NC0026921_Permit (Modification)_19870429

Permit No. NCO026921
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
P E R M I T
To Discharge 1.1astewater 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,
+O�YNNAMA-UP.r'�11R €C�y�iQfN
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located
southeast of Parkton
on NCSR 1724
Robeson County
to receiving waters designated as Dunn's Marsh in the Lumber River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations., monitoring requirements, and other conditions
set forth in Part I, 11, and III hereof. •
This permit shall become effective April 29, 1987
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on
March 31, 1991.
Signed this day of April 29, 1987
DR1GINAL SIGNED BY
ARTHUR MOUBERRY
FOR
R. PAUL WILMS, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BY AUTHORITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT CON-11M1SSION
M1 S 11

Permit No. NC0026921
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Town of Parkton
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue the operation of the existing wastewater treatment facilities consisting
of two (2) parallel 0.10 MGD oxidation ditches, two , (2) parallel final settling
tanks with sludge return, effluent chlorination, post aeration, and waste
sludge handling facilities located southeast of Parkton on NCSR 1724 in Robeson
County (see Part 111 of this permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works into Dunn's Marsh which is classified
Class "C-Swamp" waters in the Lumber River Basin.

C
r
D
f
A. (1). EFFLUENT__ LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.
Final WINTER.-
November-
1 - March 31
During the period beginning on the effective date
of the Permitand
lasting until
expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) ooi.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as
specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements +
K d lbs d Other -Units (Specify)
Monthly Avg. eec Avg Mont y Avg. ee
Measurement
.S�le
Tie
* Sample
Frequency
Y
y M
Location
Flow o 0.2 mg,/I
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, .5Day, 20 C ** 24.0 mg /I
36. 0 mg /I
2/Month
Composite
E, i
Total Suspended Residue ** 30. 0 mg /1
45.0 mg /I
2/Month
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N 9.0 mg/I
13.5 mg/l
2/Month
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum) 6.0 mg/I
6.0 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 1000.0/100 mi. 200.0.0/100 mi.
2/Month
Grab
E,U,D
Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab.
E
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Total. Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
*Sample -.locations:-_ E - Effluent.,. I - In-flue-nt,—U•---Upstream,--D
----Downs,tream-
- ` --
** The monthly average effluent BOD and Total
Suspended Residue concentrations shall not'
exceed 15 0 of the respective influent values
(85 o removal) .
clip 00ft
A
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
N
shall be monitored 2/Month at the effluent by grab sample.
o,
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or
visible foam in other than trace amounts.
o

t
i
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Final SUMMER - April 1 - October 31
During the period beginning on
the effective date
of the Permitand
lasting until
expiration,
the permittee is authorized to
discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as
specified below:
'
Effluent Characterlsti*cs Discharge
Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
KgIdgy lbs d
Monthly Avg.
Other -Units (Specify)
Mont
Measurement
.Sle
* Stele
ee y Avg.
Y vg.
ee y vg.
Frequency
Tjr�e
Locatio.n
Flow o
0.2 mg/I
Continuous
Recording
I or E
BOD, SDay, 20 C **
15. 0 mg /1
22.5 mg /1
2/Month
Composite
E , I
Total Suspended Residue **
30.0 mg /I
45.0 mg /l
2/Month
Composite
E 1
NH as N
5.0 mg /1
7.5 mg /I
2/Month
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
5.0 mg/I
5.0 mg/I
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
1000.0/100 ml.
2000.0/100 ml.
2/Month
Grab
E,U,D
Residual Chlorine
Daily
Grab.
E
Temperature
Weekly
Grab
E,U,D
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
*Sample locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream, D-- Downstream
**The monthly average effluent BOD and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall
not exceed 150 of the respective influent values (85o Removal).
c'eeaa
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9..0 standard units and o C
shall be monitored 2/Month at the effluent by grab sample. �, Z
to 0
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. c

James (
S. Tho:
sale 00
T ,-o h
g Ked
JAN 14 1987 V -"
� Wanvd''
)' ENV. MANAGEMENT
F kYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
State of North Carolina ii I
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Martin, Governor E
` p �, R. Paul Wilms
as Rhodes, Secretary
�, �, w r c r-c i ]
o, Ie Hofar_e- W • &i i �;-(J . /� a yor li .� Director
l �
Subject: NPDES Permit Application
NPDES Permit No. NC00 ?tc
Dear LI <3 r l Cti f A e I
I
This Is to acknowledge receipt of the following;;
�I Application Form,
II Engineering Proposal (for proposed con
Request for permit renewal, r
Uounty
ocuments on 12,Sot
� o �
rol facilities),
Application Processing Fee of $ .0 ; t
Other 'C r C.- P C.-r-A'� ( t" Al6 A i A c- e, t-r << ,/I
The items checked below are needed before review can begin:
�I Application form (Copy;,enclosed),
Engineering Proposal 7See Attachment);
f4 Application Processing Fee of $
�i Other C F
If thet` application is not made complete within t;
be reurned to you and may be resubmitted when c
a.
This application has been assigned to Sa M U�
(919/7i33-5083) of our Permits Unit for review.
any comments recommendations, questions or other!
for 6e review of the application.
I am, by copy of this letter, requesting that ouji
Supervisor prepare a staff report and recommenda`1
discharge. If you have any questions regarding i
contact the review person listed above.
I
it
S1nC,erely,
frtiArthur Mouberr+
A� Supervisor, Pei
Pollution Prevention Pays li
1.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 91
t
I
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
i
iity 30 days, it will
mplete.
ou will -..be advised of
information necessary
Regional Office
ions regarding this
hi)s application, please
4
!P.E.
migts and Engineering

