NC0024201_Wasteload Allocation_19970218

NPDES DOCUHENT 5CANNIN`: COVER SHEET
NC0024201
Roanoke River WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
/
4i
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:
February 18, 1997
This document is printed on reuse paper - ignore any
content on the reirerse side

NPDES WASTE LOA i ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0024201
PERM11"I'EE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: 8.34 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 78.7 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 21.3 %
Comments:
No modifications requested to permit. Chlorination/dechlorination
facilities have been added since last renewal. sY.n or ke_ _orrstat)C-t
RECEIVING STREAM: Chockoyotte Creek or the Roanoke River
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-02-08
Reference USGS Quad: B 28 NE
County: Halifax
Regional Office: Raleigh Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date:
(please attach)
5/31/97 Treatment Plant Class: Class IV
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Mark McIntire
Prepared by:,—�= 6
Reviewed by:
:CaLL C7�
v
p; i
Date: 12/2/96
Date:
Date:
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
15 V-
121 z,1 °, C,
Z
Drainage Area (mi2): n/a
calcualted IWC based upon immediate dilution: 79%
calculated IWC based upon eventual dilution: 1.1 %
Toxicity Limits:
Upstream Location:
Upstream Location:
Downstream Location:
Parameters:
Wasteflow (MGD):
i;,BOD5 (mg/I):
NH3N (mg/I):
DO (mg/I):
TSS (mg/I):
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/I):
Temperature (° C):
Total Phosphorus (mg/I):
Total Nitrogen (mg/I):
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other
than trace amounts.
* Limits have been recommended since 1991. Facility has upgraded
plant, (with plans for chlorination / dechlorination underway) and can meet
these limits in the near future. Recommend be included in permit to take
effect within 2 yrs.
Note: flows on the Roanoke River used for analysis of metals due to close
proximity of discharge to this waterbody. If the facility consistently fails
the newly recommended toxicity test, (and the failures are not directly
attributable to the installation of any new equipment) the permit may be
re -opened and the immediate dilution flows on Chockoyotte Creek will be
used to determine metals limits. A memorandum to this effect has been
sent to the Region and the Compliance Group.
Due to the unusual nature of this permit, we would request that the facility
agree to take the metals monitoring at the same time that the toxicity test
is taken. If facility will agree to this, we would recommend that the NPDES
monitoring requirements be dropped and the metals monitoring be done
through the Pretreatment Long -Term Monitoring Program, (LTMP).
Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) P / F 79 %
January, April, July, and October
308 Rollingwood Road
S 158 over Chockoyotte Creek
US 158 over Roanoke River
temperature and dissolved oxygen
Monthly
Summer
8.34
25
monitor
monitor
30
200 *
6-9
28 *
monitor
monitor
monitor
Average
Winter
8.34
25
monitor
monitor
30
200 *
6-9
28 *
monitor
monitor
monitor

`.1Q
VM
•
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATIO I I
Request # 2dAN 15 199 /
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District Waste Water rea ent Plant
NC0024201
Domestic - 78.7 % Industrial - 21.
Existing
Renewal
Chockoyotte Creek / Roanoke River
C
03-02-08
Halifax
Raleigh
McIntire
12/2/96
B 28 NE
DEHNR RALEIGH
REGIONAL Of FACE
Stream Characteristic:
Drainage Area (mi2): n/a
calculated IWC based upon immediate dilution: 79 %
calculated IWC based upon eventual dilution: zr 1.1 % Roanoke River
1996 USGS Flow Profile
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Special Flow Study
The discharge for this facility was not relocated, 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 chlorides and conductivity both instream and at the effluent. These numbers would then
be back -calculated to determine the IWC of the effluent for immediate dilution. 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 average discharge during this sample
period was 5.052 mgd. Using the average flow from this study period, the instream flow used for dilution was back -
calculated to be 3.35 cfs, which was used to determine the toxicity test.
Because only a small area of the receiving is impacted before full dilution in the Roanoke River is achieved, the calculated
IWC will be implemented for the WET limit only. Toxics limits, (e.g. metals) were calculated using the eventual dilution
achieved in the Roanoke River. However, upon a major modification or expansion, metals limits will be evaluated at the
calculated IWC based upon immediate dilution into Chockoyotte Creek.
It was noted in the ESB site investigation report that color and foam in effluent was very evident instream.
Spec al Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
_%� <_� 44 /5 c+-�2,-i-/,�
/ 77' -��-�� 4%C 1 / 4t 'XI - (� / / f7 �% �-��? 7. „i_:eG3!/
i.,/ roof / p
1.1 ¢�.� Q�Y' • �' h%9Yt �' l/� , , r7. �S
d
.10Apit
J it
4c.y
Recommended by: Date: I • faubss,t, 115-4
Farrell Keoug
Instream Assessment: _ ..� ! �. ��, Date: 1 1101 %
Regional Supervisor: / I l�� Date: / li1!9
Permits & Engineering: ��,[,� _ /!1./ Date: i 1 /
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: ,-[3 0 5 19' 7

Existing Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
CBOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Temperature (°C):
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
Total Nitrogen (mg/1):
There shall be no discharge of floating
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
CBOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Temperature (°C):
Total Phosphorus (mg/1):
Total Nitrogen (mg/1): monitor monitor
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
* Limibhave been recommended since 1991. Facility has upgraded plant, (with plans for chlorination / dechlorination
underway) and can meet these limits in the near future. Recommend be included in permit to take effect within 2 yrs.
TOXICITY TEST
Chronic (Ceriodaphnia) Toxicity P / F
1.3 % (based on old flows on Roanoke River)
79 % (note cover page for change)
January, April, July, and October
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Summer
8.34
25
monitor
monitor
30
monitor
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Monthly Average
Winter
8.34
25
monitor
monitor
30
monitor
6-9
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Type of Toxicity Test:
Existing Limit:
Recommended Limit
Monitoring Schedule:
Existing Limits
Cadmium (µg/1):
Chromium (µg/1):
Copper (14/1):
Lead (4/1):
Nickel (µg/1):
Zinc (4/1):
Recommended Limits
Cadmium (14/1):
Chromium (4/1):
Copper (14/1):
Lead (14/1):
Nickel (4/1):
Zinc (4/1):
* monitored in LTMP
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
8.34 8.34
25 25
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
30 30
200 * 200 *
6-9 6-9
28* 28*
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
TOXICS/METALS
Daily Maximum
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
monitor
Daily Maximum
monitor *
monitor *
monitor *
monitor *
monitor *
monitor *
(note facility option to drop NPDES monitoring for metals outlined on following page)

. 4
s
Cadmium: Maximum Predicted
Allowable
Chromium: Maximum Predicted 13 13
Allowable 4,382 63
Copper: Maximum Predicted 103.2 103.2
Allowable 613.5 8.8
Lead Maximum Predicted 169.5 169.5
Allowable 2,191 31.5
Nickel: Maximum Predicted 27.5 27.5
Allowable 7,712 110.8
Zinc: Maximum Predicted 323 323
Allowable 4,382 63
Roanoke Chockoyotte
River Creek
13 13
175.3 2.5
22 out 25 samples below detection of 10 µg/1
maximum value 10 pg/1 in February, 1995
23 out 25 samples below detection of 20 µg/1
maximum value 6141 in August, 1995
15 out 25 samples below detection of 20 µg/1
maximum value 43 µg/1 in May, 1996
20 out 23 samples above detection of 50 µg/1
maximum value 113 µg/1 in May, 1995
23 out 25 samples below detection of 50 µg/1
maximum value 18 nil in August, 1995
20 out 24 samples above detection of 50 µg/1
maximum value 170 µg/1 in May, 1996
Note: flows on the Roanoke River used for analysis of metals due to close proximity of discharge to this waterbody. If the
facility consistently fails the newly recommended toxicity test, (and the failures are not directly attributable to the installation
of any new equipment) the permit may be re -opened and the immediate dilution flows on Chockoyotte Creek will be used to
determine metals limits. A memorandum to this effect has been sent to the Region and the Compliance Group.
Due to the unusual nature of this permit, we would request that the facility agree to take the metals monitoring at the same
time that the toxicity test is taken. If facility will agree to this, we would recommend that the NPDES monitoring
requirements be dropped and the metals monitoring be done through the Pretreatment Long -Term Monitoring Program,
(LTMP).
Many of the previous parameter(s) are water quality limited. For some parameters, the available load capacity of
the immediate receiving water will be consumed. This may affect future water quality based effluent limitations for
additional dischargers within this portion of the watershed.
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: lit 308 Rollingwood Road
Upstream Location: US 158 over Chockoyotte Creek
Downstream Location: US 158 over Roanoke River
Parameters: temperature and dissolved oxygen
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing treatment facilities? Yes /No _
If no, which parameters cannot be met?
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that sche ule) wi rh the gional office recommendations:
Li L v t . urtXk �• cw� f GY�
76 a n,. v`$, i�,P.o Q Tn�r , i., �-11 +e +-
t S
If no, why not?
Special Instructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysisif modeled at
renewal, and description of how it fitsintobasinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? 1 (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name: Roanoke Rapids Waste Water Treatment Plant Permit # NC0024201-001
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
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 79 % (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 Jan., Apr., Jul., and Oct.. 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 Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 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.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum control
organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate envir.nmental controls, shall
constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up testing to be compl:' ed no later than the last
day of the month following the month of the initial monitoring.
s7Q10
Permitted Flow
IWC
Basin & Subbasin
Receiving Stream
County
n/a cfs
8.34 mgd Recommended b
79.4 %
03-02-08
Chockoyotte Creek Date i : ...L: I
Halifax L
Farrell Keo
8h
QCL PIF Version 9/96

Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification:
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
NC0024201
78.7 % Domestic 21.3 %
Existing
Renewal
Chockoyotte Creek - Roanoke River
C
03-02-08
Halifax
Raleigh
MclNtire
12/2/96
B 28 NE
Request # 8524
Industrial
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7010 (cfs):
Winter 7010 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
3002 (cfs): 2,400
IWC (%): 95.9 % 1.1 %
Low Flow Report
1995 1996 (Roanoke River)
8,384
0.55 1,120
1,120
1981: WLA for secondary limits for discharge of 8.65 mgd into Roanoke River with a 7010 est. 1,800 cfs.
1984: SOC for additional flow with relaxed limits of 75 mg/I BOD5 and 50 mg/l TSS
1986: reissued with secondary limits for discharge of 8.34 mgd into Roanoke River with a 7010 est. 1,502 cfs.
1991: reissued with secondary limits and the addition of fecal coliform limits plus monitoring for various metals. It was at
this time that the actual discharge location was questioned; the discharge was in fact to Chockoyotte Creek, (near the
mouth) and not the Roanoke River. A speculative for an increase in flow seems to have been requested, but no
formal request or reply is in the file.
1993: A specualtive analysis for an increase in discharge to 12 mgd was requested. The speculative letter, (based upon
'preliminary modeling') recommeded limits of 17 (25) mg/I CBOD, fecal and chlorine limits and monitoring for various
other toxics and conventional limits. Relocation of the discharge to the Roanoke River was contingent upon recieivng
these limits. A memo from the Raleigh Regional Office indicated that relocation of the discharge would be too cost
prohibitive and that a study should be undertaken between ESB, Technical Support and the facility to determine the
instream waste concentration, (refered to below). Construction Grants pushed this issue due to their current higher
prioritization of this facility funding based upon relocation of the discharge pipe.
1994: Memorandum from ESB outlining initial site evaluation, (slides were to accompany this memo). It should be noted on
the Fact Sheet that both color and foam were very evident in effluent. Various memorandums from Region and
Technical Support indicate that the changes proposed by the facility do not constitute an expansion. A memorandum
was sent to Construction Grants indicating that any upgrades funded should include plans for more stringent limits,
(no limits or parameters were specified).
Toxicity Test
Facility has a good record of passing a 1.3 % Chronic Test, but with this new dilution study, (refer below) the test will change to
79.4% which will be dramatically different.
Special Flow Study
As noted above, the discharge for this facility was not relocated, 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 7010, (est. 0.6 cfs from 46iv t
December 3, 1994 memo) is because the head pressure of the Roanoke River will push water up into Chockoyotte Creek,
ing
thereby creating more dilution than would be available under 7Q10 conditions.
What the study amounted to was monitoring for both chlorides and conductivity instream and at the effluent. These numbers
would then be back -calculated to determine the IWC of the effluent into the 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. It was decided, (by Juan Mangles, the
principle investigator) to use the 80th percentile which amounted to a 70% IWC. The average discharge during this sample
period was 5.052 mgd. Using the average flow, it was fairly easy to back -calculate the instream cfs which would amount to a
70% IWC, (hence the 3.35 cfs used in the toxicity analysis).
Cadmium:
Chromium:
Copper:
Lead:
Nickel:
Zinc:
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
Max. Pred Cw
Allowable Cw
immediate
dilution
13
2.5
13
63
103.2
8.8
169.5
31.5
27.5
110.8
323
63
eventual (»
dilution
13 22 out 25 samples below detection of 10 µg/I
175.3 maximum value 10 µg/l in February, 1995
13 23 out 25 samples below detection of 20 µg/I
4,382 maximum value 6 µg/l in August, 1995
103.2 15 out 25 samples below detection of 20 µg/I
613.5 maximum value 43 µg/I in May, 1996
169.5 20 out 23 samples above detection of 50 µg/I
2,191 maximum value 113 µg/I in May, 1995
27.5 23 out 25 samples below detection of 50 µg/I
7,712 maximum value 18 µg/l in August, 1995
323 20 out 24 samples above detection of 50 µg/I
4,382 maximum value 170 µg/1 in May, 1996

SIU's
Kennametal
Roanoke Yarn Dye
Roanoke Finishing
Panda Roesmary Cogeneration
Hallifax Memorial Hospital
Halifax Linen
Effluent Considerations
metals
dyes
dyes & finishing
boiler blowdown
antibiotics, metals, drugs, etc
dyes & finishing
tt ci,cc stWIT -{ s ats VD Y LAG Spc-c t ro) ?1 oLJ 01. ud 77 S v Irk be p pp 1 iscit
-+o i *to x,%�►t neat otaa , but k s -t.o �tAcc Civot PA�tsaiboi 0 -b •it
cs,.1o�� /c���►.�lo (NE itftc> .cs) `tkA Gra-t rt y.�,. !vim �,e -a c5 /c tucc,c
-t t, pts n/eftx1c..5
0 -+Lic C, 1 c.cz, JZ,007 zC 1 t51~ Pej L
x Waste Water Treatment Plant NCOO

January, 1995 through October, 1996
Facility Name = Roanoke Rapids
NPDES #= NC0024201
Qw (MGD) = 8.34 m gd
7Q10s(cts)= 1,120 cfs *
Iwc(%)= 1.1 %
*based upon 1996
USGS Flow Profile
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium Maximum Value 10
Max. Pred Cw 13.0
Allowable Cw 175.3
Chromium Maximum Value 10
Max. Pred Cw 13.0
Allowable Cw 4,382
Copper [Al] Maximum Value 43
Max. Pred Cw 103.2
Allowable Cw 613.5
Lead Maximum Value 113
Max. Pred Cw 169.5
Allowable Cw 2,191
Nickel Maximum Value 25
Max. Pred Cw 27.5
Allowable Cw 7,712
Zinc [AL] Maximum Value 170
Max. Pred Cw 323
Allowable Cw 4,382
1/9/97

January, 1995 through October, 1996
Facility Name =
NPDES # =
Ow (MGD) =
7010e (cla)=
IWC (%) _
Roanoke Rapids :Parameter. Cadmium
NC0024201 Standard - 2 mil
8.34 mgd
3.35 cfs
79.4 %
'based upon instream study by
facility and IAU (refer attached)
70 % IWC (80th percentile) at flow of 5.052 mgd
FINAL RESULTS
Cadmium Maximum Value 10
Max. Pred Cw 13.0
Allowable Cw 2.5
Chromium Maximum Value 10
Max. Pred Cw 13.0
Allowable Cw 63.0
Copper [Al] Maximum Value 43
Max. Pred Cw 103.2
Allowable Cw 8.8
Lead Maximum Value 113
Max. Pred Cw 169.5
Allowable Cw 31.5
Nickel Maximum Value 25
Max. Pred Cw 27.5
Allowable Cw 110.8
Zinc [AL] Maximum Value 170
Max. Pred Cw 323.0
Allowable Cw 63.0
n BDL=1/2DL If 1/2 DL RESULTS
1 5 • Std Dev. 1.3
2 5 Mean 5.4
3 5 C.V. 0.2
4 5
5 9 Aug-95
6 5 • Mutt Factor = 1.3
7 7 Jul-95 Max. Value 10 µgA
8 5 Max. Pred Cw 13.0 µgA
9 5 Allowable Cw 2.5 µgil
10 5 •
11 5 •
12 5 •
13 10 Feb-95
14 5 •
15 5
16 5
17 5
18 5 •
19 5
20 5
21 5
22 5
23 5
24 5
25 5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Parameter= Chromium
Standard - 50 µg/I
n BDL=1/2DL 'if 1/2 DL RESULTS
1 10 Std Dev. 1.9
2 10 Mean 9.5
3 10 C.V. 0.2
4 10
5 6 Aug-95
6 10 • Mutt Factor 1.3
7 1 Jul-95 Max. Value 10 µgA
8 10 • Max. Pred Cw 13.0 µg/I
9 10 ' Allowable Cw 63.0 µg/I
10 10
11 10
12 10
13 10
14 10
15 10
16 10 `
17 10 '
18 10
19 10 '
20 10 '
21 10
22 10
23 10
24 10 '
25 10
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
12/30/96

January. 1995 through October. 1996
Parameter. Copper [Al]
Standard- 7 µgl
n BDL-1/2DL 'd 1/2 DL RESULTS
1 10 • Std Dev. 11.1
2 10 Mean 15.9
3 10 C.V. 0.7
4 10
5 7 Aug-95
6 10 • MuhFactor = 2.4
7 9 Jul-95 Max. Value 43 nil
6 10 Max. Pred Cv 103.2 µgA
9 10 Allowable Cw 8.8 pgl
10 10 '
t1 28 Apr-95
12 41 Mar-95
13 10
14 10
15 24 Oct-96
16 10
17 10
18 10
19 10
20 10
21 43 May-96
22 10
23 23
24 41 Feb-96
25 21
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Parameter. Lead
Standard . 25 µgt
n BDL=1/2DL 111/2 DL RESULTS
t 83 Oec-95 Sid Dev. 23.1
2 82 Nov-95 Mean 702
3 60 Oct-95 C.V. 0.3
4 90 Sep-95
5 95 Aug-95
6 94 Jul-95 Mutt Factor- 1.5
7 25 Max. Value 113
8 113 May-95 Max. Pred Cw 169.5
9 53 Apr-95 Allowable Ow 31-5
to 25
11 55 Feb-95
12 25
13 66 Oct-96
14 81 Sep-96
15 74 Aug-96
16 58 Jul-96
17 94 Jun-96
18 63 May-96
19 71 May-96
20 74 Apr-96
21 68 Mar-96
22 79 Feb-96
23 87 Jan-96
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
pgt
191
p91
Parameter- Nickel ;Parameter. Zinc [AL]
Standard - 88 µ91
n BDL-1/2DL 111/2 DL RESULTS
t 25 Sid Dev. 2.6
2 25 Mean 24.3
3 25 C.V. 0.1
4 25
5 18 Aug-95
6 25 Mutt Factor - 1.1
7 14 Jul-95 Max. Value 25 nil
a 25 Max. Pred Cw 27.5 pgA
9 25 Allowable Cw 110.8 pg4
10 25
11 25
12 25
13 25
14 25
15 25
16 25
17 25
18 25
19 25
20 25
21 25
22 25
23 25
24 25
25 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Standard - 50 pgA
n BDL-1/2DL 111/2 DL RESULTS
t 57 Std Dev. 38.7
2 72 Mean 75.1
3 89 C.V. 0.5
4 63
5 55
6 47 Mutt Factor= 1.9
7 25 Max. Value 170 pgA
a 25 Max. Pred Cw 323.0 pgA
9 62 Allowable Cw 63.0 pgA
10 95
1t 151 Mar-95
12 69
13 127 Jan-95
14 72
15 25
16 25
17 136 Jul-96
18 65
19 64
20 170 May-96
21 65
22 81
23 93
24 70
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Pre f - ew't
PDES
Note for Dana Folley
Page 1
From: Farrell Keough
Date: Mon, Dec 30, 1996 3:29 PM
Subject: Roanoke Rapids
To: Dana Folley
File(s): Roanoke Rapids
NC0024201
Since this is in the Raleigh Region, I assume you have it..., I don't think you were sent one
of the P & E forms for this one, but either way I didn't receive it.
what is your call on this one ? I've attached a Toxics Spreadsheet for this one as their flows,
(i.e. 7Q10) have been radically reduced. They actually discharge to Chockoyotte Creek, (not
the Roanoke River) and Juan and ESB did a Special Study to determine what IWC they are.
The long -and -short of this was that the flow used to calculate toxics was 3.35 cfs and their
IWC based upon permitted flow is -80%.
Their previous flows were based upon discharge to the Roanoke River and amounted to
about 1,000 cfs.
L:riy‘P -
atA±A -igg6
?X-- ok):)›cJu
dew a,.-d 3) m R altA✓'-6 P6 .
46.
Ar' . Boa) , T' ss ,Col , &L, C�-� Pb ) Yl:<, ) )
Lerrn, p PAC• s cne. a..Qr„,ve.T , M Se.

FROM : RORNOkE RAPIDS SANITRRY DIST PHONE NO. : 919 537 9136
Jan. 03 1997 09:45AM P1
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
WOO Jackson Street P.O. Box 30R Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 [phone] Fax [phone]
Fax Transmittal Sheet
111.COVED
tJAN -3 1997
MODES ASSESSMENT UNIT
Date : I — 3 - 7
To: 0auCc l _.
From : 6 I e e70
Project : i. r 1
Remarks:
046014 ,41 am, 00,4 Ae .0)41' 4,y .16Stier
r44 ee beenc 4.� te5 4 eV/.
410!
Number of Pages including this Page
Note:
i
(1) If all pages are not received or if any of this
transmission is illegible, please call 919-537-9137.
(2) To FAX after hours, dial 919-537-9137 and press t'26t"
to bypass message and connect to FAX machine.

Jan. 03 1997 O9:45FI1 P2
PHONE NO.
ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
Cbaptet
Long Term Monitoring rlan Guidance
Appecdix :-a_ awn* LTMP Summary Data Pam!
Pow NAME I --k oe r tixw`1
NPOESJNCNCISCSIARGE PERMIT =
SAMPLE LOCAITON = —7.0F tre etc., ri`
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the detection iirnit", i.e. <0.002.
SAMPLE DA?E
2
3
6 f- $-6
PLOW =
7 ,-9-9t
8 /-io- G
9 I - II -Go
10
111 f I(a-1to
12 -i
t3 I-IR-4(4
34 r-al-'te
13 - - -
16 --3-9 0
iI
191 r-a$-10
'I'O m
# VALUES -
AVERAGE =
MAXIMUM -
MINIMUM
Ca
LZ
(o, lCr
POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT POLLUTANT POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = ?OL UT NT = POLLUTANT =
6 za TKO b
.p
t43. JLA
ifs
t
JIs / r
AO1ta
rfb.5 sast
a srA
rL4 $ Rq
DODZ40.0o
O Ot$ Lo.btb
Ga0.t.1Q .CiW
..orooZ delta& p,Oi$
22 I 1
0.5 i 5 4.0,0ge LO. , -
is
0,I % 2Zs'?tf q,2Z ..bDZ 4orca, 4.arolo 4oroa,
1 t 1 i i - t 1 t
ftaS a.t)b 4c WZ odes z41.14 (9.2Z ro.0O2. to.-.. ; 4.6.01.0 •co.coz
!I 11 11 • I 11 !I
t rt I.
t�
�t in I t1
1!
t' DL DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: {i.e. 0. t l2 DETECTION LIMIT THE DETECTION LIMIT).
1
f:hanter. ;..:'MPGuidance
Fiienm>x: LT+IP dam stun L" "Ii4=
:trams Date: September 1. :993 t ' 3 l-n (0
PQt
FicrtAD
Ar-Aktk 11a3. ' -'
1.t5 r3916 r 2.4
to.3 • •
iso ir4'
!-:1113tQ 4
;coerloix =3
?age

919 537 9136
PHONE NO.
ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
2
3
4
7
8
Mine
Long Term Momsonag rbm Guidance
Appendix =8. a ample LIMP Somme Data Fomt
PO w NAME =A laKe,Z.n to/ZIT'
NPDESiNCNDISCHARGE PERMIT* =
SAMPLE LOCATION = i°rt
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the detection limit", i.e. <0.002.
FLOW =
SAMPLE DATE
1- cik
." zP1
1- '5-5fa
10
I- 1
-To
,--41s7�
1-9'1ko _
1- /i -gft,
11 -le 1- -je
13 f
14 / -U 2
15i I -2ZIA
16
op- 744-14, ?�i
POLLUTANT POLLUT. =
S
S►
3 .B
L�. 6,6 15,0
0 11,o
t(+ 1 4.NO
• L. E [2,2 12 4i).0o2. to,
7,9) L' i a
7.7
103 Aka. / 3.0
1110
POLLUTANT = PQLLU i'ANt' = POLLUTANT =
! ! -' -11(0 '7. !
TOTAL / 35:4f
# V AL1TES =,
AVERAGE =1 Di 1 S
MAXIMUM = 8,5
2y .y2 2.2
201g3 h °0�
ha
MINIMUM Ee
r-�"3FOR AVERAGES An ESTIMATED TO 3E: (Le. a, i/2 DETECTION LIMIT, THE DETECTION LIMIT).
�BDL O�►TA USED
F dot, it
%2.
1
47.3 5, �.�
f�.erF,
atO of apZ a
1, a
4.Oa
POLLUTANT = E POLLUTANT = j POLLUTANT =
grpali Se.
Ali. DO a ,Ca ocpZ
6 .' •Ae,,io 2 £. Z 1; )
1 E
<O,
11
1a 1 11 �•
0.00 O,01p �C�,aOZ ra.orrt+ice 121 r$
i
0.00J D .pro k Q•coi- a, en +'.rR! s�.
44
1• 1'
C.
11 4 1 1
.O Ld 4O.6,2.
40.0'd2 4c, cor, LO IO iO,rOteit
/
4*. P • e.tre r Z.
al tir
1•
40.40 Co
I1
.96.' RQ.,o
.4 a8t(i
w3oter: LTMP Guidance
1leaame: LTMP data arm
&c tsio4 Dace September '..:993
'.".tamer •3
Appendix 3-3
:Page

0
N
m
m
m
c
b
ti
919 537 9135
PHONE NO.
ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
Chapter
Lang Tenn Monitoring flan Guidance
Appendix 443. Examplc LIMP Summary Data Form
NNW NAME = LI. O) R A..- 4,0t.TV
NPDESINONDISCNAROE PERMIT #
SAMPLE LOCATION
(AP i.ta- April 19c) Lp
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the detection limit', Le. <0.002.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
S4
11
12
13
14
15
16
SAMPLEDATE
+-4-=is
4,-
1-1 to
'4 - r1 - ci to
-I(-61tP
0-114•9to
4- Ioifo
4-rI0-9Lc
-al-1(P
AL -a
17 AL— ait- 94,
18,a:--r&
PLOW=
POWJTANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT :- POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT POLLUTANT= POLLUTANT =
iks
t �i PE So Th 13 }s MI .Se✓
rt •a- oyr - a oo a�10 Av.c r La•41.5-4.•a65" f4JA co,00a_4o. - g.0z.l cr.cilg:
L., ( *Jo ,Lf ats3.3
jdir
3;ri a8. t4)$
.-k,q •)3 a Gb
41- Ala 11 20
n,T1 .24 ,4 i �.
to. l,S.t* 1r't
t�.�rjs,fSa`7) (r'ifoI 1ft
L 4.f'.�f. d,::111111:11114111111111
0
�� �o lF1fo�
,a4},, b Re
19 64- - -, JU. 1 IS t
20 I -1-e (�
'TOTAL
# VALUES
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
iai iii,an 3715 4o•ocs 6.4011 o, ora 40.41 G @,a O,o45 t$, l8 4,94 •c a,oz co, - • atm.( co. oo L
.21 a as + t 1 c 1 1 1 ) 1 i 1 • 1
_g,$i i S FVIA 404'6,ea ..olb ,taro] 4O•Q o.4!rS fir 1c40 A,004. 40t0rq 1 .42{ kis,OE'
h.1 166,0 3Sd Li 0. +3. ,, it u n i, tl 3i
'T' 8" ) IA, a+ too 0 v a1 rl l0 11 at ,ti .. tl
BDL DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (i.e. 0,112 DETECTION LIMIT, THE DETECTION
Chapter, LT?AP Guidance
Filename: LIMP dasa sum
.. Rarisirn Data: September I,199r3
Li_
Flow
cio * -• ;yn&t, -5&h TSS _
toil Via • ° 16
Chapter 4
Appendix .4-B
Pass 1

PHONE NO.
RAPIDS SRNITARY DIST
0
o-
Chapter
Lang Tam Monitating flan Guidance
Appendia4-B. Exampk LTMPSummaty Data Form
PWW NAME=
2
3
36
7
8
9
14
11
12
13
NPDE.S!NONDISCHARGE FERMiT *
SAMPLE LOCATION = Ap r-;
19
F
Below Detection Limit Data (BOL) should be marked as "< and the detection limit", i.e. <0.002.
SAMPLE DATE
-1-eta
4-a-Sty
4-3- cfo•
-to-etle
-tt--14
PLOW =
5�8
Lo T
4.3
15, ?.
_to it
tesf
POLLUTANT
POLLUTANT=
e i.c La.00S' b.aq
��. -N. 1
17..$' ��r•S
4.43 O?aa.
(.5.3 a260,
tont 3
13.°
i&5 3r.4
L0 69,3
Iti..24510
7, t
+ f _ i A -� 41;,1 ' 13 . a,U
4,6' 5. 1ts,e
-94
14, + - - 1
16Af-W—°i
17, - a4
111
19'
20
1-a- to
TOTAL
*VALUES
AVERAGE =
MAXIMUM -
MlNIMUM --
fe
...4,
.1.4 14.0
s, )$.a
ALL 14
4.234 'fell-
1
POLLUTANT =
O,SCp
LD, ZS d,Iti 412 4 . i1
i 1 6
to,I, Eda.a =e..1.o05' fa, bit [A+O$c( s0.0 4a82. 0.$0.
nee
1-$.fa
44.5
IS iv
Lp OCTesatC Lpr0 ‹o.01
:1
st
r
r•
1.
u 1 ++
r
41
POLLUTANT = ! POLLUTANT = Kuzma.
1)1
.a:46
4 o. toe Ce. otoz o, OL I ,G&vutZ
_ I -1
LB.aw1 t Z b`.0! 40t OZ
u b �
BI}L DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (Le. 0,1/2 DETECTION Emu, THE DETECTION LIMi").
sad -F�
Chapter LIMP Guidance AID
Filenames LTMP data sum
Revision Date: September 1, 1993
Pa11j-a..)1-
-$ -
r7•4, -14.s-
Chapter 4
Appendix 4-8
Page I

