NC0024201_Permit (Modification)_19971215

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024201
Roanoke River 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
Report
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
December 15, 1997
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse side

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 15, 1997
Mr. Macon Reavis, Jr., Superintendent
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
P. O. Box 308
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870
A;1•7,11
DENR
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification
Permit No. NC0024201
Roanoke Rapids WWTP
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Reavis:
In accordance with the Petition for Contested Case Hearing, the Division is issuing this modified permit as
agreed upon in the settlement of this case. This modification includes a revised permit cover page and revised
Supplement to Effluent Limitations and Monitoring pages. The modifications reflect continuation of chronic
toxicity testing at 1.3% effluent until February 1, 1999. Beginning February 1, 1999, toxicity testing shall be
conducted at 39% effluent. The Permittee always has the option to relocate the outfall to the Roanoke River.
Should relocation be requested, toxicity testing at 1.3% effluent will resume.
Please mote the attached permit cover page and supplement pages should be placed in your pertnit and the
old ones discarded. All other terms and conditions contained in the original permit remain unchanged and in full
effect. These modifications are 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.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Mark McIntire, telephone
number [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely,
. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Central Files
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality
NPDES Unit, Permit File
Point Source Compliance / Enforcement Unit
Aquatic. Toxicology Unit
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Permit No. NC0024201
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District WWTP
off of US Highway 158
northeast of Weldon
Halifax County
to receiving waters designated as Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River in the Roanoke River
Basin.
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective January 1, 1998
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2002
Signed this December 15, 1997
. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY SPECIAL CONDITION
The Permittee shall perform quarterly chronic toxicity testing according to the following schedule:
1). From December 15, 1997 through January 31, 1999, the Permittee shall conduct quarterly P/F chronic
toxicity testing using ceriodaphnia at 1.3% in accordance with part A (4) below.
2). From February 1, 1999 until relocation of the outfall to the Roanoke River or permit expiration, the
Permittee shall conduct quarterly P/F chronic toxicity testing using ceriodaphnia at 39% in accordance with
part A (5) below.
3). Should the Permittee choose to relocate the outfall to the Roanoke River prior to expiration, quarterly P/F
chronic toxicity testing at 1.3% in accordance with part A (4) below will be required.
A (4). CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUATERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic. Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is 1.3%
(defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this
procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. 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.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin
immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly
in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to
quarterly in the months specified above.

Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
A (4). Continued
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 (5). CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUATERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is 39%
(defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this
procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. 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.
All toxicity. testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin
immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly
in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to
quarterly in the months specified above.

s
Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
A (4). Continued
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.(6) Metals Reopener Condition
Although all metals monitoring for this facility has been removed from the NPDES permit, if the discharge exhibits toxic
characterstics or reports significant failure of the chronic toxicity test, this permit may be reopened and metals monitoring
and/or limitations may be installed.

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
NC0024201
Discharge Point:
Latitude: 36°26'10"
Longitude: 77°36'34"
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
LIGHT -DUTY ROAD. HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
UNIMPROVED ROAD =
Latitude see above
Longitude see above
Map # I29NE Sub -basin 03-02-08
Stream Class
C
Discharge Class
78.7 % Domestic, 21.3% Industrial
Receiving Stream Chockoyette Creek or Roanoke River
Design Q 8.34 MGD Permit expires 05/ 31 / 02
0
SCALE 1:24 000
0
1 MILE
:�OCS[�FR'C/R?O.CG6LnW
7000 FEET
;max m,
ays�z�x axc.:z-ze;.�
:zz:.x�m`en
0
1 KILOMETER
WigagAl
CONTOUR INTERVAL 25 FEET
Roanoke Rapids
NC0024201
Halifax County
WWTP

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 20, 1997
Mr. Macon Reavis, Jr., Superintendent
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
P. O. Box 308
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870
Dear Mr. Reavis:
AvW5IPTA
EDIEF-INJ I
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0024201
Roanoke Rapids WWTP
• Halifax County
In accordance with the application for discharge permit received on November 26, 1996, the Division is
forwarding herewith the subject state - 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.
In response to your comments regarding the draft NPDES permit received May 28, 1997, the Division
offers the following:
• The BOD limit for both effluent pages has been changed to CBOD.
• The monitoring requirement for fecal coliform for the period of time prior to June 1, 1999 has been
modified to 2/Month at the existing instream locations. The location of the fecal coliform sampling
point for the period of time after May 31, 1999 has been defined as effluent only.
• As Roanoke Rapids does not currently chlorinate, the total residual chlorine monitoring requirement for
the period of time prior to June 1, 1999 has been removed.
• Continuous reading probes for dissolved oxygen and pH will be acceptable.
• Chronic toxicity testing shall be conducted at the existing test percentage, 1.3 %, for the first year of
the permit. Thereafter, toxicity testing will be conducted at 52 %.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements 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, Post Office Drawer 27447, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7447. Unless such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. Part II, E.4. addresses the requirements to be
followed in case of change in ownership or control of this discharge.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by the
Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or
any other Federal or Local governmental permits may be required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Mark McIntire, telephone
number [phone], extension 553.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P_E.
cc: Central Files
Mr. Roosevelt Childress, EPA
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality
Permits and Engineering Unit
Facility Assessment Unit
Aquatic Survey and Toxicology Unit

Permit No. NC0024201
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY •
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended,
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District WWTP
off of US Highway 158
northeast of Weldon
Halifax County
to receiving waters designated as Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River in the Roanoke River
Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective August 1, 1997
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2002
Signed this day June 20, 1997
Original Signed By
David A. Goodrich
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an 8.34 MGD municipal wastewater treatment facility (outfall
001) consisting of a bar screen, grit chamber, dual primary clarifiers, dual roughing
trickling filters, triple aeration basins, dual final clarifiers, chlorination and
dechlorination, dual secondary gravity sludge thickeners, triple anaerobic digestors,
lime stabilization facilities, sludge storage and sludge drying beds at a facility
located northeast of Weldon, Halifax County (See Part III of this Permit), and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached map
into Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River (outfall 001) which is classified Class
C waters in the Roanoke River Basin.

Roanoke Rapids. Sanitary District
NC0024201
Discharge Point:
Latitude: 36°26'10"
Longitude: 77°36'34"
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
PRIMARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
HARD SURFACE
UGHr-DUTY ROAD, HARD OR
IMPROVED SURFACE
UNIMPROVED ROAD
Latitude see above Longitude see above
Map # 129NE Sub -basin 03-02-08
Stream Class C
Discharge Class 78.7 % Domestic, 21.3% Industrial
Receiving Stream Chockoyette Creek or Roanoke River
Design Q 8.34 MGD Permit expires 05/ 31 / 02
Roanoke Rapids
NC0024201
Halifax County
WWTP

A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Permit No. NC0024201
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until May 31, 1999, 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:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily .
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location'
Flow (MGD)
8.34
Continuous
Weekly
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C2
25.0 mg/L
37.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3-N
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
2/Month
Grab
U,D
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E,U,D
pH3
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity4
Quartery
Composite
E
Notes:
2
3
4
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at 308 Rollingwood Road, on the Roanoke River and the US 158 crossing on Chockoyotte Creek, D-
Downstream at the US 158 crossing on the Roanoke River. Upstream and downstream monitoring shall be conducted three times per week during June, July, August and
September, and weekly during the rest of the year.
The monthly average effluent CBOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
Chronic Toxicity ; See condition A(3) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations page.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

4.
A. (2) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
Permit No. NC0024201
During the period beginning on June 1, 1999 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:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
•
LIMITS
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
Sample
Location1
Flow (MGD)
8.34
Continous
Recording
I or E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C2
25.0 mg/L
37.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3-N
Daily
Composite
E
Fecal Coliform (geometric mean)
200 /100 mL
400 /100mL
Daily
Grab
E
Total Residual Chlorine
28 pg/L
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily
Grab
E, U, D
pH3
Daily
Grab
E
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Nitrogen (NO2+NO3+TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity4
_
Quartery
Composite
E
Notes:
2
3
4
Sample Locations: E - Effluent, I - Influent, U - Upstream at 308 Rollingwood Road, on the Roanoke River and the US 158 crossing on Chockoyotte Creek, D-
Downstream at the US 158 crossing on the Roanoke River. Upstream and downstream monitoring shall be conducted three times per week during June, July; August and
September, and weekly during the rest of the year,
The monthly average effluent ClgOD5 and Total Suspended Residue concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored daily at the effluent by grab sample.
Chronic Toxicity; See condition A(3) of the Supplement to Effluent Limitations page.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.

Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY SPECIAL CONDITION
The Permittee shall perform quarterly chronic toxicity testing according to the following schedule:
1). From August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998, the Permittee shall conduct quarterly P/F chronic toxicity
testing using ceriodaphnia at 1.3% in accordance with part A (4) below.
2). From August 1, 1998 until the expiration date of this permit, the Permittee shall conduct quarterly P/F
chronic toxicity testing using ceriodaphnia at 52% in accordance with part A (5) below.
A (4). CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUATERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is 1.3%
(defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this
procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. 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.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin
immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly
in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to
quarterly in the months specified above.
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.

•
Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
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 (5). CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QUATERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in the "North Carolina
Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised November 1995, or subsequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality is 52%
(defined as treatment two in the procedure document). The permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring using this
procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. 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.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring
Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter code TGP3B. Additionally, DWQ Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in association
with the toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. 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 any single quarterly monitoring indicate a failure to meet specified limits, then monthly monitoring will begin
immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to quarterly
in the months specified above.
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required, then monthly monitoring will
begin immediately until such time that a single test is passed. Upon passing, this monthly test requirement will revert to
quarterly in the months specified above.
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.

Permit No. NC0024201
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued)
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.(6) Metals Reopener Condition
Although all metals monitoring for this facility has been removed from the NPDES permit, if the discharge exhibits toxic
characterstics or reports significant failure of the chronic toxicity test, this permit may be reopened and metals monitoring
and/or limitations may be installed.

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone]
cIZQ ac
u 22. n
STATE OF NORTH CARATA
�7
COUNTY OF HALIFA.X
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, OENR,
Respondent
MINIM
Jan 26 '98 11:55
•
P. 01
• P V: 9 6 :
. , Ant;. `. Y ► E.NE, iAL
Eiw;ronmentM DiVisioI
IN' THE OFFICE OF
ADNENNISTRATIVE MEAR NGS
97EMI 0855
)
)
)
)
NOTICE OF WIT EDRAWAL
) OF PETITION
)
)
)
Petitioner hereby withdraws its petition for a contested case hearing. No further
proceedings are needed or required to resolve the contested case captioned above_
Respectfully submitted, this _ day of January,1998.
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
post-4tv Fax Note
To lOvt /��,,
CoiDept. ? W&
phoRa #
Fax 4#
7671
Dat
From
ao.
Ir.:1AgYkA64
—
Elizabeth Powell Xenia, N.': ar #15609
SMITH kIELMS MULLIS , MOORE, L.L.P.
Post Office Box 27525
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
. # gad.
k-06/
•
Phone fi
Fax l#

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Jan 26 '98 11:55 P.02
CERTWLC.ATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day filed an oriel and one copy of this NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL in the Office of Administrative Hearings at the address specified below and that
I have, by first class mail, served a copy of the same an counsel for the Respondent at the address
specified below:
Office of Administrative Hearings
Post Office Box 27447
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447
Mr. BartNjoiu-obi
Mirth Carolina Department of Alsace
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Telephone: [phone]
This the 22. day of January, 1998.
ELIZABETH POWELL

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Dec 16 '9? 15:04 P.01
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 1L LIAAX
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT,
Petitioner,
v.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, DENR,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BEARINGS
97 EMIR 0855
STATUS REPORT
NOW COMES Petitioner, Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, and Respondent, Division of
Water Quality, and submits this Status Report as requested by the Court. The Parties have
attached a copy of the Settlement Agreement executed by both parties. This Agreement indicates
that this case will be dismissed, with prejudice, by Petitioner, upon its receipt of an draft
permit revised in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. According to counsel for
Respondent, the draft permit is currently being prepared and will be forwarded to Petitioner for
review by December 19, 1997.
Respectfully submitted, this the 16 day of December, 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QU
i
y: Bart Njoku-o
NC Bar #23408
North Carolina Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Telephone: [phone]
Peoutaxelgszothie1304.56
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By: eth Powell Yenta
N.C. Bar #15609
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
2800 Two Hannover Square
Post Office Box 27525
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Post-1 Fax NOW
1b IJI! r
CO./Dept.
Phone*
W#
Pfra
7671
PAY( Prom
- /
Dal* f)
Co.
4
FIT
PageS
G >b7
Plsane iF / �d Qa
FeX y

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Dec 16 '97 10:44 P.01
Mr. Bart Njoku-obi
Associate Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
114 West Edenton Street, 3rd Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L. L. P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLQTTc RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
POST PF/,GL aox 3I7;47
r:HARLOTTE, N. C. 28231 HAILING ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS
;I,GPNONE 704/9AS'000 POST OFFICE 80X 276E7 2800 TWO HANNOVER SQUARE
wcBIMILE 70+n340-or RALEIGH, N. C. 27811 RALEIGH, N. C. 27801
\/NlrcR'e DIFCCT DIAL
[phone]
TELEPHONE iI9/766-977Q
FACSIMILE 919/76¢.00
December 15, 1997
GREENSBORQ
POSIT orrleq a0X 2;027
GREENSBORO, N. C. 27420
TSL,(pHON; 910/3717•M200
FAC8Ir.1LE 90/0 Q-8SS8
vra 11AND DELIVERY ANC 1 5 I'll/
Emlllrenr:":.nctal c;; )r)
Re: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NCDEHNR, DWQ OAN, 97 EllR 0855,
Halifax County
Dear Bart:
I have attached for your files the original Settlement Agreement signed by Macon
Reavis on behalf of the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District. It is my understanding that your
client is already working on the draft revised permit. Pleashay-them send it directly to the
District, with a copy to me, when it is ready.
.�y
Thank you for your assistance.
EPY:isc
Enclosure
cc: Macon Reavis
Wendell Moseley
Very truly yours,
SMITH HELMS MCTLLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
Elizabeth Powerxa�
Post-ir Fa Note 7671
T° %11crk l�thre
Go.mept De4✓ /^
Phone k (�J
c.
D2lte,2/,.,%r1��7JPagcs► 3
From - CC��
Co. A/C, -
Phone aY
5
714 44 e 1
• At-. my is-l/.
�6►rlh2 vt,!r,"ye..