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 22, 1986
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Arthur Mouberry, Supervisor
Permits & Engineering
IGN AL 5K-WD BY
FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional Supervise
Fayetteville Regional Office MARON "
SUBJECT: Modification of NPDES Permit
Town of Parkton
NPDES Permit NC0026921
Robeson County
Based upon a field evaluation conducted by the Technical Services
Branch on October 2, 1986, the WLA for the Town of Parkton was revised.
It is requested that the effluent limitations contained in the Towns
permit be revised to reflect those in the new WLA.
Attached hereto is a copy of the new WLA.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
KTS/lcr
Attachment

ALDERMEN
MARY LEIGH WATSON
ROBERT_A. HUGHES - ---
__,I_QSEPH MARSH_DAWEL_ _
A. W. McMILLAN
WILLIAM K. POWERS
_.lows of 9 Q,Q ton
TOWN CLERK -FINANCE OFFICEF
AND TAX COLLECTOR
- `'HORACE-'W.-PARNELL
- -'" -- -0OROTI4Y_C71AwrNG­----
_�_. -MAYOR -- ...� ._ ..
WATER -SEWER
A/ n
1 12.%&0n,
JOHN L. ARMSTRONG, JR.
CHIEF -FIRE DEPT.
28371
LEWIS MOORE
December 22, 1986
=. • , .,".,_,..._.
DEC -�
Mr. Paul Wilms`
Director of Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
SUBJECT: Effluent Limitations
NPDES Permit No. NCO026921
Torn of Parkton Wastewater Treatment
Dear Mr. Wilms:
The Town of Parkton has reviewed the 'revision of the effluent limitations
for our wastewater treatment plant and request that the permit be modified
to include the new flow limits.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
74
Horace W. Parnell
Mayor
HWP/dcl

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
August 5, 1986
MEMORANDUM
To: Mick Noland
From: Meg .Ker
Through: Steve Ted er
�I
AUG .7 Ig86
` NAGEMEtdt
FA`(ETTEVIU.E gEG, OFFO
Subject: Effluent Limitations
Towns of Rowland, W7ar� ktonjand St. Pauls
Robeson County
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 request for 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. 1
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 BODS 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 wastelo;ad;allocation
is attached to the Central Files copy of the old perinit 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-informationjrequested
from the USGS. The actual 7Q10 at the discharge site;is:.0'cfs,.. _
and`the stream velocity is less than 0.1 fps (we usei0.1 fps as
the lower limit for our velocity extrapolation). We also assumed
a stream DO standard of 3 mg/l. 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/l and 6 mg/l. If this data is correct (and
it is different than data collected during 1985) then, our asses-
ment of the DO standard for Dunns Marsh was in error land the
effluent limits are not tight enough. i
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 DO of 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/l to 69 mg/l,
ammonia concentrations were consistently above 6 mg/l (only three
measurements), and the two measurements of effluent DO were 4.6
and 9 mg/l. Upstream and downstream DO data is highly suspect
since most measurements 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/l 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 Benton
Trevor Clememts
Dave Vogt

y
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
To: Tommy Stevens
From: Meg Kerr lio"I",
Subject: Effluent Limits for Prk.t
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.
E
�a�z,186 OCT 1986
7F,
y ENV. MANA(Zi
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFIC`o

2
X 1.
x.
.. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NANAGEMENT-
October 10,; 1986
MEMORANDUM
To: George Everett
From: Meg Kerr
Through:. Steve Tedder
Subject: Effluent limits for Town -of Par-kton -
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 andla 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 disch,'rge 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 =cons ig e�Ty above 7 m,g,/l, 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 modellis 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 sat-is-factorily address -the issues raised --
by this facility..
Please provide us with some guidance for resolving this sticky
issue. -
cc. Tommy Stevens

! _
f t ♦�r `�` K 5
DIVISION OF'ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
August 5, 1986
MEMORANDUM"
To: Mick- Noland
From w
Through: Steve Ted er
- r
Subject:.Effluent Limitations
Towns of Rowland, Parkton-and St. Paul's
Robeson County
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. Pauis have been returned to Raleigh unsigned
with a request for 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 19811 and was issued
-1/13/81 with the same limits as before. No wastelo�ad 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 Power limit for our velocity extrapolation).'il;) We -also assumed
__stream..:D.O___standard_ of_.3- mg-/l_ This--Estimate--was--based--on Pa-r-
ton's self -monitoring data collected during the summer of 1985.
However, Park.ton's recent data shows upstream and downstream DO
concentrationsof 5-mg/l and 6 mg/l. 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 DO of 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/l,
ammonia concentrations were consistently above 6 mg/l (only three
measurements), and the two measurements of effluent DO were 4.6
and 9 mg/l. Upstream and downstream DO data is highly suspect
since most measurements 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 Benton
Trevor Clememts
Dave Vogt

DIVISION OF.ENVIRONMENTAL.MANAGEMENT
October 9, 1986
MEMO RAN'DUM
TO George.Everett,.Chief
Water Quality Section
FROM M. J. Noland
Regional Supervisor.
Fay etteville.Regional Office
SUBJECT: Wasteload Allocation for
Town .of .Parktori
NPDESS-Permit No.. NCOO26921
Robeson. -County
The Town .of .P.arkton's NPDES .permit .was .recently reissued with .rather
restrictive effluent limitations: :(BOD 10.mg/l - NH -N 5'mg/1). The -.previous
NPDES .permit contained a .BOD limit of- .27 mg/l .and .an ammonia .of .15 mg/l.
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 7QIO.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.wgter 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/l and Ammonia 15 ing/l.be incorporated in the permit.
If additional -information -is needed, please advise:
KTS:edw
cc: Steve .Tedder

