NC0023868_Permit Issuance_20060915

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
September 15, 2006
Mr. Stephen Shoaf, Director of Utilities
City of Burlington
P. O. Box 1358p
Burlington, North Carolina 27216-1358
Subject: Issuance of NPDES Permit
Permit No. NCO023868
East Burlington Wl TP
Alamance County
Dear Mr. Shoaf.
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your application for renewal of the subject permit. Accordingly,
we are forwarding the attached NPDES discharge permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dated May 9,1994 (or as subsequently amended).
The following modifications from the draft permit are included in the final permit:
• The carbon units were removed from the description of the treatment system.
• A schedule of compliance of 6 months was provided for total residual chlorine. This schedule will
allow the facility to purchase equipment to test at low levels and to train personnel in the use of the
equipment. The limit will become effective on April 1, 2007.
• Monitoring frequency for conductivity will remain daily. Monitoring frequency is determined based
on the classification of the facility. Your facility is classified as Class IV. Daily monitoring is
specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0508 for a class IV facility. Instream sampling is conducted three times
per week June through September and weekly October through May. Instream sampling was
separated from effluent sampling for clarity.
• Nutrient monitoring requirements were modified from 3 times per week to weekly.
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 demand is made, this decision shall be final and binding.
Please note that this permit is not transferable except after notice to the Division. 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, the Coastal Area Management Act or any other Federal or Local governmental permit that
may be required.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 509/6 Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper
tWaiCarolina
urally
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748

J
Y �
Permit No. NCO023868
East Burlington WWTP
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning this permit, please contact Teresa Rodriguez at telephone number (919)
733-5083, extension 553.
Sincerely,
< < Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Cc: NPDES Files
Raleigh Regional Office — Surface Water Protection
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
USEPA Region 4

V
L T
Permit NCO023868
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 provisions of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
City of Burlington
is hereby authorized to discharge wastewater from a facility located at the
East Burlington WW'IP
225 Stone Quarry Road
Burlington
Alamance County
to receiving waters designated as the Haw River in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other
conditions set forth in Parts I, II, III and IV hereof.
This permit shallbecome effective October 1, 2006.
This permit and authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on May 31, • 2011.
Signed this day September 15, 2006.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Arector
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

is 1
Permit NCO023868
SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT COVER SHEET
All previous NPDES Permits issued to this facility, whether for operation or discharge are hereby revoked. As of this permit
issuance, any previously issued permit bearing this number is no longer effective. Therefore, the exclusive authority to operate
and discharge from this facility arises under the permit conditions, requirements, terms, and provisions included herein.
City of Burlington is hereby authorized to:
1. Continue to operate an existing 12.0 MGD wastewater treatment facility
consisting of the following:
• Bar screen
• Grit chamber
• Equalization basin
• Primary clarifiers
• Biological Nutrient Removal
• Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment process
• Secondary clarifiers
• Final effluent filters
• Chlorination
• Dechlorination
The facility is located at East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant on 225
Stone Quarry Road in Burlington, Alamance County.
2. ,Discharge from said treatment works at the location specified on the attached
map into the Haw River, which is classified C-NSW waters in the Cape Fear River
Basin.

7
"11"ORM
Trailer
-0
EM-UPM
City of Burlington
Facility
East Burlington WWTP
Loca'tion
y:
State Grid/Quad:
C 21 SW /Burlington, NC
not to scale
Latitude:
36' 05'53" N
Longitude:
79' 22'37" W Permitted Flow: 12.0 MGD
ES Perinit No. NCO023868
Receiving Stream:
Haw River Drainage Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
No
Stream Class:
C-NSW Sub -Basin: 03-06-02
rth.
Alamance County

t.
Permit NCO023868
A. (1) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting until expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall 001. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the Permittee as specified below:
=
„ EFFLUENT
&;�d 1 r�
CHAR'ACTERI$T CS
y�� �� . „�:
�..d .
LIMITS
MONIT*ORING'REQUIREMENTS
r
Monthl
+'� Y 1x y
Avea eA�era
9
Weekl
,. "�T �D fW y '*1� 1
�� r 9 , .�
a
Daily
l' 4 .t
,Maximum
Measurement j
Fe .it 'h�i &F
,. Fre uenc Y ..
Sample
S - �N
4T e'..;
Sample Location
i'$+ %{y f �^` N
Flow
12.0 MGD
Continuous
Recording
Influent or Effluent
Total Monthly Flow
Monitor and Report
Monthly
Recorded or
calculated
Influent or Effluent
BOD, 5 day; 200C2
(April 1— October 31)
12.0 mg/I
18.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent, Effluent
BOD, 5 day, 20°C2
(November 1— March 31)
24.0 mg/I
36.0 mg/I
Daily
Composite
Influent, Effluent
Total Suspended Residue2
30.0 mg/I
45.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Influent, Effluent
NH3 as N (April 1— October 31)
4.0 mg/1
12.0 mg/1
Daily
Composite
Effluent
NH3 as N (November 1—March 31L
8.0 m /I
24.0 m /I
Daily
Composite
Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen3
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Fecal Coliform
(geometric mean
200 / 100 ml
400 / 100 ml
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Residual Chlorine4
28 N /I
Dailv
Grab
Effluent
Temperature 9C)
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total Nitrogen5
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
TKN
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
NO3-N + NO2•N
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Nitrogen Load6
Monitor
and Report
Monthly
Calculated
Effluent
Total Phosphorus?
2.0 mg/L quarterly average
Weekly
Composite
Effluent
Total Phosphorus Load6
Monitor
and Report
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Chronic ToxicityB
Quarterly
Composite
Effluent
Conductivity
Daily
Grab
Effluent
Total C anide9
Monthly
Grab
Effluent
Total Copper
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Zinc
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
Total Silver
Monthly
Composite
Effluent
pH10
Weekly
Grab
Effluent
Pollutant Scan"
Annual
Grab/
Composite
Effluent
Notes:
1. For instream monitoring requirements and sample locations, see Part A. (2.). Instream monitoring
requirements shall be waived as long as the facility continues to participate in the Upper Cape Fear
River Basin Association.
2. The monthly average BODs and Total Suspended Solids concentrations shall not exceed 15% of the
respective influent value (85% removal).
3. The daily dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l.
4. The Total Residual Chlorine limit shall become effective on April 1, 2007.
5. TN = TKN + NO3-N + NO2-N, where TN is total nitrogen, TKN is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and NO3-N and NO2-
N are Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen, respectively.
6. TN or TP Load is the mass quantity of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus discharged in a given period of time. See
Special Condition A. (5) Calculation of Mass Loads.
7. The quarterly average for total phosphorus shall be the average of composite samples collected weekly during each
calendar quarter.
8. Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at 36% in February, May, August and November (see Part A (3.))

