The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0006033_Permit Issuance_20020726WATT Michael F. Easley :,. Q NOWGovernor -William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary {0 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources —� Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director t7 '� Division of Water Quality July 26, 2002 Mr. M. David Young Town Manager 155 North Main Street Cramerton, North Carolina 28032 Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0006033 Eagle Road WWTP Gaston County Dear Mr. Young - Division staff have reviewed and approved your application for an NPDES discharge permit. Accordingly, the Division is forwarding the subject NPDES permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,1994 (or as subsequently amended). The following items appear in this FINAL permit: Miscellaneous ■ This facility was previously operated as a private textile industry and permitted according to Federal effluent guideline limits for the textile mills point source category (40 CFR 410). With the change in ownership to the Town of Cramerton in September 1999, this facility is now subject to municipal POTW permitting requirements. ■ This permit includes new pretreatment boilerplate language (see Part III). The town is now required to implement a pretreatment program and has two Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). ■ Conversion of the previous effluent guideline mass limit for BODS (334 pounds/day) to an equivalent concentration -based limit (10 mg/L monthly average, 15 mg/L weekly average) based on a 4 MGD design flow. Instream data does not show a dissolved oxygen problem with these limits in effect, and previous QUAI.2E modeling also projected no impact with this BOD loading. ■ Replacement of the previous total suspended solids (TSS) effluent guideline mass limit of 1302 pounds/day with municipal secondary concentration -based limits of 30 mg/L (monthly average) and 45 mg/L (weekly average). Permit Additions ■ Addition of an 85% removal requirement between influent and effluent samples (based on monthly averages) for BODS and TSS, with the addition of influent monitoring. The 85% removal requirement is based on secondary treatment requirements for municipal systems. The permittee.requested that the proposed 85% requirement be reduced, since the facility receives a large proportion of its wastewater from an industrial source with low TSS values. However, Federal Regulations (40 CFR 133.103(d)) do not allow such a consideration since the inflow and infiltration are considered excessive at this facility based on the 201 Facilities Plan. • Addition of a new ammonia effluent limit (4 mg/L NH3 as N, monthly average) based on the 1995 Catawba Basinwide Strategy for Catawba River Chain of Lakes, which recommends a 4 mg/L NH3 as N limit for new/expanding dischargers. An ammonia Reopener Clause [Special Condition A (5)] was also added, indicating that a weekly average ammonia limit will also be added sometime in the future, based on comments received from the U.S. EPA. ■ Addition of nutrient limits for total nitrogen (M) and total phosphorus ('TP). The TN limit in the final permit was changed to an annual mass limit (103,282 pounds/year) based on a TN concentration of 6 mg/L (summer), 12 mg/L (winter), and a 4 MGD design flow. Special Condition A (4) has been added to provide instructions for the calculation and reporting of annual mass TN loading. The TN limit is effective immediately. The TP limit will be concentration -based (1 mg/L, monthly average) year-round, and a compliance date of 1 /1 /05 has been included to provide time for funding, design, Authorization N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit Phone: (919) 733-5083 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 fax: (919) 733-0719 Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us DENR Customer Service Center 1800 623-7748 Y Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0006033, Page 2 .A to Construct issuance and final construction of the TP removal system. The monitoring frequency for both TN and TP will be weekly. The nutrient limits are based on the 1995 Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Strategy for existing dischargers to the lake mainstem and tributaries that are undergoing expansion or major modifications. Addition of a total residual chlorine (IRC) limit effective 1/1/05 following completion of the facility upgrade, which will include dechlorination. The permittee must obtain an Authorization to Construct from the Division prior to construction. It is NPDES policy to apply TRC limits upon facility expansion or other major modification of the permit. Addition of the Tier 2 Color Permitting Strategy requirements (see Special Condition A (3)), which includes effluent monitoring, instream monitoring and preparation of a Pollution Prevention/Best Management Practices report. Permit Deletions • Deletion of effluent guideline limits and monitoring for COD and Sulfides, since the facility is no longer subject to industrial effluent guideline limits. • Deletion of the effluent guideline limit for total chromium. Reasonable potential analysis (RPA) of recent data showed no potential to exceed the aquatic life water quality standard of 50 µg/L using s7Q10 flow, therefore a water -quality based limit is also unnecessary. Chromium monitoring will continue under the pretreatment program requirements. • Deletion of the water quality based limit for phenols, since reasonable potential analysis (RPA) of recent data showed no potential to exceed the aesthetic instream water quality standard of 1 µg/L for water supply (WS) class waters using 30Q2 flow. Monthly monitoring will be maintained for this permit round. • Deletion of the temperature limit, although effluent and instream monitoring is retained. The facility discharge has not resulted in instream temperature violations. Deletion of Special Condition F (Preparation of Nutrient Reduction Study), which was completed by the previous permittee. The Town of Cramerton has completed a 201 Facilities Plan, which focuses on upgrading the current wastewater treatment plant to include nutrient removal capability. • Deletion of Special Condition G (Nutrient Reopener), since a reopener clause is already contained in the permit boilerplate language. If any parts, measurement frequencies, or sampling requirements contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding. Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits that may be required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit. If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Tom Belnick at telephone number (919) 733-5083, extension 543. Sincerely, Original Signed By David A Goodrich Alan W. Klimek, P.E. cc: US EPA, Marshall Hyatt (Final Permit + Fact Sheet Addendum) Mooresville Regional Office, Water Quality Central Files NPDES Unit Technical Assistance & Certification Unit Aquatic Toxicology Unit Permit NC0006033 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the Town of Cramerton is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the Eagle Road WWTP 659 Eagle Road Cramerton Gaston County to receiving waters designated as the South Fork Catawba River in the Catawba River Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof. The permit shall become effective September 1, 2002 This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on January 31, 2005 Signed this day July 26, 2002 Original Signed By Da%Ad A. Goodrich Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission Permit No. NC0006033 SUPPLEMENT TO. PERMIT COVER SHEET Town of Cramerton is hereby authorized to: 1. Continue to operate an existing 4.0 MGD extended aeration wastewater treatment facility located at 659 Eagle Road, Cramerton, Gaston County, and consisting of the following treatment components: • influent bar screen • pH control • flow equalization basin with mechanical aeration • aeration basin with mechanical aeration • dual secondary clarifiers • gaseous chlorination with contact chamber • sludge treatment including sludge recirculation pump station, aerobic digesters, sludge drying beds, and sludge belt press. • ultrasonic flow meter 2. Discharge from said treatment works (via Outfall 001) into the South Fork Catawba River, a Class WS-V water in the Catawba River Basin, at the location speci$ed on the attached map. d 492 5SIMI. TO kiS. !PA WOU/NT HOLLY) ,33 Vf 11 �'�.-' �•�� ram``..;} ' , -;� !1 ' ` • � `?� ` ' � •, r y �'%�' � .. �- i ~�• i !i f ; : r' J i f � :; . .tom / t�� • - � ' ✓' \ rr %Wf j ••� . • •'• �� -'1 . � 1 ' / • fit' '6'• • �. \�-4 f 6 / ^ ` 'fit '�� .5Ab Latitude: 35°14 Ol Facility Location Longitude: 81°03'52" Quad # G14NE Stearn class: WS-v Town of Cramerton Eagle Road WWTP Subbasin:30836 North]SCALE MA600011 Receiving Stream: South Fork Catawba River Permit NC0006033 A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge treated wastewater from Outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below: EFFLUENT - CHARACTERISTICS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monthly Average Weekly Average Daily Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type Sample Locatioul Flow 4.0 MGD Continuous Recording Effluent or Influent BOD, 5-day, 20°C 2 10.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent & Influent Total Suspended Solids2 30.0 mg/L 45.0 mg/L Daily Composite Effluent & Influent Phenols Monthly Grab Effluent NH3 as N 4.0 mg/L 3 Daily Composite Effluent Total Residual Chlorine 28414 Daily Grab Effluent Fecal Coliform (geometric mean) 200/100 ml 400/100 ml Daily Grab Effluent Dissolved Oxygen Daily Grab Effluent Temperature Daily Grab Effluent Conductivity Daily Grab Effluent pHs Daily Grab Effluent Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)6 No Limit (m No Limit (poundstmonth) Annual Limit 103,282 pounds/year6 Weekly Monthly Annually Composite Calculated Calculated Effluent Effluent Effluent Total Phosphorus 1.0 mg/L4 Weekly Composite Effluent Chronic Toxicity? Quarterly Composite Effluent Color' Monthly Composite Effluent Fecal coliform 3/Week9 Grab U, D Temperature 3/Week9 Grab U, D Dissolved Oxygen 3/Week9 Grab U, D Conductivity 3/Week9 Grab U, D Color (Summer)' Monthly Grab U, D Notes: 1. U: Upstream at Cramerton Bridge. D: Downstream at Upper Armstrong Bridge. 2. The monthly average effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal). 3. Ammonia weekly average limit to be developed at a later date; refer to Special Condition A (5). 4. Effluent limits for TRC and TP become effective January 1, 2005 based on the projected construction completion date. However, monitoring requirements become effective on the permit effective date. 5. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units. 6. Refer to Special Condition A (4) for Total Nitrogen Loading Calculations. 7. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnict) at 4.7%; March, June, September and December (see Special Condition A (2)). 8. Refer to Special Condition A (3) for Color Monitoring Requirements. 9. Upstream/downstream samples shall be collected 3/Week (June -September) and 1 /Week (October -May). (Summer) = April 1- October 31 (Winter) = November 1 - March 31 There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. Permit NC0006033 SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. (2.). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LDGT (QRTRLY) The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality to Cerk daphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 4.7%. The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, auarteriu monitoring using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina Cerlodaphnfa Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes. If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using'the geometric mean of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address: Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made. Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream. Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address cited above. Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, monitoring will be required during the following month. Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality 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, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring. Permit NC0006033 A. (3.) COLOR PERbUTTING REQUIREMENTS FOR TIER 2 FACILITY This facility has been classified as a Tier 2 color discharger. The permittee will conduct color monitoring of instream stations (upstream,. downstream) on a monthly basis during summer season (April -October). The permittee will record whether a color plume was observed around the outfall pipe during the monthly instream sampling events, and include that information on the monthly discharge monitoring report. Effluent samples will be collected monthly for color on a year-round basis. Color samples will be analyzed for ADMI color at natural pH. Effluent samples will consist of 24-hour composites, while instream samples will be collected as grabs. Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory. The permittee will prepare a Pollution Prevention/Best Management Practices (BMPs) report. This report will address the potential for the facility to reduce effluent color by incorporating pollution prevention measures and/or BMPs prior to treatment. This report could include an evaluation of the dyeing process, looking at the potential for dye substitution, improving dyeing efficiencies, etc. The report could also investigate whether any BMPs could be implemented that would reduce the amount of color discharged to the treatment plant. The permittee could do this work independently, or request voluntary assistance from the North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. The report will be submitted within 12 months of the permit effective date. If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the discharge permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may reopen this permit for the purpose of imposing additional requirements pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114. Alternatively, if future conditions change and color is no longer a component of the influent wastestream, then the permittee may request a permit modification to remove color permit requirements. & (4.) TOTAL NITROGEN CALCULATIONS The Permittee shall calculate and report the annual mass loading of total nitrogen (TN) as the sum of monthly loadings, according to the following equations: (1) Monthly Mass Loading (pounds/month) = TN x Q x 8.34 where: TN = The average total nitrogen concentration (mg/L) of the weekly composite samples collected during the month Q = The total wastewater flow discharged during the month (MG/month) 8.34 = Conversion factor. from (mg/L x MG) to pounds (2) Annual Mass Loading (pounds/year) = Sum of Monthly Mass Loadings for the calendar year The Permittee shall report the total nitrogen concentrations for each sample and the monthly mass loading in the appropriate monthly self -monitoring report, and the annual mass loading of total nitrogen in the December self - monitoring report for the year. A. (5) AMMONIA REOPENER The Division may re -open this permit to require weekly average limits for ammonia. After calculating allowable concentrations, the Division will perform an analysis of past ammonia data to determine if there is a reasonable potential for this discharge to exceed these potential limits. If there is reasonable potential, this permit will be re -opened and weekly average limits added. If there is not reasonable potential, the permit will not be re -opened, but will contain weekly average limits for ammonia upon renewal. Re: NC0006033/Town of Cramerton �JA�l CO i C �� z Subject: Re: NC0006033/Town of Cramerton Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:40:25 -0400 From: Hyatt.Marshall@epamail.epa.gov To: Tom Belnick <tom.belnick@ncmail.net> thanks for sending - looks good to me. Marshall 04e I of 1 6/25/02 8:34 AM NCDENR / DWQ FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM Town of Cramer -ton NPDES No. NC0006033 Additional Changes Incorporated into Final Permit Proposed Conditions Parameters Affected Basis for Condition(s) The draft permit incorporated a Eflluen L- TN limiL + Special The Lake Wylie Nutrient monthly average concentration- Condition A(4)- TN Calculation Management Strate;iy requires a based limit of 6 mg/1 TN, summer TN limit of 6 mg/l. with summer season. For the final no restriction during the winter permit, the TN limit was changed season. Changing to an annual to an annual mass -based limit of mass limit will control the TN 103.282 lbs/year. load in a given year. The annual Special Condition A (4) was mass -based TN limit was added to clarify how the mass calculated as follows: limit will be calculated and Summer: 6 mg/1 x 4 MGD x 8.34 reported. x 214 days = 42,834 lbs. The TN limit will be effective Winter: 12 mg/l x 4 MGD x 8.34 immediately. x 151 days = 60.448 lbs. Annual TN mass limit= 42,834 + 60,448 = 103,282 lbs/yr. Addition of an ammonia Special Condition A(5)- Ammonia Based on EPA comments reopener condition that will Reopener regarding the need for both implement a weekly average monthly average and weekly ammonia limit (in addition to the average ammonia limits. current monthly average limit) at some time in the future. Page 1 Version: 06/13/02 NCDENR / DWQ FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT Town of Cramerton NPDES No. NC0006033 Facili Information tY (1.) Facility Name: Eagle Road WWTP (2.) Permitted F1ow,MGD: 4.0 MGD (6.) County: Gaston (3.) Facility Class: N (7.) Regional Office: Mooresville (4.) Facility Status: Renewal (S.) USGS Topo Quad: G 14NE (Belmont) (5.) Permit Status: Existing Stream Characteristics (L) Receiving Stream: South Fork Catawba River (2.) Subbasin: 030836 (g,) Drainage Area (mi2): 635 (3.) Index No.: (9.) Summer 7Q10 (cfs) 125 W) Stream Classification: WS-V (10.) Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 230 (5.) 303(d) Listed: NO (11.) 30Q2 (cfs): -309 (6.) 305(b) Status: (12.) Average Flow (cfs): 810 (7.) Use Support: (13.) IWC (%): 4.7 Conditions Incorporated into Permit Renewal Proposed Conditions Parameters Affected Basis -for :Condition(s) . This 4.0 MGD WWTP changed Boilerplate Language, Effluent This permit renewal will need to ownership from private industry Sheets, Pretreatment modify effluent sheets to reflect (textile) to the Town of municipal POTW requirements, Cramerton in September 1999. and pretreatment boilerplate The municipal POW currently language will be needed. Facility treats both domestic and is currently implementing industrial wastewaters. components of its new Cramerton previously operated a pretreatment program. Indirect 0.25 MGD WWTP (NC0055948) dischargers to the '%NIXVrP will be which will be closed. subject to pretreatment requirements. Facility will be upgrading the 4 Effluent Limits- Compliance Facility is subject to new MGD WWTP to include biological Schedule (TRC, TN TP) nutrient and TRC limits based nutrient removal and on basin management strategies. dechlorination. Compliance Facility is approved for $7 schedule for future limits based Million from State CG&L for the on projected construction necessary upgrade. Projected completion date. constriction schedule is 9/02 through 9/04. New limits are set to begin 1 / 1 /05. NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Page 2 Town of Cramerton NPDES No. NCOOO6O33 Require 85% removal between influent and effluent. Addition of daily influent. monitoring to determine compliance. Effluent- BOD, TSS Facility is now operated as a POTW, and subject to 85% removal with monthly average and weekly average limits. Change BOD monthly Effluent- BOD In the previous permit for the average/daily max mass limits to private industry, BOD mass monthly average/weekly average limits were based on a 1994 concentration -based limits. QUAL2E model used to perform Maintain daily monitoring the wasteload allocation for frequency. oxygen -consuming wastes. Model results were consistent with effluent guidelines for BOD5 so the effluent. guidelines were used as limits. In this permit renewal for the POINV, effluent guideline mass limits (334 lbs/day) were converted to concentration -based limits (10 mg/l monthly average. 15 ung/l weekly average) for a 4 MGD design flow. Instream data does not. show an oxygen problem with these limits in effect. Delete effluent guideline mass Effluent- TSS Municipal POTWs receive limits. insert municipal concentration -based secondary secondary concentration -based limits of 30 mg/1 (monthly limits. Change limits from average) and 45 mg/I (weekly monthly average/daily max to average). monthly average/weekly average. Maintain daily monitoring frequency. Change from monitoring -only to Effluent- Ammonia Facility previously had chronic monthly average concentration toxicity test limits in lieu of limit of 4.0 mg/1 with daily ammonia limits. The new 4 monitoring year-round. Change mg/l NH3-N limit is based on the monitoring frequency from 1995 Catawba Basfnwide monthly to daily. Strategy for Catawba 12fr►er. Chain of Lakes, which recommends a 4 mg/1 NH3-N limit for new/expanding dischargers. No compliance schedule necessary based on current ability to meet. proposed limit. Delete effluent guideline mass Effluent- COD, Sulfides Facility is now operated as a limit and monitoring PO'fW and 40 Ci R 410 guideline requirement. limited parameters are no longer applicable. Delete water quality -based limit. Effluent- Phenols Reasonable potential analysis Maintain monthly monitoring. (RPA) of recent data showed no potential to exceed the aesthetic WQS of 1 ug/1 for WS waters using 30Q2 flow (230,6 of allowable concentration), therefore a water -quality based limit is not necessary. Monitoring maintained for this permit round. Page 2 Version: March 1, 2002 NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Town of Cramerton ` Page 3 NPDES No. NC0006033 Delete effluent -guidelines mass Effluent- Total Chromium facility is now operated as a limit and monthly monitoring. PO'1W and 40 CFR 410 guideline limited parameter is no longer applicable. 'Reasonable potential analysis (RPA) of recent data showed no potential to exceed the aquatic life WQS of 50 ug/l using s7Q 1.0 flow (4.6% of allowable effluent concentration). therefore a water -quality based limit is not necessary. Monitoring deferred to pretreatment program requirements. Facility is now subject to Tier 2 Effluent- Color Facility was classified as a Tier 2 Color Permitting Strategy color discharger and is subject to requirements, which includes the 6/5/01 NPDES Color effluent monitoring. instream Permitting Strategy. Color monitoring, and preparation of a monitoring requirements are P2/BMP report.. included in Effluent. Sheet A(1) and Special Condition A(3). Addition of effluent limit of 28 Effluent- Total Residual Chlorine NPDES policy to apply TRC limit ug/1 with daily monitoring. ('rRC) upon facility expansion/major modification. Limit %vill become effective following facility upgrade, which will include dechlorination capability. Compliance schedule set at 1 / 1 /05 to cover projected construction period. Addition of monthly average Effluent- Nutrients - Total Per the 1995 Lake Wylie Nutrient effluent. limits for TN of 6.0 mg/l Nitrogen O'N) and Total Management: Strategy, which (summer only) and TP of 1.0 Phosphorus (TP) recommended these nutrient mg/l (year-round). Change limits upon expansion or major monitoring frequency from modification for existing monthly to weekly. dischargers to the lake mainstem and tributaries. Limits will become effective following facility upgrade, which will include BNR capability. Compliance schedule set at 1 / 1 /05 to cover projected construction period. Delete temperature limit. Effluent- Temperature Facility discharge has not shown Maintain effluent and instream any impact. on receiving stream monitoring. temperature, and this parameter is not considered a pollutant of concern for municipal POTW permits. Delete Special Condition F. Special Condition F- Preparation Completed by previous of Nutrient. Reduction Study permitt:ee, which focused on industrial BATs. Delete Special Condition G. Special Condition G- Nutrient A permit reopener clause is Reopener included in the boilerplate language. IChange the permit expiration I Permit Expiration Date I Per Catawba Basin renewal I date to 1 /31 /05. schedule. Page 3 Version: March 1, 2002 NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Town of Cramerton • ' Page 4 NPDES No. NC0006033 PROJECT NOTES Summary • Previously, the Town of Cramerton operated a minor 0.25 MGD POTW under NPDES permit NCO055948 (Town of Cramerton/Hamrick Road WWTP). The town is currently requesting rescission of that permit, and renewal of NPDES permit NC0006033 (Town of Cramerton/Eagle Road WWTP), a 4.0 MGD plant which was purchased by the town effective 8/31/99 from Collins and Aikman. The 4 MGD plant was previously operated as a private textile facility (aka Collins & Aikman, Cramerton Automotive Products, JPS Automotive, Burlington Industries ) for treating process wastewater from the manufacture of textile products used in the automotive industry. • The 4 MGD WWTP was originally constructed in the 1960's. The WWTP is an extended aeration process, consisting of two aeration basins (one in operation), two final clarifiers, and a chlorine contact tank. Liquid sludge is hauled off for land application by a contracted service. The town has added a new force main and upgraded a lift station to send all the town's wastewater to the Eagle Road WWTP. The town was recently approved for a $7 Million loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to upgrade this facility. The proposed upgrade includes major modifications and addition of biological nutrient removal (BNR) capabilities. Construction is scheduled to begin 9/2002 and end 9/2004. The current 4.0 MGD design flow is considered adequate to handle the 20-year projected flow of 2.3 MGD. • The town is currently implementing its new pretreatment program. Average daily flow from all industrial sources is 1.2 MGD, which represents 68% of current flow. The industrial portion comes from two SIUs which produces dyed textile yarns. The POTW has a service area population of 3,000. • The facility discharges to the South Fork Catawba River, which flows into Lake Wylie. The outfall is 200-feet offshore and below water surface. There is an existing nutrient management strategy for Lake Wylie, which has experienced nutrient enrichment. This facility is located within the Lake Wylie Nutrient Management area. The receiving stream is classifled as water supply (WS-V), but is not listed as impaired on the NC 2000 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. Permit Limits Development • Renewal Application. The town applied for renewal of NPDES permit NC0006033 on 3/ 16/01 using Standard Form A, and submitted an application amendment (DMR data summary) on 1/7/02. The current permit expires 9/30/01. The renewal application included a Final Design Report for Cramerton Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (J.N.Pease Assoc., February 2000). The town also plans to close their original 0.25 MGD plant located at Hamrick Road, with flow routed to the 4 MGD facility. • Permit Modifications. A minor modification (name/ownership change and fecal monitoring change) was completed 3/29/00 for the 4 MGD plant. The ownership change was from Collins and Aikman to Town of Cramerton. • Effluent Guideline Limits Changes. The facility was previously subject to Federal Effluent Guideline Limits for BOD, COD, TSS, sulfide, chromium, and pH, based on 40 CFR 410 requirements for textile operations. These limits were re-evaluated for the new municipal POTW operations. The PO'1'W is no longer subject to limits/monitoring for COD or sulfides. Mass limits for TSS were dropped, and substituted with concentration -based secondary limits typical for municipal POWs. Mass limits for BOD were converted to concentration - based limits, which are considered protective of instream DO based on a 1994 QUAL2E modeling effort. Effluent guideline limits for total chromium were no longer applicable, and evaluation of current effluent data shows no reasonable potential for chromium to exceed instream water quality criteria. Monitoring for chromium will continue under the pretreatment program requirements. • Phenol. Limits in the last permit were water -quality based, since they were more stringent than effluent guidelines. These limits are no longer applicable based on evaluation of current effluent data, which shows no reasonable potential for phenols to exceed instream Page 4 Version: March 1, 2002 NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Town of Cramerton Page 5 NPDES No. NC0006033 water quality criteria. Monitoring for phenol will continue on a monthly basis for this permit round. • Ammonia. The previous permit included monitoring -only for ammonia, in lieu of a chronic toxicity test limit. However, the 1995 Catawba Basinwide Strategy recommends an ammonia limit of 4 mg/1 NH3-N for all new/expanding dischargers of oxygen -consuming wastes to the Catawba River Chain of Lakes. Therefore, a 4 mg/1 limit has been incorporated into this permit with no compliance schedule, since DMR data for 10/00-9/01 indicates the facility is currently capable of compliance. • Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). Per NPDES policy, TRC limits are imposed upon major modification/expansion for existing facilities. The TRC limit will become effective following completion of the facility upgrade, which will include dechlorination capability. A compliance date of 1 / 1 /05 has been set, based on the projected 2-year construction schedule. • Nutrients. The last permit required the permittee (Cramerton Automotive Products) to prepare a BAT Nutrient Study to evaluate the feasibility of meeting a monthly average TP limit of 1 mg/l, and a summertime TN limit of 6 mg/l. With the transfer in ownership to the Town of Cramerton, these nutrient limits become effective upon major modification or expansion per the Lake Wylie Nutrient Management Strategy. This permit includes TN and TP limits to become effective 1 / 1 /05, based on the projected 2-year construction upgrade schedule. • Color. This facility was previously identified as a color discharger due to textile inputs. The town elected to join the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance with several other discharges, and collectively fund a comprehensive color monitoring study in the South Fork Catawba River watershed during 2000. The Division used results of the study to prepare an NPDES Color Permitting Policy (attached). This facility was classified as a Tier 2 color discharger, and will be subject to color monitoring (effluent, instream) as well as preparation of a pollution prevention/BMP report to address source reduction. • Temperature. Delete temperature limit, since facility's discharge has shown no impact on receiving stream temperature. This limit is generally more applicable for cooling water discharges, rather than municipal PO'1'Ws. • Influent Monitoring. Addition of influent monitoring for BOD/TSS to evaluate 85% removal requirement for municipal POTWs. • Water Quality Limited Parameters in Draft Permit: BOD, NH3, TRC, TN, TP DMR Data. • Effluent Chemistry Data. From 10/00-9/01, the following monthly average concentrations were reported: flow (0.87-1.2 MGD); BOD (2-15 mg/1); NH3-N (0.1-1.7 mg/1); TSS (12-30 mg/1); fecal (2-11 orgs/ 100ml); TN (5-22 mg/1); TP (1-3 mg/1). Max TRC values generally ranged from 800-900 ug/l, versus an allowable concentration of 360 ug/l. • Effluent Toxicity Data. Between 1997-2001, the facility passed 20 of 22 quarterly chronic toxicity tests at 4.7% effluent concentration. • Instream Data. With one exception, downstream dissolved oxygen (DO) values for 2000 were above 6.0 mg/l, versus an instream standard of 5 mg/l. Therefore, instream DO does not appear to be a problem in the discharge area. No upstream/downstream DO trends were noted. The summer 2000 period was extremely dry and stream flows were low, therefore instream data may represent worst case conditions. No upstream/downstream trends were noted for fecal coliform, conductivity, or temperature. Both up/downstream stations exhibited fecal counts exceeding the WQS of 200 on occasion. • Compliance. There were no penalty assessments against this facility between 1 /94-3/00. There was a $1582 civil penalty assessment collected for fecal coliform violations occurring in April 2000. Wasteload AUocat:ion Data. • The last WLA was prepared 4/96. In 1994 a calibrated QUAL2E model was used to perform the wasteload allocation for oxygen consuming wastes. Model results were consistent with the effluent guideline limit for BOD5, so the BOD5 effluent guideline limit was used in the last permit. Page 5 Version: March 1, 2002 NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Page 6 Town of Cramerton NPDES No. NC0006033 Mooresville Region Data. • MRO conducted a sewer collection system inspection on 6/ 13/01 and reported the collection system is generally being properly operated and maintained. Provosed Schedule for Permit Issuance Draft Permit to Public Notice: 03/06/02 Permit Scheduled to Issue: 04/26/02 State Contact If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Tom Belnick at (919) 733-5038, extension 543. Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit development: • Reasonable Potential Analysis (majors only) • NPDES Color Permitting Policy • Draft Permit NPDES Recommendation bp: S gnature Date Regional Office Comments Regional Recommendation eel Signature Date Reviewed and accepted by: Regional Supervisor: Signature Date NPDES Unit Supervisor: Signature Date Page 6 Version: March 1, 2002 NPDES PERMIT FACT SHEET Town of Cramerton Page 6 NPDES No. NC0006033 Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance Draft Permit to Public Notice: 00/00/00 Permit Scheduled to Issue: 00/00/00 State Contact If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact Tom Belnick at (919) 733-5038, extension 543. Copies of the following are attached to provide further information on the permit development: • Reasonable Potential Analysis (majors only) • NPDES Color Permitting Policy • Draft Permit NPDES Recommendation by: Signature Date Regional Office Comments Regional Recommendation [[ Signature Date Reviewed and accepted by: Regional Supervisor: Signature Date NPDES Unit Supervisor: Signature Date Page 6 Version: January 8, 2002 REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Prepared by: To Belnick,11/5/01 - -- Facility Name = Cramerton NPDES # = NC0006033 - Qw MGO) = 4 Qw(cfs)= 6.1888 __7Q10s (cf�= 125 ,WC(� = 4.73 T Chronic CCC w/s7Q10 dil. Acute CMC w/no dil. Frequencyof Detection Decision Parameter FINAL RESULTS, ug/l FINAL RESULTS, ug/I #Samples # Detects Arsenic Max. Pred Cw 0.0 _ Allowable Cw 1058.1 360 0 0 Cadmium Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 42.3 15 0 0 Chromium Max. Pred Cw 49.3 = y.b/•o q oaf Allowable Cw 1058.1 1022 10 10 NoLimit Lead _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 529.0 34 0 0 Copper (A.L.) _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 148.1 7.3 0 0 Nickel _ _ Max. Pred Cw_ 0.0 AllowableCw 1862.2 261 0 0 Silver (A.L.) _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 1.3 1.2 0 0 Zinc (A.L.)_ - Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw _ 1058.1 67 0 0 Cyanide Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw -- 105.8 22 0 0 Mercury_ -- - - Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 0.254 NA 0 0_ Molybdenum Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw NA NA 0 j _ 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 I 0 - - Selenium Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw _ 105.8 _ _ 20 Fluoride Max. Pred Cw _ 0.0 Allowable Cw Chloride(A.L.) Max. Pred Cw Allowable Cw 36090.3 _ _ 0.0 -- - 4867096.8 NA_ - - _ 860,000 _ Modified Data: Use 0.5 Detection Limit for non -detects I _ REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS Prepared by: Tom Belnick, 11/5/01 Facility Name = Cramerton- NPDES # = NC0006033 Ow (MGD) = 4 T Ow (cfs) = 6.1888 3002 (cfs)= 309 use 30Q2 flow for aesthetics (taste/odor) I WC (%) = 1.97 - Chronic CCC w/s7Q10 dil. Acute CIVIC w/no dil. Frequency of Detection Decision Parameter FINAL RESULTS, ug/l _ FINAL RESULTS, ug/l #Samples # Detects Arsenic Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 2541.9 360 0 0 _ Cadmium _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 _ Allowable Cw 101.7 _ 15 0 0 Chromium _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 _ Allowable Cw 2541.9 1022 0 0 Lead _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 1271.0 34 0 0 Copper (A.L.) _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 - Allowable Cw 355.9 7.3 0 0 Nickel Max. Pred Cw 0.0- _ Allowable Cw 4473.8 261 - 0 0 Silver (A.L.) Max. Pred Cw 0.0 _ Allowable Cw 3.1 1.2 0 _ 0 Zinc (A.L.) Max. Pred Cw 0.0 _ Allowable Cw 2541.9 67 0 0 Cyanide _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw _ 254.2 22 0 0 Mercury _ Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 0.610 _ NA 0 0 Molybdenum Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw NA_ NA 0 0 Selenium Max. Pred Cw 0.0 Allowable Cw 254.2 20 0 0 Fluoride Max. Pred Cw _ 0.0 Allowable Cw 91509.7 _ NA 0 0 Phenol Max. Pred Cw 12.1 - J- Allowable Cw 50.8 10 10 NoLimit Modified Data: Use 0.5 Detection Limit for non -detects ---- - -- --- Parameter = Chromium _ Standard = I 50 ,ug/I DMR10/00-9/01 Dataset= ModifiedData Non_ detects RESULTS 4.9 Std Dev. 3.728 5.9 _ Mean 6.450 5.3 C.V. 0.578 5 Sample# 10.000 4.9 5.2 Mult Factor = 2.900 5.4 Max. Value 17 _ Ng/I 6 _ Max. Pred Cw 49 pg/l 4.9 Allowable Cw 1058 Ng/I 17 Parameter = Phenol I_ Standard = 1 /rg/I Taste/odor Dataset= DMR10/00-9/01 WS Class ModifiedData Nondetects RESULTS _ 9.9 Std Dev. 0.129 10 Mean 9.910 10 C.V. 0.013 9.9 Sample# 10.000 9.9 _ 9.6 _ Mult Factor = 1.200 9.9 Max. Value 10.100 Ng/I _ 9.9 Max. Pred Cw 12.120 /ug/I 9.9 Allowable Cw 50.839 ug/I ___ 10.1 Division of Water Quality Point Source Branch/NPDES Unit June 5, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Tommy Stevens Through: Coleen S Bill Reid Dave Go rich From: Tom Belnick Subject: NPDES Color Permitting Policy Catawba River Basin Color Dischargers ect, 0 1 ,--a 1 This NPDES Color Permitting Policy addresses eight color dischargers in the South Fork Catawba River watershed (subbasins 030835 and 030836). The policy provides for a tiered permitting approach, ranging from color monitoring for facilities showing no color plume, up to color reduction limits for facilities exhibiting major color plumes and downstream aesthetic impacts. Background. The South Fork Catawba River watershed was identified in previous basin plans as having a high concentration of textile dischargers, along with public concerns and complaints regarding color from such discharges. In August 1999 the Division met with selected color dischargers in the watershed to address the color issue. As a result of this meeting, eight color dischargers (Pharr Yarns, Delta Mills, Yorkshire, Cramerton, Lincolnton, Gastonia -Long Creek, Hickory, and Cherryville) elected to form the South Fork Catawba River Water Quality Alliance and undertake a comprehensive color monitoring study to identify current color problem areas in the watershed. The color monitoring was Conducted twice per month from April through November 2000, and included color monitoring of effluent, upstream and downstream stations, as well as reference sites. The study included analytical color measurements (ADMI units), visual observations, and photographs. The study period included an extremely dry summer, and should represent worst case conditions. In addition, the study represents the most current assessment of color conditions in the watershed, given the changing nature of textile facilities across the state. The Alliance submitted individual reports to the Division for each sampling event, as well as a Final Color Study Report (AWARE Environmental, Inc., March 2001). One color discharger in the watershed (City of Newton) elected to evaluate color independently from the Alliance members, using similar monitoring protocols. Color Regulation. According to state regulation [15A NCAC 02B.0211(3) (01, colored effluent is allowed in "only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation or to aquatic life and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality or impair the waters for any designated uses." To date, there are no data to show that the colored effluent is posing a human health concern, or that color is a source of impact on the aquatic biota. Therefore, aesthetic concerns are the primary issue associated with the narrative color standard. NPDES Color Permitting Policy Page 1 of 5 Data Evaluation. The evaluation of color as an aesthetic impact is difficult since it is a subjective determination. In addition, a host of factors, such as hue, instream turbidity, suspended matter, dilution, light conditions, and downstream access all play a part in determining when a color impact might be perceived by the public. The ADMI method used to measure color quantitatively in the study takes into account the entire visible spectrum, and was originally developed to be related to visual perceptibility. During data review, it was realized that ADMI color measurements do not always predict the potential for a color impact. For example, a color plume with downstream aesthetic impact was observed at Cherryville on several sampling events, although the effluent ADMI color was low (summer average = 63 ADMI) and similar to upstream values. The plume was likely due to the particular hue of the effluent and the low instream dilution, rather than an absolute ADMI value. In this situation, consideration of a numerical instream ADMI color standard would be ineffective. However, requiring some percentage reduction in effluent color would help to minimize the size of the color plume. Conversely, some facilities with greater colored effluent (e.g., Pharr Yarns and Yorkshire with summer averages of 844 and 3449 ADMI units, respectively) did not produce major instream color plumes, most likely due to the effluent hue as well as the large dilution available. Therefore, in order to evaluate the data, it was realized that no single criterion, but rather a combination of ADMI measurements, photographs, and plume descriptions were needed to fully assess the instream color conditions. Specific data utilized from the Final Color Study Report submitted by the Alliance included: 1) frequency of plumes observed at the outfall (see Appendix A, Table 5-2); 2) frequency of visual color change at the downstream station (see Appendix A. Table 5-1); and 3) statistical color difference between upstream and downstream stations during summer (see Appendix A. Table 4-2). The study reported that Pharr Yarns was the only facility that did not produce a color plume at the outfall at any time during the study, while for the remaining facilities, color plumes were reported observed at the outfalls from 60% to 100% of the time. The study also reported that visual changes in downstream color were observed at the following frequencies: Hickory (200/6), Cherryville (600/6), Delta Mills (87%), and 0% for the remaining facilities. Finally, the study reported the largest measured summer increases in ADMI color at the downstream station at the following facilities: Gastonia -Long Creek (23% increase), Hickory (31% increase), and Delta Mills (58% increase). Downstream stations were located between 0.5 to 2.5 miles below the outfalls, generally at accessible bridge locations. Thus, comparison of various downstream impacts must be made with this fact in mind. The data from the report was supplemented with visual observations made by Division staff during an August 22, 2000 site visit to all outfalls and downstream stations. The consensus from the site visit was that significant color plumes were evident at outfalls from Delta Mills, Cherryville, Hickory, and Gastonia -Long Creek. These were not single incidents, as report photographs attest to their recurrence during the study. Color pictures of these plumes taken from various sampling dates are included in Appendix A. Color plumes at the other facility outfalls were either nonexistent or much less noticeable. Tiered Classification. The NPDES Color Permitting Policy establishes four tiers of action based on varying aesthetic color impacts to the receiving waters. The tier groupings were based on the data reported in the Final Color Study Report, as well as field observations made by Division staff. The Tier 1 facility showed no visible color plume during the color study. Tier 2 facilities showed minor color plumes at the outfall and limited downstream color impact. Tier 3 facilities showed significant color plumes at the outfall and at times greater downstream NPDES Color Permitting Policy Page 2 of 5 color impact. Finally, the Tier 4 facility showed significant plumes at the outfall and significant downstream color impacts. The data are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that Gastonia -Long Creek was originally placed in Tier 3 based on color study results. However, after the color study was completed, their major color discharger (Fleishman's Yeast) was removed, resulting in a Tier 2 re -ranking. Also, Cherryville is currently ranked as Tier 3 based on color study results, but is scheduled to lose their lone textile discharger in July 2001. After this color source is removed, Cherryville can request a re -ranking with subsequent reduction in permitting requirements. TABLE 1- Tiered Classification Tier Facility Frequency of Frequency of % Difference in Distance from Plumes Visual Change at Summer ADM] Outfall to Observed at Downstream (Upstream to Downstream Outfalli Station Downstream)3 Station (miles) (n= 15 events) 1 Pharr Yams 0% 0% -5% 0.59 (NC0004812) 2 Cramerton 100% 06/6 8% 1.6 (NCo0060331 (n= 3) Lincolnton 60% 0% 12% 2.0 (NC0025496) Yorkshire 67% 0% 4% 2.56 (NC0005274) Gastonia -Long 100% 00/0 23% 0.53 Creek4 (Nco020184) 3 Hickory 100% 20% 31% 1.64 coo4o797) Cherryville5 100% 60% -8% 1.57 (NCo044440) 4 Delta Mills 100% 87% 58% 2.01 (NC0006190) Footnotes: 1. Final Color Study Report, Table 5-2, AWARE Environmental Inc., March 2001. 2. Final Color Study Report, Table 5-1, AWARE Environmental Inc., March 2001. 3. Final Color Study Report, Table 4-2, AWARE Environmental Inc., March 2001. 4. Ranking accounts for removal of major color discharger (Fleichman's Yeast) in April 2001, after the Color Study was completed. 5. Ranking does not account for scheduled removal of lone textile SIU in July 2001. After textile removal, facility may request re -ranking. Color Permitting Policy. All eight Catawba Basin facilities are currently up for permit renewal, and the basin renewal schedule will extend the permits into 2005. Based on the tier groupings, progressive permitting actions have been developed for these facilities, ranging from color monitoring Mer 1), pollution prevention studies Mer 2), engineering cost studies for end -of -pipe treatment (Tier 3), and finally color reduction limits (TIer 4). Color monitoring will remain a baseline condition for all facilities, as long as color remains a component of the discharge. Instream stations will be monitored for color monthly during summer, when low flows represent the most likely period for instream aesthetic impacts. Effluent will be monitored for color monthly on a year-round basis, to track the consistency of the color input. NPDES Color Peniiitting Policy Page 3 of 5 All color dischargers will also receive a Color Reopener Special Condition, which will allow permits to be reopened and additional restrictions imposed if color problems persist. The color limits for the Tier 4 facility will be expressed as a 90% color reduction requirement between influent and effluent. As discussed previously, a color limit expressed as a percentage reduction in effluent color should significantly reduce the size of the instream color plume and aesthetic impact, while avoiding the complications of any single numerical ADMI color limit. The color permitting requirements are summarized in Table 2, and specific permitting language is included in Appendix B. TABLE 2- NPDES Color Permitting Policv Tier •Faei�Y - _ � �t : � { r - _ y. _ � • 1 Pharr Yarns Tier 1 facilities will receive color monitoring -only, consisting of monthly effluent sampling, and summer -only (April -October) instream monitoring (upstream, downstream). If observed, plume descriptions should be recorded. In addition, a Color Reopener Special Condition will be added that allows permits to be reopened and additional requirements imposed if color problems persist. 2 Cramerton Tier 2 facilities will receive Tier 1 requirements plus preparation of a Lincolnton Pollution Prevention (P2)/Best Management Practices (BMPs) report. This report will address the potential for the facility to reduce effluent color Yorkshire by incorporating P2 measures and/or BMPs prior to treatment. For example, the facility could investigate the dyeing process, looking at the potential for Gastonia- Long dye substitution, improved dyeing efficiency, etc. The facility could d(b,this Creek' • work independently with their dye supplier or other resource, or request voluntary assistance from the NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. The report will be submitted within 12 months of the permit effective date. 3 Hickory Tier 3 facilities will receive Tier 2 requirements plus preparation of a Color Reduction Study. The color reduction study will involve an end -of -pipe Cherryville2 treatment evaluation to develop costs to reduce influent color by 75% and 90%. The reports will be submitted within 24 months of the permit effective date. 4 Delta Mills Tier 4 facilities will receive color reduction limits (90% color reduction between influent and effluent) to be im lemented by the ermit effective date. Footnotes: 1. Ranking accounts for removal of major color discharger (Fleichman's Yeast) in April 2001, after the Color Study was completed. 