Jan. 03 1997 O9:48AM P6
919 537 9136
PHONE NO.
RORNOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
Chapter
Long Term Monitoring Man Guidance
Appendix 4-IL Example LIMP Summary Data Tartu
FOTW NAME =N
N PDE$IP IONDISCXARGE PERMIT*
SAMPLE LOCATION =
5
Below Detection Limit Data (BUL) should be marked as t< and the detection limit', i.e. <0.00Z
SAMPLEDATE
11 9-i- A 4
2 -rt-�t-tto
3 4 cite
FLOW = I POLLUTANT= POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT =
T HY --SBOA (Y- f13;
2.'1 Acco.0 1-1 Ta I. 0.00Z- OlArjr5,4356 D 40l
As
4 rt-ti--q r... 0 ' 1$s.0 i'#C5
S'_ ri-6-q(,, N $ tab
6 1-- el - Cio 4.1 2 $4T.5 I,r.,e
7'' (- 10-94 3 i pivff.116
8 '"1 - t t-11, 7i q j ALC ,
9 * 9 - 14 -A IQ d-. ' 161.5. 1 h?
10, '-i--t-F-1G ,' 4.$ '164.S 134
I1 '-t - rip •-,If, tt ,440a.5" 16Q,
at '7- 17-94 i'•• r,c 114
131 '"'I - IA.- 9Ell • ito.° t 44:
I4'r-.3•t- 4,
15''t-aa-g6
16 rq - a.3-rtL.
17 r •-i-attE-�'ib
Is 21 •
19 1- ag--$�, _ p1.:'5" 1414
2O 'Z - . Co 115?." .�7
TOTAL = tot .4 ; `'rcl Sri
# VALUES = 22
AVERAGE = 4f• IP_ y.•
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM _ ' o t O
j Lioro 3�Q
ii54 MU.
�E.A
l Jo1Q
1(1,6.c) ISS
, �s o I
�Pi -t4tA 346!
13g. hQ..0
4
i
-040.va 0,635
-- Ate:
1 J71
a.aoz
i•ts tt
RO
�.0 o)oC4
o .o9S a.oS$
II
1.
4'
POLLUTANT
6.49.14- b.at
i
i
t.oay
n 1 "
I.I0
POLLUTANT =
T kmh,
s7M.SS A4,
1
•' !
11
1'
.1
POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT=
As WI Se-
d _,eO•000t 40.6t d 4.
POLLUTANT = ;
24- f} 1OG .07a'oDZ i.4o1 G.0rooZ
N tl
el
+ f
0.�lt 40rC#Z-
is 4'
1► 1 Ir
B iD DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (i.e 0, lit DETECTION LW, THE DETECTION LIMIT).
Chapter: LIMP Guidance goAuck.
Filename: LTMPdata sum 11- ic, -41tty
Revision Date September 1.1993 `i- 1-`t le
Flow
7,1•(e 100
Chapter 4
Appendix . 4-$
Page 1.

r`
0_
01
cr
cn
m
n3
ti
PHONE NO.
ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
1
POTW NAME =
• NPDESINOND1SCHARGE PERMIT # =
SAMPLE LOCATION
Chapter
Long Tam Mortitoiing than Guidance
Appendix 4-B. Example LTMPSmonat, Data Form
04.aa%e Ri tier
rag-Ic,A- %901(f
Below Detection Limit Data (B13L) should be marked as "< and the detection limit°, i.e: <0.002.
PLOW =
SAMPLE DATE • rf,
s2'Z
"1- ! 'qfp
"I -'34-qtts
44.1
POLLUTANT =
3. i" It)
`#, 6 iz1S
•13'a
1(o'a
,o Il.O
J� IloaD
-1-9►o Zr,S
t� J
3 .
20 /.. •-5(4)
TOTAL =
J} VALUES >_
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM =
‘4t:
4.3 Y
8 a?.q
1tt •a_
6.< 1so
Meo
i i. $ 111.9
6..0 •i✓ o'
} S. I 14.0_
$. t 1oJowl-i`t8�3' 445f
POLLUTANT =
Er-
POLLUTANT = / POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = I POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT =
ILt. is Ali zJ.) AI4ples Mb Sc.,
40. 002. o op, o•' icsho Lo 46.01 . co. , .f.
:OD R 46. aa<
0
1
•
o.-16
1
i
•
•
•
{
4p. oc2 o ,cc5 O. COS .CO.005.
2:2 22- ZIP l I L
(÷. i •t' 0 O. m- f u i i 0.006
4 !WI 1i). u
P-3 10.1) 11 ,4
0.
4-el't.92 el ISo S, Sri c0.00z .echaverr. 40.ot wo'caz
i
It
'.
Lo.co2 40.
1• ,. 1'
.. ,t
L
a.044 40.002
u
$i DA1A USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (i.e. 0,112 DETECTION C TION LIMIT, 'ME DETECTION LIMIT).
Chapter. LTNEP Guidance
Filename:. LTMP data son
Revision Date: Septambcr 1.1993
$6 torso
2A`ei
n-31--eVe is
Po kt-
i s;4' a44
Chaptcr 4
Appendix 4-U
Psg i -
a

to
o_
m
Ln
m
to
rJ
-ti
Lo
m
PHONE NO.
1-
20
cc
to
0
z
Q
X
1
2
3
4
5
6
anger
Long Term Monitoring nacre Guidance
Appeariix4-B. Rumple LTMPSunanaty Data PoTm
PM/ NAME =
NPDNDLSCNAROE PERMIT g
SAMPLE LOCATION = . {uS- oceelDeA,1�',{
Rtafaske...-7ATopr
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the cietection limit", i.e. <0.00'2.
SAMPLE DATE
10"1- ice
r-2 - 5C0
10- 'S_- 'ica
t& -cis
? to g-,''
81 to- tb-'1Co
9 ro-- L; -- ti,
14 ID — t4-4%F
11i 10
12 tb -- it - ��►
13 1q- tiI-414e
141, Io--_ao-01i
15' i p Q,1- °tI
I� �p-94-'1L
17 to -433-`� 10
18 ro-W1-Stp
19. 18-al ito
o -yte
TOTAL =
# VALUES CZ
AVERAGE =
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
PLOW POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT= FOLLISFANT =
E U O -rs p
►
6,0
3•�
�4 V
111
As
ibn
611
6►o
5.1
rit
4r
.5'
'.345.6 1.32
a''1.'
grpl,,Ce ci �v
wa. 6 5 a
4t06'r fp At
7( t U.
13ra. 358_
3'3.3 I S1
4C1
.Q,
2,41.4 L
POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT = I POLLUTANr=
14149117
•or
POLLUTANT=
at t$.4 13 2.
,Sa►4 aII
11414 t°
61 ► 1134
iS.. tag:
.3..3'?,.5' 4 .
1�#S. If-(o
a art.34 100,
J•'� �►-i3'tO►3
g.4
10
s• .T
:2t3 0 3
Veto,O • i 39.
�LL� SSE �3
riCa
AB1�
0►003 o.64.41 40rO
►atO 414'
3►S61
O.ouz
GOjoo7. G►op'P. Dttti GO,Cr
1
O.pp2
+► r
n,
1 r
aei
4OEO1
�•
I
O , o io 0,16:P rL,o5 5•
t !
O,olo 0.10
,i(04o0Z 40►0004.
It
0.o3B Go 'cot.
d1 rOTh 4.0.CD2.?
A
PI
t 1't►o5• $,S
BDL DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (e. 0, I/2 DETECTION LIMIT, THE DETECTION LIMIT).
Chapter LTMP Guidance
Filename: LIMP data sum
Revision Date: September 1,1993
�o-aic�� ''►8 a,33,8 1'd
-• c'-"lb •4n • ? 3A.
lu-Si-mob 14..E ad 4 4 18r'
Chapter 4
Appendix 4-1
• .. gage-1 • .
o ••

co
0
N
m
to
ti
cn
cn
cn
PHONE NO.
ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST
Chaim
Lang Tenn Mmdtasing rtan Guidance
Appendix 4-13. Example LIMP Summary Data Form
POII'w NAME ;oar tot> wig"
NPDES/NOND1SCAARGE PERMIT #
SAMPLE LOCATION '•F4J Oc 'a e,' l q
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the detection limit", i.e. <0.102.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
11
13
I4
15
16
17
19
20
FLOW
SAMPLE DATE
10-z-city
0. - le -•litf
lb-
10 — 6-clIe
in-- q ...
io- IO- elke
to - Rt.
Yb- [S"gtP
,a-• N-cite
tb -X3-5 o
to-��-gto
TOTAL
# VALUES
AVERAGE c
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM =
POLLUTANT=
POLLUTANT = POi.LUFANT = 1 POLLUTANT
IDS$ 4Q.002 c0.
1.D
.01 .0 40.0.S'
POLLUANT = POLLUTANT = POLLUTANT =
P.03.
0,94 a.e17
<< 9,1 t . 5Z
0, 0'50 tztveto
POLLUTANT =
BDL DATA USED FOR AVERAGES ARE ESTIMATED TO BE: (i.e. 4, 1J2 DETECTION LIMIT, 'THE DETECTION LIMIT).
Chapter. LIMP Guidance
Filename: LIMP data suns
Revision Date September 1,1993
to-
io-36-'1b
o - l- glo
F `a„0 . gil
na 'ASS
41114.4
15,1 11.0
Chapter4
Appendix 4-B
Page i •

To: Permits and°-Eingineering Unit
Water Quality Section„.,
Attention: Mark McIntire.
Date January 21, 1997
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR RENEWAL
County Halifax
Permit No. NC0024201
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address: Roanoke Rapids WWTP _
1000 Jackson St., P.O. Box 308, Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 ".-
2. Date of Investigation: January 14, 1997
3. Report Prepared by: Vanessa Manuel, Environmental Chemist
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Gregg Camp, ORC
919/536-4884
5. Directions to Site: Hwy 64 East to I-95 North to Hwy 158
East (exit #173); approximately 1 mile turn left onto
Aqueduct Rd. Facility is located at end of road.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 36° 26' 10" Longitude: 77° 36' 24"
Attach a USGS map extract and indicate treatment facility
site and discharge point on map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No. B28NE U.S.G.S. Quad Name Weldon, NC
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Facility
appears to be located above the 100-year flood plain.
9. Location of nearest dwelling: none within 1500 feet
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Chockoyotte
Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-02-08
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Town of Weldon WWTP discharge is
located downstream of the subject facility.

PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: 8.34 MGD (Ultimate
Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 8.34 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility
(current design capacity)? 8.34 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorization to Construct (A to C) issued in the previous
two years: Previous A to C issued November 30, 1995.
Provide electric actuators for sluice gates at the existing
influent diversion box and effluent pump station; a new
vortex -type grit removal unit; two (2) new 1500 SCFM blowers
replacing two (2) of the four (4) existing blower units to
upgrade blower capacity; addition of a new air header;
chlorine contact tank for disinfection, and storage & feed
facilities for dechlorination; replacement of two (2) of the
existing effluent pumps with new 5500 GPM submersible pumps
to match influent pump capacity; 2000 ft2 expansion of the
existing laboratory/operations building; 1000 GPM stormwater
pump station; dual 150 GPM pumps for recirculating effluent
water to the spray bar system of the final clarifiers for
scum control; an 85 GPM sanitary waste pump station; new
curb and gutter for spill containment at existing sludge
tank truck loading station; plant sidewalk and road repairs;
SCADA system for process monitoring; and all associated site
work, yard piping and electrical work.
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment facilities:
Mechanical bar screen, grit chamber, dual primary
clarifiers, dual roughing trickling filters, triple aeration
basins, dual final clarifiers, dual secondary gravity sludge
thickeners, triple anaerobic digestors, lime stabilization
facilities, sludge storage tanks, and sludge drying beds
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities: N/A
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: Metals
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only):
in development approved X
should be required not needed
2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
2

a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
permit no. WQ0001989
Residual Contractor Amsco
Telephone No. 919/766-0328
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP
PFRP Other pH adjustment or
Lime stabilization
c. Landfill: N/A
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme (Specify): None
3 Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet): Class IV
4. SIC Code(s): 4952
Wastewater Code(s) of actual wastewater, not particular
facilities i.e.., non -contact cooling water discharge from a
metal plating company would be 14, not 56.
Primary 01 Secondary —
Main Treatment Unit Code: 0 4 0 - 3
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)? Yes
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: Chronic toxicity and metals
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate) The subject facility is not operating under an SOC.
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: Not enough available land
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other disposal options: None
3

5. Other Special Items: None
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Raleigh Regional Office (RRO) has reviewed the
records/reports and conducted an on -site inspection of the
subject facility. The facility is currently under construction
in the process of upgrading its treatment facility plant. The
treatment system appears to be operating properly without any
significant problems.
The RRO recommends that the_ permit be
basinwide permitting plan{`,
IOUS
41- tectMtoa_ce ed, AcatAAWI, 4u2.,
Checiael c(aik.
Signature of report preparer
Wat Qu 'ty`4egional Supervisor
ate
4
renewed according to the

DEHNR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0024201
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Applicant Address:
1000 Jackson St., Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Facility Address:
off Hwy 158 northeast of Weldon, NC
Permitted Flow
8.34 MGD
Type of Waste:
Industrial - 21.3%
Domestic - 78.7%
Facility/Permit Status:
Existing/Renewal
County:
Halifax
Stream
Characteristics
Receiving Stream
Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River
Stream Classification
C
Subbasin
03-02-08
Drainage Area (mi2):
n/a
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
n/a
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
n/a
Average Flow (cfs):
n/a
IWC@8.34 MGD (%):
79
Miscellaneous
Regional Office:
Raleigh
USGS Topo Quad:
B28NE
Wasteload Allocation Summary
The primary issue with this renewal is receiving stream flow information and
subsequently the Instream Waste Concentration to be used in the Chronic Toxicity test. It
is unclear at this point if Chockoyotte Creek has a zero 7Q10 because of the pressure
exerted at the junction of Chockoyotte Creek and the Roanoke River. The IWC (which
changed from .1.1% to 79%) was calculated based on the dilution in the immediate area of
the discharge.
All metals monitoring has been removed from the permit and will continue to be
monitored in the facility's Long Term Monitoring Program administered by the town
under authorization from the Division's Pretreatment Group. A metals reopener condition
has been inserted in the special conditions. This condition allows for the re -installation of
metals monitoring and/or limits if metals are deemed the cause of any significant toxicity
failure.
Limits and monitoring requirements for all other parameters remain unchanged. A
compliance schedule has been installed for fecal coliform and TRC. The facility is
currently constructing chlorination / dechlorination facilities. The permit, as written,
requires compliance with a 200/100 ml fecal limit and a 28 µg/L TRC limit by June 1,
1999.
Proposed Schedule for Permit Issuance
Draft Permit to Public Notice: March 12, 1997
Permit Scheduled to Issue: April 28, 1997

Fact Sheet For NPDES Permit Development
NPDES No. NC0024201
Page 2 of 2
State Contact
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached
permit, please contact Mark McIntire at [phone] ext. 553.

IL .11C
Comments and Summary
NC Division of Water Quality
Permits and Engineering Unit
February 25, 1997
Facility: Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Permit Number: NC0024201
County: Halifax
Flow: 8.34 MGD
Receiving Stream: Chockoyotte Creek at the Roanoke River
Stream Class: C
GENERAL COMMENTS: The primary issue with this renewal is receiving stream flow information and
subsequently the Instream Waste Concentration to be used in the Chronic Toxicity test. It is unclear at this point if
Chockoyotte Creek has a zero 7Q10 because of the pressure exerted at the junction of Chockoyotte Creek and the
Roanoke River. The IWC (which changed from 1.1% to 79%) was calculated based on the diluation in the
immediate area of the discharge.
All metals monitoring has been removed from the permit and will continue to be monitored in the facilities Long
Term Monitoring Program administered by the Division's Pretreatment Group. A metals reopener condition has
been inserted in the special conditions. This condition allows for the re -installation of metals monitoring and/or
limits if metals are deemed the cause of any significant toxicity failure.
Limits and monitoring requirements for all other parameters remain unchanged. A compliance schedule has been
installed for fecal coliform and TRC. The facility is currently constructing chlorination / dechlorination facilities.
The permit, as written, requires compliance with a 200/100 mL fecal limit and a 28 gg/L TRC limit by June 1,
1999.
All monitoring frequencies have been set in accordance with the 2B .0500 regulations.
Prepared by: d F

June 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: File
From: Mark McIntire M"'
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 in the
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 1WC. 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.

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
June 4,1997
MEMORANDUM
To: File
From: Juan C. Mangles rA
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 MacIntire. 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 Maclntire 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 ave
conditions (median or 50th percentile) and not worst case scenario. This resulted in a IWC o
which adjusted to a flow of 8.34 MGD results in an IWC of 51.8%. Therefore the WET limit is 52%.

r
•
Pt� tee XL...,�f Q ? TA x.•O'bS : 30.34S
o 12, —A
14 O L,.< O'ra Try Cam . ' -- LE-0"))
?4e�`
•a ` ` ;it? c' • �,�,T Aaerox,�
.3 6. ciS -
hb4ndoneci PPsw rx_
(Wev-7)0A-0
1,4/5...Doh./ 1A/K, CA (CC> —4E/4. PLAJT)
t
4•
1
T?J
/l
_D• a pLI 1,1 Pot NT'.5
61014

