NC0025496_Permit (Issuance)_20051110

NPDES DOCIMENT SCANNING COVER .SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0025496
Lincolnton WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Other
Speculative Limits
Instream Assessment (67b)
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Permit
History
Document Date:
November 10, 2005
This document is printed on reuse paper - igizore any
content on the rezrerse side

Mr. Steve Peeler
Director of Public
City of Lincolnton
PO Box 617
Lincolnton, North
Dear Mr. Peeler:
kgrA
NCDENR
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
November 10, 2005
Works and Utilities
Carolina 28093-0617
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0025496
Lincolnton WWTP
Lincoln County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of
the subject permit. Accordingly, we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge
permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9, 1994 (or as subsequently
amended) .
The permit authorizes the City of Lincolnton to discharge up to 6.0 MGD of
treated wastewater from the Lincolnton WWTP to the South Fork Catawba River, a
class WS-IV water in the Catawba River Basin. The permit includes discharge
limitations /or monitoring for flow, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal conform bacteria, total residual chlorine, cyanide,
phenol, silver, copper, zinc, antimony, pesticides and chronic toxicity.
The following modification has been made in this final permit that was not
included in the draft permit of September 28, 2005.
• The results of the 2001 and 2004 priority pollutant analyses submitted by
your facility detected the presence of total antimony. The concentrations
reported were evaluated in the reasonable potential analysis and were
determined to exceed the allowable concentration for protection of water
quality. Based on this data, an antimony limit of 52 ug/1 will become
effective twelve months from the effective date of this permit (December 1,
2006) . If within the twelve months, Lincolnton can demonstrate that
antimony is not a pollutant of concern, you may request, in writing, the
removal of this limit.
N. C. Division of Water Quality / NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
DENR Customer Service Center: 1 800 623-7748

Letter to Mr. Peeler
Page 2
The Division has reviewed the comments in your October 27th letter, and has
the following recommendations.
• The modifications of the treatment process units were included in this final
permit.
• The phenols limitation will remain in the permit based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis. Lincolnton may request that the phenols
limit be reevaluated after twelve months of sampling, if all reported values
are below detection.
• Silver monitoring will remain at twice per month based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis, which showed that the NC action level
standard could be exceeded. If twelve months of data show all silver values
below the detection level, the monitoring frequency can be reevaluated.
• The Division evaluates the updating of receiving stream flows upon the
request for expansion of a wastewater treatment plant. The modification of
stream flows based on the removal of a water withdrawal will have to be
evaluated when significantly more information can be provided by the
permittee and other involved agencies.
The following modifications listed in the September 28, 2005 draft permit
remain the same.
• The daily maximum limit for mercury has been deleted from the permit
based on an analysis of submitted effluent monitoring data, that indicated
there is no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard.
Mercury will continue to be monitored in the Pretreatment Program's Long
Term Monitoring Plan.
• The results of the priority pollutant analysis submitted by your facility
detected the presence of several pesticides. Aldrin, dieldrin and 4,4 DDT
were present in the April 2004 effluent scan. Limits for these parameters
will become effective 18 months from the effective date of the final permit. If
within the 18 months, Lincolnton can demonstrate that these are not
pollutants of concern, you may request in writing the removal of these
permit requirements.
• Effluent monitoring for zinc has been changed to twice per month based on
an analysis of submitted effluent monitoring data that indicated there is
reasonable potential to exceed the action level water quality standard.
• A total residual chlorine limit of 28 ug/1 has been added to reflect the
Division's current policy for protection against chlorine toxicity instream.
The limit for total residual chlorine shall become effective upon completion
of the installation of a disinfection system but no later than 18 months from
permit effective date. If a method different than chlorination/dechlorination
is used, the total residual chlorine limit will not be applicable.
• Based on a review of effluent data, the submittal of a color reduction study,
and the recommendation of Division staff, the color monitoring requirements
of the City of Lincolnton have been modified. The permittee will conduct
color monitoring of instream stations (upstream, downstream) on a monthly

Letter to Mr. Peeler
Page 3
basis during summer season (April -October). The permittee will record
whether a color plume was observed around the outfall pipe during the
monthly instream sampling events, and include that information on the
monthly discharge monitoring report. Effluent samples will be collected
monthly for color on a year-round basis. Color samples will be analyzed for
ADMI color at natural pH. Effluent samples will consist of 24-hour
composites, while instream samples will be collected as grabs. Samples will
be analyzed by a state certified laboratory.
If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the
discharge permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may
reopen this permit for the purpose of imposing additional requirements
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114. Alternatively, if future conditions change
and color is no longer a component of the influent wastestream, then the
permittee may request a permit modification to remove color permit
requirements.
The City of Lincolnton must submit updated information from the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Plan of October 2004. This should include
the results of the initiatives that have been implemented and all information
that has been collected.
• An annual effluent pollutant scan has been added to fi dill EPA's application
requirement for major municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Special
Condition A. (5.) of this permit details this requirement.
• A daily maximum cyanide limit of 22 ug/1 is given to protect aquatic life
from the potential acute effects of cyanide and shall remain in the permit.
If any parts, measurement frequencies or sampling requirements contained
in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this letter.
This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714. Unless
such a demand is made, this permit shall be final and binding.
Please take notice that this permit is not transferable. The Division may
require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit. This permit does
not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits, which may be required by
the Division of Water Quality, or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, Coastal Area Management Act, or any other Federal or Local
governmental permits may be required.

Letter to Mr. Peeler
Page 4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone], extension 512.
Sincerely,
5Q-2 (t i
L,J
k,I Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection
Mooresville Regional Office/DEH/Public Water Supply
EPA/Region IV Attn: Marshall Hyatt
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
PERCS/Jon Risgaard
Donna Lisenby/Catawba RiverkeeperO, 2295 Starnes Road, Edgemoor, SC
29712
Ron Bryant/ Catawba River Foundation, P.O. Box 481915 Charlotte, NC 28269
Permit File

Permit No. NC0025496
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
PERMIT
TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1,
other lawful standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended,
City of Lincolnton
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at
Lincolnton Wastewater Treatment Plant
NC Highway 150 West Bypass
south of Lincolnton
Lincoln County
to receiving waters designated as South Fork Catawba River in the Catawba River
Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions
set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shall become effective December 1, 2005
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on July 31, 2010
Signed this day November 10, 2005
f4' Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of
the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NC0025496
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation
or discharge are hereby revoked, and as of this issuance, any previously
issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the
exclusive authority to operate and discharge from this facility arises
under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions
included.herein.
City of Lincolnton
is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment
facility consisting of :
o Influent pump station
o influent filter/screen and washer,
o Vortex grit removal,
o twelve diffused aeration basins,
o Orbital oxidation ditch,
o two 100' diameter secondary clarifers,
o three anaerobic sludge digesters,
o three 250,000 gallon sludge storage tanks,
o three channel chlorination contact basin,
o a sodium hypochlorite chlorination system,
o a sodium bisulfite dechlorination system, and
o dissolved air flotation thickener,
The facility is located on NC Highway 50 approximately 1 mile
from the intersection with NC Highway 321, south of Lincolnton,
Lincoln County, and
2. Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on
the attached map into the South Fork Catawba River, which is
classified a WS-IV water in the Catawba River Basin.

Facility Information
Latitude: 35°26'34" Sub -Rusin: 03-08-35
Longitude: 81°15'39"
Quad #: F13NE
Stream Class: WS-IV
Receiving Stream: South Fork Catawba River
Permitted Flow: 6.0 MGD
Lincolnton WWTP
NC0025496
Lincoln Conn,

?5 '
Permit No. NC0025496
A. (1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until
expiration, the Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges
shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS'
LIMITS
,"
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly
.; f -
Average._..,.,;
Weekl r
, � ,� ��
Average. , :
Daily _
A
Maximum ,
Measurement
::Frequency. ,
' Samplesrs
,,
Type`
,Sample Locatio n1
. ,
Flow
6.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
BOD5 2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
Influent and Effluent
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
influent and Effluent
NH3 as N
3/Week
Composite
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
pH3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 p g/L
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Temperature
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen
(NO2 + NO3 + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic Toxicity5
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Total Cyanide6
22 p g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Phenols .
21 p g/L
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
2/month
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
2/month
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
2/month
Composite
Effluent
Aldrin7
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Aldrin8
0.007 p g/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Dieldrin7
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Dieldrin8
0.007 p g/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
4,4 DDT7
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
4,4 DDT
0.0322 p g/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Antimony9
2/month
Composite
Effluent
Total Antimonyl0
52 p g/L
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Colorl1
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Color
(April 1 through October 31) 9
Monthly
Grab
Upstream &
Downstream
Effluent Pollutant Scan
Annually
See
Footnote 10
Effluent
Footnotes on next page:

Permit No. NC0025496
Notes:
1. Upstream = at least 100 feet upstream from the outfall. Downstream = at least
300 feet downstream from the outfall
2. The monthly average BOD5 and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not
exceed 15% of the respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard
units.
4. Requirement applies only if chlorine is added for disinfection . See A(2).
5. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F ® 11% with testing in March, June,
September and December (see A. (3))
6. The quantitation limit for cyanide shall be 10 µg/L (10 ppb). Levels reported less
than 10 µg/L shall be considered zero for compliance purposes.
7. Monitoring Requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the
permitting authority.
8. Limitations for aldrin, dieldrin and 4.4 DDT will be effective eighteen months
from issuance of permit. These limits may be deleted upon written notification
from the permitting authority.
9. Monitoring Requirement may be deleted upon written notification from the
permitting authority.
10. The limitation for total antimony will be effective twelve months from issuance of
permit. This limit may be deleted upon written notification from the permitting
authority.
11. Color samples will be analyzed for ADMI color at natural pH. Samples will be
analyzed by a state -certified laboratory (see A. (4) Color Permitting
Requirements).
12. Effluent Pollutant Scan shall be conducted annually. Refer to Condition A.(5).
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
A. (2.) TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
The limit for total residual chlorine shall become effective upon completion of the
installation of a disinfection system but no later than 18 months from the effective date
of the permit (June 1, 2007). If a method different than chlorination/dechlorination is
used, the total residual chlorine limit will not be applicable.

Permit No. NC0025496
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (QUARTERLY)
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or
significant mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 11 %.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum, Quarterlu monitoring using test procedures
outlined in the "North Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure," Revised
February 1998, or subsequent versions or "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent
Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions. The tests will be
performed during the months of March, June, September, and December. Effluent sampling for
this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,
in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration tests will be determined using the geometric mean
of the highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and
the lowest concentration that does have a detectable impairment of reproduction or survival.
The definition of "detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, and further
statistical methods are specified in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity
Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the
Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed,
using the parameter code TGP3B for the pass/fail results and THP3B for the Chronic Value.
Additionally, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Branch
no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period for which the report is made.
Test data shall be complete, accurate, include all supporting chemical/physical measurements
and all concentration/response data, and be certified by laboratory supervisor and ORC or
approved designate signature. Total residual chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be
measured and reported if chlorine is employed for disinfection of the waste stream.
Should there be no discharge of flow from the facility during a month in which toxicity
monitoring is required, the permittee will complete the information located at the top of the
aquatic toxicity (AT) test form indicating the facility name, permit number, pipe number,
county, and the month/year of the report with the notation of "No Flow" in the comment area of
the form. The report shall be submitted to the Environmental Sciences Branch at the address
cited above.

Permit No. NC0025496
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (3). CHRONIC TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT (CONT.)
Should the permittee fail to monitor during a month in which toxicity monitoring is required,
monitoring will be required during the following month.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re -opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival, minimum control organism reproduction, and appropriate
environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require immediate follow-up
testing to be completed no later than the last day of the month following the month of the
initial monitoring.
A. (4). COLOR PERMITTING REQUIREMENT
The permittee will conduct color monitoring of instream stations (upstream, downstream)
on a monthly basis during summer season (April -October). The permittee will record
whether a color plume was observed around the outfall pipe during the monthly instream
sampling events, and include that information on the monthly discharge monitoring report.
Effluent samples will be collected monthly for color on a year-round basis. Color samples
will be analyzed for ADMI color at natural pH. Effluent samples will consist of 24-hour
composites, while instream samples will be collected as grabs. Samples will be analyzed by
a state certified laboratory.
If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the discharge
permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may reopen this permit for the
purpose of imposing additional requirements pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114.
Alternatively, if future conditions change and color is no longer a component of the influent
wastestream, then the permittee may request a permit modification to remove color permit
requirements.

Permit No. NC0025496
SUPPLEMENT TO EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. (5.) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the
table below (in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples
shall represent seasonal (summer, winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle.
Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total recoverable." Additionally, the
method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by the
appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
1 ,1 -dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol .
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene

. -,
Permit No. NCO025496
> Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPA1 or
in a form approved by the Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of
the report shall be submitted to each the NPDES Unit and the Compliance
and Enforcement Unit to the following address: Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, ,1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1617.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0025496
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
City of Lincolnton- Lincolnton WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 617 Lincolnton, N.C. 28093-0617
Facility Address:
Highway 150 Bypass
Permitted Flow
6.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic and industrial
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
Facility Classification
W
County:
Lincoln
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
South Fork
Catawba River
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
WS-IV
USGS Topo Quad:
F13NE
303(d) Listed?:
No
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
Subbasin:
03-08-35
Date:
September 23, 2005
Drainage Area (mi2):
395
3 E a-` "'`..
,. 'r-
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
77
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
140
Average Flow (cfs):
500
IWC (/o .
O )•
11
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
The City of Lincolnton has requested a permit renewal for the Lincolnton WWTP. Previous
permit was issued October 2002. The existing 6.0 MGD WWTP discharges into the South Fork
Catawba River, a class WS-IV water, in CTB35 subbasin. The discharge is three miles
upstream of the City of High Shoals drinking water intake. The plant serves a population of
approximately 10,750 people.
The Lincolnton WWTP is an existing 6.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility. There were several
improvements made to the plant since the last permit renewal. The treatment plant consists
of:
o Influent pump station
o influent filter/screen and washer,
o Vortex grit removal,
o three screw pumps,
o a flow splitter box,
o twelve diffused aeration basins,
o Orbital oxidation ditch,
o two 100' diameter secondary clarifers,
o six anaerobic sludge digesters,
o three 250,000 gallon sludge storage tanks,
o three channel chlorination contact basin,
o a sodium hypochlorite chlorination system,
o a sodium bisulfate dechlorination system,
o dissolved air flotation thickener,
o solids contact reactor, and
o a post aeration tank
Lincolnton currently has an active pretreatment program with Long Term Monitoring Program.
There are five non -categorical significant industrial users (SIU) and two categorical industrial
users (CIUs) discharging to the system. The facility has an actual industrial flow of 1.02 MGD.
The permitted industrial flow is 3.6 MGD. It is recommended that the full pretreatment
program for Lincolnton WWTP be continued in this upcoming permitting cycle.
Lincolnton WW1? Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

The industrial contributors for Lincolnton WWTP are as follows:
• ALPHARMA - manufacture of creams and ointments - 0.013 MGD - (process)- continuous
flow and 0.005 (non process) - intermittent flow
• ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORP.-manufacture of hand tools, saw blades, drill bits- 0.022
MGD (process)- continuous flow and 0.005 (non process) - intermittent flow
• MCMURRAY FABRICS - fabric manufacturing - 0.442 MGD - (process)- continuous flow
and 0.005 (non process) - intermittent flow
• MOHICAN MILLS -fabric manufacturing and lace products -0. 585 MGD (process) -
continuous flow and 0.015 (non process) - intermittent flow
• SOUTH FORK INDUSTRIES - fabric manufacturing and dyeing- 0.429 MGD - continuous
flow and 0.002 (non process) - intermittent flow
• TEXTILE PIECE DYEING COMPANY, INC. - fabric manufacturing and dyeing - 0.190 MGD
(process)- continuous flow and 0.0012 (non process) - intermittent flow
• VIKING TECHNOLOGY, INC. - socks - 0.034 MGD (process) and 0.0013 (non process) -
intermittent flow
• BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS - remediated groundwater- 0.0023 MGD -
continuous flow
•
Existing Effluent Limits 0 6.0 MGD
Qw=6.OMGD
BOD5 = 30 mg/1
NH3 = monitor
TSS = 30 mg/1
Fecal Coliform = 200/ 100m1
TRC = monitor
pH = 6-9 SU
Mercury = 0.1 ug/1 (daily max.)
Cyanide = 22 ug/1 (daily max.)
Phenols = 21 ug/1 (daily max.)
Monthly monitoring for color, copper and zinc
Quarterly monitoring for TP and TN
Chronic Toxicity P/F @ 11%; March June September December
Instream monitoring for color upstream and downstream of the discharge point is required per
the color monitoring special condition.
RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION:
Drainage Area = 395 sq. mi.
QA = 500 cfs
s7q10 = 77 cfs
w7q10 = 140 cfs
30g2 = 190 cfs
The South Fork Catawba River is not listed on North Carolina's 2003 303(d) list of impaired
streams.
The use support rating for 18.1 miles of the South Fork Catawba River (where the Lincolnton
discharge is located), from a point 0.4 miles upstream of Long Creek to Cramerton Dam and
Lake Wylie at Upper Armstrong Bridge, is supporting for aquatic life and recreation
The biological assessment of the South Fork Catawba River at NC 27 (Lincoln County) in
September 1994 was Good. The biological assessment was Good -Fair (August 1997)at the next
downstream station at NC 7, Gaston County.
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirement: Chronic Toxicity P/F @ 11%; March June September December
The Lincolnton WWTP overall has a good toxicity testing record. All toxicity tests have been
passed with the exception of the September 2004 test, which was a FAIL. All subsequent
toxicity tests were passed.
Lincolnton W\'tT1) Fact Sheet
Reriewal
Pa ge 2

Recommendation: Renewal of existing chronic toxicity test @ 11%.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Through July 2005, Avg. Qw = 2.9MGD (approximately 48% of capacity), BOD5=4.6 mg/1,
TSS=8.2 mg/1, and effluent color averaged 88.9 ADMI.. One cyanide limit violation in February
2005.
In 2004, Avg. Qw = 2.95 MGD (approximately 49% of capacity), BOD5=8.6 mg/1, TSS=17.1
mg/1, and effluent Color averaged 85.1 ADMI.. One TSS violation in January. One phenol
violation in March.
In 2003, Avg. Qw = 3.0 MGD (approximately 50% of capacity), BOD5=8.7 mg/1, TSS=14.6
mg/1, and effluent Color averaged 121 ADMI.. Two TSS violations in March and April
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Based on the results of an October 2001 public hearing regarding color dischargers to streams
in the Catawba River Basin, The City of Lincolnton is required to conduct instream color
monitoring above and below its discharge point. Data submitted in the October 2004 color
reduction study indicate that instream color is lower than in the previous years. Regional
Office staff also submitted visual evidence of the improvements to the effluent and its impact in
the receiving stream. 2003 data shows downstream color in the range of 10.6 to 250 ADMI.
2004 data shows downstream color in the range of 20.7 to 72.4 ADMI. From April 2005
through June 2005, data in the range of 18.2 to 41.5 ADMI. See following chart.
Note: the facility has submitted a color reduction study and requested that it be reduced from a
Tier 3 to a Tier I facility where only effluent and instream color monitoring is required.
Regional Office staff concurs with the reclassification and the revised color monitoring special
condition will be placed in the permit.
Lincolnton Color Data (Units-ADMI)
Date
Ups
Eff
Downs
4/28/03
44.5
97.6
65.3
5/27/03
116.9
56.6
149.5
6/25/03
42.7
143.3
26
7/ 1 /03
42.2
72.7
40.7
8/5/03
353.9
187.4
250.8
9/2/03
20.6
74.8
10.6
10/7/03
25.2
138.9
23.1
4/14/04
71
78
72.4
5/18/04
75
93.1
50.6
6/15/04
33.9
86.1
20.7
7/21/04
34.2
85.2
36
8/17/04
34.9
49.2
34.2
9/21/04
31.2
277.4
34.6
10/19/04
20.9
110.6
32.5
4/12/05
16.3
66.5
18.2
5/17/05
30.6
89.2
17.5
6/28/05
35.3
102.3
41.5
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS:
Analysis was conducted using discharge monitoring reports from January 2004 through June
2005. In addition, Priority Pollutant Analysis data was reviewed. The parameters that were
analyzed were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and phenols. See attached RPA results.
Lincolnton wwiTp Fact She -et
NPDEs Renewal
Page

• The analysis of the following parameters did not show reasonable potential to exceed either
the acute or the chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum predicted concentrations
were less than the allowables and therefore no limit or monitoring will be required. These
parameters will continue to be monitored quarterly in the Lincolnton's Long Term
Monitoring Plan (LTMP): Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, molybdenum, nickel and
selenium.
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed the NC
action level. Per NCDWQ procedure, no limit will be recommended. In addition there are
no chronic toxicity problems. It is recommended that 2/month monitoring be included in
the permit for these parameters: Copper, silver and zinc.
• The analysis of the following parameters did show reasonable potential to exceed both the
acute and the chronic allowable concentrations. The maximum predicted concentrations
were greater than the allowables and therefore a limit will continue to be required.
• Cyanide will have a daily maximum limit of 22 ug/1.
• Phenols will have a daily maximum limit of 21 ug/1
• Mercury no longer showed reasonable potential to exceed the allowable chronic
concentration and therefore the existing daily maximum limit of 0.1 ug/1 can be deleted.
Recommend that mercury be monitored in the pretreatment LTMP.
The following pesticides were detected in the Priority Pollutant analysis data submitted by the
City of Lincolnton. A modified RPA was done because of a very limited number of data points.
The pesticides detected were aldrin, dieldrin, 4,4 DDT, Lindane, alpha BHC and delta BHC.
• For the pesticides where the actual data value(s) did not exceed the allowable
concentration, there was no action taken. No monitoring or limit is recommended. The
parameter will be sampled yearly during the required effluent scan. Lindane, alpha
BHC, and delta BHC.
o Lindane = 0.13 ug/l, 0.16 ug/l, less than the allowable concentration = 0.548
ug/1 (calculated per NC WQ standard)
o alpha BHC = 0.071 ug/l, less than the allowable concentration = 0.214 ug/1
(calculated using federal criteria)
o delta BHC = = 0.18 ug/1, less than the allowable concentration = 0.67 ug/1
(calculated using federal criteria)
• For the pesticides where the actual data value(s) did exceed the allowable concentration,
monthly monitoring is recommended and limits for these parameters will become
effective 18 months from the issuance of the permit. The facility will be encouraged to
to aggressively determine the source of the pesticides. If prior to the 18 month date, it
can be demonstrated that these are not pollutants of concern, the facility may submit a
written request for removal of the pesticide requirement. The parameters to be sampled
monthly with the 18 month limitation schedule are: Aldrin, Dieldrin, and 4,4 DDT.
o Aldrin = 0.16 ug/1, 0.24 ug/l, both greater than the allowable concentration =
0.007 ug/1
o Dieldrin = 0.11 ug/1, greater than the allowable concentration = 0.007 ug/1
o 4,4 DDT = 0.51 ug/l, greater than the allowable concentration = 0.032 ug/1
PROPOSED CHANGES:
The following modifications have been made to the permit:
• The mercury limit of 0.1 ug/1 will be removed to the permit based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis. Mercury will continue to be monitored in the LIMP.
• Silver will be monitored 2/month based on results of the reasonable potential analysis.
• Zinc monitoring will be increased from monthly to 2/month based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis which showed chronic allowable could be exceeded. In
addition, based on the facility class, monitoring for the metal should be 2/month.
• The following pesticides, aldrin, dieldrin, and 4,4 DDT will be sampled monthly with an
effective date for limitations of 18 months from the issuance of the permit. The facility
should find the source of the pesticides and if they can demonstrate that these are not
pollutants of concern they can request removal of the pesticide requirements. The
Lincolnton WWII" II" Fact Sheet
tit'l)ES Renewal
Page

method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitive as provided by
the appropriate analytical procedure.
• The color permitting requirements of this facility have been modified based on color data
submitted, the BMP report and recommendation of the DWQ staff. The permittee will
conduct color monitoring of instream stations (upstream, downstream) on a monthly
basis during summer season (April -October). The permittee will record whether a color
plume was observed around the outfall pipe during the monthly instream sampling
events, and include that information on the monthly discharge monitoring report.
Effluent samples will be collected monthly for color on a year-round basis. Color
samples will be analyzed for ADMI color at natural pH. Effluent samples will consist of
24-hour composites, while instream samples will be collected as grabs. Samples will be
analyzed by a state certified laboratory.
If data show that water quality standards for color are being violated by the discharge
permitted by the terms of this permit, then the Director may reopen this permit for the
purpose of imposing additional requirements pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0114.
Alternatively, if future conditions change and color is no longer a component of the
influent wastestream, then the permittee may request a permit modification to remove
color permit requirements.
• The requirement for an annual effluent scan will be added to the permit.
• The addition of total residual chlorine limit with an eighteen -month implementation
schedule has been included.
ALL OTHER EXISTING PERMIT LIMITS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WILL REMAIN
THE SAME.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 09/28/2005
Permit Scheduled to Issue: 11 /21 /2005
Projected Effective Date of Permit: 01 / 01 / 2006
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Ja kie Nowell at [phone] ext. 512.
NAMED DATE:
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
Liricolnton WW1? Fact Sheet
Nt'1)[' S Rene‘ka1
Page

NPDES SUPERVISOR COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
AMENDMENT TO FACTSHEET
11/3/2005
EPA notified me that the PPA data showed antimony levels that averaged approximately 65
ug/1 and that I needed to review. Three antimony values were reported in the 2001 and
2004 PPAs taken, 61 ug/, 82 ug/1 and 49 ug/1. Results of the RPA on the data indicated
that there was reasonable potential to exceed the allowable concentration of 52 ug/1. The
allowable concentration was developed using the federal criteria value of 5.6 ug/1 since NC
does not have an antimony water quality standard.
After consultation, it was determined that an antimony limit of 52 ug/1 would be placed in
the permit. However, Lincolnton will be given a twelve month compliance schedule to give
them time to determine the source or sources of antimony and to find treatment or
reduction and removal methods. Our PERCS unit will offer guidance and assistance in the
process.
14\
EPA concurs with this recommendation.
1.*
Line()lntort W1t"I'f' Fact Sheet
NPI)ES 1 ertewai
Page 6

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Ms. Jackie Nowell
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
Lincolnton WWTP- Permit No. NC0025496
Dear Ms. Nowell:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR NPDES MOA, we have completed review of the
draft permit specified above and have no comments or objections to its conditions. We request
that we be afforded an additional review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the
draft permit prior to issuance or if significant comments objecting to it are received. Otherwise,
please send us one copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

[Fwd: Re:,comments on NC0026492, Lincolnton WWTP]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: comments on NC0026492, Lincolnton WWTP]
From: Jackie Nowell <j ackie.nowell @ ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:46:12 -0500
To:"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>, Dana Folley <[e-mail]>
Good morning Marshall,
I have consulted with Susan and staff from our pretreatment unit on Lincolnton and
the antimony issue.
We are going to recommend an antimony limit with a twelve month compliance schedule.
Since antimony will be a new limit for them, based on federal criteria rather than a
NC water quality standard, Lincolnton will be working in very new territory.
According to our pretreatment staff , the Town will need 3-6 months to sample their
eight SIUs and do a sewer trunkline investigation to find the source of the
antimony. Following that they will need time for the contributing SIU or SIUs to
solve the problem by replacing chemicals, putting in treatment, etc, in order to
comply with their limit. Solving the problem, could be a simple process or it may be
complex and take more time.. The pretreatment program would put antimony in the LTMP
for samples in the influent, effluent, trunklines, at the industries.
We think that twelve months is a fair amount of time for the facility to work on
tracking down the source and working on reduction/removal. We would recommend an
antimony limit of 52 ug/1 that would come into effect after 12 months of 2/month
monitoring.
Subject: Re: comments on NC0026492, Lincolnton WWTP
From: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:47:10 -0500
To: [e-mail]
[e-mail] wrote:
hope these are useful - will you be able to respond by Oct 24? thanks
Marshall
1. The receiving water is classified as WS-IV and there is a drinking
water intake 3 miles downstream, according to the fact sheet. NC does
not have an antimony criterion, but EPA's MCL is 6 ug/1. Based on an
avg antimony level of about 65 ug/1 based on the 3 effluent samples
reported in the application, there may be RP. what do you think?
2. The fact sheet indicates that the facility has a sodium bisulfite
dechlorination system. If that is the case, why is 18 months needed for
a TRC compliance schedule?
3. In Note 8 under A.1, DDT should be expressed as "4,4".
4. The last sentence in A.2 needs a period.
Hello Marshall,
Regarding your comments:
#1 - Antimony, using the federal criteria of 5.6 ug/1 , the allowable concentration
is 52 ug/1. Using only three reported values for the RPA, there is reasonable
1 of 2 11 /4/2005 6:51 PM

[Fwd: Re:,comments on NCOO26492, Lincolnton WWTP]
• potential to exceed the allowable concentration. Since this is a new parameter
without a NC standard, can we give them a delayed limit effective in 18 months.
Within the 18 month period, Lincolnton can have monthly monitoring and the time to
determine the source of the antimony. They can request we reevaluate in twelve
months if submitted Antimony data is below detection.
#2 - TRC will be a new limit for them. The Sodium bisulfite dechlor is a relevantly
new component with their recent plant upgrade. Our regional office staff noted in
their report that the 18 month schedule will be needed to allow for construction of
an effluent sampling station for residual chlorine. The dechlor is added at the
effluent of the chlorine contact chamber and "does not allow for sufficient contact
time with the sodium bisulfite to effect adequate chlorine reduction." TRC samples
collected at the outfall are hindered due to the outfall being submerged during high
flows. Based on the planned construction, we recommended that Lincolnton be allowed
the same 18 month schedule of compliance for TRC as other NC dischargers.
Items #3 and #4 will be corrected.
Please advise, so I can contact the Town and let them know about the additional
delayed limit to their permit. -
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Re: comments on NC0026492, Lincolnton WWTP; Content -Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2
11/4/2005 6:51 PM

CITY OF LINCOLNTON
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
P.O. BOX 617 • 128 MOTZ AVENUE • TELEPHONE [phone] • FACSIMILE 736-8959
LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28093-06 1 7
October 27, 2005
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
NPDES Western Program
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Reference: Draft NPDES Permit
Permit No. NC0025496
City of Lincolnton WWTP
Lincolnton, North Carolina
Subject: Response to Draft Permit Received October 5, 2005
Dear Ms. Nowell:
NOV - 2 7.` 05
The City of Lincolnton reviewed the comments on the Draft Permit and offers the
following comments for your review and consideration:
1. Supplement to Permit Cover Sheet
a. The Permit describes and existing 6 MGD wastewater treatment facility
consisting of sixteen (16) different process units. Five (5) of the units
described need to be modified
i. Delete reference to three (3) screw pumps.
ii. Delete reference to flow splitter box
iii. Reduce six anaerobic sludge digesters to three anaerobic sludge
digesters.
iv. Delete reference to solids contact reactor.
v. Delete reference to post aeration tank.
From the Office of the Director

Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
Page 2 of 2
October 27, 2005
2. Effluent Limitation and Monitoring Requirements
a. We hereby request monitoring only on Phenols. The new facility has
responded to the influent phenol loading and a limit of 21 ug/L is not
justified. In addition to the efficient removal rate provided by the new
WWTP, the pretreatment program has reduced the influent Phenols to the
plant.
b.
We hereby request monitoring s fiver once a month, in lieu of twice a
month. The facility has experienced detection in February 2004 and May
2005. The City is investigating, through it's pretreatment program,
possible dischargers and would request once a month monitoring at the
WWTP until the investigation is complete.
c. It is the City of Lincolnton's understanding that Lincoln County and High
Shoals are currently negotiating to eliminate High Shoals' Water
Treatment Plant and raw water intake on the South Fork River. The City
° of Lincolnton requests re-evaluation of their NPDES Permit, if the raw
water intake is eliminated.
Please review the comments and contact us for further discussion. Thank you for your
assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Stever?eeler, Dictor
Public Works & Utilities
Cc: Jeff Emory, City Manager
James Rhyne, Superintendent WWTP
Don Garbrick, P.E., Pease
ncdenr.wwtp.2005.permits. draft-respoinse.10-27-05

Draft Permit reviews (2)
Subject: Draft Permit reviews (2)
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:04:23 -0400
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
Hi Jackie,
I have reviewed NC0025496 - Lincolnton WWTP (No Comments) and
NC0026573 - Catawba River Pollution Control Facility. The supplement to the cover
sheet lists the plant @ 10.5 MGD. That should be 8.0 MGD as per A.(1.)
Thanks for forwarding them to our unit.
-John
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web Page: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us
1 of 1 10/13/2005 2:26 PM

oresvilicATA SEP 3 0 as
ii
Oftfce
NCDENR -
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resourcesapt"'
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
September 28, 2005
Britt Setzer
NC DENR / DEH / Regional Engineer
Mooresville Regional Office
Jackie Nowell iq\
NPDES Unit
Subject: Review of Draft NPDES Permit NC0025496
City of Lincolnton WTP
Lincoln County
OCT 4 2005
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the draft permit and return this
form by November 4, 2005. If you have any questions on the draft permit, please contact
me at the telephone number or e-mail address listed at the bottom of this page.
RESPONSE: (Check one)
Concur with the issuance of this permit provided the facility is operated and maintained
properly, the stated effluent limits are met prior to discharge, and the discharge does not
contravene the designated water quality standards.
Concurs with issuance of the above permit, provided the following conditions are met:
Opposes the issuance of the above permit, based on reasons stated below, or attached:
Signed �'/- 7 Date: 9 3D���
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 733-5083, extension 512 (fax) 919 733-0719
VISIT US ON THE INTERNET @ http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES Jackie.nowell@ ncmail.net
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

LINCOLN TIMES -NEWS
P.O. Box 40
Lincolnton, North Carolina 28093-0040
Telephone [phone]
I, Beverly S. Baker, A/R of the Lincoln Times -News, do hereby acknowledge that
the attached advertisement was published in the Lincoln Times -News on the
following dates: October 3, 2005.
This is the 18th day of October. 2005.
W TNESS.xh4e,
NOTARY
COPY
My Commission Expires: 5�17/ Z667
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and
application of NC General Statute 143.21, Public
law 92-500 and other lawful standards and
regulations, the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below effective 45 days from the
publish date of this notice.
NPDES Permit Number NC0025496, The
City of Lincolnton WWTP, Lincoln County,
has applied for renewal of its permit
discharging treated wastewater to the South
Fork Catawba River in the Catawba River
Basin. Currently BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform,
cyanide, phenols, and other parameters are
water quality limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this portion of the
receiving stream.
Duke Power (P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC
28201-1006) has applied for renewal of
NPDES permit NC0004979 for the Allen
Steam Station in Gaston County. This
permitted facility discharges treated
wastewater to the Catawba and South Fork
Catawba Rivers in the Catawba River Basin.
Currently arsenic and selenium are water
quality limited. This discharge may affect
future allocations in this portion of the
Catawba River Basin.
Written comments regarding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days after the publish date
of this notice. All comments received prior to that

This is the 18th day of October. 2005.
COPY
My Commission Expires: S/`f(zy
"h)\„, ‘A\\V
A/R
1
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION/NPDES UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1617
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO ISSUE A
NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT
On the basis of thorough staff review and
application of NC General Statute 143.21, Public
law 92-500 and other lawful standards and
regulations, the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater discharge permit to the
person(s) listed below effective 45 days from the
publish date of this notice.
NPDES Permit Number NC0025496, The
City of Lincolnton WWTP, Lincoln County,
has applied for renewal of its permit
discharging treated wastewater to the South
Fork Catawba River in the Catawba River
Basin. Currently BOD5, TSS, fecal conform,
cyanide, phenols, and other parameters arc
water quality limited. This discharge may
affect future allocations in this portion of the
receiving stream.
Duke Power (P.O. Box 1006, Charlotte, NC
28201-1006) has applied for renewal of
NPDES permit NC0004979 for the Allen
Steam Station in Gaston County. This
permitted facility discharges treated
wastewater to the Catawba and South Fork
Catawba Rivers in the Catawba River Basin.
Currently arsenic and selenium are water
quality limited, This discharge may affect
future allocations in this portion of the
Catawba River Basin.
Written commcnts regarding the proposed permit
will be accepted until 30 days after the publish date
of this notice. All comments received prior to that
date arc considered in the final determinations
regarding the proposed permit. The Director of the
NC Division of Water Quality may decide to hold a
public meeting for the proposed permit should the
Division receive a significant degree of public
interest.
Copies of the draft permit and other supporting
information on file used to determine conditions
present in the draft permit are available upon
request and payment of the costs of reproduction.
Mail comments and/or requests for information to
the NC Division of Water Quality at the above
address or call the Point Source Branch at (919)
733-5083, extension 520. Please include the
NPDES permit number (attached) in any
communication. Interested persons may also visit
the Division of Water Quality at 512 N. Salisbury
Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1148 between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to review information on
file.
1 T: Oct. 3, 2005

TOXICANT ANALYSIS
Facility Name
Lincolnton WWTP
Parameter= Antimony
' I
Pa
NPDES #
nc0025496
Standard =
5.6
pg/I
S
Qw (MGD)
6
1
7Q10 (cfs)
77
n DL=1/2DActual Data
RESULTS
ANC (%)
10.78
11 61 61 J
I Std Dev.
16.703
'c'ving Stream
South Fork Catawba
2
82
82
i Mean
64
Stream Class
WS-IV
3
491 49 ! C.V. 1 0.261
4
i lr
FINAL RESULTS
5
j 1'
Cd
6
11 Mult Facto 1.85
Max. Pred Cw
10.08
ug/1
7
Max. Value' 82
pg/I
Allowable Cw
18.6
ug/I
8
-
Max. Pred i 151.7
pg/I
Max. Value!
5.6
9
}
Allowable C 51.97
pg/l
Cn
10
11
1
Max. Pred Cw;
418
ug/I
11
I 1
Allowable Cw!
46.4
ug/I
12
Max. Value!
220
13
i
Phenols
14
I j
Max. Pred Cw,
92.8
ug/I
15
Allowable Cw
9.3
ug/I
16
1
Max. Value!
58
17
Copper
18
,1
Max. Pred Cw
410
ug/I
19
Allowable Cw
65.0
ug/I
20
�!
Max. Value
100
i
21
Zinc
22
Max. Pred Cw
306
ug/I
23
Allowable Cw
464.0
ugh
24
Max. Value
_
170
�S �,0�
�', '
25
a
Peded C
�!v'ab eC •.
,rIaue:ne.:.--r"
0
28
29
11
es=3
30
11/4/2005
'PAGE 1

Antimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page 1 of 3
Antimony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Antimony should not be confused with antinomy, a type of paradox.
Antimony is a chemical element in the periodic table that
has the symbol Sb (L. Stibium) and atomic number 51. A
metalloid, antimony has four allotropic forms. The stable
form of antimony is a blue -white metal. Yellow and black
antimony are unstable non-metals. Antimony is used in
flame -proofing, paints, ceramics, enamels, a wide variety of
alloys, electronics, and rubber.
Contents
• 1 Notable characteristics
• 2 Applications
• 3 History
• 4 Sources
• 5 Precautions
• 6 Compounds
• 7 References
• 8 External links
Notable characteristics
Antimony in its elemental form is a silvery white, brittle,
fusible, crystalline solid that exhibits poor electrical and
heat conductivity properties and vaporizes at low
temperatures. A metalloid, antimony resembles metal in its
appearance and physical properties, but does not chemically
react as a metal. It is also attacked by oxidizing acids and
halogens. Antimony and some of its alloys expand on
cooling.
Estimates of the abundance of antimony in the Earth's crust
range from 0.2 to 0.5 ppm. Antimony is chalcophile,
occurring with sulfur and the heavy metals lead, copper, and
silver.
Applications
Antimony is increasingly being used in the semiconductor
industry in the production of diodes, infrared detectors, and
Hall -effect devices. As an alloy, this semi -metal greatly
increases lead's hardness and mechanical strength. The most
51 tin — antimony —> tellurium
AS `R1s90•
.13*
Sb i 0
1
Bi periodic table
General
Name, Symbol, Number
antimony, Sb, 51
Chemical series
metalloids
Group, Period, Block
15, 5, p
Appearance
silvery lustrous grey
Atomic mass
121.760(1) g/mol
Electron configuration
[Kr] 4d10 5s2 5p3
Electrons per shell
2, 8, 18, 18, 5
Physical properties
Phase
solid
Density (near r.t.)
6.697 g/cm3
Liquid density at m.p.
6.53 g/cm3
Melting point
903.78 K (630.63 °C, 1167.13 °F)
Boiling point
1860 K
(1587 °C, 2889 °F)
Heat of fusion
19.79 kJ/mol
Heat of vaporization
193.43 kJ/mol
Heat capacity
(25 °C) 25.23 J/(mol•K)
Vapor pressure
P/Pa
1
10
100
1 k
lO k
100 k
at T/K
807
876
1011
1219
1491
1858
Atomic properties
Crystal structure
rhombohedral
Oxidation states
—3, 3, 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony
11/4/2005

Antimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
,
Page 2 of 3
important use of antimony metal is as a hardener in lead for
storage batteries. Other uses;
• Batteries,
• antifriction alloys,
• type metal,
• small arms and tracer bullets,
• cable sheathing,
• matches,
• medicines,
• plumbing ("lead-free" solder contains 5% Sb),
• main and big -end bearings in internal combustion
engines (as alloy).
Antimony compounds in the form of oxides, sulfides,
sodium antimonate, and antimony trichloride are used in the
making of flame -proofing compounds, ceramic enamels,
glass, paints, and pottery. Antimony trioxide is the most
important of the antimony compounds and is primarily used
in flame-retardant formulations. These flame-retardant
applications include such markets as children's clothing,
toys, aircraft and automobile seat covers. Also, antimony
sulfide is one of the ingredients of a modern match.
History
Antimony was recognized in antiquity (3000 BC or earlier)
in various compounds, and it was prized for its fine casting
qualities. It was first reported scientifically by Tholden in
1450, and was known to be a metal by the beginning of the
17th century. The origin of the name "antimony" is not
clear; the term may come from the Greek words "anti" and
"monos", which approximately means "opposed to solitude"
as it was thought never to exist in its pure form, or from the
Arabian expression "Antos Ammon", which could be translated as "bloom of the god Ammon".
Electronegativity
2.05 (Pauling scale)
Ionization energies
(more)
1st: 834 kJ/mol
2nd: 1594.9 kJ/mol
3rd: 2440 kJ/mol
Atomic radius
145 pm
Atomic radius (calc.)
133 pm
Covalent radius
138 pm
Miscellaneous
Magnetic ordering
no data
Electrical resistivity
(20 °C) 417 'Alm
Thermal conductivity
(300 K) 24.4 W/(m•K)
Thermal expansion
(25 °C) 11.0 µm/(m•K)
Speed of sound (thin rod)
(20 °C) 3420 m/s
Young's modulus
55 GPa
Shear modulus
20 GPa
Bulk modulus
42 GPa
Mohs hardness
3.0
Brinell hardness
294 MPa
CAS registry number
7440-36-0
Notable isotopes
Main article: Isotopes of antimony
iso
NA
T half-life
I DM
I DE (MeV)
I DP
121 Sb
57.36%
Sb is stable with 70 neutrons
123Sb
42.64%
Sb is stable with 72 neutrons
125Sb
syn
2.7582 y
Beta
I0.767
I I25Te
References
Alchemical
symbol for
antimony
The alchemical symbol for the element is shown.
The natural sulfide of antimony, stibnite, was known and used in Biblical times as medicine
and as a cosmetic. Stibnite is still used in some developing countries as medicine.
Antimony has been used for the treatment of schistosomiasis. Antimony attaches itself to
sulfur atoms in certain enzymes which are used both by the parasite and human host. Small
doses can kill the parasite without causing damage to the patient.
The relationship between antimony's modern name and its symbol is complex; the Coptic
name for the cosmetic powder antimony sulfide was borrowed by the Greeks, which was in
turn borrowed by Latin, resulting in stibium. The chemical pioneer Jons Jakob Berzelius
used an abbreviation of this name for antimony in his writings, and his usage became the
standard symbol.
Antimony is also the first element in Tom Lehrer's "The Elements".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony 11/4/2005

Antimony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 3
Sources
Even though this element is not abundant, it is found in over 100 mineral species. Antimony is sometimes found
native, but more frequently it is found in the sulfide stibnite (Sb2S3) which is the predominant ore mineral.
Commercial forms of antimony are generally ingots, broken pieces, granules, and cast cake. Other forms are
powder, shot, and single crystals.
Precautions
Antimony and many of its compounds are toxic. Clinically, antimony poisoning is very similar to arsenic
poisoning. In small doses, antimony causes headache, dizziness, and depression. Such small doses have in the past
been reported in some acidic fruit drinks. The acidic nature of the drink is sufficient to dissolve small amounts of
antimony oxide contained in the packaging of the drink. Modern manufacturing methods prevent this occurrence.
Larger doses cause violent and frequent vomiting, and will lead to death in few days. Very large doses will cause
violent vomiting, causing the poison to be expelled from the body before any harm is done.
Compounds
Antimony pentafluoride Sb5, Antimony trioxide Sb2O3, Stibine (Antimony Trihydride SbH3), Indium antimonide
(InSb)
References
• Los Alamos National Laboratory — Antimony (http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/51.html)
• Public Health Statement for Antimony (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs23.html)
External links
• WebElements.com — Antimony (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Sb/index.html)
• Elementymology & Elements Multidict: Antimony (http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/elem/sb.html)
(by Peter van der Krogt)
• World Mine Production of Antimony, by Country
(http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/antimony/antimony_tab1e09.html)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony"
Categories: Metalloids I Pnictogens
• This page was last modified 16:39, 3 November 2005.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).
Privacy policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony 11/4/2005

CITY OF LINCOLNTON
L
OCT 5 2005
L'rN - W,!TE,' LOI1.;LIF
f�
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
P.O. BOX 617 • 128 MOTZ AVENUE • TELEPHONE [phone] • FACSIMILE 736-8959
LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28093-0617
September 30, 2005
Ms. Jacquelyn M. Nowell
North Carolina DENR
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1633
Reference: Best Management Practices Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
City of Lincolnton, North Carolina
NPDES Permit No. NC0025496
Subject: Update on Progress
Ms. Nowell:
In October 2004, the City of Lincolnton submitted a Best Management Practices Plan and
Color Reduction Study prepared by Pease Associates. The Best Management Practices
Plan recommended initiating several measures that would enhance the discharge from the
WWTP. Coupled with other significant improvements to the SIU discharger, those
measures provided substantial improvements to the quality of the water in the South Fork
River. The following is a review of practices initiated by the City:
1. As a part of the City's Industrial Pretreatment Program, surveys were sent
requesting information on Dyeing chemical used by the various textile SIUs.
An active role has been taken in analyzing the chemical data received from
industry, and this information allows the City's Staff to review and
predetermine the possible effects of dye chemicals used by each SIU. The
results from our communication with the industry have optimized the products
From the Office of the Director

page 2 of 3
used vs. effects on the WWTP. The overall reduction in color is partially
linked to this practice.
2. The City will have discussions with the textile SIUs to make them aware of
the new NPDES permit requirements for color at the WWTP and how it
effects the monitoring, reporting, etc. requirements of the City and the
WWTP's Staff
Over the past year, the City's Staff has had discussions with all major
contributors to the Lincolnton WWTP. As a result, one major discharger has
improved the equipment within their facility and they discharge less waste per
ton of fabric produced. The equipment upgrade has improved the quality of
the waste received at the WWTP and it has had a tremendous affect on the
ability of the City to treat. In addition, another larger textile discharger has
closed down and their approximately 0.40 MGD to 0.50 MGD of waste is no
longer entering the system.
3. The City will increase the awareness of the textile SIUs, other SIUs, and the
general public regarding the increased emphasis of color in the Catawba River
basin.
As a founding member of the South Fork River Water Quality Alliance, the
City of Lincolnton has always taken an active role in preserving the water
quality in the South Fork River. The City effectively gathered quality data,
not only in Lincolnton's wastewater, but also on the entire river from Hickory
to Cramerton. This information was made available to the public and textile
dischargers
4. If the City remains under the Tier 3 color classification for the next permit
cycle, the City will work with the North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention & Environmental Assistance to fully evaluate additional BMPs
that will be useful in reducing color discharges, while being mindful not to
further jeopardize the financial stability of the regional textile industry.
Since our regional report, the City has seen a tremendous reduction in removal
of color at the discharge point. This is as a result of a combination of several
changes and modifications that have been implemented. Reviewing the
information gathered during our testing allowed the City to establish baseline
data that provided a measurable means to determine the effects of change on
the system. In our opinion, three (3) major changes have caused significant
reduction in color from the City's WWTP. They are:

page 3 of 3
• The elimination of one major textile discharger into the system reduced the dye
flow that the WWTP would see by 0.40 MGD to 0.50 MGD.
• The improvements implemented by Mohican Mills, which included purchase
of high efficiency equipment and changes made to the chemicals used at their
facility. In addition, South Fork Industries improved their finished dye
operation by 34 per cent.
• The City upgraded the WWTP. The process of treating waste by the City was
improved by constructing a state of the art facility, which enhanced the
efficiency of removing constituents within the wastewater.
Through the efforts of the State DWQ, the City of Lincolnton, and the textile industry the
quality of water in the South Fork River has improved over the past year. We appreciate
the State working with the City to establish the Best Management Practices Program,
allowing the City and industry to work together to reduce the color discharges. The
results have been astounding and we request changing the City's Wastewater Treatment
Plant's color classification to a Tier 1.
We trust this update satisfies your needs; and if there are any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Ste - Peeler, Director
Public Works & Utilities
Cc: Jeff Emory, City Manager
James Rhyne, Superintendent WWTP
Donald Burkey, Pretreatment Technician
Don Garbrick, P.E., - Pease Associates
ncdcnr.2005.permit-rcnc\v al.nowcll.rcply-to-bmp-request.09-30-05

To: NPDES Unit
Water Quality Section
Attention: Jackie Nowell
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: No
Date: January 19, 2005
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
County: Lincoln
MRO No. 04-76
Permit No. NC0025496
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and address: City of Lincolnton WWTP
City of Lincolnton
Post Office Box 617
Lincolnton, N.C. 28092
JAN 2 5 2005
UF.• - LLu,;LITY
POINT s ,tCE fs „VCN
2. Date of investigation: January 14, 2005
3. Report prepared by: Michael Parker, Environmental Engineer II
4. Persons contacted and telephone number: Mr. Jamie Rhyne, ORC, telephone number (704)
736-8692
5. Directions to site: From the intersection of old Highway 321 and Hwy 150 just south of the
City of Lincolnton, travel west on Highway 150 approximately 1.0 mile. The entrance road
to the wastewater treatment plant is on the right (north) side of the highway.
6. Discharge point:
Latitude: 35° 26' 34" Longitude: 81° 15' 39"
Attach a U.S.G.S. map extract and indicate treatment facility site and discharge point on
map.
U.S.G.S. Quad No.: F 13 NE USGS Name: Lincolnton west, N.C.
7. Site size and expansion are consistent with application? Yes. There is additional area
available for expansion, if necessary, however, some of this additional area may be in or
near the adjacent flood plain.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Sloping west toward receiving stream at
the rate of 3 to 8%. The primary treatment components appear to be protected from
flooding.

Page Two
9. Location of nearest dwelling: None within 500 feet of the treatment facility.
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: South Fork Catawba River.
a. Classification: WS-IV
b. River basin and subbasin no.: Catawba 030835
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: The receiving is
a segment of South Fork Catawba River with excellent flow. The Town of High
Shoals' water intake is located approximately three (3) miles downstream.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of wastewater to be permitted: 6.0 MGD (Ultimate Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility? 6.0
MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility (current design capacity)? 6.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous Authorizations to Construct
issued in the previous two years: There have been no ATCs in the past two years.
e. Please provide a description of existing or substantially constructed wastewater
treatment facilities: The existing WWT facilities consist of an influent filter/screen
and washer, followed by a Vortex grit removal system, an Orbital oxidation ditch,
three screw pumps, twelve diffused aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, a
dissolved air flotation sludge thickener, six anaerobic sludge digesters, a three
channel chlorine disinfection basin (gas), and sodium bi-sulfite dechlorination. The
existing sludge drying beds are no longer being used.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater treatment facilities: There are
no proposed WWT facilities at this time.
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: The subject facility passed all toxics
sampling tests for the past 2 years with the exception of one event in September
2004.
g•
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Approved
Page 2

2. Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DWQ Permit No.: WQ0002712
Residuals Contractor: Wheelabrator Technologies. Telephone No.: [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP
3. Treatment plant classification: Class IV (no change from previous rating).
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater code(s): 01, 55,16 MTU Code: 01003
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant Funds or are any public monies
involved (municipals only)? Public monies were used in the construction of this facility.
2. Special monitoring or limitations requests:
• In a letter dated October 1, 2004 to Ms. Jackie Nowell in the Division's Central Office, the
City requested a reduction in the effluent monitoring frequency and limitation for mercury
from weekly with a limit of 0.1,ug/1 to monthly monitoring with no effluent limit. The City
supported their request with effluent data collected since September 2003, which indicated
no mercury violations during this period. A review of this data revealed that the highest
level of mercury detected was 56 ng/1, which is well below the 0.1 µg/1 permit limit. This
Office recommends that the City's mercury monitoring frequency reduction request be
given favorable consideration.
• In a second letter dated November 3, 2004 to Ms. Jackie Nowell, the City requested that the
subject WWT facility be reclassified from a Tier III color discharger to a lower Tiered
facility. The City supported this request with the data collected during a color study of the
plant and the receiving stream, which at that time indicated that the effluent being produced
met Tier II criteria. However, a subsequent visit by DWQ staff on August 28, 2001 found a
much higher degree of color being discharged, which resulted in Tier III color monitoring
requirements being placed in the permit. The City contends that on the day of this DWQ
staff visit, the WWTP was experiencing operational problems caused by on -going
construction work at the WWTP. Subsequent visits to the WWTP by Division staff have
found effluent color levels to be much improved, with levels consistently meeting Tier I
criteria. Data collected since May 2004, have even noted effluent color levels that were
below upstream color levels. On the day of the site visit by the writer, effluent color was
barely discernable, and was having no noticeable effect on the receiving stream. Therefore,
this Office recommends that the NPDES Unit consider reducing the color monitoring
requirements from a Tier III to a Tier I facility.
Page 3

3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: This facility is neither under and
SOC/JOC nor is one being considered at this time. It is anticipated, however, that the
renewed permit will contain an effluent limitation for TRC. If a TRC limit is applied upon
renewal, a compliance schedule will need to be included in the permit to allow for
construction of an effluent sampling station for residual chlorine. The City added
dechlorination facilities during their recent plant upgrade, however, the dechlorination is
added at the effluent of the chlorine contact chamber. This location does not allow for
collection of effluent samples that have had sufficient contact time with the sodium bi-
sulfite to effect adequate chlorine reduction. TRC samples could be collected at the outfall
pipe; however, during high flow after rainfall events the outfall pipe is typically submerged
making sample collection impossible. The City intends to construct an effluent sampling
station between the contact chamber and the end of the outfall pipe if a TRC limit is added
at permit renewal.
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: There is no known alternative to the current discharge
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Lincolnton is applying for renewal of the subject NPDES permit for the
continued operation of a WWTP and the discharge of treated wastewater into the South Fork
Catawba River. Significant changes to the WWTP components have occurred since the permit was
last renewed. These changes are detailed in Part II, No. 1(e) above. The City has also requested
other changes to the permit that are detailed in Part III, No. 2 above.
The wastewater treatment facilities were in excellent operational condition at the time of site
visit.
Pending receipt and approval of the draft NPDES permit, it is recommended that the permit
be renewed as requested.
ZZA;11/-'
Signature of RepoltPreparer
Water Quality Re,,gional Supervisor
Page 4
/-/
Date
ass
Date

44fed.14, aivt,
to Vol
/v , .3 3s; 3 ,ti,
Az-oS. ;6,6 l7.Sr
Kiva agave -0044 -'
J - *Kim ify 142w £04,--
_l°S' 6C, fib. 3 /_8, z--
3/ r
2/or
tr/d
1_g/r
o �Y
G9,
24.
py �
0,zo n.y
pc, 90
/08,o
/oy y9,
��b r_aioY fG,
OY 93./
etil
3lar Pic
�dy /39
woy Ng/
3/,Zs
A, 0
13,g 2d.7
7C,o A 6

ct„,j,
44; Aerekri
jAn; O./Z v I�oY 0.4 gi
7
O, Afvp e i/oi
o, are 76i 11/s/a/
,[,,a�� o.oSo 3/y
f'
0,07/cIS
D-id ept Ald
D. ore) Vo / Aid)
446 d 0.0re 3/0y
40,/o0 11/0‘
0,/0a
8�a/
0. a yd.
1/46.s. BNG a•/Z 07
e, Zs'
os-0 00/
Pr- f, Zs 3/y
aro 0'i'
0,I
(PA
Pfdl"*/ o, o.2f 34 f
ofaco _ o/
o, /c> $/d/
.15vf/
A/d
O, 16 vove
coc l'/E
ND
AID
�rio� fiifi:r Q. 8S sfop
A'S& a{►S3 ?Ay
0. /o i/o /
44/ vf/e

..
4,/414., id:*
Ylogu
vet
//gam j/J
g y
.,
z Zs VI __ = °, °Z.rca
AVcIW:i f:fi/a!>) /7/9 ( 5/277°) /74 tir'-
A
�P,4 608 exf 40e
606 -ii/6 0. !/ 511 . Ata-kAJ 0, l6 v /,Q ,i/4r o, tYyt
or 07/ ga
•
ty4
?ilI' a. // v /'•e elb. Atitc O, /s v `e
*
6, g G e /e, • /401,0. ,chic o.1.3 i(t- ex 0.4
C6N .fit 9
16.E �,e Svtdoj,,/
fly
/(, -.s c4s.r o rI1
"aim 0.O0 Z v ,t. 40, 00o/34 011 (.#) 0, 00 o/Z 7
PP
ifesibiA/ O, oo Lu A AL D, 000/ft t/ 1 (L9:ij) 0,000/35
0 0/ 1/L a, of, f a .
Dix a. 00 ! ve. (d7 0,0 a $7/ CCVq% a, Dods -es

NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request
Facility
Lincolnton
Permit #
(vcvc>..SLIc.b
Region
Requestor
Jackie Nowell
Pretreatment A_D Towns- KcyCb Me8e4 (ext. 580)
Contact E-L Towns- Vacant Position
M-R Towns- Dana Folley (ext. 523)
S-Z Towns--Steve-Amigone-(ext 592)
'PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
rtitq has (er-isde>celnping).a Pretreatment Program
2a) is Full Program with LTM —' or 2b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) the facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow Permitted Actual
b h60 l o 0a
STMP time frame:
most recent
rIndustrial ,
Domestic g t y
next cycle
o -
A—
L
T
M
P
Pollutant
Check List
POC due to
NPDES/Non.
Discharge
Permit Limit
Required
by EPA'
Required by
503 Sludge**
POC due to SIU"'
Site specific POC (Provide Explanation►r"
STMP V
Frequency
effluent
at
LTMP
Frequency at
effluent
(QQ1M
BOD
F'
K4
TSS
�C
4M
NH3
X
K.
4
Q
M
Arsenic
X
K
4
Q
M
Cadmium
t Pk:
4
K
x
4
Q
M
.l
Chromium
4
,(
4
Q
M
i
Copper
X
4
X
K
4
Q
M
Cyanide
X
4
Q
M
(Lead
4
X
4
4
QM
Mercury
h
X
-I
4
Q
M
-T-Nickel
Molybdemium
X
4
4
Q
NI
4
K
i
4
Q
M
Silver
4
Q M
Selinium
K
4
Q M
4
Zinc
X
4
X
4
4
Q M
IT
k
4
Q
M
1-Iv
4 \
Q
M
1) Lc..,, t
X
4
Q
M
Cc(or
)\
4
M
4
Q
M
4
Q M
'Always in the LTMP L/
"only in the LTMP if the POTW land applies sludge
"' Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
—"Only in LTMP when the pollutant is a specific concem to the POTW (ie-Chloride to a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
Q= Quarterly
M=Monthly
Comments:
NPDES Pretreatment.request.form.000804
Revised: August 4, 2000

Physical/Chemical Parameters:Lindane (BHC)
Page 1 of 6
0.1 775.h (3,71k
PMFP Home Page NPesticide Fact Sheets and Tutorials DPhysical-Chemical Parameters VPhysicaUChemical Parameters:Lindane (BHC)
Lindane (BHC)
PESTICIDE NAME: Lindane (BHC)
Trade name(s): Isotox Seed Treater F, Gamma BHC
Manufacturer(s): Rhone-Poulence Agrochimie
14-20 rue Pierre Bouizet
Lyon 69009 France
I. Basic information
A. Molecular structure: C6H6C16
B. Chemical name: Gamma isomer of 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro
cyclohexane
C. Derivatives: crude BHC metabolizes to beta, gamma, delta and
alpha isomers; gammma BHC metabolizes to gamma-pentachloro cyclohexene
D. Molecular weight: 290.8 g/mole
E. Solubility in water: 10 mg/1
F. Common physical appearance: colorless crystals
G. Oral LD50(rat): 89-91 mg/kg
H. Pesticide classification: organochlorine insecticide
I. Restricted use list (N.Y.): yes
EPA priority pesticide list: no
J. Crop use: general pesticide on ornamentals
II. Text
Lindane is an immobile, long-lived organochlorine insecticide
widely examined in the scientific literature. The persistence of
lindane in soil is a matter of contention. Adsorption is considered to
be reversible and can vary from 4 to 90% depending upon conditions.
Organic matter is an important factor in adsorption of lindane; an
increase in organic matter increases persistence whereas increasing
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pchemparams/gen-pubre-lindane.html 9/27/2005

'Physical/Chemical Parameters:Lindane (BHC)
Page 2 of 6
solubility of lindane results in an increase in mobility.
The literature contains substantial information concerning
adsorption coefficients, degradation rates and leaching of lindane.
III. Soil information
A. Degradation and transformation
The degradation of lindane results in formation of the isomers
alpha, beta, delta, and gamma BHC. These metabolites must be a
consideration in discussion of the persistence of lindane.
Individually, their persistence is beta>gamma>delta>alpha(13) and their
dissipation in cultivated sandy soil has been reported to be
alpha>gamma>delta>beta(17). The half-lives and recovery rates of these
isomers as well as those of total lindane have been investigated.
Values vary according to conditions: lindane added as crude BHC, at
43mo ca.50% remained as beta(13); half-life of lindane in silty clay =
10mo and sandy loam = 8mo(5); surface recovery of BHC in sandy loam at
6mo = 26.8-32.4% with subsoil recovery = 3.7-4.6% of applied(4). In
uncultivated loam, no decrease in pesticide was found whereas in
flooded sandy loam, there was a rapid decrease of BHC. In sandy loam
cultivated twice, no decrease in alpha, gamma or delta isomers was seen
and little decrease occurred in the beta isomer(17).
Degradation of lindane is influenced by several soil factors. In
loam and sand increased organic matter resulted in an increase of
lindane persistence(6). Loss is also pH dependent in that degradation
under alkali conditions is higher than under normal conditions pointing
to the influence of chemical factors. In sandy loam at pH8.2 and 9.5,
the loss of BHC in 9mo was 28.6-33.4% of applied (pH8.2) and 41.7-45.4%
of applied (pH9.5). Loss during the first 3mo was the highest, i.e.,
12-13% (pH8.2) and 14-20%(pH9.5)(4). It has been shown that lindane
degrades to a non -toxic residue which still responds to colorimetric
analysis for BHC thus overestimation of lindane can result(4). Gamma
BHC metabolizes to gamma-pentachlorocyclohexene with a toxicity 1/1000
that of lindane. In a mixture of muck, loam, sandy loam and clay loam,
lindane was detoxified by an enzymatic process. Dechlorination occurs
in moist acidic to neutral soils(20).
The following tables present data concerning degradation of
lindane in soils. The reference is given in parentheses at the end of
each title.
Concentration (ppm) of lindane in 3 Hawaiian soil materials 7yrs after
application of the recommended dose(3)
Coral
Sandy loam Clay
applied found applied found applied found
286 0.44 379 0.66 402 0.90
***********************************************************************
Residues of lindane isomers in sandy loam soil with pesticide
applications from 1950-1953(16)
Isomer Make-up of Tech.BHC %iso. as total %applied remain
(1968) (1968)
alpha 70 36 4
beta 6 36 44
gamma 12 16 10
delta 6 12 14
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pchemparams/gen-pubre-lindane.html 9/27/2005

vsical/Chemical Parameters:Lindane (BHC) Page 3 of 6
**********************************************************************
Residues of lindane (% of applied) in silt loam soil at 2 application
rates(11)
Time(yrs) Applic.Rate(lb/A-6in) Residue lindane (%)
1
11
15
10
100
10
100
10
100
B. Adsorption and transport
43
55
0.50
5.28
0.20
0.17
Lindane is readily adsorbed onto all types of soils. The rates of
adsorption are related to soil adsorption capacity; soil bound residues
are lower in sandy than loam soil(6). A study on adsorption of lindane
on four soils found that equilibrium on mineral soils was reached in
<2hrs whereas in muck the time was >l0hrs. Adsorption percentages in
this study were reported to be 97.74%(loamy sand), 98.07%(loam), 98.27%
(sandy loam), and 99.89%(muck) of the total lindane applied. This
equilibrium will be maintained until saturation is approached and the
isotherm becomes non-linear(10). In sixteen Minnesota soils the
lindane sorbed varied from 4-90%. The variability was not found to be
mainly due to soil texture but to the organic carbon present(1,7).
This was subtantiated in a study on flooded soils which reported that
sorption of lindane occurs almost entirely on organic matter(19).
These authors reported that flooded soils adsorb less lindane than
non -flooded especially under anaerobic, low organic matter conditions.
Desorption is not affected by anaerobiosis as Fe3+ reduces to Fe2+
thereby decreasing inorganic surface area and resulting in interference
with lindane adsorption(19).
The degree of desorption and leaching of lindane from soils is a
subject of disagreement in the literature. A study on fine sandy loam
and silty clay reported an application of 10cm water/mo to half the
field plots whereas the other half were only irrigated when the
pesticide was applied. Diffusion to untreated lower zones and to the
surface where volatilization could occur was reported. Movement was
greater in sandy loam soil than in the silty clay. In the second year
of this study, lindane increased at the surface of both treatments.
Lateral movement amounted to <15cm in 2yrs(5). Another study found
lindane to be desorbed from a variety of soils in 2-4 washings(1).
If the solubility of lindane is increased, the mobility is
increased(6). Volatilization increases with an increase in the vapor
density of lindane; however,
vapor density until the soil
Lindane adsorption decreases
increases(15).
The tables below
soils. The reference
soil water content has no effect on the
is dried to a monolayer of water(15).
(or desorption increases) as temperature
present data concerning lindane adsorption in
is given in parentheses at the end of each title.
Adsorption of lindane (percent of total) in organic and sandy loam
soils(14)
soil time
% adsorbed
organic
/min
30min
2hr
55
70
78
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pchemparams/gen-pubre-lindane.html
9/27/2005

`Environmental Protection Agency Page 1 of 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pesticides: Reregistration
Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search: I
EPA Home > Pesticides > Regulating Pesticides > Reregistration >
Candidates for Lindane RED Facts
Decisions
Chemical Status
Tolerance
Reassessment
NRDC Consent Pesticide Reregistration
Decree
GO
EPA-738-F-02-011
September 2002
Other Information All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by EPA,
Resources based on scientific studies showing that they can be used without posing
unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of advances in scientific
knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which were first registered before
November 1,1984, be reregistered to ensure that they meet today's more stringent
standards.
In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a complete set
of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human health and
environmental effects of each pesticide. To implement provisions of the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996, EPA considers the special sensitivity of infants and
children to pesticides, as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide
residues from all sources, and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other
compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity. The Agency assesses the risk
associated with the use of the pesticide, and develops mitigation measures or
regulatory controls to effectively reduce each pesticide's risks. EPA then reregisters
pesticides that meet the safety standard of the FQPA and can be used without
posing unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.
When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis for its
decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document. This fact sheet
summarizes the information in the RED document for the reregistration of lindane.
Use Profile
Lindane is an organochlorine insecticide used as a pre -plant seed treatment for
barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat. The pesticide is formulated into dust,
emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, and liquid ready -to -use products.
Lindane is applied to seeds using the following equipment: liquid seed treater,
planter/seed box, air seed treater, canister tube applicator, and slurry -type seed
treater. Approximately 233,000 Ibs of active ingredient of lindane are used annually
for seed treatment.
Lindane is also currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for use in pharmaceutical products intended to control head Tice and scabies
(mites) in humans.
Regulatory History
Lindane was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in the 1940's for use on a
wide variety of food crops, ornamentals, livestock, homeowner, and other sites. In
1977, EPA initiated for lindane a Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
http://www.epa.gov/REDs/factsheets/lindane_fs.htm 9/27/2005

'Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 5
(RPAR) review, now called a Special Review. The lindane RPAR was triggered
based on questions of oncogenicity, fetotoxicity/ teratogenicity, reproductive effects,
its potential to cause blood dyscrasias, and acute toxicity to wildlife. EPA published
Position Documents (PDs) in 1977 through 1983, resulting in the cancellation of
certain uses of lindane.
EPA issued a Registration Standard for lindane in September 1985, which included
a Data Call -In (DCI) requiring submission of additional data to support the lindane
registration and address exposure concerns from treated structures and animals.
After issuance of the 1985 Registration Standard, many of the registered uses of
lindane were cancelled, resulting in only seed treatment use on six crops (barley,
corn, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat) that still remain registered and subject to
reregistration.
Human Health Assessment
Toxicity
Lindane primarily affects the nervous system. In acute, subchronic, and
developmental neurotoxicity studies and chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies,
lindane was found to cause neurotoxic effects. Lindane also appears to cause
kidney (renal) and liver(hepatic) toxicity. In addition, there is some evidence that
lindane may act as an endocrine disruptor; however, further investigation is
necessary to ascertain the relevance and impact of such findings on public health.
In 2001, EPA classified lindane as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity,
but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential" based on an increased
incidence of benign lung tumors in female mice only. Therefore, pursuant to
Agency cancer guidelines, cancer risks were not quantified.
Dietary Exposure
EPA assessed dietary risk by estimating exposure to lindane residues from
consumption of food and drinking water that can occur over a single -day (acute) or
longer (chronic). The acute and chronic dietary (food) risks are less than 100% of
the acute Population Adjusted Dose for the general U.S. population and all
population subgroups. Infants (<1 year) and children (1-6 years) were the most
highly exposed population subgroup for acute and chronic exposure, respectively.
Because lindane persists in the environment and has long-range atmospheric
transport potential, the Agency performed a supplementary chronic dietary risk
assessment for the subsistence diets of indigenous peoples of the Arctic region of
the U.S. (Alaska) rely heavily on game for their food source. For indigenous people
of Alaska, the chronic dietary risks are generally not of concern, and although the
Agency does not have information on a typical day's diet to assess acute dietary
risk, limited residue data indicates that acute dietary risks are unlikely to be of
concern.
Drinking water exposure to lindane can occur through ground and surface water
contamination. EPA used models to conduct a screening -level assessment of
potential high -end estimates of lindane concentrations in surface and ground water
sources of drinking water from seed treatment uses.
Pharmaceutical Use Risk
Lindane has been approved by the FDA as a prescription drug to treat lice and
scabies. EPA has conducted an assessment of these uses to determine the risk of
a lice or scabies treatment. Based on the Agency's current understanding of
available data, the Agency does not believe that lindane pharmaceutical products
http://www.epa.gov/REDS/factsheets/lindane_fs.htm 9/27/2005

CITY OF LINCOLNTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
March 29, 2005
Jackie Nowell
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Cyanide Limit Change n/c.00 23-
Dear Jackie Nowell,
APR 6 2005
DENR - WAIL? QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The City of Lincolnton would like to formally request a NPDES Permit limit increase of Cyanide. The City
of Lincolnton currently has a daily maximum Cyanide limit of 22 ug/l. The City would like to request that
the daily maximum Cyanide limit be increased to at least 60 ug/1 and have a weekly Cyanide limit as well.
We feel that a weekly limit would give the City a chance to sample for Cyanide several days in order to
achieve the weekly Cyanide limit, instead of just one sample per week for compliance with the current
daily maximum limit. The City had both a weekly and daily Cyanide limits in our previous NPDES Permit.
The City of Lincolnton feels that we do not have a problem with Cyanide, but has experienced occasional
spikes in the effluent Cyanide level. The City has ran numerous Cyanide samples on our influent and have
not detected any high incoming levels. We have also ran Cyanide samples at several points in out treatment
process to try to determine if high levels were present. These sample points were at the Influent, Pre -
Chlorination which was effluent coming over the weir of the final clarifier, Front Basin which is the
beginning of the chlorine contact chamber, mid -basin which is the mid -point in the chlorine contact basin,
Pre -effluent which is 2 feet from the weir of the chlorine contact chamber, and the effluent itself. The
sampling data is summarized on the enclosed chart.
The City of Lincolnton Pretreatment Program also samples all permitted industries for Cyanide as well
according to each industry's sampling frequency outlined in their permit. The Pretreatment Program has not
detected any high levels of cyanide coming from any of the industries.
As the enclosed chart will show, the City has not detected any high level of Cyanide in the influent or
before the chlorination process, but still have had occasional spikes in our effluent. We feel that by having
our daily maximum limit increased and having a weekly average, this will help reduce our Cyanide
violations.
We appreciate your consideration of this matter. If you should have any questions or need any further
information regarding this matter, please contact me at 704-736-8960.
Sincerely,
James S. Rhyne
City of Lincolnton WWTP
Enclosure: (1)
608 WEST HWY. 150 BY-PASS • P.O. Box 617 • LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28093-0617
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

Cyanide Study
Lincolnton WWTP
July - August 2003
Date
Total Cyanide (ug/L)
Influent
Pre-Chlor
Front -Basin
Mid -Basin
Pre -Effluent
Eflfuent3
7/2/03
ND
7/8/03
69
7/9/03
110
7/16/03
ND
ND
26
22
7/21/03
ND
ND
11
7/21/03
12 ) 73..
S
7/21/03
10
7/22/03
ND
ND
61
7/23/03
ND
ND
8
7/29/03
ND
ND
ND
7/30/03
ND
5.8
ND
ND
8/11/03
ND
ND
ND
20
21
8/12/03
ND
ND
ND
7.9 >
J/.%
8/13/03
ND
ND
7.2
7.0
8/13/03
ND
8/18/03
ND
ND
9.8
8/19/03
2.2
ND
ND
8/19/03
ND
8/20/03
ND
ND
3.6
8/20/03
5
8/25/03
6
8/26/03
ND
8/27/03
6
NOTES:
1 Cyanide Limits:
SOC: 110.0 ug/L Weekly average
NPDES: Weekly grab
2 Blue Text: Split samples with Blue Ridge Labs; all other data from Pace Analytical.
3 Effluent data is NPDES monthly reporting (DMRs).
Cyanide Study.xls

NPDES 'Permit Modification Request
Subject: NPDES Permit Modification Request
From: "James Rhyne" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:54:18 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
Dear Ms. Nowell,
The City of LincolntonWWTP, NPDES Permit number NC0025496, would like to
request a permit modification before our draft permit is issued. We would like to
request a weekly average limit and an increase in our daily maximum limit for
Cyanide. We would like to request a limit of at least 22 ug/I for a weekly average and
a daily average limit of at least 44 ug/I for a daily average. This would give the City
some relief on the current permit limit.
We will be sending a formal letter on Monday, March 28, 2005 requesting this permit
modification and will explain further our request. Thank you in advance for this
consideration.
James S. Rhyne
ORC
City of Lincolnton WWTP
1 of 1 3/23/2005 3:32 PM

CITY OF LINCOLNTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
November 3, 2004
4.4
Jackie Nowell
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Addendum to NPDS Permit number NC0025496
Dear Jackie Nowell,
NOV 1 2 2004
DEER - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
The City of Lincolnton Wastewater Treatment Plant would like to formally request being reclassified from our
current classification of a Tier III color facility. The City of Lincolnton WWTP feels that we are no longer a Tier III
color facility, but instead, a lower tier color facility.
Following our last NPDES permit renewal, the City of Lincolnton WWTP was classified as a Tier III even though
all of the data collected during our color study was in the Tier II range. On August 28, 2001 during your on -site
inspection of our WWTP, we had a very poor quality, non -typical color discharge. The poor quality, non -typical
discharge was due to a plant upset that was caused by a chain of events during the on -going construction at our
WWTP. The chain of events causing the plant upset was stated in a letter from the City to you dated April 24, 2002.
This one day, on -site inspection resulted in the City of Lincolnton WWTP being classified as a Tier III color facility.
Since the on -site inspection, construction of our upgraded facility has been completed and our color has been
significantly reduced to Tier I levels. Per our telephone conversation and mutual agreement, Mr. John Lesley of the
DEM Mooresville Regional Office performed a visual inspection and plant inspection of color in our effluent on
August 31, 2004. John's observation of the effluent was that there was little to no color present in the effluent.
Several pictures of the effluent were taken on floppy disks at various points during John's inspection and four
months of color data were given to John. John was to forward that data and pictures to you. The data shows that our
color has significantly decreased since May 2004 with most of our effluent samples being lower than our upstream
samples. It is for these reasons, The City of Lincolnton WWTP feels a Tier I color rating would be more appropriate
for our facility.
608 WEST HWY. 150 BY-PASS • P.O. Box 617 • LINCOLNTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28093-0617
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

Therefore, on behalf of the City of Lincolnton, I respectfully ask for your consideration of the changed condition of
the City of Lincolnton WWTP discharge and modify our NPDES Permit number NC0025496 and classify us as a
Tier I color facility. We sincerely appreciate your consideration.
Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at [phone] or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
?mu_ .1, Rlipu2,
James S. Rhyne
Operator in Responsible Charge
City of Lincolnton WWTP
NPDES Permit Number NC0025496

Re: permit modification
Subject: Re: permit modification
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:38:21 -0400
From: Dave Goodrich <[e-mail]>
To: Dawn Jeffries <dawn [e-mail]>
CC: Jackie Nowell <j [e-mail]>
Dawn -
Go ahead and put it in the file. Jackie can handle it with the renewal.
Thanks,
Dave
Dawn Jeffries wrote:
>Dave,
>i just received a modification that you assigned me for the City pf
>Lincolnton.
>I'd be happy to go ahead with it, but I noticed that it's currently up
>for renewal (Jackie's assigned); expires Jan '05 and has already
>submitted renewal application. Shall I proceed with the mod or just put
>the request in the file to be done at renewal?
>Dawn
1 of 1 10/18/2004 10:47 AM

Jackie, Jamie Rhyne asked me to evaluate their WWTP's color reduction
and contact you regarding my findings. Color coming into the WWTP is a
blue -gray color with no uncharacteristic odors etc. A recent change to
the piping (the influent line) into the oxidation ditch has resulted in
substantial color reduction compared to the way the facility looked
October 2003 during my last visit to the facility. Attached are
pictures of the discharge taken by city staff on 8/26 and 8/31. I am
sending data and a disk with the pictures on it for your use. JL
John Lesley - [e-mail]
%TITLE%
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Lincolnton Color Data
(Units-ADNII)
Date
Ups
Eff
Downs
5/18/04
75
93.1
50.6
6/15/04
33.9
86.1
20.7
7/21/04
34.2
85.2
36
8/17/04
34.9
49.2
34.2

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan
eltN
And
Ea,
Color Reduction Study
It,
estN
Lincolnton WWTP
Lincolnton, North Carolina
NPDES Permit No. NC0025496
entN
October 2004
Prepared by:
Pease Associates
Architects, Engineers, and Planners
`AN Charlotte, North Carolina
Commission No. 2005001.00

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Existing Facilities
3.0 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)
4.0 Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan
5.0 Color Reduction Study
6.0 Summary and Recommendations
Figure 1 WWTP Flow Diagram
Appendix A ADMI Color Monitoring Data
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Lincolnton is centrally located in Lincoln County, North Carolina and is
situated midway between the metropolitan Cities of Charlotte and Hickory
The City owns and operates its own water and wastewater system serving residential,
commercial, and industrial customers both inside and outside the City Limits. The water
system consists of a 9.0-million-gallon per -day (MGD) water treatment plant (WTP)
with raw water presently being obtained from the South Fork of the Catawba River.
The water distribution system delivers water to approximately 4,400 customers, 65
percent of whom reside within the City Limits. Outside customers include serving bulk
water to Lincoln County. The City of Lincolnton also simultaneously supplements its
own finished water with the purchase of bulk water from Lincoln County.
The wastewater system includes a collection system and a 6.0-MGD wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) serving over 2,600 customers, 95 percent of who reside within
the City Limits. A major upgrade project was conducted at the WWTP to meet new and
future effluent limits.
The WWTP upgrades included modifications that significantly upgraded the degree of
treatment for both the current primary and secondary treatment process and include the
ability to remove total nitrogen and total phosphorus.
The upgrades to the existing 6.0-MGD plant are reflected in the Flow Diagram attached
as Figure 1. The new primary treatment train includes an upgraded main lift station
with influent grinder, new fine screening, new vortex grit removal, new oxidation ditch,
upgraded fine bubble aeration, new clarifiers, new effluent metering, and upgraded
chlorine contact basin. Other major upgrades include new chemical feed and storage
(including liquid chlorination and dechlorination), new dissolved air flotation
thickening, upgraded anaerobic digestion system, new standby power generation, new
laboratory and administration facilities, new SCADA control system, and other minor
enhancements to the WWTP facilities. Construction was completed in January 2003.
The Lincolnton WWTP has been deemed a Tier 3 color discharger by North Carolina,
Division of Water Quality. Although the City of Lincolnton was part of the South Fork
Catawba River Water Quality Alliance that conducted a very detailed color study on the
South Fork and its major dischargers, both municipal and industrial, and was not
determined to be a major color discharger, the City was determined to be a high level
color discharger based on a one-time field visit by NC DWQ and Construction Grant &
Loan representatives while the WWTP was under construction for the major upgrade
project discussed above.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

4
2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES
The Lincolnton WWTP is a secondary treatment facility with a present capacity of 6.0
MGD. The plant was originally constructed in 1965 as a 3.0-MGD facility and was
expanded in 1981 to its present 6.0-MGD capacity. As described above, the WWTP
underwent a major upgrade that was completed in January 2003.
The current NPDES permit limits are provided below:
ext
tligN
eleN
PARAMETER
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Flow, MGD
6.0
BOD5 , mg/L
30.0
45.0
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
30.0
45.0
Fecal Coliform, colonies/100 mL
200
400
Total Cyanide, ug/L
22
Total Mercury, ug/L
0.1
Phenol, ug/L
21
Other NPDES effluent parameters that involve monitoring only include ammonia
nitrogen, pH, total residual chlorine, temperature, conductivity, total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, chronic toxicity, total copper, total zinc and color.
This report highlights the NPDES color monitoring and reporting requirements. The
City has been collecting color data per the permit requirements since November 2002.
Sampling points are at the following points:
• Upsteam instream
• WWTP effluent
• Downstream instream
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

5
A summary of the data collected between November 2002 and present is provided in
Appendix A.
Upstream, effluent and downstream ADMI color vary slightly between each sample
point with typical values ranging from 50 —100 color units. Occasional effluent ADMI
color results range in the 100-150 color unit range.
Although the State does not provide specific ADMI color ranges for each Tier
classification, the City feels very strongly that the WWTP effluent color, especially
compared to the slight variability between effluent and instream color, does not warrant
a Tier 3 color classification.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

ems
estb
evaq
6
esak
est
ens
eleN
elaN
3.0 SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS (SIUs)
The City of Lincolnton has a pretreatment program run by Mr. Donald Burkey. At the
beginning of 2004, the City had a total of nine SIUs in the pretreatment program. To
date, two of the nine SIUs have dosed operations.
A summary of the existing seven SIUs are described in the table below.
SIU
INDUSTRY
TYPE
FLOW
(MGD)
Alpharma USPD
Pharmaceutical
0.050
McMurray Fabrics
Textile
0.45
Mohican Mills
Textile
1.400
South Fork Industries
Textile
0.658
Textile Piece Dying
Textile
0.337
Vermont American Corp.
Metal
0.100
Viking Technology
Textile
0.083
The two SIUs that dosed operations and are no longer contributing flow to the
Lincolnton WWTP are Fabritex (textile) and Haworth Comforto (metal) with flows of
0.56 MGD and 0.006 MGD, respectively.
The total permitted SIU flow is 3.078 MGD (not including Fabritex and Haworth
Comforto). The permitted SIU flow by industry is 1.6% Pharmaceutical, 3.2% Metal and
eft 95.2% Textile.
The textile SIU flow is considered the primary contributor to effluent color at the
WWTP. This is mainly due to the dying operations involved with the textile facilites.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004
eltN

7
4.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) PLAN
The primary constituent of color in the Lincolnton WWTP effluent is from wastewater
flow from textile dying operations. As stated in Section 3.0, textile flow accounts for
95% of the SIU flow into the WWTP. Furthermore, the permitted textile flow accounts
for approximately 50% of the design capacity of the WWTP (2.93 MGD out of 6.0 MGD
design capacity).
With approximately 50% percent of the flow originating from the textile industry, it is
obvious that the local textile industry is economically very important to the community.
With the loss of one of the larger textile companies in the area (Fabritex), there has been
a considerable negative impact to the water and wastewater revenues to the City of
Lincolnton. This results in a very sensitive and delicate line that must be maintained
between the City and its textile customers.
Since the City feels that its color data (shown in Appendix A and additional data
gathered from the South Fork River Water Quality Alliance Color Study) does not
warrant a Tier 3 color classification, the Town feels like limited BMP practices should be
implemented as they relate to the textile industries.
The following BMP practices have been initiated or will be initiated in the near future:
• Request information on dying chemicals used at the various textile SIUs
through surveys as part of the City's Industrial Pretreatment program.
• City will have discussions with the textile SIUs to make them aware of
the new NPDES permit requirement for color at the WWTP and how it
effects monitoring, reporting, etc. requirements of the City and WWTP
staff.
• City will increase awareness to the textile SIUs, other SIUs and the
general public on the increased emphasis on color in the Catawba River
basin.
• If the City remains under the Tier 3 color classification for the next permit
cycle, the City will work with the North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance to fully evaluate additional
BMPs that will be useful in reducing color discharges while not further
jeopardizing the financial stability of the regional textile industry.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

8
5.0 COLOR REDUCTION STUDY
First, the upgraded WWTP with its enhanced primary and secondary treatment
processes seems to have enhanced overall color removal through the WWTP. The color
reduction is hard to quantify since color monitoring hasn't been in place for very long.
Except for BMPs that aim to reduce color at its source, the only way to ensure high levels
of effluent color is end -of -pipe treatment at the Lincolnton WWTP. The recent process
upgrades included a new chemical storage and feed facility. The current system does
not include alum storage and feed, but an alum storage and feed system could be
adapted to the facilities.
Cost is the primary factor in determining the feasibility of any end -of -pipe treatment
alternative. A brief calculation is provided below to provide an order of magnitude
estimate of chemical treatment costs associated with end -of -pipe color removal by alum
addition. The estimate provided below shall be used for either the 75% or 90% color
reduction targets since it is too difficult to determine what the chemical requirements
will be without conducting detailed bench, pilot or full-scale testing.
If the Lincolnton WWTP remains as a Tier 3 color discharger, jar test will be performed
within the first year of the new permit cycle to further investigate chemical costs.
Chemical Costs at Average Daily Flow of 3.0 MGD:
Alum Dosage =15 mg/L
Flowrate = 3.0 MGD
Alum Cost = $0.125/lb (at 50% solution)
Annual Chemical Cost = (3.0 MGD)(15 mg/L)(8.34) x
($0.125/lb Alum)(365 d/yr)(200%)
= $ 34,250 per year
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

9
Chemical Costs at WWTP Design Flow of 6.0 MGD:
Alum Dosage =15 mg/L
Flowrate = 3.0 MGD
Alum Cost = $0.125/lb (at 50% solution)
Annual Chemical Cost = (6.0 MGD)(15 mg/L)(8.34) x
($0.125/lb Alum)(365 d/yr)(200%)
= $ 68,500 per year
In addition to the annual chemical costs, an alum storage tank, feed pump(s), flow
meters, and ancillary equipment needed to operate a full scale alum addition system is
estimated at $75,000 to $100,000.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

10
6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The City of Lincolnton's WWTP effluent has been classified as a Tier 3 color discharger.
The classification was based on a one-time observation from DWQ and CG&L staff
during a plant tour at the WWTP. The instream and effluent color data seem to indicate
that a more appropriate color classification from this facility should be lower than Tier 3.
The City has currently works with its SIU textile plants to monitor and understand the
constituents contributing color to the Lincolnton WWTP. The City has implemented the
BMP plan as described above in Section 4.0.
Recommendation
The City shall continue monitoring color per the NPDES color requirements to develop a
database for both the State and its own use. The City intends to formally apply for a
permit modification to reduce the color classification from Tier 3 to either Tier 1 or 2.
BMP Plan and Color Reduction Study
Lincolnton WWTP
October 2004

Figure 1
WWTP Flow Diagram

AOC
CA IC
ACID
':X
UPGRADED
MAIN PUMPING
STATION
NEW
OXIDATION' DrrCH
OXIDATION IITTOA INTIAXINTI
Oraunew BMX /ANZA IR
AflI ION
ZONA
AMMON
1ZON
$
IVNII AWITION TAM
m
SANITARY MIA
DAP DNGVR
UPGRADED
AERATION TANKS
— NICIRMAATION
PUMPS
MKa
NEW
INFLUENT
FILTER /SCREEN
AND WASHER
NEW
MANHOLE
No.104
RIIUNI Swan
NEW
MANHOLE
No.102
}
•XX tip: f'✓•'
NEW
VORTEX
GRIT
REMOVAL
wormy SSYAIgi
DUP Dr.AN1
WAD, Waal
Flow Diagram
I
L
•
BEMENT
METERING
MANHOLE
Cuw N RUM
TO LAND ARUCATIDN
sivormiruW0i.
.........................::.:::
Owens
CAUSTIC
NEW
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
AND
FEED BLDG.
fiY
CAUSTIC
ACID .
${SYfivi•.:V. ii:•n:: w4}%•: 5X : Y.•,r,:•Y.: Xi :i4:4X{:S ::f%i'�ri .:. i.?%•ti: )i::IX4�
•
J
Legend
Existing
Future
• Pease
Architects — Engineers
Pease Associates 704 378-8423
P.O. Box 18725' 2925 East Independence Blvd.
Charlotte North Carolina 28218
City of Lincolnton
Lincolnton, North Carolina
LINCOLNTON WiNTP
COLOR STUDY
FIGURE 1

Appendix A
ADMI Color Monitoring Data

` DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
11/14/2002
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
242
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
12/17/2002
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
130
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
1/7/2003
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
100.6
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
2/18/2003
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
103.5
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
3/11/2003
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
143.2
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
4/28/2003
44.5
DOWN STREAM
65.3
PLANT EFFLUENT
97.6
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
5/27/2003
116.9
DOWN STREAM
149.5
PLANT EFFLUENT
56.6
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
6/25/2003
42.7
DOWN STREAM
26
PLANT EFFLUENT
143.3
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
7/1/2003
42.2
DOWN STREAM
40.7
PLANT EFFLUENT
72.7
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
8/5/2003
353.9
DOWN STREAM
250.8
PLANT EFFLUENT
187.4
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
9/2/2003
20.6
DOWN STREAM
10.6
PLANT EFFLUENT
74.8
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
10/7/2003
25.2
DOWN STREAM
23.1
PLANT EFFLUENT
138.9

DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
11/18/2003
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
151.9
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
12/19/2003
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
98.5
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
1/20/2004
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
111.9
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
2/17/2004
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
139
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
3/16/2004
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
145
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
4/14/2004
71
DOWN STREAM
72.4
PLANT EFFLUENT
78
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
5/18/2004
75
DOWN STREAM
50.6
PLANT EFFLUENT
93.1
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
6/15/2004
33.9
DOWN STREAM
20.7
PLANT EFFLUENT
86.1
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
7/21/2004
34.2
DOWN STREAM
36
PLANT EFFLUENT
85.2
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
8/17/2004
34.9
DOWN STREAM
34.2
PLANT EFFLUENT
49.2
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
9/21/2004
31.2
DOWN STREAM
34.6
PLANT EFFLUENT
94•9
DATE SAMPLE RESULT
UP STREAM
9/22/2004
DOWN STREAM
PLANT EFFLUENT
113.2
eAq
eat
egaN
eltsi

11/1 0 r
CITY OF LINCOLNTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
October 1, 2004
Jackie Nowell
NC Division of Water Quality/NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Jackie Nowell,
H^Altf?I8 331l0OS 114I0d
A11 IVf10 tf31VM - ap;30
17007, 17 100 tn
i
LW R]a
The City of Lincolnton would like to formally request a reduction in the effluent monitoring frequency for
Mercury in our NPDES Permit, permit number NC0025496. The City is currently required to monitor its
effluent for Mercury on a weekly basis using method 1631 and has a permit limit of 0.1 ug/1. The City
would like to request that the monitoring frequency be changed to a Monthly, Monitoring Only frequency
which would coincide with the City of Lincolnton's approved Long Term Monitoring Plan. The Long Term
Monitoring Plan is approved through the NC Pretreatment Unit. The Long Term Monitoring Plan requires
monthly analysis for mercury and mercury would still be analyzed using method 1631.
The City of Lincolnton has been monitoring its effluent as required on a weekly basis for mercury using
method 1631 since September 2003. The monitoring analysis data is enclosed and should be sufficient to
show that we are not adversely impacting our receiving stream, the South Fork River. A reduction in the
monitoring frequency from a weekly to a monthly basis would save the City of Lincolnton $450.00 to
$600.00 per month, depending on the amount of weeks per month.
The City of Lincolnton has not had a permit violation for mercury, nor has the mercury levels detected been
close to a permit violation. The highest level detected for mercury at our facility was 58.6 ng/I which is
well below our permit limit of 0.1 ug/I. The 58.6 ng/l detection occurred during a period of plant upset and
during the time when it was discovered there was a design flaw in the new oxidation ditch at our newly
upgraded facility. It was discovered that the 36" incoming influent line to the oxidation ditch was
incorrectly installed into the inner channel ring, not the outer channel ring. This caused septic conditions to
occur in the oxidation ditch and severely hindered the entire treatment process at our facility.
On May 15, 2004, the 36" line was moved to the outer channel ring and dramatic improvements to our
effluent quality have occurred. Since the May 24, 2004 mercury sampling, not only has the mercury results
shown significant improvement, but also significant improvement has occurred to all the parameters on our
NPDES permit. The sampling improvements for mercury can be seen on the enclosed sheet. Improvements
to all our other parameters can be seen on our monthly DMR reports. Our facility also has not experienced
any NPDES violations since moving the 36" pipe.
608 WEST HWY. 150 BY-PASS • P.C. Box 617 • LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28093-0617
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

The only exception to the dramatic improvement was during the 4th of July industry shutdown period when
the industries shutdown and perform cleaning operations. This cleaning and considerable loss of flow into
our facility during the usual one to two week industry shutdown period disrupts the normal microbiological
process in our facility. However, the improvement in mercury monitoring results continued after our
facility recovered from the two -week shutdown period.
The daily average for the year beginning in September 2003 and ending in August 2004 was 10.26 ng/1.
This includes data for all samples taken for the year. The average result for mercury samples taken before
moving the 36' line in the oxidation ditch was 12.35 ng/1. The average result for mercury samples taken
after moving the 36" line is 4.59 ng/l. If the two data points from the two -week shutdown period of July
2004 is excluded from the daily average of samples taken after moving the 36" pipe, the average is only
2.95 ng/1.
The City of Lincolnton feels that since the time after the change in piping to our oxidation ditch that we
have greatly reduced the impact of mercury to the receiving stream to a minimal amount and will continue
to do so. We feel with being granted monthly monitoring instead of weekly monitoring that we would still
be sampling for mercury, but that the City will see considerable cost savings from sampling, which we are
sure you are aware helps with tight budget restraints we all face. The City would as well receive a reduction
in manpower and time it takes to collect these samples using the clean sampling techniques.
We appreciate your consideration of this matter. If you should have any questions or need any further
information regarding this matter, please contact me at 704-736-8960.
Sincerely,
7306z-
James S. Rhyne
Operator in Responsible Charge
City of Lincolnton WWTP
NPDES Permit Number NC0025496
Enclosure: (1)

September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
CITY OF LINCOLNTON WWTP
Effluent Mercury Results
Permit Limit
0.1 ug/I
Reported
Value in ug/I
Actual
Value in ng/I
Daily Avg. for
Month in ng/I
Sample Date
09/02/03
0.1
< 0.1
3.32
09/09103
0.1
<0.1 ,...
5.71:
09/18/03
0.1
<0.1
5.29
09/23/03; _ :.
0.1
<0.1.
3 52i; ..`
4.46. ng/I .. _.
10102/03.
0.1
<0.1
5.40
10/07/03
0.1
<0.1
6.22
10/1.6103
0.1 . :
<0.1
5.68
10/21/03
0.1
<0.1
7.16
10/30103.
0.1
<0.1
4,7.6::
5.84 ngll
11 /13/03
0.1
<0.1
10.80
11/18/03
0.1
<0.1 ; >
4270,-
11/25/03
0.1
<0.1
8.90
16.99 ngll
12/02/03
0.1
<0.1
10.90
12/12103.
0.1
<0.1: :
7.63
12/15/03
0.1
<0.1
6.23
12/23/03
0.1
<01
' :
7.00:
12/30/03
0.1
<0.1
26.80
11.71 ng/I
01 /08/04
0.1
<0.1
12.90
01/1.31.04
01
<01
.
15 00
01/21/04
0.1
<0.1
8.69
<0.1
10.40-. .
11.74 ngll
02/04/04
01
<0.1 -
11.70
02/09/04
0.1
<0.1
8.03
02119/04 .
01 :.:
<07 ..
: .
:.,. , 11.50
02/23/04
0.1
<0.1
9.86
10.27 ng/I
03/03/04
0.1
<0.1
11.60
03/08104
0.1
<0.1 _
8.27
03/18/04
0.1
<0.1
30.50
03 3 04 ��
1;fi 7i9_,nglil. J
:..
04/01/04
0.1
<0.1.
25.80
04/06/04
0.1
<0.1
11.60
0411.5/04..
:
01.._ .
<0.1:
_ 15.10:.
04/20/04
0.1
<0.1
58.60
04/28104
0.1
<0.1
1030':
24.28:ngfl-

May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
CITY OF LINCOLNTON WWTP
Effluent Mercury Results
Permit Limit
0.1 ugll
Reported
Value in ug/i
Actual
Value in ngll
Daily Avg. for
Month in ng/I
Sample Date
05/03/04
0.1
< 0.1
7.50
05/12/04
0.1
<0.1
5.94
05/19/04
0.1
<0.1
5.97
05/24/04
0.1
<0.1
3.11
5.63
06/01/04
0.1
<0.1
2.86
06/09/04
0.1
<0.1
2.80
06/14/04
0.1
<0.1
3.71
06/22/04
0.1
<0.1
3.56
06/28/04
0.1
<0.1
4.08
3.40
07/07/04
0.1
<0.1
15.90
07/14/04
0.1
<0.1
13.10
07/22/04
0.1
<0.1
2.34
07/26/04
0.1
<0.1
2.13
8.36
08/04104
0.1
<0.1
3.89
08/10/04
0.1
<0.1
1.89
08/16/04
0.1
<0.1
2.76
08/23/04
0.1
<0.1
2.28
2.70
10.26 ng/I average from Sept 2003 - Aug 2004
12.35 average from Sept 03 to May 19, 2004
4.59 since moving 36" pipe
2.95 ng/l avg. since moving pipe, excluding shutdown

CITY OF LINCOLNTON
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
P.O. BOX 617 • 128 MoTz AVENUE • TELEPHONE [phone] • FACSIMILE 736-8959
LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28093-0617
August 9, 2004
Ms. Carolyn Bryant
NC DENR/Water Quality/Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Re:
NPDES Permit Modification
City of Lincolnton
NPDES Permit NC0025496
Subject: Submission of Supplementary Permit Information
Dear Ms. Bryant:
As we discussed last week, our NPDES Permit Renewal Application was submitted to you on August 3, 2004.
It came to our attention that we did not submit a few items required by the application. These items are listed
below and attached to this cover letter.
• Two (2) copies of the NPDES Permit Renewal Application
Narrative Description of the Sludge Management Plan at the WWTP
From the Office of the Director

•
e
We hope that this request meets with all requirements of permit renewal process. Please feel free to call me at
[phone] with any questions.
Sincerely,
-L-
teve eeler, Director of Public Works & Utilities
Ci of Lincolnton
Cc: Jeff Emory
Jamie Rhyne

CITY OF LINCOLNTON
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
P.O. BOX 617 • 128 MOTZ AVENUE • TELEPHONE [phone] • FACSIMILE 736-8959
LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROL! NA 28093-0617
Sludge Management Plan
City of Lincolnton WWTP
Sludge that is generated during the process of wastewater treatment is handled and
disposed of properly through the means of land application. After adequate digestion
takes place in the six digesters, the sludge is pumped to the loading stand via a high solids
pump. At the loading stand, the sludge is then loaded into 6500 gallon tankers and
transported to approved land application sites per North Carolina guidelines outlined in
Permit # WQ0002712. Once the tankers arrive at the approved land application sites, the
sludge is off-loaded onto the spreader via a vacuum system. The sludge is then applied to
the approved land application sites at agronomic rates in order to maximize the nutrient -
uptake of the farmer's crop. All this is contracted out to Synagro.

vsical/Chemical Parameters:Lindane (BHC) Page 3 of 6
**********************************************************************
Residues of lindane (% of applied) in silt loam soil at 2 application
rates(11)
Time(yrs) Applic.Rate(lb/A-6in) Residue lindane (%)
1
11
15
10
100
10
100
10
100
B. Adsorption and transport
43
55
0.50
5.28
0.20
0.17
Lindane is readily adsorbed onto all types of soils. The rates of
adsorption are related to soil adsorption capacity; soil bound residues
are lower in sandy than loam soil(6). A study on adsorption of lindane
on four soils found that equilibrium on mineral soils was reached in
<2hrs whereas in muck the time was >l0hrs. Adsorption percentages in
this study were reported to be 97.74%(loamy sand), 98.07%(loam), 98.27%
(sandy loam), and 99.89%(muck) of the total lindane applied. This
equilibrium will be maintained until saturation is approached and the
isotherm becomes non-linear(10). In sixteen Minnesota soils the
lindane sorbed varied from 4-90%. The variability was not found to be
mainly due to soil texture but to the organic carbon present(1,7).
This was subtantiated in a study on flooded soils which reported that
sorption of lindane occurs almost entirely on organic matter(19).
These authors reported that flooded soils adsorb less lindane than
non -flooded especially under anaerobic, low organic matter conditions.
Desorption is not affected by anaerobiosis as Fe3+ reduces to Fe2+
thereby decreasing inorganic surface area and resulting in interference
with lindane adsorption(19).
The degree of desorption and leaching of lindane from soils is a
subject of disagreement in the literature. A study on fine sandy loam
and silty clay reported an application of 10cm water/mo to half the
field plots whereas the other half were only irrigated when the
pesticide was applied. Diffusion to untreated lower zones and to the
surface where volatilization could occur was reported. Movement was
greater in sandy loam soil than in the silty clay. In the second year
of this study, lindane increased at the surface of both treatments.
Lateral movement amounted to <15cm in 2yrs(5). Another study found
lindane to be desorbed from a variety of soils in 2-4 washings(1).
If the solubility of lindane is increased, the mobility is
increased(6). Volatilization increases with an increase in the vapor
density of lindane; however,
vapor density until the soil
Lindane adsorption decreases
increases(15).
The tables below
soils. The reference
soil water content has no effect on the
is dried to a monolayer of water(15).
(or desorption increases) as temperature
present data concerning lindane adsorption in
is given in parentheses at the end of each title.
Adsorption of lindane (percent of total) in organic and sandy loam
soils(14)
soil time
% adsorbed
organic
/min
30min
2hr
55
70
78
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pchemparams/gen-pubre-lindane.html
9/27/2005

`Environmental Protection Agency Page 1 of 5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pesticides: Reregistration
Recent Additions I Contact Us I Print Version Search: I
EPA Home > Pesticides > Regulating Pesticides > Reregistration >
Candidates for Lindane RED Facts
Decisions
Chemical Status
Tolerance
Reassessment
NRDC Consent Pesticide Reregistration
Decree
GO
EPA-738-F-02-011
September 2002
Other Information All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by EPA,
Resources based on scientific studies showing that they can be used without posing
unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of advances in scientific
knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which were first registered before
November 1,1984, be reregistered to ensure that they meet today's more stringent
standards.
In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a complete set
of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human health and
environmental effects of each pesticide. To implement provisions of the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996, EPA considers the special sensitivity of infants and
children to pesticides, as well as aggregate exposure of the public to pesticide
residues from all sources, and the cumulative effects of pesticides and other
compounds with common mechanisms of toxicity. The Agency assesses the risk
associated with the use of the pesticide, and develops mitigation measures or
regulatory controls to effectively reduce each pesticide's risks. EPA then reregisters
pesticides that meet the safety standard of the FQPA and can be used without
posing unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.
When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis for its
decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document. This fact sheet
summarizes the information in the RED document for the reregistration of lindane.
Use Profile
Lindane is an organochlorine insecticide used as a pre -plant seed treatment for
barley, corn, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat. The pesticide is formulated into dust,
emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, and liquid ready -to -use products.
Lindane is applied to seeds using the following equipment: liquid seed treater,
planter/seed box, air seed treater, canister tube applicator, and slurry -type seed
treater. Approximately 233,000 Ibs of active ingredient of lindane are used annually
for seed treatment.
Lindane is also currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
for use in pharmaceutical products intended to control head Tice and scabies
(mites) in humans.
Regulatory History
Lindane was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in the 1940's for use on a
wide variety of food crops, ornamentals, livestock, homeowner, and other sites. In
1977, EPA initiated for lindane a Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration
http://www.epa.gov/REDs/factsheets/lindane_fs.htm 9/27/2005

'Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 of 5
(RPAR) review, now called a Special Review. The lindane RPAR was triggered
based on questions of oncogenicity, fetotoxicity/ teratogenicity, reproductive effects,
its potential to cause blood dyscrasias, and acute toxicity to wildlife. EPA published
Position Documents (PDs) in 1977 through 1983, resulting in the cancellation of
certain uses of lindane.
EPA issued a Registration Standard for lindane in September 1985, which included
a Data Call -In (DCI) requiring submission of additional data to support the lindane
registration and address exposure concerns from treated structures and animals.
After issuance of the 1985 Registration Standard, many of the registered uses of
lindane were cancelled, resulting in only seed treatment use on six crops (barley,
corn, oats, rye, sorghum, and wheat) that still remain registered and subject to
reregistration.
Human Health Assessment
Toxicity
Lindane primarily affects the nervous system. In acute, subchronic, and
developmental neurotoxicity studies and chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies,
lindane was found to cause neurotoxic effects. Lindane also appears to cause
kidney (renal) and liver(hepatic) toxicity. In addition, there is some evidence that
lindane may act as an endocrine disruptor; however, further investigation is
necessary to ascertain the relevance and impact of such findings on public health.
In 2001, EPA classified lindane as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity,
but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential" based on an increased
incidence of benign lung tumors in female mice only. Therefore, pursuant to
Agency cancer guidelines, cancer risks were not quantified.
Dietary Exposure
EPA assessed dietary risk by estimating exposure to lindane residues from
consumption of food and drinking water that can occur over a single -day (acute) or
longer (chronic). The acute and chronic dietary (food) risks are less than 100% of
the acute Population Adjusted Dose for the general U.S. population and all
population subgroups. Infants (<1 year) and children (1-6 years) were the most
highly exposed population subgroup for acute and chronic exposure, respectively.
Because lindane persists in the environment and has long-range atmospheric
transport potential, the Agency performed a supplementary chronic dietary risk
assessment for the subsistence diets of indigenous peoples of the Arctic region of
the U.S. (Alaska) rely heavily on game for their food source. For indigenous people
of Alaska, the chronic dietary risks are generally not of concern, and although the
Agency does not have information on a typical day's diet to assess acute dietary
risk, limited residue data indicates that acute dietary risks are unlikely to be of
concern.
Drinking water exposure to lindane can occur through ground and surface water
contamination. EPA used models to conduct a screening -level assessment of
potential high -end estimates of lindane concentrations in surface and ground water
sources of drinking water from seed treatment uses.
Pharmaceutical Use Risk
Lindane has been approved by the FDA as a prescription drug to treat lice and
scabies. EPA has conducted an assessment of these uses to determine the risk of
a lice or scabies treatment. Based on the Agency's current understanding of
available data, the Agency does not believe that lindane pharmaceutical products
http://www.epa.gov/REDS/factsheets/lindane_fs.htm 9/27/2005