -�
2 -`
EEI
''
L.�-Q / L5
I i � .tom �/`.YtJ �✓ `V,.fJ'G�7
i�l
ill
-
14 IVA
PL
ill
Gp0/-�9 t v A,
fl
r
'I
/433
6 cut y-e-
i

f
77
coe
-

•
s ;t ' •tiil',. 1 } �3 � - ! "-'�� 4� t&n�SA, i �� / 27�, ��4][.s-^F�,��'M���
_ •. .. -ry � -zi• y _. .� 4�Y' C 6 -yj Ax f d Y+�._ _ � ' �W- 4�L' � �4awn'���t ��.aa
____._ __ _r._:__ -
-%r
•
.. f _3�. x _ _'�..�.. / •),� t .� $ L T," 'ii1�l lT3F'
a
' _�_«--.. _..Y4 _._.. .__ +�_..._�--._. ..---�--•--.�-_ ...�.•.�«..�t�___�_.��__�-.-�: _+.J... __ _.r.�-.`ter•--�.��
� tLfGx ANd 5ecoN e:�� /el •
vr
1 _ .( 5
I
I�
I Z

_
i
.4 y `s .�+_ i'-. _
+r-.t �Y 5c -4 - - F•�
s� Sls:r E r t-
ok

II�
Ij
L�
I}F
60
l
it
5-6 k yvlcroy��, 3L4
mV`�T
ram, 1S0 J#
a ctc. / OZV
I
�I
I
it

9
//Ory
I
ry1
I

cbwt�leat
{►
�. - C�g�� -ate
T c
7--r=

2, .
DO 1
8(
,a A
S 6C
4C
a 3C
2C
1C
Shorn -Circuiting and Basin Slabilily/375
Now
MEN
0
00
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0
Rate of treatment.or loading, (lid =VO 1(QIA)
Figure 13-7.
performance curves for settling basins of varying effectiveness (after Hazen
footnote 8).
filled depth ha of the basin. The basin coefficient n has a lower limit of zero
and an upper limit of 1. Because 1/to = vol(Q/A), moreover,
y/ya = I -- 11 + nva1(Q/A))-11-
(13--13)
The validity of this equation is supported by Hazen's theory of sedi-
mentation.1 Settling curves for various values of n are shown in Fig. 13-7.
From a mathematical analysis of longitudinal inixing in settling tanks,
Thomas and Archibald' have concluded that the value of n can be approxi-
mated by the ratio of the difference between the mean and modal flowing -
through periods to the mean flowing -through period (Fig. 13--8). Common
values of n are 0, Y8, Y4, %, and 1 respectively for ideal, very good, good,
poor, and very poor performance.
13-9 Short -Circuiting and Basin Stability
In an ideal basin displacement is steady and uniform, and each unit volume
of fluid is detained for a time id = C/Q. Even in well -designed basins, how-
' H. A. Thomas and R. S. Archibald, Longitudinal Mixing Measured by Radioactive
Tracers, Trans. Am. Soc. Gull Engrs., 117, 839 (1952).

/3
3
Process Design of Trickling F'illerslW
111
.11
- 11
�11
it
11
• 1
•• 11
.1
1
1
■r��rr■r■■ram
laff
f_
aa■
_
aaa
ls_
\�
a_
f_
aaff
aa!
aaal
■i■■rrrl�\\ram
as�ln��s_■rss_����...�
■■■■rr■■■■■11
Removal of BOD by filters and settling units, %
Figure 19-1.
Allowable BOD loading intensities of trickling filters and settling tanks for
given percentage reductions of the BOD (Sec. 19-5, footnote 4).
Here effluent recirculation introduces the number of effective passes, N, of
Eq. 1 1-37. Filter depth and the associated meant detention or residence time
as well as the hydraulic load and specific surface of the contact material are
tied into performance through Eq. 18-11 when the performance coefficients
k or Zk and n are known. Displacement times should be measured rather
than calculated. For single -stage operation without recirculation, the Ten -
State Standards' trace the loading curves shown in Fig. 19-1.
Example 19--1.
A settled wastewater flow of 10 tngd containing 160 mg/l of 5-day, 20°C BOD is to be
applied to a trickling filter 6-ft deep. Find (1) the BOD load in pounds daily; (2) the
acre-feet of bed required to remove 80% of the BOD without recirculation; (3) the
'Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Great Lakes —Upper Mississippi River Board
of State Sanitary Engineers, Health Education- Service, .Albany, N.Y., 1968.

W 4e
—bia" -a&-
v-
71-__
. ..........

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 6, 1990
TO:
Tim Donnelly
FROM:
Juan C. Mangles
THROUGH:
Carla Sanderson �/
Trevor Clements !'
SUBJECT:
Instream Assessment
Town of Louisburg WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO020231
Franklin County
The Technical Support Branch has received your request to perform an instream
assessment under 67 (b) criteria for the Town of Louisburg WWTP. The instream
assessment request submitted by the Raleigh Regional Office indicates that the
subject facility has permitted contributors up to design capacity (0.8 MGD),
although not all contributors are connected to the WWTP yet. Therefore, on behalf
of the Town of Louisburg, the regional office has requested an instream assessment
for an SOC allowing a flow increase of 0.3 MGD above design capacity. This flow
increase would allocate flow to new/proposed contributors at the rate of 0.05 MGD
per year during a five year period, and it would also allocate 0.05 MGD to I/I
problems. The additional flow is expected to result in a total plant flow post-SOC
of 1.1 MGD (i.e. 0.8 MGD plus 0.3 MGD a 1.1 MGD). However, this office cannot
conduct an instream assessment at this time due to the following:
The Instream Assessment Unit does not perform 67 (b) analyses for facilities
requesting a flow increase above design capacity unless a valid NPDES permit exists
to cover the flow expansion. The requested instream assessment is for an SOC which
would allow the subject facility to discharge wastewater above its currently
permitted design capacity (0.8 MGD) while a 1.5 MGD facility is constructed.
However, construction of a 1.5 MGD WWTP cannot be addressed in the SOC since no
NPDES permit has been issued with,a 1.5 MGD flow limitation. Furthermore, the
Permits and Engineering Unit has indicated that the Town of Louisburg has not yet
applied for an NPDES permit modification requesting an increase of the flow
limitation. In light of this, it is recommended that the Town of Louisburg first
submit an application for modification of the current NPDES permit flow limitation
before requesting a flow allocation that extends influent amounts beyond current
design capacity.
However, according to new Departmental requirements effective July 27, 1989,
any expansion greater than 0.5 MGD is required to prepare an Environmental Assess-
ment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the NPDES permit
modification request is processed. The subject facility is proposed to increase
its design capacity for more that 0.5 MGD. Therefore, the Town of Louisburg will
be required to prepare an EA or an EIS as part of the application for NPDES permit
modification. The Permits S Engineering Unit has indicated that, at their discre—
tion, an application for which an EA or EIS has been approved at the Divisional
level could be accepted for processing; although, approval of the EA or EIS by the
State Clearinghouse is preferred.

The Technical Support Branch further recommends that the Town of Louisburg
arrange a "scoping" session for the preparation on the EA or EIS with Mr. Alan
Clark of the Planning Branch as soon as possible. This session will give the Town
general guidance prepared by the State Clearinghouse and it would help to adapt
this guidance to the specific project.
The Technical Support Branch anticipates that the NPDES permit could be
modified to reflect a 1.5 MGD flow limitation. However, a modeling analysis to
determine other permit limitations will be performed upon receipt of the applica-
tion. Therefore, once a "scoping" session has been held, and the Town has expedi-
tiously started preparation on the EA or EIS, the Technical Support Branch could
perform an instream assessment. This would allow the regional office to begin
preparation of the SOC and finalize negotiations with the Town. Nevertheless,
issuance of the SQC would be contingent upon results of the EA or EIS as assessed
by the State Clearinghouse.
If you need further clarification on this matter, please contact me at (919)
733-5083, ext. 510..
cc: Alan Clark
Dale Overcash
WLA File
Central Files

t� .0 *AGO
IL a
q
ti-o D
CA
's w CLAJ- x paLJ O :7 Pl 6

►*-C M
'XI I / q o

STATE 4
E'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Larry South
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Regional Manager
January 16, 1990
M E M O R A D U M
TO Ken Eagleson
Assistant Chief
Environmental Sciences Branch
THROUGH Arthur Mouberry
Regional Supervisor
FROM /�% : Tim Donnelly.
Water Quality Supervisor
SUBJECT Instream Request
Special Order by Consent
Town of Louisburg WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NCO020231
Franklin County
The subject municipality has requested a Special Order
by Consent due to the need for additional flow during
construction of an upgraded WWTP. The Raleigh Regional
Office has negotiated an SOC with the Town. The negotiated
SOC is subject to the findings of the instream assessment.
Attached is the request form for an instream assessment.
If any additional information is needed for your
review, please advise.
1 t.
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Request Form for In -stream Assessment for SOC
Name of Facility: Town of Louisburg Subbasin: 03-03-01
County: Franklin Design Flow:0.8 mgd (existing)
Receiving Stream: Tar River
Background Data :
A. Why is SOC needed? The Town of Louisburg has requested
an SOC due to the need for additional flow during construction of
an upgraded WWTP_(1.5 mgd). The amount of flow permitted but not
yet tributary to the plant added to the latest 12 month flow
average is at or near the WWTP's design capacity of 0.8 mgd.
B. History of SOC requests: no previous requests
1. Monthly Average waste flow prior to any SOC?
Period:
8812 -
8911
Avg:
0.6931
mgd
Period:
8712 -
8811
Avg.
0.5770
mgd
Period:
8612 -
8711 _
Avg:
0.4623
mgd
Period:
8601 -
8612
Avg:
0.3673
mgd
2. Previously approved SOCs: none
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: 0 mgd
Total of previously
approved SOC flow: 0 mgd
3. Flows lost from plant -flow: 0 mgd
(facilities off line) �.tM
'.1104. Current SOC request flow: 0, 5��mad
5. Total Plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC minus losses) flow: mgd
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant?
Why or why not?
Yes. The 12 month flow average at the WWTP at
the end of the SOC is likely to be around 1.05 mg
if the additional 0.250 mgd and current pending
projects are connected to the WWTP. Due to high
flows during rainy periods due to I/I, the Raleig
Regional Office has proposed a monthly flow avera
of 1.10 mgd for the interim.

Instream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 2
C. A copy of the data is attached for your review
(January 1986 through November 1989).
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
combination, please specify percentages.
Domestic 250,000 gpd 100 %
Industrial gpd %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
The Town has proposed the connection of 2 resthomes_
and at least one restaurant. This is considered to be
domestic type waste. The remaining flow is for future
projects but these projects must also be for domestic
tvne waste as allowed in the proposed SOC (attached).
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
Monthly Avg.
BOD5 _30.0 mg/1
NH3 no limit mg/1
DO 5.0 mg/1
TSS 35.0 __---mg/l
Fecal Coliform 1000.0/100m1
pH 6.0-9.0 s.u.
other parameters: Chronic Toxicity monitoring only at
8.1 p from SOC issuance until
6 30/91 and a limit of 8.1% from
7/1/91 until 3/31195-._
D. What is the basis for these limits?
These are limits which the Raleigh Reqional Office
staff and the Town of Louisburg believe the WWTP can meet
the interim based on historical operation of the WWTP du
periods of high flows. These-limitsassume that the Town
will continue to operate the WWTP in its _current mode of
operation, including Aluminum chloride and polymer additi,
to the secondarv(final) clarifier as needed.

