NC0025305_Wasteload Allocation_19951228

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0025305
PERMITTEE NAME: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
FACILITY NAME: UNC Steam Plant
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor `I
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 0.048 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
Industrial (% of Flow): 100 %
Comments: (sit CofDaiN65)
RECEIVING STREAM: an unnamed tributary to Morgan Creek
Class: WS -IV NSW
Sub -Basin: 03-06-06
Reference USGS Quad: D22NE (please attach)
County: Orange
Regional Office:_ Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 3/31/96 Treatment Plant Class: I
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Susan Wilson � Date: 10/23/95
Prepared b . Date: 10 9�
Reviewed Date:
B°�_ - 'Ian qs�
�GA� �.
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
Drainage Area (miz ) 6.0 Se Avg. Streamflow (cfs): b, o
7Q10 (cfs) 5, o Winter 7Q10 (cfs) o. a 30Q2 (cfs) c. o
Toxicity Limits: IWC ft % Acu Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Upstream Y V Location e UT
Downstream Y Location
M� l�
Effluent
Characteristics
Summer
Winter
BOD5 (m )
NH3-N (mg/1)
D.O. (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
30
too
F. Col. (/100 ml)
pH (SU)
6 9
Dx� 6.'. ( /.c)
is
z�
5-0
7
Sv
w
i 7✓/�E
Comme1nt f n

UNC S.E.P., NCOO253O5
Effluent Guideline Limitations - 40 CFR 423
Type of Product Produced
1000 MW/day prod.
Steam Electric Power
0.028 MW
Summary
Outfall 001: low volume waste (423.12(b)(3)),coal pile runoff (423.12(b)(9)), ash sluice (423.12(b)(4))
001
Effluent Parameter
423.12(b)(3) 423.12(b) (9)
423.12(b) (4
Comments
Daily Max
30 day avg.
Daily Max
30 day avg.
Daily Max
30 day avg.
TSS
100.0
30.00
50
-
100.0
30.0
BPT
Oil andgrease*
20.0
15.00
-
-
20.0
15.0
BPT
Cu
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Fe
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Cr
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Zn
-
-
-
-
-
--BAT
Free available Cl-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Total residual Cl-
-
-
BAT
PPA
-
-
-
-
Note: Previous permit gave eff. guidelines for cooling tower blowdown. All cooling tower blowdown goes to OWASA.
Also, per application, boiler blowdown is being recycled in cooling towers. (Boiler blowdown is categorized under low volume waste anyway).
Only low volume waste, coal pile runoff, ash sluice, and stormwater are going to the WWT facility.
To-ML, Oo ( A { (ram L ts--r--)
f 55 (00 30
o Z-o��S
10/23/95

t>� ocEs WASTE WATER EFFLUENT
0-ter Source Type as defined Est. Iron Flow (GPD)
mmm' in EPA Guidlines Contribution Dailv Ave.
Low <0.25
Mod. 0.25 to 1.00
Mod to High 1.00'to 3.0
High >3.0
Page 7

r---------------
I
F-n.- - - - -

oFyyP
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD
ALLOCATION
q//\
Request # 8371
Facility Name:
UNC Steam Plant
FCiC
1q�
NPDES No.:
NCO025305
Type of Waste:
Industrial - 100%
0-1,
Facility Status:
Existing
��f
Permit Status:
Renewal
Receiving Stream:
UT Morgan Creek
Stream Classification:
WS-IV NSW
Subbasin:
030606
County:
Orange
Stream Characteristic:
Regional Office:
Raleigh
USGS #
0209750610
Requestor:
Wilson
Date:
1988
Date of Request:
10/24/95
Drainage Area (mi2):
0.04
Topo Quad:
D22NE
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0.0
Average Flow (cfs):
0.0
30Q2 (cfs):
0.0
IWC (%):
100
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Facility requesting renewal of existing permit. Currently under SOC for toxicity. Because of the
toxicity problems, UNC has considered the rerouting of waste regenerant brine to OWASA.
Review of the values for Cu, Zn and Fe being discharged have consistently exceeded the allowable
concentrations. Recommend the renewal of existing limits and chronic toxicity requirement with
the addition of monitoring for chlorides and sulfates, due to high conductivity and dissolved salts
in the effluent and classification of receiving stream as WS-IV. Recommend the reduction of Cr
monitoring to quarterly because of number of values reported below detection level. Schematic of
waterflow shows that 48000 GPD goes to NPDES discharge to outfall 001.
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment.
201 Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineerin
` ✓ Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: 6

