NC0020231_Speculative Limits_20140813

NPDES DOCUHENT 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:
August 13, 2014
This document is printed oa reuse paper - ignore nay
contezit on the rewerse side

AVA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Secretary
August 13, 2014
Mr. Mark Warren, Town Administrator
Town of Louisburg
110 W. Nash St.
Louisburg, NC 27549
Subject: Speculative Effluent Limits
Town of Louisburg
NPDES Permit NC0020231
Franklin County
Tar Pamlico River Basin
Dear Mr. Warren:
The Town of Louisburg is currently permitted to discharge 1.37 MGD and has requested
speculative limits for flows of 1.75 MGD, 2.0 MGD, 2.5 MGD, 3 MGD and 3.5 MGD. At this time
the Division of Water Resources is providing speculative limits for 1.75 MGD and 2.0 MGD. The
NPDES Complex Permitting Unit evaluates proposed discharges using a Level B model intended
to assess protection of the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is
modeled as a function of BOD and ammonia. The model results predicted violations of the
dissolved oxygen water quality standard when flows above 2 MGD were simulated. If in the
future the Town wants to pursue an expansion above 2.0 MGD the Division recommends the use
of a more complex water quality model that allows for simulating current conditions and allows
for calibrations. Regrettably the NPDES Complex Permitting Unit does not have the staff or
capabilities to develop such a model but can assist the Town in the process of its development.
Please recognize that speculative limits may change based on future water quality initiatives, and
it is highly recommended that the applicant verify the speculative limits with the Division's
NPDES Unit prior to any engineering design work.
Receiving Stream. The Tar River is located within the Tar Pamlico River Basin. The Tar River has
a classification of WS-V, NSW. Waters with a classification of WS-V are waters protected as water
supplies or for industries to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters formerly
used as water supply and for C uses including aquatic life propagation and maintenance of
biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The NSW additional
classification applies to waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

Mr. Mark Warren
August 13, 2014
Page 2
At the proposed discharge location the Tar River has a summer 7Q10 flow of 6.7 cfs, a winter 7Q10
flow of 30.5 cfs, and an annual average flow of 437 cfs. This section of the Tar River is not listed on
the 2014 North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List.
Based upon a review of information available from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, there are several federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species identified
within Franklin County. It is recommended that the applicant discuss the proposed project
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
to determine whether the proposed discharge might impact these species.
An additional concern affecting this section of the Tar River and a limitation when developing the
level B model is the low dissolved oxygen concentrations recorded at an ambient monitoring
station downstream of the Louisburg WWTP discharge. The station located on SR 1001
consistently reports DO values below 5 mg/1 during summer months. The level B model used by
the Division can't be calibrated to incorporate existing conditions in the river.
Speculative Effluent Limits. Based on Division review of receiving stream conditions and
water quality modeling results, speculative limits for the proposed discharge of 1.75 MGD and
2.0 MGD are presented in Table 1. A complete evaluation of these limits and monitoring
requirements for metals and other toxicants, as well as potential instream monitoring
requirements, will be addressed upon receipt of a formal NPDES permit application. In
addition, the Division is in the process of developing individual Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus limits for major dischargers on the Tar River. Your final permit will likely include
TN and TP limits according to the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Strategy.
TABLE 1. Speculative Limits for the Town of Louisburg's WWTP
Effluent Characteristic
�.... s1.75 MGD.; _.._ _
2.0 MGD
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average- .
Monthly
' ' Average` `
Weekly
Average
Flow
1.75 MGD
2.0 MGD
BOD5 (April 1 - October
31)
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
5.0 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
BOD5 (November 1-
March 31)
10.0 mg/1
15.5 mg/1
10.0 mg/1
15.5 mg/1
NH3 as N
2.5 mg/1
7.5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum)
Daily average not less than 5.0
mg/I
Daily average not less than
6.0 mg/1
TSS
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
Fecal coliform (geometric
mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA). Please note that the Division cannot guarantee that
an NPDES permit for a new or expanding discharge will be issued with these speculative
limits. Final decisions can only be made after the Division receives and evaluates a formal
permit application for the new/expanded discharge. In accordance with North Carolina

