The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0021709_Wasteload Allocation_19950214NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0021709 Jefferson WWTP Document Type: Permit Issuance (Wasteload Allocation 4,-,3KTi�Ys1:TM!M+1eWRVtb{.,-r:.: to - Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Owner Name Change Technical Correction Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: February 14, 1995 This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any content on the revex- se side P5L- Page 1 Note for Jackie Nowell From: Ruth Swanek Date: Tue, Feb 14,1995 2:12 PM Subject: Jefferson To: Coleen Sullins; Dennis Ramsey; Don Safrit; Linda Forehand cc: Carla Sanderson; Charles Alvarez; Dave Goodrich; Jackie Nowell Dennis, Linda - I talked to Don and Coleen about this. Since the facility had time to comment on the NH3 limit, we should not take it completely out of the permit. This could set a bad precedent. However, we should recalculate the limit using the 0.3 MGD design flow and send out a corrected permit. The correct NH3 limits would be 5.7 mg/l in summer and 13.3 mg/l in winter. We should probably also recalculate the whole effluent tox limit and the chemical specific tox limits since the current limits assumed a flow of 0.375 MGD. I guess we will go ahead and use our new tox procedure to calculate the toxics limits. Is there a time frame we (or I mean Jackie) need to have this done by? Page 1 Note for Jackie Nowell From: Ruth Swanek Date: Mon, Jan 30, 1995 9:32 AM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Jackie Nowell Thanks Jackie. I will probably come by and get the file and go down and talk to Dennis about this so the mail messages can stop. From: Jackie Nowell on Mon, Jan 30, 1995 9:04 AM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Ruth Swanek The NH3 limits @ 0.3 MGD , 5.7 and 13.3 mg/1, were recommended in 3/92 if NH3 was the reason that Town was failing toxicity. WSRO responded that they believed chlorine was the reason for tox failure. However they "have no problem with an NH3 limit". Based on compliance data from 12/90 to 11/91, Jefferson had an yearly average NH3 concentration of 4.75 mg/1, (max. value of 22.0 mg/1). With monthly avg. values ranging from 0.33 to 8.7, we felt that the proposed NH3 limits could be met by the facility. Compliance data from 2/92 to 1/93 had a yearly avg of 8.79 (max. 15.8), monthly avgs. ranged from 2.97 to 11.38. So it seemed like the Town's treatment declined during that year. In 3/93 the town requested an expansion flow and more stringent NH3 limits were given. From: Ruth Swanek on Mon, Jan 30, 1995 7:13 AM Subject: FW: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Jackie Nowell Did Jefferson choose NH3 limits over tox at the 0.3 MGD flow? Or did we give NH3 since data looked like they could meet them? From: Dennis Ramsey on Fri, Jan 27, 1995 4:52 PM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Ruth Swanek RUTH I MAY BE CONFUSED BUT I THINK WE GAVE THEM AMMONIA LIMITS FOR THE "EXISTING" FACILITY AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION. WAS THAT PLANNED? THANKS DENNIS From: Ruth Swanek on Fri, Jan 27, 1995 3:25 PM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEPFERSON To: Dennis Ramsey It is our procedure (approved by EPA) to give all new and expanding WWTP ammonia limits based on toxicity if they are more stringent than those needed from a DO standpoint. Since the Town expanded, it got these limits. Frankly, when they planned their expansion, they should have planned for these limits. Page 2 As far as WET question goes, facilities are required to monitor for it only quarterly. In addition, I do not think that WET adequately covers certain parameters (such as those that are bioaccumulative). It may be adequate for ammonia if the facility tested for WET much more frequently. To date, we have not waived a chemical specific tox limit because the facility has a WET test although I do see these procedures changing in the future. Ken's group and Dianne Reid would have to be strongly involved in any changes along these lines. From: Dennis Ramsey on Fri, Jan 27, 1995 3:12 PM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Ruth Swanek Cc: Dianne Williams Wilburn; Don Safrit; Jackie Nowell RUTH IF THE ANNONIA LIMIT IS DUE TO TOXICITY, WHY IS IT NEEDED IF THEY ALREADY HAVE A TOX LIMIT? THEY PROBIBLY WILL BE UNABLE TO MEET THE AMMONIA LIMIT WITHOUT BUILDING SIGNIFICANT WWTP MODIFICATIONS. THE REGION APPARENTLY DID NOT CATCH