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 27, 1989 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:-. Potential DEM Water Quality Permit Applicants
FROM: Steve Tedder, Water Quality Section Chief
SUBJECT: New NRCD Requirements for Preparation of
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements by -Permit Applicants
The Department of Natural. Resources and Community Development
has recently adopted rule.s called "minimum criteria" which
establish:conditions, pursuan:t-.:to.the North.Caralina Policy Act,
under which some permit applicants must prepare either an
Environmental Assessment (EA)..or Enviionmental-Impact'Statement
(EIS). -before the Division 'of'Environmental Management and other
divisions 'in this. Department'- can -;'decide whether to issue a.
permit.-' (ATTACHMENT I provides a complete,set,of these minimum
criteria.) • The purpose of this memo is to make you aware of
these recent changes and provide some explanation of how they may
affect you.
The new rules apply to almost all permits issued by the
Division although as Water Quality Section Chief, my major
concerns are our discharge and nondis.charge permits. To help
explain' these rules, 'I have listed below highlights of 'the .
minimum criteria that affect most DEM permit applicants. Any
activity which falls below the levels described,by these minimums
criteria is considered minor and does not require preparation of
an EA or EIS. Conversely, an EA or EIS must be prepared for any
publicly funded project (local or state funded) which exceeds
the minimum criteria: (See Section.0604).
n
1. New--- K expanded suxface dzsJ�har es with leers than
5.DA,-0LL0 _GPa and flow less than one: -third of the 7Q10
stream flow.
J
.2. Spray irrigation projects 100,000 GPD or less.
�
—I r�
v
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Page Two
July 27, 1989
3. New or expanded land application permits for sludge
disposal of less than 200 acres.
4. Sewer extensions with less than 3 miles of new lines and
a design volume not exceeding 1,000,000 GPD.
5. Subsurface wastewater systems not exceeding 100,000 GPD.
The minimum criteria were developed to further implement the
existing Environmental Policy Act rules (a copy included as
ATTACHMENT II). These rules, which have been in existence a
number of.years and have required.that an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement be prepared for
activity that:
involv_es._ the_ expenditure of public funds and
2, requires an action by the State (such.asan.
appropriation, grant, permit or license) and
3. -.has .a potential for. significant effect .on . the
environment.
any
The new.. minimum. -criteria.:,(.ATTACHMENT. I.)'--addreiss..the problem '
of - deciding,. what. 'activities�:'. are:: "significant!' :by :lestablishing
specific, thresholds. for. determining...the .'need_ -for '_an" .EA or EIS.
Because these " criteria .'are �:�general'ly._ stricter :.than the
interpretatibn'..policy utilized..previously by. the: --Division,
envi-ronmental�documentation'�'will be,now required on more projects
than before..
The Division of Environmental Management is interested in
minimizing the impaet.of the law and the adopted rules and will
work with each.applicant'to eliminate unnecessary -effort.. We
intend to require only that information in an EA or EIS which is
needed ,to enable our agency, to'.. make' an informed; -decision on
whether to'issue'a permit.and will strive to avoid inclusion or
irrelevant.. data from a document. We will work with applicants to
tailor the EA or the EIS to the'specific project and its
potential for environmental degradation.
The Division of Environmental Management will -only require
the preparation of -an environmental assessment although we may at
times recommend that an environmental impact statement be
prepared. If the project is considered straightforward, its
impacts easily assessed, and the possibilities for public concern
seem minimal, we will -suggest that an EA or a FONSI (Finding of
No Significant Impact)'be prepared:: This FONS7 is needed to
certify that no environmental impact statement is needed. On the

'. Page Three
July 27, 1989
other hand, if the proposed action is considered larger than
most, has potential fcr significant or unusual environmental
impact or elicits strong public concern, then we will recommend
an EIS.
(ATTACHMENT 111) provides more specific guidance on what
should be included in an EA and. an ETS. This is general guidance
prepared by the State Clearinghouse and could vary with each
document. If there is uncertainty as to what should be included
in an environmental document, the Division may recommend specific
additional "scoping" ctivities. These are procedures"to take to
inform -the public dr affected agencies of your proposed_
environmental document and seek their input on,-the.....scope.of
.issues to.be included. Some local governments have held separate
"scoping. meetings," score have included them in normally scheduled
town meetings, and some have just advertised broadly to make sure
affected parties were aware of their proposed document. .The
.advantage to scoping is to learn of concerns of the public prior
to preparation of the •;ocument
If .you have questions . about-. the.,,�appli.cabi1ity,. of the
Environmental, -Policy Act.. to. -:your proposed- :proj ect . please.. call .
Mr'. Daleg '-.Overcash; Actin- Supervisor. of': the'_ Water-. Quality
Section' s Permitting .'and. Engineering: Unit. .. if . yoii.:have- any
questions- about: the attached' documents or would � 'like- :yore
guidance -in-.preparing an environmental-.. document,.:please' call Mr..
Boyd DeVane='or '.Mr ..--Alan Clark .of the Water Quality,' Planning
Branch. They can be reached at 919/733-5083 in Raleigh. Your
local water quality contact, the DEM Water Quality Regional
Supervisor is .also f ar:_liar with these requirementEs" and will be
.glad to _'help. 'you.
WBDIkls
EIS2.Doc/D-1
cc: Regional. Supervisors
Regional Water Quality Supervisors

