The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0024970_Correspondence_19910918NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING; COVER SHEET NPDES Permit: NC0024970 McAlpine Creek WWTP Document Type: Permit Issuance Wasteload Allocation Authorization to Construct (AtC) Permit Modification Complete File - Historical Engineering Alternatives (EAA) Correspondence Owner Name Change Meeting Notes Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: September 18, 1991 Z'hi�a document is printed on reu+ae paper - ignore any content on the wlereirise aide James G. Martin, Governor SEP261991 State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Management 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 George T. Everett, Ph.D. William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director September 18, 1991 Mr. Russell W. Sherer, Chief, Bureau of Water Pollution. Control South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 4.ff Dear . Sherer: Subject: NPDES Permits: NC0024970 (McAlpine Creek), NC0024937 (Sugar Creek), NC0024945 (Irwin Creek) City of Charlotte Mecklenburg County Thank you for your letter of September 9, 1991, expressing your concerns regarding the draft NPDES permits for the City of Charlotte: McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin Creek. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) has reviewed the comments contained in your letter. The items are addressed in the following : (1) The NCDEM does not plan to require Charlotte to fund the establishment of a new USGS flow gauge at this time. However, a copy of your letter has been forwarded to the permittee and we will continue to explore this need. Several issues will need to be addressed including: 1) the availability of USGS gauging equipment and maintenance resources; and 2) the establishment of an appropriate location where accurate flow records may be obtained. In particular, we are concerned that an unstable stream channel bottom will make it difficult to obtain accurate measurements. It is recommended that the SCDHEC discuss the feasibility of a gauge with the USGS so that more specific details can be presented to the NCDEM and the permittee. Also, with regard to a real-time water quality monitoring station, we need more explanation as to why a station of this type is really needed. Real-time data are typically collected for short term events where a high degree of variability is expected. We are not aware that diurnal variation in dissolved oxygen is an issue. It has been our experience that these gauges require frequent maintenance and are costly to maintain. Since we have established twelve monitoring stations covering a wide range of parameters, and given that these stations will be monitored three times per week during the summer months, it appears that adequate monitoring requirements exist to evaluate permit effectiveness. If you do not concur, we would be interested in hearing a stronger rationale for the proposed real-time monitoring. Pollution Prevention Pays P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer (2) A QUAL2E model is in the process of being calibrated for the Sugar Creek Basin by our Technical Support Branch. We concur that future expansions by the City of Charlotte should be evaluated using this tool. A copy of the report detailing model development will be forwarded to you upon completion. You may contact Mr. Trevor Clements or Ms. Ruth Swanek at 9191733-5083 regarding this modeling effort. (3) The permits contain continuous flow monitoring requirements. The City flow records would be available for the NCDEM if needed. Part II, Section C.4. requires notification to the NCDEM of treatment plant bypasses. (4) The State of North Carolina has an approved toxicity program. The three above mentioned permits contain toxicity limits, not monitoring. The Division would work with the facility to evaluate methods for toxicity reduction if needed. (5) Reduction of nutrient levels is expected with the reduction of oxygen consuming waste discharge allowable upon plant expansion. Monitoring of total phosphorus and total nitrogen will be required (effluent and instream) so that any unwanted trends can be detected early on. The SCDHEC should continue to provide the NCDEM with updates regarding any demonstrated eutrophication problems along with any basinwide management efforts that have been implemented by the State of South Carolina so that our management efforts will be consistent. Thank you again for your letter. Final copies of the permits are attached for your review. If you have any questions, you may contact Mr. Trevor Clements or Mr. Don Safrit at 919/733-5083. Sincerely, Steve W. Tedder, Chief Water Quality Section cc: Mooresville Regional Office APechnical Support Branch Central Files. State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Mooresville Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor Albert F. Hilton, Regional Manager William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT\ May 8, 1991 Mr. Joe Stowe, Director Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28216 Dear Mr. Stowe: .•\\( 0 ; (':.. `••16 ` Subject: Instrear Monitoring Sugar Creek WWTP NPDES Permit No. NC0024937 McAlpine Creek WWTP NPDES Permit No. NC0024970 Mecklenburg County, NC Monthly monitoring reports for instream monitoring at the subject facilities indicates that sampling is not being conducted at the prescribed locations, or the locations are being mislabeled. The McAlpine Creek facility is monitoring its second upstream monitoring point on Sugar Creek at Highway 51. This is upstream of the confluence with Little Sugar Creek. The facility should be monitoring on Sugar Creek just above the confluence with McAlpine Creek (see attached map - Point S5). The Sugar Creek facility is labeling the upstream site "Sugar Creek" when the upstream location is located on "Little Sugar Creek". Also, one upstream site description is "Sugar Creek at Steele Road"; this site should be Steele Creek at SC 270 (See attached map - Point ST1). 019 \until \l.n:: 5trcet ::\• ricicphunc 70-1-I (,i•lf,)) • 1:\X 7(l-1r,; (,f14O Mr. Joe Stowe Page Two May 8, 1991 If any of the instream sites are inaccessible or if you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this Office. Sincerely, D. Rex Gleason, P. E. Water Quality Regional Supervisor cc:revor Clements KHC:se Gf11UD- Irwin . Mahtrls Fot r1 kd (.83) _ 1 Skye U exist Ca. L4115,O-7 LSin mc-` kc az , i u7.5o00 CmoD- ►+cALnc C