•
WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Dec 16 '97 10:45 P.02
SEITILBA N'T AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement is. entered. into this the 26th day of November, 1997, by and
between the State of North Carolina by and droughts Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water r • 'ty (hereinafter "DWQ") and the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District (hereinafter NRRSD'), collectively referred to herein as the Parties.
STIPULATIONS AND RECITALS
The Parties stipulate and agree to the following;
A. RRSD operates a municipal wastewater treatment facility which is pe n fitted to
discharge 8.34 MOD of .treated•effiut at the mouth of •Chockoyotte Creek at•the Roanolo
River in the Roanoke River Basin.
B. DWQ is authorized to sue permits containing conditions necessary to
effectuate the purposes of O.S. 14.3-215.1.
C. On June 20, 1997, DWQ issued NPDBS Permit NC0024201 to RRSD.
D. RRSD filed a Petition for Contested Ca$e Hearing on July 10, 1997,
challenging its NPDES permit based on, among other things, the insertion of a toxicity limit in
the permit and the calculation of the insteam waste comlentration (IWC) for the toxicity test
percentage.
E. The Parties participated in a court ordered mediation on November 10, 1997, at
which the terms of this settlement agreement were discussed.
NOW TORE, in consideration of the above stipulations and the terms and
conditions set forth herein, the Parties agree that
..;1 DWQ•will reissue .NFDES Permit Number 'NC0024 1 with the follow ng
revisions:
a. Special Condition A(3) will be reyised to require quarterly pass/fail
chronic toxicity testing based on an IWC of 1.3% until February 1, 1999 and an IWC of 39%
from February 1, 1999 until relocation of the discharge pipe in accordance with Subsection
1(b) below or until expiration of the permit.
b. RRSD may choose to relocate. its discharge to a surface discharge en the
south bank of the Roanoke River downstream of the Chockoyoute Creek. A diffuser shall not
be required to be installed for such discharge. The exact location wI11 be negotiated by RRSD
and DWQ during the approval process for the Authorization to Construct.
Doemacat Numb= inff16

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Dec 16 '97 10:45 P.03
c. If the discharge is. relocated in accordance with Subsection 1(b) above
prior to January 31, 1999, the IWC will remain at 1.3* for the current permitted flow of 8.34
MGD.
2. This Settlement Agr ement.Fesolves, settles and forever discharges all issues
pertaining to and arising in connection with RRSD's challenge to NPDES permit NC0024201
and contested case Rik Rapids Sat ry mitt vM, 97 ERR 0855.
3. That neither this Settlement Agreement,, nor any of the findings or allegations
which have been settled as a part of this Settlement A ft, shall be used by the DWQ or
RRSD, their agents or delegates, in connection with the consideration of the application for, or
renewal, modification, or issuance of, permits issued to RRSD by the Division of Water
Quality.
4. That coincident with the parties agreement on the wording of the (draft) revised
permit, RRSD will dismiss, with prejudice, its administrative appeal. Thereafter, DWQ will
issue the agreed -upon revised permit.
5. The parties further agree and.acknowledge that this written agreement sets forth
all of the terms and conditions between .them conc tinting the subject matter of this Agreement,
superseding all prior oral and written statements and representations, and that there are not
terms or conditions between the parties crept as specifically set forth in this Agreement.
6. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective
unless it is agreed to in writing by the parties. Any modification or waiver must be signed by
authorized representatives of the parties.
7. Each of the parties has participated in the drafting of this agreement and has had
an opportunity to consult with counsel concerning its terms. This Agreement shall not be
interpreted strictly against any one party on the ground that it drafted the Agreement.
DEPARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL. RESOUR, I)IVISlON OF. WATER QUALITY
Preston H
Date: Za-ce,im 44A, // MY 7
, Director
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By:
Macon Reavis
Do®erstl+umbrE IW$
Date: ?D c 97-
2

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT-��,- ti‘A-� 6ti‘t�
\Api
This Settlement Agreement is entered into this the 26th day of November, 1997, by and �
c
between the State of North Carolina by and through its Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (hereinafter "DWQ") and the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District (hereinafter "RRSD"), collectively referred to herein as the Parties.
STIPULATIONS AND RECITALS
The Parties stipulate and agree to the following:
A. RRSD operates a municipal wastewater treatment facility which is permitted to
discharge 8.34 MGD of treated effluent at the mouth of Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke
River in the Roanoke River Basin.
B. DWQ is authorized to issue permits containing conditions necessary to
effectuate the purposes of G.S. 143-215.1.
C. On June 20, 1997, DWQ issued NPDES Permit NC0024201 to RRSD.
D. RRSD filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing on July 10, 1997,
challenging its NPDES permit based on, among other things, the insertion of a toxicity limit in
the permit and the calculation of the instream waste concentration (IWC) for the toxicity test
percentage.
E. The Parties participated in a court ordered mediation on November 10, 1997, at
which the terms of this settlement agreement were discussed.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above stipulations and the terms and
conditions set forth herein, the Parties agree that:
1. DWQ will reissue NPDES Permit Number NC0024201 with the following
revisions:
a. Special Condition A(3) will be revised to require quarterly pass/fail
chronic toxicity testing based on an IWC of 1.3% until February 1, 1999 and an IWC of 39%
from February 1, 1999 until relocation of the discharge pipe in accordance with Subsection
1(b) below or until expiration of the permit.
b. RRSD may choose to relocate its discharge to a surface discharge on the
south bank of the Roanoke River downstream of the Chockoyotte Creek. A diffuser shall not
be required to be installed for such discharge. The exact location will be negotiated by RRSD
and DWQ during the approval process for the Authorization to Construct.
Document Number. 127716

c. If the discharge is relocated in accordance with Subsection 1(b) above
prior to January 31, 1999, the IWC will remain at 1.3% for the current permitted flow of 8.34
MGD.
2. This Settlement Agreement resolves, settles and forever discharges all issues
pertaining to and arising in connection with RRSD's challenge to NPDES permit NC0024201
and contested case Rnannke Rapids Sanitary 'District v_ NT) T)FNR, 97 EHR 0855.
3. That neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any of the findings or allegations
which have been settled as a part of this Settlement Agreement, shall be used by the DWQ or
RRSD, their agents or delegates, in connection with the consideration of the application for, or
renewal, modification, or issuance of, permits issued to RRSD by the Division of Water
Quality.
4. That coincident with the parties agreement on the wording of the (draft) revised
permit, RRSD will dismiss, with prejudice, its administrative appeal. Thereafter, DWQ will
issue the agreed -upon revised permit.
5. The parties further agree and acknowledge that this written agreement sets forth
all of the terms and conditions between them concerning the subject matter of this Agreement,
superseding all prior oral and written statements and representations, and that there are not
terms or conditions between the parties except as specifically set forth in this Agreement.
6. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective
unless it is agreed to in writing by the parties. Any modification or waiver must be signed by
authorized representatives of the parties.
7. Each of the parties has participated in the drafting of this agreement and has had
an opportunity to consult with counsel concerning its terms. This Agreement shall not be
interpreted strictly against any one party on the ground that it drafted the Agreement.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By: Date:
Macon Reavis
Docmmatt N=ba: 127716
2

06/01/ 98 14:13 FAA. 91975586UU
SMITH HELMS tIOORE
EJ 003/003
c. If the discharge is relocated in accordance with Subsection 1(b) above
prior to January 31, 1999, the ITC will remain at 1.3 % for the = eut permitted flow of 8.34
MOD.
2. This Settlement Agreement resolves, settles and forever discharges all issues
pertaining to and arising in connection with RRSD's challenge to NPDES permit NC0024201
and contested case RaanoirP Unpick Sanif2ry I}iStri't 1 T)PN1 , 97 MIR. 0855.
3. That neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any of the findings or allegations
which have been settled as a part of this Settlement Agreement, shall be used by the DWQ or
RRSD, their agents or delegates, in connection with the consideration of the application for, or
renewal, mn 1iflcation, or issuance of, permits issued. to RRSD by the Division of Water
Quality.
4. That coincident with the parties agreement on the wording of the (draft) revised
permit, RRSD will dismiss, with prejudice, its administrative appeaL Thereafter, DWQ will
issue the agreed -upon revised permit.
5. The parties further agree and acknowledge that this written agreement sets forth
all of the terms and conditions between them concerning the subject matter of this Agreement,
superseding all prior oral and written statements and representations, and that there are not
terms or conditions between the parties except as specifically. set forth in this Agreement.
6. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective
unless it is agreed to in writing' by the parties. Any modification or waiver must be signed by
authorized representatives of the parties.
7, Each of the parties has participated in the drafting of this agreement and has had
an opportunity to consult with counsel concerning its terms. This Agreement shall not be
interpreted strictly against any one party on the ground that it drafted the Agreement.
DEPART OF ENVIRONMENT ENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
A. Preston Ho
Date: (2c,,44 ./v 1, (99 7
, Director
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By:
Macon Reavis
Docvmn2 Mrasba:127716
Date: f,Da-C

-txLcrHo••C 70.1a411.118410
rAC4[HIILS 7041J.7; g4G7
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(919) 755..3751
4 vACSarir.F
WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Nov 20 '97 12:07 P.01
11919O M UU IILLNJ ,I AL/KAL iiiGutyi ii:ui r.uuOuVI
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L. L. P
ATTOR N CY3 Al" LAW
RALT H, NORTH CAROLINA GREEN;GCIRD
RLOTTS Pd1T OFF=GL SOX Z.1127
Peet errlee ■ WC ant G7CS Nr.Qpilol n. G. •17..74
CHM1,aTT[. N. C. 4+221 MAILING ADDRCGG STREET.nor[s3
roar wew.q. - "�".. ZAee rods .1AM HdVLA SOLARC
MALEIOH. d. C. Dill lIALEIatL n. C. L7001
1y4R MCNL 1119r7711V YOG
rA.G71 M iLC 9MI/7HI 1I00
Mr. Bart Njoku-obi
.Associate Attorney General.
State of North Caxolhia.
Department of Justice
P.Q. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 276O2-O679
Re: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NC"D&HNR, DVJQ OAR, 97 ERR. 0855,
l2alifax county
November 20, 1997
reLCPHQid 11.101174 li;L7o
►..,C71HIL4 1.fe/M75.71.YY
D4Ear Bart:
I have attached a draft of the settlement agreement for the above referenced Cam. You
will notice one slight change to Paragraph 1(c). My client; felt that if they incurred the
engineering and other cost of preparing and submitting an Authorization to Construct, the
provision should also apply.
Please forward this to your clients for review. Keep in mind that it will need to be
finalized to take to the Commission mooting on December 9.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
SMITE HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
Elizabeth P'
EPY:isc
Enclosure
cc: Wendell Moseley (w/enclosure)
Macon Reavis 0i/enclosure)

' WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Nov 20 '97 12:07 P.02
C 191558800 SilTH HEMS ET ;IL/PA! II/A/91 11:01 P,003/001
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement is entered into this the th day of , 1997, by and
between the State of North Carolina by and through its Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (hereinafter "DWQ") and the Roanoke Rapids
Sanitary District (hereinafter "RRSD'), collectively referred to herein as the Pasties.
STIPULATIONS AND RECITALS
The Parties stipulate and agree to the folldwuig
A. RRSI.D operates a municipal wastewater txeatment facility which is permitted to
discharge 8.34 MGD or treated effluent at the mouth of C liockoyottc Creek at the bloke
diver in the Roanoke River Erin.
E, DWQ is authorized to issue permits ntning conditions necessary to
effectuate the purposcS Of G.S. 143-215.1.
V. On June 20, 1997, DWQ beetled NPDES Permit NC0024201 to RRSD.
D. RRSD filled a Petition for Contested Case Hearing on July 10, 1997,
clfonging its NPDES permit based on, among other things, the insertion of a toxicity limit in
the permit and the calculation of the instream waste concentration (IWC) for the toxicity test
percentage.
E. The Parties participated in a court ordered mediation on November 10, 1997, at
which the terms of this settlement agreement were discussed.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above stipulations and the terms and
conditions Set Tartu heeiaty tie -Parties agree that;
1. DWQ will NPDES i\ 201 with the follow-1
revisions: �- — roe d :56 al / f//" - -6 1 1/441.+"''` -
a. 8pocial Cooditian A(3) will be revised to require quarterly pass/fail
chronic toxicity testing basal an IWC of 1.3 % until Febnmry 1, 1999 and an IWC of 39 %
m froFebruary 1, 1999 until n
the end —of the l K T, l 4�. 1,-� 1‘Ct t .
ifT
b. RRSD may choose to relocate its discharge tot; sarfac discharge on the rl .
south bank of the RoartOke River downstream of the Chockoyotte Creek. A diffuser shall not
be required to be installed for such discharge. The exact location will be negotiated by RRSD
and DWQ during the approval process for the Authorization to Construct.
DOMINOa...mr tzma

II919TbM00 HIT H HELM; ET AL/HAL
WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Nov 20 '97 12:08 P.03
11/20/97 1I1I F.001/004
r}
.) c'S'\
G. If the discharge is relocated in accordance with Su sec'tcon (b) above, or
if RRSD applies for an Authorization to Construct to relocate its discharge in accordance with
Subsection (b) above prior to January 31, 1999, the IWC will remain at 1.3 % for the current
permitted flow of 8.34 MOD.
CN' t' '" This -Settlement Agreement resolves, settles and forever discharges all issues
pertaining to and arising in connection with RRSD's challenge to NPDES permit NC0024201
and contestcd case Roannkirltarielt Sanitary lli riot v NT2 DI FILAR, 97 EHR 0855.
3. That n thcr this Settlement Agreement, nor any of the findings or allegation
which have been settled as a part of this Settlement Agrce[nent, ahatt be used by the DW
agents or delegates, in connection with the consideration of the application for, -or renew
modification, or issuance of, permits issued to D bKthe Division of Water Quality.
S. The parties further arc and acknowledge : t , s wri • n agree I, s o
all of the terms and conclirions between them concerning the subject matter of this Agreement,
superseding all prior oral and written statements and representations, and that there arc not
terms or conditions between the parties except as specifically set forth in this Agreement.
6. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective
unless it is agreed to in writing by the parties. Any modification or waiver must be signed by
authorized xeprewscntativca of the parties.
7. Each of the parties has participated in the drafting of this agreement and has had
an opportunity to consult with counsel concerning its terms. This Agreement shall not be
interpreted strictly against any one party on the ground that it drafted the Avrecurent.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION' OF WATER QUALITY
By: Date:. - T
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By: .Date: _
Macon Reavis
nut a: ►rrne
2

Confidential Settlement Document
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HALIFAX
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
97 EHR 0855
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT )
v.
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
)
)
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, DEHNR, )
)
Respondent. )
POSITION PAPER OF
PETITIONER
ROANOKE RAPIDS
SANITARY DISTRICT
Petitioner Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District (petitioner') submits this position
paper for use in the mediation in the above -referenced matter on November 10, 1997.
Background Information
Petitioner operates an 8.34 MGD municipal wastewater treatment facility which
discharges effluent at the mouth of Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River in the
Roanoke River Basin. On June 20, 1997, Respondent, the Division of Water Quality,
issued NPDES Permit NC0024201 to Petitioner. Among other things, this permit
contained a chronic toxicity permit limit based on test procedures outlined in `North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure" using an effluent
concentration of 1.3% until July 31, 1998 and an effluent concentration of 52% from
August 1, 1998 until the expiration date of the permit. The choice of the effluent
concentration for this limit was calculated by Respondent. Respondent issues NPDES
permits under an approved EPA program, which must be implemented in accordance
with federal regulations.
Basis for Challenge
1. Failure to determine reasonable potential
Document Number: 124681

Under 40 CFR 122.25, Respondent has the authority to impose permit limits on
its permittees, as long as such program is administered "in conformance" with the federal
regulations. Specifically, Section 122.44(d)(1) gives Respondent the authority to impose
"any requirements in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines or standards" under the Clean Water Act (CWA) necessary to achieve federal
water quality standards or state narrative standards. However, Subsection 122.44(d)(1)
(i) specifically states that the State may `control all pollutants or pollutant parameters ...
which the Director determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have
the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water
quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality". The federal rule, in
subsection 122.44(d)(1)(ii), goes on to say that:
When determining whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an in -stream excursion above a narrative standard, the
permitting authority shall use procedures which account for existing controls on
point and non point sources of pollution, the variability of the pollutant or
pollutant parameter in the effluent, the sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing
(when evaluating whole effluent toxicity), and where appropriate, the dilution of
the effluent in the receiving water.
Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent must 1) make a determination of actual cause
or reasonable potential to cause a toxicity violation in the stream before it can impose a
toxicity limit, and 2) that such determination must be made on a case -by -case basis
considering the criteria listed in the federal regulations.
There is no documentation in Petitioner's file nor any statements by Respondent's
personnel to indicate that a determination of reasonable potential was made before a
toxicity limit was imposed in Respondent 's permit. Respondent has stated to Petitioner,
verbally, that it takes the position that a toxicity limit must be imposed in the permits of
all major dischargers. Such a position is an assumption and not a determination. Such a
position renders the language of 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(ii) superfluous. Section
122.44(d)(1)(iv) makes it clear that a reasonable potential determination must be made
before a toxicity limit can be imposed. Petitioner contends that there is no evidence to
establish reasonable potential. If reasonable potential is not found, then toxicity testing
can only be a monitoring requirement in Petitioner 's permit.
2. If reasonable potential exists, Respondent 's calculation of Petitioner 's effluent
concentration for its toxicity limit is in error and not in accordance with EPA guidelines.
It is impossible, in this paper, to discuss all of the errors and inconsistencies in
Respondent's calculation and inclusion of a toxicity limit in Petitioner's permit. Notably,
in Section 304A(a) of the Clean Water Act mandates that criteria for water quality be
established accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on the effects expected
from the presence of pollutants in a water body on the concentration and dispersal of
Document Number: 124681 2

pollutants through biological, chemical, and physical processes, and on the effects of
pollutants on the biological community, diversity, productivity and stability. Respondents
own rules, at 15A NCAC 2B.0206, require that water quality based effluent limits be
developed to allow appropriate frequency and duration of deviations from water quality
standards. In setting Petitioner 's effluent limitation for toxicity, Respondent failed to use
7Q10 or to make observations based on frequency and duration, as required by Section
.0206. Specifically, Respondent 1) failed to establish correlation between whole effluent
toxicity test results and observed in stream impact, and 2) failed to account for the
variability of the pollutant in the effluent when calculating a limit. They failed to use the
latest scientific knowledge and look at the actual duration and frequency in determining
the limit.
3. If reasonable potential exists and an effluent limit can be calculated that is
acceptable in accordance with EPA guidelines, the test method is inappropriate for
measuring compliance with such a limit.
The test method used as a basis for the toxicity limit is inaccurate, variable, and
often results in false positives. Therefore, it is not a proper basis for a permit limit,
which can be the basis for enforcement.
Respectfully submitted, this the /d day of November, 1997.
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY DISTRICT
By: izabeth Powell Ye
N.C. Bar #15609
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
2800 Two Hannover Square
Post Office Box 27525
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Document Number: 124681 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Position Paper of Roanoke
Rapids Sanitary District was served upon all parties of record by hand delivery to the
following:
Bart Njoku-Obi
Associate Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
Environmental Division
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Attorney for Respondent
This the /6 day of November, 1997.
Elizabeth Powell Yerxa
Document Number: 124681

"a
4
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. l;OX 621)
HALER ;I -I
27(i02•O(i29
Tom R. West, Mediator
Bart Njoku-Obi, Counsel for NCDENR, DWQ
November 10, 1997
RE: Mediated Settlement Conference: Position Paper of NCDENR. DWQ
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NCDENR, DWQ (OAH, 97 EHR 0855)
REPLY TO: Ban Njoku-Obi
Associate Attorney General
Environmental Division
Tel.[phone]
Faa. [phone]
The following is summary of NCDENR's position(s) in this matter, which are set out herein only for the purposes of this
mediated settlement conference.
I. Brief History
A. 1993 NPDES Permit and "the Study"
In pertinent part, the Division of Water Quality ("DWQ") initially issued NPDES permit no. NC0024201 to Roanoke
Rapids Sanitary District ("RRSD") on January 29, 1993. The subject facility was permitted to discharge 8.34 MGD
of treated domestic and industrial wastewater into the Chockoyotte Creek ("Creek"), at a point approximately 100 feet
from of the creek's confluence with the Roanoke River ("River").1 However, under this permit, the Instream Waste
Concentration ("IWC") at which the RRSD was required to test for chronic toxicity was based on the low flow
conditions of the River not the Creek. As a result, chronic toxicity testing under the permit was to be conducted at
1.3%. Consistent with state environmental requirements and water quality concerns for protecting the Creek, the
1993 NPDES permit required the RRSD to relocate its outfall from the Creek to the River. At the behest of the RRSD,
however, the outfall relocation requirement was later waived by the DWQ. Instead, following extensive discussions,
the parties jointly agreed on a study plan ("Study") which would determine actual dilution (and subsequently the
IWC) for the RRSD's discharge into the Creek. The results of the Study were to be used to develop appropriate
NPDES permit limitations for toxics.2 The Study was conducted by the DWQ in cooperation with the RRSD, and the
Study results were to be used to develop permit limits at the time of the permit renewal in 1997.
B. Results of "the Study" and the 1997 NPDES Permit
Following compilation of the Study results, the DWQ determined that the appropriate chronic toxicity testing
percentage for the RRSD's discharge into the Creek should be 79%. The RRSD expressed concerns that this IWC test
percentage was unreasonable and should be lowered. Thus, following discussions between the parties, the DWQ
revised the IWC test percentage downward to 52%.' The DWQ issued the 1997 NPDES permit with the condition
that chronic toxicity testing was to be conducted at 1.3% for the first year of the permit, and thereafter, to be
conducted at 52%. The RRSD subsequently filed a contested case challenging the this permit condition.
The Creek has an estimated flow of Q cfs verus the River's estimated minimum flow of 1000 to 2000 cfs.
2 The RRSD was informed that potential results of the Study could include more stringent toxic limitations including
whole effluent toxicity test requirements. Nevertheless, the RRSD concurred with the Study.
3 This revised percentage was not simply picked at random. The revision was made based on existing data collected
from the Study, and on reasonable adjustments to assumptions upon which the Study results were derived.

97 EHR 0855, Mediation, pg: 2
II. NCDENR's Position(s)
A. To the extent that federal requirements of 40 CFR Part 122 are applicable in this matter, such requirements
provide minimum standards. The State of North Carolina is not precluded from adopting and enforcing more stringent state
requirements for activities covered by 40 CFR Part 122.
B. With regard to state requirements generally:
1. G.S. § 143-214.1 authorizes and directs the Environmental Management Commission ("EMC") to develop a
series of water body classifications and water quality standards applicable to each classification.
2. G.S. §143-215 authorizes and directs the EMC to develop and adopt effluent standards and limitations for
toxic wastes or combinations of toxic wastes discharged from any point source.
3. The EMC has adopted a narrative water quality standard for all waters in North Carolina, set forth at 15A
NCAC 2B .0208. This water quality standard for toxicity to aquatic life requires that the concentration of toxic substances in
an effluent discharge not render waters of the state injurious to aquatic life or impair such waters for any designated uses.
4. The EMC is authorized by G.S. §143-215.1 and § 143-215 to place permit limits on the amount of toxic
substances that may be discharged from a facility in order to protect the EMC's water quality standard for toxicity to aquatic
life.
5. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0112, the Director of the DWQ is authorized to issue a permit containing such
conditions as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of G.S. 143-215.1.
6. 15A NCAC 2B .0508 lists in tabular form the minimum tests applicable to standard industrial classifications
for any particular water pollution control facility or point source. As provided in the rule, the requirement for toxics and
toxicity is denoted by the symbols **, referring the reader to the end of the rule where the following text is set out:
**
Specific test type, conditions, and limitations will be defined by permit. Toxicity limits will be
applied to all major discharges and all discharges of complex wastewater. Toxicity limitations and
monitoring requirements may be applied to permits for other discharges when, in the opinion of the
Director, such discharge may impair the best use of the receiving water by the discharge of toxic
substances in toxic amounts.
7. The DWQ's procedure for protecting the water quality standard for aquatic toxicity is to impose a permit
condition requiring permittees to perform a designated toxicity test on a solution comprised of a specified concentration of the
effluent discharge equal to the IWC. Per 15A NCAC 2B .0206, the DWQ to uses the 7Q10 flow in calculating the effluent
limitation for whole effluent toxicity, and uses the NPDES permitted waste flow, referred to as the design flow, in calculating
the effluent limitation for whole effluent toxicity.
C. In essence, the statutes and rules set out above (which are not exhaustive) authorize the DWQ to impose the
chronic toxicity testing limitations in the RRSD's 1997 NPDES permit (as set out therein).
D. Under the RRSD's 1993 NPDES permit, chronic toxicity testing was conducted at 1.3%. At the time, this
permit limit was set at 1.3% because the DWQ did not have sufficient data upon which to set an appropriate limit to adequately
protect the Chockoyotte Creek ("Creek"). In the opinion of the DWQ, as a result of the Study (referred to above), the DWO
now has sufficient data upon which to set an appropriate chronic toxicity testing limit in the RRSD's 1997 permit to adequately
protect the Creek. The Study. its results. the IWC the DWQ has determined for the RRSD's discharge into the Creek. and the
present chronic toxicity testing limit set out in the RRSD's 1997 permit. are sound. and the DWQ stands by its
findings/determinations. For purposes of this mediated settlement conference, the DWQ is, within reason, willing to discuss
with the RRSD what the 'appropriate' chronic toxicity testing limit for its 1997 permit should be. However, any revision of this
limit from 52%, at a minimum, has to be consistent with state water quality pollution control requirements and based on the
existing data collected from the Study, as well as sound, generally accepted scientific principles.

June 10, 1997, revised November 6, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: File
From: Mark McIntire
NPDES Group
Subject: Roanoke Rapids WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC0024201
Halifax County
The existing NPDES permit contained a special condition requiring Roanoke Rapids to
relocate their discharge to the mainstem of the Roanoke River during that permit cycle. The
discharge is into Chockoyotte Creek, about 100 feet upstream of its confluence with the
Roanoke River. In 1995, Roanoke Rapids made an argument not to relocate the discharge
location. Steve Tedder concluded that the relocation of the discharge point was not the best
option for water quality protection. Steve Tedder made the recommendation to the Preston
Howard that a study be conducted to determine the actual instream waste concentration at
the discharge point (head pressure from the Roanoke River causes wide variation iirthe
dilution at the discharge location). A study plan was sent to Roanoke Rapids along with a
letter indicating the Division intentions. Roanoke Rapids subsequently sent a letter back to
the Division concurring with the Division's intentions as well as the plan of study.
A one year study was undertaken to determine dilution at the discharge location. Juan
Mangles worked in conjunction with Roanoke Rapids to determine an accurate IWC. The
study was completed with the results of that study being incorporated into the draft permit.
The Division had a meeting with Roanoke Rapids concerning that draft permit on May 15,
1997. In that meeting, Roanoke Rapids voiced their concerns with the toxicity testing
requirement of 79% (the results of the study). The existing test percentage is 1.3%. After
that meeting, Steve Tedder made the administrative decision to leave the 1.3% in the permit
for the first year. Thereafter, the test percentage will be 52% (50th percentile of dilutions
determined in the study). The final permit reflects this decision. Roanoke Rapids was
informed of the Division's intention to issue the final permit with this toxicity testing on
June 10, 1997.
Limits for toxicants are determined based on dilution. Had chemical specific limitations
been installed in this permit, Roanoke Rapids would likely not have been in compliance.
Reasonable potential analyses indicated that standard or action level violations were
expected for zinc, lead, copper and cadmium. Installation of limitations based on the study
determined dilution would have required Roanoke Rapids to revise its pretreatment permits
accordingly. Realizing that this would potentially cause serious implementation problems,
the Division opted to install only a chronic toxicity test at the appropriate instream waste
concentration. The theory being that this toxicity test would act as a saftey net, protecting
for all toxicants and combinations of toxicants in the effluent.

1vQ►N� rZ.�C.iJck d 51ti�-1
Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
L. rn cI �c ic.
Station Conductivity Instream
Number Date % IWC Position
12 11-Apr-95
13 11-Apr-95
14 11-Apr-95
51.6 %
44.8 %
56.3 %
58.5 %
6.0 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
lop
bottom
15 11-Apr-95 ? top
bottom
12 19-Apr-OS
13 19-Apr-95
14 19-Apr-95
15 19-Apr-95
12 26-Apr-05
13 26-Apr-95
14 26-Apr-95
29.7 %
29.7 %
50.0 %
21.0 %
5.3 %
5.4 %
5.0 %
5.0 %
38.0 %
34.2 %
52.3 %
39.4 %
25.6 %
14.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
15 26-Apr-95 6.0 % top
6.5 % bottom
12 10-May-95
13 10-May-95
14 10-May-95
53.0 %
59.1 %
63.8 %
62.5 %
40.5 %
32.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
15 10-May-95 5.6 % top
5.9 % bottom
12 17-May-95
13 17-May-95
14 17-May-95
[_15 17-May-95
64.8 %
61.0 %
61.0 %
41.2 %
34.6 %
8.0 %
5.3 %
6.1 %
12 24-Mai-Sot 45.3 %
55.6 %
91.0 %
89.0 %
89.0 %
82.0 %
•
13 24-May-95
14 24-May-95
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
3.35cls3
(bwec( o+J
fRVC. rtaiA))
15 24-May-95 51.6 % top
8.2 % bottom
12 31-May-95
13 31-May-95
14 31-May-95
36.0 %
43.7 %
63.8 %
63.9 %
48.3 %
17.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
15 31-May-95 7.0 % top
7.4 % bottom
12 7-Jun-95
13 - 7-Jun-95
14 7-Jun-95
25.9 %
41.2 %
31.0 %
31.6 %
7.2 %
7.5 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
15 7-Jun-95 7.1 % top
7.1 % bottom
12 14-Jun-95
1 3 14-Jun-95
1 4 14-Jun-95
28.3 %
26.2 %
6.8 %
6.9 %
6.8 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
15 14-Jun-95 6.8 % top
6.8 % bottom
12 21-Jun-95
13 21-Jun-95
14 21-Jun-95
38.0 %
41.0 %
54.6 %
55.8 %
49.7 %
20.0 %
top
bottom 56.3 % 65.9 th 51.0
top 56.0 % 65.4 th 50.9
bottom 6.2 7 6.5 1'b6.:8_ % ___ if5.07h] 6"4. 5 06 50.0
top 56.6 % 64.5 th 49.7
bottom 55.5 % 64.0 th 48.3
15 21-Jun-95 6.3 % top
7.9 % bottom
12
28-Jun-95
33.1 %
21.0 %
top
bottom
All Alt Data
Data Percentile (omitting 15) Percentile
110.0
98.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
94.7
94.5
94.1
94.0
93.0
93.0
92.3
91.7
91.2
91.0
91.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
89.8
89.0
89.0
88.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
86.7
86.7
86.0
86.0
86.4
86.0
84.9
82.6
82.0
80.5
78.3
77.0
77.0
74.6
74.0
73.2
100.0 th 98.0 % 100.0 th
99.5 th 95.0 % 99.4 th
99.1 th 95.0 % 98.8 th
98.6 th 95.0 % 618.2 th
9& 1 th 95.0 % 97.6 th
97.7 th 94.7 % 97.0 th
97.2 th 94.5 % 96.3 th
967 th 94.1 % 95.7 th
963 th 94.0 % 915.1 th
95.8 th 93.0 % 94.5 th
95.3 th 93.0 % 93.9 th
94.9 th 91.7 % 93.3 th
64.4 th 91.2 % 92.7 th
9113.9 th 91.0 % 92.1 th
915 th 90.0 % 91.5 th
930th 90.0 % 90.9th
92.5 th 90.0 % 90.2 th
92.1th 89.8 % 16th
91.6 th 89.0 % 89.0 th
91.1 th 89.0 % 88.4 th
9Q 7 th 87.0 % 87.8 th
9Q2 th 87.0 % 87.2 th
89.7 th 86.7 % 86.6 th
893th 86.7 % 86.0th
8&8 th 86.0 % 85.4 th
8&3 th 85.4 % 84.8 th
87.9 th 84.9 % 84.1 th
87.4th 82.6 % 83.5th
86.9 th 82.0 % 82.9 th
864 th 78.3 % 82.3 th
860 th 77.0 % 81.7 th
85.5 th 732 % 81.1 th
85.0 th 70.0 % 80.5 th
84.6 th 1 69.8 % 79.9 th
84.1 th 69.5 % 79.3 th
83.6th 69.1 % 713.7th
832 th 67.0 % 78.0 th
82.7 th 67.0 % 77.4 th
82.2th 65.9 % 76.8th
81.8th IW 65.6 % 76.2th
81.3 th b 64.8 % 75.6 th
80.8 th tIms 63.9 % 75.0 th
8Q4 th now63.8 % 74.4 th
c1 o/p 63.8 % 73.8 th
69.8 % 79.4 th 63.8 % 73.2 th
69.5 % 79.0 th 82.5 % 72.6 th
69.1 % 78.5 th 61.0 % 72.0 th
67.0 % 7&0 th 61.0 % 71.3 th
67.0 % 77.6th 61.0 % 70.7th
65.9 % 77.1 th 61.0 % 70.1 th
65.6 % 766 th 60.0 % 69.5 th
64.8 % 762th 59.5 % 68.9th
63.9 % 75.7 th 59.1 % 68.3 th
63.8 % 75.2th� ��-,io068.7 % 67.1 th
1 63.8 % 74.8 th
63.8 % 74.3 th 58.5 % 66.5 th
62.5 % 738 th 58.0 % 65.9 th
81.5 % 734 th 58.0 % 65.2 th
61.0 % 72.9 th 572 % 64.6 th
61.0 % 72.4 th 56.3 % 64.0 th
% 72.0 th 55.8 % 63.4 th
% 71.5th 55.6 % 62.8th
% 71.0th 55.5 % 62.2th
% 70.6 th 54.6 % 61.6 th
% 7Q1 th 3O.5`X 54.0 % 61.0th
% 69.6 th 54.0 % 60.4 th
% 69.2 th 54.0 % 59.8 th
% 6& 7 th 53.5 % 59.1 th
% 6&2 th 53.0 % 58.5 th
% 67.8th 52.3 % 57.9th
58.0 % 67.3 th 52.0 % 57.3 th
57.2 % 668 th 51.8 % 56.7 th
56.9 % 664 th 51.6 % 56.1 th
% 55.5 th
% 54.9th
% 54.3th
% 53.7th
% 53.0th
54.6 % 636 th 47.0 % 52.4 th
54.0 % 631 th 46.3 % 51.8 th
54.0 % 62.6 th 45.3 % 51.2 th
54.0 % 62.1 th 44.8 % 50.6 th
70.0 %. 79.9th
'i•I5c13
61.0
61.0
60.0
59.5
5 .LIO 59.1
`59.1
59.0
58.7
58.5
58.0

• .r
i
-:.- . Y . 4,E,12
v
0
c0
a ve flow = S. 05 t
t4'1.
-,0
ThE
I 1 �.
Alit
1. �•• f'C .: A :
t N
(S)

Roaoke Rapids Instream MC Study
Station Conductivity Instream
Number Date % IWC Position
All All Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
# 3 28-Jun-95
# 4 28Jun-95
42.0 %
22.0
3.3 %
6.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 28-Jun-95 6.0 % top
5.3 % bottom
# 2 5Jul-95
# 3 5-Jul-95
# 4 5-Jul-95
16.0
16.6
14.8
14.6
15.0
15.0
94
54
%
IO
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 5Jul-95 15.0 % top
15.0 % bottom
# 2 12Jul-95
# 3 12Jut-95
# 4 12Jul-95
11.8 %
14.0 %
24.3 %
23.3 %
19.8 %
15.3 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 12Jul-95 19.2 % top
6.0 % bottom
# 2 19Jul-95
19.1ui-95
# 4 19Jul-95
#-3
16.6 %
26.5 %
63.8 %
65.6 %
59.0 %
59.5 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 19Jui-95 61.5 % top
56.9 % bottom
# 2 26-Jul-95
# 3 26Jul-95
# 4 26Jul-95
18.2 %
29.5 %
40.0 %
38.6 94
23.9 %
28.4 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 26-Jul-95 39.0 % top
10.6 % bottom
# 2 2-Aug-95
# 3 2-Aug-95
# 4 2-Aug-95
23.9 %
26.8 54
61.0 %
61.0 %
58.0 %
58.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 2-Aug-95 59.1 % top
56.0 % bottom
# 2 9-Aug-95
# 3 9-Aug-95
# 4 9-Aug-95
#5
9-Aug-95
# 2 16-Aug-95
# 3 16-Aug-95
# 4 16-Aug-95
38.0
69.1
95.0
86.0
95.0
94.1
87.0
31.0
51.0
89.8
93.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
56
e%
54
%
%
94
o%
94
96
o%
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 16-Aug-95 77.0 % top
74.6 % bottom
# 2 23-Aug-95
# 3 23-Aug-95
# 4 23-Aug-95
23.5 %
94.5 %
98.0 %
94.7 %
95.0 %
91.2 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 23-Aug-95 92.3 % top
85.0 % bottom
# 2 30-Aug-95
# 3 30-Aug-95
# 4 30-Aug-95
25.0 %
57.2 %
95.0 %
47.0 %
67.0 %
35.9 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 30-Aug-95 74.0 % top
110.0 % bottom
#2
6-Sep-95
# 3 6-Sep-95
38.0 %
60.0 %
86.7 %
86.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
53.5 % 61.7th 43.7 % 50.0th
53.0 % 61.21h 43.0 % 49.4 th
52.3 % 60.7 th 42.0 % 48.8 th
52.0 % 60.3 th 41.2 % 48.2 th
1' C' 1 f 51.8 % 59.8 th ; 64 0,6 41.2 % 47.6 th
51.6 % 59.3 th 41.0 % 47.0 th
51.6 % 58.9 th 40.9 % 46.31h
51.0 % 58.4th 40.5 % 45.7th
50.9 % 57.9 th 40.0 % 45.1 th
50.0 % 57.5 th 39.4 % 44.5 th
49.7 % 57.0 th 38.8 % 43.9 th
48.3 % 56.5 th 38.6 % 43.3 th
47.0 % 56. l th
42.1 th
38.0 % 42.7 th
46.3 % 55.6 th 38.0 %
9 �t5 cF5 L 45.3 % 55.1 th ]3}.R.% 38.0 % 41.51h
44.8 % 54.7 th 38.0 % 40.9 th
43.7 % 54.2 th 37.0 % 40.2 fh
43.0 % 53.7 th 36.0 % 39.6 th
42.0 % 53.3 th 35.9 % 39.0 th
41.2 % 52.8 th 34.7 % 38.4 th
41.2 % 52.3 th 34.6 % 37.8 th
41.0 % 51.9 th 34.4 % 37.2 th
40.9 % 51.4 th 34.2 % 36.6 th
40.5 % 50.9 th 33.1 % 36.0 th
40.0 % 50.5 th 32.7 % _35.4 th
11.0 GFS 39.4 % 50.0 th i 5 1. Z% 32.7 % 34.8 th
39.0 % 49.5 th 31.6 % 34.1 th
38.8 % 49.1 th 31.2 % 33.5 th
38.6 '%48.6 th 31.0 °% 32.9 th
38.0 % 48.1 th 29.7 % 32.3 th
38.0 % 47.7 th 29.7 % 31.71h
38.0 % 47.2 th 29.5 % 31.1 th
38.0 % 46.7 th 28.4 % 30.51h
37.3 % 46.3 th 28.3 % 29.9 th
37.0 % 45.8 th 26.8 % 29.3 lh
36.0 %45.3 th 26.8 %28.7 th
13 . °1 GF3 Y 36.0 % 44.9 th i �{ IO 26.5 % 28.0 th
35.9 % 44.4 th 26.2 % 27.4 th
34.7 % 43.9 th 25.9 % 26.8 th
34.6 % 43.5 th 25.5 % 26.2 1h
34.4 % 43.0 th 25.0 % 25.6 th
34.2 % 42.5 th 24.4 % 25.0 th
33.9 % 42.1 th 24.3 % 24.4 th
33.1 % 41.61h 239 % 23.8th
32.7 % 41.1 th 23..9 % 23.2 th
32.7 % 40.7 th 23.5 % 22.6 th
16 c 9 5 5 I 31.6 %e 40.2 th i 93 % 23.3 % 22.0 th
31.2 % 39.71h 22.0 % 21.3 th
31.0 % 39.3lh 21.0 % 20.71h
31.0 %38.8 th 21.0 %20.1 th
29.7 % 38.3 !h 20.0 % 19.5 th
29.7 % 37.9 !h 19.8 % 18.9 th
29.5 % 37.4 th 18.2 °% 18.3 th
28.4 % 36.91h 17.1 % 17.7 th
28.3 % 36.4 th 16.6 % 17.1 th
26.8 % 36.0 !h 16.6 %16.51h
26.8 % 35 5 th 16.0 % 15.9 th
26.5 %35.0 th 15.3 % 15.2 th
26.2 % 34.6 th 15.0 % 14.6 th
25.9 % 34.1 th 15.0 % 14.0 th
25.5 % 33.6 th 14.8 °% 13.4 th
25.0 % 33.2 th 14.7 % 12.8 th
24.4 % 32.7 th 14.6 % 12.2 lh
24.3 % 32.2th 14.0 °% 11
.6th
23.9 % 31.8 th 11.8 % 11.0 th
23.9 %31.3 th 8.1 % .41h
23.5 % 30.8 th 8.0 % 9.810th
23.3 % 30.4 th 7.5 % 9.1 th
22.0 %29.9 th 7.2 % 8.51h
22.0 '%29.4 th 6.9 %7.91h
21.3 % 29.0 th 6.8 % 7.3 th
21.0 % 28.5 th 6.8 % 6.71h
21.0 % 28.0 th 6.8 % 6.1 th
20.0 % 27.6 th 6.8 %5 5 th
19.8 %27.1 th 6.6 % 4.9 th
19.2 °% 26.6 th 6.1 % 4.3 th
18.2 % 26.2 th 6.0 % 3.71h
17.1 % 25.7th 5.4 %3.Oth
16.6 % 25.2 th 5.3 % 2.4 th
16.6 % 24.8th 5.0 % 1.8fh
18.0 % 24.3 th 5.0 % 1.2 th
15.3 °% 23.8th 3.3 % 0.6th

. . Roaoke Rapids Instream 1WC Study
WI Surface All Surface Data All Bottom All Bottom Data
Data Percentile (omitting 4 5) Percentile Data Percentile (omitting 4 5) Percentile
18.2 % 23.4 th
16.6 % 22.4 th
16.0 % 21.5 th
15.0 % 20.61h
15.0 % 19.6 th
14.8 % 18.7 th
11.8 % 17.8 th
7.9 % 16.8 th
7.2 % 15.91h
7.1 % 15.0 th
7.0 % 14.0 th
6.8 % 13.1 1h
6.8 % 12.1 th
6.8 % 11.2 th
6.6 % 10.3 th
6.4 % 9.3 th
6.3 % 8.41h
6.0 % 7.5 th
6.0 % 6.5 th
6.0 % 5.6 th
5.6 % 4.7 th
5.3 % 3.7 th
5.3 % 2.8 th
5.0 % 1.9 th
3.3 % 0.9 th
14.6 % 23.4 1h
14.0 % 22.4 th
10.9 % 21.5 th
10.6 % 20.6th
8.6 % 19.6 th
8.2 % 18.7 th
8.1 % 17.81h
8.0 % 16.8 th
7.9 % 15.9 th
7.5 % 15.0 th
7.4 % 14.0 th
7.1 % 13.1 th
6.9 % 12.1 th
6.8 % 11.21h
6.8 % 10.3 th
6.8 % 9.3 th
6.5 % 8.4 th
6.5 % 7.5 th
6.1 % 6.5 th
6.1 % 5.6 th
6.0 % 4.7 th
5.9 % 3.7 th
5.4 % 2.8 th
5.3 % 1.9 th
5.0 % 0.9 th

Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
Station Condudivity Instream All All Data
Number Date % IWC Position Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
# 4 6-Sep-95 78.3 %
65.9 %
top
bottom
# 5 6-Sep-95 80.5 % top
37.3 % bottom
# 2 13-Sep-95
# 3 13-Sep-95
# 4 13-Sep.95
38.8 %
55.5 %
87.0 %
84.9 %
91.7 %
87.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 13-Sep-95 88.0 % top
33.9 % bottom
# 2 20-Sep-95
# 3 20-Sep-95
# 4 20-Sep-95
37.0 %
50.9 %
82.6 %
54.0 %
93.0 %
70.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 20-Sep-95 91.0 % top
36.0 % bottom
# 2 27-Sep-95
# 3 27•Sep-95
# 4 27-Sep-95
58.7 %
34.4 %
85.4 %
77.0 %
94.0 %
67.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 27-Sep•95 86.0 % top
22.0 % bottom
# 2 11-Od-95
# 3 11-Oct-95
11-Oct-95
#4
24.4 %
54.0 To
69.8 %
54.0 %
6.6 %
8.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 11-Oct-95 6.4 % top
6.5 % bottom
# 2 18-Od-95
# 3 18-Oct-95
# 4 18-Oct-95
26.8 %
40.9 %
73.2 %
43.0 %
69.5 %
34.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 18-Od-95 7.9 % top
10.9 % bottom
# 2 25-Oct-95
# 3 25-Oct-95
# 4 25-Oct•95
32.7 %
31.2 %
53.5 %
52.0 %
51.8 %
46.3 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 25-Od-95 21.3 % top
8.6 % bottom
15.0 % 23.41h
15.0 % 22.91h
15.0 % 22.4 th
15.0 % 22.0 th
14.8 % 21.5 th
14.7 % 21.0 th
14.6 % 20.6 th
14.0 % 20.1 th
11.8 % 19.6 ih
10.9 % 19.2 th
10.6 % 18.7 th
8.6 % 18.2 th
8.2 % 17.8 th
8.1 % 17.3 th
8.0 % 168th
7.9 % 16.4 th
7.9 % 15.91h
7.5 % 15.41h
7.4 % 15.01h
7.2 % 14.5lh
7.1 % 14.0 th
7.1 % 13.6 th
7.0 % 13.1 th
6.9 % 12.6 th
6.8 % 12.1 th
6.8 % 11.7 th
6.8 % 11.2 th
6.8 % 10.7 th
6.8 % 10.3 th
6.8 % 9.8 th
6.6 % 9.3 th
6.5 % 8.91h
6.5 % 8.4 th
6.4 % 7.91h
6.3 % 7.51h
6.1 % 7.0 th
6.1 % 6.5 th
6.0 % 6.1 th
6.0 % 5.6 th
6.0 % 5.1 th
6.0 % 4.71h
5.9 % 4.21h
5.6 % 3 71h
5.4 % 3.31h
5.3 % 2.81h
5.3 % 2.31h
5.3 % 1.9 th
5.0 % 1.4 th
5.0 % 0.9 th
3.3 % 0.51h

Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
Station Condudivity Instream
Number Date % IWC Position
All All Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
# 2 11-Apr-95
# 3 11-Apr-95
# 4 11-Apr-95
51.6 %
44.8 %
56.3 %
58.5 %
6.0 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 11-Apr-95
top
bottom
# 2 19-Apr-95
# 3 19-Apr-95
# 4 19-Apr-95
# 5 19-Apr-95
# 2 26-Apr-95
# 3 26-Apr-95
# 4 26-Apr-95
29.7 %
29.7 %
50.0 %
21.0 %
5.3 %
5.4 %
5.0 %
5.0 %
38.0 %
34.2 %
52.3 %
39.4 %
25.5 %
14.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
0.51 c;l
i b�sr„c) upon)
5.05 Z .-.Eyck
1°►� c+�su. 4rife.
uk.b, pcerad
01' , t �dMi
# 5 26-Apr-95 6.0 % top
6.5 % bottom
- # 2 10-May-95 .
# 3 10-May-95
# 4 10-May-95
53.0 %
59.1 %
63.8 %
62.5 %
40.5 %
32.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 10-May-95 5.6 % lop
5.9 % bottom
#2
17-May-95
# 3 17-May-95 61.0 %
41.2 %
# 4 17-May-95 34.6 %
8.0 %
64.8 % top
61.0 % bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
p 5 17-May-95 5.3 % top
6.1 % bottom
# 2 24-May-95
# 3 24-May-95
# 4 24-May-95
45.3 %
55.6 %
91.0 %
89.0 %
89.0 %
82.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
lop
bottom
# 5 24-May-95 51.6 % top
8.2 % bottom
# 2 31-May-95
# 3 31-May-95
# 4 31-May-95
36.0 %
43.7 %
63.8 %
63.9 %
48.3 %
17.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 31-May-95 7.0 % top
7.4 % bottom
# 2 7-Jun-95
# 3 7Jun-95
# 4 7-Jun•95
25.9 %
41.2 %
31.0 %
31.6 %
7.2 %
7.5 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 7-Jun•95 7.1 % top
7.1 % bottom
# 2 14-Jun-95
# 3 14Jun-95
# 4 14Jun-95
28.3 %
26.2 %
6.8 %
6.9 %
6.8 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 14Jun-95 6.8 % top
6.8 % bottom
# 2 21 Jun-95
# 3 21 Jun-95
# 4 21-Jun-95
38.0 %
41.0 %
54.6 %
55.8 %
49.7 %
20.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 21 Jun-95 6.3 % top
7.9 % bottom
#2
28-Jun-95
33.1 %
21.0 %
top
bottom
110.0 % 100.0 th
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
94.7 %
94.5 %
94.1 %
94.0 %
93.0
99.5 th
99.1 th
98.6 th
98.1 th
97.7 th
97.2 fh
96.7th .
96.3 th
95.8 lh
95.3 th
93.0 % 94.9 th I
92.3
91.7
91.2
91.0
91.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
89.8
89.0
89.0
88.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
86.7
86.7
86.0
86.0
85.4
85.0
84.9
82.6
82.0
80.5
78.3
77.0
77.0
74.6
74.0
73.2
70.0 %
69.8 % 79.4 lh
69.5 % 79.0th
69.1 % 78.5th
67.0 % 78.0 th
67.0 % 77.6 th
65.9 % 77.1 th
65.6 % 76.6 th
64.8 % 76.2th
63.9 % 75.71h
63.8 % 75.2 th
63.8 % 74.81h
63.8 % 74.3 th
62.5 % 73.8 th
61.5 % 73.4 th
61.0 % 72.9 th
61.0 % 72.4th
61.0 % 72.0 th
61.0 % 71.51h
60.0 % 71.0 lh
59.5 % 70.6 th
59.1 % 70.1 lh
59.1 % 69.6 th
59.0 % 69.2 th
58.7 % 68.7 th
58.5 % 68.2th
58.0 % 67.8 th
58.0 % 67.3 th
57.2 % 66.81h
56.9 % 66.4 th
56.3 % 65.91h
56.0 % 65.4 th
55.8 % 65.0 th
55.6 % 64.5 th
55.5 % 64.0 th
54.6 % 63.6 th
54.0 % 63.1 th
54.0 % 62.61h
54.0 % 62.1 th
94.4 th
93.9 th
93.5 th
93.0 th
92.5 th
92.1 th
91.6 th
91.11h
90.7 th
90.2th
89.7 th
89.3 th
88.8 lh
88.3 lh
87.9 th
87.41h
86.9 th
86.41h
86.0 th
85.5 lh
85.0 lh
84.6 th
84.1 th
83.6 th
83.2 th
82.7 lh
82.2th
81.8 th
81.3 th
80.8 th
80.4 th .
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
94.7 %
94.5 %
94.1 %
100.0 lh
99.4 th
98.8 th
98.2 th
97.6 th
97.0th
96.3 th
95.7th
94.0 % 95.1 th
93.0 % 94.5 th
93.0 % 93.9 th
91.7 % 93.3 th
91.2 % 92.71h
91.0 % 92.1 th
90.0 % 91.5 lh
90.0 % 90.9 lh
90.0 % 90.2 th
89.8 % 89.6th
89.0 % 89.0 th
89.0 % 88.4 th
87.0 % 87.8 th
87.0 % 87.2 th
86.7 % 86.6 th
86.7 % 86.0 th
86.0 % __85.4th
85.4 % 84.8 th
84.9 % 84.1 th
82.6 % 83.5 th
82.0 % 82.9 th
78.3 % 82.3 th
77.0 % 81.7 th
73.2 % 81.1th
70.0 % 80.5 th
69.8 % 79.9 th
69.1 % 78.7 th
67.0 % 78.0 th
67.0 % 77.4 th
65.9 % 76.81h
65.6 % 76.2 th
64.8 % 75.6th
63.9 % 75.0th
63.8 % 74.4 th
63.8 % 73.8 th
63.8 % 73.2 th
62.5 % 72.6 th
61.0 % 72.0th
61.0 % 71.3th
61.0 % 70.7 th
61.0 % 70.1 th
60.0 % 69.5 th
59.5 % 68.9 th
59.1 % 68.3 th
59.0 % 67.71h
58.7 % 67.1 lh
58.5 % 66.5 th
58.0 % 65.9 th
58.0 % 65.2 th
57.2 % 64.6 th
56.3 % 64.0 th
55.8 % 63.4 th
55.6 % 62.8 th
55.5 % 62.2th
54.6 % 61.6 th
54.0 % 61.oth
54.0 % 60.4 th
54.0 % 59.8 th
53.5 % 59.1 th
53.0 % 58.5 th
52.3 % 57.9th
52.0 % 57.3 th
51.8 % 56.7 th
51.6 % 56.1 th
51.0 % 55.5 th
50.9 % 54.9 th
50.0 % 54.3 th
49.7 % 53.71h
48.3 % 53.0 th
47.0 % 52.4th
46.3 % 51.8 th
45.3 % 51.2 th
44.8 % 50.6 th

Roaoke Rapids InsIream IWC Study
All Surface All Surface Data
All Bottom All Bottom Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 th
99.1 th
98.1 th
97.21h
96.3 th
94.0 % 95.3 th I
% 94.4lh
% 93.5 th
% 92.5 th
% 91.61h
% 90.71h
% 89.7 th
% 88.8 th
% 87.9 th
% 86.9 th
% 86.0 th
% 85.0 th
% 84.1 th
% 83.2 th
% 82.2 th
% 81.3 th
% 80.41h
% 79.4 th
% 78.51h
% 77.61h
% 76.6 th
% 75.7th
% 74.8 th
% 73.81h
% 72.9 th
% 72.0 th
% 71.0 th
% 70.1 th
% 69.21h
% 68.21h
67.31h
% 66.41h
59.0 % 65.41h
58.7 % 64.5 th
58.0 % 63.6 th
56.3 % 62.6 th
54.6 .% 61.7th
53.5 % 60.71h
53.0 % 59.8 th
52.3 % 58.9 th
51.8 % 57.9 th
51.6 % 57.0 th
51.6 % 56.1 th
51.0 % 55.1 th
50.0 % 54.2 th
49.7 % 53.31h
48.3 % 52.3 th
45.3 % 51.4 th
42.0 % 50.51h
40.5 % 49.5 th
40.0 % 48.61h
39.0 % 47.7 th
38.8 % 46.71h
38.0 % 45.8 th
38.0 % 44.9 th
38.0 % 43.91h
38.0 % 43.0 th
37.0 % 42.1 lh
36.0 % 41.1 th
34.6 % 40.2 th
33.1 % 39.31h
32.7 % 38.31h
31.0 % 37.41h
29.7 % 36.41h
28.3 % 35.5 th
26.8 96 34.6 th
25.9 % 33.6 th
25.5 % 32.7 th
25.0 % 31.8 th
24.4 % 30.8 th
24.3 % 29.9 th
23.9 % 29.0 th
23.9 % 28.0 th
23.5 % 27.1 th
21.3 °% 26.21h
19.8 96 25.2 th
19.2 % 24.31h
93.0
93.0
92.3
91.7
91.0
91.0
90.0
89.0
88.0
87.0
87.0
86.7
86.0
85.4
82.6
80.5
78.3
77.0
74.0
73.2
69.8
69.5
67.0
64.8
63.8
63.8
63.8
61.5
61.0
61.0
59.1
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 th
98.8 th
97.6th
96.3 th
95.0 % 95.1 th
94.0
93.0
93.0
91.7
91.0
90.0
89.0
87.0
86.7
85.4
82.6
78.3
73.2
69.8
69.5
67.0
64.8
63.8
63.8
63.8
61.0
61.0
59.0
58.7
58.0
56.3
54.6
53.5
53.0
52.3
51.8
51.6
51.0
50.0
49.7
48.3
45.3
42.0
40.5
40.0
38.8
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
37.0
36.0
34.6
33.1
32.7
31.0
29.7
28.3
26.8
25.9
25.5
25.9
24.4
24.3
23.9
23.9
23.5
19.8
% 93.9 th
% 92.7 th
% 91.51h
% 90.2 th
% 89.0 th
% 87.81h
% 86.6 th
% 85.4 th
% 84.1 th
% 82.91h
% 81.7 th
% 80.51h
% 79.31h
% 78.0 th
% 76.8th
% 75.61h
% 74.4th
% 73.2 th
% 72.0th
% 70.7 th
% 69.5 th
% 68.31h
% 67.1 th
% 65.9 th
% 64.61h
% 63.41h
% 62.2th
% 61.0 th
% 59.81h
% 58.5 th
% 57.31h
% 56.1th
% 54.9th
• 53.71h
% 52.41h
% 51.2 th
% 50.0 th
• 48.81h
04 47.6th
04 46.3 th
• 45.1 th
• 43 91h
% 42.71h
• 41.51h
• 40.21h
9r° 39.0 th
• 37.8th
36.61h
• 35.4 th
% 34.1 th
% 32.9 th
% 31.7 th
% 30.5th
% 29.3th
% 28.0 th
% 26.8 th
% 25.61h
% 24.4 th
% 23.2 lh
% 22.0 th
% 20.7 th
% 19.5 th
% 18.3 th
18.2 % 17.1 lh
16.6 % 15.91h
16.0 % 14.61h
15.0 °% 13.4 th
14.8 °% 12.21h
11.8 % 11.01h
7.2 % 9.81h
6.8 % 8.5 th
6.8 % 7.3 th
6.6 % 6.1 th
6.0 % 4.9 th
5.3 % 3.7 th
5.0 5° 2.4 th
3.3 % 1.2 th
110.0 96
94.7 %
94.5 %
94.1 %
91.2 %
100.0 th
99.1 th
98.1 th
97.2 th
96.3 lh
90.0 % 95.31h 1
90.0 % 94.4 th
89.8 % 93.51h
89.0 % 92.51h
87.0 % 91.6 th
86.7 % 90.7 th
86.0 % 89.7 th
85.0 % 88.8 th
84.9 % 87.91h
82.0 % 86.9 th
77.0 % 86.0 th
74.6 % 85.0 th
70.0 % 84.1 th
69.1 % 83.2 th
67.0 % 82.2th
65.9 % 81.3 th
65.6 % 80.4 th
63.9 % 79.41h
62.5 % 78.5th
61.0 % 77.61h
61.0 % 76.6 th
60.0 % 75.7th
59.5 % 74.81h
59.1 % 73.81h
58.5 % 72.9 th
58.0 % 72.0 th
57.2 % 71.0 th
56.9 % 70.1 th
56.0 % 69.2 th
55.8 °% 68.2 th
55.6 % 67.3 th
55.5 % 66.41h
54.0 % 65.4 th
54.0 % 64.5 th
54.0 % 63.6 th
52.0 % 62.6 th
50.9 % 61.7 th
47.0 % 60.7 th
46.3 % 59.8 th
44.8 % 58.91h
43.7 % 57.9 th
43.0 % 57.0 th
41.2 % 56.1 th
41.2 ' 55.t th
41.0 % 54.2 th
40.9 % 53.31h
39.4 % 52.3 th
38.6 % 51.4 th
37.3 % 50.5 th
36.0 % 49.5 th
35.9 % 48.6 th
34.7 % 47.71h
34.4 % 46.7 th
34.2 % 45.81h
33.9 % 44.9 th
32.7 % 43.9 th
31.6 % 43.0 th
31.2 % 42.1 th
31.0 % 41.1 th
29.7 % 40.2 th
29.5 % 39.3 th
28.4 % 38.3 th
26.8 % 37.4 th
26.5 % 36.4 th
26.2 % 35.5 th
23.3 % 34.6 th
22.0 % 33.61h
22.0 % 32.7 th
21.0 % 31.8 th
21.0 % 30.8 th
20.0 % 29.91h
17.1 % 29.01h
16.6 °% 28.0 th
15.3 % 27.1 th
15.0 % 26.2 th
15.0 %' 25.2 th
14.7 % 24.31h
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 th
98.8 th
97.5 th
96.3 th
95.0 % 95.1 th 1
94.0
93.0
93.0
91.7
90.0
89.0
87.0
86.7
85.4
82.6
82.0
78.3
73.2
69.8
69.5
67.0
63.9
63.8
62.5
61.0
61.0
59.1
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
59.0 %
58.7 %
58.5 %
58.0 %
55.6 %
54.6 %
53.5 %
51.8 %
51.0 %
49.7 %
44.8 %
43.7 %
42.0 %
41.2 %
41.2 %
40.0 %
39.4 %
38.8 %
38.0 %
38.0 %
38.0 %
37.0 %
34.2 %
33.1 %
32.7 %
32.7 %
31.6 %
29.7 %
28.3 %
26.8 %
25.0 %
24.4 %
24.3 %
23.9 %
23.9 %
23.5 %
21.0 %
19.8 %
18.2 %
17.1 9
16.6 %
16.0
15.0 %
14.8 %
14.7 %
11.8 %
8.0
6.8 %
6.8 %
6.8 %
6.6 %
5.4 %
5.0
3.3 %
93.8th
92.6 th
91.4 th
90.1th
88.9 lh
87.7 th
86.4 th
85.2 th
84.0 th
82.7 th
81.5 th
80.2 th
79.0 th
77.8 th
76.5 th
75.3 th
74.1 th
72.8 th
71.6 th
70.4 th
69.1 lh
67.9 th
66.7 th
65.4th
642th
63.0 th
61.7 th
60.51h
59.3 th
58.0 th
56.8 th
55.6th
54.31h
53.1th
51.9 th
50.6 th
49.4 th
48.1 lh
46.9 th
45.71h
44.4 th
43.2 th
42.0 th
40.7 th
39.5 th
38.31h
37.0 th
35.8 th
34.6 th
33.3th
32.1 th
30.9 th
29.6 th
28.4 th
27.2 th
25.9th
24.7th
23.5 th
22.2 th
21.0 th
19.8 th
18.5 th
17.3th
16.0 th
14.8 th
13.6 th
12.3 th
11.1 th
9.9 th
8.6 th
7.4 th
6.2 th
4.9 th
3.7 1h
2.5th
1.2 th

