NC0002071_Wasteload Allocation_19811230

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0002071
Pamlico Packing
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
,
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Monitoring Report
Instream Assessment
(67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
December 30, 1981
This document is printed on reusae paper - ignore aay
content on the i ' r i se aide

Engineer
Date Rec.
w
v
C.
=
Facility Name:
Existing
Proposed
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
f7 - /l (r) PGA kirl Co.
Date: 1.2- 30 1
Permit No.: /VC 000a07/ Pipe No.: 0Q.t County. m ! ! c o
Design Capacity (MGD): z,,et9ocq Industrial (% of Flow): 14942 Domestic (% of Flow):
Receiving Stream: /0 y ��L� Class • 5(2'S l0/ Sub -Basin: Q 3 -—ID
Reference USGS Quad• (Please attach) Requestor• AAA, )4 ()1c-- Regional Office
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design Temp.: v 1 oC Drainage Area: Avg. Streamflow:
7Q10:_ 71dAWinter 7Q10: 30Q2:
aa),l
Location of D.O.minimum (miles below outfall): Slope.
p
Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day, 20°C)• K2 (base e, per day, 20°C);
E
0
0
4)
c
a-
1)
1 I
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
/v%x Pally Av5,
Stets
75S
71-/#/Siy
a.6# c4
as#/da
(c Joy
,1 �r,ri 6refa
.
-1c,i.
/77
Original Allocation
Revised Allocation
Confirmation
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
Date(s) of Revision(s)
(Please attach previous allocation)
Reviewed By: ltehAL0 , /14 �,t f
Date: / 0 f �

Form ##001
# 183
Facility Name
County: Pamlico
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Pamlico Packing Co.
Sub -basin:
Regional Office: Washington Requestor:
Type of Wastewater: Industrial 100
Domestic
If industrial!, specify type(s) of industry: Crab Production
03-03-07
Bill Moore/Dave Adk� s
a
fi
Receiving stream:
Other stream(s) affected:
Bay River
Class: SC
Class:
7Q10 flow at point of discharge:
30Q2 flow at point of discharge:
Natural stream drainage area at discharge point:
Tidal
Parameter
Flow
TSS
Oil & Grease
pH
Recommended Effluent Limitations
Monthly Average
.0008 MGD
7.4#/day
2.0#/day
6-9 S.U.
Max. Daily Avg.
22#/day
6#/day
Limits are based on production of 10,000#/day crab meat (40 CFR 408.22).
This allocation is:
Recommended and
/ /
1/
/X/
/ /
reviewed by:
f44fWAJA44;44-
for a proposed facility
for a new (existing) facility
Head, Technci
al Srvices Branch
Reviewed by:
Regional Supervisor
Permits Manager
Approved by:
Division Director
new product (crabs
a revision of existing limitations instead of shrimp, fish,
a confirmation of existing limitations llops)
Date: /2
Date:/P.
DateZl/0llt
Date: P-P hr)

Facility Name:
County:
Receiving Stream:
ja//2-7G/Cv
Design Capacity (M D)
Sub -basin:
Other Stream Affected:
Limits (circle one):
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
,47/Vise
Design Temp.:
Rowing on Reverse ide
Date: %A.2
Permit No.: /�G'- Unc? 7/ Pipe No.: eve/
Requestor: / /;
Class: S
Drainage Area: 7Q10:
Class:
Avg. Stream Flow: DO Sag Pt. (mi.)
Effluent or Water Quality
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Max. Dajav Avg.
Max
mum
Mina=
Conc.
Load.
Conc.
Load.
Conc.
Load. _
Conc.
Load.
Conc.
Load.
B0D5
_
,
Fecal Coliform
Disolved Oxygen
Total SS
'354
//
414/ 4
// y
NH3--N
)4
_✓/
eH (range)
4'41s,l,/.
_
0 / L AVO laeEASE
,
/�� 164,'! t
#
34� y
Tie
/;m'• i
„aye Tp
12e %�%e4
lnp.41•Qd
sl
Ioi'cbtwe_
c
i y� .4
Lvie 7
.t me -nip
-F✓,21}4 ,7-2`✓1
u n.,-,
co vilic
s dal 4
/�9a r GLi
l 7.) Ego
II (4o sr
►y) It-i Le 1
Prepared by:
e17 /.U/.,.
Reviewed by:
Date: 3 -
IS -3/78

For Industrial Dischargers List BPT Below
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly Average
Wpe A,�yerage M& Dg�y Avg. �m Min m»m
Conc. Load. Conc. Load. Conc.
Load.
Conc. Load. Conc
Load.
Fe = Co form
Dis• v'• 0, •en
Tot= SS
NH
e)
7-S
c�r�a Ste,
/23
Industrial SIC Code:
Effluent Guideline Reference: e�/e
D / ?/ Type of Waste: -5-vi:, } /C s ‘ ff Scd, /,o
8. / . - 4taS. 2iy £��DB. 30 2_
/ , /
Routing
To Initial
Q
Information Services
Modeling and Alloc.
Regional Office

LOCATION FORM
i V-9
1 Gt3 [aJ�,�,,c,� �^
•
.-- )
Facility Name: 1QZ-ut�.
i
0Permit
No.: 000 o2Q -7
A.)C
County : GZ.., wt 1 / C
Prepared by: ( ) , ) l no (
Date: 1 g 0
[ C. 0 (--)_..0,,
201 Planning Area Code: -" Lion r n
Community Name: Q, wt
River Basin Code :03;-T el G 5 Sub —basin Code L 3 0
4 1 6 Mini —basin Code :
Facility SIC Code : e2 cq
Latitude of Primary Discharge
Longitude of Primary Discharge
Pipe: Degrees:
Minutes: Seconds:
Pipe: Degrees:
Minutes: Seconds:

rs$
p wG
(bin) 13095
TSS
f21q11L/co Pam/Av6 Co, -134y /%vE12 - "SO _ 5tv
E57/ /17 P P65/6AI CAP,C/T y= i c o /5"
,eo0ff1k r/o
P
PT:
iM P (40q-,/.24= /o, oo60/p4/
F/5 /4 (qo,?/) = 1- 5, -t/oA-y
vNL!-BPS (*o , 3O 2 = 0o - a70O.o /Pfty
scALHPg
26000 te/pR y
3.617€� /S,6
p. 6z1/ .20, oz
T55
op,�
Fi5 N
#ipily
8eo//'M
02.Apig°
c2igi
.2700- qI74Y
3,71 / .9-.
/,a I ao,7
3qhf
/ 2 it
/ 0 it
SC f L L P5
I / 6,0
o.a / 7,7
-4(c
sooa.�o�Y
i0//g
.2 75 5 0
3, 5C / &, o

jaw we- .41.,
fikni-) PACK//u6 ca — f3Ay e A-7" YANOEMErE
( 6 3 iviAi)
PE 4-1 10 PT
W LOTH- = 5 oo 00% EFFE-c-nuf)
iviosT c.ZEEWS IN me elit 141 tri*.
7Q)0 0,0 (1150,16.0) 9ieitAF-104A)-r PA is 114t re 0,0 74no'S
7-/124L VEL,06,17-7 s O. pP5
E.' y
KI --- Liz = 0,39 94X-)
0
us' 4)
80,0
ricon
4-5,sup1mG /0,0ocrem C/
OcE C : 7, o °
0 L •
,
10
0, a D4-11
°C.
7,0 "4 6 4-7-29°C
c, 466vE pmemt-lErEk ViltvOrs )-We - te-s-otnibg
vcr/km-TC- ALL01,09-81e- ,35r3O-oo itie A-7-
pE5/6/0 _PLOW z/S-W #1941 5o1) tear
voc Fof surFooD ele-h/ 1-74 / otil)
•60020 #o95 /,
BoDuL.-r /305- -

North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 17, 1980
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Mulligan, Regional Supervisor
Northeastern Regional Office
yv
FROM: Forrest Westall, Head
Randy Williams, Env. Eng.
Technical Services Branch
SUBJECT: Wasteload Allocations for Fish Processors
We have determined wasteload allocations for Pamlico Packing Co., Tom Thumb
Seafood, Inc., and Garland F. Fulcher Seafood Co. in the Neuse River Basin
(03-04-10) and Perry -Wynn Fish Co. which discharges to the Chowan River
(classified as "Nutrient Sensitive Waters"). These effluent limitations are
based on BPT guidelines outlined in 40 CFR, July 1978, and production figures
provided by your office. In addition, although no BPT guidelines for limiting
discharges of BOD5 have been adopted for this industry, the appropriate
development documents were researched to gain insight into the concentrations
of BOD5 which may be expected in effluents from facilities such as these.
These concentration ranges were assumed representative of the industry,
although wide variability exists in these values due to "house keeping"
methods employed by different processors. Comparison of these "expected"
concentrations was then made with values obtained from assimilative capacity
calculations.
Modeling efforts have shown that the assimilative capacity of the receiving
waters at all 4 discharge sites is great enough toaccommodate the levels of
BOD5 "expected" from these processors. Typical ranges of values for various
effluent parameters are listed in tables 1 and 2. Please note, however, that
the operations sampled may not be representative of those with which we are
concerned here. We do feel it is safe to conclude that the loadings from
these 4 dischargers will be far less than those from the ones sampled in
EPA's study due to the smaller, more erratic, flows expected.
P. O. Box 27697 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

-2-
Due to the nature of this industry (seasonal, sporatic operation), the
difficult of enforcing stringent effluent limitations and the economic
hardship which would be endured if they were enforced is obvious. We do
recommend that "alternative" treatment strategies be explored with the
processors involved. These can include, but are not limited to, installation
of fine screens to filter wash water, the stringent use of water in the
operation itself ("good housekeeping"procedures) and the possible on -site
disposal (e.g. landfill methods) of solid wastes produced. We feel that,
since fishermen are the party most likely to gain from cleaner waters,
they should realize this and participate in efforts to accomplsih this goal.
With respect to Perry -Wynn and other fish processors in the Chowan Basin,
more positive, legal action must be taken to insure that a minimum amount of
nutrients are released into these "Nutrient Sensitive Waters". While realizing
the nature of these dischargers and the inherent difficulty in implementing
any physical, chemical or biological treatment systems, a reasonable
schedule or plan must be established to curb nitrogen and phosphorus inputs
to these waters from fish processors. The Chowan Restoration project (CHORE)
was developed in order to improve the water quality in the river to prevent
a declineHn a productive fishery due to algae blooms. This project seeks to
address ail sources of nutrients, both point and non -point, large and small.
While it is obviously not in anyone's interest to force small operations out
of business, it is in everyone's interest to insure that the least quantity
of nutrients possible enters the Chowan. Therefore, this office will be glad
to work with you, your staff and the dischargers involved in adopting a "best
management practice" for minimizing nutrient inputs to the Chowan. It is
Technical Services' desire, in addition, to incorporate these practices in
their permit, and provide a schedule for their implementation. In order to
comply with the NSW regualtion any plan for nutrient control at these
facilities must have the Director's approval prior to application of such
controls.
Please dq not hesitate to contact this office concerning the above matters.
cc: Nei S. Grigg
%it. Van Tilburg
L. P. Benton
Alan Klimek

From EPA 440/1-74/020 (DD forcatfish, crab, shrimp, tuna)
Southern Non -Breaded Shrimp Processing in the Contiguous States
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate 0.208 MGD 0.183-0.239
TSS 800 MG/L 480-1100
BOD5 970 MG/L
COD 2300 MG/L 2000-2600
Oil & Grease 250 MG/L 140-860
Organic-N 200 MG/L 46-260
NH3-N 10 MG/L 7-14
Conventional Blue Crab Processing - 2 plants
Parameter Mean Range
Flow Rate 665 gpd 630-700
TSS 620 MG/L 600-660
BOD5 4400 MG/L 3600-5200
COD 6300 MG/L 5500-7400
Oil & Grease 220 MG/L 200-230
Organic-N 760 MG/L 610-940
NH3-N 50 MG/L 46-57
Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines for B005
(<4000 lbs/day)
Shrimp 92 lbs/ton f mo. avg. +
280 l bs/ ton <-daily max
Crab 0.30 lb/ton-Monthly Avg. } all processors
0.60 lb/ton-Daily Max.
(>4000 lbs/day)
56 lbs/ton
-� 140 lbs/ton

From EPA 440/1-74/041 (DD for ...Bottom Fish, Herring... etc.)
Category:
Non -Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish - 10 plants:
9or
Range of Means
Category:
Parameter
Flow Rate
TSS
BOD5
0i1 6 Grease
0rg. N
NH3-N
0.01-0.15MGD
79 - 322 MG/L
156 - 768 MG/L
3.9 - 143 MG/L
22.5 - 107 MG/L
1.21 - 794 MG/L
Herring Fileting Process (Mechanized) - 3 plants:
Parameter
Flow Rate
-rss
BOD5
011 & Grease
Organic-N
NH3-N
Plant A
.002 MGD
632 MG/L
1220 MG/L
785 MG/L
102 MG/L
3.9 MG/L
Plant B
0.35 MGD
4940 MG/L
6280 MG/L
Plant C
0.2 MGD
2210 MG/L
3330 MG/L
597 MG/L
434 MG/L
21.3 MG/L