Permit NCO023868
Notes (continuation)
9. The quantitation limit for,cyanide shall be 10 µg/L (10 ppb). Levels reported at less than 10 µg/L shall be
considered zero by the Division.
10. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be
monitored weekly at the effluent by grab sample.
11. See Condition A.(6)
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
A. (3) INSTREAM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instream monitoring requirements in this NPDES permit shall be provisionally waived so long as the
Permittee remains a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin Association and the Association
continues to function as approved by the Division and Environmental Management Commission. If
the Permittee does not participate in the Association or if the Association ceases to function, the
instreai monitoring requirements in this permit become effective immediately; and the Division ,may
reopen this permit by administrative letter to establish additional instream monitoring requirements
it deems necessary to adequately characterize the effects of the'discharges on water quality in the
receiving stream.
PARAA=RS TO BE SAMPLED:.
Parameter
Sample Tye
Frequency
Dissolved Oxygen
Grab
3/week (June - September)
1/week (October - May)
Fecal Coliform
Grab
3/week (June - September)
1 /week (October - May)
Temperature
Grab
3/week (June - September)
1 /week (October - Mar)
Conductivity
Grab
3/week (June= September)
1 /week (October -May) .
Total Phosphorus
Grab
3/week (June - September)
1 /week (October - May)
SAMPLE LOCATIONS:
I. Upstream at Hopedale Road (NCSR 1712)
2. Downstream at NC Highway 54 and at NCSR 2158 (above the dam).
All instream samples shall'be grab samples.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:
Data entered on approved, Division of Water Quality form and summarized in an annual report due
by January 1st of the year immediately following the summer period when sampling occurred.
Yearly monitoring reports shall be sent to:
NCDENR/DWQ
Modeling/TMDL Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Permit NCO023868
A. (3) CHRONIC TOXICITY PASS/FAIL PERMIT LINHT
The effluent discharge shall at no time exhibit observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality to Ceriodaphnia dubia at an effluent concentration of 36%.
The permit holder shall perform at a minimum,guarterlu 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 February, May, August and November. Effluent sampling for
this testing shall be performed at the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge below all
treatment processes.
If the test procedure performed as the first test of any single quarter results in a failure or ChV
below the permit limit, then multiple -concentration testing shall be performed at a minimum,
in each of the two following months as described in "North Carolina Phase II- Chronic Whole
Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -February 1998) or subsequent versions.
The chronic value for multiple concentration.tests will be determined using the geometric mean of the
highest concentration having no detectable impairment of reproduction or survival and the lowest
concentration that does have a detectable impairment of'reproduction or survival. The definition of
"detectable impairment," collection methods, exposure regimes, � and further statistical methods are
specified -in the "North Carolina Phase II Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Procedure" (Revised -
February 1998) or subsequent versions.
.All toxicity testing results required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the months in which tests were performed, using the
parameter code TGP3B for the°pass/fail results and THP313 for the Chronic Value. Additionally, DWQ
Form AT-3 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
.Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Completed Aquatic Toxicity Test Forms shall be filed with the Environmental Sciences Section 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.
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.

r
Permit NC0023868
A. (4) NUTRIENT MONITORING RE -OPENER
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-215.1 and the implementing rules found in Title 15A of the
North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H, specifically, 15A NCAC 2H.0112(b)(1) and
2H.0114(a), and Part H, Sections B-12 and B-13 of this Permit, the Director of DWQ may reopen this
permit to require supplemental nutrient monitoring of the discharge. The additional monitoring will
be to support water quality modeling efforts within the Cape Fear River Basin, and shall be consistent
with a monitoring plan developed jointly by the Division and affected stakeholders.
A. (5) CALCULATION OF MASS LOADS
a. The permittee shall calculate monthly and annual TN (or TP) loads as -follows:
i. Monthly TN (or TP) Loads = TN (or TP) x TMF x 8.34
Where:
TN (or TP) = the average Total Nitrogen (or Total Phosphorus) concentration (mg/L) of
the composite samples collected during the month.
TMF = the total monthly flow of wastewater discharged during the month
(MG/mo)
8.34 = conversion factor, from (mg/L x MG) to pounds
ii. Annual TN (or TP) Load (lb/yr) = Sum of 12 monthly TN (or TP) Loads for calendar
year.
b. The permitte shall report monthly total nitrogen and total phosphorus results (mg/L and
lb/mo) in the appropriate discharge monitoring report for each month and shall report each
year's results, (lb/yr) with the December report for that year.

Permit. NCO023868
A. (6) EFFLUENT POLLUTANT SCAN
The permittee shall perform an annual Effluent Pollutant Scan for all parameters listed in the table below (il
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136). The annual effluent pollutant scan samples shall represent seasonal (summei
winter, fall, spring) variations over the 5-year permit cycle. Unless otherwise indicated, metals shall be analyzer
as "total recoverable." Additionally, the method detection level and the minimum level shall be the most sensitiv
as provided by the appropriate analytical procedure.
Ammonia (as N)
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Total Phosphorus
Total dissolved solids
Hardness
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium.
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
Total phenolic compounds
Volatile organic compounds:
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
L I-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
Trans-1, 2-dichloroethylene
1, 1 -dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1, 3-dichloropropylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
1, 1, 2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
1,1, 2-trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Acid -extractable compounds:
P-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2, 4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol
Base -neutral compounds:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzidine
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4 benzofluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene .
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dibenzo (a, h) anthracene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1, 3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3, 3-dichlorobenzidine
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2, 6-dinitrotoluene
1, 2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1, 2, 4-trichlorobenzene
Test results shall be reported to the Division in DWQ Form- DMR-PPAI or in a form approved by the
Director, within 90 days of sampling. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Central Files to the
following address: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 1617 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617.

DENR/DWQ
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES No. NCO023868
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
East Burlington WWTP
Applicant Address:
P.O. Box 1358, Burlington, NC 27217
Facility Address:
225 Stone Quarry Road, Burlington, NC 27217
Permitted Flow
12.0 MGD
Type of Waste:
Domestic (84 %) and industrial (16 %)
Facility/Permit Status:
Class IV /Active; Renewal
County:
Alamance County
"Miseellaneous
Receiving Stream:
Haw River
Stream Classification:
C - NSW .
Subbasin:..
03-06-02
Stream Segment: o
[16-(1)d3]
303(d) Listed?
Yes
State Grid / USGS Quad:
C21SW/Burlington
Drainage Area (mi2),:
605
Latitude:
360 05' 53" N
7Q10 (cfs):
33.6
Longitude: - w
790 22' 37" W
30Q2 (cfs):
Regional Office:
Winston-Salem
Average Flow (cfs):
568
Permit Writer: `.: .,
Teresa Rodriguez
1WC (%):_
36
Date:
6/7/06
Summary
The City of Burlington operates the East Burlington WWTP. The treatment plant includes
chemical and biological phosphorus removal and has a capacity of 12 MGD. It consists of a bar
screen, grit chamber, equalization basin, primary clarifiers, activated sludge/activated carbon
aeration (Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment process), BNR tanks, final clarifiers, tertiary
sand filters, chlorination and dechlorination, sludge thickeners, digesters,, and lime stabilization.
A renewal application was submitted on November 23, 2005. There have been no major changes
since the last permit renewal. The city has an approved pretreatment program with 8 significant
industrial users and one categorical. industrial user. The permit requires the city to continue to
operate its approved pre-treatment program.
Basin plan/303(d)
This facility discharges to the Haw River in subbasin 03-06-02 in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The receiving stream is classified C-NSW. This section of the Haw River is impared for
biological integrity due to fecal coliform violations. Turbidity was also exceeded in 10% of
samples. A TMDL, completed in 2004 and approved in January 2005, recommended a 61
percent reduction in Total Suspended Solids and a 77 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria
from both point and nonpoint sources to meet the turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria standards.
Further analysis is required to distribute the loads among non -point and point sources..
Data Review
The following is a summary of data from DMRs from January 2004 to December 2005:
Flow
BOD
TSS
TN
TP
Ammonia
TRC
04-05
Average
5.045 MGD
2.88 mg/L
4.2 mg/L .
14.6 mg/L
0.46 mg/L
< 0.5 mg/L
92 pg/L
The facility had no NOVs or limits violations.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO023868 Renewal
Page 1

