NC0024911_Permit (Modification)_20080115

NPDES DOCUMENT :MCANNINO COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024911
MSD Buncombe County WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification `)
— P3""" a iIJ-•l YI,Y.Ch— '- wrMw•.rkuu.. •"
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Staff Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 15, 1y4' ► ` 1 7009
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reizerse side

Michael F. Easley, Governor
State of North Carolina
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
January 15, 2008
Mr. Tom Hartye
MSD of Buncombe County
2028 Riverside Drive
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
NC0024911
French Broad River WRF
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Hartye:
As a result of the Consent Agreement and Settlement between MSD of Buncombe County and the
Division, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the
requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between
North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
This final permit contains the following significant changes as a result of the settlement agreement:
> A 2-yr compliance schedule has been placed in effect for the 22 ug/L daily maximum
cyanide limit. This limit will take effect on February 1, 2010. The Division will review the
cyanide limit, upon request, after twelve months of data have been collected. The
review will take into account the most recent 24 months of DMR data.
➢ MSD will complete a study of its wastewater collection system and treatment plant to
determine the source(s) of the cyanide previously detected in the wastewater effluent. In
designing and implementing this study, MSD will solicit the assistance of staff in DWQ's
laboratory certification section and/or their counterparts in EPA region IV, conceming
procedures for sampling and preservation of samples.
Additionally, as part of the settlement agreement, MSD may work with DWQ staff to develop a
site -specific limit for cyanide.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. The Division
may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does not affect the
legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the Division of Water Quality or
permits required by the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other
Federal or Local governmental permit that may be required.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Toya Fields at telephone
number [phone], extension 551.
Sincerely,
Coleen H. Sullins
cc: Central Files
Asheville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
NPDES Unit
PERCS Unit
Aquatic Toxicology
Marshall Hyatt, EPA Region IV
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 On the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
NorthCarolina
,Naturally

Permit NC0024911
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
Metropolitan Sewerage-- District of Buncombe County
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
French Broad River WRF
NC Highway 251
North of Asheville
Buncombe County
to receiving waters designated as French Broad River in the French Broad River
Basin in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV -hereof.
This permit shall become effective February 1, 2008.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on December 31, 2010.
Signed this day January 15, 2008.
oleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC0024911
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of
this permit issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no Longer effective. Therefore, the
exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements,
terms, and provisions included herein.
The Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 40 MGD wastewater treatment system consisting
of a Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) system with the following components:
• Two mechanical bar screens
• Three aerated grit chambers with grease removal
• Three influent pumps with capacity of 35 MGD each.
♦ Instrumental flow measurement
• Seven 250-micron primary microscreens (currently not in service)
• Eighteen 27-micron secondary microscreens
♦ lst, 2nd, and 3rd stage RBCs (150 total)
• Three intermediate pumps
• Four intermediate clarifier cells
• Effluent chlorination (sodium hypochlorite)
• Two gravity sludge thickeners
• Four gravity belt thickeners (currently not in service)
• Two anaerobic digesters (currently not in service)
• Two 2.5-meter belt filter presses
• Fluidized bed incinerator
• Alkaline stabilization facility
• 2 MW back-up generator (diesel)
• Two 450 KW gas generators
• Three 850 KW hydro turbines
• 17-acre ash storage lagoon
The facility is located north of Asheville at the MSD Buncombe County WRF on
NC Highway 251 in Buncombe County;
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the French Broad River, classified B waters in the French Broad Basin.

NC00024911- MSD Buncombe County
Latitude:
Longitude:
Ouad #:
Stream Class:
Receiving Stream:
permitted Flow;
35°39'02"
82°35'54"
ESNE/Weaverville
B
French Broad River
40.0 MGD
Sub -Basin: 04-03-02
Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County
NC0024911
MSD - Buncombe WWTP

Permit NC0024911
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall 001.. Such'discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as
specified below:
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Average '
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement :
; ` Frequency >
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow
40 MGD
Continuous
Recording
' I or E
CBOD, 5-day (20°C)2
25.0 mg/L
40.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I & E
NH3 as N
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
E, U & D
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 nil
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
E, U & D
Total Residual Chlorines
28 pg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature (°C)
Daily
Grab
E, U & D
Total Nitrogen
(NO2+NO3+TIN)
Quarterly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus
Quarterly
Composite
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E, U & D
Cyanide4
22 }ig/L
Weekly
Grab
E
Total Copper
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Zinc
2/Month
Composite
E
Total Silver
2/Month
Composite
E
pH
Between 6.0 and 9.0 s.u.
Daily
Grab
E
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
E
Annual Pollutant Scan7
Annual
Grab
E
Footnotes:
1. I= Influent, E= Effluent, U= Upstream at dam discharge to fish ladder adjacent to intake flume to the
hydroelectric plant (Location is approximately 2700 feet upstream of the hydroelectric plant). D = Downstream
at Ledges Park. Upstream and downstream samples shall be grab samples. Stream samples shall be collected
three times per week during June, July, August and September then once per week in the remaining months of
the year.
2. The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0mg/L.
4. See special condition A(3).
5. TRC limit takes effect May 1, 2008. Limit and monitoring requirement only apply if chlorine is used for
disinfection.
6. Whole effluent toxicity will be monitored using the Pass/Fail Chronic Toxicity test with Ceriodaphnia at 12%.
Samples shall be taken in February, May, August & November; see A. (2.).
7. See special condition A(7).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts

Permit NC0024911 t
A. (2.) CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 12%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, Quarterly monitoring using test procedures outlined
in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised February 1998, •
or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure"
(Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be performed during the months of
February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the
NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV below
the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum, in each of the
two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further statistical methods are
specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value. Additionally,
DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section no
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements and
all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or approved
designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and
reported if chlorine is employed for -disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity monitoring is
required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the aquatic toxicity (AT)
test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number, county, and the month/year of
the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of the form. The report shall be
submitted to the Environmental Sciences Section at the address cited above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this permit 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, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be completed
no later than the last day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.

