NC0024333_Wasteload Allocation_19940825

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024333
Monroe 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:
August 25, 1994
This; document is printed on reuse paper - ignore arty
content on the reYerse side

Ao I Lvc.Rs
NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0024333
PERNIITTEE NAME: City of Monroe
FACILITY NAME: (v'j erl e-c e vJ voI"17
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: -7 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 58 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 42 %
Comments:
See n kofe- A-17*U 6D
LIMP• vmh t2(t7(43 •
RECEIVING STREAM: Richardson Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-14
Reference USGS Quad: H17NW (please attach)
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 5/31/94 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Susan A. Wilson ;flfl4l Date: 12/17/93
Prepared by: C Cf,r�i�lie�v�� Date: ?/C AL/
Reviewed by: / i lit ,L C 60Q Date: 6(0579Ei'
BoDw33•s[5) Cn1CW)
F
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
rAkks
ta17okl3
'16Q5
2
Drainage Arca (mi ) rj I .1 Avg. Streamflow (cfs): Lo I.0
7Q10 (cfs) f) ,(( 3 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) / .) 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC () % Acute Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters D02W1 P1 l 'riAk)e,k l i , � s 1W kkM, Peu-I Lot, i�vh^'
Upstream ✓ Location I1 ---up 2404
Downstream ,i Location g SR lLl)
DE G.R1U30
Effluent
Characteristics
Recommended Limits;
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/I):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
---134-10. melatberml--mvteter=
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Cadmium (ug/1):
Chromium (ug/1):
Copper (ug/1):
Nickel (ug/1):
Lead (ug/1):
Zinc (ug/l):
Cyanide (ug/1):
Comments:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
7.0 7.0
10 20
3 6
7 7
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
Alinter
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
5.0 2.0
LIMP
monitor
352 88
34 25
monitor
20 5

MONROE WWTP
(NC0024333)
Monroe's SOC will expire 3/31/94 and the permit is set to expire 5/31/94. The previous
permit reflects the limits for Monroe to increase the plant size in phases from 7, 9,11
MGD. However, Monroe believes that the WWTP can accept 8.5 MGD of wastewater at
expiration of the SOC and request that flow be limited at 8.5 MGD instead of 7 MGD.
Kim Colson (12/17/93) stated that the influent pumps can handle only 7 MGD of flow; the
MRO felt that the facility should send in proof that the influent pumps can handle more
flow. Also, the facility has not expanded enough to handle 9MGD, so they do not want the
9 MGD limits. K. Colson said the staff report is forthcoming, but may not be here until the
first of the year due to the holidays.
A WLA is being requested for the existing flows (7, 9, 11 MGD). Unless the staff report
indicates that the central office should investigate the other flow scenarios, this will request
will remain.
saw

HAZENAND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
October 1, 1993
Mr. Tom Frederick, P.E.
Director of Water Resources
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
300 West Crowell Street
Monroe, NC 28111-0069
Re: Monroe WWTP
Design Capacity Evaluation
H&S No. 3516-8
Dear Tom:
Hazen and Sawyer, P C.
4011 WestChase Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27607 •
919 833-7152
Fax: [phone]
This letter addresses the question you raised in a telephone conversation of
September 22, 1993 regarding the design capacity for the Monroe WWTP for
inclusion in the NPDES permit renewal application. This permit expires on
May 31, 1994, which is before the Phase II 9 mgd expansion facilities are
scheduled to be completed. We also understand that the SOC for the plant,
which allowed an interim plant design flow of 9 mgd, expires on March 31,
1994. We believe that uponthe expiration of the SOC, the permitted design flow
will return to 7 mgd, at least until the existing permit is renewed, and/or Phase II
facilities constructed.
With regard to the permitted flow capacity to be requested prior to
completion of the Phase II expansion, we have prepared process design
calculations to determine the allowable flow capacity for the existing aeration
tank volume of 3.45 million gallons. This volume is based on the four existing
aeration basins at a water depth of 16 feet (Phase I upgrade). The calculated
flow capacity for the existing basins based on maximum month flow conditions is
approximately 8.5 mgd. This capacity is based on plant influent BOD5 and TKN
concentrations for maximum month conditions of 214 and 29.2 mg/L,
respectively. At this time the permitted flow capacity of the Monroe Plante is
based on annual average flow values. The corresponding annual average flow
associated with a maximum month flow of 8.5 mgd is approximately 7 mgd,
which is the current permitted flow capacity.
New York, NY • Armonk. NY • upper Saddle River. NJ • Rak.gn. NC • Charlotte. NC • Richmond, VA • Hollywood, FL • Boca Raton, FL • Fort Pierce. FL • Jupiter. FL • Miami. FL • Bogota. D E. Colombia

