NC0020231_Permit (Issuance)_20100217 (3)

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0020231
Louisburg WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload
Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment
(67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
February 17, 2010
This document is printed on reuse paper - mare a i y
content on the re'rerase /side

ern
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
The Honorable Karl Pernell, Mayor
Town of Louisburg
110 W. Nash Street
Louisburg, NC 27549
February 17, 2010
•
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0020231
Town of Louisburg WWTP
Franklin County
Dear Mayor Pernell:
The Division of Water Quality (Division) personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of
the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. It is issued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007.
The only significant change from the draft permit sent to you on December 1, 2009 concerns revised special
condition A. (3) for nutrient reduction. This change has been made in the permit renewals for each member of
the Tar -Pamlico Association. It includes the Phase III nutrient caps as enforceable permit limits in each
members' individual permit. These limits, like the caps, apply to the aggregate discharge of nitrogen and
phosphorus by the Association members as a group.
If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable,
you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days after receiving this
letter. Your request must take the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes, and must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such demand is made, this permit remains final and binding.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service:1.877-623-6748
Internet: http: / h2o.state.nc.usl
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
N°AhCarolina
7VataraI4.

This permit is not transferable except after notifying the Division of Water Quality. The Division may modify
and re -issue, or revoke this permit. Please notice that this permit does not affect your legal obligation to
obtain other permits required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal
Area Management Act, or other federal or local governments.
If you have questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact Gil Vinzani at [[e-mail]
or call [phone].
for
Enclosure: NPDES Permit FINAL NC0020231
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
cc: Raleigh Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
NPDES Permit File
Central Files
Aquatic Toxicology Unit, Susan Meadows (E-mail copy)
EPA Region 4, Marshall Hyatt
Pamlico -Tar River Foundation, Heather Jacobs Deck (E-mail copy)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Town of Louisburg
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Tar River Water Reclamation Facility
NC Hwy 56 East
Franklin County
to receiving waters designated as Tar River in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective April 1, 2010.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on September 30, 2014.
Signed this day February 17, 2010.
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

r'
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As
of this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the
exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements,
terms, and provisions included herein.
Town of Louisburg
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue operation of an existing 1.37 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of the following unit
processes:
• Mechanical bar screen
• Aerated grit/grease removal
• Anaerobic selector
• Dual oxidation ditches (BioDeniopho Process)
• Dual secondary clarifiers
• Three cell tertiary filter
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Cascade aeration
• Polymer feed system for sludge thickening
• Aerobic digester
• Ultrasonic flow meter
The facility is located at the Tar River Water Reclamation Facility, NC Hwy 56 East, southeast of
Louisburg, Franklin County
2. Discharge treated wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
through outfall 001 into the Tar River that is classified WS-V NSW waters in the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin.

Facility Information
Latitude: 36°05'12" Sub -Basin: 03-03-01
Longitude: 78°17'32" 8-Digit HUC 03020101
Quad #: •C25SE
Stream Class: WS-V NSW
Receiving Stream: Tar River
Permitted Flow: 1.37 MGD
Town of Louisburg
NC0020231
Tar River Water Reclamation Facility

A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge treated wastewater from outfall(s) 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics
Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
- • Daily
Maximum
Measurement
• Frequency
Sample Type
: Sample
Locationl
Flow
1.37 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C£
(April 1 — October 31)
8.0 mg/L
12.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C2 (Nov.
1 — March 31)
16.0 mg/L
24.0 mg/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mq/L
3/Week
Composite
I, E
NH3-N
(April 1 — October 31)
3.0 mg/L
9.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
NH3-N
(Nov.1 — March 31)
6.0 mg/L
18.0 mg/I
3/Week
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily Avera a not less than 5.0 mg/L
3/Week
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/1 p0 ml
400/100 ml
3NVeek
grab
E
Conductivity
3NVeek
Grab
E
pH
6.0 — 9.0 standard units
3/Week
Grab
E
Temperature, °C
j
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen (TN) 4
TN=TKN+(NO2-N + NO3-N)
Monitor and Report (mg/L)
Monthly
(Calculated)
E
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Monitor and Report (mg/L)
Monthly
Composite
E
Nitrate/Nitrate Nitrogen
(NO2-N+ NO3-N)
Monitor and Report (mg/L)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus as P4
Monitor and Report (mg/L)
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity'
Quarterly
Composite
E
Temperature, °C
Variable
Grab
U, D
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
U, D
Effluent Pollutant Scan'
Annually
Composite
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: E — Effluent, I — Influent, U — Upstream 100 feet from the outfall, D — Downstream of outfall at NCSR
1001 (see footnote #5).
2. The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85 % removal).
3. Fecal Coliform shall be calculated using the geometric mean, according to the procedure detailed in Part II. Section A,
Paragraph 9b.
4. See Special Condition A. (3).
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 13%: March, June, September, and December. See Special Condition A (2).
6. Samples collected three times per week during June 1 through September 30 and once per week October 1 through
May 31. However, as a member of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, the instream monitoring requirements as
stated above are waived. Should your membership in the Association be terminated, notify the Division immediately
and the instream monitoring requirements specified in this permit shall be reinstated.
7. See Special Condition A. (4).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

A. (2) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to
Ceriodaphnia Dubia at an effluent concentration of 13%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998 or subsequent versions,
or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or
subsequent versions. The tests.will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and
December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent
discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or chronic value below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two
following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the highest
concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that
does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment,"
collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina
Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed. If reporting chronic value results using
the parameter code TGP3B, then DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no later than 30
days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all
concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate
signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is
employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the
facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No
Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at
the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be
required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to
include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.

•
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently then required by this permit, the results of such
monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted on the DMR and all AT
Forms.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day
of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
A. (3) NUTRIENT REDUCTION
(1) Point source dischargers in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin are subject to the terms and conditions of the
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters Implementation Strategy: Phase 111(the "Agreement"), agreed to
on April 14, 2005; and the nutrient TMDL for the Basin, approved by the USEPA on August 10, 1995.
(2) The Permittee is a member of the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association, which consists of the following fifteen
facilities:
Membership of Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Permit
Owner
Facility
NC0030317
City of Rocky Mount
Tar River Regional WWTP
NC0023931
Greenville Utilities Commission
GUC WWTP
NC0020605
Town of Tarboro
Tarboro WWTP
NC0025054
City of Oxford
Oxford WWTP
NC0020648
City of Washington
Washington WWTP
NC0069311
Franklin County
Franklin County WWTP
NC0020834
Town of Warrenton
Warrenton WWTP
NC0026042
Town of Robersonville
Robersonville WWTP
NC0020231
Town of Louisburg
Louisburg WWTP
NC0026492
Town of Belhaven
Belhaven WWTP
NC0025402
Town of Enfield
Enfield WWTP
NC0023337
Town of Scotland Neck
_
Scotland Neck WWTP
NC0020061
Town of Spring Hope
Spring Hope WWTP
NC0020435
Town of Pinetops
Pinetops WWTP
NC0042269
Town of Bunn
Bunn WWTP
(3) The Agreement defines nitrogen and phosphorus caps for the Association as follows:
Phase III Nutrient Caps — Tar -Pamlico Basin Association'
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
(Ib/yr)
(kg/yr)
(Ib/yr)
(kg/yr)
891,272
404,274
161,070
73,060
1) Includes allowed adjustment to the 1991 baseline