Permit NC0024911
A. (3) CYANIDE SPECIAL CONDITION
The cyanide limit shall take effect February 1, 2010, two years after the effective date of this final
permit, however the weekly monitoring requirement applies as of the effective date of this final
permit. The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 pg/L (10 ppb). Levels reported at less than 10
pg/L shall be considered zero for compliance purposes. The Division will review the cyanide limit,
upon request, after twelve months of data have been collected. The review will take into account the
most recent 24 months of DMR data.
During the two-year period before the cyanide limit takes effect, MSD shall complete a study of its
wastewater collection system and treatment facility to determine the source(s) of cyanide previously
detected in the WWTP effluent. During this same period, MSD may choose to develop and propose
(with the cooperation of DWQ staff) a site -specific limit for cyanide.
At the conclusion of the two-year period, one of the following will occur:
(a) The daily maximum cyanide limit specified in Section A(1) will take effect, or;
(b) A site -specific daily maximum cyanide limit, as developed by MSD and subject to DWQ
approval, will take effect, or;
(c) The cyanide limit will be removed from this permit based on a review of 24 months of data
demonstrating no reasonable potential for the discharge to cause an exceedance of cyanide
water quality standards.
A. (4.) PRETREATMENT MONITORING CLARIFICATION
Ground Water remediation sites discharging to MSD Buncombe WRF with locally issued permits
shall be considered as Non -Significant Industrial Users and shall have no specific requirements for
parameter limits or monitoring frequency if they do not discharge more than 25,000 gallons of
industrial process wastewater per day, they do not discharge more than 5 % of the Maximum
Allowable Headworks Loading (MARL) of any pollutant to the MSD Buncombe WRF, they are not a 40
CFR regulated Categorical Industry, or they do not in the opinion of the Director of MSD Buncombe
have the potential to upset or interfere with the operation of the WRF. The Director of MSD WRF
shall enforce the Sewer Use Ordinance, permit, limit, monitor, and inspect all dischargers to his WRF
as needed to assure proper operation and compliance with all NPDES effluent limits including Whole
Effluent
A. (5.) GROUNDWATER REQUIREMENTS
I. Monitoring Requirements
a: The existing monitoring wells MW 1, MW2, MW3, and MW4 shall be sampled three
times per year for the following parameters:
➢ Arsenic
> Barium
➢ TOC
> Chlorides
> Chromium
> Fecal coliform
➢ Lead
> Mercury
> Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as N)
Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N)
pH
Silver
TDS
Volatile Organic Compounds (Sample
annually in the last quarterly sampling
month only)
Water level
The measurement of water level and then pH must be taker prior to sampling the
remaining parameters. The depth to water in each well shall be measured from the
surveyed point on the top of the casing. The measuring points (top of well casing) of
all monitoring wells shall be surveyed to provide the relative elevation of the
measuring point for each well.
b. Analyses of the required parameters must be conducted by a laboratory certified by
the DWQ Laboratory Certification Unit for those analyses.
c. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Samples collected for VOCs must be analyzed
using one of the following methods:

Permit NC0024911
Standard Method 6230D
Standard Method 6210D
EPA Method 8021, Low Concentration
EPA Method 8260, Low Concentration
Another method, with prior approval by the Aquifer Protection Section Chief
Any method used to analyze VOCs must include, at a minimum, all constituents listed
in Table VIII of Standard Method 6230D. Any method used must provide a Practical
Quantitation Limit (PQL) of 0.5 ug/L or less, which must be supported by laboratory
proficiency studies as required by the DWQ Laboratory Certification Unit. Any
constituents detected above the Method Detection Limit (MDL) but below the PQL of
0.5 ug/L must be qualified (estimated) and reported.
d. The Division may require additional groundwater monitoring it deems necessary to
determine compliance with Groundwater Quality Standards and other applicable laws
and regulations.
II. Reporting Requirements
a. The Permittee shall prepare groundwater monitoring reports for each sampling period
using current versions of Form GW-59 (Groundwater Quality Monitoring: Compliance
Report Form) and Form GW-59A (Compliance Report Form) and shall include copies of
the laboratory report(s) with each report.
b. The Permittee shall submit three (3) copies of its reports to the following address,
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the sampling period:
Division of Water Quality
Attn: Information Processing Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
c. Copies of current forms may be downloaded from the Division of Water Quality website
at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/aps/gnu/forms.htm or requested from the address
above.
III. Applicable Boundaries
a. The COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY for the disposal system is specified by regulations in
15A NCAC 2L, Groundwater Classifications and Standards. The Compliance Boundary
for the disposal system individually permitted prior to December 30, 1983 is
established at either 500 feet from the waste disposal area, or at the property
boundary, whichever is closest to the waste disposal area. An exceedance of
Groundwater Quality Standards at or beyond the Compliance Boundary is subject to
remedial action according to 15A NCAC 2L .0106(d) (2).
b. The REVIEW BOUNDARY is established around the disposal system midway between
the Compliance Boundary and the perimeter of the waste disposal area. Any
exceedance of standards at the Review Boundary shall require action in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2L .0106(d)(1).
A. (6.) ASH STORAGE LAGOON
MSD Buncombe is permitted to operate a 17-acre lagoon for the purpose of storing incinerator ash.
Effluent from this lagoon is sent to the head of the plant for treatment. No other materials may be
stored in the lagoon without prior Division notification.

Permit NC00249 11
A. (7.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual effluent pollutant scan for all parameters listed in the table
below (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall
represent seasonal (summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless
otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method
detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by the appropriate
analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1, 1 -dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1, 2-dichl oroethylen e
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1, 3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
• Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyI phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or in a form approved by the
Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the
following address: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
06 EHR 2061
Metropolitan Sewerage District
of Buncombe County,
Petitioner,
NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality,
Respondent.
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT
The petitioner, Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe
County ("MSD"), and the respondent, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
("DWQ"), hereby enter into this Consent Agreement and Settlement
("Agreement") in order to resolve matters in controversy between
them pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-31(b).
This above -captioned matter arose out of the 27 September 2006
renewal by the respondent of NPDES Permit NC0024911 ("the permit") ,
held by the petitioner. The permit authorizes the petitioner to
operate a 40 MGD wastewater treatment system at its Water
Reclamation Facility, and to discharge treated wastewater from that
facility into the French Broad River at a specified location. The
permit includes effluent limitations and monitoring conditions for

various parameters and constituents of concern, including Cyanide.
The renewal permit included a daily maximum effluent limit of 22
micrograms per liter (ug/1) and requires weekly monitoring for
Cyanide. This limit was to take effect 1 May 2008, to allow the
petitioner an opportunity to conduct a study and determine the
source of high readings previously reported for this parameter.
MSD commenced the above -captioned contested case to challenge
the cyanide limit. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement
negotiations and developed a draft amended permit which is
agreeable to both.
Therefore, without any trial of fact or law in the above -
styled matter, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT:
1. The daily maximum effluent limit for c anide (22 ug/1)
will remain in the subject permit, but will not take effect until
two (2) years following full execution of this Agreement.
2. During the same two (2) - year period, MSD will complete
a study of its wastewater collection system and treatment facility
to determine the source(s) of the cyanide previously detected in
the treatment plant effluent. The study would include, but not be
limited to, consideration of the waste stream coming from the
incinerator scrubber water, and instream analyses for cyanide,
upstream and downstream in the receiving waters, -nd in the flume.
In designing and implementing this study, MSD will solicit the
-2-

assistance of staff in DWQ's laboratory certification section
and/or their counterparts in EPA Region IV, concerning procedures
for sampling and preservation of samples.
3. During the same two (2) - year period, MSD reserves the
right, pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0211, to work with
appropriate staff in DWQ to develop a site -specific limit for
cyanide, and will submit to DWQ the results of its study, along
with any other relevant information, in attempting to develop such
a limit. DWQ will consider any such request, review the supporting
data submitted, and act upon it as required and/or allowed by law.
4. MSD reserves the right to request, at the conclusion of
the same two (2) - year period, that DWQ remove from its permit the
effluent limit for cyanide. Any such request shall be supported by
a minimum of twenty-four (24) consecutive months of data which MSD
contends demonstrates that the permitted facility and discharge V/
have no reasonable potential for causing an exceedance of water
quality standards for cyanide. DWQ agrees to consider any such
request, review the supporting data submitted, and act upon it as
required and/or allowed by law.
5. Within ten (10) days following full execution of this
Agreement, and subject to its terms and conditions, the respondent,
DWQ, agrees to issue to the petitioner, MSD, an amended renewal
permit containing the same terms and conditions as the draft permit
-3-

developed and agreed to by the parties. A copy of the draft is
attached to this Agreement, marked "Exhibit A," and incorporated by
reference herein.
6. By execution of this Agreement, and subject to its terms
and conditions, MSD accepts and agrees not to challenge the terms
and conditions of the amended renewal permit, Exhibit A hereto.
7. MSD explicitly waives its right to a contested case
hearing in this matter and additionally agrees to withdraw its
petition for contested case hearing previously filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings in the above -captioned matter.
Petitioner shall file a notice of withdrawal of request for
contested case hearing within ten (10) days following full
execution of this Agreement.
FOR THE PETITIONER:
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Date:
ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A.
Attorneys for the Petitioner
William Clarke
P.O. Box 7647
Asheville NC 28802
Date:
-4-
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NC DENR, DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY
Susan Wilson, Supervisor
Western NPDES Program
Date:
ROY COOPER
Attorney General
Sueanna P. Sumpter
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
42 N. French Broad Avenue
Asheville NC 28801
Date:

