NC0026921_Wasteload Allocation_19861124

NPDES DOCYHENT :MCANNIN` COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0026921
Parkton WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
rk ''e,, .6i'k'r d....1("VW c1'zA:it:„ . t,,-..
(Waste1oad
Allocation
re iaix+:airs,eytp.},,,..:.ac,+',".
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
November 24, 1986
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

Date Rec.
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name:. J2, ? ,"
Existing ar
Proposed onceel 1. Permit No.: NGeod logo./
Pipe No.:
Design Capacity (MGD) : OO • L O . a- Industrial (% of Flow) : O
Receiving Stream:
Reference USGS Quad:
UUhnS A tSh
I-tL3
Engineer
OO(
Date
•
2 O - e)
///a4/ /f
County: o tia SO -
Domestic (% of Flow) :
Class: G-Sub-Basin: O3o -3-53
v�
(Please attach) Requestor: Tpmm y . Regional Office F 'O
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design Zbmp.: 02% °C Drainage Area (mi2): 5,0 Avg. Streamflow (cfs) :
7Q10 (cfs) D Winter 7Q10 (cfs) O . 30Q2 (cfs)
Location of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall):,
Slope (fpm)
Velocity (fps): K1 (base e, per day): K2 (base e. cer day):
o .1
o -.2 m
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
filoo
slanteltis
BoD5 (094)
a -•
15
NH3 ("'91.i)
15
5 ,
1)o (m,/12)
5
5 ,
TS5 Cell%)
3o
3o ,
6'H- (5,i)
6-61
6-y
frLAQ ,,ol,.kem (115,o)
! o o 0
, l00c
Origin A11 c
Revi AZI
Cone
epar By:
Comments:
i-8V
Effluent
Characteristics
:'cnthly
Y_verage
Comments
Reviewed By:
PLOTTED
Date: /7 dY/6

WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Request No. :2608
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
: TOWN OF PARKTON
: DOM
: E/P
: DUNNS MARSH
: C-SW
: 030753
: ROBESON
: FRO
: TOMMY STEVENS
: H23
Wasteflow
5-Day BOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Dissolved Oxygen
TSS
Fecal Coliform
pH
(mgd) :
(mg/1):
(mg/1) :
(mg/1):
(mg/1):
(#/1O0m1):
(SU) :
grdzW7
NOV 17 1986I)
ENV. MANALIEMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
0.1 0.2
27 15
15 5
5 5
30 30
1000 1000
6-9 6-9
COMMENTS
0.
0.
0.4
6.2
THESE LIMITS ARE BASED ON AN AGREEMENT WITH THE REGION AND ARE NOT BASED ON
A MODELING ANALYSIS.
Recommended by
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor
Regional Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
Water Quality Section Chief
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date

MEMO.
.o � u
DATE:
SUBJECT:
16:7 1LeUlSCE{' C4-f 3/5 ax
I k�X. reaLL 11ie 1 LA, O.!t 471S
cso 0•2 TVs— Scr&elrio5. �u7rcc_ ak
opu f,-4 s L
f
r C _ k,, �p Tti r e,� ) [J me
�JdcS r
te�
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development

e(A) v G e ✓YJ 61.41, c. —Co / ow �/! l� Cc r IdeLi
(To-, o Pe&rk-61.,_
Q..,= 0, ! 0,2 #161)l
14 oa . 13 43. 3Q96
S7Q,o -o
U37Q to = 6.4 ci-s
\n A = S . c-� s
rz.%±
S7Q to = O. 07 Sc
14)7Q10 = 14 ci-s
Q,4 = 30.5 c+s
e
02.1343. 3z &S"
D- s.O 1)7 Z
s7Qro =0
lru7 = 0.4 c f s
Qy} =
aleu = l
•It 0.2.1343. 33°S
J7)9-= 30.
S7C 10= 6.o7S cos
4.)7Qio = 2.a cfs
r4 - 37.o c-fs
. 134 3. 33 io 8C,
3a. ao
7Qrr c ' cf s
1,s7q io = a.1 c-c-s
q ,Q- = 4 O c$-s
71,
02.. ,s4.3. 3 Foss 8S
Dft 4- 4, Z m i
S7Qlo = 6.1 cfS
U.,7 4 o . 3.2 c4-s
c 14 S s. 0 c-s

57 0 P of
Q
w71fi10. R,o.
4 tQ`o •
i
Ty- ,L s7Qto
6,)710
_ � 1
SI o,tJ�
1
3.7 .-c-E'1 1G
ee.c.,...ct