Mr. Mark Warren
August 13, 2014
Page 3
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c), the most environmentally sound alternative
should be selected from all reasonably cost effective options. Therefore, as a component of all
NPDES permit applications for new or expanding flow, a detailed engineering alternatives
analysis (EAA) must be prepared. The EAA must justify requested flows and provide an
analysis of potential wastewater treatment alternatives. A copy of the Division guidance for
preparing EAA documents is. attached.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EA/EIS Requirements.
A SEPA EA/EIS document must be prepared for all projects that: 1) need a permit; 2) use
public money or affect public lands; and 3) might have a potential to significantly impact the
environment. For new or expanding discharges, significant impact is defined as > 500,000 gpd
additional flow. The NPDES Unit will not accept an NPDES permit application for the
expanded discharge until the Division has approved the SEPA document and sent a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. A SEPA
Environmental Assessment (EA) should contain a clear justification for the proposed project. If
the SEPA EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the environment, you must then prepare a SEPA EIS (Environmental Impact
Statement). For projects that are subject to SEPA, the EAA requirements discussed above will
need to be folded into the SEPA document. The SEPA process will be delayed if all EAA
requirements are not adequately addressed. If you have any questions regarding SEPA
EA/EIS requirements, please contact Jackie Roddy with DWR Planning at [phone].
Should you have any questions about these speculative limits or NPDES permitting
requirements, please feel free to contact Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] or Tom Belnick at
[phone].
Respectfully,
6AdeiAL
Tom Belnick, Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources, NCDENR
Attachment: EAA Guidance Document
Hardcopy:
Central Files
NPDES Permit File
Electronic Copy:
DWR/Raleigh Regional Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NPDES Server>Specs

Speculative Limits Request — NC0020231
July 16, 2014
Teresa Rodriguez
The Town of Louisburg requested speculative limits in a letter dated March 11, 2014. In addition to
the requested speculative limits the Town requested to increase the permitted flow to 1.5 MGD
through the permit renewal application.
The flows to be modeled are as follows:
1.5 MGD (requested for permit renewal)
1.75 MGD
2.0 MGD
2.5 MGD
3.0 MGD
3.5 MGD
Louisburg WWTP permit limits - NC0020231
Permitted flow
1.37 MGD
CBOD
summer 8 mg/I (9.6 mg/I BOD)
winter 16 mg/I (19.2 mg/I BOD)
NH3N
summer 3 mg/I
winter 6 mg/I
DO
5 mg/I
Receiving Stream:
The Louisburg WWTP discharges to the Tar River below US 401.
Discharge location Louisburg WWTP - Tar River
Latitude
36° 5' 12"
Longitude
78° 17' 32"
Subbasin
03-03-01
Classification
WS-V, NSW
This section of the Tar River is not listed as impaired in the NC 2014 303(d) list. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program has identified the presence of Dwarf Wedgemussel, an endangered
species, within Franklin County. A survey of the area may be needed to further identify the habitat
locations for the mussels.
Flow statistics were calculated from USGS low flow yields provided by USGS to LKC Engineering in
May 2013 for two stations near the discharge point. The yields used for calculating the flow
statistics are from station 02081747 which is just upstream of the Louisburg discharge location.

USGS station 02081747 (Tar River at US401)
Drainage Area
427 mi2
s7Q10 yield (cfsm)
0.0155
w7Q10 yield (cfsm)
0.00698
30Q2 yield (cfsm)
0.0806
Mean annual runoff (cfsm)
1.0
Calculated flows at discharge location
Drainage Area mi2
s7Q10
cfs
w7Q10
cfs
30Q2
cfs
Average Flow
cfs
437
6.77
30.5
35.2
437
Other Discharges:
Franklin County has a permit (NC0069311) to discharge 3 MGD to Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek is a
tributary to the Tar River, the confluence is 8.4 miles downstream from the Louisburg discharge.
There are no gaging stations in Cedar Creek and the flow statistics have not been updated in recent
years. Using BPJ the flow statistics were recalculated by reducing old values by 40% which was the
percent reduction in flows estimated at other stations in the Tar River.
Discharge location Franklin Co WWTP — Cedar Creek
Latitude
36° 04' 12"
Longitude
78° 25' 01"
Subbasin
03-03-01
Classification
WS-V, NSW
Cedar Creek flow estimates:
Drainage Area
mil
s7Q10
cfs
w7Q10
cfs
30Q2
cfs
Average Flow
cfs
At Franklin Co
discharge
25.3
0.96
2.08
4.2
24.7
Confluence with
Tar River
65
3.28
14.8
11.8
63.7
Franklin Co WWTP Permit Limits - NC0069311
Permitted flow
3 MGD
BOD5
summer 8 mg/I
winter 18 mg/I
NH3N
summer 1 mg/I
winter 2 mg/I
DO
5 mg/I