TOXICS/METALS/CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic Ceriodaphnia P/F
Existing Limit: 90%
Recommended Limit: 90%
Monitoring Schedule: JAN APR JUL OCT
Existin Limits
imits
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Wasteflow (MGD): 0.0922
TSS (mg/1): 30 100
PH (SU): 6-9
Oil and Grease (mg/l): 15 20
Chromium (MA): 50 50
Copper (µg/1): monitor
Iron (mg/1): monitor
Zinc (mg/1): 1 1
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):Qrtrly monitoring
Total Nitrogen (mg/l): Qrtrly monitoringl� X
Temperature(C): monitor
Chlorine (µg/1): 200 µg/l MG d
o1r. p
Recommended Limits-MeA
erage Daily Max. WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 0. 8
TSS (mg/1): 100 BPT
pH (SU): 6-9
Oil and Grease (mg/1): 15 20 BPT
Chromium (µg/l): Qrtrly monitoring
Copper (µg/1): monitor
Iron (mgft monitor
Zinc (mg/l): monitor
Total Phosphorus (mg/1): Qrtrly monitoring
Total Nitrogen (mg/l): Qrtrly monitoring
Chlorides (mg/1): meniter a�50 k WQ
Sulfates (mg/1): mon"r 9,50 f WQ
Temperat�ur"e (C): r monitor �r
f/ydo atS vntifE�t�F i� i ntavra ii9 n �Ubvw ikd W (� O fi7(J �Cc ier �jeLj-;
ulFta#n� 6rfµe Pn i4gkialue ye�kir{edb)/ 4gtwH� ox tx bYin2 73000ytv�il. Lx OU
Limits Changes Due To: a Parameters) AffectW
Change in 7Q10 data �1 ',,
Change in stream classification 41tu 0
Relocation of discharge
Change in wasteflow
New pretreatment information
Other (onsite toxicity study, interaction, etc.) Chlorides, Sulfates, Cr
_ 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.
--77E--7F-
yF iZ.GCGSSaY 1��4vyrb G✓oc.Jh.S'%✓Ga�. aTL

3
INSTREAM. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
es:
1� — Z" P rZ-a; o4J P12F.
MISOUs INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDMONS
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment
facilities? Yes No ✓
If no, which parameters cannot be met? : 'A4A�ti� f Q
Q^ ties 5cj fatos
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes ✓ �Ko
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
-0 T GL- sota e—.'
If no, why not?
�: _ U _! ! t f6i !_ a !. 57 t. a
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

UNC S.E.P., NCO025305
Effluent Guideline Limitations - 40 CFR 423
Type of Product Produced 1000 MW/day prod.
Steam Electric Power 0.028 MW
Summary
Outfall 001': low volume waste (423.12(b)(3)),coal pile runoff (423.12(b)(9)), ash sluice (423.12(b)(4))
001
Effluent Parameter
423.12(b)(3) 423.12(b)(9)
423.12(b)(4
Comments
Daily Max
30 day avg.
Daily Max
30 da av .
Daily Max
30 day avg.
TSS
100.0
30.00
50
-
100.0
30.0
BPT
Oil andgrease'
20.0
15.00
-
20.0
15.0
BPT
Cu
-
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Fe
-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Cr
-
-
-
_
-
BAT
Zn
-
-
-
-
-
-I
BAT
Free available Cl-
-
-
-
-
BAT
Total residual CI-
-
-
-
_
BAT
PPA
-
-
-
Note: Previous permit gave eff. guidelines for coolipg tower blowdown. All cooling tower blowdown goes to OWASA.
Also, per application, boiler blowdown is being recycled in cooling towers. (Boiler blowdown is categorized under low volume waste anyway).
Only low volume waste, coal pile runoff, ash sluice, and stormwater are going to the WWT facility.
To F k, 00 j
"'T'_ f2,
Z,o / S
10/23/95

Facility Name UNC -STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT _ Permit # NCO025305 _ Pipe # 001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic tonicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is _90_% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall
perform auarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first
test will be performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
_JAN APR JUL OCT .. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge
Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B.
Additionally, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity
sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will
revert to quarterly in the months specified above.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this pemut may be re -opened and
modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control organism
survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0
cfs
Permitted Flow 0.048
MGD
IWC 100
%
Basin & Sub -basin
CPF06
Receiving Stream
UT Morgan Creek
County Orange
Rq4ommended by:
Date 11/30/95_
QCL P/F Version 9191