Discharger
Receiving Stream
6./ ~V &P
----- MODEL RESULTS ---------- 7~7
-'�/��- v,�
: TOWN OF PARKTON
: DUNNS MARSH ���'�
��4y/"���7
� - �
The End D.O. is 4.91 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 3.49 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/1.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(Mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
______ _________ _
0.00 0.30 1
0
0
0.00 6.00 0.10000
0.00 0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL. SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF PARKTON Subbas i n : 030753
Receiving Stream : DUNNS MARSH Stream Class: C-SW
Summer 7010 : Winter 7O10 :
Design Temperature: 26.
!LENGTH: SLOPEI VELOCITY 1 DEPTH: K1 1 K1 1 K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN 1 KNR 1 KNR 1
1 mile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft :design: 020' :design: 020' !design: 020' :design: 020' 1
1 1 1
, 1 ,
Segment 1 1 0.421 3.701 0.100 1 0.32 1 0.51 1 0.39 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
If*
1
1
1
11
Segment 1 1 1.481 3.701 0.100 1 0.40 1 0.50 1 0.38 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
, ,
,
Segment 1 1 4.101 3.70 0.100 1 0.61 1 0.49 1 0.37 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 31 11 1 1 1 : 1 1
1 Flaw
1 cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.155
Headwaters: 0.0O0
Tributary 1 0.000
* Runoff 1 0.000
CBOD
mg/1
1 87.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
0.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.00O 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.075 1 2.000
* Runoff 1 0.020 1 2.000
Segri ent 1 Reach 3
Waste 1 0.000 1 0.000
Tributary 1 0.000 1 0.0OO
* Runoff 1 0.150 1 2.000
! NBOD 1
1 mg/1
1
1
1
1
1
1
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
D.O.
mg/1
0.000 1 6.000
0.000 1 0.000
0.000 1 0.000
0.000 1 0.00O
0.000 1 0.000
0.000 1 7.400
0.000 1 7.400
0.000 1 0.000
0.000 1 0.000
0.000 I 7.400

| Seg # | Reach # | Seg Mi |
1 1 0.00
1 1 0.05
1 1 0.10
1 1 0.15
1 1 0.20
1 1 0.25
1 1 0.30
1 1 0.35
1 1 0.40
1 2 0.40
1 2 0.45
1 2 0.50
1 2 0.55
1 2 0.60
1 2 0.65
1 2 0.70
1 2 0.75
1 2 0.80
1 2 0.85
1 2 0.90
1 2 0.95
1 2 1.00
1 2 1.05
1 2 1.10
1 2 1.15
1 2 1.20
1 2 1.25
1 2 1.30
1 2 1.35
1 2 1.40
1 2 1.45
1 2 1.50
1 2 1.55
1 2 1.60
1 2 1.65
1 2 1.70
1 2 1.75
1 2 1.80
1 2 1.85
1 3 1.85
1 3 1.90
1 3 1.95
1 3 2.00
1 3 2.05
1 3 2.10
1 3 2.15
1 3 2.20
1 3 2.25
1 3 2.30
1 3 2.35
1 3 2.40
1 3 2.45
1 3 2.50
1 3 2.55
1 3 2.60
1 3 2.65
1 3 2.70
1 3 2.75
1 3 2.80
1 3 2.85
D.O. 1
6.00
4.71
3.48
2.29
1.15
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.41
1.78
1.18
0.62
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.26
0.31
0.37
0.44
0.50
0.57
0.64
0.71
0.79
CBOD 1 NBOD Flow |
87.00 0.00 0.16
85.65 0.00 0'16
84.32 0.00 0.16
83.00 0.00 0.16
81.71 0.00 0.16
80.44 0.00 0.16
79.19 0.00 0.16
77.96 0.00 0.16
76.75 0.00 0.16
52.37 0.00 0.23
51.36 0.00 0.23
50.37 0.00 0.23
49.40 0.00 0.23
48.45 0.00 0.23
47.51 0.00 0.24
46.60 0.00 0.24
45.71 0.00 0.24
44.83 0.00 0.24
43.97 0.00 0.24
43.13 0.00 0.24
42.30 0.00 0.24
41.49 0.00 0.24
40.70 0.00 0.24
39.93 0.00 0.24
39.17 0.00 0.25
38.42 0.00 0.25
37.69 0.00 0.25
36.97 0.00 0.25
36.27 0.00 0.25
35.59 0.00 0.25
34.91 0.00 0.25
34.25 0.00 0.25
33.60 0.00 0.25
32.97 0.00 0.25
32.35 0.00 0.26
31.74 0.00 0.26
31.14 0.00 0.26
30.56 0.00 0.26
29.98 0.00 0.26
29.98 0.00 0.26
28.76 0.00 0.27
27.62 0.00 0.27
26.53 0.00 0.28
25.51 0.00 0.29
24.55 0.00 0.30
23.64 0.0() 0.30
22.78 0.00 0.31
21.96 0.00 0.32
21.18 0.00 0.33
20.44 0.00 0.33
19.74 0.00 0.34
19.07 0.00 0.35
18.44 0.00 0.36
17.83 0.00 0.36
17.25 0.00 0.37
16.70 0.00 0.38
16.17 0.00 0.39
15.67 0.00 0.39
15.18 0.00 0.40
14.72 0.00 0.41