HAZENAND SAWYER
Mr. Tom Frederick, P.E.
October 1, 1993
Page 2
Based on the above factors, we recommend that the City request a
permitted flow capacity of 8.5 mgd for renewal of the current NPDES permit for
the interim period prior to completion of the Phase II facilities. Following
completion of the Phase 11 facilities, a permitted flow capacity of approximately
11 mgd is recommended, which is the maximum month flow corresponding to an
annual average flow of 9 mgd. We feel that the higher permitted flow capacities
are appropriate because the process design calculations for the proposed facilities
were based on maximum month design conditions in order that permit effluent
limits can be met in the month with the maximum loadings. In addition, since
effluent flows higher than the permitted flow capacity are considered a permit
violation, it has become more technically appropriate to base the permit capacity
on design maximum month flows. You may wish to consider requesting an 11
mgd permitted flow at this time with a stipulation within the permit for 8.5 mgd
during Phase II construction.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please give us a call.
We will be happy to meet with City and NCDEM regional office staff to discuss
these recommended permitted flow capacities at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
G • rdon C. Res, P.E.
Senior Vice resident
GCR/wp
cc: Mr. Jerry Cox
Mr. Kim Hinson

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
NPDES PERMIT NC0024333
The City of Monroe Wastewater Treatment Plant provides secondary
treatment through an activated sludge process consisting of four
basins followed by four Secondary Clarifier units. Sludge settling
from the Secondary Clarifiers is returned buy pumping to a Splitter
Box just ahead of the Aeration Basins. Plant Operators monitor the
mixed liquor suspended solids level in the aeration basin and
manually operate valves on the return activated sludge pipelines as
required to waste sludge to two Aerobic Digesters for sludge
digestion.
Sludge is digested in the Aerobic Digesters, consisting of
mechanical aerators, sufficient to meet the 503 sludge regulations.
Digested sludge is pumped to one of two centrifuges on an
intermittent basis and is conditioned with polymer to promote
dewatering. There are also 15 sludge drying beds at the Wastewater.
Treatment Plant for dewatering if required. Dewatered sludge is
land applied to permitted sites for beneficial reuse under a non -
discharge permit.
The City of Monroe currently contracts with BioGro Systems, Inc. to
haul the dewatered sludge from the plant site to the permitted
disposal sites. The combined allowable application rates from the
sum of all Permitted sites are well beyond both the current actual
sludge production and the production at plant capacity.
Basaed upon anticipated continued compliance with the 503
regulations, the City plans to continue to dispose of all plant
sludge by land application.

N.C. DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
67 NATURAL RESOURCES
AU@ 1 t994
JFACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
C�I�ISIU(f EfF MIME
Request #MOORESVIIS469601a O.EEi L
Facility Name:
NPDES No.:
Type of Waste:
Facility Status:
Permit Status:
Receiving Stream:
Stream Classification: C
Subbasin:
County:
Regional Office:
Requestor:
Date of Request:
Topo Quad:
City of Monroe
NC0024333
58% Domestic / 42% Industrial
Existing
Renewal
Richardson Creek
030714
Union
MRO 7/-
Susan Wilson
12/20/93
H17NW
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
2.1252.484&
1989
71.7
0.43
1.0
64.0
96
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Renewal for Existing Design flow. Facility will receive existing limits for oxygen consuming
parameters and some changes on toxic requirements. Dissolved oxygen values are very low (3.0
mg/land 4.0 mg/I) instream above and below the discharge. Staff from this office would like to
visit the area in the future to help determine management strategies for Basin Planning.
4' Region please comment on continuing to monitor MBAS. Current data show levels of MBAS
below 0.37 mg/l.
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
4-t P1i2.17(% 5..44..4.;/11-)4 A,= /Jw r%�. Tiprr}J /?t�:,v :,/-;:,r-1(ia,_
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
Date: /.
(
Date: 7 /a-2f CN
Date:
1 � Date: 00q
AUG 2 6 1994
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

2
existing Limits:
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 7.0 7.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 10 20
NH3N (mg/1): 3 6
DO (mg/1): 7 7
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (14/1): monitor monitor
MBAS (mg/1): monitor monitor
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 7.0 7.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 10 20
NH3N (mg/1): 3 6
DO (mg/1): 7 7
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (4/1): monitor monitor
MBAS (mg/1): monitor* monitor*
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
* Region please comment on continuation of monitoring for MBAS
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
parameter
1.NO limits changes
2.
3.
4.
Change due to --
(See page 4 for miscellaneous and special conditions, if applicable)

3
TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit: 96%
Recommended Limit 90%
Monitoring Schedule: Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Existing Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/l): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/1): 200 50
Copper (ug/1): monitor
Nickel (ug/1): 352 88
Lead (ug/1): 34 25
Zinc (ug/l): monitor
Cyanide (ug/l): 20 5
Recommended Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/1): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/l): LTMP
Copper (ug/1): monitor
Nickel (ug/1): 352 88
Lead (ug/1): 34 25
Zinc (ug/l): monitor
Cyanide (ug/1): 20 5
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
1. Cr
Parameter Change due to --
New toxics analysis shows facility will not need limits and
monitoring will be provided via the pretreatment Long Term
Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
X 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.

0-
4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Walkup Ave.
Downstream Location: 1) SR 1006; 2) SR 1630
Parameters: DO, Temperature, Conductivity, BOD5, NH3N, Fecal Coliform
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Current instream monitoirng data show levels of BOD5 and NH3N far above normal background cond
and the NH3N is exceeding instream criteria downstream of the discharge at both locations.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDTITONS
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 schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
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 analysis
if modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name JThk1k iiitiiTP Permit #�,�' 14333 Pipe # cD I
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
effluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
% (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
quarterly monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed cater thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
6,49, ! G . 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, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
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 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 any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management 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 and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0.43 cfs
Permitted Flowa7 MGD Recommended by:
IWC qI % %
Basin & Sub -basin b_45'7 q0/11A4.-"IaA4thito.
Receiving Stream A r/104.5v Creel<
County Vilibyi Date aQ0
`alen t -te6-f - ✓ a,// .'Gheee i%c*
QCL PIF Version 9191

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Joe Pearce
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 1994 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: Monroe WWTP
To: Carla Sanderson
Carla, Monroe had a LTMP approved on 3/15/94. The LTMP includes the following
pollutants of Concern(POC's): Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn, As, Cn and Fl. It is
too early to expect LTMP data, but you may consider allowing some of this monitoring in the
LTMP to be sufficient for NPDES needs for the future models. For your information, their
frequency of sampling of POC's is 3 consecutive days per quarter without a future reduced
rate.
From personal knowledge, most of Monroe's industrial flow comes from chicken plants and
does not include heavy metals; however, they do have some specialty metal industries.
Review of the sludge data indicates that they may be exceeding Ni in the sludge.
From: Carla Sanderson on Mon, Apr 25, 1994 3:48 PM
Subject Monroe WWTP
To: Joe Pearce
Do you have any additional data (LTMP) for the City of Monroe?
The NPDES monitors for Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, CN and MBAS. Do you think I should
know about any else? Thanks!

Page 1
Note for Carla Sanderson
From: Joe Pearce
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 1994 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Monroe
To: Carla Sanderson
Yes, ammonia, TKN, BOD and even flow will be Monroe's biggest problems for quite a
while. However, the new plant and aeration system are operating well, and Monroe should
stay out of trouble.
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Jul 6, 1994 8:34 AM
Subject: RE: Monroe
To: Joe Pearce
OK - thanks- I will not be recommending limits or monitoring for O&G. I thought part of the
remains from dressing a chicken would involve the disposal of the excess fatty stuff creating
more O&G in the effluent than normal. I guess that is not quite the case here - right? I am
reluctant to visit a chicken factory - but maybe someday... It seems they (particularly
Monroe) have more intense problems like ammonia anyway.
From: Joe Pearce on Wed, Jul 6, 1994 8:24 AM
Subject RE: Monroe
To: Carla Sanderson
Carla, I don't have any data on Oil & Grease. My visual observation a few months ago of
clarifiers, were that that the skimmers on the clarifiers were working well, the WWTP also
has tertiary filters which should stop any remaining oil & grease. John Lesley of Region has
done three inspections of facilty and has seen no grease problems.
With respect to chicken plants creating oil & grease problems, the chicken plants are not
cooking chickens but are "dressing" chickens, and the Chicken plants have Dissolved air
flotation units for the removal of any grease. If you have further questions about oil &
grease at Monroe, I would recommend contacting John Lesley at the Region as he has
inspected the facility three times recently.
As you can probably tell, I would not recommend an Oil & Grease limit.
From: Carla Sanderson on Wed, Jul 6, 1994 7:39 AM
Subject: Monroe
To: Joe Pearce
• Since this facility has mostly chicken plants as SIUs - would you agree that we should
monitor or limit oil and grease? Is there any data on O&G?

WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING 0[SELF-MONITORING SUMMARY] Tue, Iul 19, 1994
FACILITY REQUIREMENT YEAR JAN 1•E13 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AIIC, SEP OCT NOV
Y 9D - - PASS] - PASS] - PASSI - Emu
MONARCH HOSIERY PERM: 2411R AC P/F LIM 90% (MID) - FAIL] - - PASSI - - PASS] - - PASst
NC0001210/001 Begin:10/1/93 Frequency: Q A MAR JUN SEP DEC NonComp:SINGLE 91 - - - - - - - - FA]U,FA1U
92 - PASSI PASS] PASS! - -P1:0.y:AIAMAPJCE Region: WSSp Subbuin:CPF02 93 - - PASSI - PASS1 - - PASSIFAILI
PF: 0.05 Special-
7Q10: 47.8 [WC(%):0.16 Otde: 94 Bt1,Btl FAIL] ' FAILI,FAILt PASSI - -
90 PA FAIL bt FAIL - FAIL FAIL FAIL PASS LATE
MONROE WWTP PERM CUR MARJU 97 SEP D DEC98% > p: - PASS P,PASS P,PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Cou ty 1JNION Begin:?11l89 Frequency: QS P/Fbb A !UN C NonComp: 912 FAILS PASS - -
C
92 PASS PASS LATE/PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS FAIL
PF 7.00 KXd Region:MRO l SO :1/1YAD14 93 PASS - PASS - - FAIL PASS - PASS - - PASS
PF:7.00 Special SOC:1l18191.4/30V94 Q LIM ®97% - - -
94 - PASS
7Q10:0.43 IWC(%):96.18Order.- - >t170,b1 - -
MONSANTO/001,002 PERM: 2411R AC P/F LIM 90%(PII'L1S OOl& Y 90 NONE - - N.NONEI - - i90 002) - - N,>1001 - - N,i1001 - - NONE - -
NC0003719/002 Begin:4/1/94 Frequency: Q A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:S1NGLE 91 NONE - - - - - 71.0E -
92 N.NONEI >90' >100'.>1001 - -
PF:0.7:CUMDFIUAND Region: FRO Subbuin: Ck'115 93 >1001,>100• - - >100' - >100',>1001 - - >100'
7Q:0.73 special -
Pe PASSI
7Q10:791.0 IWC(%):0.14 �� 94 >t00'.>t001 -
COUNTY WWTP PERM CIIR LIM:41% Y 90 to PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
NC0037508/001 Begin:12/1/92 F P/F A JUN SEP DEC MAR NonComp:SINGLE 91 PASSREV PASS PASS - PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASSPAP- - ASS PASS PASSP
Frequency: Q 92 PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS • PASS
PF' 6.7:MOORE Region: [AO Subbuin: LUM50 93 - - PASS - - PASS PASS - PASS - - PASS
7Q10:0 Special - - -
7Q10:15.2 IWC(%):40.54 Order � 94 PASS FAIL.PASS - -
PASS PASS - - FAIL PASS PASS
MOORESV111,E WWTP PERM CHR LIM:94% Y 90 - - _ - - - PASS -
g1 - FAIL PASS FAILSIG PASSSIG PASS
CC nty:IREDE1 Begin:?/II90 : NIRemcy:.Q P/F A FL9 MAY AUG NOV NonComp: - FAIL PASS PASS,FAIL - - PASS - - PASS -
PPu5.2:IRF7JELL Region: MRO Subbuin: YADI1 92 - - - - - - - PASS -
93 - hR PASS PASS
PF:5.20 special -
7010:0.5 IWC(%):94.15 Order. 94 - FAIL PASS FAIL - - - - - -
MOREHEAD CITY WWTP PERM: 24HR AC P/F LIM 90% MYSID 90 - - _ - - - - - - - -
NC0026611/001 Begin:5/1/93 Frequency: Q A FEB MAY AUG NOV NonComp:SINGLE 91 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coun
• 7Q10
PF:1.7:CART: TIDAL IWC(%):NA Onto. • Special 93 - l7tlT Region: WBiO Subbuin: WOK03 92 - - - - - - - PASSmy - - PASSmy -
� 94 - NW - PASSmyPASSmy -
7Q10: - - -
90 PASS - - PASS - - . PASS - PASS - -
MORGANT 3/001 BAWDA RIV3 POLLUTION Frequency: FA PERM CHR JAN LIMAPR0% 91 PASS - - bt tJi - PASS - - PASS
Comity: 73/001 acgio:5/I/93 Q P/F A JAN APR JUL OCT NooComp:SlNGLE - - PASS - - PASS - - PASS -
P- -
PR' 9. :BURKE Region: ARO Subbasin: CTD31 92 PASS - - - - - - PASS -
Y 93 PASS
PASS PASS
7Q 0.00 special 94 PASS - - .PASS -
7QIO:126.00 TWC(%):8.96 Order: � - - -
90 Na PASS M NR PASS NI PASS PR WI -
MNC 5004I 1 BegiON WWTP PERM CHR JAN LIMA % - PASS NI - - PASS - -- FAIL PASS
P/F A JAN APR JULOCT NonComp:SMGLE 91 bt - FAIL PASS -
Courdy W1/001 Begin:6/1l93 Frequency: Q 92 PASS - - PASS - PASS - - -
PF: 0t2:WAKE Region: RRO Subbuin: NEU02 93 PASS - - PASS - - PASS - - PASS
7F:0.20 special 94 PASS - - PASS -
7Q10:0.0 IWC(%): 100.0 Oder: � PASS PASS -- -
MT. AIRY WWTP • PP/F -
CIIR J.IM:42% y 90 PASS - PASS(a) - - - -
NC0021121/001 Begin:l/1192 Frequency: Q P/F . e JUL OCT JAN APR NonCemp:SINGLti 91 PASS PASSI FAIL,PI FAIL,PI FAIL,PI FAIL,PI FAIL,PI FAIL,PI FI,NR FAIL,FI FAIL,PI
County:SURRY Region:WSRO Subbuin:YADO3 92 FAIL,FI FAIL,FI, FAIL,PI FAIL,FI PASSI,FAIL PASSI,PASS PASS,PASS1 PASSI MI PASS
7Q10: Special I,PASS PASSI PASSI
93 PASSI.FAIL PASSI,PASS PASSI PASS FAIL PASS - -
P
14.9 IWC(%):42.0 Order.94 PASS - - PASS -
- - - - - .-- -
91 - - - - - - - - - - -
92 - - - - - - - - -
93 - - - - - - -
93 -_ PASS - - PASS - - PASS - - PASS
MT. GILEAD WWI' PERM CHR MONIT:69% (MONTT FIRST YR,TIIEN LIM)
NC0021105/001 Begin:3/1/93 Frequency: Q P/F SEP DEC MAR JUN NonComp:
County: MONTGOMERY Region: FRO Subbuin: YADO8
PF:0.85 Special
7Q10: 0.6 IWC(%):68.67 Order:
94 - - PASS - -
0 2 consecutive failures = significant noncompliance Y Pre 1990 Dam Available
LEGS requirement; IS- Conductingindependent stud)
= Permit Requirement LET = Administrative Letter - Target Frequency = Monitoring fre.luency: Q- Quarterly; M- Monthly; BM- Bimonthly; SA- Semiannually; A- Annually: OWD- Only when discharging: D- Discontinued monitoring req per
Begin = First month required 7Q10 = Receiving stream low flow criterion (cfs) A = quarterly monitoring increases to monthly upon single failure Months that testing must occur - ex. JAN,APR,JUL,OCT NunComp = Current Compliance Requirement
PF=Permitted flow (MGD) IWC% = lnst ram waste concentration P/F = Pass/Fail chrc tic tut AC = Acute CIIR = Chronic
Data Notation: f -Fathead Minnow: • - C4; NR - Not
repo my - ( ) -id hump: ChVo- Chronic value: ia A u. r y Statwtv of staled Inactive, N - Newly Issued(fo construct);11 AcUve but not discharging; t-More dare available for month in question SIG = ORC signature needed
Reporting NoWion: - = Data not requited; NR -Not reported; ( ) - Beginning Quanta y ry 35

