NC0063096_Correspondence_20040514

NPDES DOCUMENT !;CANNINfi COVER !MEET
NC0063096
Holly Springs WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
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:
May 14, 2004
This document its printed on reutate paper - ignore any
content on the reeszertse aide

THE TOWN OF
Iiolly
rin
P g
S s
P.O. Box 8
128 S. Main Street
Holly Springs, N.C. 27540
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mayor's Office Fax:
[phone]
Mr. Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
State of North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Town of Holly Springs
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Nutrient Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
Wake County
Dear Mr. Klimek:
Thank you for your letter of March 26, 2004 to Mayor Sears pertaining to
the Town of Holly Springs' NPDES Permit Limits. We are somewhat surprised at
your Division's position regarding the continued long-term discharge to Utley
Creek in view of the fact that that the "Western Wake County Regional Wastewater
Treatment Studies Project" has concluded that the Utley Creek WWTP should
remain in service. However, we will be prepared in the very near future to provide
you with additional information, which we feel will enable you to re-evaluate your
position and hopefully concur with our plans - to not only continue the operation of
our Utley Creek Facility - but increase its capacity as well.
In support of our efforts in this regard, we have asked our consultants to
meet with you and your staff to discuss current stream conditions which DWQ
addressed in a 2003 study, together with presenting additional stream modeling
protocols which the Town plans to conduct along Utley Creek downstream of our
present discharge. Hopefully this effort will assist both of us in determining the
location and ultimate waste load allocations for a continued and increased
discharge into Utley Creek.
Please understand that the Town of Holy Springs recognizes its
responsibility in being good stewards of the environment as it relates to issues
resulting from urban growth such as we are presently experiencing. This is
evidenced by our implementation of numerous planning and public works
initiatives such as reclaimed water use requirements and incentives, water
conservation programs, storm water and buffer ordinances, more aggressive
industrial pretreatment monitoring and enforcement, and increased communication
with our elected officials regarding the cost and consequences associated with the
rapid urbanization of the areas surrounding Holly Springs. It is our collective
opinion that all of these programs will have significant positive impacts on an
assortment of environmental issues within our planning jurisdiction.

tl
Alan W. Klimek
Page Two (2)
May 14, 2004
The Town of Holly Springs is committed to implementation of the Western
Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Project, and is currently negotiating
with Harnett County for capacity in their interceptor system. We expect that
Harnett County will, at sometime in the future, provide additional treatment
capacity at its regional facility in Lillington for Holly Springs. In the meantime,
Holly Springs needs to reach the potential of its present wastewater treatment
infrastructure system by being allowed to upgrade and increase the capacity of the
existing WWTP at its present site, locating the discharge at a suitable point on
-Utley Creek.
We appreciate your staff's continued cooperation with our consultants and
trust that a plan can be developed by the parties involved that will permit an
increased the discharge into the Utley Creek watershed.
Respectfully,
r �
C rl Dean
Town Manager
/sls
cc: Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E. — Director of Engineering
John Schifano — Town Attorney
Thomas Tillage — Director of Public Utilities
Dave Goodrich
Coleen Sullins
12314

Proposed Scope of Work
Water Quality Modeling Analysis for
Holly Springs Discharge to Utley Creek
Submitted to: Michelle Woolfolk, Modeling Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
and
Green Engineering on behalf of the
Town of Holly Springs
Submitted by: Tetra Tech, Inc.
PO Box 14409
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
May 12, 2004