•
a
Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
5.05 2- M56 nocett€, cit5c.Iu3f
duY,INS c c S.ttVo
,di VVDe wc, NI CI0
Station Conductivity Instream All All Data
Number Date % iWC Position Data Percentile (omitting # 6) Percentile
# 2 11-Apr-96
# 3 11-Apr-96
# 4 11-Apr-96
51.6 %
44.8 %
66.3 %
58.5 %
6.0 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 6 11-Apr-95 ? top
bottom
# 2 19-Apr-95
# 3 19-Apr-95
# 4 19-Apr-95
# 5 19-Apr-95
# 2 26-Apr-96
# 3 26-Apr-96
# 4 26-Apr-96
29.7 %
29.7 %
50.0 %
21.0 ,%
5.3 %
5.4 %
5.0 %
5.0 %
38.0 %
34.2 %
62.3 %
39.4 %
26.6 %
14.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 6 26-Apr-95 6.0 % top
6.6 % bottom
# 2 10-May-95 53.0 %
59.1 %
# 3 10-May-96 63.8 %
62.6 %
# 4 10-May-95 40.5 %
32.7 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 10-May-96 5.6 % top
6.9 % bottom
# 2 17-May-95
# 3 17-May-96
# 4 17-May-96
64.8 %
61.0 %
61.0 %
41.2 %
34.6 %
8.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 17-May-96 6.3 % top
6.1 % bottom
# 2 24-May-95
# 3 24-May-96
# 4 24-May-96
45.3 %
56.6 %
91.0 %
89.0 %
89.0 %
82.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
to 0
3.35c'3
Cad oy
# 5 24-May-96 51.6 % top
8.2 % bottom
# 2 31-May-96
# 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 7-Jun-96
# 4 7-Jun-95
25.9 %
41.2 %
31.0 %
31.6 %
7.2 %
7.5 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 7Jun-95 7.1 % top
7.1 % bottom
# 2 14-Jun-95
# 3 14-Jun-95
# 4 14-Jun-95
28.3 %
26.2 %
6.8 %
6.9 %
6.8 %
6.8 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 14-Jun-96 6.8 % top
6.8 % bottom
# 2 21-Jun-95
# 3 21-Jun-96
# 4 21-Jun-96
38.0 %
41.0 %
64.6 %
66.8 %
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
98.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
96.0
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
0.5
78.,3
77.0
77.0
74.6
74.0
73.2
% 100.0 th 98.0 % 100.0 th
% 99.5th 96.0 % 94th
% 99.1 th 96.0 % 98.8 th
% 986 th 95.0 % 91.2 th
% 981 th 95.0 % 97.6 th
% 97.7th 94.7 % 97.oth
% 972 th 94.5 % 96.3 th
% 96.7th 94.1 % 96.7th
% 9a3 th 94.0 % 96.1 th
% 95.8 th 93.0 % 94.5 th
% 95.3th 93.0 % 93.9th
% 94.9th 91.7 % 93.3th
% 94.4 th 912 % 92.7 th
% 93.9 th 91.0 % 92.1 th
% 935th 90.0 % 91.5th
% 930th 90.0 % 9.9th
% 926 th 90.0 % 902 th
% 92.1 th 89.8 % 89.6 th
% 91.6th 89.0 % 89.0th
% 91.1 th 89.0 % 88.4 th
% 9a 7 th 87.0 % 87.8 th
% 902th 87.0 % 87.2th
% 89.7 th 86.7 % 86.6 th
% 89.3 th 86.7 % 86.0 th
% 88.8 th 86.0 % 85.4 th
% 883th 85.4 % 84.897
% 87.9 th 84.9 % 84.1 th
% 8Z4 th 82.6 % 83.5 th
% 86.9th 82.0 % 8.9th
% 86.4th 78.3 % 823th
% 88o th 77.0 % 81.7th
% 85.5 th 73.2 % 81.1 th
% 85.0 th. 70.0 % 80.6 th
% 84.6 th 1 69.8 % 79.9 th
% 84.1 th 69.5
% 836 th 69.1
% 83.2 th 67.0
% 8.7th 67.0
% 1322 th 65.9
% 81.8 th lW L 65.6
% 81.3th b uceist 64.8
% 80.8 th N 63.9
% 8a4 th Rot") 63.8
70.0 . 6 , 79.9 th
69.8 % 79.4 th 9 °/b 63fi3-8.8
69.5 % 79.oth 62.5
69.1 % 785 th 61.0
67.0 % 780 th 61.0
67.0 % 77.6 th 61.0
66.9 % 77.1th 61.0
65.6 % 7B.6 th 60.0
64.8 % 762 th 59.5
63.9 % 75.71h 59.1
I63:6 782th .�pa 59.0
4.43 cb p,8 74.8 th ► r 68.7
63.8 % 743th 58.5
62.6 % 718 th 58.0
61.5 % 73.4 th 58.0
61.0 % 729 th 572
61.0 % 724 th 56.3
61.0 % 720 th 55.8
61,0 % 71.6 th 55.6
60:0 % 71.0 th 55.5
69.6 % _ 7a6 th 54.6
5.40 c55 69.1 % _ 70.1 th 140-S 54.0
�59.1 % ✓ 69.6 th 54.0
59A % 69.2 th 54.0
58.7 % 6a7th 53.6
58.5 % 682 th 53A
58.0 % 67.8 th 52.3
58.0 % 67.3 th 52.0
672 % 66.8 th 51.8
66.9 • % 684 th 51.6
66.3 % 66.9 th 51.0
56.0 % 65.4 th 50.9
6 • tp c{S ( 5:8-% &CI th 16 4.5 % 50.0
55.6 % 64.5 th 49.7
66.6 % 64.0 th 48.3
64.6 % 616 th 47.0
64.0 % 6a 1 th 46.3
64.0 % 62.6 th 45.3
54.0 % 621 th 44.8
79.3 th
7a7th
78.0th
77.4 th
788 th
76.2 th
756th
75oth
74.4th
7a8th
73.2 th
72.6th
72.0 th
71.3 th
70.7th
70.1 th
69.5 th
689 th
68.3 th
67.7th
67.1 th
66.5th
66.9 th
65.2 th
64.6th
64.0th
63.4th
62.8 th
622 th
61.6 th
61.0 th
6.4th
59.8th
69.1 th
58.5 th
57.9th
67.3 th
56.7 th
56.1 th
65.6 th
54.9 th
54.3th
53.7th
530th
52.4th
51.8 th
51.2 th
50.6th

-DATE
AVG.
EFF . x
FLOW(MGD)
RIVER
C.F.S.
4-11-95
5.8 J
5,777 1
4-19-95
4.5 d
4,676
4-26-95
3.8 J
4,653
5-3-95
4.4
4,676
5-10-95
5-17-95
4.6 ✓
4.5V
4,724
4,465
5-24-95
4.0 4,488
5-31-95
5.0 Ide 4,512
6-7-95
6-14-95
6-21-95
6-28-95
7-5-95
7-12-95
4.9 V
4.0154
9,663
4.6Y 9,565
5.6✓
9.6
6.
7-19-95
7-26-95
5.Y ; 18,K0
8-2-95
1414
8-9-95
4.7, — 5,
8-16-95
8-23-95
4.6"
4.6 V 2,1620
8-30-95
5 .Y'"
2;-655
9-6-95
2 05
9-13-95
4t9
2.152
9-20-95
9-27-95
4,6
10-4-95
DATE
AVG.
EFF.$
FLOW(MGD)
RIVER
C.F.S.
10-11145
5`.6
10-18-95
10-25-95 4.8
10,780
50/3
o0
Li-b i� 6b AV�� s°sz^+id,
* AVERAGE EFFLUENT FLOW THREE HOURS
PRIOR TO SAMPLING
\&"'9
JUAN MANGLES:
PER OUR PHONE CONVERSATION 6-11
I AM SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING RE-
OUESTED INFORMATION. IF I CAN BE
OF ANY FURTHER ASSITANCE PLEASE D0
NOT HESITATE TO ASK.
THANK YOU,
GREGG CAMP

•
•
a_
°Z
w
‘to e, co) c,d
k.....201E CP \C=. &AA; %-.).-0

A•
s. Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
Station Conductivity lnstream
Number Date % IWC Position
# 3 28-Jun-95
St"
# 4 28-Jun-95
4'
r/ #2
42.0 %
22.0 %
3.3 %
6.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 28-Jun-95 6.0 %. top
5.3 % bottom
5-Jul-95
# 3 5-Jul-95
# 4 5Jul-95
16.0 %
16.6 %
14.8 %
14.6 %
15.0 %
15.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 5Jul-95 15.0 % top
15.0 % bottom
# 2 12-Jul-95
# 3 12-Jul-95
# 4 12-Jul-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
# 3 19Jul-95
# 4 19Jul-95
16.6 %
26.5 %
63.8 %
65.6 %
59.0 %
59.5 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 19Jul-95 61.5 % top
56.9 ' % bottom
# 2 26-Jul-95
# 3 26-Jul-95
# 4 26-Jul-95
18.2 %
29.5 %
40.0 %
38.6 %
23.9 %
28.4 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 26Jul-95 39.0 % top
10.6 % bottom
# 2 2-Aug-95
# 3 2-Aug-95
# 4 2-Aug-95
23.9 %
26.8 %
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
38.0 • %
69.1 %
95.0 %
86.0 %
95.0 %
94.1 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 9-Aug-95 87.0 % top
31.0 % bottom
# 2 16-Aug-95
# 3 16-Aug-95
# 4 16-Aug-95
51.0 %
89.8 %
93.0 %
90.0 %
90.0 %
90.0 %
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
All AEI Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
53.5 % 61.7 th 43.7 % 50.0 th
53.0 % 61.2 th 43.0 % 49.4 th
52.3 % 60.7 th 42.0 % 48.8 th
52.0 % 60.3 th 412 % 48.2 th
1' t 5 C 5 l 51.8 % 59.8 th 6c� % 412 % 47.61h
51.6 % 59.3th 41.0 % 47.0th
51.6 % 58.9 th; 40.9 % 46.3 th
51.0 % 58.4 th 40.5 % 45.7 th
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 % 56.1 th 38.0 % 42.7 th
46.3 % 55.6 th 38.0 % 42.1 th
'45 4ffS ( 45.3 % 55.1 th a-% 38.0 % 41.5th
44.8 % 54.7 th 38.0 % 40.9 th
43.7 % 54.2 th 37.0 % 40.2 th
43.0 % 53.7 th 36.0 % 39.61h
42.0 % 53.3 th 35.9 % 39.0 th
41.2 % 52.8th 34.7 % 38.4th
41.2 % 52.3th 34.6 % 37.8th
41.0 % 51.9th 34.4 % 37.2th
40.9 % 51.4 th 342 % 36.6 th
40.5 % 50.9 th 33.1 % 36.0 th
40.0 %- 50.5 th 32.7 % 35.4 th
lZ.0 cV-- 39.4 % 50.0th 'I3r.2%32.7 % 34.8th
30.0 % 49.5 th 31.6 % 34.1 th
38.8 % 49.1 th 312 % 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 % 31.7 th
38.0 % 47.2 th 29.5 % 31.1 th
38.0 % 46.7 th 28.4 % 30.5 th
37.3 % 46.3 th 28.3 % 29.9 th
37.0 % 458 ih 26.8 % 29.3 th
36.0 % 45.3 th 26.8 % 28.7th
13,1 cis I 36.0 % 44.9 th ,) 9 /0 26.5 % 28.0 th
35.9 % 44.4 th 262 % 27.4 th
34.7 % 43.9 th 25.9 % 26.8 th
34.6 % 43.5 th 25.5 % 26.2 th
34.4 % 43.0 th 25.0 % 25.6th
34.2 % 42.5 th 24.4 % 25.0 th
33.9 % 42.1 th 24.3 % 24.4 th
33.1 % 41.6th 23.9 % 238th
32.7 % 41.1 th 23.9 % 23.2 th
32.7 % 40.7th 23.5 % 22.6th
1695 CAL 312 % 39.7th 1�3N 21 2222.0% 21.3th
31.0 % 39.3 th 21.0 % 20.7 th
31.0 % 38.8 th 21.0 % 20.1 th
29.7 % 38.3 th 20.0 % 19.5 th
29.7 % 37.9th 19.8 % 18.9th
29.5 % 37.4 th 18.2 % 18.3 th
28.4 % 36.9 th 17.1 % 17.7 th
28.3 % 36.4 th 16.6 % 17.1 th
26.8 % 36.0 th 16.6 % 16.5 th
26.8 % 35.5 th 16.0 % 15.9 th
26.5 % 35.0 th 15.3 % 15.2 th
26.2 % 34.6th 15.0 % 14.6th
25.9 % 34.1 th 15.0 % 14.0 ih
25.5 % 336 th 14.8 % 13.4 th
25.0 % 33.2th 14.7 % 12.8th
24.4 % 32.7th 14.6 % 12.2th
24.3 % 32.2 th 14.0 % 11.6 th
23.9 % 31.8th 11.8 % 11.0ih
23.9 % 31.3th 8.1 % 10.4ih
23.5 % 30.8 th 8.0 % 9.8 th
23.3 % 30.4 th 7.5 % 9.1 th
22.0 % 29.9 th 7.2 % 8.5 th
22.0 % 29.4 th 6.9 % 7.9 th
21.3 % 29.0 th 6.8 % 7.31h
21.0 % 28.5 th 6.8 % 6.7 th
21.0 % 28.0 th 6.8 % 6.1 th
20.0 % 27.6th 6.8 % 5.5th
19.8 % 27.1 th 6.6 % 4.9 th
19.2 % 26.61h 6.1 % 4.3 th
18.2 % 26.2th 6.0 % 3.7th
17.1 % 25.7th 5.4 % 3.0th
16.6 % 25.2th 5.3 % 2.4th
16.6 % 24.8th 5.0 % 1.8th
16.0 % 24.3th 5.0 % 1.2th
15.3 % 23.8 th 3.3 % 0.6 th

