The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0005762_Wasteload Allocation_19940531NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION PERMIT NO.: NC0005762 PERMITTEE NAME: J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. FACHM NAME: Wagram Complex Facility Status: Existing Permit Status: Renewal Major . Minor Pipe No.: 001 Design Capacity: 4.5* MGD Domestic (% of Flow): Industrial (% of Flow): I% as r� Comments: * Existing Capacity - Increase requested See effluent guidelines attached STREAM INDEX: 14-3 RECEIVING STREAM: the Lumber River Class: WS-IV Sw HQW Sub -Basin: 03-07-51 Reference USGS Quad: H21SE, Wakulla (please attach) CountyScotland Regional Office: Fayetteville Regional Office Previous Exp. Date: 11/30/94 Treatment Plant Class: III Classification changes within three miles: Chanties from C-SW to WS-III. Sw (a) Robeson Co. SR 1310 -> ca. 10 mi. iq Requested by: Greg Nizich(Aw)�� Dom: 4/ 6/93 Prepared by: Date: 3)31 Iqq Reviewed by: Date: L �}.5 aoarnc�l �7 D '2Y 9 Wait-i.- � Chi Modeler Date Rec. # '7' 30 Drainage Area (mil )� Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 7Q10 (cfs) I I rj Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs) , tg oe 4.s AToxicity Limits: IWC q%L7.0 Acu hronic fit - ' INSTREAM MONITORING REQUUUD, ENT$ Upstream Location: @ SR 1403 Downstream Location: 1-@ NCSR 1310; 2-@ NC HWY 71 Parameters: Temp, DO, pH, Conductivity, turbidity, color (ADMI) and stream flow see 6W;PA Cntn6ii;*" �o, c.ww. 01dda) (l6s/da) (other routs) wauc0ow (M®}�% y U Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max eGDs: 1306 7611 4.5 MGD COD: 15018 30036 TSS: 2558 5115 Sulfide: 24 49 Chromium: 12 24 Nickel: phenol: 0.25 mg/I Full coliform (/100ml): 0.02 mg/1 200/1(IOmI pH (S(J): N113N: 6-9 SU Coppermonitor zinc c monitor ChChlorine (ugA): monitor DO monitor Tp (m g/1): 5.0 TN (mRn): ft monitor Color i montor Maul Per NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (F) for colored wastes. the p,mittce shall discharge only such amounts m will tot read, the waters injurious to public health, secondary reaeatim , aquatic life and wildlife or adversely all= the aeuhedc quality or impair the waters for my designated uses. See special conditions for color mr utormg. M (lbaw (tha/de) (other units) on Ave Dal Max WBRe low (MGD): ��" 1". \� Mon Ave Dal Max �f� It16D BOD5: 1306 7.0 MGD 2611 COD: 16666 33332 TSS: 2558 5115 Sulfide : 24 49 Chromium: 12 24 Nickel: phenol: 160 W6 Feiss Coliform (/IODmq: 13 ug/1 PH (SU): 200/]00 ml NH3N: --. -,.-. 6-9 Sll monitor c monitor Chlorite (ngn): monitor DO (mg/1): 28 TP (m8/0: 5.0 IN (My monitor cww?' A) monitor Pat NCAc 2B.0211(b) (3) (F) fer colored wastes, me shall discharge monitor i only such atwwLs will not render the comers iojuritats to public health. on. or aq secondary rearatio4 a aquatic life and wildlife affect or adversely affect the aesllrctic quality or impair the waters for my designated uses. C�td+{-ib>LS 4V Cutov April 19, 1993 = I J.P. Stevens & Company - NC0005762 Effluent Guideline Limitations (Current Production) Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average (lb/day) Daily Maximum (lb/day) Comments BODS 1776 3552 COD 15018 30036 Based on simple manufacturing rocess TSS 3336 6672 Sulfide 30. 61.2 Phenols 15.3 30.6 Total Chromium - 15.3 3 . H 6to9 SU Type of Product Produced 1000 Lbs/Day Produced Effluent Guideline Reference Terry loth Production 210.0 40 CFR 41 .32 & .42 (Subparts C & D) Synthetic Carpet Dyeing 240.0 40 CFR 410.62 (Subpart F) Page 1 Note for Cada Sanderson From: Carla Sanderson Date: Wed, Aug 17, 1994 3:24 PM Subject: RE: Weekly avg/daily max for Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich The facility needs to monitor more than once a week if the first sample violates the Weekly Average limit. So what you explained below is conect. The facility needs to understand that the weekly average limit must be met and the daily maximum limit is what the facility can discharge at the highest, but if they go as far as discharging the daily max limit then they will have to monitor the rest of the week (4 more days) and record non detects or something very low. (Detection level will be averaged in). Maybe they need to understand that just because we say they can go as high as 640 for a daily value - it does not mean they should let loose because they will always have to come back and meet that weekly average. I can try and explain to Paul if you want me to. From: Greg Nizich on Wed, Aug 17, 1994 3:06 PM Subject: Weekly avg/daily max for Westpoint Stevens To: Carla Sanderson; Dave Goodrich The facility is having difficulty understanding compliance with this set-up in their permit issued 7/29/94. Paul Rawls from FRO passed on their concerns to me. The issue involves nickel which has a daily max of 640 ug/I and weekly avg of 160 ug/l. Weekly sampling is req'd for this parameter. They don't understand how they can pass the daily max all week long and still be in violation of the weekly average. Not that they don't understand numbers, they seem to have difficulty with the concept of compliance on a daily basis leading to non-compliance on a weekly basis. I explained that the weekly is based on chronic and daily on acute, but that was about all I could discuss. Would one of you be available to get on the phone with me a talk to Paul about this? It should be fairly easy, I just haven't hit upon the right analogy yet Was I supposed to have req'd daily monitoring or is weekly correct with additional being optional if they are over the weekly value on the first sample? Page 1 From: Date: Subject: To: Note for Carta Sanderson Dave Goodrich Sun, Jun 5, 1994 11:47 PM FW: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens Carla Sanderson Carla - For your information. - Dave rrom: dreg inorpe on tue, may m, tyy4 i:iy rm Subject: FW: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Don Safrit FYI; just want to make sure that everyone's aware of what's transpiring on this one. From: Dianne Reid on Thu, May 26, 1994 1:53 PM Subject: FW: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich Cc: Beth McGee; Greg Thorpe; Steve Zoufaly Here's my call. Let them drop the adjusted pH analysis, but continue with color sampling using ADMI units at natural pH. From: Dianne Reid on Wed, May 25, 1994 9:43 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Beth McGee; Greg Thorpe Cc: Steve Zoufaly Based on the fact that we are probably going to end up with a color criteria based on background color at the site and that Westpoint's discharge is a higher pH than the receiving stream, I say that it is alright to allow them to drop the adjusted pH analysis. Color appears to decrease at lower pH, however, it may reappear if the pH is raised. In Westpoint's case, it is probably safe to assume, based on their downstream data and our monitoring data, that dilution with swamp waters at and below the discharge will decrease the chance of Westpoint's color increasing downstream. Do you guys have any comments or questions on this before I send it to Greg? From: Dianne Reid on Mon, May 9, 199410:45 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich Cc: Beth McGee; Steve Zoufaly I think I can hit that. From: Greg Nizich on Mon, May 9, 1994 10:36 AD Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Dianne Reid Is 2 weeks sufficient? Page 2 From: Dianne Reid on Mon, May 9, 1994 10:34 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich I have the info and am looking it over now. I want to look at Edenton's color data also and see how their natural vs. adjusted pH compare. How soon do you need a reply? From: Greg Nizich on Mon, May 9, 1994 10:29 AM Subject: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Dianne Reid This facility requested that we drop the adjusted pH requirement for their color monitoring. I put a copy of their letter along with a report comparing the natural vs. adjusted pH in your in -box. Let me know if you need more information to evaluate their request. Thanks. Greg. y .• .' — � p p n: �/b"a: a1 �/V.,(_J� em b _ -u � Spring Br c C 14 �a — 11 _ d rr- • �.— � 9 1 . �, � p. N 14J - _ ss Oq'n i a a VIP 11 a • P a I p N - _ a �... / fl (� �j .._ _ 2 _ _ I__ b I h _• -: . - - 1 Il7J — ► 112 _ -"1` 1102 _ USS _ y � 418 ai d yF i r s� II .ya• li .• s ,./ n [, nellr IN Is ,o a A I _ _ , y . \: N i I �� Nb �� a46`aii �a • l ID/ y r t im � N it .✓ _ ®ai �/ /I � i� a b 6 " OKE 0 11a - aA•� P !� 6 I �xV i � lam' • w buv � 5xxi ♦ 66 y 2tax b FV/!R} q • iI ISGHA V ool Ai(�u 50 P 00 b b U� — r _ al � _ __ __ A - p _ • d A ter.. •q \tl2 _ q _ _ 254 • lw • i 1 fiw to It. B 1 � .. 4 • �, • — 4+Y3• O 4 • • 4•, •'. O y 4I y i .. _ 40 i� ,a s 4 44 a � NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION PERMIT NO.: NC0005762 PERMITTEE NAME: J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. FACILITY NAME: Wagram Complex Facility Status: Existing Permit Status: Renewal Major Pipe No.: 001 Design Capacity: Minor 7.0 MGD* Domestic (% of Flow): Industrial (% of Flow): Comments: * Reauested increase from existing 4.5 MGD See effluent guidelines attached STREAM INDEX: 14-3 RECEIVING STREAM: the Lumber River Class: WS-IV Sw HQW Sub -Basin: 03-07-51 Reference USGS Quad: H21SE, Wakulla (please attach) County: Scotland Regional Office: Fayetteville Regional Office Previous Exp. Date: 11/30/94 Treatment Plant Class: III Classification changes within three miles: Changes from C-SW to WS-III. Sw (a Robeson Co. SR 1310 -> ca. 10 mi. 19 Requested by: Greg NizichG OA ` tlb Date: 4/10/93 Prepared by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Modeler I Date Rec. I # qs r1431 Drainage Area (mil) Avg. Streamflow (cfs): 7Q10 (cfs) Winter 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs) Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/Chronic Instream Monitoring: Parameters Upstream Location Downstream Location Effluent Characteristics Summer Winter BOD5 (mg/1) NH3-N (mg/1) D.O. (mg/1) TSS (mg/1) F. Col. (/100 ml) pH (SU) Comments: April 19, 1993 , J.P. Stevens & Company - NC0005762 Effluent Guideline Limitations (Future Production) Effluent Characteristics Monthly Aver% a (Ib/da) Daily Maximum (lb/day) Comments BOD5 1 3972 COD 16666 33332 Based on sim le mFa ufacturin rocess TSS 3840 7680 Sulfide 35.8 71. Phenols 17.9 35.8 Total Chromium 17. 35.8 H 6to9SU Type of Product Produced 1000 Lbs/Day Produced Effluent Guideline Reference Terry Cloth Production 2 2.5.0 40 CFR 410.32 & .42 (Subparts C & D Synthetic Carpet Dyeing 240.0 40 CFR 410.62 (Subpart F) J. R s ,crs Ucl00057Gz U1)IT5- 18004fDA`/ 10001c CO-f-rntQ Z-)WELS c A F, P&T- SuSPAAyT C - Low wAreA us6. C7EA�. �RDGLQ's s 1A7(z Z1D - coaRewr ZG2.5- F�iV.t4 QMfyC M. AV f3oDs I.y 0.7 (--op Z.s /• 4 TS s 1. 4 0•7 PH 41 o. 4z - S�raa^-A�r D GoD fe0•D TS5 17.8 Pi+ane� O.1D C-'' 6.10 PA. 4p-4 4-1(.-93 - LOove-p..? F.*is. F,015H106,'- 2-)O - GvAjkfi vT M. q, Z404.5- F a,,,tfr 3.3 30. o d•lo a. 05 0.05 Z Co Z. 5 zy o CKC*&,l 1 RIuT1k;6 IS "Cl LoAJ( C-4 nc,UE — �MPC.ff PROc.E5S . FPUES Z/ z glo•(oZ Fjk,lsj4w(i. 5)MPc,6 Z4o� — C.,¢4eT G �:uTuRfi �. NAA M• k+'. $obs 7. 7' CoD 70•z 35.1 T5S I I. 0 5.57 5 (F� 0.00. 0.D9 Phe. o� o oy 0.07 Cr ODY O.OZ PN to--7 (f vTV RE RgQr C. PAAT D PART- F To'1-Ac SoDs 147 (I63.7) (D93(1(.S) 951e 17-7(o (I'M. Coo Z`i4 (3107.5� (o3op(7875, 5-5-tiZtl o1 g �55 147 I1?1o9 4o� �(F1D6 — zI.D(Z(.•Z) PH6\6l — Io•5(19.1) To771c Cr — I0.5(13,1) P(� (o -`l (o-9 � Facility Nana: NPDES No.: Type of We= Facility Status: Permit Status: PlecStream Ua Scream a6on: Subbasin: County: Regional Pfr=: Requestor: Date of Request Tope Quad: J.P_ Stevens NC0005762 Industrial - 99% Domestic -1% Existing Renewal)Modification Lumber River WS-IV Sw HQW 030751 -- Scotland FRO Greg Nizich 4I20193 H21SE Request 4 , . 743W431 - - ENV. M,:. N.4.GEMEN FAYETTEVILLE LFG. OFFICE Strcarn USGS k Date: Drainage Area (mi2): Summer 7Q10 (cfs): Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Average Flow (cfs): 30Q2 (efs): IWC (%): Low Flow Profile 1993 349.0 117 5.6(4.5 mgd) 8.5(7.0 mgd) wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) Wasteload Allocation for renewal at exisitag design flow and modification for expansion. HQW allows expansion with no increase in permitted loading. This Fact Sheet is a resubmittal of the Fact Sheet signed in August 93. Changes made include m- evaluation of discharge into HQW (Reg is now applied cot ectly), limit for BOD according to the Basinwide Management Strategy and color monitoring and reopener language for both flows. See special conditions on page four. Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: ti t�4 toy s ATTP LHYcP GO►^h`4u"T�✓ 11GR �[l{V kCA� �>fk� `p Reviewed by Instrearn Assessment: *11` iegionai Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: MAR 29 194 10,16 256 P03 -- �••'" 1>FM WATER pIJHLITY ScCTIGh TG FRO910 �Y .FROM . 2 PARAMEMS TO)QCS/).(El'A1S/CONVaMONAL Type of ToxidtY Toes: Chronic (PM wd Acute at 90% Lmnir Chronic at 12 % 0 4.5 MGt} 6% Chronic (P/F) ® 7.0 MGD: 9% Chronic (P/F) MoniWrine $th6dnie; Feb, May, An& Nov (Wda) (skim) (Other units) Mon Ave Dal MSc Mon Ave Dal Max 4.5 MGD Wnstetlow (MCID): 1306 2611 GODS: 17118 34236 COD: 2558 5115 TSS: 24 49 SuOide` Chrormam. 12 24 0mg/1 25 0,25 MONtdl Phenol: F0O F cw Colifum (/loom!): 6.9 SU PH (su): N1i3N (=$A): monitor Copper (ugA): monitor tint (no; Chkxlne (me) monitor DO (melt) morawr ((m" monitor TTN P Monitor Color Qldda) ptssJda) (other units) Mon Ave De1Max Mon Ave Dal Max 4.5 MOD wwwww NC D): 1306 2611 W �v o, U rvl Lekt,6 BOD5 : -1`�Ch' i115 _ y� I OL fIl �C.�1"4,6 iL �1\ n COD.255B TSS: 5115 49 5i toad3tor coD Sinu wanuFuW +,� tray$ SnTXW; 24 12 24 6t apte 0.15 me Chromium: 0.D2 mgA Nickel: Phenol; Fecal Colifarm (/10m1): 2W11001011 6A SU PH (Su): monitor NWN: monitor copy 1. monitor Lac: muwwr Chlorine (up/l): 5.0 DO (MO): moni= TP (msft monitor TN (mg): Monitor Color a only wc� amounts ss will not tender Per NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (F) for colcred waste as C life d wildlife sor u:rCvaacly atYCa die aesthetic the waves iujur+ to public Health, se��Y quality of impair the waters for any desig=cd uw& See spcciet oondwous for color mon tanng- �R 29 194 10n17 256 PO4 3 0SU Ob&W (other units) Moo Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Ma: Wastellow OIGM 7.0 MOD BODS : 1306 -.. 2611 3423Cs "' 2 1 L a e(6 Gov, COU are f ow¢✓ COD; .17118 , , 2558 ; ; $115 �vt1owlstC'5or,.cleveu.uust�ui TSS: 24 49 3.UsL i 3a.riGk eh Stnntxo . Sulfide: Chromillm: 12 24 wv �w v 160 ugf l del: 13 no Phenol; Feral Coliform (J100ml): 200MOD 01 6-9 SU ppH (; monitor NH3N; ntonitvr Capps monitor tins 28 C.hkdw NO, 5.0 DO (mgA); monitor TP (): monitor TN (mWI): monitor Calcr (ADNM Pea 2B chhealth, am As Dot f the wttas topublic) smotedary reCreati� aquatic life and�wile wildlife or advawly�attec[ the msWe6c wg%n injurious quality cr impair the wiam for any desigmted uu*. LV IITS CHANGES DUE TOn 1. 80P5 Expansion of wanteilow and Lumber River Basin Management Strategy - maintain existlag bads 2. Nickel Exi &g loading to coucemtraucti per HQW 3. Phenol Exisimg loading in eeaeemttuion Per HQW 4. Cbkx= Acute cap given to expanding or new facilities ]imlt sbould apply if chlaa'Ine is added 10 the plant Added due to b&unwide management strategy and low DO 3. Do levels instream in the River. 6. Toxicity Now requirements for existing flow - Anti Deg states for exising and exp;,tndmg flows the rules in part (lx'B) of 211.0201(4) apply only if there is an bm== in load. Tbcrefore, the Toxicity Teat previously Shea to the facility was given in error. The above limited p nmeun we Water Quality limited. Loadings have at least tettmkied the same sitloe Design = 3.6 MGD. PNSTREAM MOINMRING REQUIREMENTS Igor'` f tr✓ Upstream Location: @ SR 1403 17oovnatreazn Location: 1• @ NCSR 1310; ?r @ NC HWY 71 parameters; Temp, DO, pH, Conductivity, turbidity, color (ADW see Page 4 COLOR REOPENER AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS This permit will be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate color limitations and/or revised monitoring requirements in the event color testing or other studies conducted by the permittee or the Division indicate that color has rendered or could render the receiving waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated use. In addition to the reopener the permittee shall immediately report by telephone any observable insueam color at downstream (post discharge) monitoring points noted to be visually dissimilar to background (upstream monitoring point). Upon discovery of an observable instream color difference the permittee shall notify the Division at either (910) 486-1541 or 1-800-662-7959 (weekends & holidays). The notification shall indicate the ADMI color units for upstream and downstream monitoring points and the observed color (hue) in receiving waters. Should downstream color become apparent (as observed by the permittee or by the Division) the perrnittee shall immediately initiate corrective actions necessary to eliminate the color episode. Information relayed by telephone shall also be filed by a written report in letter form within 5 days following the first knowledge of the occurrence and also reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) post marked no later than the 30th day following the completed repotting period. Color monitoring should consist of ADMI monitoring as previously specified (see below). Effluent, Upstream and Downstream points should be monitored seven (7) days per week during the summer months (low flow period) and (5) days per week during the winter months. Flow measurements at the JP Stevens gage upstream of the intake should be recorded at the time color samples are collected (Monitoring frequency is based on previous color episodes originating during weekend discharges affecting downstream usage two days later - based on travel time of river.) All samples taken should have complete descriptive recordings of the color in the sample container such as hue (distinctive characteristics and tint), clarity (clearness of the color sample) and luminance (brightness or glowing quality) of the sample as it looks in the collection container. Descriptions of stream color should also be recorded as color samples are collected. Color samples should be analyzed as follows: a) at natural pH and at pH 7.6; b) free from turbidy (True Color); and c) Using a narrow -band scanning spectrophotometer to produce a COMPLETE spectral curve of the visible spectrum (350-750 nm). Calculate and report results in ADMI color units from the information indicated. All color data which includes visual observations should be included with the monthly DMRs. 1'1HP 39 194 10: 17 256 PBS N=Vgyp+" 0 9 :2e FROM 17t.1'i win er• w�x�.�.i i . __. .-....— j 4 NUSCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Has the facility demonstrated tb c ability to meet the proposed new limits with ezlsdn& tit ent facilities? Yes ✓r No If no, which parameters cannot be met? ro �? Yes No Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be app lnia _ If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office recommendations: If no, why not? COLOR REOPENER AND MOPTORYNG REQUIREMENTS This permit will be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate color limitations and/or revised monitoring requirements in the event color testing or other studies conducted by the permitte, or the Division Indicate that color has rendered or could render the receiving waters in1urious to public d health, secondary recreation, to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated use. C p In addition to the reoperer the petmittoc shall immediately report by tel any observable �b onts noted to be,% instream color at downstream (post dmilar �Ue) oflan obser �J m v ble inmarn color to background (upstreamonitoring point). Upon discovery difference the peimitwe shall notify the 1y:vision at either (910) 486-1541 or 1-800-662.7959 (weekends & holidays). The notification shall indicate the ADMI color units for upstream and downstream monitoring points and the observed color (hue) in receiving waters. Should downstream color become apparent (as observed by the permittee or by the Division) the permittw shall immediately initiate corrective actions necessary to eliminate the color episode. Information relayed by telephone shall also be filed by a written report in letter form within 5 days following the fast knowledge of the oe turence and also reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) post marked no later than the 30th day following the completed reporting period. Color monitoring should consist of ADMI monitoring as previously specified. Effluent, Upstream and Downstream points should be monitored seven (7) days per week during the summer months (low flow period) and (5) days per week during the winter months. (Monitoring frequency is based on previous color episodes originating during weekend discharges affecting downstream usage two days later - bawd on travel time of river.) All samples taken should have complete descriptive recordings of the color such as hue, clarity and luminance of the sample. These descriptions should be recorded as the color is perceived instmam and in the sample container. W S�ov.\c7� dsE.nc "w , y � 'see ft. - �i, [eaF NS wti oJw �J[Su.t.'r"•+^L �1 ��s •' SY4T••v W Aoo Re-@,�.F-4rsvr co \�-G�a'~.O St R.E�^^ '4\ew atao••. Gtiu-�-w>e or<otC.�ttt.kt�.w�� c.owZ DATA. t"El Ow.t CoNUEtSwR.e,.. AIdNu.w.�- 4(V. ,2 tkt@c %W 4e.orP�P 4P�erv� "T'c��•T S,�]cS Owiw o..� M•�+M•+y ptwR. p•E4'•-•••,e <e\oiHo-...cx.bs e�. 256 P06 25 — t2tyYr Permit li /��65 Elsa pipe �k 4 0 I CHRONIC TOXICTfY PASSIFAM PERMIT LEMT (QRTRLY) rent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined ia: Iae ') I-AnurNe RevisedkSeptembo 190 orth Carolina i89) bsequentversionsp:o chronic effluent bioassacedurtiCNDtarolinaChronicBioassay yThee effluent concentration at which them may be co observable inhibition of reproductoo or holder shall perform ant mortality is „I g % (defined 03 treatment two in the Noah Carolina procedure document). The permitpert q rarr r v monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be ortmd titer thirty Sys from the effective date of this permit diving the months of pew 2� t 1 Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted Snal efflu nt discharge below all treatment processes. All toxicity testing msulrc required as part of this permit condition will be enteral on the Effinent Discha~ge 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 lnvironmental Management 4401 Reedy Creel: Road Raleigh, N.C. 27607 Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chcmlral/physical measurements performed in association be measured ith the and roported if chlorine, is emtests, as well as all sployed for disinfection ose data. Total f w s e sfthe tream went toxicity 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 specfied above. Should any test data from this monitoring mquirement 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 Inuits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism Survival and appropriate environtrtental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting,withsn 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. 7Q10 _ j 17 cfs Permitted Flow 4 5 — MGD rWC % Basin &Sub basin -J2 Receiving Str am County i QCI. P!F yosion 9191 TOTAL FIX- HHf I _'S ' 94 10: 19 - 25E PG N� TP.�i�etGorYtd • (�l,)C__� �Per=dt*'('P 5 -' Pipet L l CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PFRMIT LIMIT (QRTRLi) IV effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chmnic toxicity using test promduures outlined in: 1.) The North Carolina Cetiodaaphnia Chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay Ptocedtu'e • Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions. The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is —� —% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform fly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be Voed t ler thing s from the effective date of this permit during the months of C M(4 .. W . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted fins a137uelat discharge below aI! treatment processes. All toxicity testing resets required as part of this permit condition will be enmi ed on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (ham-1) for the month in which 1t was performed, us'.ng the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DEM Form AT- I (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 wide the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/msponse data Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the warn stream. Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a fallute to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin immediately until such ntrx 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 wr itoring 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 requite immediate retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure: to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. 7Q10 _ ] 1 `% __ cfs Permitted Flow '7. D MCD IWC 2.� % Basin &c Sub -basin b 0 6- / Receiving Streams v,K �(rea�r 1!U✓P✓ County ..1f L �i1 Lti.4'[ Dace �;—a�— QCL P/F version 9191 107HL F'-M Page 1 Note for Greg Nizich From: Dianne Reid Date: Thu, May 26, 1994 1:53 PM Subject: FW: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich Cc: Beth McGee; Greg Thorpe; Steve Zoufaly Here's my call. Let them drop the adjusted pH analysis, but continue with color sampling using ADMI units at natural plL From: Dianne Reid on Wed, May 25, 1994 9:43 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Beth McGee; Greg Thorpe Cc: Steve Zoufaly Based on the fact that we are probably going to end up with a color criteria based on background color at the site and that Westpoint's discharge is a higher pH than the receiving stream, I say that it is alright to allow them to drop the adjusted pH analysis. Color appears to decrease at lower pH, however, it may reappear if the pH is raised In Westpoint's case, it is probably safe to assume, based on their downstream data and our monitoring data, that dilution with swamp waters at and below the discharge will decrease the chance of Westpoint's color increasing downstream. Do you guys have any comments or questions on this before I send it to Greg? From: Dianne Reid on Mon, May 9, 199410:45 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoirit Stevens To: Greg Nizich Cc: Beth McGee; Steve Zoufaly I think I can hit that. From: Greg Nizich on Mon, May 9, 1994 10:36 AM Subject: RE:Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Dianne Reid Is 2 weeks sufficient? From: Dianne Reid on Mon, May 9, 199410:34 AM Subject: RE: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Greg Nizich I have the info and am looking it over now. I want to look at Edenton's color data also and see how their natural vs. adjusted pH compare. How soon do you need a reply? From: Greg Nizich on Mon, May 9, 199410:29 AM Subject: Color monitoring - Westpoint Stevens To: Dianne Reid This facility requested that we drop the adjusted pH requirement for their color monitoring. I put a copy of their letter along with a report comparing the natural vs. adjusted pH in your in -box. Let me know if you need more information to evaluate their request. Thanks. From: Carla Sanderson Date: Fri, Apr 22, 1994 7:59 AM Subject: FW: JP - HQW To: Greg Nizich Page 2 Greg - check out the scene below for JPs limits on phenol and nickel. Do you want to discuss or should I call the region? I have had a call from Paul Rawls and Mike Wicker came by my office yesterday to inquire about this. Would you like a memo from IAU recommended this change in the Draft Permit? From: Ruth Swanek on Fri, Apr 22, 1994 7:23 AM Subject: RE: JP - HQW To: Carla Sanderson Sounds good to me. Glad to hear we have been applying reg properly. Good work on this WLA! From: Carla Sanderson on Thu, Apr 21, 1994 3:30 PM Subject: JP - HQW To: Ruth Swanek After talking with Dianne and Beth today - it looks like we have applied the Reg correctly for this one. Since the Nickel parameter was not ever limited or evaluated in the past our application using 1/2 the standard at the expansion from 3.6 MGD to 4.5 MGD is ok. They felt that we should continue to apply the Reg (no increase in loading) to parameters as they come up for expansion regardless of how we evaluated in the past. Anti - backsliding also is a consideration if we are talking about increasing a limit. We are also interpreting the reg correctly currently! So, the bottom line for a break here will have to be the following: At 7.0 MGD Weekly Average Daily Maximum Nickel 160 ug/1 640 ug/1 Phenol 0.75 #/d 20.0 ug/l Nickel limits are based on our SOP procedure for giving facilities a break to meet limits (4*limit = Dal Max and original limit = Wk Ave). The Phenol limits are based on the exiling concentration and corresponding load at 4.5 MGD. Since the standard is a chronic value (right?) we are protecting the existing load for a weekly average. If this is ok with you - I will be sending it down to Greg and I also need to call the region. Page 1 From: Date: Subject: To: Note for Cada Sanderson Carla Sanderson Thu, Apr 14, 1994 2:40 PM JP's Ni and Phenol Carla Sanderson Nevermind this stuff below yet I am still working through the old notes and I am finding that we may not have developed the limits correctly. Do you have the WLA request and FACT SHEET? I think I gave it to you I came up with a couple scenarios to propose for these limits. It seems like the facility can have its choice. Actually - there is only one scenario for phenol since it doesn't have an acute value. Anyway - do you want me to call Paul R. or do you want to? The recommendations are below: At 7.0 MGD Weekly Average Nickel 160 ug/l Phenol 0.750 #/d or Nickel --9,4 #/d- - Phenol--- same as above Daily Maximum 640 ug/1 21.3 ug/l - 532 ug/I - The fist set of Nickel limits is based on our SOP procedure for giving failicities a break to meet limits (4*Limit) = Dal Max and original limit = Wk Ave The Phenol limits and second set of Nickel limits are based on instream analysis using 7.0 MGD and new 30Q2 for phenol and new 7Q10 for nickel = Dal Max limits and the equivalent loading at 4.5 MGD given in #/d for the weekly average. Is this confusing enough? Ruth and I discussed this and since we cannot give a break on U-)U ba5ecl en Y� (b,4 ?�IrtvL ✓ 2A)60 lxi-,WG &�YL °7Q )b 3 a ci to elw '7A/0 = 1/7 c-fs i ua6 li 4l&vj y 5 m d i4 f i d mq d - - . w p 0. ba-a D • a5om�1 � /� `7.0 rr�cC 16/0- Page 1 Note for Carla Sanderson From: Greg Nizich Date: Wed, Mar 30, 1994 10:08 AM Subject: WPP - Color #1 To: Carla Sanderson Carla - this is one of the many questions sure to come while I draft this permit. A footnote on the previous effluent sheet said: '"There shall be no significant statistical difference between upstream and downstream color based on a quantifiable measurement system to be developed from color monitoring data collected pursuant to Part III, Condition D (the section we are slashing extensively). Since we are not including a limit would this now be omitted or are we still trying to identify a quantifiableeasurement system? Page 1 Note for Carla Sarxierson From: Greg Nizich Date: Tue, Mar 29, 1994 3:19 PM Subject: WPP - Wagram To: Carla Sanderson 6 () Are we requiring monitoring for long term BOD with this renewal? The old permit has it, but the fact sheet does not address in either new or existing requirements. Also, The old permit did not have NH3 or chlorine monitoring. The fact sheet has these monitored for the renewal. Is this correct or did you get on a "roll" when filling out that column? J 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 J.P. Stevens NC0005762 Industrial - 99% Domestic - 1 % Existing Renewal/Modification Lumber River WS-IV Sw HQW 030751 Scotland FRO Greg Nizich 4120✓93 H21SE Request # 7430/7431 Stream Characteristic: USGS # Date: Drainage Area (mi2): Summer 7Q10 (cfs): Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Average Flow (cfs): 30Q2 (cfs): IWC (%): Low Flow Profile 1993 349.0 117 5.6(4.5 mgd) 8.5(7.0 mgd) Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) Wasteload Allocation for renewal at exisitng design flow and modification for expansion. HQW allows expansion with no increase in permitted loading. This Fact Sheet is a resubmittal of the Fact Sheet signed in August 93. Changes made include re- evaluation of discharge into HQW (Reg is now applied correctly), limit for BOD according to the Basinwide Management Strategy and color monitoring and reopener language for both flows. See special conditions on page four. Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: Recommended by: 1 6872_ Date: Reviewed by /� /^y Instream Assessment: 9rUI �. 1. „ 12(�Lf &J Date:�i Regional Supervisor: Permits & Engineering: Date: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: Type of Toxicity Test: Existing Limit: Recommended Limit: Monitoring Schedule: Wasteflow (MGD): BODS: COD: TSS: Sulfide: Chromium: Nickel: Phenol: Feral Cohfomr (/100ml): pH (SU): NH3N (mg/1): Copper (ug/1): Zinc (ug/1): Chlorine (mg/1) DO (mg/1) TN (mg/1) TP (mg/1) Color TOXICS/METALS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Chronic (P/F) and Acute at 90% Chronic at 12 % 4.5 MGD: 6% Chronic (P/F) @ 7.0 MGD: 9% Chronic (P/F) Feb, May, Aug, Nov (ibs/da) (lbs/da) (other units) Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max 4.5 MGD 1306 2611 17118 34236 2558 5115 24 49 12 24 0.25 mg/l 0.02 mg/l mertitor r 6-9 SU _ • utul _►!• p• _ lyll � .� •t .: Mph_ • - • monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor Monitor Obs/da) (lbs/da) (other units) Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max Wasteflow (MGD): 4.5 MGD BODS: 1306 2611 COD: 17118 34236 TSS: 2558 5115 Sulfide: 24 49 Chromium: 12 24 Nickel: 0.25 mg/l Phenol: 0.02 mg/l Fecal Coliform (/100m1): 200/100m1 pH (SU): 6-9 SU NH3N: monitor Copper: monitor Zinc: monitor Chlorine (ug/1): monitor DO (mg/1): 5.0 TP (mg/1): monitor TN (mg/1): monitor Color Monitor Per NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (F) for colored wastes, the pemtittee shall discharge only such amounts as will not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. See special conditions for color monitoring. (lbs/da) (lbs/da) (other units) Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max Wasteflow (MGD): 7.0 MGD B0135: 1306 2611 COD: 17118 34236 TSS: 2558 5115 Sulfide: 24 49 Chromium: 12 24 Nickel: 160 ug/l Phenol: 13 ug/1 Fecal Coliform (/100m1): 200/100 ml pH (SU): 6-9 SU NH3N: monitor Copper: monitor Zinc: monitor Chlorine (ug/l): 28 DO (mg/1): 5.0 TP (mg/1): monitor TN (mg/1): monitor Color (ADMI) monitor Per NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (F) for colored wastes, the pemittee shall discharge only such amounts as will not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO: Parameter Change due to-- 1. BOD5 Expansion of wasteflow and Lumber River Basin Management Strategy - maintain existing loads 2. Nickel Existing loading in concentration per HQW 3. Phenol Exisitng loading in concentration per HQW 4. Chlorine Acute cap given to expanding or new facilities limit should apply if chlorine is added to the plant 5. DO Added due to basinwide mansgement strategy and low DO levels instream in the River. 6. Toxicity New requirements for existing flow - Anti Deg states for exising and expanding flows the rules in part (1)(B) of 2B.0201(d) apply only if there is an increase in load. Therefore, the Toxicity Test previously given to the facility was given in error. The above limited parameters are Water Quality limited. Loadings have at least remained the same since Design = 3.6 MGD. INSTREA.M MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Upstream Location: @ SR 1403 Downstream Location: 1-@ NCSR 1310; 2-@ NC HWY 71 Parameters: Temp, DO, pH, Conductivity, turbidity, color (ADM[) see page 4 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes No If no, which parameters cannot be met? 