NC0024945_Permit Issuance_20121207

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024945
Irwin Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
Draft Permit
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
December 7, 2012
This document its printed on reuse paper - ignore airy
content or the reYerse side

Governor
ern
bENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. Dee Freeman
Director Secretary
December 7, 2012
Ms. Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E., Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
Subject: NPDES Permit Issuance
Permit No. NC0024945
Irwin Creek WWTP
Facility Class IV
Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Jarrell:
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 October 15, 2007 (or as subsequently
amended).
The final permit authorizes Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) to discharge
treated municipal wastewater from the Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant to
Irwin Creek, a class C water in the Catawba River Basin. The . permit includes
discharge limitations/or monitoring for flow, BOD5, ammonia nitrogen, total
suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and copper, along with other parameters.
The receiving stream, Irwin Creek, is listed as an impaired waterbody on the
North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List. There is an EPA approved Fecal
Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Irwin, McAlpine, Little Sugar,
and Sugar Creek Watersheds. Addressing impaired waters is a high priority with
the Division, and instream data will continue to be evaluated. If there is
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet w►vw.ncwateraualitv.orq
No°e Catolina
htura!!y
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

Ms. Jarrell
December 7, 2012
Page 2 of 4
noncompliance with permitted effluent limits and stream impairment can be
attributed to your facility, then mitigative measures may be required.
The Division received comments on the Irwin Creek WWTP draft permit from the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities.
The following modifications are included in the final permit.
• The facility address has been corrected to 4000 Westmont Drive.
• The treatment component list on the supplement to permit cover page
has been updated to;
1) remove the four trickling filters,
2) designate only aeration basins until the upgrade is completed,
3) designate only pH adjustment since NaOH is no longer used,
4) remove chlorine gas disinfection and sodium bisulfate
dechlorination as treatment components
• The weekly average and daily average limits for total residual chlorine
have been removed since chlorine is not used for backup disinfection.
• Total Suspended Residue had been corrected to Total Suspended
Solids on A. 1. Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements.
• The daily maximum limit for zinc has been re-evaluated and will be
removed from the permit based on there being no reasonable
potential to exceed the South Carolina water quality standard.
SCDHEC concurs with this permit change.
• The weekly average limit of 21 ug/1 for copper has been changed to a
monthly average limit The daily maximum limit of 31 ug/1 will
remain. There was reasonable potential to exceed the South Carolina
water quality standard. SCDHEC concurs with this permit change.
• The monthly average and daily maximum limits for total mercury have
been removed from the permit based on approval of the statewide
mercury TMDL plan and evaluation of submitted effluent mercury
data. Mercury will be monitored annually in the effluent pollutant
scans and a special condition regarding completion of a mercury
minimization plan has been added to the permit.
• Ultraviolet disinfection has been added to the treatment components
on the supplement to permit cover page.
• The active permit condition regarding Daily Maximum Fecal Coliform
Limit has been removed because the effective date has occurred.
• Footnote regarding cyanide practical quantifiable level has been
removed because cyanide is no longer limited or monitored in the
permit.
• Minor language has been modified in condition A.6. Chronic Toxicity
Permit Limit. In addition, a new paragraph regarding data submittal
had been added (second paragraph from the end of the condition).
• The permit condition A. 8.Total Phosphorus Limit has been modified
and the paragraph regarding construction at the Irwin Creek and
L A

M-F7arre1l
December 7, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Sugar Creek WWTPs by February 2006 has been removed because the
effective dates have occurred.
• In condition A.9. Effluent Pollutant Scan: 1) mercury must be sampled
using EPA Method 1631 E, 2) P-chloro-m-cresol has been corrected, 3)
the DWQ Water Quality Section has been corrected to the Surface
Water Protection Section. In addition, language has been updated to
note that three scans must be completed during the permit cycle.
Based on the reasonable potential analysis conducted on effluent data in
discharge monitoring reports and priority pollutant analyses, the following
changes were recommended:
o Weekly average and daily maximum cyanide limits and monitoring
will be removed from the permit based on the results of the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA) . The analysis indicated there was
no reasonable potential to exceed the North Carolina water quality
standard for cyanide in the receiving stream. Cyanide will continue
to be monitored in the long term monitoring plan of the pretreatment
program.
o The nickel limits and monitoring will be removed from the permit
based on the results of the reasonable potential analysis. There was
no reasonable potential shown to exceed the water quality standard
for nickel instream. Nickel will continue to be monitored in the long
term monitoring plan for the pretreatment program.
o Chromium monitoring will remain in the permit based on the results
of the reasonable potential analysis however the monitoring frequency
will be reduced to quarterly.
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.

Ms. Jarrell
December 7, 2012 A
Page 4 of 4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jacquelyn Nowell at telephone number [phone].
Sincerely,
Ott.
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Attachments
cc: EPA/Region IV
SCDHEC/ Jeff Debessonet, 2600 Bull Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 (ecopy)
Mecklenburg County/Meredith Moore, John McCulloch (ecopy)
Mooresville Regional Office/Surface Water Protection Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit (ecopy)
PERCS/Attn: Deborah Gore (ecopy)
NPDES File
Central Files

•
Permit NC0024945
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,
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities - Irwin Creek WWTP
4000 Westmont Drive
Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
to receiving waters designated as Irwin Creek 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 January 1, 2013
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, 2015.
Signed this day December 7, 2012
les Wakild, P.E., Director
ivision of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit NC00245
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.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue operation of a 15.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant with a discharge through
outfall 001, consisting of the following treatment units :
• Mechanical bar screen
• Influent pump station
• Grit removal
• Flow equalization
• Influent flow measurement
• Three primary clarifiers
• pH adjustment
• Aeration basins (diffused air)
• Three secondary clarifiers
• Ten tertiary filters
• Effluent flow measurement
• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Cascade aeration
• Four anaerobic digesters
• 300,000 gallon sludge storage
• Two gravity belt thickeners with polymer feed
• 1.8 MG digested sludge storage tank
The facility is located at the CMU Irwin Creek WWTP [4000 Westmont Drive, Charlotte] in
Mecklenburg County.
2. Discharge wastewater from said facility at the locations specified on the attached map
through outfall 001 into Irwin Creek, currently classified C waters in the Catawba River
Basin.

djs-7 .,:••=121.7=`
Latitude: 35°11'44"
Longitude: 80°54'27"
Sub -Basin: 03-08-34
Quad #: G15NW Charlotte West NC
Stream Class: C
Receiving Stream: Irwin Creek
Permitted Flow: 15 MGD
Facility
Location
WV.' •
7,14y
CMU — Irwin Creek WWTP
NC0024945

Permit NC0024945
A. (1.) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -FINAL
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge treated municipal and industrial wastewater from outfall 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
ffun Ciaactfirisbiek--7^UMW-
. M-."_ _
n.;} ,• . , A,
r i{,
_A; z.v Re.. riy )e: m^. e�v•'i4• .•r;.
o,1 ,_
,
r,µ/15 I
,,,,--:-------7--1
.
=.�'.
.......t_a ..
,'
Measnen
a,i
,< % -"S
pe
Mpn l
'
Avery?Avrag
._.
eekIy
. t e _
- pair '
'e`
v
.1.
Dilyt .
,Mimr'
j+am,an:
'�`
�ec
'!req
.ta
,yL p yr p
Loa o
Flow
15.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
I or E ,
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Summer)2.3
5.0 mglL
7.5 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
CBOD, 5-day, 20°C (Winter)2.3
10.0 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
Total Suspended Solids2
30.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
Daily
Composite
I, E
NH3-N (Summer)3
1.2 mglL
3.6 mg/L
Daily
Composite
E
NH3-N (Winter)3
2.3 mglL
6.9 mglL
Daily
Composite
E
Dissolved Oxygen4
Daily
Grab
E
Fecal Coliform
200/ 100mI
400/ 100 ml
1000/ 100 ml
Daily
Grab
E
pH
Not Tess than
6.0 S.U. or greater
than 9.0 S.U.
Daily
Grab
E
Temperature
Daily
Grab
E
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
E
Total Nitrogen
(NO2-N + NO3-N + TKN)
Monthly
Composite
E
Total Phosphorus5
See Special Condition A. (7.) and A. (8.)
Monthly
Composite
E
Copper, TotaI6.7
21 µg/L
31 µg/L
Monthly
Composite
E
Chromium, Total
Quarterly
Composite
E
Chronic Toxicity8
Quarterly
Composite
E
Effluent Pollutant Scan9
Monitor and Report
Footnote 9
Footnote 9
E
Footnotes:
1. Sample Location: I- Influent, E - Effluent.
2. The monthly average effluent CBODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85 % removal).
3.. Summer is defined as the period from April 1 through October 31, while winter is defined as November 1
through March 31.
4. The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/1.
5. See Special Conditions A. (7.) and A. (8.) for total phosphorus limit and reporting requirements.
6. If CMUD decides to develop site -specific standards, the proposed course of action should be consistent with
"Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water -Effect Ratios for Metals" EPA-823-B-94-001, February
1994. The Division and EPA will review the proposed course of action and may provide comments.
7. The limits stipulated are based on "total recoverable". Alternatively, the permittee may request limits based on
total dissolved as allowed under South Carolina standards.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) at 83%: January, April, July, October (see Special Condition. A. (6.)).
9. The permittee shall perform three Effluent Pollutant Scans during the term of this permit. (See A. (9).)
Definitions:
MGD - Million gallons per day
µg/ L - Micrograms per liter
mg/L - Milligram per liter ml - Milliliter
CBOD - Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Permit NC00245 • '
y ;
A. (2.) Irwin Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Irwin Creek as specified below:
�
Station
ID .
... � ... t �> f 3. },
Location , r.
. _ :.....:• _ _r: :_ _ : , _:.. __ .
�.0 '�; aFYfF:. �'f J
- �P�arar eter
r r.i.. . ty f' h i�•3� Y F. ,.j7 ;_3 '.24.
,Monitormg,Requ�r e,�ts
_ _,_ • ti x _.Y...
Measur`eminTTFW queers
Dla e Ty C.
IC1
_ .., __
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variables
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variables
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
IC1
Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 - September 30) and monthly (October 1 - May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
A. (3.) McAlpine Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor McAlpine Creek as specified below:
Station
ID
T Location
Parameter
. Measurement :
Y . Ere uenc
q.
Sample`
yT" ,e
YP i
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable1
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
Chromium
. Monthly
Grab
MCI
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
_ Copper
Monthly
Grab
MC1
McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
' Zinc
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable1
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
MC2
. McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Copper
Monthly
Grab
MC2
McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC 2964
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 - September 30) and monthly (October 1 - May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1, MC1
and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar Creek
WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the McAlpine Creek
WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Permit NC0024945
A. (4.) Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee shall monitor Sugar Creek as specified below:
Station
r ..... .. .... h:. : .L.. C
' tLg atio y
i s P, fat , .•.
' easuv eaten
,Same e ,
A .+.y
iL
h
_�:... • mod,•.,... ..:�..,: •..r �
amy<
°"-'-Z.- �w-r.... .i.-
....:.:...1. f.. ' 1 .`.. - 1✓ _.., - Ati.I.�... "'.�. ._ .... . h.h. . 1'LIf •.1.. :. ''.:
N �
�•3 �
�..,...5wi1r
I r
L:rrr
SC1
.
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC1
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC2
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC3
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Temperature
Variable"
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
SC4
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Temperature
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Conductivity
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
pH
Variable'
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Ammonia (NH3-N)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Nitrate/Nitrite
(NOX)
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)
Weekly •
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Total Phosphorus
Weekly
Grab
SC5
Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160
Orthophosphate
Weekly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1— Sept 30) and monthly (Oct 1— May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1,
MC 1 and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar
Creek WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the
McAlpine Creek WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.

Permit NC0024045 •
A. (5.) Little Sugar Creek Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the Permittee
shall monitor Little Sugar Creek as specified below:
Stajoon
ID,p
. '
... •.'1
Locationli
3. t
!. ..,! y ri .L S 4 yi :rr.. 1'!'
64.:?T...- 1. ..'iJ: . A$. .- .. .i ....,,...,.`'>CS.�.��l.rL...� .s• '; I�.S.:.. �..,w...Ll_'�.�-1u�. ,4
Parameter F
'` , Yt
4
9'_ ..:+�. r vLe�7. ti-«.-...` , ?'E,
, Measure tgent-
' -Freque&y
i
,..,,, ..4.,_.._r....._,LS..f.w-.:S
Sa r : le.
"1y
f �( *'
•_ ,aat ..' 1...,
_..-n
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable1
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC1
Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Dissolved Oxygen
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Temperature
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Conductivity
Variable1
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Chromium
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Copper
Monthly
Grab
LSC3
Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Highway 51
Zinc
Monthly
Grab
Footnotes:
1. Variable = Weekly (June 1 — Sept 30) and monthly (Oct 1 — May 31)
It is recommended that instream monitoring for stations IC1, SC1, SC2, SC3, SC4, SC5, LSC1,
MC 1 and MC2 be conducted during the same day or on consecutive days.
Instream monitoring requirements for McAlpine Creek WWTP, Irwin Creek WWTP and Sugar
Creek WWTP are identical. Please submit all instream monitoring results along with the
McAlpine Creek WWTP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The revised instream monitoring program, no longer requires monitoring of station LSC2. The
LSC2 designation continues to refer to the sampling station on Little Sugar Creek downstream of
the Sugar Creek WWTP at Archdale Road; however, this station is inactive.

L •
Permit NC0024945
A. (6.) 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 83.0%.
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 January, April, July, and October. 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 foollowing 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. If reporting pass/fail results using the
parameter code TGP3B, DWQ Form AT-1 (original) is sent to the below address. If reporting Chronic Value results
using the parameter code THP3B, DWQ Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: NC DENR / DWQ / Environmental Sciences Section
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.
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.
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, the results of such monitoring
shall be included in the calculation & reporting of the data submitted on the DMR & all AT Forms submitted.
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.

Permit NC0024945' '
A. (7.) Total Phosphorus Limit
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities. (CMU), the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMU's McAlpine Creek WWTF, Sugar Creek WWTP and Irwin
Creek WWTP must comply with a combined 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day as of
February 28, 2006. This limit is defined as an effluent limit for total phosphorus from the total
combined discharge from the three referenced CMU wastewater treatment plants (based on a 12-month
rolling average). The methodology for calculating the annual average is described in Part A. (8.).
A. (8.) Total Phosphorus Monitoring
The Permittee shall calculate a 12-month rolling average mass loading as the sum of monthly
loadings, according to the following equations:
(1) Monthly Average (lbs./day) = TP x Qw x 8.34
where:
TP = the arithmetic average of total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) obtained via composite
samples (either daily, weekly, or monthly average values) collected during the month
Qw = the average daily waste flow (MGD) for the month
8.34= conversion factor, from (mg/L x MGD) to pounds
The 12-month rolling average mass loading is defined as the sum of the monthly average loadings for
the previous 12 months inclusive of the reporting month:
12
(2) 12-Month Mass Loading (lbs./day)= E TPma 4-12 (inclusive of reporting month)
Where:
TPma is defined as the total phosphorus monthly average mass loading (calculated above).
The monthly average and 12-month. average mass loadings shall be reported on the attached worksheet
and submitted with the discharge monitoring report for McAlpine Creek WWTP.
The Permittee shall report the total phosphorus concentration for each sample on the appropriate
discharge monitoring report for each facility. Reporting of and compliance with the phosphorus limit
shall be done on a monthly basis.

Permit NC0024945
A. (9.) . Effluent Pollutant Scan
The Permittee shall perform a total of three (3) Effluent Pollutant Scans for all parameters listed below.
One scan must be performed in each of the following years: 2013, 2014, and 2015. Analytical methods
shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and shall be sufficiently sensitive to determine whether
parameters are present in concentrations greater than applicable standards and criteria. Samples should
be collected with one quarterly toxicity test each year, and must represent seasonal variation [i.e., do not
sample in the same quarter every year]. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzed as "total
recoverable."
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 -(EPA Method 1631E )
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-nitrosodumethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Reporting. Test results shall be reported on DWQ Form -A MR-PPA1 (or in a form approved by the
Director) by December 31st of each designated sampling year. The report shall be submitted to the
following address: NC DENR / DWQ / Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.

Permit NC0024.945 -
A. (10.) Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP)
The permittee will develop and implement a mercury minimization plan during this permit term.
• Guidelines for MMP development will be placed on the Division website following a stakeholder
review process. The MMP should place emphasis on identification of mercury contributors and goals
for reduction. Results shall be summarized andsubmitted with the next permit renewal. The MMP
must be available for inspection on -site.

11/15/12 WOS = 12 ng/L
Facility Name: CMUD Irwin Creek - NC0024945
MERCURY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
No Limit Required
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L 7Q10s = 4.900 cfs
Date Modifier Data Entry Value Permitted Flow = 15.000 MGD
V:2012-4
WQBEL = 14.53 ng/L
TBEL= 47 ng/L
1/3/07
1/8/07
1/10/07
1/17/07
1/24/07
1/31/07
2/5/07
2/14/07
2/21/07
2/28/07
3/5/07
3/14/07
3/21/07
3/26/07
4/4/07
4/11/07
4/16/07
4/25/07
5/3/07
5/9/07
5/16/07
5/23/07
5/30/07
6/6/07
6/8/07
6/13/07
6/20/07
6/27/07
7/2/07
7/6/07
7/11/07
7/18/07
7/25/07
8/1/07
8/6/07
8/15/07
8/22/07
8/29/07
9/5/07
9/10/07
9/19/07
9/26/07
10/2/07
10/10/07
10/17/07
10/24/07
10/31/07
11/7/07
11/14/07
11/21/07
11/29/07
12/6/07
12/12/07
12/19/07
12/27/07
1/2/08
1/4/08
1/9/08
1/16/08
1/23/08
1/30/08
2/1/08
2/6/08
2/14/08
2/21/08
2/27/08
3/3/08
• 1
• 1
2.3
1.1
• 1
• 1
• 1
3.9
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.3
2.2
1.1
1
1.6
• 1
1.6
< 1
1.9
1.7
1.2
< 1
< 1
1.2
1.5
1.7
• 1
• 1
1.1
1.6
2.1
1.5
1.6
• 1
1.2
• 1
2.9
1.6
1.2
1.9
1.9
1.1
• 1
• 1
< 1
1.1
• 1
1.5
1.1
• 1
1.1
• 1
1
1.1
1
1.4
1
1
1.4
1
1.1
1.2
7.8
1.2
1.3
1
1.2 ng/L - Annual Average for 2007

3/12/08 1.2 1.2
3/19/08 1.2 1.2
3/26/08 1.1 1.1
4/3/08 1.1 1.1
4/7/08 1.1 1.1
4/16/08 1.2 1.2
4/23/08 1.6 1.6
4/30/08 1.6 1.6
5/7/08 1.2 1.2
5/14/08 1.5 1.5
5/21/08 1.3 1.3
5/29/08 1.1 1.1
6/5/08 1 0.5
6/11/08 1.1 1.1
6/18/08 1.6 1.6
6/26/08 1.2 1.2
7/2/08 1 0.5
7/9/08 1.2 1.2
7/10/08 1.1 1.1
7/16/08 1 0.5
7/23/08 1.1 1.1
7/31/08 1 0.5
8/5/08 1 0.5
8/8/08 1.1 1.1
8/14/08 1 0.5
8/20/08 1.3 1.3
8/28/08 1.8 1.8
9/4/08 1.2 1.2
9/5/08 1 0.5
9/8/08 1 0.5
9/17/08 1 0.5
9/24/08 1 0.5
10/1/08 1 0.5
10/6/08 1.1 1.1
10/15/08 1.4 1.4
10/23/08 1 0.5
10/29/08 1 0.5
11/5/08 1 0.5
11/10/08 1 0.5
11/20/08 2.2 2.2
11/26/08 1.6 1.6
12/2/08 1 0.5
12/12/08 1 0.5
12/18/08 1 0.5
12/24/08 1 1
12/31/08 1 0.5
1/7/09 1.2 1.2
1/12/09 1 0.5
1/20/09 1 1
1/27/09 1 0.5
2/5/09 1.5 1.5
2/10/09 1.2 1.2
2/17/09 1 0.5
2/24/09 1.2 1.2
3/3/09 1.1 1.1
3/6/09 1.6 1.6
3/10/09 1.4 1.4
3/17/09 1.9 1.9
3/24/09 2.2 2.2
4/4/09 1.8 1.8
4/7/09 4 4
4/14/09 5.5 5.5
4/21/09 1.4 1.4
4/28/09 1.9 1.9
5/3/09 1.2 1.2
5/12/09 1 1
5/19/09 1.1 1.1
5/26/09 3 3
6/3/09 3.9 3.9
6/8/09 2.1 2.1
6/16/09 1.6 1.6
6/23/09 < 1 0.5
1.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2008

7/1/09 1.6 1.6
7/7/09 1.4 1.4
7/15/09 1.8 1.8
7/21/09 1 1
7/28/09 1.2 1.2
8/5/09 1.3 1.3
8/11/09 1.4 1.4
8/18/09 < 1 0.5
8/25/09 < 1 0.5
9/1/09 < 1 0.5
9/10/09 1.1 1.1
9/15/09 < 1 0.5
9/22/09 < 1 0.5
9/29/09 < 1 0.5
10/2/09 < 1 0.5
10/8/09 < 1 0.5
10/13/09 1 1
10/20/09 1.1 1.1
10/27/09 1.2 1.2
11/3/09 1.2 1.2
11/7/09 1.8 1.8
11/10/09 1.5 1.5
11/17/09 1.3 1.3
11/24/09 2.1 2.1
12/1/09 2.5 2.5
12/7/09 2.1 2.1
12/15/09 1.4 1.4
12/22/09 1.4 1.4
12/29/09 2.3 2.3
1/5/10 2.4 2.4
1/11/10 1.7 1.7
1/20/10 1.4 1.4
1/26/10 1.7 1.7
2/2/10 1.5 1.5
2/10/10 1.5 1.5
2/16/10 1 1
2/23/10 2.5 2.5
3/3/10 1.4 1.4
3/10/10 1.1 1.1
3/16/10 1 0.5
3/17/10 1 0.5
3/24/10 1.4 1.4
3/30/10 1 1
4/7/10 1 0.5
4/15/10 1 1
4/20/10 1.4 1.4
4/27/10 1.2 1.2
5/4/10 1.7 1.7
5/7/10 2.9 2.9
5/11/10 1.5 1.5
5/18/10 1 0.5
5/25/10 2.3 2.3
6/2/10 1.8 1.8
6/5/10 1.3 1.3
6/9/10 1.5 1.5
6/15/10 1.5 1.5
6/22/10 1.3 1.3
6/28/10 2 2
7/7/10 1.5 1.5
7/15/10 1.2 1.2
7/21/10 1.5 1.5
7/27/10 1.2 1.2
8/3/10 1.3 1.3
8/9/10 1.1 1.1
8/17/10 1.7 1.7
8/24/10 1.4 1.4
9/1/10 1.3 1.3
9/10/10 1.4 1.4
9/14/10 2.5 2.5
9/21/10 < 1 0.5
9/28/10 < 1 0.5
10/5/10 1.4 1.4
1.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2009

10/13/10 1.1 1.1
10/19/10 1.1 1.1
10/26/10 1.4 1.4
11/3/10 1.2 1.2
11/11/10 1.4 1.4
11/16/10 1.8 1.8
11/23/10 1 0.5
12/1/10 1 0.5
12/3/10 1 1
12/14/10 1.6 1.6
12/21/10 2.1 2.1
12/28/10 1.4 1.4
1/4/11 2.4 2.4
1/7/11 5 5
1/12/11 2.4 2.4
1/18/11 1.8 1.8
1/25/11 1.6 1.6
2/1/11 1.7 1.7
2/5/11 1.3 1.3
2/7/11 1 0.5
2/15/11 1 0.5
2/22/11 2.1 2.1
3/1/11 1.7 1.7
3/6/11 2.2 2.2
3/15/11 1.2 1.2
3/22/11 2.1 2.1
3/29/11 1.6 1.6
4/5/11 1.5 1.5
4/11/11 1.3 1.3
4/19/11 2.1 2.1
4/26/11 1 0.5
5/3/11 1.3 1.3
5/10/11 1.6 1.6
5/17/11 2.4 2.4
5/24/11 1 0.5
6/1/11 1.8 1.8
6/7/11 4 4
6/14/11 1.4 1.4
6/21/11 24 24
6/28/11 18 18
7/7/11 4.2 4.2
7/11/11 2.4 2.4
7/18/11 6 6
7/25/11 8.7 8.7
8/1/11 3.5 3.5
8/5/11 4.4 4.4
8/9/11 2.8 2.8
8/16/11 2.2 2.2
8/23/11 2.8 2.8
8/30/11 1.8 1.8
9/6/11 1.5 1.5
9/10/11 1.4 1.4
9/13/11 1.9 1.9
9/20/11 3.7 3.7
9/27/11 1.8 1.8
10/2/11 1.7 1.7
10/4/11 1.1 1.1
10/11/11 1.8 1.8
10/18/11 1.4 1.4
10/25/11 1.7 1.7
11/1/11 1.7 1.7
11/7/11 3.5 3.5
11/15/11 3 3
11/22/11 2.3 2.3
11/29/11 2.5 2.5
12/6/11 1.2 1.2
12/13/11 3.8 3.8
12/20/11 2.4 2.4
12/28/11 1.4 1.4
1/5/12 4.2 4.2
1/11/12 3 3
1/18/12 14 14
1.4 ng/L - Annual Average for 2010
2.9 ng/L - Annual Average for 2011

1/24/12 1.9 1.9
2/1/12 2 2
2/7/12 1.3 1.3
2/9/12 2 2
2/14/12 2.3 2.3
2/22/12 1.7 1.7
2/28/12 2 2
3/2/12 2.5 2.5
3/6/12 3.3 3.3
3/13/12 2.4 2.4
3/20/12 1.2 1.2
3/27/12 1.4 1.4
4/3/12 1.4 1.4
4/11/12 2 2
4/17/12 2.4 2.4
4/24/12 1.8 1.8
5/1/12 1.1 1.1
5/7/12 1 0.5
5/15/12 1.9 1.9
5/22/12 1.6 1.6
5/30/12 1.4 1.4
6/4/12 1 0.5
6/12/12 1.5 1.5
6/19/12 1 0.5
6/26/12 1 0.5
7/3/12 1 1
7/10/12 2.7 2.7
7/17/12 1 0.5
7/25/12 2.8 2.8
8/1/12 2.4 2.4
8/8/12 1 0.5
8/14/12 2.8 2.8
8/21/12 1.1 1.1
8/28/12 2.1 2.1
9/5/12 1 0.5
9/6/12 1.2 1.2
9/11/12 1 0.5
9/18/12 5.9 5.9
9/25/12 2.2 2.2
2.1 ng/L - Annual Average for 2012

,Nowell, Jackie
From: Montebello, Michael [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Cc: [e-mail]; DeBessonet, Jeff
Subject: Re: FW: NC0024945 CMU - Irwin Creek WWTP draft permit
Ms. Nowell,
Thank you for the additional information on the CMU Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek facilities. As we discussed
over the phone, I have gone back and reassessed the copper & zinc data for the two facilities.
Based on my review of the data provided for both copper and zinc and assessing the SC State Water Quality
Standards and SC procedures for calculating reasonable potential, I would have no objection to the following:
Sugar Creek- No RP for either copper or zinc based on the same size and data. Both copper & zinc could be
removed, or the frequency reduced at your discretion.
Irwin Creek- No RP for zinc based on the sample size and data. Zinc could be removed or the frequency
reduced at your discretion. There is however, RP for copper from the dataset provided. I would however not
have a problem with the use of a monthly average limit (21 ug/1) and daily maximum (31 ug/1) permit limits [in
the previous draft Irwin Creek permit provided for our review- these were weekly average and daily maximum
limits]. Please note however, that upon NPDES permit renewal, we would be assessing the copper data using
the SC water quality standards (with appropriate adjustments) for a reasonable potential analysis.
Please confirm receipt.
Thanks
Mike Montebello
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Nowell, Jackie <iackie.nowell a ncdenr.gov> wrote:
Thank you reviewing this again.
From: Nowell, Jackie
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:47 PM
To: MONTEBMJ©dhec.sc.gov
Subject: FW: NC0024945 CMU - Irwin Creek WWTP draft permit
Good morning Mr. Montebello
The subject facility, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities — Irwin Creek WWTP has been sent to public notice for
renewal of the permit. Attached you will find the permit cover letter, draft permit, factsheet and reasonable
potential analysis. Please review and if you have any comments please submit them to me. If this permit
should not be reviewed by you, could you please forward to the correct person in your agency and advise me for
future reference. Thank you,
i

Jackie Nowell
From: Nowell, Jackie
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Krebs, Rob; Meadows, Susan; Reid, Steve; Myers.Pamala©epamail.epa.gov; Gore, Deborah
Subject: NC0024945 CMU - Irwin Creek WWTP draft permit
Good afternoon, attached is the draft permit, cover letter and factsheet for the subject facility. Also attached are
reasonable potential analyses run for the facility. Please contact me if you have comments or questions.
Thanks
Jackie
Jacquelyn M. Nowell Environmental -Senior Specialist
Complex Permitting 'Unit
NC DENT/Division of -Water Quality/Surface -Water Protection Section
1617 .1+4ail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
[phone]; fax [phone]
ja.ckie.nowell(0 uucdenr.gov
Email -correspondence to andfrom this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law andmay be
disclosed to thirdparties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
2

Michael Montebello, Manager
Domestic Wastewater Permitting Section
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
This electronic mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible
for delivering the electronic mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this electronic
mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this electronic mail is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return
mail.
3

• 9/23/2011- Comments received from CMU on the draft permit
1. Facility address should be 4000 Westmont Drive
DWQ response - Application lists the facility address as 4301 Westmont Drive. The
mailing address is listed as 4000 Westmont Drive. Will verify which is correct with
applicant
2. Draft permit expiration date is listed as May 31, 2015 which would give permit less than
five years. Requesting full five years for permit.
DWQ response- Permits are given on a basin schedule and though the permit may he
less than five years, it would remain in the river basin schedule. Permits can he issued
fir no longer than 5 years, however can be issued for fewer than five years. The
expiration date will remain May 31, 2015.
3. Requested copy of new boilerplate language for review prior to inclusion in final permit.
DWQ response - Emailed copy of revised boilerplate language and language is also on
the DWQ wehsite.
4. Comments refer to treatment units listed in draft permit and corrections that should be
made.
DWQ response - will inake corrections cis listed
5. Request TRC limits be removed based on ultraviolet disinfection only with chlorination
and dechlorination equipment having been removed from facility.
DWQ response -- will remove TRC limit based an this 1nflrinalio11
6. Requesting zinc limit be removed based on results of RPA which shows no potential.
7. Requesting copper limit be removed based on RPA, however if copper limit remains
recommends that limits be monthly average and daily maximum , instead of weekly
average and daily maximum.
DWQ response - RP is shown for existing limits which were given based on protection of
SC standards. The maximum predicted value is 23.1 ug/1 and the chronic allowable is 21
ug/l. Will change the limits to a monthly average cind daily rnaximum limits instead of
weekly average and daily maximum. SC concurs, see email dated 2/7/2012.
8. Request that mercury limit be moved since most recent data points in June 2011 are the
cause for RP being shown. Hg hits were from illegal discharge and w/o those values
there was no reasonable potential.
DWO response - Effective October 2012, NC statewide mercury TMDL and NPDES
permit implementation plan was approved by EPA. Based on new mercury evaluation
tool for effluent dischargers, a mercury limit is no longer required for the Irwin Creek
facility. Mercury monitoring will he submitted in the annual pollutant scans. A special
condition for a mercury minimisation plan will he included in thc' permit.
9. A revised effluent pollutant scan will be included in the final permit based on revised
DWQ guidance where a total of three scans must be done within a five year period.
Charlotte vkecklenburg Utilities -Irwin Creek wwTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 7

•
September 14`h, 2011
Jacquelyn M. Nowell
Complex Permitting Unit
NC DENR
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re:
(CO)
CHARLOTTE:..
SEP 23 2011
: UALI i Y
POINT SOC.;RCE SRANCH
Draft Permit No. NC0024945 — Irwin Creek WWTP, Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Nowell,
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has received and reviewed draft permit No.
NC0024945 for Irwin Creek WWTP. Based on our review of the draft permit, we are submitting the
following comments for your review and consideration in the issuance of our final permit:
• The facility address should be 4000 Westmont Drive
• The draft permit expiration date is listed as May 31, 2015. This will give us a new permit
for Tess than five (5) years. We would like to be issued a full five (5) year permit.
• An older version of standard conditions was included in our draft permit. Will you be
including the most recent version (8/2011) in our final permit? If so, we would like to
see this in a draft prior to issuance of the final permit.
• The treatment units list includes four trickling filters. These can be removed from the
equipment list. Two of these filters are currently inoperable and no longer used. The
other two that are operable will be demolished during the upcoming improvement
project.
• The treatment units list includes eleven aeration basins. The number eleven should be
removed. With the upgrade at Irwin, we are not certain how many of these basins will
be in use post construction.
• Also included in the treatment units list is pH adjustment (NaOH). NaOH should be
removed. We are currently beginning chemical trails with lime and MgOH. At the end
of the trails, we will choose a chemical for alkalinity supplement and pH adjustment.
• Chlorine Gas Disinfection and Sodium Bisulfate Dechlorination should be removed from
the treatment units list. This equipment has been removed from the property, and as a
result, Irwin WWTP no longer has this to use as a back up to our UV disinfection system.
• We are requesting that the total residual chlorine limits be removed from the permit.
As indicated in you cover letter, this would be applicable only in the event that
chlorination is ever used for backup disinfection. The equipment for chlorine
disinfection and sodium bisulfate dechlorination, as mentioned above, no longer exists
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone: [phone]

at Irwin. In addition, no bulk chlorine is being stored onsite for the purpose of
disinfection of the effluent. Since we have no means of backup disinfection using
chlorine and no bulk chlorine stored onsite, we feel that having a total residual chlorine
limit is not applicable to the permit.
• We are requesting that the Zinc limit be removed from the permit. The RPA used 199
data points and our max result was 170ug/L. With a permit limit of 317ug/L and a max
predicted concentration of 188.7 we have no potential to exceed the limit and are
requesting it to be removed from the permit.
• We are requesting that that the copper daily max limit of 31ug/L and the weekly max
limit of 21ug/L be removed from the permit. The RPA used 198 data points with a max
result of 21ug/L and a max predicted concentration of 23.1ug/L. Since we have no
potential to exceed the water quality standard we are requesting that the limits be
removed. If the decision is made to keep copper limits in the permit, CMUD is
requesting that the 21ug/L limit be a monthly limit instead of a weekly limit.
• We are requesting that Irwin's Hg limit be removed since the RPA shows no potential to
exceed the water quality standard prior to the results of 24ug/L and 18ug/L on 6/21/11
and 6/27/11 respectively. These numbers were the result of an illegal discharge and are
not representative of our true potential to exceed the water quality standard for
mercury. This is evident if the RPA is calculated without these results. The CMUD -
System Protection Section found the illegal discharge of mercury with thirty days of the
violation and resolved the issue with a cease and desist order.
If you have any questions regarding these comments or need any additional information, please call me
at 704/336-4460. If I am not available, please call Dawn Padgett at 704/201-9144. We appreciate your
consideration of our comments and look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Jacq Yeline A. Jarrell, P.E`J
Superintendent
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Department
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
_LP

Nowell, Jackie
From: DeBessonet, Jeff [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:38 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie
Cc: Montebello, Michael
Subject: Fwd: CMUD Sugar Ck WWTF...
Jackie,
I believe we saw the Irwin Creek permit -- thanks (no issues that I recall). If have not already, please also send
a copy of the Sugar Creek permit.
Jeff deBessonet
SC DHEC
Forwarded message
From: Turner, Larry <[e-mail] '>
Date: Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:31 AM
Subject: CMUD Sugar Ck WWTF...
To: "DeBessonet, Jeff' <[e-mail]>, Anne McGovern <mcgovear a,dhec.sc.gov>, "Montebello,
Michael" <montebmj(dhec.sc.gov>
FYI...See public notice for the NPDES reissuance of the Sugar Creek Plant. The Irwin Creek plant is also on PN
but it expires the tomorrow or Saturday. These public notices can be found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes/calendar. 'Don't know if we have any comments/copncems but
these are big discharges that flow directly to the Catawba via Sugar Creek. Thought you'd be interested. LT
Jeffrey deBessonet, Director
Water Facilities Permitting Division
SC DHEC 803-898-4157
i

Notification of Treatment Process Change at Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #0024945
Mecklenburg County, NC
Irwin Creek WWTP is currently permitted to treat with trickling filters located in the treatment train
between primary clarification and the aeration basins. At this time, these filters are scheduled for
demolition when the current plant upgrade, submitted and approved by the construction and grants
division, is completed. This upgrade will begin in 2012.
We are having different issues with these filters and repair costs to keep them running will be
significant. The filters are being used as "roughing" filters at this time. Impact to the plant without the
use of the filters will not be significant. Since they are already permitted for demolition we are taking
them out of service and will not be using them again.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this decision. I may be reached at 704/201-9144.
You may also contact Mike Lingerfelt, ORC of Irwin Creek 1NWTP at 704/357-1344 or 704/201-8347.
Thank you,
Dawn Padgett
Water Quality Program Administrator
CMUD-EMD

Nowell, Jackie
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Nowell, Jackie; Belnick, Tom
Cc: myers.pamala©epa.gov
Subject: "No comments" for NC0024945, Irwin Creek WWTP, Mecklenburg County
Good morning Jackie and Tom,
Just a brief note to let you know that the EPA, in Region 4 has "no comments" for draft NPDES
permit # NC0024945, Irwin Creek WWTP, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina at this time.
As always should there be additional public comments or major changes to the draft document
prior to issuance, please afford the EPA an additional period of time to review any of those
changes.
Otherwise, please proceed to issue this permit at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Pamala Myers
Environmental Engineer and Technical Advisor Pollution Control and Implementation Branch
Water Protection Division Municipal and Industrial NPDES Section U.S. EPA, Region 4 Atlanta,
GA 30303
404.562.9421
404.562.8692 (fax)
1

North Carolina ) ss
Mecklenburg County)
The Charlotte Observer Publishing Co.
Charlotte, NC
Affidavit of Publication
THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
NCDENR/DWO/POINT SOURCE B
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699
REFERENCE: 40508896 D.SPRINKLE
030198/6594309 PERMIT NC0083887
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said
County and State, duly authorized to administer
oaths affirmations, etc., personally appeared,
being duly sworn or affirmed according to law,
doth depose and say that he/she is a
representative of The Charlotte Observer
Publishing Company, a corporation organized and
doing business under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and publishing a newspaper known as The
Charlotte Observer in the city of Charlotte,
County of Mecklenburg, and State of
and that as such he/she is familiar
books, records, files, and business
Corporation and by reference to the
North Carolina
with the
of said
files of said
publication, the attached advertisement was
inserted. The following is correctly copied from
the books and files of the aforesaid Corporation
and Publication.
PUBLISHED ON:
AD SP CE:
FILED ON:
NAME:
76 LINE
/25/11
In Testimony Where
day and y42r aforesaid.
Nota
TLE:
DATE:
have hereunto set my hand an affixed my seal, the
Public Notice._..-
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission/NPDES Unit •
1617 Mail Service Center • '
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617-'. • •-
Notice of Intent to Is8u0 a NPDES Wastewater Permit,
The North Carolina Environmental Management Cannilssion
proposes to issue a NPDES wastewater discharge permit to the
personts) listed below. • ..
•
Written comments regarding the proposed permit will be
accepted until 30 days after the publish date 01 this notice. The
Director of the NC Derision of Water Quality (DWG) -may hold 8
public hearing should there be a significant degree of public
interest. Please mail comments and/or information requests :
to OWQ at the above address. Interested persons may visit
the DWO at 512 N. Salisbury Street. Raleigh. NC to review
irdornation on file. Additional information'on NPDES permits and
this notice may be found on our websden .. - calerxWr,. or by
http://portal.ncdenr.orglweb/wq/swp/ps/ 'Ns/
calling 1919) 807-6304.,
The City of Charlotte requested renewal of permit NC0083887 for
its Charlotte Douglas International Airport -facility in Mecklenburg
County; this permitted discharge is treated wastewater and
stormwater to Coffey Creek, UT ricer Branch; UT Taggart Creek,
little Paw Paw Creek,. and LIT to Beaverdam Creek In the.
Catawba River Basin. - .
Charlotte Mecklenbta Utilities requested . renewal of permit
NC0024945 for Irwin reek WWTP'in Mecklenburg County; this
permitted discharge is treated municipal wastewater to the Irwin
Creek in the Catawba River Basin.
Textron, Inc. (NC0084662). has applied for renewal of its permit
discharging heated GWR wastewater to a LfT to Crowder& Creek
in the Catawba Rivet Basin.
LP30198
My Comrtfisaion Expires May 27, 201$
onmission Expires: _/_/_

DENR/ DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NC0024945
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility
Name:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities/Irwin Creek WWTP
Applicant Address:
4222 Westmont Drive, Charlotte NC 28217
Facility Address:
4301 Westmont Drive, Charlotte NC 28217
Permitted Flow
15 MGD
Type of Waste:
Municipal (domestic and industrial)
Facility/Permit Status:
Renewal
Facility Classification
IV
County:
Mecklenburg
Miscellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Irwin Creek
Regional Office:
Mooresville
Stream Classification:
C
USGS Topo
Quad:
G 15NW
303(d) Listed?:
Yes
Permit Writer:
Jackie Nowell
HUC#:
Subbasin:
03050103
03-08-34
Date:
8/12/2011
Drainage Area (mi2):
31.0
•
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
4.9
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
7.7
Average Flow (cfs):
43.0
IWC (%):
83%
Primary SIC Code:
4952
SUMMARY OF FACILITY INFORMATION
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) has requested renewal of the NPDES permit for
the Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The application was received December
1, 2009, the permit expired in May 31, 2010 and has been administratively extended
by the Division.
The existing WWTP with a design flow of 15.0 MGD discharges into Irwin Creek, a
class C water. Average flow in 2007 was 9.0 MGD, which is 60% of capacity, in 2008
was 8.1 MGD which is 54% of capacity and in 2009 was 8.6 MGD which is 57% of
capacity. The wasteflow from the plant is municipal and the Irwin Creek WWTP
serves 39,338 persons. The 2009 application states that CMU is currently in design
to "firm up" the treatment capacity and add total phosphorus removal. In June 2005,
an ultraviolet disinfection system was installed. In February 2010, CMU received an
authorization to construct permit from Construction Grants and Loans for extensive
upgrades/improvements and modifications to the existing wastewater treatment
plant, including vertical mixers for phosphorus removal.
The existing 15.0 MGD wastewater treatment plant consisting of the following
treatment units:
Influent pump station
- Mechanical Bar Screen
- Grit removal
- Flow equalization
- Three primary clarifiers
- Four trickling filters
Elevation aeration basins
Three secondary clarifiers
Charlotte \lccklcnburg I tilities-IrN%in Creel. WV% 11' Fact Shcet
NPDES Renewal
Page 1

- Chlorine Gas disinfection (decommissioned)
- Sodium bisulfate dechlorination (decommissioned)
- Ten tertiary filters
- Effluent flow measurement
- Ultraviolet disinfection
- Cascade aeration
- Four anaerobic digesters
- 300,000 gallon sludge storage
- Two gravity belt thickeners with polymer feed
- 1.8 MG digested sludge storage tank
rp
The treatment plant has a Pretreatment Program and a Long Term Monitoring Plan as
it receives flow from several Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical
Industrial Users. (see Attachment G in the application).
It is recommended that the existing pretreatment program continue to be
implemented during the next permitting cycle.
RECEIVING STREAM
The receiving stream is Irwin Creek and is classified C in the Catawba River Basin. It
is listed on the North Carolina 2010 303d impaired streams list for several
parameters including copper, ecological/biological integrity in the fish community,
fecal coliform, lead, turbidity and zinc. There is an EPA approved Fecal Coliform
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Irwin, McAlpine, Little Sugar, and Sugar
Creek Watersheds. This TMDL was developed by the Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection with active participation by the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ), Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU)
and United States Geological Survey (USGS). Effective on October 1, 2005, a fecal
coliform daily maximum limit of 1000/ 100m1 was added to the Irwin Creek, Sugar
Creek and McAlpine Creek permits. This daily maximum fecal coliform limit was
renewed in this permit.
NUTRIENT CONDITION
A permit condition regarding total phosphorus limits has been included in the
permits for CMU's Irwin Creek WWTP, Sugar Creek WWTP and McAlpine WWTP based
on a settlement agreement that was reached between CMU, SC, and DWQ. This
condition will be updated in the Irwin Creek permit to the same condition in the
McAlpine permit. Based on this condition, phosphorus limits are included in the
McAlpine Creek WWTP permit per a settlement agreement in 2002. Any actions
regarding construction of nutrient removal components at the Irwin and Sugar Creek
plants prior to 2006 did not occur, therefore the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek WWTPs
do not have individual TP limits. This condition will be in the renewal permit for Irwin
Creek. All CMU plants have been submitting phosphorus data as required by the
agreement and the 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day has been met
since February 28, 2006.
Total Phosphorus Limit Condition
As stipulated by the 2002 Settlement Agreement between Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities (CMU), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SC DHEC) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ), CMU's
McAlpine Creek WWTF, Sugar Creek WWTP and Irwin Creek WWTP must comply with
a combined 12 month rolling average limit of 826.0 lbs/day as of February 28, 2006.
This limit is defined as an effluent limit for total phosphorus from the total combined
discharge from the three referenced CMU wastewater treatment plants (based on a
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Irwin Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 2

4
.12-month rolling average). The methodology for calculating the annual average is
described in Part A. (9.).
Deleted paragraph
This paragraph of the condition is deleted in the renewal permit because the 2006 and 2007
dates have passed: ` If CMU conducts construction activities associated with phosphorus removal at
either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the annual average limit of 826.0 lbs/day (based
on the collective discharge from all three plants) shall become effective February 28, 2007. Said
construction activities will also trigger an effluent limit for total phosphorus for the Irwin Creek WWTP of
250.0 lbs/day (based on a monthly average) as of February 28, 2007 (as stipulated in Part. A. (1.) of
NPDES Permit NC0024945). If however, CMU decides not to pursue construction activities, associated
with phosphorus removal, at either the Sugar Creek WWTP or the Irwin Creek WWTP, the total
phosphorus annual average limit applicable to the loading from all three WWTPs, shall become effective
on February 28, 2006."
TOXICITY TESTING:
Current Requirements: At 15 MGD, Chronic Toxicity P/F at 83%; Jan Apr Jul Oct;
Since the last renewal in April 2005, the facility has passed all quarterly toxicity tests.
Recommendation: renewal of quarterly chronic toxicity test at 83%.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY:
Overall, the Irwin Creek WWTP is in compliance with existing permit limits. There
were enforcement actions and penalties assessed in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The four
assessments in 2006 were for violations of the copper limit. There was one
assessment in 2007 for a fecal coliform violation and one in 2008. CMU paid
penalties of $1828.95, $578.95, $1578.95, $1017.65, $2078.95, $1092.65 and
$581.20 between 2006 and 2008. There have been no enforcement actions since that
time.
INSTREAM MONITORING:
Irwin Creek WWTP conducts extensive instream monitoring along with other nearby
CMU WWTPs, Sugar Creek and McAlpine WWTPs. The results of Irwin Creek's
monthly instream monitoring are recorded in the discharge monitoring report for the
McAlpine WWTP (NC0024970)
Parameters: Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, pH, Conductivity, Nitrate/nitrite, TKN,
TP, ortho phosphorus, chromium, copper, zinc, hardness.
Upstream station - 1 C 1: Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP.
Downstream stations: there are four stations on Sugar Creek downstream of its
confluence with Irwin Creek.
Upstream and downstream data from critical summer months of June, July, and
August in 2009 and 2010 was reviewed. There are no violations of any water quality
standards upstream of the Irwin Creek WWTP. There were fecal coliform violations at
the downstream station, SC4, Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin
Creek at Route 51. A review of the metals monitored showed no exceedances of
instream water quality standards for chromium, copper and zinc at any of the
downstream stations. In June 2010, there was one copper value upstream of the
Sugar Creek WWTP that was above the 7 ug/1 standard, however there were no
exceedances of the copper standard in any downstream station.
Recommend: Continuation of instream monitoring of all existing parameters and
existing monitoring frequencies.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Irwin Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 3

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Data submitted in discharge monitoring reports and PPAs from 2007 through 2009
were evaluated and a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) was done to determine
whether effluent limitations or monitoring should be included in this permit renewal.
The RPA and effluent data is attached to the factsheet and the results are summarized
below:
o Weekly average and daily maximum cyanide limits and monitoring
requirements will be removed from the permit based on the results
of the reasonable potential analyses. All sampled data was below
detection levels. The analyses indicated there was no reasonable
potential to exceed the North Carolina water quality standard for
cyanide in the receiving stream. Cyanide will continue to be
monitored in the long term monitoring plan of the pretreatment
program.
o The existing daily maximum mercury limit of 15 ng/1 will be
modified. The results of the RPA indicated a reasonable potential
to exceed the water quality standard for mercury. A monthly
average limit of 12 ng/1 and a daily maximum limit of 36 ng/1 for
total mercury will be added to the permit based on those results.
North Carolina has a statewide mercury impairment of all
streams and based on EPA guidance and recommendation, all
dischargers must be protective of the mercury standard of 12
ng/1 at the end of the effluent pipe, without allowance for stream
dilution. The monitoring frequency for mercury will be modified
to monthly. CMU should use the most sensitive test method,
EPA Method 1631E, when sampling for mercury.
o The nickel limits and monitoring requirements will be removed from
the permit. There was no reasonable potential shown to exceed the
nickel water quality standard instream. Nickel will continue to be
monitored in the long term monitoring plan for the pretreatment
program.
o Chromium monitoring will remain in the permit. Although there was
no reasonable potential to exceed the water quality standard, the
predicted value nearly exceeded the allowable concentration.
Chromium monitoring will be reduced to quarterly.
o Existing limits for copper and zinc will remain in the permit.
Because of the proximity of the CMU treatment plant to the South
Carolina (SC) State line, these limits were placed in the previous
permit for protection of SC water quality standards. CMU, SCDHEC,
EPA and DWQ all concurred with the limits that were previously
developed in 2005. The analysis of effluent data for both parameters
indicated the reasonable potential to exceed these allowable
concentrations. The monitoring frequency will be modified to
monthly per revised Division guidance.
Some additional LTMP data was also evaluated by RPA; arsenic, cadmium,
lead, selenium, and silver. None of these parameters showed reasonable
potential to exceed water quality standards and should continue to be
evaluated and monitored in the pretreatment LTMP.
PPA data (2009, 2010) evaluated included chlorinated phenols and total
phenols.
• There were only 2 datapoints for total phenols and both were below
detection. There was no reasonable potential to exceed the estimated
allowable concentration therefore no monitoring or limits are
recommended.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Irwin Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 4

• Chlorinated phenols data was evaluated from 2007-2009 PPAs. There
were 8 datapoints and all were below detection. The chlorinated
phenolic compounds included in this analysis were 2-chlorophenol, 2,4
dichlorophenol, 2,4,6 trichlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol. Based
on this analysis, there was no reasonable potential and no limits or
monitoring was recommended for chlorinated phenolic compounds.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
The following modifications have been made to the permit:
• Per the CMU Irwin Creek application, the facility address has been changed to
4301 Westmont Dr. on the permit cover page and supplement to permit cover
sheet.
• Ultraviolet disinfection has been added to the treatment components on the
supplement to permit cover sheet.
• The active permit condition A.(6) Daily Maximum Fecal Coliform Limit has been
removed because the effective date has occurred.
• Footnote regarding cyanide practical quantifiable level has been removed
because cyanide is no longer limited or monitored in the permit.
• Total residual chlorine limit remains in the permit but footnote has been added
that the limit is applicable only when chlorine is used for disinfection.
• Limits for cyanide and nickel have been removed based on RPA results.
• Mercury limits of 12 ng/1 (mo. avg.) and 36 ng/1 (da. max.) will be applied
based on the RPA results. Mercury will be monitored monthly instead of
weekly based on revised Division guidance.
• Chromium monitoring has been modified from monthly to quarterly based on
RPA results and revised Division guidance.
• The monitoring frequency for both copper and zinc is now monthly instead of
weekly based on revised Division guidance.
• Minor language has been modified in Chronic toxicity test condition. In
addition a new paragraph regarding data submittal had been added (second
paragraph from the end of the condition).
• The condition for the total phosphorus limit has been modified and the
paragraph regarding construction at the Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek WWTPs
by February 2006 has been removed.
• In condition A.9. Effluent Pollutant Scan: 1) mercury should be sampled using
EPA Method 1631 E, 2) P-chloro-m-cresol has been corrected, 3) the DWQ,
Water Quality Section has been corrected to the Surface Water Protection
Section.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Draft Permit to Public Notice: 08/17/2011
Permit Scheduled to Issue (estimated): 10/2011
STATE CONTACT:
If you have any questions on any of the above information or on the attached permit,
please coct Jackie Nowell at [phone].
NAM
DATE: 6 /
/672-61
C'hrlotic \ledaenhui . I ilitie -1 iu Creel: It \t I I' I ,rat Shea
IZencvyI
Page '

REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
RO SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE: DATE:
NPDES SUPERVISOR COMMENT:
NAME: DATE:
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Irvin Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 6

9/23/2011- Comments received from CMU on the draft permit
1. Facility address should be 4000 Westmont Drive
DWQ response — Application lists the facility address as 4301 Westmont Drive. The
mailing address is listed as 4000 Westmont Drive. Will verify which is correct with
applicant
2. Draft permit expiration date is listed as May 31, 2015 which would give permit less than
five years. Requesting full five years for permit.
DWQ response- Permits are given on a basin schedule and though the permit may be
less than five years, it would remain in the river basin schedule. Permits can be issued
for no longer than 5 years, however can be issued for fewer than.five years. The
expiration date will remain May 31, 2015.
3. Requested copy of new boilerplate language for review prior to inclusion in final permit.
DWQ response — Emailed copy of revised boilerplate language and language is also on
the DWQ 11'ebsite.
4. Comments refer to treatment units listed in draft permit and corrections that should be
made.
DWQ response — will make corrections as listed
5. Request TRC limits be removed based on ultraviolet disinfection only with chlorination
and dechlorination equipment having been removed from facility.
DWQ response — will remove TRC limit based on this information
6. Requesting zinc limit be removed based on results of RPA which shows no potential.
7. Requesting copper limit be removed based on RPA, however if copper limit remains
recommends that limits be monthly average and daily maximum , instead of weekly
average and daily maximum.
DWQ response — RP is shown for existing limits which were given based on protection of
SC standards. The inaxirnum predicted value is 23.1 ug/l and the chronic allowable is 21
ug/l. Will change the limits to a monthly average and daily maximum limits instead of
weekly average and daily maximum. SC concurs, see email dated 2/7/2012.
8. Request that mercury limit be moved since most recent data points in June 2011 are the
cause for RP being shown. Hg hits were from illegal discharge and w/o those values
there was no reasonable potential.
DWQ response — Effective October 2012, NC statewide mercury TMDL and NPDES
permit implementation plan was approved by EPA. Based on new mercury evaluation
tool for effluent dischargers, a mercury limit is no longer required for the Irwin Creek
facility, however a condition for a mercury minimization plan will be included in the
permit.
9. A revised effluent pollutant scan will be included in the final permit based on revised
DWQ guidance where a total of three scans must be done within a five year period.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities -Irwin Creek WWTP Fact Sheet
NPDES Renewal
Page 7

'NoWvell, Jackie
From: Folley, Dana
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:19 PM
To: Padgett (CMU), Dawn; Gintert, Bill
Cc: Lesley, John; Gore, Deborah; Nowell, Jackie; Morrison, Sarah
Subject: CMU Irwin HWA Due date
Hello, all. CMU Irwin's last HWA was based on July 2003 —June 2005 data. Based on the requirement to update the
HWA at least every 5 years, the next HWA would be based on data through June 2010, so the due date was set as
10/1/2010. Last year, CMU asked for an extension because their NPDES permit had expired on 5/31/2010 and they had
not yet received their new permit. NPDES reported that it would be issued "soon," so we granted the extension. But
the permit kept getting pushed back, and we extended it a couple of times more, the last time to 7/1/2011.
Dawn called me today to discuss another extension. Jackie's saying maybe next month....but maybe later... Dawn
expressed particular concern about their copper and zinc limits based on South Carolina's water quality standards, which
are hardness based. And would the Division be applying our own (more stringent) hardness policies that we are
considering with respect to our own proposed NC WQS, in which case the new NPDEWS limits could be much lower.
Jackie indicated that the hardnesses used to calculate the current limits were based on SC and/or EPA policies, and we
would continue with that for this next permit. So she believes the new permit will have either exactly the same cu and
zn limit, or very close.
Jackie did note that we would only apply our own NC hardness policies if and when an NC WQS is actually adopted.
When this happens, she said we would then probably calculate two limits and either apply the more stringent, or stick
with SC's because that's where the potential for impact is.
I propose that CMU begin preparing their HWA based on data through June 2011, with a due date of 11/1/2011. This
will be 6 years between HWAs, not too bad.
1) If the draft permit is not out then, submit the HWA with the current limits.
2) If the draft NPDES is still not out by the time PERCS completes our review —2/1/2012, then our approval letter would
remind CMU that when they do get their new permit, if it does have different limits, they have 180 days to resubmit
the HWA with only the change to the NPDES limits (as in same data time period, removal rates, POTW flow, etc.).
3) When CMU finally does get their draft NPDES permit, whenever that may be...
a) If CMU is concerned that they may not be able to comply with their new limit, they should request a compliance
schedule in the permit. If it is granted, CMU would have 180 days to resubmit the HWA with the new limits,
along with their plans for resolution as it applies to SIU limits and any need to submit an updated HWA based on
their NPDES compliance schedule due date.
b) If CMU will be able to comply with the limit but will have allocation issues for their SIUs, CMU would have 180
days to resubmit the HWA with the new limits along with a plan for IU limit reductions (with or without lUs
having to install new pretreatment), or perhaps a new HWA with all new WWTP and/or uncontrollable data with
lower PQLs, or some other plan for resolving the over allocation, and a time table for completion. Assuming the
time table is reasonable, PERCS will allow the over allocation while the work is being done.
I hope this proposal is acceptable as balancing the need for a new HWA in a timely fashion against the need to avoid
having to re -do major HWA data crunching twice within a few months against having CMU get really different (lower)
NPDES limits with no time to re -act and plan for a reasonable timeframe for resolution.
Thanks!
Dana Rees Folley
1

CMU-Irwin Creek
NC0024945
Qw (MGD) = 15.00
1 Q 10S (cfs) = 4.09
7Q 10S (cfs) = 4.90
7Q10W (cfs)= 7.70
30Q2 (cfs) = 9.90
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 43.00
Receiving Stream: Irwin Creek
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC 1Q10S = 85.04%
IWC ® 7Q 1 OS = 82.59%
IWC Q 7Q10W = 75.12%
IWC (a3 30Q2 = 70.14%
IWC © QA = 35.09%
Stream Class: C
Outfa11.0Q1
Qw=15MGD
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = 82.6%
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
-Jco
a
D
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
'/2 FAV /
Acute
n # Det. M Cwred Allowable Cw
Arsenic
Arsenic
C
C
50
10
FW(7Q10s)
HH/WS(Qavg)
ug/L
ug/L
150 1
150 1
5.5
5.5
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ ______ ___
Chronic: 60.5
N o value > Allowable Cw
Chronic: 28.5
No value > Allowable Cw
________________________—_—
No RP, Predicted Max < 5-0% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Cadmium
NC
2
FW(7Q10s)
15
ug/L
150 0
0.5
Acute: 17.6
_ __ ______ ____
Chronic: 2.4
No value > Allowable Cw
___________________________.
No RP, all values below detection- No Monitoring
required
Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
NC
1
A(30Q2)
ug/L
8 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
33.3
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ ______ ____
Chronic: 1.4
8 value(s) > Allowable Cw
____________________________
No RP, all values below detection- No Monitoring
required
Total Phenolic Compounds
NC
300
A(30Q2)
ug/L
2 0
Note: n < 9
Limited data set
184.8
Default C.V.
Acute: NO WQS
_ __ ______ _ ______________________—_—_—__.
Chronic: 427.7
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, all values below detection- No Monitoring
required
Chromium
NC
50
FW(7Q10s)
1022
ug/L
199 8
50.2
Acute: 1,201.8
_ __ ______ ____
Chronic: 60.5
No value > Allowable Cw
___________________________
No RP , Predicted Max a 50% of Allowable Cw -
apply Quarterly Monitoring
,/
Cyanide
NC
5
FW(7Q10s)
22
10
ug/L
200 0
5.0
Acute: 25.9
_ __ ______________________________________
Chronic: 6.1
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, no values above detection - No Monitoring
required
Lead
NC
25
FW(7Q10s)
33.8
ug/L
150 0
2.5
Acute: 39.7
__ ________________________________________.
Chronic: 30.3
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, no values above detection - No Monitoring
required
Molybdenum
NC
2000
HH(7Q10s)
ug/L
0 0
N/A
Acute: NO WQS
_ _________ _ __
Chronic: 2,421.6
___________________________.
Nickel
NC
88
FW(7Q10s)
261
ug/L
200 200
26.9
Acute: 306.9
_ _ _ _
Chronic: 106.6
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, Predicted Max < 50% of Allowable Cw - No
Monitoring required
Page 1 of 2
24945rpa2011r.xlsm, rpa
8/15/2011

CMU-Irwin Creek
NC0024945
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
OutfaUI'OQ1
Qw=15MD.
Selenium
NC
5
FW(7Q10s)
56
ug/L
150
0
2.5
Acute: 65.9
—_—__
Chronic: 6.1
No value > Allowable Cw
No RP, no values above detection - No Monitoring
required
Silver(AL)
NC
0.06
FW(7Q10s)
1.23
ug/L
150
0
2.500
Acute: 1.446
_ Ch_ro_nc_:—_—__ .0_3 —_
150 values) > Allowable Cw
_No RP_, n_o va_u—s —o— detection -- N_o M_o—nit_o—n_g—
required
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - ---------------------------
Chronic:
------------
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- ---------------------------------------•
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - ---------------------------------------
Chronic:
Page2of2
24945rpa2011 r.xlsm, rpa
8/15/2011

CMU-Irwin Creek
NC0024945
Qw (MGD) = 15.00
1Q1OS(cfs)= 4.09
7Q1 OS (cfs) = 4.90
7Q 1 OW (cfs) = 7.70
30Q2 (cfs) = 9.90
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 43.00
Receiving Stream: Irwin Creek
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC @ 1QIOS = 85.04%
IWC @ 7Q1OS = 82.59%
IWC @ 7Q1OW = 75.12%
IWC @ 30Q2 = 70.14%
IWC @ QA = 35.09%
Stream Class: C
Outfalr 001
Qw =15MGD
•
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = 82.6%
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
-J
a
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS /
Chronic
Applied
Standard
'/2 FAV /
Acute
n
# Det. Max Pred Allowable Cw
Cw
Copper(AL)
NC
21
FW(7Q10s)
31
ug/L
198
198
23
Acute: 31.0
_ __ _—_—__ __—_
Chronic: 21.0
No value > Allowable Cw
__—_—_—_—_---_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
RP for AL(Cu,Zn,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply existing limits for
protection of SC std.
Zinc(AL)
NC
50
FW(7Q10s)
317
ug/L
199
199
188.7
Acute: 317.0
_ __ _—_—__ __—_
Chronic: 60.5
24 value(s) > Allowable Cw
__—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
RP for AL(Cu,Z ,,Ag,Fe,CI) - apply existing acute limit
only for protection of SC std.
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- - ---------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
_ _ ----------
Chronic:
---
-------------------------
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- --------------------------------------
Chronic:
0
0
N/A
Acute:
- ----------------------------------------
Chronic:
Page 1 of 1
24945rpa2011 cuzn.xlsm, rpa
8/15/2011

CMU-Irwin Creek
NC0024945
Qw (MGD) = 15.00
IQIOS(cfs)= 0.00
7Q10S (cfs) = 0.00
7QIOW(cfs)= 7.70
30Q2 (cfs) = 9.90
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = 43.00
Receiving Stream: Irwin Creek
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
WWTP/WTP Class: IV
IWC ta31QIOS = 100.00%
IWC Q 7Q10S = 100.00%
IWC (a3 7QIOW = 75.12%
IWC 4) 30Q2 = 70.14%
IWC ® QA = 35.09%
Stream Class: C
Outfall- 001
Qw = 15 MGD
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = DEFAULT %
= 90 %
PARAMETER
TYPE
(1)
STANDARDS & CRITERIA (2)
PQL
cn
D
REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
NC WQS / Applied V2 FAV /
Chronic Standard Acute
I1 tt Det. Max Pred Allowable Cw
Cw
Mercury
NC
12 FW(7Q10s)
0.5
ng/I,
l 89 140
34.6
Acute: NO WQS
Chronic: 12.0
2 value(s) > Allowable Cw
RP for non -AL - apply Monthly Monitoring with Limit
0 0
N/A
Acute:
— — — — —
Chronic:
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
(l 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic
----------------------------
0 0
N/A
Acute:
— — — — —
Chronic:
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
0 0
N/A
Acute:
Chronic: ----------
----------------------------
Page 1 of 1
24945rpa2011Hg.xlsm, rpa
8/15/2011

2010 Instream Data for CMU - Irwin, Sugar and McAlpine WWTPs
Jun-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 24.7 25.5 25.6 24.8 24.7 24.5 24.5 24.8 25.4 25.3
D0 (mg/I) 7.4 7.9 6.7 6.2 6.4 7.3 6.8 7 6.9 6.6
Conductivity (uMhos) 155 173 249 145 305 212 204 201 208 245
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.7 4 0.5 4.5 5.1 4.6 3.9 3.4 4.8
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.44
OP (mg/I) <0.05 0.06 0.5 0.06 0.11 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.28
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 3.4 9.7 5.5 5.7 5.8 nr nr nr 6.1 nr
Zinc (ug/I) 10 12 15 <10 16 nr nr nr 19 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 70 140 66 56 68 nr nr nr 72 62
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 7785 7385 4686
Jul-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 26.8 26.7 27.5 26 26.3 26.6 26.2 26.4 26.9 27.2
D0 (mg/I) 7.4 7.5 6.7 5.9 6.8 7.3 7 7.2 7.1 7.4
Conductivity (uMhos) 147 186 351 202 550 227 228 228 245 383
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1) 0 <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.2 8.7 0.3 23 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.2 9.8
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.3 0.6 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.4 <0.3 0.4 0.1
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.5 <0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.55
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.4 <0.05 0.42 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.44
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) <2 2.8 4.3 2.3 2.6 nr nr nr 4.3 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 26 <10 16 nr nr nr 10 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 60 86 66 92 145 nr nr nr 72 153
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1344 416 851
Aug-10 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 25.3 25.4 25.8 24.5 25.7 25.4 25.0 24.9 25.1 25.6
DO (mg/I) 7.8 8.1 7.0 6.4 6.7 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.2
Conductivity (uMhos) 157 185 343 180 472 218 223 220 219 335
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.4 0.4 7.6 0.5 12.0 5.6 5.4 5.3 4.7 9.0
TKN (mg/I) 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.46
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.0 <0.05 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.35
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) - 2.3 4.4 5.8 3.6 4.6 nr nr nr 5.5 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 15.0 <10 21.0 nr nr nr 15.0 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 54 55 62 56 106 nr nr nr 56 81.0
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1425 680 1983
Instream monitoring stations
1C1 -Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
LSC1 - Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
LSC3-Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Route 51
MC1-McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
MC2-McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC2964
SC1-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
SC2-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
SC3-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
SC4-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
SC5-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160

2009
Instream Data for CMu-Irwin, Sugar, and McAlpine WWTPs
Jun-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 22.4 24.1 25.1 24.2 24.2 22.9 23.1 23.8 24.4 24.4
DO (mg/I) 7.4 7.4 7 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.1
Conductivity (uMhos) 251 241 368 221 520 333 334 311 313 396
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 1.2 0.8 7.3 0.5 17 8.9 8 5.8 4.5 10.4
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 <0.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.4 1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.44
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 0.9 <0.05 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.37
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.4 2.7 4.3 2.4 3.6 nr nr nr 5 nr
Zinc (ug/l) <10 <10 15 <10 14 nr nr nr 11 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 118 118 102 118 154 nr nr nr 94 102
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 304 234 336
Jul-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 23.8 25.3 25.3 24.2 24.9 24.3 24.1 24.3 24.3 25
DO (mg/I) 7.3 8.2 6.9 6.6 6.6 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.1
Conductivity (uMhos) 207 221 346 224 511 316 301 289 278 400
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.4 8.4 0.5 15 9.5 9.7 8.2 6.2 11.3
TKN (mg/I) <0.3 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 0.3
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 0.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.56
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 1.2 <0.05 0.3 1.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.45
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/I) 2.3 5.3 6.4 3.4 3.8 nr nr nr 5.6 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 17 <10 12 nr nr nr 11 nr
Hardness (mg/I) 102 120 87 100 133 nr nr nr 94 83
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 1316 448 571
Aug-09 1C1 LSC1 LSC3 MC1 MC2 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Temperature (degrees C) 24.1 25.5 25.2 24.5 25.6 24.5 24.2 24.5 24.6 25.3
DO (mg/I) 7.5 8.1 7.0 6.5 6.7 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.3
Conductivity (uMhos) 206 201 317 208 540 309 304 279 272 386
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1
Nitrate/nitrite (mg/I) 0.8 0.6 6.0 0.4 12.0 8.2 8.6 7.0 4.7 9.1
TKN (mg/1) <0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 0.5 <0.3 <0.3 0.5
TP (mg/I) <0.1 <0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.47
OP (mg/I) <0.05 <0.05 0.9 <0.05 0.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.38
Chromium (ug/I) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 nr nr nr <0.5 nr
Copper(ug/1) 2.4 4.5 4.9 3.8 3.5 nr nr nr 4.3 nr
Zinc (ug/I) <10 <10 13.0 <10 12.0 nr nr nr <10 nr
Hardness (mg/1) 96 73 81 87 127 nr nr nr 98 106.0
Fecal coliform (/100m1) 264 275 497
Instream monitoring stations
1C1 -Irwin Creek - Upstream of Irwin Creek WWTP
LSC1 - Little Sugar Creek upstream of Sugar Creek WWTP
LSC3-Little Sugar Creek downstream of Sugar Creek WWTP at Route 51
MC1-McAlpine Creek - Upstream of McAlpine Creek WWTP
MC2-McAlpine Creek downstream of confluence with McMullen Creek at SC2964
SC1-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Yorkmont Road
SC2-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Arrowhead Road
SC3-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Nations Ford Road
SC4-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with Irwin Creek at Route 51
SC5-Sugar Creek downstream of confluence with McAlpine Creek at Route 160

SOC Priority Project: Yes_ No X
To: Western NPDES Program Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Dina Sprinkle
Date: February 2, 2010
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
County: Mecklenburg
NPDES Permit No.: NC0024945
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. • Facility and Address: Irwin Creek WWTP_ CMU
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, N.C. 28216
2. Date of Investigation: January 13, 2010
3. Report Prepared By: Samar Bou-Ghazale, Environmental Engineer II
4. Person Contacted and Telephone Number: Dawn Padgett with CMU, Tel# [phone]
and Michael Lingerfelt, ORC, Tel# [phone] ext.223.
5. Directions to Site: From the intersection of I-77 and Woodlawn Rd. in the City of Charlotte,
travel west on Woodlawn Rd. (turns into Billy Graham Parkway) 1.0 mile. Turn right
(north) onto Westmont Drive. The WWTP is located at the end of Westmont Drive.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge Points: -
Latitude: 35° 11' 44" Longitude: 80° 54' 27"
Attach a USGS Map Extract and indicate treatment plant site and discharge point on map.
USGS Quad No.: G 15 NW
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application: Yes.
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included): Flat to moderate slopes. A significant
portion of the WWTP site appears to be located within the 100 year flood plain, however,
those treatment units located within the flood plain are protected from flooding by a dike
specifically designed for this purpose.
9. Location of Nearest Dwelling: Approx. 1000± feet from the WWTP site.

Page Two
10. Receiving Stream or Affected Surface Waters: Irwin Creek
a. Classification: C
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: Catawba 030834
c. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent downstream uses: Excellent flow in
receiving stream (8-10 feet wide x 1-2 feet deep). Irwin Creek has a predominately
urban watershed. There are no other known dischargers below this facility.
PART II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
1. a. Volume of Wastewater: 15.0 MGD (Design Capacity)
b. What is the current permitted capacity: 15.0 MGD
c. Actual treatment capacity of current facility (current design capacity): 15.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous ATCs issued in the previous
two years: N/A
e. Description of existing or substantially constructed WWT facilities (outfall 001): The
existing WWT facilities consist of Six (6) influent pump stations followed by Two (2)
mechanicals screening, Two (2) grit removal, Two (2) flow equalization basins,
influent flow measurement, three (3) primary clarifiers, four (4) trickling filters, pH
adjustment (NaOH), eleven aeration basins (diffused), three (3) secondary clarifiers,
ten (10) tertiary filter cells with a filter backwash collection basin, UV light
disinfection, effluent flow measurement, cascade aeration, four (4) anaerobic
digesters, a 300,000 gallon sludge storage tank (aerated), two (2) gravity belt
thickeners with polymer feed, a 1.8 MG digested sludge storage tank, and two (2) belt
filter presses.
Outfall 002 utilizes basically the same treatment facilities noted above, however,
outfall 002 by-passes the sand filters and the cascade aeration; This outfall is only
used when the sand filters are being repaired or when effluent quality is sufficient to
consistently meet Permit limitations.
f. Description of proposed WWT facilities: The City has requested
authorization to construct a number WWTP improvement at the subject WWT
facility. The improvements include:
1. A new influent flow diversion structure and piping which will allow the WWTP to maximize
flow diversion capacity (up to 40 MGD) from two major influent lines (Irwin Creek and
Taggart Creek lines).
2. A new flow equalization pump station that will provide for continuous pumping of influent
flow from the directly to the WWTP during shutdown of the influent pump station.
3. A new influent pump station (IPS) that will receive the combined sewer from the new flow
diversion structure into the IPS. The IPS will also include new mechanical screens and two
new screen presses.

4. The existing grit removal facilities will be rehabilitated including the replacement of the
existing Stirred Vortex Chambers with new 30 MGD models, and the installation of two new
grit classifiers.
5. The existing primary clarifiers will be rehabilitated with new scum pumps, new sludge
pumps, and new effluent piping.
6. Existing north aeration basins will be upgraded to provide additional cold -weather
nitrification volume (not used during warm weather months). Existing air piping to be
replaced and riew diffusers added where needed. South aeration basins will be converted into
two swing zones to allow seasonal biological phosphorous removal (anoxic/anaerobic during
the warmer months and aerobic during the colder months).
7. Existing trickling filters are to be removed from service and demolished.
8. A fourth secondary clarifier is to be constructed in order to reduce solids loading to the
existing filters.
9. Pump upgrades to the RAS-WAS pump station.
10. Assorted upgrades to the Filter Backwash Pumps, a new gravity belt thickener with assorted
feed pumps, a new polymer feed system, and new belt filter press with assorted pumps and
conveyors, and digester improvements.
g•
Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: This facility has a history of consistently
passing its toxicity testing for the past three (3) years.
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): Approved.
2. Residual handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied specify DWQ Permit No. WQ000057.
Residuals Contractor: Synagro, Inc.
Telephone No. [phone]
3. Treatment Plant Classification: Class IV (there has been no change from previous rating)
4. SIC Code(s): 4952 Wastewater Code(s): 01
5. MTU Code(s): 04103
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.

r ',
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity) requests: None at this time.
3. Important SOC/JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: N/A
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMU) has requested renewal of the subject
permit. An on -site investigation revealed the WWTP to be in good operational condition. At this
time, the facility is using UV disinfection and therefore, CMU is requesting the Total Chlorine (TRC)
be removed from the permit, unless they start using chlorine to disinfect the effluent.
During a review of the facility it was noted that Irwin Creek WWTP has been experiencing
bypasses due to the failure of the UV system. The most recent bypass was on 12/19/09 of 47,005
gallons. According to Michael Lingerfelt, Plant Supervisor, these bypasses are occurring due to the
failure of mechanical, electrical and programming problems of the UV system. A bypass is taking
place approximately every six month. Accordingly, Ms. Dawn Padgett, with Charlotte Mecklenburg
Utilities, is requesting that daily maximum fecal coliform be changed to a daily mean maximum for
fecal coliform. CMU believes that this will meet the intent of the TMDL and allow the plant to make
repairs if there is any UV issue. On the other hand, and according to Ms. Padgett, CMU has conducted
sampling in the past few months which indicates that the WWTP is not adversely impacting the
receiving stream for fecal coliform and that they are actually reducing the amount of fecal downstream
of the plant.
Pending review and approval by the Western NPDES Program Unit, it is recommended that
the permit be renewed and the above requests be addressed.
z_/O
/0
Water Quality Regional Superviso/

NPDESIAquifer Protection Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
PERMIT WRITER COMPLETES THIS PART:
PERMIT WRITERS - AFTER you get this form
Check that
back from PERCS:
all apply
- Notify PERCS if LTMP/STMP data
Date of Request
2/4/2011
municipal renewal
x
we said should
be on DMRs is not really there, so we can get it for
Requestor
Jackie Nowell
new industries
you (or NOV POTW).
Facility Name
CMU-Irwin
WWTP expansion
- Notify PERCS if you want us to keep a specific
Permit Number
NC0024945
Speculative limits
POC in LTMP/STMP so you will have data for next
Region
MRO
stream reclass.
permit renewal.
- Email PERCS draft permit, fact sheet, RPA.
, . Basin
Catawba
stream relocation
- Send PERCS paper copy of permit (w/o NPDES
7Q10 change
boilerplate), cover letter, final fact sheet. Email RPA
other
if changes.
•
other
check applicable
PERCS staff:
Other Comments to
PERCS:
x
CTB, CHO, LUM, NEW, ROA - Dana Folley (523)
HIW, LTN, NEU, YAD - Monti Hassan (371)
BRD, CPF, FRB, TAR - Sarah Morrison (208)
PERCS
Status of
PRETREATMENT STAFF COMPLETES THIS PART:
Pretreatment Program (check all that apply)
--facility
has no SIU's, does have Division approved Pretreatment Program
that is INACTIVE
.-)
facility has no SIU's, does not have Division approved Pretreatment
Program
X
3) facility has Sills and DWQ approved Pretreatment Program (list "DEV"
if program still under development)
X
3a) Full Program with LTMP
3b
-—.additional
conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
TMP ' e fr e:
Mat cent
Flow, MGD
Permitted
Actual
Time period for Actual
Cycl
Industrial
/647I5-
00533
GODS
Uncontrollable
n/a
q .5 I
2_0e5
POC in
LTMP!
STMP
Parameter of
Concem (POC)
Check List
POC due to
NPDES! Non-
Disch Permit
Limit
Required
by EPA*
Required
by 503
Sludge*'
POC due
to SIU***
POTW POC
(Explain
below)****
E '
'
P
uent
r .
LTMP
Effluent
Fr
M
✓
TSS
V
V
M
Q = Quarterly
✓
NH3
VV-
M
M =Monthly
�/
Arsenic
./4
M
4
Cadmium , 'y , .
./vM'
J
Chromium ..,..., -
-
✓
4
'V
Copper
✓
./,/
Cyanide
✓
✓
4
all data on DMRs?
Lead
v
✓
YES
?t
�/
Mercury
V
v
V
-
NO (attach data)
v
Molybdenum
V
V
M
li
Nickel: = x
✓
v
M
V
Silver
✓
M
Selenium
./✓
4
M
N./�/
✓
M
data in spreadsheet?
✓
Total Nitrogen
M
YES (email to writer)
X
V
Phosphorus
/
V
'M
NO
V
C_t
i
'`M
Q M
.
Q M
*cSJways irthe LTMP/STMP ** Only in LTMP/STMP if sludge and app or composte (dif POCs for incinerators)
*** Only in LTMP/STMP while SIU still discharges to POTW **** Only in LTMP/STMP when pollutant is still of concem to POTW
Comments to Permit Writer (ex., explanation of any POCs: info you have on IU related investigations into NPDES problems):
irvvinpid
Revised: July 24, 2007

.
• NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
tell 13;123 Waters in NC are in Category 5-303(d) List for Mercury due to statewide fish consumption advice for several fish species
Al' Number AU_Name AU_Description
Category Parameter
Catawba River Basin
Catawba River Basin
Catawba River Basin
Q 11-137-1
5 Copper
Reason for Rating
LengthArea AU_Units Classification
Use Category Collection Year 30 3(diyear
Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Catawba River Subbasin 03050103
Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Irwin Creek From source to Sugar Creek 11.8 FW Miles C
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2006 2010
2004 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 2008
5 Lead
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2006 2008
4t Turbidity
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2008 2000
5 Zinc
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2006 2010
C) 11-137-8a Little Sugar Creek From source to Archdale Rd 11.6 FW Miles C
5 Copper Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2008 2008
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2008 2008
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2007 2010
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 1998
4t Turbidity
Water column Mercury
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2008 2010
Q 11-137-8b Little Sugar Creek
5 Copper
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Standard Violation Fish Consumption
2008 2010
From Archdale Rd to NC 51 5.5 FW Miles C
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2006 2010
Fair Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
2007 1998
4s Ecological/biological Integrity FishCom
Fair Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
2007 2010
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
11-137-8c
Standard Violation
Recreation
2008 1998
Little Sugar Creek From NC 51 to North Carolina -South 3.0 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Poor Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
1983 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation) Standard Violation
Recreation
4t Turbidity
Data Inconclusive
® 11-137-9a
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
Aquatic Life
2008 1998
2008 2000
From source to SR 3356, (Sardis Rd) 8.5 FW Miles C
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation) Standard Violation Recreation
1987 1998.
2008 1998
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 28 of 145

NC 2010 Integrated Report Categories 4 and 5 Impaired Waters
A11I3,f23 Waters in'NC arein Category 5303(d) list for lyiercuryflue to statewide`fish cahsumptlOn advice far several fish ;speci
AU_Number AU Name AU Description LengthArea AU_Units Classification . _
Category Parameter Reason tier Rating Use Category Collection Year 303(d)year
Catawba River Basin Sugar Creek Watershed 0305010301
Q 11-137-9b
McAlpine Creek From SR 3356 to NC 51 6.3 FW Miles C
(Waverly Lake)
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
1987 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation) Standard Violation
Recreation
2008 1998
Q 11-137-9c
McAlpine Creek From NC 51 to NC 521 4.6 FW Miles C
(Waverly Lake)
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 2000
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity FishCom Fair Bioclassification
Aquatic Life
2004 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 1998
Q 11-137-9d
McAlpine Creek
(Waverly Lake)
From NC 521 to North Carolina -South 1.0 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
1992 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2006 1998
Q 11-137-7 McCullough Branch From source to Sugar Creek 3.1 FW Miles . C
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
1990 1998
Q 11-137-9-5 McMullen Creek
From source to McAlpine Creek 13.8 FW Miles C
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2008 • 2010
Q 11-137a Sugar Creek
5 Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
From source to below WWTP, SR 1156, 0.3 FW Miles C
Mecklenburg
Poor Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 1998
Q 11-137b Sugar Creek From SR 1156 Mecklenburg to Hwy 51 10.9 FW Miles C
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity Benthos Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life 2007 2000
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 2000
Q 11-137c Sugar Creek From Hwy 51 NC/SC border 2.5 FW Miles C
5 Copper
Standard Violation Aquatic Life
2006 2010
4s Ecological/biological Integrity Benthos
Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 1998
4t Fecal Coliform (recreation)
Standard Violation Recreation
2008 2000
Catawba River Basin
Q 11-138-3
Sixmile Creek
Twelvemile Creek Watershed 0305010302
From source to North Carolina -South 8.8 FW Miles C
Carolina State Line
5 EcologicaUbiological Integrity FishCom Fair Bioclassification Aquatic Life
2002 2006
NC 2010 Integrated Report Category 4 and 5 303(d) List EPA Approved Aug 31, 201 9/20/2010 Page 29 of 145

CHARLOTTE:;..
NPDES Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
H3NV218 i3e1110S INIOd
,und110 ?.13.LYA\ - e1N3a
6uut — 310
Re: Permit Application for Renewal
Irwin Creek WWTP — NPDES Permit #NC0024945 3Ai 303d
Dear NPDES Unit:
Please find an application for a NPDES permit renewal at Irwin Creek WWTP in the following
pages. The application includes Parts A — F. Part G, Combined Sewer Systems is not applicable.
With this application there are several attachments to address the required information.
Following is a summary of the different attachments:
1. Attachment A includes information relevant to Part A.8.d.
2. Attachment B summarizes the Stream Hardness data collected as required in the
Current Permit. This is included to address the receiving stream Total Hardness
question in Part A.10.e.
3. Attachment C is included to address the removal rates at this facility.
4. Attachment D includes the Topographical Map required in Part B.2.
5. Attachment E includes the schematic required in Part B.3.
6. Attachment F includes copies of the Toxicity reports completed by this facility since
January 2006. This information is required in Part E.2.
7. Attachment G is the Industrial User Information required in Part F.3.
The analytical data summary information reported in Part A.12 — Effluent Testing Information,
B.6. Effluent Testing Data and Part D. Expanded Effluent Testing Data include the results of all
the effluent testing data at Irwin Creek WWTP from January 1, 2006 through September, 30
2009. We also have this data electronically, if you would like to get a copy of the electronic file
please call us and we would be happy to share this file with you.
Please let us know if you have any questions, or if you need any further information. If you do
please call Dawn Padgett, Water Quality Program Administrator, at 704/336-4448 or 704/201-
9144 or Mike Lingerfelt, ORC of Irwin Creek WWTP, at 704/357-1344 or you may call me at
704/336-4460 or 704/364-5430.
Thank you for your assistance in this process,
c , , L / I < 1 ;.,.r
au
i�—C
acgaeline A. Jarrell,
perintendent, Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Cc: M. Lingerfelt
D. Padgett
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Environmental Management Division
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone: [phone]

Attachment A for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit Renewal
Part A. 8. d. Does the treatment works discharge or transport treated or untreated wastewater
to another treatment works?
At this time, Irwin Creek WWTP treats all of the wastewater that discharges to
the facility. Upon completion of the upgrades discussed in Attachment C. of this
document, wastewater that is currently discharging to McAlpine Creek WWMF,
NPDES Permit #NC0024970, from the Paw Creek and Long Creek sub -basins
will be re-routed to Irwin Creek WWTP for treatment. This is anticipated to
occur during the second half of 2013.
When this occurs, the existing flows to Irwin Creek WWTP plus these additional
flows will enter the plant. These flows will have flow measurement and a
combined influent sampling point where sampling will be done on this influent.
Control functionality is in place to base line the Irwin Creek flow during wet
weather rain events. Excess flow is pumped to an on -site flow equalization basin
for temporary storage until the diverted flow can be reintroduced back into the
liquid process train upon return of normal flow. Facilities are also provided to
divert flow to the McAlpine Creek WWMF, NPDES Permit #NC0024945.
However, this strategy is planned to be rarely implemented — only during extreme
wet weather events, a process upset, or a prolonged maintenance event.
Information about McAlpine Creek WWMF, NPDES #NC0024970
Name: McAlpine Creek WWMF
Mailing Address: 12701 Lancaster Hwy.
Pineville, NC 28134
Contact Person: S.K. Neely — Plant Supervisor and ORC
Telephone #: [phone]

Influent
Barscreen
To
Landfill
Land ♦—
Application
Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Flow Schematic - Calendar Year 2009
Influent Grit
Pump Removal
Station
Belt
Press
To
Landfill
Storage
Primary
Clarifier
Raw
Sludge
•
Digesters
Trickling
Filter
Trickling Filter
Pump Station
Belt
Thickener
Activated Sludge
Aeration Basins
• • •••
• • •••
Return Activated
Sludge
Waste Activated
Sludge
Secondary
Clarifier
"04
Eff. Filter
Pump Sta.
r
Sand
Filter
Ultra
Violet
Cascade
Aerator

• Attachment B for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit Renewal
Although we do not have hardness results from when the stream was at its 7Q10 flow. We do
have monthly hardness results both Upstream and downstream of the Irwin Creek WWTP.
Please see the chart below.
Irwin Creek WWTP
Date
Upstream Downstream
mg/I Hardness mg/I Hardness
IC1 SC4
7/17/2007 89 89
8/14/2007 72 85
9/18/2007 77 60
10/23/2007 73 62
11/19/2007 92 75
12/10/2007 78 66
1/23/2008 98 85
2/19/2008 114 92
3/3/2008 96 116
4/9/2008 82 86
5/7/2008 92 90
6/25/2008 117 115
7/15/2008 86 74
8/12/2008 80 83
9/8/2008 107 104
10/7/2008 74 97
11/17/2008 90 94
12/15/2008 90 100
1/21/2009 83 98
2/10/2009 118 118
3/23/2009 101 100
4/16/2009 188 126
5/19/2009 82 72
6/9/2009 118 94
7/14/2009 102 94
8/3/2009 96 98
9/8/2009 77 86
10/21/2009 63 80
average 94.10714286 90.67857143
maximum 188 126
minimum 63 60
median 90 91

Attachment C for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit Renewal
A.11.b. Design removal rates
At this time, there are no existing design removal rates for this facility. This facility was
originally built in 1927 and has not had an expansion in more than 20 years.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is currently developing options for expanding Wastewater
Treatment capacity. This plan includes, expanding the capacity of the Sugar Creek WWTP,
NPDES Permit #NC0024937, firming up capacity of the Irwin Creek WWTP, and constructing a
new wastewater treatment plant in the Long Creek sub -basin. Due to the time it may take to
permit, design and construct the new Long Creek facility, a decision was made to firm up the
capacity at Irwin Creek WWTP. The current average flow at this plant is approximately 8.8
MGD with a permitted maximum month flow of 15.0 MGD. Upon construction of the reliability
improvements at the Irwin Creek WWTP, flow generated within the Long Creek and Paw Creek
sub -basins (currently estimated at 4 to 5 mgd annual average) will be diverted to Irwin Creek for
treatment. This is slated to occur mid -summer 2013. However, the long-term plan is to treat
these flows at the future Long Creek WWTP.
With the increased hydraulic and organic loadings coming into the Irwin Creek plant, a
biological process model was developed and calibrated to predict treatment plant performance.
Model simulations were performed to determine process improvements required to reliably meet
its NPDES effluent limits during its maximum month flow condition of 15 mgd.
Secondary treatment standards including monthly average BODS and TSS percentage removal
rates (85%) were developed in the 1970s during implementation of the Clean Water Act.
Modern wastewater treatment plants are not designed based on attainment of a certain percent
removal; rather they are designed to meet a specific effluent concentration or mass load given a
set of influent conditions.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants that fully nitrify will also fully remove BOD to an extent
much greater than the 85% requirement. The majority of BOD remaining after secondary
treatment is related to the solids (mostly biomass) that escape the secondary clarifiers.
The proposed secondary process improvements to the CMU Irwin Creek WWTP have three
main goals:
1. Provide sufficient nitrification to reduce ammonia below 1 mg/L
2. Provide sufficient solids removal in the secondary clarifiers to retain biomass and prevent
excessive solids loading to the filters.
3. Provide for biological and chemical phosphorus removal to reduce effluent TP below 1
mg/L.

V 1
The secondary clarifier design provided coupled with the deep bed filters should limit effluent
TSS concentrations to 5 mg/L. Resulting BOD concentrations should be well below this.
1. cBOD = 5 mg/L
2. TSS = 5 mg/L
3. Ammonia-N = 1 mg/L
4. TP = 1 mg/L
The contract Engineer also developed percentiles for BOD, TSS and ammonia removal (see the
table below). For example, a BOD removal rate of 97.4%, a TSS removal rate of 97.0% and
ammonia removal rate of 86.9% would be expected 99% of the time. Removal rates would be
expected to be lower 3 to 4 times per year. If we allow for one week's excursion per year (98th
percentile) the associated removal rates for BOD, TSS and ammonia would be 97.8%, 97.5% and
90.5% per year, respectively.
Since we are designing the facility based on maximum month conditions it is reasonable that the
design % removals be based on the 92nd percentile. BOD removal rates for this percentile are
98.37%, TSS is 98.43% and ammonia is 97.14%.
BOD Removal
TSS Removal
Ammonia Removal
Mean removal
98.93%
99.24%
98.45%
Minimum removal
95.74%
93.28%
5.56%
Maximum removal
99.56%
99.87%
99.62%
Median Removal
99.03%
99.41%
99.09%
92nd Percentile
98.37%
98.43%
97.14%
98th Percentile
97.81%
97.52%
90.50%
99`" Percentile
97.39%
97.03%
• 86.86%
99.7t Percentile
96.67%
95.60%
81.80%

Attachment D for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit
Renewal
Please see the following page for the information needed to satisfy:
B.2. Topographic Map. Attach to this application a topographic map of the area
extending at least one mile beyond facility property boundaries. This map must
show the outline of the facility and the following information. (You may submit
more than one map if one map does not show the entire area.) The area surrounding
the treatment plant, including all unit processes.
a. The major pipes or other structures through which wastewater enters the treatment
works and the pipes or other structures through which treated wastewater is
discharged from the treatment plant. Include outfalls from bypass piping, if
applicable.
b. Each well where wastewater from the treatment plant is injected underground.
c. Wells, springs, other surface water bodies, and drinking water wells that are: 1)
within Y4 mile of the property boundaries of the treatment works, and 2) listed in
public record or otherwise known to the applicant.
d. Any areas where the sewage sludge produced by the treatment works is stored,
treated, or disposed.
e. If the treatment works receives waste that is classified as hazardous under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail, or special pipe,
show on the map where the hazardous waste enters the treatment works and
where it is treated, stored, and/or disposed.
I reference to Part B.2.c. — there are no known wells in this vicinity. This plant is in the
inner part of the City of Charlotte, where there has been water and sewer service for at 80
years.

i Creek VVWTE \ , I�a ' .� - �^ ! -;-I ;•�/
Mile Radius ' l + o° /-"l's:
f ' 1
i
1 +- " l .�
1 i� \,\,. I. tr2 .i�/• r / p,. // \\
41'
f.
� ¢` �' I I a1 �\ . \. -,; ; '\ r �_ , ,.: ../ \
' \ \ \ I St"fu°9e ," `r r/ . / \! �,,. �h'Qy % ° • �V '
p \,\ ` �,� // / �, , / /r'''.gyp
• wig \ it „`�°-.`�-•� t , I_• �� _� "`.°° �•
s -J�w t _ ! '�. rCC \ r - / • Q ` I b \ '/.v �/ .r w /. \ /`.
/,� `----•.\i ei/ �� P� \ � \; i /' /\ / . /� \
1
•
� \
_ 1
&J. `r /
50{' \ 1
\ // o \
• / \.. i- ) _I_I I
I
• Wastewater Manhole
Wastewater Main
QIrwin WJUTP One Mile R ius
n Irwin WWVTP Property
--- Streams
as rcinfolsewermapldawnN PDES\Irwin
11/5/2009
\i*I6. 4-1 �'
'� -�t ,I
. — /TSB t "_ ' - ./
�• / /.'
.i/
141
/A .
Q,. / \ .q;
17/7 \• J, / / • r .-•
\y/ . •
! �� //• _! `'�.`• \
,l ">y , /
O/ _/ , \ / /
\f_ . . . . . .
Vim r — �/ oogr� / / 1. II .. •;I' ,
/'\ - . _ �I \i!.1 1 .. !Y 4/� \.pro / l� 1'
i _ ' \- ,t mow°• t :\4�Jr � /'` j"
/, \ I �� � � � � I / - /
I \ ,I•, ,�,
\ •
t- P- 1 - `_! r III I

Attachment E for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit
Renewal
Please see the following page for the schematic needed for:
B.3. Process Flow Diagram or Schematic. Provide a diagram showing the processes
of the treatment plant, including all bypass piping and all backup power sources or
redundancy in the system. Also provide a water balance showing all treatment units,
including disinfection (e.g., chlorination and de -chlorination). The water balance must
show daily average flow rates at influent and discharge points and approximate daily
flow rates between treatment units. Include a brief narrative description of the diagram.
Irwin Creek WWTP schematic is included on the following page. The influent flow
averages 8.8 MGD with Primary Sludge removal out of the Primary Clarifiers at an
average of 38,000 gallons a day pumped to the Anaerobic Digesters. Waste Activated
Sludge is removed daily and thickened prior to pumping to the anaerobic digesters at an
average flow of 17,000 gallons per day.
There are currently four generators that are a backup power source that will run most of
the plant, but not the blowers. However, upon completion, or earlier, of the plant upgrade
new generators will be installed that will power the entire plant with redundancy.

Attachment G for Irwin Creek WWTP, NPDES Permit #NC0024945 Permit
Renewal
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER INFORMATION:
Supply the following information for each SIU. If more than one SIU discharges to the treatment works. copy questions F.3 through F.8 and
provide the information requested for each SIU.
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Aramark Uniform Services
Mailing Address: P.O Box 668563 Charlotte. NC 28209
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Aramark is a laundry service which cleans uniforms. shop towels. dust mops, bar
towels, glass towels, aprons and mops. They also dry pans. aprons. towels and
mops and press uniforms.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Cleaning textiles.
Raw material(s): Conventional detergents, caustic soda, surfactants, bleach. dves
and starch.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process
wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
57,114 gpd X_ continuous or x intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
5 groundwater gpd (
continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

L ,`
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Independent Beverage Corporation
Mailing Address: 3639 Corporation Circle Charlotte, NC 28216
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Soft drinks are blended. filled and then shipped to distribution center.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s):Various soft drinks such as RC cola, Sun Drop, Cadbury, Schweppes and grocer)
Raw material(s): Corn syrup. citric acid, potassium benzoate. sodium benzoate,
sodium citrate. phosphoric acid, and aspartame.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
52040 gpd (X _ continuous or intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
Ogpd
(_ continuous or
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes
X No
intermittent)
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
N/A
F.S. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Trane Charlotte
Mailing Address: 4500 Morris Field Drive Charlotte, NC 28208
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Trane Charlotte produces 10 —100 ton Hermetic, Semi -hermetic, and open
reciprocating compressors; 35- 450 ton Helirotor (rotary) compressors; engineered
conversion retrofit and repair and return CenTraVac motors; service parts, chiller
source rental fleet and provides oil and chemical analysis services.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Service/rent chillers, repair impeller cells, H & L compressors, cast iron compre:
Raw material(s): Brazing wire, flux, welding wire, nitrogen/refrigerant, compressor
oil, paint, toluene, IPA, carbon dioxide, carbon electrodes, KF vessel solution, KF
generator solution, iron phosphate, acidic cleaner, coolant, caustic cleaners and
cooper wire.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2629 gpd (continuous or x intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1550 non -contact cooling gpd ( X continuous or _intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433.15
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the sm. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Pan-Glo Charlotte
Mailing Address: 3400 Pelton Drive Charlotte, NC 28220
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Heated rinse waters after the pan deglazing process, rinse waters after the soak tank.
monthly discharge of "soak tank" containing water, detergents and sodium silicate.
cold water rinse after bleach tanks. infrequent discharge of the bleach tanks, and a
small amount of equipment/facility wash down.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Cleaning and coating of commercial bakery pans.
Raw material(s): AmeriCoat plus silicone release coating, XL solvent, hexylene
glycol, diethylene glycol, potassium hydroxide, sodium silicate, sodium
hvpochlorite. citric acid.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
9435 gpd ( continuous or x intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
N/A; does not discharge unregulated wastewater into Pipe 001 gpd
_continuous or
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards ❑ Yes
No
intermittent)
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
PanGlo has SIC code 3479 which is a categorical listing with no pretreatment
standards.
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
n Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Charlotte Pipe and Foundry
Mailing Address: 1335 South Clarkson Street
Charlotte, NC 28208
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture cast iron soil pipe using scrape iron as the primary raw material. This facility produces
molten iron in a refractory lined cupola by combining scrape iron, scrape steel, coke, limestone and
ferro-silicon alloy. The molten iron is cast into grey pipes, fittings and custom castings. Pipe production
requires a mold quench to solidify the molten iron into pipes.
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Cast iron pipes
Raw material(s): Pig iron, shredded steel, cast iron scrap, ferrosilicon, coke, limestone silica sand, seal
coal, feldspar resins and steel shot.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
32,000 gpd intermittent
Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or
intermittent.
0
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits: Yes
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 464.35 (Foundry)
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Storks Prints America, Inc.
Mailing Address: 3001 Boxmeer Drive
Charlotte, NC 28269
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
B. Electroform (using nickel) industrial hardware products.
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Screens and sleeves.
Raw material(s):
F.6. Flow Rate.
c. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of process
wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day (gpd) and
whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
10,466 gpd continuous
Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
non -process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in
gallons per day (gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or
intermittent.
0
gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits: Yes
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
433 Metal finisher
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Fleet Operations , Inc.
Mailing Address: 201 Black Satchel Drive
Charlotte, NC 28216
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wastewater is generated from tank and tote cleaning.
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): N/A
Raw material(s): cleaning solutions
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
4,000
gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 442
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
n Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Environmental Pumping and Drain Line Solutions
Mailing Address: 4826 Worth Place
Charlotte, NC 28216
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Restaurant Grease Processor
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Treated Water
Raw material(s): Grease and Bacteria
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
1621 gpd (X continuous or _ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
no
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Pneumafil
Mailing Address: 4500 Chesapeake Dr,
Charlotte, NC 28216
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Coating of steel and aluminum parts
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Cabinets for holding military electronics
Raw material(s): Steel, aluminum. metal treating chemicals and paint
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2256 gpd continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes
❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 433
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Qualitest Pharmaceuticals
Mailing Address: 3241 Woodpark Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacture of Pharmaceutical Products
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Tablets and capsules
Raw material(s): Acetaminophen, Hydracodone Bittattrate, Codeine Phosphate.
Hydromoiphone, Propoxy Napsylate, Oxycodone Hydrochloride, Pseudoephedrine,
Perphenazine. Amitriptyline, Microcrystalline Cellulose. Sodium Starch Glycolate,
Lactose. Poridone, Hdroxypropylmethylcellulose, Carisoprodol, Methocarbomol.
Hydrochlorothiazide, Phenazopyridine HC1, Quinine. Allopurinol, Oxybutynin,
Pemoline. Sulfasalazine. Trihexyphenidyl, Butalbital, Caffeine, Bisacodyl.,
Propafenone, Sotalol, Prednisone, Methylprednisolone.
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
5080 gpd continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
5130 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards X Yes ❑ No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
40 CFR 439
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

.f
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Carolina Foods, Inc
Mailing Address: 1807 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Pastry production
F.B. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): honey buns, doughnuts, fried pies, etc...
Raw material(s): flour. sugar, shortening, yeast, fruit, high fructose corn syrup,
water, various flavoring and additives
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
7150 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
0 Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

Z
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: International Paper
Mailing Address: 4419 Hovis Road
Charlotte. NC 28208
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacturing of corrugated cardboard for boxes and shipping using flexographic
printing process
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): corrugated boxes / cardboard
Raw material(s): kraft paper, corn starch, flexo ink, resin, caustic soda, borax, soaps
and detergents for cleaning, glue, plastic strapping
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
6200 gpd ( continuous or X_ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
X Yes
Yes
❑ No
X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
D Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

M
F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: IGH Enterprises dba Mitchum Quality Snacks, Inc
Mailing Address: 2001 W. Morehead Street
Charlotte, NC 28208
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Manufacturing of potato chips and other snacks made from potatoes
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): potato chips
Raw material(s): potatoes, salt, seasonings, cottonseed oil
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
11,580
gpd (_ continuous or X_ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd �_ continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
b. Categorical pretreatment standards
X Yes
Yes
❑ No
X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
I
Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Chematron
Mailing Address: 5216 Hovis Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28216
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Chemical Blending
F.S. Principal Product(s) and Raw Material(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): Lubricants, starch products, defoamers, wax emulsions, water repellents, esters
Raw material(s): Oils, surfactants. acids. alkalis. salts. more specifically: EH2.
Phosphoric Anhydride. Caustic Soda. Ispropanol. Latex, Muratic Acid, URRA,
Dowcide A. Butyl Poultry, Softener Base. Silicone. CO-36. Sulfonated Castor Oil,
Butyl Stearate, NP-4, Mineral Oil, Coconut Oil, Soybean Oil, wax, CO 200, TE6. &
NP-9
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
2316 gpd (X continuous or _ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or _ intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.B. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the SIU. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
n Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

F.3. Significant Industrial User Information. Provide the name and address of each SIU discharging to the treatment works.
Submit additional pages as necessary.
Name: Chesapeake Treatment Company, LLC
Mailing Address: 4847 Chesapeake Drive
Charlotte, NC 28206
F.4. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Treatment of process wastewater from a soft drink bottling and
packaging\distribution facility
F.5. Principal Product(s) and Raw Materlal(s). Describe all of the principal processes and raw materials that affect or
contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Principal product(s): treated wastewater
Raw material(s): sodium hydroxide 50%, anhydrous ammonia, phosphoric acid
75%, sulfuric acid 93%, polymer
F.6. Flow Rate.
a. Process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of
process wastewater discharge into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
139,250 gpd (X continuous or _ intermittent)
b. Non -process wastewater flow rate. Indicate the average daily volume of non -
process wastewater flow discharged into the collection system in gallons per day
(gpd) and whether the discharge is continuous or intermittent.
0 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
F.7. Pretreatment Standards. Indicate whether the SIU is subject to the following:
a. Local limits
X Yes ❑ No
b. Categorical pretreatment standards Yes X No
If subject to categorical pretreatment standards, which category and subcategory?
F.8. Problems at the Treatment Works Attributed to Waste Discharge by the sit. Has the SIU caused or
contributed to any problems (e.g., upsets, interference) at the treatment works in
the past three years?
❑ Yes X No If yes, describe each episode.

Barscreen
Influent
Land
Application
To
Landfill
Influent
Pump
Station
Grit
Removal
Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
Flow Schematic - Calendar Year 2014
Primary
Clarifier
Intermediate Pump
Station
1111111-111.0M
Raw
Sludge
To
Landfill
EQ Pump Station Flow Equalization
Belt
Press
Storage
•
Digesters
1 Belt
Thickner
Storage
Activated Sludge
Aeration Basins
.•••.
• • •• •
• • •• •
Return Activated
Sludge
11,
Secondary
Clarifier
Waste Activated
Sludge
Effluent Filter
Pump Station
Sand
Filter
Sand Filter
Backwash
Ultra
Violet
Cascade
Aerator
Auxilary
Backwash Basin