THE FACT. THESE MODIFICATIONS WILL COST THE TOWN BIG BUCKS. IS THAT REALLY NECESSARY IF THEY CAN MEET TOX LIMITS?? THANKS DENNIS From: Ruth Swanek on Fri, Jan 27, 1995 2:47 PM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Dennis Ramsey; Don Safrit; Jackie Nowell Thanks Jackie. Dennis/Don - FYI. Let us know if you need something else. From: Jackie Nowell on Fri, Jan 27, 1995 2:37 PM Subject: RE: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Ruth Swanek Jefferson was initially given summer and winter ammonia toxicity limits of 5.7 and 13.3 mg/1 in WLA completed in 5/92. At that time, Jefferson had a permitted flow of 0.300 MGD. Review indicated that new NH3 limits needed to be given. Tech Support discussed the assignment of these limits with WSRO staff and they concurred . In 3/93, Jefferson requested an expansion to 0.375 MGD, and new AT limits of 3.9 and 11 mg/1 were given at that time. Although Jefferson also has a toxicity test at 21%, upon flow expansions, SOP recommends that ammonia toxicity limits are also given. From: Ruth Swanek on Thu, Jan 26, 1995 12:27 PM Subject: FW: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Jackie Nowell Cc: Dennis Ramsey; Don Safrit Please look into this for Dennis. My guess is that it was toxicity based. From: Don Safrit on Thu, Jan 26, 1995 12:24 PM Subject: FW: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Ruth Swanek Page 3 Could you have the appropriate staff member look into this and let me know what's found out? Within the next couple of days if possible. Thanks, Don From: Dennis Ramsey on Thu, Jan 26, 1995 12:20 PM Subject: TOWN OF JEFFERSON To: Don Safrit DON WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING AGAINST THE TOWN OF JEFFERSON FOR NH3 VIOLATIONS. IN ORDER TO HELP US DECIDE WHAT OR IF THEY SHOULD BE ASSESSED, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS. WHEN THE PERMIT FOR JF NERSON WAS LAST ISSUED, IT CONTAINED AN NH3 LIMIT FOR THE FIRST TIME. WHY WAS THE LIMIT ADDED? WAS A COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE CONTAINED IN THE PERMIT TO ALLOW TIME TO COMPLY? LOOKING AT THE DMR DATA, THEY WERE DISCHARGING WELL ABOVE THE NEW LIMIT BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. THANKS DENNIS REQUEST NO: 9252 SOURCE: NRCD SITE NO: 1 DATE: 5/25/93 ACTION: NEW STATION NUMBER: 0316102277 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: NAKED C BL NC 16/88 NR JEFFERSON, NC LOCATION: 0.05 MI BL NC 16/88 AND 2.6 MI E OF JEFFERSON, NC LATITUDE: 342436 LONGITUDE: 812543 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 DRAINAGE AREA: 7.64 AVERAGE FLOW: 14. 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 2.2 (SUMMER) SQ MI [B] [C] 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 4.7 [C] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 3.4 [C] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 3.9 [C] NOTES: [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. AUG 101s9, ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 DATE 9/74/9 ,&/&ft £(9c/ Si REQUEST No. ?25 USGS F10 Dota Request Requested by: A�`�- �£�� SITE No. 1 County f}5k River Basin Akeh✓ NRCD Sub Basin 05'7°, Map No. or Name /3AlCA) Station No. 034/0 Zz?"- Secondary or Primary Road No. Stream Name /U o CA ECG Data Requested: Drainage Area ✓ Average Flow ✓ 30 Q 2 ✓ Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10 c'quest and map in duplicate. SITE No. 2 County AAL River Basin NRCD Sub Basin ) s070/ Map No. or Name /3/3^/c,J Station No. Secondary or Primary Road No. Stream Name Aid6EJ CrELIC Data Requested, Drainage Area Winter 7010 ✓ Summer 7Q 10 Average Flow ✓ 30 Q 2 SITE No. 3 County ILL River Basin 'a0 O Sd7� NRCD Sub Basin Map No. or Name 8 I 3 ti Station No. Secondary or Primary Road P / c4 er Stream Name a> when making a Data Requested: Drainage Area ✓ Average Flow ✓ 30 Q 2 Winter 7 Q 10 ✓ Summer 7 Q 10 0 Z DATE_________1 zZ�r3 REQUEST No. 72S 2- Stream Name USGS Flow Data Request Requested by: ��+.� '^'f// SITE No. 4- county 44z. NRCD Sub Bosin oso7a/ Map No. or Name River Basin fi/3 A4A) Station No. Secondary or Primary Road NoAtica LA - Data Requested: Drainage Area ✓ Average Flow 'f 30 Q 2 '/ Winter 7 Q 10 � Summer 7 Q 10 / SITE No. VS County ._,th41- River Basin N4-0 NRCD Sub Eosin 650 70 / Mop No. or Name Rj'/(Al g Station No. Secondary or Rimary Road No. 9 Stream Name c-nal Folik devi Z;ic.. Data Requested Drainage Area Average Flow __._ 30 Q 2 Winter 70 10 Summer 70 10 _Zit tL.Ati- &Via Cam-, a�ntrc. c SITE No. 06 County Aric, River Basin iv' li OSoi°I Ma No. or Name �/3 4� D NRCD Sub Basinp 0 w Station No. Secondary or Primary Road 0) i.