.�
$1q�,EUNS Con�DrTroN
SUMMER
BOD5=60.0,
D.O.=4.0
MG/L
QEFF=0.6627
MGD
----------
MODEL RESULTS ----------
Discharger
:
LOUISBURG
WWTP
Receiving Stream :
TAR RIVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 5.89
mg/1.
The End
CBOD
is 0.95
mg/l.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 0.23
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
1.61
6.00
3
Reach
1
90.00 90.00
4.00
0.66270
Reach
2
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
'Reach
4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
4,+-q8 - 0,9 = 13•$8= rotnL LEJIJG7H TglT- a.o. 5 12
i �, 31 - 13, 86 = a.43 -1:f o. 5MIL& c.errOrU4
laiA'- r<t_cw TWEV 6AIv ADD = 70S d
D. D4Z3o
4-Z, PD

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
Receiving Stream :
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature:
LOUISBURG WWTP Subbasin : 030301
TAR RIVER Stream Class: WS-III
14.0 Winter 7Q10 : 48.0
26.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft./mil
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@20%
Idesignl
@2014 Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.801
I
1.481
0.124
I
1 2.84
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.901
I
1.481
0.124
I
1 2.86
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
i I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------_------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 3.901
I
1.481
0.125
I
1 2.88
I I
1 0.27 1.0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
l
Segment
1
I I
1 1.301
I
1.481
0.124
I
1 2.89
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 8.601
I
1.561
0.146
I
1 3.04
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.34 1
I
0.301
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I
1 1.551
I
1.561
0.157
I
1 3.15
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.36 1
I
0.321
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow
I
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
1.027
Headwatersl
14.000
Tributary 1
0.000
* Runoff 1
0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary l 0.200
* Runoff 1 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.300
* Runoff 1 0.000
I CBOD I
NBOD I
D.O. I
I mg/l I
mg/l I
mg/l I
1 90.000
1 90.000 I
4.000
1 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
I 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
I 2.000 I
1.000 1
7.300
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
l 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
l 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300

Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 j 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary 1 4.700 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste J 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary ! 3.200 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile

SUMMER
BOD5=60.0,
D.O.=4.0 MG/L
QEFF=0.6627
MGD
Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow
1
1
0.00
7.07
8.02
7.08
15.03
1
1
0.08
6.87
7.93
6.95
15.03
1
1
0.16
6.67
7.85
6.82
15.03
1
1
0.24
6.48
7.76
6.70
15.03
1
1
0.32
6.29
7.68
6.57
15.03
1
1
0.40
6.11
7.60
6.45
15.03
1
1
0.48
5.93
7.52
6.33
15.03
1
1
0.56
5.76
7.44
6.21
15.03
1
1
0.64
5.59
7.36
6.10
15.03
1
1
0.72
5.43
7.28
5.98
15.03
1
1
0.80
5.27
7.21
5.87
15.03
1
2
0.80
5.29
7.14
5.81
15.23
1
2
0_._9.0
__5-._10
7.05
5.67
15.23
1
2
1.00
4.92
6.95
5.54
15.23
1
2
1.10
4.75
6.86
5.41
15.23
1
2
1.20
4.58
6.77
5.29
15.23
1
2
1.30
4.41
6.68
5.16
15.23
1
2
1.40
4.26
6.59
5.05
15.23
1
2
1.50
4.10
6.51
4.93
15.23
1
2
1.60
3.96
6.42
4.81
15.23
1
2
1.70
3.82
6.34
4.70
15.23
1
2
1.80
3.69
6.25
4.59
15.23
1
2
1.90
3.56
6.17
4.49
15.23
1
2
2.00
3.43
6.09
4.38
15.23
1
2
2.10
3.32
6.01
4.28
15.23
1
2
2.20
3.20
5.93
4.18
15.23
1
2
2.30
3.09
5.85
4.09
15.23
1
2
2.40
2.99
5.78
3.99
15.23
1
2
2.50
2.89
5.70
3.90
15.23
1
2
2.60
2.80
5.62
3.81
15.23
1
2
2.70
2.70
5.55
3.72
15.23
1
3
2.70
2.79
5.48
3.67
15.53
1
3
3.00
2.55
5.27
3.42
15.53
1
3
3.30
2.34
5.06
3.19
15.53
1
3
3.60
2.17
4.87
2.97
15.53
1
3
3.90
2.02
4.68
2.77
15.53
1
3
4.20
1.90
4.50
2.59
15.53
1
3
4.50
1.80
4.32
2.41
15.53
1
3
4.80
1.73
4.16
2.25
15.53
1
3
5.10
1.67
4.00
2.10
15.53
1
3
5.40
1.63
3.84
1.95
15.53
1
3
5.70
1.61
3.69
1.82
15.53
1
3
6.00
1.61
3.55
1.70
15.53
1
3
6.30
1.62
3.41
1.58
15.53
1
3
6.60
1.64
3.28
1.48
15.53
1
4
6.60
1.64
3.28
1.48
15.53
1
4
6.70
1.65
3.24
1.44
15.53
1
4
6.80
1.66
3.19
1.41
15.53
1
4
6.90
1.67
3.15
1.38
15.53
1
4
7.00
1.68
3.11
1.35
15.53
1
4
7.10
1.70
3.07
1.31
15.53
1
4
7.20
1.71
3.03
1.28
15.53
1
4
7.30
1.73
2.99
1.25
15.53
1
4
7.40
1.75
2.95
1.22
15.53
1
4
7.50
1.76
2.91
1.20
15.53
1
4
7.60
1.78
2.87
1.17
15.53

