NC0061638_Wasteload Allocation_19931123

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0061638
PERMITTEE NAME: Nero Utility, Inc.
FACILITY NAME: Amherst Subdivision/Middle Creek 1w
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major
Minor �l
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.02 MGD*
Domestic (% of Flow): 100 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 0 %
Comments:
*the renewal still includes an increase in flow back to the origional flow
of 0.053 MGD. The discharge has been moved from the UT to Middle
Creek to Middle Creek
RECEIVING STREAM: Middle Creek
Class: C-NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-04-03
Reference USGS Quad: E 24 NW (please attach)
County: Wake
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 1/31/94 Treatment Plant Class: class II
Classification changes within three miles:
none downstream within 3 miles
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Modeler
Date Rec.I
#
r
F3
7,
2 ` 1
Drainage Area (mi ) y; , z
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):43, q-
7Q10 (cfs) . Winter 7QI0 (cfs) z .1 30Q2 (cfs) 4.0
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
K
Parameters -t turt i ace , - i cARgy_&,,, cAA,4Qc�at,,
Upstream Location � P _ Rd1
Downstream Location,,P- r 3 :4 5 jLAKr, WW.,StS(t_ W1
s
Effluent
Characteristics
z
BOD5 (mg/1)
el. 0r^
Cio-
NH -N (mg/1)
3
z-b
If,�
2-�►
� .p
D.O. (mg/1)
6, ,
6
6. C
TSS (mg/1)�
W
,
F. Col. (/100 ml)
pH (SU)
6 —9
6.1
6
UAW tN .Q,
r_
.N -v W
Z ('
—
—c dt
r, N aai
Comments: f,..
fl� -!!L--F24"
WQAZ u` --

OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD
— 35° j9.3d
35°39.30
i
��X\
I �0
i
Dischar e Point 001
t
_ _
I I
Z-)p
35°37.30` � / 35°3Y30
°
W
to
M N
4° LOCATION MAP
TM�LS 24 MIL5 FROM U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP, 19%
MIDDLE CREEK ESTAT E,P. ,
UTM GRID AND t964 MAGNETIC
NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER
OF SHEET
SCALE 1:24000 MIDDLE CREEK TWSP. ��C F� ` %992
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CA ROLINA %
Poge I of

FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 7612
Facility Name:
Amherst Subdivision
- Nero Utilitiy, Incorporated
NPDES No.:
NCO061638
Type of Waste:
Domestic - 100%
Facility Status:
Existing
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
Middle Creek
Stream Classification:
C - NSW
Subbasin:
03-04-03
County:
Wake
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Raleigh
USGS #
Requestor:
Kepler
Date:
Date of Request:
10/4/93
Drainage Area (mi2):
41.2
Topo Quad:
E24NW
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.15
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
2.1
Average Flow (cfs):
43.4
30Q2 (cfs):
4.0
IWC (%):
17 %
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
P ktGc c) �/ AU11L Instream data by facilit dic�.(ating supersaturation during August and July, 1993
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by: �" '� ` �� "- Date: *
Farrell Keough
Reviewed by l
In stream Assessment:Date: /� c��(�3
Regional Supervisor: ��Date:
Permits & Engineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 1993
NOV 2 4 1993
.J
=-i
DEHNR-RAL RO

