The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0037834_Wasteload Allocation_19900725NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNIN` COVER SHEET NC0037834 Archie Elledge WWTP NPDES Permit: Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Owner Name Change Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: July 25, 1990 Thies document is printed on reuse paper - igziore aiiy content on the resrerse side State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Govemor George T. Everett, Ph.D. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary July 25, 1990 Director Mr. Tom Griffin Director of Public Utilities City of Winston-Salem P.O. Box 2511 Winston-Salem, NC 27102 Subject: Modeling Analysis of Salem and Muddy Creeks Archie Elledge WWTP NPDES No. NC0037834 Forsyth County Dear Mr. Griffin: I am writing this letter to inform you of a QUAL2E modeling analysis which was recently performed by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) in Salem and Muddy Creeks to evaluate dissolved oxygen (DO) below the Archie Elledge WWTP. QUAL2E is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and can simulate up to 15 water quality parameters including DO, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and the nitrogen series. The results of the modeling analysis indicated that your current BOD5 and ammonia (NH3-N) limits are not adequate to protect the DO standard during low flow critical conditions, and the following limits are needed at a design flow of 30 MGD: Summer Winter BOD5 (mg/1) 16 30 NH3-N (mg/1) 2 4 DO (mg/1) 6 6 Water quality violations observed downstream of your WWTP during a low flow period in 1988 while the facility was operating in compliance support the model predictions. Therefore, your NPDES permit may be changed to reflect these more stringent limits upon permit renewal. Our compliance data indicate that the Archie Elledge facility should be able to meet these limits. For your information, I have attached a copy of the modeling report. Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-7015 A.. $,1 (lnnnrn in inr A FFrrn nth A Fm nt.n ,c.r The Archie Elledge facility will also receive the following set of limits which is standard for all municipalities in class C streams: TSS (mg/1) : 30 Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml): 200 pH (SU) 6-9 In order to help you plan for the future, DEM also derived new toxics limits based upon our most recent pretreatment information. The following limits were derived: Daily Max Cadmium (ug/ 1) 2.6 Chromium (ug/1) 66 Nickel (ug/1) 116 Lead dug/1) 33 Cyanide (ug/ 1) 6.6 You should note that these are preliminary limits, and are sub- mitted only to provide you with planning information. If more recent information is obtained before permit renewal, the limits may be revised. In addition to the above metals limits, effluent monitoring will be required for copper, zinc, and silver. Since high effluent concentrations of copper and zinc have been observed, it is also pos- sible that instream monitoring for these two parameters may be required upon permit renewal. A whole effluent toxicity limit will also be placed in the per- mit upon renewal. Preliminary analysis indicates that a quarterly chronic Ceriodaphnia test will be required at an instream concentration of 76%. Finally, you should note that if Winston-Salem plans on expand- ing the Archie Elledge facility, the QUAL2E model will be used to develop BOD limits. The ammonia limits will be based upon our ammonia toxicity criteria. That is, limits will be derived using a mass balance model which assumes 7Q10 flow instream, design flow at the facility, and a downstream ammonia concentration of 1 mg/1 during the summer and 1.8 mg/1 during the winter (note that winter 7Q10 flow will be used to derive the winter limit). The metals limits and the whole effluent toxicity limit would be revised based upon the new design flow. In addition, you will be required to dechlorinate your effluent and will be assigned a chlorine limit between 17 ug/1 and 28 ug/l. The limit will be based upon a mass balance model which requires the facility to meet 17 ug/1 chlorine instream during 7Q10 conditions at design flow. In no case is a facility assigned a limit greater than 28 ug/1 in order to pro- tect against acute effects in the mixing zone. I hope this information is useful to Winston-Salem in