NC0020231_WASTELOAD ALLOCATION_19810219

INPDES DOCUWENT SCANNINS COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NCO020231
Louisburg WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
y
ZWasteload Allocation `
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Data Monitoring Report
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
February_19, 1981
Tl"M dacu 'Bat is pX'1at0d as rO-=Me paper - i@PM40r4e 80My
QontQMt oa time rB'We 4Ne JBidQ

c
R
cc
W*
s
NPDES WASTE LORD ALLOCATION
Facility Name: 776f L�p%-v&-r LDate: +1
Existing Permit No.: 'C 00 2 Q.3� Pipe No.: O ! County: Fr .K,1,=
Proposed Q
Design Capacity (MGD) : C3. E3 ,,,,,,_Industrial (% of Flow) : _5 Domestic (% of Flow) : cis w
Receiving Stream: Ta'.- r- Class: A -M _ Sub --Basin: 01 - a - - a f .._,
Reference USGS Quad Lam :x ls..» (Please attach) Requestor: .Lar-s- Regional Office �•� �.
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design Temp.: C2(. a G Drainage Area Avg. Streamflow: Y 53-CACs'.
7Q10:winter 7Q10: 1 30Q2:
Location of D.O.minimum (miles below outfall) :.. _.f�_/'��%P.S _ Slope: �i
Velocity (fps): Kl (base e, per day, 200C): 0'S� K2 (base e, per day, 200C):-��-
I Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
30
� 1
Effluent Monthly
Characteristics Average Comments
Original Allocation CQY?A'riwrvti07n j
Revised Allocution Date(s) of Revision(s)
(Please attach previous allocation)
� J 1
/9-, Revzewed BIrepaLy;. Date:
>•,
r

---,"Oakwood
Stri;
%
V N
M
<
/L
�p
39
Tow'
I A IV
529
A �(
aM
214 !�_' _f
I—
-zz
yy
56
J
rt V
am
a 6.v
Ar
r,
t
00
V
V, �z 9
J
A
#
21
am,
HUG
f
W21ll
f 16
19
'4
1 00—,
4f
ewasw
j)Mpe
'am 196
N
Golf Course
f L �'
L:
\ �� _ /
( �` `ram'` i ' :
1�',' r 5t .
-1M
I\ „ ',
P.
A
Sand Pit
+
1 &34

FoZm. #0Q?l .
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Facility Name: Louisburg WWTP
County: Franklin Sub -basin:_ _03-03-Ql
Regional Office: Raleigh Requestor: Lars Godwin _
Type of Wastewater: Industrial 5 % - T
Domestic 95
If industrial, specify types) of industry:
Receiving stream: Tar River Class: A -II
Other stream(s) affected: Class:
7Q10 flow at point of discharge: _ 17 cfs
30Q2 flow at point of discharge:__
Natural stream drainage area at discharge point: 429_sq mi
Recommended Effluent Limitations
Monthly Averages
Flow = 0.8 MGD
BOD5 = 30 mg/1
TSS W 30 mg/l
pH = 6-9 Su _.
Fecal Coliform = 1000/100 ml
The parameters used in the analysis are listed on the attached form.
FEB 131981
This allocation is: /_/ for a proposed fac lity" +','GIONAL OFF1Cr
for a new (existing) facility
O / / a revision of existing limitations
/C/ a confirmation of existing limitations
Recommended and reviewed by:
Date:
0
Head, Techncial ervices Branch Wage azd"Date:LO
Reviewed by:
Regional Supervisor Date:
Permits Manager Date:
Approved by:
Division Director Date:
09
0

a ; r
h
1 nr.�a r?rz
Wel S ChM
!I ✓)_. 1177 be AL11'4
_..
r �
�9-vj7me-:L5-G
� art
r r
-
L-O
.Q�
! fto
J
/4G
rS 73
/
1� ! T
�4 r C✓'
r'
ar
i�
['ed r�. ».
Lou bdr (J�yl?
�` # Qe7, OFII 4"•�a S7! %G�"6e�c�z.])�,cc�G—
PA -
! S '
Z
%X��2��(fy-- - 3 , 5 C--rS 7Q !O -
.s'o
�
s
'
L�[ C ` �IJL cQOsLA�l = - Cr�r�•�S—Z--
t4,
., J

jA,4
Illechs'" 0
t II
y
Idl/
e
t !
-
60 CT5- 4S c s -
- Q l C pia f.
/ 0 =
Y7
x foC-
ee(1) s'/0Pe
p
- -- - -
176
cc T4fo - s
-=� 300
. s