2. Ranking does not account for scheduled removal of lone textile SIU in July 2001. After textile removal, facility may request re -ranking with less stringent permitting requirements. Additional Facilities. As previously mentioned, the City of Newton (NC0036196) was originally identified as a color discharger to the South Fork Catawba River watershed, along with the Alliance members. However, the City of Newton elected to evaluate color conditions independently from the Alliance. The Division conducted a site visit to the Newton WWTP prior to permit renewal, and observed a minor color plume at the outfall. In the permit renewal issued to Newton on March 2, 2001, the permit included monthly summer color monitoring, as well as a Color Reopener Special Condition. Based on the current tiered classification, Newton would rank as a Tier 2 facility. Therefore, it is recommended that the NPDES Color Permitting Policy Page 4 of 5 a Newton permit be reopened, and color requirements consistent with Tier 2 facilities be incorporated. This would include the additional requirement for a P2/BMP report. One facility with colored effluent and a significant color plume which was not evaluated in the color study is the City of Gastonia- Crowders Creek WWTP (NC0074268). This discharge is also located in the Catawba River Basin (subbasin 030837). Several recent color complaints have been received for this facility, and Division staff observed a significant color plume during a recent site visit. This facility is also up for permit renewal. It is recommended that Tier 3 color requirements be placed in the permit renewal. Conclusion. It is the overall goal of this permitting policy to reduce the magnitude of color plumes to a level where aesthetic color complaints are infrequent. The Point Source Branch requests your comments and concurrence with our permitting policy. Please feel free to call me at extension 543 if you have any questions or comments. cc: (without Appendix) Greg Thorpe, Deputy Director Mooresville Region, Water Quality (Rex Gleason) Dianne Reid, Classification/Standards Unit Tom Poe, Pretreatment Unit Darlene Kucken, Basinwide Unit NPDES Unit staff NPDES Color Permitting Policy Page 5 of 5 AFFIDAVIT OF INSERTION OF ADVERTISMENT The Gaston Gazette PUBLIC NOTICE STATE Of NORTH CAROLINA ENVI RONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699,1617 1�� NOTIFICATION Or INTENT Gastonia, NC TO ISSUE A WASTEWATER PERMIT NPDE: Gaston County On the basis of thorough staf review and applications of NC General Statute 143.2. Public law 92-500 and other lawful standards and regulations, the I, PAT WHITWORTH Legal Advertising Manager of the The Gaston Gazette, North Carolina Environmental Management Commission pro. certify that the advertisement of NCDENRIDWQ/NPDES poses to issue a national Pollu- tant Discharge Elimination Sys. Entitle PUBLIC NOTICE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA tem (NPDEs) wastewater dis- ENVIRONMENTAL charge permit to the pemon(s) listed below effective 45 days from the publish date of this no- tice. Written comments - regarding Measuring 8.21 Inches appeared in The Gaston Gazette, a newspaper published in the proposed permit will be ac- cepted un61 30 days after the Gaston County, Gastonia, NC, in issues publish date of this notice. All comments received prior to that date are considered in the final determinations regzrding the proposed permit. The Director Of the NO Division MARCH 11, 2002 Quality may decide tolholdler a public meeting for the proposed Permit should the Division re- ceive a significant degree of p6j pubic interest. Copies of the draft permit and PAT WHITWORTH other supporting information on file. used to determine condi- Legal Advertising Managc tiions present in the draft permit are available upon request and payment of the casts of repro- duction. Mail comments and/or Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 2002 requests for information to the NC Division of Water Quality at the above address or call Ms. Christie Jackson at (919) /; 733,5083, extension 538. t g r��, aI in �� Please include the per - "VA met number NPDES Es Permit Notary Public Numm of Cr mert nC0155033. North main Street, CRAMERTON, NC 28032 has applied for a permit renewal for a facility located in GASTON County discharging My commission expires May 25, 2003 treated wastewater into SOUTH FORK CATAWBA Riv- er in the CATAWBA River Ba- sin. Currently BOO. NH3. TRC. TP and TN are water quality limited. This discharge may affect future allocations in this portion of the receiving stream. In any communica- f Boris, it thestd ion of may also I the Division of WaterF:M Quality at 512 N. Salislowy Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 to review information on file. 1 C-March 11 2002 WATER QUALITY41 SOURCE RROi H fel M I i e czmfff n TOWN OF C �N Cam. 1. 17L1 "- � May 17, 2002 Mr. Tom Belnick N.C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Sonjice Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Subject: NPDES Draft Permit Permit No. NC0006033 Cramerton / Eagle Road WWTP Gaston County Dear Mr. Belnick: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and Mr. Goodrich on April 11, 2002 to review the Draft Permit for the Eagle Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Using the information and recommendations you provided, we offer the following regarding the major points of concern in the Draft Permit. 85% TSS Removal Requirement: As described in our previous response dated April 11, 2002, approximately 70% of the Eagle Road WWTP influent flow is from the town's lone SIU which has a very low TSS loading. With the unusually low influent TSS (typically < 100 mg/L), the Town will have to meet a monthly average TSS below 10 mg/L to consistently maintain compliance with the 85% municipal system reduction requirement. 2002 data are attached verifying the relatively low influent TSS. The Eagle Road WWTP TSS reductions averaged 85.4% with a minimum and maximum reduction of 52.9% and 93.2% respectively. As the data indicates, the Town is borderline with meeting this requirement. The Town would request a reduction in the TSS requirement to 75%. Mass -based Total Nitrogen (TN) Limit: Data was compiled on effluent TN for 1999 through 2002 to date. TN concentrations were converted to loadings (lbs/day) using daily flow rates (see attached data). For this period, effluent TN averaged 107.81bs/day with minimum and maximum loading of 13.1 Ibs/day and 258.2 lbs/day, respectively. On an annual basis, average TN loadings were 79.4, 58.0, 118.0, and 150.5 lbs/day respectively for years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 (to date). Although there has been a gradual increase in average effluent TN through the past 155 North Main Street Cramerton, NC 28032 704/824-4337 *20. e e s there a been only four (4) days during this period that have exceeded the 161bs/day mass -based im for the Eagle Road WWTP. The Town, therefore, feels confident in meeting the proposed mass -based limit by the State. The Town will postpone construction of any structures/processes associated with TN removal but will continually monitor any trends in effluent TN for the WWTP. Construction Requirements to Comply with the Draft Permit: To meet the Draft NPDES Permit, including new TP and Residual Chlorine Limits, the following process modifications, upgrades and or additions are required. The Town has completed construction documents and specifications for these proposed construction activities. The Town is continuing it efforts to secure SRF funding for the proposed construction. • Preliminary Treatment (mechanical bar screen) • Final Clarifier upgrades (flood control; new drives; etc.) • Electrical upgrade (switch from 525 V service to 480 V service) • Lab/Administration building V" • Chemical Storage & Feed System • Chlorination/Dechlorination • New Chlorine Contact/Post Aeration/Effluent Lift Structure p ` • RAS/WAS pumping system upgrades • Associated piping, electrical, controls,grading The estimated cost of these modifications, upgrades and additions to the WWTP is approximately three million dollars. While the effect of the loss of revenue generated by our largest customer (approximately 70% of the current influent) would be significant, the Town is comfortable in committing to a project of this size and cost. The Town very much appreciates your willingness to work with us in addressing our new permit for the Eagle Road Treatment Facility. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, David Young Town Manager Date Q,mgd Inf TSS Eff TSS % TSS Removal Eff TN TN (m /L) (mg/L) (lbs/da ) 2/3/99 2.4 5.3 106.1 3/2 99 1.5 6.2 77.6 417/99 1.3 13.1 142.0 5/5/99 1.6 4.9 65.4 6/2/99 1.5 1.7 21.3 7/1199 1.3 1.5 16.3 8/4/99 1.3 8.1 87.4 9/22/99 1 0.7 5.6 31.9 10/12/99 1.7 5.9 83.2 11/15/99 1.6 3.8 48.5 12/14/99 1.6 5.3 70.0 Year 2000 1/12/00 1.3 4.0 42.3 2/16/00 1.1 1 6.6 60.1 3/24100 1.6 4.4 59.1 4/10/00 0.6 2.6 13.1 5/10/00 1 2.0 6.1 101.9 6/9/00 1.4 4.1 46.5 7/26/00 1.9 3.9 63.1 8/3/00 2.0 2.8 48.3 918/00 2.0 4.7 76.8 11/15/00 1.2 6.4 65.1 12/21/00 1.1 6.8 61.5 ear 2001 1/11/01 1.3 7.3 80.4 2/8/01 1 1.4 22.6 258.2 3/14/01 1.4 8.1 92.7 4112/01 1.2 7.9 79.1 5/10/01 1.4 7.9 88.8 6/7/01 1.4 8.0 94.0 7/10/01 1.2 12.8 130.2 8/6/01 0.5 1 5.0 2t.2 9/11/01 1.8 8.3 125.1 1019/01 1.4 13.5 153.E 11/1/01 1 1.4 11.0 129.5 12/11/01 1.3 15.3 163.3 Year 2002 1 /11 /02 1.3 13.2 138.7 2/12/02 0.9 13.2 103.5 3/14/02 1.6 13.0 170.2 3/25/02 0.5 68.0 6.0 1 91.2 13.4 58A 3/26/02 1.5 32.0 8.0 75.0 14.0 176.3 3127/02 1.5 29.0 4.0 86.2 13.0 161.5 3/28/02 1 1.4 17.0 8.0 52.9 11.5 129.5 3/29/02 1.3 25.0 6.0 76.0 - _ 11.5 125.6 4/2/02 0.6 79.0 6.0 92.4 11.8 55.1 4/3/02 1.5 44.0 5.0 88.6 13.5 173.4 414/02 1.2 21.0 4.0 81.0 17.8 184.1 4/5/02 1.3 32.0 4.0 87.5 17.9 186.6 4/11/02 1.5 17.7 217.0 4/24/02 1.4 18.1 212.8 4/25102 1.3 16.4 182.9 4/26/02 1 1.4 13.5 153.7 4/29/02 0.6 78.0 8.0 89.7 4/30/02 1.3 51.0 5.0 90.2 13.5 144.3 5/1/02 1.3 48.0 4.0 91.7 13.0 135.5 5/2/02 1.3 50.0 5.0 90.0 5/3/02 1.3 36.0 4.0 88.9 5/6/02 0.7 74.0 5.0 93.2 Total Av 1.3 44.9 5.3 85.4 9.6 107.8 Total Min. 0.5 17.0 3.0 52.9 1 1.5 13.1 Total Max. 2.4 79.0 8.0 93.2 1 22.6 1 258.2 cram_TNdataA 5/9/02 ., FINAL 201 FACILITIES PLAN FOR CItAMERTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE CRAMEMNNORIHCAROLNA NPDFS Penrd No. NC0006033 Commission No.1999043.04 December 2001 `�tttttt!lj�� o o i i•i� 4 j�,Aj r . ~ Q Project Specifier: Steven C. Young, PE ® 2001 J.N. Pease Associates 2925 East Independence Blvd Charlotte, NC 28205 704 376-6423 1.0 Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendation Summary The 201 Facilities Plan has been prepared for the Town of Cramerton tinder the guidelines provided for projects under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The existing collection system and wastewater treatment plant (Eagle Road WWTP) facilities have been evaluated with respect to their condition, efficiency, and operation to enable all current and upcoming regulations to be met. Various wastewater treatment alternatives were investigated to meet the present and future needs of the Town of Cramerton. A major part of the 201 Plan was to conduct an Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) analysis. ' Results from this I/I Study would allow any I/I problem to be addressed and _ provide an estimate of non -excessive I/I flow to be accounted in future flow projections. Conclusion The following conclusions were drawn from the 201 Facilities Plan: • The I/I Study revealed that both infiltration and inflow were excessive. The Town is aware of the degree of I/I present in the collection system and is exploring measures, in addition to their current practices, to reduce I/I. • The 4.0-MGD WWTP is adequately sized to handle the 20-year projected flow of 2.315 MGD barring any large increases in flow from current or future Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) or from alliances with other regional municipalities. To allow newly proposed Speculative Effluent Discharge limits to be met, significant upgrades to the WWTP have been proposed. Recommendations The Town of Cramerton needs to follow through on its efforts to fully evaluate the excessive I/I to the WWTP and implement corrective actions. Implement the proposed WWTP upgrades to allow speculative NPDES discharge limits and future limits to be met and reduce the maintenance requirements of the current system. Follow through with the SRF hmding to obtain and take advantage of the best financing scenario for the Town. Cramerton 201 Facilities Plan Pease Commission No. 99043.04 December 2001 Page 1 The existing WWTP operates, for the most part, satisfactorily and meets its present effluent limits. Treatment units within the plant are in need of extensive refurbishment or replacement due to excessive wear and tear. Most of the process equipment is aging and in need of replacement. The major deficiencies of the existing treatment facilities are that the overall process is not capable of meeting anticipated future effluent standards. Meeting such standards will require significant overall changes and modifications. In addition to these requirements, new administration and laboratory facilities are also needed. The WWTP has been, consistently meeting the discharge requirements describedin the NPDES Permit. Random minor excursions occur and are noted in the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). 