--------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM
---------------------
Facility Name
: TOWN OF PARKTON
Type of Waste
: DOMESTIC
Status
: EXISTING
Receiving Stream
: DUNNS MARSH
Stream Class
: C-SW
3ubbasin
: 030753
�ounty
: ROBESON
Regional Office
: FAYETTEVILLE
Requestor
: TOMMY STEVENS
)ate of Request
: 10-13-86
Zuad
: H23
Drainage Area (sq mi) : 0.
Summer 7Q10
(cfs) : 0.
Winter 7Q10
(cfs) :
Average Flow
(cfs) : 6.2
30Q2
(cfs) :
------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS-------------------------
fasteflow (mgd): 0.4
-Day BOD (mg/1): 27
.mmonia Nitrogen (mg/1): 15
lissolved Oxygen (mg/1) : 5 2I,,
'ecal Coliform (#/100ml): 1000
'H (SU) : 6-9 OCT 15 1986
ENV. MA-` A,=EMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
COMMENTS
HESE ARE THE OLD LIMITS FOR PARKTON. DUNNS MARSH AT THE POINT OF DISCHARGE IS
ZERO FLOW STREAM AND IS QUITE SWAMPY. THE LEVEL B MODEL DOES NOT APPLY TO
ITUATIONS OF THIS NATURE. AN INTENSIVE STUDY OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE
CHEDULED DURING THE LIFE OF THIS PERMIN
jvs-�
----------------------------------------------------
Recommended by. _—_ :Date
Reviewed by:
Tech. Support Supervisor I Date
Regional Supervisor Date
Permits & Engineering
Date

' .
Reouest No. 2608
-------------- - WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM ------------- -------
Facility Name TOWN OF PARKTON �Y
Type Of Waste DOMESTIC �
Receiving Stream DUNN'S MARSH CREEK
Stream Class C-SW
Subbasin 03-07-53
County ROBESON , \
^`
Regional Office � FRO /
Reouestor � D. OVERCASH ' �� ' �
Drainage Area (so mi) 5~0
7010 (cfs) O /\
�
Winter 7010 (cfs) 0^4 � ^+
3002 (cfs)
------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITS --------------------------
A w '2
Wasteflow (mod) 0^1 0.1 0,2 0^2
5-Day BOD (mg/1) 14 28
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1): 4 8
Dissolved Oxygen (mu/1): 6 6 6 6
PH (SU) 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9
Fecal Coliform (/100ml): 1000 1000 1000 1000
TSS (ma/1) 30 30 K 30 30
------------ --- --------------- COMMENTS'-----------'----------- ---
�-�mm � ��� ��n���~�m��, '�/� �� �� ����
--------------------------------------------------------------
�
FACILITY IS : PROPOSED ( ) EXISTING (-�/ NEW ( 5
LIMITS ARE 1 REVISION ( v~') CONFIRMATION ( ) OF THOSE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
--------------------------------------------- L ----------------------------------
RECOMMENDED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
SUPERVISOR, TECH* SUPPORT
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR
Approval is ( ) preliminary (
PERMITS MANAGER
APPROVED BY :
CHIEF, WATER QUALITY SECTION
� -
V-1- � ---DATE�
�---�� - -------DATE
�---------------- r----- DATE ----------
) final
---------------------- DATE :-------_--
--------------------i-DATE !----------

2T1 ',�,S T. PA ULS 8 Ml. 1678
E
4 000
1 MILE
4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
JAL 5 FEET
CAL DATUM OF 1929
Wu-L
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Primary highway, Light -duty road, hard or
hard surface..._._ ._ .. improved surface....
Secondary highway,
hard surface............ Unimproved road....._--_----_
GInterstate Route � U. S. Route O State Route
N. C.
■
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
,L MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
RVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
VD SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST Revisions shown in purple and woodland compiled in cooperation
with North Carolina agencies from aerial photographs taken 1981
PARKTON, N. C.
N3452.5—W7900/7.5
1972
PHOTOREVISED 1982
3864
3862
3861000m.N.
34 ° 52'30"
LL % n

NPDES WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION
Fh ineer Date Rec.
,7-re, A ZYO 8S ZlooB
Facility, Name:..
Tewi j aF
,p VKDD
Date
Existing
Pipe No.:
Oo(
/Ci6itSod
Proposed O
Permit No
_County:
Design capacity
(MGD) : 4- ��
_� Industrial of Flow) :
Ibmestic
(% of Flow)
Receiving Stream: -NokA5
�SrS% class:
C-'Sci
Sub -Basin: 03-d7-r3'
��� .�� ��: (� Z 3
(Please attach)
Requestor:
A.�, C)�ca&x� '
R ional;� Office. .
eg•1Qiiii..gei . �`f✓
(GaIde-line
limitations,
if applicable, are to
be listed
on the back of
this form.J`
Design Temp.: (e eG Drainage Area (mil) Avg. Streamflow (cfs) : C. �-
7Q10 (cfs) ® Winter 7Q10 (cfs) e_`30Q2 (cfs.)
Location of D.O. minimum (miles below outfall) : Slope (fpm) %�• p `~ ;,t•
Velocity (fps): �. Kl (base e� per day) : 49.4 3 ' K2 (bap e. Lo per day) �i fop
Y
CEftluen: I'onthly
Characteristics lvera a Comme is
_ _Effluent-°
'=Characteristics
Monthly
Average
Comments
ram,
/000 00 �r�
E
Chi on O Comments
Revi• eLi cation
w
ipared By:
7 inaf
rOf /di/ /w9 � Ci �,, -•I
P-V. PodReviewed By; Date:
�-
- -
f 7p
cM

-------.-____-- WASTEL.OAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL_ FORM ----------------------
Facility Name
:
TOWN OF PARKTON
Type Of Waste
:
DOMESTIC
Receiving Stream
DUNN'S MARSH CREEK
Stream Class
:
C-SW
Subbasin
:
03-07--53
Counts
ROBESON
Regional Office
:
FRO
Reauestor
:
D. OVERCAS11
Drainage Area (sG
mi) :
5.0
7 010 (c f s)
:
,0---
Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
i
0.4
-------------------------
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT
LIMITS
------
S W
S
tw
Wasteflow (mod)
:
0.1. 0.1
0.2
0.2
5-Dav BOD 01/1)
:
to 24
10
24
Ammonia Nitrogen
(mo/1):
5 9
5
9
Dissolved Oxygen
(ms/1):
6 6
6
6
PH (SU)
:
6--9 6-9
6-9
6--9
Fecal Coliform (/100ml):
1000 1000
1000
1000
TSS (ma/1)
:
30 30
30
30
---------••-------•-•-------------------
COMMENTS
---=-------------------------------
THESE LIMITS ARE EASED ON A STREAM STANDARD OF 3 MG/L:
THIS ASSUMPTION IS BASED ON INSTREAM DATA.
--_--------_..-.- _ -----_•-'^___.. _. _ _ .----------------._. .
FACILITY IS : PROPOSED ( ? EXISTING (K NEW ( ?
LIMITS ARE : REVISION ( ✓) CONFIRMATION ( ) OF THOSE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
RECOMMENDED BY: Vf
....DATE:
REVIEWED BY: isc
SUPERVISORY TECH. SUPPORT :_ _DATE :..11Q/-X/FC
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR ---------------------- DATE :--_.._._.-.--__-
Ap roval. is ( ) Preliminary A) final oo
PERMITS MANAGER -- _- _---__._._ _.DATE
APPROVED BY
CHIEFS WATER QUALITY SECTION ---------------------- DATE :--_._._.._._.---
"A.

GKEX88/MP
,
iO/29/85
COMPLIANCE
EVALUATION
ANALYSIS REPORT
PAGE 2
PERMIT--NCO02692i PIPE--001
REPORT PERIOD: �4iO-85O9 LOC---E
FACILITY--PARKTON
WWTP, TOWN
OF
DESIGN FLOW-- .iOOO
CLASS--2
LOCATION--PARKTON
REGION/COUNTY--06 ROBE%ON
0001O
00408
00500
00545
MONTH
TEMP
PH RE%/TOT
RE%/%ET
LIMIT
8400
16.34
6.8-6.8
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
84/ii
18.63
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
84/12
13.35
6.9-6.9
6.0
.O
`
85/O1
10.27
7.3-7.3
8.0
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
.
85/02
11.15
6O.O
.O
85/03
hi`66
- -
48�O
.O - - - -
--- ----
85/04
i3.22
0.0
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
85/05
17.i3
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
/
85/06
2i.05
.O
85/07
22.26
28^0
.O
LIMIT
F9.0 6.0
85/08
'
23.81
6.6-6.6
.O
85/09
24.80
7.1-7.1
120.0
.O
AVERAGE
i6.97
________
4i.5
.O
MAXIMUM
28.00
7.300
i20.0
.2
MINIMUM
7.00
6.600
6.0
.O
UNIT
DEG.0
%U
MG/L
ML/L

DF%2002
09:53:23 TERMINAL
CONNECTED
TO IM%/V%
IM%
-
GKEX88/MP
10/29/85
COMPLIANCE EVALUATION
ANALYSIS
REPORT
PAGE i
PERMIT--NC0026921
PIPE--OOi
REPORT
PERIOD:
808-8509
LOC---
E
FACILITY--PARKTON
WWTP, TOWN
OF
DESIGN
FLOW--
.i0OO
CLASS--2
LOCATION--PARKTON
!
REGION/COUNTY--06
ROBE%ON
50050
003iO
00530
006iO
31616
50060
00300
00340
MONTH
Q/MGD
BOD
| RE%/T%%
NH3+NH4- FEC
COLI
CHLORINE
DO
COD
LIMIT
_3%7�
84/10
.0428
4.00
|
� |
.O
.682
7.55
28.0
84/ii
.i804F
6.00
i8.0
.668
7.22
i8.0
','� �--'-
-_'
LIMIT
FO.O
F_
8402
.iii5F
2.60
| 4.0
/
6.00
.0
.804
8.83
24.0
85/01
.i536F
6.00
ii.O
21.00F
16.0
.959
9.85
12.O
LIMIT
F 30.0
F 15.00
85/02
.3279F
12.00
!
6O.0
i.070
ii.93
13.0
G1-25/O3---`3770E---6'OO---------------.O--4^014---M.16-
!
'14.�0
LIMIT
F 30.0
F 15.00
85/04
.3213F
6.00
! 16.0
|
6.00
.O
.758
8.40
10.8
LIMIT
30.0
F i5.00
85/05
.0952
16.00
|
.O
i.039
7.52
28.O
85/06
.0845
6.08
�
�
.0
.8i5
7.70
8.0)
LIMIT
F 300
F 15.00
85/07
.0765
8.00|
20.0
6.00
.O
.826
7.17
16.0
LIMIT
F .1000
F 30.0
F 15.00
85/08
4.00,
iOO.O
.927
7.36
21.0
LIMIT
F .i000
|F
30.0
F i5.00
85/09
.0923
2.0O�
15.0
2.00
.O
.457
10.09
16.8
AVERAGE
.1693
1
6.55
13.2
8.20
16.1
.834
8.73
17.3
MAXIMUM
.5380
16.00
20.8
2i.00
100.0
1.300
i3.O0
28.0
MINIMUM
.0100
2.00�
4.0
2.00
.O
.200
6.00
8.0
UNIT
MGD
^
MG/Lj
�
'
�
|
^
MG/L
MG/L
0/100ML
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L