ome (, uEP
1 Y d
I BC oV• v in
C x i5-1- ► rr.{ U V1�tc
cI=11.0CI u,
Baas Is ►)(4
It � gh%C VV C
c-ifkattcl xovL C vee K
UV- `1 I .`1
'WO= OLL3ci6
. o 1,\A cl 4- 11.0 s
rvka l / iY G-1
vvn L wt_./)
,nn.ry i / Lp wT 1
For a /( 3 A-7,u s f4-(A- ✓eJ w k /i9‘i
J Gv `Gk u' P ../--vrab° 3 lev)s.
e v2,1
CI 0., 5-
/We gS 35.2.
Pb 025 3
CA( 5 .2 o
rain. Zoca He -A L riu, g - re a.
`-1,4)' / z -hi 056-5 s.
06-6 V las a- • zi8 S
7Q iow = I. DC-e

C/
4,017(
0
illZy
C'D�1 a�Jfl �'1Gf7xtirkitititad .
A rn t" o 1 / `71 /1 `1,vill %22 a M 1 /fray° i J/
/344. %x
toil<Ayte ficki Ana
,Lei �t 95 3� ,� Il 3 ova Aws
��C� cc1i 5 a0
Vr
+" 3 C xPfr? Oaf / ?) 3 cIncL 5 a
_vyu pa- d /e(PO. cnc( G Ay).
See. j kc
E Mod vtutt -
6eu
till),14A;42ct.
/va, 3 r2$c , Gv / /( cd

Page 1
Note for Cada Sanderson
From: Joe Pearce
Date: Thu, Jul 21, 1994 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: Monroe WWTP
To: Carla Sanderson
In the case of Monroe, the WWTP has recently been upgraded,and its ability to treat for Cd
and Ni has not been characterized. Therefore, I recommend Cd and Ni limits based on 1992
data, until the upgraded WWTP has been characterized, i.e. headworks analysis due to be
completed by July 1995.
From: Carla Sanderson on Thu, Jul 21, 1994 10:17 AM
Subject Monroe WWTP
To: Joe Pearce
Finally - I have come up with the below for recommendations for the renewal/expansion of
this facility:
Limits: Lead = 25 ug/1
cyanide = 5 ug/1
Monitor in NPDES: copper and zinc
No need for additional monitoring for Cd, Cr, Ni, since they will be monitored in the LTMP
These recommendations will go for all three flows (7 MGD, 9 MGD, 11 MGD).
If I used 1992 data, we would be recommending limits for Ni and Cd as well. What are your
thoughts on that. Should these paramters be limited now? In 1992 there were many
exceedances of the allowable for Cd and one exceedance for Ni.
Please let me know if you agree with the above and/or if you would like to see limits for Cd
and Ni in the NPDES.

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Monroe WWTP
NPDES #
NC0024333
Ow (MGD)
7
7Q 10s (cfs)
0.43
/ WC (%)
Richardson Creek
96.19
Reeving Stream
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
2.1
chromium
Max. Pred Cw
34
Allowable Cw
52.0
copper
Max. Pred Cw
1288
Allowable Cw
7.3
lead
Max. Pred Cw
67.2
Allowable Cw
26.0
nickel
Max. Pred Cw
16.9
Allowable Cw
91.5
cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
66
Allowable Cw
5.2
zinc
Max. Pred Cw
359.1
Allowable Cw
52.0
Max. Pred Cw
#VALUE!
Allowable Cw
#VALUE!
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
Sv rn A°v V)& ir!Mp
LIMP
� tDY.IJPDES
1AIPD3
o,{Dy LT MP
IMcbvwi-o Y
7/21/94
PAGE 1

=ro iuwiP Aa`tU..
1g93
(�p5iu vy)
1iU(,a up
avxi9 ' 0 Lin) Folk CH)
4613 Ili. a. q V (7.8) ..' (al")
11A3 11) blp (5, 0- cm) -
d/G3 19 5.) (ii•U) 2'7 (3.3)
/qt3 `h a (3 0 ?- 7 (4f.a)
s/G3 a 5 -L08 (335) 3.3 (5)
at 3.5 6.9) 4.7 (9.3)
3c 5 y.`7 13.-)) 3. Li, apii)
'1q3 ca 3.9 �3 �
n.3 7.� (5,8) 3.1 (4.e)
33 15,E 91(_) a -`) (3.0
qco �a 3 Ib.c1 (G.��� a.o� (3)
\�i3 I l ).3 (oi-3) .'7 (3.8)
i/15 a nA_ s n u-�- 0-I
1*3
°A.3
H
gig
(9b3
5%3 < <
3 2-
-33
a-h3
Lrt
t ektae
/ / L/ . d (7 5) 1fi. 3 Cis)
5 3 go 30 (j)
/evup DO(yu.; e) f3oa5-
ly.ln g• $ (7la)
15.g 6.3 6.a) G. ()a) )16 17.a6,,.(0) a.s (3(.)
11 ! (3.0) 3 3 (s a 1 S 4 (3.)) c2 -a. (4-9)
„23 `1.3 (3.5) j5 65.3) a3 5 3 (y.)) 07-3 (q.3)
) (3 `1) (5. l)
�•(� 3�(3) 34(143) 7 '4-.3(3.3) y.a-Q0.(0)
aL/ L-3 (3.6) a (I.9)
01).5 y:K Ot.b) 3.3 C (o-51
q g. 5 9.5 ((o.3) 0.5 (_9)
9.( 3) 3.4)(6.3)
13,6 ei•8(4►LD 3.`t (zb
eta q.() (g.) a.8 (5..(0)
Cat
25 (3.3) a-, (5&)
?4.3 3.(9(3.0 1-.0 (Io•a)
a�. S 3.' 7(s (3.5) 3. 7 66.3)
it S '7.64 (5,r1) 3.11 Oh 0
154- 9 -03 6-34) -. I (.I l-U)
Ia.S °I.g (1.5) 4r.-7 o»)
1(3 q N-g) 3. a (4-a)
11-8 W7/ oh/ a.vn
ieaD C+f )
L
L. I
os (ri)
g (61,(�)
,3 3 Cc4
LI
(jj r
1 Ca c)

1o x-e s frne4a-ls
.Cr
4 I Pb ) S ru c: 5 8, 3 K, 0Vo4
fD�)312-
Y cN
'1� to ) 14-6
2,/k. (iit,
,&:,,6t /u/7r)� s
c(a. -
Cc( 1 g , `7, l i (P
Cr �7
t4 i@ i I s,
i t , a er--
qa d6 4,(L6)(6.
►k u. -4 " q3 01 y
svi-iti a.hcc ( s

NPDES WAS I'h, LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0024333
PERMITTEE NAME:
City of Monroe
FACILITY NAME: ktonW2oe
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
F
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: q MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 58 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 42 %
Comments:
See memo,
RECEIVING STREAM: Richardson Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-14
Reference USGS Quad: Hl.7NW
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
(please attach)
Previous Exp. Date: 5/31/94 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Susan A. Wilson Date: 12/17/93
Prepared by: Date: gl { f
Date: SI /9 V
kjQ/neLL c}'Y)
Reviewed by: C 660-tarl-
o�� 14C(() -3800)
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
C..S
1LI201 43
'1(09G,
Drainage Area (mil ) 9 , rl Avg. Strcamflow (cfs): (L
7Q10 (cfs) �, CI 3 Winter 7Q10 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC % Acute/ onic)
Instream Monitoring: I /1c. "__11� ��jj
Parameters �1, iemkp, ?Cs-, l` 1(�' , (Wdd Ui , KCa.1 N kw
Upstream Location (LW- o f Ate
Location 1) 0 . )(Z C
�. O 30Q2 (cfs)
Downstream ✓
Effluent
Characteristics
-
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 9.0 9.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
- 2 4
NH3N (mg/I):
DO (mg/i): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
"
Fecal Col. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine17
rff17
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
— Daily Max. Weekly Ave
2.0
Cadmium (ug/1): 5.0
Chromium (ug/l): LTMP
Copper (ug/1): monitor
Nickel (ug/1): 352 8834 25
Lead (ug/1): monitor
Zinc (ug/1):
Cyanide (ug/1):
20 5
Comments:

N.C. DEPT. OP
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
fe NATURAL RESOURCES
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
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:
AUG 1 1994
FACT SHEET FOR WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Request # MO(I6.E REGIONAL OFFICE
City of Monroe
NC0024333
58% Domestic / 42% Industrial
Existing
Renewal/Modification
Richardson Creek
C
030714
Union
MRO71
Susan Wilson
12/20/93
H17NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Renewal with existing permitted limits for increase wasteflows. Facility will receive the existing
advanced tertiary limits for oxygen consuming parameters and some changes on toxic
requirements. 'Dissolved oxygen values are very low (3.0 mg/1 and 4.0 mg/1) instream above and
below the discharge. Staff from this office would like to visit the area in the future to help
determine management strategies for Basin Planning.
i Region please comment on continuing to monitor MBAS. Current data show levels of MBAS
below 0.37 mg/1.
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
2.1252.4845
1989
71.7
0.43
1.0
64.0
97
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
z f. irn c:
Recommended by: 3l ,friAAC /1,4-61."-- Date: /% aS /7 `f
£ L Date: 7/ ) /QV
Date: 4 Ag4
Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: AUG 2 6 1994