planning for the future. If you have any questions on the modeling analysis, please call Ruth Swanek of my modeling staff. If you have any questions about wasteload allocations or procedures, please call me. Both Ruth and I can be reached at (919)733-5083. Sincerely Trevor Clements, Asst. Chief er Quality Section Attachments JTC/RCS cc: Lee Byerly, Winston-Salem (with attachments) Steve Tedder Steve Mauney Dale Overcash Central Files PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT City of Winton-eSalem July 24, 1990 Mr. Trevor Clements North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Post Office Box 276875 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Dear Mr. Clements: 1 c: JUL 3 0 1990 The City of Winston-Salem is currently working with Hazen and Sawyer in Raleigh to evaluate upgrading the Archie Elledge Wastewater Treatment Plant. Our NPDES permit for this facility is up for renewal in 1991 and due to changing environmental regula- tions, we would like input from you and your staff on proposed draft limits we may face in the 1991 Permit renewal and future re- quirements. As you are aware, a stream study was performed on Salem Creek after our 1986 permit was issued to update stream modeling for our facility. We discussed this report briefly at the toxic meeting given by CDM in Raleigh on May 3rd and you indicated the draft stream report with possible draft permit limits would be sent to us for review around July 1st. Since we are beginning this engi- neering review of our facility. we would appreciate any informa- tion of this type you can provide at this time. Please advise if there are further questions. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Lee/Byerly• Elledge WT Plant Superintendent pc: Tom Griffin, Utilities Superintendent Barry Shearin, Utility Plants Engineer Box 2511, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 a3-1 g3 Wa ryZalem C---mam Cat — -- -- A 444 Ni Hag Zn e Pfau Flog • 5!qo 6 G 5 5 125 21. 0 N I9D 3 9 4 45 y 130 a I O190 N 3tn y iu 30 M o aa 219p 44 y 15 25 `) 133 zI.o ;No 5 37 5 7 6 30 5 P40 29.0 Min 4 4-1 1.4 1 z At 160 i6 c1 TUTS 5 441 5 '3 5 c30 5 Ill 1IA.3 I0I85 '4 3 1 Y 8% 4 636 y 95 / q(B'S z� � tc /4 1145 i7.'`� l8S y 3 3 12 y 40 I I aO / 1.' 71$9 4 2 D y o y y 130 I "7.4 zo 41 5 14 30 618S 0 z5- 4 9 18.E 6 )25 fig'. 4 ePs ihigo /0/0.5 -) - 5a km I Jame .RA) dwneL J1m Q,,ACi 4fe )8ac fy S t\eac v. S/r-1 wepc'P,ei/lfn 1 one E ?/'1-_h dip v1- 7 3-56?3 40.ecn et" a-,Jr.,/ 833- 7!4- Z ei' d ; s 5,i%% 74zS - Of Cy3 7 wit, Jep-, 9/9 -iY9- 920c Ql9 16 -0 34 ei'4/ 41c w-s 7 7-gWg D,EM/ p,-eg/9 - 7 33 -508 3 North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Water Quality Section May 1, 1990 Memorandum To: Ruth Swanek From: Jay Sauber4i' Subject: Salem -Muddy Creek Modeling Analysis Per your request, we have reviewed the subject material. A few questions that we had may be useful to you in your final analysis. Thank you for sharing your work with us. It nicely completes the cycle. What were upstream DO values when DO violations were found in 1987 and 1988 downstream of the WWTP? What were the flow conditions? I do not understand the need for correcting flow balances? The measurement of TDS during this study was performed using grab sample analysis techniques. These samples were not collected using flow proportional techniques (USGS). Samples were not collected across the entire transect of the water body and are likely to be less representative than the actual flow measurements. Some of the unaccounted flow is moving through creek bed sand deposits and is not capable of being measured. The flow measurements seem to have accounted for at least 80% of the flow from the WWTP- a reasonable value I think.. If TDS measurements are going to be used instead of flows for balancing purposes we would prefer to collect better samples for this parameter and none for flow. Wherever, possible I believe that we should use real data. Please number pages for easier reference. Reaeration rates were measured in stream for this study area. I can see no reason to revert to literature values for K2 using the actual K2 studies to support the choice of literature values. Lets use our in -stream real data and use literature values to indicate consistency only. K2 rates for this stream are not likely to vary. Uncertainty analysis, first order error analyses, should be performed prior to intensive