The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDEQ-CFW_00004452�' • R •' �' A) Type of permits or plans most familiar with: I. Individual Penuits (1,266) 11 1.Municipal WWTPs 295 a. Evaluation of 128 Pretreatment POTWs — Majors b. Evaluation of 46 majors without pretreatment program c. Evaluation of 121 minor municipals < 1 MGD 2. Private 100`/®domestic WWTPs - 487 3.lndustrial WWTPs 227 a. 66 Majors Total -Industrial Process & Commercial b. 161 Minors Total - Industrial Process & Commercial 4. Groundwater remediation discharges - 38 5. Water Treatment Plant discharges - 219 OVTRlliRX1N1 General Permits (1,741) 1) Non -contact cooling water, boiler blowdown- cooling tower, condensate, hydroelectric dams 2) Groundwater remediation (for petroleum) 3) Sand dredging Primary customer: (examples: commercial facility, residential, local government, farmers) 1. Individual Permits -1,266 (Table A. contains a list of Active NPDES Individual Permits for wastewater(6-2-2011). Table A. Municipals were put under section 1.; Table A. Private 100% domestic under section 2; etc. 1. Municipal WWTPs Total of 295 [158 large and major > 1 MGD, 16 small and major < 1 MGD (128 of majors =14 small + 114 large have Pretreatment Programs), 121 minor municipals < 1 MGD with no Pretreatment programs] a. Evaluation of 128 Pretreatment POTWs - Majors Thirty major Pretreatment Municipalities were reviewed to assess the impact of the proposed dissolved metal standards on the facilities NPDES effluent limitations. The impact disscussed below specifically refers to the total metal effluent limitations put in the Permittee's or POTW's NPDES permit. In order to assess the full impact on the POTWs, the Pretreatment unit used these effluent numbers to determine allowable influent metal concentrations to each Pretreatment POTW. Once allowable influent concentrations were determined, any additional impact on the POTW could be assessed based on possible allocations (metal loadings) available to the POTW's significant industrial users (SIUs). Simply, if the influent allocations did not change, there would be no impact to the SIUs. If the metal allocations decreased and significantly affected SIU allocations, the POTW or the industry would have to take mitigative action(s) or pursue options that might help increase the allowable influent loading (ie. WER, moving the outfall to a larger stream, etc.). A copy of the total metal limitations that would be put in the 30 Pretreatment POTWs' NPDES permits based on the proposed regulations are supplied in TABLE B - NPDES Effluent Limits for Pretreatment POTWs. NPDES effluent limitations calculated based on the proposed standards showed an impact on 5 of the 30 Pretreatment POTWs. These five POTWs would receive additional effluent limitations as a result of the proposed rules and 2 of the five facilities (6.7%) would possibly have to persue mitigative measures. Extrapolating these numbers to the 128 Pretreatment POTWs would mean 21 Facilities (16.7%) would receive additional limitations and 8-9 facilities would be required to take possible mitigative action. To evaluate the type of mitigative measures the facilities might take to meet the standards, specifications on the two POTWs ` expected to exceed standards are listed below: Additional Effluent limits to be put in the NPDES permit: reduce Pb limit to 7.7 ug/L chronic and 195 ug/L acute (current effluent max 15, avg. 3.1) reduce Ni limit to 78 ug/L and chronic / 695 acute Additional Effluent limits to be put in the NPDES permit: reduce Pb limit to 9 ug/L chronic and 216 ug/L acute (current effluent max 33, avg. 10) reduce Cd limit tol.5 ug/L chronic and 8.1 ug/L acute 1 DEQ-CFW 00004452 (current effluent max 281.avg20 (current effluent max 4.3, avg. 3) Hamby Creek WWTP can analyze and minimize the sources of the pollutants to seek reductions of Pband Ni, evaluate the possibility ofperforming aWEIR for site specific standards, orconsider possibletreatment alternatives. The City uf Lexington can have its laboratory sample s8lower PQLo for Pb so the average discharge oflead will meet the chronic limit but potential for violations still exist. Source reductions would be the