0
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill JMN
-UNC Steam Plant 11/28/95
UT Morgan Creek
030606
Facility requesting renewal of NPDES permit. A steam electric power that produces steam
and electricity for the campus and Univ. hospitals. Per 1994 meeting with UNC, the main
difference between a typical steam electric generating facility and the UNC boiler plant is
the approx. 35 miles of distribution and condensate return piping associated with the
heating and cooling functions of the boiler plant. Approx. 85% of the condensate returns
to the boiler plant for reuse. A cogeneration facility - the waste abatement practice where
rinse water from regeneration of demineralization system in now reused. Per note from S.
Wilson, boiler blowdown from No. 5 boiler is considered low volume waste that has a
moderate to high contribution of iron of 1 to 3 mg/1. Other types of discharges are coal
pile runoff, ash sluice, and stoimwater going to the wastewater treatment facility.
Produces 1000 MW/day of product.
Existing limits for TSS = 30 mg/l (mo. Avg.); 100 mg/l (da. max.), O&G =15 mg/l, C1=
200 µg/l, monitoring for TP, TN, Cr, Zn, Cu and Fe . Also has chronic tox limit of 90%
. Facility failed all tox tests in 1994 and all in 1995, except for Sept. and Oct. Discharges
into a zero flow stream. Recommended effluent guidelines (40 CFR 423) for WLA
renewal for TSS and Oil and Grease only.
Currently under SOC to perform THE and make modifications to meet toxicity limits.
Primary source of effluent toxicity is high effluent conductivity and dissolved salts which
result from the discharge of waste regenerant brine from the boiler water feed
demineralization system. Pilot testing being performed evaluating rerouting the regenerant
brine to the municipal wwt facility.
Tox Analysis: Review of data from 10/94 to present shows Cr below detection most to
the time. Monitoring for Cu, Fe and Zn needed since all constituents are exceeding the
allowable concentration. All parameters have action levels therefore no limits can be given
unless effluent guidelines. Because of toxicity problems that the plant is having, failures of
all tox tests, there is concern if any of these constituents could be the cause.
THE results that stage that effluent toxicity comes from conductivity and dissolved salts
from the waste regenerant brine from the boiler water feed demineralization system. Most
significant contributor of iron is the Magnetic filter Backwash, 250 GPD. It removes iron
from the condensate return prior to reuse in the boiler plant. Other moderate to high
contributors include No.S Boiler (2880 GPD), Ash Silo Washdown (2400 GPD), Coal
Unloading Building Washdown (411 GPD), and Coal Pile Runoff (7200 GPD).
Application states that as part of a toxicity identification evaluation 24 hr composite samples
were collected on 7 consecutive days and were analyzed for arsenic, Cr, Cu, Fe, Se and
Zn. Se were less than detection, and all other parameters were in the "normal" range
reported from the routine monitoring.
DEM had mentioned at 1994 meeting with UNC, the option of including a mass limit for
iron based on wasteflow. I assume this idea was brought in case that iron was determined
to be the cause of the toxicity problems. Previous permitted metals limits, Cr, Zn, Cu, and
Fe were dropped because no metal cleaning wastes contribute to the wastewater at the
boiler plant.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill page 2
UNC Steam Plant
Telecon w/ AQ TOX: Talked w/ Kevin Bowden, he said that appears that some part of
the toxicity was due to the waste brine from regenerant system. Could also be a problem
with polymer toxicity. Had been using 95X greater than what they needed. Have cut down
on the amount of polymer they are using. Also had received some data on the makeup of
the waste brine. The brine contained sodium phosphate, high total dissolved solids, and
conductivity and Cu = 272 µg/l, Fe = 2.64 mg/l, and Sulfates = 3240 mg/l.
Told Kevin that since UNC had reported high dissolved salts as a contributor to toxicity,
IAU would probably recommend chlorides monitoring at this renewal.
Also will recommend sulfates monitoring since such high numbers are
being discharged. There is a standard of 250 mg/l for both of these
parameters in WS class streams. AQ TOX would support monitoring for
chlorides because of the high conductivity of the effluent.
Passed their tox test in August and October. AQ TOX is supposed to get quarterly THE
progress report but have not received one as yet. Currently under an order expires in
March 1997, must comply with toxicity limit of 90% by April 1996. UNC was looking
into a way of ultimate disposal to OWASA. AQ TOX recommends a benchscale test of
UNC COGEN effluent to see if there would be impacts to OWASA. Looking at a way to
reroute these wastestreams or do away with the regenerant. Added that UNC has always
cooperated and addressed the toxicity problem as soon as the trouble surfaced.
RRO Staff Report: Currently under SOC to identify toxicity problems. Indicates that
waste regenerant brine is currently being rerouted to the municipal WWTF. Depending on
the results of the pilot test, this wastewater source may be permanently discharged to
OWASA. Recommends renewal of permit.
Recommend renewal of existing limits with recommended effluent
guidelines, toxicity test @ 90 %. and continued monitoring for Cu, Zn,
Fe. Additional effluent monitoring for Chlorides and Sulfates. Reduction
of Cr to quarterly monitoring because of number of BDL values.
00/
1all.G- l A awe

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
jo�a6f
SS
S<
.SS
Facility Name
UNC-Steam Pit
NPDES #
NC0025305
Ow MGD
0.048
1WC %
100.00
Rec%4ng Stream
UT Mo an Creek
Stream Class
WS-IV NSW
� •
..�._.._.�.._.�..�._
�•FINAL RESULTS
Cr
Max. Pred Cw
12.5
u
Allowable Cw
50.0
u n
Max. Value
10
Cu
Max. Pred Cw
243
ugAI
Allowable Cw
7.0
u
Max. Value
135
Fe
Max. Pred Cw
6166
u
Allowable Cw
1000.0
u /l
Max. Value
3420
Zn
Max. Pred Cw
558
u
Allowable Cw
50.0
ugA
Max. Value
310
Max. Pred Cw
0
ugA
Allowable Cw
#VALUE l
ugA
Max. Value
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
u n
Allowable Cw
#VALUE l
u n
Max. Valuel
0
So
7
28 �l sy�va2w,— � /000
9
31 q
5(V&,l.- � SG ws �%
D
11 t29/95 PAGE'

J
7L+STTNG 0(SELF-MONITORINGSUA4MARY) Mnn,Oct 16,
1995
d
r :
1 ❑
IIAIR!
SP•
fx'1'
NOV ❑I(('
rr.orn, NC I><P, of PHRM CHR Lib1:13%
91 —
— —
—
— —
—
—
—
—
— ---
NC'W39rPANOI fie megfl94 l:nxnxnia: Q PAP A Feb May Aug Nov NonCom,eSIN -
92 —
— --
—
Pass --
—
Pass
--
—
Fad Pass
C.un'sany Reginn:WSRO Subbasin:ROA03
93 —
Pass —
—
P... —
—
Fag
Fail
Pass
Pass —
PF:0.030 Special
94 —
Pass —
—
Pass —
—
Pan
—
—
Pass —
7Q10;0.3 DVC(%): 13 OAea
95 —
Pa.. —
—
Pas. —
—
—
an.paelnli.n, VA Deal of PERM C14R LIM:13%
91 —
Pass Fall
Fad
Fail --
Pass
--
---
Pass
— —
NCW39420901 Degin:87194 roquiQ P/F A Jnn Air Os NonC.mP:SINGLE
92 Fail
Pass —
Pass
— —
Fah
Fag
--
Pass
— —
('nnr+ly:Frrry I2rytinr WSRO Subtalthr YAW
93 Fall
Pa.. --
foil
Can Fall
NFVFnI
NiWonl
Fail
Pnil
Fnh Fall
I`nnn
... ...
Porn
... ...
Iral
I>+nn
..
Toro,
... ...
'1QID: U.2 IWC(%):I l.d2 Onler:
as Full
I'nxn --
NM nll
Intl 1.11
NI
...
Had 'V,ininnl Co. PERK IIR LC50 AC MONIT EPIS F:'lll)(GRAD)
91 IN
-- 01
61,53
...
---
... ...
NCO042501N01 Degia:9/193 P,rnurnry: 5 OWWA N.nComP:
92 —
-- —
--
-- —
--
--
--
--
-- -
cloon:GuilfoN Rcgion:WSRO Subbmin;CPPOg
93 —
-- —
—
— --
—
—
—
-
-- ---
PI:: VAR Special
94 —
— —
—
— —
—
—
NR
—
._ ...
7QIO: 0.00 DVC(%): 1W.00 OAen
95
1'rind Terminnl C.J001 PERM AC MON1T:24 HR LC50 EPIS FRID(GRAD)
91 —
--
—
>20
—
—
--
--
—
---
---
'-
NC0049201J001 Degia:4/192 rmqueney: 5 OWD/A
NonCOmp;
92 —
—
—
15.931
--
M601
—
9791
—
—
Invalid
--
Couav:lnhml.n Region: RRO Subbmin: NEUM
93 —
39.211}
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
1 l
PP. Po\ .S peer
94 Fall
—
--
---
---
17A61
—
--
c12.51
...
-,
tooand
t
l;pu II 11 IW('CRrl lltnll nnlen
06 >Inol
...
-..
--.
...
>Innl
...
...
irionglc I'acire (IXI. Furn) PERM CIIR LIM:85%
91 66.7-
20.3-
56.5-
>90'
No
N'
--
--
Pass
—
---
Lot.
NC0007561/001 3egin:7126193 raquenry: Q Fir A Mrv/un Sep Dec
t4.ac..P:SFNGLE
92 Pass
—
Pass
---
—
Pasa
—
--
Pass
—
--
Pass
Connly. hole oI k ReRII+u:WARO Subbnxia:C11050
03 ---
--
Pass
.--
--
Una
Fill
Ni
Pall
Fall
Flats
Ni
Ili°. 0.018 5p«ill
94 Pass
—
Fail
Pass
--
Laos
NM`.,a
--
Lot.
Fall
Pass
Fail
IQIt1. (I'm I\VI'('LI'. x4AIl rno,
nG I+nna
...
Pon.
...
..
la—
...
'I'nnrbum, 4V\VTP Pem+ebr lim:82%
Y 91 —
F.V
--
—
Fail
—
—
M
--
—
M
...
N00026837"I B<ginMinis I:mlum y: Q PA: A May Aug Nov Fab
NnnComp:Singl.
92 Fed
M
—
--
Pass
--
—
Pass
--
—
Fail
Fail
C'ounty;lladcll Region: MRO Subbmin: CIM32
93 Fag
Fah
Fail
Lot.
Fall
Pass
—
Fad
—
--
Pass
--
PF:0.22 Specal
94 —
Pass
—
—
Fall
M
Fail
Pass
—
—
