The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNC0024970_Meeting Notes_20060110NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNIN`i COVER SHEET NC0024970 McAlpine Creek 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 Meeting Notes Instream Assessment (67b) Speculative Limits Environmental Assessment (EA) Document Date: January 10, 2006 Thin document its printed on reuae paper - ignore a.ny content on the reYerrae aide i MEETING SUMMARY CH2MHILL Meeting Regarding Potential Expansion of CMU Wastewater Management Facilities in the Sugar Creek Watershed ATTENDEES: Sally Knowles/SCDHEC Jeff deBessonet/SCDHEC Dawn Padgett/CMU Barry Shearin/CMU Jackie Jarrell/CMU Julie McLelland/CMU Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL FROM: Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL DATE: January 10, 2006 Wayne Harden/SCDHEC Rheda Geddings/SCDEHEC Mark Giffin/SCDEC Michael Montibello/SCDHEC David Wagoner/CH2M HILL Alton Boozer/SCDHEC Sandy Benson/SCDHEC Attached is a copy of the attendance list including email addresses of meeting attendees. An agenda and meeting handout are also attached. Background The meeting opened with introductions. Bill Kreutzberger went over the purpose of the meeting and information regarding the CMU facilities in the Sugar Creek Watershed. David Wagoner briefly reviewed the status of the phosphorus reduction project, and clarified that CMU is currently moving towards meeting the Total Phosphorus (TP) permit requirements through improvements only at the McAlpine Creek WWMF. Bill K then briefly discussed the planning study that was underway and the need to increase the available treatment capacity from the current permitted total (for the Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek WWMFs) capacity of 99 mgd to approximately 140 to 145 mgd by 2030. Assimilative Capacity and Impairment Issues Assimilative capacity issues were then briefly discussed. Bill K explained that NCDWQ wanted to ensure that available modeling supported the expansion request from a DO standpoint and that they wanted CMU to coordinate with SCDHEC to make sure there were no concerns. DWQ had developed a calibrated QUAL2E model for the Sugar Creek watershed in 1992 based on data from 1987 through 1992. CH2M HILL ran SCDHEC's version of the model that had been extended to the confluence of Sugar Creek with the Catawba River in SC. The model was run for increased flow scenarios. Predictions with the original model calibration and with modeling rates updated to reflect current modeling practice both confirmed that there was not an issue regarding DO levels in the system. SC CLTIMEETING SUMMARY DHEC 01102006 FINAL.DOC 1 S� /vti sit )se/491 vek fi"6( pep& k/i :r-te. 1)- t#1,6 4A1-1- h� MEETING REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF CMU WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE SUGAR CREEK WATERSHED and NC watershed assessment information was also reviewed and did not indicate any watershed issues with DO impairment. Also, monitoring information during the drought in 2000 to 2002 also showed that DO levels were maintained above the standard at locations in NC and SC. Bill K noted that the lowest DO levels observed were upstream of the WWMF discharges and these were still above the water quality standard of 5.0 mg/L. It was mentioned that SCDHEC would be forwarded a copy of the Technical Memorandum addressing assimilative capacity issues. There was a brief discussion about other impairment issues at this point. Fecal coliform impairment was noted. Mike M also noted the inconsistency between the CMU permit requirements for fecal coliform; Daily max/weekly average/monthly average of 1000/400/200 versus SC approach of a daily max/monthly average of 400/200. Mark Giffin noted there was some aquatic life impairment in the watershed based on copper levels. [This was later clarified to have occurred in Lake Wylie]. It was also noted that Fishing Creek Reservoir and the Lakes downstream were impaired for Total P and for chlorophyll a. TMDL for TP JrThe discussion then turned to the status of the SC TMDL for TP. Bill K explained that CMU and other potentially affected parties in NC were briefed regarding the preliminary results of the TMDL by NCDWQ on Monday, January 9, 2006. Sally Knowles and Alton Boozer confirmed that they finally had what they felt was a calibrated WARMF model for phosphorus for the Catawba Watershed below Lake Wylie to Fishing Creek Reservoir. They confirmed that point sources were the largest source of TP in this watershed and that the model indicated that meeting their water quality standard for TP would also result in meeting the water quality standard for chlorophyll a. Wayne Harden and Alton indicated that the model calibration was currently being reviewed by EPA Region IV staff. They also confirmed that preliminary model runs indicated that point source TP levels needed to be at 0.1 mg/L to meet the water quality standard all the time. Mike Montibello indicated that there were some facilities in SC, most notably Lancaster County, that were proceeding wi expansion planning based on a 0.1 mg/L TP level. C: /5 / j There were several questions and considerable discussion at t 's point. Jackie Jarrell /KA J inquired as to next steps in the TMDL process. Julie McLelland also mentioned that SCDHEC/NCDWQ/CMU settlement agreement indicated that CMU would be involved in the TMDL development. It was noted that no meetings had been held for several years. Sally Knowles reminded everyone that the Stakeholder group that had met regarding the TMDL agreed that no additional meetings should be held until a calibrated model was available. Alton indicated that once they obtained feedback from EPA, that SCDHEC would then set up a process to continue TMDL development with CMU and other Stakeholders. Bill K expressed a desire to obtain a copy of the model to begin to play with it. He also asked whether there had been any other interaction with consultant for the industry group - Joe DePinto/LimnoTech. Wayne Harden indicated that he had no additional interaction with Joe DePinto since the last Stakeholder meeting. Sally Knowles also clarified that the industry group also included Rock Hill. Alton then indicated that since EPA had the model already for a few months, he thought they could reasonably inquire as to the