Proposed Scope of Work for Utley Creek Modeling Analyses May 12, 2004
1 Introduction
The Town of Holly Springs discharges to Utley Creek, a tributary to Shearon Harris Lake in the Cape
Fear River Basin. Rapid growth of the Town is generating corresponding increases in the need for
wastewater treatment and discharge. According to the US 2000 Census, the population of Holly Springs
increased its population by nearly 500 percent during the preceding decade, from around 1,300 residents
to over 8,000. In June 2001, the Town was granted an expansion in effluent flow to allow 1.5 MGD to be
discharged into Utley Creek. In January 2003, a permit to upgrade to 2.4 MGD was issued along with
effluent limits for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). Construction on this plant is scheduled
to begin in September 2004.
For the past several years, Holly Springs has co -sponsored a study to explore regional treatment and
disposal of wastewater. The current time frame for a regional facility(ies) to be up and running is around
2010 to 2012. By that time, the Town of Holly Springs expects its wastewater treatment demand to
exceed 4 MGD. Additionally, the current preferred regional alternative does not provide for the Town's
discharge to be removed from Utley Creek. Thus, the Town is also exploring the potential for tying into
the Harnett County system. However, the Town does not expect that its full amount of flow will be
accommodated by that option.
Given these circumstances, the Town has requested that the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) consider
permitting further flow expansion into Utley Creek while holding mass amounts allocated for TN and TP
to existing permitted levels. However, because of recent field surveys conducted by DWQ demonstrating
excessive eutrophication in the downstream receiving waters, DWQ has expressed strong concern over
additional discharge to Utley Creek. After meeting with DWQ, the Town of Holly Springs has agreed to
contract with Tetra Tech Inc. as a third -party scientific consultant to further analyze discharge alternatives
to Utley Creek.
Prior to investing in more detailed modeling analyses, Tetra Tech recommended that a scoping level
analysis be performed to determine the potential for an acceptable alternative. This proposed Scope of
Work describes the approach and level of effort for the scoping analysis. Both DWQ and the Town will
review the Scope for acceptability.
2 Proposed Technical Approach
Based on discussion between DWQ and Town's engineering consultants on 5/4/04, Tetra Tech was asked
to conduct scoping analyses for three alternatives:
1 Discharge at the current outfall location under the existing permitted flow of 2.4 MGD and at the
proposed flow of 4.88 MGD.
2. Discharge at the current outfall with Thomas Mill Pond restored to a flowing stream and wetland
area.
3. Relocation of the discharge point below the Thomas Mill Pond dam.
The modeling analyses will primarily focus on the impact of the discharges on downstream eutrophication
in Thomas Mill Pond and the Shearon Harris Lake cove. However, under alternative 3, the impact on
downstream dissolved oxygen in Utley Creek should also be modeled.
TETRA TECH, INC.
1

Proposed Scope of Work for Utley Creek Modeling Analyses May 12, 2004.
TASK 1: REVIEW EXISTING DATA AND CONDUCT RECONNAISSANCE
Tetra Tech will review existing DWQ wasteload allocation files and water quality studies for applicable
information. Additionally, GIS analysis will be conducted to delineate subwatersheds and determine
existing landuse configurations. A reconnaissance trip will be conducted to visually inspect the receiving
waters to determine any special considerations for model setup and to help in developing appropriate
modeling assumptions.
TASK 2: SETUP WATER QUALITY MODELS
2.1 Lake Modeling
Tetra Tech will use the USACOE BATHTUB model (Walker, 1987) to evaluate relative eutrophication
impacts. Walker's model utilizes lake volume, residence time, flow volume, and nutrient loadings to
estimate growing season averages of nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations. Assuming that permission
to access the Mill Pond will be granted, the Town's engineering consultants have agreed to obtain
representative cross -sectional measurements of the Mill Pond and downstream cove of Shearon Harris
lake. Tetra Tech will use these measurements to help estimate the volume of the pond and lake cove.
Residence time will be calculated using USGS flow estimates along with WWTP flow for input to the
pond and lake volumes. Nonpoint nutrient loadings will be developed using seasonal loading rates for
land use classes developed by Tetra Tech for the nearby Jordan Lake watershed. The GIS analysis
conducted in Task 1 will provide the areas associated with each land use class.
2.2 Stream BOD/DO Modeling
A Streeter -Phelps model of dissolved oxygen in Utley Creek will be used to analyze impacts of the
discharge on downstream waters under alternative 3. Tetra Tech will apply standard protocols established
by DWQ for Level B analyses. Information compiled from the WWTP, DWQ, USGS, and field
reconnaissance will be used to develop model input parameters.
TASK 3: MODEL RESULTS INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION
Modeling results will be interpreted and documented in a technical memorandum that compares the three
alternatives. Tetra Tech will participate in a meeting with DWQ and the Town of Holly Springs
representatives to review and discuss the scoping analysis results. Based on these results, Tetra Tech will
also provide recommendations, as appropriate, on more detailed analyses of alternatives.
3 Schedule
The proposed schedule for completion of tasks is as follows:
June 1, 2004 Contract issued by Town of Holly Springs
June 25, 2004 Complete Task 1: Data Review & Reconnaissance
July 30, 2004 Complete Task 2: Model Setup
August 27, 2004 Complete Task 3: Results Interpretation & Presentation
(1)
TETRA TECH, INC.
2