Toxicity test — The permit requires quarterly chronic test (Ceriodaphnia) at 36 % IWC..They
passed all the toxicity tests in the past 5 years.
The City of Burlington is a member of the Upper Cape Fear River Coalition and instream
monitoring requirements of the NPDES permit are therefore waived as long as the membership
in the association continues.
Correspondence
The Winston-Salem Regional Office (RRO) conducted several site visits during this permit term
to evaluate compliance. A Staff Report was also prepared in conjunction with the permit
renewal. WSRO finds the facility to be in compliance with the NPDES permit and recommends
renewal.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The Division conducted a reasonable potential analyses to determine the reasonable potential for
toxicants to be discharged by this facility, based on DMR and pre-treatment data from December
2003-December 2005. The RPA was completed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, silver, selenium, and zinc. Results suggest no reasonable
potential for all parameters except copper and zinc. Copper and zinc are action level standard
parameters and will continue to be monitored on a monthly basis. Monitoring and limits for
cyanide, chromium and silver will be removed from the permit. Silver and cyanide were not
detected in the effluent and chromium shows no reasonable potential. These parameters will
continue to be monitored through the LTMP.
Cape Fear Nutrient Permitting strategy
For the 2006 permit renewal cycle the Division developed a permitting strategy to address
nutrient concerns in the Cape Fear River Basin. This strategy is being applied at permit renewal
to existing discharges on the basin. The strategy calls for additional nutrient monitoring and
reporting to support the efforts of the Modeling and TMDL Unit in developing special studies
and TMDL projects. Dischargers in the Jordan Lake watershed will monitor TN and TP 3 times
per week, report nitrogen species, and report TN and TP as both concentration and mass loads.
The permit also includes a re -opener special condition. In the event that the Environmental
Management Commission adopts a nutrient management strategy or the EPA approves a TMDL
in the coming permit term, the condition allows the Division to re -open affected permits to set
nutrient limits and related conditions accordingly.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The draft permit includes he following modifications:
• Weekly average limits for ammonia of 12 mg/L (summer) and 24 mg/L (winter) were added
to the permit. As per federal regulations the permit has to include monthly and weekly
average limits.
• A daily maximum limit of 28 µg/L total residual chlorine was added to the. permit. A water
quality standard of 17 µg/L has been adopted for total residual chlorine. The limit is capped
at 28 µg/L.
• Annual effluent pollutant scan — All major municipal permits are required to do an annual
pollutant scan to collect data required for permit renewal.
• Nutrient monitoring as per Cape Fear Nutrient Permitting Strategy.
Fact Sheet
NPDES NC0023868 Renewal
Page 2

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE
Draft Permit to Public Notice:
Permit Scheduled to Issue:
NPDES DIVISION CONTACT
June 21, 2006
August 14, 2006
If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Teresa Rodriguez at [phone] ext. 553.
NAME: DATE
REGIONAL OFFICE COMMENTS
NAME: DATE:
SUPERVISOR: DATE:
Fact Sheet
NPDES NCO023868 Renewal
Page 3

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Burlington Eastside WWTP
Outfall 001
NCO023868
Qw = 12 MGD
Time Period 0
Qw{MGD) 12
WWTP Class IV
7Q16S (cfs) 33.6
lWC (%) @ 7Q10S 35.632
7Q10W (cfs) 83.5
@ 7Q10W 18.217
3002 (cfs) 0
@ 3002 N/A
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) 568
@ QA 3.1708
Rec'ving Stream Haw River
Stream Class C NSW
*Legend.- " Freshwater Discharge
C = Carcinogenic
NC = Non -carcinogenic
A = Aesthetic
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, rpa
6/16/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
11 1 "
Dec-2003,
10 0=,
5.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
2".
Jan-2004 : {-
10:0•
5.0
Mean
5.0000
3',
Feb-2004 :
° 10.0
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
4'
Mar-2004 "r
10:0
5.0
n
16
5
Apr72004 - :
10;0
5.0
6i
May-2004
1M0
5.0
Mult Factor=
1.0000
7
r r.,
.Jun-2004 .', cj
10.0
5.0
Max. Value
5.0 u
8; •
Jul-2004
. 10.0;
5.0
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 u
9;
Aug-2004
10"0';
5.0
10�
'Sep-2004 . <_°.
10:0�
5.0
11
Oct-2004 c
10:0'
5.0
12
'Nov-2004 ��
10:0
5.0
13
�
Mar-2005 c
10.01
5.0
)
14'
Jun-2005 <1
10.0
5.0
/1 V
�
15;
Sep-2005, "4
10.0
5.0
16
Nov-2005 = k c °
..10.0,
5.0
17
18:
19,
20,
21
22'
23
v,£.
24
25
26°
a,
27
28
29
30'
31
32
k £
33,
34•
-
35
"
36-.
s
37,
Ny.4
'
38,
s.
39
:-
40'
41
42
43
44
'.
45;'
t
46i
47
'
48,
49
,Y
50
- 1
51
52
53
54
4
55'
56
57
58
59
60,
61
62
63
64.."al.
65
66
67
68'
69
5
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
1 - 3/15/2006

Date Data
1 Dec-2003
2; Jan 2004 •>
3 Feb 2004
4 Mar2004
5:<"Apr-2004 .y
9' Aug-2004
10 - Sep-2004,
11 Oct-2004
12' ' �N'ov-2004
13. Mar-2005 °
14. , Jun,=2005
15 Sep-2005
161 Nov72005,
17
18
19,
20
21.:- .
22:
23'
24 "
25
26;
27,
28 "
29= °
30
31.
32,
33,
34
35 '
36
3T
38
39 ` '
40
41 .a.
42:.
43 °
44
45,;.-
46`
47 '
48'
49
50
51 ,
52..'
53,
54
55
56
57
58
59:
60
61
62 `
63
64
65
66
67
68
69,
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Cadmium ✓►iA Chromium
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1.000
Sid Dev.
1.000
Mean
1.000
C.V.
1.000
n
1.000
1.000
Mult Factor =
1.000
Max. Value
1.000
Max. Pred Cw
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
�v
p
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
16
1.0000
1.000
1.000
Date Data
1 . Jan-2004,
2' <"
3'
4:
5 , Feb-2004�
g,
9100-2004 k
10
12r'
13.. 5
14: Apr-2004 .5
15 5
16 c E
1T
18-- May-20Q4 t= 5
19<,: 5
20 5
21;
22 ` e`
23•, Jun-2604 <
24,1
26?° <f
2271
8 Jul 2004 5
s
29< 8
30
31 Aug-2004 c '5
32;` 5
33'
34: 5
35: j 5
36; Sep 2004 c 5
37 5
38
39 " c- 5
40 • Oct-2004 < 5
41 7
42 <� 5
43: 8
44 ' -Nov-2004�,, <5
45,; 4
46 € 6
47€ 5
48 Dec4004<,` 5
49:-:' : 5
50'.` •5
51., 5
52 . f 5
53 Jan-200.5 5
54 4 5
55, 5
56, < " 5
57 %<., 5
58 Feb-2005 . < 1 5
60. 9
61 7
62 Mar-2005 a c;? 5
63 ` -> 5
64'' 8
65 , , 7
66 ,;: 7
67 ` •Apr-2005 9
68. Z� . 6
69 8
BDL=1/2DL Results
2.5 Sid Dev.
2.5 Mean
2.5 C.V.
2.5 n
2.5
2.5 MultFactor=
2.5 Max. Value
2.5 Max. Pred Cw
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2'.5
2.5
2.5
5.3
2.5
8.6
6.6
2.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.0
2.5
8.0
2.5
4.8
6.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.1
9.3
7.4
2.5
5.2
8.6
7.0
7.1
9.1
6.2
8.6
2.2985
4.0757
0.5640
111
1.3600
10.0
13.6
-3-
npdes rpa 2004031.x1s, data
3/15/2006

T
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
76
81 a
82 °
83
84•. ;
85,,
86
8T
88
89' .
W
91
92« s,
93� °
941,1
95
96
97
98
99= .'
100 ;
101 ' .
102 `
103
104,
105
106•'
".
107
108
109
70
s6
6.6
71.
May-2005 < ,;
' 5 0
2.5
72$Z
8.2
73 i
5.9`
5.9
74
S.3
5.3
75'
5.6
76
Jun72005
5.6
5.6
77;
5.0
2.5
78
¢
5:0
2.5
79°'
,-,
5.0'
2.5
80
Jul=2005
"' 5.0
2.5
81-1
5.0�
2.5
82 ,
6 2'
6.2
83;
rk
S S.Oi
2.5
843
Aug-2005 of
` . 5.0`
2.5
85'
5 3;
5.3
86
5'
5.1
87:
<
- 5.0
2.5
88.-
<
5 0,
2.5
89'r
Sep-2005�
_ 5 0:
2.5
90'
52`
5.2
91
9 3
9.3
92_
8:T
8.7
93 •
.Oct-2005
5:0'
2.5
94
`
5,0
2.5
95
5.0
2.5
96
�_;
.
.-
5.0�
2.5
97,
Nov 2005
5 2
5.2
98
7 1;
7.1
100:,.
c
�5.0?
2.5
101
5.01
2.5
102,
,k
5.0:
2.5
103.
Dec-2005 ;'
7.7T
7.7
104,
cr.
`5.6
2.5
105
c
50
2.5
106
5 7
5.7
107'
Jan-2006
72`
7.2
108 ,-
10:0
10.0
109
-
'- 9.5
9.5
110,
7.0
7.0
ill
-
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
3/15/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Copper`-
Cyanide
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 t Jan 2004-. 10iT
10.7
Std Dev. 7.8474
1
Jan 2Q04 �'. �,4
5.0
Std Dev.
0.0000
2., Feb 2004., £ 11Z
11.2
Mean 12.8577
2
10
5.0
Mean
5.0000
3' Mar 2004 " 7:9
7.9
C.V. 0.6103
3 ;
10:
5.0
C.V.
0.0000
4" Apr 2004 2351
23.5
n 26
4
10
5.0
n
110
5'" May-2004 "" ,34'
34.0
5:":
Feb-2004 10
5.0
6 Jun-2004- 101
10.1
Mu It Factor= 2.1500
6'
a 10
5.0
Mult Factor =
1.0000
7 :,; Ju1.2004 � � v,158
8 Aug-2004 ,i 7 9 "
15.8
9.7
Max. Value 36.5 ug/L
Max. Pred Cw 78.5 ug/L
T
8
�� • , 10'
10:
5.0
5.0
Max. Value
Max. Pred Cw
5.0 g/L
u
5.0 ug/L
9°: "Sep-2004 ` 8
7.6
9 .-
Mar-2004 r ��' 10�
5.000
10 Oct-2004. ` 12,
11.6
10'.-
10=
5.000
11 16 :
16.2
11,,
IF < 10
5.000
12°Nov 2004 37
13 ' D-;ec 2004. • A,
36.5
3.5
12 :
13
10
, : 10'
5.000
5.000
��
14 ;Jan 2005 `' ;� 10
10.4
14.°
Apr-2004 10
5.0
15; .'Feb-2005 13°.
12.9
15'
�< I . M
5.0
�g
16i' Mir-2005.' 12:.
12.3
16,
1 ' w ,10
5.0
1 T Apr 2005 , p, 9 ,
9.1
17:1:'Ti
""10
5.0
18:" May2005° 7
��
7.2
18
May 2004 "' 10
5.0
19 Jun 2005 ° 12 :
20 < r" Jul 2005 , 1,1,:
12.0
11.3
19,I
20„
;' 10
107.
5.0.
5.0
,
21 " Aug 2005 10`
5.0
21.
6� 10`
5.0
22._ Sep 2005 =' 14 =
14.1
22'
=� 10s
5.0
23, . Oct Z005, „10ti
5.0
23a
Jun 2004 c! ." '10
5.0
24; • Nov 2005, :a 18
18.0
24;
5.0
25 F :Dec 2005,
10.5
25
c 10'
5.0
26 ".Jan-2006' .i '8 :
8.2
26'_-
10,
5.0
27 ,-4 °s
2T',
Juk2004: 10-
5.0
,
28 .' ;
28
10,
5.0
29
29'�
-`° 10
5.0
30
30
c . ; 10
5.0
31
31 "Aug
2004 ,�. 10"
5.0
32 <
32
<; 10.
5.0
33
34 "'< g
33;
34
.` c -. 1oi
10�
5.0
5.0
35
36; ' , .'.�
35
3&
-, '10,5.0
Sep-2004 c; 10
5.0
37
37 °
10
5.0
38
38-,.T4,
< ° 10
�-
5.0
39.
39°'
,
10:
� "
5.0
40 s
40:r
Oct 2004 =„ 10
5.0
41 -
41
c, ,, . 10
5.0
42' 1
42,,
E 1&
5.0
43
43°
10.
5.0
44,
45', 1
44 :
45.
Nov-2004 � 10
•10;
5.0
5.0
46' `.
46 ,
!!! ' 10''
5.0
47-
47;--
48; `
90
Dec-2004 �_ 10
5.0
5.0
48•
49
49 -
sa 10;
5.0
50
51
50�
-10
5.0
52
52 '
� � `" 10
5.0
53, :. EJ
53 `•
Jan-2008 c: 10_
5.0
54
54
4 ` _: 10,
5.0
55., E:`. .
55
10
5.0
56,,
56 `
< `10'
5.0
57
57 '
G£' . 10'
5.0
58:
58
Feb-2005 E r 10'
5.0
59; .-
59"
i iQ
5.0
<
60;
60°h
_ 10"
5.0
61 ""<
61
i 10
5.0
62'�- ;t ,
62
Mar-2005,, 10
5.0
63
63
10
5.0
64
64,
10
5.0
65
',
65
c 10
5.0
66 i
66
fi .. 10:
5.0
67
67 °
Apr-2005 10
5.0
68,
68
c ' 10=
5.0
69e
69
c 10
5.0
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
- 5 - 3/15/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
70
�'
71
72
1
73
ri
74"
75;
76
77
78., ,
79,
81
��
82
83:
84
85;
86,
87
88
89. _
.,
90, . _
91
92
93'
94
95
96.' 'o
97 -
s
98
'U
99
100' °
101
102
103;°'
;
104' "
105 .,
a ...
106 '
107,
108,
109' ,
110 .
111.-
.
70.;
71 '
May-2005 �s
10
72
10
73°
10
74
`'
10,
75
c; , 10:
76'.Jun2005
c
'` 10>
77
78'
<'
101
79
10:
80,;
Jul-2005 <
la
813
10
82
83:
84
Aug-2005 x-
' 10
85
10
86-+-.10`
��-
87
10�
88
;i0.
89
Sep-2005 f -4 .
10'
90::
10,
91
10
92
10
93`
Oct=A05
10.
94;'
10
95 `,�
; .u:
1.0
96
"' c ,'
.10t
97...
Nov7M5
10
98
d,-
10i
99'1
a -10.
100;
10'
101
;
'' 10
102 <
E � ..
'to,
103 '
Dec-2005
10
104.-3`
10
10:
106 •'
10'
10V
Jan-200.6 �4 "'.
10,.
108
10
109,.
"N -
m, 10
110
10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
-6-
npdes rpa 2004031.xis, data
3/15/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Lead
t,�Vl>j
Mercury
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 Dec 2003 10A
5.0
Std Dev. 2.7325
1 , Dec 2003
6 86;
6.9
Std Dev. 2.3280
,
2 Jan 2004 : 10.0
5.0
Mean 6.0000
2;. Jan-2004
9.48i
9.5
Mean 8.1994
3; Feb 2004 a 10.0
5.0
C.V. 0.4554
3' Feb-2004
8.86
8.9
C.V. 0.2839
_,
4 Mar 2004 ;[11 10 0,
5.0
n 16
4_ Mar-2004
116.4
10.4
n 17
5 ,°Apr 2004 .,100
5.0
5; Apr-2004
•, 6 71 !
6.7
6 ', May-2004 " 13 0,
13.0
Mult Factor = 2.0500
6 . May-2004
;12 2
12.2
Mult Factor = 1.57
7j Jun 2004` 13D`
13.0
Max. Value 13.0 ug/L
7 , Jun-2004 " "
:472
4.7
Max. Value 12.4 ng/L
8. Jul 2004, k 10.0;
5.0
Max. Pred Cw 26.7 ug/L
8 ,, Jul-2004
` 12 4
12.4
Max. Pred Cw 19.5 ng/L
9 Aug-2004' "10 0
5.0
9 - Aug-2004
7.3'
7.3
10 ` Sep-2004' ` c' I0;0
5.0
101 'Sep-2004
7.8,
7.5
11 " 0et 2004 ,�p� 10 Q
5.0
11 "; Oct-2004 V a -
10.61
10.6
12,_ Nov-2004 ",%, 10;0'
5.0
12 _ Nov2004
8.8
8.8
13 ` Mar-2005' - -16&
5.0
13' Mar-2005
6.31
6.3
14 . Jun-2005, c . 100
5.0
14 ... Junr2005
, 8 9
8.9
15 ' Sep 2005 " c ° 10.0;
5.0
15. : Sep4005
4.2
4.2
16 Nov 2005 ._ 10.0,
5.0
16 Nov-2005 1
7 0f
7.0
17
17,°F Feb 2006 "�
7 2
7.2
18 a
18 ,
19' '
19-.
20
20
21
21
22 i
'.
22 s
23 ,
23.
24 a;"
24:
25 h
25
26
26'
27`
27
2s
28
29. ;
2s�,.
30, ,
30 .
31
31
32 ."�
32.;
33
33
34
34 ,
35 ...
35: ,
?.
36, a -
36
37 " 4
37
38'
38
39 '
39
40
40
41,41.'
42
42;.
43
43
44
44
45
45,
46
46
47 • e,,..
47
..'
48-, 1, ',
48,
49
49y
50 c
50
51 ." E
51
52
52`
53 :
53
54- � z ..
54 :
_
55
55 y
56.
56'
57,
57,
58' °
58
59 $
59 f:..._.
60
60, ,
61
61
62'
62'
63. ,.
63 ;
64
64- 1
r
65 i
65
67•
67
68 ;,
68, ;
69
69
.
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
- 7 - 3/15/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
9-
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
3/15/2006