Model setup:
Two models were developed, one for Cedar Creek and one for the Tar River. The Cedar Creek model
evaluates the discharge from the Franklin County WWTP down to the confluence with the Tar River.
The end DO, CBOD and NBOD results from the Cedar Creek model were used as input in the Tar
River model. The Cedar Creek model consisted of three reaches: reach 1 with a length of 4.1 miles
from the Franklin County discharge to the confluence with Camping Creek, reach 2 at 4.8 miles from
Camping Creek to Big Branch Creek and reach 3 at 2.0 miles from Big Branch Creek to the Tar River.
The Tar River model consisted of two reaches: reach 1 with a length of 8.41 miles from the
Louisburg discharge to the Cedar Creek confluence and reach 2 at 6.2 miles from Cedar Creek to SR
1609.
Model Results:
The following table shows the predicted concentrations for DO, CBOD and NBOD. Initial model runs
with BOD of 5 mg/I and ammonia of 1 mg/I predicted DO concentrations below the water quality
standards for flows above 2 MGD. Running the model for 2 MGD with more stringent limits of 0.5
mg/I for ammonia and 6 mg/I for DO resulted in minimum DO above 5 mg/I.
Flow
Limits
Results
1.5 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
8.7 mg/I
3 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
6.04 mg/I
6.19 mg/I
1.88 mg/I
0.65 mg/I
1.75 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
2.5 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
6.27 mg/I
5.93 mg/I
1.62 mg/I
0.65 mg/I
2.0 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
1 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
4.77 mg/I
6.36 mg/I
0.84 mg/I
0.11 mg/I
2.0 MGD with
alternative more
stringent limits
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
0.5 mg/I
6 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
5.25 mg/I
6.47 mg/I
0.84 mg/I
0.10 mg/I
2.5 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
1 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
4.55 mg/I
6.27 mg/I
0.87 mg/I
0.13 mg/I
3.0 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
1 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
4.39 mg/I
6.19 mg/I
0.94 mg/I
0.15 mg/I
3.5 MGD
BOD
NH3N
DO
5 mg/I
1 mg/I
5 mg/I
DO Minimum
End DO
End CBOD
End NBOD
4.26 mg/I
6.11 mg/I
1.0 mg/I
0.15 mg/I

Current Conditions:
The Tar -Pam monitoring coalition maintains three monitoring stations in this section of the Tar
River. Two are upstream of the Louisburg WWTP discharge and one is downstream of the
discharge.
Station ID
Location
Data period
01025000
Tar River at SR 1003 (8.6 mi upstream)
2007- 2013
01100000
Tar River at US401 (1 mi upstream)
2009 — 2013
02000000
TR RIVER AT SR 1001 (10.4 mi downstream)
1997- 2013
Dissolved oxygen and temperature are monitored at all the stations. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations below 5 mg/I were reported at the downstream station (02000000) on 15 sampling
events. The lowest reported concentration was 4 mg/I. The average summer DO concentration for
this station is 6.5 mg/I.
Station 02000000
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
12
10
`
86
/1
4
2
0
N N co Q, Q, O C-4 —4 N CO d' "4. In Vr l, N N N O CO Cr,C O O O c--1 c--i N N Cr)
6N CT, O Q, OS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,--1 c--1 ,--i i-+ r-1 c-1 ti .-I
rn rn rn rn rn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
,--4 c-I c-i 1-1 c-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N M CO N N O N. Cr) Cr) d' N.' d" %U M d' c-4 Ln N CT, c-1 r1 N O N M N c--i \O N
\ N N ,-i N I-. \ N T.-4 c-1 c1 \ N N N\\ N N N c--1 N\ N\ N c--I N\ N
d' - \\\\ In \\\\O \\- VD CO \\\\\in \O \\\O \
CI, N. in 0' N. O CO N If) c-1 CO N. d' O .0 Cr, ,.O CO N 0 Cr, Lfl v-
c--1 c--1
—WQS DO=5
—DO mg/1
Dissolved oxygen at the upstream station 0102500 was reported below 5 mg/I only in one sampling
event in 2008. All the samples for Dissolved oxygen at station 01100000 were above 5 mg/I.
Proposed Speculative limits:
According to modeling results limits can be offered for only two of the requested flows: 1.75 MGD
and 2.0 MGD. It is recommended that Louisburg conducts further modeling using more advance

models to evaluate the proposed flows. The current level B model used by the Division doesn't
have the capability to simulate current conditions or run calibrations.
Proposed Speculative Limits
1.75 MGD
2.0 MGD
BOD
5 mg/I
5 mg/I
NH3N
2.5 mg/I
0.5 mg/I
DO
5 mg/I
6 mg/I