.The Agreement also specifies that the Association has properly accrued and banked nitrogen offset
credits in the following amounts:
Nitrogen Offset Credits — Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Nitrogen Credits
Timeframe
(lb)
(kg)
Phase I
10,138
4,608
Phase II
30,276
13,762
Phase III
10,564
4,802
(4) Consistent with TMDL requirements of 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1), 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A) and (B), and Section
301(b)(1)(C) of the federal Clean Water Act, the Phase III nutrient caps and applied credits are hereby
incorporated into this permit as enforceable limitations on the aggregate discharge of nitrogen and
phosphorus by the Association, as follows:
(5)
Nutrient Load Limits — Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
(lb/yr)
(kg/yr)
(Ib/yr)
(kg/yr)
Nutrient Caps
891,272
404,274
161,070
73,060
Applied Credits
0
e 0
N/A
N/A
Effective Load Limits
891,272
404,274
161,070
73,060
In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Phase III Agreement, the Association may apply
additional nitrogen offset credits in anticipation of future exceedances. Application of credits shall be
made through modification of the members' NPDES permits.
(6) The Division reserves the right to reopen this permit and make appropriate modifications in the event
that:
a. The current Agreement is revised to add or modify the nutrient caps, reporting requirements, or other
requirements relevant to this permit.
b. The terms of the Agreement are violated, in which case the Division will implement the strategy in
Section X. of the Agreement, Violation of Terms of this Agreement.
c. The Director determines that additional requirements, including effluent limitations, are necessary to
prevent localized adverse impacts to water quality.
(7) No later than March 1 of each year, the Association shall prepare an annual report of its performance for
the previous calendar year to the Division at the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Point Source Branch
Attn: Tar -Pamlico NPDES Coordinator
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
The report shall include each member's monthly mass loadings and the Association's aggregate annual
loadings for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus for the subject calendar year.

A. (4) POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
The Permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the attached table (in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). Samples shall represent seasonal variations. Unless otherwise
indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable."
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
f Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury (Method 1631 E)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-creso
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy)
methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
I ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the Director,
within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files at the following address:
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
1617. Submittal of copies with the next.NPDES renewal application is required.

DEN R/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0020231
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Town of Louisburg
Applicant Address:
110 West Nash Street
Facility Address:
NC Hwy 56 East
Permitted Flow
1.37 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
County:
Franklin
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
303(d) Listed?:
Subbasin:
Tar River
WS-V NSW
No
03-03-01
Regional Office:
USGS Topo Quad:
Permit Writer:
Date:
Raleigh
C25SE
Gil Vinzani
February 15, 2010
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
437
14
Average Flow (cfs):
460
IWC (%):
Primary SIC Code:
13
4952
•
SUMMARY
The Louisburg WWTP is located on North Carolina Highway 56 East, south of Louisburg in
Franklin County. The facility has a permitted flow of 1.37 MGD, which discharges through one
outfall (001). The treatment plant is equipped with the following unit processes: manual bar
screen, aerated grit/grease removal, anaerobic selector, dual oxidation ditches (BioDeNioPho
Process), dual secondary classifiers, a three cell tertiary filter, UV disinfection, cascade
aeration, sludge thickener, two aerobic digesters, a polymer feed system for sludge
composting, and ultrasonic flow meter.
The facility discharges into the Tar River in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. At the point of
discharge the Tar River is classified as WS-V NSW waters.
The Town of Louisburg has had no compliance problems over the past four years and
according to the staff and compliance inspection reports appears to be well maintained and
operated.
During the last permit cycle, the following changes were incorporated into the September
2004 permit:
• Addition of weekly average ammonia limits (both summer and winter)
• Addition of Annual pollutant scan
• Removal of the monitoring requirement for lead
• Removal of monthly monitoring requirements for oil and grease (note that this is monitored
annually in the PPA.)
• Re -opener special condition for nutrients as per permitting strategy
In addition, the facility was notified in February 2007 that they were accepted as a member of
the Tar Pamlico Basin Association monitoring coalition, and that their existing instream
monitoring requirements were waived.
Town or L.oui,hurli . ' COO20231, Fad Sher)
NPDES Permit kenewal
Pate I

There is no pretreatment program for this facility. It treats 100% domestic waste and has no
significant industrial users. It accepts domestic waste (but no process waste) from Cal -Maine
Food, Inc. and Murphy House Package Plant.
DMR Data Review
DMR data (monthly averages) from May 2007 through April 2009 were reviewed and are
summarized in Table 1. Note that flows over the past two years averaged only 42.6% of design
flow.
M
a
x
Flow
(mgd))
0.753
DO
(mg/L)
10.11
CBOD
Intl..
(mg/L)
339
CBOD
Effl.
(mg/L
0.607
TSS
Inf..
(mg/L)
949
TSS
Eff.
(mg/L
7.68
Fecal
(#/100
mL)
330
NH3-N
(mg/L)
0.45
TN
(mg/L)
2.44
TP
(mg/L)
0.19*
M
i
n
0.500
6.99
120
0
305
2.74
1.0
0.066
0.755
0
0.584
8.413
235
0.067
551
4.45
20.1
0.186
1.68
0.081
* One outlier data point was ignored
Table 1. NC0020231 Conventional Data (April 2007-March 2009) Source: BIMS
TOXICITY TESTING:
The current toxicity permit limit (condition A. (2)), is for quarterly Chronic Toxicity
(Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 13%. No changes to this requirement are recommended. All toxicity
tests conducted since 2004 have been passed, including the second species tests..
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
According to the Regional Office Contact, Louisburg has generally had an excellent compliance
history. A review of the files done for the previous permit from 2002-2004 showed no NOVs or
compliance issues; and a similar review of BIMS data focusing on 2005-2008 also showed no
compliance problems. The latest compliance evaluation inspection report, dated June 27,
2007, showed that the plant was "very clean and well maintained". A records review at that
time showed no inconsistencies. As stated above, all toxicity tests conducted since 2004 have
been passed.
AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT
The facility obtained an authorization to construct on September 11, 2006. This authorized a
new mechanical bar screen; a new septic tank hauler station; and new clarifier effluent trough
cover plates.
PERMITTING STRATEGY:
Waste Load Allocation (WLA)
The Division prepared the last WLA in 1991. The previous and current effluent limits are based
on guidelines and water quality standards. The Division has judged previous parameters and

Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
During the last permit cycle, the Division conducted EPA -recommended analyses to determine
the reasonable potential for toxicants to be discharged by this facility and deleted the
requirement for lead monitoring. During this present permit review, analysis of mercury from
three testing results (required from a special condition on the last permit), and from the three
PPA's (six total tests), showed that no reasonable potential to exceed WQ standards was
present. (See RPA analysis).
It was noted that Zinc sampling in the PPA's exceeded the action level of 50 mg/L three out of
four times (56, 54, 72, and 26). However, since there have been no exceedances of toxicity
tests, and zinc is an action level parameter, no limits would be implemented in any case.
Nutrient Limits
History and Status of Nutrient Management Strategy for Point Sources.
On September 12, 1989, the Environmental Managements Commission classified the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). On February 13, 1992, the
Commission approved a revised NSW Implementation Strategy that established the framework
for a nutrient reduction trading program between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The
Strategy also established certain conditions to be met by an association of dischargers known
as the Tar -Pamlico Basin Association (the Association). Those conditions are defined in the
Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters Implementation Strategy (the "Agreement").
The Association agreed to meet specific conditions in order to have the opportunity both to
pursue alternative approaches to managing its nutrient discharges and to reduce nutrient
loading in the most cost-effective manner, including the option to fund agricultural best
management practices (BMPs). These conditions included the development of an estuarine
hydrodynamic computer model, engineering evaluations of wastewater treatment plants, annual
monitoring reports on nutrient loading, and minimum payments for the administration and
implementation of agricultural BMPs. The Association met all conditions established in Phase I.
The Phase I Agreement set collective, technology -based discharge loading limits for the
Association in the form of an annually decreasing, combined nitrogen and phosphorus cap.
During the 1990 to 1991 period, low cost operational changes were implemented at several
facilities to reduce nitrogen loadings. The engineering evaluation of member facilities and
implementation of the study's recommended nutrient removal improvements also yielded
significant loading reductions. These changes, combined with installation of nutrient removal at
several of the larger facilities, allowed the Association to reduce its nutrient loads and stay
beneath its caps throughout Phase I.
The Phase II Agreement spanned ten years from January 1995 through December 2004.
Modeling of the Pamlico River estuary during Phase I provided a foundation for water quality -
based loading goals for Phase II. Based on the estuary modeling, Phase II established overall
performance goals for the nutrient strategy of 30 percent reduction in nitrogen loading from a
baseline year of 1991 and no increase in loading of phosphorus from that baseline. Based on
these goals, it also established nitrogen and phosphorus discharge loading caps for the
Association. These caps also accounted for the load reductions achieved through operational
changes implemented during the 1990/1991 period. The Association stayed beneath both caps
throughout Phase II, steadily reducing its loading of both nutrients despite steady increases in
flow. Overall, from 1990 through 2003, the Association decreased nitrogen loads to the river by
approximately 45% and phosphorus loads by over 60%, while flows increased approximately
30%. The attached table summarizes caps and loads through 2008. The success of this
collective cap approach may be attributed in part to the element of time it provided for individual
facilities to implement nutrient removal as it became most cost-effective for them.
Phase II also established requirements for non -Association point source dischargers and called
for rulemaking to fully enact those requirements. That rulemaking became effective in April
town of Louisburg. NC0O2023 1, Fuel Shed
NPDES Pcrnut k nc�:cil

1997. It required new and expanding dischargers over certain sizes to meet effluent
concentration limits and to fully offset new or increased Toads using the same offset approach
developed for the Association. During Phase II, there were no new dischargers to the basin,
and no existing dischargers became subject to the rule's requirements.
Phase II also established instream nutrient goals for nonpoint sources and called for a separate
nonpoint source (NPS) strategy. These were used to establish a nutrient TMDL, which was
approved by the USEPA on August 10, 1995.
The NPS strategy was put into effect in January 1996 as a voluntary effort that would work from
existing programs, seeking additional funds and developing accounting tools. After two years of
voluntary implementation, the EMC found progress insufficient and initiated nonpoint source
rulemaking. Rules were fashioned after those recently adopted in the adjacent Neuse River
basin. They addressed riparian buffer protection, agriculture, urban stormwater, and fertilizer
management. The rules became effective during 2000 and 2001 and are currently in various
stages of implementation.
Phase III of this Agreement was approved by the EMC on April 14, 2005. It spans an additional
ten years through December 31, 2014. This third phase continues the structure established in
Phase II including overall performance goals for the nutrient strategy of 30 percent reduction in
nitrogen loading from a baseline year of 1991 and no increase in loading of phosphorus from
that baseline. The Phase III Agreement updated Association membership and related nutrient
caps. It proposed action in the first two years to improve the offset rate, resolve related
temporal issues, and revisit alternative offset options. The parties to the Agreement met several
times during the first four years of the Agreement to work on addressing these action items and
came to agreement on issues related to banked credit and credit life.
In 2006 DWQ contracted the NCSU Water Quality Group to estimate the cost-effectiveness of
agricultural BMPs to use for updating the nitrogen offset rate in the Agreement and to establish
a phosphorus offset rate. As a result of the study, the parties to the Agreement indentified
actions to be taken by the conclusion of Phase III and addressed in the Phase IV Agreement:
1. Evaluate whether the Agricultural Cost Share Program continues to provide the most
efficient vehicle to implement the pollution credits trading program. This evaluation
should consider the effect of delays in BMP implementation relative to nutrient cap
exceedance and how such delays may impact the allowable point source nutrient
budget.
2. Evaluate the trading offset credit cost calculation method to ensure the offset rate
reflects all actual costs incurred in program development and implementation and
reflects the costs of the type of agricultural BMPs implemented through this program.
3. Conduct a water quality trend analysis, including evaluation of TN losses occurring
during transport to the estuary. This analysis will inform the parties regarding the need
for changes in acceptable loads and the relative impacts of point and non -point
contributions.
1\ktt,,; i,oui hurg. NC002023I, F.lctShcct
PI) :S permit Rcli:".\'ai