Proposed Scope of Work for Utley Creek Modeling Analyses May 12, 2004.
4 Estimate of Resources Required
The Tetra Tech Project Manager will be Trevor Clements, and the Principal Engineer/Modeler will be Dr.
Jonathan Butcher. A staff scientist(s), technical editor, and contract administrator will provide support.
The total estimated not -to -exceed cost of completing this work, including fee, is $25,000.
(I)
TETRA TECH, INC.
3

',tiAT
iNpr,
� G
T. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
March 26, 2004
Mr. Richard G. Sears
Town of Holly Springs •
P. O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Town of Holly Springs
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Nutrient Limits
Holly Springs WWTP
Wake County
Dear Mr. Sears:
This letter is to inform you of the outcome of a study performed in July 2003 in
Utley Creek by the Intensive Survey Unit of the Division of Water Quality which
supports the need for nutrient limits in your permit. This study was initiated by
Holly Springs' request for interim permit limits associated with a 1.75 MGD
discharge.
Background
The Utley Creek Watershed has s been a concern to the Division as. a result of
nutrient enrichment in the creek and downstream ponds. In 1996 a fish.kill was
reported. Algal blooms have been documented and were still present at the time of
the study in both Thomas Mill Pond and Green Tree Reservoir downstream from the
WWTP. In 2000 the Division conducted a study and determined that the discharge
from the Holly Springs WWTP was a major source of the nutrient load in Utley
Creek. Another study was undertaken in July 2003 to determine if nitrogen
controls were necessary. This study consisted of sampling three locations and
conducting Algal Growth Potential Tests (AGPT). Algal Growth Potential Tests
provide information on the capacity of a water body to support nuisance algal
populations and determine which nutrient is responsible for limiting algal growth.
Results and Discussion
Samples were obtained at Thomas Mill Pond and at Utley Creek upstream of
Harris Lake. The AGPT test results indicate that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient,
but a reduction in phosphorus is also necessary to reduce the algal blooms. The
levels of both nutrients in the pond are sufficiently high to support nuisance algal
blooms. In view of the fact that the discharge from the Holly Springs WWTP is a
significant source of nutrients to -Utley Creek controls on both nitrogen and
phosphorus are necessary to protect water quality. The town is advised to submit a
permit modification request to the Division for the interim flow of 1.75 MGD. The
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Visit us on the INTERNET @ www.enr.state.nc.us