FW: MSP / NPDES
Subject: FW: MSD / NPDES
From: "Sumpter, Sueanna" <[e-mail]>
Date: 'rue, 28 Aug 2007 09:16:26 -0400
To: "Toya Fields" <[e-mail]>, "Susan Wilson" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Roger Edwards" <[e-mail]>
What do you think? He is essentially suggesting that we leave the existing permit term as it is. Sueanna
From: Billy Clarke [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 4:35 PM
To: Sumpter, Sueanna
Subject: MSD / NPDES
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
have spoken with the client. Client is agreeable with no cyanide limit in permit for a period of two years from
effective date of Settlement Agreement.
With respect to item 4. in my letter, the permit now reads, in paragraph A. 3, that the Division will review the
cyanide limit, upon request, after twelve months of data have been collected. MSD wanted that provision clarified
to read that if there were twelve months of data showing no exceedances, there would be no limit in the permit. I
understand the state does not want that and suggested two years. I would suggest we just leave the language as
is. That way, the Division can review the data and do as it sees fit.
also understand you will contact OAH to see if we are on a calendar. Thanks for your help.
William Clarke
Roberts & Stevens, PA
Post Office Box 7647
Asheville, N.C. 28802
Suite 1100 BB & T Building
One West Pack Square, 28801
[phone] (Voice)
[phone] (Fax)
**************************************************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses by Roberts & Stevens, P.A.
NOTICE: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s).
It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject
to the attorney -client privilege or other confidentiality protections.
Any review, copying, printing, disclosure, distribution, or any other use
by any other person or entity is strictly prohibited. If you are not a
designated recipient, or believe you have received this email in error,
please reply to the sender and delete the copy you received. Thank you.
**************************************************************************
1 of 1 8/28/2007 3:50 PM

Re:, MSD .v. DENR, DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061) (NPDES Permit # ...
r
Subject: Re: MSD v. DENR, DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061) (NPDES Permit # NC0024911)
From: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:41:08 -0400
To: "Sumpter, Sueanna" <[e-mail]>
CC: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>, Roger Edwards <[e-mail]>
Thanks Sueanna,
My only comment is that the data wouldn't necessarily have to show all non -detects So
for the last part, instead of /"Typically, DWQ requires 2 years of non -detects before
agreeing to consider removal of a limit. Accordingly, any settlement condition would
have to provide for 24, rather than 12, consecutive months of non -detects before the
cyanide limit would be removed from the permit."/
I'd put something like " Typically, when considering the removal of a permit limit,
DWQ reviews two years of data. DWQ then performs an analysis to determine whether the
discharge could be expected to contravene water quality standards. If not, then the
limit is removed. Accordingly, any settlement condition would have to provide for 24,
rather than 12, months of data that does not demonstrate "reasonable potential" to
cause an exceedance of cyanide water quality standards".
I know its wordier but MSD will know what we mean.
Susan is out today, back tomorrow. She might have more thoughts.
Toya
Sumpter, Sueanna wrote:
I have attached for your review a response to MSD's counteroffer. Please take a
look at it and let me know if it correctly states your position. Thanks. Sueanna
Toya Fields - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer I
Western NPDES Program
Division of Water Quality
Tel: [phone] x 551
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 8/28/2007 3:50 PM

MSD Buncombe
Counter offer (7/2/2007)
DWQ offers the following to MSD Buncombe (based on further review of the CN
standard and criteria)
1) A compliance schedule of 2 years to meet the CN limit (2 years from date of final
settlement agreement). Ef-
2) Commitment to evaluate sampling and preservation of samples for CN testing
(solicit expertise of NC Lab Certification and/or EPA R4 Lab personnel)
3) Develop site -specific criteria per 15A NCAC 2B .0211(3)(1)(vi) for CN (acute).
Based on information obtained from NC's water quality standards contact
(Connie Brower), the site specific value for CN (acute) could be 46 µg/1 (for non -
trout waters). This value will need to be confirmed by MSD. The 22 µg/1 CN
daily max limit will remain in the permit until the approval of a site -specific
criterion. As stated in (1) above, DWQ will allow a 2-year compliance schedule
prior to implementation of this limit for CN.
4) Drop proposal to perform instream CN monitoring (DWQ does not consider this
to be value-added since the proposed limit is based on an acute criteria).
WI. IhibkP
AitIA'ij 101 Oa(1�

/xo(7 /41;D guNC4Wbb
(e‘i-cur tio"tr os.-t;73
1/27�,6
46' At9P
((( 7f 7O)
/Ica L Fat cf
1/S
/g
QS,6 69P re. Got / - C{jru Py.4nlcc 1 ►i
/11-11/ L, (Al 7
S %e 5P&—i hhc Dp7-7Ok. i
To ; Malec
PP/20\l'•� > 6A Aite-rgo rho Q LC�'
gc O"TLiN
5 A t1CAc 2
z r1 (s)a)Cv2,7
ICA,C74.-0 ST1 r:/4- 642e %we-4- 7
-120, �� 7 G,j ,i,7',
4> 5 c. r)955 r ¢moo 140 Gar iviP/i

C11J ' C°/
DRAFT NORTH CAROLINA FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE STANDARD
FOR CYANIDE (AS FREE) c
Introduction
1i S c..) AS
, LL OG IL CO n
I°197-- I1,9�
.)
The Clean Water Act requires states to review their water quality standards and
classifications every three years and make any changes that are necessary to improve ) --
water quality protection. The following review of the current cyanide standard for
freshwaters was conducted as part of the 1997-1999 Triennial Review. This review
incorporates EPA and literature data and proposes to revise the current freshwater
standard to address trout and non -trout waters. Similar recalculations have been
conducted in other states'.
North Carolina's current cyanide standard for freshwaters is 5.0 ug/1 and is
implemented as total cyanide. This standard is based on EPA's 1976 "Red Book"2. In
1985, EPA published a new standard for cyanide of 5.2 ug/1 as free cyanide3. North
Carolina did not adopt this change as it was based on an acute/chronic ratio that
incorporated a wide range of ratios. There were five ratios used in the calculation. Four
of those ratios ranged from 8.8 to 13. A ratio of 68 was also used from Asellus
communis, a pollution tolerant species. If this value is not used, then the final chronic
value is 5.1 ug free cyanide/1 which is nearly the same as the Red Book value of 5.0 ug
•cyanide/1. — i NoLerwueA- c zs v 1 cb.. 40 4 o CF o2 13 (c j`cec� Ca'i� 5
The recent review of the literature and EPA's databases provided no new toxicity data
that met EPA's criteria for acceptable data4. However, the standard was recalculated for
trout and non -trout waters, as trout are the most sensitive species tested to date. This
document explains that recalculation and proposes modification of the current cyanide
standard.
Background
Cyanides are used extensively in the manufacture of synthetic fabrics and plastics, in
electroplating baths and metal mining operations, as pesticidal agents and intermediates
in agricultural chemical production, and in predator control devices. Anthropogenic
sources of cyanide in the environment include certain industrial processes, laboratories,
fumigation operations, cyanogenic drugs, fires, cigarette smoking and chemical warfare.
Cyanide occurs in water as hydrocyanic acid (HCN), the cyanide ion (CN), simple
cyanides, metallocyanide complexes, and as simple chain and complex ring organic
compounds5. Some of the metallocyanide complexes such as Zn(CN)2 are easily
Sawyer, B., D.R Zenz, C. Lue-Hing, D.T. Lordi, and R. Hill. 1998. Realistic Limits for Water Toxics.
Water Environment & Technology. 6:57-60.
2 EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. pp 65-69.
3 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985
4 EPA. 1985a. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. 98 pp.
5 EPA. 1985b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide — 1984. EPA 440/5-84-028.