1
4
7.70
1.80
2.83
1.14
15.53
1
4
7.80
1.82
2.80
1.11
15.53
1
4
7.90
1.84
2.76
1.09
15.53
1
5
7.90
3.11
2.58
1.07
20.23
1
5
8.33
3.20
2.46
0.98
20.23
1
5
8.76
3.30
2.34
0.90
20.23
1
5
9.19
3.40
2.23
0.83
20.23
1
5
9.62
3.51
2.13
0.76
20.23
1
5
10.05
3.63
2.03
0.70
20.23
1
5
10.48
3.74
1.93
0.64
20.23
1
5
10.91
3.86
1.84
0.59
20.23
1
5
11.34
3.98
1.75
0.54
20.23
1
5
11.77
4.10
1.67
0.49
20.23
1
5
12.20
4.22
1.59
0.45
20.23
1
5
12.63
4.34
1.51
0.42
20.23
1
5
13.06
4.46
1.44
0.38
20.23
1
5
13.49
4.58
1.37
0.35
20.23
1
5
13.92
4.69
1.31
0.32
20.23
1
5
14.35
4.81
1.25
0.30
20.23
1
5
14. 7 8_____
4.92
0.27
20.23
1
5
16.21
µ
57.
_ �1.._1.9.,
13
0.25
20.23
1
5
15.64
5.14
1.08
0.23
20.23
1
5
16.07
5.25
1.03
0.21
20.23
1
5
16.50
5.35
0.98
0.19
20.23
1
6
16.50
5.62
1.12
0.30
23.43
1
6
16.65
5.65
1.10
0.29
23.43
1
6
16.81
5.68
1.08
0.29
23.43
1
6
16.96
5.70
1.06
0.28
23.43
1
6
17.12
5.73
1.05
0.27
23.43
1
6
17.27
5.76
1.03
0.26
23.43
1
6
17.43
5.78
1.01
0.25
23.43
1
6
17.59
5.81
1.00
0.25
23.43
1
6
17.74
5.84
0.98
0.24
23.43
1
6
17.90
5.87
0.96
0.23
23.43
1
6
18.05
5.89
0.95
0.23
23.43
I Seg #
I Reach #
I Seg Mi I
D.O.
I CBOD
NBOD I
Flow

SUMMER
BOD5=60.0,
D.0.=4.0
MG/L
QEFF=0.7 05
MGD
----------
MODEL RESULTS ------------
Discharger
:
LOUISBURG
WWTP
Receiving Stream :
TAR RIVER
_----------------------------------------------------------------------
The End
D.O.
is 5.81
mg/l.
The End
CBOD
is 0.98
mg/1.
The End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NBOD
is 0.23
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
------
1.33
---------
6.00
------- ---- ----
3
--
----------
Reach
1
90.00 90.00
4.00
0.70500
Reach
2
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.-00000
Reach
3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
4
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
5
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
Reach
6
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00000
15,Z1 -o,'31 f+.',1 z TpiAL L,�.V6.'H 1NA-- `D.r>.
LM1 LES)

: r,
*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger :
Receiving Stream
Summer 7Q10
Design Temperature:
LOUISBURG WWTP Subbasin : 030301
TAR RIVER Stream Class: WS-III
14.0 Winter 7Q10 : 48.0
26.0
ILENGTHI
SLOPEI
VELOCITY
I DEPTHI Kd I
Kd
I Ka I
Ka I
KN I
---------------------------_-___-------------------------------------------------
I mile I
ft/mi1
fps
I ft
Idesignl
@20%
Idesignl
@20% Idesignl
Segment
1
I I
1 0.801
I
1.481
0.124
l
1 2.84
I 1
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.901
I
1.481
0.124
I
1 2.86
I I
10.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
0.48 1
Reach
_-_-----__----_--_---------------------------------------------------------------
2
1 1
1
l
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 3.901
I
1.481
0.125
I
1 2.88
I I
10.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.301
I
1.481
0.124
I
1 2.89
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.27 1
I
0.241
!
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 8.601
I
1.561
0.146
I
13.04
I I
10.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.34 1
I
0.301
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
Segment
1
I I
1 1.551
I
1.561
0.157
I
1 3.16
I I
1 0.27 1
0.20
I I
1 0.36 1
I
0.321
I
0.48 1
Reach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
I
Flow
I
cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1
1.093
Headwaters)
14.000
Tributary I
0.000
* Runoff 1
0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste I 0.000
Tributary I 0.200
* Runoff ( 0.000
Segment 1 Reach 3
Waste I 0.000
Tributary I 0.300
* Runoff I 0.000
I CBOD
I NBOD I
D.O. I
I mg/1
I mg/1 I
mg/l i
190.000
190.000 I
4.000
I 2.000
I 1.000 I
7.300
1 2.000
1 1.000 1
7.300
1 2.000
I 1.000 1
7.300
I 0.000 1
0.000 1
0.000
I 2.000 1
1.000 1
7.300
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
I 0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
1 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300
I 2.000 I
1.000 I
7.300

Segment 1 Reach 4
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary I 0.000 I 2.000 i 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff 1 0.000 1 2.000 1 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 5
Waste 1 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 4.700 1 2.000 I 1.000 I 7.300
* Runoff I 0.000 I 2.000 I 1.000 1 7.300
Segment 1 Reach 6
Waste I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000
Tributary I 3.200 1 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

r
SUMMER
BOD5=60.0,
D.0.=4.0 MG/L
QEFF=0.6627
MGD
Seg #
I Reach # I
Seg Mi I
D.O. I
CBOD I
NBOD I
Flow I
1
1
0.00
7.06
8.37
7.44
15.09
1
1
0.08
6.85
8.28
7.31
15.09
1
1
0.16
6.64
8.20
7.17
15.09
1
1
0.24
6.44
8.11
7.04
15.09
1
1
0.32
6.24
8.02
6.91
15.09
1
1
0.40
6.05
7.94
6.78
15.09
1
1
0.48
5.86
7.86
6.65
15.09
1
1
0.56
5.68
7.77
6.53
15.09
1
1
0.64
5.51
7.69
6.41
15.09
1
1
0.72
5.33
7.61
6.29
15.09
1
1
0.80
5.17
7.53
6.17
15.09
1
2
0.80
5.20
7.46
6.11
15.29
1
2
0.90
5.00
7.36
5.96
15.29
1
2
1.00
4.81
7.26
5.83
15.29
1
2
1.10
4.62
7.17
5.69
15.29
1
2
1.20
4.44
7.07
5.56
15.29
1
2
1.30
4.27
6.98
5.43
15.29
1
2
1.40
4.11
6.89
'5.31
15.29
1
2
1.50
3.95
6.80
5.18
15.29
1
2
1.60
3.80
6.71
5.06
15.29
1
2
1.70
3.65
6.62
4.95
15.29
1
2
1.80
3.51
6.54
4.83
15.29
1
2
1.90
3.38
6.45
4.72
15.29
1
2
2.00
3.25
6.36
4.61
15.29
1
2
2.10
3.12
6.28
4.51
15.29
1
2
2.20
3.00
6.20
4.40
15.29
1
2
2.30
2.89
6.12
4.30
15.29
1
2
2.40
2.78
6.04
4.20
15.29
1
2
2.50
2.68
5.96-
4.10
15.29
1
2
2.60
2.58
5.88
4.01
15.29
1
2
2.70
2.48
5.80
3.92
15.29
1
3
2.70
2.57
5.73
3.86
15.59
1
3
3.00
2.32
5.51
3.60
15.59
1
3
3.30
2.10
5.29
3.36
15.59
1
3
3.60
1.92
5.09
3.13
15,59
1
3
3.90
1.76
4.89
2.92
15.59
1
3
4.20
1.63
4.70
2.72
15.59
1
3
4.50
1.53
4.52
2.54
15.59
1
3
4.80
1.45
4.35
2.37
15.59
1
3
5.10
1.39
4.18
2.21
15.59
1
3
5.40
1.35
4.02
2.06
15.59
1
3
5.70
1.33
3.86
1.92
15.59
1
3
6.00
1.33
3.71
1.79
15.59
1
3
6.30
1.33
3.57
1.67
15.59
1
3
6.60
1.35
3.43
1.56
15.59
1
4
6.60
1.35
3.43
1.56
15.59
1
4
6.70
1.36
3.39
1.52
15.59
1
4
6.80
1.37
3.34
1.49
15.59
1
4
6.90
1.39
3.30
1.45
15.59
1
4
7.00
1.40
3.26
1.42
15.59
1
4
7.10
1.41
3.21
1.39
15.59
1
4
7.20
1.43
3.17
1.36
15.59
1
4
7.30
1.45
3.13
1.32
15.59
1
4
7.40
1.46
3.09
1.29
15.59
1
4
7.50
1.48
3.05
1.26
15.59
1
4
7.60
1.50
3.01
1.23
15.59

1
4
7.70
1.52
2.97
1.21
15.59
1
4
7.80
1.54
2.93
1.18
15.59
1
4
7.90
1.56
2.89
1.15
15.59
1
5
7.90
2.89
2.68
1.12
20.29
1
5
8.33
2.99
2.56
1.02
20.29
1
5
8.76
3.09
2.44
0.94
20.29
1
5
9.19
3.20
2.32
0.86
20.29
1
5
9.62
3.31
2.21
0.79
20.29
1
5
10.05
3.43
2.11
0.73
20.29
1
5
10.48
3.55
2.01
0.67
20.29
1
5
10.91
3.68
1.91
0.61
20.29
1
5
11.34
3.80
1.82
0.56
20.29
1
5
11.77
3.93
1.73
0.52
20.29
1
5
12.20
4.05
1.65
0.47
20.29
1
5
12.63
4.18
1.57
0.44
20.29
1
5
13.06
4.30
1.50
0.40
20.29
1
5
13.49
4.43
1.43
0.37
20.29
1
5
13.92
4.55
1.36
0.34
20.29
1
5
14.35
4.67
1.30
0.31
20.29
1
5
14.78
4.79
1.24
0.28
20.29
1
5
15.21
4.90
1.18
0.26
20.29
1
5
15.64
5.02
1.12
0.24
20.29
1
5
16.07
5.13
1.07
0.22
20.29
1
5
16.50
5.24
1.02
0.20
20.29
1
6
16.50
5.52
1.15
0.31
23.49
1
6
16.65
5.55
1.13
0.30
23.49
1
6
16.81
5.58
1.11
0.29
23.49
1
6
16.96
5.61
1.10
0.28
23.49
1
6
17.12
5.64
1.08
0.28
23.49
1
6
17.27
5.66
1.06
0.27
23.49
1
6
17.43
5.69
1.04
0.26
23.49
1
6
17.59
5.72
1.03
0.25
23.49
1
6
17.74
5.75
1.01
0.25
23.49
1
6
17.90
5.78
0.99
0.24
23.49
1
6
18.05
5.81
0.98
0.23
23.49
Seg
Reach
Seg Mi
D.O.
CBOD
NBOD
Flow

INSTREAM SELF -MONITORING. DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Discharger • Lam_ t15GU c, _ Permit No.. NC00 2-02-",/__��
Receiving Stream: -rM- a,qe-g_ Sub -basin:
Upstream Location: r' a�E s, �,�„� 9r, Downstream Location 82+Rc E 0.`1 SP-1 00L
Upstream Downstream
DATE q0 TEMP D.O. �' COND TEMP D.O. BOB-5- COND
DEC-8
NOV-8
OCT-8
SEP- 9
'AUG- 9 ILL# ) (c,b L. 4@�T�� - ?�Ofzei LI Ls I) 2273 z��
JUL- 9 Z Zr� ,6����aao�� 2,�2 7B� S.7 5.1� ZZ-B9 Cr�
JUN- 9 2 a+� )! 3+
MAY- 9 r �r,¢(r, .5)r)
APR- % 4L 8,2 lio
MAR-8-9
FEB-B9
JAN-89
DEC-88
NOV-88
OCT -88
SEP-88
AUG-88
JUL-88 !
JUN-88
MAY-88
APR-88
MAR-88
FEB-88
JAN-88
DEC-87
NOV-87
OCT-87
SEP-87
AUG-87
JUL-87
JUN-87
MAY-0 _
APR-87
MAR-87
FEB-87
JAN-87
DEC-86 -
NOV-86
OCT-86
SEP-86
AUG_ 86
JUL-86
JUN-86
MAY-86
APR-86
MAR-86
FEB-86
JAN-86

_ �• � . D rn C� at .
a00�
Request Form for Instream Assessment for SOC
Name of Facility: Town of Louisburg Subbasin: 03-03-01
County: Franklin Design Flow:0.8 mqd (existing)
Receiving Stream: Tar River
Background Data :
A. Why is SOC needed? The Town of Louisburg has
requested an SOC due to the need for additional flow durin
construction of an upgraded WWTP (1.5 mqd). The amount of
flow permitted but not yet tributary to the plant added to
the latest 12 month flow average is at or near the WWTP's
design capacity of 0.8 mqd. In addition, the plant is in
extreme noncompliance with the final effluent limitations
for BOD and TSS since April 1990. Laboratory data
collect d prior to April 1990 is questionable due to
discrepancies found between DMR's and bench notes and will
not be used for determining interim limitations.
The Town has reauested an increase in flow in the NPDES
Permit to 1.1 mqd. The SOC will be based upon issuance of
this permit. The Raleigh Regional Office will recommend_
that the SOC containing additional flow, be issued only
after issuance of the NPDES Permit containing a flow limit
of 1.1 mqd. An expansion of the WWTP to 1.5 mgd will
require avoroval of an Environmental ImAact Statement or
Environmental Assessment.
B. History of SOC requests: no previous requests
1. Monthly Average waste flow prior to -any SOC?
Period: 8908 - 9007 Avg: 0.6627 mgd
2. Previously approved SOCs: none
Date: flow: mqd
Date: flow: 0 mgd
Total of previously
approved SOC flow: 0 mgd
3. Flows lost from plant -flow: 0' mgd
(facilities off line)
4. Flows allocated but not
yet tributary to the plant: 0.110701
(P-4 approvals)
5. Current SOC request flow: 0.200 mqd

:p
Instream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 2
6. Total Plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC minus losses) flow: 0.9734 mgd
7. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant?
Why or why not?
Yes. The 12 month flow average at the WWTP at
the end of the SOC is likely to be around 1.00 mgd if
the additional 0.20_mgd and current pending projects
are connected to the WWTP. Owing to high flows during
rainy periods due to I/I the Raleigh Regional Office
has proposed no limit for the interim monthlv flow
average
C. A copy of the data is attached for your review
(August 1987 through July 1990). Laboratory analyses
Arior to Anril 1990 should -not be used. This data is
suspected of beina. to a larae decree, fabricated or
altered.
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
combination, please specify percentages.
Domestic 200,000 gpd 100 %
Industrial gpd %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any
pertinent data.
The Town has proposed the connection of 2
resthomes and at least one restaurant. This is
considered to be domestic type waste. The remaining
flow is for future projects but these projects must
also be for domestic type waste as allowed in the
proposed SOC (attached).
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BOD5
NH3
DO
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH
other parameters:
Monthly Avg.
70.0 me/l
no limit mg/1
5.0 mg/l
.70.0 mg/l
1000'.0/100ml
6.0-9.0 s.u.
Chronic Toxicity monitoring only at
8 % from SOC issuance until
6/30/91, and a limit of 8% from
7/1/91 until 6/30/94.

Instream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 3
D. What is the basis for these limits?
These are limits which the Raleiah Reaional office
staff and the Town of Louisburg believe the WWTP
can meet in the interim based on current plant
data (only 4 months of summer data are available),
and anticipated changes in the mode of operation
in the current facility to include increased
secondary clarifier detention, improved polymer
and aluminum chloride addition, and improved
solids removal from the facility.

Request Form for Instream Assessment for SOC
Name -of Facility: Town of Louisburg Subbasin: 03-03-01
County: Franklin Design Flow:0.8 mgd (existing)
Receiving Stream: Tar River
Backqround Data :
A. Why is SOC needed? The Townof Louisburx has
requested_ an SOC due to the need for additional flow Burin
construction of an upgraded WWTP ( 1.5 _mqd) . The amount of
flow permitted but not yet tributary to the plant added -to
the latest 12 month flow average is at or near the WWTP's
design capacity of 0.8 m d. zn addition the plant is in
extreme noncompliance with the final effluent limitations
for BOD and TSS since April 1990. Laboratory data
collect d prior to April 1990 is questionable due to
discrepancies found between DMR's and bench notes and will
not be used for determining interim limitations.
The Town has reauested an increase in flow in the NPDES
Permit to 1.1 mgd. The SOC will be based upon issuance of
this permit. The Raleigh Regional Office will recommend
that the SOC containing additional flow, be issued only
after issuance of the NPDES Permit containing a flow limit
of 1.1 mgd. An expansionof the WWTP to 1.5 mgd will
require approval of an Environmental impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment.
B. History of SOC requests: no rp evious requests
1. Monthly Average waste flow prior to any SOC?
Period: 8908 - 9007 Avg: 0.6627 mgdd
2. Previously approved SOCs: none
Date: flow: _ _ mgd
Date: flow: 0 m d
Total of previously
approved SOC flow: 0 m d
3. Flows lost from plant -flow: 0 mgdd
(facilities off line)
4. Flows allocated but not
yet tributary to the plant: 0.1107,01
(P-4 approvals)
5, Current SOC request flow:, 9j.,00_-mgd

Instream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 2
6. Total Plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC minus losses) flow: 0.16734 mgd
7. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant?
Why or why not?
Yes. The 12 month flow average at the WWTP at
the end of the SOC is likely to be around 1.00 mgd if
the additional 0.20 mgd and current pending projects
are connected to the WWTP. Owing to high flows during
rainy periods due to I/I, the Raleigh Regional Office
has nronosed no limit for the interim monthlyflow
average.
C. A copy of the data is attached for your review
(August 1987 through July 1990). Laboratory analyses
prior to April 1990 should not be used. This data is
suspected of being. to a laroe deoree, fabricated or
A 1 t-arprH
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
combination, please specify percentages.
Domestic qpd 100 %
Industrial gpd %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any
pertinent data.
The Town has proposed the connection of 2
resthomes and at least one restaurant. This is
considered to be domestic ty2e waste. The remainin
flow is for future projects but these projects must
also be for domestic type_waste as allowed in the
proposed SOC (attached).
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BOD5
NH3
DO
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH
other parameters:
Monthly Avg.
65.0 mg/l
no limit_mg/l
5.0 mg/l
&5.0 mg/l
1000.0/100ml
6.0-9.0 s.u.
Chronic Toxicity monitoring only
8 % from SOC issuance until
6/30/91 and a limit of 8% from
7/1/91 until 6/30/94.
1H

Instream-Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 3
D. What is the basis for these limits?
These are limits which the-Raleiah Reaional Office
staff and the Town of Louisburg believe the WWTP
can meet in the interim, based on current plant
data only 4 months of summer data are available),
and anticipated changes in the mode of operation
.in the current facility to .include increased
secondary clarifier detention,_improved polymer
and aluminum chloride addition, and improved
solids removal from the facility. T

* . 1*
3&,16v
Request Form for Instream Assessment for SOC
Name of Facility: Town of Louisburg Subbasin: 03-03-01
County: Franklin Design Flow:0.8 m d(existing)
Receiving Stream: Tar River
Background Data :
A. Why is SOC needed? The Town of Louisburg has
requested an SOC due to the need for additional flow during
construction of an upgraded WWTP (1.5 mgd). The amount of
flow permitted but not yet tributary to the 21ant added to
the latest 12 month flow average_ is at or near the WWTP's
design capacity of 0.8 mgd. In addition, the plant is in
extreme noncompliance with the final effluent limitations
for BOD and TSS since April 1990. Laboratorydata
collect d prior to April 1990 is questionable due to
discrepancies found between DMR'_s and bench notes and will
not be used for determining interim limitations.
The Town has requested an increase in flow in the NPDES
Permit to 1.1 mgd. The SOC will be based upon issuance of
this permit. The Raleigh Regional Office will recommend
that the SOC containing additional flow, be issued only
after issuance of the NPDES Permit containing a flow limit
of 1.1 m d. A, ex ansion of the WWTP to 1.5 m d will
require a22roval of an Environmental Impact Statement or
Environmental Assessment.
B. History of SOC requests: no previous requests
1'- Monthly Average waste flow prior to any SOC?
Period: 8908 - 9007 Avq;: 0.6627 mgd``
- — 1
2. Previously approved SOCs: none --
Date: flow: mgd
Date: flow: 0 mgd
Total of previously
approved SOC flow: 0 mgd
3. Flows lost from plant -flow:
(facilities off line)
4. Flows allocated but not
yet tributary to the plant:
(P-4 approvals)--
(5c''f-M +-INE fPMOVOV, t rr5 rSSuEn}
5. Current SOC request flow:
0 mgd
f
0 11-10 7-01 r
(SN6U4p TAV-5 P4'ro
fKGOVN7 1N rilClR- AV4
/Jd
0 . P-4j (o4p and

Instream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 2
6. Total Plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC minus losses) flow: 0. '0W m_gd
7. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant?
Why or why not?
Yes. The 12 month flow average at the WWTP at
the end of the SOC is likely to be around 1.00 mgd if
the additional 0.20 mgd and current pending projects
are connected to the WWTP. Owing to high flows during
rainy periods due to I/Ijthe Raleigh Regional Office
has proposed no limit for the interim monthlv flow
average.
C. A copy of the data is attached for your review
(August 1987 through July 1990). Laboratory analyses
prior to April 1990 should not be used. This data is
suspected of being. to a larae decree, fabricated or
altered.
CURRENT SOC REQUEST:
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a
combination, please specify percentages.
3(o1 taoa
Domestic �,-frt;0_ gpd 100 %
Industrial gpd %
B. What type of industry? Please attach any
pertinent data.
The Town has proposed the connection of 2
resthomes and at least one restaurant. This is
considered to be domestic type waste. The remaining
flow is for future projects but these projects must
also be for domestic ty2e waste as allowed in the
proposed SOC (attached).-
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
Monthly Avg.
BOD5 60.0 mg/1
NH3 no limit mg/l
DO _ 5.0 m / 1 -7,, -P, 5t-1 P cffA j 4t i4t5 To + �
TSS (00.0 m /1
Fecal Coliform 1000.0/100ml
pH 6.0-9.0 s.u.
other parameters: Chronic Toxicity monitoring only at
8 % from SOC issuance until
6/30/91, and_a limit of 8% from
7/1/91 until 6/30/94.

rnstream Assessment Request
Town of Louisburg
Page 3
D. What is the basis for these limits?
These are limits which the Raleiah Reaional Office
staff and the Town of _Louisburg believe the WWTP
can meet in the interim, based on current plant
data (only 4 months of summer data are available),
and antici pated changes in the mode of operation
in the current facility to include increased
secondaxr clarifier detention, improved polymer
and aluminum chloride addition, and improved
solids removal from the facility.