Mr. Thomas Tillage, Town Manager
March 23, 2004
Page 2
proposed limits for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus at 1.75 MGD are 6.1 mg/1
and 0.5 mg/1, respectively. The limits were calculated based on the allowable loads
developed in 1999 for the expansion request.
Ultimate Issue
The results of the different studies performed on the Utley Creek Watershed
support the Division's long-standing position of the need to eliminate the discharge
to Utley Creek completely and find a different solution to the town's wastewater
treatment needs. The continued discharge to Utley Creek - any discharge - is not a
long term solution. Communications from the Division to the Town of Holly Springs
in 1997, 1999 and 2001 express the Division's concerns with the water quality in
Utley Creek and the need for a regional solution to wastewater issues. Copies of
these letters are attached.
If you have any questions about this information please contact Teresa
Rodriguez at 919-733-5083, ext. 553.
Sincerely,
do,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
NPDES Files
Raleigh Regional Office
Town Board of Commissioners
Stephanie Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering
Carl G. Dean, Town Manager
Thomas Tillage, ORC
Leo Green, P.E.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 5, 2001
Mayor Gerald Holleman
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Dear Mayor Holleman:
I appreciate your continued efforts to plan and manage your wastewater needs in the
face of unprecedented growth. I share with you a sincere desire to make the best decisions for
the citizens of western Wake County, such that we handle development wisely while protecting
our environment.
As you know, I believe that the only successful planning efforts in Western Wake
County must include multiple local and regional governments im that area. I tried to make this
clear to all that attended the planning meeting held in Apex on August 22, 2000. Although I am
leaving my current position, I remain most interested in any progress that you are making to
coordinate and participate in a regional solution to wastewater management.
It has come to my attention that you have submitted (om September 22, 2000) an
environmental assessment for expansion of your treatment faciliity to 4.88 MGD. Part of my
staffs responsibility is to evaluate various wastewater disposal options to ensure that the most
environmentally sound of the economically feasible alternatives; is selected. While I appreciate
the town's efforts to move forward with the planning process, I cannot ask staff to review this
proposal while advocating a broader regional approach simultaneously. Therefore, I am
returning your project.
I am taking this action with the belief that a broader cooperative effort is both possible
and essential to successful and environmentally sound developrment in this area. If you have any
additional questions, feel free to contact Dave Goodrich (ext. 51l7) at [phone].
cc: Kerr T. Stevens
Coleen Sullins
Boyd DeVane
Bill Reid
Sincerely,
< 11
Bill Holman
JAN 1 0 200i
14„t,_
2 0 I 0 •
1601 MAIL SERVICE CFENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.US/ENR/
AN F_OUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLE0/10% P05T-CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, .
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 4,1997
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, Town Engineer
Town of Holly Springs
Post Office Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
1E)
Subject: Town of Holly Springs
Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility
NPDES Permit No. NC0063096
Wake County
Dear Ms. Sudano:
In accordance with recent discussions with staff of the Water Quality Section, this response is
intended to address your questions regarding short term and long term wastewater management
options for the Town of Holly Springs. Please accept our apologies for our delay in responding to
your concerns.
Short term options for the town are somewhat limited due to the nature and characteristics of
the current receiving stream, Utley Branch. As you are aware, the receiving stream is rather
limited in its ability to assimilate oxygen consuming wastes and there are documented
eutrophic conditions downstream in Harris Lake. There is some limited opportunities for
expansion, however, advanced treatment and nutrient removal will be required as a result of
the above mentioned concerns. Considerable efforts could be undertaken to derive specific
thresholds and exact assimilative capacities but we are reasonable comfortable that advanced
treatment would still be the end result of considerable time, effort and financial resources.
Careful consideration has also been given to the potential relocation of the discharge to the
mouth of White Oak Creek. This option does not provide any significant advantages over the
existing discharge location in Utley Creek. Actually, Utley Creek may provide some benefits
in minimizing the delivery of nutrients to Harris Lake and may serve as a buffer to exacerbating
further eutrophic responses.
Both of these stream discharge options potentially result in eutrophic effects to either the
Harris Lake arms or the lake itself. A relocated discharge to the main body of the lake, or the
lake channel if one exists, may be a viable long term solution but this option will require
extensive monitoring and development of a sophisticated lake model. This would involve
significant time, effort and financial resources.
One long term option, preferred by the Divison of Water Quality, that should be given careful
consideration is the potential elimination of the discharge altogether and cooperation in a
regional wastewater management system.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

In closing, it appears that some limited opportunities exists for an expansion without any
additional water quality monitoring or modeling but the Town must be reasonable in its flow
rate projections and associated request for an increase. We understand that some of this work is
currently underway and look forward to working with you on this matter in the near future.
If we can be of any assistance, please contact Mr. Donald Safrit, P.E., Assistant Chief for the
Point Source Branch, at [phone], ext. 519.
Sincerely,
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Point Source Branch
Central Files