. 1 3
1� 3
1 3
1 3;
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1, 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 Seg 4 1 Reach
,...a »• ti.•aWW .1."T.i....W % n\.l\.' %..f. 7L
2.95 0.94 13.85 0.00 0.42
3.00 1.02 13.44 0.00 0.43
3.05 1.09 13.05 0.00 0.44
3.10 1.17 12.67 0.00 0.45
3.15 1.25 12.31 0.00 0.45
3.20 1.33 11.97 0.00 0.46
3.25 1.41 11.63 0.00 0.47
3.30 1.49 11.31 0.00 0.48
3.35 1.57 11.00 0.00 0.48
3.40 1.65 10.70 0.00 0.49
3.45 1.74 10.41 0.00 0.50
3.50 1.82 10.14 0.00 0.51
3.55 1.90 9.87 0.00 0.51
3.60 1.98 9.61 0.00 0.52
3.65 2.06 9.36 0.00 0.53
3.70 2.13 9.12 0.00 0.54
3.75 2.21 8.89 0.00 0.54
3.80 2.29 8.67 0.00 0.55
3.85 2.37 8.45 0.00 0.56
3.90 2.45 8.24 0.00 0.57
3.95 2.52 8.04 0.00 0.57
4.00 2.60 7.84 0.00 0.58
4.05 2.67 7.66 0.00 0.59
4.10 2.75 7.47 0.00 0.60
4.15 2.82 7.29 0.00 0.60
4.20 2.90 7.12 0.00 0.61
4.25 2.97 6.96 0.00 0.62
4.30 3.04 6.79 0.00 0.63
4.35 3.11 6.64 0.00 0.63
4.40 3.18 6.49 0.00 0.64
4.45 3.25 6.34 0.00 0.65
4.50 3.32 6.20 0.00 0.66
4.55 3.39 6.06 0.00 0.66
4.60 3.45 5.92 0.00 0.67
4.65 3.52 5.79 0.00 0.68
4.70 3.58 5.67 0.00 0.69
4.75 3.65 5.54 0.00 0.69
4.80 3.71 5.42 0.00 0.70
4.85 3.77 5.31 0.00 0.71
4.90 3.84 5.20 0.00 0.72
4.95 3.90 5.09 0.00 0.72
5.00 3.96 4.98 0.00 0.73
5.05 4.02 4.88 0.00 0.74
5.10 4.08 4.78 0.00 0.75
5.15 4.13 4.68 0.00 0.75
5.20 4.19 4.58 0.00 0.76
5.25 4.25 4.49 0.00 0.77
5.30 4.30 4.40 0.00 0.78
5.35 4.36 4.31 0.00 0.78
5.40 4.41 4.23 0.00 0.79
5.45 4.46 4.14 0.00 0.80
5.50 4.52 4.06 0.00 0.81
5.55 4.57 3.98 0.00 0.81
5.60 4.62 3.91 0.00 0.82
5.65 4.67 3.83 0.00 0.83
5.70 4.72 3.76 0.00 0.84
5.75 4.77 3.69 0.00 0.84
5.80 4.82 3.62 0.00 0.85
5.85 4.86 3.55 0.00 0.86
5.90 4.91 3.49 0.00 0.87
Seg Mi 1 D.O. CBOD NBOD Flow

0.;? AI&D
--- MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : TOWN OF PARKTON
Receiving Stream : DUNNS MARSH
The End D.O. is 5.59 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.56 mg/l.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/l.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
bw%- VL71":-, /(-) + q Q
_
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mgd)
0.06
1.85 2
0
0
0.00 6.00 0.20000
0.00 0.00 0.00000
0.00 0.00 0.00000

*** MODEL SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger
Receiving Stream
Summer 7010
: TOWN OF F'ARKTON
: DUNNS MARSH
Design Temperature:
26.
Subbas i n : 030753
Stream Class: C-SW
Winter 701O :
!LENGTH! SLOPE! VELOCITY 1 DEPTH! K1 1 K1 1 K2 1 K2 1 KN 1 KN ! KKR 1 KNR
1 mile ! ft/mil fps 1 ft !design! 330' !design! 380' !design! 320' !design! 3E0' 1
1 1
Segment 1 1 0.42! 3.701 0.100 1 0.45 1 0.50 1 0.38 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 1 1 1 1 ! ! ! 1 1 !
Segment 1 1 1.481 3.701 0.100 1 0.52 1 0.49 1 0.37 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 2 1 = 1 ! ! ! ! 1 1
Segment 1 1 4.101 3.701 0.100 1 0.69 1 0.49 1 0.37 1 0.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1
Reach 3 1 1 ! ! ! 1 1 1
Segment
Waste 1
Headwaters!
Tributary 1
* Runoff 1
Segment 1
Waste
Tributary
* Runoff
Segment 1
Waste
Tributary
* Runoff
1 Flow
1 cfs
1 Reach 1
0.310
0.000
0.000
0.000
Reach 2
1 0.000
1 0.075
1 0.020
Reach 3
1 0.000
0.000
0.150
CBOD
mg/ 1
35.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000 1
0.000
2.000
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
NBOD
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
D.O.
mg/1
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.400
7.40O
0.000
0.000
7.400

| Seg # | Reach # | Seg Mi | D.O. CBOD | NBOD 1 Flow |
1 1 0.00 6.00 35.00 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.05 5.53 34.47 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.10 5.08 33.95 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.15 4.64 33.44 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.20 4.22 32.93 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.25 3.83 32.44 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.30 3.44 31.95 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.35 3.08 31.47 0.00 0.31
1 1 0.40 2.72 30.99 0.00 0.31
1 2 0.40 3.64 25.34 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.45 3.38 24.90 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.50 3.13 24.47 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.55 2.90 24.05 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.60 2.68 23.63 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.65 2.47 23.23 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.70 2.27 22.83 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.75 2.08 22.43 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.80 1.90 22.05 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.85 1.74 21.67 0.00 0.39
1 2 0.90 1.58 21.29 0.00 0.40
1 2 0.95 1.43 20.93 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.00 1.30 20.57 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.05 1.17 20.21 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.10 1.05 19.86 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.15 0.93 19.52 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.20 0.83 19.19 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.25 0.73 18.86 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.30 0.64 18.54 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.35 0.56 18.22 0.00 0.40
1 2 1.40 0.48 17.91 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.45 0.41 17.60 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.50 0.35 17.30 0.00 0'41
1 2 1.55 0.29 17.00 0.00 O.A.
1 2 1.60 0.24 16.71 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.65 0.19 16.43 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.70 0.15 16.15 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.75 0.12 15.87 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.80 0.09 15.60 0.00 0.41
1 2 1.85 0.06 15.34 0.00 0.41
1 3 1.85 r.0Z� 15.34 0.00 0.41
1 3 1.90 0.16 14.88 0.00 0.42
1 3 1.95 0.25 14.44 0.00 0.43
1 3 2.00 0.35 14.01 0.00 0.44
1 3 2.05 0.45 13.61 0.00 0.44
1 3 2.10 0.54 13.22 0.00 0.45
1 3 2.15 0.64 12.84 0.00 0.46
1 3 2.20 0.74 12.48 0.00 0.47
1 3 2.25 0.83 12.13 0.00 0.47
1 3 2.30 0.93 11.80 0.00 0.48
1 3 2.35 1.02 11.48 0.00 0.49
1 3 2.40 1.12 11.17 0.00 0.50
1 3 2.45 1.21 10.87 0.00 0.50
1 3 2.50 1.31 10.58 0.00 0.51
1 3 2.55 1.40 10.30 0.00 0.52
1 3 2.60 1.49 10.04 0.00 0.53
1 3 2.65 1.58 9.78 0.00 0.53
1 3 2.70 1.67 9.53 0.00 0.54
1 3 2.75 1.76 9.28 0.00 0.55
1 3 2.80 1.85 9.05 0.00 0.56
1 3 2.85 1.94 8.83 0.00 0.56

lissUJA
' 1 4 . ,. 32.95 2.11 8.40 0.00 0.58
1 3 3.00 2.20 8.19 0.00 0.59
1 3 3.05 2.28 8.00 0.00 0.59
1 3j 3.10 2.37 7.80 0.00 0.60
1 3 3.15 2.45 7.62 0.00 0.61
1 3 'I 3.20r2.53 7.44 0.00 0.62
1 3 3.25 2.61 7.27 0.00 0.62
1 3, 3.30 2.69 7.10 0.00 0.63
1 3 3.35 2.77 6.93 0.00 0.64
1 3 3.40 2.85 6.78 0.00 0.65
1 3 3.45 2.92 6.62 0.00 0.65
1 3 d 3.50 3.00 6.47 0.00 0.66
1 3 3.55 3.08 6.33 0.00 0.67
1 3 3.60 3.15 6.19 0.00 0.68
1 3 3.65 3.22 6.05 0.00 0.68
1 3 3.70 3.29 5.92 0.00 0.69
1 3 3.75 3.36 5.79 0.00 0.70
1 3 3.80 3.43 5.67 0.00 0.71
1 3 3.85 3.50 5.54 0.00 0.71
1 3 d 3.90 3.57 5.43 0.00 0.72
1 3 11 3.95 3.64 5.31 0.00 0.73
1 3 4.00 3.70 5.20 0.00 0.74
1 3 4.05 3.77 5.09 0.00 G.74
1 3 4.10 3.83 4.99 0.00 Gw75
1 3 4.15 3.90 4.88 0.00 0.76
1 3 4.20 3.96 4.78 0.00 0.77
1 3 4.25 4.02 4.69 0.00 0.77
1 3 4.30 4.08 4.59 0.00 0.78
1 3 1 4.35 4.14 4.50 0.00 0.79
1 3 4.40 4.20 4.41 0.00 0.80
1 3 4.45 4.25 4.32 0.00 0.80
1 3 4.50 4.31 4.24 0.00 0.81
1 3 4.55 4.37 4.16 0.00 0.82
1 3 4.60 4.42 4.08 0.00 0.83
1 3 4.65 4.48 4.00 0.00 0.83
1 3 4.70 4.53 3.92 0.00 0.84
1 3 1 4.75 4.58 3.85 0.00 0.85
1 3 4.80 4.63 3.78 0.00 0.86
1 3 4.85 4.69 3.70 0.00 0.86
1 3 4.90 4.74 3.64 0.00 0.87
1 3 4.95 4.79 3.57 0.00 0.88
1 3 5.00 4.83 3.50 0.00 0.89
1 3 5.05 4.88 3.44 0.00 0.89
1 3 5.10 4.93 3.38 0.00 0.90�
1 3 5.15 4.98 3.32 0.00 0.91
1
1 3 5.20 5.02 3.26 0.00 0.92
1 3 5.25 5.07 3.20 0.00 0.92
1 3 5.30 5.11 3.14 0.00 0.93
1 3 5.35 5.15 3.09 0.00 0.94
1 3 5.40 5.20 3.03 0.00 0.95
1 3 5.45 5.24 2.98 0.00 0.95
1 3 5.50 5.28 2.93 0.00 0.96
1 3 5.55 5.32 2.88 0.00 0.97
1 3 5.60 5.36 2.83 0.00 0.98
1 3 5.65 5.40 2.78 0.00 0.98
1 3 5.70 5.44 2.73 0.00 0.99
1 3 5.75 5.48 2.69 0.00 1.00
1 3 5.80 5.52 2.64 G.GG 1.01
1 3 5.85 5.55 2 .60 0.00 1.01
1 3 5.90 5.59 2.56 0.00 1.02
Seg # I Reach # 1 Seg Mi D.O. 1 CLOD 1 NBOD 1 Flow I

