NC0025445_Wasteload Allocation_19921112

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0025445
Randleman
WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File
- Historical
Approval
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
November 12, 1992
This document los printed on refuse paper - ignore any
content on the reYerse Bide

NPDES WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
PERMIT NO.: NC0025445
PERMI IThE NAME:
FACILITY NAME:
City of Randleman
Randleman WWTP
Facility Status: Existing
Permit Status: Modification
Major Minor
Pipe No.: 001
Design Capacity: * 1/�5 MGD
Domestic (% of Flow):
42.8 %
Industrial (% of Flow): 57.1 %
Comments: GAu'47Y pip •
* application for expansion to 1.745 MGD pretreatment information --
attached -
t f o / 4- } A q-cf-f �-T .
RECEIVING STREAM: Deep River
Class: C
15 ce A-r ;
r0 t.Y 1((1(146 Y Ir ck,
Sub-Basin:03-06-0y
Reference USGS Quad: D 15 SE
County: Randolph
Regional Office: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Previous Exp. Date: 7/31/93 Treatment Plant Class: Class 2
Classification changes within three miles:
none
Requested by:
Prepared by:
Revi we b
fr
Rosanne Barona
(please attach)
PLOTrED
Date: 11/27/91
,,, f _( Date: // /0
G!—�� i Date: /
�ofl� s Of,-vi 09 33
Modeler
Date Rec.
#
DAB
121 z.191
(ofn Z9
2 " '
Drainage Area (mi ) �Q
Avg. Streamflow (cfs): / 7/
7Q10 (cfs) 5 Winter 7Q10 (cfs) /Z 30Q2 (cfs) 2�
Toxicity Limits: IWC 33 % AcuteLChroniD
Instream Monitoring:
Parameters p hi tri 1 ( C t \)TA4A19 . 6 »l41 k) G'; ui, � A►
Upstream Peace Location Fox • -
Downstream Per-p Location c I/ Y-liw, it c.C7A..bi
2ourt)9 cZGAM 17, c..(' _- ft,t UPS-lrcq/vt 04- 1-task.c.ifs. c r..c-k .
Effluent
Char -'
BOZ •
NH_
D.O
TSS
F. C
pH
11 relH9 PT
Recommended Limits;
‘11
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NI-13N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/I):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pia (SU):
Temperature (°C):
'IP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Pollutant Analysis:
Chronic Tox. (P/F):
Chromium WA):
Copper (lie):Nickel ale):
Lead (µg/1):
Zinc We):
Cyanide WA):
Fluoride (me):Cadmium (µg/I);
Aluminum (µg/1):
Tetrachloroethylene (µg/1):
Chloroform (}tg/1):
E
1LkIL-y M
WlntPr
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
1.745 1.745
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
30.0 30.0
200 200
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
monitor Woonitor
monitor monitor
28.0 28.0
monitor monitor
@35% Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct
142 ir 142
monitor monitor
250 i" 250
71 + 71
monitor monitor
14.0* 14.0
5.1 5.1
5.7 )r 5.7
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
1
Comments: MolorTOR1ld6 CNiL"/ FOR.. 1 n T'G) 41.11
tl%'D.7 PEA g. I NIC41ST l 2- MO iSTI- f a- l s s U q-1I
AoT $P tit tr1 „4M 1 ,(tro�t)06-7 .

RECEIVED
N.C. Dept. of EHNR
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 WAS 1 LT OAD ALLOCATION
NOV 2 1992
Winston-Sa . m
Request # 6629 Regional Office
City of Randleman/Randleman WWTP
NC0024881 wporn- PEArn+r-f
Domestic - 43%/Industrial - 57% we, ooP.54Y3
Existing
Renewal
Deep River
030608O`
Randolph
Winston-Salem
Barona
11/27/91
D15SE 0 14SE
Stream Characteristic:
USGS #
Date:
Drainage Area (mi2):
Summer 7Q10 (cfs):
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
Average Flow (cfs):
30Q2 (cfs):
IWC (%):
02.1001.1525
1988
180
5.0
12
171
23
35
Wasteload Allocation Summary
(approach taken, correspondence with region, EPA, etc.)
WLA held as a result of EA requirements. Permit limits will change a good deal. BODS and
NH3 limits will change to 5 mg/land 2 mg/1 (summer) and 10 mg/land 4 mg/1 (winter). Several
toxicants should be monitored or limited (see page 2 of fact sheet) based on PPA and DMR data. -
Permit should be renewed at 1.745 MGD only per Mickey (WS-RO).
Special Schedule Requirements and additional comments from Reviewers:
Recommended by:
Reviewed by
Instream Assessment:
Regional Supervisor:
Permits & Engineering:
7 7,L9fr/64Date: /0# //qL
c
171
Date: l b/4§,2
Date: —3— 5 Z
/7/
Date:
NOV 2 4 1992
RETURN TO TECHNICAL SERVICES BY:

2
Rxisting Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1):
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Temperature Cr):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Residual Chlorine (4/1):
Pollutant Analysis:
Chronic Tox. (P/F):
Chromium (µg/1):
Copper (µg/1):
Zinc (4/1):
Cadmium (4/1):
Recommended Limits:
Wasteflow (MGD):
BOD5 (mg/1):
NH3N (mg/1): •
DO (mg/1):
TSS (mg/1):
Fecal Col. (/100 ml):
pH (SU):
Temperature (°C):
TP (mg/1):
TN (mg/1):
Residual Chlorine (µg/1):
Pollutant Analysis:
Chronic Tox. (P/F):
Chromium (4/1):
Copper (4/1):
Nickel (µg/1):
Lead (1g/1):
Zinc (µg/1):
Cyanide (pg/1):
Fluoride (mg/1):
Cadmium (pg/1):
Aluminum (4/1):
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform (µg/1):
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (µg/1):
PARAMETERS
Monthly Average
Summer Winter
1.25 1.25
28.0 30.0
2.0 monitor
5.0 5.0
30.0 30.0
1000.0 1000.0
6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
@28% (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct)
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Monthly Average
WQ/EL
WQ
WQ
WQ
EL
WQ
WQ
monitor monitor �r
..2.,e''+'ra, .2:0"nto Avr WQ
monitor monitor
28.0 28.0 WQ
monitor monitor
@35% Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct
142 142 WQ
monitor monitor
250 250 WQ
71 71 WQ
monitor monitor
14.0 14.0 WQ
5.1 5.1 WQ
5.7 5.7 WQ
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
monitor monitor
Summer
1.745
5.0
2.0
6.0
30.0
200
6.0-9.0
Monthly Average
Winter
1.745
10.0
4.0
6.0
30.0
200
6.0-9.0
limits Changes Due Tox
New regulations/standards/procedures
New facility information
My MtS yq
3
'�
Parameters) Affected
x Fecal
x various toxicants, Flow
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.

3
INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Upstream Location: Deep River at Fox Street
Downstream Location #1: Deep River at Worthville Bridge
Downstream Location #2: Deep River upstream of Hasketts Creek
Parameters: Temperature, Fecal, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, Metals*
Special instream monitoring locations or monitoring frequencies:
*Quarterly monitoring for Cr, Ni, Pb, Cn, and Cd at Fox Street and Worthville Bridge.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Adequacy of Existing Treatment
Has the facility demonstrated the ability to meet the proposed new limits with existing tr
facilities? Yes No V/
If no, which parameters cannot be met? .f f j Res et. } Roo- T .s..S
atment
Would a "phasing in" of the new limits be appropriate? Yes L-" No
If yes, please provide a schedule (and basis for that schedule) with the regional
office recommendations:
U sE Fkisrt)Jc. L.Ir',TS Fo t2 aeov&' PAR/21,7 7s2c. R-ASE: IAl r`hF
Aral aim iTS Ic? rnhtPTEk PE' RI* T EFFEcrlvc DlfiTE
If no, why not?
Wasteload sent to EPA? (Major) (Y or N)
(If yes, then attach schematic, toxics spreadsheet, copy of model, or, if not modeled, then old
assumptions that were made, and description of how it fits into basinwide plan)
Additional Information attached? Y (Y or N) If yes, explain with attachments.
VA-4 ioreS) Ta Po I kl vno, y . sprz sf-tc—er=

Facility Name CITY gG 0-&/11,P1
Permit # Pipe #
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
quarterly 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
y/, / yi,.,4 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, 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 5:0 cfs
Permitted Flow /• 7 `1'5- MGD
IWC
Basin & Sub -basin GPF
Receiving Stream I� -.1+-1;2--
County 12ANpoi.-FA-
Recommended by:
Date 9/7 /7Z
QCL PIF Version 9/91

,6•Zsr
/11CCC,75-41-4/
ffe,c 4riotaad
ai=1. 7Kee,p
,qe,/e/i/tv
03(560g
45r-v.04 R/L71
Ofryamail, /giro mi-k
Was /fr./
kremt. 30130. /.5.fr? We/re e(le,(
ea hi/ 414' q-C frt/t/le£er hrib- -?.',2(74119' a okwo,
apd. 11741141Y1 7y WIG"(7. /;I C /1/--
xas. /?/5-54,4;) 6leowieff /;(71-, /f/
..eyted/n *Aratily -Ati.34:51 //pelt WPC n/k6'...
.7 . shAdy r/isA-- rap iet/6c Ve4/6(
/11 /5- `1‹ia. 14?)I pt/o7, //( .57‘1,9(&17 41,
did ,e)11 / r r if by 428i4
•'4/e;76 (2,46.ff3g 4fs" /44 A t-(-ity-e---
IV/
l'76K - /P1511-5114 Pk/e 11/4-c
Ica41 Lod 7/ /0 /t7 re;
• 7:ri
miim 1.212 46m_son 611W 66,1 /;is.--/-ni,-44 4.7a .41
./.716.74,- AA,/ extd,ff_r/i74 ry.q..gepi-
Agf rzall(el 74& /‘/9'.0. /6411/e1Wil al/he/
de, 6-flogniaih f/ Aszsgov vetoes/
:exp,m-43.11 VS / air 4 -so
02,/
e Ji#7.5-0Y7 d/a/ WZ-4 for sii/eV
m)k/0 a/d/ k&s.6( , /11 ke._
et?-1'./V 4 iteAvi/ /417 t4 WC 0114
etplo &/(1'W a 4, C c".'_/:t7e KRA/ 0 AR/I-WC 4,71
, .