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
February 2, 1999
Ms. Stephanie Sudano, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Holly Springs
P.O. Box 8
Holly Springs, North Carolina 27540
Subject: Speculative Limits for Utley Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0036096
Town of Holly Springs
Wake County
Dear Ms. Sudano:
This letter is to transmit speculative effluent limits for a possible expansion at the Utley
Creek wastewater treatment plant. This plant currently has a permit to discharge 1.5
MGD of treated domestic wastewater to Utley Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin in
Wake County. You advised Dave Goodrich of my staff that Holly Springs would
proceed with an amendment to its environmental assessment at 4.88 MGD to reflect a 20-
year flow projection.
The speculative limits presented here are based on our understanding of the proposal and
of present environmental conditions. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) cannot
guarantee that it will issue the Town an NPDES permit to expand its discharge of treated
wastewater into waters of the State. Nor can we guarantee that the effluent limitations
and other requirements included in any permit will be exactly as presented here. Final
decisions on these matters will be made only after the Division receives and evaluates a
formal permit application for the Town's proposed discharge and provides the public an
opportunity to comment on a proposed permit.
Water Quality Issues Related to Utley Creek and Harris Lake
The Division has significant concerns about the level of nutrients entering Harris Lake
from your discharge. Utley Creek and the White Oak arm of the lake have experienced
excessive algal growth, eutrophication problems, and documented fish kills. Therefore,
one of the Division's primary goals for Harris Lake is to maintain or reduce nutrient
loads to the lake.
There has been a documented correlation between numerous instream chlorophyll -a and
dissolved gases (DO) water quality standard violations and the level of nutrients
discharged to Utley Creek by the Holly Springs WWTP. Forty percent of the instream
chlorophyll -a values collected by the town from 1997 to 1998 were above the water
quality standard of 40 ugfl. While the average value of all data was 39 ug/l, some values
were as high as 112 and 135 ug/l. Upstream and downstream nutrient data confirm that
the WWTP is the main source of the nutrient load. Additionally, eutrophic conditions
exist further downstream in the lake arm as documented by Carolina Power and Light
sampling efforts.
Recognizing that the WWTP is the only discharge in a relatively undeveloped watershed,
the Division intends to hold nutrient loads at existing levels until additional data is
P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626.0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Holly Springs 4.88 request
Speculative Limits
Page 2
collected. Additional loading would further compromise an already impaired system. In
addition, continued impairment may force the Division to institute limits that represent
nutrient loads below those currently being discharged.
The rate of growth in and around Holly Springs will exert increasing demands on the
water quality of the lake. Significant growth in Holly Springs will add both point source
and non -point source pressures. The Town should recognize that the present location on
Utley Creek may not be a viable long-term disposal option. The Division will require
continued evaluation of the impacts of this discharge on water quality in Utley Creek and
Harris Lake.
Environmental Assessments of New Projects and Expansions
Please be aware that you will have to evaluate this project for environmental impacts
before applying for a permit modification. Anyone proposing to construct new or
expanded waste treatment facilities using public funds or public (state) lands must first
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) when wastewater flows (1) equal or exceed
0.5 MGD or (2) exceed one-third of the 7Q10 flow of the receiving stream. DWQ will
not accept a permit application for a project requiring an environmental assessment until
the Division has approved the EA and sent a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
to the state Clearinghouse for review and comment.
The Environmental Assessment should contain a clear justification for the expanded
flow. It should provide a comprehensive analysis of potential alternatives to expansion,
including a thorough evaluation of non -discharge alternatives. Nondischarge alternatives
to expansion, such as spray irrigation, water conservation, and inflow and infiltration
reduction are considered to be environmentally preferable to a surface water discharge.
The following items should be thoroughly investigated and documented:
• Population data, growth, and flow justifications,
• Participation in a regional system, and
• Sharing a common effluent line to the Cape Fear River.
The EA should address effluent reuse, wastewater reduction efforts, land use restrictions,
I/I reduction, urban run off reductions, and wetlands restoration initiatives.
Finally the EA should document the discussions that Holly Springs has had with Cary,
Apex, Fuquay Varina and others with regard to various disposal options.
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the preferred alternative must be
the practicable waste treatment and disposal alternative with the least adverse impact on
the environment. If the EA demonstrates that the project may result in a significant
adverse impact on the quality of the environment, you must then prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement. The Water Quality Planning Branch can provide
additional information regarding the requirements of the N.C. Environmental Policy Act.
You can contact our EA coordinator, Ms. Gloria Putnam, directly at [phone], ext.
567.