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
Facility Name: Cl� « faA.A.IenK,
Existing
Proposed O
Permit Na.: /UCQ 0 o? �p ! �� Pipe No.
Engineer
Date Rec.
#
Ott
l0 hi
a 6C S'
Go/
Date /
County: 120 i,e Sa/,
Design Capacity (MGD) : 0. /o Industrial (% of Flow) : Domestic (% of Flow) :
Receiving Stream:
Reference USGS Quad:
Du,nns Ma"5h
Class: (! -5.4)
Sub -Basin:
6030 753
(Please attach) Requestor: Regional Office
(Guideline limitations, if applicable, are to be listed on the back of this form.)
Design 'Temp.: 02 4 Drainage Area (mi2): 5,0
7Q10 (cfs) 4)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 0,<1
Location of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall):
Velocity (fps) :
K1 (base e, per day):
Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs)
Slope (fpm)
K2 (base e. per day):
Effluent
Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
i OD5 CMG.)
a
/ 1. C4 )
15
.
Do ( nik)
5
T55 C"i/t)
30
/
irJ 414 l0,(#10.) 1000
4 6i- (so) ) 04
Original
Re ' mod A •
Co - :tion
L.7 Prepared By:
V �
:.n O
on 0
/4
Comments:
1-8Y
Effluent
Characteristics
.'onthly
Y.verage
Comments
Reviewed By: Date: /0/4

WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
Request No.
Facility Name
Type of Waste
Status
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
County
Regional Office
Requestor
Date of Request
Quad
TOWN OF PARKTON
DOMESTIC
EXISTING
DUNNS MARSH
C-SW
030753
ROBESON
FAYETTEVILLE
TOMMY STEVENS
10-13-86
H23
Wasteflow (mgd):
5-Day BOD (mg/1):
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1):
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Coliform (#/100m1):
pH (SU):
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Average Flow (cfs)
30Q2 (cfs)
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS
0.4
27
15
5
30
1000
6-9
0.
0.
. 6.2
OCT 15 1986
ENV. MA' ', A =EMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
COMMENTS
THESE ARE THE OLD LIMITS FOR PARKTON. DUNNS MARSH AT THE POINT OF DISCHARGE IS
A ZERO FLOW STREAM AND IS QUITE SWAMPY. THE LEVEL B MODEL DOES NOT APPLY TO
SITUATIONS OF THIS NATURE. AN INTENSIVE STUDY OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE
SCHEDULED DURING THE LIFE OF THIS PERMI'
6v-k-
•
144
Recommended by
Reviewed b
Tech. ,A.t•SupeLv1SUr
Permits & Engineering
Date
Date
Date
ate _p�1�L,._