P4/,/ZRS7rM
*&r4k4 ,7ve>�,�r7Z� �
!CJl .S�!�i 1V�3
f
ond4im 7/4/aSV - rayeu71a- kt* y 14 mo1;; erk-vs
sUl17yra /�rl�'i/eve
dth 5kOar/ /q,ti
.51.4-ett ,‘&4 zei 6/7141674i// 4,c eh-t. ,e/wSel
6O%, u6cve 4/0d fie /vrd 1(14 xffiT7e".
RiAfs et,e, Arh y aid 6Se:of ‘(/ 5 �2�.��s Gy,131-Pretisi
(/.9-cho-P9c- ( e4,- 1444
/.74 "Ray Ze.
tided 4 %/tirl�Ge��,�i� d/e&ipLk4/ --ofor/c-S.
llicbls S�eeL6.7 �d �c�rrl�:�v�9
`l�
fi/44- MV,_
44/75:07 /79/ fr1/44 gias Itsti //),,„//5
.°)(Yen- 1714-“ufwar Weis&-s- /),-1/41401-fogi
n1464/td / 9 a41Z( recominc-fr tdie74er-i'ls
Ind ea sue.
"44e/t2 eiver Gf/c'af/I � Gt gOGnCd CLrt'E:GI
//e61.11/7;/;kr .

10/14/92 ver3.1 TOXICS REVIEW
Facility: City of Randleman
NPDES Permit No.: NC0025445
Status (E, P, or M) : E
Permitted Flow: 1.7 mgd
Actual Average Flow: 1.1 mgd
Subbasin: '030609
Receiving Stream: Deep River I PRETREATMENT DATA I----EFLLUENT DATA ----
Stream Classification: C I ACTUAL PERMITTED'
7Q10: 5.0 cfs I Ind. + Ind. + 1 FREQUENCY
IWC: 35.10 % I Domestic PERMITTED Domestic 1 OBSERVED of Chronic
Stn'd / Bkg 1 Removal Domestic Act.Ind. Total Industrial Total 1 Eflluent Criteria
Pollutant AL Conc. 1 Eff. Load Load Load Load Load 1 Conc. Violations
(ug/1) (ug/1) 1 t (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) (#/d) 1 (ug/1) (#vio/#sam)
Cadmium S 2.0 1 92% 0.0 0.1 0.08 0.3 0.310 1 ZO
Chromium S 50.0 I 76% 0.0 0.1 0.16 0.7 0.670 I !fs 1 I
Copper AL 7.0 1 82% 0.0 0.2 0.24 0.5 0.550 1 1 N
Nickel S 88.0 1 32% 0.0 0.4 0.41 0.7 0.730 1 1 P
Lead S 25.0 1 81% 0.0 0.6 0.57 0.8 0.830 1 1 U
Zinc AL 50.0 1 77% 0.0 0.8 0.85 7.6 7.650 1 1 T
Cyanide S 5.0 1 59% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.010 1 3o
Mercury S 0.012 1 86% 0.0 0.0 0.00 1 1 S
Silver AL 0.06 1 94% 0.0 0.1 0.07 0.0 0.000 1 1 E
Selenium S 5.00 1 0% 1 1 C
Arsenic S 50.00 1 40% 0.0 0.0 0.00 1 1 T
Phenols S NA 1 0% 1 1 I
NH3-N C 1 0% 1 1 0
T.R.Chlor.AL 17.0 1 0% 1 1 N
ALLOWABLE PRDCT'D PRDCT'D PRDCT'D---------MONITOR/LIMIT I--ADTN'L RECMMDTN'S--
I Effluent Effluent Effluent Instream 1 Recomm'd
Conc. using using Conc. Based on Based on Based on 1 FREQUENCY INSTREAM
1 Allowable CHRONIC ACTUAL PERMIT using ACTUAL PERMITTED OBSERVED 1 Eff. Mon. Monitor.
Pollutant 1 Load Criteria Influent Influent OBSERVED Influent Influent Effluent 1 based on Recomm'd ?
(#/d) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) Loading Loading Data 1 OBSERVED (YES/NO)
Cadmium S 1 0.90 5.697 0.715 2.702 0.00 Limit Limit LfS?f 7 1 I A
Chromium S 1 7.53 142.430 4.105 17.517 0.00 Monitor Limit L4f1 r 1 1 N
Copper AL 1 1.41 19.940 4.667 10.785 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 A
Nickel S 1 4.68 250.677 30.372 54.077 0.00 Limit Limit 1 1 L
Lead S 1 4.75 71.215 11.715 17.180 0.00 Limit Limit 1 I Y
Zinc AL 1 7.86 142.430 21.222 191.677 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1 1 S
Cyanide S 1 0.44 14.243 0.447 0.447 0.00 Monitor Monitor 1.frtl r 1 1 I
Mercury S 1 0.00 0.034 0.002 0.000 0.00 Monitor �� re
r I S
Silver AL 1 0.04 0.171 0.451 0.000 0.00 Monitor ���C. I
Selenium S 1 0.18 14.243 0.000 0.000 0.00 /VV ,14a1TV 't N4 1 R
Arsenic S 1 3.01 142.430 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 1 E
Phenols S 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 1 I S
NH3-N C 1 0.000 0.00 1 1 U
T.R.Chlor.AL 1 48.426 0.00 1 1 L
I I I T
I 1 I S

t••••
U.. •
cre
)
. . ) •••
• : • '
•
) . . ... .
st• i •-• ::.
('' ;. - -.
!, y, •• ..,-‘ k
• , - ..., • • 1 r vro .....
••• i :.:•••••••••--
••::•.'.....:. -.
• \\
.(,..
*1* )1 )1!••• ..5))
.0••11,, , „_•<
z:1)1.1
ICC.VAt
F
. his I Osog
1110113SAVOW
•

NPDES PRETREA'TMFNNT INFORMATION REQUEST FFp
FACILITY NAME:
:REQUESTER: DATE: / 1 / 6 / 7/ REGION: W O.: -
r
PERMIT OONDITIONS COVERING PRETREMMENT
NPDES NO. NCO0
r .
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This : facilityshould and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
amDevelo Progr pment
Phase I'' 'due , / /
Phase II=due'
/
Additional_ Conditions
(attache_
is facility is currently irnplenenting a pretreatmen
Please include the following conditions:
HEAMOiucs :REVIEW
PARANEIER
DAILY LOAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL;:
PASS
(THROUGH
1 ALIAMBLE DOMESTIC PERKvialin INDUSTRIAL % -REMOVAL
♦ -
♦ ib
1 'Ste 1
alte

/13192
dam-
Y\Q.c,c.) G'Q
0-ra - F-t-d
0 . o0 o i S a 6u‘e.r(
(jiff ryv2_ tVJ
- We- LA-3:112a
1')k- eS44/Y1/.11 4j6' ArlijAAr-
tt)
p,00 I04j- tkrrAA
fe?d vi 5
vtlit
Radisson Plaza Hotel Raleigh
toO
ff#1‘3 jidk
9plot
1420
+

9/11.0617_
FACILITY NAME:
REQUESTER:
NPDES PRETREATMENT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
DATE:
NPDES NO. NCOO 0� 5 44 4{5
LLikifi REGION: kJ/i7542.21,1
-
PERMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREATMENT
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due / /
Phase II due / /—
Additional Conditions
V/ (attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW - TOTAL:
-COMPOSITION:
TEXTILE: •
menu, FINISHING:
OTHER:
o
I,D 1 MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
HEADWORts REVIEW
PASS
P !THROUGH
i
i
ALIMMBIE
cd
cr
CU
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
Phenol
DAILY IOAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
DOMESTIC PERMLIT11) INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL
--Ft
71(
32

9/0617
NPDES PRETREATMFNT INFORMATION REQUEST FORM
FACTT.TTY NAME: (mot dl NPDES NO. NCO° 5 44 6(S"
REQUESTER : i�eQ� DATE: / / 6 / 7/ REGION: I4) r
PEPMIT CONDITIONS COVERING PRETREATMENT
This facility has no SIUs and should not have pretreatment language.
This facility should and/or is developing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Development
Phase I due /_/_
Phase II due ---/---/
Additional Conditions
(attached)
This facility is currently implementing a pretreatment program.
Please include the following conditions:
Program Implementation
Additional Conditions
(attached)
IGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS' (SIUs) CONTRIBUTIONS
SIU FLOW - TOTAL:
- COMPOSITION:
TEXTILE:
METAL FINISHING:
OTHER:
MGD
MCI)
MGD
MGD
MGD
HEADWORKS REVIEW
PASS
PAiZAM4h r ,• q ', t iAL °THRTABLE
- rp
_ .-Cd
Cu
Ni
..: ;Pb
-=Zn
G CN
Phenol
Other
DAILY LOAD IN LBS/DAY ACTUAL
PEI 1Tr= INDUSTRIAL % REMOVAL
o,8I 0,O12 2
71(
DOME51'1C
,0
0, 00
Q,0I i
RECEIVED:
/ /
REVIEWED BY: � � �- � RETURNED tl / 24 /
r
.4,
;-/ii0/.