Fag
Fail
7Q10: 0.075 IWC(%):82 ON¢
95 Fah
Pass
—
--
M
—
—
—
TrOy WWTP PHRM CIIR 1JM:W%
91 P
P
Pass
—
—
—
Fail
Pass
Pass
Fail
Fad
Pass
NCO028916901 U,in:S/194 Frecat Q P/F A fan Apr Jul Oci
NonC.mp:SMGI.H
92 Pess
Fag
Fall
Pass,>93
Pa.s
—
Pass,>93
Fail
e15
75
>W
53
Cnumy:Man"..., Region: PRO Subbnsin: YAD15
93 >90
74
74
>90
21
>0
37
52
74
49
NIM.ta
W
I'P.O.AA .v'p<oinl
94 >an
an
425
>an
an
>00
>90
---
_-
75
On n
>00
7QIQ O.IM1 I\Vl'l'F.I:nLY7 nnkc
a5 a•IA5
>IXI
NI
-..
>Ixl
allll
'I'ryn. o"WI'P-lull PHRM CIIR 61Ms7%
91 Pass
---
Lot.
Pass
--
Pons
---
...
,It
--.
...
lyril
NcW21601/001 Bcgin: V1194 Pmqucnry: Q),IF A Dec Mar Jun Sep
NonComnSINGLE
92 Pass
—
—
Pass
al
---
--
Pass
Pass
—
--
Pasa
County:Polk Region: ARO Subbmin: BRD06
93 —
—
Pass
—
—
NWPass
—
—
Pas.
—
—
Pass
IT 1.5 S'dol
94 —
—
Fa0
M
Pats
Pass
--
--
Fall
Pass
--
Pass
7QI0: 1.03 IWC(%)c37.0 ONm
05 —
-_
Puss
—
--.
Fall
Pnss
--
UNC'.CH Pnver 1'Ian1 PERM CFIR LIM:W%
9t —
—
—
--
-
—
--
---
_
—
NC0025305A01 Begin:71194 raaNe„ay: Q P/r A Ian Apr Jul Ott
Iln.C.rn,SINGLE
92 —
—
—
—
--
--
--
—
--
-
---
—
County:(hm+ge Rcgfon: RRO Subbasin: CPF06
93 —
—
--
—
--
—
--
--
--
IT: _-_ Sp«iol
94 Fnd
La.
Fail
Fag
Lot.
Poll
P.11n)
Lat.
Fail
Fad
Fars
Fail
7Q10'O.rm IWCP.9. I 00.00 flak++
05 Far
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
Lan
42.4
'PA55
Unimin C9rP-Mica Oacrnlmns (001) PERM CHR LIM:IO%
91 -- _
NCOW0361/001 Degin:811W Recxaney:Q P/r A reb May Aug Nov
N.nC.u,:SINGLE 92 -- —
-- --- -- --- -- -- - -- -- 1
County: Avery Rcginn: ARO Subbmin: FRB06
93 — —
— --- -- — — — -- — NMI ..
PF; 2.16 Sp<el l
04 --- pass
— --- Fall Lao Pass Pnss — — Pao, ---
7Q10:30 IWC(%): 10 ONer.
95 -- Pass
-- -- NPIPass — — --
Unimin Cn,,. PHRMCIIRI.IM:II%
Y 91 Pass —
— pass -- -- Pass ... --- Fuss ._ ...
NC00001759IDI Begin:A/193 I:rspwnry:Q lint A Apr JulMttan
No.Comp:SINGIX 92 Pass —
— Pass -- — Pass — -- Pass -- --
Cmm�y:Mbcl¢II Region: ARO Subbmin. PRBM
93 Pnss —
Pass Pnss -- -- Pass -- --- Pnss — --
PP:3.61 SMdel
94 P...
— Pass ... _. Pass — ... Lino Psv ...
7QIO: 45.0 IWC(%):I1 D.skc
95 Pass —
— NBIPan --- — Pan —
02eanseomive failums= significant non ei,inpliance Y Pm 1991 Data Available
IJIIPND:
PIiRM-Nnoit Rognieneeta I.1.1'=Adminiltmtivc1s1lor-'non Prtryucrrcy=Meniloring fm9ueney:Q-Qumcrly:M-Monthly:OM-IlinxnnlOy:SA
Sanri:mnunlly:A-Annu:dlY;(11VU Only wlwndigbarging;U-Uisrarnlnned nantons, rv9uinn-a:IN- Conductinginderyndem lady
Deein= Fmnurnlhooluiad ]QIU=ltcaiving stm3m low Bow criterion (cL)
A=llumerly mauled., inenases to moably uPnn mo(re Gilnre
Mnntlulbauatingmuctoccro-ex.IAN,A1'R,111I.,OCI' NanCmna= Cumol Complinnoe Reynimmem
IT- 1•anrnurd Botv(MGD) IW('%=bvb<nnl ,am. an.enlmtlml
Ion; = l ss/rml ehmnic text AC=Ante ('llll=Clnonit
Dam N.,loi,.o-1 Fill lot Illn,...o:• 16dedm.l.rdn.n.n.r Ill-oldnioto fI,V
"Iunnovnhr... P. M... ulllv.,f ommd...•..... no" n1 wolo,.l...... ..lool;
.... , rn Il"iornr.•.I to, 011oll l., P.vn1 rl..on.� In 11 1 "1
Iteprnoo, N,000lo - IN in uul..atnlv.J,Nlt Nole"lonl:1111",.... maul Qrrrule,
1•rn9111y Artivlly Rlnum:l [it lI%e,N Nr,vl1'I+nn.'rtl l'..,,n,nrrr:
n, 11 A,ov,I..nrnn Jl..Arn11Ioj I&I.nr Jrnunvnnnl.4.]........rrlh tnrin:lr:n.-na,-,1,or,o,, InI
45