Louisburg WWTP on Tar River
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Louisburg
Topo Quad
Louisburg
NPDES No.
NC0020231
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic
Date of flow estimate
2014
Facility status
Drainage Area (mi2)
437
Receiving stream
Tar River
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
6.7
Stream class
WS-IV, NSW
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
30.5
Subbasin
03-03-01
Average flow (cfs)
437
County
Franklin
30Q2 (cfs)
35.2
Model Segmentation
SegmentiReach
1
2
Length of reach (mi)
8.41
6.2
Incremental length
0.1
0.1
Slope ft/ mile
1.6
1.6
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfslmi)
0.2
0.2
QA (cfs/mi)
3.4
3.4
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/I)
DO (mg/I)
Tributary characteristics
Tributary name
Cedar Ck
s7Q10 (cfslmi)
3.28
QA (cfslmi)
63.7
CBOD (mgll)
4.35
NBOD (mg/I)
0.87
DO (mg/I)
7.4
Waste charact`enistics - Louisburg WWTP
Flow (MGD)
1.37
1.5
1.75
2
2
2.5'
3
3.5
BOD
9.6
8.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
BOD Multiplier
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
CBOD
14.4
13.05
7.5
10
10
10
10
10
NH3N
3
2.7
2.5
1
0.5
1
1
1
NH3N multiplier
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
NBOD
13.5
12.15
11.25
4.5
2.25
4.5
4.5
4.5
DO (mg/I)
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
Model Results LOU1137 LOUIS15 LOUIS175 LOUIS21 LOUIS2A LOU1S251 LOUIS31 LOUIS351
End DO
6.2
6.25
6.27
6.36
6.47
6.27
6.19
6.11
End CBOD
1.85
1.88
1.62
0.84
0.84
0.87
0.94
1.03
End NBOD
0.63
0.61
0.65
0.11
0.1
0.13
0.14
0.15
DO min
6.07
6.11
5.93
4.77
5.25
4.55
4.39
4.26
DO Sag (mi)
4.6
4.5
5.5
4.3
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.5

LEVEL B MODEL INFORMATION
Franklin Co WWTP on Cedar Creek
Facility Information
Flow Information
Facility Name
Franklin Co
Topo Quad
Louisburg
NPDES No.
NC0069311
USGS sta. #
Type of wastewater
Domestic/industrial
Date of flow estimate
2014
Facility status
Drainage Area (miz)
25.3
Receiving stream
Cedar Creek
Summer7Q10 (cfs)
0.96
Stream class
WS-V, NSW
Winter7Q10 (cfs)
2.08
Subbasin
03-03-01
Average flow (cfs)
24.7
A.U. Number
30Q2 (cfs)
4.2
County
Franklin
IWC at discharge (%)
74%
Model Input
Segment/Reach
1
2
3
Length of reach (mi)
4.9
4.8
2
Incremental length
0.1
0.1
0.1
Slope ft/ mile
8.16
8.33
5
Wastewater characteristics
WWTP name
Franklin Co
Flow (MGD)
3
BOD
8
BOD Multiplier
2
CBOD
16
NH3N
1
NH3N multiplier
4.5
NBOD
4.5
DO (mg/I)
5
Background DO (mg/L)
Runoff charactericstics
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.15
0.15
0.15
QA (cfslmi)
2.1
2.1
2.1
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/I)
DO (mg/I)
Tributary characteristics
Tributary name
Camping Ck
Big Branch Creek
s7Q10 (cfs/mi)
0.4
0.17
QA (cfs/mi)
9.5
4.17
CBOD (mg/I)
NBOD (mg/l)
DO (mg/I)
Model name: FRANKLIN