DIVISION OF ENVIRO`:MENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
To: Tommy Stevens
From: Meg Kerr
Subject: Effluent Limits for Parkton
I wrote 'the attached memo to George last Friday and planned to
sent it to him with the memo from Mick. Steve is acting for George
today and discussed the situation with Page. They agreed to simply
repermit Parkton at the old limits and plan to do some kind of
study during this permit's duration. If we are in no better position
to evaluate the impacts of Parkton five years from now, we can
simply follow the same procedure again and repermit them with the
old limits.
Attached to this memo is Mick's memo (since it was never really
sent) and a new WLA approval form for Parkton. Please sign and pass
on. Let me know if you have any questions.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 10, 1986
MEMORANDUM
To: George Everett
From: Meg Kerr
Through:
Steve Tedder
Subject: Effluent limits for Town of Parkton
The Technical Support Unit recently reviewed effluent limits
for the Town of Parkton in Robeson Co. The new limits that were
developed (and incorporated in the Town's new NPDES permit) are
considerably more restrictive than the limits previously issued to
the town. The region questioned the new limits and a description of
why the limits changed was included in a memo to Mick Noland dated
August 5, 1986 (copy attached).
The region requested that we visit the discharge site, and on
October 2, Tommy Stevens and I visited the Parkton WWTP. We walked
to the discharge site in Dunns Marsh and took several DO measure-
ments in the vicinity of the outfall. The dissolved oxygen level
was consistently above 7 mg/1, close to the 90 % saturation level
we assume for background waters. We did not hike through the marsh
to downstream locations to verify that DO levels remained high
throughout the marsh. Access into the marsh will be difficult at
best.
The treatment plant appeared well operated and the effluent was
clear and devoid of solids. The swamp immediately below the dis-
charge showed no signs of solids accumulation and the wastewater
appeared clear as it entered the swamp.
The region would like to justify the old less restrictive lim-
its for Parkton (see attached memo to you from Mick Noland). The
existing plant is low -tech (an oxidation ditch) and easily main-
tained and operated by this small town. Plant upgrades would have
to be made to consistently meet the new limits.
We have done everything we can to the model to try to squeeze
out some additional capacity but have not been successful. The lim-
its change very little even when the input parameters are varied by
as much as 50 %. It is likely that our stream model is not entirely
applicable to a system like Dunn's Marsh. However, it is the only
tool available to us for evaluating these systems. I doubt that
intensive field work will satisfactorily address the issues raised
by this facility.
Please provide us with some guidance for resolving this sticky
issue.
cc. Tommy Stevens

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM :
October 9, 1986
George Everett, Chief
Water Quality Section
M. J. NolamOOKIN
Regional Supervisor
Fayetteville Regional Office
SUBJECT: Wasteload Allocation for
Town of Parkton
NPDES Permit No. NC0026921
Robeson County
The Town of Parkton's NPDES permit was recently reissued with rather
restrictive effluent limitations (BOD 10 nig/1 - NH3-N 5 mg/1) . The previous
NPDES permit contained a BOD limit of 27 mg/1 and an ammonia of 15 nig/1.
The wastewater treatment facility is a secondary type extended aeration
plant (oxidation ditch) and :is not .designed to consistantly meet 10 and 5
limits. According to Meg.Kerr,'Supervisor, Technical Support Unit, the
new limits are based upon a change in stream flow from the original permit
limits. The new limits are based upon a 7Q10 of 0 cfs and the previous
limits were developed with a 7Q10 of 0.2 cfs. It is our concern that the
10 and 5 limits are too restrictive for a discharge to swamp waters.
On October 2, 1986 Meg Kerr and Tommy Stevens visited the Town of
Parkton to evaluate the discharge's impact on the receiving stream. It
was observed on that date that the discharge was having no apparent
adverse impact on water quality and there was no evidence of anaerobic
conditions or sludge accumulation at the point of discharge.
There have been no documented water quality problems from this discharge
in the past and the facility has maintained a very good quality effluent well
within the 27/15 limits. Since there does not appear to be a strong basis
for the 10 and 5 limits other than from the model and since the discharge
is into swamp waters, it is our recommendation that the limits of BOD
27 mg/1 and Ammonia 15 mg/1 be incorporated in the permit.
If .additional information .is needed, please advise.
KTS:edw
cc: Steve Tedder

*** MODEL. SUMMARY DATA ***
Discharger : TOWN OF PARKTON
Receiving Stream : DUNNS MARSH
Summer 701O
Design Temperature: 26.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Subbasin : 030753
Stream Class: C-SW
Winter 701O : 0.4
ILENSTHI SLOPE! VELOCITY I DEPTH! K1 1 K1 I K2 1 K2 I KN 1 KN I KNR 1 KNR 1
1 Bile 1 ft/mil fps 1 ft !design: 820' !design: 820' !design: 820' :design: 820' I
1 1 1
1 1 1
I 0.421 3.701 0.100 10.32 10.51 1 0.39 10.76 1 0.671 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 10.00 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1
1.481 3.70: 0.100 10.39 10.50 10.38 10.76 I 0.671 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Segment
Reach
1 1
2 1
Segment
Reach
I I
3 1
4.101
3.701
: : 1 : !
0.100 10.40 10.50 1 0.38 10.76 I 0.671 0.00 10.00 1 0.00 10.00 I
I Flow
I cfs
Segment 1 Reach 1
Waste 1 0.155
Headwaters: 0.000
Tr ibu ary I 0.000
* Runoff I 0.005
I CBOD
1 mg/1
I 23.000
I 0.000
1 0.000
I 2.000
Segment 1 Reach 2
Waste 1 0.000 1
Tributary I 0.070 I
* Runoff I 0.005 1
Segmet 1 Reach 3
Waste 'I 1 0.000 I
Tributary I 0.000 1
* Runoff I 0.005 I
O.000 I
2.000 I
2.000 1
O.000 I
2.000 I
2.000 I
* Runoff flow is in cfs/mile
NBOD I D.O. I
mg/1 I mg/1 I
0.000 1 6.000
0.000 I 0.000
0.000 I 0.000
0.000 I 7.400
0.000 I
0.000 1
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000 I
0.000
7.400
7.400
0.000
7.400
7.400

