NC0024228_Permit (Modification)_20000310

NPDES DOCUHENT !;CANNING COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0024228
High Point Westside WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 10, 2000
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reirerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
ATTFA
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 10, 2000
Mr. Thomas P. Gore, Plants Division Manager
City of High Point
Public Services Department
P.O. Box 230
High Point, North Carolina 27261
Subject: Adjudicatory Settlement/ Final Permit
High Point Westside WWTP
NPDES Permit NC0024228
Davidson County
Dear Mr. Gore
In accordance with the application for discharge permit and subsequent adjudicatory
settlement, the Division is forwarding herewith the modified NPDES 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 December 6,
1983.
Based on additional information submitted by the City of High Point and further analyses of
the effluent data, the Division agreed, through the adjudicatory settlement, (1) to eliminate the
monitoring/ limit requirement for cadmium and, (2) place a conditional statement regarding the
potential elimination of the cyanide limit in the permit. Should the City believe that the modified
language contained in this permit not be representative of the settlement agreement, please contact
Susan A. Wilson at (919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510 as soon as possible. The permit also includes toxicity
testing language which has been updated with the Division of Water Quality's current policy [Special
Condition A (3)1. The City has completed the phosphorus optimization study and this has been noted
in the permit [Special Condition A (2)1. The attached permit, with all changes incorporated, is final and
binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division of
Water Quality. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be followed in case of change in ownership
or control of this discharge. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or revocation and
reissuance of the permit.
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 510 (fax) 919 733-0719
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer [e-mail]

r'
Mr. Thomas P. Gore
City of High Point
Page 2 of 2
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Land Resources, the Coastal Area
Management Act, or any other federal or local governmental permit.
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Susan Wilson at telephone
number [phone], ext. 510.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
Enclosures: NPDES Permit No. NC0024228
cc: Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality
Point Source Compliance/ Enforcement Unit
Central Files
NPDES Files

Permit No. NC0024228
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 provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Water Quality Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of High Point
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
High Point/ Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant
Off NCSR 1784
Southwest of High Point
Davidson County
to receiving waters designated as Rich Fork Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
in accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective March 10, 2000.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on April 30, 2004.
Signed this day March 10, 2000.
z2„,(1-
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
City of High Point
Westside WWTP
is hereby authorized to:
Permit No. NC0024228
1. Continue to operate an existing 6.2 MGD wastewater treatment facility consisting of
influent screw pumps, mechanical bar screen, aerated grit chambers, influent flow
measurement, dual primary clarifiers, roughing filters, three aeration basins, dual
secondary clarifiers, tertiary filters, alum phosphorus removal facilities, and
ultraviolet disinfection located at High Point Westside Plant, NCSR 1784 southwest of
High Point, Davidson County, and
2. Discharge wastewater from said treatment works at the location specified on the
attached map into Rich Fork Creek which is classified C waters in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basin.

f
Discharge Point
l
0
�1 1 /(/�J
SCALE 1:24000
Latitude: 35°56' 14"
Longitude: 80°06.42"
Quad #: D 18NE. "High Point West"
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Rich Fork
Mitt
A II..,
41
1--,-.4.-:.-.0L\hrtk-i-...----E---,...A, t___\..-.7 ,,s.-Wodrsc. A vi",47,1
ir". 44.1.7„
q•- r.„--------irii ‘..
-----z.---,-;_____,c-r--,-;11.:, .
irr_1:-
-'(6----
1.
.4j` :! //�' ; .i `' fir;' Z. :_/- ,. ::-r.
Facility
Location
North
.w:
High Point Westside
NC0024228
Davidson County
rii

Permit NC0024228
Its A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee is
authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number 001. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the
Permittee as specified below:
7dO
olds/
/0 (07
EFFLUENT
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS
Monthly
Average
Weekly- -
Average
_.Datiy
Maxi um
Measurement
Fre ue c
Sample
Type
Sample Location*
Flow
6.2 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(April 1 - October 31)1
5.0 mg/I
7.5 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C
(November 1- March 31)1
10.0 mg/I
15.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
Total Suspended Solids1
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Influent & Effluent
NH3 as N
(April 1 - October 31)
2.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N
(November 1 - March 31)
4.0 mgll
Daily
Composite
Effluent
pH2
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Dissolved 0xygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean)
200/100 ml
400/100 mi
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Total Residual Chlorine4
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature °C
Daily
Grab
Effluent,
Upstream & Downstream
Conductivity
Weekly
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
(NO2 + NOV
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
TKNt
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus5
2.0 mg/I
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity6
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Cyanide?
5.3 pg/L
22 pg/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Lead
26.7 pg/L
33.8 pg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Nickel
94.0 pg/L
789 pg/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Copper
2/Month
Composite
Effluent _
Aluminum8
2/Month
Composite,/
n?° Effluent
Mercury8 L 7 l' + w
2/Month
(Composie�
Composite
r0j Effluent
Effluent
/
2/Month
_Silver
Zinc
2/Month
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
• Upstream = at least 100 feet above outfall. Downstream (2 locations): (1) at NCSR 2123, (2) at NCSR
2005 (Turner Road) below Hamby Creek. Stream samples shall be grab samples and shall be collected
3/Week during June -September and 1/Week during the remaining months of the year (except TKN,
NO2+ NO3, NH3-N, and phosphorus - see table below).
(Table footnotes continue on the next page)

Permit NC0024228
Notes: (continued)
i The monthly average effluent. BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
2 The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units.
3 The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
4 No monitoring is required for Total Residual Chlorine if chlorine is not utilized for disinfection.
5 See Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, Special Condition A (2).—Operation and
Maintenance Assessment. Upon permit renewal in 2004, the facility shall meet a Total Phosphorus mass limit
of 5533 pounds during the summer (Apr -Oct) and 7808 pounds during the winter (Nov -Mar).
6 Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 90% January, April, July, and October; see Supplement to Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, Special Condition A (3). TOXICITY MONITORING SHALL
COINCIDE WITH METALS MONITORING.
7 The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 µg/1(10 ppb). Levels reported as "<10 µg/1" shall be considered
zero for compliance purposes. Should the City of High Point continue to report effluent cyanide values less
than the quantitation limit of 10 µg/1 through April 30, 2000 the cyanide Iimit will be eliminated [refer to
Special Condition A (4)).
8 equantitation limit for mercury shall be 0.2 µg/;1 (0.2 ppb). Levels reported as "<0.2 µg/1" shall be
- co idered zero for compliance purposes. Monitoring for these parameters is not required as long as facility
mon ers Mercury and Aluminum as part of its Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP).
INSTREAM MONITORING THAT IS REQUIRED JUNE - SEPTEMBER ONLY
Total Phosphornst
2/Month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
NO2+ NO3t
2/Month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
NH3-Ni
2/Month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
TBNt
2/Month
Grab
Upstream & Downstream
t Parameters shall be monitored using an EPA approved method and shall provide the following detection levels:
Total Phosphorus, NO2+ NO3, and NH3-N = 0.01 mg/1; TKN = 0.1 mg/1.
Instream monitoring is waived as long as this facility is a member of the Yadkin Pee Dee River
Basin Association. If the facility ends its membership in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Association,
instream monitoring requirements as specified in this permit take effect immediately.
The quantitation limit is consistent with the data reporting requirements under Test Procedures in Part II of
this permit and is considered the "lower reporting level."
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit NC0024228
A (2). IDENTIFYING METHODS TO OPTIMIZE PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Within one year of the effective date of this permit, the Permittee shall conduct an operation and
maintenance assessment to identify methods of optimizing phosphorus removal with existing facilities
and must submit a report to the Division of Water Quality documenting actions taken. COMPLETED
A (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 90%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, quarterIq 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
January, April, July, and October. 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 Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch 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 Branch 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.

Permit NC0024228
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.
A (4). Cyanide Special Condition
Should the City of High Point continue to report effluent cyanide values less than the quantitation limit
of 10 ug/I through April 30, 2000, the permit limit requirement for cyanide will be removed. Monitoring
should continue to be performed 1/month by grab sample. A letter signed by the City's signature
authority, stating that the data have conformed to this requirement and monthly monitoring for cyanide
shall begin May 1, 2000, must be submitted to:
Mr. Shannon Langley
Point Source Compliance and Enforcement
DWQ
Mail Service Center 1617
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Should the data not conform to the above requirement, or should the City of High Point wish to have a
lesser requirement than 1/month monitoring, the limit and monitoring shall remain in place until such
time that a formal permit modification has been performed.

high point Again -Reply
Subject: high point again -Reply
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:43:20 -0500
From: BRIAN J. MCGINN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
NO!!! This is part of a settlement to AVOID litigation. They've already
agreed to this. Tell them if they don't like the language or feel that it is not
representative of the settlement terms as they understood those terms,
they should call you immediately.
»> Susan Wilson <[e-mail]> 03/01/00 04:20pm »>
Brian,
Sent Bill K. (the consultant) an e-mail re. the tox issue. could you
check this language out I'm putting in the permit cover sheet. do they
have a right to adjudicate the modification??? thanks again. can't
wait 'til this one is over so i can start on a new and different
problem.
In accordance with the application for discharge permit and subsequent
adjudicatory settlement, the Division is forwarding herewith the
modified NPDES 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 December 6, 1983.
Based on additional information submitted by the City and further
analysis of effluent data, the Division agreed, through the adjudicatory
settlement, (1) to eliminate the monitoring/ limit requirement for
cadmium and, (2) place a conditional statement regarding the potential
elimination of the cyanide limit in the permit. If the modified
conditions (based on the adjudicatory settlement) contained in this
permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt
of this letter. This request must be in the form of a written petition,
conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and
filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, Mail Service Center
6714, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless such a demand is
made,
this permit shall be final and binding.
the rest of it is standard language.
1 of 1 3/1/00 5:34 PM

Toxicant Ana ysis/ High Point
Parameter =
Standard =
n
1
RESULTS
Std Dev.
Facility Name
High Point WWTP
Cd
Pa
NPDES #
NC0024228
2
Ng/I
Data
<11
<1
0.155000235
S
Qw (MGD)
7010s (cfs)
6.2
BDL=1/2DLkctual
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.67
!WC (%)
93.48
c'ving Stream
Rich Fork
2
3
Mean
0.475036364
Stream Class
C
<1
<1
C.V.
0.326291304
4
FINAL RESULTS
5
0.5
<1
Cd
6
0.5
<1
Mult Facto
1.4
Max. Pred Cw
1.9278
ug/l
7
0.5
<1
Max. Value
1.377
pg/
Allowable Cw
2.1
ug/l
8
0.5
<1
Max. Pred
1.9278
pg/
Max. Value_
1.377
9
0.5
<1
Allowable (
2.14
pg/
NI
10
0.5
<1
Max. Pred Cw
378.58
ug/I
11
0.5
<1
Allowable Cw
26.7
ug/l
12
0.5
0.5
<1
<1
Max. Value
82.3
13
Pb (lead)
14
0.5
<1
Max. Pred Cw
35
ugf
15
0.5
<1
Allowable Cw
26.7
ug/l
16
0.5
0.5
0.5
<1
<1
Max. Value
28
17
CN-
18
<1
Max. Pred Cw
115.2
ugf
19
0.5
<1
Allowable Cw
5.3
ugi
20
0.5
0.5
<1
_
Max. Value
24
21
<1
22
0.5
<1
23
24
0.5
<1
0.5
<1
25
0.5
<1
26
1.377
1.377
27
0.5
<1
28
0.5
<1
29
0.5
<1
30
0.5
<1
31
0.5
<1
32
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
<1
33
<.5
34
<.5
35
<.5
36
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
<.5
37
<.5
- -
-
39
<.5
40
<.5
<.5
41
42
43
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
44
45t
46f
47
48
49
50
-
-
51
<1
<1
52
53
<1
<1
<1
54
55
56
1/19/00 1

Toxicant Analysis/ High Point
rameter = Ni
tandard =
pg/I
n3DL=1/2D Actual Data RESULTS
1 5 <10 Std Dev. 12.5733
2 5 <10 Mean 10.0344
3 30.29 30.29 C.V. 1.25302
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39.
40
41
42
43
44.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
11.28 11.28
10.4 10.4
2.5 <5
2.5 <5
4 <8
4 <8
10.5 10.5
17 17
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
27.81
5 <10
Mult Factor
Max. Value 82.3'pg/I
Max. Pred ( 378.58 pg/I
Allowable C c2r 4-pg/l
4.6
Parameter = Pb lead
Standard = 2:
27.81
5 <10
39.89 39.89
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
23.9 23.9
5 <10I
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
26.68 26.68
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10'
5 <10
5 <10
5 <10
20.37 20.371
5 <10'
5 <10
11.41 11.41
82.3 82.3 5
13.96 13.96'
5 <10
5 <10
12.16 12.16
5 <10
10.29 10.29
5 <10
10.16 10.16
5 <10
5 <10
10,49 10.49
5 <10
pg/I
n3DL=1/2DI Actual Data RESULTS
1 2.5 <5 Std Dev. 3.8937
2 2.5 <5 Mean 2.4743
3 __ 2.5 <5 C.V. 1.5736
4_ 2.5 <5
5 2.5 <5
6 2.5 <5 Mult Factor =
7 2.5' <51 Max. Value
8 2.5 <5 Max. Pred Cv
9 2.5 <5 Allowable Cw
10 5.188
11 2.5
12 2.5
13 2.5
14 _ 2.5
15 1
16
17
18
. _ 19
20
21
22
23 1
5.188
<5'
<5
<5
<5
<2
1 <2
1 <2
2.5 <5
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
<2
<2
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
1.25
28 /ig/I
35 pg/I
26.74 pg/I,
1
3.1
1
<2
3.1
<2
1 _ <2.
1 <2
8.5 8.5,
1 <2
1' <2'
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
3.6 3.6
1 <2
2.2 2.2
1 <2
1 <2
28 28
1 <2
1 <2
2.9 2.9
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2
1 <2'
1 <2
4.3 4.3
1 <2
2.7 2.7
1 <2
9.6' 9.6
1 <2
1 /19/00 2

Toxicant Analyeis/ High Point
1 kAttpi
3
arameter =
CN-
RESULTS
3tandard =
5
pg/l
n3DL=1/2D
Actual Data
1
5
<10
Std Dev.
4.28701
2
5
<10
Mean
5.15455
3
5
<10
C.V.
0.83169
4
5
<10
5
5
<10
6
5
<10
Mult Facto
4.8
7
5
<10
Max. Value
24
pg/I
8
5
<10
Max. Pred
115.2
pg/I
pg/I
9
5
<10
Allowable (
5.35
10
5
<10
11
5
<10
12
5
<10
13
5
<10
14
5
<10
15
5
<10
16
5
<10
17
5
<10
18
5
<10
19
5
<10
20
5
<10
21
5
<10
22
5
<10
23
5
<10
24
5
<10
25
2.5
<5
26
2.5
<5
27
2.5
<5
28
2.5
<5
29
2.5
<5
30
2.5
<5
31
2.5
<5
32
2.5
<5
33
2.5
<5
34
2.5
<5
35
2.5
<5
36
2.5
<5
37
2.5
<5
38
2.5
<5
39
2.51
<5
41
2.5
<5
42
14
14•
43
16
16•_
44
7
7
45
2.5
<5
46
2.5
<5
47
20
20
48
2.5
<5
49
24
24
50
2.5
<5
51
8
8
52
2.5
<5
53
5
5
54
2.5
<5
55
2.5
<5
56
1/19/00 3

As,/ Pr. /0i6r5 (/;7
s CAL �iti j oithfc SeLCevr-
PRP gi
Co-c & GL ' % airy T 1,((y ea),4-T7'.v
/ham pe72efir w
/7fiE
L Z - ,2t 1r-^I ) rH e W l n"! Dar (6'& P
P o ,tM 17 (nJ papor-
Fog_ C! J
5 cT- t, LA-n1C CL? 6
1 ` 97 - (N 5 i �1 ���D .
E/20 ? -- AL &J .
% ZZ SENT e.--M i G SkikAl

pease, (alt:
R'et'iii fokPer
rot-s3o=-woA
thh p00� �! Side, Plait
N
Aril\

Efty-I (Ai-r
CtJ C.(, Pit) , 141,
►/4119 tO
1t(1,
LI0.0 4.10'(
kt
' 1 o �..
laI ►2
to/tLid
to /Zi 10ko(i '1
0
q/Z. eio
�r3�jZ
elm
‘-(o
'to•
Lto
'-iD\.
4ra1
I
CI)
c. I
GI
1 �
7614 <ro `\ el.
7/22- 4 IQ1)
Ple
<c�
Zb. 635
Glo
4-IO
15-414S 4,10
c S
Gg
L7
�Z
C
Z
7.'.37
SZ. 30
4lo
I2; IL
< ld
e5
LiJ
442
< 2-
3.)
o, Zq
1 D,
77z1
4/to
&Irl
10,41
< (0

pc
n5/&
.5/3
5/20
4fi <
•
el
4/6
4/zz
LSD
9/i5 G5
5
I\
3/i1 2 4-o,
C. 5
<p,5
z_
ZS
col-
L�
Lg
�z S
GZ 17
< <p
20
GIo
L'Z < a
ZIP► 7
SAO
04
et
14
<O,S
Z 7.0 I
�5
<
�5-
J/14?) C
I z1 <(0
<2
Z
L 10
410
G. < ( 0
,41) L2 < 10
10
to C G l L f <
LZ. <10
Iv <2 Flo

RE: High Point/ FYI
Subject: RE: High Point/ FYI
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:29:49 -0700
From: "Kreutzberger, Bi11/CLT" <[e-mail]>
To: 'Susan Wilson' <[e-mail]>
Regarding CN - speaking for myself - they might consider staying with the
limit for now with an understanding of reducing the monitoring frequency if
the data continue as it has - < detection. I have a couple ideas on the
other stuff we can discuss over the phone after you have looked at it a
little more. I am in our Charlotte office all next week (I hope). So we
should be able to discuss it. Thanks.
Bill Kreutzberger
CH2M HILL - Charlotte Office
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd. Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28226
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Original Message
From: Susan Wilson[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: January 13, 2000 2:44 PM
To: bill kreutzberger
Subject: High Point/ FYI
Bill,
I've at least taken a look at your comments. There are a few things I
need to check on prior to us discussing, but hopefully we'll be able to
work something out. As far as CN goes, I see no compromise there, but I
will check with Jim Meyer re. the new method.
I was surprised at the large disparity between the 2 analyses (Appx. E
and Chptr. 3).
There may be some talking points with regard to cadmium.
I hope to be deep into it next week, then discuss with Dave and/or Brian
McGinn.
Thanks for all the regionalization information.
Susan
1 of 1 1/24/00 11:17 AM

Date: 2
Time: % (v - fc
❑ Return
❑ Call to
)YtCall from
rs.
Address
TELEPHONE RECORD l -- ``_ -_
Project: ��(60pbl N ( C((1y sr3(0
ota4-09-2e w�T�
Representing:
Telephone: ���U ` 6oO2,- FAX:
Subject:
k-5S Esst C I b `p ,SQh'4'('
L-0 /4 a- c�'� CS`� T 0�e r7` /� CIE
NOTES/ SUMMARY
CdPJT p/-4 EP.--JL7,in
( \1(ik '. pC _Asr / 'L= ‘-&/ b;U F._ C -c_ c- /'7,
7`b G 24 IP `T c4-4. 7` ;Z:: / i FAD rQ (. 6
`(
i r -c(' a 3 6+0- ; �-c F , Gc-A-s s c..
NEEDED FOLLOW-UP ACTION(S)
1.
BY WHOM/WHEN
1.
2. / -
2.
t(,(__
3.
3,
4.
4.
5.
5.
cc:
Signed

High Point
Westside WWTP
NC0024228
Special Condition:
Should the City of High Point continue to report effluent cyanide values less than the
quantitation limit of 10 ug/1 through April 30, 2000, the permit limit requirement for
cyanide will be removed. Monitoring should continue to be performed 1/month by grab
sample. A letter signed by the City's signature authority, stating that the data have
conformed to this requirement and monthly monitoring for cyanide shall begin May 1,
2000, must be submitted to:
Mr. Shannon Langley
Point Source Compliance and Enforcement
DWQ
Mail Service Center 1617
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1617
Should the data not conform to the above requirement, or should the City of High Point
wish to have a lesser requirement than 1/month monitoring, the limit and monitoring
shall remain in place until such time that a formal permit modification has been
performed.

'Re: high point adjudication/priveleged -Reply -Reply
Subject: Re: high point adjudication/priveleged -Reply -Reply
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 16:17:12 -0500
From: BRIAN J. MCGINN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Susan-- High Point's attorneys copies me on Bill Kreutzberger's January
5th memo to you. Let me know your thoughts on the memo and our next
step. The discovery deadline ends February 4th and they are talking
about scheduling depositions for late January, so we should probably let
them know pretty soon if settlement is a possibility. thanks.
Brian
1 of 1 1/6/00 5:02 PM

�U.f AMO woR-goer, .,/L kTTAcs-M( .
MEMORANDUM C112MHILL
Updated Analysis of High Point - Westside WWTP
Effluent Data, NPDES Permit No. NC0024228
TO:
COPIES:
FROM:
DATE:
Susan Wilson/DWQ
Bill Frazier/High Point
Tom Gore/High Point
Dave Goodrich/DWQ
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
January 5, 2000
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional analysis and discussion of recent
effluent data for the City of High Point — Westside WWTP. This memorandum is submitted
for the purpose of settlement discussion, and hopefully can serve as a starting point for the
resolution of some or all of the City's issues of concern regarding the NPDES Permit. These
issues include the need for permit limits for cadmium, lead, and nickel and the required
analytical methodology for cyanide.
Background
The City of High Point has questioned the need for effluent limitations for three metals:
cadmium, nickel and lead. The City has also maintained that the methodology being used
for monitoring and evaluating compliance for cyanide cannot be relied on for compliance
purposes. The City has repeatedly communicated with various representatives of the State sa
relative to analytical methodology for cyanide. Comments were submitted regarding these
issues during the NPDES permitting process. In discussing the issues with you in late
November, you indicated that DWQ would consider re-examining the need for permit
limitations for the metals based on an analysis of the last year of data. We also discussed
DWQ's required use of the currently approved cyanide analytical methodology (EPA SW-
846/9012 or Standard Method 3400). It maybof interest to note that EPA has indicated that
the cyanide analytical methodology (proposed July 1998 for "Available Cyanide by Flow �'��►-�- ' °
Injection/Ligand Exchange") is close to approval (scheduled for December 1999) according /4%611
to a recent EPA announcement in the Federal Register (November 22, 1999).
The following sections provide an updated analysis of data and discussion of results.
Approach
Effluent data for the period of November 1998 through October 1999 was examined for the
three metals of concern and cyanide. This data is included as attachment 1 to this
CLTIE:IPERMITSTUFFIHIGHPT\HIGH POINT RPE- FINAL.DOC 1 146623.PA.TS

UPDATED ANALYSIS OF HIGH POINT - WESTSIDE WWTP EFFLUENT DATA
memorandum. The data was analyzed according to the methodologies outlined in EPA's "2)('
Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control (TSD), March 1991.
As discussed in previous correspondence, there are two approaches based on the TSD; the
Chapter 3 method and the Appendix E methodology. Each approach calculates a maximum
expected concentration (MEC) at a given probability level. The MEC is compared to the
calculated potential discharge limit. If the MEC is lower than the calculated potential
discharge limits, the conclusion is there is no reasonable potential to exceed (RPE) a limit
and therefore a limit is not needed.
The Appendix E method, is for determining statistically basedyermitlimiti and provides
the best estimate of MEC values, particularly for large data sets that contain some values
below the detection level. This distinction is important for parameters where the routine
detection limit used for compliance monitoring is higher than the permit limitation.
The Chapter 3 method is useful as a "first cut" analysis of MEC for small data sets (less than
20 values). Uncertainty can be magnified with small datasets. In an effort to reduce the
uncertainty with small datasets, the Chapter 3 approach calculates the MEC as an upper
bound of the expected lognormal distribution of effluent concentrations. The upper bound
is the upper confidence limit of a MEC. For example, in Table 3-2 in the TSD the value
calculated is the upper 95t' percentile confidence limit value of the 95th percentile value. In
other words, the assumptions is that we are 95 percent confident that the value calculated
using Table 3-2 is not less than the 95th percentile based on a log -normal distribution. As the \k.
dataset increases in size (greater than 20 values), the uncertainty of the 95th percentile (MEC)
decreases. Therefore, for large datasets the 95`h or 99th percentile can be calculated directly.
The method outlined in Appendix E is a direct calculation method that also takes into
consideration the detection limits and number of values that were above and below the
detection limit.
In the almost ten years that have passed since the development of the TSD, the availability
of data on toxic substances in effluents and receiving waters has increased dramatically.
Many states have developed enhancements to the TSD approach or use a more rigorous Wnm .
statistical approach similar to that outlined in Appendix E. The extensive data being
collected for discharges in NC lends itself to a more rigorous statistical approach.
Results
The 12 months of data discussed above was analyzed according to DWQ's interpretation of
the Chapter 3 method and the Appendix E methodology. As past practice for DWQ, the
methodologies were used to calculate MEC's based on the 99th percentile. Attachment 2 ,
includes backup information for the DWQ method calculations and Attachment 3 includes
backup information for the Appendix E calculations. The following table summarizes the
results.
CLTIE:IPERMITSTUFFIHIGHPTIHIGH POINT RPE- FINAL.DOC 2

UPDATED ANALYSIS OF HIGH POINT - WESTSIDE WWTP EFFLUENT DATA
1999 MEC Values(1)
NPDES Limits
Parameters
Appendix E
Method
DWQ
Method
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Cadmium
NA(2)
1.8
2.0
5
Lead
17.2
80.9
' 26.7
33.8
Nickel
50.0
201.4
94.0
789
Cyanide
26.3
48.4
5.3
22
(1) Data from 11/98 through 10/99 — 99th percentile level
(2) Less than 2 etected values in data set, no RPE value
calculated
Discussion
Cadmium
The updated MEC calculations using both methods (Chapter 3 and Appendix 3) show that
there is not a reasonable potential to exceed the calculated permit limitation for cadmium.
Therefore a permit limit is not necessary for cadmium.
Of the fifty five data points available for cadmium, only one value above the detection level
(a value of 1.38 ug/L) was measured. The detection level varied from 1.0 to 0.5 ug/L and
"<" values were analyzed by using DWQ's approach of setting values these values equal to
"one-half" of the detection level. Since there is more than one detectionleyel, this approach
introduces artificial variability into the calculation. If a consistent value is used for all "<"
values such as one-half of the highest detection values (in the case of cadmium — 0.5 ug/L),
the calculated MEC value goes down slightly from 1.8 ug/L to 1.7 u: L. This effecti&more
dramatic for other parameters. If all the "<" values are set equal t. zero, introduces
more variability between the one observed value and the other va ues, and the MEC value
increase dramatically to 8.8 ug/L. These examples point out the over -sensitivity of the
Chapter 3 method when the majority of the values are "<" values and why Appendix E is a
more robust and statistically more accurate method in these cases.
Lead
The Appendix E method indicates that a permit limit is not necessary while the DWQ
(Chapter 3) method indicates the opposite. The data set includes fifty five values for lead
with a maximum measured value of 28 ug/L Of the fifty five values, ten values include
measured levels of lead while the other forty five values were less than either 2.0 or 5.0
ug/L. Depending on the assumption for "<" values, the DWQ (Chapter 3) method gives
MEC values between 60 and 120 ug/L. The Appendix E method gives a more reasonable
estimate of a 99th percentile MEC of 17.2 ug/L. All measurements except the maximum
value were < 10 ug/L (6 of the measured values are between 2 and 5 ug/L and 3 values are
between 5 and 10 ug/L).
No
wyky
CLT/E:IPERMITSTUFF\HIGHPTHIGH POINT RPE- FINAL.DOC 3

UPDATED ANALYSIS OF HIGH POINT - WESTSIDE WWTP EFFLUENT DATA
Nickel
i
The Appendix E method indicates that a permit limit is not necessary while the DWQ
(Chapter 3) method in • ' . es the opposite. The data set includes 55 values for nickel with a
maximum value • :2 u: . Eighteen values above detection levels were in din —the %� L,,
dataset with seven - en of the values <40 ug/L and twelve values <20 u . Detection levet
g g` t5 roo
assumptions did not introduce much variability into the DWQ method but the estimated
MEC seems extremely high given the distribution of the actual data. Appendix E MEC
seems more reasonable given the data.
Cyanide
The issue with cyanide is different than for the metals since the City of High Point is
primarily disputing the use of the approved EPA method, rather than the statistical analysis
of the data. This is primarily a data quality issue that has concerned many dischargers in
North Carolina and nationwide (including EPA). In particular, recent research conducted
by researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill cited in the City's letters to DWQ indicates problems
with the method specifically with chlorinated (and subsequently dechlorinated) effluents.
The High Point — Westside WWTP changed to an ultra -violet method for disinfection as a
substitute for chlorination on May 11,1999.
The updated analysis and an examination of the data yield some interesting observations.
First, no cyanide has been detected since UV disinfection has bee u ' i. •lace. Of the fifty five
values, only 8 values were detected. The maximum value was 24 ug/ . All other values
were less than either 5 or 10 ug/L. All of the detected values occur - • during the CI''✓c
November 1998 to March 199period prior to the change in disinfection method. This 7 /c4?
strongly supports the suggestion from the UNC research that the cyanide detections are an !?^/v
artifact from the chlorination process.
The updated analysis indicates that both the DWQ and Appendix E methods would give
MEC values greater than the proposed monthly permit value. However, we strongly believe .L./e
the change to UV disinfection will virtually eliminate any detection of cyanide with the
current method. '601' — Sh6 141 Us
Summary
The updated analysis indicates that cadmium could be eliminated as a permit limit
according to either method used to calculate MEC values. Lead and nickel results between
the methods are in conflict but the actual data distribution indicate little probability of
exceeding the permit limit. Cyanide results show a reduced MEC from previous analyses
and an interesting trend since the method for disinfection changed.
Hopefully, this brief analysis can serve as a basis for further discussion of the NPDES permit
issues. We have presented information above primarily using DWQ standard practice of
comparing MEC values based on the 99th percentile with the weekly average permit
limitation. A more commonly used approach is to compare the MEC values based on the
99th percentile with the daily maximum permit limit and compare the MEC values based on
a 95`h percentile with an average permit limit. This seems to be a common approach used in
many states and by EPA.
CLT/E:IPERMITSTUFFIHIGHPT\HIGH POINT RPE- FINAL DOC 4

UPDATED ANALYSIS OF HIGH POINT - WESTSIDE WWTP EFFLUENT DATA
Please feel free to contact me to discuss this analysis further. We would like to set up a
meeting to discuss potential options to resolve the City's concerns with the NPDES permit.
I will be contacting you to set up this meeting.
CLT/E:IPERMITSTUFFIHIGHPIIHIGH POINT APE- FINAL.DOC 5

Attachment 2 - DWQ Method
Cd
Pb
Ni
CN
# of samples
55
55
55
55
CV
0.326291
1.650475
1.74392
0.883691
Max
1.377
28.0
82.3
24.0
Sigma
0.318074
1.146654
1.18176
0.759687
Probability level (P)
0.920
0.920
0.920
0.920
SQRT(LN(1/((1-P a)^2)))
2.246
2.246
2.246
2.246
Z_p
1.403
1.403
1.403
1.403
Probability level (P)
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
SORT(LN(1/((1•P_ar2)))
3.035
3.035
3.035
3.035
Z_p
2.327
2.327
2.327
2.327
C99
1.993
7.468
7.779
4.389
Cx
1.485
2.590
2.612
2.176
Factor
1.341
2.884
2.979
2.017
MEC
1.8
80.7
245.1
48.4
DATA
avg
0.475
2.371
7.665
4.882
stdov
0.155
3.912766
13.36794
4.314021
Max
1.377
28.000
82.300
24.000
count
55
55
55
55
detections
0
0
55
0
cv
0.326291
1.650475
1.74392
0.883691
Observations 1
1.377
2.5
10.16
5.0
2
0.25
2.7
10.29
5.0
3
0.25
2.9
10.33
5.0
4
0.25
3.1
10.40
12
5
0.25
3.6
10.49
14
6
0.25
4.3
10.5
16.0
7
0.25
5.188
11.28
20
8
0.25
8.5
11.41
24
9
0.25
9.6
12.16
5.0
10
0.25
28
13.96
5.0
11
0.5
1.0
14.06
5.0
12
0.5
1.0
17
5.0
13
0.5
1.0
20.37
5.0
14
0.5
1.0
23.90
5.0
15
0.5
1.0
27.81
5.0
16
0.5
1.0
30.29
5.0
17
0.5
1.0
39.89
5.0
18
0.5
1.0
82.30
5.0
19
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
20
0.5
' 1.0
1.0
5.0
21
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
22
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
23
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
24
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
25
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
26
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
27
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
28
0.5
1.0
1.0
5.0
29
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
30
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
31
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
32
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
33
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
34
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
35
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
36
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
37
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
38
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
39
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
40
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
41
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
42
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
43
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
44
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
45
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
46
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
47
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
48
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
49
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
50
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
51
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
52
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
53
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
54
0.5
2.5
4.00
2.5
55
0.5
2.5
4.00
2.5

Re: high paint -Reply -Reply
Subject: Re: high point -Reply -Reply
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:48:40 -0500
From: BRIAN J. MCGINN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
The hearing has been moved back to the week of December 20th (an
early Xmas present) in High Point. Please see how this week works for
the others in your shop. The discovery deadline is December 3rd, so we
have some time to think up things to send them.
Brian
»> Susan Wilson <[e-mail]> 09/22/99 01:45pm »>
I'm trying to get out of here saturday morning. if i can't think up some
good questions for them, i'm not going to worry about it. especially since
they would likely make us go to their lawyers office and look through
their
own "box o' stuff" -- then we'd be turning this into a so-called 'pissin'
contest.
"BRIAN J. MCGINN" wrote:
> thanks Susan. I'll take a look through the box o' stuff sometime today
> (hopefully) . When are you leaving for vacation?
> »> Susan Wilson <[e-mail]> 09/22/99 12:47pm
»>
> sorry i missed you. left you a "box o' stuff" for high point. that's
> about all i could dig up. the winston-salem study is our copy - let
> them copy what they need. the other documents you can keep. i also
> left you some notes to the questions so you would know what was
> included
> in the box. i'll try to get some questions to you for them before i
> leave for vacation. thanks.
1 of 1 9/22/99 4:22 PM

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax Aug 19 '99 9:24
P. 01
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF OUa,FORD
CITY OF HIGH POINT,
Petitioner,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
Posteit' Fax Note. 7671
54..-isc ad; Isvh
GoJpt
Phone #t
From 1h h f <6;/,,•i
Go.
PhQn #
Fax # "'1 Ir. 0-117
Fax #
PR.TTTTONE I FR,S'CaS1 T QF_
TN'1RROC4ATORT�'.S ANI)
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
DEDSELIMEMES
Pursuant to N.C. Gen, Stat. § 150B-28(b) and Rules 33 and 34 of the North Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner City of High Point ("City") requests that respondent North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (` DENR") respond to the City's
interrogatories and forward copies of documents responsive to the City's requests to the City's
attorneys within 30 days of service.
DEFETTONS AND STRUCTIONS
1. "Document" includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) analyses, charts, forms, ?
graphs, letters, maps, memoranda, minutes, notes, records, reporrs, studies and all other `
forms of written communication; and (b) computer data compilations, facsimile / 04' co,
transmissions, films, photographs, slides, tape recordings, and all other forms of electronic kg
and mechanical reproduction.
2. Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period for these requests for production and
interrogatories is January 1,1994 through the present.
3. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, government agency, or other
organization.

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone] Aug 19 '99 9:24 P. 02
4. "Relate to" means states, contains, describes, discusses, explains, involves, refers to or is
connected with in any way.
5. These requests seek all documents and information in the possession, control, or custody of
DENR and its officers, employees, agents, consultants, servants, attorneys and assigns, as
of the date on which the requests for production and interrogatories were served.
6. If you are unable to respond to an interrogatory or request for production or part thereof,
please state why you are unable to respond or supply the documents) sought and fully
describe the efforts made to locate the information or document(s).
7. If the response to any request for production or interrogatory consists in whole or in part of
an objection relating to, or founded upon, any type of privilege or immunity:
a. State the privilege or immunity claimed and state in detail the facts and reasoning on
which the claim of such privilege or immunity is based;
b. Describe the nature of the document (e.g., letter, memorandum, etc.);
c. State the date of the document;
d. Identify the person who created or originated the document;
e. Identify the person who sent the document;
f Identify the person who received the document;
g. Identify each person who saw the document;
h. Identify each person to whom some or all of the contents of the document were
corazaunicated; and
i. State the subject matter of the document.
8. If the response to any request for production of documents or interrogatory consists in whole
or in part of an objection relating to burdensomeness, with respect to each such response:
2

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone] Aug 19 '99 9:25 P. 03
a. Provide such documents or information as can be provided without undue burden;
b. State in detail the facts and reasoning on which the objection to providing the
document(s) or information is based, including:
1. A description of the process or method required to obtain any document or
information not provided;
2. The number of files and/or documents which would need to be searched;
3. The number of hours required to conduct the search; and
4. The estimated cost of the search.
9. If the response to any request for production of documents or interrogatory consists in whole
or in part of any other objection, state in detail the facts and reasoning on which the objection
is based.
10. Supplemental responses are requested in the event plaintiff later obtains or becomes aware
of the existence of documents or information that is in addition to that contained in its earlier
responses.
11. DENR includes the various divisions of DENR (including without limitation the Division
of water Quality) and their officers, employees, agents, s, consultants, servants, attorneys and
assigns.
EEOUESTS_FO�ODUCTION
1. All documents referred to or used or relied upon by DENR in preparing, reviewing,
and/or issuing Final NPDES Permit No. NC0024228, drafts of Final NPDES Permit No.
NC0024228, and/or correspondence related to final or draft versions of NPDES Permit No.
NC0024228.
6`k
3

N.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax
Aug 19 '99 9:25 P.04
2. All current National Pollutant Discharge EliminAtion System (NPDES) permits
containing numerical limits for cyanide, which iiave been issued by DENR to municipal publicly -
owned treatment works other than those owned by the City. (StAtiNie it,Vrrorts41
J _
rerv-a F -L - u
3. All documents related to DENR's review, evaluation, and/or determination of the
rat* Witi-aI
lowest practical quantitation level for cyanide.
4. All documents related to any request by a holder of an NPDES.' ;emit, other than the
Cste���
at').
City, that DENR eliminate or raise the permit's numerical limit for cyanide, or change the limit to 1 4� 6 ss
a weekly or monthly average. _ nyr.
5. All documents related to studies or investigations conducted by or received by DENR\
regarding the accuracy of sampling, Handling and analytical protocols and methods for A.determining -
Alte
„,.sj
the level of cyanide in waste water 9 t i !F, •.7) ' c" • � �� ,77-' ,®$
tit Os
6. All documents related to DENR's evaluation of and response to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's statement that "[s]ubsequent to approval of Methods 335.1 and ei
.c
335.3 under 40 CFR part 136, new data suggests that these methods may not accurately reflect actual
cyanide concentrations found in wastewaters." 63 Fed. Reg. 22727 (April 27, 1998). - ' ,'
7. All documents related to DENR's evaluation of alternative sampling or analytical vk(7
methods for cyanide in waste water, or proposals to adopt any such methods.
8. Ali documents related to DENR's proposal to recalculate the water quality standard IIor'
for cyanide.
9. All documents related to DENR's consideration of the City's request (including the
request dated April 23, 1997) to modify the cyanide limitations in the City's permits.
10. To the extent not provided in response to the above requests, all documents that relate
to communications between DENR and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
regarding cyanide standards, limits, permits, sampling or analyses.
4

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone]? Aug 19 '99 9:25 P. 05
11. A1l documents related to any penalties issued by DENR for violations of cyanide 4.`''
limits in NPDES permits.
12. All documents DENR relies on to justify the inclusion of cyanide as a compliance
1
parameter in Final NPDBS Permit No. NC0024228.5
13. All documents related to any evaluation or consideration by DENR of whether to use
statistical methods from Appendix E or Chapter 3 of EPA's Tathn .cal Slapport Deeurnent for Water
Quality -Eased Toxics Cantml in applying EPA's and/or DENR.'s "reasonable potential to exceed"
guideline&
14. All documents related to any decision by DENR to modify or eliminate cadmium,
nickel, or lead discharge limitations in an NPDES permit based on "reasonable potential to exceed"
considerations. /,.iv s i' 14-G
15. All documents related to any request by the holder of an NPDES permit (other than
the City) that DENR (1) modify or eliminate permit limits for cadmium, lead, or nickel based on
"'reasonable potential to exceed" considerations or (2) use the principles outlined in Appendix E of
tG,
EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Raced Tcxics C.nntrnl instead of the
principles outlined in Chapter 3 of the same document in conjunction with decisions related to the
holder's NPDES permit.
id. All documents related to DENR's consideration of the City's requests dated March
5,1999 and October 27,1998 concerning elimination of discharge limitations for cadmium, lead,
and nickel in Permit No. NC 00024228 based on an application of the principles outlined in
Appendix E of EPA's Quality -Rased Toxics Control to
EPA's "reasonable potential to exceed" guidelines.
17. All documents DENR relies upon to justify its use of the principles outlined in
Chapter 3 of EPA's Technical Support Dacumentfor'U Ater Quality -Based T instead
5
r
J%�

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone] Aug 19 ' 99 9 :25 P. 06
of the principles outlined in Appendix B of the same document in conjunction with DENR's
administration of EPA's and/or DENR's `reasonable potentiai to exceed" guidelines.
18. All documents related to any use by DENR of the principles outlined in Appendix
E of EPA's imbnical Support Document for Water Qflattr:lagtardijxxics Control, including
without limitation all documents related to DENR's use of such principles in considering
"reasonable potential to exceed" in conjunction with the NPDES permit for the City of Gastonia's
publicly -owned treatment works.
19. All documents related to or constituting any communications between DENR and
EPA regarding the application of EPA's and/or DENR's `reasonable potential to exceed" guidelines,
including without limitation whether to use statistical methods from Appendix E and/or Chapter 3
of BPA's
I - . •j' 0 r Ls' 1 'J 1 •1.a iJ \
.ased Toxics Control in applying EPA's
and/or DENR's "reasonable potential to exceed" guidelines.
•
20. All documents related to studies or investigations conducted by or received by DENR
regarding the use of the principles outlined in Appendix E and/or Chapter 3 of EPA's Techriictal
% pot Document for Water Quality -Based Toyics Contrcii.
21. All documents related to studies, evaluations, or investigations conducted by or
received by DENR regarding the use of EPA's and/or DENR's "reasonable potential to exceed"
(` E") guidelines.
22. All documents related to DENR's submission of its "RPE method" to any person for
approval, as referred to on the second page of the May 20,1999 cover letter enclosing Final NPDES
Permit No. NC0024228.
6
rfir

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone] Aug 19 '99 9:26 P. 07
INTERROGATORIES
INZERROGATORY No,1: Identify all current or former DENR. personnel who
participated in DEN'.'s decision to include cyanide as a compliance parameter in Final NPDES
Permit No, NC0024228, and summarize each identified person's role in the process.
ANSWER: p e'
INTERROGATORY Not: Identify all current or former DENR personnel who
participated in DENR's decision to include discharge limitations for cadmium, lead, and nickel in
Final NPDES Permit No. NC0024228, and summarize each identified person's role in the process.
ANSWER: R: T4'
IIEBEIMGATORY No.3: Identify all persons (including without limitation current or
former DENR personnel) who participated in (1) the "investigations by the Division prior to
submitting its RPE method for approval" that are referred to on the second page of the May 20,1999
cover letter enclosing Final NPDES Permit No. NC0024228, and/or (2) the submission by DENR.
ofits "RPE method" to any person for approval, and summarize each identified person's role in the
investigation and/or submission process.
ANSWER:
7

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax :[phone] Aug 19 '99 9 :26 P. 08
This tlae 12th clay of August,1999.
OF COUNSEL:
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOOR.E, L.L.P.
300 N. Greene St, Suite 1400
Post Ot"ce Box 21927
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
Telephone: [phone]
e
Stephe W. Earp
Oic FAA-p4st4(
NC State Bar No. 7698
f
r �
D. Marsh Prause
N.C. State Bar No. 20085
Attorneys for Petitioner

N. C. ATTORNEY GENERAL Fax Aug 19 '99 9:26 P. 09
CERTIFICATE OF S1 R fC1
I certify that I have this day served the Respondent in this xnattex with the foregoing by
depositing a copy in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Mr. Brian J. McGinn
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
This the 12th day of August, 1999.
D
Marsh Prause

ATA
NODE!! R
JAMES B. HUNTJR_
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT =�
SECRETARY
KERR T. STEVENS
DIRECTOR
June 18, 1999
Ms. Alicia M. Clark
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP
1121 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-4632
Dear Ms. Clark:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
-01
Jj 90-1(1
Thank you for your interest in obtaining information about requests made by the City of Greensboro and the
City of High Point to modify wastewater discharge permit limits for cyanide.
Pursuant to North Carolina's Public Records Law, all files pertaining to water quality are available for public
review Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Those files are available from the Water Qujty
Section in Central Files, Basement, Archdale Building, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh. Pleasel free
to call [phone], extension 226. Files pertaining to groundwater compliance are available from our -
Groundwater Section located at the Parker -Lincoln Building, 2728 Capital Boulevard, Raleigh, N.C..Flease
feel free to call [phone]. U
Thank you for your interest, and I hope this information helps with your search.
Sincerely,
Ernie Sene
Public Information Officer
cc: Larry Coble
Dave Goodrich
P.O. BOX 29535, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50%-RECYCLED/10% POST•CONSUMER PAPER

STATE OF N fi qo . pu2 (
COUNTY OF
CITY OF HI(
NORTH CAR
OF ENVIROT
NATURAL Rhbuuxcs, �—
Respondent. )
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
.99 EHR 0782
RECEIVED
OrfiICE Or GENERAL COUNSEL
ri
JUL 23 199
ENVIRONMENT HEALTH
PETITIOAND
NE NATURAL RESOURCES
PREHEARING STATEMENT
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
In accordance with the June 21, 1999 Order for Prehearing Statements in the above -captioned
case, the Petitioner City of High Point ("City") respectfully submits to the Office of Administrative
Hearings the following Prehearing Statement. Petitioner reserves the right to supplement or amend
the matters addressed in this Prehearing Statement as the proceeding progresses.
1. The issues to be resolved, and the statutes, rules and legal precedent involved:
Issues to be Resolved
a. Did Respondent act erroneously and/or fail to use proper procedure in issuing
Final NPDES Permit No. NC0024228 to Petitioner on May 20, 1999 for Petitioner's operation of
its Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant?'
b. Did Respondent act arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing Final NPDES Permit
No. NC0024228 to Petitioner on May 20, 1999 for Petitioner's operation of its Westside Wastewater
Treatment Plant?
c. Did Respondent fail to act as required by rule or law in issuing Final NPDES
Permit No. NC0024228 to Petitioner on May 20, 1999 for Petitioner's operation of its Westside
Wastewater Treatment Plant?

Statutes and Rules Involved
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.6A
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-22
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23
15A N.C.A.C. § 1B.0200
15A N.C.A.C. § 2B.0400
15A N.C.A.C. § 2B.0500
15A N.C.A.C. § 2H.0100
15A N.C.A.C. § 21.0300
26 N.C.A.C. Ch. 3
2. Statement of the facts and reasons supporting Petitioner's position on each
matter in dispute:
a. Petitioner is a North Carolina municipality that operates a publicly -owned
treatment works known as the City of High Point Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant. Petitioner
discharges effluent from the Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant pursuant to NPDES Permit No.
NC0024228.
b. Respondent issued a new Final NPDES Permit No. NC0024228 (the "new
Permit") to Petitioner on May 20, 1999 for Petitioner's operation of the Westside Wastewater
Treatment Plant. (A copy of the new Permit is attached to this Prehearing Statement as Appendix
A.) But for this administrative appeal, the new Permit would have become effective on July 1,1999,
supplanting the current permit.
2

c. The new Permit adopts a 5.3 ppb weekly average limitation for cyanide based
on a 10 ppb practical quantitation limit, and a 22 ppb daily maximum.
d. The analytical method prescribed for Petitioner's analysis of samples for
cyanide is unreliable and inaccurate. Because of unavoidable interferences and other sampling,
preservation, and analytical problems, the approved EPA method employed by Petitioner often
results in "false positives" for cyanide in the discharge from the Westside Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
e. On April 27, 1998, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register indicating
its intent to amend existing regulations to approve new procedures for the analysis of cyanide under
the Clean Water Act. 63 Fed. Reg. 22727 (Apr. 27, 1998). EPA's notice in the Federal Register
explains that "[s]ubsequent to approval of Methods 335.1 and 335.3 [the City's contractor is using
Method 335.3} under 40 CFR part 136, new data suggests that these methods may not accurately
reflect actual cyanide concentrations found in wastewaters." Id. On July 7, 1998, EPA proposed a
rule that would amend the existing regulations to allow for the analysis of available cyanide in
wastewater by a new method, flow injection, ligand exchange, and amperometry. 63 Fed. Reg.
36,810 (Jul. 7, 1998). EPA's proposal of alternative methods and explicit acknowledgment that the
analytical method currently used by Petitioner "may not accurately reflect actual cyanide
concentrations found in wastewaters" demonstrate the legitimacy of Petitioner's position.
f. Until EPA's proposed new method or a different accurate method is
implemented for the analysis of wastewater matrices for cyanide, it is inappropriate to include
cyanide as a compliance parameter in a permit governing Petitioner's operation of the Westside
Wastewater Treatment Plant. "False positive" results for cyanide that would inevitably result from
Petitioner's use of the current analytical method could subject Petitioner to financial penalties under
3

the State's enforcement program and under a consent decree Petitioner has entered into with the
American Canoe Association.
f. The City's cyanide -related concerns were conveyed to Respondent in a letter
dated March 31, 1999, but these concerns were not addressed in the May 20, 1999 cover letter
enclosing the new Permit.
g•
The new Permit includes limits for cadmium (2 ppb weekly average, 5 ppb
daily maximum), nickel (94 ppb weekly average, 789 ppb daily maximum), and lead (26.7 ppb
weekly average, 33.8 ppb daily maximum).
h. Respondent included these limits for cadmium, nickel, and lead in the new
Permit even though EPA's "RPE" guidelines support eliminating these limits because an approved
statistical method (Appendix E of EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based
Toxics Control) establishes that the Westside plant does not have a "reasonable potential to exceed"
the proposed limits for these substances. Instead of using the most appropriate EPA guidelines under
the circumstances (Appendix E), Respondent used an alternate approximation methodology (Chapter
3 of EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality -Based Toxics Control) that is less
precise and has wider confidence limits. The inclusion in the new Permit of limits for cadmium,
nickel, and lead is based on Respondent's use of the Chapter 3 methodology.
i. Respondent has used the Appendix E method for "RPE" calculations
associated with other NPDES permits and it is the more appropriate method if a robust data set is
available, as it is here because the City has more than 130 data points for the three parameters at
issue.
j . Respondent's inclusion of cadmium, nickel, and lead in the new Permit would
unnecessarily increase the City's compliance monitoring costs beyond what they would be if these
4

substances were handled through -the City's Long Term Monitoring Plan associated with its
pretreatment program.
Petitioner reserves the right to rely on additional facts to support its case as such facts are
revealed through discovery or Petitioner's own research.
3. A list of proposed witnesses:
City of High Point Personnel, including Ms. Rebecca Smothers, Mr. Perry Kairis, Mr. Tom
Gore, Mr. Bill Frazier;
Current and former DENR Personnel, including Mssrs. Larry Coble, Preston Howard, Jim
Meyer, Kerr Stevens, David Goodrich, and Don Safrit;
Mssrs. Bill Kreutzberger and Kevin Sanders, of CH2M-Hill; Drs. Phillip Singer and Howard
Weinberg, of the University of North Carolina's Water Resources Research Institute;
Other witnesses that may be identified at a later date, including witnesses identified by
Respondent.
4. Discovery:
Petitioner intends to conduct discovery concerning Respondent's handling of cyanide limits
in NPDES permits issued to municipalities State-wide and concerning Respondent's awareness of
the inadequacies of the currently -employed analytical protocols and technologies for cyanide.
Petitioner also intends to conduct discovery concerning Respondent's application of "RPE" rules,
principles and guidance for metals to other municipalities State-wide, and concerning Respondent's
awareness of "RPE" guidelines issued by EPA. Petitioner intends to depose several representatives
of DENR, including some of the individuals identified above as proposed witnesses. Petitioner
anticipates that discovery cannot be completed before the date set in the Scheduling Order (October
11, 1999) unless Respondent responds promptly to Petitioner's anticipated discovery requests.
5. Location of hearing:
The location set in the Scheduling Order is acceptable to Petitioner.
5

6. Estimated length oi:hearing:
The City estimates that the hearing will last two days.
7. Date by:which Petitioner will be ready for hearing:
The City anticipates that it will not be ready for hearing by the date set in the
Scheduling Order, unless Respondent responds promptly to Petitioner's anticipated discovery
requests.
8. Other special matters:
The City is not aware of any other special matters at this time.
This the 20th day of July, 1999.
OF COUNSEL:
'\11)• E
StephenVW'. Earp
NC State Bar No. 7698
/,,14,40
Th/6,41k 91a._
D. Marsh Prause
N.C. State Bar No. 20085
Attorneys for Petitioner
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
•300 N. Greene St., Suite 1400
Post Office Box 21927
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
Telephone: [phone]
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have this day served the Respondent in this matter with the foregoing
PETITIONER'S PREHEARING STATEMENT by depositing a copy of same in the United States
Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
ATTN: Mr. Daniel McLawhorn
This the 20th day of July, 1999.
61AS ?itcuk-4-51--
D. Marsh Prause
N.C. State Bar No. 20085
Attorney for Petitioner

RAM
!•btw .1/0 (sae- er AO/7 r4 oGerrp6
(PeCoy r t) Pau- Gc Sr J ----� 4 � ttsi '`r
- S i f Jeve, 7uu, ti (V /3 3,4ra 5W6.
5) 661, 17oatik or Sri(Q/c- --� ) asTW
J
q) I/1 1-gp wet, 1}t- 1ir ,PlAc,r i fir/ C /n1- 7i�
6
_ �
VJ 9 c�9'STof i H- (c)
uA-az41'crM (7 5q-�s
6. y Ir ,fs
7
i) 4' S,wc
fp fir,, s7dc• ,' o
I D 1 ELK c/Ji tAve Yl'JI fi
11' Pau, cAsranhA- (oti; 614,4 Puu, By P4244-04,
12) ' cf9Zze,(9 0-0 c4.14,t-iii-n/A)
1

(51_,WS pAgua TiDDtria__
TDDi2-
I
kYTh1N14140 w) P:r-412'+l 715 t; e- QPr
Puy
t-(41/ -eirre"/DaAic--E, gp,4
sir

/6�j �
�/i Pr / C'iJC�ztZ2S woe -
CA)
cc)
fb
A-y5 5 tP, M (TT E' /Nro. 10(27AY, 3/5X7
Ship L(MtTS Fat AJ T ?2,hi
elf p!J ,\PpP
(SAYS ,a)-f of 130
1%itZ (2 36 s f z' i 7 '
LtM()
Pgil-M►—
( .- D 7/2c A ci
(t96.0447 Ccvrn t.err 12 2firi-G-5 pley sflouLa vp 11-1 Dcl<NILE
AGu Arco Ai to _ Jy. 6
rI rAJ tr Ovi' �� r
A -vs 'PO A&P46 WWI 04 . D j, N .max
22, S
94 -7f0
a�ys vur1- Ff e erkt00 /5 Aiv APf lM*nOio OF ba121o. toss 4C u
,p � F Yp.t.,.•6-s i,"J o - ems'

NPDES Permits with CN limits or monitoring requiements (9/99)
PERMIT
FACILITY
PIPE
PARA
TYPE LIMIT
UNIT
CON AVE
CON MAX
UNIT
QUAN AVE
QUAN MAX
NC0048712
ALUMAX EXTRUSIONS, INC.
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0004308
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA
004
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0004308
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA
011
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0004308
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA
012
00720
FIN
28
NOL
434.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0004308
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA
013
00720
FIN
28
NOL
022.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020800
ANDREWS, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
037.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0064050
APEX, TOWN -MIDDLE CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0027065
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CO.
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0026123
ASHEBORO WWTP, CITY OF
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0000299
BASF CORPORATION ENKA PLANT
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021181
BELMONT, CITY OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0020826
BESSEMER CITY, CITY OF-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
007.3000
NOL
NOL
NC0020621
BOONE, TOWN-WWTP/CASEY LAND
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021113
BURGAW, TOWN-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0006025
BURLINGTON IND-JC COWAN PLT
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0023868
BURLINGTON, CITY/EASTSIDE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
056.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0023876
BURLINGTON, CITY-WWTP/SOUTH SI
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020290
BURNSVILLE, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
082.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0065102
CARY, TOWN - SOUTH WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0025542
CATAWBA, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0044440
CHERRYVILLE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0004375
CLARIANT CORP-MT HOLLY RD/SAND
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
26
007.3900
009.0100
NC0025453
CLAYTON, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0049867
CLEVELAND, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0020117
CLINTON, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024945
CMUD-IRWIN CREEK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
018.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0030210
CMUD-MALLARD CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0024970
CMUD-MCALPINE
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
015.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0036277
CMUD-MCDOWELL CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
006.6000
NOL
NOL
NC0024937
CMUD-WWTP/SUGAR CREEK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
018.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0058271
COGENTRIX - KENANSVILLE
003
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0021369
COLUMBUS, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0024252
CONOVER WWTP-NORTHEAST
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0004260
CR INDUSTRIES
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
151.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0035530
CROFT METALS - LUMBER BRIDGE
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
012.0000
NOL
NOL
NOL = no limit
1

NPDES Permits with CN limits or monitoring requiements (9/99)
PERMIT
FACILITY
PIPE
PARA
TYPE LIMIT
UNIT
CON AVE
CON MAX
UNIT
QUAN AVE
QUAN MAX
NC0005274
CROMPTON & KNOWLES COLORS INC
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
26
001.4010
004.0030
NC0070157
DARE CO -REVERSE OSMOSIS
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0085707
DARE CTY CAPE HATTERAS WTR SYS
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0026689
DENTON, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0026051
DURHAM CO -TRIANGLE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
015.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0086231
EASCO ALUMINUM - AHOSKIE PLANT
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
022.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025011
ELIZABETH CITY, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
010.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0029572
FARMVILLE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025984
FOREST CITY, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021547
FRANKLIN, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0084786
FURNITURE ILLUSTRATORS, INC.
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0074268
GASTONIA, CITY/CROWDERS CRK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
053.5000
NOL
NOL
NC0020184
GASTONIA, CITY/LONG CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
027.3000
NOL
NOL
NC0000507
GE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC.
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
007.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0001228
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO-WILM/CASTL
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
053.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024325
GREENSBORO, CITY-N BUFFALO CRK
001
00720
FIN
28
005.2000
023.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0047384
GREENSBORO, CITY-T.Z. OSBORNE
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
021.2000
NOL
NOL
NC0004391
GROVER INDUSTRIES/TRYON PLANT
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0005703
HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR SILEX
001
00720
FIN
19
NOL
000.2900
26
NOL
000.2060
NC0047562
HAMLET, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
013.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025534
HENDERSONVILLE, CITY-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
022.5000
NOL
NOL
NC0025534
HENDERSONVILLE, CITY-WWTP
001
00720
SOC
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0040797
HICKORY WWTP, CITY OF
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024210
HIGH POINT - EAST SIDE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
022.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024228
HIGH POINT, CITY-WESTSIDE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0026433
HILLSBOROUGH, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025135
HUFFMAN FINISHING COMPANY
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021709
JEFFERSON, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
035.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0005231
JOHN DEERE CONSUMER PRODUCTS
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0020737
KINGS MTN-PILOT CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0065676
LELAND IND PK-WWTP/NCSR1431
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0023736
LENOIR, CITY -GUNPOWDER CRK WWT
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
009.8000
NOL
NOL
NC0023981
LENOIR, CITY -LOWER CREEK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
012.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0055786
LEXINGTON, CITY -REGIONAL WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0025496
LINCOLNTON, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
184.0000
NOL
NOL
NOL = no limit
2

NPDES Permits with CN limits or monitoring requiements (9/99)
PERMIT
FACILITY
PIPE
PARA
TYPE LIMIT
UNIT
CON AVE
CON MAX
UNIT
QUAN AVE
QUAN MAX
NC0031879
MARION, CITY-CORPENING CREEK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
030.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0021873
MAYODAN, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0000311
M-B INDUSTRIES-MITCHELL BISSEL
001
00720
FIN
19
000.6500
001.2000
NOL
NOL
NC0021474
MEBANE, CITY-WWTP/MEBANE
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0057819
METAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
001
00720
FIN
19
NOL
000.6500
NOL
NOL
NC0021491
MOCKSVILLE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
076.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0050903
MOCKSVILLE, TOWN -BEAR CRK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
013.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024333
MONROE, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0003719
MONSANTO
002
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
26
002.5300
007.3200
NC0037508
MOORE CO W&SA/MOORE CO WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0046728
MOORESVILLE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
015.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0026573
MORGANTON, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021121
MOUNT AIRY, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
012.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024911
MSD BUNCOMBE COUNTY WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
043.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020940
MURPHY, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0025348
NEW BERN, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0049743
NEW HANOVER CO -LANDFILL WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0043532
OAKBORO, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
026.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0041530
OCRACOKE SAN. DIST.-HYDE WTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0021229
OLD FORT, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
023.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025054
OXFORD, CITY - VVWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
020.5000
NOL
NOL
NC0003727
PCS NITROGEN FERTILIZER
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0001881
PHILLIPS PLATING COMPANY
001
00720
FIN
19
000.3200
000.8600
NOL
NOL
NC0026646
PILOT MOUNTAIN, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
182.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0029033
RALEIGH, CITY-NEUSE RIVER WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0025445
RANDLEMAN, CITY-WWTP/RANDLEMAN
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0025577
RED SPRINGS, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0024881
REIDSVILLE, CITY-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0062855
ROBBINS, TOWN-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0030317
ROCKY MOUNT, CITY -TAR RVR WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
014.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0021024
ROXBORO, CITY OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
010.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025909
RUTHERFORDTON, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
010.5000
NOL
NOL
NC0023884
SALISBURY, CITY -GRANT CRK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0023892
SALISBURY, CITY -TOWN CRK WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0024147
SANFORD, CITY-WWTP/BIG BUFFALO
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
013.0000
NOL
NOL
NOL = no limit
3

NPDES Permits with CN limits or monitoring requiements (9/99)
PERMIT
FACILITY
PIPE
PARA
TYPE LIMIT
UNIT
CON AVE
CON MAX
UNIT
QUAN AVE
QUAN MAX
NC0024538
SHELBY, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
029.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0026913
SPARTA WWTP, TOWN OF
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
058.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020664
SPINDALE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
007.5000
NOL
NOL
NC0058548
STAR, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0031836
STATESVILLE, CITY -FOURTH CREEK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
056.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020591
STATESVILLE, CITY -THIRD CREEK
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
035.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0003344
SWIFT-ECKRICH/BUTTERBALL
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0059234
TAKEDA CHEMICAL PRODUCTS USA
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0020605
TARBORO, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
252.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0026271
TAYLORSVILLE, TOWN-WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0045993
TELEDYNE ALLVAC-MONROE PLANT
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
032.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0024112
THOMASVILLE, TOWN OF -1NWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0028916
TROY, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
021.6000
NOL
NOL
NC0039578
TUCKASEIGEE W&S AUTH./PLANT 1
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0000019
UNITED CHEMI-CON, INC.
005
00720
FIN
19
000.5100
001.2000
NOL
NOL
NC0003816
US MCAS CHERRY POINT
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
005.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0001121
VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY
004
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
26
000.1400
000.4400
NC0036269
W&SA CABARRUS CO/ROCKY RIVER
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
028.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0025321
WAYNESVILLE, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
056.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0023965
WILMINGTON-NORTHSIDE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0023973
WILMINGTON-SOUTHSIDE WWTP
001
00720
FIN
NOL
NOL
NOL
NOL
NC0023906
WILSON, CITY - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
010.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0037834
WINSTON-SALEM (ELLEDGE WWTP)
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
026.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0020338
YADKINVILLE, TOWN - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
018.0000
NOL
NOL
NC0040011
YANCEYVILLE, TOWN OF - WWTP
001
00720
FIN
28
NOL
014.0000
NOL
NOL
NOL = no limit
4

BRUCE J. TERRIS
CAROLYN SMITH PRAVLIK
KATHLEEN L. MILLIAN
TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
1121 12TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-4632
[phone]
[e-mail]
FAX [phone]
June 10, 1999
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ernie Seneca
Public Information Officer
N.C. Department of Health, Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
SARAH A. ADAMS
DANIELLE C. FIDLER
DANIEL L. ROSENBERG
DEMIAN A. SCHANE
LAUREL K. O'SULLIVAN*
MONICA WAGNER
LYNN E. CUNNINGHAM
DAVID G. BOOKBINDER
Of Counsel
*Not admitted D.C. Bar
Re: Request for Information Pursuant to N.C. Public Records Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1, et seq.
Dear Mr. Seneca:
This firm represents the American Canoe Association ("ACA"). Pursuant to the North
Carolina Public Records Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1, et seq., ACA requests all of the public
records pertaining to the requests by the City of Greensboro for NCDHENR to modify the
cyanide minimum detection limits in NPDES Permit Nos. NC0047384 and NC0024325, which
were submitted to NCDHENR on December 23, 1997, and February 23, 1998, respectively, and
to any actions taken by NCDHENR on these requests.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-6(c) states that "[n]o request to inspect, examine, or obtain copies of
public records shall be denied on the grounds that confidential information is commingled with
the requested nonconfidential information. If it is necessary to separate confidential from
nonconfidential information in order to permit the inspection, examination, or copying of the
public records, the public agency shall bear the cost of such separation * * *." Therefore, if you
determine that some portions of the requested materials are exempt from disclosure, please
provide copies of the non -confidential materials. In addition, if you determine that any portion
of the requested material is exempt from disclosure, please provide a general description of such
material and the reasons for your decisions to withhold it.

In any instance where none of the information requested above is available, we would
appreciate your indication of this fact as part of your response.
I request that any costs for copying the public records we have requested be waived. In
the past, my firm, on behalf of ACA, has reviewed files at NCDHENR offices and has obtained
copies of North Carolina public records without charge.
The Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows for a waiver of all copying costs
under certain conditions. The decision of federal agencies to waive copying costs is generally
based on consideration of five factors. We believe that it would be appropriate for NCDHENR
to apply the same factors in considering ACA's request to copy the public records without
charge.
The first factor is a clear statement of the party's interest in, and proposed use of, the
requested documents, and whether it will derive income or other benefit from such use. ACA
has no commercial interest in the documents. ACA brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water
Act on behalf of its members against the City of Greensboro in federal district court.
Subsequently, ACA and the City entered into a settlement which was embodied in a Consent
Decree approved by the court. ACA is now monitoring the Consent Decree to ensure that it is
fully complied with. The information sought from NCDHENR will be used by ACA in pursuing
enforcement of the Consent Decree.
The second factor is a statement how the public will benefit from the release of the
requested documents. Because ACA's citizen enforcement effort is made on behalf of the public
and could result in stipulated penalties under the Consent Decree, disclosure of this information
without fee is in the public interest. Prior suits brought by this firm on behalf of ACA and other
environmental groups against dischargers in North Carolina, West Virginia, New Jersey, New
York, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee have resulted in more than $40 million in civil
penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury and injunctive relief.
The third factor is a statement of the qualifications of this firm related to the specialized
use of the requested documents. I am a paralegal with Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP, which has
represented public interest organizations in over 100 citizen suits to enforce the Clean Water Act.
Attorneys with our firm have examined the public files of hundreds of facilities at the offices of
state and federal agencies for the purpose of advising these public interest organizations
regarding the compliance status of these facilities.
The fourth factor is a statement of how ACA plans to disseminate the documents or
information to the public. As noted above, the documents will potentially be used in a citizen
enforcement action. The information contained in the requested documents will be disseminated
to the public indirectly by its use in judicial proceedings.
The fifth factor is any additional information ACA deems relevant for a fee waiver. In
the past, EPA and other state agencies have granted requests made by the parties to waive
copying costs because of the public interest in making such documents available at no cost.

We believe that all of the five factors outlined above justify support for a waiver of
copying costs for this document request.
We recognize that the North Carolina Public Records Act does not contain a deadline for
producing requested documents. Federal courts considering the FOIA have determined that 10
days is a reasonable amount of time for producing records.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Alicia M. Clark
Paralegal

CITY OF HIGH POINT
NORTH CAROLINA
June 17, 1999
FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT CARRIER
TRACKING NUMBER: 809-750-795-469
Mr. David Goodrich
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
RE: Notification of Request for Adjudicatory Hearing
Final NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0024228 (155uei *i`( 1361;r)
High Point — Westside POTW
Davidson County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
uceitA
1)4 c6 eAtr
1,4 600,047,4;,,,/
bX, ' ✓'?W;Rev.
On behalf of the City of High Point, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you and
your staff has dedicated to working with us to cooperatively develop a new NPDES permit (the
"Permit") for the City's Westside Wastewater Treatment Plant. We are satisfied with most of the
Permit's features. Based on our review of the Permit and the May 20, 1999 cover letter
accompanying it, however, we believe that there are several issues that still need to be resolved
before the Permit is completely satisfactory:
1.
Cyanide -- Analytical Issues
The City has been concerned for years with the inaccuracy of the analytical method
prescribed for the City's analysis of wastewater samples for cyanide. The City's cyanide -related
concerns are featured in my March 31, 1999 letter to you commenting on the draft permit dated
February 10, 1999. Because Mr. Stevens' May 20, 1999 cover letter enclosing the Permit
conspicuously fails to discuss or even acknowledge these concerns, I am reiterating them in this
letter.
The City believes that cyanide should be removed from the Permit for compliance
purposes until the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") approves a reliable,
accurate method for quantifying cyanide in matrices similar to the effluent from the Westside
plant. The approved EPA method currently employed often results in "false positives" for
cyanide in the discharge from the Westside plant because of unavoidable interferences and other
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT, P.O. Box 230, High Point, North Carolina 27261
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] TDD [phone]

sampling, preservation, and analytical problems. EPA published a notice in the Federal Register
on April 27, 1998 indicating its intent to amend existing regulations to approve new procedures
for the analysis of cyanide under the Clean Water Act. 63 Fed. Reg. 22,727 (Apr. 27, 1998).
EPA's notice in the Federal Register explains that "[s]ubsequent to approval of Methods 335.1
and 335.3 [the City's contractor is using Method 335.3] under 40 CFR part 136, new data
suggests that these methods may not accurately reflect actual cyanide concentrations found in
wastewaters." Id. On July 7, 1998, EPA proposed a rule that would amend the existing
regulations to allow for the analysis of available cyanide in wastewater by a new method, flow
injection, ligand exchange, and amperometry. 63 Fed. Reg. 36,810 (Jul. 7, 1998). EPA has yet
to adopt the proposed new methods.
The City's cyanide -related concerns are the subject of repeated communications between
the City and State officials. Mr. Perry Kairis, the City's Director of Public Services, wrote to
Mr. Preston Howard on April 23, 1997 requesting a modification of the cyanide limitations in the
permits for the City's Westside and Eastside plants from a daily maximum to an unspecified
weekly limit. The City submitted $200.00 in fees for the requested modifications on May 30,
1997. The City's mayor, Ms. Rebecca Smothers, wrote to Mr. Jonathan Howes on June 11, 1997
underscoring the City's request. The State did not respond to these letters, and instead fined the
City on August 28, 1998 based on a reported cyanide concentration of 6 ppb in the Westside
plant's effluent, one ppb over the permitted level of 5 ppb. (The City's attorneys petitioned for
an administrative hearing to address this fine on September 25, 1998 and the State ultimately
waived the penalty before a hearing was held.) On October 12, 1998, Mr. William Kreutzberger
of the firm CH2M-Hill wrote on the City's behalf to Mr. Jim Meyer requesting guidance on
sample pretreatment issues associated with cyanide -related analytical difficulties. This letter was
never answered. Mr. Kairis wrote to you on October 15, 1998, requesting again that the Eastside
and Westside plants' limitations for cyanide be modified. The State modified the cyanide
limitations for the Eastside plant effective January 11, 1999, changing the cyanide limitation
from 5 ppb daily to a 22 ppb daily maximum and a 5 ppb weekly average with a 10 ppb
quantitation limit. The State did not, however, similarly modify the permit for the Westside
plant.
Although the Permit's adoption of 22 ppb daily maximum and a 5.3 ppb weekly average
limitation for cyanide based on a 10 ppb quantitation limit is an improvement over the previous
daily limitation of 5 ppb, this approach still is not defensible in light of data EPA, the City, and
others have developed demonstrating the unreliability of the method that is currently required to
analyze for cyanide.

2. Cadmium, Lead, and Nickel -- Reasonable Potential to Exceed
The City submitted information to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
("DWQ") regarding the RPE issue in letters dated October 27, 1998 and March 5, 1999. These
letters explained that the Permit's limits for cadmium, lead, and nickel are not appropriate based
on use of the methodology presented in Appendix E of EPA's Technical Support Document for
Water Quality -Based Toxic Control. DWQ's inclusion of limits for cadmium, lead, and nickel in
the Permit is based on an approximation method found in Chapter 3 of the same document.
Three years of data (July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998 is covered in the October 27, 1998 letter and
January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998 is covered in the March 5, 1999 letter) indicates that the
limits are not necessary. In the latter analysis, none of the approximately 130 values reported
exceeds the Permit's limits, and the percentage of detected values is 3.8%, 17.2%, and 12.5% for
cadmium, lead, and nickel, respectively. The Chapter 3 methodology used by DWQ
overestimates 99% RPE values, leading to the inappropriate inclusion in the Permit of limits for
these substances.
A copy of the City's petition filed with the North Carolina Office of Administrative
Hearings is attached to this letter for your review. Again, I wish to express the City's
appreciation for the achievements made to date in developing the Permit. Please call me at (336)
883-3410 if you have any questions regarding these issues.
Respectfully,
Thomas P. Gore
City of High Point
Plants Division Manager
cc: Perry Kairis
Tim Fitzgerald
Steve Earp
Bill Kreutzberger
Lynn Benzenberg

08d17/99 THU 11:33 FAX [phone]
Smith Helms - Greensboro
ooi
TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL
from.
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Post Office Box 21927
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400
Greensboro, N.C. 27401
DATE: June 17, 1999
Telephone [phone]
Telecopier 9 ] 0/379-9558
TO: Mr. Bill Frazier
COMPANY: City of High Point
FROM: Marsh Prause
SENDER'S DIRECT DIAL NO: [phone]
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE): 2
MESSAGE: EXECUTED COPY .F PETYTTPN
IF ANY PROBLEMS: CALL 910/378-5372 AND ASK FOR__
CONEMatrialratan
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY
NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE
VIA THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
2800 Two Hanover Sq.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
227 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone [phone]

06/17/99 THU 11:33 FAX [phone] Smith Helms — Greensboro
PLEAS PRINT CLEARI ji (IR TYPE,
Ia002
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF (1)
(2) CUM OF HIGH POINT
(Your Name)
Petitioner,
v,
(3) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATI JRAI. RF,,SOURCFS
Respondent,
(The State Agency or Board about which you are complaining)
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PETITION
FOR A
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
( hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided for by G.S. 150B-23 because the:
(4) Department of Environmentand NaturaZjtesourreU xision of Water Quality. has:
(name of agency)
(Briefly state facts showing how you believe you have been harmed by the state agency or board.)
intella final NPDF.S permit fl in Nt~007477R) �n th_e City of High Pninl's W _atsid . wacrev.atcr Treatment Plant that
cdcilcient for the reaannm iscussed In the Attached letter from Mr_ Thomas P Gore to Mr llaj &Goodrich_
(if more space is needed, use additional sheets and attach)
(5) (Check all that apply) Because of these facts, the agency has:
deprived me of property; •
ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty;
otherwise substantially prejudiced my
rights; and based on these facts the agency
has exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
ilimemM*************.***************************•************.km********************„,,,w ***#wfciY*****
— - x
**
acted erroneously;
failed to use proper procedure;
acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
failed to act as required by law or rulc.
(6) Date: June 17 1999 _ (7) Your telephone number: (336) 1.7.8z.5.314._..
(8) Print your address: P O_ Box 21927 Greenahnr9 North Carplina. 27420
(9) Print your name; Stepp W. Earp
(10) Your signature:
******r***********«********•*********,*4*,***sswr*i*******************s**********•••*••***************
** You must mail or deliver a COPY to the Statc Agency named on line (3) of this form. Please indicate below,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this Petition has been served on the State Agency named below by depositing a copy of it with the Unitcd States
Postal Service with sufficient postage OR by delivering it to the named agency.
Served on:
(II) Mr. Kerr T_ Stevens (12) Division of Warcr Quality_ DENR
(name) (agency)
(13) Post Office Box 29535_ Raleigh_ Nnrth_Cnrniinn27676-OS1S _ -
(14) This the _12,11 _ day of rune ,1999.
(15)
(your sign re)
When you have completed this form you MINT mail or deliver the ORIGINAL, and one COPY to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611.7447.
H-06 (11/91)

high point aajudication/priveleged -Reply
Subject: high point adjudication/priveleged -Reply
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:48:08 -0500
From: BRIAN J. MCGINN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Susan-- At this point we are scheduled for trial the week of December
20th but I think that is going to be pushed back into February. Perhaps
we need to discuss sending out some type of discovery since they
made us answer interrogatories and produce documents. How about
talking it over with your folks and letting me know if you think mediation
would help or if it is useless at this point. You could do it with or without
attorneys. Thanks.
Brian
»> Susan Wilson <[e-mail]> 11/22/99 05:43pm »>
ATTY./ CLIENT PRIVELEGED
brian,
don't know if you're around before thanksgiving or not. had a call from
high point's consultant and it seems like they are wanting to sit down
with us and try to resolve. between us, i'm not happy with them at
all, but i said maybe we should go into mediated settlement. when is
the court date? bill k. (consultant) wanted us to review their most
recent data, which i said i would do, but placed the burden back on them
to do the analysis and i would review (depending on when the court
date
is). anyway, i felt very uncomfortable talking to him because i'm
really ready to just go to court and let the chips fall where they may
-- but i guess i'm probably last on the list of folks to testify so it's
not my call!
les,
6,voci )(it O c�7
Arrow- 9e9 5opitirie e'r P Ala .54/ 51z4i0 t NV* (31
S LE fO01). w 1-(14t► polrJr
1 of 1 11/23/99 10:02 AM

MEMO From:
To.
Division of Water Quality
Subject:
Date.
ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PO Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone: [phone]

oki •A /3&," fatN:
(42494_
k/s
D

4-18
INORGANIC NONMETALS (4000)
_ [H`1[HCO3-] (K, = 10'636)
K, [H2CO3*1
and
K __ [H+1[C032-1 (K2 = 10-00.33)
2 [HCO3-]
where:
[H2CO3*] = [H2CO3] + [CO2(aq)]
Activity coefficients are assumed equal to unity.
2. Calculation
Compute the forms of alkalinity and sample pH and total
alkalinity using the following equations:
a. Bicarbonate alkalinity:
T — 5.0 x 10'01-1°'
HCO3- as mg CaCO3/L = 1 + 0.94 x 10(01-10)
where:
T = total alkalinity, mg CaCO3lL
b. Carbonate alkalinity:
C032- as mg CaCO3/L = 0.94 x B x itypH -1ol
where:
B = bicarbonate alkalinity, from a.
c. Hydroxide alkalinity:
OH- as mg CaCO3/L = 5.0 x 10(01-b0)
d. Free carbon dioxide:
mg CO2/L = 2.0 x B x 10(6-P"'
where:
B = bicarbonate alkalinity, from a.
e. Total carbon dioxide:
mg total COIL = A + 0.44 (2B + C)
where:
A = mg free CO_/L,
B = bicarbonate alkalinity from a, and
C = carbonate alkalinity from b.
3. Bibliography
DYE, J.F. 1958. Correlation of the two principal methods of calculating
the three kinds of alkalinity. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 50:812.
4500-CN -- CYANIDE*
4500-CN- A.
1. General Discussion
"Cyanide" refers to all of the CN groups in cyanide compounds
that can be determined as the cyanide ion, CN-, by the methods
used. The cyanide compounds in which cyanide can be obtained
as CN- are classed as simple and complex cyanides.
Simple cyanides are represented by the formula A(CN)x, where
A is an alkali (sodium, potassium, ammonium) or a metal, and
x, the valence of A, is the number of CN groups. In aqueous
solutions of simple alkali cyanides, the CN group is present as
CN- and molecular HCN, the ratio depending on pH and the
dissociation constant for molecular HCN (pKa = 9.2). In most
natural waters HCN greatly predominates.' In solutions of simple
metal cyanides, the CN group may occur also in the form of
complex metal -cyanide anions of varying stability. Many simple
metal cyanides are sparingly soluble or almost insoluble [CuCN,
AgCN, Zn(CN)2], but they form a variety of highly soluble,
complex metal cyanides in the presence of alkali cyanides.
Complex cyanides have a variety of formulae, but the alkali -
metallic cyanides normally can be represented by AY.M(CN)a. In
this formula, A represents the alkali present y times, M the heavy
metal (ferrous and ferric iron, cadmium, copper, nict 1, silver,
Approved by Standard Methods Committee, 1990.
Introduction
zinc, or others), and x the number of CN groups; x is equal to
the valence of A taken y times plus that of the heavy metal.
Initial dissociation of each of these soluble, alkali -metallic, com-
plex cyanides yields an anion that is the radical M(CN)x''". This`.
/41
may dissociate further, depending on several factors, with the
liberation of CN- and consequent formation of HCN.
The great toxicity to aquatic life of molecular HCN is well AMPS
known ;2-5 it is formed in solutions of cyanide by hydrolytic re-
action of CN- with water. The toxicity of CN- is less than that
of HCN; it usually is unimportant because most of the free.cys
anide (CN group present as CN-._ or as HCN) exists as HCN,
as the pH of most natural waters is substantially lower than' the
pKa for molecular HCN. The toxicity to fish of most tested so-
lutions of complex cyanides is attributable mainly to the HCN
resulting from dissociation of the complexes 24.5 Analytical dis-
tinction between HCN and other cyanide species in solutions of
complex cyanides is possible.2.5-9:10
The degree of dissociation of the various metallocyanide corn
plexes at equilibrium, which may not be attained for a long time,
increases with decreased concentration and decreased pH zinc -
and d
is inversely related to their highly variable stability.
2•4-5 The and cadmium -cyanide complexes are dissociated almost totally
in very dilute solutions; thus these complexes can'result in'a to
toxicity to fish at any ordinary pH. In equally dilute solutions--

CYANIDE (4500-CN-)/Introduction
there is much less dissociation for the nickel -cyanide complex
and the more stable cyanide complexes formed with copper (I)
and silver. Acute toxicity to fish of dilute solutions containing
copper -cyanide or silver -cyanide complex anions can be due mainly
or entirely to the toxicity of the undissociated ions, although the
complex ions are much less toxic than HCN.2.5
The iron -cyanide complex ions are very stable and not ma-
terially toxic; in the dark, acutely toxic levels of HCN are attained
only in solutions that are not very dilute and have been aged for
a long time. However, these complexes are subject to extensive
and rapid photolysis, yielding toxic HCN, on exposure of dilute
solutions to direct sunlight." The photodecomposition depends
on exposure to ultraviolet radiation, and therefore is slow in
deep, turbid, or shaded receiving waters. Loss of HCN to the
atmosphere and its bacterial and chemical destruction concurrent
with its production tend to prevent increases of HCN concen-
trations to harmful levels. Regulatory distinction between cya-
nide complexed with iron and that bound in less stable com-
plexes, as well as between the complexed cyanide and free cyanide
or HCN, can, therefore, be justified.
Historically, the generally accepted physicochemical technique
for industrial waste treatment of cyanide compounds is alkaline
chlorination:
NaCN + Cl_ CNCI + NaCI (1)
The first reaction product on chlorination is cyanogen chloride
(CNCI), a highly toxic gas of limited solubility. The toxicity of
CNCI may exceed that of equal concentrations of cyanide.2•'•'2
At an alkaline pH, CNCI hydrolyzes to the cyanate ion (CNO-),
which has only limited toxicity.
There is no known natural reduction reaction that may convert
CNO- to CN-.13 On the other hand, breakdown of toxic CNCI
is pH- and time -dependent. At pH 9, with no excess chlorine
present, CNCI may persist for 24 h.14.15
CNCI + 2NaOH -► NaCNO + NaCI + H.O (2)
CNO- can be oxidized further with chlorine at a nearly neutral
pH to CO, and N2:
2NaCNO + 4NaOH• + 3Cl2 —+ 6NaCI + 2CO3 + N, + 2H2O (3)
CNO- also will be converted on ar;rlicntion to NH,+:
2NaCNO + H2S0, + 4H,0 -j (NH),SO4 + 2NaHCO3 (4)
The alkaline chlorination of cyanide compounds is relatively
fast, but depends equally on the dissociation constant, which also
governs toxicity. Metal cyanide complexes, such as nickel. cnhnit
silver, and gold, do not dissociate readily. The chlorination re-
action therefore requires more time and a significant chlorine
excess.16 Iron cyanides, because they do not dissociate to any
`^gree, are not oxidized by chlorination. There is correlation
Iween the refractory properties of the noted complexes, in
'eir resistance to chk ination and lack of toxicity.
Thus, it is advantageous to differentiate between total cyanide
ad cyanides amenable to chlorination. When total cyanide is
,!termined, the almost nondissociable cyanides, as well as cy-
lnidebound in complexes that are readily dissociable and corn-
:
',axes of intermediate stability, are measured. Cyanide com-
4-19
pounds that are amenable to chlorination include free cyanide
as well as those complex cyanides that are potentially dissociable,
almost wholly or in large degree, and therefore, potentially toxic
at low concentrations, even in the dark. The chlorination test
procedure is carried out under rigorous conditions appropriate
for measurement of the more dissociable forms of cyanide.
The free and potentially dissociable cyanides also may be es-
timated when using the weak acid dissociable procedure. These
methods depend on a rigorous distillation, but the solution is
only slightly acidified, and elimination of iron cyanides is insured
by the earlier addition of precipitation chemicals to the distil-
lation flask or by the avoidance of ultraviolet irradiation.
The cyanogen chloride procedure is common with the colori-
metric test for cyanides amenable to chlorination. This test is
based on the addition of chloramine-T and subsequent color
complex formation with barbituric acid. Without the addition of
chloramine-T, only existing CNCI is measured. CNCI is a gas
that hydrolyzes to CNO-; sample preservation is not possible.
Because of this, spot testing of CNCI levels may be best. This
procedure can be adapted and used when the sample is collected.
There may be analytical requirements for the determination
of CNO-, even though the reported toxicity level is low. On
acidification, CNO - decomposes to ammonia (NH3).3 Molecular
ammonia and metal -ammonia complexes are toxic to aquatic
life."
Thiocyanate (SC:- ) is not very toxic to aquatic life.218 How-
ever, upon chlorination, toxic CNCI is formed, as discussed
above.2.3.12 At least where subsequent chlorination is anticipated,
the determination of SCN- is desirable. Thiocyanate is biode-
gradable; ammonium is released in this reaction. Although the
typical detoxifying agents used in cyanide poisoning induce thi-
ocyanate formation, biochemical cyclic reactions with cyanide
are possible, resulting in detectable levels of cyanide from ex-
posure to thiocyanate.18 Thiocyanate may be analyzed in samples
properly preserved for determination of cyanide; however, thi-
ocyanate also can be preserved in samples by acidification with
H2SO4 w pH 5.2.
2. C, ^n°:+e in Solid Waste
a. Soluble cyanide: Determination of soluble cyanide requires
sample leaching with distilled water until solubility equilibrium
is established. Onc flour of stirring in distilled water should be
satisfactory. Cyanide analysis is then performed on the leachate.
Low cyanide concentration in the leachate may indicate presence
of sparingly soluble metal cyanides. The cyanide content of the
leachate is indicative of residual solubility of insoluble metal
cyanides in the waste.
High levels of cyanide in the leachate indicate soluble cyanide
in the solid waste. When 500 mL distilled water are stirred into
a 500-mg solid waste sample, the cyanide concentration (mg/L)
of the leachate multiplied by 1000 will give the solubility level
of the cyanide in the solid waste in milligrams per kilogram. The
leachate may be analyzed for total cyanide and/or cyanide ame-
nable to chlorination.
b. Insoluble cyanide: The insoluble cyanide of the solid waste
can be determined with the total cyanide method by placing a
500-mg sample with 500 mL distilled water in the distillation
flask and in general following the distillation procedure (Section
4500-CN -.C). In calculating, multiply by 1000 to give the cyanide

4-20
content of the solid sample in milligrams per kilogram. Insoluble
iron cyanides in the solid can be leached out earlier by stirring
a weighed sample for 12 to 16 h in a 10% NaOH solution. The
leached and wash waters of the solid waste will give the iron
cyanide content with the distillation procedure. Prechlorination
will have eliminated all cyanide amenable to chlorination. Do
not expose sample to sunlight.
3. Selection of Method
a. Total cyanide after distillation: After removal of interfering
substances, the metal cyanide is converted to HCN gas, which
is distilled and absorbed in sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution."
Because of the catalytic decomposition of cyanide in the presence
of cobalt at high temperature in a strong acid solution,20•21 co-
balticyanide is not recovered completely. Indications are that
cyanide complexes of the noble metals, i.e., gold, platinum, and
palladium, are not recovered fully by this procedure either. Dis-
tillation also separates cyanide from other color -producing and
possibly interfering organic or inorganic contaminants. Subse-
quent analysis is for the simple salt, sodium cyanide (NaCN).
Some organic cyanide compounds, such as cyanohydrins, are
decomposed by the distillation. Aldehydes convert cyanide to
cyanohydrins.
The absorption liquid is analyzed by a titrimetric, colorimetric,
or cyanide -ion -selective electrode procedure:
1) The titration method (D) is suitable for cyanide concentra-
tions above 1 mg/L.
2) The colorimetric method (E) is suitable for cyanide con-
centrations to a lower limit of 5 to 20 µgfL. Analyze higher
concentrations by diluting either the sample before distillation
or the absorber solution before colorimetric measurement.
3) The ion -selective electrode method (F) using the cyanide
ion electrode is applicable in the concentration range of 0.05 to
10 mg/L.
b. Cyanide amenable to chlorination:
1) Distillation of two samples is required, one that has been
chlorinated to destroy all amenable cyanide present and the other
unchlorinated. Analyze absorption liquids from both tests for
total cyanide. The observed difference equals cyanides amenable
to chlorination.
2) The colorimetric method, by conversion of amenable cya-
nide and SCN- •to CNC1 and developing the color complex with
barbituric acid, is used for the determination of the total of these
cyanides (H). Repeating the test with the cyanide masked by the
addition of formaldehyde provides a measure of the SCN- con-
tent. When subtracted from the earlier results this provides an
estimate of the amenable CN- content. This method is useful
for natural and ground waters, clean metal finishing, and heat
treating effluents. Sanitary wastes may exhibit interference.
3) The weak acid dissociable cyanides procedure also measures
the cyanide amenable to chlorination by freeing HCN from the
dissociable cyanide. After being collected in a NaOH absorption
solution, CN - may be determined by one of the three finishing
procedures given for the total cyanide determination.
It should be noted that although cyanide amenable to chlo-
rination and weak acid dissociable cyanide appear to be identical,
certain industrial effluents (e.g., pulp and paper, petroleum re-
fining industry effluents) contain some poorly understood sub-
stances that may produce interference. Application of the pro -
INORGANIC NONMETALS (4000)
cedure for cyanide amenable to chlorination yields negative values.
For natural waters and metal -finishing effluents, the direct col-
orimetric determination appears to be the simplest and most
economical.
c. Cyanogen chloride: The colorimetric method for measuring
cyanide amenable to chlorination may be used, but omit the
chloramine-T addition. The spot test also may be used.
d. Spot test for sample screening: This procedure allows a quick
sample screening to establish whether more than 50 µg/L cyanide
amenable to chlorination is present. The test also may be used
to estimate the CNC1 content at the time of sampling.
e. Cyanate: CNO- is converted to ammonium carbonate,
(NH4)2CO3, by acid hydrolysis at elevated temperature. Am-
monia (NH,) is determined before the conversion of the CNO -
and again afterwards. The CNO - is estimated from the differ-
ence in NH3 found in the two tests.22-24 Measure NH3 by either:
1) The selective electrode method, using the NH3 gas elec-
trode; or
2) The colorimetric method, using direct nesslerization or the
phenate method for NH3 (Section 4500-NH3.0 or D).
f. Thiocyanate: Use the colorimetric determination with ferric
nitrate as a color -producing compound.
4. References
1. MILNE, D. 1950. Equilibria in dilute cyanide waste solutions. Sewage
Ind. Wastes 23:904.
2. DOUDOROFF, P. 1976. Toxicity to fish of cyanides and related com-
pounds. A review. EPA 600/3-76-038, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Duluth, Minn.
3. DOUDOROFF, P. & M. KArz. 1950. Critical review of literature on
the toxicity of industrial wastes and their components to fish. Sewage
Ind. Wastes 22:1432.
4. DOUDOROFF, P. 1956. Some experiments on the toxicity of complex
cyanides to fish. Sewage Ind. Wastes 28:1020.
5. DOUDOROFF, P., G. LEDUC & C.R. SCHNEIDER. 1966. Acute toxicity
to fish of solutions containing complex metal cyanides, in relation
to concentrations of molecular hydrocyanic acid. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 95:6.
6. SCHNEIDER, C.R. & H. FREUND. 1962. Determination of low level
hydrocyanic acid. Anal. Chem. 34:69.
7. CLAEYS R. & H. FREUND. 1968. Gas chromatographic separation of
HCN. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2:458.
8. MONTGOMERY, H.A.C., D.K. GARDINER & J.G. GREGORY. 1969,
Determination of free hydrogen cyanide in river water by a z zt-
extraction method. Analyst 94:284.
9. NELSON. K.H. & L. LYSYJ. 1971. Analysis of water for molecular
hydrogen cyanide. J. Water Pollen. Control Fed. 43:799.
10. BRODERIUS, S.J. 1981. Determination of hydrocyanic acid and free
cyanide in aqueous solution. Anal. Chem. 53:1472.
11. BURDICK, G.E. & M. LIPSCHUETZ. 1948. Toxicity of ferro and lei
ricyanide solutions to fish. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 78:192.
12. ZILLICH, J.A. 1972. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals t9 fresh-
water fish. I. Water Pollur. Control Fed. 44:212. 1'�?',
13. RESNICK, J.D., W. MooRE & M.E. El -moat. •1958. The behavior
of cyanates in polluted waters. Ind. Eng. Chem. 50:71.
14. PEI ILA , A.E.J. & G.C. WARE. 1955. Disposal of cyanide wastes,..:
Chem. Ind. 1955:1232.
15. BAILEY, P.L. & E. BISHOP. 1972. Hydrolysis of cyanogen chloride
Analyst 97:691.
16. LANCY, L. & W. ZABBAN. 1962. Analytical methods and intro- -
mentation for determining cyanogen compounds. Spec. Tech. Pub
l.
337, American Soc. Testing & Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. ':yX