P 7 f •

``, T.OUISBVRG
STATE REVIEW COMMENTS
' r
(1) According to the recently revised effluent limitations for Louisburg
the D.O. Limitation originally proposed for the effluent is no longer
required. This will allow the reaeration basin to be eliminated from
the proposed plant design. See the new waste load allocations.
(2) A list of the industrial users of the Louisburg system and their waste
contributions to the system should be included.
(3) The statement on page IV-Cr-I that 84.8% of the present population
is served by publicly owned treatment Works within the planning area
is misleading. The statistic applies to the town of Louisburg, not
the planning area. This should be corrected.
(4) The projection on page VI-A-2 that 85% of the 1995 planning area
Population will be sewered by the proposed project is unsubstantiated.
A 1970 severed population of 2620 was calculated on page IV-C-2.
Based on these figures the service population will increase by 97%
with only minor extensions of existing interceptors and the addition
of an interceptor to serve a primarily commercial/inddstrial area.
This should be explained.
(5) Additional nonexcessive infiltration from new sewer lines should be
calculated based on 300 gpdim instead of the 500 gpdim, specified on
page VI-A-1.
(6) Is it not reasonable to assume that the sewer system rehabilitation
program which is proposed for the prevention of exfiltration will
remove a good percentage of the infiltration in the Tar River inter-
ceptor as a benefit? In accounting for expected reductions the 330,000
gpd of nonexcessive I/I added into the flow projection on page VI-A-1
should be reduced.
(7) On page VI-A-1 daily commercial flow is calculated by dividing 80%
of the month.L, commercial water consumption by 22 work days. The 22
work days for October 1975 represents a 5 day week while most
commercial establishments run on a 6 day week basis. It seems that
the daily wastewater flow should be calculated on the basis of 27 work
days instead of 22.
(8) - The nonspecified industrial reserve should be calculated ss 10% of
projected residential flow plus existing industrial and commercial
flaws without nonexcessive 1/I. The flow calculation on page VI-A-2
should be changed in this regard.
(9) The minimum level of treatment which page VI-A-1 indicates is required
by the State is not correct. Neither aeration nor tertiary filtration
is specifically required.

I
COUNTY
RIVER BASIN
BUQU TO: (Circle One}
ARO, WSRO, MRO, FRO, WaRO, WiRO RRO TS, BM
AM, OTHER
COLLECTOR
BOD RANGE � —67) SEED L�'--
CHLORINATED
Station No.- Date Begin Tive Begin
Ham- w. DEPT. OF lu SO CES & COMMUNITY 6bweAPMENT LAB NUMBER a
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DATE RECEIVED�a�
FIELD/LAB FORM
RECEIVED BY
DATA FX RY B
Q3iA'�lZ AMBIENT CORE
SEDIMENT tD-C65LLANCE 11 SPLIT DATE REPORTED %
0 TISSUE INTENS VE S. D EMERGENCY
r L_J
STATION LOCATIO
Date End Time End Depth DM DB DMB Value Type T, S, or B Sample Type
A H L I-C
G GNXX
mg/l
Chloride "o mg/ I
1
NH as N sia
- Manganese loss 1. Q"
COD 3 4 p 1
Arsenic 1002 u l
u l
Coliform, MF Fecal /104m1
Chl a Tri 32210 u /1
O +NO as N e3o i 1
Na - Sodium ago 1
Coliform, MF Total /1OOm1
Chl a Corr 32,zii a /1
O as P 70507 MR/1
Ni - Nickel 1oe7 u /�
Coliform Tube Fecal /1OOw1
Pheo h tin a 12210 u 1
P. Total as P ass 6101
Pb - Lead io5i an
Coliform, Tube Total . 31503/lOOml
Color (True) go units
A - Silver1077 u /1
Sb - Antimony /l
Reside Total Boo MRIT
Chromium Hexavalentf032 up/1
Al - Aluminum tsos u 1
Sn - Tin 1102 u /1
Volatile 505 w l
Qyan id m
1087 u 1
Fixed s10 MR/1
Flouride pal wiz/1
1Be - Beryllium joix UR/I
Zu - Zinc 1092 zP 1
Residue Suspended aao m 1
Formaldehyde 71860 m 1
Ca - Calcium Ole m 1
lPesticideFt S ecif
Volatile 53 1
lGrease and Oils sse m 1
Cd - Cadmium 1027 1 UR11
Fixed S40 m 1
Hardness Total go* MR/I,
Co - Cobalt 1037 L)4t) u 1
H 403 4g.2units
MBA5 38260 MR/1
romium - Total o%4 u 1
lOrstanics (specify)
-Acidisz
to PH 4.5 /1
Phenols 32730 u 1
lCu - Copper 1
Acidity to PH 8.3 mg/1
Sulfate 945 m /I
Fe - Iron to4a upil
i
AaalinirY to 2H 8.3 MRI1
Sulfide 74s m 1.
- Mercu 1
i H 4. m 1
Specific Cond is UMHOS C1n
Li- Lithium 1132 u 1
I
TOC aao
Xg - t!WE6iUM 927 me/1
,
PT.
Ass 10
Secchi Diskl14 "1&41 Hr. Set. Solids
878 aooee
SevestFlw Cloud Cov�era,
Y
C 1331 132 `-
Odor-Atmos Detergent Suds
Severity I Severity
D,,.., lank
D.O. pH Units Lis
pH 8.3 Alkalinity ph 4.5 pR 4.5
300 1400 I�,n...
CConnggetivitY I Salinity S/L I A.P. I 5tream•Stage F , Inst.
UMBFt. CS
Precipitation Wind Direction Wind Force Turbidity Oil -Grease
Inches I From North I Beaufort Severity Severity
1340 \-
Stream Color Silt or Sedimme�nt Identity
I Susp. Severity Sed. Severity '
Acidity rVHach FTU
4
e G
"is �gG 0
72074 times � .. yf �ai�
tfi�hris
ud t
1313
nSeYpYit�•'�
[1-411
ic'�
DWREV. 9-78