NC0026441_Public Hearing Memorandum_20080714

�c•W A r�A Michael F.Easley,Governor
z la,
Q1 William C.Ross Jr.,Secretary
yNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r-1 - Coleen H.Sullins,Director
r .,,.,:..
_ Division of Water Quality
• ' 1W DENTS , .
July 14, 2008 tF.F EX' I I.
i.
MEMORANDUM- .
To: Coleen Sullins,Director, Division of Water Quality
__ki\_..../„.._______ .
From: Brian Wrenn, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit
Ed Beck,Supervisor, Surface Water Protection Section,WI mington Regional Office
Subject: Report and Recommendations: Town of Siler City WWTP
NPDES No..NC0026441
Loves Creek(Class C),303(d)listed for Impaired Aquatic Life, Cape Fear River Basin
• Chatham County
On the evening of April 17, 2008, Ed Beck and Brian Wrenn served as Hearing Officers for a public hearing in
the Town of Siler City in Chatham County. The hearing was requested due to community concerns regarding
the re-issuance of NPDES Permit No. 0026441 for the Town of Siler City wastewater treatment plant(WWTP).
•
tory/Background 1 .
The facility is located on the east side of the Town of Siler City in Chatham County at 370 Wastewater
Treatment Plant Rd. •The current WWTP came online in 1994. The facility has a permitted flow of 4.0 million
gallons per day(MGD) and discharges to Loves Creek.Loves Creek is deemed Class C waters of the State and
•
is listed on the 303(d)list of impaired waters for impaired aquatic life. The draft permit proposed several
changes (See Attachment I). These changes are listed below: • ..
•
• An annual pollutant scan would be added. '
• Monitoring frequencies for copper,zinc, and chlorides would be reduced to twice monthly to correspond
with the requirements in 15 NCAC 2B .0500.
• MBAS limit and monitoring requirements would be removed. Past monitoring data.has not shown the
potential to exceed water quality standards.
• Mercury and fluoride monitoring requirements would be removed. Past monitoring data has not shown
the potential to exceed water quality standards. Mercury and fluoride monitoring would continue to be .
required through the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
• Oil and grease limits and monitoring would be removed. Very low levels have been present in the
WWTP effluent. .
•
• A Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan(NROP)would be required. The NROP would evaluate nutrient ,
sources to the WWTP, provide current removal rates, and discuss ways to optimize nutrient removal
•
using the current wastewater treatment process.
0001. • .
o`• NrthCarolina •
1 Naturally
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh,NC 27699-1617 Phone[phone]
Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N.Salisbury St. Raleigh;NC 27604.. FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer=50%Recycled/10/o Post Consumer Paper

Town of Siler City WWTP •
Pige2of7
Site Visit
—)WQ staff members were given an extensive tour of the wastewater treatment plant. The facility appeared to be
veil maintained and competently operated. The wastewater staff was knowledgeable and informative.
Public Hearing •
The April 17th public hearing was held at the request of several individuals many of whom are associated with
a local community group, Friends of the Rocky River. Submitted written comments prior to.the hearing are
contained in Attachment II. An announcement of the hearing was published in the local paper(Attachment III).
Fifty-five people attended the public hearing excluding ten Division of Water Quality staff members and the
hearing officers. The registration list is contained in Attachment IV. Ms. Toya Fields of the NPDES Program
gave a brief presentation of DWQ's permitting procedures, summarized the history of the permit and pertinent
technical data. She also addressed concerns expressed in the previously submitted written comments about the
permit renewal. The facility was represented by Mr. Joel Brower, Town Manager, Town of Siler City. Mr.
Brower gave a brief history of the WWTP and the current application renewal. He also discussed the amount
of funds spent on upgrades to the WWTP as well as to the collection system. Twenty-four attendees registered
to speak and did so or donated their time to another speaker. Most of the speakers expressed concerns regarding
re-issuance of the permit as proposed. Only three speakers were in favor of re-issuing the proposed draft Permit
No. 0026441. Attachment V contains written comments and documentation received during the hearing.
The primary points of the commenters are as follows:
1) Several commenters requested that DWQ re-classify the Rocky River as a Nutrient Sensitive Waters of
the State.
Response
Although algal blooms have occurred on a regular basis in the Rocky River indicating that a nutrient
problem exists,re-classifications of surface waters of the State are not regulated under the NPDES program.
Re-classifications are made through the Planning Section based on public requests and water quality
monitoring data. These comments have been forwarded to the Planning Section.
2)Several commenters requested that DWQ conduct a watershed analysis to identify all of the pollutant
sources within the Rocky River watershed.
a. Commenters advocated improvement of local zoning ordinances and sedimentation control measures.
b. Commenters advocated better enforcement of existing land use and sedimentation control measures.
c. Commenters advocated implementing stream buffer and stormwater control ordinances.
Response
NPDES Permit No.NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City
WWTP. Other activities in the watershed such as land use planning, buffer protection, and zoning
ordinances are not regulated by Permit No. NC0026441. However,a watershed analysis could prove useful
in determining the pollutants creating the greatest stress upon the Rocky River, the sources of these
pollutants, and the major contributors of these pollutants. Analysis of the data could provide solutions to
the water quality issues being experienced by the Rocky River. Furthermore, Chatham County has recently
received Clean Water Act Section 319 grant money to study the Rocky River watershed and to develop
water resource management strategies. These comments have been forwarded to the Planning Section.
Several commenters advocated tighter regulation on the land application of biosolids.
a. Commenters referenced the need for monitoring runoff of biosolids from land application sites.
b. Commenters referenced the need for additional monitoring of biosolids to include phosphorous, fire
retardants, antimicrobial chemicals, endocrine disruptors, and pharmaceuticals.
c. Commenters referenced the need for wider setbacks for land application and lower application rates.
`~ `0002