#/• Ahiti Critk g. Stream Name Data Requested: Drainage Area ✓1 Average Flow 30 0 2 E Winter 7 Q 10 Summer 7 Q 10'/ _ -riv 0 z -V `�.7/c) ��-� /2 - 77/1-/ 1 IOLFN!)A! F is AUG 1p1993' REQUEST NO: 9252 SOURCE: NRCD SITE NO: 6 DATE: 5/25/93 ACTION: EXISTING STATION NUMBER: 0316103605 TYPE STATION: 20 • STATION NAME: L NAKED C AT MTH NR JEFFERSON, NC LOCATION: AT MTH AND 3.1 MI SE OF JEFFERSON, NC LATITUDE: 362434 LONGITUDE: 812508 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 DRAINAGE AREA: 2.83 AVERAGE FLOW: 5.1 7Q10 MIN FLOW: (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 7Q10 MIN FLOW: (WINTER) 0.80 SQ MI [B] [C] [C] [C] 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 1.4 [C] NOTES: [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 • s, MUM ;;;; s,? /12-17 r6L .Cf=1:711.14:C1 AUG101993 REQUEST NO: 9252 SOURCE: NRCD SITE NO: 2 DATE: 5/25/93 ACTION: NEW STATION NUMBER: 0316103610 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: NAKED C NR JEFFERSON, NC LOCATION: AT CONFLUENCE WITH POTTER B AND 3.2 MI E OF JEFFERSON, NC LATITUDE: 362454, LONGITUDE: 812459 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 DRAINAGE AREA: 11.6 SQ MI AVERAGE FLOW: 21. [B] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 3.3 [C] (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 7.2 [C] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 5.1 [C] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 5.9 [C] NOTES: DISTRICT CODE: 37 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 o/ lE' o/v £O Jfir�� -�•, t : , I\ 44//�,�?i��%�'�-��.�,�,�� s • Q{ I IGLFMflAI F .CPIDIAIG ci REQUEST NO: 9252 SOURCE: NRCD SITE NO: 3 DATE: 5/25/93 ACTION: NEW STATION NUMBER: 0316103675 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: POTTER B AT MTH NR JEFFERSON, NC LOCATION: AT MTH AND 3.2 MI E OF JEFFERSON, NC LATITUDE: 362454 LONGITUDE: 812459 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 DRAINAGE AREA: 0.73 SQ MI AVERAGE FLOW: 1.3 [B] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.20 [C] (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.45 [C] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 0.33 [C] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 0.37 [C] NOTES: DISTRICT CODE: 37 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 /'//;."-.\\l.\ I l < Wl'fir' n1N\\\\\� C Cc A' ( / 6 1 /REQUEST NO: 9252 SOURCE: NRCD SITE NO: 4 DATE: 5/25/93 ACTION: EXISTING " STATION NUMBER: 0316103700 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: NAKED C AT MTH NR ORION, NC LOCATION: AT MTH AND 1.4 MI NE OF ORION, NC LATITUDE: 362446 LONGITUDE: 812420 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 DRAINAGE AREA: 12.6 SQ MI AVERAGE FLOW: 23. [B] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 3.6 [C] (SUMMER) 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 7.8 [C] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 5.5 [C] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 6.4 [C] NOTES: DISTRICT CODE: 37 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" AUG "01g i [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: REQUESTOR--NOWELL Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 1GLFNrA: F .CPAIMRCI REQUEST NO: 9252 SITE NO: 5 DATE: 5/25/93 SOURCE: NRCD ACTION: EXISTING STATION NUMBER: 0316103705 TYPE STATION: 20 STATION NAME: S F NEW R BL NC 16 NR INDEX, NC LOCATION: 1.6 MI BL NC 16 AND 1.4 MI N OF INDEX, NC LATITUDE: 362449 LONGITUDE: 812420 QUADRANGLE NUMBER: B13NW COUNTY CODE: 009 STATE CODE: 37 DISTRICT CODE: 37 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 05050001 NRCD BASIN CODE: 050701 DRAINAGE AREA: 226.0 AVERAGE FLOW: 407. 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 114. (SUMMER) SQ MI [B] [D] 30Q2 MIN FLOW: 205. [D] 7Q10 MIN FLOW: 142. [D] (WINTER) 7Q2 MIN FLOW: 177. [D] NOTES: [A] Estimate is based on records collected at or near the site. [B] Estimate is based entirely on runoff observed at nearby streams. [C] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 "Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams In North Carolina" [D] Estimate based on procedures given in Open -File Report 90-399 and in conjuction with records collected at or near the site. AUG 019 ***** These data are provisional pending approval by the Director,USGS ****** REMARKS: Entered by: AF Fee charged: 0 -COLe O/'/ M: 1 (GL£NAI! t .Coasurci