l
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Existing Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD): 9.0 9.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4
DO (mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (µg/1): monitor monitor
MBAS (mg/1): monitor monitor
TP (mg/l): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Recommended Limits:
Monthly Average
Summer Winter WQ or EL
Wasteflow (MGD): 9.0 9.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
NH3N (mg/1): 2 4
DO (mg/1): 6 6
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml): 200 200
pH (SU): 6-9 6-9
Residual Chlorine (4/1): 17 17
MBAS (mg/1): monitor* monitor*
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
* Region please comment on continuation of monitoring for MBAS
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
Parameter Change due to--
1.Chlorine Standard Operating Procedures for new or expanding
facilities
2.
3.
4.

6
TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit 97%
Recommended Limit: 90%
Monitoring Schedule: Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Existing Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/l): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/l): 200 50
Copper (ug/l): monitor
Nickel (ug/l): 352 88
Lead (ug/l): 34 25
Zinc (ug/l): monitor
Cyanide (ug/l): 20 5
Recommended Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/l): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/l): LIMP
Copper (ug/l): monitor
Nickel (ug/l): 352 88
Lead (ug/l): 34 25
Zinc (ug/l): monitor
Cyanide (ug/l): 20 5
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
1. Cr
Parameter Change due to —
New toxics analysis shows facility will not need limits and
monitoring will be provided via the pretreatment Long Term
Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
X 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.

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Walkup Ave.
Downstream Location: 1) SR 1006; 2) SR 1630
Parameters: DO, Temperature, Conductivity, BOD5, NH3N, Fecal Coliform
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Current instream monitoimg data show levels of BOD5 and NH3N far above normal background cond
and the NH3N is exceeding instream criteria downstream of the discharge at both locations.
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 schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
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 analysis
if modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

Facility Name NYC voe ww7P
Permit #,UCDDay333Ape# caul
•
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
The e uent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
gunner& monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
j7121fi IA; p , c . Effluent sampling for this testing shall be performed at the NPDES
permitted fin21 effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
g
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, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
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 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 any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management 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 and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 0•u3
Permitted Flow oj. V
1wc c#1
Basin & Sub -basin S30
Receiving Stream QC
County j)n; o ri
QCL PIF Version 9/91
cfs
MGD
.5614 CYeel,
Recommended by:

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Monroe WWTP
NPDES #
NC0024333
Qw (MGD)
9
7Q10s (cfs)
0.43
/WC (%)
_.._.._.._..__97.01
Richardson Creek
Rec'ving Stream
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
2.1
chromium
Max. Pred Cw
34
Allowable Cw
51.5
copper
Max. Pred Cw
1288
Allowable Cw
7.2
lead
Max. Pred Cw
67.2,
Allowable Cw
25.8
nickel
Max. Pred Cw
16.9
Allowable Cw
90.7
cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
66
Allowable Cw
5.2
zinc
Max. Pred Cw
359.1
Allowable Cw
51.5
Max. Pred Cw
#VALUE!
Allowable Cw
#VALUE!
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
myth DY Cria
vvvIA, tij P D4 5
v W'?
7/21/94
PAGE 1

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0024333
PERMITTEE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
City of Monroe
Mop (La';
VJWiP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Renewal
Major �1
Pipe No.: 001
Minor
Design Capacity: ,1' MGD
Domestic (% of Flow): 58 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 42
Comments:
See memo.
RECEIVING STREAM: Richardson Creek
Class: C
Sub -Basin: 03-07-14
Reference USGS Quad: H17NW (please attach)
County: Union
Regional Office: Mooresville Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 5/31/94 Treatment Plant Class:
Classification changes within three miles:
Requested by: Susan A. Wilson
Prepared by: Oft
/La C . 6Gatiue-
't lC (S) 3Se-D)
Reviewed by:
Date: 12/17/93
Date: S 014
ate:
Zs
Modeler
Date Rec.
CU5
l z-(zo (53
1Goej 7
Drainage Area (mi2 ) rl Avg. Streamflow (cfs):_ Co-
7Q10 (cfs) O.0 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) I, 30Q2 (cfs)
Toxicity Limits: IWC 90 % Acu Chronic
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters bO,Temp, BDb1 kt CO _[cd)61/1•cav►w
Upstream ✓ Location th. J t)p P
Downstream ✓ Location 6P I O0( n
1
Effluent
Characteristics
Stemmer
Viinter
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
Wasteflow (MGD):
11.0 11.0
BOD5 (mg/1): 5 10
NH3N (mg/1):
2 4
6 6
DO (mid):
TSS (mg/1): 30 30
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
200
200
6-9 6-9
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (14/1): 17 17
TP (mg/1): monitor monitor
TN (mg/1): monitor monitor
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/1): 5.0
2.0
Chromium (ug/1): LTMP
Copper (ug/1): monitor
Nickel (ug/1): 352
88
Lead (ug/1): 34 25
Zinc (ug/1): monitor
Cyanide (ugh):
20
5
Comments:

