NC0050342_Permit (Modification)_19900111

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0050342
Muddy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
January 11, 1990
This document iia printed on reuse paper - ignore airy
content on the remrer6ce side

PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
City of Winton-&ilm
January 11, 1990
Mr. Chuck Wakild, Acting Director
N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Permit Modification Request
Winston-Salem, N. C.
Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Permit No. NC0050342
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Wakild:
fiEDENED
JAN 1 71990
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
This letter is written in response to Mr. Wilms' letter of December 7, 1989
which outlined the Division of Environmental Management's initial concerns on
our permit modification request for the Muddy Creek Plant. We have tried to
address the Division's concerns and have responded by the item number as they
appeared in our initial letter of September 15, 1989.
1. DEM requested additional information regarding the data the City
submitted showing the relationship between CBOD5 and BOD5 in the plant's
effluent.
DEM also questioned the methodology the City used in measuring CBOD5 and
postulated that the nitrification inhibitor may have suppressed the
oxidation of carbonaceous components in the sample.
The City is providing DEM with TKN values on those samples whose CBOD5
and BOD5 results were cited in our letter of September 15, 1989. This
data is shown in Table I.
Box 2511, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102

Mr. Wakild
Page 2
January 11, 1990
Table I: Comparison of BOD5 and CBOD5 Analyses on the Muddy Creek Plant
Effluent
Date CBOD5 BOD5 TKN
01/04/89 4.0 14.8 4.0
01/09/89 5.0 26.0 7.0
01/11/89 7.0 21.0 7.0
01/16/89 8.0 21.0 5.0
01/18/89 8.0 30.0 6.0
02/01/89 14.5 15.0 6.0
03/16/89 9.8 18.0 10.0
Note: All units of concentration are mg/1.
Tests to determine CBOD5 and BOD5 were performed according to the
protocol described in Part 507 of the 15th edition of "Standard Methods"
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater." 0ur laboratory is
certified to perform the BOD analysis and the City is confident that the
tests are valid.
We evaluated the possibility that the nitrification inhibitor was
suppressing carbonaceous oxygen demand by measuring the CBOD5 and BOD5 of
a standard solution of potassium phthlate (KHP). The standard was known
to have a value of 263 mg/l. The analyses conducted with and without
nitrification inhibitor gave results of 290 and 286 mg/1 respectively.
The test showed no evidence the inhibitor interferes with carbonaceous
oxygen demand.
2. There is a substantial amount of information that the City of
Winston-Salem wishes to submit to DEM for consideration regarding the
mini -chronic toxicity test. To facilitate this process, the information
pertaining to each of the points we wish to make is given under subtitles
describing each pertinent point.
A. Prior to the adoption of the mini -chronic procedure, there may not have
been a suitable demonstration that the procedure accurately correlates
predicted and observed reproductive impairment.
DEM has responded to our concern in this area by stating that "the whole
effluent toxicity program was not implemented based on the comparisons
cited by the City." The study we referenced was a paper entitled
"Comparisons of Measured Instream Biological Responses With Responses
Predicted Using the Ceriodaphnia Chronic Toxicity Test." This paper was
cited as a support document in the last Triennial Review Report so we
assumed that the data produced in the study played a role in the adoption
of the test.

Mr. Wakild
Page 3
January 11, 1990
Since this data was not evaluated by DEM prior to the adoption of the
mini -chronic procedure, the City of Winston-Salem would welcome an
opportunity to review the data that was.
Since the study referenced in the Triennial Review Report contains the
only data available to date to substantiate the accuracy of the
mini -chronic procedure, the City of Winston-Salem maintains its position
that the survey may have been biased in that the test was used to predict
acute toxicity.
B. The mini -chronic bioassay procedure has been shown to produce
inconsistent results.
A major reason why the City of Winston-Salem is contesting the use of the
mini -chronic bioassay procedure is based on the fact that the test
results are difficult to reproduce between labs.
Attachment No. 1 contains test reports on nine sets of samples that were
split between four certified commercial laboratories. Please note that
67 percent of the samples were reported as failing in one laboratory but
passing in another.
This survey, in the City's opinion, supports our contention that the
mini -chronic procedure is not precise enough to warrant its use in
determining a facility's compliance status.
C. The reproduction rate in control organisms is so variable that the
mini -chronic test procedure is slanted toward defining some samples as
being toxic when they actually are not.
The City of Winston-Salem's opinion here is based on our observation that
some samples which fail the mini -chronic test based on reproduction
actually have average reproduction rates in the test group that are
significantly higher than those average reproduction rates in the
control.
Attachment #2 is comprised of test reports from 28 mini -chronic assays
which had no quality control problems. The range of the average number
of young produced per control female is quite wide with numbers ranging
from 14.7 to 39.2. The average of the data was 24.7 with a standard
deviation of 7.63.
Attachment #3 is a copy of a test report on a sample which failed due to
low reproduction in relation to the control. The procedure defines this
sample as being toxic even though the average total reproduction per test
group female is greater than 82 percent of the control groups surveyed in
Attachment #2.

Mr. Wakild
Page 4
January 11, 1990
The City of Winston-Salem is concerned that the variable reproduction
rates among control groups indicates that there may be factors affecting
the test which are not attributable to the sample and which are not
negated by the control. These factors could indicate toxicity when in
fact the sample was not toxic.
The City of Winston-Salem is also concerned that the control group in a
specific test may not be valid when there is very little dilution of the
sample with the culture water. Under these conditions it is possible
that the sudden change in environmental factors, such as hardness, pH,
osmolarity and background nutrient concentrations may create a stressed
acclimation period which may result in a temporary reduction in brood
size.
D. In a significant portion of the samples passing the mini -chronic bioassay
test the control appears toxic in relation to the test group.
The City of Winston-Salem evaluated a total of 31 test reports on the
bioanalysis of samples collected from municipalities across the state.
0f these, 16 passed the test.
In 12 of the test reports that passed, the average test group
reproduction was shown to be higher than that of the control group. The
City subjected the test data to a one -tailed students T analysis to
determine whether the difference in the reproduction of the control and
test groups was significant at a 99% confidence limit.
0ur calculations indicated that 12 of the 31 tests reviewed showed
evidence that the control group was toxic in relation to the test group,
i.e. then was a significant statistical difference 37% of the time.
The City of Winston-Salem is confident that there were probably no toxic
components present in the culture water, but our findings further support
our contention that the mini -chronic test is unsuitable because it gives
inconsistent results and that it does not accurately measure reproductive
impairment due to variability.
Copies of the test reports we evaluated are provided to you in Attachment
#4.
E. The indicator organism DEM has specified for use in the mini -chronic
bioassay is susceptible to water qualities over which a POTW has little
or no direct control. These water qualities are normally considered
"non -toxic".
DEM has asked the City to enumerate those "harmless water qualities" for
which the Ceriodaphnia is unduly susceptible and provide evidence that
the parameters are indeed harmless.

Mr. Wakild
Page 5
January 11, 1990
When we used the term "harmless water qualities", we were referring to
those naturally occurring water characteristics which have been shown to
affect Cladoceran mortality and reproduction. It should be added that a
permittee has very little, if any control over some of these
characteristics as they relate to a plant discharge. These parameters
include water hardness, alkalinity, osmotic pressure, pH, background
nutrient levels, conductivity, light intensity, and TOC.
The effects of these parameters are well documented in literature that
the DEM staff is familiar with and the City does not feel that there is a
need to submit detailed information on the subject.
The City of Winston-Salem would like to point out that DEM has been quite
specific in setting up acceptable ranges for many of these parameters in
the water used to cultivate the control organisms. There are no
provisions in the protocol, however, for ensuring that those water
qualities which are known to affect the test organism and over which the
permittee has no control are the same in the control and test groups.
This situation nullifies the intent of the control and probably
contributes to the lack of precision in the test, as well as, the
phenomena wherein the control group appears toxic in relation to the test
group.
The tendency of the mini -chronic bioassay procedure to produce
questionable data is exemplified by the fact that distilled water, which
could not possibly contain toxics, fails the test (see Attachment #5).
F. The permit for the Muddy Creek Plant should not include effluent toxicity
limitations because DEM has, in effect, acknowledged that the plant's
discharge to be non -toxic in that neither the facility nor its receiving
water were included by DEM on any list required by EPA under 304(L) of
the CWA.
DEM has responded to this concern by stating that the N. C. 304(L) lists
submitted to EPA for approval was limited to only those waters adversely
impacted by priority pollutants.
Paragraph (A)(ii) of Section 304(L) specifies that the second list shall
include all waters which do not meet water quality standards for any
conventional, nonconventional, or toxic pollutant due to any point or
non -point source of pollution. Furthermore, this list must also include
waters which are classified for uses which do not meet the fishable or
swimmable goals of the CWA.
Section 304(L) clearly does not restrict the scope of the listing survey
to priority pollutants, DEM staff was aware of this in that several
stretches of the state's waters were listed because of high fecal
coliform concentrations and turbidity.

Mr. Wakild
Page 6
January 11, 1990
Section 304(L) required the states to establish individual control
strategies to deal with the problem areas identified under 304(L), but we
believe the regulations do not require that every point source have
effluent toxicity limits incorporated into its NPDES permit.
It is our understanding that the 1987 amendment to the CWA requires state
regulatory agencies to adopt numeric criteria for specific priority
pollutants and biomonitoring conditions. The 1987 amendments to CWA do
not require the states to incorporate permit limits for point sources
based on biomonitoring unless they are part of an EPA approved individual
control strategy for a point source identified as a problem on one of the
304(L) lists.
DEM may be in violation of State law prohibiting the adoption of
discharge standards which are more restrictive than those required at the
federal level. In this context, DEM may only be allowed under state law
to institute biomonitoring based permit limits on those point sources
identified under 304(L).
In addition to the point that DEM may not have the legal authority to
implement biomonitoring based effluent toxicity limitations, we believe
there is sufficient evidence showing the mini -chronic procedure is
unsuitable for its intended use to accurately determine whole effluent
toxicity.
G. In summary, the City of Winston-Salem does not wish to accept any permit
provisions which defines noncompliance based on an analytical procedure:
a. Whose test results cannot be duplicated between laboratories in 67%
of the tests surveyed,
b. Which defines a sample as being toxic when the average reproduction
rate for test organisms is higher than 82% of all control groups
surveyed,
c. Which will indicate toxicity in the control group as compared to the
test group 37% of the time,
d. Which indicates distilled water is toxic,
e. Where no standard protocol exists in either Standard Methods or
40CFR136, and
f. Where there is no EPA approved procedure that we know of for a
toxicity reduction evaluation for identifying the causative factor
in a toxic mini -chronic result.
We believe there are major problems with this test and at this point in
time it should not be used to determine compliance status.

Mr. Wakild
Page 7
January 11, 1990
3. We agree 40CFR122.41(h) covers this item.
4. We would like to reserve the right to comment on the new bypass language
that will include provisions of 40CFR122.41(m).
The City of Winston-Salem understands DEM's position that the 002
discharge point is not a bypass since it is intended to serve as an
alternate discharge point for treated wastewater only when the 001
discharge point is flooded. However, we believe that since it can only
be utilized during extreme flood conditions, limitations on discharge
from the 002 outfall need to be based on high stream flows at flood
stage, not on 7Q10 flows.
Further, the Muddy Creek Plant is constructed so that it is occasionally
forced to accept flows during extended wet weather periods (tornado,
Hurricane Hugo, etc.) which are in excess of the plant's design capacity
in order to prevent damage to its headworks. The plant's four influent
pumps are designed to pump up to 11 MGD each and normally, two pumps are
in service. The plant must either treat only 11 MGD during high flow
events or treat in excess of the 15 MGD permitted flow. When faced with
these situations, we have operated to treat all the flow that can be
handled hydraulically to prevent damage to the headworks so the water
level does not rise above the bottom bearings of the screw pumps. If the
influent rate exceeds 22 MGD, additional pump capacity is brought on line
to prevent damage to the headworks. At this point, intraplant bypassing
may need to be considered to minimize solids washout of the secondary
treatment facilities and to ensure future treatment of wastewater. Since
the plant has been in operation (January, 1986), we have experienced four
occasions when flow exceeded 44 MGD to the plant.
The City feels it should not be judged noncompliant for discharging flows
in excess of the permit limit during such extreme wet weather conditions
for 001 or 002, especially if it occurs during a one -day discharge to the
002 outfall wherein the City is not able to average this flow in with
other days of the month where discharge goes to 001.
If DEM wishes to avoid a situation wherein the plant's discharge points
are utilized to discharge a bypass of any of the plant processes during
extreme wet weather conditions, we ask that we be able to install an
overflow line, under approval of DEM, at the plant's headworks that would
be designed to operate only in the event the influent wet well becomes
flooded and endangers pumps or other equipment necessary to operate the
treatment plant. Such an overflow line would allow the plant to
effectively treat the agreed upon wet weather flows without leading to
solids washout in the plant.
We would like to further discuss these issues with you and have enclosed
sketches explaining the 002 outfall discharge. Please let us know if you
would like to set up a separate meeting to discuss the 002 and overflow
issue, and whether you wish us to help get stream data for Muddy Creek or
Yadkin River during high rain events.

Mr. Wakild
Page 8
January 11, 1990
5. We concur, based on the written explanation in your December 7, 1989
letter.
6. We are in agreement.
7. The term "major contributing industry" is used in Part III A. 1. and Part
III A. 3. in the draft permit. "Major contributing industries" was
defined as follows in previous permits.
"A major contributing industry is one that: (a) has a flow of
50,000 gallons or more per average work day; (b) has a flow greater
than five percent of the flow carried by the municipal system
receiving the waste; (c) has in its waste a toxic pollutant in toxic
amounts as defined in standards issued under Section 307(a) of the
Act; (d) has significant impact either singly or in combination with
other contributing industries, on the treatment works or the quality
of its effluent."
The definition for "major contributing industry" is significantly
different than the definition of "significant industrial user" in the
current permit and could cause confusion over which industries are
required to be included in the Pretreatment Program and Semiannual
Reports.
Part III (A) 1. indicates that pollutants in the City's discharge
resulting from industrial contributions may receive NPDES limits as the
information becomes available. An industry discharging pollutants which
pass through the POTW and for which DEM revises the permit to specify
effluent limitations would be within the definition of "significant
industrial user" ("SIU"). Therefore, the City asks that "SIU" should be
substituted for "major contributing industry" in Part III(A) 1.
Part III A. 3. states the Permittee may have to be more restrictive than
40CFR403 to meet effluent limits and further states such actions may be
necessary for some or all of the major contributing industries. The City
asks that the last sentence which refers to "major contributing
industries" be deleted since it would not alter the intent of the
section.
8. We accept this statement.
<< 9. We agree with the State that federal law allows reopeners based on 307-A
toxics but this should not allow modifications for any other areas of the
permit. However, we do not believe other reopeners are justified as
pursuant to our comments of September 15th. Further, we feel that the
State's comment regarding NCGS 143-215.1 only applies to changes
necessary for new or enlarged facilities.
In this light, we propose at a minimum that III G. be deleted, especially
since toxics are already covered under II A. 5.

Mr. Wakild
Page 9
January 11, 1990
10. The City believes that Federal law does not require such notification. 4c6`
Further, we believe III D. wording to be unworkable when applied to such 4-,\1-'
items as changing a pump location. We suggest wording be added to limit
the notification to projects to add to a plant's capacity or to those
intended to change the type of process used at the plant as in our
September 15 letter. We also ask that wording be added to say that this
requirement is not a requirement under Federal law and, therefore, not
enforceable under Federal NPDES procedures.
11. We appreciate receiving the fact sheet and backup information on January
2, 1990. We are still reviewing this data.
12. We would like to reserve the right to comment on the new language for I.
B.2.
13. We concur, based on the written explanation in your December 7,1989
letter.
k
14. The City of Winston-Salem requests that DEM modify, the second sentence
in the text of the provisions under Section II D. 2. to read as follows)
"Any planned maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate V;"'`^'`
unavoidable interruption of operation and possible permit
exceedances, shall be scheduled during non-7Q10 stream flow
periods."
15. We concur, based on the written explanation in your December 7, 1989
letter.
16. We would like to reserve the right to comment on the new language for II.
A. 4.
17. We are in agreement to delete II. D. 6. d. and that it is in the best
interest of all parties to report as soon as possible.
18. 40CFR Part 122.42 specifies reporting for two distinct categories: (a)
facilities engaged in manufacturing, commercial, mining, and
silvicultural and (b) POTWs, with very different requirements for each
category. The requirements specified in Part II D (7) of the draft
permit are for manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silviculture.
Instead, we should only be regulated under the requirements in 40CFR Part
122.42(b) for POTWs, and we already provide this under our pretreatment
program.
19. The City believes NCGS 143-251(b)(3) refers only to new or enlarged
facilities. We further believe that the City should have a right to
comment, challenge, and adjudicate any such changes and that this should be
so stated in the permit.
a14-

Mr. Wakild
Page 10
January 11, 1990
20. We would like to reserve the right to comment on the new language for I.
J. 2.
21. We concur, based on the written explanation in your December 7, 1989
letter.
22. Since Section III B (12) of the draft permit states modifications to the
pretreatment program are considered as permit modifications, this would
require NPDES permit modification for every new significant industrial
user hooking to our system. 15NCAC2H.0916 and .0917 outline the
requirements for permit application, preparing a synopsis and permit, and
submitting the package for DEM approval. Instead of modifying the
pretreatment program and NPDES permit every time a new SIU hooks to our
system, we request that Section III A (4) be modified by deleting the
last two words of the first paragraph and inserting permit and synopsis
in accordance with 15NCAC2H.0916 and .0917.
23. We request that Item III. B. 6. f. be revised to read "upon request,
other information which is necessary to determine compliance with the
permittee's pretreatment program."
24. We concur.
25. We believe that the official EPA process to approve major or minor
changes to the State's Pretreatment Program have not been completed.
Therefore, we ask that a statement similar to the following be included
in the permit: "Only those pretreatment requirements approved by EPA as
per 40CFR123 are Federally enforceable under the NPDES program."
26. We are in agreement.
27. We wish to discuss the issue of a flow requirement further, especially in
light of our comments in Item #4. All in all, we do not want to be
deemed in violation of a permit or if we are forced to treat excessive
flows such as during hurricane, tornado, and unusual storm events. In
addition, we would be amenable to discussing varied limits based on
different flow intervals for normal discharges.
We appreciate this opportunity to continue to express our comments, and
appreciate the time spent by those of your staff at our January 10, 1990
meeting. Please let us know if we can provide any additional information or
if we can further explain any of these items. We would be happy to have our
appropriate staff travel to Raleigh to discuss any of these items.
t(

o
Mr. Wakild
Page 11
January 11, 1990
/sw
Attachments
cc:
Crystal Couch
Stan Webb
Brenda Letzler
Larry Coble
Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Sincerely,
T LITIES DI 1 SIO
•
11),ti•
om Griffin, P. .
Utilities Supe endent

Medin3 col I0- 5.Iem - Ncoo5o3'V2 1110/90 of co Airs
Name
5urtn e
-gym c �t
Ce-/C//
au J»F2tr
IhC 6i.tc.4sP
&rknhn
ati
Cf )S
733-5 63
- lexlnv.:c.c 3
,,)c - b AJJS 733 - sbYy
Phone
-7Z7-Ig
765 - ®/3e
'7g-9'70v

:1047312)(7 - ‘Salem fikeb'nj - 'hot 90 /0: oo 4/17
fare cocas (.46 comf, /e'er
- Tow ei
cliffekutk rescais /4007 W014. JaMpt Ai/ dab
Send tarti: tAaltd - ,1)U S&tA4241,
yjJJ� e9Uab
S
co " 7124AL tietOtz; Ciala 4)e. Cat 4 :- pot I
47L 20ciitscheur bilow c6
aouti,4
19/DpOSt.3j tL cuatied, zh aid we aa €
cti Acti
- 10 - Wati cue_ popo,soi matt_ Aaw Woe,
iq tvtiala Atua 'act gh eo - S - Q/51

ML/OOY CREEK
ii
/ N Te:QC EPTa.e 64
tv
M //GD Y C.2EEX
w'w TP
PLANT DIScHAeCE
rvv. z/v 6,7S 2S
002 D/SC/ARSE
OGANT EPA-Li/ENT
To YgpK/N 2/vER
oo/ o/ScHRRGE
C96"
D/ScNARaE gLEv.
YAo,-in/ G6/. o
E«Y. ,tNv. 1 N ra
D/Scy4RG P/PE 6757 25"
PLAN V /EV/
00 2 o/SGHARGE
PRoF'/4. E
O O 2 ,D /,$CHARGE
No SCALE

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
December 28, 1989
Mr. Tom Griffin, P.E.
City of Winston-Salem
Public Works Department
Box 2511
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
Subject: Winston-Salem Muddy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0050342
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Griffin:
R. Paul Wilms
Director
Your recent letter to the Division (Dated 12/18/89) was referred to my
office by Director Wilms. A copy of the fact sheet for the NPDES permit
for the Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is enclosed for your review.
Please accept my apology, on behalf of the Division, for not submitting this
item to you in our earlier correspondence. Also enclosed per your request
are the model summaries detailing the basis for the permit effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements contained in the permit.
It is our understanding that Trevor Clements of my staff has been in
touch with Mrs. Brenda Letzler of your department to arrange a meeting to
further discuss the pending NPDES permit modification request. I would
like to move forward on this issue in early January, if possible. Please
contact Trevor soon to confirm a date (919/733-5083).
cc: Trevor Clements
Don Safrit
Steve Mauney
Central Files
Enclosures
Sincerely,
Steve Tedder
Water Quality Section Chief
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An FnnaI nnnnrnmihv Affirmative Artinn Fmnlnver

PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
City of Winston-eSalem
December 18, 1989
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
N. C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Permit Modification Request
Muddy Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0050342
Dear Mr. Wilms:
We have received the December 7 response to our concerns
regarding our NPDES Permit for our Muddy Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and we are reviewing these. As you suggested,
we would like to meet with State representatives to discuss these
items further.
To help us review these responses and prepare for this meeting,
would you please send us a copy of the fact sheet for the permit,
as per our Item No. 11 (it was not attached to your letter). We
would also appreciate receiving a copy of the modeling/
calculations used to derive the values for the fact sheet.
I appreciate your help in this matter and look forward to
scheduling a meeting to discuss these issues.
/sw
cc: Stan Webb
Sincerely,
U LITIES
om Griffin,
Utilities Superirfrtendent
RECEIVED
DEC 2 8 1989
PERMITS & ENGINEERING
Box 2511, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 27, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Winston-Salem WLA File
THROUGH: Trevor Clements gdC/
FROM: Ruth Swanek CL
SUBJECT: Winston Salem WWTP Permit Limits
NPDES No. NC0050342
Yadkin River (030704)
The NPDES permit limits for Winston-Salem's Lower Muddy Creek
WWTP were developed in February, 1989. The following summarizes
the rationale behind the limits:
Oxygen -consuming Wastes
1. Outfall 001
The limit for BOD5 for outfall 001 remained the same as in the
previous NPDES permit. The appropriateness of the limit was veri-
fied by extending the model calibrated for the Archie Elledge WWTP
into the Yadkin River. The model predicted that secondary limits
would protect the water quality standard for dissolved oxygen.
2. Outfall 002
Outfall 002 provides for a discharge to Muddy Creek when con-
ditions in the Yadkin River prevent discharge through pipe 001.
The assigned effluent limits were those previously permitted by the
Division when the outfall was originally proposed.
Toxic Wastes
1. Outfall 001
The Pretreatment LOTUS spreadsheet was used to develop metals
limits for outfall 001. No limits were needed under standard
procedural criteria applied by DEM, but effluent and instream
monitoring requirements for lead were included in the permit
because of the ongoing DEM study to review the potential impact of
the proposed lower water quality standard. Preliminary instream
data submitted by the City indicate the Yadkin would frequently
violate a standard of 3 ug/1 as proposed.

a
2. Outfall 002
Since less dilution is available in Muddy Creek than in the
Yadkin River, effluent monitoring was required for the metals which
were acknowledged present in the facility's headworks analysis sub-
mitted to DEM by the City. These metals are: cadmium, chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, and zinc. Given that discharge from outfall
002 is expected to be rare, monitoring only will be required.

Oz. itsue.lq$p 1ikgL
DA = GA . !WA*
"Om-- 5'18
wOGD= g37
tivelova4,4
?ape dot
0
tie
OZ. 1aft 250D
"A:i16 0A -IIz
0=0.2. wnao
i- R2� O.'ina'
un
now
S.Io( mudd
0g,its .512.0 (.3'V.
"DA Wit 7. a 4

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc'
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
USGS Zone:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
Standard/AL
(mg/1)
City of Winston
Yadkin River
WSIII
1
548.000 cfs
15.000 mgd
9.54 mgd
26.0 %
4.1 %
0.002 S
0.05 S
0.015 AL
0.025 S
0.025 S
0.05 AL
0.005 S
0.0002 S
0.01 AL
Total
Influent
Load
(lbs/day)
0.07
0.47
1.74
0.15
0.14
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
Removal
Eff.
92%
72%
84%
37%
47%
78%
59%
86%
94%
Salem
Actual
Allowable Domestic
Load (a) Load
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
75.85
541.75
284.42
120.39
143.10
689.50
37.00
4.33
505.63
0.000
0.000
1.020
0.000
0.000
1.970
Assumed Predicted
Background Effluent
Reserve Conc Conc (b)
(lbs/day) (mg/1) (mg/1)
75.78
541.28
282.68
120.24
142.96
686.79
37.00
4.33
505.63
0 0.0001
0 0.0017
0 0.0035
0 0.0012
0 0.0009
0 0.0075
0 0.0000
0 0.0000
0 0.0000
12/27/89
Actual
Industrial
Load
(lbs/day)
0.070
0.470
0.720
0.150
0.140
0.740
Allowable
Effluent
Conc (c)
(mg/1)
0.0491
1.2285
0.3685
0.6142
0.6142
1.2285
0.1228
0.0049
0.2457
oc
.oc
.01
f, c
o'

Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cyanide
Mercury
Silver
PRETREATMENT HEADWORKS REVIEW
Discharger:
Receiving stream:
Stream Class:
USGS Zone:
7Q10:
Design flow:
Actual flow:
Percent industrial:
IWC:
Standard/AL
(mg/1)
0.002 S
0.05 S
0.015 AL
0.025 S
0.025 S
0.05 AL
0.005 S
0.0002 S
0.01 AL
Total
Influent
Load
(lbs/day)
0.07
0.47
1.74
0.15
0.14
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
City of Winston
Yadkin River
WSIII
1
548.000 cfs
15.000 mgd
9.54 mgd
26.0 %
4.1 %
Removal
Eff.
92%
72%
84%
37%
47%
78%
'59%
86%
94%
Salem
Actual
Allowable Domestic
Load (a) Load
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
75.85
541.75
284.42
120.39
143.10
689.50
37.00
4.33
505.63
Assumed
Background
Reserve Conc
(lbs/day) (mg/1)
75.78
541.28
282.68
120.24
142.96
686.79
37.00
4.33
505.63
0.003
0.0063
0.005
0.0058
0.0067
0.0167
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
1.020
0.000
0.000
1.970
Predicted
Effluent
Conc (b)
(mg/ 1)
0.0001 >
0.0017
0.0035
0.0012
0.0009
0.0075
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
12/27/89
Actual
Industrial
Load
(lbs/day)
0.070
0.470
0.720
0.150
0.140
0.740
Allowable
Effluent
Conc (c)
(mg/1)
-0.0216
1.0800
0.2507
0.4775
0.4563
0.8349
0.1228
0.0049
0.2457
or
.0
.0
•0
.0

State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor R. Paul Wilms
William \'U. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
December 7, 1989
Mr. Tom Griffin, Utilities Superintendent
Public Works Department
Box 2511
Winston-Salem, NC 27102
Subject: Permit Modification Request
Muddy Creek WWTP
NPDES No. NC0050342
Forsyth County
Dear Mr. Griffin:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 15 concerning your
NPDES permit for the Winston-Salem Muddy Creek WWTP (NC0050342). I have
addressed each of your concerns by item as follows:
1.) CBOD5 Limits
The City should note that some of the data submitted indicate that
there is a large difference between BOD5 and CBOD5. The corresponding
ammonia concentrations appear too low to account for the large differ-
ences in oxygen demand. Since organic nitrogen data were not submitted,
it is impossible to determine if this parameter accounts for the differ-
ence. It is possible that the inhibitor used in the CBOD5 test is also
inhibiting the carbonaceous oxygen demand. The City must review its
CBOD5 test methods and respond to the Division of Environmental Manage-
ment(DEM) with either an appropriate explanation or verification that
test results are accurate. After this information is submitted, DEM will
change the permit to a monthly CBOD5 limit of 25 mg/1 and a weekly limit
of 40 mg/1.
2.) Toxicity
Winston-Salem objects to a whole effluent toxicity limitation
because there is no evidence that the plant's discharge is toxic. This
argument is inconsistent with current policy established by DEM. The
whole effluent toxicity test is utilized as a continued demonstration
that toxicity levels are consistently at the no effect level. It is the
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

purpose of continued monitoring to detect changes in effluent character-
istics. Because a discharge is currently in compliance with a limitation
does not exclude the parameter from an NPDES permit.
The City objects to the whole effluent toxicity limitation because
this facility was not identified on the N.C. 304L list. Facilities
placed on this listing were identified only if impacts were predicted
from pollutants on the U.S. EPA's "Priority Pollutant" list. There are
many thousands of other chemicals which may be toxic but are not con-
tained on this list.
The City indicates that there may not be a suitable demonstration of
correlation between measured chronic toxicity and observed chronic toxi-
city. The City also questioned North Carolina's comparisons in this
area. The whole effluent toxicity program was not implemented based on
the comparisons cited by the City. This State has utilized toxic
standards established from laboratory testing for over 10 years. We cur-
rently have many standards derived to protect aquatic life which utilized
laboratory toxicity testing. The use of whole effluent toxicity testing
is consistent with this approach.
Winston-Salem indicates that the "25 Centigrade cultivation"
temperature does not reflect seasonal temperature regimes. All toxic
substances are allocated to 7Q10 or low flow conditions and are not modi-
fied by season. DEM is being consistent with water quality regulations
in this regard. The City also indicated that DEHNR has refused to use
water samples collected upstream as baseline controls. This is not the
case. If all aspects of quality assurance and control, as outlined in
the certification guidance are followed and met, this water will be
deemed acceptable.
Winston-Salem states that the "mini -chronic" toxicity test procedure
is inconsistent with many reported problems. This has not been the
experience of the DEM laboratory. If the City would present the details
of these inconsistencies to DEM, the Division will be better able to
respond.
Two additional arguments by the City state that the presence of
Ceriodaphnia in the Yadkin River has not been demonstrated and the
Ceriodaphnia are unduly susceptible to "harmless water qualities".
Chronic toxicity is defined in N.C. Water Quality Regulations as any
harmful effect sustained by either resident aquatic populations or indi-
cator species. Ceriodaphnia may be present in the Yadkin River but are
being utilized here as indicator species. With regard to "harmless water
qualities", the City does not specify which parameters with which they
are concerned, nor do they provide evidence that these undefined parame-
ters are harmless.
3.) Oblictation to Supply Information
The requirements of Part II.A.11 are consistent with the reporting
requirements contained 40 CFR 122.41(1). This information is only
required upon request by DEM.

4.) Bypass
The bypass language in Part II.B.3 will be modified to coincide with
the language in 40 CFR 122.41(M).
The discharge through outfall 002 is not considered a bypass. The
plant could have been designed to prevent discharges into Muddy Creek
during flood conditions. If Winston-Salem's alternative outfall is con-
sidered a bypass, engineers will be encouraged to design plants which
will be allowed to discharge without a permit during certain flow condi-
tions.
5.) Language in Part II.D.9c,10,11
The terms "knowing violations" and "knowingly" are both attached to
sentences that refer to making "false statements" or submitting "false
information". Submission of false statements or information and knowing
it is a very severe condition and is considered a criminal act. The need
for a definition is unwarranted, especially based on the use of the sub-
ject words in the permit.
6.) Language in part III.A.4(e)
Section III, A. 4(e) will be deleted.
7.) Major Contributing Industry vs. Significant Industrial User
The term "major contributing industry" is not used in the permit.
There is a reference to major contributing industries in Part III.A(3).
The purpose of this section is to put the POTW on notice that even though
the Federal and State pretreatment regulations may not require the devel-
opment of a pretreatment program, it may be necessary for the POTW to
control industries in order to meet their NPDES limits. Since the State
requires the development of a pretreatment program any time a POTW
receives waste from a SIU, this reference is meant to apply to non-SIU's.
In an effort to promote clarity, the word "major" will be deleted.
8.) Time Schedule for Submitting Pretreatment Activity Reports
15 NCAC 2H.0908(b) requires submission on August 1 and February 1.
No provisions for granting an extension are provided by the regulations.
9.) Permit Reopener
The provisions of 40 CFR 122.62 (which are required under 40 CFR
123.25) and NCGS 143-215.1 allow all reopeners that are in place in the
current permit. There are actually more reopener requirements (40 CFR
122.62) that are not in the permit. The requirements in the permit are
no more stringent than those required by Federal law. DEM does not
arbitrarily open permits to incorporate new or more complicated require-
ments. The regulations do allow the Director to reopen the permits to
incorporate new or complicated requirements. They also allow the Direc-
tor to reopen the permits for changes, alterations, or facts not present
at the time of permit reissuance. The regulations also allow reopening
to incorporate toxic limits.

The requirements of II.A.5 are consistent with 40 CFR 122.62(a)(6).
10.) Authorization of Construction
The intent of the requirement contained in III.D. is to ensure that
all changes at the plant are reviewed and approved by the DEM staff. A
one for one change is fine and no review is required, but moving the pump
location or changing sizes of components must be approved by DEM.
11.) Omission of Part II and Part III from Original Draft
DEM definitely made an error in not sending the permit conditions
(Parts II and III) and the fact sheet to the applicant. At the same
time, DEM never received a telephone call from anyone with the City ask-
ing for a copy of the material. Mr. Stanley Webb wrote a letter dated
March 29, 1989. No request for the permit conditions and fact sheet was
made in Mr. Webb's letter. DEM published its intent to issue a permit on
March 1, 1989. Due to EPA's extended review of the permit, the permit
was not issued until August 14, 1989. The City of Winston-Salem techni-
cally had five and a half months to request the information that we
failed to send to you, review the information, and submit comments.
Winston-Salem knew that the additional requirements would be included in
the final permit. Otherwise, the City could not have written such
comprehensive comments with all of the appropriate citations from the
Federal Regulations.
At your request, a fact sheet is included for your review.
12.) Operation and Maintenance
Winston-Salem must operate the plant only at a level that is needed
to meet the limits in the permit. But it is in Winston-Salem's best
interest as a citizen and good neighbor to operate its plant at its
optimum efficiency at all times. However, Part II.B.1 is currently being
revised to coincide with 40 CFR 122.
13.) Lanc uaae in Part II .A. 7
DEM has reviewed your comments and we concur with your statements
that the NPDES permit provides the permittee protection from liabilities
under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, DEM can see no
reason to change the language in the permit. The language "except as
provided by law" can be used in many permitting situations. DEM under-
stands this and will abide by the provisions of the law.
14.) Maintenance Schedulinar
The key issue appears to be the words "planned change" in Section
D.2. DEM understands that all maintenance cannot be scheduled in
advance, but for those that can be, Winston-Salem should perform the
maintenance duties during noncritical periods {i.e., periods of high
stream (above 7Q10) flow and periods of low flows through the WWTP}.
Winston-Salem should contact DEM anytime that it expects maintenance to
cause or contribute to a water quality problem so DEM can document when a

problem occurs and the reasons for the problem.
15.) Permit Extension
The language in the permit is appropriate as written. Extension of
the existing permit is deemed to be automatic if the requirements of the
conditions are met and no letter from DEM is sent to the applicant noti-
fying them otherwise.
16.) Reporting of Past or Planned Activities
DEM is currently modifying the boiler plate language in Parts II and
III of the NPDES permits. The last paragraph of part II.A.4 will be
deleted in the new boiler plate. The requirement of 40 CFR 122.41 (1)(1)
will be added to the boiler plate. This new boiler plate language will
be made part of the City's permit.
17.) Reporting Noncompliance
Part II.D.6.d can be deleted. However, DEM believes it is in the
best interest of both the State and the City to make these reports at the
earliest possible time.
18.) Reporting Activities Resulting in Discharge of Certain Pollutants
This requirement is for existing manufacturing, commercial, mining
and silvicultural discharges. Due to the types and kinds of facilities
tied into your sewer area, DEM feels that this requirement is appropriate
for your permit. Your discharge contains manufacturing and commercial
operations. DEM does not have to remove the conditions from its permits
just because EPA does not have the conditions in its municipal permits.
19.) Monitoring Frequency
Part II.D.4 requires Winston-Salem to submit any data that are col-
lected at a frequency greater than required in the permit. DEM has the
right to change the frequency in the permit upon 60 days notice per NCGS
143-215.1(b) (3) .
20.) Monitoring of GC/MS Peaks
This monitoring requirement has no limit associated with it. The
data are being collected for further characterization of the effluent,
and this requirement is applied to similar facilities. If constituents
of concern are identified, the facility and DEM will then develop an
appropriate response. If the data for any single constituent are of
questionable reliability, the response will be influenced by this knowl-
edge. DEM is currently evaluating the language contained in this section
of the permit. Some changes will be made in the permit in the near
future.
21.) Wording of Part III.A.2
The objection seems to center around the interpretation of the word
"allow". According to Webster's Dictionary, allow means "to let do or

happen; permit". Therefore, as long as the City does not permit the
discharge of any waste listed in Part III.A.2(a-e) through its pretreat-
ment permits or Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO), it is in compliance with this
condition of the NPDES permit.
The City suggests that we modify the NPDES permit language to
"require that Winston-Salem prohibit the introduction of such wastes".
Again turning to Webster's Dictionary, prohibit means "to refuse to
permit; forbid by law or by an order". Applying Webster's definitions to
the existing language and to the City's suggestion results in the NPDES
permit saying "Under no circumstances shall the permittee permit the
introduction of the following wastes in the waste treatment system..."
and the City suggesting that we "require Winston-Salem to refuse to per-
mit the introduction of such wastes".
The Division believes the present language is adequate.
22.) Pretreatment Program Resubmission
The permit will be changed to indicate that a modified program
description is required instead of an entire program.
23.) Submission of Information Requested by DEHNR
The Director's authority for this requirement comes from the follow-
ing regulations and statutes:
a.) NCGS 143-215.1(b)(1) empowers the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC) to grant permits with such conditions attached as
the EMC believes are necessary to achieve the purposes of Article
21;
b.) 15 NCAC 2H.0112(b) authorizes the Director to issue a permit
containing such conditions as .are necessary to effectuate the pur-
poses of G.S. 143-215.1;
c.) 15 NCAC 2H.0908(a) (40 CFR 403.12 (i) (4)) requires POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs to report on pretreatment program
implementation, to routinely submit some specific information and to
provide "any other relevant information requested by the Approval
Authority".
24.) Change in Definition of Significant Industrial User
The last sentence of part III.A.4 will be deleted.
25.) Status of Modifications to North Carolina's Pretreatment Program
All modifications to the Staters pretreatment regulations have been
made in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 123.62.
26.) Monitoring Frequency for Lead
The monitoring frequency for lead will be reduced to quarterly.

27.) Effluent Limit for Flow
The plant design flow is used to develop permit limits for oxvgen-
consuming wastes, metals, and toxics per 15 NCAC 23.0206(c). If the
design flow is exceeded, the limits developed for pollutants will no
longer protect water quality. Therefore, a flow limit is included in
NPDES permits.
We would like to meet with Winston-Salem representatives to discuss the
permit conditions. We will contact you in the near future to set up a con-
venient time. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve all of the permit issues
at the meeting. However, if your concerns are not adequately addressed at the
meeting, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within thirty (30) days following receipt of the issued permit. 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, Post Office Drawer 11666, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Unless
such a request is received by this Division, the requirements contained in the
issued permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact Dale Overcash or Trevor
Clements of my water quality staff at [phone].
S inderely,
R. Paul Wilms
cc: Steve Tedder
Dennis Ramsey
Don Safrit
Dale Overcash
Ken Eagleson
Steve Mauney
Doug Finan
P.uth Swanek
Central Files

PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
City of Winton-6a1em
September 15, 1989
Mr. Paul Wilms, Director
N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Request for Modification of the Terms of
NPDES Permit No. NC0050342
(Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant)
Dear. Mr. Wilms:
r[i
II
3Ep18 KW
SfP 20 ihoo
9gc
w � pad •
Pursuant to North Carolina Regulation 15NCAC 2B.0508(b), the City of
Winston-Salem is hereby requesting that the Division of Environmental
Management modify the terms and/or conditions contained in NPDES Permit
NC0050342 that are discussed in this correspondence.
The number of issues we are addressing herein are quite extensive. The
primary reason for this is that nearly all of Parts II and III of the permit
were not present in the draft permit and the language used in these parts is
very different from that found in our last permit. We suggest that a meeting
in Raleigh to discuss our concerns may be helpful should your staff concur.
exAL 1. The City of Winston-Salem requests the modification of the effluent BOD-5
�� limit for the 001 discharge to reflect a weekly CBOD5 limit of 40 mg/1
and a monthly CBOD5 limit of 25 mg/l. 0ur request is based on the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 133.102(a)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii), but we are
initiating this request because of the limitation the current BOD5 limit
is placing upon the long-term operation of the facility.
The oxygen demand exerted by ammonia upon the BOD5 test has made it
necessary for our staff to operate the plant as a single -stage
nitrification facility in order to meet the permit limitations. The
plant is not designed to nitrify at the design CBOD5 loading point and
the capacity of the plant to remove both ammonia and CBOD5 is limited.
Because the plant's ammonia removal capacity is limited, the plant cannot
fully utilize its sludge dewatering facilities because this operation
recycles large amounts of ammonia back to the headworks. We are
anticipating further restrictions in the use of the plant's sludge
handling facilities as the plant's CBOD5 loading approaches the design
point and aeration capacity becomes limiting as long as we are regulated
by BOD5.
Box 2511, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102

Mr. Wilms
Page 2
September 15, 1989
We have analytical data which demonstrates that nitrogenous oxygen demand
(NOD) interference in the BOD5 test is considerable (see Table I). Not
only EPA, but also a number of other states have come to the conclusion
that treatment systems that wholly or partially nitrify may, under
certain circumstances, actually discharge much less CBOD than the BOD5
test would indicate, thereby resulting in false positive indications of
effluent violations.
The City of Winston-Salem's objection to the BODS limit is not based on a
desire to reduce its environmental responsibility, but we merely wish to
employ the best science available to assure compliance and operate the
treatment facility as it was designed. Accordingly, CBOD5 should be
substituted for BODS with the consequent reduction from 30 mg/1 BOD5 to a
25 mg/1 CBODS monthly average and 45 mg/1 BOD5 to a 40 mg/1 CBOD5 for the
weekly average. Environmentally, the receiving water will not exhibit
any difference in dissolved oxygen.
Table I: Comparison of BOD5 and CBOD5 Analyses on the Muddy Creek Plant
Effluent
DATE CBODS BODS NH3-N NO3-N NO2-N
01-04-89 4.0 14.8 0.8 10.5
01-09-89 5.0 26.0 4.0 8.5 1.3
01-11-89 7.0 21.0 0.7 9.1
01-16-89 8.0 21.0 1.0 13.6 3.8
01-18-89 8.0 30.0 1.9 8.7
02-01-89 14.5 15.0 0.8 13.2
03-16-89 9.8 18.0 3.4 3.7 4.8
Note: All units of concentration are mg/1.
2. The permit requires quarterly chronic toxicity testing of the plant's
effluent and defines noncompliance as two successive samples exhibiting
chronic toxicity. The City of Winston-Salem objects to the inclusion of
any biomonitoring provision in this permit on the grounds that there is
t,N no evidence to indicate the plant's discharge is toxic and we do not feel
"'�
M 5 that the "mini -chronic" bioassay procedure has been refined to the point
f�sT' where reproductive impairment in test organisms can be accurately
correlated to toxicity in the receiving stream.
3.5 -
Winston-Salem further objects to the toxicity testing requirements on the
grounds that the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Agency, have determined under Clean Water
Act Part 304(1), 33 U.S.C. 1314(1), that further requirements for
Winston-Salem to address water quality toxic pollutants concerns are
unnecessary.

Mr.. Wilms
Page 3
September 15, 1989
DEHNR submitted to EPA lists identifying (1) waters which cannot be
reasonably expected to attain or maintain state water quality standards
due to toxic pollutants, see 33 U.S.C. 1314(1)(1)(A)(i), (2) waters which
cannot be reasonably expected to attain or maintain state water quality
to assure protection of public health, public water supplies,
agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water, see 33 U.S.C. 1314
(1)(1)(A)(ii), and (3) waters which the state does not expect to meet
water quality standards due entirely or substantially to discharges from
point sources of toxic pollutants, see 33 U.S.C. 1314 (1)(1)(B).
The lists prepared by DEHNR and responded to by EPA address narrative
water quality standards (e.g., no toxics in toxic amounts) as well as
numerical water quality standards. See 40 CFR 130.10(d)(4), 54 Federal
Register 23897 (June 2, 1989). The North Carolina 3041 lists demonstrate
that both the state and EPA have determined that further regulation of
the plant discharge is unnecessary to address toxics, i.e., that there is
no reasonable expectation that current discharge activities will result
in exceeding water quality standards. (Reference June 2, 1989 memorandum
from EPA Regional Administrator, Greer C. Tidwell, to DEHNR Secretary,
William C. Cobey.)
With respect to the "mini -chronic" bioassay procedure, there have been
numerous problems reported with inconsistent test results, unexplained
death among control groups, inability to duplicate test results between
laboratories and significant differences in the reproduction rates
between two control groups since the adoption of the "mini -chronic"
procedure.
Further, we do not know if there has been a determination as to whether
Ceriodaphnia Dubia are present in the Yadkin River. Accordingly, the
relevancy of the "mini -chronic" test using such test species is
questionable. A toxic impact to Ceriodaphnia Dubia, a species apparently
unduly susceptible to even harmless water qualities, does not necessarily
mean that there is a toxic impact to the aquatic life in the Yadkin
River.
The test procedure does not allow for the simulation of "in -stream"
conditions during the analysis. The 25 degree Centigrade cultivation
temperature used in the procedure does not reflect seasonal temperature
regimes and DEHNR's refusal to use water samples collected upstream of the
discharge to incubate the control organisms defeats the purpose of the
control baseline.
The City's staff is also concerned that the data evaluated by DEM staff
prior to adopting this procedure may not have been suitable to
demonstrate a valid correlation between the prediction of chronic
toxicity and the actual observation of chronic toxicity. Please note
that the phrase "may not be suitable" is used here because, to our
knowledge, DEM has not released the field data from the preliminary study
for public scrutiny.

Mr. Wilms
Page 4
September 15, 1989
Our staff's opinion that the data is questionable is based on comments
made before the Ad Hoc Triennial Review Committee by members of the DEM
staff. The committee was informed that a portion of the discharges
evaluated in the survey were chosen because it was known that the
discharges were acutely toxic.
Data collected at these locations would be misleading because the test
would be detecting a "failure" due to acute death rather than
reproductive impairment. To our knowledge DEM has never released data
which indicates the "mini -chronic" procedure is accurately measuring
reproductive impairment to the degree where it can be conclusively stated
that the impairment is due to the point source discharge.
,.. \ %\\
IH0S k,,i+'�- The 'imposition of toxicity testing requirements would impose unnecessary
S }"'5
3.
ter
ny
4.
resource intensive testing requirements upon the City. Inasmuch as the
state and EPA have determined that the current discharge meets all water
quality requirements, toxicity testing should be deleted from the permit.
Condition II.D.1. requires the City to notify DEHNR of significant
changes in the discharge. If such change occurs, at that time DEHNR can
reevaluate whether toxicity testing becomes necessary.
To the extent this issue can be resolved through a waiver request,
Winston-Salem hereby requests a waiver or modification of the toxicity
requirements under the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, R
2B.0508(b)(1). Winston-Salem reserves its rights to adjudicate this
issue should this request be denied.
The City of Winston-Salem also requests that DEM modify our obligation to
supply information, as provided for in Part II, A.11., to only that
information required to demonstrate permit compliance_ information
pertaining solely to the characteristics of the plant's discharge or
information needed by DEM to evaluate a request to modify the permit. 7
,tlar - c.e_ du• �. /to 4 w s. '�= '�e`%"� .
We are concerned that the term any may be used to require the City to
engage in detailed and expensive characterizations of areas where the
plant's discharge would not be the only factor under consideration.
Part II. B.3 prohibits any diversion or bypass of facilities except where
unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, including
damage of facilities from excessive storm drainage or runoff. This
provision should be modified, consistent with the federal bypass
regulation, to allow for bypass to prevent personal injury and severe
property damage [40 CFR Part 122.41 (m)(4)(A)]. Bypasses which do not
exceed permit limitations should also be authorized to allow for
essential maintenance to assure proper operation [40 CFR 122.41(M)(2)].

JS IL --
Mr. Wilms
Page 5
September 15, 1989
Furthermore, the City of. Winston-Salem objects to permit effluent
limitations being imposed upon a discharge to Muddy Creek via the 002
discharge should such discharge become necessary due to flood conditions
at the 001 discharge. Discharge to Muddy Creek (002) may otherwise
become necessary to prevent personal injury or severe property damage,
e.g. plant flooding. We believe these discharges clearly meet the
Federal NPDES standard for bypass in 40 CFR 122.41(M).
The City is proposing that the winter/summer limits outlined for the 002
discharge in Part I of the permit be in force only during conditions
where discharge via the 001 outfall is impossible due to conditions other
than flooding. Discharges of this type are consistent with the
provisions of Part III K. of the permit.
The City of Winston-Salem disagrees with the use of the terms "knowing
violations" and "knowingly" as they are used in Part II, Section D, 9C,
10, and 11 of the permit. These terms are not defined and their meaning
is open to interpretation.
Our concern is that the terms will be interpreted to include permit
violations the ORC "knows" of which are caused by circumstances beyond
the control of the City.
6. We would like to point out that Part III, A. 4(e) of the permit is worded
in a manner that prevents the City from deleting industries from the
pretreatment program once t eei y have Bone out of business.
The City requests that the provisions in Part III, A. 4(e) be amended to
read as follows: "has been included in the permittee's pretreatment
monitoring program submitted in accordance with Section 15 NCAC 2H.0906
of the North Carolina Administrative Code and has not been eliminated
from the pretreatment monitoring program in accordance with NCAC
2H.0907(b) and (c)."
/;f,.,tti , 8 .
The provisions in the permit dealing with the pretreatment program
requirements (Part III, A and B) are confusing because "Significant
Industrial User" isdefinedbut the term "Major Contributing Industry" is
actually used in the text.
The City is requesting that DEM either define both of these terms or
limit the usage to only one defined term so that it is clear as to which
industries must be included in the pretreatment program.
The City of Winston-Salem also requests an additional 30 days to submit
the Pretreatment Activity Reports required in Part III, B.6. of the
permit.

Mr. Wilms
Page 6
September 15, 1989
Our monitoring program is quite extensive, and it is difficult to gather
and incorporate all the information required for the last month of the
reporting period within 30 days (since much of this is self -monitoring
data).
9. Winston-Salem objects to the broad reopener permit conditions. Such
conditions (which include Parts II.A.4, II.A.5, III.G and III.H) have the
potential effect of subjecting Winston-Salem to a constant array of
'V
11D c�ianging requirements necessitating immediate responses which could
0lyry�,/ preclude a coordinated planned response to environmental concerns.
o Inasmuch as North Carolina is an approved NPDES state pursuant to Section
402(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1342(b), permitting
procedures are subject to certain minimum federal requirements. See 40
CFR Part 123. In recognition of minimum federal standards, and to avoid
over -regulating discharges beyond that required by the federal NPDES
program, state law provides that "effluent standards, limitations and
management practices. . . shall be no more restrictive than the most
nearly applicable federal effluent standards and limitations and
management practices." (N. C. General Statute Section 143-215(c).)
a5
The state regulation for modification of permits incorporates the
applicable federal standard (i.e., 40 CFR Section 122.62) and identifies
other good cause for permit modification. (N. C. Administrative Code
Title 15, R. 2II.0114(a).) The permit conditions, however, allow for
permit modification beyond the limited causes specified in federal and
state regulations, thereby subjecting Winston-Salem to more stringent
permit requirements than is required under federal law.
For example, permit condition Part III.G would provide for modification
of the permit upon a standard being modified to impose more stringent
requirements. Additional requirements could also then be added. Such
permit conditions are clearly inconsistent with federal and state
requirements.
The federal NPDES regulations reflect concerns raised by commenters to
the proposed NPDES regulations that the proposal would have opened the
prospect of endless round of reviews or "nonstop permitting" with permit
conditions being adjusted. The final regulations promulgated by EPA
recognized the need for providing the permittees a degree of certainty
and intentionally limited those instances in which a permit could be

Mr. Wilms
Page 7
September 15, 1989
modified. See 45 Federal Register 33308 (1980). 1/ To provide the
requisite amount of certainty to permittees, NPDES regulations only allow
EPA to initiate permit modification if the cause for modification meets
one of the limited criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 122. 2/
Modification of NPDES permits due to new requirements is only allowed if
the permittee requests such a change. 40 CFR Subsection
122.62(a)(3)(i)(C).
The City of Winston-Salem objects that Part III.G allows the permit to be
modified at any time based upon new requirements. This provision should
be modified to reflect that the permit can be modified based upon new
requirements only if Winston-Salem so requests. Furthermore, the permit
should provide that, based upon Winston-Salem's request, the permit can
also be modified to reflect any condition or limitation issued or
approved which is less stringent than the limitation issued in the permit
originally.
1/EPA preamble to the final NPDES regulations provide:
Accordingly, permit reissuance at regular five to ten year intervals,
instead of permit modification at unpredictable times, will be the
primary mechanism for adjusting permit requirements. In addition, EPA
has narrowed the grounds upon which a permit may be modified or
terminated during each permit term in order to provide a maximum amount
of security to permittees. (Emphasis added.)
45 Federal Register 33308 (1980)
2/EPA preamble to the final NPDES regulations provide:
EPA has rewritten the permit modification section in two ways as part of
the effort (see also Sections 122.9 and 122.13 and accompanying preamble)
to provide greater certainty to permittees during the period when they
hold permits and thereby make it easier to make business decisions and
obtain financing. First, EPA has narrowed the circumstances under which
a permit may be modified during its fixed term. Second, EPA has narrowed
the scope of the changes that can be made when a permit of fixed but not
lifetime duration is reopened during its term.
. . . .The list of causes for modifying a permit is narrow; and absent
cause from this list, the permit cannot be modified. (Emphasis added.)
45 Federal Register 33314 (1980).

Mr. Wilms
Page 8
September 15, 1989
xi tit jv /Iv ,
The broad reopener conditions set forth in the Winston-Salem permit fail
to provide Winston-Salem the requisite planning certainty. Such broad
permit reopeners, which provide for more stringent effluent limitations
than is required under federal law, are inconsistent with state law. N.
C. General Statute Section 143-215(c). The City merely requests that its
permit be consistent with state and EPA requirements, i.e., be provided
with the requisite security that its permit can only be modified for
limited reasons. Accordingly, permit conditions I.I, III.G and III.H
should be deleted.
Furthermore, Part II. A.5 of the permit should be deleted. This
condition requires compliance with new effluent standards for toxic
pollutants established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act even
if the State has not modified the permit.
We feel very strongly that all permit limits should be implemented by DEM
through NPDES permits since DEM is mandated to protect the water quality
in the state. It is unrealistic to assume that every industry and
municipality has the staff to keep up with federal changes and know what
will be needed to be added to a permit.
Further, we feel that adding a limit without changing a permit does not
allow the permittee to plan to meet a new change (such as through a SOC
or a condition to a permit). It may automatically put such a permittee
in noncompliance without allowing normal due process, such as a comment
period or the ability to construct changes to meet a new limit.
Establishing concentration limits for point sources often involves the
development of complex models used to calculate load allocations. We are
concerned that the State may institute enforcement actions against us if
the effluent limits developed by the City's staff, as required by this
provision, were higher than the limits eventually included in a revised
permit issued by DEM.
10. Part III, D. of the proposed permit requires that no construction or
additions be made to the facility without DEM authorization, and we
interpreted this to mean DEM approval must be obtained on every minor
construction project or modification made at the plant. We feel very
strongly that this approach is unworkable.
ot-
We suggest that this provision be limited to those construction projects
undertaken to add to the plant's treatment capacity or those intended to
change the type of process used in the plant's system. Minor
construction such as changing a pump location or other items not adding
to capacity or changing the treatment scope should not need such a
review.

Mr.. Wilms
Page 9
September 15, 1989
Moreover, we note that the D. C. Court of Appeals has held that EPA lacks
the authority to impose a construction ban under the NPDES program. NRDC
v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1987). At a minimum, DEHNR should avoid
interruption of minor construction deemed necessary by Winston-Salem.
Accord N. C. General Statute Section 143-215(c).
11. The March 1, 1989 draft permit informally provided by DEHNR to
Winston-Salem did not contain permit conditions Part II (Standard
Conditions for NPDES Permits) or Part III (Other Requirements).
EPA regulations, which apply to approved state NPDES programs, provide
that the permit applicant is to be mailed a copy of, among other things,
the fact sheet and draft permit for comment during the public comment
period. 40 CFR Section 124.10(e). The draft permit is required to
include all applicable permit conditions. 40 CFR Section 124.6(d).
Failure to include Part II and Part III in the draft permit denied
Winston-Salem of the minimum protection mandated by the federal
regulations. Accordingly, Winston-Salem objects to all of the Part II and
Part III requirements included in the issued permit. This letter,
nevertheless, sets forth a noninclusive list of issues identified during
the limited time Winston-Salem has had to review these new requirements.
Winston-Salem reserves its right to supplement these comments in these
areas and to adjudicate the permit conditions if denied.
Winston-Salem also believes it should have been provided a fact sheet
setting forth the bases for the permit conditions. See 40 CFR Section
124.8; N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15, R 2H.0108. Winston-Salem hereby
requests a copy of the fact sheet and reserves its right to supplement
these comments based upon information provided therein.
12. Part I.B.2 requires Winston-Salem to operate the facilities "at optimum
efficiency" and Part II.B.1 requires plant operation "as efficiently as
possible." Such requirements are vague and subject to confusion as to
whether Winston-Salem would be required to operate the treatment plant to
ot," achieve greater treatment than necessary to comply with the applicable
permit effluent limitations. Winston-Salem objects to these vague permit
conditions to the extent treatment would be required beyond that
necessary to meet applicable federal and state effluent limitations.

Mr. Wilms
Page 10
September 15, 1989
Effluent limitations are established under the NPDES program to assure
compliance with minimum technology -based requirements (i.e., secondary
treatment) and any more stringent water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C.
Section 1311. Federal and state regulations do not require greater
operation and maintenance of the facility than that necessary to meet
permit effluent limitations. See e.g. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
143-215(c); 40 CFR Section 122.41(e). EPA preamble discussion provides:
One commenter argued that if a permittee can meet
its permit requirements by operating its treatment
or control systems at less that [sic] optimum ef-
ficiency, rather than at "designed facility remov-
als," it should be allowed to do so. EPA agrees ...
45 Fed. Reg. 33303 (May 19, 1980).
These permit conditions should be modified, consistent with federal NPDES
requirements, to require the treatment plant to be "properly" operated
and maintained. 40 CFR Section 122.41(e).
13. Part II.A.7 provides that the permit shall not be construed to relieve
the permittee from liabilities to which the permittee is or may be
subject to under Section 311 of the Federal Act. Liability under Section
t311 of the Clean Water Act only applies to discharges. The definition of
discharges, however, excludes activities subject to an NPDES permit. See
33 U.S.C. Section 1321(a) (2). In other words, the NPDES permit, as a
matter of law, provides the permittee protections from liability under
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. This permit condition should be
prefaced with the language "Except as provided by law."
14. Part II.D.2 provides that any maintenance of the facilities, which might
necessitate unavoidable interruption of operation and degradation of
effluent quality, shall be scheduled during noncritical water quality
periods and carried out in a manner approved by the permit issuing
authority.
It may not always be possible to schedule maintenance during noncritical
water quality periods. This permit condition should be limited to
routine maintenance which can reasonably be scheduled by the permittee.
Furthermore, the term "noncritical water quality period" may need to be
clarified; it apparently means any flows greater than the 7Q10 identified
under N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15, R 2B.0206.
Furthermore, criteria is not spelled out for DEHNR approval of
maintenance. The City objects to being subject to unbridled DEHNR
approval/disapproval discretion every time the City needs to undertake
maintenance of its facilities. The provision for DEHNR approval should
be deleted.

Mr. Wilms
Page 11
September 15, 1989
15. Part II.D.8 provides that the permittee is not authorized to discharge
after the expiration date. NPDES permittees, however, are authorized, if
applicable law so provides, to continue discharge after the expiration
date set forth on the permit if the permittee has submitted a complete
and timely permit application and the permit issuing authority does not
issue a new permit before the expiration date of the prior permit. See 5
U.S.C. Section 554(c); 40 CFR Section 122.4(a).
This provision should be modified to reflect that the permit continues if
Winston-Salem submits a timely permit application. N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 150A-3(A). The City should not be deemed to be discharging
without a permit if DEHNR fails to timely issue a new permit.
16. Part II.A.4 would require the City to report any past or planned activity
which would be cause for modification or revocation and reissuance of the
permit. The City objects to this reporting burden. Other permit
conditions would require the City to provide notice of any planned change
in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance
with permit requirements and to provide DEHNR any requested information
to determine whether cause exists for permit modification. See Parts
II.D.2 and II.A.11 of the permit, respectively.
State regulations set forth reporting obligations of a permittee. N.C.
Admin. Code tit. 15, R. 28.0506(a). Neither federal NPDES regulations
nor state regulations require a permittee to report instances in which
the permittee believes a permit modification to be appropriate. For
example, it is not the permittee's obligation to monitor all regulatory
and judicial decisions to determine whether a permit modification may be
appropriate. This permit condition should be deleted.
17. Part II.D.6.d requires the City to notify DEHNR by telephone within 24
hours of becoming aware of noncompliance with its NPDES permit
limitations. Written follow-up would be required.
Twenty-four hour notification is only required for certain potential
emergency situations. State regulations identify those atypical
situations which warrant immediate telephone notification and written
follow-up. N.C. Admin. Code tit. 15, R. 28.0506(a). Permit exceedance,
except those due to one of the potential emergency situations delineated
in the state regulations, only need to be identified in the monthly
discharge monitoring report. Although Winston-Salem typically calls the
State whenever we know of non -emergency noncompliance, we don't want this
as a regulated item by permits.
The permit language regarding emergency reporting of every permit
exceedance should be deleted. Accord 40 CFR Section 122.41(1)(6).

Mr. Wilms
Page 12
September 15, 1989
18.
19.
20.
'f401
k5
Part II.D.7 would require the City to notify DEHNR of any activity which
has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge of certain
specified pollutants. This permit condition is based upon EPA regulation
40 CFR Section 122.42(a). The EPA regulation has undergone extensive
rule making and public participation procedures over the years.
Nevertheless, EPA has determined that such requirement is not appropriate
for municipal discharge permits, it is limited to specified industrial
dischargers. 40 CFR Section 122.42(a). Municipal NPDES permits issued
by EPA do not include this condition. Accordingly, this reporting
obligation is unnecessary and should be deleted.
Winston-Salem objects to Part II.D.4 and Part III.F which provide that
DEM, by written notification, may require more frequent monitoring or the
monitoring of other pollutants not required by this permit. Federal
regulations applicable to approved state NPDES program, require all
permit modifications to undergo public participation procedures except
for those permit modification which are identified as minor permit
modifications. 40 CFR Section 122.62. Minor permit modifications,
however, can only be undertaken with the consent of the permittee. 40
CFR Section 122.63.
The City is willing to determine on a case -by -case basis, whether
increased monitoring requirements should appropriately be processed as a
minor modification or as a modification subject to the full public
participation requirements. Th City objects to DEM's purported authority
to unilaterally modify the NPDES permit without the City's consent or
providing due process procedures. Such permit condition is inconsistent
with minimum requirements for federal NPDES programs.
Part I.J.2 would require the largest 10 GC/MS peaks in each organic
chemical analytic fraction to be identified and quantified. Unless the
peak is of such magnitude that the pollutant can be identified at a
confidence level of at least 90 percent, information would be of
questionable value.
Obtaining the proposed information pertaining to the 10 GC/MS peaks is
resource intensive. Winston-Salem objects to this provision and
requests that it be deleted or be limited to GC/MS peaks which can lead
to identification of a pollutant with a confidence level of at least 90
percent.
21. Part III.A.2 provides that "[u]nder no circumstances shall the permittee
allow the introduction of the following wastes in the waste treatment
system...." The specified wastes are generally those wastes set forth in
the federal pretreatment specific prohibitions. (40 CFR Section
403.5(b).)

Mr. Wilms
Page 13
September 15, 1989
FP"4.4
Winston-Salem ordinances already prohibit industrial user discharge of
such wastes. A violation of Winston-Salem's ordinances subjects an
industrial user to appropriate enforcement action by the City.
Winston-Salem does not "allow" the discharge in violation of such
standards.
The City's concern regarding the permit condition is that the language is
vague and subject to the potential interpretation that the City can be in
violation of its permit if an industrial user discharges waste to the
treatment system in violation of the prohibitions. The City objects to
the vague permit language and requests that it be deleted. Alternatively
the language should be clarified to require that Winston-Salem prohibit
the introduction of such wastes into the treatment system. Winston-Salem
should not be liable for illegal discharge activities of industrial
users.
22. Part III.A.4 provides that prior to accepting wastewater from any
significant industrial user the permittee shall develop, and submit to
the Division for approval, a pretreatment program. This permit
requirement is inappropriate; Winston-Salem already has an approved
pretreatment program. Federal and state pretreatment program
requirements do not require a new pretreatment program to be developed
every time a new significant industrial user comes on line. See N.C.
Admin. Code tit. 15, R. 2H.0906; 40 CFR Part 403. Such an approach is
unnecessary and would be extremely resource intensive.
Furthermore, copies of permits to be issued to all significant industrial
users are sent to DEHNR. The permitting process already provides the
state a significant role in addressing requirements for significant
industrial users.
23. Part III.B.6.(f) of the permit would require the City to submit any
information requested by the DEHNR. State regulations, however, set
forth information to be provided in a pretreatment report. N. C.
Administrative Code Title 15, R. 2H.0908. Winston-Salem objects to the
permit condition in that it purports to provide DEHNR broad and unbridled
discretion to impose reporting obligations. Such reporting requirement
is inconsistent with the specified reporting requirements set forth in
state regulations and should be deleted.
24. Part III.A.4. provides that any change in the definition of significant
industrial user shall become a part of the permit. Winston-Salem objects
to the permit incorporating any future changes as depriving Winston-Salem
of its due process rights to access what specific requirements are being
imposed, to comment on the requirements and challenge such requirements,
as necessary. Furthermore, the incorporation of future federal
requirements may be an unconstitutional abdication of State authority to
the federal government. See Rochvarg, State Adoption of Federal
Law --Legislative Abdication or Reasoned Policymaking?, 36 Admin. L.Rev.
277 (1984)

Mr. Wilms
Page 14
September 15, 1989
25. EPA regulations set forth requirements for the federal approval of state
pretreatment programs. (40 CFR Section 403.10.) North Carolina was
approved by EPA in June 1982 to implement the federal pretreatment
program. EPA regulations also set forth procedural requirements for
modification of approved programs. The federal procedures provide for
public notice in the Federal Register of the proposed changes and the
opportunity to comment on such requirements. 40 CFR Section 123.62.
North Carolina has made significant changes in its pretreatment program
since initial EPA program approval. These changes have not been subject
to the program revision procedures set forth in EPA regulations. Some of
the provisions in North Carolina's current pretreatment regulations may
not be consistent with EPA program approval standards. Winston-Salem
objects to NPDES permit requirements being imposed based upon state
regulations which have not been formally approved by EPA.
Pretreatment permit requirements based upon state regulations which have
not been formally approved by EPA should be deleted from Winston-Salem's
permit. Alternatively, the permit and fact sheet should clearly state
that only those pretreatment permit requirements based upon state
regulations in existence as of the date of EPA pretreatment program
approval are deemed to be federal requirements and federally enforceable.
See, e.g., 133 Cong. Rec. S733-767 (daily ed. Jan. 14, 1987).
26. The City of Winston-Salem is also requesting that DEM modify the
,,monitoring frequency for lead from monthly to quarterly for the 001
Oh. discharge at the effluent, upstream, and downstream sample sites. We
P0'0 �v feel that quarterly monitoring will be adequate to provide DEM a data
c ' A d base and allow us to expend our analytical resources on high priority
areas. /g5 27. Winston-Salem objects to the effluent limitation imposed upon flow.
Federally issued NFDES permits do not regulate flow as an effluent
limitation, it is merely a sampling requirement. The rationale behind
this approach is that flow is not a pollutant and, therefore, should not
be regulated as are other pollutants. See 33 U.S.C. Section 1362(6).
Federal and state regulations require compliance with minimum
technology -based requirements (i.e., secondary treatment) and state water
quality standards. See generally 40 CFR Part 125. Imposition of water
quality -based permit limits entails a determination of the maximum
pollutant mass discharge (e.g., the total maximum daily load or TMDL)
that may occur without violating water quality standards. Once the
allowable mass loading is established, a concentration -based permit limit
may be established, where necessary, based on the expected facility flow.
See generally 40 CFR Section 130.7.

Mr. Wilms
Page 15
September 15, 1989
Under North Carolina's program, a facility can be fully in compliance
with the applicable technology and water quality -based requirements
reflected by its effluent limitations but, nevertheless, still be in
violation of its permit if the treatment facility flow is in excess of
that stated in the permit. This places the facility in the situation of
being subject to potentially significant fines for completely acceptable
discharges.
The effluent limitation for flow should be deleted. As long as
Winston-Salem is meeting its effluent limitations for the pollutants of
concern, its flow should not be arbitrarily limited. Winston-Salem does
not object to flow being included in the permit as only a monitoring
requirement, if necessary. Further, we do not see the deletion of flow
as requiring any additional limits.
The City of Winston-Salem wishes to reaffirm our continued dedication to the
protection of water quality in North Carolina. Toward this end, all our
requests regarding this permit are being made with a constructive intent.
Your letter of August 14, 1989, received by the City on August 17, 1989,
states that Winston-Salem may request a waiver or modification pursuant to N.
C. Administrative Code Title 15, R 2B.0508(b). Winston-Salem has concerns
that a waiver or modification may not be available under the cited authority
for all of the issues discussed above. In deference to your stated
preference, Winston-Salem hereby requests a waiver or modification to address
all of the issues raised above, and those issues identified in any supplement
to this letter. If your stated procedure is not applicable to any of the
issues, Winston-Salem hereby requests an adjudicatory hearing in order to
preserve our rights on all of these issues.
Please advise us how DEM intends to address these matters. We would like to
meet with you to discuss the procedural and substantive issues raised. Such
discussion may serve to avoid an adjudicatory hearing or further appeal.
Please contact Mr. Stan Webb at 919/784-7400 if you have any questions. Your
cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
LITIES D WISIO
om Griffin
Utilities Supe 'intendent
/sw

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Winston-Salem Regional Office
November 15, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Trevor Clements,
Assistant Water Quality Section Chief
Technical Support Unit
THROUGH: M. Steven Mauney 'v
Water Quality Supervisor
FROM: James C. Watson ---
Environmental Engineer .14-03
SUBJECT: Comments concerning Permit
Modification Request
Lower Muddy Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant
NPDES No. NC0050342
Forsyth County
• 1 ' i •
•
rr:OV 1 71989
We have reviewed your above mentioned response to the
City of Winston-Salem's concerns. Although we appreciate
the opportunity for our input, we have no additional
comments to make at this time.
The suggestion that you made regarding inviting the
City of Winston-Salem into our Regional Office for a meeting
was an excellent idea. Please consider the dates. 11/14/89
through 11/30/89 as possible dates for the meeting as M.
Steven Mauney, Water Quality Supervisor and Larry D. Coble,
Regional Supervisor, will both be available.
If additional information is required prior to the
meeting, please advise.
JCw/vm
cc: Central Files
WSRO