Nutrient Limits.
Point source dischargers in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin are subject to the terms and conditions
of the Agreement and to the nutrient TMDL developed for the Basin. The Agreement provided a
cost-effective alternative to uniform technology -based nutrient concentration limits. It later
added elements of the TMDL, including estuary loading goals and point and nonpoint source
allocations.
As of December 2009, the Association consists of fifteen members. The member facilities are
listed in the following table, and their locations are shown on the attached map.
Membership of Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Permit
Owner
Facility
NC0030317
City of Rocky Mount
Tar River Regional WWTP
NC0023931
Greenville Utilities Commission
GUC WWTP
NC0020605
Town of Tarboro
Tarboro WWTP
NC0025054
City of Oxford
Oxford WWTP
NC0020648
City of Washington
Washington WWTP
NC0069311
Franklin County
Franklin County WWTP
NC0020834
Town of Warrenton
Warrenton WWTP
NC0026042
Town of Robersonville
Robersonville WWTP
NC0020231
Town of Louisburg
Louisburg WWTP
NC0026492
Town of Belhaven
Belhaven WWTP
NC0025402
Town of Enfield
Enfield WWTP
NC0023337
Town of Scotland
Neck Scotland Neck WWTP
NC0020061
Town of Spring Hope
Spring Hope WWTP
NC0020435
Town of Pinetops
Pinetops WWTP
NC0042269
Town of Bunn
Bunn WWTP
The nitrogen and phosphorus caps for the Association are defined in the Phase III Agreement
as follows:
Phase III Nutrient Caps — Tar -Pamlico Basin Association'
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
(Ib/yr)
(kg/yr)
(Ib/yr)
(kg/yr)
891,272
404,274
161,070
73,060
1 Includes allowed adjustment to the 1991 baseline
The Agreement further provides that the Association may accrue and bank nitrogen credits by
funding nonpoint source nutrient reduction measures (e.g., agricultural BMPs) and that it may
purchase credits or apply banked credits in anticipation of future cap exceedances. The current
Agreement specifies that the Association holds offset credits in the following amounts:
Town oil M:00202.31. Fact Sheet
Nl'I)I,S I';`rniii Renewal

Nitrogen Offset Credits — Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Nitrogen Credits
Timeframe
(lb)
(kg)
Phase I
10,138
4,608
Phase II
30,276
13,762
Phase III
10,564
4,802
The Association has consistently and reliably kept its nutrient loadings beneath the caps without
relying on banked credits. By calendar year 2008, the group had reduced its loads to 63% of its
nitrogen cap and 60% of the phosphorus cap.
Since the Tar -Pamlico strategy's inception, the EPA has praised the strategy for its innovative
and integrative approach to nutrient management and has touted it repeatedly as a model for
others to use. However, guidance released by the EPA's Office of Water Management in 2007
re -iterates that federal NPDES regulations (40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)) and Section 301(b)(1)(C) of
the federal Clean Water Act require that NPDES permits include any applicable limitations
established in or based upon an approved TMDL. The Tar -Pamlico permits have not included
nutrient limits, because the Agreement specified the Association's caps and, until recently, the
EPA Region 4 office had accepted that approach. In light of the 2007 guidance, Region 4 has
modified its position on the matter and is requiring that the members' permits include the group
nutrient limits at this time and individual limits in 2014.
Therefore, the Division proposes at this time to include the Phase III nutrient caps as
enforceable permit limits in the members' individual permits. These limits, like the caps, apply to
the aggregate discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus by the Association members as a group.
In order to establish individual nutrient limits by 2014, the Division must conduct additional
technical studies (e.g., determine delivery rates for each discharger, develop individual N and P
allocations) and work with the Association to complete major revisions to the Tar -Pamlico
strategy and the Agreement. It is also likely that the Division must adopt rules to provide for the
operation of the Association under a group NPDES permit.
Annual Nutrient Loads And Caps, Tar -Pamlico Basin Association
Phase I
Combined
19911
19921
19931
19941
N+P
Loading Cap a
N (kg/yr)
525,00
500,00
475,000
425,000
0
0
Actual Load
N (kg/yr)
461,39
436,12
417,217
371,200
4
8
% of Cap
N
88
87
88
87
Average Daily
Flow (MGD)
24.88
26.86
28.46
26.65
'FOvv n of Louisbur . NCUO_'.U"'., I. Fact Shcci
\i'f)1=S Permit Renewal

i
Phase II
Se • arate
19952
19962
19972
19982
19992
20002
20013
20024
20034
20044
20055
2006
2007
2008
N.P
Loading
Cap a
405,256
405,256
405,256
405,256
405,256
405,256
421,972
426,782
426,782
426,782
404,274
404,274
404,274
404,274
N (kg/yr)
69,744
69,744
69,744
69,744
69,744
69,744
73,060
73,694
73,694
73,694
73,060
73,060
73,060
73,060
P (kg/yr)
Actual
Load
372,582
354,219
320,670
344,781
309,476
297,988
279,958
279,330
309,724
256,791*
242,020
232,568
246,465
253,818
N (kg/yr)
37,360
43,266
36,532
36,864
32,052
30,277
32,730
34,076
30,856
33,566*
39,267
46,995
50,077
43,821
P (kg/yr)
of
Cap
92
87
79
85
76
74
66
65
72
60*
60
58
61
63
N
P
54
62
52
53
46
43
45
46
42
45*
54
64
69
60
Average
Daily
Flow
31.03
33.57
29.84
33.31
33.39
32.74
30.21
30.54
36.86
29.56
29.21
32.85
27.05
27.39
(MGD)
Loads were estimated by NC Division of Water Quality as the sum of calendar -year monthly load values for each facility. which are based on
minimum biweekly nutrient concentrations and daily mass flows.
a Cap values and changes result from the following:
1. Phase I - Original 12-member Association.
2. Phase II through 2000 - 14-member Association.
3. Robersonville added in 2001, making a 15-member Association.
4. Scotland Neck added in 2002, making a 16-member Association.
5. National Spinning Removed in 2005, making a 15 member Association in Phase III

CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS PERMIT:
• Added to footnote #6 stating that "As a member of the Tar Pamlico Basin Association
Monitoring Coalition, instream monitoring requirements are hereby waived. Should your
membership be terminated, you must notify DWQ immediately and the above instream
monitoring requirements will be reinstated."
• Included cascade aeration, sludge system polymer feed, and the new mechanical bar
screen in the plant description.
• Added special condition for nutrient reduction, as a member of the Tar -Pamlico
Association
CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT PERMIT:
The only significant change from the draft permit concerns revised special condition A. (3) for
nutrient reduction (see above). This change has been made in the permit renewals for each
member of the Tar -Pamlico Association. It includes the Phase III nutrient caps as enforceable
permit limits in each members' individual permit. These limits, like the caps, apply to the
aggregate discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus by the Association members as a group.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: August 1, 2009
Permit Scheduled to Issue: February 17, 2010
(Note that permit was delayed by negotiations on nutrient conditions between the US
EPA and the Tar -Pamlico Association.)
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Gil Vinzani at [phone].
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS: SEE ATTACHED
Town 011 A Jisburg. NC002.023 I, Fact !-;hcot
NPDES Permit Renewal