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 ALLOCATION
City of Monroe
NC0024333
58% Domestic / 42% Industrial
Existing
Renewal/Modification
Richardson Creek
C
030714
Union
MRO7:' c
Susan Wilson
12/20/93
H17NW
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
Renewal with existing permitted limits for increase wasteflows. Facility will receive the existing
advanced tertiary limits for oxygen consuming parameters and some changes on toxic
requirements. Dissolved oxygen values are very low (3.0 mg/1 and 4.0 mg/1) instream above and"
below the discharge. Staff from this office would like to visit the area in the future to help
determine management strategies for Basin Planning.
Region please comment on continuing to monitor MBAS. Current data show levels of MBAS
below 0.37 mg/1.
Request # 7696 '7
N.C. DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
& NATURAL RESOURCES
AUG 1 1994
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
2.1252.4845
1989
71.7
0.43
1.0
64.0
98
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
c„:1 7,1
Recommended by: ORAL- ' /(Z/yt(,c eA.4 1 Date: r/a 5 54/
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
CI
Date: i J 7 (9(1
Date:
Date:
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY: AUG 2 6 1994

2
xisting Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Co1. (/100 m1):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (14/1):
MBAS (mg/1):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BODS (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Co1. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
MBAS (mg/1):
TIP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
* Region please comment on continuation of monitoring for MBAS
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
11.0 11.0
5 10
2 4
6 6
30 30
200 200
6-9 6-9
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
WQ or EL
Monthly Average
Winter
11.0
10
4
6
30
200
6-9
17
Summer
11.0
5
2
6
30
200
6-9
17
monitor* monitor*
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
Parameter
1.Chlorine
2.
3.
4.
Change due to —
Standard Operating Procedures for new or expanding
facilities

3
TOXICS/METALS
Type of Toxicity Test: Chronic P/F
Existing Limit: 98%
Recommended Limit: 90%
Monitoring Schedule: Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec
Existing Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/l): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/l): 200 50
Copper (ug/l): monitor
Nickel (ug/l): 352 88
Lead (ug/l): 34 25
Zinc (ug/1): monitor
Cyanide (ug/l): 20 5
Recommended Limits
Daily Max. Weekly Ave
Cadmium (ug/1): 5.0 2.0
Chromium (ug/1): LIMP
Copper (ug/1): monitor
Nickel (ug/1): 352 88
Lead (ug/l): 34 25
Zinc (ug/l): monitor
Cyanide (ug/1): 20 5
LIMITS CHANGES DUE TO:
1. Cr
Parameter Change due to --
New toxics analysis shows facility will not need limits and
monitoring will be provided via the pretreatment Long Term
Monitoring Plan (LIMP)
X 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.

4
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Walkup Ave.
Downstream Location: 1) SR 1006; 2) SR 1630
Parameters: DO, Temperature, Conductivity, BOD5, NH3N, Fecal Coliform
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
Current instream monitoirng data show levels of BOD5 and NH3N far above normal background cond
and the NH3N is exceeding instream criteria downstream of the discharge at both locations.
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 schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
If no, why not?
$peciaiJnstructions or Conditions
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach updated evaluation of facility, including toxics spreadsheet, modeling analysis
if modeled at renewal, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.

• Facility Name T5ve6 e WwT
Permit #4"66a(4333 pipe # CO
CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LIMIT (QRTRLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit chronic toxicity using test procedures outlined in:
1.) The North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Carolina Chronic Bioassay
Procedure - Revised *September 1989) or subsequent versions.
ThA kffluent concentration at which there may be no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality
is % (defined as treatment two in the North Carolina procedure document). The permit holder shall perform
puarterjy monitoring using this procedure to establish compliance with the permit condition. The first test will be
performed after thirty days from the effective date of this permit during the months of
YYtar - rV Dec. . Effluent samplingfor this testingshall be performed at the NPDES
� ►'� �� ue t
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, DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
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 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 any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management 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 and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate
retesting(within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit suitable test results will constitute
noncompliance with monitoring requirements.
7Q10 a 3 �/ . � cfs MCA Recommended b .
Permitted Flow
IWC q se 7l /�'�1'1G
Basin & Sub -basin �D
Receiving Stream 11 v./Atm C rV Date 7County 11 &I"-
QCL P1F Version 9191

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Monroe WWTP
NPDES #
- NC0024333
Ow (MGD)
11
7Q10s (cfs)
. _
0.43
I WC (%)
_ .._..97:54
Richardson Creek
Recwing Stream
Stream Class
C
FINAL RESULTS
cadmium
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
2.1
chromium
Max. Pred Cw
34
Allowable Cw
51.3
copper
Max. Pred Cw
1288
Allowable Cw
7.2
lead
Max. Pred Cw
67.2
Allowable Cw
25.6
nickel
Max. Pred Cw
16.9
Allowable Cw
90.2
cyanide
Max. Pred Cw
66
Allowable Cw
5.1
zinc
Max. Pred Cw
359.1
Allowable Cw
51.3
Max. Pred Cw
#VALUE!
Allowable Cw
#VALUE!
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
0
Max. Pred Cw
0
Allowable Cw
0.0
7/21/94 PAGE 1