NC0026921_Wasteload Allocation_19940902

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0026921
Parkton WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
QTaste1oad Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
September 2, 1994
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the i rerse side

Facility'Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
Request # 7829
Parkton Waste Water Treatment Plant
NC0026921
100 % Domestic
Existing
Renewal
Dunns Marsh
C - Swamp
03-07-53
Robeson Stream Characteristic:
Fayetteville USGS #
Wilson Date:
4/13/94 Drainage Area (m12): 5.0
H 23 NW Summer 7010 (cfs): 0.0
Winter 7010 (cfs): 0.38
Average Flow (ifs): 6.18
3002 (ifs): 0.48
IWC (%):
Existing WLA checked:
Staff Report:
Topo checked:
USGS Flows confirmed:
IWC Spreadsheet:
Stream Classification:
Nutrient Sensitivity:
lnstream Data:
Brief of WLA Analysis'I
1975: permitted w/ 20 mg/1 BOD5, 14 mg/1 TKN, 30 mg/l TSS, 200 / 100 ml Fecal, and 5 mg/I dissolved oxygen; for a proposed
discharge of 0.100 mgd There seems to have been a discrepancy in the 7010
1976: WLA now seems to have summer / winter limits with a trade out for higher BOD5 to lower NH3-N: 25 mg/I BOD5, 7.5 mg/l
NH3-N, 30 mg/I TSS, 200 / 100 ml Fecal, and 6 mg/1 dissolved oxygen. It looks as if the old WLA had a Basin Plan column and
an NPDES column and the limits in the Permit were taken from the Basin Plan column, (higher limits than presented above).
I'm not sure what limits the facility received, but they were similar to those stated above. Two more Level B's were run after
this, (no dates exist on forms). The limits were radically different, especially for BODE, but no documentation exists as to what
actions were taken with these analysis.
1985: a new flow was determined for this site and a zero flow model was run with a stream dissolved oxygen standard of 3.0 mg/l.
The summer / winter limits applied were: 10 / 24 mg/I BOD5, 5 / 9 mg/I NH3-N, 30 mg/l TSS, 1,000 / 100 ml Fecal, and 6 mg/1
dissolved oxygen. These new limits were questioned and a field study was requested, (notes in 1986 WLA file)
1986: many memo's were sent back and forth about the new limits recommendations. The final resolution was to Permit the facility
with their old limits; (27 mg/l BOD5, 15 mg/I NH3-N, 30 mg/I TSS,1,000 / 100 ml Fecal, and 5 mg/I dissolved oxygen) and
conduct an intensive survey of the area. One month later another WLA was finalized with limits for 0.1 mgd, (same as
previous) and 0.2 mgd, (15 mg/l BOD5, 5 mg/l NH3-N, 30 mg/l TSS, 1,000 / 100 ml Fecal, and 6 mg/I dissolved oxygen). A
model was run for this second set of limits, (still zero flow 7010) and a CBODA input with 1.5 BOD5 multiplication factor and a
4.0 NH3-N factor.
1990: the intensive study requested in 1986 had not yet been accomplished. The facility received our zero -flow choice between
more stringent NH3-N limit or Toxicity Test requirement. They chose a tox test with the first year being monthly monitoring and
Qrtly limit after that.
Basin Strategy
Until swamp system studies are completed, "new discharges will not be permitted at limits greater than 15 mg/I
BOD5 and 4 mg/l NH3-N (NH3-N may be lower if dilution is low). On occasion more stringent limits may be given if
staff believe that adverse impacts will occur or if discharge is to HQW or zero flow stream. Existing facilities will
receive existing limits unless they expand. Upon expansion they will receive existing loading (mass basis)." p. 6-6
This is based on permitting strategy for HQW per NCAC 2B .0201 (d) (1).
DMR's
Facility well within Permitted parameters, except flow exceedences in March and April, 1993 and 1991.
Chronic Toxicity Test: consistently passing
Staff Report
"Dunn's Marsh is a slow moving swamp which is frequently occupied by beavers. The Town's discharge is located downstream of
Cates Pickle Company, whtch now operates a nondischarge spray irrigation system. Also, there are two ponds located between Cates
Pickle Co. and the Town's discharge point."
Flows cannot be updated as discharge is in an HA2
No A'soCon) 4";

RecommendestLtmfts;
Monthly Averages
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.200
BOD5 (mg/I): 15 24.0 WO
NH3N (mg/I): 5.0 9.0 WO
DO (mg/1): 5.0 5.0 Daily Average
TSS (mgA): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6 - 9 6 - 9
Residual Chlorine (KM: monitor monitor
Oil & Grease (mg/l): nr nr
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Toxicity Test: Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) Toxicity Test P / F @ 90% : January, April, July and October
Parameter(s) Affected
NH3N
Requirement Change Due To...
Ammonia Acute Toxicity Criteria should cause the limit to
change to 2.0 / 4.0; but since facility has a record of passing
their Toxicity Test, this will not be recommended.
Upstream Location: NCSR 1725
Downstream Location: Highway 301
Parameters: Temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, conductivity

