|Petition Title||WQMP Regulation - Town of Craigsville|
|Petitioner||Mayor Richard L. Fox, Town of Craigsville, Virginia|
The Town of Craigsville has requested an amendment of the Water Quality Management Planning Regulation (9 VAC 20-720) to assign nutrient waste load allocations for a new wastewater treatment plant. The Town currently operates a 0.25 MGD wastewater plant that provides final treatment using spray irrigation under a Virginia Pollution Abatement permit (no surface water discharge). The existing plant is not a "significant discharger" for the purpose of assigning nutrient waste load allocations, and for that reason was not included in the Water Quality Management Planning Regulation amendments (9 VAC 25-720) adopted by the State Water Control Board in 2005. Further, since there is no surface water discharge, the plant has no design capacity as a nonsignificant discharger would. As a result, the plant has zero nutrient waste load allocations, and would be identified as a new discharge required to completely offset the additional nutrient load if it discharged to State waters.
The Town recently applied for a VPDES discharge permit for a new 0.435 MGD plant, and has petitioned for nutrient waste load allocations as follows:
• Total Nitrogen = 10,600 lbs/yr (based on 0.435 MGD and 8.0 mg/l annual average TN concentration)
• Total Phosphorus = 1,325 lbs/yr (based on 0.435 MGD and 1.0 mg/l annual average TP concentration)
The Department is public noticing receipt of the petition and seeking public comment on the petition. Upon close of the public comment period, comments received will be reviewed and a decision made on initiating a rulemaking or placing the petition on the Board's next meeting agenda for their consideration.
|Comment Period||Ended 7/31/2006 0 comments|
|Agency Decision||Take no action|
|Agency Decision Summary||
The denial of Craigsville’s petition for nutrient waste load allocations, was based on these factors:
1. Craigsville’s wastewater treatment plant was a no-discharge facility during the rulemaking for nutrient discharge control regulations. Therefore, it was neither a significant discharger to be assigned nutrient waste load allocations, nor was it eligible to receive a "permitted design capacity" as a non-significant discharger to surface waters would.
2. Craigsville applied for a VPDES permit on November 4, 2005. As a result, the facility is considered a new discharge under the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program law. As a new facility authorized to discharge by a VPDES permit first issued after July 1, 2005, per Virginia Code §62.1-44.19:15.A.4., Craigsville must: