Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0061204_wasteload allocation_19930217NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION PERMIT NO.: NC0061204 PERMITTEEE NAME: Mr. Thomas M. Alphin FAClLrrY NAME: Scarlett Acres Mobile Home Subdivision Facility Status: Existing Permit Status: Renewal Major Minor _q Pipe No.: 001 Design Capacity: — d , 02 4 Domestic (% of Flow): 100 % Industrial (% of Flow): 0 % Comments: RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek Class: C Sub -Basin: 03-07-04 Reference USGS Quad: C 18 N\N (please attach) County: Forsyth Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/93 Treatment Plant Class: II _ Classification changes within three miles: no change Requested by: Charles Lowe Date: 11/23/92 Prepared by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: a I Modeler Date Rec. # `• 9z 7Z53 Drainage Area (mil) 0. ZZ Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 7Q10 (cfs) C Winter 7Q10 (cfs) p,L-7 30Q2 (cfs) 0,08 Toxicity Limits: IWC `ID % Acute((?ronic�; Instream Monitoring: — kTr�°"" F(f Parameters -Q�iup, GIRL Cou FbCCo` tJ1)U,- 7-1 V i TY Upstream Location , -r LEAsT EO " uP5-1K Downstream Location NC -sr_ 2Z19 Comments: Effluent Characteristics Summer Winter BOD5 (mg/1) 4 6U NH3-N (mg/1) D.O. (mg/1) TSS (mg/1) 30 40 F. Col. (/100 ml) -' 00 Zoo PH (SU) _q lml A I. i 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: FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION Scarlett Acres AMP NCO061204 Domestic - 100% Existing Renewal UT Mill Creek C 030704 Forsyth WSRO C. Lowe 11/23/92 C18NW Request # RECEIVED I.G. Dept. Of EM BAN 19 1993 7253 s ts-t.D - alen Regional Ofic+ r Stream ChilLacterisdc. USGS # Date: Drainage Area (mi2): 0.22 Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0.0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.07 Average Flow (cfs): 0.23 30Q2 (cfs): 0.08 IWC (%): 100.0 Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) Scarlett Acres MHP has had 1 flow, 2 BOD5, and 3 Fecal coliform violations in the past year. The facility has had 1 toxicity test failure in the past year. The facility has an A to C for 0.02 MGD, which is the design capacity of the plant. TSB recommends that the permit should be issued for 0.02 MGD instead of 0.024 MGD if the region and ME concur. Also, the region requests that the permit contain a condition that requires the facility to evaluate the feasibility of connection to the municipal sewer. The staff report indicates that the facility is not well maintained. Instream data appear OK. Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: Reviewed by Instream Assessment: Date: a 3 Regional Supervisor: Date: % =?S — S 2— Permits & Engineering: Date: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: FEB 12 1993 14 aEa- 0. -J,-fl . , .. . G�� 2(�Z SPat� UJITd UEE SIPGWGCA C1A1 �) loil7 ► (AA WE W"oa p 41VE F"W Opju1 n.OZMSD. CW flp?ty Fn2 &gANs(aN if- 1Hq WAar 0.0Z-4w•4r. -PC-5 PAC 1-ry 19 0-07-m4i)- Ala �on1GuP-R�p, 2 CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Existing Limi Monthly Average Summer Winter Wasteflow (MGD): 0.024 0.024 BODS (mg/1): 16 30 NH3N (mg/1): 12 monitor DO (mg/1): 6 6 TSS (mg/1): 30 30 Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200 PH (SU): 6-9 6-9 Residual Chlorine (µg/1): Toxicitytesting: Chronic Qtrly P/F at 99% TP TN (mg/1): Recommended Limits: Monthly Average Summer Winter WQ or EL Wasteflow (MGD): 0.02 0.02 BODS (mg/1): 16 30 NH3N (mg/1): 12 monitor DO (mg/1): 6 6 TSS (mg/1): 30 30 Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200 PH (SU): 6-9 6-9 Residual Chlorine (µg/l): To (mgty testing: Chronic Qtrly P/F at 90% TN (mg/1): Limits Changes Due To: Parameters) Affected Change in 7Q10 data Change in stream classification Relocation of discharge Change in wasteflow A to C for only 0.02 MGD Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) Instream data New regulations/standards/procedures tox testing at 90% New facility information 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. INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Upstream Location: at least 100 ft upstream Downstream Location: at NCSR 2219 Parameters: temp, DO, fecal coliform, conductivity Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS AdWuacy of Existing Treatment Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes No s X144 ,q � o 7-0r CiZ/ T` �i20u4 4 14 P-'fir 4."AV407 Lr.