Town of Parkton Waste Water Treatment Plant NC0026921
Upstream: SR 1775 bridge
Month Temp DO
Saturation Fecal Conductivity
Mar-94 13 7.9 75% 90
Feb-94 10 7.9 70% 92
Jan-94 11 7.4 67% 92
Dec-93 12 7.8 72% 92
Nov-93_ 15 7.8 771% 97
Oct-93 19 7.5 81% 92
Sep-93 26 7.8 96% 93
Aug-93 26 7.9 97% 70
Jul-93 25 7.8 94% 117
Jun-93 23 7.9 92% 107
May-93 19 7.8 84% 95
Apr-93 14 7.8 76% 102
19.8
20
19
20
20-
21
29
29
34
35
33.8
23.5
Downstream: US
301
14
11
12
13
16
20
27
27
26
24
20
15
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
78%
73%
73%
75%
80%
88%
99%
100%
97%
94%
87%
78%
125
113
117
117
127
115
135
172
167
135
115
137.3
29.3
30
23.2
25.7
26
32
39
42
49
50
47.4
34
Ammonia [2 / 4 mg/Ia - Residual Chlorine - Focal Coliform
Inatream Waste Concentrations
Residual Chlorine
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cfs)
Stream Std (µgin)
Upstream bkgrd level (µg/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (µg/I)
allowable Concentration (mg/1)
Fecal Limit
Ratio of 0.0 :1
0.0
0.2
0.309
17
0
100.0%
17.0
0.017
200/100m1
0.0
0.2
0.309
1
0.22
100.0%
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.309
1.8
0.22
44.8%
3.7
Ammonia as NH3
(summer)
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cis)
Stream Std (mg/1)
Upstream bkgrd level (mg/l)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/l)
Ammonia as NH3
(winter)
7010 (cfs)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (cis)
Stream Std (mg/i)
Upstream bkgrd level (mg/I)
IWC (%)
Allowable Concentration (mg/1)
Hwy
Temp DO Saturation Focal Conductivity-
4/21/94

w
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No _X_
If yes, SOC No.
To: Attention: Susan Wilson
Permits and Engineering Unit
Water Quality Section
April 19, 1994
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County Robeson
Permit No. NC0026921
PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Town of Parkton WWTP
P.O. Box 55
Parkton, N.C. 28371
2. Date of Investigation: April 15, 1994
3. Report Prepared By: Kitty Kramer, Environmental Technician V
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Dan Webb [phone]
5. Directions to Site: The treatment plant is located southeast of Parkton
off of SR 1724.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all points:
Outfall 001 - Latitude: 34 52' 55" Longitude: 78 59' 59"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and
discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: H 23 NW USGS Quad Name: Hope Mills, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If no, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Flat to gently
rolling.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 1,000 feet.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Dunn's Marsh
a. Classification: "C-Swamp"
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 030753
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent down stream use:
Dunn's Marsh is a slow moving swamp which is frequently occupied by
beavers. The Town's discharge is located downstream of Cates
Pickle Company, which now operates a nondischarge spray irrigation
system. Also, there are two ponds located between Cates Pickle Co.
and the Town's discharge point.

Page 2
PART
1. a.
II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 0.2 MGD (Ultimate Design
Capacity) -
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment
facility? 0.2 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design
capacity) : 0.2 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two (2) years.
N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially
constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
This is an exiting facility consisting of a manual bar screen, dual
oxidation ditches, dual clarifiers, going to a parshal l flume and
flow meter followed by dual chlorine with stepdown cascade post
aeration. Facility also has a sludge digester and four sludge
drying beds and stand-by power.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment
facilities: N/A,
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters:
None expected, this treatment plant receives 100% domestic
wastewater from a population of approximately 357 people and one
elementary school.
g
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
In development
Should be required
Approved
Not Needed X
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM Permit No.:
Residual Contractor:
Telephone No.:
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP Other
c. Landfill: The Town of Parkton can still dispose of their dried
sludge in the Robeson County landfill.
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): N/A

Page 3
3. Treatment plant classification: (attach completed rating sheet):
This facility is a class II facility.
SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular facilities;
Primary 01 Secondary
Main
Treatment Unit Codes: 10001
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grants Funds or are
any public monies involved (municipals only)? This facility is not
presently involved with any construction, but when it was built is was
with (grant monies.
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including Toxicity) requests:
None requested.
3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates (please indicate): None
Date
Submission of Plans and Specification . .
Begin Construction . . . . . . . . . .
Complete Construction . . . . . . . . .
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the
nondischarge options available. Please provide regional perspective for
each option evaluated.
This 'facility is not increasing it's design flow or install any new
treatment unit, therefore this section is N/A.
Sray Irrigation: N/A
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
OtherDisposal Options: N/A
5. Other
Special Items: None

Page 4
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Fayetteville Regional Office that
subject NPDES Permit No. NC0026921 be reissued.
(
Signatuf Report Preparer
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Date