2
Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
0.02
9.0
18.0
1.0
1.8
6.0
6.0
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
monitor
monitor
nr nr
monitor - . monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
Summer
Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
0.02
BOD5 (mg/1):
9.0
18.0
NH3N (mg/1):
1--01-11
t4e+ f
DO (mg/1):
6.0
6.0
TSS (mg/1):
30
30
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml):
200
200
pH (SU):
6-9
6-9
Chlorine (µg/l):
monitor
monitor
_Residual
Oil & Grease (mg/1):
nr
nr
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
0.053
5.0
10.0
1.0
1.8
6.0
6.0
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
28.0
28.0
iir
nr
2.0
2.0
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
WQ or EL
Summer
Winter
0.053
WQ
5.0
10.0
WQ
14-�
WQ
6.0
6.0
30
30
200
200
6-9
6-9
28.0
28.0
nr
nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor 2.0 2.0
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor monitor monitor
/J H3/4 lu Yk i+6 v Vt.ayt-+-,00l- CUa 4r, bu c a4yi- C o t +(_w c &70 .
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
WQ or EL
_x_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: SR 1404 [Providence Road]
Downstream Location: SR 1375 [Lake Wheeler Road]
Parameters: Temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivity
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name:
Permit Number:
Engineer:
Subbasin:
Recieving Stream:
USGS quad #:
Request Number:
Date:
Expiration date:
Existing WLA checked:
Staff Report:
Topo checked:
USGS Flows confirmed
PIRF / APAMS:
IWC Spreadsheet:
Stream Classification:
Nutrient Sensitivity:
Instream Data:
Amherst Subdivision
NC0061638
Kepler
03-04-03
Middle Creek
E24NW
7612
10/4/93
1 /31 /94
x
1992
/ Nero Utility, Inc.
updated during 1992 review
nr
nr
x
x
x superaturation
Facility relocated discharge from an unnamed tributary to Middle Creek proper during the last permitting cycle [1992].
Betsy Johnson, (who modeled and wrote up an analysis report on Middle Creek) has documented the various changes
that have taken place in the life of this permit. Basically, the facility relocated in an attempt to expand, (and possibly for
better limits). The Middle Creek model indicated that even with limits of 5 / 1 / 6 the water quality standards would not be
protected. The WLA was put on hold for a while to determine whether the permit and/or expansion could be denied. The
final resolution was that we did not have strong enough legal justification for a denial, thus both the 0.02 mgd and
expanded 0.053 mgd permitted flows were allowed.
This was finalized in September of 1992. 1 will renew with the same limits.
Staff Rem
1992 report does not indicate anything not already mentioned.
Telephone conversation with Daniel Rowe [Wake Co. Health Dept.], no changes or information on facility which would be
pertinent to WLA processing. Go ahead with Fact Sheet
DMR's
Not reflecting either the NH3N or dissolved oxygen limits prior to 1993.. Many ammonia values would have been out of
compliance during this time.
Elevated phosphorus and nitrogen values.
One fecal coliform and one ammonia violation since last renewal.
Instream data
Indicates recent events of supersaturation - will note on Fact Sheet

Amherst Subdivision NCO061638
U stream: Not given
Downstream: Not
given
Month
Temp
DO
Saturation
Fecal
Conductivity
Temp DO Saturation
Fecal
Conductivit
Aug-93
21
10.0
1120/6
59
408
21 10.4
1170/6
120
397
Jul-93
21
9.8
110%
32
473
21 10.0
1120/6
258
.458
Jun-93
21
8.2
920/6
49
390
21 8.4
940/6
79
390
May-93
18
8.8
91%
20
172
18 9.0
95%
63
192
Apr-93
13
7.9
75%
48
109
13 &0
760/6
126
127
Mar-93
7
7.6
620/6
17
95
7 7.8
64%
60
102
Feb-93
7
8.2
67%
55
143
7 8.4
69%
60
155
Jan-93
10
10.4
92%
42
107
10 10.5
93%
30
110
Dec-92
12
10.5
97%
32
131
12 10.6
98%
67
141
Nov-92
15
8.3
82%
35
142
15 8.5
84%
35
163
Oct-92
21
7.4
83%
37
342
21 7.6
85%
85
329
Se -92
25
7.7
93%
41
398
25 7.8
94%
176
368
Ammonia [2 / 4 mg/1] - Residual Chlorine - Fecal Coliform
Instream Waste Concentrations
Ammonia as NH3
Residual Chlorine
(summer)
7010 (cfs)
0.15
0.15
7Q10 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
0.02
0.02
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cfs)
0.031
0.031
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (mgA)
17
2
Stream Std (mgA)
Upstream bkgrd level (mg/l)
0
0.22
Upstream bkgrd level (mgA)
IWC (%)
17.1%
17.1%
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/I)
99.3
10.6
Allowable Concentration (mgA)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
2.10
7Q10 (cfs)
0.02
Design Flow (mgd)
Fecal Limit
200/100ml
0.031
Design Flow (cfs)
Ratio of 4.8 :1
4
Stream Std (mgA)
0.22
Upstream bkgrd level (mgA)
1.5%
IWC (%)
260.1
Allowable Concentration (mgA)
10/13/93

SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: YeE No
If Yes, SOC Nc? . _ _ __
To: Permits and Engineering Uni
p Water Q,al it
—'Attention : ew eer �- v -
KylQ \
Date o
oNI T Khx l l�'Nlh �i CN
IZPDDES
.:ountY �T Ale- No . NC Q 6 6 / b 3 /"1 e /( o c-d 4,
�• • •� r.� ice• • i r•� r• M
1. Facility and Address: Ae� 5D
NG sA
2. Date of Investigation :/ 0/3/9 3
3. Report Prepared by: pA lvie L Ro wc--
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
5. Directions to site: yo/ s, ��,/� ,� s-�q/a/a� SR /y0
6. Discharge Points(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: ';� ° 3 22 n Longitude: -7 y y Z 3
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge
point on the map. J/. /
U.S.G.S. Quad No. A w U.S.G.S. Quad Name
7. Site/size and expansion area consistent with the application?
✓ Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
L ,< o
rPEES Peat Riff Fepert
Hinz 10/92
Page 1

9. Location of nearest dwelling: �, Z o1
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters:
a. Classification: C A150
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 0 3 : o Y 03
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses:
PART II — DESCR=CN OF DISC IMRGE AMID ZREA` EM VURKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: �3i 500 +Ctr(Ultimate Design
Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste Water Treatment
facility? Z el em 61-fP
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design
capacity) ? Z./ x�o GPp
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations
to Construct issued in the previous two years:
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed
Wastewater treatment facilities: d •0Z M 15'0
- SoOo/ 6 /aa�vff�o.� iCt, 6, Z/oho (n/ G1er/�:tl� aaa /�•/ �j�vJ��L �o��iiL�i fcrfi� ���7�i/er�i 6 4A
P�P`ifi h ((ert�d►—tv,cG�lv/':�� Co,r�GGas..Vel; (//�GJ �caTCr /,/6a Ga( A�ff au�a�foz�
f. Please provide a descripti� o rp posed stewater treatment
facilities: ND 6 urrf-A f r��a- Aj; 5�j f, k{
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in developTent approved
should be required not needed.A��',
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM permit no.
GJ goo o �e 6
Page 2

M
I
Residuals Contractor
Telephone No.�
Residuals stabilization:
C. Landfill:
PSRP
PFRP Other
d. other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify):
3. Treatment plant classification (attach ccupleted rating sheet):
4. SIC Code(s) :
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities i.e..,
non -contact cooling water discharge from a metal plating company would be
14, not 56.
Primary '05, Secondary
Main Treatment Unit Code: d S—
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INH09MON
1.
2.
3.
Is this.facility being constructed with Construction grant Funds or are any ;
public monies involved (municipals only)?
Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests:
Important SOC, JOC or Ccnpliance Schedule dates: (Please indicate)
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the
non -discharge options available? Please provide regional perspective for
each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: nos f �� e-Xa4 /V
j ive_
Connection to Regional Sewer System:
Subsurface:
r ( �
���. '_:� � Sri■ 'a••:

s . 0
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT:
If Yes, SOC No.
Yes No�<
Other disposal options:
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Office recommends the issuance of the permit at a flow of
0.02 MGD with expansion pages reflecting the expansion of the
facility to 0.053 MGD if allowable and using the best available
technology. No plans have been submitted, as far as Wake County
is aware, concerning the expansion at the plant. The permit
should be issued for a period of time consistent with the river
basin policy.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
D to