junk
#4
#5
#4#5
iwc
percentiles
iwc
percentiles
iwc
percentiles
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
98%
92%
98%
95%
99%
94%
96%
91%
96%
95%
98%
94%
94%
88%
94%
94%
97%
93%
92%
87%
92%
94%
96%
92%
90%
86%
90%
93%
95%
91%
88%
85%
88%
92%
94%
90%
87%
81%
86%
92%
93%
90%
85%
77%
84%
91%
92%
89%
83%
75%
82%
91%
91%
87%
81%
74%
80%
90%
90%
_ 82%
79%
62%
78%
90%
89%
. 78%
77%
59%
76%
89%
88%
70%
75%
57%
75%
88%
88%
70%
73%
56%
73%
87%
87%
67%
71%
52%
71%
87%
86%
67%
69%
39%
69%
86%
85%
66%
67%
37%
67%
85%
84%
60%
65%
36%
65%
82%
83%
59%
63%
34%
63%
81%
82%
58%
62%
31%
61%
78%
81%
58%
60%
22%
59%
77%
80%
52%
58%
21%
57%
75%
79%
50%
56%
19%
55%
74%
78%
48%
54%
15%
53%
70%
77%
41%
52%
15%
51%
70%
76%
36%
50%
11%
49%
67%
75%
35%
48%
11%
47%
67%
74%
35%
46%
9%
45%
66%
73%
33%
44%
8%
43%
62%
72%
28%
42%
8%
41%
60%
71%
26%
40%
8%
39%
59%
70%
24%
38%
7%
37%
59%
69%
20%
37%
7%
35%
58%
68%
20%
35%
7%
33%
58%
67%
17%
33%
7%
31%
57%
66%
15%
31%
7%
29%
56%
65%
15%
29%
7%
27%
52%
64%
15%
27%
7%
25%
52%
63%
15%
25%
7%
24%
50%
63%
8%
23%
6%
22%
48%
62%
8%
21%
6%
20%
41%
61%
8%
19%
6%
18%
39%
60%
Page 1

junk
7%
17%
6%
16%
37%
59%
7%
15%
6%
14%
36%
58%
. 7%
13%
6%
- 12%
36%
57%
7%
12%
6%
10%
35%
56%
7%
10%
6%
8%
35%
55%
6%
8%
5%
6%
34%
54%
6%
6%
5%
4%
33%
53%
5%
4%
5%
2%
31%
52%
5%
2%
5%
0%
28%
51%
3%
0%
26%
50%
.
24%
49%
22%
48%
21%
47%
20%
46%
20%
45%
19%
44%
17%
43%
15%
42%
15%
41%
15%
40%
15%
39%
15%
38%
15%
38%
11%
37%
11%
36%
9%
35%
8%
34%
8%
33%
8%
32%
8%
31cYo
8%
30%
8%
29%
7%
28%
7%
27%
7%
26%
7%
25%
7%
24%
7%
23%
7%
22%
7%
21%
7%
20%
7%
19%
7%
18%
7%
17%
7%
16%
6%
15%
Page 2

junk
6%
14%
6%
13%
-
6%
13%
6%
12%
6%
11%
6%
10%
6%
9%
6%
8%
6%
7%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
3%
5%
2%
5%
1%
3%
0%
Page 3

junk
#3
#2
iwc
percentiles
iwc
percentiles
95%
100%
95%
100%
90%
98%
90%
98%
69%
96%
69%
96%
65%
94%
65%
94%
61%
92%
61%
92%
60%
91%
60%
91clo
59%
89%
59%
89%
59%
87%
59%
87%
57%
85%
57%
85%
56%
83%
56%
83%
56%
81%
56%
81%
- - 54%
- 79%
.
54%
79.%
53%
77%
53%
77%
52%
75%
52%
75%
51%
74%
51%
74%
51 %
72%
51 %
72%
45%
70%
45%
70%
45%
68%
45%
68%
44%
66%
44%
66%
41 %
64%
41%
64%
41%
62%
41%
62%
41%
60%
41%
60%'
39%
58%
39%
58%
38%
57%
38%
57%
38%
55%
38%
55%
38%
53%
38%
53%
38%
51%
38%
51%
37%
49%
37%
49%
36%
47%
36%
47%
34%
45%
34%
45%
34%
43%
34%
43%
33%
, 42%
33%
42%
33%
40%
33%
40%
31%
38%
31%
38%
30%
36%
30%
36%
30%
34%
30%
34%
29%
32%
29%
32%
28%
30%
28%
30%
27%
28%
27%
28%
27%
26%
27%
26%
27%
25%
27%
25%
26%
23%
26%
23%
26%
21%
26%
21%
Page 1

junk
25%
19%
25%
19%
24%
17%
24%
17%
24%
15%
24%
15%
24%
13%
24%
13%
21%
11%
21%
11%
18%
9%
18%
9%
17%
8%
17%
8%
17%
6%
17%
6%
16%
4%
16%
4%
14%
2%
' 14%
2%
12%
0%
12%
0%
Page 2

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax Nov 3 '97 11:26 P.01
� � SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE. L.L.R
An'o N EYS AT LAW
LOT7't p RA�.cMON, NORTH CAROLINA
7+03T neat eweit..w7 \o \ L
04ARLo . N. C. 18231 \ _ MAILI tW * 5MC5 G REEr ,►poasSS
POST *Fritz ism .»as owe TWO my* 0.414.4.0
RALEIGH. N.C. r.760t
T t pt4ope ti 704/343+2400
7p.J3mJJ4S
wstreCR'E DIRECT Di*t.
[phone]
ViA FACSIMILE
Mk' rI. G Z7&I1
Mr. sit rijoku-obi
Associate Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
tg grw6MC 9tQ/7S547170
rwccre.tt.c atoi'Nss.eeoo
November 3, 1997
6REENSBORO
POST orr,GC aOtc ?t987
GRcnrssoRo. N. C. ess"
TELEPHONE DtO/370St0O
d',4 IUILC gletoW00043f
Post -It' Fax Note 7671
Date 1pafs► -.
From
l b 4"
To M 4114 atit�Ke
CoiDept.
+fiv a
y
Co.
Pone #
Phone #
`ems
- o714
Fax S -
Re: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NCBBHNR, DWQ OAH, 97 EF R J855,
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Njoku-obi:
4-0
J
This wilt confirm our conversation Thursday zegarding the Wing for the mediation and
initial discovery in the above referenced cam. As Iinforme . you, my client is not able to �vl''� t .,
made a 'counter proposal' to the agency, your client requested in our settlement meeting.
. .ct b does not.believe there is sufficient data at this time
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary D>� ("ROD") _
on which to base a valid toxitity limit. This position was discussed at length by Ms. Knox of , 'f
Geraghtyand Miller at the meeting. RRSD would need additional time
� e to conduct
of the river that it believes is necessary to determine a valid toxicity limit, any is recess V * % oe �, d,
Therefore, our settlement position, at this lime, continues to be the removal o 4-4W17>A
usion-of-a ' ' mo �. ' requirement, due to the lack of �5"ul-to�atY g ,�
among ' t • t gs. < ase• .. ,''
Regarding the mediation schedule, we agree with Mr. West's suggested date of
November 10, 1997. However, we would prefer that the mewing start later in the day, such
as around 11:00, to allow our out-of-town attendees to travel to Raleigh without get
inconvenience. You stated that you would get back to me on the change of time to 11:00, but
didn't think there should be any problems.
Documeat 124008

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Nov 3 '97 11:27 P. 02
Mr. Bart Njoku obi
November 3, 1997
Page 2
finally, as we discussed, I do intend to notice the depositions of, at least, Steve Tedder
and the agency's designee(s) on the issues of the determination of "reasonable potential" for
RBSD's permit and the determination of the toxicity limit for RRSD's permit. Therefore,1
would appreciate your contacting these individuals and determining their schedules, so that I
can notice-the;depositiona for dates that they arc available. This effort its Intended to cut down
on delays in accomplishing these depositions in the limited time before the hearing.
W e still need to get back to Tom West regarding the time and date for the mediation
and whether we want lam to request an extension from lodge Chess. We also need to discuss
whether we want to ask for an extension of the hearing, given how c uickdy it flows the dose
of discovery and the typical delays that occur during the holidays. Given these factors, Y
would think we would want to ask for an extension on the hearing also. Let me know your
thoughts on this issue as soon as you have talked tao your client.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
SMITH HEWS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
15eitit.
Elizabeth Powell
cc: Wendell Moseley
Macon R,eav is
•
Document Number: 124008

• •
,,,C74 R'» -
/ .0,4/9 7
moo&
Doi+ 1,1jokik-O___
RD1I, kbX
Fkett,tci -s •
bN Rt4\J1S
O rniz,c ci
ke:CleC-56,07Alcz.
(d' "
NC .), 0 W'.
MC bitt vc_i_19
o-(
�lJ C 'D0,3
AAie
...;.e1");
(4)7u, -goo
Cie ra1)0,1 t mi 11ei (5�c4)z1z. )00 q
2L2 ase.1
'0,4't' tt kiApvi
'2/4-41r rP-0,4
mU(Lc s.> eitfce L E�
k7z- ()
53'7 /37
_
�p
Q�q_?sr- alS
Rad aAn+ 0 (s A 14?- 5 1Q - �7 c2 ' S S
7

!79XI 4.y (.S$r,
PAA; c4
1169-0 idlto-44 LiAzof
6-0 J s cL-(
'14 Y ~ ) AV
olicciLLv-
Wce&to sks[citu-
- n C,:,A J - WO.
lu- S c
& pk 4(4 • / Li- C M S` -
S
Lc,, /61,1K
s, A quo.-v
OAA,44-ti `-`" Aeo
cr.4-4 ° .
c ( 0 o
M 0g c .
( LiLjz, J 94O.('
tcrtic)
-Qt•t-t f;k(A,) Oet ASZ A \ k - 1 ce,-t_C
dafill
\k, iiik-e,, 7I-c-,,a-sz J.e&tct,1 A"-i c-ei 6/45_Q-k

C.4, ir,
3oSC�
XTILD
c.){((‘-1 c44J c,-Asf
AJ(..k 4cei
wimi .1p is, a DO tkiZ
,z, j qeSle
i
5„4 ooLs, 9 c-clik
D6 rg4b1,it „jaop
1,04

uz) c<c0,S,&.s
S
coo4R
c:SceSA,
cL
oSs6C) ,41(4.„)

or
Q,1/4,AtJ Zi kDA ask t..\$.s\I •••••
CY-As."4.145, -7 I IT
(0o %-••Z
L.
cg,62, cf
4,)
eoLib-\ 4
cLit Lad,
LJ
- e • s.
_elo - )
4531t.,0 Nit I a". /to C SI C-
Ithrii 6..
a -
tiro
l< z •s)
z cick =
cr
ce Csr-k
C!--1
s-
c
i• Ys'''
relA4-4Z/A -e
4iy )46D
0 0 ,
.Q1'• ej-3Z-)
0‘,.NAt
.'(v

PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER
TABLE 2.1 1
Conductivity Factors for Ions Commonly Found
in Water
ION
Cations
Calcium (Ca+2)
Magnesium (Mg -2)
Potassium (K')
Sodium (Na`)
Anions
Bicarbonate (HCO3-)
Carbonate (CO3 2)
Chloride (C1-)
Nitrate (NO3-)
Sulfate (SO4 2)
Source: From Ref.
[2.32 J,
CONDUCTIVITY
FACTOR f .
KS/cm
Per
meq/L
52.0
46.6
72.0
48.9
43.6
84.6
75.9
71.0
73.9
Per
mg/L
2.60
3.82
1.84
2.13
0.715
2.82
2.14
1.15
1.54
TABLE 2.12
Qualitative Classification of Wafers
According to Level of
Hardness*
HARDNESS
DESCRIPTION mg/L as
meq/L CaCO3
<1
1-3
3-6
>6
*Typically based on Ca"1 and ,1q
Soft
Moderately hard
Hard
Very hard
alents per cubic meter
(milliequivaJents per liter):
Hardness, eq/m3 =
In the older literature,(Ca+2) + (Mg+z�
nr cubic mrter of tuneCaChardness is often expressed(2.62)
hasper been superseded 3 This method was a matter
as equivalent grams
perseded by expressinga m ofo convenience that
the literature dealing hardness in terms of
reported in Table 2.12 is often uwased a er quality,
the r equivalents. In
water.
the qualitative classification
relative hardness of a
Two genera] typesassociatedgeneral
of hardness are of interest: wt HCO3 and CO-2 carbonate hardness,
ated other anions, 3 ,and noncarbonate hardness,
atedoa with and Particularly CI - and SO -' associ-
ated hardness is important inhe balance between
(hardness removal) and in scale formation. Because HCO -
high temperatures (the equilibriumwater softening
and 60 C constant increases by a 3 dissociates f 2.6
between 5 0
due to CaCO )' a result of heating hard water is scale formation
3 precipitation:
Ca+z + 2HCO3- H
CaCO3+CO, +H
Scale formation'O
g(2.63)
Ares tan epipeto floweases heat -transfer coefficients, and
changes frictional
< 50
50-150
150-300
> 300
2.52.5-CHEMICAL C,
Two Ovate
of the an
carbonate
sample.
CONSTI
Ca+2
Mg+2
HCO3 -
C1-
SOLUTION,
1. Determin
a. Samplt
TH =
where
1 eq/m.
b. Sample
TH (C
2. Determine
a. Sample 1
CH = (H,
b. Sample 2:
CH = (HC
Because th
hardness (
eq/m3. Tht
CH=6eq/
3. Determine non
a. Sample 1:
NCH =TH-
=6-=
b. Sample 2:
NCH = TH
=6-6

1b/08/97 WED 14:56 FAX [phone] • 4POYNER-SPRUILL°
Q 002
PJYNER&SPRJILLDL.LI
ATT40N$Va AT LAW
3600 Glaawood Aveau=
Mei" North Carolina 27612
Mading Addy:
Poot Offtco Boa 10096
Rakish, North GtoU a 276054 096
919/783 00
Frc 919/7034070
Thomv R. West
Paeater 06wocc
lblnighfRoalcr Meuat/Chabate
Direct Dial: 919/1834897
October 8, 1997
Beth Powell Yerxa, Esq.
Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore
Post Office Box 27525
Raleigh, NC 27611
Bart Njoku-Obi
Assistant Attorney General
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Re: Mediation of dispute between Roanoke Rapids Sanitary
District and Division of Water Quality, N.C. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, 97 EHR 0855
Dear Beth and Bart:
The deadline for completion of mediation in the above
referenced contested case is November 6, 1997. When my secretary
called you last week, November 6 was open on my calendar. Today,
I learned that I need to hold my calendar for both November 5 and
6 open until Thursday, October 9 for an appearance before the State
Board of Education on behalf of a client.
My calendar ie beginning to fill up, so 1 want us to go ahead
and tentatively schedule the mediation of this case. Unless I hear
from you that you cannot be available, 1 will call you both on a
conference call at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, October 10 so we can set up
this mediation. Currently open on my calendar for this mediation
are November 3, October 20, and October 17. By Friday morning, I
should know if November 6 is open. My week of November 10 is very
open, and if it meets with your plans, we could call Judge Chess
and seek an extension of the deadline until sometime the next week.
That would be particularly helpful to me since I will be on
vacation the last week of October and have a large discovery
production to make by November 4.
I look forward to talking with you on Friday morning.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. West
TRW/ ssdk

11/08/97 WED 14:55 FAX [phone] •
:POYNER-SPRUILL"
0001
To:
Name:
Beth Powell Yerxa
FACSIMILE
PJNR&SPkJILLLL!
ATTORNEYS Al LAW
Bart Njolcu-Obi
Telephone
Number
755-8700
Fax Number
744-8800
716-6600
116-416
Total # of pages: -2-
From:
Name: Thomas R. West
Transmission Date: October 8,1997
Comments:
Time: •; p p
If all the pages were not received or there is a problem with this transmission, please call
[phone] and ask for: Susan Kelley @ ext 2922 —
3600 Glenwood Avenue
Post Office Box 10096
Raleigh, NC 27605-0096
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.poynerspruill.com
The information contained in this facsimile
message is attorney privileged and
confidential information intended only for the
use of the individual or entity named as
recipient. If the reader is not the intended
recipient, be hereby notified that any •
dissemination, distribution or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by telephone
and return the original message to us at the
address on the left via the U.S. Postal
Service. Thank you.

CHARLOTTE
POST OFFICE BOX 31247
CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28231
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILE 704/334-8467
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
[phone]
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L. L. P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA GREENSBORO
POST OFFICE BOX 21927
GREENSBORO, N. C. 27420
A IA_EACSTh ILE
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 27525
RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
Mr. Bart Njoku-obi
Associate Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
STREET ADDRESS
2800 TWO HANNOVER SQUARE
RALEIGH. N. C. 27601
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILE 919/755-8800
October 7, 1997
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILE 910/379-9558
RECEIVED
OCT , 91997
AT1OR NEy
GENERAL.
nviron.
Environmental Divisioh
Re: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NCDEHNR, DWQ OAH, 97 EHR 1855,
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Njoku-obi:
I have attached a short memorandum from Robin Knox of Geraghty & Miller regarding
the technical issues which are the basis for Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District's challenge to its
NPDES permit. This memo can be used as an outline for discussion at the meeting on the
14th.
As you can see, the meeting will start out with a discussion regarding the results of
toxicity tests recently performed on the RRSD effluent. However, as your clients, I sure, will
know, this test does not reflect the current effluent toxicity, as the disinfection unit has just
come on line and there has been no toxicity testing on this discharge.
The remaining issues outlined in the attached memorandum are the primary technical
basis for RRSD's permit challenge. Robin Knox, as well as Mr. Maynard and Ms. Durso
from Piedmont Olsen Hensley will be addressing these issues.
Calculation of an IWC for toxicity testing that accurately reflects the character of the
stream is, needless to say, extremely important for RRSD. Therefore, it is important that all
relevant data are accurately calculated to arrive at the IWC. At the meeting, we will discuss
DOCunlcnt Nwnbcr. 119880

Mr. Bart Njoku-obi
October 7, 1997
Page 2
our position regarding the insufficiency of DWQ's calculation of the IWC for RRSD and the
actions we have already taken and intend to take to gain additional data to recalculate the IWC.
DWQ is also aware of the unique situation facing the RRSD due to its close proximity
to the Roanoke River. Such location makes the determination of where the water quality
standards are applicable and determination of parameters for calculation of the IWC difficult.
Moreover, it raises issues regarding whether toxicity testing is accurately reflecting what is
happening in the creek. Over thirty years of discharge have failed to indicate any apparent
chronic or acute toxic affect on the creek. Therefore, we believe that it is imperative that we
take a hard look at the actual fate and impact of the RRSD discharge in the stream to
determine whether the reasonable potential for chronic toxicity exists and whether the chronic
toxicity test is an accurate reflection of what is actually happening in the creek.
While RRSD, like the DWQ, certainly does not want to study this issue "to death",
given the current political climate and the possible impact of RRSD's noncompliance with any
permit condition, it is of utmost importance to RRSD that the permit conditions be accurately
calculated and calculated in total compliance with the DWQ statutes and rules.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
-2
dbalfri.
Elizabeth Powell Yerxa
EPY:isc
Enclosure
Document Nwunbcr: 119880
r4

'ARTER & LRND SECTION Fax:[phone]
Oct 8 '97 8:06
P. 04
OtherAter quality Fa1'aQletcr�z��,.�. �
Data distribution and ealculation prb r ii e
w
ATTACHMENT A
Roanoke RApids Sanitary District
Meeting wit.it Division of Water Quality,
October 14, 1997
Tchatcal Stem for Discussion
• Baseline Toxicity Test Results (before disinfection unit on-line)
a Test Duration Inappropriate to Duration of $xposure
• Chronic exposure unlikely due to short time of travel to the river
Baseline chronic value significantly higher than In -Stream
Concentration (IWC) established for Chockoyotte Creek Waste
- No demonstrated reasonable potential for staudat-ds excee<iance requiring
chronic protection on Choc$oyotte Creek
• Inability of Test to Predict In,Stt cam Impact
Generally controlled toxicity test results do not correlate to observed in -
stream impacts
▪ There is no lmown toxicity being exerted in -stream as a result of 20
years of discharge
Errors in. maculation of IWC
Upstream conductivity not accounted for in IWC caIculation -
Suffc:cnt data is not available to account for upstream conductivity -
4- a
Conductivity tY measurements may be is Ceurate due to interference from
•
u.�
rt. W
relationship p1 l��
Faulty ass tu tion regarding uent u 0 4-e
e
Qw an waste concenixdtion
•
cA
s��
V
iiii
c \A)

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone]
VVIV140VVVu
Oct 3 '97 8:41 P.02
SMITH HELMS MULL159 & Moans, L. L. P
Arrowfers AT LAM,
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA GRCENSBORO
cxAfiI.OTTa sip OFFICii pas Ei927
POST OFFICE BOX 31 GREENSBORO, N.O. wrsa0
CHIRLOTTC. eq. CI 8023( NAMLINd AiaaNd+Q0 5TRCCT'.& BRQ*a
PCir OFFICE BOX ants EAOQTN) IuMNDVER &QNAC TELEPHON$ ?Id37P-420ci
VW -PHONE 70i/ Oxio w..Le.p+. w. 0. Well RALCION. N. .276OI n�caiINILC o�w�a+�.►CRn
rwr'ss+�ts�C 7o•a/334s�7
10.1[.NOKi BM-15647M
WRITER'S GIRCCt DIAL FaCsihtlLB unt/ ORCRDO
(919) 7S5.8757
October 2, 1997
JA FAC`SDITLE
Mr. Bart Ijolcu»obi
Associate Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
LID
1
Re: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. i CDFHNR, DWQ OAH, 97 EHR 1855,
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Njoku-obi:
This will confirm the informal Settlement mating scheduled for the above ref
ced
matter on Tuesday, October 14, 1997, at 1.0:00 a.m. in your offices. As promised, we
provide additional information, including a summary of our technical position, to you in
writing on October 7, so that your client will be able to prepare for the meeting.
Present at the meeting on behalf of RRSD, in addition to myself, will be Francine
Durso and John Maynard, from Piedmont Olson Hensley; Robin Knox from Geraghcisient d
Miller; and Macon Reavis from the RRSD. As already discttssccl on thc phone, Y
firm that Steve Tedder be Fromm at tht mating to facilitate discussion and resolution of this
matter. Much as youx clients want to see that additional information will be provided before
the meetly g, my clients need assurance that MT. Tedder, or someone who can make decision
for the agency in what my client believes is a very unique and difficult situation, will be
present.
DOCumat s:119669

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
June 4, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: File
From: Juan C. Mangles rvti
Subject: Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Permit Limit
Roanoke Rapids WWTP
NPDES Permit No. NC 0024201
Halifax County
During the comment period of the NPDES permit issued as per WLA dated 2-18-97, Roanoke Rapids
requested a meeting to discuss the new WET limit. I met with representatives of the town , Farrell
Keough, and Mark Maclntire. Agenda of the meeting is attached.
The WET limit remained unchanged after the meeting. The limit was derived from a number of
dilution readings (approximately 200) collected from April to October 1995. Dilution was calculated
based on conductivity samples collected at the effluent and at a number of locations upstream and
downstream (top/bottom) of the effluent in the receiving stream (see attached diagram and study plan).
The data was ranked and percentiles were calculated. I started by assigning a limit that reflected the
95th percentile of all the data, but realizing that this limit (about 95%) would be problematic, I
recommended a limit based on the 80th percentile. This percentile corresponds to 70% IWC, but
corrected for flow corresponds to 79% IWC. Correction for flow is necessary because the observed
IWC's were under an average effluent flow of 5 MGD, and permitted flow is 8.34 MGD. Therefore
using the IWC equation, Qup was calculated to be 3.3 cfs. This flow was then entered into the IWC
equation to estimate an IWC based on this 3.3 cfs stream flow, and a design flow of 8.34 _MGD.
On June 4,1995, I met with Dave Goodrich, Steve Bevington, Mark MacIntire and Steve Tedder.
Roanoke Rapids had contacted again P&E to complain about the WET limit. A look at the data showed
that high IWC's were observed at the most upstream location, especially during periods of low flow. The
highest dilution was observed at the station closer to the Roanoke River. Given that this facility has been
in operation for over 20 years, it was agreed by staff and supported by Tedder to protect for average
conditions (median or 50th percentile) and not worst case scenario. This resulted in a IWC of 39.4%
which adjusted to a flow of 8.34 MGD results in an IWC of 51.8%. Therefore the WET limit is 52%.

AUG
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HALIFAX
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
97 EHR 0855
ROANOKE RAPIDS SANITARY
DISTRICT
Petitioners
v.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES
Respondent
PREHEARING STATEMENT
OF PETmONER
NOW COME Petitioner, through counsel, and submit its Prehearing Statement in the
above captioned case.
1. The issues to be resolved, and the statutes, rules, and legal precedent
involved.
With respect to the NPDES Permit, NC0024201, issued to Petitioner on June 20, 1997,
Petitioner contends that the Respondent exceeded its authority or jurisdiction, acted
erroneously, failed to use proper procedure, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or failed to act
as required by law or rule.
The statutes, rules and legal precedent involved with regard to these issues includes the
Water and Air Resources Act at N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 143, Article 21, 15A N. C. A. C.
Subpart 2B and 2H, the Federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Part 122. Specific legal
precedent to be relied upon has not been determined at this time.
2. A brief statement of the facts and reasons supporting the party's position
on each matter in dispute.
1. Respondent has erroneously implemented the water quality standards as a
water quality -based effluent limit in arriving at the effluent and monitoring requirements for
Petitioner's permit.