�rTJ If no, which parameters cannot be met? T , oo L S - L E O CfiiQ o n!r c i oaC i �, ry 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? kL--O,tC4-6 7-0 90 -7. /9A©z DvcAl A11 O- Cfiu 6 .tiv T .�C�7 rn1 h rr / TS, Special Instructions or Conditions Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) _N (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? _N (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments. Facility Name Permit # �i-6lZo o� : zi Pipe # CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in: 1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions. The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is96 (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thing days from the effective date of this permit during the months of 1 4.. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch North Carolina Division of Environmental Management 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, N.C. 27607 Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association with the toxicity tests, as wellas all dosefresponse data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly in the months specified above. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. 7Q10 cfs Permitted Flog 0. c2- MGD IWC 00. 0 % Basin &Sub -basin c 3o70& _ Receiving Stream ur Ma L CCV, County Recommended by: Date / z QCL P/F Version 9191 41 ll k ��1%r i✓1 r f , �`r` b do i WHOLE EMuE VT TOXICTCY TESTING O[S11.F-MONITORING SUMMARY] Thu, Ike 17, 1992 umERPORDTON W WTP PERM CHR LIM:48% NCOD25909 Begio: 10/01/90 Proqu cy. Q P/F A JUL OCf JAN APR NmComp: County:RUTHERFORD Region:ARO Subbasin:Cl'602 PF: 1.0 Special 7010:1.70 IWC(%):48 ordw. WELME GLASS CORP. PERM CHR LIM:90% NC0080792 Begbt:Feb 7,1992 Frequent'. Q P/F A PER MAY AUG NOV NmComp:Smgle Cotuuy:HALIFAX Region:RRO Subbuin:TAR04 PF: 0.08 Spiv 7010:0.0 1WC(%):100 Or& U ISBURY-GRANTS CREEK WV TP PERM CHR LIM:67% NCOOMSM Begm:04J01/9I Fmqueny: Q PIP A MAR JUN SEP DEC NonComp: Coumy:ROWAN Region: WO Subbasin: YAD04 PF: 7.5 Special 7Q10:5.8 IWC(%):67% order: U.ISBURY-TOWN CRI+J{K WWI'P IMLRM CIIR I.IM:85% NCO023892 Begn:02/01/88 Pmq.. y: Q P/P MAR JUN SU DEC County:ROWAN Region: MRO Subbasin: YAD04 PF: 5.00 Special 7910:1.40 IWC(%):84.7 Order: LLUDA W WrP LET CHR TAR:55% NCOD28975 Begm:Aug 1,1989 Ftequcmy.. Q PIP A PER MAY AUG NOV NcnComp: Couoty:POLK Region:ARO Subbasm:CIBO6 PF: 0.07 Speeid 7010:0.09 IWC(%):54.66 Order. - NmC.up: U4DOWSODYECO) PERM CUR LIM:1.8% NCOW4375 Begio:09/01/91 Roquency: Q P/F A MAR JUN SEP DEC NmComp: County:MECIG.ENBURO Rog(on: MRO Subbasin: CIB34 PP:3.90 Spepisl 7010: 95.0 RVC(%):5.98 Order: NCOM147 Couaty:LEE PP: 6.9 7Q10: 16.75 PERM CHR LIM:38% Begm:03/20/89 Frequency: Q P/P A MAR JUN SEP DEC NmComp: Region: RRO Subbasin: CPFI 1 Special IWC(%):38 Order. ;ARLET]' ACRES PERM CHR LIM:99% (GRAB) NC00612134 Begm:Sep 1, 1990 Fm*bcnuy: Q P/P A FEB MAY AUG NOV NmCony: County:FORSYTH Region: WSRO Subbum: YAD04 PF: 0.024 Sr —I 7Q10:0.0 IWQ%):100 Ord- 1RdEIDER MILLS, INC: 001 PERM CHR LIM:45% NCO034960 negbt:104)I188 Jiequenry: Q P/P JUN SEP DEC MAR NmComp: Coumy:ALEXANDFR Region:MRO Subbuin: C1'832 PF: 0.78 Special 7Q10: 1.50 IWC(%):44.63 order. COTCHMAN 893 PERM CUR LIM:99%(GRAB) NCO075931 Bcgin:l l/16/89 Pmgwny: Q P/F A FEB MAY AUG NOV NmComp: Couaty:PflT Region:WARO Subbesin:TAR05 PF: 0.015 Special 7010:0.00 IWC(%):1o0.00 I NCO 88 FAIL PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS -- -• bt FAIL 89 PASS — PASS -• -- PASS -- PASS -- 90 PASS -- ... FAIL -• PASS PASS PASS -- PASS -- 91 PASS --- ... PASS -• ••- PASS -- -• PASS -- 92 PASS -•- --- PASS -- ••- PASS -- •-• PASS 90 -•• PASS •-- --- NFt V 88 NONE NONE FAIL PASS -• FAIL -- -• FAIL -• -- 89 -- --- PASS -• •-- PASS -- -• PASS -- -- 90 _. _. PASS •-• •-• FAIL •-- PASS PASS -• -• 91 _. --- PASS ••• -- PASS -•• •-• FAIL FAIL FAIL 92 FAIL PASS PASS --• -• PASS,PASS -• -- PASS,PASS -- y 80 NONE (NR) -- --- '-' •-- 1%i --- FAIL ••• ••• 89 PASS -•• PASS --- --• PASS ••• ••- PASS ••• --- 90 -- -- PASS ••• -- PASS --- -- PASS -• -• 91 _. ..