?Rf 70- Y

Date:
Please review & route
to the following:
Arthur Mouberry
'George Everett
Tech Services

---------------------
Facility Name
TvPe Of Waste
Receiving Stream
Stream Class
Subbasin
Count
Regional Office
Remuestor
Drainage Area (so mi )
. 010 tc f'tz)
Winter 010 (cfs)
.3002 (c f s. )
WASTEI_f]AD AI...I.00A'T'ION Af-'I'-'ROVAL_
a TOWN OF PARKTON
DOMESTIC
DUON'S MARSH
8 C•-Swr
03-07-53
FORM --- -------------------
�W
f
------------------------- RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT L..IMITC;-�_._.---_.-_--..-_.----_---__._......_.
SU VKMtr w1. JA-t.[
�J s'tcflota tm�r�) Y 0.2 6•Z.
Ammonia Nitrogen ( m9/1) L. 2
Dissolved Oxygen 00/1.) : 5
F'ersl Col: 'f• orm (I1.00ml) Y 1000 L&WO
_EScS 09/1.) a 30 3b ,------------ COMMENTSA--.-,
%` G
_.._......_..__ _..__..__...._._._.._.._.. _ -_ -_ ._....... - _ _.._-------------------
FACILITY g
I; t F'I�,(:iPOSED t WEX.ISTIi7C? t ) NEW ( ) itol,
�_.
LIMITS ARE $ REVISION aION ( ) CONFIRMATION t ) OF T! OSE TfiC4f.T.ClI.►SLY ISSUED
RECC'lMMl:NDE D BY: ; .____.._._ _..... __ __...._..._DATE �Q..... REVIEW._._._......
5
SUPERVISORY TECH, SUPPORT, Y... ___....'.... DATE
fiOBE.:fi(:1N
a FRO
Y r,, OVERCA;SI-1
f 5 4)
4 t)
o 0,4
g
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR
Approval is t. ) Preliminary t
PE::RMI,T a MANAGER
......... ._..._._.__._..-;_----
DATE
i
....DATE
4
nw�i
'I
f
-.. 1
t ''
shy-�f
...._.._ _..__._—__-
6140S'

********** MODEL RESULTS **********
DISCHARGER !TOWN OF PARKTON
RECEIVING STREAM 1DUNN'S MARSH CREEK
**********************************************************************
THE END D^O. IS 6,46 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE END CBOD IS 2^61 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE END NBOD IS 0~00 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE D^O. MIN^ OF SEGMENT 1 IS 5,06 MG/L
THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 0,9
WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER 1
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 17 MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D,O, IS 6 MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 1 IS 0^2 MGD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D^O^ IS O MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 2 IS O MGD
**********************************************************************

S D Al n1t Of
I' ! i T.I E i.SUMMARY-DATA
;, ;5 ;;:
0.2- M6-D
Ds:tW.t:,'!-IriRGEFi
f T1-iWN OF i=`ARIC'l"ON
SUBBASIN s
O-07--5
RECEIVING STREAM
v I:tl.lNN' S MARSH CREEK
Si'f:F:AM Cl..ASS!
C- SW
7Q1 0
t 0 CI-S,
WINTER 701.0 c
CFS
DESIGN TEMF'ERATURE.
; 26 DEt:,F';EES C.
WASTEFL.OW t
0.2 MGD
I L..ENGTH I SLOPE I
VELOCITY I DEPTH I
III
I III
I K2 I K2 I Kn I
!MILES i F T/'M l: I
FPS l FT I
/DAY
I @20
1/DAY 1 020 I /DAY 1
SEGMENT 1.
1 1,801 11,001
04100 1 0.32 1
0. `:i6
1 0,41
1 2.261 1081 1 0. ;)0 1
;EACH 1.
I I I
I
I
I
I I I I
SEGMENT _
1 3001 5701
0.1.00 1 0.36 1
0.52 1
0.19
1 1.4171 1..01E 0.001
R'EACH ._
1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1
,tit** INPUT DATA SUMMARY **
1
CF S I
MG/I
I MG/L I
i' G/L I
I
I
I I
1
SEGMENT 1. REACH 1. I
1
! I
I
WASTE I
1..240 1
1.7 * 000
1 0.000 1
6.000 1
HE11CIWA f I,--Fi'r.S I
0000 1
0.000
1 0000 1
Oi 000 I
TRIBUTARY 1
0.000 1
0.000
1 0,000 1
0.000 1
RUNOFF 1
0.000 1
0 000
1 0.000 1
0.000 1
!
SEGMENT 1. REACH 2 1
I
1
I 1
1 I
1
1
WASTE 1
0.000 1
0.000
1 0 000 1
0.000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0.:700 1
0,,000
1 0 000 1
0-000 1
RUNOFF l: �NO�=
1 F it 1
0 025 1
F
:'6 % 00
1;`
.
1 0 000 1
1
7. 400 1
y'rt RUNOFF FLOW IS IN CFS/ MILL;

=^ ~ '
jc��
"
�
|
********** MODEL RESULTS
/
`
|
DISCHARGER :TOWN OF PARKTON
RECEIVING STREAM !DUNN'S MARSH /
. /
/
!
( . /
\'
`
THE END D^O', IS 8^21 MG/L . !
**********************************************************************
THE END CBOD IS 4^46 MG/L � |
/
THE END NBOD IS O^OO MG/L '
.
THE D^O^ MIN, OF SEGMENT 1 IS 4^93 MG/L
THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 1^2 /
WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER J. '
�
'
THE WLA FORSEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 97 MG/L OF CBOD �
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D.O. IS 5 MG/L �
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 1 IS 0^2 MGD
. .
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF NBOD '
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D^O, IS O MG/L /
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 2 IS O MGD |

DISCHARGER t
RECEIVING ING STREAM
7Q1.0 t
DESIGN TEMPERATURE t
DUNN' S MA(-tiSH STREAM i CL. ASS t
.CFS WINTER '7010 t
15: I{EGRE::f S C. • WASTEFLOW i
0.7— 1446,Y,)
O3-07-53
C:_ SW
0.4 CFS
0.2 MGD
1 LENGTH I SL..OPE I
YEI. OCITY
I DEFT H
I KI
I k1.
I K2 I
K2
. I Kra 1
I MII_.ES I FT/Ml: 1
FPS
I FT
I /DAY
1 00
I /I{AY 1
e20
I /I{AY I
SEGMENT 1.,
! I I
1 14801 111001
0,100
I
1 045
I
1 0.32
1
1 0. 39
1 1
1 1011
1 .
I I
°r`3. 1 0.00 1
F;I',ACF7
SEGMENT 1
1 3,501 5,701
0.105
1 1.17
! 0630
1 0.36
1 0.9? 1
1.081
0. 00 1
1'4EAC1-1 2
._�_....�....v:..�«..�._....._�...__._T��...�...._...«..,__�....��._...._.._.._.__.Y..«.Y...._«..��._�-.._.ram_.
1 1 1
1
1
I
-��-_.��,..._�__�..........»__.__..._.___._�
I
{
i
I
I I
-
I I
r•,
*** INPUT DATA 1LIMPrARY **A,
I
FLOW I
CBOD
I ABOb I
I{.Ol I
I
CFS
I NG/L
I MlG/1._ I
MG/I...
I
SEGMENT .1 I I
!
I
I I
I � I
!
!
11REr('�CH
WASTE E 1
0,310
1 974000
1 0.000 1
5. 0L 0 1
H- AIIWATERS I
0.400 �
1 2 000
1 COW 1
9.000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0.000
1 ©_.Jo00r
1 <+��.(c�����(c��, 1
1
RUNOFF � 1
0.080
1 n .000
1 O.O40 1
!0}.>cr�(00
7.1i00 1
SEEGi'1L••".NT 1 REACH 2 1
WASTE 1
0.000
1 0.000
1 Q.Opo 1
0.000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0.300
1 2.000
1 0.000 1
9.000 1
RUNOFF 1
-
0.470
1 400
1 &OPO 1
1
9000 1
��c RUNOFF FLOW ,IS IN CFS/MILE

UP
Date: IO I `g5
Please review & route
to the following:
Arthur Mouberry
George Everett
Tech Services

Pt
t No. 1 2608A
--------------------- WASTELOAD ALLOCATION APPROVAL FORM ---------------------
` )
Facility Name TOWN OF PAROON ! �
Type Of Waste DOMESTIC '
keceivinA Stream t DUNN'S MARSH �
Stream Class '' | C-SWe
Subbasin 03-07-53
County ROBESON � |
Regional Office FRO
Reouestor D. OVERCASH
|
Drainage Area (so mi) t 5^0
�
7Q10 (cfs) O ` |
Winter 7010 Qfs) 0^4 ' �
i
3002 (cfs) � .
------------------------- RECOMMENDED AFFLUENT LIMITS --L-----------------------
Sam M0^ L~"-�^°�~°
�
Wasteflow (mad) 0,1 0-1 � >
1Om� ay 5 DBOD (/l> � -
Ammonia Nitromen (mg/1)l 2 |
Dissolved {]xygen (mg/l)| 6
PH (SU) � 6-9
Fecal Coliform (/1OOml)i � 1O00
TES (mg/l)' 30
-------------------------�--------- COMMENTS -----------�-----------------------
/
^� ca
------------��------------�---�-----�z�--- ---------��------------�r--------�
FACILITY IS t PROPOSED ( XISTING ( / NEW
~�' ^ | I --
LIMITS ARE t REVISION ( ~) CONFIRMATION ( ) OF THOSE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED------------------------------------ ----------- ---- - ---------~-------
RECOMMENDED BY! DATE� ---
REVIEWED BY!
�
|
SUPERVISOR, TECH. SUPPORT ��--- �-- -- DATE �-��/����=`°-
---�7------ � - -
REGIONAL SUPERVISOR ......... j--L.... DATE ............
Approval is ( ) preliminary ( ) fi '
PERMITS MANAGEf TE 1 jfk-c-
/
/
^ �
/
/
/
.
.
/
' �
'
/

. .
c�
********** MODEL RESULTS **********
DISCHARGER :TOWN OF PARKTON �
RECEIVING STREAM !DUNN'S MARSH CREEK
/
**********************************************************************
THE END D,O^ IS 6,58 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE END CBOD IS 2^47 MG/L
**********************************************************************
THE END NBOD IS O^OO MG/L
THE D^O~ MIN, OF SEGMENT 1 IS 091 MG/L
THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT 00
WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER 1
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS 18 MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 1 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D,O. IS 6 MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 1 IS 0^1 MGD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D,O^ IS O MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 2 IS O MG'.(:!
**********************************************************************

JtiO4rn e✓'
i1ClX:tEI.' SUi•ii°ir• RY -iATA .t«=
o , I %l (ram
DISCHARGER
I' '1`C7,kN
OF f='t` RKTON
SUt:::hASIN
1
03--0 --53
RECEIVING
STREAM
1 DUNN'S
MARSH
CREEK
STREAM CLASS!
C-SW
7 0io -
_
F 0 CFS
W.T.7�. � E,F, it�1.
WENTER
,
, �
� FS
0. � t::� ,
DESIGN TEMPERATURE
6 DEGREES
C.
WAST{E.Fi...(:iW
:1
0+1. MGLt
I I..ENGTH I
S1._t: PE I
VELOCITY
I rtEP T H
I K1. I K1 I
K2
1 K2 1
Kt-, I
I MILES I
FT/MI I
FPS
1 FT
I /DAY I P20 I
i DAY
1 t: 20 I
,rDAY I
SEGMENT 1.
f I
1 1 , g0 1
I
11,001
04100
I
1 0 , 32
I 1 I
1 OZ6 1 0.43 1
2.261
! (
1 , 98 1
0.001
REACH 1.
I I
I
I
I I I
I I
I
SEGMENT ME: NT 1
E 1
1 3.501
I
5,701
0.100
I
1 0.36
I 1 1
1 0.52 2 1 009 I
1.171
1 1
1, 0 1
I
0.001
1"t E. t=t C:1-! 2
1 1
1
1
1 1 1
I 1
I
I
FLOW I
CBt7Lt
I 'itBOD 1
D.O. I
I
CFS. i
MG!I_
I MG:l_ I
MG/l... I
I
SEGMENT .1. REACH 1. I
I
I
I I
I I
1
I
WASTE 1
0.155 1
18,000
1 0,000 1
cr. !' 00 1
HEADWATERS 1
0.000 1
0,000
1 0000 1
0.000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0000 t'J00 1
0.000
1 & 000 1
0000 00 1
RUNOFF 1
0.000 1
0.000
1 0.000 1
0000 1
i
SEGMENT 1. REACH 2 1
I
1
I i
1 1
I
1
WASTE 1
0000 (
0.000
1 0000 1
0000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0.000 1
04000
1 0.000 1
0.000 1
RUNOFF 1
0,023 1
2.000
1 0 000 1
7.400 1
,;: RUNOFF
FLOW IS
IN CF
M I:LE

.
TOWN OF FARKTON:
RECEIVING STREAM ! DUNN'S MARSH CREEK
WASTEFLOW i 041
| SEG NO
| REACH |
SEG MI |
DO |
CBOD |
NBOD |
FLOW |
| 1
| 1 {
O^OO|
6,001
186001
O.SO|
O^161
| 1
| 1 |
0.101
5.721
17^391
O^OO|
0^161
| 1
| 1 }
01^201
5^491
164811
0001
O.161
1
0~301
5^311
16^241
O.00|
0,161
� 1
| J. \
0,401
5.171
15~701
04001
0^161
| 1
I 1 |
0^501
54071
15^171
O.00|
0^161
| 1
\ 1 |
0^601
5,001
14^661
0^001
0~161
| 1
| 1 1
0,7O1
4.951
14.161
0.001
0,161
| 1
i 1 i
0.801
0921
134691
0^001
0^161
| 1
| 1 \
0^901
4,911
13^231
O^OO|
01161
\ 1
\ 1 \
1^001
4^921
12,781
0.001
O.161
| 1
| 1 {
141O1
44941
12~351
0^001
0,161
| 1
| 1. |
1.201
4,974
11.931
01001
0^161
\ 1
| 1 !
1.301
5011
11,531
O^OO|
0^161
| 1
| 1 \
1^401
5^061
11.141
0.001
0^161
| 1
1 1 |
1,501
5,111
10.771
0.00|
0,161
l 1
| 1 |
1^601
5^171
10^411
O~OO|
0^161
| J.
| 1 l
1.701
5^241
10^061
O,OO|
0^161
{ 1
| 1 1
1.801
5^301
9+721
O^OO|
0^161
1 J.
| 2 {
1^801
5001
9.721
0.001
0^161
| 1
! 2 |
1,901
5041
9^291
0,00|
0.161
\ 1
1 2 1
2.001
5^201
81891
04001
0^161
! 1
! 2 (
2,101
5~17|
B~511
01001
0^16}
I 1
| 2 |
2^201
5^161
8^151
04001
0.171
| 1
| 2 |
2,301
5^16|
7^811
0,001
0^171
| 1
| 2 (
2,401
5~16\
7,481
0^061
0^171,
1 1
| 2 |
2^501
50181
7,17l
O.00|
0^171
| 1
| 2 1
2,60)
5.201
6.87(
O,OO|
0~181
\ 1
\ 2 |
2^701
5031
6091
O^OO|
01181
| 1
\ 2 \
24801
5~271
6~321
0^001
� 0,181
| 1
\ 2 1
2,901
5^311
6,071
O~OO|
0,181
| J.
1 2 \
3^001
5^351
5^821
O^OO|
0^191
| 1
| 2 !
3,101
5.401
54591
O^OO|
0^191
! 1
| 2 1
3^201
5,451
5.371
O,OO|
0^191
\ 1
\ 2 |
3.301
5^501
54161
0^001
0^191
| 1
\ 2 |
3,401
5.561
4~961
0.001
0^201
| 1
| 2 |
3^501
5,611
4°771
0^001
0,201
\ 1
| 2 |
3^601
54671
4,591
0,001
0^201
| 1
\ 2 \
3,701
54731
4.411
0.00|
0001
| 1
) 2 |
3.801
5,781
4^251
0.001
04211
� 1
| 2 \
3~901
5.841
4^01
O^OO|
0^211
) 1
| 2 |
4.001
5^901
3.931
0.001
0,211
� 1
\ 2 {
4.101
5^951
3^791
0.001
0,211
| 1
\ 2 |
4.201
6,011
3,651
0,001
0011
� 1
| 2 |
4.301
6,071
3021
O.00|
0,221
| 1
\ 2 |
4,401
6^121
3^391
O,OO|
0,221
� 1
| 2 |
4^501
6.181,
3.271
O^OO\
0.221
| 1
1 2 i
4,601
66231
31151
O,OO|
0^221
! 1
\ 2 |
4,701
6.281
3.041
O,OO\
04231
| 1
| 2 |
4^801
6,341
2041
O.00|
0^231
| 1
\ 2 |
4^901
6.391
2^831
O^OO|
0031
| 1
1 2 |
5^001
6~441
2.741
O,OO|
0^231
i 1
| 2 \
5,10|
6^491
2^641
O~OO{
\ 1
\ 2 |
5^201
6^531
2.561
O^OO|
O,241
' ^
` ~ '
= "7^'
' =n'
, ^-7`
« :«`
^ ,^`
§"m vner
o^ I xmK"--D