Tile SAS system z
14:25 Wednesday, November 13, 1991
NPDES=NC0025445
Variable
Sum
PIPE
TYPE_
_FREQ.
MCDL •
MCRL
MCUL
MNIL
MPBL
MZNL
MCNL
MHGL
MAGL
MASL
MPHENOLL
MFLL
MBODL
MCODL
MTSSL
MTOLUL
MFLOW
6.0000000
0
96.0000000
0.0822810
0.1468299
0.2275930
0.4102168
0.5562050
0.8068790
0.0016016
0.0687007
.
0.1693632
.
1283.75
4799.53
410.1491070
0.8254646

IU NAME
I U#
PIPE #
FLOW LIMIT
MAD
CD LIMIT
MG/L
CD LOAD
LBS
CR LIMIT
MG/L
CR LOAD
LBS
CU LIMIT
MG/L
CU LOAD
LBS
COMMONWEALTH HOSIERY MILL
1
1
0.0500
0.02 0.0083
0.5 0.2085
0.1 0.0417
LAUGHLIN HOSIERY MILL
3
1
0.1000
0.02 0.0167
0.15 0.1251
0.08 0.0667
DEEP RIVER DYEING CO.. INC
4
1
0.6500
_ 0.05 0.2711
0.05 0.2711
0.05 0.2711
JOCKEY INTERNATIONAL
5
1
0.1750
0.01 0.0146
0.03 0.0438
0.1 0.1460
RANDLEMAN MANUFACTURING
6
1
0.0300
0.01 0.0025
0.04 0.0100
0.05 0.0125
TOTAL ALLOWED FOR INDUSTRIES
ALLOW
CD 1.35
CR 8.33
CU 8.33
TOTAL PERMITTED FOR INDUSTRIES
1.01
Ca 0.31
CR 0.66
CU 0.54
PERM
STILL AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRIES
LEFT
CD 1.04
CR 7.67
CU 7.79
RANDLEMAN IUP LOAD, 11/21/91, page 1

IU#
CN LIMIT
MG/L
CN LOAD
LBS
PB LIMIT
MG/L
PB LOAD
LBS
NI LIMIT
MG/L
NI LOAD
LBS
AG LIMIT
MG/L
AG LOAD
LBS
ZN LIMIT
MG/L
ZN LOAD
LBS
1
0
0.0000
0.05
0.0209
0.05
0.0209
0
0.0000
0.3
0.1251
3
0
0.0000
0.1
0.0834
0.1
0.0834
0
0.0000
0.6
0.5004
4
0
0.0000
0.1
0.5421
0.1
0.5421
0
0.0000
1.2
6.5052
5
0
0.0000
0.1
0.1460
0.05
0.0730
0
0.0000
0.2
0.2919
6
0
0.0000
0.1
0.0250
0.05
0.0125
0
0.0000
0.75
0.1877
ALLOW
CN
0.35
PB
0.82
NI
0.97
AG
2.09
ZN
,
8.30
PERM
CN
0.00
PB
0.82
NI
0.73
AG
0.00
ZN
7.61
LEFT _
CN
0.35
PB
0.00
NI
0.24
AG
2.09
ZN
0.69
RANDLEMAN IUP LOAD, 11/21/91, page 2

I U#
BOD LIMIT
MG/L
BOD LOAD
LBS
TSS LIMIT
MG/L
TSS LOAD
LBS
1
250
104.25
250
104.25
3
350
291.90
250
208.50
4
250
1355.25
250
1355.25
5
250
364.88
250
364.88
6
250
62.55
250
62.55
ALLOW
BCD
2560.00
TSS
2560.00
PERM
2178.83
2095.43
LEFT
381.17
464.57
RANDLEMAN IUP LOAD, 11/21/91, page 3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary September 16, 1992 Acting Director
Mr. H.J. Marziano
Marziano & Minier
Post Office Drawer 2048
Asheboro, NC 27204-2048
Dear Mr. Marziano:
I am enclosing the comments received as a result of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources review of
the environmental assessment for the City of Randleman Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion. Please prepare a response to these
comments in order that I can ensure the Department's concerns are
adequately addressed. When the revised document is acceptable to
the Wildlife Resources Commission and to DEM's Technical Support
Branch, we can proceed with the State Clearinghouse review process.
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have
any questions on the attached materials. You can also reach Dave
Goodrich in DEM's Technical Support Branch at [phone]. I
recommend that you contact Steve Pozzanghera at [phone] to
ensure that the Wildlife Resources Commission's comments are
addressed.
Sincerely, ff''
Monica Swihart
Environmental Review Coordinator
474ea.ltr
Attachments
cc: Steve Mauney, WSRO w/attachments
Dave Goodrich
Steve Pozzanghera, NCWRC
ECEWVED
SEP 1 8 1992
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
REGIONAL OFNCES _... Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/J95-3'960 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section/Rapid Assessment Group
September 15, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart
Through: Carla Sanderson 0$e
Trevor Clemen
From: Dave Goodric
Subject: Comments on EA for Expansion of Randleman WWTP
After reviewing this document, it should be noted that effluent requirements outlined in
Section 4 do not include limits for the expansion. A wasteload allocation (WLA) evaluation for the
increase in flow was finalized by Technical Support in February, 1991, for conventional
pollutants as well as toxicants (see attached WLA form). As the WLA indicates, the expansion
will require a significant reduction in BOD5 and NH3-N limits (to 5 mg/1 and 2 mg/1, respectively)
from previous allocations. Also, the increase in wastewater flow will also require a change in the
pass/fail limit for the quarterly chronic toxicity test. The new test must be passed using a limit
representing the 35% instream waste concentration of the discharge at design conditions and low
flow. A change in the fecal limit (to 200/100 mi); a residual chlorine limit (28 µg/1); a TSS limit of
30 mg/1; and monitoring for lead will also be required at a minimum upon permit renewal. It is
recommended that the document be amended to include these proposed limitations. In addition,
additional limits for metals and/or other toxicants may be added to the NPDES permit. Randleman
should work closely with DEM's Pretreatment Unit to assure proper control and permitting of the
city's significant industrial users.
Section 6 (p. 9) has a section regarding the potential for eutrophication. Recent studies by
NCDEM in the Deep River above Carbonton Dam indicate a severe eutrophication problem is
occurring in the river. While it would be premature to place nutrient limits upon any specific
source, the EA should acknowledge the problem. The existing statement regarding DO and BOD

Page 2 - Randleman EA review
val
requirements limiting the impact to eutrophication is irrelevant, since it is nutrient inputs that we
would be concerned with (i.e., TP and TN).
Also, Section 7 (p.9) should be expanded to indicate the historical water quality concerns
in this portion of the river. The large number of impoundments in the river, along with pollutant
inputs from point and nonpoint source, greatly restrict the assimilative capacity of the river. DEM
has observed dissolved oxygen standard violations and eutrophication problems behind many of
these dams. Therefore, the upgrade of Randleman's effluent to the proposed limits will help
reduce existing loads to the river that have proven to be problematic.
cc: Steve Mauney, WSRO

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF RANDLELMAN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
111�tf1��j�
•
•
rIsr 1
lismAsit
By:
Marziano & Minier, P.A.
919 S. Cox Street, Suite B
Asheboro, NC 27203
July 1992

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CITY OF RANDLEMAN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
1. Existing Environment. All construction activity
related to the expansion of the existing City of Randleman
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be performed on
property currently owned by the City of Randleman in
Randolph County, North Carolina. This property contains the
existing 1.5 million gallons per day wastewater treatment
facility as indicated on the attached figures.
The topography of the site slopes rather severely from
northeast to southwest. Originally when the plant was
constructed in the 1960's, the site was benched into the
side of the ridge that borders the eastern side of Deep
River. Therefore, the currently graded slope of the
existing treatment plant site is approximately 2% to 5%.
Because this is an expansion to the City's existing
wastewater treatment plant, the land use in the immediate
vicinity of this site will not be effected. The land around
the wastewater treatment plant site is wooded and accessible
only through a City maintained roadway. All areas around
the plant site and within the plant site are covered by
either trees, grass or shrubs.
The main construction activity will be located a sufficient
distance from the Deep River, such that there will be no
significant impact to the surface water quality during
construction. The exact construction of the units at the
existing treatment plant site will require no major clearing
of the site and will comprise much less than one acre in
area. Additionally, the earthwork required will be for
excavation of pits for structure installation and thus will

4 c
)l�
,I
1,`?J`7�a •li11
£ ' . 1 1'it.(4 1 , l
).) L... \
ram.: \k'_-lJ[r L� ;(L.��'
Ili
1�1, X
l
ANDLEMAN QUAD
w Salem
ITV OF RANDLEMAN
*Y-1— 7 f .—.( (V I
)))) . ‘' ---Fki. ... :1%
• IV�ail
'1� l l 'fin % /1 i - � �1

MODIFY
SLLD6f
ChILOR 1EY34:
r
AEw CCII Lt7F
Air L/I/T
n
SLUDSE
HOLM'S TANK
SITE PLAN
CITY OF RANDLEMAN
PROPOSED WWTP FACILITIES
M AREAS DISTURB
BY CONSTR OONN

BASIN SERVICE )?
RANDLEMAN
AREA
i
CITY of RANDLEMAN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FA ES
SITE LOCATION
NO SCALE

act as their own silt basin. Additional requirements
relative to silt fencing, etc. will be used if necessary to
insure no siltation to any streams. Because no construction
for this project will occur in wetlands or in the Deep
River, it will not be required to obtain a 404 Permit. The
average ground elevation at the wastewater treatment plant
is approximately 660 MSL. No construction at this site will
take place in the 100-year floodplain. Ground water is
estimated to be from 30 feet to 40 feet below ground surface
and will not present a problem during construction.
2. Need for Project. The existing wastewater treatment
plant has a hydraulic capacity of about 2.0 million gallons
per day. The permitting capacity of the wastewater
treatment plant is 1.25 million gallons per day. Average
daily flows currently being received at the wastewater
treatment plant are approaching the permit limit.
Additionally, the continued connection of flows to the
City's wastewater interceptor system can be expected to
increase the loading at this plant site. The City of
Randleman is currently operating under a Special Order by
Consent until such time as improvements can be made to the
plant to being it within compliance of its existing NPDES
Permit. In the past, the wastewater treatment plant has
experienced flows to the degree that it is unable to
effectively treat the wastewater solids that are being
received. Additions to this plant are intended to provide
the required treatment to handle the additional current
loading and to meet expected future flows.
Future flows to the City's wastewater treatment plant are
expected to include only the existing corporate limits and
currently served urban areas adjacent to the corporate
limits. No major expansion of this plant is being
determined to meet an expansion in corporate limits. A
study prepared by Minier & Associates, P.A. in August, 1989
2

indicated that the City of Randleman would experience a
population increase over the next 20 years. Basically, the
population is expected to increase from about 2,490 in the
year 1990 to about 3,013 in the year 2010. Additionally,
some growth would be expected in the wastewater system due
to industrial usage. Currently, the City of Randleman's
wastewater usage is in the neighborhood of about 70 percent.
Attached to this Environmental Assessment in the Appendix is
an excerpt from the previously referenced report giving
additional information relative to the current wastewater
flows and expected wastewater flows for the City of
Randleman's wastewater treatment plant.
Since it is expected that the wastewater treatment plant
will continue to grow and it appears that it is currently
overloaded to the extent that it cannot treat the wastewater
effectively at this time, the referenced report recommends
an upgrade to the plant for biological and additional flow
capacity. While the study recommended a 2.0 million gallons
per day wastewater treatment plant, it is currently proposed
to expand this plant only to about 1.495 million gallons per
day at this site. If additional capacity is needed in the
future, then operating history can be used to expand the
plant accordingly.
3. Alternative Analysis. This wastewater treatment plant
was studied under the 201 Program in the late 1970's. At
that time, it was recommended to expand the wastewater
treatment plant at this site in lieu of other available
alternatives. Reasons for doing this include:
a. Currently functioning wastewater infrastructure to
this wastewater plant site.
3

b. No additional wastewater treatment plant sites
were available and/or needed.
c. Current operating history at this wastewater plant
site was in conformance with existing land use
patterns.
Other alternatives required to be considered by the
State of North Carolina include:
a. No Action Alternative. This alternative is not
acceptable because it fails to provide treatment
for the wastewater existing in the service area
and fails to alleviate current problems caused by
the inability of this wastewater plant to
effectively treat the wastes under its current
NPDES Permit.
b. Land Application. Treatment of wastewater by land
application is not feasible on this project
because of the large area of land which would be
required for a 1.5 million gallons per day plant.
It is expected that up to 750 acres may be
required for spray irrigation area if the
wastewater was land applied. This quantity of
land would be very impractical to obtain in the
Piedmont area where slopes and hillsides typically
would make this type of wastewater treatment
impractical. It would be extremely difficult to
control such a wastewater system, not only from
the land area requirements but also from the
hydraulic problems involved. There would be no
advantages for land application over that
currently being employed by the City of Randleman.
4

4. Effluent Requirements. As previously mentioned, the
City of Randleman is currently operating the wastewater
treatment plant under a Special Order by Consent Permit No.
NC0025445. This Permit is effective until December 1, 1992.
The required wastewater treatment improvements are necessary
in order to continue operating the plant under previously
approved NPDES Permit limits. Previous NPDES Permit limits
are:
Flow: 1.25 mgd
BOD: 30.0 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids: 75 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen: 5.0 mg/1
Fecal Coliform: 1000/100 ml
Total Nickel: 81.0 ug/1
Cyanide: 18.0 ug/1
The fact that the wastewater treatment plant is
currently having to operate under Special Order by Consent
indicates that past performance has been below the level
required by the current NPDES Permit. The Special Order by
Consent has been amended to allow a Total Suspended Solids
limit of 75 mg/1 during the term of the Consent Order.
Additionally, it is expected that future expansions and
permit renewals will likely result in more stringent
discharge limits at this point in the Deep River.
Therefore, effluent filtration is being added to the
proposed wastewater treatment plant process in order to meet
current and expected stream limits.
5. Sludge Disposal. The City of Randleman currently
operates a land application system for sludge disposal. The
sludge is aerobically digested at the wastewater treatment
plant site and then decanted. Private contract haulers take
decanted sludge and land apply it on lands currently under
contract for this purpose to the City of Randleman. The
5

site is approximately 10 miles from the Randleman wastewater
treatment plant site. Additional land application sites are
available in this area should the need arise in the future.
Part of the upgrade to the existing wastewater treatment
plant will be to add additional sludge handling facilities
for aerobic digestion of waste activated sludge.
6. Environmental Consequences. The preferred alternative
for this project is to upgrade and expand the existing
wastewater treatment plant at the existing site using
similar treatment process technology. The following impacts
have been considered:
Changes in Land Use. Continued growth in the
Randleman area includes specific plans for a new
major industry to be located in the southern
portion of the City. This industry is Timken and
they plan to invest about 100 million dollars in a
facility in Randleman's wastewater service area.
While this industry will be contributing primarily
domestic wastewater to the system, the 200 jobs
created will have a very beneficial impact on the
area economy. Additionally, the City of Randleman
is experiencing a need to annex potential areas
that contain several hundred septic tanks. If
feasible, the annexation will provide needed
wastewater treatment to a residential area.
Wetlands. As previously mentioned, no wetlands
will be effected by this particular project since
all of the construction will be contained within
the existing fenced area of the wastewater
treatment plant site.
6

t
Prime Agricultural Land. There are no known areas
of prime agricultural land within the City's
current wastewater service area.
Public Lands. No public land will be effected
because all construction work will be confined to
the existing wastewater treatment plant site.
Public land within the service area is extremely
limited and will result in minimal secondary
impacts.
,Scenic and Recreational Areas: The plant is only
slightly visible from the Deep River during the
Fall and Winter and no major impact on scenic or
recreational value of the river should result.
_ Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value. As
previously mentioned, a 201 Facility Plan for this
wastewater treatment plant was prepared in the
late 1970's. An archaeological site study was
done at that time and the subsequent plant
modifications at that time were performed without
injury to any known sites. Since this project is
within the confines of the same construction area,
no impact to archaeological or historical sites
should result.
Air Quality. The treatment process to be used at
this plant is extended air, activated' sludge.
There will be very little odor potential
associated with the liquid treatment process.
Sludge also will be aerobically digested and
should present no odor problems. Complaints of
odors coming from this plant in the past are non-
existent.
7

Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality will not
be effected. All process basins are fully
contained and constructed above the any known
groundwater table. The ability of this wastewater
plant to serve future residences and the ordinance
requiring mandatory hook-up will result in better
groundwater quality by eliminating septic tanks in
the future.
Noise Levels. Noise level will not be increased
by the plant expansion. All blower equipment at
the existing plant will be utilized for the new
upgrade. It will not be necessary to increase the
horsepower for these facilities.
Water Supplies. There are no known water supplies
within 5 miles of the discharge of this wastewater
treatment plant. Additionally, the City of
Asheboro wastewater treatment plant discharges in
a small tributary to the Deep River just
downstream of the City of Randleman's wastewater
treatment plant.
_ Shellfish or Fish. The dissolved oxygen level in
the effluent will be at least 5 mg/1. This should
be sufficient to maintain fish population in the
river. It is not known that there would be any
species of fish endangered by this plant location.
As previously mentioned, there is another
wastewater discharge just downstream of this
plant.
Wildlife Habitats. Because the general land use
is not changed as a result of this project, there
will be a minimal impact on wildlife and their
habitats.
8

Toxic Substances. The only chemicals that will be
in contact with the environment will be chlorine.
Additional measures to neutralize the chlorine
residual prior to discharge to the river will be
utilized. The City of Randleman has a
pretreatment program for industrial wastewater
that is discharged to the existing wastewater
treatment plant. However, some toxic substances
such as household cleaners, paint and petroleum
products may enter the system from residential
customers. The City is currently upgrading their
pretreatment program and headworks analysis to
identify any potential problems in this area.
Eutrophication of Receiving Waters. With the
dissolved oxygen requirement and the low BOD
effluent requirements for the wastewater
discharge, it is expected that eutrophication
the Deep River will not be an impact of this
project. Additionally, high turbidity levels in
the river, coupled with constant mixing of the
water and short residence time for nutrients tend
to limit the eutrophication of the stream.
of
7. Water Ouality. The Deep River is classified as Class C
in water quality in this region. Expansion of this plant
will increase non -point source pollution to some extent.
However, the upgrade facilities to the wastewater treatment
plant will optimize the effluent quality currently being
discharged to the Deep River. Also, there will be some
benefit to eliminating faulty septic tank systems in the
area due to annexation or other connection practices.
8. Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures. Construction
of the proposed upgrade and expansion project will cause
9

some minor adverse environmental impacts that can be
mitigated through appropriate control measures and good
construction practices. Adverse impacts include:
Consumption of resources during construction
activity including money, energy and construction
materials. Mitigation would be to develop a
useful facility for the public.
Air pollution could occur from windblown dust and
engine exhausts during construction. Mitigation
would be to enforce dust control measures during
construction.
Soil erosion possibly could occur. Mitigation
would be to enforce strict erosion control
measures during construction.
Long term impacts would include the continued
expenditure of labor, chemicals and energy,
coupled with escalating costs for operation and
maintenance. Mitigation would be to increase the
water quality in the Deep River and improve local
groundwater supplies.
Sound construction practices and careful planning during
construction will reduce the above mentioned adverse
impacts. All local, state and federal regulations designed
for environmental protection will be adhered to.
9. Secondary Impacts. The major reason for this project is
to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment plant process.
The investment of money by the City of Randleman for this
project will be to insure that the environmental impact will
be minimal. The City will use local development controls
such as zoning, subdivision regulations, sewer tap permits
10

and building permits to prevent incompatible land uses
brought about by future growth and development.
10. Summary. In summary, a need has been shown to improve
the wastewater treatment plant process to alleviate
documented treatment deficiencies that are below the NPDES
Permit requirements. Additionally, documents contained in
the Appendix indicate the need to expand the plant to meet
future needs of the City of Randleman. Since this project
is being developed to meet current conditions with minimal
increase in plant capacity, it is not expected to create a
great deal of additional development in the area. Other
items likely to improve will be groundwater quality and
stream quality due to improved treatment.
11

4.0 PROJECTED PLANT LOADINGS
4.1 GENERAL.
Plant loadings are projected in order to determine the
ability of the existing treatment units to handle
future flows with possibly higher wastewater strength.
For the purpose of this report, evaluation of the
treatment units and sludge handling capabilities (i.e.
size of clarifiers, volume of tankage) is based upon
projected maximum month average daily flow. Evaluation
of plant equipment (i.e. pumps, screens) is based upon
the range of plant flow that occurs between peak daily
flow and annual average daily flow.
The flow projections and plant loadings contained in
this report are based upon a study of the water meter
readings and wastewater plant reports between July,
1988 and June, 1989. These flows coupled with
projections of population growth are used to develop
future plant requirements.
4.2 POPULATION PROJECTION.
Proper sizing of a wastewater treatment facility to
meet future needs depends greatly upon development of
accurate population growth projections. Projections of
population growth are at best only a guess based upon
historical growth trends. Table 4.1 indicates the
growth of the Randleman area since 1940 and compares it
with the growth of the State and surrounding Townships.
Table 4.2 indicates the population projections for
Randolph County and North Carolina between 1990 and
2010 as prepared by the NC Office of Budget and
Management (NC OBM).
RANDIEMAN Wit REPORT 4 - 1

TABLE , 4.1
POPULATION GROWTH OF SELECTED AREAS(1)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1987 Ava, Chance
City of Randleman 2,312 2,123 2,439(2) 5.6%
Back Creek Township 897 1,223 1,608 1,859 2,170 * 35.5%
Franklinville Township 3,635 4,308 5,042 5,250 5,530 * 13.0%
Level Cross Township 822 694 878 1,660 2,150 * 40.4%
New Market Township 1,634 1,587 2,152 3,975 5,250 * 55.3%
Providence Township 1,043 1,025 995 1,288 1,290 * 5.9%
Randleman Township 3,637 3,714 4,439 4,853 5,260 * 11.2%
Randolph County 44,554 50,804 61,49.7 76,358 91,300 * 26.2%
North Carolina 5,084,411 5,880,415 15.7%
(1)Source: U.S. Census Data
(2)Source: Estimated by NC Department of Administration
*Not available

TABLE 4.2
STATE & COUNTY PROJECTIONS
Avg.
Change
1990 1.295 2000 2010 Der egade
Randolph County 103,977 110,528 117,078 131,830 17..6%
North Carolina 6,633,108 7,057,627 7,472,146 8,439,860 12.8%

New population projections are shown in Table 4.3.
They are based upon the following:
Past growth trends in Randolph County,
nearby Townships and the City.
• Population projections by NC OBM.
• The existing water and sewer systems'
ability to promote and support additional
growth.
NC OBM has projected a conservatively low growth rate
for Randolph County when compared to the growth over
the past 40 years. In developing a future growth rate
for this report, a growth of 10 percent per decade will
be used for Randleman, unless otherwise noted.
4.3 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH
In order to experience the population growth as
projected, it will be necessary for the
Randleman/Asheboro area to grow industrially. The type
of industry that will locate in this area cannot be
determined. Currently, in the Randleman area, the
major industries are made up of textile producers,
some of which use significant quantities of the City's
potable water.
Projections of industrial growth, relative to
generation of sewage flow, can only be estimated based
upon current trends and established planning of
existing industry. Current industrial trends are to
locate plant facilities that can access municipal
wastewater systems. Whether or not the industry would
RANDLEMAN NW REPORT 4 - 2

TABLE 4.3
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1990 1995 2000 20.10
City of Randleman 2490 2615 2739 301.3

TABLE 4.4
METERED WATER CONSUMPTION
FOR SEWEREI) CONNECTIONS
No. 0 l 1) Water Used
Service Class Connections NovLUec_, 88 Hill.L11itr i__09
Residential 1048 10,256,800 13,065,500
Commercial 1.39 2,592,500 3,061,000
Industrial 12 34,700,300 32, 805, 01)i)
Totals 1199 47, 549, 600 50, 532, .300
(1) No. of connections is the average of the months selected

be a major contributor of wastewater cannot be
determined with much confidence. Based upon
Randleman's current situation at the wastewater
treatment plant, this report will assume that future
growth from new industry will be less water intensive
than in the past. On the other hand, the City has been
advised that Jockey International proposes to double
its wastewater discharge to a projected quantity of
170,000 gpd by 1990 and this projection has been
included into flow estimates of this report.
4.4 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTION
The projected wastewater flow is a function of
residential, commercial, and industrial growth and
increasing infiltration and inflow of groundwater to
the system. The following subparagraphs briefly
discuss the steps taken in determining the projected
maximum month average daily flow.
Table 4.4 lists the metered water consumption for
customers on the sewer system for the bimonthly periods
of Nov/Dec, 1988 and Mar/Apr, 1989. These periods were
selected because they coincide with the low flow and
high flow months recorded at the wastewater treatment
plant. Table 4.5 lists the daily wastewater flows
recorded at the wastewater treatment plant and
summarized important information about the flows.
Relational data contained in these two tables, along
with population projections, will be used to project
future plant flow requirements.
4.4.1 Residential Water Use
Table 4.4 is used to determine the average daily flow
per capita for residential users. The table indicates
RANDLEMAN WW REPORT 4 - 3

TABLE 4_5
DAILY WASTEWATER FLOWS (MGD)
DAYIMTH Jun-88 JuI-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 May-89
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
MTHLY. TOT.
AVG. DAY
MAX. DAY
MIN DAY
MAX/AVG.
1.15
0.52
1.10
1.06
0.65
1.16
0.99
0.73
1.24
1.37
0.87
1.36
1.10
0.23
1.12
0.97
0.45
1.10
0.71
1.19
1.28
1.21
0.52
1.04
1.00
0.22
1.10
0.72
1.36
1.28
0.30
1.03
0.93
1.25
1.30,
0.94
0.74
, 0.21
1.10
0.50
1.02
1.10
0.38
1.29
0.38
0.71
1.30
0.89
0.41
0.21
1.05
0.49
1.03
0.90
0.98
1.10
0.66
0.71
1.30
1.13
1.10
0.21
0.77
1.06
0.90
0.45
1.01
0.85
1.27
1.56
1.23
0.97
1.18
0.23
0.48
1.10
0.91
0.99
1.00
0.61
1.18
1.45
1.49
0.82
1.10
0.30
1.14
1.10
0.57
1.00
1.04
0.52
1.06
1.19
1.51
0.89
1.23
0.31
1.09
1.35
0.26
1.13
1.00
1.21
1.11
1.23
1.21
1.17
1.01
0.55
1.10
0.96
0.91
1.23
0.66
1.31
0.80
0.87
1.15
1.08
0.94
1.13
1.12
0.91
0.95
1.01
0.41
1.21
0.50
0.55
1.24
0.96
0.42
1.10
1.13
1.04
0.90
0.70
0.98
1.28
0.47
0.59
1.22
0.96
1.16
1.10
0.79
1.10
0.88
0.45
0.98
1.06
1.13
1.09
1.26
0.60
1.12
1.16
0.45
1.09
0.90
1.16
1.03
0.65
1.19
1.11
1.28
0.17
1.01
1.12
. 1.11
1.04
0.52
1.04
0.96
0.52
1.33
1.36
1.13
0.95
1.06
0.82
1.21
1.04
0.35
1.18
0.77
1.26
1.20
1.26
0.61
0 97
1.12,
0.49
1.15
0.79
0.99
1.28
0.23
1.15
1.16
0.92
1.29
0.97
0.75
1.17
1.22
0.46
1.21
1.00
0.39
1.28
0.35
0.79
1.37
0.99
0.38
1.12
1.24
1.14
1.04
0.84
0.87
1.12
0.68
0.62
1.28
1.02
1.25
-.1.16
1.10
1.06
1.21
0.49
0.92
1.03
1.71
1.40
1.24
0.66
1.11
1.12
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.06
0.85
0.48
2.02
1.37
1:31
. 0.971
0.29
1.08
1.11
1.15
0.96
0.97
1.04
0.73
0.47
1.68
1.57
0.92
1.13
0.82
1.14
1.06
0.87
0.79
0.48
1.31
1.24
1.97
0.52
1.00
1.13
0.47
1.16
0.76
0.94
0.31
0.31
1.20
0.71
1.20
1.23
0.95
0.98
1.21
1.10
0.85
0.89
0.26
0.27
1.25
0.49
0.69
1.29
1.06
0.96
1.06
' 1.13
0.97
0.95_
0.35
0.25
1.25
0.74
0.74
1.30
1.27
1.03
1.17
0.84
1.00
1.18
0.75
0.26
0.81
1.82
1.30
1.02
0.42
1.03
1.08
0.63
1.03
0.97
1.11
0.27
0.46
1.73
1.41
1.28
0.21
0.98
1.12
1.10
1.06
0.80
1.04
0.26
0.31
1.37
0.70
0.89
0.64
0.98
1.05
0.96
0.39
0.99
0.32
1.24
1.34
0.35
0.96
0.97
1.13
1.52
0.52
1.19
1.27
1.03
29.30
24.47
32.00
28.67
27.56
27.19
20.13
30.37
30.06
35.47
33.77
27.54
0.98
0.79
1.03
0.96
0.89
0.91
0.65
0.98
1.07
1.14
1.13
0.89
1.25
1.21.
1.24,
1.35
1.52
1.28
1.04
1.31
2.02
1.97
1.51
1.36
0.38
0.21
0.45
0.46
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.31
0.35
0.55
0.35
0.17
1.28
1.53
1.20
1.41
1.71
1.41
1.60
1.34
1.88
1.72
1.34
1.53
ANNUAL MAX DAY
ANNUAL AVG DAY
ANNUAL MAX/AVG.
AVG. DAY -MAX MTH.
2.02
0.95
2.13
1.14

that about 85.6 percent of the sewered customers are
residential users.
These customers accounted for about
21.6 percent of the water used in Nov/Dec, 1988 and
about 27.4 percent used in Mar/Apr, 1989. Averaging
the two periods together and assuming that 100 percent
of the population is served (2439 people), the per
capita water usage would be about 81 gallons per day.
For the purposes of projecting sewage flow, a per
capita water usage of 80 gpd will be used. This number
is reasonable and is within normal limits for
residentialcustomers living within corporate limits.
4.4.2 Commercial Water Use
Table 4.4 indicates that the commercial usage category
accounts for about 11.6 percent of the sewered
customers. The commercial customers accounted for
about 5.5 percent of the water used in Nov/Dec, 1988
and about 7.6 percent used in Mar/Apr, 1989. This
report assumes that the growth of commercial
establishments in the Randleman area will continue. To
meet the expected commercial growth, this report will
assume that the sewage generated by commercial
enterprise will maintain its proportional share of the
total flow.
4.4.3 Industrial Water Use
The industrial water usage shown in Table 4.4 accounts
for about 1 percent of the total customers.
Conversely, industry by far is the largest water user
in the Randleman system, accounting for an average of
about 68.9 percent of all water used. Fluctuations in
the amount of industrial business in Randleman can have
a significant impact on the water and wastewater flows
for this system. This report assumes that steady
RANDLEMAN WW REPORT 4 - 4

industrial growth will continue in the Randleman area;
but, as mentioned previously, new industry locating in
the area is not expected to be of the large water using
type. This report, however, does include the known
projection of Jockey International to double its
current discharge to 170,000 gpd by 1990. For the
purposes of this report, an allowance of 20 percent of
the plant capacity will be allocated for industrial
growth.
4.4.4 Other Flows
Other flows into the wastewater system that contribute
to the required size of the wastewater treatment plant
include:
• Current Commitments
• Annexation
• Infiltration/Inflow
Of the items listed above, infiltration and inflow pose
probably the most significant problem to the City of
Randleman. Table 4.6 compares the total water meter
readings with the wastewater flows recorded at the
wastewater plant.
Inspection of Table 4.6 indicates that during periods
of wet weather, the flow to the wastewater plant can be
greater than the amount of water metered. This
additional wastewater flow is generated by stormwater
and groundwater entering the wastewater collection
system. The comparison i.n Table 4.6 is somewhat
distorted by the fact that the periods for the flow
records for water vs. wastewater do not coincide
RANDLEMAN NW REPORT 4 - 5

TABLE 4.6
COMPARISON OF WATER & SEWER FLOWS
Wafer Sewer Ual. i n of
period Billed Flow ^,/W
Jul/Aug, 88 50,931,000 56, 470, 000 1 . 1 1
Sep/Oct, 88 57, 447, 900 56, 230, 000 0 .9n
Nov/Dec, 88 47, 549, 600 47, 320, 000 0.99
Jan/Feb, 89 41, 846, 100 60, 430, 000 1 . 44
Mar/Apr, 89 50, 532, 300 69, 240, 00(1 .1 . 37
May/Jun, 89 56,970,000(1) (Data Not Avail . )
Total 248, 306, 900 209, 690, 000 1.. 1 7
(1) Not included in l:otal

exactly. Nevertheless, the total wastewater flow
metered was larger than the total water metered by
about 17 percent.
Normal practice for new systems is to allow about 10
percent for infiltration and inflow. This report will
allow about 15 percent reserve for infiltration/inflow
to account for potential growth along the existing
wastewater collector system.
Investigation of the extent of the infiltration/inflow
is beyond the scope of this report. There are programs
and procedures that can be set up to find some cause of
infiltration and inflow. Many of these problems can be
minimized with City maintenance personnel; however,
experience shows that reduction is costly and
chlorination is virtually impossible.
4.4.5 ,Summary
Using the assumptions contained in the above
subparagraphs, the projected wastewater flows for 1990,
2000 and 2010 are summarized in Table 4.7. As
indicated, the required plant capacity is projected to
be about 1.54 mgd by the year 2010.
There is no real reserve built into the projected
wastewater flows. Should more aggressive annexation
occur or industrial growth increase more rapidly than
anticipated, the City would have to make additional
expansions. For conservation and economy of expansion,
Minier & Associates recommends that the plant be
designed for 2.00 mgd capacity. This would allow about
a 30 percent reserve hydraulic capacity beyond the
projected year 2010 capacity.
RANDLEMAN WW REPORT 4 - 6

4 a r
TABLE 4.7
PROJECTED MAXIMUM MONTH
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MOD)
Source 1990 2000 201.0
Residential 0.228 0.250 0.275
Commercial 0.068 0.075 0.082
Industrial* 0.696 0.832 0.982
Infiltration/Inflow 0.150 0.164 0.180
Annexation/Other 0.000 0.020 0.020
Total 1.142 1.34]. 1.539
*Industrial flow projections include the advisory to the City
that Jockey International proposes to increase lts flow by
85,000 GPD by 1990.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Richard D. Hardin
City of Randleman
101 Hilary Street
Randleman, North Carolina 27317
May 27, 1992
RECEIVED
JUN 0 •'1 1992
RE:
TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
NPDES Permit Application
NPDES Permit No. NC0025445
Randleman WWTP
Randolph County
Dear Mr. Hardin:
As per previous corresponden e dated November 6, 1991, prior t'processing your application to modify
the Randleman WWTP NPDES permit to increase the flow to 1.745 MG, an environmental assessment is
required to be completed. The North Carolina Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 1C .0504, requires an
environmental assessment for major activities. For expansions of existing facilities, the definition of a
major activity is one that is increasing the flow by 0.5 MG or where the design flows are proposed to be
one-third or more of the 7Q10 flow of the stream, In the case of the proposed expansion of the Randleman
WWTP, the increase in flow is 0.495 and the flow is greater than one-half of the 7Q10 of the flow of the
stream, therefore, an environmental assessment is required for the review of the application to proceed. If
the environmental assessment is not received within,p0 days, it will be returned to you and may be
resubmitted when complete. N ,).
If you have any questions, please call Coleen Sullins or Don Safrit (919/733-5083) of the Permits and
Engineering Unit.
cc: Winston-Salem Regional Office
Technical Support Branch
boo `5 Co el
Sincerely,
Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Wilmington Winston-Salem
919/395-3900 919/896-7007
919-733-7015

UPSTREAM 1 I I
DOWNSTREAM #1 I 1
DOWNSTREAM #21 I
Deep River at Fox St. Bridge
Deep River above Worthville Dam
Deep River above Haskett Ck.
DATE
TEMP
D.O.
BOD5
FECAL
CONDUCTIVITY
TEMP
D.O.
BOD5
FECAL
CONDUCTIVITY
TEMP
D.O.
BOD5
FECAL
CONDUCTIVITY
/0/9
�ftl
//
77
373Y0
//
-7. 2
5
53
3
.3s6.
/2,
7. �-
it
I '2?
ei-.6
/ 7
G. 7
/3K
376
/2
57
q
/697
370
/9
6,7
7
I /7/
4/ 4-7
V7I
2-9
7-3
S
282
2/
2--/
_.7
...550d
ZO
2/
7.o
44
izZ
Z Z5
l
Z
6-
6
/O /�
3�/
23
.c q
7
jig
936
Z �
‘..7
7
I 6/
Z.o �
6 9/
/g
75
//
307
/7$
J9
7.4-
/z
"7,95
/7
-
5/7,,
/G
7, C
£
2
/4-7
/0
7.,
3
252,-
/5.42
.\\-
"/qf
/2.-
g.S
5
i 2-
Fs. S
-�0
93
3/
7
9.5
4
o
6
7
9./d
7
/7_
90
z19/
.5
// /
3
/�'/
/Ow
.5
//.
3
74f
// �
%
%/
C
it-2
6-
6c0
9Z
Iz. z
.
711
87-
C
l
/2/f0
9
io.3
3
�27
/ii
9
/o.�
3
//�
1 /
U/ o
lD
7.?
'
37
/so
//
9.7
.�
37
/eF-
f °/70
/ 9
8. L
2-
7
vil
%f g
S
z
Za
27 S
�� 5Oldgritii*6) /41/t (5cV(. fy)Shtton.

Linc. Co. Compliance Judgement
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
1
-D
1
Lincoln County Compliance Judgement
„^ q J -C
2
3/1 /92-6/3Q/92
�1 J -
3
4
/ Date
Sampler
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TTO
5
920528
s
0.0160
0.0180
0.1580
0.0200
0.1320
0.1860
6
920410
i
0.0100
0.0500
0.1500
0.0500
0.0700
0.1100
4.6900
i
0.0100
0.0500
0.1300
0.0500
0.1900
0.1200
0.8820
7
% 920409
8
920408
i
0.0100
0.0500
0.2500
0.0500
0.5500
0.2000
0.0000
9
920407
i
0.0100
0.0500
0.1000
0.0500
0.1800
0.1300
0.0340
10
920326
s
0.0050
0.0100
0.1110
0.0080
0.1330
0.0540
11
-
-
--
12
Average
- s
0.0105
0.0140
0.1345
0.0140
0.1325
0.1200
0.0000
13
Average(Monthly)
i
0.0100
0.0500
0.1575
0.0500
0.2475
0.1400
1.4015
1 4
Grand Average
(2s+41)6
0.0102
0.0380
0.1498
0.0380
0.2092
0.1333
0.9343
15
16
Limits
1 7
Daily Max.
0.0020
0.7400
0.1290
0.0950
0.1340
0.1550
0.5700
18
Monthly Avg.
0.0020
0.4500
0.1030
0.0760
0.1070
0.1240
19
20
Daily Max. TRC
0.0024
0.8880
0.1548
0.1140
0.1608
0.1860
0.6840
21
Monthly Avg. TRC
0.0024
0.5400
0.1236
0.0912
0.1284
0.1488
22
23
Chronic Violations
100%
0%
71 %
0%
57%
43%
50%
24
TRC Violations
100%
0%
29%
0%
57%
14%
50%
25
26
27
28
*italics are detection limit values
cv�. c(✓f`
C o . 'D, s c1, u'je
Page 1

RESEARCh & ANA[VICAL
LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
City of Randleman
101 Hi 11 iary ;.street
Randleman, NC 27317
Attn: Joan Wall
Job Number : 03372
Parameter
E OD-5
T SS
NH-3-N
Cadmium, Tot
Chromium,Tot
Copper, Tot
Cyanide
Lead, Tot
Mercury, Tot
Nickel,Tot
Silver, Tot
Zinc, Tot
Arsenic, Tot
Clients Sample
Storet #
(00310)
(0c:)530 )
(00610)
(01027)
(01034)
(01042)
(00720)
(01051)
(71900)
(01067)
(01077)
(01092)
(01002)
NC C:.;T #34
Date Sample Collected : 12/04/1
Date Sample Received : 12/01J/91
Date Sample Analyzed : 12/0/'.)1
Date of Report : 12/13/91
Analyses Performed by : EH -YJ -MH --MM
Lab Sample Number,
122313
Results
4.92 MG/L
52 NG/L
(1.00 MG/L
(0.005 MG/L
(0.0a0 MG/L
0. 109 I1G/L
<0.005 MG/L
(0.050 MG/L
(0.00020 MG/L
(0. (:)25 MO/L
(0.005 MG/L
0.056 MG/L
<0. 0050 MG/L
Source/Number UPSTREAM AT FOX ST
Time Collected : 14:
P. 0. Box 473 • 106 Short Street • Kernersville, North Carolina 27284 • 919/996-2841

RESEARCi1 & ANAFyTiCAI
LAboRAToRiES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
City of Randleman
101 Hi 11 iary Street
Randleman, NC 27317
Attn: Joan Wall
Job Number : 03372
NC C RT 4,34
Date Sample Collected : 03/18/92
Date Sample Received : 03/19/92
Date Sample Analyzed : 03/20/92
Date of Report : 04/10/92
Analyses Performed by : EH •--YJ --LM -MF-1 -NM
Lab Sample Number
131251
Parameter Storet R Results
DUD-5 (00310) 3.96 M1 / L
TSS (005 c:>) 7.0 NG/L
NH-3-N (U061 i i) (1. 00 tfMU/ t_
Cadmium, Tot (01027) (0. 00 MG/ L
Lhromium, Tot (01034) (0.010 NU/L
Copper,Tot (01042) 0.033 3_ .';`..;/ :_.
Lead, Tot (01051) 0.0264 P'II: /L
N1 cke 1, 1 of (01067) (O. 025 No/L.
hlurcury, Tut (71900) W. 000L0 1,1Li /L...
Llilver, Tot (01077) (0.005 MG/I.._
7_inc, Tot (01092) 0. 128 MG/L.
iirst:nic, Tut (01003) (0.0050 IYlL; L_
SAMPLE NUT PRESERVED
FUR NH-3-N
Clients Sample ',source/Number UPSTREAM FOX Sf BNID
Time Lollected : 8:
P. 0. Box 473 • 106 Short Street o Kernersville, North Carolina 27284 • 919/996-2841

RESEARCii & ANA[yTICAI.
LAbORATORIES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
City of Randleman
101 Hilliary Street
Randleman, NC 27317
Attn: Joan Wall
Job Number : 03372
NC CERT 4i 34
Date Sample Collected : 06/30/92
Date Sample Received : 07/01/92
Date Sample Analyzed : 07/02/92
Date of Report : 07/16/92
_Analyses Performed by, : EH --YJ —LM —TIC —IIH
Lab Sample Number
139580
Parameter Storet #
BQD-5 (00310)
TSS (00530)
Cadmium,Tot (01027)
Chromium, Tot (01034)
Copper, Tut (01042)
Arsenic, Tot (01002)
Nickel,Tot (01067)
Lead,Tot (01051)
Zinc, Tot (01092)
Mercury, Tot (71900)
Silver,Tot • (01077)
NH-3—N (00610 )
Results
(3.0 MG/L.
<5.0 h1G/L
(0. 005 MG/L
(0.010 MG/L
0.047 MG/L
(0.010
(0.025
( i:► . 050
!'1G/L
MG/L
h1G/L
ii.077 MG/L
(0.00020 MG/L
(0. 005 MG/L
(1.00 MG/I_
Clients Sample Source/Number UPSTREAM
Time Collected . 8:20
Y
P. 0. Box 473 . 106 Short Street s Kernersville, North Carolina 27284 • 919/996-2841

(I( 0 "Ik
RESEARCIi ANALyTICA1
LABORATORIES, INC.
Analytical/Process Consultations
City of Randleman
101 Hi 11 iary Street
Randleman, NC 27317
Attn: Joan Wall
NC crrtT #34
Date Sample Collected : OB/21/91
Date Sample Received : 08/22/91
Date Sample Analyzed : OB/23/91
Date of Report : 08/30/91
Analyses Performed by : EH —YJ —LM —MM —MH —DW
Job Number : 03372 Lab Sample Number,
114610
Parameter Storet 0 Results
BOD-5 (00310) 3.96 MG/L
1 SS (00 3i0) 12 MG/L_
NH-3—N (006 10) < 1 . 0 MG / l_
Cadmium,Tot (01027) (0.020 IYIC:i/L..
Chromium, Tot (01034) (0.040 MG/L_
Led,Tot (01051) (0.10 MG/L
Mercury, Tot (71900) (0.00020 MG/L
Nickel, Tot (01067) (0.050 MG/L
Silver, Tot (01077) <0. 02(:0 MG/L
Zinc, Tot (01092) 0.092 MG/L
Arsenic, Tot (01002) (0. 010 MG/L
Cyanide (00720) <0.00 MG/L.
Clients Sample Source/Number UPSTREAM
P. 0. Box 473 • 106 Short Street m Kernersville, North Carolina 27284 • 919/996-2841

I .,
•
. Anne..., Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Req. anent
Reporting Form A
I. Facility tnformatlon:
NPDES.Permlt No: NC 0025445 Discharge (Pipe) No: •r 01 Year: 1990
Cityof Randleman Randolph
Facility Name: Class: County: r
Person(s) • Collecting Samples: ' Frankie Brewer S i �`i '' o."1—
, j . •
Analytical Laboratory: Research & Analytical Laboratories, Inc./ EMS
GCiMS Library Size (number of chemicals catalogued): 40 , 000
II. Sampling:
24 hr composite for main sample i grab sample for purgeable fraction
Date.Sampled: (composite sample) 10/24/90
Sampling .begun (date, time):
Sampling finished (date, time):. 10/25/90
Pao 1 ul
Date and time .eampled (grab (ample):
Instructions
The purpose of this document Is to standardize the sampling, analysis and reporting procedures to he usi
for the Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement as described In the permit In addition to the monk(
Ing and reporting requirements described herein, the permitee will meet all other relevant monitoring aiui rep
Ling requirements as described In the North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15 NCAC 28 .0500 - Surfa,
Water Monitoring: Reporting. The permltee should use copies of this Annual Pollutant Analysis (APA) Form A
report the results of the analysis. Completed forms should Include the signatures of the analytical laboratc
representative and the facility operator In responsible charge (see p.6). Mall two completed copies to: ATT: Cents
Files, Division of Environmental Management, NC NRCD, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611.
A 24-hour composite sample must be taken from the final effluent during mid -week (Wednesday through F
day). A grab sample for the volatile organic fraction must be taken when the 24-hour composite sample Is corriplet(
The effluent must be analyzed for.pollutants, Including those to be Identified and approximately quantified urr(
the 10 significant peaks rule , using appropriate EPA approved methods for each of the analytic fractions to
analyzed, as listed on this APA Form A. Other analytical methods can be substituted only with prior, written
proval of the Director of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). All chemicals (or elements) to be analyz
for are Included in the attached tables (parts A through F of this APA Form A, each of which Includes space
the chemicals to be identified under the 10 significant peaks rule), and organics should elute in the chemical f r,
Lion as listed.
Detection Limit Targets which should be met are listed on this APA Reporting Form A. Use of any higher deli
tton limit for the purpose of this Annual Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement must be reported along w
the results of this analysis. An explanation as to why the listed detection limit target could not be met must al
be subrnitted, attached to this APA Form A. Examples of acceptable reasons for not meeting a detection llr
target could be high background concentrations In a sample, or the necessity for sample fraction dilution to till
a chemical to within a detectable concentration. If a chemical is found to be below the detection limit target, rep
the concentration detected as less than (or '<') the detection limit target in the appropriate space. Cfrernlc
listed on the attached tables that are detected In concentrations above the detection Ilinit targets must be qu
tifled. All chemical concentrations should be reported in units of micrograms per liter (ug/l). All metals concoui
tlons should be reported as total recoverable metal (as ug11). The total number of peaks detected in each analy
fraction must also be entered In the appropriate space on this APA Form A.
Chemicals to be analyzed for according to the 10 significant peaks rule (as described In Item 2 of the Arm
Pollutant Analysis Monitoring Requirement In the permit) must be Identified whore possible using a GC/MS lib►
search. An estimate should be given of their concentration based on an Internal standard using a known el%elnl
having the closest retention time. Quantltatlon should be approximate and will be used by DEM for planning 1:
poses. The size of the GC/MS library being ulilizled must also be reported In the appropriate space, along w
other required Information, at the top of this APA Form A.

A. Purgeable (Volatile Organic) Fraction Pout) 2 of u
of chemicals detected In Fraction 3
Number
Fraction STORET Number 84085
STORET Compound
Nurnber
Detection
Limit Target
'Concentration
Detected
GC/MS Confirmation?
YoslNo
1. Pollutants to be analyzed
for:
(ug/1)
(uglt)
34210
Acroleln •
100
<100
34215
Acrylonitrlle
100
< luo
34030
Benzene
5
<5.0
32101
Bromodlchloromethane
5
5.0
Yca
32104
Bromoform
5
<5.0
34413
Bromomethane
10
<10
32102
Carbon tetrachloride
5
<5.0
34301
Chlorobenzene
6
<5.0
3431T
— Chloroethane
10
<10 _
34576
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
10
<10
32106
Chloroform
5
9.1
Yes
34418 •
Chloromethane
10
,_ I n
32105
Dlbromochloromethane
5
.5.0
34496
1,1-Dichioroethane
5
<5.0
34531
1,2-Dlchloroethane
5
<5.0
34501
1,1-Dlchloroethylene
5
<5.0
34546
trans-1,2-Dlchlorotheylene
5
<5.0
34541
1,2-Dichloropropane
6
<5.0
34704
cis 1,3-Dlchloropropene
5
<5.0
34699
trans 1,3-Dlchloropropene
5
<5.0
< u
34371
Ethylbenzene
8
.
34423
Methylene chloride
5
<5.0
34516
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
7
<5.0 /4
`
0, lyn ft*
34475
Tetrachioroethylene
5
8.9
ihrt.itiI% lv Yfs
34010
Toluene
6
<5.0
C.
34506
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
5
<5.0
34511
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
<5.0
39180
Trlchloroethylene
5
<5.0
34488
Trlchlorofluromethane
10
<10
39175
Vinyl chloride 10
<10
2. Other purgeables
(up to 10 highest peaks):

B. Acid Extractable Fraction
Number of chemicals detected In Fraction
Fraction STORET Number 45582
0
PaUo3of6
STOREY Compound•
Number "•
Detection
Limit Target
'• Concentration
Detected
GC/MS Conlirmatlui
YeslNo
1. Pollutants
to be analyzed for:
(ugl1)
(ugll)
34452
j 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol •
10
<10
34586
2-Chlorophenol
10
_ < 10
34601
_ 2,4-Dichlorophenol
s 10
V
<10
34606
2,4-Dimethylphenol .
10
< to
34616
• 2,4-Dlnitrophenol
50
<50
34657
2-Methy1-4,6-dinitrophenol
24 •
<50
34591
2-Nltrophenol
10
<10
34646
4-Nltrophenol
50
<50
39032
Pentaclrlorophenol•
50
<50
34694
Phenol
10
<10
34621
2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol
10
<10
2. Other acld
extractables (up to 10 highest peaks):
•
•
•
•
C. Base/Neutral Fraction
Number of chemicals detected in Fraction
Fraction STORET Number 45583
1
STORET Compound
Number
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detected
GC/MS Confirmation
lr osIllo
1. Pollutants
to be analyzed for:
(ugll)
(ugll)
34205
Acenapthene
10 -
<10
34200
Acenaphthylene
10
<10
34220
Anthracene
10
<10
39120
Benzidine • • -
44
<2n
34526 _
Benzo (a) anthracene
•
10
<10
34247
Benzo (a) pyrene
10
<10
34230
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
10
<10
34521
Benzo (ghl) perylene
10
<10
34242
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
10
<10
34278 _
F
Bls(2-chloroethoxy) methane
.
10
<10

C, Base/Neutral Fraction (Co, cued from page 3)
Fraction STORET Number 45583
Pap 40!6
STORET Compound
Number 0
Detection
Limit Target
Concentration
Detectod
GC/MS Confirmation
YosltJo
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
(ug/1)
=r. (ug/1)
34273
BIs(2-chloroethyl) ether
10
<10
34283
Bis(2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
10
<10
39100
Bls(2-ethylhexyl) •hthalate
10
13
Afoilihr'tiaulYtrY i
34636
' 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
10
34292
Butyl benzyl phthalate
10
<10
34581
2-Chloronaphthalene
10
<10
34641
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
10
<10
34320
Chrysene
10
<10
34556
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
10
<10
34536
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
10
<10
34566
113-Dichlorobenzene
10
<10
34571
114-Dichlorobenzene
10
<10 -
34631
3,3-Dlchlorobenzldlne
20
<20
34336
Diethyl phthalate
10
<10
34341 '
Dimethyl phthalate
10
<10
39110
DI-n-butyl phthalate
10
<10
34611
2,4-DInItrotoluene
10
<10
34626
2,6-DInolrotoluene
10
<10
34596
DI-n-octyl phthalate
10
<10
34346
1,2-Dlpheny!hydrazine
10
<10
34376
Fluoranthene
10
<10
34381
Fluorene
10
<10
39700
Hexachlorobenzene
10
<10
34391
Hexachlorobutadiene
10
<10
34386
Hexachlorocyclopenladlene
10
<10
34396
Hexachloroethane
10
<1u
34403
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
10
<10
34408
Isophorone
10
<10
34696
Naphthalene
10
<10
34447
Nitrobenzene
10
<10
34438
N-nitrodosimethylamine
10
<10
34428
N-nitroso-dl-n-propylarnlne
10
<10
34433
N-nitrosodlphenylamine
10
<10
34461
Phenanthrene
. 1C
<10
34469
Pyrene
10
<10
34551
1 112,4-TrIchlorobenzene
10
<10
2. Other base/neutrals (up to 10 highest peaks):

t
D. Organochlorlde Pesticides and PCB's
• Number of chemicals detected In Fraction
Fraction STORET Number 00188
•
°
•r
Patu 5 ui 6
STORET Compound
Number
Detection
Limit Target
Conc©ntratlon
Detected
GC/MS Coaill:niutlu,i
YeslNo
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for;
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
39330 I Aldrin
0.05
<0.05
39337 alpha-BHC •
0.05
<0.05
39338
Beta-BHC
0.05
<0.05
34259
Delta-BHC
0.05
<0.05
39340
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.05
<0.05
-
39350
Chlordane
0.5
<b • 5
39310
4,4'-DDD
0.1
<0.1
39320
4,4'-DDE •
0.1
<0.1
39300
4,4'-DDT
0.1
_
<0.1
39560
Demeton
0.1
<0.1
39380
Dieldrin
0.01
<0.1
34361 '
• Endosulfan I (alpha) •
0.05
<0.05
34356
Endosulfan I1 (beta)
0.1
<0.1
34351
Endosulfan sulfate •
0.1
<o .1
39390
Endrin
0.01
•
<0.1
I
34366
Endrin aldehyde •
0.01
<0.1
39410
Heptachlor . •
0.05
<0.05
39420 •
Heptachlor epoxide
0.05
<0.05
39480
Methoxychlor
0.5
<0.05
39755
M l rex
0.06 •
<0.06
39540
Parathion (ethyl)
0.6
<0.1
39400
Toxaphene
1.0
< 1. o
34671
PCB 1016
0.5
<0.5
39488
PCB 1221
0.5
<U • 5
39492
PCB 1232 . .
0.5
<0.5
39496
PCB 1242 •
0.5
<0.5
39500
PCB 1248
• 0•5
<0.5
39504
PCB 1254
1.0
c i • u
39508
PCB 1260
1.0
< 1. o
•
2. Other pesticides (up to 10 highest peaks):
•
•

t. N-erblcides
number of chemicals detectec Fraction 0
' Fraction STORET Number 0014d
Pauo6of 6
STORET
Number
Compound ; •.
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
39730
39045
2,4-D
Sllvex
Detection
Limit Target
(ug/1)
50
39740
2,4,5-T
2. Other herbicides (up to 10 highest peaks
50
5
Concentration
Detected
4
(ug/1)
<10
<10
<10
GC/MS Confirmation?
Yes/No
F. Metals and Other Chemicals
Number of Metals and Other Chemicals (as listed below) detected In Sample 6
Fraction STORET Number 78240
STORET
Number
Compound
1. Pollutants to be analyzed for:
01104
Aluminum
Detection
Limit Target
(ug/1)
50
Concentration
Detected
01097
01002
01012
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
01027
01034
01042
01051
71900
01067
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
01147
01077
01092
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
50
10
25
2
5
2
2, Other Inorganics:
10
0.2
10
5
(ug/1)
830
<50
<5.0
<5.0
5.40
5
10
<4.0
9.2
<10
<0.20
<10
5
<5.0
71.0
01007
v
Barium
500
<40
00940
Chloride
1000
19,500
00720
Cyanldb•
20
<10
00951
Fluoride
100
5600
ii'rtr,4
y
y
y
AnalyticaId
tzor,,attory�/Representative:
Signed. .�f "E. rit
Facility Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC): Az 1-,-2%(/ Fn rS/.•-2 i-c, c.)e r-"
/ 2 be) fi(')
Date:
I certify that this repArt Is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signed•
Date:
/,2-/->•`(..