2.3 Population and Demographics The current service population for the Year 2000 is approximately 2,987 persons. This population was determined from Cramerton sources and corresponds with the population estimates provided by the North Carolina Office of State Planning (NCOSP). As shown in Figure 1, the Town of Cramerton provides sewer service to essentially all of the total population within the Town Limits. 2.4 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis Both an Infiltration Study and an Inflow Study were conducted based on the 201 Facilities Plan guidance document criteria for a complete I/I Analysis. A copy of these studies is attached in Appendix B. In the Infiltration Study, infiltration was determined as the average daily flow of the three wettest consecutive months of a given year minus the expected flow to the WWTP. Expected flow was calculated from water billing records of residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal segments making up the Town's water distribution system minus a consumptive loss of 10 to 15 percent. The infiltration rate was then calculated as gallons per day of infiltration per inch -mile of gravity sewer in the City's collection system. The study was conducted on the three wettest consecutive months for the last four years (1996 through 1999). An infiltration rate exceeding 3,000 gallons per day per inch -mile (gpdim) is considered excessive. Infiltration rates for the four years analyzed ranged from 5007 to 13,384 gpdim with an average rate of 9,838 gpdim. The average infiltration rate is approximately 3-times the allowable threshold limit; therefore, infiltration in the Town of Cramerton collection system is considered excessive. Cramerton 201 Facilities Plan Pease Commission No. 99043.04 December 2001 Page 7 2.5 7 J -I J J i J The Inflow Study targeted surges in peak flow at the WWTP resulting from excessive storm flow. inflow was estimated from flow records during a typical one -inch rainfall event. A total of twenty rainfall events were used for the inflow study. Each event had to be approximately one inch of precipitation with at least five preceding dry -weather days. According to the guidance document, inflow is considered excessive if non -industrial instantaneous peak flowrates at the WWTP exceed 275 gpd/capita served following the one -inch storm event. As shown in the Inflow Study in Appendix B, the non -industrial peak flowrates for the four storm events ranged from approximately 1,100 to 3,300 gpd/capita with an average of 1,875 gpd/capita. These results indicate an excessive inflow in the City's collection system. The Town owns a remote operated camera to investigate problem sewer lines and lines suspect of excessive I/I. The Town will continue its line investigations on an ongoing basis. It should be highlighted that the proposed WWTP project is for an upgrade only (no expansion); therefore, none of the funding for this project involves plant expansion for increased flow. The existing plant rating of 4 MGD can accommodate the 20-year projected flows Including existing I/I (see Section 3.1). Current Flow Description The current residential, commercial, industrial, and non -excessive I/I flow contributions are provided below. Residential and commercial flow contributions were based on water billing records minus 10 percent consumptive losses. The residential and commercial flows were derived from the water usage data presented in the Infiltration Study attached in Appendix B. Industrial flow from the only SIU is directly measured by a metering manhole. Non -excessive I/I flow contribution was determined based on the 3000 gpdim criteria which was approximately 0.48 MGD. The non -excessive inflow was based on a non- industrial peak flowrate of 275 gpd/capita minus residential and commercial flows. This resulted in an inflow flow contribution of approximately 0.42 MGD; therefore, a total non -excessive I/I flow contribution is estimated at 0.90 MGD. A summary of the current flow breakdown at the Cramerton WWTP is described in the table below: Residential/Commercial 0.40 MGD Industrial (1 SIU) 0.80 MGD Non -Excessive I/I 0.90 MGD TOTAL 2.10 MGD Cramerton 201 Facilities Plan Pease Commission No. 99043.04 December 2001 Page 8 Environmental Protection Agency § 133.103 (c) pH. The effluent values for pH flow or loading of the publicly owned shall be maintained within the limits treatment works. When such an adjust - of 6.0 to 9.0 unless the publicly owned ment is made, the values for BODs or treatment works demonstrates that: (1) SS to Inorganic chemicals are not added to §§133.102(a)(2), 133.102(a)(4)(ii), §133.102 the waste stream as part of the (b)(2), 133.105(a)(2), 133.105(b)(2), and treatment process: and (2) contribu- 133.105(e)(1)(ii) should be adjusted pro- tions from industrial sources do not portionately. cause the pH of the effluent to be less (c) Waste stabilization ponds. The Re - than 6.0 or greater than 9.0. gional Administrator, or, if appro- priate, State Director subject to EPA [49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984; 49 FR 40405, Oct. approval, is authorized to adjust the 16,19841 minimum levels of effluent quality set in 1133.105 (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) §1SS.lOS Special considerations. for treatment works subject to this for (a)Combined sewers. Treatment works part, to conform to the SS concentra- subject to this part may not be capable tions achievable with waste stabiliza- of meeting the percentage removal re- tion ponds, provided that: (1) Waste quirements established under stablization ponds are the principal §§133.102(m)(3) and 133.102(b)(3), or process used for secondary treatment; §§133.105(a)(3) and 133.105(b)(3) during and (2) operation and maintenance data wet weather where the treatment indicate that the SS values specified in works receive flows from combined §133.105 (bxl), (b)(2), and (b)(3) cannot sewers (i.e., sewers which are designed be achieved. The term "SS concentra- to transport both storm water and san- tions achievable with waste stabilize- itary sewage). For such treatment tion ponds" means a SS value, deter - works, the decision must be made on a mined by the Regional Administrator, case -by -case basis as to whether any or, if appropriate, State Director sub - attainable percentage removal level ject to EPA approval, which is equal to can be defined, and if so, what the level the effluent concentration achieved 90 should be. percent of the time within a State or (b) Industrial wastes. For certain appropriate contiguous geographical industrial categories, the discharge to area by waste stabilization ponds that navigable waters of BODs and SS per- are achieving the levels of effluent mitted under sections 301(b)(1)(A)(i), quality for BOD, specified In (b)(2)(E) or 306 of the Act may be less § 133.105(a)(1). [cf. 43 FR 55279]. stringent than the values given in (d) ' Less concentrated influent §§ 133.102(a)(1), wastewater for separate sewers. The Re- 133.102(a)(4)(1), 133.102(b)(1), gional Administrator or, if appropriate, 133.105(a)(1), 133.105(b)(1) and State Director is authorized to 133.106(e)(1)(i). In cases when wastes substitute either a lower percent would be introduced from such an in- removal requirement or a mass loading dustrial category into a publicly owned limit for the percent removal re - treatment works, the values for BOD, quirements set forth in §§133.102(a)(3), and SS in 133.102(a)(Viii), 133.102(b)(3), 102.105(a) 0133.102(a)(1), 133.102(a)(4)(i), 133.102(b) (3), 133.105(b)(3) and 133.105(e)(1)(iii) (1). 133.105(a)(1), 133.105(b)(1), and provided that the permittee sattsfac- 133.105(e)(1)(f) may be adjusted upwards torily demonstrates that: (1) The treat - provided that: (1) The permitted dfs- ment works is consistently meeting, or charge of such pollutants, attributable will consistently meet, its permit efflu- to the industrial category, would not ent concentration limits but its per - be greater than that which would be cent removal requirements cannot be permitted under sections 301(b)(1)(A)(i), met due to less concentrated influent 301(b)(2)(E) or 306 of the Act if such in- wastewater, (2) to meet the percent re- dustrial category were to discharge di- moval requirements, the treatment redly into the navigable waters, and works would have to achieve signift- (2) the flow or loading of such pollut- cantly more stringent limitations than ants introduced by the industrial cat- would otherwise be required by the egory exceeds 10 percent of the design concentration -based standards, and (3) 307 iykh �, >�,fiU��i�r,r�-mt'�.� �P x c� S ►, v � � �, �.� _ t%A eo .t i1 I)� VVk/7/'> '2-`7S- J/ekp . �ollo+wl� � I-l�� iGt�i-►�i(i(� § 133.104 the less concentrated influent wastewater is not the result of exces- sive M. The determination of whether the less concentrated wastewater is the result of excessive III will use the deft- , nition of excessive I/I in 40 CPR 35.2005(b)(16) plus the additional cri- terion that inflow is nonexcessive if the total flow to the POTW (i.e., wastewater plus inflow f, 1 N>�Io per day less than 376 gallons per capita Kcc-S \J r (e) Less concentrated influent wastewater for combined sewers during dry weather. The Regional Ad- ministrator or, if appropriate, the % , State Director is authorized to substi- / �.il�`�V ,.l�j tute either a lower percent removal re- quirement or a mass loading limit for the percent removal requirements set '2 '-[ s ff C o forth , §§ 133.102(a)), I 193.102(s)(4)(iii)133.102(b)(3), 133.105(a) (3), 133.105(b)(3) and 133.305(e)(1)(iii) provided that the permittee ::a,7 torily demonstrates that: (1) The treat- ment works is consistently meeting, or will consistently meet, its permit efflu- ent concentration limits, but the per- cent removal requirements cannot be met due to less concentrated influent wastewater; (2) to meet the percent re- moval requirements, the treatment works would have to achieve signifl- Texce SJ I V4 .^ LL // j_ cantly more stringent effluent con- 11 I/Y/d'1 , centrations than would otherwise be required by the concentration -based standards; and (3) the less concentrated 1%�ri. I •\ ' 1 �y� C influent wastewater does not result from either excessive infiltration or Iclear water industrial discharges dur- ing nl 6� 4 c Y I ✓[ mi dry weather periods. The deter- mination of whether the lees con- centrated wastewater results from ex- cessive infiltration is discussed in 40 CPR 35.2005(b)(28), plus the additional criterion that either 40 gallons per cap - its per day (gpcd) or 1500 gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer (gpdvalue may be used f the threrywehold ath- �Qn-y"r' value for that portion of the dry weath- er base flow attributed to infiltration. If the less concentrated influent wastewater is the result of clear water q industrial discharges, then the treat- ment works must control such dis- L�,'�" " cha.rges pursuant to 40 CPR part 403. [49 FR 37006, Sept. 20. 1984, as amended at 50 FR 23387, June 3, 1985; 50 FR 36880, Sept. 10. 1985; 54 FR 4228, Jan. 27, 19891 40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-93 Ediion) § 133.104 Sampling and test proce- dures. (a) Sampling and test procedures for pollutants listed in this part shall be in accordance with guidelines promul- gated by the Administrator in 40 CPR part 136. (b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) may be substituted for BODs when a long-term BOD:COD or BOD:TOC correlation has been demonstrated. §133.105 Treatment equivalent to sec. ondary treatment. This Section describes the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by facilities eligible for treatment equiva- lent to agcondary treatment (§133.101(g)) in terms of the param- eters—BOD,, SS and pH. All require- ments for the specified parameters in Mr«•(a) fb) and (c) of this sec- tion Shall be achieved except as pro- vided for in §133.103, or paragraphs (d), (a) or (f) of this section. (a) BODs• (1) The 30-day average shall not exceed 45 mg/1. (2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 65 mg/l. (3) The 30-day average percent re- moval shall not be less than 65 percent. (b) SS. Except where 83 values have been adjusted in accordance with § 133.103(c): (1) The 30-day average shall not ex- ceed 45 mg/1. (2) The 7-day average shall not exceed 65 mg/1. (3) The 30-day average percent re- moval shall not be less than 65 percent. (c) pH. The requirements of §133.102(c) shall be met. (d) Alternative State requirements. Ex- cept as limited by paragraph (f) of this section, and after notice and oppor- tunity for public comment, the Re- gional Administrator, or, if appro- priate, State Director subject to EPA approval, is authorized to adjust the minimum levels of effluent quality set forth in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for trickling filter facilities and in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section for waste sta- bilization pond facilities, to conform to the BODs and SS effluent concentra- tions consistently achievable through proper operation and maintenance 308 TOWN fiGN OF 2 C MN est. 1921 Via Hand Delivery RE: Cramerton Draft WWTP NPDES Permit Mr. Dave Goodrich Division of Water Quality DENR Raleigh, NC Dear Mr. Goodrich: The Town very much appreciates the opportunity to meet with you on April 11, 2002 to discuss the technical and program specifics of its draft W WTP permit and also the uncertain economic circumstances it is operating in. We thank you in advance for your consideration of our discussions. Attached are the Town's written comments on the draft permit as requested in Mr. Belnick's letter of March 6, 2002. Many of these points will have been also covered in our meeting discussions. Again, we appreciate your time and consideration. cc: �ery�yours, David Youdg (� Town Manager Cathy Biles, Mayor Town Attorney Don Garbrick, P.E., J.N. Pease and Associates 155 North Main Street Cramerton, NC 28032 704/824-4337 C TOWN OF �N Town of Cramerton NPDES Draft Permit No. NC0006033 Response Comments April 11, 2002 Program/Policy Comments: • Approximately 50% of the revenue generated for wastewater in Cramerton is from a textiie industry. The textile industry is responsible for 1 mgd of the current 1.2 mgd of wastewater treated in Cramerton. Several municipalities in Gaston County have incurred debt to expand or modify their treatment facilities to accommodate growth or to meet new discharge limits. Industrial plant closings, primarily textiles, leaves these municipalities with an abundance of treatment capacity, but without large users to help pay their debt. Cramerton could conceivably find itself in this same predicament if its one textile customer were to close. This would essentially bankrupt Cramerton because the needed debt would be at least twice its annual budget! Bankruptcy, reorganization and plant closings are the order of the day in textiles, particularly in Gaston County. Banks are hesitant to loan money to support failing companies. Is the State going to force Cramerton to borrow some six million dollars to upgrade its plant when a substantial part of the money to repay the loan will have to come from a textile business? If the lone textile customer were to close, the responsibility for repaying the loan will rest with primarily 1,300 residential customers. Cramerton might be able to make some modifications to the facility, but a more prudent approach given the current condition of textiles and the economy would be to "pay as we go" and continue the current facility with limited repair and maintenance for this permit term. • Opinions differ as to whether domestic or industrial waste creates the undesirable components of the effluent. If industry plays a part, plant closings over the past several years should have been a positive for the water quality of the South Fork. • Cramerton eliminated a discharge point to the South Fork when it closed the Hamrick Road Treatment Plan in 2001. This 250,000 gallon per day facility was nearing capacity and expansion was forthcoming. This volume was transferred to the Eagle Road Plant so there has been no net increase in effluent. That plant is permitted at 4 mgd. Current use is well below that. During this permit term the Town would be willing to limit is capacity to 2.5 mgd. 155 North Main Street Cramerton, NC 28032 704/824-4337 The purchase of the Eagle road facility gave Cramerton the increased capacity that will be needed for future growth most of which will be residential in nature. It should also be noted that the city of Belmont was interested in purchasing wastewater treatment service for 600,000 to 750,000 gallons per day due to capacity concerns at their treatment plant. This issue no longer exists because of textile plant closings in Belmont. At the time Cramerton purchased the Eagle Road facility, grant funds were available for facility upgrades. Two attempts at grant funding were unsuccessful. Hurricane Floyd supposedly sent grant monies "down east" to repair damaged treatment plants. Thus, the economic basis for the intended upgrades has disappeared. When new growth occurs, the Town intends to do upgrades that will allow it to meet the new limits. The Town supports environmental protection as spelled out in the river basin and lake plans. Cramerton intends to use the Eagle Road facility as the long-term solution to its wastewater needs. The permit says that new TRC and Nutrient limits are imposed when the facility undergoes expansion or major modifications. We were going to do the plant ugrades but now is not the time given the above circumstances. By keeping existing facility "as is" for the permit term, plan requirements for new limits are not triggered. Technical Comments: The Town requests that mass -based limits for BOD5 and TSS be maintained at the current loadings of 334 lbs/day and 1302 lbs/day, respectively in lieu of concentration -based limits. Under Permit Additions, the 85% removal requirement for TSS is difficult for the Eagle Road WWTP to meet (BOD is not a problem). Approximately 70% of the influent flow is from the town's SIU which has a very low TSS loading. Therefore, with the unusually low influent TSS (typically < 100 mg/L), the Town will have to meet a 15 mg/L monthly average TSS to maintain compliance with the 85% municipal system reduction requirement. The fact that the Eagle Road WWTP is an extended aeration plant (long MCRT) makes this even more difficult. • TN and TP: remove proposed limits based on Town not expanding or upgrading facility during this permit term for reasons discussed above. • TRC: remove proposed limit based on Town not expanding or upgrading facility during this permit term for reasons discussed above. • The Town will comply with the Tier 2 Color permitting Strategy requirements which includes effluent color monitoring, instream monitoring, and preparation of a Pollution Prevention/Best Management Practices report. • The Town requests that the Phenol monitoring requirement be removed. The State previously dropped all other parameters characteristic of industrial discharge permits including chromium, sulfides and COD. Since the Town's purchase of the Eagle Road WWTP, all monthly monitoring samples have resulted in phenol concentrations at or below the detection limit. • The Town requests that the Conductivity monitoring requirement be removed. The only potential source of excessive conductivity (salts) is the one SIU. If necessary, the Town can include conductivity in the SIU's monitoring program in lieu of the Town's daily monitoring program. The Town requests that both "pH control" and "flow equalization basin with mechanical aeration" components be removed from the Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet. These process steps are not included in the current treatment train. as far as Cm concerned � Jam/' i7� nCt'A Subject: as far as I'm concerned (— r7 (�1 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:11:41 -0400 From: Hyatt.Marshall@epamail.epa.gov To: tom.belnick@ncmail.net due to resolution of outstanding issues, you can issue City of Cramerton and City of Greensboro North Buffalo Creek. 1 of 1 4/16/02 3:03 PM Comments on Town of Cramenon - Eagle Road W WTP Subject: Comments on Town of Cramerton - Eagle Road WWTP Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:12:42 -0500 From: Hyatt.Marshall@epamail.epa.gov To: tom.belnick@ncmail.net CC: dave.goodricb@ncmail.net, Ejimofor.Caroline@epamail.epa.gov Caroline initially reviewed this and I've finalized the comments. Pls respond via email to me and copy her. thanks Marshall 1) The NC NPDES application was signed by a Mr. Croquet, who is the wastewater dept. director. 40 CFR 122.22(a)(3) specifies that a ranking elected official be the signatory to the permit appl. The 1/7/02 certification sent by the City is signed by a Mr. Young. If he is a ranking elected official, that would suffice. If not, we do not believe that this application can be considered to be complete. Also, 40 CFR 122.21(i)(2)(iii)(A) requires a line drawing of water flow through the facility showing volumes at all points in the treatment process. This is not present. 02) Ala instances of "PH" within the draft permit should be changed to pH 3) All POTWs are required, unless impracticable, to include average nl weekly and average monthly discharge limitations (40 CFR 122.45(d)(1)). The draft permit does not include a weekly average limit for NH3-N. We recognize that this is a global issue awaiting resolution. 4) The IWC is roughly 5%, so there is 20:1 dilution at 7Q10. The permit does contain more stringent than secondary limits for BOD5 (10 mg/l monthly avg). Is that 10 mg/1 value based on a wasteload allocation or some other model? If so, why is there no effluent minimum limit for DO? Pls help us understand this. )n L1vk s,Irfl I of 1 3/22/02 9:24 AM III WE (o co State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director March 6, 2002 1 i5i� ��i [�7 :7:\ ► i 1 i h� l To: Britt Setzer NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer Mooresville Regional Office From: Tom Belnick NPDES Unit Subject: Review of NPDES Permit NC0006033 Town of Cramerton/ Eagle Road WWTP CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF '_NT AND NATURAL RESOURCES NC DEPT. b"r EITORC'7 c;:T AND PIATU',. S'. R = ,','r'-iCZS MOORESVIU I ' r,, q. , MAR 0 8 2002 Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed permit renewal and return this form by APRIL 13, 2002. If you have any questions on the proposed modification, please contact me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed at the bottom of this page. RESPONSE: (Check one) Concur, properly, this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained ifi4tkwe met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not Concurs with ance ofC �e a e permit, pr e}. a Iifollowing conditions are met: ` C _.... ❑ Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached: 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617 919 733-5083, extension 543 (fax) 919 733-0719 VISIT us ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.no.u&/NPDES tom.belnick@ ncmail.net F WATF 1 f S I, f ,� j , Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary CO >—i W North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph.D. OY l Acting Director Division of Water Quality November 16, 2001 Mr. Jamie Shytle POTW Director Town of Cramerton 155 North Main Street Cramerton, NC 28032 Subject: Short Term Monitoring Plan Review, Industrial User Permit Review, Town of Cramerton, Gaston County, NPDES Number: NC0060333. Dear Mr. Shytle, The Pretreatment Unit of the Division of Water Quality has reviewed the Short Term Monitoring Plan for the Town of Cramerton Wastewater Treatment Plant, received on October 5, 2001. The review indicates that the.STMP is adequate and meets the requirements needed to establish a site -specific headworks analysis, as it strictly follows the Division's model STMP from the Comprehensive Guide. Proper implementation of a STMP is also required by Part III (13)(3), of the NPDES permit. For additional information or examples, please refer to the Comprehensive Guidance for North Carolina Pretreatment Programs (Comprehensive Guide), or contact the Pretreatment Unit Central Office. The Division of Water Quality Pretreatment Unit has received and reviewed the Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) submitted by the Town of Cramerton for the following Significant Industrial User: 11 IUP# 001 1 Mastercraft Fabrics, L.L.C. The permit was received on November 2, 2001. The review of this permit modification indicates that the IUP is adequate and meets the minimum requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0905 and .0916, and 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii). The Division's review process assures that the permit, Allocation Table, and other supporting documents, have been properly placed in the Division's files and that key information is entered and updated in the state's database where they are maintained for public record. NCDENR NC—DENR.IAVQ.I'RETREATMENTUNIT Telephone: 919-733-508t Fax: 919-715.2941 1617 MAIL SF.RVICt C 1 N I'ER, RALEIGH, NC 27699.1617 An Equal Opprrlunily Amrmadw kction Employer Website: htip://h_.,.eur.state.nc.us/Pretreat/index.htmi 50% recycled/10% pu.i-consumer paper Thank you for your continued cooperation with the Pretreatment Program. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Keyes McGee at (919) 733-5083 extension 580 (keyes.mcgee@ncmail.net) or Tom S. Poe, Supervisor of the Pretreatment Unit (ext. 522) (tom.poe @ ncmai l .net). Sincerely, 7,, s P. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD. - 4 Path: Adshare\Cramerton\Cramerton_STMP&IUP 003.doc CC: Laurene C. Rhyne, P.E., AquaLaurene, Inc. John Lesley, Mooresville Regional Office TKM, Pretreatment File Central Files AquaLaurene, Inc. 1220 Yale Place Charlotte, NC 28209 NC-DNR, DWQ PRETREATMENT UNIT 1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617 Attn: Keyes McGee Re: Town of Cramerton Short Term Monitoring Plan Dear Keyes: � 6538 ST'�1P Phone: 704-621-7331 Fax: 704-5254264 Email: aqualaurene@alltel.net On behalf of the Town of Cramerton, I am submitting their Short Term Monitoring Plan for your review. The Town is going to sample for their headworks as soon as possible. We have received the completed permit applications from the two known SIUs and will be ready to permit them as soon as the headworks is complete. We are also starting an industrial waste survey, to make ensure we have no other SIUs. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, C) vaz. 1� W� (2. 59"�� Laurene C. Rhyne, PE enclosure cc: Jamie Shytle John Leslie, Mooresville Regional Office SHORT TERM MONITORING PROGRAM TOWN OF CRAMERTON Treatment Process: Activated Sludge with Land Application SAMPLING POINTS (See Figure 1) Point Location 1 Influent - Prior to mixing with Side Streams 2 Effluent - after chlorination 3 Activated Sludge Basin 4 Sludge to Disposal 5 SIU 001 - Mastercraft Fabrics, LLC (Projected) 6 SIU 002 - Lakewood Dyed Yams (Projected) mini I i ITnNTc nF: r_nNr.FRN Pollutant Of Concern Limited by NPDES* Monitoring in NPDES Land Application Permit 40CFR503 EPA Required SIU Permitted (PROJECTED) ALUMINUM ARSENIC BOD CADMIUM CHLORINE 40 CHROMIUM ® ® ® • COD COPPER CYANIDE LEAD ® ® • • MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NH3 ® ® 0 NICKEL SELENIUM SULFIDES TKN TSS ZINC PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM NITRATE -NITRITE N PHENOLS * THE TOWN OF CRAMERTON OPERATES THEIR WWTP UNDER AN INDUSTRIAL PERMIT ISSUED TO THE COMPANY FROM WHICH THE TOWN PURCHASED THE PLANT. NCDEM HAS NOT ISSUED A NEW PERMIT. FLOWS EFFLUENT FLOWS ARE MONITORED CONTINUALLY SLUDGE FLOWS TO DISPOSAL ARE DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENT BY THE SLUDGE HAULER SLUDGE PERCENT SOLIDS ARE DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENT BY THE SLUDGE HAULER SIU MONITORING ALL SIUS ARE MONITORED BY THE CITY ONCE EVERY 6 MONTHS Cramerton STMP 09/28/2001 Draft Plan 1.' SHORT TERM MONITORING PROGRAM TOWN OF CRAMERTON SAMPLING SCHEDULE SAMPLING POINT WITHIN 1 YEAR BEFORE HWA* 1- INFLUENT 4 Consecutive workdays (Mon.-Thurs.) 2 - EFFLUENT 4 Consecutive workdays (Mon.-Thurs.) 3 -ACTIVATED SLUDGE Once 4 - SLUDGE TO DISPOSAL PER SLUDGE PERMIT AND 503 REGULATIONS 5&6 SIU'S Once every 6 months (every year) * New Program, HWA pending SAMPLING LOCATION P.O.C. ALUMINUM ARSENIC BOD CADMIUM - CHROMIUM COD COPPER LEAD MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NH3 NICKEL NITRATE -NITRATE N SELENIUM SULFIDES TKN TSS ZINC PHOSPHORUS PHENOLS FLOW % SOLIDS DETECTION LEVEL AND SAMPLE METHOD Dectection Limit Sample Method* P.O.C. (mg/1) ALUMINUM 0.1 composite .ARSENIC 0.01 composite BOD 2 composite CADMIUM 0.002 composite CHROMIUM 0.005 composite COD 10 composite COPPER 0.002 composite LEAD 0.01 composite MERCURY 0.0002 composite MOLYBDENUM 0.1 composite NH3 0.1 composite NICKEL 0.01 composite NITRATE-NITRAT 0.1 composite SELENIUM 0.01 composite SULFIDES 1 composite TKN 0.1 composite TSS 2 composite ZINC 0.01 composite PHOSPHORUS 0.1 composite PHENOLS 0.001 grab * Aeration Basin & Sludge to disposal samples shall be grab samples. Sampling, preservation and analytical method from 40CFR136. Cramerton STMP 09/28/2001 Draft Plan SHORT TERM MONITORING PROGRAM TOWN OF CRAMERTON FIGURE 1: FACILITY PLAN BAR SCREEN 3► 1 AERATION z w J z RETURN SLUDGE SUPERNATE SAMPLING POINTS 1 Influent 2 Effllulent 3 Activated Sludge Basin 4 Sludge to Disposal CLARIFIERS CHLORINE CONTACT & REAERATION (2) z w 2 w SOUTH U) FORK RIVER O J AEROBIC SLUDGE > DRYING > (4 DIGESTOR BEDS Cramerton STMP 09/28/2001- Draft Plan d� Town of Cramerton f Hereafter in this permitrefetred to as the Control Authority PERMIT Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP) To Discharge Wastewater Under the Industrial Pretreatment Program 001 410 IUP Number 40 CFR Category In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, any applicable federal categorical pretreatment regulations, all other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the Control Authority Sewer Use Ordinance. The following Industry, hereafter referred to by namr�.. as..the permittee:Industry name, permittee: Mastercraft Fabrics, LLC. Street Address 651 Eagle Road Mailing Address. P.O. Box 297 City: Cramerton . State, Zip: NC. 28032 i� cv a N I o z i� is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from the facility located at the above listed aS;=- Industry name, permittee: Lakewood Dyed Yarns Industry name, permittee: Eagle Mountain Finishin , LLC Facih'ty Located at Street Address 345 Eastwood Drive Facility Located at Street Address 651 Eagle Road City: Cramerton OF Cramerton State, Zip: NC, 28032 State, 7p: NC, 28032 into the sanitary sewer collection system and the wastewater treatment facility of the Control Authority listed below: IUP Control Authority WWTPname: Cramerton NVWTP NPDES Number: NCO006033 WWTP Address: NCSR 2565 City, state, zip:Cramerton, NC 28032 in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and all other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III of this Industrial User Pretreatment Permit (IUP). Effective date, this permit and the authorization to discharge shall Expiration date, this permit and the authorization to discharge become effective at noon on this date: shall expire at midnight on this date: November 1, 2001 October 31, 2006 Date PofwfKector IUP, Part I, Section A: Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements: The permittee may discharge from this specific pipe number according to these specific dates, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Daily Maximum Conventional Parameters Flow monitor onl BOD monitor onl TSS monitor onl Tem erature monitor only PH monitor onl, Other Parameters Ammonia Nitro en monitor or Cadmium, T monitor onl Chromium, T monitor onl Co er, T monitor on] C anide, t monitor on] Lead, T monitor on Merc monitor on Molybdenum T monitor o Nickel T monitor on Oil & Grease monitor on Phenols monitor or Phos horus monitor or Sulfides monitor or TTO * 1 monitor of Zinc, monitor of ..; , TTn after nne la (* n may ce Receivin PCTW.> South Fork Catawba River IU Name-> Mastercraft Fabrics, Inc. Receivin P4TW NPDES-> NC000 IUP#-> pipe#-> 0001 001 Effective date for these Limits-; 10/3�060633 40 CFR 410 ,Xpiration date for these I.irruts 1 201 ME LIMITS ON THIS PAGE ARE LIMITS Units Monitoring Frequency B Indus B POTW Continuous n/a jMGD m 1 / Month n/a m 1/ Month n/a De . C. Continuous n/a Std. Units Continuous n/a m 1 1/ Month n/a In I Month n/a m 1 1/ Month n/a m /l 1 / Month n/a m 1 1/ Month n/a m 1 1/ Month n/a In l 1/ Month n/a m 1 1 / Month n/a m 1/ Month n/a m 1 1/ Month n/a m 1 11 Month n/a m l 1/ Month n/a In l 1/ Month n/a In 1/ Month * 1 n/a In l/ Month n/a for 11/112001 thr Sample Collection Method n/a C C G G C EFEICC C G C C C C C G C G G C ou h 2l28102 Required Laboratory Detection Limits n/a 2 2 n/a n/a ---------------- 0.1 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.0002 0.1 0.01 5.0 0.01 0.1 1.0 0.01 0.01 IUP, Part I, Section A: Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements: The permittee may discharge from this specific pipe number according to these specific dates, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Receiving POTW-> South Fork Catawba River Receiving POTW NPDES-> NC0006033 Effective date for these Limits-> 11/1/2001 Expiration date for these Limits-> 10/31/2006 TTTL` T TILXTTC f%XT rrUTC VA!_V APT T T1UlTTC fnr 'A/1 IU Name-> Master IUP#-> 0001 Pipe#-> 001 40 CFR 410 ►nng thrrn,ah 1 mi Fabrics. Inc. Daily Maximum Units Monitoring Frequency Sample Collection Method Required Laboratory Detection Limits Conventional Parameters By Industry B POTW Flow Pending HWA MGD Continuous n/a n/a n/a BOD Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 2 TSS Pending HWA m i 1/ Quarter 1/ 6 mo. C 2 Temperature 400 C Deg. C. Continuous 1 / 6 mo. G n/a PH 6-8 Std. Units Continuous 1 / 6 mo. G n/a Other Parameters Ammonia Nitrogen Pending HWA mg/1 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.1 Cadmium, T Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.002 Chromium, T Pending HWA m 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.005 Copper, PendingHWA m 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.002 Cyanide, t Pending HWA m 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. G 0.01 Lead, T Pending HWA m 1 1/ Quarter 1/ 6 mo. C 0.01 Mercury, Pending HWA m 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.0002 Molybdenum T Pending HWA mg/1 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.1 Nickel T Pending HWA mg/1 1/ Quarter 1/ 6 mo. C 0.01 Oil & Grease Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 5.0 Phenols Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. G 0.01 Phosphorus Pending HWA mg/1 1 / Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.1 Sulfides Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. G 1.0 TTO * 1 Pending HWA mg1l I / Quarter(* 1 once G 0.01 Zinc, Pending HWA m 1/ Quarter 1 / 6 mo. C 0.01 * 1 may certify 'ITC after one laboratory analysis See next section, IUP, Part I, Section I for Definitions and Limits Page Notes. lij Rfl0/1(Ab C TOWN OF �N CJ�n7L1, Mr. Tom Belnick NC DENR/DWQ NPDES Unit 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Dear Tom: MAR 2 8 2DD1 OENR • WATER QUALITY POINT SOURCE BRANCH March 16, 2001 I would like to thank you for your call regarding our permit renewal deadline and also the location of the on-line renewal form via the Internet web site. The Town of Cramerton is presently constructing a new force main and upgrading the Baltimore liftstaion which will enable us to send all of the Town's wastewater to the newly acquired Eagle Road WWTP. Upon completion of this project in early May of 2001 the Hamrick Road WWTP will be taken off line and out of operation eliminating the NPDES Discharge point NC0055948. To satisfy the NCDENR/DWQ, NPDES Permit Application renewal process for the Town ofCramerton's Eagle Road WWTP (NPDES NC0006033) We have attached the following information. • NC DENR?DWQ?NPDES Permit application - Standard Form A. • Facility Description, Schematic of Wastewater Flow, and Potential Facility Changes which are illustrated in a report compiled by J.N. Pease Engineers Inc. • Location Map If you require any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at the Eagle Road WWTP. My phone number is 704-825-7499 and the Fax number is 704-825-9049. Sincerely Yours; -- Craig D. oquet Wastewater Department Director 155 North Main Street Cramerton, NC 28032 704/824-4337