best alternative for Lexington as an initial approach to the problem. Note that inmany cases the proposed limits determined for Pband Cdwere less than the PQLeand current sampling results also show these metals in the wastewaters at less than the PQLs. Therefore, until sampling techniques are improved it is not clear whether the facilities are actually meeting their calculated limitations or whether additional mitigative measures will be necessary. IQ �' • R •' �' Municipal WWT Ps b. Evaluation of 46 majors without pretreatment programs (> 1 MGD) 174 major POTWs (large and small) —128 major Pretreatment POTWs = 46 majors without pretreatment programs > 1 MGD I reviewed the list of non -Pretreatment POTWs — majors. Six of the 46 facilities reviewed currently have a limit for Cd, Pb or Ni In their permit. Therefore, Cd, Pb, or Ni concentrations were reported at levels showing reasonable potential to violate WQS when the permit was last renewed. It is reasonable to assume that since the new criteria will result In Rawer concentration limits for all three metals; these same facilities are likely to be impacted by the adoption of the dissolved metals standards. Idly best estimate is (6/45 * 100) or 13% of the non -Pretreatment POTWs — majors will be impacted by the adoption of the new standards. 0 DEQ-CFW 00004454 J; i�!Iqjipi mill I I I Municipal WWTPs c. Evaluation of 121 minor municipals < 1 MGD Eight of the 121 minor POTWs were reviewed and it does not appear that the proposed standards will have an impact on these facilities. Minor POTW's with 100% domestic wastewaters are not sampling for metals because they are not pollutants of concern in such wastewaters. IH DEQ-CFW-00004455 2. Privately Owened10]%domeoUoVVVVTPo 0AI|Minors —Total 4871 Privately owned includes County school VVVVTPm Plus 14State and OFederal facilities These facilities receive 100%domestic wastewater and metals are not expected Nbeintheir waateetroam. None nfthese facilities are expected toboaffected bvthe proposed standards. Note that inmany cases the proposed limits determined for Pband Cdwere less than the PQL'nand any current sampling results also show these metals in the wastewaters skless than the PQLe. Therefore, until sampling techniques are improved itionot clear whether any ofthe facilities sampling for these metals are actually meeting their calculated limitations or whether additional mitigative measures would bonecessary. TobleC. State and Federal Facilities considered ao privately owned 100%domestic VVVVTPn State 14Foci|itigs Odom Correctional Institute NCO027642 NCDepartment ufCorrection VVVVTP 100%Domestic <1M8D NCO030180 NCDepartment ofCorrection Blanch Youth Center VVVVTP 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCO032166 Appalachian State University Camp BroadetnneVVVVTP 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCDENR (Division of Parks & Pilot Mountain State Park NCO031160 Recreation) VVVVTF 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCO029190 NCDepartment ofTransportation GurryCounty Rest Area 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCO028606 NCDepartment ofTransportation |-T7Rest Area |mdo||County 1OO96Domestic <1MGD NCO028614 NCDepartment ofTransportation |'7TRest Area Yadkin County 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD Guilford Correctional Center NC0029726 NCDepartment ofCorrection VVVVTP 1OO96Domestic <1MGD NODENF/DivioionofForest 8.H.CorponingForestry NCO040339 Raeounmn Training Center 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCO024805 NCDepartment ofTransportation Haywood County Rest Area 1OO96Domestic <1MGD NCO027685 NCDepartment ofCorrection Avery Correctional Center 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD Blue Ridge Youth Center NCO073962 NCDepartment ofCorrection VVVVTP 1OO96Domestic <1MGD Betsy Jeff Penn 4H NCO078271 NCState University Educational Center VVVVTP 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCDENR(Division ofParks & The Summit atHaw River NCO046019 Recreation) State Park VVVVTP 1OO96Domestic <1MGD Federal GFmci|itiws Jackrabbit Mountain NCO021148 USDA UGForest Service Recreation Area VVVVTP 1OO96Domestic <1MGD Lake PovvhatonRecreation NCO020478 USDA UGForest Service Area 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD NCO072729 UGD|National Park Service Mount Pisgah VVVVTP 1OO96Domestic <1MGD NCO020460 USDA UGForest Service Sliding Rock Recreation Area 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD North Mills River Recreation NC0020486 USDA UGForest Service Area 1OO96Domestic <1MGD U8Army / Military Ocean Terminal Military Ocean Terminal / NCO029122 Sunny Point Sunny Point 1OOY6Domestic <1MGD VA State 1 Facility NCO039420 Virginia DOT Virginia DOT71-77 Rest Area 100Y6 Dommstio< 1MGD S Ludnotria}WWT[h - Majors a.00Majors ToUa Industrial Process &Commercial Privately owned = 63 Plus 3 Federal Facilities All three of the Federal facilities listed below have metals in their wastewaters. The last two facilities, NC0003O2Sand NCO003816, are new and we do not have much data on their wastewaters. However, it does appear that NCO003816 which is located in Tidal waters, will violate the proposed and lower saltwater standard for lead. Table D.Federal Industrial VVVVTPs Majors Federal 3 Facilities Department ofthe Army / Fort Bragg VVVVTP&VVTP NC0003964 Directorate nfPublic Works Industrial Process &Commercial NCO063029 U8Marine Corps CamPLeje«n» Camp L jeuneAd»onmadVVVVTp Industrial Process &Commercial US MCA8Cherry Point (MCALF- Cherry Point VVVVTP NCO003816 Atlantic) Industrial Process &Commercial There are 66 major industrial permits, mostly all large privately owned companies. Twenty-one ofthe 66 companies are currently monitoring their wastewaters for Cadmium, Lead and/or Nickel. This review/focused on these 21 facilities since the adoption of the Triennial Review Standards will mainly affect or rather decrease the allowable concentration levels ofthese parameters. Often aparameter isnot limited inapermit unless itisa pollutant showing reasonable potential to violate a State Water Quality Standard. However, in industrial permits this is not always true. Many ofthese facilities are required to monitor certain parameters because they are federally regulated categorical industries. For example metal plating companies are regulated under Federal Effluent Guidelines for Electroplating and Power Companies are regulated under Federal Effluent Guidelines for Steam Electric Plants. These federal regulations specify what pollutants are to be monitored and often provide guidelines on allowable concentrations. When writing a permit these federal allowable concentrations are compared against NC State Water Quality Standards (WQS) for each pollutant and the most stringent concentration is put in the permit as afina| effluent limitation. Which is more stringent, the Federal Effluent Guidelines or the State Water Quality Standards is dependent on several factors such as production, volume of discharge, size of the receiving stream, etc. A thorough review of the Reasonable Potential Analyses to violate NC State WQS's for metals was performed on ten ofthe J1potentially affected industries discussed above. Aspreadsheet listing the Major Industrial Pennittees discharging process & commercial wastewaters is attached and the 21 of the 66 facilities currently monitoring for cadmium, lead and/or nickel are highlighted inyellow. Reasonable Potential Analyses toviolate N[State \NOSfor metals were performed onthe following 10 perm/nees. �' • R •' �' The analyses showed three of the ten industries reviewed would be affected by the proposed standards and would receive more stringent permit limitations. Therefore, if we extrapolate the results to the 21 facilities which are potentially impacted by the adoption of the proposed standards, 3 of 10 or 30% of the 21 facilities are potentially impacted. Note this does not mean the other (66-21= 45) 45 facilities will not be affected only that they are not showing cadmium, lead, or nickel as pollutants of concern at this time in their wastewater discharge. In order to understand the potential costs which may result with the adoption of the Triennial Review dissolved metal standards on these facilities, each case is described below. 1. Global Nuclear Fuel permit #NC0001228 is a multiple manufacturing site for fabrication and assembly of nuclear reactor components including: Fuel Components Operation(FCO) — Formationlfabrication of zirconium alloys into components (channels and tubes) for fuel bundles or reactors(FCO, SIC 3356); nuclear fuel enhancement or Fuel Manufacturing Operations(FMO) — Conversion of uranium hexafluoride to uranium dioxide, conversion of uranium oxide into pellets, addition of pellets to zirconium tubing, and assembly of filled tubing into bundles(FMO, SIC 2819); and fabrication of specialty parts for jet engines (Aircraft Engines, SIC 3724) and reactors (Service Component Operation, SIC 3559). A permit modification was issued in October 2007 for a domestic treatment plant upgrade to add a membrane filter, UV disinfection, overall plant optimization, and the addition of conjunctive reuse of the treated wastewater stream under permit WQ0031317. In addition, a laser -based enrichment plant is scheduled to be in full operations by 2013. It is considered to be in same classification as FMO. Currently Outfall 001 has an Effluent Guideline lead limitation of 33.8 ug1L. With the adoption of the proposed regulations the monthly average lead limitation would be reduced to 31 uglL. While the facility shows reasonable potential to violate the NC WQS for lead, samples taken between 2006 and 2008 have all been < 2.5 uglL with one sample showing a concentration level of 24 uglL. The one sample at 24 uglL is why the facility is showing reasonable potential to violate the lead standard. Since no sampling data exceeds the proposed limit of 31 ug1L it is not likely that any treatment would be needed for this Permittee to comply with the proposed limit. 2. DuPont -Kinston permit #NC0003760 is currently up for sale. In the interim the polyester bulk resin pellet production lines are being operated by E. 1. DuPont. It has several outfalls; the one affected by the proposed rules is Outfall 002 consisting of non - contact cooling water, steam condensate, and storm water discharging at a flow limit of 3.6 million gallons per day to the Neuse River. This Outfall currently has a monthly average lead limitation of 25 ugfL. The proposed rules would result in a new lead limitation of 3 uglL as a monthly average. Samples taken from Nov. 2006 through March 2009 showed all samples with lead concentrations < 2 uglL except one reported at 13 uglL. Therefore, at current production it does not seem treatment would be needed to meet the reduced limitation, however, it is not clear how the lead concentration levels would be impacted if yam and fiber production is increased. 3. Allvac (formerly Teledyne Allvac) permit #NC0045993 produces nickel and titanium alloys in billet, bar and rod form. These processes are regulated under 40 CFR 471.32 and 471.62, Nonferrous Metals Feinting and Metal Powders. Treatment at this facility consists of a series of holding ponds, sand filters and an oil/water separator. The discharge from the pond, on which there is no flows limit, consists of stormwater, process flow (from the rolling mill, forging and saws), blowdown from the cooling towers and noncontact cooling water. Most of the 2.88 MGD of water used in the plant processes (process flow — 9%, cooling tower blowdown — 1.2%, noncontact cooling water — 90%) is recycled wastewater from the pond(s). The majority of the cooling water used at the plant is recycled several times a day being filtered and redistributed throughout the plarrt for various cooling loads. A review of Discharge Monitoring Reports from January 2006 through December 2008 shows that an average monthly effluent discharge of 131.000 gpd leaves outfall 001 and enters Richardson Creek, class C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. Richardson Creek is 303(d) listed for impaired aquatic life (2006) and turbidity violations (2008). According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Richardson Creek is host. to several federal and state endangered and threatened species. The adoption of the proposed rules would reduce Allvac's current lead effluent limitation from 37 ugfL as a monthly average to 4.4 ug1L. Most of the samples reported from Allvac between Jan. 2006 and June 2009 show lead concentrations at an average concentration of 5.76 uglL with one sample showing a maximum level of 28 ug1L. Since these levels exceed the proposed limitation the facility would have to find a way to limit lead in the wastestream or install treatment to reduce the levels of lead in the effluent. N DEQ-CFW 00004458 �' • R •' �' In addition, the current mass loading limitation for nickel, based on Effluent Guidelines, would be reduced with the adoption of the proposed standards WQS from approximately 80 uglL to 55 ug1L as a monthly average. The daily maximum would be increased from 34 ug1L to 107 uglL. Data collected between Jan. 2006 and June 2009 show nickel concentrations at an average level of 43 ug1L with one sample showing a maximum level of 160 ug/L. Since the current monthly average is less than the proposed limit but the daily max is greater than the propose acute standard it is not clear whether treatment would be necessary to meet this proposed limitation. 0 DEQ-CFW 00004459 Industrial WW7Pe-Minors b. |U| Minoru 7o{m] ' Industrial Process &Commercial] Privately owned =15 Plus 5 State and 5 Federal facilities Table E. State and Federal Industrial WWTPs - Minors State 4Fmc|itiaa NCO025305 UNC-ChapelHiU NCO027626 NCDepartment ofCorrection NCO041386 NCDepartment ofCommerce NCO055055 NCDepartment ofTransportation NCO035904 NCDepartment ofCorrection Federal 5Feoi|ibes NCO027332 Tennessee Valley Authority NCD027358 Tennessee Valley Authority NCO027341 Tennessee Valley Authority NCD089061 MCBCamp L jouno NCO088079 MC8Camp L jouno UKC Cogeneration Facility Caledonia WWTP VVanohoeoHarbor Project Marine Maintenance facility McCain Correctional Hospital WWTP Chatuge Hydro Plant HiweumoeHydro Plant Fontana Hydro Plant bejounoBorrow Pits 2and 3 Lejeune Borrow Pit 10 There are 161 minor industrial permits, some large and some small privately owned companies. Eleven ofthe 161 companies are currently monitoring their wastewaters for Cadmium, Lead and/or Nickel. This review focused on these 11 facilities since the adoption of the Triennial Review Standards will mainly affect or rather decrease the allowable concentration levels ofthese parameters. Often aparameter isnot limited inapermit unless itisa pollutant showing reasonable potential toviolate a State Water Quality Standard. However, in industrial permits this isnot always true. Some of these facilities are required to monitor certain parameters because they are federally regulated categorical industries. For example metal plating companies are regulated under Federal Effluent Guidelines for Electroplating and Power Companies are regulated under Federal Effluent Guidelines for Steam Electric Plants. These federal regulations specify what pollutants are to be monitored and often provide guidelines on allowable concentrations. When writing a permit these federal a||uvvab|e concentrations are compared against NC State Water Quality Standards (VVQS)for each pollutant and the most stringent concentration is put in the permit as afina| effluent limitation. Which is more stringent, the Federal Effluent Guidelines orthe State Water Quality Standards is dependent on several factors such as production, volume of discharge, size of the receiving stream, etc. The 11 of the 161 minor facilities currently monitoring for cadmium, lead and/or nickel are highlighted in yellow onthe attached spreadsheet listing Minor Industrial 9ennittees discharging process &6commercial wastewaters. Reasonable Potential Analyses toviolate N[ State VVQSfor metals were reviewed for the following 6 perm ittees. 9 Two of the six industries reviewed were found to be potentially affected by the proposed standards and would receive more stringent permit limitations. Therefore, if we extrapolate the results tothe 11 minor facilities which are potentially impacted by the adoption of the proposed standards 2/6 or 33% of the 11 facilities are potentially impacted. Note this does not mean the other (161-11= 150) 150 facilities will not be affected only that they are not showing cadmium, lead, or nickel as a pollutant ofconcern atthis time in their wastewater discharge. In order to understand the potential costs which may result with the adoption of the Triennial Review dissolved metal standards onthese minor facilities, each case isdescribed below. l. Apex Oil, permit #NCO07l463.operates u fuel storage terininal and distribution center in Guilford County. Discharge from the facility consists of hydrostatic tank -testing and maintenance wastes, and stommater runoff controlled by Water Pollution Control System. The Water Pollution Control System consists of: loading rack drains, unoil/water separator, u waste holding tank with optional offsite disposat, pumps to enipty dike containment areas through the oil -water separator,end discharge control valves. This facility discharges under "zero -flow" receiving -stream conditions to an unnamed tributary (UT) of Horsepen Creek [16-11-5-(0.5)], a Class WS-111, NSW stream within the Cape Fear River Basin. Horsepen Creek does not appear on the Division's "impaired"' waterbody 303(d) list. The facility has passed its annualacute toxicity test for the past 8years. Tbcbmih1ycunrenUyhuu|cmihmJotinusof2jug/LuoumondUyuvcmXeund33.8ug/LfnruddlymudmunuSmupUngduk/ from Jan. 2002hoFeb. 2U06shows the facility's discharge contains levels oflead averaging 77ug/Lwith maximum levels around 14W 19ug/L. Recent data can not hoevaluated since the ORCstarted listing the results uobelow detection with out identifying the detection level. He has been contacted and asked to revise the facility's Discharge Monitor Reports. With the adoption of the proposed regulations the monthly average and daily maximum lead limitations would bc2.9and 76 ng/L.respectively. The mmn(hh'average limit may budifficult for the facility Ncomply with and Best Management Practices may have to be modified or treatment installed to meet this lead limitation. Recominencled treatment for a bulk oil terminal with ston-nwater would be Granular Activated Carbon with a chelating agent to removed the lead. /\ description ofthis process and costs are inthe attached document — Metal Dcmove Technologies U]cc.20O3). 2. The House of Raeford Farms. permit #NCO003344, is a facility that slaughters large live chickens (aver. 8 pounds), de -bones them, and packages them fresh. The Permdttee informed the Division that they intend to maintain two, 8-hour slaughter shifts and one clean-up shift per 24-hour cycle, as permitted under federal guidelines, and have submitted production data in support of this schedule commencing approximately iuJuly through December 2U06. For this 6-mmu(hperiod, the PcnnbUno'olive weight killed (LWK)averaged |4.707.]02pounds per month resulting inonaverage 12,656,97#pounds per month offinished product (processed pounds). Federal Effluent. Guidelineo§40 CFR 432,120,Subpart L, Poultry Fu rther Processing were used Ndevelop this permit. This facildy8pnengra6niohedpnoduct(ndwobgN)ozreedbng7miOion|boh/mnU,undioNcszfo»ofurthernubjod8o800honu432,122 (BPT)md 432,123 (BAT). Process wastewaters from this facility are prescreened before transfer to the wastewater treatmentayetem. Waste flow passes through a feather and offal flume, and is screened to recover feathers, meat, and bories for sale to an off -site renderer. Screened water passes to a newly installed dissolved air floatation unit. Treatment at the DAF includes surface skimming for light. solids. pH adjustments (both acid and base), and polymers injected to increase grease and B0Dremoval. The facilth, discharges WRockfish Creek which is listed as inipaired from House of Raeford'odischarge downstream WLittle Rockfish Creek (8.9miles) because of instream6ab/tat degradation and seoinient,based on biological data. Restoration priority is considered "low." Causes are listed as major industrial point source and habitat modification. When the permit was issued in2OO7 many Special Conditions, limitations, and moniNdngmqubrmun10were added. 8nMarch |8.2OlOaJudicial Order hyConsent was issued !othis facikiy. Sampling data from Jan2006 through Dec.2006 was used to develop the permit. This time period reflected Dew ownership and operational shift changes. The proposed rules would set mcadmium monthly average limit m(|.34ug/L. The sampling data reported levels ofoudndumoL<2ug/Lexcept for two samples, one oL|7ugI and one u136ug/L. The facility believes the high cadmium levels were due to renovations performed at. the plant but no specific evidence was presented. DMRdmta for the last two years shows cadmium o{< 5ug/L(the detection level unod). bionot clear whether this bmibiywill beable Nmeet the proposed cadmium limitation ornot. The facility has been asked Ntest cadmium m(mlower detection level. Km OEQ-CFVV_00004461 4. Groundwater remediation discharges [All Minors - Total 88] Privately owned — 35 Plus 8State facilities A review of all the groundwater remediation sites shows that 14 of the 38 facilities have metals in their waterwaters. TABLE F. includes a list of all groundwater remediation facilities and identifies which sites have metals in their wastewaters. While most of the sampling data for the metals are < the PQLs the proposed limitations for these facilities would bo<the PQLneawell. Most of these facilities discharge to zero low flow streams and no hardness data is available k>accurately assess the impact ofthe new standards. |tiolikely that the proposed standards will affect groundwater mmodiationfacilities that have Cd or Pb levels greater than detection. Since source reduction is not an alternative these faciltiies will have to provide costly treatment or persue a WER to potentially comply with the proposed standards. Assume some percent will have Uupemuomitigative measures. Aonnzx Snfthe facilities with metals intheir discharge contain Cd, Pb, Cr or Ni in their wastewaters. Groundwater remediation sites are considered to have complex wastewaters so toxicity testing is put in these permits unless aquatic toxgrants permission Nremove the requirement. Twelve ofthe 14sites identified above anshowing metals in their wastewaters have WET testing in their permits. Aquatic tox allowed two facilities to remove the requirement. Table G. State Groondvvatarran/odhation discharges - ndnore State 4 Facilities NCDepartment of NCO085878 Transportation NCDepartment of NCO087629 Transportation NCO088128 North Carolina State University Rosman Maintenance Facility Asphalt Testing Site #O University - Lot 86 GmundweterRomediaUon GmundweterRomediaUon 11 5. Water TraotnxeuiPlant discharges t3major, 217 Municipal & Privately Owned =3lG Plus 8State owned Tmb|eH. State Water Treatment. Plants - ndnor State 3 Facilities NCO044423 Appalachian State University Appalachian State VVTP Water Treatment Plant N00074524 Western Carolina University Western Carolina University VVTP Water Treatment Plant NCO077500 NCDepartment ofTransportation Ferry Division VVTP Water Treatment Plant Water Treatment Plants (WTP) are divided into four groups based on the type of treatment used to produce potable water. There are 110 Conventional Water Treatment Plants, 47 Greensand facilties, 19 Reverse Osmosis or membrane treatment facilities, and 39 WTPs using Ion exchange. According to DWQ's WTP Strategy these facilities monitor for the following RO'nfor As, Cu, °Zn.and Fe |Esfor Cu, °Zn' Pb' Fe and Mn Conventional for Cu, °Zn' Fe, Mn' and Al Gnaonoand for°Zn' Fe, and Mn *Zn is only monitored if used in the treatment process The proposed metal standards primarilyaffentho|imitaonCd.Pb.NiondCtAreviewofthemotalseboveohowa1hs8 most ofthese feo|Uenare not expected tndischarge Cd.Pb, NiurCrintheir effluent wastewaters except Ion exchange VVTPnwhich have been noted k>have lead intheir effluent. Aowith all permits there are always exceptions hnthe monitoring requirements if additional pollutants are found in the permittees discharge. All VVTPucurrently sampling for Cd'Fizand/or Niwere reviewed and are listed below. An expected,given the VVTP strategy parameters identified above, no conventional orgreennand VVTPawere found sampling forCd. Pb' or Ni These parameters are not pollutants of concern at these WTPs, however, conventional and greensand facilities discharging to zero low flow streams would receive limits at or below current PQLs for Cd and Pb which may be difficult to meet. |tisnot possible &umake such anevaluation atthis time. Eight out of1SRO'sare currently sampling for nickel and/or lead. One ROfacility was identified an possiblybeing impacted bvthe proposed etandarde(high|ightedinTable H. below). The RodanUhoVVTPcurrently has alead limit of25 ug/Lwhich will be reduced 0n8.1 ug/Lwhon the chronic standards are adopted for saltwater. hincurrently discharging |oed s8amax concentration of1Oug/Land would therefore potonUa||yvio|atoUlopmponodaa|twater|eadstandandof8.1 ug/L. |tcan not boconcluded that any other RO WTP will be impacted by the proposed lead standard for saltwater since several other RO's with SA stream classifications are not showing potential to violate the stanadrd (Kill Devil & Ogden). Note, the Tyrell County RO showed reasonable potential to exceed the proposed freshwater nickel water quality standard ofR.2ug/Lbut itshows reasonable potential &nviolate the current standard ofR.3ug/Lmawell. NnROVVTPaare expected to be impacted by the proposed nickel standards since the difference between the current and proposed standards are Four out of11 Ion Exchange URWTPs sampling for lead infreshwater are showing potential toboimpacted by the proposed freshwater chronic lead standard (highlighted inTable H). There are atotal of10|Efacilities infreshwater ooif wmassume 3O96are affected N/11 ^1DO\than 3OY6of1Oequals OIon Exchange facilities potentially being impacted bv the proposed freshwater chronic lead standard. Two out of1OIon Exchange WTPs sampling for lead in saltwater are showing potential to be impacted by the proposed saltwater chronic lead standard (high|ighted). There are atotal of23|Efacilities infreshwater noifwmassume 12.5%are affected (D1O°1OO)than 12.596nf23equals 3Ion Exchange facilities potentially being impacted bvthe proposed saltwater chronic lead standard. Overall, approximately1Oout of21Sor5Y6ofthe VVTPnare expected 0zbeimpacted by the proposed standards. 12 J; i�!iljipi mill I 1 1 I I n �1 n 0 E r, in = Mz-UT 'a 1 0. E F EM W R 1L= W Faciflity Permit # WTP Type Stream Class IWC IN Cd, Pb, or Ni showing RIP Max reported effl. Conic. New std. vs current Cedar Island Ferry Terminal NCO077500 RO SA; ORW tidal Ni - chronic 8.2 / 8.3 ug/L Roclanthe WTP NCO083909 RO SA; HQW tidal Pb - chronic 10 ug/L & 1 / 25 ug//L Hatteras WTP NCO085707 RO & IE SA; HQW 6.5 Ni - chronic 4.1 / 4.2 ug/L Tyrelll County NCO086924 RO SIB tidal Ni - chronic RP 168 8.2 / 8.3 ug/L Camden County WTP NCO086681 RO SIB tidal none Some Ni 8.2 / 8.3 ug/L Kill Devil Hills NCO070157 RO SIB Tidal none Ogden Nanofiltration WTP NCO088307 RO SA; ORW tidal none Belhaven NCO086584 RO C; NSW; Sw 100 none Some Ni 8.2 / 8.3 ug/L Freemason WTP NCO007552 IE B; NSW 100 none Beaver Hill WTP NCO086291 IE B; NSW 100 None Vanceboro WTP NCO080071 IE C; Sw; NSW 100 none South Mills WTP NCO007978 IE C; Sw 100 Pb - chronic 3 / 28 ug/L Creswell WTP NCO027600 IE C; Sw 100 Pb - chronic 7 ug/L 3 / 25 ug/L Winfall WTP NCO051373 IE C; Sw 100 none Some Pb 3/ 25 ug/L Town of ChOGowinity NCO083224 I E C; Sw; NSW 100 Pb - chronic 21 ug/L 3 / 25 ug/L The Harbour — Wells #1 &2 NCO084565 I E WS-IV; B & CA 100 Pb - chronic 79 ug/L 3 / 25 ug/L The Harbour —Well #4 NCO086606 I E WS-IV; B & CA 100 Pb- chronic 1200 ug/L 3 / 25 ug/L The Poi nY Well #1 NCO086592 IE WS-IV; B & CA none Snow Hill Subdivision NCO088617 IE:greensand C 100 none Pine Street WTP NCO072699 IE SC tidal none Glenda Drive WTP NCO072702 IE SA; HOW tidal none Brown Blvd. WTP NCO078131 IE SC; Sw; NSW tidal none Pamlico County NCO088323 IE SC; NSW; Sw tidal Pb - chronic 133 ug/L 8,11 / 25 ug/L Perquimans Co. Water Dept. NCO068861 IE SC tidal none Atlantic' Beach WTP NCO044806 IE SA; HQW tidal Pb - chronic 22 ug/L 8,11 / 25 ug/L West Carteret WTP NCO077143 IE SA; HQW tidal none Laurel Road WTP NCO086975 IE SA; HQW tidal none Town of Oriental WTP NCO088447 IE SA; HWQ; NSW tidal none Washington WTP NCO081191 IE SB; NSW tidal none Richard WTP NCO084808 IE:greensand SC; NSW tidal Hill Road WTP NCO087041 IE:greensand SB; NSW tidal none Chocowinity / Richard Town NCO087491 IE:greensand SB; NSW 2.8 none Kershaw WTP NCO088331 IE:greensand SC; NSW tidal None Millpond WTP NCO088340 IE:greensand SC; Sw; NSW tidal Vandemere WTP NCO088358 IE:greensand SC;HQW;NSW;Sw tidal none 11. Geiierat Permits (1,741) The proposed regulations are not expected to impact any of the wastewater NPIDES General Permits. 13 DEQ-CFW-00004464