survey field collections, particularly in this case where a reasonable data base existed. This approach will allow us to focus our efforts on the parameters of particular importance. cc J Overton Trevor Clements tognoitin 5alern- Arch' e total) PCS &den) Cis 1/431243* 030704/ Ppm 8 Dilutale Date- ps, 116-0 7/3013 Whf• ZaptIn;ctalahC 1I61185 Pau. toloqtau aNtk. No aLif dam rmirt____Atoes_sintitt_q_ZmkaAV cit. NC (matt, ni?5 ) St4intulk_d. roseic,s_pa, to ems Ow_ b.., ilflo_atban_RunofF 4,eEL hes_VA nttml_losp, 5 tificluza 146D ) glt:i Quin. eami (29,74‘ 3rnifio nig' ) &limn ct - poor (etbouc A - ) kligiciv a- Goodtir-a, - ° - PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW Design Actual Percent industrial: IWC: Discharger: Receiving stream: Stream Class: 7010: flow: flow: Pollutant Cadmium Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Zinc Cyanide Mercury Silver Cadmium Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Zinc Cyanide Mercury Silver Standard/AL (mg/1) 0.002 0.05 0.007 0.088 0.003 0'05 0.005 0.000012 0.00006 Total Influent Load (lbs/day) 5.16 12.50 36.56 11.47 11.48 61.50 1.91 0.23 0.01 S S AL S AL S S AL Archie Elledge Salem Creek C 15.000 cfs 30.000 mgd 16.8 mg(J 50.00%% 75.6 % Removal Eff. 75% 76% 81% 12% 70% 69% 59% 86% 94% Reserve (lbs/day} ----- --- -339 3355 -2841 1058 -927 -2585 079 -0'21 0.21 Allowable Load (lbs/day) --------- 1.77 46.05 8.14 22.06 2,21 35,65 2.70 0'0p 0.22 Background Conc (mg/1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Actual Domestic Load (lbs/day) - ------- 0.903 3.671 13.716 3,762 2.860 23.2O3 1.910 0.230 0.010 Predicted Effluent Conc (mg/1) 0.0214 L 0.0495 M 0'0722 L 0.1360 M 0.0056 L 0.0002 L 0.0000 M v2.0 (1/9/89) 01/25/89 Actual Industrial Load (lbs/day> ------ -- 4.260 8,B30 22.840 7.710 8.620 38'300 0.000 0.000 0.00O Allowable M. Effluent Conc 0.0026 0.0661 0.0093 0.1164 0.0040 0.0661 0.0066 0.0000 0.0001 * PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW Discharger: Receiving stream: Stream Class: 7Q10: Design flow: Actual flow: Percent industrial: Pollutant Cadmium Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Zinc Cyanide Mercury Silver 8tandard/AL (mg/l) 0.002 0.05 0.015 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.005 0.0002 0.01 Total Influent Load (lbs/day} Cadmium 5.16 Chromium 12.50 Copper 36.56 Nickel 11.47 Lead 11.48 Zinc 61.50 Cyanide 1.91 Mercury 0.23 Silver 0.01 8 S AL S S AL S AL Archie Elledge WWTP Salem Creek C 15.00O cfs 30.000 mgd 16.8 mgd 50.00%% 75.6 % Removal Eff. 75% 76% 81% 12% 70% 69% 59% BE % 94% Reserve (lbs/day} -3.39 33.55 -l9.10 1.06 6.94 -25.85 0.79 0.09 36.83 Allowable Luad (lbs/day) 1.77 46.05 17.45 12.53 18.42 35.65 2.70 0.32 36.84 Actual Domestic Load (lbs/day} 0.903 3.671 13.716 3.762 2.860 23.203 1.910 0.230 0.010 Predicted Background Effluent Conc Conc (mg/l) (mg/l) 0 0.0092 0 0.0214 0 0.0495 0 0.0722 0 0.0246 0 0.1360 0 0.0056 0 0.0002 0 0.0000 L L M L L M L L v2.0 (1/9/89) 01/25/89 Actual Industrial Load (lbs/day) 4.260 8.830 22.840 7.710 8.620 38.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 Allowable Effluent Conc (mg/l) 0.0026 0.0661 0.0198 0.0661 0.0331 0.0661 0.0066 0.0003 0.0132 4.0007, � 4 Cwb wmpin C�~ onfeMbi«c WfUe� mh�-�zhm^, C�xUm 6tM ��5eUF-N��_Cbla ~ NPDFS PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM FACILITY NAME: ut_ /12 / J ,(/) 4 NPDF NO. NCO S 2_ 23_ Rom: DATE: L/c2'(/ �'� REGION: PERMIT coNDITIONS COVERING PRFTRFATh FN'T This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language. This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program. Please include the following conditions: Program Development Phase I due / / Phase II due / / Additional Conditions (attached) This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program. Please include the following conditions: (/' Program Implementation Additional Conditions (attached) IGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL, USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS SIU Frxx - TOTAL: - COMPOG ITICN : MJ TEXTTr : MGD METAL FINISHING: MGD OTHER: MGD MGD MGD MSD 1-1EAMCORKS REVIEW PARAMETER cd Cr Cu Ni Ph Zn CN Phenol Other 1 P�TH12ou6 N DAILY LOAD IN LBS/DAY ' :ALIAPIBLE DOMESTIC PL'P*'I_T7.°.,,,v �_ Rc.Tutt wL 96 RFjmo�/AL 3a 7( ll. RECEIVED: / / REVIEWED BY: / _ RETURNED: / / - Archie- acci e ay,orR_ A/Con:is:3k/ ,030104 5ale_na_Creek, eicisa 7010 z: cri ce5cF3 7(i) % . 1