- FAIL PASS PASS PASS PASS -- PASS -- -•- 92 -- -• PASS,F -• ••• PASS -- -• FAIL,FAIL PASSRASS ... .__ ... _. ._. -. 83 NR W 89 NONE 2.24 NONE NONE NONE 70.7 5.44 3.07,F PASS -- PASS 90 -• PASS ••- -• NR FAIL NR PASS -- -- PASS 91 _. NR -- -• NR -• PASS NR FAIL -•- PASS 92 -• FAIL PASS •-- at -- -• PASS -• -- PASS V 89 -• (FAIL) --- -•- -- PASS --• (FAIL) -• -• (FAIL) 89 __ _• _. NR (FAIL) -- -- (FAIL) -• -- (FAIL) 90 -- (FAIL) --- •-- PASS -- -- PASS »• -- NR 91 _. NR PASS -- -• PASS -• -• NPI -- -• 92 -• •-- FAIL FAIL PASS FAIL PASS -- PASS as -- (NR) (NR) PASS -• FAIL (NR) -- PASS -- -- 89 (FAIL) -- PASS ••- -• PASS -• -- PASS -- -- 90 _. _. PASS --- ••• PASS ••. .-- PASS --- -- 91 _. __ PASS --- ••• PASS -- -- PASS -• -- 92 -• ••- PASS -- ••• FAIL PASS ••- PASS as 89 so 90 _ --- '-- •-• -- FAIL FAIL -- -- 91 FAIL PASS -•- --- FAIL FAIL PASS FAIL PASS -• PASS 92 -- PASS --- -•• PASS ••• -- FAIL PASS -• PASS 89 -- ••• FAIL --- --- PASS --- ••• LATE PASS --- --- FAIL --• PASS-- PASS -•• ••• 91 -- --- NR FAIL -•- PASS --- --• PASS ••• --• 92 PASS -• FAIL --- •-• FAIL --- '" PASS --- ... 1 ..- --_ -- PASS -•- LATE 91 -_ NR --- PASS NR ••• •-• FAIL PASS ••• NR 92 -• NR FAIL PASS NR --- "' NR -• FAIL PASS PASS PASS FAIL LATE PASS FAIL PASS NR PASS PASS LATE P•P PASS PASS FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS W PASS PASS 0 2cot mtivof dil =significantnom rVlisnm V Pre 1999 Data Available LEGEND: PERM = Permit Requbem ra LET = Adru'onistradw Letter -Tuget Fregneny = Monitoring frequency: Q- Quarterly: M- Monthly; BM- Bimm dy; SA- Semiannually: A- Annually: OWD- Only when discharging; D- Discontinued monitoring requirement: IS. Conducting independent study Bexin = P'ust month maubed 7Q10 - Receiving stream low flow criterion (cfs) Am qp.(uaarterl)• aronilming increases to monthly upon single failure Months that testing must occur -ex. JAN f WR,JUL,OCT NmCamp = Current Compliance Requirement PF = Permitted flow (MOD) IW C% = Imtm m waste cora:entratim P/F = a'ass/Fld chronic test AC = Acute CHR = Chronic Data Natation: f - Fathcad Minnow: s - Ceriodanhnla so.: my - Mvsid shrimp: ChV - Chronic value: P - Morality of stated percentage at hiOmst concentration: at - Performed by DEM Act Tox Group: bt - Had tut Reporting Notation:.._ = Data not required: NR -Not reported; ( ) - Beginning of Quarter Facility Activity Status: 1 - Inactive, N - Newly Issucd(To construct): H -Active but not discharging SIG = ORC signature nmded 46 i C E j cc: Permits and Engineering Technical Support Branch County Health Dept. TECOCAL SUPPORT BRANCH Central Files WSRO - _ �<s SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No X Y1 If Yes, SOC No. To: Permits and Engineering Unit Water Quality Section Attention: (Charles Lowe) Date: December 29, 1992 NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION County Forsyth Permit No. NCO061204 PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Facility and Address: Scarlett Acres Mobile Home Subdivision 5528 Old Walkertown Road Walkertown, NC 27051 2. Date of Investigation: December 23, 1992 3. Report Prepared by: Lee G. Spencer 4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Thomas M. Alphin (919)760-9247 5. Directions to Site: From Winston-Salem take Old Walkertown Rd. towards Walkertown. Turn left on Talphin Drive (which is across from RR distribution car lot). Go to end of drive and at tee intersection, turn right. WWTP will be on immediate left. 6. Discharge Points(s), List for all discharge points: Latitude: 36°10'03" Longitude: 80°11'06" U.S.G.S. Quad No. C18NW U.S.G.S. Quad Name WALKERTOWN 7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application ? X Yes No If No, explain: 8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): The WWTP sets in a low area immediately adjacent to the small tributary into which it discharges some �1000' downstream (below a neighbor's pond). 