NC0083275_Staff Comments_20060320

C�C4/6 fi'vlor✓l -G� � - roUx-z-�
A
��i

Re: Phenol limit
Subject: Re: Phenol limit
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:13:18 -0500
From: Dawn Jeffries <dawn [e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Elizabeth,
Their permit has requirements for Phenol, and none for chlorinated
phenols. So, it would seem that it would not be an issue if the reclass
occurs.
Dawn
"Elizabeth.Kountisencmail.net" wrote:
> Connie - thanks for the quick info!
> Dawn - given Connie's e-mail, what do you now think regarding the
> impact of the proposed WS on the Dan River facility? Does it change
> the most recent info you've given me to date?
Dawn Jeffries
Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
919-733-5083, ext. 595
919-733-0719 (FAX)
l of 1 3/20/2006 1:03 PM

Re: Dan River Harris Facility
�) C,dv
Subject: Re: Dan River Harris Facility
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:00:54 -0500
From: Dawn Jeffries <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ l�
To: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]> y 5
CC: [e-mail]
Elizabeth and Ken,
( (D
I realized last night (3:00 a.m. actually) that I had figured theNo
hypothetical allowable limit of 100 ug/L for phenol for this permit using
the 7Q10 for the receiving stream instead of the 30Q2 flow! (Normally 7Q10
is used, but for a couple of parameters like phenol, 30Q2 is used.) That is
good news for the facility, because that makes the potential limit 310 ug/L
'nstead
i
I also confirmed that we could use a monthly average limit instead of weekly
average.
This morning I pulled all the monthly data for 2004 and 2005. I entered it
in the attached spreadsheet and you can see that they always meet the 310
limit. However, it is close enough that a limit of 310 ug/L would still be
included in the permit. The current mass limits would be removed as they
are so high that meeting the concentration would necessaily mean meeting the
mass, even at design flow.
So, the facility would have to use their own discretion to meet 310 ug/L.
They likely could meet it with the current facilities with no changes, but
they may want to take measures so they feel more confident about not cutting
it so close at times (April 2004). What do you think, Ken?
I'm very sorry for my mistake, I hope I got back to you quick enough to
avoid any complications!
Feel free to call,
Dawn
Elizabeth Kountis wrote:
> Per your request, I have faxed you info from the NPDES files on the
> existing permit for the Dan River Harris Facility. As I had mentioned
> earlier today, this facility would most likely have in their permit,
> should the proposed water supply reclassification become effective, a
> weekly average limit of 100 micrograms/liter for phenols. Their DMRs
> show they have an operational flow of roughly .3 - .5 MGD, albeit their
> permitted flow is approximately 0.9. Also, looking at a few DMRs from
> 2004 and 2005 reveals that most of the time they can meet the 100
> micrograms/liter weekly average limit, but they do not consistently meet
> it. By the way, the high flow in the part of the Broad River that they-
• discharge into does help them......
> You had stated that your most conservative estimate for having an
> approximately 1 MGD plant be able to meet the 100 micrograms/liter
> weekly average limit would be $500, 000 for a new aeration tank with a 24
> hour detention time, and that would be the least expensive method to
> meet this limit. If you wish to refine your monetary estimate, please
> let me know within a week's time.
>
> Thanks for all your help!
Dawn Jeffries
�D
1 of 2 3/20/2006 1:02 PM

'Re: Dan River Harris Facility
.Environmental Engineer
Eastern NPDES Program
919-733-5083, ext. 595
919-73.'3-0719 (FAX)
Name: phenol.xls
! phenol.xls Type: EXCEL File (application/msexcel,
Encoding: base64
2 of 2. 3/20/2006 1:02 PM