Facility
NPDES Number
1.5 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
1.75 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
2 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
2.5 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
Allowable Waste Concentration
Louisburg
NC0020321
6.7
1.5
2.325
1.0
0.22
25.762
3.25
6.7
1.75
2.7125
1.0
0.22
28.818
2.93
6.7
2
3.1
1.0
0.22
31.633
2.69
6.7
2.5
3.875
1.0
0.22
36.643
2.35
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs) 30.5
Design Flow (MGD) 1.5
Design Flow (cfs) 2.325
Stream Std (mg/I) 1.8
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I; 0.22
IWC (%) 7.083
Allow Conc. (mg/I) 22.53
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs) 30.5
Design Flow (MGD) 1.75
Design Flow (cfs) 2.7125
Stream Std (mg/I) 1.8
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I; 0.22
IWC (%) 8.167
Allow Conc. (mg/I) 19.57
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I;
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
30.5
2
3.1
1.8
0.22
9.226
17.35
7Q10(cfs) 30.5
Design Flow (MGD) 2.5
Design Flow (cfs) 3.875
Stream Std (mg/I) 1.8
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I; 0.22
IWC (%) 11.273
Allow Conc. (mg/I) 14.24

3 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/l)
3.5 MGD
SUMMER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
6.7
3
4.65
1.0
0.22
40.969
2.12
6.7
3.5
5.425
1.0
0.22
44.742
1.96
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
7Q10(cfs)
Design Flow (MGD)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mg/I)
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I;
IWC (%)
Allow Conc. (mg/I)
WINTER
Ammonia as NH3
30.5
3
4.65
1.8
0.22
13.229
12.16
7Q10(cfs) 30.5
Design Flow (MGD) 3.5
Design Flow (cfs) 5.425
Stream Std (mg/I) 1.8
ups Bckgrnd Lvl (mg/I; 0.22
IWC (%) 15.101
Allow Conc. (mg/I) 10.68

A LcLu e.Ld 9 9i6o C 4' ° )
a ate- rn t (A`- L118-- L)sC.5)
Q3�
�c `° WW1
C 1 j 11.7 I'; i
T
(�! 77(0"
mi
S_ i(•;3 ' ao U h"\
-�, , (fb
Pik t b O
C`. (3O) = 4,01
it026 () (9 =C I
0
.cio = 3. Z e(-5
116
tvoctq vi cL rvtt ' F Z 4 O k L (tv -

f - [phone]
Mailing Address:
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Location:
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may
be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties
2
•

i 2W
g,4I mi
akw . ) / --
stO,
-
c?.S, 3 mi
>1cP(b
f ro= 2,0Y
3oQa: q•2
= 24.1- (USc C y; e 18)
- 0 r►-.2c act, 5) -
umg
a, y7( mi�z
s-0 3,2 ?
/i u)2 1O= 14.1( .-
i
3oQQZ= 11•V-
0-CtA) '(05,7-
!3'
eo
4,
.594Aga
&wy= 543
5 /°: E?• T/
w •94)(v- 3; 9
oc a'g3.3-
�a6 _ 5 q
fe& ": /& 2—Pt
10, tXocpew -- Jig —
c)
(us5A
F, co
Srp-tcb, 2013

0
J
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS 1
n # Det. Max�Pred Allowable Cw
Acute: 22.0
Chronic: 5.0
6 value(s) > Allowable Cw
Acute: NO WQS
8 value- . Allowable Cw
M
I
N-
J!
1
O, /
o
t•-•
slim5
5.
E
10d
/
/12
STADARZS & CRI IA (2)
NC WQS / Is tl•. '% FAV /
Chronic Standard '-AAute
N
N
3
3
00
a. -
z
z
PARAMETER
Cyanide
m
v
t
0
2
u.
41-
;APO
9
0
m
0.

W)°\

ONINUZUZ3l
cv s•N00020231

34,
is
•
�.LOrui^bu
t�, Louisburg WWTP NC0020231NC0020231
'��• °NC0020231
CAS

70. zaKaiAmf.
110 W. Nash St.
Louisburg, N.C. 27549
Office of the Town Administrator
March 11, 2014
NPDES Permit Unit
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Re: Speculative NPDES Permit Limits
Tar River Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. 0020231
Louisburg, North Carolina
NPDES Permit Unit:
srlie Nts414 Cayslima
Please accept this as formal request for speculative NPDES Permit Limits for the Tar River
Water Reclamation Facility in Louisburg at the following flow rates:
1.75 MGD
2.00 MGD
2.50 MGD
3.00 MGD
3.50 MGD
Please let me know if you need any information from the Town of Louisburg to grant this
request.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Warren
Town Administrator
ii rrrL
11RP \-)1.7m
riLimAR
DEN? . did i^i i:iUAu rV
POINT • URGE BRANCH
cc: Danny Smith, Raleigh Regional Office, 1628 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
[phone] • FAX [phone]

078° 26' 00.00" W 078° 24'
I f i f 1 I l I I I I 1 I I I
00.00° W 078° 22' 00.00"
1 1 1 1 I 1 1_ 1 1 1
`
W 078° 20'
1 1 I 1 1 1 I
00.00" W 078° 18' 00.00"
1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I l_
W 078° 16'
1 I I 1 l 1
��
00.00" W
1 1 1 I
I
�I
1 "
., _-7, — ._ i 1- 1..._ .-:_'' • ):.{,= _ _.. ._ :.
�
V.t
'7.1:(-" i ,e°�. ,�
a
--... —.x. a •_.\
1
,
t
:'
,
f -
aia
'¢ �^ Ilr.
'�
/ t:f l t
f�
f Y
\\11 ' 1
_ -
E
1
L�..i•,
T
f i
t
"i 1-.:1F-`e
f! 1t.
: �'� /\ ■ !
aio'
J-.
�' 1 �F1°„ f,
: �.. i' �-%'
1..� i,
e.
- -- lrl`.-
1
to ,.
/'_.
-�
I
_
' 02'00.00" N 036° 04' 00.00" N 036° 06'
1 l 1 1 1 I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 1?„y
s? 1 p
•
a =s
•
•l
T-
—
.
PPP ��
- / {
t
1
y...
r t a
. ..��
s. .+r! a
r
•�r• ,„+: .. FI
y s r L:
,. !' lam.
—•�'
k . .
,
�8
.. -
f 1
• a, t_ 1 \"
1 _ 1 ♦ i.
\
e+..
.IV
'C •',td°: +-
[' ail f ,
i. - !� '"
%
Cede: F .,�,
- t -.. -,. t
3 - r_
' .,,.�-'
-j'�R
L:F.
r
•- 1 •
e�� F✓
- r iIJ-. \,
r '
at
e�
a
.' �y�'
.iZ:
.l'
x,, +
,\ •C
•
i rig
� i 4b�1:)
,V-- r.
)•11
'.,.
t
: a••j ; % :� ., �. -.
y�
4�• b .,.' •rogt
r � - k -^• _
•-
Lam- f 4:
•;\ ai
u
S
1 +1-
_ _ "'t
�'
l
,
.
i<
•
,�.
a y ��
5 - '% T �-a'
l z J
U :1 Y
;C.
r!
1
- a.i� Y_ -
'f'E(,
/ //mot
•\ _,'rr,.:_,.....
..f _rt
F.
7 SOUL
-'
l i
f
r�� !
levy
--rr�
i
_ -
"`-
:.1
. y✓•Xs
d ..
{
5Illie fir. -• .r.,.1
�. �'
1,,•- \ r '' —
v r; -'
:
7
S
Ti
:i e
— I°:
` §
z< r
.. e'i
7.
VA
Z
o
r
+'
a ; l ,
I �•,- I 1, - {
-_.
,.
/
\i
j
°a} t.Fl 9 C
•`
jlyyy-%
7+
/ ` k— r l y —
�. `-d
.
t
:,fx r.. � .;'
1
$ \ Y
f rr.�
' j•9--4
_ ..,/:«
r
�me° r
r3
_� r
f ,-
f �_.t
: :
talk ' / 1
i,
r--- ., V 'C',•
H
t 'i• iY bny4¢
-. / ) V• .I
{ ^ '•„
( `r � .ry., ; _
J ,
i•�
it,
)' �- :j
- C# I
}r
n I f
fi' i it
�'-=;i�'
-"4 i•I!
1 q.
y. };
I' F�'
/ 1)
- /
r- -.
—�L•
1 �.�'. 1
{ ; �ri1,i.
Lwil �'� ' s
_ �. 4L'`. Ste-
ti1,. f
y:
I
E•:
1,.
`.. _. S •
`t _may
/f _r.:- % �.
f-
fir%
.. -R' > X r..+tr'\ , •+J
_' -,) +' r(- '^�^._�`
— _
`"�.
1. _
•ll
\+,
—�
'I-+
V x
. ,.,f,_
�a
St. !r'a
:i>..
!-..
)
•
r
A
.,
—
-
Z
of
! t:
i , _
1
p
,.•
[(tm
r fl
�i •\
t1
r�
��
-. .
�--�f
' i '
` .. / I �"'`• _.(_ I-., �+1
-r '♦ ri.Q ' i .,,, 5`.. fi�
y '+.� 'gyp-/ •.�f"` '-
J.
1 "r _
.--r,^'� 1. +�1• tI `,' ` , J_ ;:
�.- . 44 _�
- ;
1� t:
(ti _r'. \.
_ ".
.i�a.` J
•vim
\1
==�F.
—
'T`®
;� a �,
`r
_ J
r,r�l
3
(
_ ' _+
J +3
-:{
J: 1
,r
v
e. �
- i
[„� ���j
-, ,
L j
i -
t �
•ii
�.. °'
) ,. f
r
f�:.; \
rti�
` � -fir
`- -"""]_
% `C right'
-1
I`
!!
t
i� r-
PE,' _�.
j 2009 MiIF7��006
+p
�,
.J �i+,�, �>�
2013Yoin
a•
/
�.
1
lorry
co
O-
1•'';:
—
Declination
*
MN 9.34°
W
•9
y ,_ -
• 1
° .,r
I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
078° 26' 00.00" W 078° 24'
1 I 1+ 1 T I T 1 I 1 I
00.00" W 078° 22'
1..-: I i 1 1
I I I
0 0.00" W 078° 20'
II 1 I I 1 1 C i i
I 1 I T 1 1 i 1 I I 1 I
i 0.00" W 078° 16'0 0.00" W
i
Name: LOUISBURG
Date: 07/30/13
Scale: 1 inch = 4,000 ft.
1
Location: 036° 03' 34.95" N 078° 20' 59.63" W
Caption: «Type caption here.»
Datum: NAD27
Coyyrilf" ICI 2009 IMT°pa