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? COLOR REOPENER AND MOITORING REQUIREMENTS This permit will be modified or revoked and reissued to incorporate color limitations and/or revised monitoring requirements in the event color testing or other studies conducted by the permittee or the Division indicate that color has rendered or could render the receiving waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated use. In addition to the reopener the permittee shall immediately report by telephone any observable instream color at downstream (post discharge) monitoring points noted to be visually dissimilar to background (upstream monitoring point). Upon discovery of an observable instream color difference the permittee shall notify the Division at either (910) 486-1541 or 1-800-662-7959 (weekends & holidays). The notification shall indicate the ADMI color units for upstream and downstream monitoring points and the observed color (hue) in receiving waters. Should downstream color become apparent (as observed by the permittee or by the Division) the permittee shall immediately initiate corrective actions necessary to eliminate the color episode. Information relayed by telephone shall also be filed by a written report in letter form within 5 days following the first knowledge of the occurrence and also reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) post marked no later than the 30th day following the completed reporting period. Color monitoring should consist of ADMI monitoring as previously specified. Effluent, Upstream and Downstream points should be monitored seven (7) days per week during the summer months (low flow period) and (5) days per week during the winter months. (Monitoring frequency is based on previous color episodes originating during weekend discharges affecting downstream usage two days later - based on travel time of river.) All samples taken should have complete descriptive recordings of the color such as hue, clarity and luminance of the sample. These descriptions should be recorded as the color is perceived instream and in the sample container. Facility Name -- 1" 6AWPI-6 — % J Permit # /(-Mf ?&,a Pipe # 0 0 f 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 Ceriodaohnia 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 is —�p_Sb (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 thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of rC,b Mau .a, AtotJ . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final efflu nt discharge below all treatment processes. All toxicity testing results required as par 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 well as all dose/response 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 a]temate 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 I l 7 cfs Permitted Flow 4.5 MGD IWC 5. 0 % Basin & Sub -basin 030 75 / Receiving Stream LUrnb& PillrYl County r-o4lcwcl Recommended by: Date r? a 5 QCL PIF Version 9191 Facility Name /P�ome /UC�9✓LtiYi Permit # CL�Yi6D6o SP.SPipe # 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 is —2—% (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 pe omxd after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of b, MOW, dZQ fV0 0- . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluefit 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 well as all dose/response 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 117 cfs Permitted Flow rTy MGD IWC g.5 % Basin & Sub -basin O o S / Receiving Stream U County SCO�Ia Vw QCL PlF Version 9191 Recommended by: Date a 5 MAR 1 4! 1994 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE March 11, 1994 M E M O R A N D U M TO CARLA SANDERSON INSTREAM ASSESSMENT UNIT FROM Kerr T. Steven Regional Supervisor Fayetteville Regional Office SUBJECT WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION JP STEVENS NC0005762 SCOTLAND COUNTY Please find attached the Fayetteville Regional Office comments regarding the subject waste load allocation. In particular note the attached supplemental sheet discussing the color issue at this facility. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Paul Rawls, Michael Wicker or myself at (910) 486- 1541. KTS/MCW/mcw enclosure ,— -FEB-24-1994 08:51 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO FRO9104860707 P.02i08 Facility Name: NPDES No.: Type of Waste: Facility Status: Permit Status: Receiving Strearm: Stream Classification: Subb:isin: County: Regional Office: Recuestor: Date of Request: Topo Quad: FACT SHEET FOR W ASTELOAD ALLOCATION J.P. Stevens NC0005762 Industrial - 99% Domestic - I % Existing Renewal/Modification Lumber River WS-IV Sw HQW 030751 Scotland FRO Greg Nizich 4120193 H21SE Request# 7430f7431 USGS # Irate: Drainage Area (mi2): Sumner 7Q10 (cfs): Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Average Flow (cfs): 30Q2 (cfs): IWC (%): Low Flow Profile 1993 349.0 117 5.6(4.5 mgd) 8.5(7.0 mgd) Wasteload Allocation Summary (approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.) Wasteload Allocation for renewal at exisitng design flow and modification for expansion. HQW allows expansion with no increase in permitted loading. This Fact Sheet is a resubmittal of the Fact Sheet signed in August'93. Changes made include re- evaluation of discharge into HQW (Reg is now applied correctly), limit for BOD according to the Basinwide Management Strategy and a proposed color limit for the expansion and narrative for both flows. See attached justification for color limit Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers: 5EE ��GlorjF k- cat-o;e- Recommended by: Reviewed by �J InstreamAssessment: °— Date: c? ca I Mid o�egional Supervisor: _ Date: Permits & Engincering: __ Date: RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: FEB-24-1994 08:51 FROM DEM LATER QUALITY SECTION TO FRO9104860707 P.03i08 Type of Toxicity Test Existing Limit Recammeoded Limit Monitoring Scliedule: Wasteflow (MGD : BOD5: COD: TSS: Sulfide: Chromium: MckeL Pbenol: Fecal Coliform (1100ml): pH (SU): NH3N (mg/1): Copper(ugA): 74m (ugfl): Chlorine (mg/1) DO (mg/►) TN (mg/) TP (010) Color TOXICS/METALS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS Chronic (P/F) and Acute at 90% Cbronic at I2 % 0 4.5 MGD: 6% Chronic (P/F) 7.0 MOD: 9% Chrornc (P/F) Feb, May, Aug. Nov (Ibs/da) (1bsfda) (other units) Man Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max 4.5 MGD 1306 2611 17118 34236 2559 5115 24 49 12 24 0.25 mg/I 0.02 mg/l monitor G9 SU monitor monitor monitor monitor monitor Monitor t AII) (tp kw (other units) Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max Wasteflow (M®): 4.5 MGD BOD5: 1306 2611 COD: lax$. TSS: 2558 -34236__:. _ ;�til naovt t Lttcrf��$$ coo 5115 Sulfide: 24 49 sin4 bi Mptl rn.n a,lv�•, „cJ Owa(i.bS Chromium: 12 24 Nickel: 025 mV1 Pbeaol: 0.02 mg/l Feel Colifoan (/100(m): 200/100m1 pH (SU): 6-9 SU NH3N: monitor Copper. monitor Zinc: monitor Chlorine (ujA): monitor DO (mg/1): 5.0 TP (mg/1): monitor TN (mg/1): monitor Color Monitor Per NCAC 2B.0211 (b) (3) (F) for o okxW wastes, the permitwe shall discWgc only such amounts as will not tender the waters injurious to public health, woodary recreation, or aquatic life and wi fe or adversely affect the aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated noses. FEB-24-1994 08:52 FROM 11EM WATER GLIRLITY SECTION TO FRO9104860707 P.04i08 Ob&W Obs(da) (other units) Mon Ave Dal Max Mon Ave Dal Max wasteflow (Mtn): 7.0 MGD RODS: 1306 2611 CLOD, 34436. 3333a 7 LoaJ-" �or COD ave LPLL<" 4�4Lti TSS: 2558 5115 uxzl5 c�nad��evtou5tjo+3.limyd Sulfide: 24 49 d3use&Cn 6; nnlLr r R. ; No;r17 Chromium: 12 24 �roctn. Nid=L• 160 ug/l Phenol: 13 u9A Penal Coliform 0100m1r 2001100 mi PH (SU): 6-9 SU NMN: monitor CoPpc monitor Zinc: monitor Chlorine (ugA): 28 DO (mg/1): 5.0 TP (mg/l): monitor TN (mg/1): tnonitor Color 615 ADNU Per NCAC 211.0211(b) (3) (F) for colored wastes, the permittee shall discharge only such amounts as will not reader the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. The above limitation for color may be altered pending an ongoing color study and further information collected by JP Stevens. Protection of downstream use* at the Ltmftrton water supply will also affect the evaluation and appropriateness of this limit. See attached. LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO: P1ftt1neter 1. GODS Chataee due to-- Ezpansioa of wasteflow and Lumber River Basin Management Strategy - maintain existing loads 2. Nickel Existing loading in concentration per HQW 3. Phenol Existtng loading in concentration per HQW 4. Chlorine Acute cap given to expanding or new facilities limit should apply if chlorine is added to the plant 5. DO Added due to basinwide management strategy and lam DO levels mstttam in the River. 6. Color Limit added due to highly colored wasteflow and possibility of use impaiffiwt downstream at the Lumberton Water Supply 7. Toxicity New requirements for existing flow - Anti Deg states for exising and expanding flows the rules in part (1xB) of 2B.0Ml (d) apply only if there is an increase in load. Therefore, the Toxicity Test previously given to the facility was given in error. The above limited parameters are Water Quality ]united. Loadings have at least remained the same since Design = 3.6 MOD. QUALITY SECTION TO FR09104BG0707 P.05/08 F'E8-2e-3994 eg; 52 FROM DEM WATER J INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Upstream Location: @ SR 1403 Downstream Location: 1-0 NCSR 1310; 2-@ NC HWY 71 Parameters: Temp, DO, pH, Conductivity, turbidity, color (ADMI) Special insiream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies: Color samples should have thorough descriptive recordings of each sample as it is collected in the glass container. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes v' No If no, which parameters cannot be met? Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes— No v, If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional office recommendations: If no, why not? cti«<VJCA" M«t- t*/Ct• - WtA�mP Sne�yal Lnstructions or ConditiorLc Thrs facility should have a color limit reopener clause. If additional data and or information showing problems with the River maintaining its uses downstream at the water supply, the color limit may be altered. Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) — (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? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments. FEB-24-1994 08:54 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO FRO9104660707 P.07/08 Facility Name JD"5�eILP.ry lN-� p«mit # �Cra665D62- Pipe a �b / CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in: i.) The North Carolina Qziodaphnia 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 p is - % (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 thirty, dgys from t.`._ effective date of this permit during the months of f-1-b, Maq, 4i q rVoo. . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final e fluefiiit 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- I (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 well as all dose/response 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 altemate monitoring requirements or limits. NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited doctiment, such as minimum control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate retesting(wzthin 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute noncompliance with monitoring requirements. 7Q10 11. / cfs Permitted Flow ��_ MGD Recommended by: IWC _$ 96 Basin &Sub -basin 00 r7 5 / Receiving Stream County _!;� Uf(qln2d Date a 5 QCL P/F Version 9191 FEB-24-1994 08253 FROM DEM WRTER OLPLITY SECTION TO FRO9104860707 P.06/08 Facility Name —% �evls LGz9 M M Permit # / XQO65 71sa Pipe # 0 6 1 CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY) Ttrc effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in: 1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaohnia 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 is to % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform owz1ar-ly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of FEh WAV . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final efflu nt 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 -I (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 asso�iation with the toxicity tests, as well as all doseh'esponse 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 Notch 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 mini --gum 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 i / 7 cfs Permitted Flow q.,5 MGD IWC sS. (t % Basin & Sub -basin 03075 Receiving Stream Limber R Uhl County ,zof/ci. - -- �� h a ,�C.C.I,v�,(_J�i��✓ Date _ a a 5 QU PIF Version 9191 FEB-24-1994 06:54 FROM DEM WATER QUR ILITY SECTION TO FROSIO4860707 P.08/06 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Water Quality Section February 23, 1994 SUBJECT: J.P. Steven's Color Limit Justification DEM, JP Stevens and Hydroscience, JP Stevens consultant, have been coordinating efforts for the past few years in preparation towards development of a color requirement for the facility's highly cr':,red textile wasteflow. The discharge is located in the Lumber River approximately 50 miles upstream of the City of Lumberton Water Supply. Since January 1993 DEM has been receiving color data and subsequent color reports from Hydroscience to vse in determining a color requirement for JP Stevens. In January, 1993 JP Stevens submitted the first color report including several methods to determine color. Data was collected from November 1991 through October, 1992. At this time, it was determined that JP Stevens need only perform testing methods to develop ADMI Units. A letter was submitted to JP Stevens in July, 1993 requesting additional descriptive information to go along with the recorded ADMI units and a possible limit they may expect to meet. In September, 1993 JP Stevens submitted another report with additional color data (November, 1992 through May, 1993), model verification and a proposed color limit study. A correlation between effluent color, wasteflow, river flow and upstream color was established DEM requested additional information at this time to verify the equations used and the supporting document referred to in the report The National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) study was used to help support the chosen target for instream below the treatment plant. In September DEM requested additional information including descriptive color information to relate to the recorded ADMI units. This information was not submitted to correspond to the data that was submitted previously. Determination of what level of color in the effluent constitutes a colored stream needs to include thorough descriptive information pertaining to each color sample collected. The description of color should be determined after the sample is collected and the view of how the color looks in the collection jar should be recorded. The NCASI study referred to in the previously submitted report indicated that a human test population could perceive a color change of 40 platinum cobalt units. This is only one study and uses wasteflow from paper mill Industry which is not the same as textile colored wasteflow. Therefore the use of no more than 40 units change from upstream reported ADMI Units is not an appropriate comparison. Furthermore, a % change from upstream recorded ADMI units will allow high amount of color to be discharged given the change in stream flow. This will also be difficult for compliance and evaluation of color data at a future date. In conclusion, the final limit developed for JP Stevens was termtned b looking at all of the effluent data and running a statistical analysis to get 7 th , nu . This limit will take care of the peaks which is necessary at this time while we cont>�to receive data with the necessary descriptive information. Additionally, a reopener clause pertaining to further color requirements should be part of this permit expansion. Supplement to "Fact Sheet For Wasteload Allocation" West Point Stevens NPDES PERMIT No. NC0005762 "Color" Based on the information provided, this office recommends that at this time the facility receive "color monitoring only" for the subject permit. Monitoring only is in the opinion of the Fayetteville Regional Office justified in the absence of a "statewide" technique for establishing color limitations. A review of regional files indicates that there has been no color complaints lodged against the facility for more than 24 months. Further, the City of Lumberton water treatment facility has not reported adverse impacts of the city's raw water intake during the same period. The facility continues efforts to minimize color and has had a "Plan of Action" to address color since August 1993. The plan is based on a 40 ADMI color unit above background threshold. The plan indicates that the facility will initiate color reducing techniques when there is a 40 ADMI difference (upstream vs downstream). Based on historical data a color reopener clause should be placed in the permit. This will act as a, safeguard in the event that color reduction techniques fail to provide adequate protection of the intended use of the Lumber River. Below is a suggested reopener clause for use in this permit. Color Reopener This permit will be modified, or revoked and reissued to incorporate color limitations and/or revised monitoring requirements in the event color testing or other studies conducted by the permittee or the Division indicate that color has rendered or could render the receiving waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the water for any designated use. In addition to the reopener we suggest that the permittee shall immediately report by telephone any observable instream color from downstream (post discharge) monitoring points noted to be visually dissimilar to background (upstream monitoring point). Upon discovery of an observable instream color difference the permittee shall -continued- notify the Division at either (910) 486-1541 or 1-800-662-7959 (weekends & holidays). The notification shall indicate the ADMI color units for upstream and downstream monitoring points and the observed color (hue) in receiving waters. Should downstream color become apparent (as observed by the permittee or by the Division) the permittee shall immediately initiate corrective actions necessary to eliminate the color episode. Information relayed by telephone shall also be filed by a written report in letter form within 5 days following the first knowledge of the occurrence and also reported on the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) post marked no later than the 30th day following the completed reporting period. Color monitoring should consist of ADMI monitoring as previously specified. Effluent, Upstream and Downstream points should be monitored seven (7) days per week during the summer months (low flow period) and (5) days per week during the winter months. Monitoring frequency is based on previous color episodes originating during weekend discharges affecting downstream usage some two days later, (based on travel time of river). COIgF i1ve— A,ppeaVanu cGsfi*e-CA'&q eh ktActti;6�Cs v� Co(ov. ( rar4i cj, la-i 5haC& o v (, Vj &1Ar,*, - Cba.rN-,9 (Urni,hatz,u - b�'7fdne5s, Q� Y&to , AilPcl A/ W fF7� Page 1 Note for Dave Goodrich From: Dianne Reid Date: Wed, Mar 2, 1994 8:36 AM Subject: RE: JP Stevens Color To: Coleen Sullins Cc: Beth McGee; Carla Sanderson; Dave Goodrich; Greg Thorpe; Ruth Swanek; Steve Zoufaly I discussed using 104(b)(3) grant to fund the study with Greg and Beth. After looking over the guidance and based on timing, we decided not to pursue 104(b)(3) money. The NCTMA met last week with over 30 of the facilities from our list of color discharges to get volunteers to participate in a color study. They are willing to pay for analyses and assist with sampling. We also have a person interested in volunteer work with us and interested in the color study. I'm following up on her now. My plan at this time is to attend the SC color meeting on March 17th, steal any and all useful ideas for approaching this issue from them, preparing a briefing paper for HQ staff and meeting with P&E, IAU, and ESB to flesh out study objectives and plan. I would like to have a plan ready to present to regions and NCTMA by early April. As for sludge & polymers, I have not done any in-depth review of technology to this point. I don't foresee being able to within the next few months based on my current work priorities; however, it will be done as part of the study. Again, the industry is looking at the color issue also and JP Stevens, during this expansion, should be seriously considering recyclingtiow dye use options and Pollution Prevention Planning. From: Coleen Sullins on Tue, Mar 1, 199411:56 PM Subject: RE: JP Stevens Color To: Dianne Reid Cc: Beth McGee; Carla Sanderson; Dave Goodrich; Greg Thorpe; Ruth Swanek One other thing that we need to be careful about is the issue of the creation of large quantities of sludge. We have the potential of creating a significant problem in the generation of large quantities of sludge and the resultant impact if improperly disposed of (thus creating a nonpoint source potential problem). The more color they remove by the addition of polymer, the more sludge we are creating. I know that the regional office is very concerned about this issue, in addition to the color issue itself. One of the topics we at one of the TSB staff meetings was the potential to address the color study funding issue, by proposing a 104(b)(3) study funding as a "basinwide" issue. Was this pursued? Coleen From: Dianne Reid on Fri, Feb 25, 1994 3:34 PM Subject: JP Stevens Color To: Carla Sanderson Cc: Beth McGee; Coleen Sullins; Dave Goodrich; Don Safrit; Greg Thorpe; Ruth Swanek Well, I have a couple of statements but probably no real help on an actual limit. 1- Just because they asked for a limit doesn't mean we have to give them one at this time, does it? I know you guys have been working with them to obtain sufficient info to develop a limit, but no one seems satisfied with what they (JP Stevens) have provided so far. Using a Page 2 delta of 40 above background is not justified based on the fact that it was obtained using platinum cobalt color units for pulp and paper wastewater and that they currently are not discharge at that level of ADMI. 2- We are going to be collecting data with specific observations included to allow development of color criteria for NC this year. Any limit we give them now could set an unwanted precedent. 3- It looks like above 500-600 ADMI reds and oranges are visible, based on secondhand information from the SCTMA study. If they want a TARGET to shot for I would suggest using 500 ADMI effluent concentration until we have a better handle on where ADMI becomes aesthetically unpleasing. About a third of their effluent measurements were above 547 ADMI. Their effluent 75th percentile ADMI was 619. Some of those readings above may have been preventable with better pollution prevention practises (dye substitutes, better housekeeping & materials handling). PPP would be glad to work with them on that and the national TMA is also looking into it! 4 - Complete mixing ASAP after discharge would also give them a break on downstream color. 5 - Finally, I would support requiring continued monitoring upstream, effluent and downstream using ADMI, letting JP know the range I suggested as a target to stay below, require pollution prevention planning and implementation for the facility, and get the Region to better document color complaints (pictures - upstream and downstream with color samples taken!!!! DATES, THAES, Visual observations!!). Sony, I know this is not what you wanted but it's what Pm comfortable with. r:�ru- cuzuc . 61�Z751 2 JAI q� ire - b-v 2va�He-YL- H611,c� �� Dae51"6-Et-icf'Lrj ExPah5i&X5 Ivi'll get ya 55 aX LaIC (a Toy-/ / ew o &-f 90-6, flGtcJ e Pao a��ba.At Y a -- -- J%�tt rf ►.e : �.2 �15�6'Y)_�6�%c� {^2U�'tK. ,QiI!to�, -_ _ FGR RnA - �Gy inu�idl-waoajtffio 'Ctai?S;BrtS- �Shar�lc� �iceti�-_I6SoA6 Cm�.i_> E (!Ur"/?d @ f BODY. -113o(o;/d- W;II Coal i v[� d @ 7.orYl cl = .2 a. 5 ..Chv vrn All Ewa104 _@ '7 tngd = 6-631p. gs- = 4.�i __$� Currc. Irn.c� � l�/d rn•n,M - .2q;ld c4JAA.* Chrs»c OYK mall 7- a (l� �k( l - - ws - -- — _ - -hvl o _ Qa i or s �►`]��*/d @ '1 +rn cl �_a a BSc i 55 = I ubrl �e 6�,a�751 —TP 64tyet� Col oV Colov�(�vy2Y Zla. -l�n`�t�_-r,,.LA.I(-U"__� 0-,�o `Am -fo ESQ -- '��$I93 -� -�Ja�_ ,bl ah5 GUS K- - ►�I n.cLuJolo _ . �tell�odo�- Am 4 T"unk e0io0o 6KU-X) 7u.as{-oy }gyp I VAS rm6+ ap pr i K oub - 3vhnA4, � N f-ITI mfAoi Lu �bnAli a. _ p �/dt 05C¢O 0 ZA o&," 4� bt (ernRo u n retie � ww I -N -�>"C)ii: f- rolok- t .t �L t"I., /l U�TL77'BY) i �l%O 7� �2R �C+�J{'t�U *clA CWTL4' 'kch�.