.
Holly Springs 4.88 request
Speculative Limits
Page 3
Speculative Effluent Limits
Based on the available information, tentative limits for the proposed discharge to Utley
Creek at 4.88 MGD are attached in a draft effluent limits page format. The speculative
limits are explained below.
Flow Limits. The flow will be limited to 4.88 MGD as requested in previous submittals.
Detailed justification for this level of flow must be provided.
Nutrients: Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen.
In order to hold the total nutrient load to Utley Creek at existing levels at a flow of 4.88
MGD, monthly limits for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen will be 0.2 mg/1 and 2.2
mg/1, respectively.
Please note, these concentrations represent a slight increase from total nutrient loads
based on effluent data from May 1996 to September 1997.
NH3-N. The 1.0/2.0 mg/1 (summer/winter) limits were based on the waste assimilating
capaciTty of the receiving stream at low flow conditions and represent best available
technology for this size facility.
TSS. The limits for total suspended solids are standard for secondary treatment of
municipal wastewater.
Fecal Coliform, pH. The limits for fecal coliform bacteria and pH are derived to protect
water quality in the receiving stream.
I trust this response offers sufficient guidance for the Town's proposed treatment plant
expansion. If you have any additional questions about these limits, feel free to contact
Steve Pellei at [phone], extension 516.
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Point Source Branch
Central Files
NPDES Unit Files
Ford Chambliss, P.E.,
The Wooten Company
120 N. Boylan Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howar

A (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS speculative limits
NC0063096
Permit No.
During the period beginning after expansion to 4.88 MGD and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial numher:'
001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: -
EFFLUENT CHARACTER)STI-CS
LiMiTS
141ONiTORING REQUIRE T
,\ try
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
- al
'y a' =
Sample
Location'
Flow
4.88 MGD
Contirfu . us 1
,:.
. ReQb rng
I or E
BOD, 5 day, 20°C (April 1 — October 31)2
5.0 mg/l
7.5 mg/l
Da) y, •
' bmposite
E, I
BOD, 5 day, 20°C (November 1 - March 31)2
T0.0 mgli
T5.0 mg/l
Daily;
Composite
E, I
Total Suspended Residue2
30 mgll
45 mgll,-
Daly)
Composite
E, I
NH3 as N (April 1 - October 31)
1.0 mg/I
-
Daily
Composite
E
• NH3 as N (November T — March 31)
2.0 mgll
;; . :
?
Daily 1
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
[''
-
Daily
Grab
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
= `,
3IWeek
Grab
U, D1
Chlorophyll -a-
,-
Weekly?
Grab
D
pH4
p} in
s4
.r;,<;;;L
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Conform (geome'tric mean)
200 ,. ,t 0
ml
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
DC
I + a I..
'
/ T00 ml
3/Week
Grab
U,Di
Temperature
vC
.
-
DailyGrab
E
Temperature
04 rr
3/Week
Grab
U, Di
Total Riirogen (NO2+ NO3 + TKN) 4
1 '
,. , .2 mgll
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 + ' ,Y,
Weekly5
Grab
U, D
Total Phosphorus r6 , •= z.
0.2 mgll
Weekly5
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus : 4
Weekly5
Grab
U D
Total Residual a ior, ne ;::ate
17 pg/l
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity , x:c:
Daily
Grab
E
CondJct�- ty
3/Week
Grab
U, D'
Chtion Taxi it9
f w.�!
Quarterly
Composite j
E
Notes`"'
*Saample locations: E - Effluent, I- Influent, U - Upstream in the pool formed immediately upstream of the instream flow weir, D - Downstream on the existing
dam structure in a location so as to avoid contact between the ground and the sample bottle.
Upstream and Downstream samples of Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Fecal Coliform, and Conductivity shall be collected three times per week during
the months of June through September and once per week during the remaining months of the year.
2 The monthly average effluent BOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall no be less than 6.0 mg/I.
4 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
5 Effluent and Instream monitoring for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous shall be conducted on the same day.
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90%; February, May, August, and November See Part III, Condition F.
7 Chlorophyll -a shall be monitored weekly during the months June through September, during the remaining months of the year, no monitoring is required.
8 Total Residual Chlorine shall be monitored only if chlorine is added to the effluent.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.