tJC / — LOVIJkl_
Belnick, Tom ee1/('"" am.) heriek.._
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:38 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: NPDES Permit/Louisburg
Mark- just a follow-up to our discussion today about your NPDES wastewater permit.
• The Town of Louisburg has an NPDES Permit (NC0020231) for 1.37 MGD, and is wondering what the process
would be to get a rerate to 1.5 MGD. There is some indication that the facility was built to 1.5 MGD, but only
permitted for 1.37 MGD.
• Your current permit expires 9/30/2014, and you are currently at 42% of permitted flow based on 2012 Annual
Average.
• Since you are only permitted for 1.37 MGD, any additional flow (in this case, 130,000 gal/day) would be
considered an expansion.
• If you wanted to proceed at this time, this would be a Major Modification which includes a fee of $1031, and a
draft permit modification would need to be public noticed for 30-day public comment period. As a Major
facility, the draft would also be subject to EPA review.
• If you make this request WITH your renewal application in 2014, you do not have to pay the separate $1031
Modification request. Just be clear in the cover letter what you are seeking. The draft permit/proposed
expansion would still need to go out for 30-day public comment as well as EPA review.
• If you receive DWQ approval for the 1.5 MGD NPDES discharge permit, then you would need to apply to
DWQ/Infrastructure Finance Section for a rerate Authorization to Construct (ATC) permit to go from 1.37 to 1.5
MGD.
• Any expansion requires submittal of an Engineering Alternatives Analysis (EAA).
• As long as the proposed expansion is <0.5 MGD, you would not be subject to SEPA requirements.
• I have not evaluated what a proposed expansion in the Tar Pam Basin would mean as far as nutrient allocations.
• If you would like to meet with DWQ NPDES and discuss this option in further detail, feel free to contact me.
Hope this helps.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
1

geTt dr LO41 1 /240-
Belnick, Tom
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Belnick, Tom
Friday, February 22, 2013 4:21 PM
'Templeton, Mike'; Huisman, John; Robertson, Seth
Tar Pam Nutrients & Rerate Question
NC0020231 Rerate Question 2013.pdf
Facts:
NC0020231- Town of Louisburg WWTP in Tar Pam Basin
Permitted Flow= 1.37 MGD
Facility inquiring about rerate to 1.5 MGD
Permit expires 9/30/2014
Folks- Town of Louisburg is inquiring about process to rerate their WWTP to 1.5 MGD. In reality, this would be an
expansion request for an additional discharge of 130,000 gpd to Tar River. They are currently at 42% of permitted flow,
so I don't see an immediate need given upcoming permit renewal in 2014.
Nutrient Question (Mike, John)- how would an expansion request play out in Tar Pam basin at this time?
Rerate Question (Seth)- If they proceed with this, I assume they would need to secure permit with expanded 1.5 MGD
effluent sheet, then they would submit to you for ATC rerate?
Thanks for any input. I'll call the Permittee next week and discuss processes, and see if they have more questions or
want to meet.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
e1M•t"redeal, peel)," 1.e qi(4 1/O/l4iY tetovioAfium "Vro/zol y
(li1odf1'- $io3I-
)3Ptr13, N C tqg C
PQ Y 4I,Lidw' 4141)111
Eil)
1

ouu� o� ..eossisG.01.
110 W. Nash St.
Louisburg, N.C. 27549
[phone]
[phone] Fax
February 21, 2013
Mr. Tom Belnick, Supervisor
Surface Water Protection Section - NPDES
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Town of Louisburg Water Reclamation Facility
NPDES Permit No. NC0020231
Dear Mr. Belnick:
sraie Noisa e
Adore&
cfriie.ovi4
The Louisburg Water Reclamation Facility was designed and built in 1992-1994. The plant was
originally designed at a capacity of 1.50 MGD. However, the funding agency at the time would
only fund a plant capacity of 1.37 MGD. Therefore, the plant capacity was reduced on paper to
1.37 MGD. However, per the original design engineer, Michael S. Acquesta, PE, the plant was
still built at a capacity of 1.50 MGD.
The Town of Louisburg would now like to re -permit the plant capacity at 1.50 MGD. Per this
letter, the Town is requesting guidance from your department on how to accomplish this task.
The Town of Louisburg staff, along with its engineer, Michael S. Acquesta, would welcome an
opportunity to meet with you to discuss the re -permitting process with you. If this is something
that you feel would be helpful to all, please let me know and I will schedule a meeting with you
and your staff, in Raleigh, at your office. If you would like to visit our plant and talk about this
process in Louisburg, we would be more than happy to arrange this.
Louisburg is expecting some additional wastewater usage in the next few years. If we can
re -permit the plant at 1.50 MGD, any new construction to accommodate the expected wastewater
usage could be postponed for many years. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Wr41
Mark R. Warren
Town Administrator
Cc: Michael S. Acquesta
Jimmy Ellington, Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent
1.7
FEB 2 2 2013 i
DENR=W.;TEFL QUALITY
POINT t= f ;? : !CH

?Alt (04 ffaof
I— 0.SS
r 0. V o
_0,55
S , . 0f
1 rJ•
l
10 —0.60
of — o.Ss
0,fit/ 1- 37 7.- . pis4.41

Belnick, Tom
From: Robertson, Seth
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Belnick, Tom; Templeton, Mike; Huisman, John
Subject: RE: Tar Pam Nutrients & Rerate Question 5.0tit'
That's correct, theywould submit for an ATC to rerateprior to utilizingthe new flow sheet. It has historicallybeen lam'
difficult to get this approval without some construction since we essentially are reviewing the entire facility both for
treatment and hydraulics. Let me know if I can provide any assistance. -SR
From: Belnick, Tom
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:21 PM
To: Templeton, Mike; Huisman, John; Robertson, Seth
Subject: Tar Pam Nutrients & Rerate Question
Facts:
NC0020231- Town of Louisburg WWTP in Tar Pam Basin
Permitted Flow= 1.37 MGD
Facility inquiring about rerate to 1.5 MGD
Permit expires 9/30/2014
•
Folks- Town of Louisburg is inquiring about process to rerate their WWTP to 1.5 MGD. In reality, this would be an
expansion request for an additional discharge of 130,000 gpd to Tar River. They are currently at 42% of permitted flow,
so I don't see an immediate need given upcoming permit renewal in 2014.
Nutrient Question (Mike, John)- how would an expansion request play out in Tar Pam basin at this time?
Rerate Question (Seth)- If they proceed with this, I assume they would need to secure permit with expanded 1.5 MGD
effluent sheet, then they would submit to you for ATC rerate?
Thanks for any input. I'll call the Permittee next week and discuss processes, and see if they have more questions or
want to meet.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, NPDES Complex Permitting Unit
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
1