�c _ o � �Gou�t . mmnnc'pq C g .ccxr ¢vab uu �j� a„ l! lei d;4cku"�ed. - -- --- "• �clvcG 5hccfc �a�P.firx.i.na� f htdu�.t Co-l�u) liX/�io #Otw L4 Miedern C4 4 E(AhLAI CAua�a. °}''-'-}tEG`°�° e'er-1L� 5 'P 4 'Lnw° cy9ril�C h- t - — V'Slr 5 rJa vy C man -� • l9ujvi cu- _ l m d—uti-40& i ljoq °7i op-5�1 �► a -'71 1 /a- _1U--- 100_ 81 __ YAJ _ 93-1 J-43 /16 16� 5 19.3 a So 94 467J '-16-L/ ocl i b i, 3 4 164L la7 o yU ra[. i/7 �L '703 I5-X qp, 9r __,�_la '7a "769 /b ri /ol 'a� 57a 1� i ti5 -701- ,)5s 86 86 So a�g lots 85-- Page 1 Note for Carla Sanderson From: Coleen Sullins Date: Tue, Feb 8, 1994 5:23 PM Subject: RE: JP Stevens To: Carla Sanderson Do not think this is going to be a problem provided we can get an answer quickly. The region is very interested in having a color limit in the permit and I concur. Coleen From: Carla Sanderson on Tue, Feb 8, 1994 5:13 PM Subject: RE: JP Stevens To: Coleen Sullins I was addressing the color issue as a whole for facilities in the Lumber River Basin or in the State for that matter. I thought we were originally going to try to address JP separately and give them a limit or some sort of color requirement for the expansion. They have been sending in data and reports justifying a color change maximum from upstream but the references included were not appropriate. Anyway, we requested more information which they submitted in November and it doesn't look any more useful (haven't combed it thoroughly yet). I need to talk to Jay Sauber about it. The WLA is ready for finalization as soon as we get the color issue resolved. I will talk to Jay tomorrow if he is in. Please let me know if you think there is going to be a problem with this. From: Coleen Sullins on Tue, Feb 8, 1994 4:40 PM Subject: JP Stevens To: Carla Sanderson Cc: Dave Goodrich; Greg Nizich As a result of the meeting in Lumberton yesterday, JP is wanting to know when we are going to be getting their permit issued. Since they heard that the color issue is one that is not going to be resolved in this basin cycle and since they are getting very close to needing the additional flow, they need their permit modification. Would you please update me on the status of the WLA and when I can expect to see it? We need to proceed with this one ASAP. I realize that this will put them outside of the basinwide schedule, but we have been doing that for facilities that are expanding. Please let me know what kind of timeframe you have on getting us the finalized wla so that we can draft the permit. Thanks Coleen �t'm8 (,Mere di vie t L5/n r old 3 &1n�cl tru) q,r�d'l7AlD coo Q r51 7-a3-93 -: p S/eveh5 y.5 rncecd Lump fi;V*- F7.6 -611)- w6l- - Na; '7410 �50-s A��p��C� je) w a.11ocal4i-i fr ya 55 to rd G aXTvjC 6) poi P; P, 06 I FXi6f,n� Loacl� '6vd 5" T55 NvhyCl) m kil COIAL r18yt-1i4-- �O-L rnW i711 S 35�a3co a4 �q9 7 l l.5 Writ' t t� �ii�4et vr� lasf ayrs �Y C.15rn9.1 ,UJQ o.I�rny.�l N zu,nd o o g Ov - �O�cnut i C. D �f �• 5 .r�lLe-t,Ja-IaLe = usa, Sixu r .vic{2(v3,L5 n. a5 YrA 4 /Vo yoar� ,Uayui&4'm0v Citvtm;vryl .7 0 mw,tar eewhnuv� `(�� w, = 0 . D La of rn�/ ��! = D. Cal ,ua��;dd;,ujsocrLG I»DM/fD Canfinue3 0-4n � yl --7 �c �- . O 0y r use 3oga) :LYcg 0 JP ��e/e�zsG/v>7acG�,'ca�;�vt 4.5m9d CenPcvaQ� eop 765 Chvtvu;unt, P lu N/u .9-be/a(a. X La 1ll�, 13v(� ace 11 171/� ,�559 ay eo ppey Zirlc, Ceea.O CoG�,�m so �,bo 735 I�U1A4 Chum„ium jIIiCc� plk� N4 /i N3,k 1 Fec.j rt 1 Z. /r?etiu 40 v 'Po fioo mt b— 9 5cJ 1`>7on Awe. puk ��7� .C�2& 11 34.;30 Wad 2'Ao aM C�vak rl PIiogq r,t lsad� rn��l ir,rt All � D. 3g-0 mo-w�-lbv slna4 r)Ion v9y- 4Mc iP&c G. �S ,Gllo Lprn.a� � 1 y r�ori�-!7iti' JpSS e{Cv2 cis 3 0'7 -- a.9'7Q 113 to�— a. ?icy _ _P_. a3 8 .04 -- 7— --- 6.714P 6,07 ,s�`h 3.$41 —Via---_-�_ ply 3.831 -1..ag -3 931 <�. 1'Yt Coles vp 1 '75 AM-1 6Opt iA10 = IzdlcA SP Co(arf}gyK� UP.Sh.ee�� --Jcry-,¢ A"-e '77 8c) AA Gb ma/� 1,7s I*At 77 PW (a IAA ,mac, 59 M. 77 Ck,&7 Burn; o. 29 rrtJc �/ 57 vnc�r/ [FiW ftO = 0-�Irng�l c�rU d.1f/vr�j/ @u-S 10oz0' �✓,�Lt = 9. `�%� (o.asnJ.�) .ore, (.IeuJ,4Jc;= �. lCa rn i/ �5•�#/u@ 7•omyd� 41/ fi4"/= 0.75%l (o.a,;/La Co-1k) ku ru k my +Nw-ti DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Wed, Sep 22, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Carla Sanderson FROM: Dianne Reid NJ ` RE: J. P. Stevens Proposed Color Limit Per your request I have reviewed the two documents provided by J. P. Stevens to support using a permit requirement of 40 ADMI above background. After inputting the data into a spreadsheet I calculated the permissible effluent color based on their models and color above background from 20 to 40 ADMI. A review of the ADMI and platinum cobalt data provided by J. P. Stevens for the time period of 11/6/91 through 5/31/93 indicates that there is, on the average, a difference of approximately 10 ADMI units and 20 platinum cobalt units between the upstream station and SR 1304. Using the model supplied by J. P. Stevens to determine allowable effluent color at 40 ADMI units above background resulted in a doubling of effluent color. The attached box plots show that at 40 ADMI units above background the effluent color would be above the current effluent color most of the time. As there are apparently no data correlating visible color to ADMI, allowing a doubling of effluent color does not seem justified. If we had data which showed that effluent color (in all hues) above 1000 ADMI (approximately median for proposed at 40 ADMI) was not visible, I could agree with the proposal. However, in the absence of field truth data, I would suggest using 20 ADMI above background at SR 1304. Using 20 ADMI above background maintains current effluent color levels, yet allows for excursions without being overly stringent. I still have several questions regarding J. P. Stevens' proposal. It would seem to me that inconsistency of lower downstream ADMI measurements would point to quality control/assurance problems due to your statement regarding inputs between the J. P. Stevens discharge and SR 1304. This would make the running average of 15 data points unnecessary. Does J. P. Stevens use the ADMI method which we are currently recommending? As for the use of 15 data points, is that the measured time of travel from J. P. Stevens discharge to SR 1304? If 20 ADMI above background at SR 1304 is used I think those questions can be addressed through monitoring and supplemental information. As for monitoring requirements, it would be useful to have a record of the visual color of the effluent prior to dilution and any color seen instream at SR 1304. Should you have questions regarding this information please call. cc: Beth McGee Greg Thorpe Descriptive Statistics 1lnstream SR 1304 cc unstream cc sr 1304 diff 1304 up diff cc 1304 up Mean Sid. Dev. Sid. Error Count Minimum Maximum # Missing Variance Coef. Var. Range Sum Sum Squares Geom. Mean Harm. Mean Skewness Kurtosis Median ICR Mode 10% Tr. Mean MAD 83.763 95.356 84.101 102.921 11.593 18.820 29.062 29.493 33.376 37.740 13.847 18.678 2.501 2.538 3.538 4.000 1.192 1.980 135 135 89 89 135 89 43.000 49.000 35.000 45.000 -21.000 -20.000 190.000 175.000 190.000 205.000 82.000 70.000 0 0 46 46 0 46 844.585 869.828 1113.956 1424.323 191.736 348.876 .347 .309 .397 .367 1.194 .992 147.000 126.000 155.000 160.000 103.000 90.000 11308.000 12873.000 7485.000 9160.000 1565.000 1675.000 1060366 1344069 727525.000 1 1068100.000 43835.000 62225.000 79.379 91.197 78.468 96.652 75.564 87.450 73.613 90.914 1.115 .786 1.158 .885 1.010 .515 1.140 -.203 .789 .197 4.168 .096 76.000 87.000 75.000 95.000 11.000 15.000 44.500 44.000 35.000 40.000 14.750 26.250 70.000 90.000 11.000 15.000 80.596 92.413 80.068 99.384 11.055 17.877 17.000 19.000 15.000 20.000 7.000 10.000 Calculated using JPS model and 20 color units above background 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 42 'c 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 Box Plot SR 1304 Calc down color admi Effluent allowable color Calculated using JPS model and 30 color units above background Box Plot 3000 2500 2000 X1 c 1500 1000 500 n N7 SR 1304 Calc down color admi Effluent allowable color CI (CO VS -9yI d- 4,3 eoIK v ko 0.1lo6 �Clek ra� 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 Box Plot O O 8 O SR 1304 Effluent Calc down color admi allowable color Frequency Distribution for Effluent From (>_) To W Count 106.000 326.800 47 326.800 547.600 45 547.600 768.400 20 768.400 989.200 13 989.200 1210.000 8 1210.000 1430.800 1 1430.800 1651.600 0 1651.600 1872.400 0 1872.400 2093.200 0 2093.200 2314.000 1 Total 135 50 45 40 35 30 c 0 25 U 20 15 10 5 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 Effluent Frequency Distribution for allowable color From I>_1 To W Count 171.627 319.203 31 319.203 466.779 22 466.779 614.355 21 614.355 761.931 5 761.931 909.508 18 909.508 1057.084 1 1 1057.084 1204.660 6 1204.660 1352.236 7 1352.236 1499.812 6 1499.812 1647.388 1 Total 128 50 45 40 35 30 c o 25 U 20 15 10 5 0 Histogram 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 allowable color �O A�y.ni cL,oJ4 back(ra Frequency Distribution for allowable color From fzl To W Count 340.454 635.606 31 635.606 930.758 22 930.758 1225.911 21 1225.911 1521.063 5 1521.063 1816.215 18 1816.215 2111.367 11 2111.367 2406.519 6 2406.519 2701.672 7 2701.672 2996.824 6 2996.824 3291.976 1 Total 128 50 45 40 35 30 c 000 25 U 20 15 10 5 0 Histogram 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 allowable color C 140 tlbooa bG" T— _ (� n Pan III Pcm» t No. NC0005762 D. COLOR �4 k to 15 NCAC .0211(b)3(F) states for colored wastes - only such amounts as will not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversly affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses. cl i k -a�t o, ALI �i re tMPMti Y Q Within 120 days of the ffective date of this permit, the permit holder shall begin monitoring for color at the Effluent, Upstream, 2 Downstream sites (NCSR 1304 & NC Hwy 71), and one sample of effluent diluted with upstream water at a concentration replicating 7Q10 conditions. All bV samples shall be grab samples. 1.4 Analyses Shall be performed in the field using the "glass disks field method" (Standard Methods - 204A). Analyze samples as follows: (a) at natural pH and at pH 7.6; (b) free from turbidity (True Color); (c) using the platinum -cobalt method; and (d) Using a narrow -band scanning spectrophotometer to produce a COMPLETE spectr urve of information indicated. the visible spectrum (350-750 nm). Calculate and report results in ADMI color unit rom the During summer months (April -October) collect samples on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and during the winter monthskollect samples on Wednesdays. (AG • Y44�1 The permit holder shall submit annual reports summarizing the available color monitoring information. Include factors which may have had an impact on the levels of color in the effluent and receiving stream, including, but not limited to, rainfall, streamflow, production plant operations, and treatment plant operations. Submit the report to the Water Quality Section Chief no later than February 15th of each year. E. EXTENDED MONITORING CONDITIONS FOR LONG TERM BOD J.P.Stevens shall collect a long-term BOD sample at the efluent and at three designated instream sampling sites during July, August, and September. The laboratory selected to run the long-term tests shall be made aware by J.P.Stevens of the following guidelines: 1. No nitrogen inhibitors shall be used. 2. In addition to ultimate BOD, intermediate nitrogen series measurements should be made upon set up, and on days 5, 15, and 30 and on the last day of the test. 3. Tests shall be for at least 60 days for instream samples and 90 days for effluent samples. F. CHRONIC TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENT The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity in any two consecutive toxicity tests, 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 is 12% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW Discharger: Receiving stream: Stream Class: 7Q10: Design flow: Actual flow: Percent industrial: IWC: 07/23/93 Stevens NPDES Permit No.: NC 534 mber River Subbasin: 0302 NSIV mgd mgd 96 Actual Actual Total Permitted Total Observed Domestic Industrial Actual Industrial Permitted Effluent Pollutant Standard Removal Load Load Load Load Load Cone. (ug/I) Eff. (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (ug/I) Cadmium 1 S #VALUE! #VALUE! Chromium 25 S #VALUE! #VALUE! 150 Copper 3.5 AL #VALUE! #VALUE! 580 Nickel 44 S #VALUE! #VALUE! 140 Lead 12.5 S #VALUE! #VALUE! Zinc 25 AL #VALUE! #VALUE! 