9. Location of nearest dwelling: A mobile home is within -100'. 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: An UT -1 mile from Mill Creek. a. Classification: C b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-07-04 C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: At this upstream end of Mill Creek and its tribs., water quality appears fairly good. Area is mostly rural to suburban residential. Several SFR's discharge into Mill Creek downstream. Part II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS 1. 2. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 0.02 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity) b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste Water Treatment facility? 0.024 MGD C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? 0.02 MGD d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two years. A/C for 0.02 MGD on Nov. 4, 1985. e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities: Bar screen into flow equalization tank; pump to splitter box; two parallel package plants with aeration basins and clarifiers; separate aerated sludge holding tank; chlorination and contact chamber; post aeration, effluent pump and force main. f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities. N/A g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Facility failed a chronic toxicity test in 1991. Letter from Steve Tedder dated 6/19/90 advised that facility should dechlorinate. h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A in development . approved should be required not needed Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM N'r"-roES &-,rmit Staff Report Version 10/92 Page 2 Permit No. Residuals Contractor Telephone No. b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP PFRP Other C. Landfill: d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): Sludge is concentrated in sludge holding tank and taken to Winston-Salem's WWTP when full, according to Operator. 3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Class II 4. SIC Code(s): 6515 Primary 08 Secondary Main Treatment Unit Code: 0 6 0 _ 7 PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? No 2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: Toxicity testing should possibly be considered. An alternative to this requirement may be to complete a feasibility and cost evaluation for connection to the municipal sewer system. 3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance 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: May be possible if connection to municipal NPDES .Perm-. :. St : Report Version 10/92 Page 3 sewer system is not feasible. Connection to Regional Sewer System: This is likely possible and should be given serious and immediate consideration. An evaluation should be conducted as mentioned in No. 2 above. Subsurface: Not possible. Other disposal options: None known. 5. Other Special Items: PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This system is not being maintained very well as was pointed out in the last Staff Report dated 3/06/90. Numerous items needing attention were pointed out to the Owner and Operator on the field inspection. This office plans to follow up with appropriate enforcement action on these items. It is recommended that an evaluation of connection to the municipal sewer system be a condition in the new permit. Such a study should be completed within six months of permit reissuance. With consideration of the above items, this office has no objection to reissuance of the permit. It may be wise to limit the life of the permit to three years or less. ignature of report preparer .�er Quality Regional Supervisor /'-� - '7 D % 7 - Date NPDES Permit St;.:ili _ or Version 10/92 Page 4