DRAFT
degradable, while others such as iron and cobalt complexes are moderately degradable.
Copper and nickel complexes are intermediate between the zinc and iron complexes.
"Free cyanide" is the sum of the cyanide present as HCN and as CN-. The relative
concentrations of these two forms of cyanide depend mainly on pH and temperature.
When pH is below 8 and temperature is below 25°C, at least 94 percent of the free
cyanide exists as HCN. When pH or temperature or both are higher, a greater percentage
of free cyanide exists as CN". At pH 7, about 99% of the free cyanide is in the form of
HCN, whereas at pH 9.3 HCN composes 50%.
Free cyanide is the primary toxic agent, regardless of its origin. Cyanides are readily
absorbed through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact and are readily distributed
throughout the body via blood. All available evidence suggests that cyanides are not
mutagenic, teratogenic, nor carcinogenic6. Moreover, there are no reports of cyanide
bioaccumulating or cycling in living organisms, probably owing to its rapid
detoxification. Cyanide seldom persists in surface waters and soils due to complexation
or sedimentation, microbial metabolism, and loss from volatilization. More data are
needed on cyanide distribution and transformation in the atmosphere to fully understand
the fate of atmospheric cyanide.
Some complex cyanides, especially the hexacyanoferrate complexes (iron complexes)
are subject to photolysis over a wide range of wave -lengths of light and liberate free
cyanides in the process. The dynamics of the process are fairly well understood and
allow a degree of prediction of conversion rates under ideal conditions. However, in
complex systems where photolytic synthesis of free cyanides is influenced by turbulent
mixing over depth with varying light intensities, and where competing removal processes
occur, the prediction of resulting free cyanide levels is problematic.
Criteria Development
Aquatic Toxicity
In the EPA's criteria documents, the tests reported indicated that invertebrates were
considerably more resistant than fishes, but Daphnia sp. and Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
were comparable to fishes in sensitivity. The only consideration with this apparent
difference in sensitivity is that most of the invertebrate tests were static and the test
concentrations were not measured. On the other hand, many of the fish tests were flow -
through tests in which free cyanide concentrations were measured.
Certain life history stages and species of fish appear to be more sensitive to acute
effects of cyanide than others. Embryos, sac fry, and warmwater species tended to be the
most resistant. Free cyanide concentrations from about 50 to 200 ug/1 eventually were
6 Eisler, R. 1991. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85(1.23). Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 23.
Hartung, R. 1990. Differential Toxicity of Forms of Cyanide. The Aluminum Association, Inc.
Washington, DC.
8 EPA. 1985b. Ibid.
05/18/06 2

DRAFT
fatal to juveniles of most of the sensitive fish species, with concentrations slightly above
200 ug/1 being rapidly fatal to most juvenile fish.
According to the review by Eisler9 in 1991, fish were the most sensitive aquatic
organisms tested under controlled conditions. Nonlethal effects, including reduced
swimming performance and inhibited reproduction, were observed in the range of 5.0-7.2
ug free cyanide/1 for bluegills. This data was not included in the EPA's 1984 criteria
document because of low spawning success in the controls and no concentration effect
relationship was observed. Instead, the EPA's chronic value for bluegill was based on
long-term survival.
Based on reduced long-term survival in an early life -stage test with the bluegill and
reduced reproduction by the brook trout and fathead minnow in partial and full life -cycle
tests, the chronic values of 13.57, 7.849 and 16.39 ug free cyanide/1 were used by the
EPA. Chronic values are also available for two freshwater invertebrates, the isopod,
Asellus communis, with a chronic value of 34.06 ug free cyanide/1 and the amphipod,
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus, with a chronic value of 18.33 ug free cyanide/1.
Acute Toxicity 1 S117_.O
No additional data were added to the existing cyanide toxicity database found in
EPA's 1985 Cyanide standards document10.
Trout Waters
EPA guidance requires that the FAV be compared to each of the species mean acute
value (SMAV) to insure that all the SMAVs are below the FAV. It was found that
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with a SMAV of 44.73 ug free cyanide/1 was more
sensitive than the FAV to cyanide. Therefore, the rainbow trout SMAV was used as the
FAV. The acute standard for cyanide to protect trout waters is 44.73 divided by 2 or
22.36 ug free cyanide/1.
Non -Trout Waters
The surface water quality standard for non -trout waters was derived by removing the
trout SMAV from the calculation. The species removed were Oncorhynchus mykiss,
Salmo salar, and Salvelinus fontinalis. This action resulted in there being thirteen genus
mean acute values. Following EPA guidance it was confirmed that eight different
were still represented in the data. The acute standard based on this analysis is
e cyanide/1 (FAV of 91.6 divided by 2). A review of literature was conducted
ne if there were data that indicated other species were as sensitive as trout. No
such species were found.
9 Eisler. 1991 Ibid.
1° EPA. 1985b. Ibid.
05/18/06 3

DRAFT
Table 1. Species Reference GMAV, SMAV and ACR for Free Cyanide
RANK
GMAV
SPECIES
SMAV
ACR
1
63.45
Oncorhynchus mykiss
44.73
Salmo salar
90.00
2
85.80
Salvelinus fontinalis
85.80
10.59
3
92.64
Perca flavescens
92.64
4
99.28
Lepomis macrochirus
99.28
7.316
5
102
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
102
6
102
Micropterus salmoides
102
7
123.6
Daphnia magna
160
Daphnia pulex
95.55
8
125.1
Pimephales promelas
125.1
7.633
9
147
Poecilia reticulata
147
10
167
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
167
9.111
11
318
Carassius auratus
318
12
426
Pteronarcys dorsata
• 426 '
13
432
Physa heterostropha
432
14
2326
Asellus communis
2326
68.29
15
2490
Tanytarsus dissimilis
2490
Key: GMAV=genus mean acute value, SMAV=species mean acute value,
ACR=acute to chronic ratio.
All values are as free cyanide and in ug/1.
Chronic Toxicity
Trout Waters
In EPA's calculation of the cyanide standard, an acute to chronic ratio (ACR) of 8.57
was used. This ratio is based on the geometric mean of the ACRs for brook trout, fathead
minnows, bluegill sunfish and the amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. The chronic
standard for trout waters was determined by taking the FAV of 44.73 ug free cyanide/1
and dividing by the ACR of 8.57. This resulted in a chronic aquatic life standard of 5.2 ug
free cyanide/1.
Non -Trout Waters
For non -trout waters, the ACR was calculated as the geometric mean of the species
ACRs for fathead minnows, bluegill sunfish, and the amphipod, Gammarus
pseudolimnaeus. To determine the final chronic standard for non -trout waters, the FAV
of 91.6 ug free cyanide/1 was divided by 7.98, the non -trout ACR. The final chronic
aquatic life standard for non -trout waters is 11..5 ug free cyanide/1. This value is below
the concentration at which reduced long-term survival in bluegill early life -stage tests
occurred (13.57 ug free cyanide/1).
05/18/06 4