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 3 of 7
Response
NPDES Permit No. NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City
WWTP. Land application of biosolids is regulated under a separate non-discharge Permit no.WQ0003226
and is not applicable to Permit No. NC0026441. These comments have been forwarded on to the Aquifer
Protection Section of DWQ, the regulatory section for land application of biosolids.
4) Several commenters advocated addressing inflow and infiltration associated with the sanitary sewer
collection system.
Response
Based on rainfall data and corresponding flow spikes to the WWTP, it appears that the Town of Siler City
does have an inflow and infiltration problem. The Town has spent$1.75 million in upgrades to the
collections system,but it appears that additional upgrades are necessary. However,NPDES Permit No.
NC0026441 is applicable only to activities at and discharges from the Siler City WWTP. The operation and
maintenance of the sanitary sewer collection system is regulated under a separate non-discharge Permit No.
WQCS00056. These comments have been forwarded on to the Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and
Collection Systems Unit of DWQ.
•
5) Many commenters were in favor of requiring additional monitoring for parameters such as
pharmaceuticals, fire retardants,dioxins,pesticides,herbicides,PCBs, and MSRA.
Response •
Based on the size of the Town of Siler City and the make-up of the municipal wastewater influent, it is not
anticipated that pollutants such as pharmaceuticals, fire retardants, dioxins,pesticides,herbicides,PCBs, •
and MSRA would be a significant problem. Furthermore, concentrations of many these pollutants are often
removed through the sludge wasting process. The sludge is then treated to EPA standards,monitored, and
properly land applied as required under non-discharge Permit No. WQ0003226 issued to the Town for land
application of biosolids. In addition, the WWTP will be required to conduct an annual pollutant scan. This
scan includes several pesticides and herbicides and other pollutants mentioned as concerns.
6)A majority of the commenters requested that the copper,zinc, and chlorides monitoring remain at the
current-monitoring frequencies. •
Response •
Monitoring for copper,zinc, and chlorides will continue to be required. However, the frequency will be
modified to correspond with 15 NCAC 2B .0500. This is an appropriate frequency and in accordance with
our regulations.
7) Many commenters requested additional upstream and downstream monitoring along the Rocky River.
Response
This is a reasonable request. It appears that there are many sources of pollutants, especially nutrients, in the
Rocky River watershed. However, it is difficult to determine what contribution the WWTP makes to the
pollutant loading. The downstream monitoring location is approximately four miles downstream of the
confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River and is currently monitored by the Upper Cape Fear River
Basin Association (UCFRBA) through an MOA with the Town of Siler City. To better understand what
impact the WWTP is having on downstream water quality, it is prudent to require an alternate or additional
monitoring location closer to the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River. This would provide a
more representative picture of the impact of the WWTP and also a better understanding of other potential
sources of pollution from non-point sources.
•
One complication in adding or relocating a monitoring point is access to the river. No public roads cross the
Rocky River between the confluence of Loves Creek and the current downstream monitoring point. Land
along this section of the Rocky River is privately owned and gaining access would require a formal
0003