2. Respondent has proposed a toxicity test for Petitioner's facility that does not
meet federal standards for the conduct of such test.
3. The toxicity test required under Petitioner's permit is overly protective.
4. Respondent has failed to properly determine the mixing zone and zone of
initial dilution in determining applicability of acute and chronic water quality standards.
5. Respondent erred in the calculation of the instream waste concentration in
that the conductivity of the water available for instream mixing was not factored into the
calculation of the percent effluent.
6. Respondent failed to adequately determine the duration of exposure of
residential organisms in the Creek, given the short distance to the Roanoke River, in
determining whether a chronic or acute test was more appropriate.
7. The accuracy and precision of the whole effluent toxicity test protocol render
it inappropriate as a permit compliance measure in that the results obtained for a given sample
can vary significantly from one laboratory to the next. In particular, the statistical tests that
are used for interpreting the results of the toxicity test are such that very precise tests will
indicate non-compliance more often and less precise test will indicate compliance more often
for the same level of toxicity in a sample.
8. Whole effluent toxicity testing results do not correlate to actual instream
impacts due to differences in organisms exposed, exposure durations, temperature, and water
quality. Therefore, failure of a whole effluent toxicity test is not necessarily indicative of
actual toxic effects in the receiving water.
Petitioner reserves the right to rely on additional facts to support their case as such facts
are revealed through discovery or Petitioner's own research.
3. A list of proposed witnesses.
a. Robin Knox, Geraghty & Miller
b. John Maynard, Piedmont Olson Hensley
c. Francine Durso, Piedmont Olson Hensley
d. Macon Reavis, Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
e. Steve Tedder, Division of Water Quality
f. Dave Goodrich, Division of Water Quality
2

g•
Juan Mangles, Division of Water Quality
h. Mark McIntire, Division of Water Quality
Petitioner reserves the right to call additional witnesses to be determined as discovery
proceeds.
4. Whether you wish to pursue discovery. If so, the length of time required if
different from the time set in the Scheduling Order.
Petitioner wishes to pursue discovery in this matter within the time limit provided in
the Scheduling Order.
5. Requested location of hearing(s) if different from the location set in the
Scheduling Order.
Petitioner requests that the hearing be held in Raleigh, as the majority of witnesses and
attorneys are located in Raleigh.
6. Estimated length of hearing.
Petitioner estimates the length of the hearing to be 1 - 2 days.
7. If you do not have an attorney, your home and business addresses and
telephone numbers.
Not applicable.
8. The date by which you will be ready to have a hearing in this case if
different from the date set in the Scheduling Order.
Petitioner believes at this time that it will be ready to have a hearing by the date set in
the Scheduling Order, but reserve the right to ask for an extension of the hearing dates should
such prove necessary.
9. Other special matters.
Petitioner reserves the right to amend this prehearing statement.
3

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of August, 1997.
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P.
BY:
beth Powell Ye
P.O. Box 27525
Raleigh, NC 27611
Tel: [phone]
NC Bar #15609
Attorneys for Petitioner,
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
4

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602.0629
REPLY TO: Hart Njoku-Obi
Associate Attorney General
Environmental Division
Td. [phone]
Faz.[phone]
6.0
MEMORANDUM
L,
TO: Coleen Sullins, DWQ Central Office
David Goodrich, DWQ Central Office '
Mark McIntire, DWQ Central Office
FROM: Bart Njoku-Obi, Environmental DivisionGrN
fyo'
DATE: August 28, 1997
RE: Petition for Contested Case
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District v. NCDEHNR, DWQ
Halifax County 97 EHR 0855
Please review the enclosed Prehearing Statement from the Petitioner. Therein, the Petitioner
generally sets out its concerns regarding this contested case and the subject permit. I spoke
with the Petitioner's attorney again today, and she indicated that her client is working on
providing more specific details of its concerns. Once these specific details are provided I
will follow-up with you to discuss them and, if necessary, look to set up a settlement
conference with Petitioner.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 716-6600.
ep/16947

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
1000 Jackson Street P.O. Box 308
May 27, 1997
Mr. David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Group
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 [phone] Fax [phone]
Subject: NC0024201
Draft NPDES Permit
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Roanoke Rapids, NC
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
RECEIVED
.,lai 5 0 1991
DWQ BUDGET OFFICE
We have received a draft issue of a revised NPDES permit for our wastewater treatment plant
located at the confluence of the Roanoke River and Chockoyotte Creek. Because of numerous
and significant changes to the permit, we requested a meeting with your staff to discuss the
issues. On May 15, 1997, we met with Juan Mangles, Farrell Krough, and Mark McIntire.
During that meeting we were able to resolve several minor issues or discrepancies that were
noted in the revised permit. Enclosed ATTACHMENT NUMBER 1 identifies these discrepancies
and notes our understanding of agreement on these issues. The proposed standard that
continues to be our greatest concern is the requirement for using 79% dilution to evaluate
potential toxicity of the effluent. That dilution ratio is 60 times more stringent than the dilution
ratio specified in the current permit. The proposed figure appears to us to be an excessive
change, especially in the absence of any identifiable problem in the receiving stream.
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 2 offers a discussion of this issue.
We are requesting further meetings, correspondence, or hearings as necessary to resolve this
issue related to toxicity testing prior to the issue of a final NPDES permit.
Very truly yours,
G. Macon Reavis, Jr.
Superintendent
cc: Piedmont Olsen Hensley
Mr. Preston Howard
Mr. Steve Tedder
WWTP
a:\corres6\NCDEM1970527dg.doc

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
NPDES Permit NC0024201
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 1
Interim Permit June 1,1997 to May 31, 1999
/CBOD limit in the existing permit will be used instead of BOD as stated in the draft permit.
47✓ Fecal Coliform sampling and testing will be modified to continue as the current permit at
twice monthly at the designated upstream and downstream location.
LX Total Chlorine Residual sampling and testing will not be required during this period since no
chlorine is being applied to the effluent at this time.
Final Permit June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002
• The upstream sampling location for Chockoyotte Creek will be review by the Roanoke
Rapids Sanitary District for access to the sampling point. Concern was expressed as to the
need for this sampling point since no data downstream of the wastewater discharge could
be obtained for comparison.
Fecal Coliform sampling and testing will be only on plant effluent. No upstream or
downstream testing will be required.
�CBOD limits in the existing permit will be used instead of BOD as stated in the draft permit.
• Continuous reading probes will be acceptable for reporting dissolved oxygen and pH data.

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
NPDES Permit NC0024201
ATTACHMENT NUMBER 2
Anticipated Potential Problems
Our concern does not grow out of any problem that is known to us at present, or anticipated by
us — there are none. However, we must recognize that we will be required in the near future to
implement chlorination of the effluent to meet new regulatory standards.
Our chlorination will be followed by dechiorination to remove any residual chlorine before
discharge. However, we recognize that some chlorine byproducts which are not removed or
destroyed by sulfur dioxide occasionally could result in test failures when organisms are
exposed to almost full-strength effluent during bioassay. Similar bioassay test problems could
be caused by effluent ammonia content, which occasionally can rise to 1 to 2 mg/I during winter
months. These types of test difficulties can occur even though there may be no adverse
impacts on aquatic life in the receiving stream.
Poor correlation between test results and actual impacts on the stream can occur because
temperatures and several other conditions in the chronic toxicity test do not accurately represent
those in the stream. Differences between test and stream environments include the types of
organisms that are exposed to the effluent as well as concentrations and times of exposure. In
addition, other parameters used to evaluate test results do not reflect conditions that would
prevail in the short section of Chockoyotte Creek before the mixture enters the Roanoke River.
For example, exposure in the test procedure is for about seven to eight days at 25C. Decisions
on Pass/Fail are based on whether reproduction rates of Ceriodaphnia dubia in the diluted
wastewater are reduced by 20% as compared with "control" organisms maintained in the dilution
water over the same time period. On the other hand, field conditions involve different
temperatures and different organisms, especially various types of fish. The plant effluent
discharges into Chockoyotte Creek at a point only about 100-150 feet from the Roanoke River.
Typically, fish and other organisms in the vicinity of the outfall could be expected to remain in
contact with the diluted wastewater only for a few minutes, or at most a few hours, before
passing upstream from the discharge or entering the main body of the River where there would
be extensive further dilution. Impact on those organisms could be expected to be much less
than that during the seven to eight days of the bioassay test.
The situation that is of concern to us is the very real possibility that occasionally our effluent
could fail tests in the bioassays although there might be no corresponding problems in the
stream. In such event, we could be judged guilty of violations and required to take various
actions that might not be justified based on real world "problems".
Past Experience at the Site
The outfall for this plant has been located at this spot for over 30 years. During that time, we
have had no fish kills in the Creek or the River, although we know that substantial numbers of
fish are in the vicinity of the outfall and that is a popular spot for fishing. Also, we have had no
complaints from fishermen, regulatory personnel or others about adverse impacts on aquatic life.
This is true in spite of the fact that over that period there have been times when the wastewater
was treated less thoroughly than it is now and rare occasions when it was even necessary to
bypass most or all of the effluent directly to the stream.
We feel that this is the "ultimate bioassay" — Full scale discharge into the watercourse under
widely varying conditions.

i
Changing Location of the Outfall
It has been suggested on a few occasions that we should consider moving the outfall from its
present location to the Roanoke River. No detailed plans for that have been prepared but
preliminary engineering estimates suggest a such a move could cost between $300,000 and
$1,000,000.
Considering the lack of impact on the streams, based on 30 years of successful operation, we
must conclude that the "benefit" of such a move must be minimal or non-existent. Clearly, as far
as we can tell now, the "Cost/Benefit" ratio for this expensive project would be grossly
unfavorable.
In addition, the environmental impact of the project could be serious. An outfall relocation would
take place in a reach of the River characterized by rapids. At times the water is very shallow
when releases from the upstream dams are low. Placing a diffuser pipeline on the River bottom
could be unsightly and result in obstruction to navigation. Trenching undoubtedly would require
blasting.
Considering the cost, poor return in benefits, and potential environmental impacts, it is difficult to
predict that an environmental assessment would be favorable.
A Rational Approach
The current point of discharge is only 100-150 feet from the River, in which major dilution is
available and the present dilution ratio of 1.3 appears to be reasonable. The present discharge
location and actual dilution ration available at it (whatever it might be) have proven satisfactory
over the past 30 years. The treatment plant is well -designed, recently upgraded, and well -
operated.
An approach that seems reasonable would be to continue in the present mode, including using
the current dilution ratio, and for plant and regulatory personnel to monitor conditions in the
vicinity of the outfall during the life of the new permit. It will be especially important to examine
the situation carefully after initiating the planned chlorination and dechlorination. If any problem
arises during this time, all concerned could move quickly to take appropriate corrective steps at
that time.
It should be recognized that this approach would not jeopardize in any way conditions in the
River, which is very near the outfall. If any effect at all is observed, which is unlikely, it could be
only in a relatively small portion of the Creek.

?2
f' n
I f �:.t
J 7
1 o RT -
GI~oc_uoYo fl , •ge (5_0`A))
}
c•4�
TO\
ic
•
•
. —�' a �f; (o `� ;�oQCoX,
Ply reA r7 �•� � .c
4c
IA/ rp
rA-Lye-4"T D/,L
7/
•
/ F.We
/,;
7AP kt-1 Cal Po t I
AAD C) ci Av./ WA TeX= (141--4-1)°4-0
C7/151'14
J r I

\i--,
Jo
-es -oAt_Pa
c. vlov,p4z.,
,P..k.dync(v+ okqn
o 4.)0t, mocrij
L.
/ a
Ksoiawc.i
It 1
is4 Ft-c.4 a Rs v
al•ve,616t, f/A-73,6 r__5(.7a (-74-71-)C--1
e55

AGENDA
NPDES Permit Renewal Meeting with
Division of Water Quality and
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District WWTP
May 15, 1997, 2:00 p.m.
1. Introduction No* RCA) 15 -100/N
Ce 'c* Ci44, 0
2. Interim Permit
Fecals ,1/41 ... ,�'cs. 041 C12 ctavms f e e_Aw-,
Upstream/Downstream Monitoring Issues
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
4. General Issues
Sharing Sampling Data
Upstream Chockoyotte Creek Sampling
5. Final Permit Issues
Pr �t.ot1 ) Ot•••4 , r 1C`'�/V
64.,Qt h1Vf ' )
TccA1 £ CL7_ -
upk,tve.v-i
r l. I i7/1 A S 12G-v i O t15 l' �.^H) O N
Probe Reading for D.O. and pH d { G ,z �'U!� 4- •P� oJ��z_
CBOD vs. BOD ' L., I, kc, eve', pit, '-fir-
6. Chronic Toxicity . No ::-'p1Al^ , - ��Ii •an) ti D )c'�
Modeling
Cost Benefit
Environmental Impact
Other
7. Summary
<I
c, Of1TO 7)
CIA kVA ni- � _ t i( N-rAtta, N S j -C G
NrLc NOS'
/Q j 11 i , r�fi e ' - vnk- c- o n.57. r/cvfi
Alfa.
b c.
c/o° a,Ahrt
i(,t(C.s
Ate
11)as, 1Ar

s FROM :•ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DI ST PHONE NO. : 919 537 9136 Apr. 10 1997 10: WWI P2
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
1,000 Jackson Street P.O. Box 308 Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 [phone] Fax [phone]
Certified Mail
Retur_a.Receipt Requested
April 10, 1997
Mr..David A. Goodrich, Supervisor
NPDES Group
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of EHNR
P. O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N. C. 27626-0535
Subject: Draft NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0024201
Roanoke Rapids VWVTP
Halifax County
Dear Mr. Goodrich:
Prior to issuance of the proposed permit, the Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
hereby requests a meeting with the State to discuss our concerns with the
modifications to the existing permit.
The District would like consideration for these concerns prior to the formulation
of final determinations regarding the proposed permit.
Very truly yours,
G. Macon Reavis, Jr.
Superintendent
• cc: Mr. Mark McIntire
Piedmont Olsen Hensley
WWTP
a:\corrrs5lncdem1970410dg.doc

I
o-a ; North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
January 8, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Compliance G
From: Farrell KeouglT
Through: Carla Sanderson(
I
p & Raleigh Regional Office
Subject: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District NCO24201
Halifax County
Follow-up on change in Toxicity Test
A wasteload allocation is being processed for this discharge. The discharge for this facility
was not relocated, (as stipulated in their previous permit) therefore, a study was performed
that attempted to determine that IWC of the effluent in this tributary. The reason that an
IWC was to be determined over the 7Q10, (est. 0.6 cfs from December 3, 1994 memo) is
because the head pressure of the Roanoke River will push water up into Chockoyotte Creek,
thereby creating more dilution than would be available under 7Q10 conditions.
The study amounted to monitoring for chlorides and conductivity both instream and at the
effluent. These numbers would then be back -calculated to determine the IWC of the effluent
into the immediate receiving stream. After compiling the data, it was determined that
chlorides were not providing a sound representation of the instream effects. Therefore,
conductivity was used to determine the IWC. It was assumed that no upstream conductivity
interference was taking place and the numbers for the various locations, (refer map attached
to study data in separate file) were calculated. The immediate dilution for the discharge,
(using the permitted flow) was calculated to be 79%.
Because only a small area of the receiving is impacted before full dilution in the Roanoke
River is achieved, the immediate dilution IWC will be implemented for the WET limit
only. However, upon a major modification or expansion, metals limits will be evaluated
at the calculated IWC. The toxics, (e.g. metals limits) were calculated using the eventual
dilution into the Roanoke River, which yields an IWC of 1.1%.
The Technical Support Branch requests that this facility be flagged for any toxicity test
failures and possible re -opening of the permit to include limits for metals. The IWC from
this study was not used to determine metals limits, (at this time) but applying it should be
considered if toxicity test failures do occur. Please be advised that the facility should be
installing chlorination / dechlorination facilities in the next few months and this may cause
toxicity test problems. But, any other failures not attributed to chlorine should be
reviewed with possible metals limits.
cc La_
laZe Gdodrich & Mark'McIntire, Permits & Engineering