Date
Data
1
'Dec-2003
2 r
plan-2004'-
" c
3"
Feb-2004
r c,
C
Mar-2004�:
c: .
53,
Apr-2604:�
8 i " Jul-2004 ' 10:
9; <
Aug-2004 4
10
Sep 2004` c
`10
11
"Oct 2004 Lc
s
111000
12
Nov-2004
3
Mae-2005�1
0='
1
1<
�
Sep -2005
1015.
16,
Nov 2005h
101;
17
18;,
19.
20"
21
22,
23•
24'.
-
25:
_
-
26
27
28
29
31
32
33''.
't
34,
35
36�
37;
38,
39
40
41
42
43;
;
44
45
`
46
47'
48,
49'..
,
50 "
52.
53,
t
54
55
56
;
57:
58
f
59,
-i
60
61 .
62 "
63
64
65
66 ,
67
68
69
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Selenium amf
BDL=1/2DL Results
5.0 Std Dev. 0.0000
5.0 Mean 5.0000
5.0 C.V. 0.0000
5.0 n 16
5.0
5.0 Mult Factor = 1.0000
5.0 Max. Value 5.0 1
5.0 Max. Pred Cw 5.0 1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0 v V
5.0 �{
Silver
Date Data
BDL=1/2DL
Results
1 > Jan-2004
5
2.5
Std Dev.
2: .Feb-2004 d
, -5t
2.5
Mean
3:` .Mar2004 -'s"
•5'
2.5
C.V.
4' Apr 2004 , < -
5i
2.5
n
5: May-2004 �.,:J,
5=
2.5
6, Jun-2004
5
�&
2.5
Mult Factor=
7' -Jul=2004 a
2.5
Max. Value
8 Aug72004 <_"
5
2.5
Max. Pred Cw
9, Sep 2004 w
5
2.5
10�;,'Oct-2004 ��
- 5?
2.5
11 ;,` Nov-2004. " �
5
2.5
12 - Nov' 2004 s
5',
2.5
r„ ,fik
0.0000
2.5000
0.0000
26
1.0000
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
13` - Dec-2004 -6 ;
: 5:
2.5
14 , °Jan-2005
151 Feb-2005 1 _'
5
.`5:
2.5
2.5
�v V
Mar 2005 $
5'
2.5
16 r < _
17' ' Apr-2005 G_
5
2.5
18: May-2005 <?`
5,
2.5
19 Jun-2005 c
- 5
2.5
20: Juk2005 E,<
5
2.5
21`.` Aug-2005,
5-
2.5
22 Sep72005 ''
-5,
2.5
23; Oct-2005
'',5-
2.5
241` Nov-2005 I < ;."'
5'
2.5
251 Dec-2005
�5
2.5
26: - Jan-2006 : <f
5:
2.5
27 ,
28
29
30
31
32
33
34,
35`
36
37
38 '
39<
40.
41
42
43''
"
44
45
46:
-
47
48
49
50
51 °
52
53
'd
54,°
55
56
57,
5&
t
59
60
61
i
62
i
63 °
'
64
.�
65"
66
,
67
3' "
68
'
69,
M
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
3/15/2006

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
BDL=112DL
Results
89.0
Std Dev.
39.2318
64.0
Mean
73.2808
120.0
C.V.
0.5354
91.0
n
26
99.0
50.0
MultFactor=
1.9800
89.5
Max. Value
153.0
114.0
Max. Pred Cw
302.9
153.0
137.0
96.0
123.0
91.0
119.0
39.0
57.0
39.0
35.0
42.0
12.5
12.5
24.0
49.5
55.0
57.0
47.3
-13-
npdes rpa 2004031.xls, data
3/15/2006

CITY OF Burlington
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 1358
Burlington, N.C. 27216-1358
STEPHEN R. SHOAF
DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
NCDENR/DWQ/ NPDES Permit Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO023868
East Burlington WWTP
City of Burlington, Alamance County
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
July 24, 2006
Ed)
J U L 2 7 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
I have reviewed the draft NPDES permit NCO023868 for the East Burlington
WWTP and have the following questions and comments.
• The City of Burlington will have to purchase equipment and train staff at the plant
to sample and analyze for low-level chlorine residual. The South Burlington
WWTP draft permit states that the low-level chlorine residual limit will take
effect 18 months after the effective date of the final permit. The East Burlington
WWTP draft permit does not mention a similar delay in implementing the limit.
The City requests clarification and confirmation that the requirement for
low level chlorine residual monitoring and the permit limit begins after 18 Ck
months from the effective date of the permit. We will have to test our
procedures and methods prior to the limit being effective, and will need the lead
time without the monitoring requirement in order to set up our program.
• The City of Burlington understands the addition of Weekly Average limits for
ammonia. A review of historical data does not indicate that we will have
prolonged difficulty meeting these limits. Nitrification is a biological process and
there may be times when the biological conversion of ammonia to nitrite and
nitrate will be disrupted. We will try to minimize those events.
• The City noticed that the monitoring for conductivity has been changed to
"Daily". Is that a typo on the limits page? There will not be much knowledge
gained from daily monitoring of conductivity. The old permit has a footnote that
explains that daily is three times per week June — September and one time per
week for the remainder of the year. This same footnote appears on the draft South
Burlington permit. Also Conductivity is listed as a composite sample on the East
plant permit and as a grab sample on the South plant permit. Shouldn't those
methods be the same?