©. 3o ^^c � �
c_ S e-
sie •Q.; el tor
Pc.k. t yun
$dD (Llt
t3oD_ ()it-
80D_ut--
13 o D_ Gat
Ve�
YZe.Iwf
iMdot e,1 Veldt
ue
A3
�3
a3
ct c.4 J
�� o.UZ3
l ►1
0
3.7
3.7
SPrs 141 V-71— S S
0. sq-
o . IS-0
j, or
—So
O.
r r e4t yn,
ct.rJ 0
Jo = 3 ex
puh,
38'
23
f : Cie 10 s
io e. c_cuLs en.. 0,./A.,Q v z, le 4--,,k e. A I
-to 2 or Came cMi
f-ro Ai\ 3.1 4 ,1; (e -6 S. 4 C-b
u' reef vett e o .oaf ys
d;g
riot affect wi-4 i3o lD
e�C fo m O.0 23 4 S
P
k s
s+,�I
-EL Ve.[ o 4 1 at ► i c e,
U
Laiow -0I1
loci vCe.

Discharger
Receiving Stream
MODEL RESULTS —
TOWN OF PARKTON
DUNNS MARSH
The End D.O. is 15.38 mg/1.
The End CBOD is 4.12 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/1.
Segment 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
DO Min
(mg/1) Milepoint Reach #
3.09 3.96 3
WLA WLA WLA
CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
44 0.00 6.00 0.10000
0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
0 0.00 0.00 0.00000

/ow4 0-F Tar�'Earl
/�e✓r see)
/0/1/4.6
s Is
-PA = 44 ►
S7 QQo = o . I C "fS
w7grd7.3.2c-f-s
-

S7 o ed
(„, 7 q, ,e.D.
q R.o,
S7Q to
w7Q_rc
(PA"
ler)
l� e-.A
00S-cr, I'
0'3f c='
cs�,,,,
o ,07 C -S
6•Zc�c�S
.37.(c4-s
3.7 4/ ,ie.
eeck_til
44.
0;Our ry '
o,
3�
.3 cA-5
q.
7 4g,.

O(cl if
60 r 0/0,2 , c).0„ /-0 s '" 1 c c1
,C
,a
0' /
epoD
lS ti /-I-3
5
Try
o • l ,i-1,10
o otio
//o c (��)
l //
v= tea/

r,41tAD
pAzryNAJ" / A
0., -7k, efu 4,0
fik - 7ow�
old g,e4,),
/5 5
"'/spew
1/0 /8-co
/rn ‘7
i 3 /6v f2 C z�j
Li r)- ,6 cin 14,, 3
677 taL,
004,0 5 eL/ ,
f / o unn DO 5 — �o
&31.a,fi ‘-&,0 e-c,e4
00,/_e yi3O-2,1 2
up
/11)3 s6C
/.1?),0,1
/Es-

/fL
/30
0
St eaM :
Lrrfte WA, i e'v _
1'la;Asterr1
Brant it
Slc P
Calculation S
(sc. ‘30 = ,3,�� - 3.7 •
41.
•
•
1
ti
■
,
•
V.
4111
4
e (�v
0
1,-U
/• 3
3.7
13o
G.r
SI opt.
3!
3.f1
3, 7
6 G. g
d;stance.