status of the model review. He and Sally also indicated that it would be reasonable for us to obtain a copy of the model, after SCDHEC CLT/MEETING SUMMARY DHEC_01102006 FINAL.DOC 2 i°� MEETING REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF CMU WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE SUGAR CREEK WATERSHED had addressed EPA comments. SCDHEC committed to re -starting the Stakeholder process for the TMDL after comments on the model were received. Although a schedule for the TMDL development was generally discussed, DHEC did not commit to a specific timetable other than trying to complete it this year (2006). Bill K then went over the importance of the TMDL to CMU planning and regulatory process. He indicated that alternatives evaluations based on process modeling could probably proceed based on very low TP levels. He also indicated that a decision on the TMDL was important for the NC State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. He explained that this process was mirrored after NEPA and required at least 18 months to complete an EA or more for an EIS; and following issuance of a FONSI or a ROD, DWQ would then accept an NPDES permit application for the expansions. SCDHEC staff indicated that they did not have a comparable process and they understood the need to proceed. As discussion was wrapping up, Alton and other SCDHEC staff expressed their appreciation for our efforts to meet with them so they understood future CMU plans. This completed the discussion of issues. Action Items The following brief list of action items was identified during the meeting: • CH2M HILL will prepare and distribute minutes of the meeting • CH2M HILL will send a copy of the Technical Memorandum on Assimilative Capacity to SCDHEC • SCDHEC will contact EPA regarding getting comments for on the model calibration • Based on comments from EPA, SCDHEC will lay out a schedule for additional Stakeholder involvement and TMDL development • SCDHEC will provide a copy of the calibrated WARMF model to CMU for evaluation CLT/MEETING SUMMARY DHEC 01102006_FINALDOC 3 MEETING REGARDING POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF CMU WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE SUGAR CREEK WATERSHED Attachments CLTIMEETING SUMMARY DHEC 01102006_FINAL.DOC 4 Meeting with CMU and DHEC Planning for Expansion of WWMFs in the Sugar Creek Watershed January 10, 2006 1:30 AM to 3:00 PM Room 4380 in the Sims/Aycock Building at 2600 Bull Street Planned Attendees: CMU representatives CH2M HILL DHEC Representatives Agenda 1. Introductions and purpose of the meeting 2. Background on CMU Wastewater Management Facilities in the Sugar Creek Watershed — Current permitted capacities and operating procedures — Status of phosphorus reduction project — Need for additional capacity 3. Assimilative capacity issues (oxygen consuming wastes) — Prior DWQ modeling — Use of DHEC version of DWQ model — Overview of draft TM 4. Phosphorus TMDL discussion — Review meeting with NC DWQ on January 9 — Discuss DHEC next steps 5. Steps in Planning Process — Determine future limitations for planning analysis — Use process models for alternatives evaluation — CMU decision on planned expansion projects — NC SEPA Environmental Review Process — NPDES Permit application 6. Discussion 7. Action Items and Wrap up TABLE 1. EXISTING WWMF NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS Facility Flow cBOD5 NH3-N Monthly Ave. (mgd) Monthly Ave. (mg/L) Weekly Ave. (mg/L) Monthly Ave. (mg/L) Weekly Ave. (mg/L) Irwin Creek (summer) 15.0 5.0 7.5 1.2 3.6 Irwin Creek (winter) 15.0 10.0 15.0 2.3 6.9 Sugar Creek (summer) 20.0 5.0 7.5 1.0 3.0 Sugar Creek (winter) 20.0 10.0 15.0 2.0 6.0 McAlpine Creek (summer) 64.0 4.0 6.0 1.0 NL McAlpine Creek (winter) 64.0 8.0 12.0 1.9 NL Note: cBOD5 = carbonaceous BOD5; Summer = April through October; Winter = November through March; NL = No Limit. TABLE 3. RESULTS OF NEW MODELING ANALYSES Predicted DO (mg/1) Existing Model Updated Model Location Rates13 RatesZ3 S4, 1 mile below Irwin Ck WWTP 6.4 6.5 S8, original DO sag below Irwin WWTP 6.4 7.0 Mouth Little Sugar Ck 6.5 6.9 Mouth McAlpine Ck 5.8 6.3 SC Highway 160 6.3 6.8 Sugar Ck near mouth 6.4 7.0 DO sago 5.7 6.1 Notes 1. Original model rates: BOD decay = 0.4; NH3 oxidation = 0.5; CBOD:BOD5 = 1.5 2. Updated model rates : BOD decay = 0.1; NH3 oxidation = 0.1; CBOD:BOD5 = 3 3. Wastewater flows: Irwin Cr. WWMF @ 25 mgd; Sugar Cr. WWMF @ 35 mgd; McAlpine Cr. WWMF @ 90 mgd; 4. Existing model sag in McAlpine Creek just upstream of confluence with Sugar Creek 5. Updated model sag at McAlpine Creek WWMF discharge CLTIHANDOUT_01092006.DOC 1 TM 1 - EVALUATION OF ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY IN THE SUGAR CREEK WATERSHED O DO Levels and Tem perature Station 013 (Sugar Creek in SC -immediately below the confluence w ith Steele Creek) 12 9 6 3 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 O� O� O� O9' O „ \,�O \0'O \flO �O fl'O flO \0'O \0O 0'O \0'O GD` o,\� N\� <\\ C\\ N\� <0\ o,\Nh\� GD\\ o,\N Time (1999-2000; 2002) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Temperature (C) TDO Level DO WQ Standard Temperature (C) Figure 8. SC DHEC Ambient Station Results for Sugar Creek below the confluence with Steele Creek. J E 0 0 DO Levels and Temperature Station 036 (Sugar Creek in SC - immediately above confluence with the Catawba River) 35 30 25 - 20 r 15 m 10 E 5 F- 0 0 0 oJ 0 0 o ti ti 3 3 3 rk tx o goo goo tio° tio° ti°° tio° ti°° ti°° tio° ti°° _._DO Level DO WQ Standard Temperature (C) Time (1999-2004) Figure 9. SC DHEC Ambient Station Results for Sugar Creek above the confluence with the Catawba River. REVISED TM 1 -10122005.DOC 16 TM 1 - EVALUATION OF ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY IN THE SUGAR CREEK WATERSHED Irwin reek ECKLEN Wylie Y►RK 3 1.5 0 3 Mlles CH2MHILL Sugar 'reek WWT cAlpine Creek WWTF s Branch CABARRUS State Boundary County Boundary Interstate Highway Waterbodies Greater Sugar Creek Watershed Wastewater Facilities 0 Benthic Monitoring South Carolina Ambient Station 0 DWQ Ambient Station 0 Fish Community Figure 7 SC DEHC Ambient Monitoring Locations in Sugar Creek Watershed REVISED TM 1-10122005.DOC 15 MEETING SUMMARY CH2MHILL Status Update = Phosphorus TMDL for the Lower Catawba River Basin ATTENDEES: Toya Field/DWQ Susan Wilson/DWQ Mike Templeton/DWQ Michael Parker/NCDENR Jackie Neweel/DWQ Michelle Woolfolk/DWQ Pam Behm/DWQ Rusty Rozelle/Mecklenburg County Daryl Hammock/Charlotte SWS Tim Richards/Charlotte SWS Christie Putnam/Union County FROM: Jaime Robinson DATE: January 9, 2006 Mark Tye/Union County Barry Shearin/CMU Dawn Padgett/CMU Jackie Jarrell/CMU Barry Gullet/CMU Julie McLelland/CMU Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL Jaime Robinson/CH2M HILL David Wagoner/CH2M HILL Dave Canaan/Mecklenburg County Attached is a copy of the attendance list including email addresses of meeting attendees. Michelle Woolfolk provided a brief summary of available information to date on the TMDL South Carolina DHEC is preparing for Fishing Creek reservoir, which is the first reservoir on the Catawba River downstream of the Charlotte/Union County areas and Lake Wylie. It is currently impaired for both total phosphorus and chlorophyll a. Current water quality standards are: Chlorophyll a: 40 ug/L Total phosphorus: 0.06 mg/L The modeling has shown that the P limit is more stringent of the two requirements, it is being used for TMDL development. The WARMF model is being used for the TMDL, which Michelle noted was an appropriate application for that model, especially for P. She noted that it does not work as well for chlorophyll a. As seen in the handout (attached), they have estimated that for the watershed below Lake Wylie to Fishing Creek reservoir 77% of the P loading is attributed to point sources. Thus, point sources will be the focus of a P reduction strategy. Nonpoint sources account for 7% of the loading while outflow from Lake Wylie is estimated to contribute the remaining 16% of loading. Model simulations for calibration purposes used actual flows and P concentrations for point sources obtained from DMRs. The area entering between Lake Wylie and Fishing Creek reservoir included approximately 12 point source discharges: 3 CMU facilities, Union County's Twelvemile Creek facility, and other facilities in South Carolina. It was noted that CLT/MEETING SUMMARY DWQ 01092006 FINAL.DOC 1 STATUS UPDATE - PHOSPHORUS TMDL FOR THE LOWER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN while the Celanese discharge was included in the model, that facility is currently offline and will be permanently closing. A question about the future status of Springs Industries' discharge was asked, but folks were uncertain of the status. Model results were presented in the handout (attached). Barry Gullet asked if a permit limit of 0.1 mg/L was likely. Michelle noted that according to the model results, point sources P levels need to be 0.1 mg/L at current flows to meet the water quality standard for P in Fishing Creek reservoir at all times. A comment was made that by reducing P, chlorophyll a would also be lowered in the reservoir. Nitrogen water quality standards currently aren't being exceeded. Bill Kreutzberger asked what the next steps are for DHEC concerning this TMDL. Michelle responded that due to a staff change, she wasn't sure what the schedule would be. DWQ has asked many questions surrounding the model and a TMDL, but are waiting for a response from DHEC. Rusty Rozzelle inquired about the status of a TMDL on Lake Wylie. Michelle responded that a TMDL is in place for Lake Wylie and is currently a point source strategy only, with chlorophyll a as a basis. To date, water quality hasn't changed much. Christie Putnam asked if a cap on nonpoint sources would occur. Michelle noted that SC is unlikely to put in place requirements for nonpoint source P contributions. However, NC may institute voluntary rules. Ways to accomplish this include through local ordinances that put in place BMPs and other ways to create no net increase in loading from new development. One way to regulate this is through NPDES Phase I and II stormwater permits. Examples include rules in the Neuse and Jordan Lake watersheds. Christie also asked if SC has the authority to say how NC addresses the TMDL. Michelle responded that SC does have the authority. [Please note that we believe that SC has the authority to set a loading at the State line and can comment on the implementation methodology used by DWQ to meet this loading. Barry Gullet and others from CMU noted that as part of the past phosphorus settlement, SC is required to involve stakeholders in the TMDL process. To date, contact has not been made on SC's part for this process. DWQ indicated that they want to encourage public input and participation in the process. Dawn Padgett asked questions about the technical applications of the model and Bill Kreutzberger noted that a sensitivity analysis is needed of the model. Barry Gullett asked how DWQ would deal with a permit request for expansion if the request comes in while the TMDL is still unresolved. Susan Wilson responded that DWQ cannot ignore the model and its findings but could deal with it by placing some sort of schedule in the permit. When Jackie then inquired about the status of the current McAlpine WWMF permit renewal, Susan replied that the renewal application would not likely be held up by the TMDL. The conversation about permits led to CMU and Union County giving DWQ general updates on their plans and schedules for expansions of their facilities. The schedule for the TMDL was discussed relative to these plans. Mike Templeton noted that the SEPA process CLTJMEETING SUMMARY DWQ 01092006_FINAL.DOC 2 STATUS UPDATE - PHOSPHORUS TMDL FOR THE LOWER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN would be impacted by the TMDL because issues would need to be resolved to adequately address the impacts. A discussion was held on whether the limits would be based on mass loading or concentrations. Michelle noted that mass loads were preferred over concentrations and that things would shift more towards mass load values. It was noted that CMU was meeting with DHEC on Tuesday, January 10 and that pertinent information form that meeting would be shared with others. CLTIMEETING SUMMARY DWO 01092006_FINAL.DOC 3 STATUS UPDATE - PHOSPHORUS TMDL FOR THE LOWER CATAWBA RIVER BASIN Attachments CLT/MEETING SUMMARY DWQ01092006_FINAL DOC 4 •- aH21iVIHILL SUBJECT BY SHEET NO._ of DATE 44-\e/tA0VcOACIL 05+ 1-T-7214-1 tt.t..1+ — 1 --rr 1-4-1-i--1-1 •-•;--•-ii•-• --1-1-rj--F1.