0" I ~,o^-D
********** MODEL RESULTS
�
) .
DISCHARGER !TOWN OF PARKTON
RECEIVING STREAM :DUNN'S MARSH
THE END D,O^ IS 8^68 MG/L
.
THE END CBOD IS 3^19 MG/L' | !
THE END NBOD IS O^O0 MG/L '
|
�
THE D,O^ MIN^ OF SEGMENT 1 IS 5^87 MG/L .
{
THIS MINIMUM IS LOCATED AT SEGMENT MILEPOINT O.7 �
>
WHICH IS LOCATED IN REACH NUMBER 1
THE
WLA FOR SEGMENT 1
REACH
1 IS 110 MG/L OF CBOD ' \
THE
WLA FOR SEGMENT 1
REACH
)
1 IS O MG/L OF NBOD �
THE
REQUIRED EFFLUENT
D^O^
IS 0 MG/L
THE
WASTEFLOW'ENTERING
BEG
1 REACH 1 IS 0,1 MGD � �
�
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF CBOD
THE WLA FOR SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 IS O MG/L OF NBOD
'
THE REQUIRED EFFLUENT D.O. IS O MG/L
THE WASTEFLOW ENTERING BEG 1 REACH 2 IS' O MOD �
***
MODEL SUMMARY
DATA
.
/
/
DISCHARGER .
1 TOWN
OF PARKTON
SUBB I
t 03-07-53
RECEIVING STREAM
i DUNN'S
MARSH
STR� LASS:
C-SW
7010
� CFS
WINTER 700
: O^4
CFS
DESIGN TEMPERATURE
16 DEGREES
Co�
WASTEFLOW
[
: 0^1
MOD
|LENGTH{SLOPE
|
VELOCITY !DEPTH
|
| Al | 01
! K2 i
K2 | Kn !
|MILES |FT/MI {
FPS , | FT
( /DAY | @201
|/DAY 1
020 |/DAY |
SEGMENT 1
| 1^801
11,O0\
0,100 | O^65
| 0,32 | 0.3i
1 1011
1^981 O.00|
REACH 1
================================================================================
| |
)
| |
SEGMENT 1
| 3.501
5,701
0^105 | 107
\ 0~30 [ 0;36
| 0,991
1°081 0001
REACH 2
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| >

oil rM G-7j
INPUT DATA SUMMARY
I
F'1...0W
I CBOD I
qBdD
I D.0, 1
CFS
I MG; L I
MG1L
I MG/I_ I
SEGMENT REACH 1. I
WASTE 1
0.155
1 1.1.0.000 1
0.000
1 0, 000 I
HEA.T.EWATERS I
0,400
1 2,000 1
0 .000
I :. 00Ct I
TRIBUTARY 1
0.000
1 0.001,i 1
0.000
1 0.000 1
lti1JN(JFF 1
0,080
1 2000 1
000
I
1 V 000 1
l
SEGMENT 1 REACH 2 1
1 I
I I
I
I
I f
WAKE 1
0.000
1 0.000 1
6. (oo
1 0.000 1
TRIBUTARY 1
0.300
1 2000 1
6.000
1 9.000 1
RUNOFF 1
0.670
1 2000 1
6.040
1 9.000 1
RUNOFF
FLOW IS
IN CFS/MlLq
I
I
I
f