MEMORANDUM
To: Mick.
From0fotk�
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 5, 1986
Noland
erx
Through: Steve Tedder
Subject: Effluent Limitations
Towns of Rowland, Parkton and St. Pauls
Robeson County
4'
Wasteload allocations recently issued for the Towns of Park -
ton, Rowland and St. Pauls have been questioned by Fayetteville
Regional Office staff. Wasteload allocation approval forms for
Rowland and St. Pauls have been returned to Raleigh unsigned
with a requiestfor a study plan designed to verify the limits.
I have reviewed the modeling files, the permit files and the
self -monitoring data files for these -three -facilities and my
findings are summarized below. Possible study plan alternatives
are
included at the end of this memo.
Town of Parkton Although not included in your latest request,
questions had arisen over Parkton in the past and I included the
Town in my review. The modeling staff first evaluated effluent
limits for Parkton in 1976. The modeling documentation for this
early work is very poor. Limits of 27 BOD5 and 15 NH3 with 5 DO
were given. The model assumed a 7Q10 of 0.2 cfs and assumed a
stream velocity of 0.6 fps (absurd for a swampy system in Robeson
Co.). The permit came up for renewal in early 1981 and was issued
1/13/81 with the same limits as before. No wasteload allocation
is attached to the Central Files copy of the old permit and no
wasteload analysis exists in our files. I would guess that we
were not asked to re-evaluate the limits. Our 1986 evaluation of
Parkton is well documented and used flow information requested
from the USGS. The actual 7Q10 at the discharge site is 0 cfs,
and the stream velocity is less than 0.1 fps (we use 0.1 fps as
the lower limit for our velocity extrapolation). We also assumed
a stream DO standard of 3 mg/1. This estimate was based on Park-
ton's self -monitoring data collected during the summer of 1985.
However, Parkton's recent data shows upstream and downstream DO
concentrations of 5 mg/1 and 6 mg/1. If this data is correct (and
it is different than data collected during 1986) then our asses-
ment of the DO standard for Dunns Marsh was in error and the
effluent limits are not tight enough.
Parkton's effluent data shows that they should be able to
meet the new limits that were included in their 1986 permit.

Town of Rowland : Rowland discharges to Town Ditch, a C-Sw class
stream tributary to Mitchell Swamp. Effluent limits have been
calculated for Rowland's discharge on several occasions starting
in June of 1976. The limits have always been 5 and 2 with a DO of
6. The most recent limits sent to your office in July were 7 and
2 with a DOof 6, so actually represented a slight relaxation.
We previously evaluated 201 options for Rowland. The selected
alternative was a discharge to Big Shoe Heel Creek. This dis-
charge site gave the Town secondary limits. We justified the site
and the limits to EPA in 1981:
I reviewed Rowland's self -monitoring data for 6/85 through
5/86. They obviously have serious problems with attaining their
final limits. The effluent BOD5 ranged from 24 mg/1 to 69 mg/1,
ammonia concentrations were consistently above 6 mg/1 (only three
measurements), and the two measurements of effluent DO were 4.6
and 9 mg/11 Upstreamand downstream DO data is highly suspect
since mostmeasurements were high (10 - 11 mg/1) and winter DO's
were generally lower than the summer measurements. The monitoring
forms do not state where the stream monitoring is being done, so
it is difficult to make any use of the data.
Town of St. Pauls : Trevor has discussed the effluent limits
changes for St. Pauls in a comprehensive memo dated 7/11/86, so I
won't go into much detail. The 1986 limits are different from
limits included in the old permit. However, it is important to
note that the old limits were developed in 1976 and were not
changed when the permit was reissued in 1981. In fact, no waste -
load allocation was included in the 1981 permit.
As Trevor noted, monitoring data for St. Pauls indicates that
they are close to compliance with the new limits. I reviewed data
from 7/85 through 6/86 and found only one month (7/85) that was
not in compliance with the new limits.
Possibilities for Study :
1. We could re-evaluate the DO standard for the swamp systems
receiving waste from these three facilities. I would especially
like to verify the 3 mg/1 standard used for Parkton. Such a study
would involve intensive sampling of the receiving swamp in an
area that is not affected by the wastewater. Upstream of the
discharge is the perfect spot if the upstream area is similar to
the downstream receiving system. For Rowland, I would assume that
Town Ditch is channelized and not a real swamp. We will probably
have to maintain the 5 mg/1 standard for the ditch and adjust the
standard in the lower portion. Technical Services staff can help
your staff select appropriate monitoring stations. The work would
have to be done quickly, as we are quickly moving out of the high
temperature season of the year.
2. Full-scale intensive studies could be performed on the
receiving systems by the 201 consultants. It is very likely that
such a study would show that our 0.1 fps velocity is too high,
and could easily result in even tighter limits than we have
assigned. However, if our DO work does not support using a lower

standard, we will have to do additional field work at Rowland to
justify the tight limits to EPA. If EPA does not agree with our
assessment, the Town will have to fund the polishing filters
without federal support. St. Pauls limits may be acceptable to
EPA without the field work.
Tech. Services could do the necessary field studies next sum-
mer (1987)
I hope this memo answers some of your questions about these
facilities. Since limits for all three towns have not been eval-
uated by DEM modelers since 1976, I think the small changes in
effluent limits are very justified.
cc. George Everett
Page Belton
Trevor'Clememts
Dave Vogt

MODEL RESULTS
Discharger : TOWN OF PARKTON
Receiving Stream : DUNNS MARSH
The End D.O. is 71.25 mg/l.
The End CBOD is 2.42 mg/1.
The End NBOD is 0.00 mg/l.
WLA WLA WLA
DO Min CBOD NBOD DO Waste Flow
(mg1) Milepoint Reach # (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mgd)
Segment 1 2.97 4.04 3
Reach 1 1
23 0.00 6.00 0.10000
Reach 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000
Reach 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00000