-- , I a • t v I—• i i ,--1-1—f-11 1 -i_i_i :',1 i 1---i-LI --Li -Ir. 1 _L. ! / 1 i , ! iThlif I : , : . '1,l' 1 1 1-1 / ft-1 i-1 /, F -ti L. --t-1.4.......L.1 4 I t . t . ,... J. ......L i..._ I , i • • 1 r -r--i— I-1-1 ,----r-1--. -t:::, „ 1---r—r"""—T— —,-- •f-J.,-.-':--t , .- 1 _.1 itko , --I- .,. ...4....L.1,1L.....i. [ .. Is4_ : L....i, , i . 1 : I-1 :Ili , -i---- —r-1-- - i ... —L....i...-1_,_.„ i 1 1 —, I q , 1! ! . ....:....i_, J.•. i_....1 I d _1 1 I ' : 1 -I-- 1 .1 LT T--171 :---1 •,i i 1 1_4_ : _: - ' 1 1:- " i :i i i ' I I-4 " 4....2, , . : .1.4_,; : i_...i : : , Li ; ! I... . , ,If • J— L • • I . I r2astiO . : L-I ......1,i4.....L.4..j 41.. i .../ : 1 1 : 1_14._1._.1 ! i f 1 1 I -1' PROJECT NO. Fr1 17.1- . ; ; ! • - 4 ! ---1 : : • ! • I • i ' ..f...[...1....1_1...4.i.._.k. :2- --1: ; : r -1,-i -I ! i ! --t--A,} 11;-itit ; li • : t tl j..-----:•--t i ii i it 1 —r•—t --. i.......r.4_4' t i — ] I i : !---1-4--] 1 J Lcoo --1-',!! :• 1 , 1 i -titi - i, la.C.t..1<f_ L1,1,,....1 ..._.4. , , i i , . ! _LL...1. I.. 1_ ! --7. a.z _ za;i_me . ; , I i , , , , I • 1!!. 1 I 1.. I 1 • 7. S •[ South Carolina Catawba-Wateree Nutrient Enrichment TMDLs Impaired Waters in Lower Catawba River Basin 4-,'% I '}n' N 11 I 9 �,6 QN-0774` �I� w;i-208 9 hip , i 1 P Sources to Fishing Creek Reservoir from Simulation Source Load (kglday) Percent Nonpoint Sources: Forest 15 Agriculture 28 Developed 26 Other 2 General Nonpoint Sources 2 Stream Bank Erosion 12 Type 1 Septic System 4 Total 89 7% Point Sources: 958 77% Lake Wylie 192 16% TOTAL 1240 100% Simulated Fishing Creek Reservoir Phosphorus Concentrations at several Effluent Concentrations 0.4 0.3 t o Y,• yt[ :°Z •.}y ..•R.• d 'i" f s , ''"'may% t' �. r �K rc}, t .. h x •' { T. i 4sL a ' sh . _ � , ,.ter, x —Baseline —0.5rrpn n S1 s mii� — —9.2 —0 1 mOn . Observed —Standard ' T�% d' , As `� y _�- Qx" ; 4 - s Rv - rxamc k 4 1 �l-"3 4,44 % ,N ( . r� a t, :' Y 6,,. +=� ,t .-P --yew s, . ? Y�7J1 • 1 / 1 /1998 1 /1 /1 999 1/1 /2000 • 12/31/2000 Date 12131 /2001 12/31/2002 12/3112003 To: NPDES Unit Water Quality Section Attention: Toya Fields SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No Date: December 1, 2005 NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS County: Mecklenburg NPDES Permit No.: NC0024970 MRO No.: 05-58 PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Facility and address: McAlpine Creek WWTP Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities 4000 Westmont Drive Charlotte, N.C. 28202 - 6 2005 2. Date of investigation: November 9. 2005 *' 3. Report prepared by: Michael L. Parker, Environmental Engineer II 4. Person contacted and telephone number: Mr. Kim Neely, WWTP Supervisor, 704-542-0376, ext. 260; Ms. Dawn Padgett, WQ Program Administrator, 704-357-1344, ext. 235. 5. Directions to site: The WWTP is located on the left side of Hwy. 521 1.0 mile south of the jct. of Hwy. 521 and Hwy. 51 in southern Mecklenburg County. 6. Discharge point(s), list for all discharge points: - Latitude: 35° 03' 57" Longitude: 80° 52' 21 " Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map. USGS Quad No.: G 15 SE 7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes. There is additional area available on the site for expansion, if necessary. 8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Relatively flat, 2-4% slopes. The site appears to be at or above the 100 year flood plain of the receiving stream. Page Two 9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 500 feet of the WWTP site although a significant amount of residential development has occurred in the vicinity of the WWTP site in recent years. Odor complaints have increased as a result of this residential encroachment. 10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: McAlpine Creek a. Classification: C b. River basin and subbasin no.: Catawba 030834 c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The area below the receiving stream is generally rural, however, development is rapidly encroaching. The stream is = 10-15 feet wide with an unknown depth. No other known dischargers are located on McAlpine Creek prior to its junction with Sugar Creek (in S.C.). PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS 1. a. Volume of wastewater: 64.0 MGD (Design Capacity) b. What is the current permitted capacity: 64.0 MGD c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): 64.0 MGD d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the previous two years: ATC No. 0024970A03, issued 4/28/03 - authorized various in -plant modifications that would assist with the WWT facility's compliance with the total phosphorous limit. ATC No. 024970A04 - authorized the various improvements to the influent pumping stations and grit removal facilities. e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities: The existing WWT facilities consist of flow equalization, screening, grit removal, odor control, primary clarification, aeration (diffused), secondary clarification, chlorination, dechlorination, anaerobic digestion, gravity sludge centrifuges and thickeners, and gravity sand filters. f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: See Part IV for a description of the facilities that are currently being constructed at this facility g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: This facility has consistently passed all recent toxicity testing. h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Approved. 2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Residuals are either land applied under the authority of Permit No. WQ0000057 or taken to a landfill where they are used as final cover (this disposal method is used only when land application is not available). The residuals disposal contractor is Synagro, Inc., telephone no. (704) 542-0937. Residuals stabilization: PSRP (Class B). This facility also accepts and treats raw sludge from the CMU's Sugar Creek WWTP. Screening and grit are collected in dumpsters and disposed of in a landfill. Page Three 3. Treatment Plant Classification: Class IV (no change from previous rating). 4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 01 MTU Code(s): 01003 PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies involved (municipals only)? Public monies were used in the construction of this facility. 2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None requested at this time. 3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under an SOC nor is one being considered at this time. 4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: There is no known alternative to this discharge. PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) requests reissuance of the subject NPDES Permit. There have been a number of changes both to the permit and the existing WWT facility since the permit was last renewed. At the time of the site visit, there were a number of on -going construction projects at the site. These improvements included: • Phosphorous Reduction Facilities* • Consolidated Influent Pumping Facility Improvements (scheduled for 9/1/06) • Primary Treatment Improvements and Effluent Filter Rehabilitation (scheduled for 1/18/07) • Stand-by Generator Facilities (scheduled for 12/1/05) * In a 2002 settlement agreement between SCDHEC, CMU, and NCDWQ, CMU agreed to a discharge of not more than 1.0 mg/1 at the maximum permitted flow rate of 64.0 MGD. The construction of these facilities is underway, with a projected completion date of December 20, 2005. CMU has requested and received approval to conduct a Water Effect Ratio for copper to help derive site specific limits for copper and zinc. This procedure has been approved by DWQ's Aquatic Toxicology Unit, and is awaiting EPA's approval before implementation. CMU is hoping to have the procedure completed prior to the expiration date of the current permit (2/28/06). Pending a final technical review by the NPDES Unit, it is recommended that the permit be reissued as requested. h:ldsrldsrO5\mcalpine.sr Signature of Report Preparer 0 , A, /Z--/-40, Date /2.-/76s Water Quality Regiot 1 Supervisor Date Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II For Copper ( hu.4-A 6011/AQt zi( -K_IAO) mA bA mC bC d ssolved fractions &7� acute chronic 96% 96% O 1 o 1(e -1.700 0.8545 -1.702 OIL G...tei.acl\v„ Hardness -) 67.2 `f �;L( 1 C� 4s? )JLaJJ 83.s CCC eac,ac-11,9 In(67.2) 4.207673248 In(67.2) 4.207673248 MC = ay Imp Den (Wm(3) ] -+ b4 W 0.9422 +(-1.700)} , 5 6= 2.26447 {08545(4.143135)+(-1.702)} 7 exp 2.264469734 = 9.626019 exp 1.89345679 copper dissolved fraction 96% = 9.240978 WQS dissolvedcopper dissolved fraction -e1J pi -glory)) Plant permitted flow 64 MGD Plant permitted flow Steam flow 1.9 CFS Steam flow Stream flow in MGD 1.23 Combined Flow 65.23 WLA dissolved/pounds per day 5.027260294 WLA ug/I 9.418578188 TSS Average 3.19 mg/I Calculated Dissolved Fraction of the Metal .11 • WQBEL - total recoverable • iSS dd lL 0.417 22.58651844 = (wk.(1�c�, c f @ 0 /L TCS oyS-t� )• 64 MGD 1.9 CFS Stream flow in MGD 1.23 Combined Flow 65.23 WLA dissolved/pounds per day 3.468986 WLA ug/I 6.499149 WQBEL - total recoverable 15.58549 o 19S8 96% 1.893457 6.64229 6.376598 WQS dissolved Knowns - from the SC DEHEC Bureau Water Classifications and Standards Attachment II For Zinc mA bA mC bC dissolved fractions acute chronic 0.8473 0.884 0.8473 0.884 97.8% 98.6% Hardness 67.2 In(67.2) 4.207673248 In(67.2) 4.207673248 {0.9422(4.143135)+(-1.700)} = 4.449162 {08545(4.143135)+(-1.702)} = 4.449162 exp 4.449161543 = 85.55518 exp 4.449161543 = 85.55518 zinc dissolved fraction 97.8% = 83.67297 WQS dissolved zinc dissolved fraction 98.6% _ 84.35741 WQS dissolved Plant permitted flow Steam flow 64 MGD 1.9 CFS Plant permitted flow Steam flow 64 MGD 1.9 CFS Stream flow in MGD 1.23 Stream flow in MGD 1.23 Combined Flow 65.23 Combined Flow 65.23 1 WLA dissolved/pounds per da: 45.51961613 WLA dissolved/pounds per day 45.89196 WLA ug/l 85.28105541 WLA ugll 85.97865 TSS Average 3.19 mg/I Calculated Dissolved Fraction of the Metal 0.362 . WQBEL - total recoverable 235.583026 WQBEL - total recoverable 237.5101 CHARLOTTE .M August 24, 2005 Dave Goodrich NCDENR-DWQ Surface Water Protection Section Point Source Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Re: McAlpine Creek WWMF, NPDES Permit #NC0024970 Dear Mr. Goodrich, Please find enclosed three copies of the Permit Application and Attachments for the McAlpine WWMF Permit Renewal, Permit #NC0024970, expiring February 28, 2006. The application includes Parts A — F and 13 attachments. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities does not have Combined Sewer's which would require us to complete Part G. Please note that the flow averages and maximum flows reported in Part A.6.b. and c. are for July 1, 2004 — June 30, 2005 (this year), July 1, 2003 — June 30, 2004 (last year) and July 1, 2002 — June 30, 2003 (two years ago). Also, in A-11 — the Design Removal Rates that are reported are from the consultant that has designed the Phosphorus Upgrade at McAlpine Creek WWMF. The removal rates are based on their model at 64.0 MGD. In A.12,. B.6. and Section D, the data that is summarized here is from July, 1, 2003 through June 30, 2005. This is as agreed upon with Toya Fields with the NPDES Permitting section of NCDENR. In B.1., an estimated I & I flow is included. This estimate was generated from Frazier Engineering. Frazier Engineering has the maintenance and evaluation contract for the trunkline monitors that we have in place throughout the major collection system trunklines. Further information about this project is included in Attachment #4. As required for permit re -issuance we have conducted four Priority Pollutant Analyses in all four seasons. These samples were collected on: September 3, 2003, December 15, 2004, March 16, 2005 and June 15, 2005. These results are included in Attachment #10. Also included with the application are the results from the analysis for four second species toxicity samples (using flat head minnows). The samples for these analyses were CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES Environmental Management Division 4000 Westmont Drive Charlotte, NC 28217 PH: 704/357-1344 collected on: September 8, 10 and 12, 2003, December 5, 7, 9, 2004, March 7, 8, 10, 2005 and June 20, 21 and 23, 2005. These results are included with the Cerio Daphnia toxicity results in Attachment # 11. In Section F. - Significant Industrial User (SIU) Information, attachment #12, we have included the SIU information for industries that discharge to Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES #NC0024937. Sugar Creek WWTP bypasses approximately 1/3 of the flow from Sugar Creek WWTP to McAlpine Creek WWMF. Since these facilities also contribute to the Industrial load at McAlpine Creek WWMF they are included