80 Cyanide 2.5 S #VALUE! #VALUE! Mercury 0.006 S #VALUE! #VALUE! Silver 0.03 AL #VALUE! #VALUE! Predicted Predicted Predicted MONITOR/LIMIT Allowable Effluent Effluent Instream Based on Based on Based on Allowable Background Effluent Cone Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVEI Load Conc Conc ACTUAL PERMIT OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent (lbs/day) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading -------- Data -------- ------------------ Cadmium #VALUE! 0 -------- 17.774 ---------------- ### ##f### -------- 0.000 -------- #VALUE! #VALUE! Chromium #VALUE! 0 444.355 8A24 #VALUE! #VALUE! L Copper #VALUE! 0 62.210 ####### ####### 32.572 #VALUE! #VALUE! M Nickel #VALUE! 0 782.065 7.862 #VALUE! #VALUE! L Lead #VALUE! 0 222.177 ####fk## ##### 0.000 #VALUE! #VALUE! Zinc #VALUE! 0 444.355 ####### # #### 4.493 #VALUE! #VALUE! M Cyanide #VALUE! 0 44.435 ####### #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! L Mercury #VALUE! 0 0.107 ##### ia### 0.000 #VALUE! #VALUE! Silver #VALUE! 0 0.533 0.000 #VALUE! #VALUE! DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT October 18, 1993 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Coleen Sullins, Unit Supervisor Permitting and i in it FROM: Kerr T. Steven" na Supervisor Fayetteville Re tonal Office SUBJECT: NPDES Permit No. NC0005762 Amendment West Point Pepperell,Inc (Former) J. P. Stevens Company, Inc. Wagram Plant Scotland County Please find enclosed the staff report and recommendations of the Fayette- ville Regional Office concerning the amendment of subject NPDES Permit. If you have any questions or require any further information, please advise. KTS/GD/tf 03-o7-S� Enclosure L.LM.C3 EiL _.T2z v-t-- cc: Technical Support Branch SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes No max` If yes, SOC No. To: Attention: Greg Nizich Permits and Engineering Unit Water Quality Section October 12, 1993 NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMM County Scotland Permit No. NC0005762 PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Facility and Address: West Point Pepperell,Inc. (former) J. P. Stevens Company, inc. Wagram Plant P.O. Box 388 Wagram, NC 28396 2. Date of Investigation: 9/30/93 (CEI inspection --Val Jones) 3. Report Prepared By: Grady Dobson, Environmental Engineer, FRO 4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Herman Benton (919) 369-2231 5. Directions to Site: The plant is located on SR 1407, approximately 2 miles south of Wagram, Scotland County. 6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points: Latitude: Longitude: 340 49, 50" 790 21, 12" -- 001 (Process) 340 50, 00" 790 22, 32" -- 002 (Cooling water) *340 49, 45" 790 22, 30" -- 004 (Cooling water) *003 (Filter backwash from the water treatment plant) --Now is connected to the Process (001) stream. Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on map. USGS Quad No.: H 21 SW H 21 SE USGS Quad Name: Laurinbura, NC Wakulla, NC n Staff Report and Recommendation Page 2 7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application? x Yes No (If no, explain) Approximately 1,000-acre site. 8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Relatively flat. 9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 1,000 feet. 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Lumber River 001 Discharge pipe. a. Classification: WS IV SW HQW CA b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-07-55 C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rule Nos. .0104 and .0211 of this Subchapter, local programs to control non -point sources and stormwater discharge of pollution are required, and suitable for all Class C use. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Big Shoe Heel Creek Discharge Pipe 002, 004 a. Classification: C-Swamp b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-07-55 C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS 1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 7_0 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity) b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Wastewater Treatment facility? 4.5 MGD C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity). 4.5 MGD d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two (2) years. See attached Authorization to Construct (9/24/93). Staff Report and Recommendation Page 3 e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities. The existing facility consists of screening, pH control, aeration, clarification with return sludge (extended aeration/activated sludge). f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: See attached Authorization to Construct. g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Phenols h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A In development Approved Should be required Not needed x 2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM Permit No. W00002377. Residual Contractor -- N/A (Spray irrigation of sludge onto land owned by company) Telephone No. b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP x PFRP Other C. Landfill: d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): 3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating sheet): Grade IV 4. SIC Code(s): 2211 Primary 02 Secondary _ 21 Main Treatment unit Code: 0 0- PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grants Funds or are any public monies involved (municipals only)? N/A Staff Report and Recommendation Page 4 2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: A proposal for a color limit is currently under review. 3. Important SOC, JOC, or Compliance Schedule dates (please indicate): N/A Date Submission of Plans and Specifications . . . . . . . . Begin Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complete Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated all of the nondischarge options available. Please provide regional perspective for each option evaluated. Not required. This is an upgrade of an existing permitted facility. Spray Irrigation: N/A Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A Subsurface: N/A other disposal options: N/A 5. Other Special Items: The West Point Pepperell Plant in Wagram, North Carolina is a textile industry which consists of the following: Terry cloth operation consists of opening, carding, spinning, slashing, and weaving. The end product, greige rolled terry. The finishing process consists of bleaching, dyeing, finishing and screen printing. The fabricating process consists of shearing, side hemming, cutting, and hemming, binding and banding, inspection, put-up and shipping. In addition to the terry cloth operation, a dyeing operation takes place at the West Point Pepperell Carpet Plant. Greige rolled carpet is received from the Aberdeen Carpet Mill and run through continuous dyeing operation. PART IV - EVALUATION AND It is the recommendation of the Fayetteville Regional Office that subject permit application be processed and the appropriate permit be issued. The former permittee is J. P. Stevens, Inc. This facility is currently owned by West Point Pepperell, Inc.; and the permit should be changed accordingly. Staff Report and Recommendation Page 5 The proposed flow increase for Pipe 001 process discharge from 4.5 MGD to 7.0 MGD is recommended with no additional pollutant loadings as per the draft Lumber Basin Plan and the Proposed Waste Load Allocation (WLA). If the permit is issued prior to completion of the proposed expansion, then it should contain both Pipe 001 limits for the existing 4.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant until expansion in accordance with the proposed limits in the WLA, and the limits for pipe 001 after expansion to 7.0 MGD in accordance with proposed limits in the WLA. Permit limits for pipe 002 and 004 should be reissued for cooling water discharges. The Pipe 003 discharge, the filter backwash from the water treatment facility, is now connected to the process stream and can be eliminated from the permit. A proposal for a color limit is currently under review by this Division. Further recommendations concerning this limit will be forthcoming from this office. A strong reopener clause is recommended concerning this parameter. L , / Signatur4 of Report Preparer Water Quality Regional Supervisor to - t0- a3 Date State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources • LTIA Fayetteville Regional Office James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor rrV --- M Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N Fit Andrew McCall, Regional Manager r DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT I " July 8, 1993 Mr. Roger Baucom J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc. Post Office Box 388 Wagram, North Carolina 28396 SUBJECT: NPDES Permit Modification J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc. Wagram Facility NPDES Permit No. NC0005762 Scotland County Dear Mr. Baucom: This letter is follow-up to the meeting held at the J. P. Stevens, Wagram facility June 2, 1993. The meeting outlined additional information necessary for the Division to continue the review of the request to modify the current NPDES permit. Per our discussion the following items, at a minimum, should be included as additional information: 1. Background information on the existing wastewater treatment process and a discussion of water quality issues and impacts that have occurred as a result of insufficient treatment, operation and/or maintenance difficulties and/or unexpected manufacturing demands. This discussion should also summarize any notifications of violations and the parameters of concern. Also describe the need for facility modifications and expansion needs. 2. An evaluation of wastewater disposal alternatives, (find attached a- copy of Guidance For Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal Alternatives). Alternative analysis should include the option to discharge to Shoe Heel Creek. An assessment of the current water quality of the receiving stream. Additional water quality sampling and long-term monitoring should be conducted for benthic macroinvertebrates and dissolved oxygen. Coordinate all sampling and long-term monitoring plans with our Environmental Sciences Branch (Jimmie Overton (919) 733-9960), Technical Support Branch (Ruth Swanek, (919) 733-5083, and Fayetteville Regional Office (Tommy Stevens, (919) 486-1541). Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone 919-486-1541 FAX 919-486-0707 An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper Mr. Roger Baucom Page 2 July 7, 1993 4. Methods to mitigate the possible water quality impacts as a result of the modifications, to include but not necessarily limited to the following: a) modifications to the existing and modified production facilities to eliminate and/or minimize waste. b) detailed description of the best available technology* for manufacturing and waste process controls. Description should include the currently used production and wastewater treatment techniques and those manufacturing processes that will be modified as part of the plant expansion. * As part of the ongoing efforts to protect the receiving stream J. P. Stevens should be aware that only those technologies recognized as the best available technology (B.A.T.) for the textile industry will be accepted as adequate mitigation. c) Describe techniques currently utilized to measure color in the effluent and receiving stream. Summarize the applicability of these methods to adequately evaluate color impacts on downstream uses. Describe B.A.T. color management strategies that will be employed in the expansion request and evaluate what levels of color will be discharged from the expanded facility. Include strategies to eliminate and reduce colored wastes. Propose effluent limits of color that will ensure no impairment of aesthetic quality or any designated uses of the receiving waters under 7Q10 conditions. 5. Indirect impacts, such as current and proposed residual management strategies should be addressed. 6. A unit by unit description of existing waste treatment process outlining unit treatment capacity and a description of proposed modifications of each. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Paul Rawls or me at (919) 486-1541. Since . s 3 �� Kerr r T. Stevens Regional Superviso% °"" .