DRAFT
Proposed Standard
For free cyanide, the surface water quality standards to protect freshwater aquatic life
as derived using EPA guidance are 12 ug free cyanide/1 for non -trout waters and 5 ug free
cyanide/1 for trout waters.
05/18/06 5

•
JQHI{ s. srC 't14
_.IAP C 1if• iu.vilAMs
G�ML: rr.• t.01►1/41 •
roilt4 w. liweola
..prApc DUpd!r
Sll♦<iAYI. t{. �ILL�w1It
LaOKL
4;piciim.i a. a$ftDgE.ca, JP
-ti^11110i11t Rolm[ *mood
A�KioAY :P• :MVTCMIN•
JAO* ON a, . b1w,1ILTON
bTtvicPA
Mw11K c AUR YI .
.i4Q6iitt. ldi ,O OA*NY
MRINTOPMGR, % . CAM►ARLL
• Twit♦.Ri1ou
•
Sueanna_Sumpter
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
. 42 North French Broad Aye
Asheville, NC 28801
Re; Metropolitan Sewerage District v, DEAR. DWQ / 06 EHR 2061,
STEVENS
D64T ■uiLDINC
DNL WEST •AQK 3oUANL &Tit 1100 eobO.
POSY OrPICi QOa .7647
A6NEv1LLE. NoRTN CAROLINA 8AdQ2
TKLcPNONE .OQei a11i•66a0
PAC21MR 1 10=d1 aD0•p•ss
WooltobefilliNIPPAIIILDOM
Wraer'x Dirt-CUP/tone NP, . /12S/258-6919
Wratrr'x Otrrc(Fu'. i nfr. A28,)UI•6526.
Writer's E-molt. briarkc1 .roberrx-srevans tom
May ;t, 2007..
002.
DAVQL. LIth.I $i
CVNrWIA .5.• QAAor
r. •wCI4 aOT r "J CN''ttMP. rA.
14 !RAMCes• DuNot%
KLPiNeTM t♦. IUNY •
DCNNI$ .. MA71r1N. JR.
PETL.f1 0• MCOUtas
itevii4 P. KOPP
AtBP.CCA'•tOKNsitON
K. OrAN 5MAf LLY. 11
or COtir6it
L,N00N NOAKRts
ousg.1Ea 1.. •C1iapIC
rpaNlt P. GRAN/0
(iewo•te e%1 •
For Settlement Purposes Only
Via Facsimile- 251-6338
(4LNosARDT
Dear Sueanna:
Thank you, Susan Wilson and Keith Haynes for meeting .with me, Tom Hartye, John
Kiviniemi, Dennis Lance; Monty Payne and Gary McGill at MSD on April 16, 2007 to discuss .
the cyanide issue and the MSD•NPDES Permit. I believe the meeting was'inforznative'and
pToduetivc. 1 am writing to follow up on the.matters we discussed.
•
As we indicated at the:meeting, MSD's preference would be that this permitincludesno
limit for cyanide during this permit cycle. MSD believes the additional time is justified based on
the limited amount of data used by DLNR in determining that a.cyanide limit should be required.
for the MSD water reclamation facility ("WRF")• As we also discussed, MSD is in the midst
of
an exten&ive. study focused on_ a source or sources of cyanide in its wastewater collection system
' or•WRF: Although cyanide: appears sporadically in the treatment planteffluent, no source has
been identi fied. Cyanide has .never been detected in the plant influent, and MSD's industrial
.Monitoring has detected only one minor pretreatment permit exceedance for cyanide in the last
.several years. Regular concentrations of cyanide are present in the small volume of wastewater
from jibe scrubber for the incinerator, however, that wastestrearn is pumped to the head of the
plant for treatment, and•samples taken from the headworks after mixing have not detected any
cyanide.
MSD believes it will need•at least three more years to identify the source or sources of
-cyanide:or to determine aim presence is duel() analytical interference. MSD's task is especially
.complex -given the relationship between chlorine .and cyanide and the fact that.MSD. will be
,required to "dechlorinat&' •residual chlorine in. its, effluent next year. Obviously, MSD hopes
that
b0'd
LS:171 LOOZ 9Z unf
8££9-LSZ-8Z8:Xe3 331330 t<ti N39 11V

wJuuJ
• the result of its study
will be identification of the source or sources of cynanidC or the analytical
phenomenoncausing
it to "appear,` wth appropriate action -ensuing. .Should that not be the case,
be willingto accr pt:a limit for cyanide although MSD. does not believe.22 t2 um In he
I�STa. would g appropriate .-
appropriate limit. Should MSD-and NCDENR,corno to ant o cagreement
am � the bas basis fQ the 22 u�� limit,
thc future that a limit is needed, MSD wouldsttlto .its discharge and the significant die of
particularly considering the site .specific issues related
the receiving scream
Additionally, if a source or sources of cyanide are identified, MSD must
d 1 pit
eve o .an effective management strategy for controlling these sources to ensure that the ac y
, -
can mcet its limit.
Based onour discussions at the meeting, MSD would propose the following:
have an additional three years to study- the cyanide .issue beginning on the
MSD would
on
1.
date.of resolution of. this Contested. Case• MSD would submit semian.nUai,reports..to D Q
the: results .of the study:
completion of the study, MSD and DW.Q would meet to determine:1) whether a-
Z. Upon p what that lima should be, and 3) the steps needed
limit should be .imposed for e.ymilide; 2) if so.
to address' and properly manage the. source(s)= identified.
3. MSD would expand its "study" to include treatment or other management of the waste
stream coming from the incinerator scrubber water. My other source(s) identified fordeftnsovelY
would:
would also be considered appropriate treatment management.1 The:study
include instream analysesfor cyanide, including upstream and downstream sampling in the river
and in :the flume.
Thanks again for the meeting. Please let me know if you have questions. 1 look. forward
to hearing from You.
Sincerely,
RC)BERTS & STEVENS, PA
itliam''Claykc
WC/sh
cc.: Mr. Tom NIartye (via e-mail:.thartye®msdbc.org)
Mr. John Kiveniemi (via e-mail:-sewerman@msdbe,org).
Mr. Gary McGill (via e-mail; [e-mail])
KAS S39725.-1
50 'd
LS:01 L00Z 9Z unf
8££9-1SZ-8Z8:xe3 33I330 A N3J lib►

uo(7 /10o 4iticeis,
. / I'- gifi- % AN1w P/N-1
41
ci
/vo . u,K r -r %wT /F UM. r r" /411 7)
A,/G O 0f./
M
elW14firdAdy ©1 J 7193L6,-
��C' cl �5/o•v
�mr/7' a T /-f4&-o5' y'Jo u.eco ©G CAN
bG pg
wrfi-
Iomp ,) i ev .-ram A✓
al) (444 , r
coo- ter
44er 11,1 At
tr
,¢,.', T!7 77,46 /fi r C te.w B ''Li" 1144-s cr.11,'I' ,9WL
V(N 5r"49 —7 _ jtit1445, it64-Li /V.v,2,444
Cm / ?-6i trE Sr-
/kir 6 v C/tt- r/f (,V1 NL4ti!7"j SP.1,. c' S.OD61+7I G /^1S
(ootgiuf 64'9 194-49 cS f set., r 50Yi►7gLE3
FeiL414 tr"
6147, 43 /1-7-e)
C W ou u) 66 g w; C� a e' r
b•a)
‘411, %k ,kW -roes. — ? Gc}e r 046 Odemt i`TC,•z(A^:
��N'Y 1,4 t i*r (p camO , c )

PN ,W;- 4 ? .?5 uf73 M4 mos ReaNt5
4f44.4,r ice► /ob
ecfr /f N &-,) . t /f v - i'rr a A/ e jb{ae £
}�h p No t9zfriz. Co (f -55 6 j - ✓lJ c er ' b )', �t7
AQ664-,)c. .14)5T4U'CSs 7o Ad q I (df'P 7"- Pko LOs 9
_, x16,4 sor
r £ /I f )) e5 /Us 0 -' ?7s hoc*-'
� c s/cam, FT GA'64- O f
L4-/1-0Co»TAT
lj/e-. e F 02-
3 44
t/h1, 6 )/A'S No . /c 73 ; cgcol S'161,9041 o2 GLAIr�Y.
Rey
r (4 (5 it-6c. *t Wfievr r0 5oWc (r) Po d 5�JC
14N6w 5 l & -
• r, (Art L-4. A-tie-cw !: PCs 5 472-1
Stir
(Dc,',p)
r A o7 /lta/t PIP f 4r a' li✓J R4114Y GiA5r -5i?ztPa.k s s ,4-e L—
(ril rgcj r .lb 61w 6-vrio N y'yyr- --
PAO' 0140, p -r/'.' /, y(5> j Shy i7?ivf P4GE
( + C� � �P 5 >> 2 , r F.jt V (,)( rc.41
Cdn1 ( yrOvv, ore- /6�•n 6,v7-
. Al PUP • tPd7 'r49.1, C6a,,,v 71, �%LLGd:^/r --
c -Aker pi,ugA,G Codes tvitaR)
voice
61y/1&6-f-io
tkio ) wtAt ,r72r

/4) C././(^0
$ * 1,0yr e4a2fALIrr10
oN
6/0 may ! _'� �� % ' - !:
/i4'l# i' Dos r C/U O Azdt ri O A' C%k)@/
( 44,6MA
6.94<,"f v ,ass/T ✓&s
al)/ 1oOre, (A/ NerkP2
6Pgr.u,6v r Nd
co) yvn (e.9A/5r sT u �s� you ,
/ 15 eoiv5 si r'T (,qr to,/,e t.sow,v . &lam / yr")
CAI 4.„cc.0 00- TPA, ea- f4,e) cifofru
y i44,6 g DL'' 51_ �t r
t/l c.A2
hl vu, (SG2 ei2) .7 3tM.L
O,f A (4.t Ni 17.4 /,Jy�
g /P CFb,aa4 5/AvN > (d iE2�
Wit tat) - (Vp5,4 6 t ,2)
wA/v,-fr Goq- ` ,h9rilops
M4
1117. 6 PPAI. ear cv 4 `'��'-, gi�c'iL 5 tf5
6 m0.1. /kv )

" tAfet AZ v .4' cor o2 ritr -40/-! f `7 (CA-i P7v�'Gr I /14,, 17- L7 )
CAG d
Co G1oni
.c ✓.fNf f ex%�i e 7rt $
w` ci) ii2o (,r�Coaf re
TL/ (. , Ty
C'^i A2 4)
f'f—P
a/k/ z
AA/ w
l•
s 7
W (u- 11-rAWT • S 60 IF f r /( 0147107- WeAfr /he d
61<-13v0 Sr,TcL S PuA'S
(,� ► nr9 le Po Jyo/' &/ (4/r01.6144
A 7 Fl yr ei/G Z/ - . iSto
Sitidu . bra L)
-ver- i uct r"I -R,AAPK
ynu, (44- 4- fovort- (s5a6-5
oAnik Log' AI" pp- (k 0,12.
(1971,4.-4% 661(9 c.," kfrz&)
6441(6-A / cI ►ci/ -r PitPitt= IZi vC2 S636_.)

5,44.,,#figg, H7)0 .01
1-47
wr PI (Pr Al 62.1 off (At t / 5- -ter 12,EfQ CO Ire; /2)
( I P 874 0 (At/
p�ci/
bncc. /")* , 7-0- rbj((cr7' prfi nrioce i1if /•��v ��
7�5��cry/ cti)
151' Go44 1"ro t94,'Le-ry /.may cTti , 74w CAI
1141:5ra*' trt,r7 CeA/ 5.2E72,,M-7 Ve) /917,4-n-i47,6;
0' 4,,f1;0is . Gs�i ot14I cc dab
c r, r c.c(N were —
ems©
,Jp „G 5 i N%7-( ,1z yr A.71 e.76,

Re: FW:,MSD v. DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061)(NPDES Permi...
Subject: Re: FW: MSD v. DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061)(NPDES Permit NC0024911)
From: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:04:26 -0400
To: "Sumpter, Sueanna" <[e-mail]>
CC: Toya Fields <[e-mail]>
Good timing in that our standards person walked into my office right after I hung up the phone
with you. How about this:
DWQ is required to protect the Best Usage of Waters (which includes protection of aquatic life on
a short term or long term basis). For MSD - the French Broad River is "B" [ref. 15A NCAC 2B
.0219 (2); then, 2B .0211]. Protection of aquatic life includes protection for acute impacts (short
term) and chronic impacts (long term) - ref. 15A 2B .0202 (1) and (1)(a). EPA's numeric water
quality criteria and subsequent versions are adopted via (1)(a).
Final Acute Value (FAV) = Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) = acute criteria.
The acute criteria (freshwater CMC) is 22 ug/1 (via EPA's water quality criteria publication).
So, DWQ implemented the EPA's acute value for CN to protect aquatic life from short term
impacts (and subsequently protect the best usage of the waters). This was the more stringent
value (i.e., in this the case the acute criteria was more stringent that the chronic standard - so
DWQ implemented the acute criteria) .
The EPA criteria is linked below (scroll to Cyanide):
http: / /www.epa.gov/waterscience / criteria/wqcriteria.html
Hope this helps - that's the best way I know of to answer it.
We'll plan to see you at 10 am on Monday (at MSD Buncombe). If you have directions - let us
know. Not sure where that is.
Susan
Sumpter, Sueanna wrote:
Thank you again for your help.
Sueanna
Original Message
From: Toya Fields [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:14 PM
To: Sumpter, Sueanna
Subject: Re: MSD v. DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061)(NPDES Permit NC0024911)
Hi Sueanna,
I have some additional information about our water quality standards to
help with a response to the folks at MSD.
They have requested that we implement a cyanide limit of 43 ug/L based
on a freshwater quality standard of 5 ug/L and a dilution factor. That
would be consistent with our methodology for developing permit limits
based on our chronic water quality standards. However, in the case of
cyanide, EPA has not only recommended a chronic criteria of 5.2 ug/L,
but also an acute criteria of 22 ug/L. We have adopted these acute
1 of 2 4/12/2007 4:05 PM

Re: FW: MSD v. DWQ (OAH 06 EHR 2061)(NPDES Permi...
criteria in our administrative code 15A NCAC 022 .0202 (1)(2). Acute
criteria represent a maximum short-term exposure. Therefore, while we
do allow a dilution factor when calculating limits based on chronic
(long-term) exposure, we do not when acute criteria also apply.
I couldn't find any procedural documents, but I did speak with Susan
about this and she felt that the definition of "acute toxicity" that is
listed in our rules supports our interpretation (lethality or other
harmful effects due to short-term exposure) . Chrnni r, i-n,r;
define(
Let me
Thanks
Toya
Sumptez
I hac
indic
mattE
immed
an ap
Thank
Suean
Susan A. Wi
Supervisor, 1
(919) 733 -
1617 Mail St
Raleigh, NC:
0
e W ATF-roc,
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
[phone]
(a)
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 4/12/2007 4:05 PM

11/09/2006 15:12 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
Zoo'
ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A.
ONE PACK SQUARE, SUITE 1100 (28801)
POST OFFICE BOX 7647
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28802
SENDER'S DIRECT LINE: [phone]
SENDER'S DIRECT FAX: [phone]
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: (35 )
To: Office of Administrative Hearings 919/733-3478
cc: Mr. Alan Klimek 919/733-0719
From: Billy Clarke
Date: November 9, 2006
Rc: Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County / Contested Case with
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
Facsimile Operator: Sarah Hayden
NOTICE: The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity oanied above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original
message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service.
R&S 510954-1

11/09/2006 15:12 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
j002
JOHN = r.TrVEN6
JAMES W WILLIAMS
CARL W LOFTIN
JOHN W MASON
MARC AuOOw
SHERYL H. WILLIAMS
WILLIAM CLARKE
vINCtNT 0 CHILORESS JR.
MARJORIE ROWE MANN
GREGORY 0 HUTCHINS
JACKSON D. HAMILTON
WATT 5. STEVENS
MARK C. KUROYS
JACOUELINC O. GRANT
CHRICTOPNCR Z. CAMPBELL
PATSY ORISON
ROBERTS
STEVENS
ATTORNEYS AT Law
DOar Ou.LOING
ONE WEST PACK SQUARE. STE 1100 20001
POST OFFICE Box 76.117
ASHEVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 28802
TCLCOHONE 10201 202-G00O
FACSIMILE 18281 256 6955
uM1w.rl bertl.storel*S.eem
Writer's Direct Phone No.: 828/258-6919
Writer's Direct Facsimile: 828/210-6526
Writer's E-mail: bclarkecrobcrts-stcvens.com
November 9, 2006
Office of Administrative Hearings
Clerk's Office
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
OAVIO l ENOLISH
CYNTHIA S GRADY
P LACHICOTTC %ACH' ZEMP JR.
KENNETH R HUNT
DENNIS L MARTIN. JR
I'CTCRf 0 MGCNIRC
KEVIN P KOPP
RE©ECCA JOHNSTON REINHARDT
K. OCAN &HATLEY. 11
or COUN&CL
LANOON Q0008?
WALTER L CURRIe
FRANK P. GRAHAM
17.►y • 20031
Via Facsimile: 919/733-3478
& US Mail
Re: Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County / Contested Case with NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed please find a Petition for Contested Case we are filing on behalf of the
Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County. The original petition and 3 copies are
being placed in the mail today. Copies of the Petition are being served on Alan Klimek, the
Director of the Division of Water Quality, and Mary Penny Thompson, General Counsel to the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Please return two file stamped copy to us in
the envelope provided. Your cooperation and assistance are appreciated.
Sincerely,
ROBERTS & STEVENS, PA
WC/sh
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Alan Klimek
Ms. Mary Penny Thompson
Mr. Tom Hartye, P.E. General Manager, MSD
Mr. John Kivenimi, MSD
R&S 510948-I

11/09/2006 15:13 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
Z 003
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
DISTRICT OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
PETITIONER,
v.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
RESPONDENT.
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS
06-EHR-
PETITION FOR CONTESTED CASE
NOW COMES the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County ("MSD"), by
and through counsel, and Petitions the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") for a
Contested Case Hearing on the matters set forth herein. In support of this Petition, MSD would
show unto OAH the following:
1. MSD is a Metropolitan Sewerage District organized under Chapter 153 of the North
Carolina General Statutes, now recodified as Article 5 of Chapter 162A,
2. MSD is comprised of all the incorporated municipalities in Buncombe County and certain
unincorporated portions of Buncombe County.
3. MSD owns and operates, pursuant to an existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit (the "Existing Permit"), a Water Reclamation Facility
(the "WRF") which collects, treats and discharges approximately 20 million gallons per day to
the French Broad River.
4. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") implements the NPDES
program in North Carolina and issues NPDES Permits to MSD and other municipal and
industrial dischargers.
5. By letter dated September 27, 2006, DWQ renewed NPDES Permit NC0024911 to MSD
(the "Renewed Permit"). A copy of the letter and the proposed permit are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
6. By letter dated October 12, 2006, DWQ made corrections to NPDES Permit NC0024911.
A copy of the letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.
R&tS 508727-1

11/09/2006 15:13 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
2004
7. The Renewed Permit includes an effluent limit for cyanide (Cn) of 22 micrograms per
liter (parts per billion) effective May 1, 2008 and a requirement that MSD analyze its effluent
weekly for the presence of Cn.
8. MSD samples the influent to its treatment plant on a periodic basis. MSD has never
detected Cn in its influent.
9. MSD samples the effluent discharge from the WRF on a daily basis. At least twice a
month, the effluent sample is analyzed for Cn. Over the last four years, there were
limited/episodic detections of Cn with only a few high values and no apparent pattern.
10. There are a limited number of users of the MSD Sewerage System who use Cn in their
processes. The amount of Cn these users are allowed to discharge is regulated by permits issued
by MSD. Compliance with these permits is regulated by industrial self -monitoring and by the
MSD Industrial Waste Section. All dischargers of Cn have been in compliance with the limits in
their permits for the relevant period.
11. MSD has developed and is implementing an eighteen month study to attempt to locate the
source of the Cn. MSD began the study in August, 2006 and will report the study results to
DWQ,
12. MSD does not believe there is sufficient evidence or basis to include a Cn limit in the
Renewed Permit.
13. MSD does not believe there is sufficient evidence or reasonable basis to include a limit of
22 parts per billion for Cn in the Renewed Permit. The limit is based on DWQ's inputting of the
highest Cn data points from 2003 — 2005 in the Reasonable Potential Model resulting in an
extraordinarily stringent standard. This standard also ignores any mixing/dilution of the effluent
from the WRF.
14. Effluent from the WRF goes first into the hydroelectric flume where it undergoes
significant mixing prior to entering the French Broad River. MSD is precluded by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service from considering the water in the flume as water of the river.
15. MSD objects to the weekly monitoring requirement in the Renewed Permit as it will
impose additional collection, monitoring and reporting costs,
16. Inclusion of the limit in the Renewed Permit would impose a significant hardship on
MSD in the form of additional monitoring, analysis and reporting. The proposed standard is
unnecessarily stringent and so close to the practical quantization limit that there is a significant
possibility of non-compliance based on laboratory error and imperfections in analytical
instruments. Non compliance with the proposed limit could result in fines and penalties and
other issues related to long term non compliance.
R&S 508727-1