NC DEN W0 ENVSCI
Fax:919-733J9959 Nov 30 '95 11:25 P.01/02
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
To: Judy Garrett
Through: Larry A. —
Matt Matthews (t'ff`�
From: Kevin Bowden K
Subject: Toxicity Reduction I
UNC-COGEN Facil
SOC BMC W Q No.
NPDES Permit No.
Orange County
This office has completed a nevi
the subject facility dated May 1995. U
provide assistance in its toxicity reducti
which include an introduction, a descrip
disposing of brine waste, optimization
toxicity removal, and a summary/recom
In a memo dated April 18,199`
Special Order by Consent (EMC WQ
resumed the Order to the Central Office -
on page 1, the facility briefly d
separation, flow equalization; caustic
adjustment. Only process wastewater a
NPDES Permit No. NCO025305 to an w
and air wash wastestreams are discharge
works. Based upon Phase I evaluati
demineralization system waste reger1%
polymer used in metals precipitation a:
facility is evaluating alternative disposal
disposal reportedly represents the mos
method is the facility's pretreatment pen
Phase H objectives presented in tl
current UNC-COGEN method of treatme
and verification that removal of deminer
to meet a 90% chronic toxicity limitation.,
Section 2.0 provides an
addressed in the context of this 1
Section 3.0 addresses wastewati
discharged to OWASA, UNC-COGEN
generated during the regeneration prc
backwash and final rinse wastestreams
Table 3.2 were not pH adjusted prior to
in 100 percent mortality. The second se
in all the backwash samples and in the
the backwash and mixed bed, final ring
Page 2
UNC-COGEN Facility
July 17, 1995
expected based solely on the observed con
released from the resin may be causing sor
be reduced or eliminated with treatment fr
wastestreams to OWASA should be c6asi
There;
were greater than 3000 µin
high (most likely due to sample collection
constituents.
Table 3.3 lists the conductivities an
WWTP. Due to the high. conductivities
regenerate waste other than backwash fil'
volume (minus the backwash and final ria,
gallons for the demineralizatiou regeaen
Discharge of waste brine to OWASA will'
was found to contain high concentratic
wastestream concentrations of copper, in
respectively_
July 17, 1995
fax transmittal memo 7671
- phase II - May 1995
if the Toxicity Identification and Reduction Plan submitted by
COGEN has contracted with AWARE Environmental, Inc. to
aorta. This proposal has been subdivided into,seven sections
of the existing W WTp, waste characterization. alternatives for
olymer.dosage and treatment plant operations, verification of
dations section.
you, this office provided comments on the facility's proposed
94-35). It is our understanding die facility has signed and
;re it is currently under review.
tribes the components of the WWTP which include oil/water
iition, coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation and final pH
industrial stormwater runoff are treated and discharged under
med tributary to Morgan Creek. The domestic; cooling tower,
o the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) treatment
;, the report cites total dissolved solids. resulting from the
: discharge as being a primary toxicant and 'identifies excess
; ng a potential secondary source of toxicity. Apparently the
:thods for the brine wastestream to OWASA and this method of
ost-effective approach. A limiting factor with this proposed
which limits UNC-COGEN to a flow limit of 150 gpm.
t submittal address development of strategies for modifying the
to allow discharge to OWASA optimization of polymer usage,
zation brine and optimization of the plant will allow the facility
the existing wastewater treatment system which will not be
iaracterization. To minimize the volume of wastewater to be
ducted volume and conductivity evaluations of waste streams
s. In addition to these evaluations, toxicity testing on the
also conducted (Table 3.2). The initial set of samples noted in
ducting bioassays. All results for this initial screening resulted
samples were pH adjusted. Results indicate increased survival
ed bed final rinse. Suppression of reproduction resulted in all
nubs, The.=nortsugeestsmar,zesiuu,i
dvity values and that "other constituent(s) such as organics
econdaiy toxicity" The facility indicates that :toxicity may
the UNC-COGEN treatment system yet discharge o these
id. Cation and anion final rinse conductivities (Table 3.2)
states that although these conductivities were unexpectedly
ation) that these wastestreams may contain secondary toxic
,olumes of regenerant wastes which may be discharged to the
)served in these wastestreams, the report suggests that all
and final rinse be discharged to OWASA. The total waste
discharged to OWASA is estimated at approximately 10,000
in cycle and 8,000 gallons for the mixed bed regeneration,
!e to be approved. A sample of waste brine was analyzed and
of sodium sulfate, TDS, and conductivity. In and sulfates measured 272µe bane
g/1, 2.64 mg/l, and 324
disposal means for the waste brine would be discharge to the
tment permit which limits UNC-COOEN's discharge to 150
IGEN's discharge approaches this limit. To evaluate flow
I the flow volumes from each major process. The major
...I'_- --.....- ..-A An "t;r WnQte- The facility looked at
Section 4.0 cites the most appropa
OWASA. UNC-COGEN maintains' pre
gallons per minute. On occasion, UvrG
amounts to OWASA, the facility estim

discharges to OWASA include the au w
four options to maintain Compliance Witt
reduction of air wash flow, rerouting o
. z separate point to OWASA. The report j
maintain compliance with the 150 gpm p
the six wash discharge or connection of tl
be the "bese" alternative.
Section 6.0 discusses optimizatiog
is currently using an anionic polymer "'
the location of the polymer feed system
facility indicated that proper mixing of
chemical precipitation/sedimentation. f
Modifications included moving the locatic
location (Le.'upstream of the flash mixing
Section 6.0 discusses vemcauon
implementing final modifications to the t
be performed to verify that rerouting of 1
compliancewith toxicity limits." Toxic
separator with waste bone being tempos
be conducted on the untreated sample,
addition at 1 ppm, sedimentadon and pH
CO M1111; LUWGl p Mau iiV1LV1dMY .....M. �. . rllallZat�+�I1,
current flow litniWions. These include flow e9
her discharge streams, alld rerouting the waste brine to a*
;ales that ti
one or a combination of the, that eithepr ductiom roaches adischarge t to OWASA., l. t states
of
aste brine discharge to OWASA at a separate location would
f polymer dosage and treatment plant operations. The facility
► Nalclear 28U) at a concentration• of 100 ppm. -It appears that
not providing adequate mbdng• jar tests conducted by the
Clymer at a concentration of I ppm should be adequate for
suggestion to modify the polymerfoe,being added to a different
stem ls offered.
where sodium hydroxide is currently g
nk) and installing a slow speed mixer in the flash tank.
`toxicity removal. The following statement is made, "Prior to
tmerit system to reroute the brine streamp additional testing will
waste brine and optimization of the polymerUwe er
ve
testing will include collection of -a sample
fromthe otests will
,y by-passed around the oitlfwaT8 polymer
id on the sample following PH
ad austmentto XO
hL.cmaent to simulate the treatment system.
ort statBSY
in section 7.0, the facility Presents a summary and suggested recommuanrcde of toxicity ity toThe t he LFNC-
"B ased on phase I recommendations it determined. that the primary brine. of filer from the
COGE�t' facility effluent appears to be th demineralization sys ble sourcedm waste oox�iC xcess p�'he most viable
precipitation/coagulation system was a1s identified as'a possible ests, is to :discharge this
option for eliminating tonicity from the waste brine,
ced on Pha a If evaalrt uations, it appeals that the most
wastestreain to OWASA. The report inr4c OWASA sewer without exceeding t3�e facility's
attractive approach for rerouting of t1�e waste brine to the
it would be to either reduce the air washer flow and diw divert t e di charge
l a sing 1 , tto
peak flow limit the waste brine
dernineralization surge basin to the OWASA sewer or to'discharge.
I
t
j
l
Noy 3 n
� 1•

