NC0005185_Wasteload Allocation_19920409

NPDES DOCIMENT $CANNIN`, COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0005185
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
.;
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Speculative Limits
Staff Report
Instream Assessment (67B)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
April 9, 1992
This document is printed on remise paper - ignore any
content on the reirerme side

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0005185
PERMITTEE NAME: Amoco Oil Company
FACILITY NAME: Charlotte Terminal
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 005
Design Capacity: .072* MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow):
0%
100* %
Comments:
* Aquifer remediation project - see attached.
STREAM INDEX: 11-120-5
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Gum Branch
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-08-34
Reference USGS Quad: F15SW, Mtn.Island L.
County: Mecklenburg
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 9/30/91 Treatment Plant Class: 0
Classification changes within three miles:
Becomes WS-III Lake W lie - ca. 8.6 m
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Reviewed
(please attach)
LOTTE
Date: 10/10/91
Date: 4/ a / qz
Date: .3
Jule Shanklin
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
3'14o1
1o1ukgn
(„51)4,
Drainage Area (mi2 ) J , U A Avg. Streamflow (cfs):
O.av
7Q10 (cfs) a. D Winter 7Q10 (cfs) a. o .30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acdte't :hronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters
Upstream Location
Downstream Location
Effluem
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
4Alz g.,l 61 Q>
€7,�i 7/ g
4 �
! V I)L4L V /I)
//
.4%„v i_____--
iv,4 ,
ec--7131 4 Aiti.4.6 0
32 r-
pH (SU)
mini mu iikt
d
, l ( i`Ylkvcu
o4-- V.J. Obi) A-L,IX0a,-/or, cui. ) 6:4/1)0
p In a v-
G.t, /isd GL-eAk,I- 4 dicdeU
C Al. a ,t e-
n ,. n,.. , r , ,
/
Comments:
P5f_ y
Lug prtcfi ca. ' p035i bLP.
fi

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
Amoco Oil Company- Charlotte Terminal
NC0005185
Industrial - 100%
Existing
Renewal
UT Gum Branch
C
030834
Mecklenburg
MRO
Shanklin
10/11/91
F15SW
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 6508
N. C. DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND
VOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAR 1 1 1992
61uISION Of 1809RESVIIIE AMINA Ofilt
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2)
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
0214291345
1989
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.0
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing permit. Tech Support recommends that new groundwater
remediation limits and monitoring requirements be applied.
See cd5a a.Hacl&e01 old recommeac4ions ind;cafe i y 5hoo/d i rrdaied
W new reec 4mendcdi'o»6
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
+/70va&
amA
Regional Supervisor:/Y6
Date: 2/27/92
Date: o o? i
Date:
Permits & Engineering: Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: MAR 1 1992
r»
cZt
rrl
•
R-

3
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit:
Monitoring Schedule:
Reco ended Limits
tu26I '1 Aid):
Benzene g/1):
Toluene :
Ethylbe ne (41):
Methyly//Tert Butyl Ether monitor
DS - AO FOOs' may be d&harged • ova.
ee page three for special monitoring requirements.)
TOXICS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Chronic pass/fail grtrly
100%
NONE
Monthly Average Daily Max.
71.4
11
325
Mon. Freq.
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
D . - T s • Parameter(s) Affected
Change ' 7Q10 data
Change ' stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretiieatment information
Failing tocicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New re ations/standards/procedures
X_ P eter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent 1iirnitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
g
WQ or EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
WQ
No
1'
OR
arameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.

3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the faciity demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No 1.1 /A.
If tlo, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
In
If no, why not?
n
1)There sh • be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
2)Minim treatment will include an oil/water separator, air stripping or diffused aeration and activated
carbon ad o rption.
3)Design . d Construction of the Waste Treatment Facility will emphasize the use of plastic pipes and fit
where prac 'cally possible.
Wasteload ent to EPA? (Major) _N_ (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptionthat were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional ormation attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

r-
c C,4,.‘4,A
03df3y
ldbZ
r

-Jack,,
Actwe ,E2e2 n afrfi `7' - a.c,vai f ltd
; ! (CA) per' cede n r ntS,
_L e rcw_ cv f hick e y? 6° . t
f
trz41. fri LA p.Q. CD Gk (7 r, P h f u idce/1ti ce .
—Pa Old W1A j,(JabgJ d e.C,v 12-eA) USA %el'A Turiltocck
c 1scCm q �% Jzemo da, ((vGv)bo-r Aatip-fi a-), .)
1 n zero-Q
%o GUewe
�h� I bevy r erg
ll. d vl ^Af 6U f
' / fp c1CU e y� f
Cl2U
-,1e;I/666 . (lea) C2d Go
61-1
q-ke w . 0(641, v.k.t ) V `yt, Y/ TyL
did k f ..' ac -t
YI,o /-f a_C)C o- c d/71)
Rt,a,a-P ecd,, /Un-,
MA 04 ?'
I A -azky, °&cc-) .
)477/“;
-7--/LaAAio
Ce_

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Request # 6508
Amoco Oil Company- Charlotte Termina?
I DECN c. nl t%F! 1ATuRAL
F..; 4 Nil
NC0005185
Call 4i 1 1 i . ; `. `'S:7 oPmENT
Industrial - 100%
Existing
Renewal
UT Gum Branch
C
030834
Mecklenburg
MRO
Shanklin
10/11/91
F15SW
F'C 6 i 991
MOORESVILLE REtinl °:1 OFFICE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS # 0214291345
Date: 1989
Drainage Area (mi2) 0.02
Summer 7Q10 (cfs): 0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): 0.0
Average Flow (cfs): 0.02
30Q2 (cfs): 0.0
IWC (%): 100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing permit. Tech Support recommends renewal of existing
limits with modific tion in toxicity requirement (change from 100% concentration to 90%).
4 4,4 (77 3
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended b
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment: ( . 4i4tdM71 Date: la/l/9
Regional Supervisor: , 7)
Permits & Engineering:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:
SaN t.,.-n Z) I S i I

3
TOXICS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic pass/fail qrtrly
Existing Limit: 100%
Recommended Limit: 90%
Monitoring Schedule: Jan Apr Jul Oct
Existing and Recommended Limits
- Monthly Average Daily Max. Mon. Freq. WQ or EL
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9 2/mo WQ
Oil & Grease (mg/1): 30 60 2/mo WQ
Benzene (µg/1): 71.4 Qrtrly WQ
Toluene (µg/1): 11 Qrtrly WQ
Ethylbenzene (1.tg/1): 325 Qrtrly WQ
BOD5 (mg/1): BDL* 2/mo WQ
Iron (µg/1): monitor Qrtrly WQ
Copper (µg/1): monitor Qrtrly WQ
Zinc (µg/I): monitor Qrtrly WQ
Lead (µg/1): monitor Qrtrly WQ
*Below detection level, No BOD5 may be discharged.
Tectoer,three for special monitoring requirements.)
� LOW Cry lI): o•09a--
Limits Changes Due To: Parameter(s) Affected
Change in 7Q10 data
Change in stream classification
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Failing toxicity test
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.)
Instream data
New regulations/standards/procedures
_X_ Parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based
effluent limitations for additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
OR
No parameters are water quality limited, but this discharge may affect future allocations.
cone-; nu&J
rvi on fhb pal mad
6e++1&ole . ,J,ds (ev& /)) o. / e.
TU.vb! d; { (,c./70_,) //of -tv ex ce ccl 50 A/TX /rt, yhe Wiped

3
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy Existing Treatment
Has the f 'ty demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? es No
If np, which parameters cannot be met?
Wd
i . In
d a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
•...' ' n r n .n
DENY PE' I UNLESS CARBON ABSORPTION IS PROVIDED -No BOD5 may be discharged; zz
flow stye
The follo g products will be recovered: Gasoline.
No other products will be recovered without modification of this permit.
Permit must contain flow monitoring requirement such that all volumes of wastewater leaving the facility
monitored. Recommend continuous monitoring.
* Monitor for purgeable aromatics including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,and xylene using an EPA
approved ethod to a detection level of 1 ppb. Monitoring for BTEX, MTBE, and Napthalene on the sart e
schedule as toxicity testing. Monitoring and toxicity testing should be done at the same time. A reopener
clause shou d be placed in the permit to allow for additional limits on these or other toxicants should the
facility fail is whole effluent toxicity tests.
Wasteload
(If yes, then
assumption
ent to EPA? (Major) _N_ (Y or N)
attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.