11/09/2006 15:13 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
O005
17. MSD believes DWQ acted erroneously, arbitrarily and capriciously and exceeded its
authority under the law in issuing the Renewed Permit with the Cn limit of 22 micrograms per
liter and the increased monitoring and analysis requirement for Cn.
WHERERFORE, MSD respectfully requests the Office of Administrative Hearing that
1, This matter be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge for a Contested Case Hearing.
2. That the Renewed Permit be issued without the Cn limit and the increased monitoring
requirement for Cn.
3. That MSD be allowed to proceed with its eighteen month study to determine, if possible,
the source of the Cn in its effluent,
4. That the parties be allowed to proceed with discovery in this matter
This the
day of November, 2006.
ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A.
WILLIAM CL
Attorneys for Petitioner
P.O. Box 7647
Asheville, NC 28802
[phone]
NC State Bar No. 10278
R&S 5Q8727- I

11/09/2006 15:13 FAX [phone] ROBERTS-STEVENS
v
Z 006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Petition for Contested
Case was served upon the Respondents and/or persons indicated below in this contested case by
facsimile and/or electronic mail to the number and/or e-mail address indicated below and by
placing a copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Mr. Alan Klimeck, P.E.
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Facsimile: 919/733-0719
This the
ay of November, 2006.
Ms. Mary Penny Thompson
General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
E-mail: [e-mail]
William Clarke
Attorney for Petitioner
R&S 508727-1

State of Worth Carolina
Department of Justice
ROY COOPER 42 North French Broad Avenue
Attorney General Asheville, NC 28801
-- MEMORANDUM --
TO:
Susan Wilson
Supervisor, Western NPDES Group
DENR/DWQ
FROM: Sueanna P. Sumpter
Assistant Attorney General
DATE: 27 December 2007
SUBJECT: MSD v. DENR/DWQ
OAH file no. 06 EHR 2061
NPDES permit no. NC0024911
JAN 22008
�F F I�iR �._n •:u ..�ii
Western Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ATTORNEY -CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Privileged and Not Public Record
I am enclosing for your signature two originals and one copy of the Consent Agreement and
Settlement we previously negotiated with MSD. Please return both originals to me in the enclosed self-
addressed envelope. The enclosed copy is for your records. I will later forward a fully -executed copy, along
with a copy of the petitioner's notice of withdrawal to you for your file. Please note that we will need to
issue the revised permit upon full execution of the agreement. MSD has requested that this be sent directly
to Tom Hartye.
Thanks, and please call me if you have any questions about this matter.
SPS
Enclosures

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA =( BAN 2 ay IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE 06 EHR 2061
Metropolitan Sewerage District
of Buncombe County,
Petitioner,
NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality,
Respondent.
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT
The petitioner, Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe
County ("MSD"), and the respondent, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
("DWQ"), hereby enter into this Consent Agreement and Settlement
("Agreement") in order to resolve matters in controversy between
them pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 150B-31(b).
This above -captioned matter arose out of the 27 September 2006
renewal by the respondent of NPDES Permit NC0024911 ("the permit"),
held by the petitioner. The permit authorizes the petitioner to
operate a 40 MGD wastewater treatment system at its Water
Reclamation Facility, and to discharge treated wastewater from that
facility into the French Broad River at a specified location. The
permit includes effluent limitations and monitoring conditions for

various parameters and constituents of concern, including Cyanide.
The renewal permit included a daily maximum effluent limit of 22
micrograms per liter (ug/1) and requires weekly monitoring for
Cyanide. This limit was to take effect 1 May 2008, to allow the
petitioner an opportunity to conduct a study and determine the
source of high readings previously reported for this parameter.
MSD commenced the above -captioned contested case to challenge
the cyanide limit. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement
negotiations and developed a draft amended permit which is
agreeable to both.
Therefore, without any trial of fact or law in the above -
styled matter, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT:
1. The daily maximum effluent limit for cyanide (22 ug/1)
will remain in the subject permit, but will not take effect until
two (2) years following full execution of this Agreement.
2. During the same two (2) - year period, MSD will complete
a study of its wastewater collection system and treatment facility
to determine the source(s) of the cyanide previously detected in
the treatment plant effluent. The study would include, but not be
limited to, consideration of the waste stream coming from the
incinerator scrubber water. In designing and implementing this
study, MSD will solicit the assistance of staff in DWQ's laboratory
certification section and/or their counterparts in EPA Region IV,
-2-

concerning procedures for sampling and preservation of samples.
3. During the same two (2) - year period, MSD reserves the
right, pursuant to 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2B .0211, to work with
appropriate staff in DWQ to develop a site -specific limit for
cyanide, and will submit to DWQ the results of its study, along
with any other relevant information, in attempting to develop such
a limit. DWQ will consider any such request, review the supporting
data submitted, and act upon it as required and/or allowed by law.
4. MSD reserves the right to request, at the conclusion of
the same two (2) - year period, that DWQ remove from its permit the
effluent limit for cyanide. Any such request shall be supported by
a minimum of twenty-four (24) consecutive months of data which MSD
contends demonstrates that the permitted facility and discharge
have no reasonable potential for causing an exceedance of water
quality standards for cyanide. DWQ agrees to consider any such
request, review the supporting data submitted, and act upon it as
required and/or allowed by law.
5. The parties understand and agree that, at the expiration
of the two-year period following full execution of this Agreement,
one of the following will occur in accordance with the preceding
paragraphs: (a) the daily maximum cyanide limit specified in
paragraph one (1) , above, will take effect; or (b) a site -specific
daily maximum cyanide limit will be developed for petitioner's
-3-

facility as provided in paragraph three (3) , above, and that limit
will take effect; or (c) the cyanide limit will be removed from
petitioner's permit due to a sufficient showing by the petitioner
as described in paragraph four (4), above, that the permitted
facility and discharge have no reasonable potential for causing an
exceedance of water quality standards for cyanide.
6. Within ten (10) days following full execution of this
Agreement, and subject to its terms and conditions, the respondent,
DWQ, agrees to issue to the petitioner, MSD, an amended renewal
permit containing the same terms and conditions as the draft permit
developed and agreed to by the parties. A copy of the draft is
attached to this Agreement, marked "Exhibit A," and incorporated by
reference herein.
7. By execution of this Agreement, and subject to its terms
and conditions, MSD accepts and agrees not to challenge the terms
and conditions of the amended renewal permit, Exhibit A hereto.
8. MSD explicitly waives its right to a contested case
hearing in this matter and additionally agrees to withdraw its
petition for contested case hearing previously filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings in the above -captioned matter.
Petitioner shall file a notice of withdrawal of request for
contested case hearing within ten (10) days following full
execution of this Agreement.
-4-

FOR THE PETITIONER:
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY
/ 2 ar/o
ROBERTS & STEVENS,
Attorpeys for
William Clarke
P.O. Box 7647
Asheville NC 28802
Date: /t-' /7/07
P.A.
itioner
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NC DENR, DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY
©i ;, �s N c77
Susan Wilson, Supervisor
Western NPDES Program
Date:
ROY COOPER
Attorney General
Sueanna P. Sumpter
Assistant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
42 N. French Broad Avenue
Asheville NC 28801
Date: