NC0023876_Instream Assessment_19890424

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 24, 1989
Dennis Ramsey
Trevor Clements
67(b) Assessment for Facilities that will miss
January 1, 1990 deadline for compliance with total
phosphorus limitations in the Jordan Lake Watershed.
On behalf of the Cities of Greensboro and Burlington, the Winston-Salem
Regional Office has requested a 67(b) ruling by the Director regarding
relief from the January 1, 1990 deadline for meeting a total phosphorus (TP)
limit of 2.0 mg/1 at the Burlington Southside WWTP (NC0023876), and the
Greensboro North Buffalo Creek (NC0024325) and T.Z. Osborne (NC0047384)
facilities. Plans by both cities to meet the requirement imposed by DEM in
light of the designation of the downstream receiving waters as nutrient
sensitive (NSW) have been delayed due to an unforeseen funding delay through
the State's Revolving.Loan Program. Funds have now been procured and the
cities will proceed on schedules outlined in Attachment A.
All three of these facilities are located upstream of the B. Everett
Jordan Reservoir, one of two lakes designated NSW with a compliance deadline
for phosphorus removed from point sources by January 1, 1990. Both the
Winston-Salem and the Raleigh Regional Offices were contacted to determine
if any other facilities would have this problem. Raleigh had none and the
Winston-Salem Office indicated Reidsville would also miss the deadline,
although the annual average TP concentration in Reidsville's effluent was
less than 2.0'mg/1 for 1988.
With a point source limit of 2.0 mg/1 in effect, Technical Services had
predicted at the time of the full NSW implementation plan for Jordan Lake
(January 1987) that the overall point source load would be more than cut in
half to 400,000 lbs/yr in 1990. The delay by Greensboro and Burlington is
expected to result in an additional load of between 65,825 lbs (16.5 per-
cent) and 153,700 (38 percent) in 1990 (Table 1). The impact of this addi-
tional load will be dependent on several other critical conditions which
occur during the primary growing season (May -September) in 1990 including
hydrology (i.e. wet or dry season), temperature,. and non -algal turbidity
(i.e. light availability/penetration). Because of the uncertainty in these
factors, it is difficult to predict the potential for increased frequency or
magnitude of algae blooms without a more indepth study of the situation.

Since the delay in achileving compliance with final TP limits at these
facilities is already a reality, the decision whether to grant a relief
period appears to be largely administrative. Please let me know if I can be
of further assistance in this matter.
TC:gh
cc:
Steve Tedder
Steve Mauney
Bill Kreutzberger
Bob DeWeese
Central Files:
Burlington Southside WWTP (NC0023876), Alamance County
Greensboro North Buffalo Cr WWTP (NC0024325), Guilford County
Greensboro T.Z. Osborne WWTP (NC0047384), Guilford County

Table 1.a. WWTP Wasteflow & TP Characteristics
Facility
Burlington - Southside
Greensboro - N. Buffalo
Greensboro - Osborne
Facility
Burlington -
Greensboro -
Greensboro -
Southside
N. Buffalo
Osborne
Total
Design
Wasteflow
(MGD)
9.5
16.0
20.0
1988 Avg.
Wasteflow
(MGD)
6.36
13.16
14.63
Proposed 67(b)
Wasteflow
(MGD)
6.86
13.84
15.33
Table 1.b. WWTP TP Loading Impacts
Total 67(b) Wasteflow
Additional -Additional
Loading @ Loading @
Avg. TP 67(b) TP
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
10,350
20,475
35,000
65,825
Percent increase above predicted
1990 total point source TP load: (16.5%)
20,700
63,000
70,000
153,700
(38%)
1988 Avg.
TP Conc.
(mg/1)
3.0
2.65
3.0
Proposed 67(b)
TP Limit
(mg/1)
4.0
4.0
4.0
Additional 67(b) Wasteflow **
Additional Additional
Loading @ Loading @
Avg. TP 67(b) TP
(lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)
750 1500
1000 3100
1465 2930
3215 7530
(0.8%)
(1.9%)
Loads reflect increase in TP load from entire plant flows due to failure to meet
2.0 mg/1 by January 1, 1990.
Loads reflect increase
the 67(b) period.
in TP load due only to flow expected to be added during

Attachment A
City of Burlington
Relief from the January 1,
1990, deadline for phosphorous
removal has been requested
because of a delay in
obtaining public funds from
the States' Revolving Loan
Program for construction
necessary to improve treatment
to meet the NPDES TP
limitations. The City of
Burlington has already
submitted plans and
specifications for approval of
the chemical addition which
should bring them in
compliance with the 2.0 mg/1
total phosphorus.
Proposed time schedule for the
City of Burlington:
1) Submit Plans and
Specifications - February
1, 1989
2) Advertise for Bids -
September 1, 1989
3) Begin Construction -
November 1, 1989
4) Progress Reports - July 1,
Oct. 1, 1989; Jan. 1, Apr
1, July 1, 1990
5) Complete Construction -
June 1, 1990
6) Attain Compliance - July
1, 1990

Proposed SOC/EMC
WQ-89-14
City of Greensboro
T. Z. Osborne
WWTP/NC0047384
The City is seeking relief from the
January 1, 1990, deadline for the
total phosphorous limit required in
their Permits of 2.0 mg/l. Greens-
boro has been planning to meet the
new limit and has plans and speci-
fications almost finalized. There
has been a delay in public funds
(EPA -Loans) and these will not be
available until July/August of
1989. The funding delay dictated
the need to have the start of the
2.0 mg/1 total phosphorous limit
also delayed. The proposed time
schedule for the City of
Greensboro's T.Z. Osborne WWTP to
reach compliance is as follows:
1) Plans and Specifications sub-
mitted for Review April 10, 1989
2)•�Plans accepted by City and State
July 15, 1989
3) Advertise for bid, accept bid
and start construction
October 31, 1989
4) Report of Progress
April 30, 1990.
5) Complete Construction
August 31, 1990
6) Begin Operation
September 1, 1990
7) Achieve Compliance
October 1, 1990
Interim Total phosphorous level,
4.0 mg/1, until October 1, 1990,
per this SOC.

Proposed SOC/EMC
WQ-89-03
City of Greensboro
North Buffalo
WWTP/NC0024325
The City is seeing relief from the
January 1, 1990, deadline for the
total phosphorous limit required in
their Permits of 2.0 mg/1., Greens-
boro has been planning to meet the
new limit and has plans and speci-
fications almost finalized. There
has been a delay in public funds
(EPA -Loans) and these will not be
available until July/August of
1989. The funding delay dictated
the need to have the start of the
2.0 mg/1 total phosphorous limit
also delayed. The proposed time
schedule for the City of
Greensboro's North Buffalo WWTP to
reach compliance is as follows:
1) Plans and Specifications sub-
mitted for Review April 10, 1989
2) Plans accepted by City and State
July 15, 1989
3) Advertise forbid, accept bid
and start construction
October 31, 1989
4) Report of Progress
April 30, 1990 .
5) Complete Construction
August 31, 1990
6) Begin Operation
September 1, 1990
7) Achieve Compliance
October 1; 1990
Interim Total phosphorous level,
4.0 mg/1, until October 1, 1990,
per this SOC.

City of Burlington
Relief from the January 1,
1990, deadline for phosphorous
removal has been requested
because of a delay in
obtaining public funds from
the States' Revolving Loan
Program for construction
necessary to improve treatment
to meet the NPDES TP
limitations. The City of
Burlington has already
submitted plans and
specifications for approval of
the chemical addition which
should bring them in
compliance with the 2.0 mg/1
total phosphorus.
Proposed time schedule for the
City of Burlington:
1) Submit Plans and
Specifications - February
1, 1989
2) Advertise for Bids -
September 1, 1989
3) Begin Construction -
November 1, 1989
4) Progress Reports - July 1,
Oct. 1, 1989; Jan. 1, Apr
1, July 1, 1990
5) Complete Construction -
June 1, 1990
6) Attain Compliance - July
1, 1990

• Request Form for In -stream Assessment for 67B
NAME 'OF FACILITY Souviz e io
COUNTY 4i/4,11,:we€ REGION 1, J s',Q a DESIGN FLOW 9, S" /1-16
RECEIVING STREAM (3,'q /9JCli ,o,o✓c a e/Le,e k
SUBBASIN_o_z_ej(, _0,?
BACKGROUND DATA :
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?)
To Ai ca . e c)/ ? ----� w ,fie eve.
,lvcoo 23g7�
B. History of SOC requests:
1. Monthly Average. waste flow
prior to any SOC
3 6
mgd
Time period averaged �j ,g ov thru PE' L �8
2.. Previously approved SOC's:
Date: flow: ( ' _ fJ mgd
Date: flow: mgd
total of previously approved SOC flow:
mgd
3. Flows lost from plant flow: mgd
(facilities that have gone
off line)
4. Current SOC request flow: o Jr O d mgd
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses)
flow:
• l� �a mgd
6. Is.this an accurate flow balance for. plant? Why/why not?
ce%/4>z;-c-

C. Please attach DMR summary for past year for all permitted parame-
ters. If possible, include reports from previous years if
facility has been under SOC for more than a year.
CURRENT SOC REQUEST :
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a combin-
ation, pleasespecify percentages.
l9 9 0 lee) �e.,
B. What type of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
//z/n-
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BOD5 mg/1
NH3 mg/1
DO mg/1
TSS mg/1
-fecal coliform #/100m1
pH
other parameters
SU
D. What is the basis for these limits?

i
Request- Form for In -stream Assessment for 67g
NAME OF FACILITY EkS TS i'Gg e I),2
victo
SUBBASIN yC
COUNTY 4/04eno vc•e REGION Lt) S ,t a DESIGN FLOW % az)
RECEIVING STREAM
14c.v /?i've4.
BACKGROUND DATA :
A. Why is SOC needed? (Facility is out of compliance with which
effluent limits?)
�O ivi.eei" the S'cLi.C�L''cc3-74 Ce 1-70/ia,vGC /sty lite P/i2/'1,'
/IJcbd 238'48-
B. History of SOC requests:
1. Monthly Average waste flow
prior to any SOC
mgd
Time period averaged thru 7 L 'F-r
2. Previously approved SOC's:
(4,/,./A eZcce6„te.,44:44--te:91-AC:7-
flow:
Date: flow:
total of previously approved SOC flow:
3. Flows lost from plant
(facilities that have gone
off line)
flow:
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
4. Current SOC request flow: .3 S O mgd
5. Total plant flow post-SOC
(sum of original flow and
SOC flow minus losses)
flow: � 0 ! 7 mgd
6. Is this an accurate flow balance for plant? Why/why not?
. 7
ur w i P,

RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. NM
MAR 2 2 VIM
Winston-Salem
Regional Offico
C. Please attach DMR summary for past year for all permitted parame-
ters. If possible, include reports from previous years if
facility has been under SOC for more than a year.
CURRENT SOC RE2UEST :
A. Request is for domestic or industrial waste? If it is a combin-
ation, please specify percentages.
B. What type of industry? Please attach any pertinent data.
PI
C. The region proposes the following SOC limits:
BOD5 mg/1
NH3mg/1
1" DO mg/1
TSS mg/1
-fecal coliform #/100m1
pH su
other parameters
D. What is the basis for these limits?