NC0085952_Staff Comments_20180525 (2)

Weaver, Charles
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Davidson, Landon
Friday, May 25, 2018 1:49 PM
Weaver, Charles; Wiggs, Linda
Templeton, Mike
RE: Review of Limits Candler Travel and Days Inn
Thanks Charles, an informative response as usual. We will move forward as before.
G. Landon Davidson, P.G.
Regional Supervisor —Asheville Regional Office
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
828 296 4680 office
828 230 4057 mobile
Landon. Davidson (a)ncdenr.gov
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28711
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Weaver, Charles
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Wiggs, Linda <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon <[e-mail]>; Templeton, Mike <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Review of Limits Candler Travel and Days Inn
Linda — the short answer to your request is no. More specifically, the answer is not yet - and maybe not at all.
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(I) prohibit backsliding of effluent
limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be as stringent as
those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information,
increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA
or dilution).
We have new information, but that information may not change the basis for the limits.
I've attached the WLA summary pages from 1996. The Travel Center had a prior permit that was rescinded before it
received NC0085952.
Max Haner talked with Jackie Nowell about the discharge location and the basis for the tertiary limits. His original staff
report listed George Branch as the receiving stream, but his discussion with Jackie led to both parties agreeing that is
was a discharge to a UT.
If the effluent now travels through a DOT culvert to reach George Branch, the culvert is considered an unnamed
tributary. 15A NCAC 02B allows for effluent channels [see attachment], but a DOT culvert doesn't qualify per 15A NCAC
02B.0228 (1). Unless the Travel Center has its own pipe directly to George Branch, the UT restriction would remain, as
would the current limits.

However, since your email stated that the Travel Center and the Days Inn have the same receiving stream, we may have
to consider tighter limits for NC0025933. If Days Inn has their own pipe directly to George Branch, they're fine. If they
are discharging to the DOT culvert, they are discharging to a UT with zero flow.
To change existing permit limits without a request from the permittee, the permit has to be reopened by the
Director. That's rarely allowed, and particularly unlikely now.
IF the Travel Center has its own line to George Branch they could request a major permit modification, and pay the
major mod fee. We would need updated 7Q10 data for George Branch, as the data used to permit NCO025933 and
NCO085952 is >20 years old. We would also require an EAA. What is the sewer availability for the Travel Center
today? It's been 22 years since the it received N00085952, and the available sewer lines could be much closer.
Simply put, the solution for a facility that doesn't meet limits is not "just give them softer limits". Two different sections
of the Clean Water Act prohibit that. The best option for the Travel Center is to get out of the wastewater
business. Connection to a POTW would solve their compliance problems and eliminate the associated costs.
I'll put a copy of this email in the file for both NCO085952 and NC0025933. This issue will be addressed during the
permit renewals in 2020 if the Travel Center does not request a major mod before then.
CHW
From: Wiggs, Linda
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Weaver, Charles <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davidson, Landon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Review of Limits Candler Travel
Hi Charles,
The Asheville Regional Office (ARO) request the Candler Travel Center Permit NCO085952 Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring Requirements match the Days Inn West Permit NC0025933. The receiving stream Latitude and Longitude and
outfall location depicted in the permit is incorrect. The reason for the incorrect information is the receiving streams are
culverted by DOT for Hwy 40, Hwy 70 and Wiggins Rd. You will note that Days Inn has normal limits, whereas Candler
Travel has restrictive limits. I looked at the original sheet for Candler Travel; Max Haner must not have considered this.
ARO staff have field verified the outfalls and receiving stream for both facilities. The correct receiving stream for both is
George Branch Latitude and Longitude is 35 32' 27" N/82 45' 8" W.
Please take this into consideration.
Landon's (ARO) request (email May 9):
Charles -
Linville Falls and Candler Travel Plaza are two facilities where staff are concerned that the limits may be too restrictive.
Linville Falls has had a technical assistance review and found no recommendations. I've also have Dan Boss review the
operation and he generally agreed that it could be difficult to meet the permit limits.
With regard to Candler, Linda believes the discharge may actually be to a larger stream than the permit indicates.
An thoughts on how to approach a potential re-eval. of these two facilities?
Thanks.
Your response:
NCO085952 (Candler Travel) discharges to a zero -flow tributary. Extending the outfall line to the mainstem of the French
Broad would probably get them relaxed limits.