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 4 of 7
agreement with the landowner. However, many of the attendees and speakers at the public hearing who are
in favor of additional protections for the Rocky River are landowners along the river. An access agreement
may be possible with one of these landowners.
Another point of consideration is the additional costs associated with extra monitoring locations and
parameters. According to Jennie Atkins of the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Coalition Program, additional
monitoring locations and parameters can be cost prohibitive for the monitoring coalitions. It is possible that
staff from the WWTP could conduct the monitoring less expensively than the UCFRBA. To keep costs •
down the additional location should be monitored for dissolved oxygen,temperature, conductivity, salinity,
pH, TN(weekly), and TP (weekly).
•
8) Several commenters including US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
raised concerns regarding impacts to threatened and endangered species and Natural Heritage Areas.
Response .
At this time, it is unclear what the specific threats to any threatened and endangered species or Natural
Heritage Areas are. Although the Rocky River appears to be stressed due to excessive algae growth, the -
specific threat(s) and the source(s) of the threat to the resources have not been fully determined. Therefore,
it is the hearing officers' opinion that no requirements be placed in the NPDES permit specifically
addressing the protection of threatened or endangered species or Natural Heritage Areas. However,these
resources and the impacts to them should be studied as part of the Rocky River watershed analysis
discussed above.
9) Several commenters requested that the Nutrient Removal Optimization Plan(NROP)deadline be
shortened to 6 months and include a"re-opener"clause to allow for modifications to the WWTP based on
the results of the NROP. •
Response.
It was clear from the comments received that the commenter would like a quicker turn-around time on the
NROP. However,the WWTP will need adequate time to adjust and experiment with the operation of
WWTP to maximize the nutrient removal capabilities and to determine any effects of seasonality on the
operational efficiency of the WWTP. This includes time for laboratory analysis of the monitoring data as
well as analysis of the monitoring results and any associated costs of operation. Based on these time needs,
a one-year period is an appropriate amount of time to complete the NROP. Furthermore,the draft permit
will expire in late October 2011. Should it be determined that new technologies are needed to adequately
remove nutrients from the wastewater,the time period from the completion of the NROP to the required
application renewal deadline would allow the Town to determine what technologies are needed and how to
fund the upgrades to the WWTP. In short, the timeframe requirements of the NROP are appropriate.
10) A majority of the commenters requested that the nutrient(nitrogen and phosphorous) monitoring be
enhanced. -
Response
Based on the annual algal blooms observed in the Rocky River,it is clear that a nutrient problem exists.
The source of the nutrients is unclear, but it seems prudent to require additional nutrient monitoring of the
WWTP effluent. It is the opinion of the hearing officers that weekly monitoring for Total Nitrogen(TN)be
added to the Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements. Currently, compliance for the Total
Phosphorous (TP)is measured as a calendar quarter average of the weekly samples. Compliance for the TP
should be determined based on the monthly average of the weekly samples. Once the results of the NROP
Ind the watershed study have been analyzed, DWQ can determine if additional or modified limits for
nutrients are appropriate for the WWTP: .
•
-00D04

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page5of7
11)Many commenters were in favor of continuing monitoring for mercury and fluoride.
Response
Monitoring data for the review period has shown that mercury and fluoride concentrations have been well
)elow permitted limits. The WWTP did have two isolated mercury samples that exceeded the permitted
limit in 2003, but this was likely due to sample contamination and not indicative of the effluent
characteristics. In response to the violations, the WWTP operator changed the mercury sampling method
and no further violations have occurred. Based on this information, it is the opinion of the hearing officers
that mercury and fluoride monitoring and effluent limitations be removed from the permit. Mercury and
fluoride will continue to be monitored through the Long Term Monitoring Plan associated with the
pretreatment program.
12) Many commenters advocated continued monitoring for oil and grease and MBAS.
Response
The WWTP currently has a limit for oil and grease of 30 mg/L. Oil and grease is not a standard monitoring
parameter for a municipal WWTP,but had been included prior to the upgrades made to the WWTP in 1994.
Oil and grease concentrations for the review period(January 2005 through June 2007)were very low.
Therefore,it is the opinion of the hearing officers that monitoring for oil and grease be removed from the -
permit.
The MBAS monitoring requirement was a hold-over from the monitoring requirements prior to the WWTP
upgrades in 1994: No standard for MBAS exists for Class C waters of the State. The water supply standard
for MBAS(500 µg/1)was used as a method of comparison. During the review period, the effluent has
shown no reasonable potential to exceed this conservative standard. Therefore,it is the opinion of the •
hearing officers that monitoring for MBAS be removed from the permit. •
13)Many of the commenters noted that reduced flow to the Rocky River due to the upstream reservoirs has
exacerbated the pollutant loading problems.
Response
In light of the recent drought conditions and the increased growth to Chatham County, adequate drinking
water supplies will have an extremely high value to the Town. However,it appears that the reduced flows
in the Rocky River due to the upstream reservoirs along with the nutrient inputs from various sources have
caused a synergistic effect resulting in the annual algal blooms. This was a major concern expressed during
the public hearing for the construction of the second reservoir for the Town of Siler City. The hearing
officer's report for the Reclassification of the Two Segments of Rocky River from Class WS-III and C to
Class WS-III CA,November 6,2003, indicated that the minimum and pulse release schedule for the
proposed reservoir would be at no point lower than the flow release of the existing reservoir. In many
cases,the flow release will be higher than the flows prior to construction of the first reservoir. It is
recommended that the Task Force organized as part of the Environmental Management Commission's
recommendation on the Reclassification of Rocky River continue its efforts to determine an appropriate
release schedule'to maintain the health of the Rocky River. .
14) Many commenters stated that the WWTP has a poor compliance history.
Response
Based on the Monthly average Daily Monitoring Report (DMR) data for the review period of January 2005
to July 2007, the facility appears to be well run and operating properly. The facility had one permit
violation during the review period for pH(5.9 s.u.). The monthly average flows are approximately 65% of
capacity. Prior to January 2005, the WWTP had experienced some compliance issues; however, the last
three years of monitoring data have been very good. It is the opinion of the hearing officers that the
compliance history does not raise significant concerns regarding the functionality or operation of the
WWTP. 5
• .; `( Q

Town of Siler City WWTP
Page 6 of 7
15) Several commenters were in favor of Siler City upgrading the WWTP to add new treatment processes
for additional nutrient removal and disinfection.
Response
Although the DWQ is in favor of any WWTP installing the best available technology for wastewater
treatment, it is the opinion of DWQ and the hearing officers at this time that the Siler City WWTP has
adequate technology to properly treat the wastewater influent for nutrients and fecal coliform. The Nutrient
Removal Optimization Plan will serve as a measure of the WWTP's ability to achieve increased nutrient
removal. Based on the results of the plan,DWQ may re-evaluate the need for additional treatment
processes: .
16) A number of commenter advocated more strenuous pretreatment requirements for industrial contributors
to the WWTP.
Response
On October 21, 2005, an NOV was issued to the Town of Siler City for violations related to the
pretreatment program. Specifically,the violations were related to continual excess flow from the Gold Kist,
Inc.-(now Pilgrims Pride) facility without civil penalty assessment from the Town of Siler City. However, it
is important to note that these excess flows from the Pilgrims Pride facility did not result in violations of the
effluent limitations for the WWTP. With the closing of this facility,no further excess flows from Ms are.
anticipated.
. Pretreatment permits are issued to the Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)by the Town with technical input
from DWQ. DWQ will continue to work with the Town to ensure that the SEA are treating their effluent in
a manner that does not compromise the wastewater treatment abilities.of the WWTP. These comments have
been forwarded on to the Pretreatment, Emergency Response, and Collection Systems Unit of DWQ.
rib nearing officers for the April 17,2008 public hearing proceedings for the re-issuance of NPDES permit
number NC0026441 for theTown of Siler City WWTP,it is recommended that the permit be re-issued with
the following modifications to the current draft:
- • The WWTP should monitor for Total Nitrogen on a weekly basis. Compliance for Total Phosphorous -
should be determined on a monthly average of weekly monitoring.
• Downstream monitoring should be enhanced. The downstream monitoring location should be located
closer to the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River, or an additional monitoring location
should be added between the existing location and the confluence of Loves Creek and the Rocky River.
The parameters currently monitored at the existing downstream location should be monitored at the
alternate or additional monitoring location. .
In addition to the recommendations made regarding NPDES Permit No. 0026441,the hearing officers
recommend the following measures to address the overall threats to the Rocky River:
• A watershed analysis should be conducted on the Rocky River watershed to determine the significant
threats to water quality, major contributors of pollutants, and potential solutions to water quality threats.
• The Town of Siler City should continue to work with stakeholders to determine a proper reservoir
release schedule to ensure that the Rocky River has sufficient flow to maintain its best use classification
and provide adequate habitat for threatened and endangered species along the Rocky River.
If you have questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Wrenn at 919-
5715 or Ed Becket 910-796-7215-
•-
r .0006

Town of Siler City WWTP •
Page7of7
Attachments
Rick Shiver, Assistant Director for Regional Operations
Chuck Wakild, Deputy Director
Paul Rawls, Surface Water Protection Section
Alan Clark, Planning Branch
Jimmie Overton,ESS •
Kim Colson, Aquifer Protection Section
Susan Wilson, NPDES Program
Toya Fields, Western NDPES Program •
Matt Matthews, Point Source Branch
Danny Smith, Raleigh Regional Office
Ed Beck, Wilmington Regional Office •
•
•
•
0007 . •