Roaoke Rapids lnstream IWC Study
All Surface All Surface Data All Bottom All Bottom Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
18.2 % 23.4 th
16.6 % 22.4 th
16.0 % 21.5th
15.0 % 20.6 th
15.0 % 19.6 th
14.8 % 18.7th
11.8 % 17.8th
7.9 % 16.8 th
72 % 15.9 th
7.1 % 15.0 th
7.0 % 14.0 fh
6.8 % 13.1 fh
6.8 % 12.1 th
6.8 % 11.2 th
6.6 % 10.3 th
6.4 % 9.3 th
6.3 % 8.4 th
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 % 23.4th
14.0 % 22.41h
10.9 % 21.5 th
10.6 % 20.6th
8.6 % 19.6 th
8.2 % 18.7 th
8.1 % 17.8 th
8.0 % 16.8 th
7.9 % 15.9 th
7.5 % 15.0 th
7.4 % 14.0 th
7.1 % 131th
6.9 % 12.1 th
6.8 % 11.2 th
6.8 % 10.3 th
6.8 % 9.3 th
6.5 % 8.4 th
6.5 % 7.5 th
8.1 % 6.5th
6.1 % 5.6 th
6.0 % 4.7 th
5.9 % 37th
5.4 % 2.8 th
5.3 % 1.9 th
5.0 % 0.9 th

4-
Roaoke Rapids lnstream IWC Study
Station Conductivity tnstream All All Data
Number Date % IWC Position Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
# 4 6-Sep-95 78.3 % top
65.9 % bottom
# 5 6-Sep-95 80.5 % top
37.3 % bottom
# 2 13-Sep-95 38.8 % top
55.5 % bottom
# 3 13-Sep-95 87.0 % top
84.9 % bottom
# 4 13-Sep-95 91.7 % top
87.0 % bottom
# 5 13-Sep-95 88.0 % top
33.9 % bottom
# 2 20-Sep-95 37.0 % top
50.9 % bottom
# 3 20-Sep•95 82.6 % top
54.0 % bottom
# 4 20Sep-95 93.0 % top
70.0 % bottom
# 5 20-Sep-95 91.0 % top
36.0 % bottom
# 2 27-Sep-95 58.7 % top
34.4 % bottom
# 3 27Sep-95 85.4 % top
77.0 % bottom
# 4 27-Sep-95 94.0 % top
67.0 % bottom
# 5 27-Sep•95 86.0 % top
22.0 % bottom
# 2 11-Oct-95 24.4 % top
54.0 % bottom
# 3 11-Oct-95 69.8 % top
54.0 % bottom
# 4 11-Od-95 6.6 % top
8.1 % bottom
# 5 11-Oct-95 6.4 % top
6.5 % bottom
# 2 18-Oct-95 26.8 % top
40.9 % bottom
# 3 18-Oct-95 73.2 % top
43.0 % bottom
# 4 18-Oct-95 69.5 % top
34.7 % bottom
# 5 18-Od-95 7.9 % top
10.9 % bottom
# 2 25-Od-95 32.7 % top
31.2 % bottom
# 3 25-Od-95 53.5 % top
52.0 % bottom
# 4 25-Od-95 51.8 % top
46.3 % bottom
# 5 25-Oct-95 21.3 % top
8.6 % bottom
15.0 % 23.4 th
15.0 % 22.9th
15.0 % 22.4th
15.0 % 22.0th
14.8 % 21.5th
14.7 % 21.0 th
14.6 % 20.6 th
14.0 % 20.1th
11.8 % 196th
10.9 % 192th
10.6 % 18.7 th
8.6 % 18.2 th
8.2 % 17.8 th
8.1 % 17.3 II)
8.0 % 16.8 di
7.9 % 16.4 di
7.9 % 159th
7.5 % 15.4 th
7.4 % 15.0 th
7.2 % 14.5 th
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 % 11.7th
6.8 % 11.2 th
6.8 % 10.7th
6.8 % 10.3 th
6.8 % 9.8 th
6.6 % 9.3 th
6.5 % 8.9 th
6.5 % 8.4 th
6.4 % Z9 th
6.3 % 7.5 th
6.1 % 7.0 th
6.1 % 6.5th
6.0 % 6.1 th
6.0 % 56 th
6.0 % 5.1 th
6.0 % 4.7 th
5.9 % 4.2 th
5.6 % 3.7 th
5.4 % 33th
5.3 % 2.8 th
5.3 % 2.3 th
5.3 % 1.9 th
5.0 % 1.4 th
5.0 % 0.9 th
3.3 % 0.5 th

Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
Station Conductivity Instream "ICII All Data
Number Date % IWC Position Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
#2 11-Apr-95 51.6 %
44.8 %
# 3 11-Apr-95 56.3 %
58.5 %
# 4 11-Apr-95 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
# 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 % top
5.9 % bottom
# 2 17-May-95
# 3 17-May-95
# 4 17-May-95
64.8 %
61.0 %
61.0 %
41.2 %
34.6 %
8.0 %
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 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 9
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 24-May-95 51.6 % top
8.2 % bottom
#2
#3
#4
31-May-95
31-May-95
31-May-95
36.0
43.7 %
63.8
63.9 %
48.3 %
17.1
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
110.0
98.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
94.7
94.5
94.1
94.0
93.0
%
%
96
100.0 lh
99.5 th
99.1 th
98.6 th
98.1 th
97.7 th
97.2 th
96.7 th
96.3 th
95.8 th
95.3 th
93.0 % 94.9 th
3.35c.--Vs
(bnxA LfD.0
5•05z (10
AIK PJJ�G d t s +-
ctu Q d�,,r�.,,r�
0'
# 5 31-May-95 7.0 % top
7.4 % bottom
# 2 7-Jun-95
# 3 7-Jun-95
# 4 7Jun-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 14-Jun-95
# 4 14-Jun-95
28.3
26.2 %
6.8 %
6.9 %
6.8
6.8
top
bottom
top
bottom
top
bottom
# 5 14-Jun-95 6.8 % top
6.8 % bottom
#2 21Jun-95
#3 21-Jun-95
#4 21Jun-95
38.0
41.0
54.6
55.8
49.7
20.0
%
%
94
94
%
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
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
%
ok
% 92.1 th
% 91.6 th
% 91.1 th
• 90.7 th
90.2 th
• 89.7 th
% 89.3 th
88.8 th
• 88.3 th
87.9 th
• 87.4 th
% 86.91h
86.4 th
°k 86.0 th
85.4 % 85.5 th
85.0 % 85.0 th
84.9 % 84.61h
82.6 % 84.1 th
82.0 % 83.61h
80.5 % 83.2 th
78.3 % 82.7 th
77.0 % 82.2 th
77.0 % 81.8 th
74.6 % 81.3 th
74.0 % 80.8 th
73.2 % 80.4 th
70.0 '%
69.8 % 79.4 th
69.5 % 79.0 th
69.1 % 78.5 th
67.0 % 78.0 th
67.0 % 77.6th
65.9 % 77.1th
65.6 % 76.6 th
64.8 % 76.2 th
63.9 % 75.7 th
63.8 % 75.21h
63.8 % 74.8 th
63.8 % 74.3 th
62.5 % 73.8 th
61.5 % 73.41h
61.0 % 72.91h
61.0 % 72.41h
61.0 % 72.01h
61.0 % 71.5th
60.0 % 71.0 th
59.5 % 70.6 th
59.1 % 70.1 th
59.1 % 69.61h
59.0 % 59.21h
58.7 % 68.7 th
58.5 % 68.2 th
58.0 % 67.8 th
58.0 % 67.3 th
57.2 % 66.8 th
56.9 % 66.4 th
56.3 % 65.9 th
56.0 % 65.4 th
55.8 % 65.0 th
55.6 % 64.5 th
94.4 th
93.9 th
93.51h
93.0 th
92.5 th
55.5j % 64.0th
54.6 j
54.0 %
54.0
54.0
63.6 th
63.1 th
62.6 th
62.1lh
98.0 % 100.0 th
95.0 % 99.4 th
95.0 % 98.8 th
95.0 % 98.2 th
95.0 % 97.6 th
94.7 % 97.0 th
94.5 % 96.3 th
94.1 % 95.71h
94.0 % 95.1 th
93.0 % 94.5 th
93.0 % 93.9 th
91.7 % 93.31h
912 % 92.7th
91.0 % 92.1 th
90.0 % 91.5th
90.0 % 90.91h
90.0 % 90.21h
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 % 85.41h
85.4 % 84.8 th
84.9 % 84.1th
82.6 % 83.51h
82.0 % 82.9 th
78.3 % 82.3 th
77.0 % 81.7th
73.2 % 81.1th
70.0 % 80.5 th
69.8 % 79.9 th
69.5 % - 79.3th
69.1 % 78.7th
67.0 % 78.0 th
67.0 % 77.4th
65.9 % 76.8 th
65.6 % 76.2 th
64.8 % 75.6 th
63.9 % 75.0 th
63.8 % 74.4 th
63.8 % 73.8 th
63.8 % 73.2 th
62.5 % 72.6th
61.0 % 72.0 th
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 % 68.3th
59.0 % 67.7th
58.7 % 67.1 th
58.5 % 66.5 th
58.0 % 65.9 th
58.0 % 65.21h
57.2 % 64.6 1h
56.3 % 64.0 th
55.8 % 63.4 th
55.6 % 62.81h
55.5 % 62.2 th
54.6 % 61.6 th
54.0 % 61.0 th
54.0 % 60.4 th
54.0 % 59.8 th
53.5 % 59.1 th
53.0 % 58.5 th
52.3 % 57.9 th
52.0 % 57.31h
51.8 % 56.7th
51.6 % 56.1 th
51.0 % 55.51h
50.9 % 54.9 th
50.0 % 54.3 th
49.7 % 53.71h
48.3 % 53.0 th
47.0 % 52.41h
46.3 % 51.8th
45.3 % 51.2 th
44.8 % 50.6 th

Roaoke Rapids Instream IWC Study
All Surface All Surface Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 th
99.1 th
98.1 th
97.2 th
96.3 th
94.0 % 95.3 th
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
59.0
58.7
58.0
56.3
54.6
53.5
53.0
52.3
51.8
51.6
51.6
51.0
50.0
49.7
48.3
45.3
42.0
40.5
40.0
39.0
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
25.0
24.4
24.3
23.9
23.9
23.5
21.3
19.8
19.2
94.4 th
93.5 th
92.5 th
91.6 th
90.7 th
89.7 th
88.8 th
87.91h
86.9 th
86.0th
85.0 th
84.1 th
83.2 th
82.2 th
81.3 th
80.4 th
79.4 th
78.5 th
77.6th
76.6 th
75.7 th
74.8 th
73.8 th
72.9 th
72.0 th
71.0 th
70.1 th
69.2 th
68.2 lh
67.3 th
66.4 lh
65.4 th
64.5 th
636th
62.6 th
61.7 th
60.7 th
59.8 th
58.9 th
57.9 th
57.0 th
56.1 th
55.1 th
54.2 th
53.3 th
52.3 th
51.4 th
50.5 th
49.5 th
48.6 th
47.7th
46.7 th
45.8 th
44.9 th
43.91h
43.0 th
42.1th
41.1 th
40.2 th
39.3 th
38.3 th
37.4 th
36.4 th
35.5th
34.6th
33.6 th
32.7 th
31.8 th
30.8 th
29.9 th
29.0 th
28.0 th
27.1 th
26.2 th
25.2 th
24.3 th
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 th
98.8 th
97.6th
96.3 th
95.0 % 951 th I
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
25.0
24.4
24.3
23.9
23.9
23.5
19.8
18.2
16.6
16.0
15.0
14.8
% 93.9th
% 92.7th
% 91.5th
% 90.2th
% 89.0 th
% 87.8th
% 86.6th
% 85:4th
% 84.1th
% 82.9 th
% 81.7 th
% 80.5th
% 79.3th
% 78 01h
% 768th
% 75.6th
% 74.4th
% 732 th
% 72.0th
% 70.7th
% 69.5 th
% 68.3 th
% 67.1th
% 65.9th
% 64.6th
% 634th
% 62.2th
% 61.0 th
% 598th
% 58.5 th
% 57.3th
% 56.1th
% 54.9th
% 53.7th
% 52.4th
% 51.2 th
% 50.0th
% 48.8th
% 47.6th
% 46.3th
% 45.1th
% 43.9 th
% 42.7 th
% 41.51h
% 40.2 th
% 39.0th
% 37.8th
% 366th
% 35.4 th
% 34.1 th
% 32.9th
% 31.7 th
% 30.5th
% 29.3 th
% 28.0th
% 26.8th
% 25.6th
% 24.4th
% 232 th
% 22.0th
% 20.7th
% 19.5 th
% 18.3 th
% 17.1th
% 159th
% 14.6th
% 134th
% 12.2 th
11.8 % 11.Oth
7.2 % 98th
6.8 % 8.5 th
6.8 % 7.3 th
6.6 % 6.1 th
6.0 % 4.9 th
5.3 % 37th
5.0 % 2.4 th
3.3 % 1.2 th
All Bottom
All Bottom Data
Data Percentile (omitting # 5) Percentile
110.0 %
94.7 %
94.5 %
94.1 %
91.2 %
100.0 th
99.1 th
98.1th
97.2th
96.3 th
90.0 % 95.3 th
90.0
89.8
89.0
87.0
86.7
86.0
85.0
84.9
82.0
77.0
74.6
70.0
69.1
67.0
65.9
65.6
63.9
62.5
61.0
61.0
60.0
59.5
59.1
58.5
58.0
572
56.9
56.0
55.8
55.6
55.5
54.0
54.0
54.0
52.0
50.9
47.0
46.3
44.8
43.7
43.0
412
412
41.0
40.9
39.4
38.6
37.3
36.0
35.9
34.7
34.4
34.2
33.9
32.7
31.6
312
31.0
29.7
29.5
28.4
26.8
26.5
262
23.3
22.0
22.0
21.0
21.0
20.0
17.1
16.6
15.3
15.0
15.0
14.7
94.4th
93.5 th
92.5th
91.6 th
90.7th
89.7 th
88.8th
87.9th
86.9th
86.0th
85.0 th
84.1 th
83.2th
82.2th
81.3th
80.4 th
79.4 th
78.5th
77.6th
76.6th
75.7th
74.8th
73.8 th
72.9 th
72.0th
71.oth
70.1 th
69.2th
68.2th
67.3 th
66.4th
65.4 lh
64.5th
63.6th
62.6th
61.7 th
60.7th
59.8 th
58.9 th
57.9th
57.0 th
56.1 th
55.1 th
54.2 th
53 31h
52.3th
51.4 th
50.5th
49.5 th
48.6 th
47.7th
46.7 th
45.8th
44.9 th
43.9 th
43.0 th
42.1 1h
41.1 th
40.2 th
39.3 th
38.3th
37.4 th
36.4 th
35.5th
34.6th
33.6 th
32.7th
31.8 th
30.8th
29.9 th
29.0 th
28.0 th
27.1 th
26.2 th
25.2 th
24.3 th
98.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
95.0 %
100.0 lh
98.8 th
97.5th
96.3 th
95.0 % 95.1th I
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 %
412 %
41.2 %
40.0 %
39.4 %
38.8 %
38.0 %
38.0 %
38.0 %
37.0 %
342 %
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 %
182 %
17.1 %
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 %
93.8 th
92.6 th
91.4 th
90.1 th
88.9 th
87.7th
86.4 th
852 th
84.0 th
82.71h
81.51h
802 lh
79.0th
77.8 lh
76.5th
75.3 th
74.1 th
72.8th
71.6 th
70.4 th
69.1 th
67.9 th
66.7 th
65.4 th
64.2 th
63.0 th
61.7 th
60.5th
59.3th
58.0 th
56.8 th
55.6 th
54.3th
53.1 th
51.9 th
50.6th
49.4 lh
48.1 th
46 91h
45.7th
44.4th
43.2th
42.0 th
40.7 th
39.5 th
38.3 th
37.0 th
35.8th
34.6 lh
33.3 th
32.1th
30.9 th
29.6 th
28.4 th
27.2 th
25.9 th
24.7 th
23.5 th
22.2 lh
21.0 th
19.8 th
18.5 th
17.3 th
16.0 th
14.8 th
13.6 th
12.3th
11.11h
9.9 th
8.6th
7.4th
6.2 th
4.9th
37th
2.5th
12th

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%
31%
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%
91%
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

r
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

3
FROM : R(JANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST PHONE NO. : 919 537 9136 Apr. 10 1997 10:00AM P2
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
1000 Jackson Street P.O. Box 308 Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870 [phone] Fax [phone]
Certified Mtn
Return Receipt Regted
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. NCO024201
Roanoke Rapids WWTP
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
WVVTP
a:loom sancdem19704l0dg.doc

FROM : ROANOkE RAPIDS SANITARY DIST PHONE NO. : 919 537 9136 Rpr. 10 1997 10:00RM P1
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
P. O. Box 308
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Fax Cover Sheet
DATE: April 10, 1997
TO: Mr. David A Goodrich
NCDEHNR
FROM: Macon Raavis
RE: NPDES NO. NC0024201
CC: POH
Number of pages Including cover sheet: 2
Message:
Attached is FAX copy of latter to fo11ow....
TIME: 9:46 AM
PHONE: 1.919, 733.5083x553
FAX: 1,919,733.0710
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

ti
-a.
A
CIA c `,
V C�►'1 �� rr n vt.rcl
jafrrve_s.r
i.air4
ff)i tcl„'rler+ OI,Sp,n ` Isi,v15 (Q
j
I
c. OO(t L,/J\40,ijJ,
44 4 ...7:44.e_
fra ! v i s ar++.v' Kt f2.r-►►6 emir c.7 e s7`%� c
&e5 5 C
�

b. Chronic Toxicity
Modeling
Cost Benefit
Environmental Impact
Other
7. Stunmary
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 M kr-DA RIu« 10,o4 p' Ot 4 Kc,Av51
Gem CAP, pac._
2. Interim Permit
Fecals - 416. a_141 (41-
C12 4cto45 .e —
3. Upstream/Downstream Monitoring Issues
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
4. General Issues
Sharing Sampling Data
Upstream Chockoyotte Creek Sampling
5. Final Permit Issues
f ^oNecvrttd -� 2 C Q-Z '
Probe Reading for D.O. and pH �t o ,ixi:P ,i°�c orJ �
CBOD vs. BOD , (, kc- 4-0 CND��
bra-�.u1:147
• IN lveob4e\-t
• NO c )(Wln(5 S-5(4N
Ct). (ve,i N nV E t r si -.cAtizto Al S
f t G /42C NV*
kl {- rite e ►'`' / vc - C a'"g'C VsAct S
ct(c.g A2G
To °Z)
j°cz1og- ci,b-kohli v i