in this application. During the Permit negotiation process for the new Permits for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES #NC0024945, and Sugar Creek WWTP, NPDES #NC0024937, there were several issues raised, particularly in reference to the South Carolina Water Quality Standards as published by S.C. DHEC, Bureau of Water, Water Classifications and Standards (R.61 — 68) for copper, silver and zinc. It was determined that a silver limit was not needed at either plant, due to this pollutant not being detected in the effluent at either plant. The copper and zinc issues were more complicated. During this negotiation process, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities was able to find EPA guidance documents about the procedure for determining these limits based on the receiving stream hardness and suspended solids concentrations. These calculations were sent to your office, were accepted by EPA and SC DHEC and have been used in the newly issued permits for these facilities. Since McAlpine Creek WWMF also discharges to the Sugar Creek Basin, we assume that the same issues that were raised during the permitting process for Irwin Creek WWTP, and Sugar Creek WWTP will also need to be addressed. Like the other two facilities in this basin, silver has not been detected in the effluent of the McAlpine Creek WWMF discharge in the past 5 years. As determined at the other two facilities, we do not expect silver to be an issue. Copper and Zinc are normally found in the effluent at McAlpine Creek WWMF. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities has initiated a sampling policy, starting in November, 2002, in the receiving water — upstream and downstream — to determine the hardness of the stream water. This information is included with the application in Attachment #2. We have also calculated the Water Quality Standard, based on the mean receiving water Hardness and the suspended solids in the effluent of the treatment facility. These are the same calculations as used previously and are based on South Carolina Water Quality Criteria and EPA guidance documents. These calculations are included in the following pages for your review. Another part of the negotiation for limits for copper and zinc in the Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek WWTP's was an allowance for Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities to conduct a Water Effect Ratio to determine site specific limits for copper and zinc. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities has decided to conduct a Water Effect Ratio for copper at both facilities. The procedure has been approved by the NC DENR, Aquatic Toxicology Unit and we have sent the procedure to EPA for final review and approval. We also would like to complete this procedure for McAlpine Creek WWMF, and, if approved, hope to have it completed prior to the Permit Expiration date of February 28, 2006. If you have any questions about the Permit Application, the attachments, or the cover letter information, you may call me at 704/357-1344, ext. 238 or you may call Ms. Dawn Padgett, Technical Services for Environmental Management, at 704/357-1344, ext. 235. You may also call Mr. S. Kim Neely the ORC of McAlpine Creek WWMF at 704/542- 0736. Thank you for your work on this process. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, b,_k_........ ,A, acqueline A. Jarrell, P.E. Superintendent, Environmental Management Division Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities c .,__SL9 CHARLOTTE. CNARLOTTE•MECNLENBURG UTILITIES McAlpine WWTP Service Area McAlpine Service Area 11!, 1 Streams Approximatly 366,331 people are served by McAlpine WWTP based on 2004 TAZ Data McAlpine Creek VVVVTP McAlpine Creek Stream Data Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWMF Downstream of McAlpine Creek WWMF MC1 11/20/02 107 12/17/02 104 1/22/03 114 2/19/03 62 3/19/03 79 4/14/03 68 5/20/03 87 6/17/03 41 7/15/03 60 8/18/03 76 9/15/03 120 10/1/03 104 11/10/03 110 12/16/03 77 1/20/04 80 2/18/04 140 3/22/04 98 4/15/04 94 5/18/04 130 6/22/04 81 7/20/04 56 8/24/04 84 9/14/04 92 10/5/04 108 10/13/04 42 10/21/04 104 10/28/04 112 11/2/04 120 11/9/04 100 11/17/04 102 11/22/04 119 11/30/04 88 12/7/2004 79 12/15/2004 106 12/21/2004 118 12/28/2004 108 1/5/2005 117 1 /11 /2005 122 1/20/2005 117 1/25/2005 113 2/1/2005 92 2/8/2005 105 2/16/2005 96 2/23/2005 89 3/2/2005 82 3/9/2005 65 3/15/2005 98 MC2 11/20/02 65 12/17/02 80 1/22/03 71 2/19/03 55 3/19/03 60 4/14/03 70 5/20/03 70 6/17/03 45 7/15/03 57 8/18/03 64 9/15/03 66 10/1/03 66 11/10/03 69 12/16/03 65 1/20/04 68 2/18/04 68 3/22/04 90 4/15/04 70.8 5/18/04 68 6/22/04 66 7/6/04 47 7/16/04 70 7/20/04 61 7/28/04 36 8/3/04 66 8/10/04 67 8/16/04 57 8/24/04 66 8/31/04 42 9/10/04 62 9/14/04 74 9/22/04 70 9/30/04 62 10/5/04 74 10/13/04 54 10/21/04 74 10/28/04 76 11/2/04 71 11/9/04 70 11/17/04 70 11/22/04 68 11/30/04 68 12/7/2004 74 12/15/2004 79 12/21/2004 81 12/28/2004 75 1/5/2005 81 Page 1 of 2 McAlpine Creek Stream Data Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWMF Downstream of McAlpine Creek WWMF count mean 3/24/2005 75 1 /11 /2005 79 3/30/2005 92 1/20/2005 76 4/6/2005 102 1/25/2005 79 4/12/2005 125 2/1/2005 75 4/20/2005 102 2/8/2005 77 4/25/2005 90 2/16/2005 71 5/3/2005 94 2/23/2005 71 5/10/2005 116 3/2/2005 68 5/17/2005 97 3/9/2005 58 5/25/2005 93 3/15/2005 79 6/1/05 86 3/24/2005 60 6/8/05 59 3/30/2005 72 6/14/05 103 4/6/2005 88 6/21/05 116 4/12/2005 83 6/30/05 77 4/20/2005 80 4/25/2005 83 5/3/2005 74 5/10/2005 74 5/17/2005 77 5/25/2005 93 62 6/1/05 70 6/8/05 62 97 6/14/05 79 6/21/05 70 6/30/05 72 count 72 Mean 70 Page 2 of 2 McAlpine WWMF Narrative of Treatment Processes Liquid Processes Flow enters the facility at the headworks where it is screened, degritted, and the flow is measured. Recycle streams that include the centrate, filter backwash, and WAS-centrate combined with the raw wastewater before screening. Screens and grit removed are collected in dumpsters to be disposed of at a landfill. The degritted flow is then split between two treatment systems: North and South. Both treatment systems are comprised of similar treatment processes: Primary Sedimentation, Biological Treatment, and Secondary Clarification. North Flow to the North Plant begins with the flow entering two 130-ft DIA primary sedimentation basins. Primary effluent is then distributed between 12 aeration basins with a combined volume of 12.67 MG. Biological treatment utilizes an initial anaerobic zone followed by multiple aerobic zones. Mixed liquor from the aeration basins continue to the secondary clarifiers. Two 95-ft DIA and four 125-ft DIA clarifiers are used to separate the mixed liquor. Return activated sludge drawn from the clarifiers is returned to a splitter box ahead of the aeration basins. South Flow to the South Plant begins with the flow entering four 125-ft DIA primary sedimentation basins. Primary effluent is then distributed between 16 aeration basins with a combined volume of 13.96 MG. Biological treatment utilizes an initial anaerobic zone followed by multiple aerobic zones. Mixed liquor from the aeration basins continue to the secondary clarifiers. Four 95-ft DIA, four 105-ft DIA, and two 125-ft DIA clarifiers are used to separate the mixed liquor. Return activated sludge drawn from the clarifiers is returned to a splitter box ahead of the aeration basins. Secondary clarifier effluent from the North and South treatment systems are combined and filtered utilizing ten 800-square foot rapid sand filters. Filtered effluent is disinfected with Sodium Hypochlorite and dechlorinated with Sodium Bisulfite prior to discharge in McAlpine Creek. Solids Processes Primary sludge from both facilities, in addition to raw sludge from Sugar Creek, is thickened using two 45-ft DIA gravity thickeners. Currently thickener effluent is flowing by gravity to North Plant aeration basins 7, 8 and 9. Once construction activities are complete, the thickener effluent will be pumped to a splitter box ahead of the North and South aeration basins where the RAS is mixed with the primary clarifier effluent. Thickened primary sludge is mixed with thickened WAS prior to entering the digesters. Waste activated sludge (WAS) from both facilities, in addition to WAS from Sugar Creek, is thickened using three centrifuges. The WAS is thickened to approximately 5-percent solids. Centrate from the centrifuges is recycled back to the headworks. The thickened WAS is combined with the thickened primary sludge and enters the digesters. Thickened primary sludge and thickened WAS is digested in eight anaerobic digesters. The digesters provide a volume of approximately 15.89 MG. Once digested, the solids are held in two 1 MG holding tanks prior to dewatering. Three centrifuges are available for dewatering of the biosolids. The dewatered cake is thickened to approximately 20-percent solids. Centrifuge centrate is currently being recycled back to the headworks. Biosolids residuals are permitted, managed and disposed under a contract with Synagro. Land application and landfilling (only when necessary) are the means for ultimate use of the residuals. Septage is received and controlled at the facility through a septage receiving station. Septage volume is monitored, screened and passes to the biological system for treatment. Inflow and Infiltration (I and I) Reduction Practices Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities has an on -going process for the rehabilitation of sewer lines and manholes that have been identified through smoke testing and other methods. In FY 05 (July 1, 2004 — June 30, 2005) approximately 894 miles of sewer lines were cleaned (including repeated cleanings). In addition, 24 miles of sewer pipes and 2,127 manholes were restored or replaced. Since March 2004, 574 manholes (including 38 in the Andover Rd. neighborhood) have been rehabed in the McAlpine Creek Sub -Basin, 1,011 manholes in the Paw Creek Sub -Basin, 19 manholes in the McMullen Creek Sub -Basin and 162 manholes in the Briar Creek Sub -Basin. In the Paw Creek Sub -Basin of the McAlpine Creek Basin, 37,173' of pipe have been lined since December, 2004. A Root Control Project has been in place since March 2005. During the first three months, the project was working exclusively in the McAlpine Creek WWMF basin. Since that time, the program has expanded to the Irwin, Sugar and Mallard Creek WWTP basins, but continues to work in the McAlpine Basin. 200,000' of root control treatment has been applied in the McAlpine Basin since March, 2005. A Trunkline Monitoring Program is also in place to evaluate Capacity issues and I and I loadings in the Major Trunldines in the System. This program currently has 27 flow monitors in the collection system, but we will be adding 22 more flow monitors in the coming year. One Mile Radius Around McAlpine WWTP Parcel for McAlpine VVVVTP - -- Streams ElState Line e- • • troi;... .. 7, South Carolina (07) CH4RLOTTE. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES C:IWINDM100121516.01810000-ERIC-COLOR.DWG, Layoutl, 8/4/2005 10:24:15 AM, mlinkous McALPINE CREEK REUEF SEWER SCALE IN FEET 200 100 0 200 LEGEND ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS CREEKS • McAlpine Creek WWMF Map Raw = 49 mgd Recy = 3.34 mgd PCI= 23.55 mgd (-45%) NPCE = 22.37 mgd NABI = 24..5_m0rt PC MeinPCI = 52.34 mgd Nei SplYt NS Legend BbS = Dewatered Bicsdids Centrate = Dewatering Centrate DigEff = Anaerobic Digester Effluent Diglnf = Anerobic Digester Influent Eff = Plant Influent FBW = Filter Backwash FI = Filter Influent NABE = North Aeration Basin Effluent NABI = North Aeration Basin Influent NCE = North Secondary Clarifier Effluent NPCE = North Primary Clarfier Effluent NPCI = North Primary Clarifier Influent NPS = North Primary Sludge NWAS =North WAS PCI = Primary Clarifier Influent PSTI = Primary Sludge Thickener Influent PSTO = Primary Sludge Thickener Overflow Raw = Raw Influent Recy = Recycles SABE = South Aeration Basin Effluent SABI = South Aeration Basin Influent SCE = South Secondary Clarifier Effluent SCPS = Sugar Creek Primary Sludge SCWAS = Sugar Creek WAS SPCE = South Primary Gather Effluent SPCI = South Primary Clarifier Influent SPS = South Primary Sludge SWAS = South WAS ThPS = Thickened Primary Sludge ThWAS =Thickened WAS WASC =WAS Thickener Centrate WASTI = WAS Thickener Influent CNedo Racy SPCI =28.7 mgd (-55%) NPS = 1.18 mgd PC South el Aor Barinr North SPCE/SABI = 27.57 mg (NOTE: NABE iL SABE incl RAS) NABE = 37.28 mgd NWAS = 0.32 mgd Aar Basins South NSE = 24.53 mgd CNode NS SABE = 41.36 mgd ( sc NSE = 26.73 mgd South FI = 51.26 FBW = 1.8 mgd Plters M,tn Sgr Crk PS CNod PS SCPS = 0.45 mgd TPSTI = 2.85 mgd CPS Thick WASO + Centrate = 1.54 mgd SPS=1.22 ThPS = 0.37 mgd mgd SCWAS = 0.24 mgd Sgr Crk WAS CNode WAS Lir WASTI = 1.4 mgd WAS Thick ADgrox. Re oval Rates: cBOD = 99.40% TSS = 97.90% NH3 = 99.50% TP = 91.60% CNoas NS 2 WASO= 1.23 mgd PSTO = 2.48 mgd ( to North Basins 7, 8, 9) SWAS = 0.84 mgd ThWAS =0.17 mgd CNode Swage J Diglnf = 0.54 mgd An Dig DigE = 0.37 mgd Centrate = 0.314 mgd Cent Dow Eff = 49.46 mgd Plant Effluent BioS = 0.056 mgd PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION General Description The purpose of this project is to reduce the amount of phosphorus being discharged by the McAlpine Creek WWMF. The settlement agreement, dated January 15, 2002, between the SCDHEC, NCDWQ and the City of Charlotte allows a total phosphorus discharge of not more than 1 mg/1 at a maximum month flow rate of 64 mgd, for the McAlpine Creek WWMF. Phase I of the Phosphorus Reduction Project includes the addition of two chemical feed buildings that feed magnesium hydroxide, ferric chloride, and polymer to strategic locations through out the treatment process. All 28 aeration basins will be modified to include anaerobic zones for biological phosphorus removal. Five RAS pumping stations and the RSR pumping station will be modified for additional capacity. A primary sludge splitter structure, two gravity thickeners, a gravity thickener effluent pumping station, a thickened sludge pumping station, and the associated electrical and instrumentation improvements will also be constructed. Notice to Proceed Date October 6, 2003 Final Completion Date February 16, 2006 (865 days from NTP) Operational Date (Substantial Completion) December 20, 2005 (807 days from NTP) CONSOLIDATED INFLUENT PUMPING FACILITY General Description There are two driving factors for the Consolidated Influent Pumping Facility Project. The first being the dry weather and peak wet weather flow conveyed to the plant via the new McAlpine Creek Relief Sewer, scheduled to begin construction in the near future, and the second being the need to significantly upgrade and rehabilitate the existing North and South Plant Raw Sewage Pumping Stations. Combining the North and South Raw Sewage Pumping Stations into one combined facility also brings all influent and side - stream flows to a single location at the head of the plant, allowing for much improved in - plant flow management. The major components include a low lift pumping station, a central electrical power distribution building, modifications to the existing screening and grit facilities, new odor control facilities, flow equalization pumping station improvements, the combined influent pumping facilities and the associated electrical and instrumentation improvements. Notice to Proceed Date October 11, 2004 Final Completion Date March 14, 2007 (884 days from NTP) Operational Date (Substantial Completion) September 1, 2006 (690 days from NTP) PRIMARY TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND EFFLUENT FILTER REHABILITATION General Description This project is actually Phase II of the Phosphorus Reduction Project. Construction of this project provides the reliability necessary to ensure the McAlpine Creek WWMF continually meets the phosphorus effluent limit specified by the settlement agreement between the SCDHEC, NCDWQ and the City of Charlotte. It includes two new primary clarifiers and a primary sludge pumping station in the north plant, odor control, rehabilitation of the effluent filters, and rehabilitation of the existing primary clarifiers and their associated distribution boxes. Notice to Proceed Date May 23, 2005 Final Completion Date February 17, 2007 (635 days from NTP) Operational Date (Substantial Completion) January 18, 2007 (605 days from NTP) STANDBY GENERATOR FACILITIES General Description This project includes two separate generator buildings. Each building will be equipped with three 2700 kVA generators and have space for one additional generator. These generators will provide standby power for the entire wastewater management facility, eliminating the need for any other stand by power. Currently standby power is provided to critical processes by multiple smaller generators located through out the site. The majority of these will be decommissioned and removed. Notice to Proceed Date September 7, 2004 Final Completion Date December 1, 2005 (450 days from NTP) Operational Date (Substantial Completion) October 1, 2005 (390 days from NTP) r V Selenium Issue Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities samples for 10-metals on the list of Pollutants of Concern each week on the Influent and Effluent at McAlpine Creek WWMF. It is not an NPDES requirement to monitor each of these metals at this frequency; however, we feel this information does allow us to find potential problems as soon as possible. Selenium has not been an issue at the WWMF and has not been detected in the effluent since monitoring at this frequency has been initiated. Starting on April 12, 2005 selenium was detected in both the influent and effluent of the facility for four consecutive weeks, with the last detected discharge on May 4, 2005. When the Environmental Management Division was notified that selenium was being detected, action was taken immediately. All of the metals samples collected from industries that discharge in the McAlpine Creek Basin since March of 2005 were checked to see if selenium was in the samples. Since this had not been an issue, no facilities in the basin had a permit limit for selenium. Upon review of the analytical data, it was determined that three different facilities in the McAlpine Basin were discharging selenium at elevated levels. These facilities were notified and asked to stop the discharge of the selenium. The Pretreatment Permits for each facility were also opened and amended adding limits for selenium. The three facilities identified as contributing to this issue are: PCA International Pretreatment Permit #0354 PCA International / West Pretreatment Permit #3005 Phillips Services, Allwaste Container Services Pretreatment Permit #3009 From the time that the first detection of selenium was noted in the basin to the time the discharge of this waste was stopped is a total of four (4) weeks. Since May 10, 2005 until the time of this application, selenium has not been detected in either the influent nor effluent of McAlpine Creek WWMF.