AwA
..,,j0
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 29, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To:
Michael Douglas
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Raleigh Regional Office
From: Gil Vinzani
NPDES -East Program
Subject: Review of renewal draft NPDES Permit NC0020231
Town of Louisburg WWTP
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this form by August 19, 2009.
If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact me at telephone number [phone] or via e-mail at
gil.vinzani®ncmail. net.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained properly, the stated
effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not contravene the designated water
quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: http:!! h2o.enr.state.nc.us /
An Equal Opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

.3 ED ST,4).
24' AIM 'u
g \\ r// w
a
02
rq! PROO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
AUG 2 4 2009
Mr. Jeff Poupart, Supervisor
NPDES Unit
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RECEIVED
AUG 2 6 2009
DENR • WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Dear Mr. Poupart:
This letter is to notify you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will need
additional time to complete review of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for the Town of Louisburg (Permit No. NC0020231). This draft permit was
received by our office on August 3, 2009. In accordance with the North Carolina/EPA
Memorandum of Agreement and provided by 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 123.44(a), EPA
may use up to the full 90-day review period from the date of receipt to review this draft NPDES
permit. EPA Region 4 will make every effort to provide any comments or objections before
November 2, 2009, when the 90-day review period ends.
If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff contact Mr. Marshall Hyatt at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Christopher B. Thomas, Chief
Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division
cc: Honorable Karl Pennell, Mayor, Town of Louisburg
Internet Address (UAL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable On Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer)

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NORTH CAROLINA.
Wake County. ) Ss.
Public Notice
North Carolina
Environmental Mth owes ie. d
Commission/ NPDES Unit
1617 Mali Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Notice of Intent
to Issue a NPDES
Wastewater Permit
The North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Com-
NPDESPwas�tewater issue
charge permit to the per
soots) listed below.
Written comments regarding
the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after
the publish date of thls notice.
i-
sion of WWater of Quality.(DWQ)
may hold a public. hearing
should there be a sipitificant
degree Of public mtt�brest.
Please • moll comments
and/or information requests
to DWQ at the above address:
Interested the-DWQ at 512 N Salisbuisit
ry
Street Raleigh, NC to review
information on file. Addition-
al information on NPDES
permits and this notice may
be found. on our website:
www.ning er191ll or
by Town of Tarboro, NPDES
permit NC0020605. has ap-
plied forrenewal of its permit
discharging treated waste-
water to the Tar River In the
Tor Pamlico River Basin.
This discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations 10 the receiv-
ing stream. -
Franklin County Public Utili-
ties, NPDES Permit No
N00069311 has applied for re-
newalino of
ttedar Creekrmit s discharg-
ing
Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
This discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations to the receiv-
ing stream..
The Town of Louisburg has
NPDES PermiteNC0020231
for- its WWTP in Franklin
County. This permitted facili-
ty
waste-
water the Tor River in the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin.
This discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations in this por-
tion of the watershed.
N&0: August 1, 2009
The above is correctly copied
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of Chatham
County North Carolina, duly commissioned and authorized to
administer oaths, affirmations, etc., personally appeared Debra
Peebles, who, being duly swom or affirmed, according to law,
doth depose and say that she is Accounts Receivable Specialist
of The News and Observer a corporation organized and doing
business under the Laws of the State of North Carolina, and
publishing a newspaper known as The News and Observer, in
the City of Raleigh , Wake County and State aforesaid,
the said newspaper in which such notice, paper, document, or
legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and
every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the
requirements and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and was a qualified
newspaper within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the General
Statutes of North Carolina, and that as such she makes this
affidavit; that she is familiar with the books, files and business
of said corporation and by reference to the files of said
publication the attached advertisement for NC DIVISION OF
WATER QUALITY was inserted in the aforesaid newspaper
on dates as follows: 08/01/09
Account Number: 73350833
•
zl `c;t:
from the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation and publi �n. c,
-)4••
t
s
Debra Peebles, Accounts Receivable Specialist
Wake County, North Carolina
Sworn or affirmed to, and subscribed before me, this
03 day of AUGUST , 2009 AD ,by Debra Peebles.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official seal, the day and year aforesaid.
Janet Scroggs, Notary Public
My commission expires 14th of March 2014.

AtrA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 12, 2009
To: Ron Berry RECEIVED
From: Dave Parnell
Subject: Louisburg Wastewater Treatment Plant JUL 2 3 2009
NPDES Permit: NC0020231
Permittee Contact: Mayor Karl Pernell, Town of Lo , WATER QUALITY
110 W. Nash Street
Louisburg, NC 27549 POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Ron:
I have reviewed the file and spoken with Vick Webb, who recently (11.18.08) inspected the
above referenced facility. Please be advised of the following comments to the permittee,
based on findings during the inspection:
1. The 1.37 MGD wastewater treatment plant consists of the following components:
mechanical barscreen, aerated grit/grease removal, anaerobic selector, dual oxidation
ditches (BioDeNioPho Process), dual secondary clarifiers, three cell tertiary filter,
ultraviolet disinfection, sludge thickener, aerobic digester, and ultrasonic flow meter.
Update the plant description for the permit to include the cascade aeration.
2. Update the Raleigh Regional Office on the status of the installation of proposed new
equipment, consisting of: mechanical barscreen, septic tank hauler receiving station,
spare digester ejector pump, portable self priming pump, influent and effluent
refrigerated samplers, sludge thickener pumps, clarifier effluent trough cover plates, as
well as replacing the mixers in the oxidation ditch
Please be advised of these comments from the Raleigh Regional Office during future permit
review processes.
Signature Report Preparer �� P.te ? /z c
Signature of Regional Superviso Date
Cc: RRO files
O
NorthCarolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

IWC Calculations
Facility:
NC0020231
Prepared By:
Gil Vinzani
Enter Design Flow (MGD):
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):
1.37
14
14
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (UG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (ug/I)
Fecal Coliform
Monthly Average Limit:
(If DF >331; Monitor)
(If DF<331; Limit)
Dilution Factor (DF)
14
1.37
2.1235
17.0
0
13.17
129
Ammonia (Summer)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
s7Q10 (CFS)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/I)
w7Q10 (CFS)
200/100m1 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)
STREAM STD (MG/L)
7.59 Upstream Bkgd (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Conc. (mg/I)
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/I to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/I, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals); capped at 35 mg/I
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis); capped at 35 mg/I
4. BAT for Minor Domestics: 2 mg/I (summer) and 4 mg/I (winter)
5. BAT for Major Municipals: 1 mg/I (year-round)
14
1.37
2.1235
1.0
0.22
13.17
6.1
14
1.37
2.1235
1.8
0.22
13.17
12.2
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit: (Non -Muni)
NPDES Server/Current Versions/WLA; TB 1/16/2009

Vinzani, Gil
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:07 PM
To: Vinzani, Gil
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: re: NPDES permit questions
Gil,
Had a few questions on the attached NPDES permits that I thought you could clarify.
On the Louisburg Permit, I was curious why TKN monitoring requirements were added. Was this the result of a request by
someone in DWQ? Has there been water quality indicators popping up that would require this parameter to be added?
On Franklin County's permit, why was TRC permit limit (daily max) removed--- have they stopped using chlorine as their
disinfectant? Also, why was the conductivity effluent monitoring requirement removed?
On Tarboro's permit: why was the total silver effluent monitoring requirement removed?
That's all the questions I have for now. Appreciate the help.
Heather Jacobs Deck
Pamlico -Tar Riverkeeper
Pamlico -Tar River Foundation
Phone: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.ptrf.orq
Waterkeeper Alliance Member
From: Vinzani, Gil [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:45 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject:
Heather:
Attached are the draft permits you requested. Please let me know if you need anything else. Karen is sending
C&J seperately.
Gil
Gil Vinzani, Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
919-807-6395
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the NC Public Records Act
1

Taws
110 W. Nash St.
Louisburg, N.C. 27549
[phone]
[phone] Fax
March 25,
Mrs. Dina Sprinkle
Point Source Branch
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1617
Re: NPDES Renewal Application
Water Reclamation Facility
Town on Louisburg, North Carolina
NC 0020231
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
State ol /Pm/A ea4olima
4' D'. .; / T f. .y i
QeN � �� - ���-- r,
' ,. - ? 2 Of AUUTY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Please find herewith three (3) copies of the NPDES Renewal Application Form 2A for the Town
of Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility. The Town's current NPDES Permit is scheduled to
expire on September 30, 2009. At your earliest convenience, please review these documents for
approval.
The application contains the results of three (3) sets of the fathead minnow toxicity tests. The
remaining sampling test was delayed due to the testing laboratory having problems with their
dilution water. The results of the test will be forwarded to you upon receipt.
If there are any questions or if additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact
Mr. Jimmy Ellington, Superintendent, Water Reclamation Facilities, Town of Louisburg at
(919) 49-2677 or Mr. Steve Scruggs, P.E., Earth Tech. at [phone].
Sincerely,
TOWN OF LOUISBURG
Karl Pernell, Mayor
Enclosures:
cc: Steve Scruggs, P.E., Earth Tech

NPDES RENEWAL APPLICATION
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES
TOWN OF LOUISBURG
NC 0020231
March 2009
EARTH TECH
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
ET Project No. 110881
RECEIVED
TER QUALITY
RCE BRANCH

TREATMENT NARRATIVE
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
TOWN OF LOUISBURG
NPDES No. 0020231
The Town of Louisburg's 1.3755 MGD wastewater treatment plant biologically
removes total nitrogen and phosphorous by way of the Bio-Denipho process. The
treatment process includes pretreatment, biological secondary treatment, tertiary
filtration, disinfection, cascade aeration, aerobic sludge digestion and sludge
holding. Provided below is a brief description of the treatment facilities.
1. Influent Pumps:
The three (3) non -clog influent pumps exist at the main lift station and are
equipped with variable frequency drives. The pumps were sized to meet
the maximum flow rate with one (1) unit out of service and designed to
provide a continuous flow to the treatment processes. Two (2) pumps
have a flow range of 1,000 to 2,000 gpm at a maximum head of 85 feet
and have 50-horsepower motors. The third pump has a flow range of
500 to 1,000 gpm at a maximum head of 60 feet and has a 25-horsepower
motor. The influent pumps pump to the bar screen units.
2. Bar Screen:
The bar screen facilities consist of two channels with each containing a
manually cleaned bar rack. Construction is underway to install a new
mechanically cleaned bar screen in one of the channels. The new
mechanical screen will have a bar spacing of 3/8-inches, an average flow
capacity of 1.375 MGD and a peak flow of 3.0 MGD. This mechanical
screen will automatically discharge the screenings onto an existing screw
conveyor, which discharges into a dumpster. The new mechanical screen
should be installed and operational by September 2009. The screenings
are disposed of at the County Landfill.
3. Aerated Grit and Grease Removal:
An aerated grit and grease removal basin is located downstream of the bar
screen. The raw sewage contains grease that needs to be removed in order
for proper operation of the ultraviolet disinfection system and to meet the
speculative effluent limit of 30 mg/I. Grit washing was provided to
remove organics, and the washed grit will be discharged into a dumpster
or suitable container by way of a conveyor. A traveling skimmer is used
to remove the grease and dump it into a covered hopper. A bypass pipe
around the unit was installed. The basin was designed for an average flow
of 1.5 MGD and a peak flow of 3.0 MGD.
NPDES Application Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility Page-1 of 5
E.T. Project No. 110881 March 2009

4. Bio-Denipho Process:
From the primary treatment processes, the wastewater flows to an
anaerobic tank, which is divided into three (3) chambers in series. For
mixing the returned sludge with the incoming sewage and in order to
avoid settling of sludge, each chamber is furnished with a mixer. In the
anaerobic tank, the phosphorous accumulating bacteria are prepared for
phosphorous accumulation under aerobic conditions in the oxidation
ditches. After the anaerobic tank, the wastewater flows to the distribution
chamber and further to the oxidation ditches in an alternating mode of
operation. The ditches operate in accordance with the principles of the
Bio-Denipho process with a very high degree of nitrogen, phosphorous,
and BOD removal. The process consists of two (2) ditches built together
as one (1) unit, so that the water is allowed to flow freely between them.
Mixers ensure that the wastewater is fully mixed, even when the rotors are
stopped. From the oxidation ditches, the water is led to the clarifier(s).
Return activated sludge (RAS) is pumped from the center of the
clarifier(s) back to the distribution chamber. The waste activated sludge
(WAS) is pumped to proposed aerobic sludge digester for further
treatment.
Construction is presently under way to replace the four existing mixers in
the oxidation ditches with new mixers. The old mixers have had major
seal problems. The new mixers will have three blades, each 29.5-inch in
diameter and constructed of polyurethane. The submersible motors will
be 15.4 hp. The new mixers should be installed and operational by
September 2009.
5. Return and Waste Sludge Pumps:
A return sludge pump station is used to recycle the sludge to the anaerobic
basin at the head of the oxidation ditches. Two (2) pumps were installed
in one common pump station. One pump is rated at 300 to 800 gpm and
has a 15 hp motor. The second pump is rated at 1,200 to 1,600 gpm and
has a 50 hp motor.
A 7.5-hp pump rated at 300 gpm is used to waste sludge to the aerobic
digester.
NPDES Application Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility Page-2 of 5
E.T. Project No. 110881 March 2009

6. Clarifiers:
The floc formed in the denitrification process is settled out in two (2)
65' diameter clarifiers. Each clarifier has a 14' side water depth.
Construction is presently underway to add covers over the effluent channel
of each clarifier. The covers will consist of a series of aluminum plates
hinged to the clarifier walls. Each cover will be approximately 4-feet
square and will have a support angles that will rest on the concrete effluent
weir. Installation of the covers should be completed by September 2009.
7. Chemical Storage and Feeding Equipment:
For a backup phosphorous removal system, the effluent would be treated
with alum just prior to the deep bed tertiary filters. Dual chemical feed
pumps are provided to feed liquid alum when necessary. The chemical
pumps and alum storage drums are housed in the caustic feed pump
building. This equipment would be used in case of a plant upset and to
date has been used.
For pH control, caustic soda could be used. A 2,000-gallon tank with
concrete containment exists for storage of the chemical.
A 10' x 12' prefabricated building houses the feed pumps.
8. Tertiary Filters:
Deep bed tertiary filters are used to remove BOD containing suspended
solids and to remove phosphorous and total nitrogen when necessary. If
and when alum is added to the sewage containing phosphate, a metal
phosphate would be formed. This metal phosphate would have poor
settling characteristics, but can be readily removed by filtration.
The filters have a total filter area of 300 SF and have a filtration rate of
3.47 gpm/SF. The filters are of the continuous cleaning/backwashing type
requiring only an air compressor and consist of three (3) separate cells.
Each cell is separated by a concrete wall that allows for one (1) cell to be
out of service and drained for maintenance or rcpair while the other
two (2) cells remain in service. With one (1) cell out of service, the
filtration rate would be 5.21 gpm/SF.
9. Disinfection:
The effluent leaving the plant is disinfected by way of a ultraviolet (UV)
system. The UV system consists of UV lamps being placed in a concrete
channel through which the plant effluent passes. The system is flow paced
NPDES Application Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility Page-3 of 5
E.T. Project No. 110881 March 2009

to achieve energy efficiency and Ionger lamp life. A UV transmission of
65 percent was used for sizing the system. Grease in the wastewater will
be the major cause of frequent cleaning of the UV lamps; however, most
of the grease is removed upstream by the aerated grit and grease basin and
the tertiary filters.
10. Post Aeration:
The plant effluent must have a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration
of 5 mg/1 when it enters into the Tar River. Cascade aeration is used and
has no moving parts or operating cost. The cascade aerator is 5'-0" wide,
has seven steps with a total elevation drop of 7'-9". Each step has a tread
width of 18" and a riser height of 12" An 18-inch ductile iron effluent
pipe is provided at the bottom of the aerator.
11. Metering and Sampling:
The influent is sampled by using a refrigerated composite sampler located
at /he head of the bar screens. Construction is under way to replace the
existing sampler with a new refrigerated composite sampler. The new
sampler should be installed by September 2009.
The effluent from the wastewater plant is metered using a Parshall flume
having a throat width of 9 inches. With this throat, the flume will be able
to meter a flow as low as 40 gpm and as high as 5.75 MGD.
The effluent is sampled by using a refrigerated composite sampler located
at the head of the cascade aeration basin. Construction is under way to
replace the existing sampler with a new refrigerated composite sampler.
The new sampler should be installed by September 2009.
12. Sludge Digester:
An aerobic sludge digester having a capacity of 656,000-gallons is used to
treat the wasted sludge from the treatment process. One (1)
25-horsepower submersible mixers in conjunction with three (3)
30.2-horsepower submersible aerators are used to treat the sludge.
13. Sludge Holding Tank:
The stabilized sludge that is produced in the digester is disposed of by
land application. The digested sludge is stored in a concrete tank having a
volume of 656,000-gallons. One (1) 30-horsepower floating mixers in
conjunction with three (3) 15-horsepower submersible aerators are used
periodically to keep the sludge mixed and aerobic. The sludge holding
NPDES Application Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility Page-4 of 5
E.T. Project No. 110881 March 2009

tank and operate as the digester when maintenance is required of on the
digester.
14. Sludge Dewatering System:
Polymer is added to the sludge holding tank in order to thicken the sludge
before it is hauled away. Polymer is added to a mixing tank and then feed
into the holding tank. The existing mixer mixes the polymer and sludge
together. The mixture is allowed to settle before it is pumped into the
tanker truck. The sludge is thickened to approximately 3% before it is
hauled and land applied.
15. Stand-by Generator:
A 310 kilowatt stand-by generator exists along with a 1,600 Amp
automatic transfer switch. The generator can run the influent pumps and
other selected pieces of equipment through out the plant.
16. Septage Receiving Station:
Construction is underway to install a septage receiving station for septic
tank haulers. The receiving station will be located at the plant influent wet
well on a concrete pad. The station will have a hydraulic capacity of 400
gpm, a bar spacing of 1/4-inch, a flow meter, a keypad security access
system, and an invoicing system. The screened effluent will be discharged
into the influent wet well. The screenings will be washed, compacted and
discharged into a dumpster. The screenings will be disposed of at the
County Landfill. The new septage receiving station should be installed
and operational by September 2009.
NPDES Application Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility Page-5 of 5
E.T. Project No. 110881 March 2009

INFLOW AND INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
TOWN OF LOUISBURG
NPDES Permit No. 0020231
March 2009
MONTH
WATER SOLD
(gpd)
ESTIMATED
WATER TO
WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
(85% Water Sold)
(9pd)
WASTEWATER
TREATED
(gpd)
ESTIMATED
INFLOW AND
INFILTRATION
(gpd)
PERCENT Ill
(%)
January 2008
0.293
0.249
0.524
0.275
52.4
February
0.340
0.289
0.547
0.258
47.1
March
0.292
0.248
0.583
0.335
57.4
April,
0.308
0.262
0.612
0.350
57.2
May
0.317
0.270
0.608
0.338
55.6
June
0.347
0.295
0.720
0.425
59.0
July
0.353
0.300
0.604
0.304
50.4
August
0.389
0.331
0.602
0.271
45.1
September
0.429
0.364
0.740
0.376
50.8
October
0.334
0.284
0.538
0.254
47.3
November
0.348
0.296
0.561
0.265
47.2
December
0.275
0.234
0.588
0.354
60.2
Averages
0.335
0.285
0.602
0.317
52.475
NPDES Application Louisburg's Wastewater Treatment Plant
Page-1 of 1
Earth Tech Project No. 110881
March 2009

SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
TOWN OF LOUISBURG
NPDES No. 0020231
Residuals that are generated by the Town of Louisburg's Water Reclamation Facility can
be disposed of by way of three different methods. Sludge from the treatment plant is
wasted two to three times a year. Approximately 2 miIlion gallons of 3% sludge is
hauled and disposed of per year. Primarily, the sludge is surfaced applied on land
permitted by the Town and on land permitted by Granville Farms. In emergency
situations, the Town has used composting facilities owned and operated by McGill
Environmental Systems.
The first method of residual disposal is land application on approximately 70 acres of
land in Franklin County. The land is owned by Carmen Parkhurst, who allows the Town
to permit and land apply the sludge. This land application activity is permitted under
Permit No. WQ0005981, which is effective until January 31, 2014. There are six fields
on the property, on which residuals are applied. The permit allows a maximum of 180
dry tons per year to be land applied at the application site. The Town contacts with
Granville Farms to haul and apply liquid sludge on the permitted fields. Sludge is
thickened in the sludge holding tank to approximately 3% solids. Tanker trucks are used
to transport the thickened sludge from the sludge holding tank at the wastewater plant to
the permitted land. A TerraGator is used to surface apply the sludge. Fescue is grown on
the fields.
The second method of residual disposal is also land application, but on land permitted by
Granville Farms, Inc.. The Town utilizes Granville Farms in conjunction with the
Town's permitted land on most every hauling event. The Town contacts with Granville
Farms to haul and dispose of the sludge. Granville Farms uses tanker trucks to transport
the thickened sludge from the sludge holding tank to permitted land owned and operated
by Granville Farms.
The third method of residual disposal is utilized only in emergency situations when wet
weather prevents land application. The Town has in the past used a composing company,
McGill Environmental Systems, for disposal of some sludge. McGill owns and operates
a composting facility that reportedly produces a Class A product. Atlantic Dewatering
Company furnishes large roll -off container boxes into which the Town pumps sludge.
The sludge is allowed to settle and supernatant is removed. The residuals are dewatered
on site by this method to approximately 14% solids. McGill retrieves the container
boxes, takes them to their site and utilizes the sludge in their composting process. The
Town has used this disposal method only once in the past two years.

DELORME
Topo USA® 6.0
a
Scale 1:19,200
II II
400 800 1200 1600
1" = 1,600.0 ft
Data Zoom 13-6
4 OPO'�MAP;�; 1. M I LE DIUS.
!WATER W6&$tIT
r— TOWN-'OFLOUISBURG
��r
Data use subject to license.
@ 2006 DeLorme. Topo USA® 6.0.
www,delorme.com

FACT SHEET —TAR PAM RIVER BASIN
REVIEW FOR EXPEDITED PERMIT RENEWALS
(Instructions for Permit Writer)
Basic Information to Determine Potential for Expedited Permit Renewal
Reviewer(s) / Date:
=V -\\es. Gt 1 6 / - 3 0 - 0 5
`'heck If
Correct
Permit Number:
NC002023 1
V
Facility Name:
Louisburg WWTP
Sub -basin number:
03-03-01
Receiving Stream:
TAR RIVER
Permit Stream Classification: WS-V, NSW
Public WWTP
Private WWTP
WTP
Industrial
Other
* If WTP, add permitted flow limit(MGD): CONY GREEN SAND RO
IE
Pretreatment? YES NO
WITS then contact PERCS for data RPA)
TRC limit/footnote? YES/ADD** NO
(If in permit edit FOOTNOTE see TRC
FOOTNOTE text)
WET testing/footnote? YES/ADD** NO
(If in permit edit SPECIAL CONDITION see
WET language text, check FOOTNOTE)
NH3imit? YES/ADD** NO
3
(If in permit check, edit LIMIT for applicable LIMITS
categories, monthly/weekly or weekly/ daily)
** IWC evaluation needed? YES NO
IWC calculation in file? YES NO
***Association member? YES NO
(Check edit SPECIAL CONDITION and FOOTNOTE
as warranted)
***Instream monitoring? YES NO
(Check, edit FOOTNOTE where warranted)
Permit Special Conditions? YES/ADD NO
(Iffacility has BACKUP CHLORINATION see
SPECIAL CONDITION and FOOTNOTE text)
303(d) listed? YES NO
Watch Listed? YES NO
Permit MODs since last renewal? YES NO
Compliance issues? YES NO
Existing expiration date: 9/30/2009
Next cycle expiration date: 9/30/2014
Miscellaneous Comments
p*�1 pP Permitting Strategy, WET may be required
* * IWC requires 7Q10 flow data, check with Basin Coordinator for best source
*** Members now in Phase III, members have wavier on instream monitoring
Select Expedited Catergory That Applies To This Permit Renewal
SIMPLE EXPEDITED - administrative renewal with no changes, or only minor
❑ changes such as TRC or ownership change. Includes conventional WTPs (does not
include permits with Special Conditions, Reverse Osmosis, or Ion -exchange WTPs).
COMPLEX EXPEDITED - includes Special Conditions such as EAA, Wastewater
❑ Management Plan, 303(d) listed, toxicity testing, instream monitoring, compliance
concerns, edit NH3 limit, phased limits, stream re -class, association membership).
NOT EXPEDITED - Mark all of the following that apply:
43' Major Facility (municipal/industrial)
❑ Permitted flow > 0.500 MGD (requires full Fact Sheet)
❑ Minor Municipal with Pretreatment Program (SIUs)
❑ Minor Industrial subject to Federal Effluent guidelines
❑ Limits based on RPA (toxicants/metals, GW remediation for organics)
❑ Other
iz(
2009 Tar Pam Basin Permit Review/Shared Drive/Lumber Basin

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
OCT 1 6 2009
Mr. Jeff Poupart
Supervisor, Point Source Branch
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Poupart:
RECEIVED
OCT 2 1 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
We have completed our review of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for the Town of Louisburg (Permit No. NC0020231) and have the
following comments. Based on previous discussions and agreement with your office, to further
consistency with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) and with the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2007 national watershed permitting guidance, we
request that a group total nitrogen limit and a group total phosphorus limit consistent with the
existing 1995 total maximum daily load (TMDL) be placed in this permit. It is EPA's expectation
that individual total nitrogen and total phosphorus limits consistent with that, or any subsequently
established, TMDL will be developed and included in this facility's next NPDES permit, which
would be reissued in 2014. We request that you confirm this understanding in writing.
It is also our understanding that North Carolina is delayed in conducting an estuary use
support assessment and a nutrient loading trend evaluation for the Pamlico estuary. We request
that North Carolina provide an expected date of completion for these activities and that you share
the results with us when completed. If the results indicate that the Pamlico estuary is not meeting
all uses or that nutrient loading trends remain unchanged, we believe that a re-evaluation of the
existing nutrient TMDL is warranted.
If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff contact Mr. ivlarshali Hyatt at
[phone].
Sincere
Christopher B. Thomas, Chief
Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division
cc: Honorable Karl Pernell, Mayor
Town of Louisburg
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)