NC DEM WQ ENVSCI Fax:[phone]S59
Q .
Page 3
UNC-COGEN Facility
July 17, 1995
OWASA at a separate connection point.
excessive and inadequate mixing of the
OWASA representatives to request perm
permit modification to- allow a variance
influent to verify that removal of the brine
a full scale trial of the chosen approach g
the polymer feed system to provide adegi
to 1 ppm. Although the proposed total
meal, OWASA and/or UNC-COGEN
i.e, at UNC-COGEN's instream waste co]
In summary, the facility appears
contributing to toxicity. Ile -proposed. dare
WET limitation of 90%. is December 1,19!
identify suspected -toxicants and to constn
with the WET limit. We are encouraged bj
implementation of final treatment roodifcaf
Should you have any questions,
cc: Dennis Ramsey
Ted Cashion -Raleigh Regioigal
Aquatic Survey and Toxieology
Central Files
Nov 30 ' 95 11 : 27 P. 02J02
r
testing results suggest the addition of 100 ppm polymer to be
ilyrner is occurring. Recommendations include: contacting
ion to discharge the brine waste and to request a pretreatment
the temperature limitation, additional toxicity testing of the
'asYe will provide compliance with the 90% chronio limitation,
asure compliance with the tonicity limitation, modifxcatiou of
zxiuon9, and reduction of the polymer dosage from 100 ppm
5ntribution of UNC-COGEN s wastestream to OWASA is
could consider a bench scale test of UNC-COOEN's effluent
ibution to OWASA) to determine toxic impacts; if any.
a have targeted one or more. wa$testreams which* may be
L the Special, Order by Consent to achieve compliance with :the
. We feel this amount of time is sufficient to chivacterize and
t necessary modXieations to the treatment system to comply
he facility s suggestion to conduct bench scale testing prior to
Is.
feel free to contact me at 733-2136.

i
NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL STAFF REPORT ND RECOMMENDATIONS
November 91 1995 b--►
To: Dave Goodrich, Water'.Quality Permits and Engineering
From: Randy Jones, R.aleigh Regional Office
County: Orange
Project No.: NC00.25305
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
Mr. David Ray, Operations Superintendent
Cogeneration Facility
UNC at Chapel Hill
501 West Cameron Avenue CB #1800
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
2. Date of Investigation: 11/8/95
3. Report Prepared by: Randy Jones
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number:
David Ray, 919/962-1309
5. Directions to Site: I 40 to Hwy 54 toward Chapel Hill, 54
through Town, facility is on left.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Discharge Point '
Latitude: 35' 542211 Longitude: 7900313911
Attach a USGS map extract* and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map: Map attached.
U.S.G.S. Quad No.: D22NE U.S.G.S. QuaC Name: Chapel
, d1 1
6 .
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application:
Yes.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
Facility system does not appear to be in flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: Facility is located in a
residential area. Residences are located within 100 feet.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: UT to Morgan
Creek
1

a. Classification: WS-IV NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-06-06
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: The point of discharge is into a
UT to Morgan Creek.
PART
II
- DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
AND TREATMENT WORKS
1.
a.
Volume of Wastewater to be
permitted: 0.0922 MGD
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 0.0922 MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 0.0922 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct issued in the previous two
years: N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities: Oil/water separator, 106,400 gallon
equalization basin, caustic rapid mix tank, polymer
feed system, two settling tanks, acid mix tanks,
Parshall flume, and two stormwater detention ponds.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: N/A
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Toxicity test
failures have occurred in the past. The facility is
currently under an SOC and is performing a toxicity
reduction evaluation (TRE). Initial indications from a
pilot study associated with the THE are that the
primary source of effluent toxicity is from high
conductivity and dissolved salts which result from the
discharge of waste regenerant brine from the boiler
water feed demineralization system. The regenerant
brine is currently being rerouted to the municipal
*MTF .
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme: Facility
contracts with Laidlaw Environmental for disposal.
3. Treatment plant classification: Class I
4. SIC Code(s): 4911
Wastewater Code(s): 14, 16, 17, 68, 73, 79
Main Treatment Unit Code: 532-2
2

PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)?
N/A
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
Same
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates:
11/1/95: Complete pilot study of selected TR
alternative
2/l/96: Submit plans/specs for TR alternative
6/l/96: After receiving A to C, begin construction of
necessary modifications
i0/1/96: Complete construction
12/1/96: Achieve compliance with effluent chronic
toxicity limits
Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available? Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated: Existing
discharge. Facility is working with OWASA to accept some of
the discharge.
Other Special Items: N/A
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The RRO has reviewed the submitted material and performed a site
inspection at the subject facility. The facilities appeared to
be well maintained. As previously mentioned, the facility has
had problems in the past with compliance with the toxicity test.
The facility entered into an SOC with the Division and has been
conducting a pilot sudy to identify the toxicity problem. They
believe that the problem is high conductivity and dissolved salts
which result from the discharge of waste regenerant brine from
the boiler water feed demineralization system. The regenerant
brine is currently being reroutad to the municipal WWTF.
Depending on the continued results of the pilot test, this
wastewater source may be permanently discharge4to OWASA.
Upon resolution of any concerns of the WQ Technical Support
Branch, the RRO has no objection to the issuance of the subject
permit in�cordance ,* th the Basin Wide Policy. /
GSM
file: NC25305.SR
Preparer (NC0025305) ' / Date
sor (NC0025305) ) I Date