� ;l Ygg '� E11 F'�nn KTS/PER/mla CC: Monica Swihart, DEM Planning Branch Q 179) Jimmie Overton, DEM Ecosystems Analysis Unit IOUi�( IOU Ruth Swanek, DEM Insteam Assessment Unit Coleen Sullins, DEM NPDES Permits Group BRANCH Steve Tedder, DEM, Water Quality Section Chief TECHN1CAf.gHYpORT `; State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director June 30, 1993 Mr. Robert Gossett Hydroscience, Inc. 1273 Sea Island Parkway St. Helena Island, S.C.. 29920 Subject: Water Quality Data on Lumber River Wagram, N.C. (Scotland County) Dear Mr. Gossett, IT A A&4 C)EHNR I am writing in response to your letter sent June 7, 1993 requesting water quality data on the Lumber River. The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has completed an intensive water quality analysis on the Lumber River from upstream of the JP Stevens Discharge to the NC/SC border. A QUAL2E model was calibrated for approximately 90 miles of the Lumber River using data gathered from four separate intensive surveys (attached). This model produced dissolved oxygen (DO) estimates consistent with the calibration data. However, the applicability of the QUAL2E model for this swamp -like River is questionable. Ambient monitoring data (at Boardman and Maxton) and instream self -monitoring data from the Lumber River failed to show a significant relationship between DO and flow. DO concentrations remained fairly consistent throughout high and low flow conditions. Based on historical consistency of DO concentrations over a wide range of flow and temperature conditions, the swampy natural condition of the Lumber River, and the somewhat limited predictive power of the QUAL2E model, the sources of low DO concentrations in the River cannot be conclusively determined. The inadequacy of the model is due to violations of QUAL2E assumptions that may not hold true in a swampy system such as the Lumber River. For example: 1) QUAL2E is a steady state model. It is possible and likely that low flow steady state conditions do not represent the critical period for DO. Dynamic processes such as flow fluctuations, BOD and sediment storage and scouring, and other natural phenomenon greatly influence minimum DO values. 2) QUAL2E is a one dimensional model. It is possible that lateral processes are important in the Lumber River. An example of such a lateral process could be mixing of deoxygenated waters from the adjacent pools to the mainstem of the river. For these reasons, DEM will not support use of the QUAL2E as a modeling tool for the Lumber River. As part of the water quality supplemental document to be submitted by JP Stevens, the Water Quality Section would like JP Stevens to submit a study plan to gather further P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-5083 FAX 919-733-9919 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper information on the Lumber River before and after the JP Stevens expansion. JP Stevens should coordinate this plan with DEM. Please contact Carla Sanderson or me for further information if you have questions concerning this matter. Attached are the benthic data, ambient water quality data for three years at the Maxton gage, and the intensive surveys performed on the Lumber River. Sincerely, ar Ruth C. Swank, Supervisor Instream Assessment Unit Attachments cc: Roger Baucom, JP Stevens & Company (w/o attachments) Tommy Stevens, Fayetteville RO (w/o attachments) HYDROSCIENCE, INC. Environmental Engineering and Planning June 7, 1993 Ms. Ruth Swanek North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management Water Quality Section 512 North Salisbury Street Post Office Box 29535 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Edwin L. Barnhart, P.E. Robert G.Gross, P.E. William W. Camp, P.E. a 10 1993 Re: Request for Water Quality Data on the Lumber River at Wagram, North Carolina (Scotland County) Dear Ms. Swanek: On June 2, 1993 personnel from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, J.P. Stevens and Company, Inc., and Hydroscience, Inc. met at the J.P. Stevens Wagram Facility. The meeting was held to discuss the State's request of additional water quality support data concerning the Wagram Facility's application for a modified NPDES Discharge Permit. Ms. Monica Swihart, of the Division of Environmental Management, attended the meeting and indicated the State had collected a substantial amount of water quality data on the Lumber River in preparation for the water shed model being developed. Ms. Swihart also indicated that copies of the data in the general vicinity of the J.P. Stevens Facility discharge could be obtained upon request. The J.P. Stevens Wagram Facility is located in Scotland County, North Carolina. The Facility's discharge point to the Lumber River is located between North Carolina State Roads (NCSR) 1104 and 1304. A map of the area indicating the approximate location of the discharge point is presented in Figure 1. 1273 Sea Island Parkway • St. Helena Island • South Carolina 29920 • (803) 838-4225 • Fax (803) 838.5441 A LETTER TO MS. SWANEK JUNE 7, 1993 PAGE 2 Hydroscience would like to obtain copies of the data collected for the Lumber River Water Shed Model dealing with the section of the river extending from NCSR 1104 downstream to Lumberton, North Carolina. Hydroscience would also like to obtain copies of the most recent benthic study data or macroinvertebrate assessments conducted in the general vicinity of the J.P. Stevens discharge. In addition, Hydroscience would like to obtain copies of the water quality data collected over the last three years for the Ambient Monitoring Program's Station #02133624 located at Highway 71 in Robeson County, North Carolina. If you need any additional information or have questions concerning this data request, please feel free to contact us at (803) 838- 4225. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Robert E. Gossett Project Engineer CC: Mr. Roger Baucom, J.P. Stevens & Company/Wagram Plant Enclosures REG/tam File No. 211-04-00-Corr fp 6ptlew%fi 4 1 e rl Go4h Procbc-fi &ri H io •yam � � , , , alo,cra� �� CFi' '�lD• 3a-J• 1/a- ca,(o, Ooo loci✓ -VlD. &2- 0bi L vaclo 4,,--7pm l*AL AW PW �1 I 1b'D/Js �lb�c/) /30& a2011 ;K 341. Srr!q 4 o r 35n� ( [ K. inO _ �hChea�e 07. m god ` w 0 3 ' � P A),{ ,� /m b /s,� 0 e,� sl 5�ccrq � surr�D @ r7.0rykgd c"P /301�jcl g aD6 vm5,-1= a--1 CBoD rn?) = l� D rn9 �aa (�,5—(�vem.3�ss s�frnr f�.7 aaD)� �� "Ap qof cwaoflouoj a .o. C&O DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT May 17, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Coleen Sullins Greg Nizich Ruth Swanek Carla Sanderson Jay Sauber FROM: Monica Swihar,.,L SUBJECT: J.P. Stevens Expansion MAX 19 1993 izuhfti" airruh, �1" The Fayetteville Regional Office has recommended that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement be prepared on the subject project prior to reviewing the NPDES permit application (see attached memo). Although the proposed expansion will occur on private land and, therefore, does not clearly meet the SEPA criteria for requiring environmental documentation (e.g, expenditure of public funds or use of public lands), we can require an in-house assessment under our 2H.0100 rules and recommend circulation of the document through the State Clearinghouse. The consultant for this project (Robert Gossett with Hydro Science in South Carolina) has set up a meeting for us with staff at the J.P. Stevens plant to visit the facility and discuss the issues we would like to see addressed in an environmental study of the proposed expansion. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 2, 1993 at 1:00 p.m. Tommy Stevens suggested we meet at the Fayetteville Regional Office at 10:00 a.m to discuss our strategy prior to the afternoon meeting. Please let me know if you will be able to attend. cc: Steve Tedder Ken Eagleson Don Safrit Tommy Stevens HYDROSCIENCE, INC. Environmental Engineering and Planning May 5, 1993 Mr. Roger Baucom Division Manager - Environmental Control J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc. Post Office Box 388 Wagram, North Carolina 28396 Dear Roger: Edwin L. Barnhart, P.E. Robert G. Gross, P.E. William W. Camp, P.E. Enclosed is a floppy disk that contains the raw data files that were used for your report: Color Data Analysis and Color Removal Optimization Analyses. The files were developed using Quattro Pro, version 4.00, and were saved with the file extension .WK1 to be compatible with Lotus 123. The statistical work was done with Statgraphics and the Quattro Pro spreadsheets were used as the input files. Each of the Quattro files are described briefly as follows: 1. JPS-COL.WK1 was used to construct the data tables and is similar to JPSGRAF.WK1. 2. JPSGRAF.WK1 is the main raw data file and was used to construct the majority of the graphs in the report. 3. CINCR.WK1 is the file used to develop the graph entitled "Allowable Effluent Color" that shows the relationship of color and river flow at 20 and 40 color unit increases at the downstream location. 4. JARTST.WK1 contains the data used to report the jar testing results included in the section on Color Removal Optimization Analyses. 5. OADM193.WK1 is the output of a computer program used to convert the output files from the J. P. Stevens color computer to ADMI values for each sampling location. 1273 Sea Island Parkway • St. Helena Island • South Carolina 29920 • (803) 838.4225 • Fax (803) 838-5441 Mr. Baucom May 5, 1993 Page 2 6. QMGD.WK1 contains the data collected from the staff gauge at the raw water pumping station and the corresponding river flow reported by the USGS stream gauging station. If you have any questions in working with these files. please call me. Sincerely, �Q Raymond M. Allen RMA/scr File No. 211-04-00 Y�s193 J P seven 6 - Pw tco r aahsi �r C-,cj-W6LT - K�icJ Cd a�1� Ce�n rep� 12t� QBtv`vt OJQ 155ve5. j XtVOK L.eca y 1 sheulJ /ae le�,r�e�, - r&-6L) rV,, l PA-0 Kahl y ,t� tll-J�ea,?YL Y a4 dW-n s �eZcJaz�a �m-�-�i � . /�Ylodc,� 5hetil� a v , ac��5 f 1Ce� DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT March 29, 1993 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Coleen Sullins, Supervisor NPDES Group FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional-Supervisg.X Fayetteville Regional Office SUBJECT: Application for NPDES Permit Modification J. P. Stevens Company, Inc. NPDES Permit No. NC0005762 Scotland County Our office has reviewed the application package including the preliminary engineering report for the proposed expansion. In addition to the submittal by J. P. Stevens, we have reviewed the Draft Lumber River Basin Assessment Report, dated March 1993. Based on the findings reported in the Assessment Report, the upper portion of the Lumber River (Wagram to Pembroke) is currently rated Good based on bioclassifications on benthos data. Previous benthos data (1983-1988) for this same segment had determined an Excellent rating. This indicates that the dischargers in this segment have impacted the river. Based on the above review, and the following factors, it is our recommendation that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement be required of J. P. Stevens Company prior to completing a review on the application for expansion. FACTORS CONSIDERED - Data presented in Lumber River Assessment Report - High Quality water classification - Two (2) water supply intakes downstream (Robeson County & Lumberton) - State Park Designation - Wild and Senic River Designation If additional information or clarification is needed, please contact Tommy Stevens at (919) 486-1541. MJN/KTS/mla cc: Steve Tedder Monica Swihart 1/3 STEVENSHOM EFASH IONS J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. P.O. Box 388 Wagram, NC 28396 919 369 2231 May 10, 1993 MAY Terry �t'Ny, MANAGEM _ Produc �/I� REG, OEN Ce Mr. Paul Rawls Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management Suite 714,Wachovia Building Fayetteville, N.C. 28301-5043 Dear Paul, Please find enclosed the raw color data disk that you requested. Also find enclosed a copy of the letter from Hydroscience explaining the various files on the disk. The files were developed using Quattro Pro, version 4.00. The statistical work was done with Statgraphics and Quattro Pro spreadsheets were used as the input files. Should you have further questions, please call. Sincerely, Roger Baucom Division Manager Environmental Engineering