• On the "Supplement to the Permit Cover Sheet" the list of treatment facility
components includes the addition of carbon. We do not currently add carbon to
the wastewater. There have been a substantial number of textile plants that have
gone out of business in Burlington. The effectiveness of carbon has not been
demonstrated at our plant, given the current composition of our wastewater.
The City of Burlington understands that as the rules for the nutrient control strategy for
the Jordan Lake Watershed are developed, approved, and implemented there will be
changes in the requirements (re -opener clause) for the various entities within the
watershed. We will take that opportunity to provide comments as necessary.
What is not clear is the reasoning for changing the nitrogen and phosphorus monitoring to
a frequency of 3 times per week. According to the documentation used in development
of the Jordan Lake Watershed nutrient management strategy the contribution of nitrogen
loading at the lake is only 28% from point sources on the Haw River Arm vs. 72%
nitrogen loading from the non -point sources. Also, these same documents show that the
contribution of phosphorus loading from point sources is 16% and 84% from non -point
sources. Currently the proposed rules do not require any non -point source monitoring
which is the segment with the largest loading at the lake. This doesn't make sense.
To our knowledge after a brief informal survey, dischargers in the Neuse River Basin and
the Tar Pamlico basin are not required to monitor three times a week. These basins are
facing similar nutrient management concerns, but apparently heightened monitoring
(three times per week) was not considered to be of sufficient benefit to make it a
requirement in those permits.
Another argument presented by DWQ is that the increased data collection activity would
be used for special studies and additional modeling. The DWQ monitoring group has
stated that they do not have the resources to perform additional modeling in the Jordan
Lake Watershed. Therefore without plans to use this data for modeling there is little
reason to collect the data for archival purposes.
The municipalities in the Haw River Watershed are funding stream monitoring on the
tributaries draining into the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake. This monitoring is twice per
month for some parameters, once per month for some additional parameters, and
quarterly for some metals of interest. The DWQ is proposing to monitor the Jordan Lake
water quality 12 times per year (monthly) during their 2 intensive sampling years, 6 times
per year during the 1 less intensive year, and no sampling at all for 2 of the next 5 years.
With those sampling frequencies, requiring the NPDES discharge permit holders to
sample 3 times per week for nitrogen and phosphorus does not make sense. This does
not add any resolution to the potential models or to our understanding of the lake,
especially if there is no lake monitoring in progress.
The DWQ modeling group suggested that the additional sampling would allow a better
determination of compliance by having more data points. This is not a good argument, or
else the same would hold true for the Neuse and Tar Pamlico basins. The method for
determination of compliance is defined by the State, and should be uniformly applied.
Our existing permit requires monitoring nitrite — nitrate and TKN monthly, and the
phosphorus monitoring is required weekly. It would be logical to require weekly
monitoring for both nitrogen and phosphorus at the wastewater treatment plants. This
would create a more robust database than is currently available. The City of Burlington

would support a requirement for weekly monitoring for the nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in the effluent and monthly and annual loading compliance
determinations.
If you have questions, please contact me by phone or by email at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Shoaf
Director of Utilities
CC: Eric Davis
Glenn McGirt
Clarence Sell

.hart remut reviews l/-1
Subject: Draft Permit reviews (2)
From: John Giorgino <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:22:56 -0400
To: Teresa Rodriguez <[e-mail]>
Hi Teresa, I have reviewed NCO063096 - Town of Holly Springs and NCO023868 - East Burlington WWTP. No
comments on each. Thanks for forwarding them.
John Giorgino
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
Mailing Address:
1621 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Office: 919 733-2136
Fax: [phone]
I of 1 7/24/2006 10:44 AM

J�'JED sr'q' s
rW
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
��
REGION 4
o r
=�02
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z1F
61 FORSYTH STREET
�l'14 PRO"to
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JUN 2 �
Ms. Teresa Rodriguez
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NPDES Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
SUBJ: Draft NPDES Permit
East Burlington WWTP - NPDES No. NCO023868
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
In accordance with the EPA/NCDENR MOA, we have completed review of the draft
permit referenced above and have no comments. We request that we be afforded an additional
review opportunity only if significant changes are made to the draft permit prior to issuance, or if
significant comments objecting to the draft permit are received. Otherwise, please send us one
copy of the final permit when issued.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
L
rJ5 20 66
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
Sincerely,
Marshall Hyatt, Environmental Scientist
Permits, Grants, and Technical Assistance Branch
Water Management Division
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 % Postconsumer)

comments on East Burlington WWTP - NCO023868
, 1 ,
Subject: comments on East Burlington WQVTP - NCO023868
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:53:34 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
will be glad to discuss with you and/or Sergei as needed, since comment
#2 below also applies to his Greensboro North Buffalo Creek WWTP.
1. In footnote 2, "total suspended residue should be expressed as
"total suspended solids" to match the parameter name in the table above.
2. The fact sheet cites the existing TMDL for turbidity and fecal
coliform for this facility. The TMDL and fact sheet indicate that
further reductions in both point and nonpoint sources are needed and
that further analysis to implement those reductions is required. Pls
describe how you envision the "further analysis" to be conducted and
when it would be conducted. One table in the TMDL did indicate to me
that point source TSS limits should be less than 31 mg/l. This permit
retains the fecal and TSS limits that were in the previous permit, so no
reduction is being required at this time. I am concerned that since
the TMDL does require point source reductions, the draft permit may not
be consistent with that requirement.
1 of 1 9/13/2006 2:08 PM

Public
Notice
AFFIDAVIT OF INSERTION OF ADVERTISMEN'I
Service9-1617
; Raleigh,. NC
Raleigh,.. NC 27699-1617
The Times -News Publishing Company
Notification
of Intent to
Issue a
NPDES
Burlington, NC
Wastewater
Alamance County
Permit
On the basis of thorough
staff review and applica-
tion of NC General Stat-
ute 143.21, Public Law
I, LINDA GIBSON Legal Advertising Manager of The Times -News Publishing
92-500 and other lawful
Co. standards and regula-
Do certify that the advertisement NDENR/DWQ/NPDES
tions, the North Carolina
Environmental Manage-
ment Commission pro-
poses to issue a National
Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES)
NOTICE
wastewater .. discharge
permit to the person(s)
listed below effective 45
Public Notice,
days from the publish
State of
date of this notice.
North Carolina
Written comments re -
garding the - proposed
Notification of Intent to
permit will be accepted
until 30 days after the
Issue a NPDES Waste Water Permit
publish date of this no-
tice.. All .comments re -
calved prior- to that date
Measuring 113- Lines appeared in the Times -News, a newspaper published in
are considered in the fi-
Alamance County, Burlington, NC, in issues of June 28, 2005
hal determinations re-
garding 7 the proposed
permit., Thg Director of
the NC Division of Water''
Quality may decide to
hold,ia public meeting for
the proposed permit
should the Division re -
Legal Advertising Manager
calve a significant degree
of public interest.
Copies' of the draft permit,
and other supporting in-
formation on file used to
determine , conditions
1
present in the draft permit
i
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of ��
are available upon re -
quest and payment of the
.�;y�_
t
52006
costs of reproduction.
Mail comments and/or re-
quests for information . to
the NC Division of Water
Quality at the above ad-
dress or call the Point
Source Branch at 919-
`_�^
Q
733-5083, : ' ext. 363.
Please include the
NPDES permit number in
any: communication. In-
Notary Public
terested parties may also
visit the Division of Water
Quality at 512 N. Salis-
bury. St., Raleigh, " _ NC
27604-1148 between the
hours of Sam and 5pm to
review information on file.
My commission expires ��✓ �•� NCity . PDES of Burlington,
permit
NC0023868,' has applied
for renewal of its permit
discharging to the Haw
River in the Cape Fear
River Basin, BOD, am-
monia, . total • residual
chiorine and total phos-
phorus ale water quality
limited parameters. This
discharge may affect fu-
ture allocations into the
receiving stream. .
June 28, 2006

cc: Charles Weaver, NPDES Unit I -
Central Files
WSRO
SOC PRIORITY PROJECT: Yes
If Yes, SOC No. T
To: Permits and Engineering Unit
Surface Water Protection Section
Attention: Dawn Jeffries
Date: November 3, 2005
NPDES STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Alamance County
Permit No. NCO023868
PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Facility and Address:
East Burlington WWTP
225 Stone Quarry Road
Burlington, NC 27216
2. Date of Investigation: November 1, 2005
3. Report Prepared by: Jenny Freeman
4. Persons Contacted and Telephone Number: Clarence Sell, ORC
Phone [phone]
5. Directions to Site: Take US-70 East through Burlington.
Before intersection with NC-49, turn left onto Stone Quarry
Road. Plant is on the right.
6. Discharge Point(s), List for all discharge points:
Latitude: 36 05' 53" Longitude:79 22' 37"
U.S.G.S. Quad No. C21SW _U.S.G.S. Quad Name Burlington
7. Site size and expansion area consistent with application?
X Yes No If No, explain:
8. Topography (relationship to flood plain included):
Located adjacent to Haw River.

9. Location of nearest dwelling: >1000 feet
10. Receiving stream or affected surface waters: Haw River
a. Classification: C-NSW
b. River Basin and Subbasin No.: 03-06-02
C. Describe receiving stream features and pertinent
downstream uses: Commercial/Residential
Part II - DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT WORKS
IV
2.
a. Volume of Wastewater to be permitted: _12.0 MGD
b. What is the current permitted capacity of the Waste
Water Treatment facility? 12.0 MGD
C. Actual treatment capacity of the current facility?
12.0 MGD
d. Date(s) and construction activities allowed by previous
Authorizations to Construct issued in the previous two
years. N/A
e. Please provide a description of existing or
substantially constructed wastewater treatment
facilities: Bar screen, grit chamber, equalization
basin, primary clarifiers, BPR tanks, secondary
clarifiers, tertiary sand filters, chlorination and
dechlorination, sludge digesters and storage.
f. Please provide a description of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities. N/A
g. Possible toxic impacts to surface waters: N/A
h. Pretreatment Program (POTWs only): N/A
in development
should be required
approved X
not needed
Residuals handling and utilization/disposal scheme:
a. If residuals are being land applied, please specify DEM
Permit No. W00000520
Residuals Contractor: Synagro, Inc.
Telephone No. [phone]
b. Residuals stabilization: PSRP X PFRP

NPDES Permit Staff Report
Other
c. Landfill:
d. Other disposal/utilization scheme:
3. Treatment plant classification (attach completed rating
sheet) . Class IV
4. SIC Code (s): 4952
Primary: 01 (Domestic) Secondary: 02 (Industry)
Main Treatment Unit Code: 0 4 3 X 3
PART III - OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
1. Is this facility being constructed with Construction Grant
Funds or are any public monies involved. (municipals only)?
N/A
2. Special monitoring or limitations (including toxicity)
requests: N/A
3. Important SOC, JOC or Compliance Schedule dates: (Please
indicate) N/A
Date
Submission of Plans and Specifications
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
4. Alternative Analysis Evaluation: Has the facility evaluated
all of the non -discharge options available. Please provide
regional perspective for each option evaluated.
Spray Irrigation: N/A
Connection to Regional Sewer System: N/A
Subsurface: N/A
Other disposal options: N/A
5. Other Special Items:
PART IV - EVALUATION AND RECOMbIENDATIONS
The City of Burlington has applied for renewal of NPDES Permit

NPDES Permit Staff Report
No. NC0023868, which covers the East Burlington WWTP. During the
last inspection on November 1, 2005, no problems were noted with
operation and/or maintenance.
WSRO recommends reissuance of this permit in accordance with
Division policy.
Regional staff
Regional Supervisor
It 3 1 A -
6 l6J11
Date

East Burlington
Wastewater Plant
Topographic Map
Legend
= East Plant
20' Contours
10' Contours
5' Contours
Road Centerlines
River, streams, etc.
Lakes, Ponds, etc.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
Miles
1 inch equals 0.25 miles
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP
STONE QUARRY RD.
ALAMANCE CO.
NPDES PERMIT NO.0023868
This data was compiled from the GIS resources of the Burlington Regional GIS Partnership
for public planning and agency support purposes. These resources include public
information sources of different scale, time, origin, definition and accuracy, which
aspects produce inconsistencies among features represented together on this map.
Neither the City of Burlington nor the Partnership shall be held liable for any errors In this
map or supporting data. Primary public information sources from whlch this map was
compiled, in conjunction with field surveys where required, must be consulted for the
verification of the information contained within this map.
Map Date. 10/26/2005

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
a. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
b. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Annedeen Hosiery
Mailing Address: P.O. Drawer 1359
Burlington NC 27216-1359
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing & Drying of socks
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): Socks
Raw materal(s): Yarn, dyes surfactants Acetic acid Peroxide Hydrogen Peroxide. softener (cationic), liquid alkali
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.
167,922 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.
13,250 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 20 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
b. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 21 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
C. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
d. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Burlington Industries LLC - BHF
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 691
Burlington NC 27216
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing & Drying upholstery material mattress ticking drapery & bedding
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): Upholstery material, mattress ticking: drapery & bedding material
Raw material(s): Polyester, acrylic, cotton, rayon, acrylic fabric pigment, dyes, coating compounds bleach, scouring agents
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.
163,798 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
d. 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.
8,500 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 22 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
C. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
d. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
LOF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 23 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
e. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
f. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Burlington Industries LLC — Pioneer Plant
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 691
Burlington, NC 27216
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing yarn
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): Yarn
Raw material(s): Polyester, acrylic, cotton, rayon, yam, polyester size, acrylic size pigments, dyes, surfactants, acids, alkalis,
formaldehyde resins.
F.6. Flow Rate.
e. 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.
332,640 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
f. 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.
9,000 gpd (X continuous or intermittent) — Permit application
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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 24 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
e. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
f. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 25 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
g. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
h. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Carolina Finishing of NC
Mailing Address: 220 Elmira St.
Burlington NC 27215
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing & Drying rolls of synthetic fabrics
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): Finished synthetic fabrics
Raw material(s): Dyes softeners fire retardant additives acids resins surfactants polyester, nylon polypropalene acrylics rayon cotton
linen.=
F.6. Flow Rate.
g. 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.
139,725 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
h. 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.
1,125 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 26 of 22

T
FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to FA 2)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
g. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
h. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 27 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
i. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
j. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Copland Industries, Inc.
Mailing Address: 1714 Carolina Mill Rd.
Burlington, NC 27216
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wastewater generated from weaving dyeing & finishing operations
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): Sheer fabric
Raw materal(s): Yarn, dyes, hydrogen peroxide, softener
F.6. Flow Rate.
i. 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.
193,025 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
j. 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.
10,000 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 28 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport. Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
AN i
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
i. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
j. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 29 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
k. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
I. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Engineered Controls International Inc
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 247
Elon NC 27244
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wastewater generated from metal finishing operations of component parts assembly, testing packing of commercial LP gas & compressed gas
valves regulators & flow control valves _
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): LP gas controls & valves
Raw material(s): Brass forgings brass rods ductile iron castings aluminum rods stainless steel bronze carbon steel & nitrate rubber,
sodium hydroxide sodium bichromate nitric acid sulfuric acid ferrous sulfate
F.6. Flow Rate.
k. 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.
6,425 gpd (X continuous or intermittent)
I. 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.
3,500 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?
Metal finishinq 433.17
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 30 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to FA 2)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
k. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
I. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 31 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.I. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
M. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
n. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Glen Raven Inc. — Park Ave.
Mailing Address: 1821 North Park Ave.
Glen Raven NC 27217
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wastewater generated from dyeing & finishing of warp knits & non woven fabric
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): Polyester fabrics nylon fabrics acrylic fabrics
Raw materal(s): Acid dyes disperse dyes polyester fabrics nylon fabrics dyeing assistants, fabric finishes
F.6. Flow Rate.
M. 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.
625,545 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
n. 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.
3,000 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 32 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment
M. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
n. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 33 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
o. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
p. Number of CIUs. 1
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: Graham Dyeing & Finishing Inc.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2857
Burlington NC 27216
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Wastewater generated from dyeing & finishing socks
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): Socks
Raw material(s): Bleach dyes caustic softeners
F.6. Flow Rate.
o. 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.
46.418 gpd ( continuous or X intermittent)
p. 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.
2,000 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 34 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
FA 1. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
o. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
p. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 35 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
PART F.INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGES AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
All treatment works receiving discharges from significant industrial users or which receive RCRA,CERCLA, or other remedial wastes must
complete part F.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
F.1. Pretreatment program. Does the treatment works have, or is subject ot, an approved pretreatment program?
x Yes ❑ No
F.2. Number of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs). Provide the number of each of the following types of
industrial users that discharge to the treatment works.
q. Number of non -categorical SIUs. 8
r. Number of CIUs. 1
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: National Spinning Company
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 191
Washington, NC 27899
FA. Industrial Processes. Describe all the industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SIU's discharge.
Dyeing & drying of acrylic yarn
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): Make acrylic yam from man made acrylic fiber
Raw material(s): Man made acrylic fiber, dyes, auxiliary chemicals
F.6. Flow Rate.
q. 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.
235,388 gpd ( continuous or intermittent)
r. 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.
1,318 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?
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 36 of 22

FACILITY NAME AND PERMIT NUMBER:
PERMIT ACTION REQUESTED:
RIVER BASIN:
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP, NCO023868
RENEWAL
CAPE FEAR
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.
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED BY TRUCK, RAIL, OR DEDICATED PIPELINE:
F.9. RCRA Waste. Does the treatment works receive or has it in the past three years received RCRA hazardous waste by truck, rail or dedicated pipe?
❑ Yes X No (go to F.12)
F.10. Waste transport Method by which RCRA waste is received (check all that apply):
❑ Truck ❑ Rail ❑ Dedicated Pipe
F.11. Waste Description. Give EPA hazardous waste number and amount (volume or mass, specify units).
EPA Hazardous Waste Number Amount Units
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REM E DIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION
WASTEWATER, AND OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
F.12. Remediation Waste. Does the treatment works currently (or has it been notified that it will) receive waste from remedial activities?
❑ Yes (complete F.13 through F.15.) X No
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is excepted to origniate in
the next five years).
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if
known. (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
F.15. Waste Treatment.
q. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
r. Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
END OF PART F.
REFER TO THE APPLICATION OVERVIEW (PAGE 1) TO DETERMINE WHICH OTHER PARTS
OF FORM 2A YOU MUST COMPLETE
EPA Form 3510-2A (Rev. 1-99). Replaces EPA forms 7550-6 & 7550-22. Page 37 of 22

C'
EAST BURLINGTON
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
O0 4 C
00 0
00 On0
��7
O 'I
r DI?:ni9 ,FX n . LIJ IG �
+s'P lIi—'d Cl �837K V yL&,
h'/K v? �mN
VT
HAW
RIVE
LEGEND ri
4-LAlIE ROADWAY
4-LANE ROADWAY
— PLANE DINDED ROADWAY
a
EAST BURLINGTON WWTP
STONE QUARRY RD.
ALAMANCE CO.
NPDES PERMIT NO. 0023868
,.,-. .I<a . :.�•• x:u..Wv; �r•..u, i.:r� .w <, . v✓�v vn vr�a
D �Z:[ Cr��'S;. L O•F[F� rY i ::^'SE -se C/L[:` ''J,fA
SHEET 45
tN11✓\Lt�':NI. jkI'�I.'T Mtt`T SEWER SYSTEM -
______ MAPPING <_-
;:NFL:V�'rNN, Nr'.,,l c;,ar,.IN,a %---BURLINGTON, N.C.
35
3b
44
45
53
54

1737 NOR1'ry�gN W92
aEne East Burlington WWTP, Quarry Rd., Burlington, NPDES No. NCO023868
Ro 1790
10
1780 \ B pYDS "01001
\
a, q�
ps, \
°F \
LIM1T
7 MESSIAH LUTH. CH. \
x OAK CREST.: \
n D C 1.
.4
J \ /
g 2
DARE ST. pHAJEN QPP� /
� p0
YDE ST. 3, k0° °C �6��1 q er'/.` OISC14AROE
0 m P SERIAL N
4,Z4- NUMBER
WOOD. /
aURY CT. /
N
r
EAST
URLINOTON
N_ _ _
PINp0, , wASTE
0 o I PLANT
R. HOMER
2 �P. �< ANOREWS so'
o a� ELEM. SC`-_
y 0J aVCK/N ✓1 Z
• 1 = r CEmEtERY �--�
`q I D 1 ICEM� Sr.
70 o
4 `t 1 J TEMPLE RAPT. CH. '0 D W
0
�I1 r Q, 1725 EL ;.
1La
r J OAKWOOL)
DP `02
I \ r
1778 I 1 �� � \ GH c,
A P
J yi
I < 1720 UNIT Fp. u C,
METH. CH. G Qom.
_) 1,
OR'
�
� J
J m ,
1774 L I \ I � A r
o ROCK Of AGES
N BAPT. CH. // y
_ — HUDsO
1720 m CA i
i A \
\
Location Map: East Burlington WWTP �� `. /\^ 1941
From: N= Planning and Research Map
Burlington and Vicinity - 1985 Co THOMP-�50N sr.
Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet
3 INGTON v
a-
BURLENGINEERING

EAST BURLINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
225 STONE QUARRY ROAD, BURLINGTON, NC
NPDES PERMIT NO. NCO023868
The following flows are based on approximate values from 2004 calculated from pump
run times, weirs, or other means when actual flow meters are not installed.
• Plant influent average flow: 5.2 MGD
• Equalization basin effluent: 5.5 MGD
• Primary clarifier effluent: 5.2 MGD
• Anoxic / anaerobic tank effluent: 7.8 MGD
• Aeration basin effluent: 7.8 MGD
• Carbon regeneration effluent: 0.029 MGD
• Carbon regeneration scrubber: 0.23 MGD
• Waste activated sludge overflow: 0.14 MGD
• Return activated sludge: 2.6 MGD
• Plant reuse water: 0.4 MGD
• Plant effluent: 5.2 MGD
Submitted by: Clarence Sell, EBWWTP Chief Operator
October 19, 2005
(�T4 e&�
/l1d11O,5-

East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant Schematic
Influent from Town
of Haw River
Influent _ IBarscreen
Grit
-----------------I
I
I
i
Equalization
Primary
Chamber
; Basin A
I I
I ,
Clarifiers
I ,
I I
L_______________________J
Biosolids
Residuals Aerated
Primary
Holding
Lime Sludge
Sludge
Tank
Stabilization Holding
Gravity
Tank
I
Thickeners
Residuals
Land Application
Carbon Spent
Regeneration Carbon
Unit Storage
Tank
Ash to Landfill
Haw River
--------------------- Represents Intermitent Operation
Secondary
Virgin & Regenerated Carbon ---------,
I
I
I I I
1 I I
I I 1
� , I
Anoxic Anaerobic Aeration
Tanks Tanks Tanks
I I
L----------------- J
-----------------------
I
I
R.A.S.
i
Denitrification
Tank
Sludge Secondary Waste Sluc
Gravity
Thickeners
Sulfur
Dioxide Chlorine
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
Blowers
I 1
I I
I 1
I i
I I
I 1
I I
I I
Secondary
Clarifiers
I
I
1
1
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
r_____________-
I
Chlorine Final Backwash
Effluent Contact Effluent ir Basin
Discharge Tank Filters ;
I 1
------------------
East Burlington WWTP, NPDES #NC0023868

A
Operatcr-!s Bldg
R
Sludge --�Idg
C
Chlorine Gldq
D
Carbon Regen B cc
E
Eq Pump Sta
F
Blower Bldg
G
Return Sludge Bldg
H
Filter NC Bldg
I
Reuse & BW Puma Sta
J
Raw Sewage Pump Sta
K
Aux Sludge Pump Sta
L
Grit Pit i Barscreer
M
Equalrzat€on Baser
N
Primary Clarifiers
O
Pri Sludge Thickeners
P
Pri Sludge Digesters
Q
Llme Stab 'antis
R
Lirne Si?c
S
Bulk Chem Ta:nxs
T
RAS Dent Tank
U
BPR Turks
V
Sludge Sturage Ta-€K
1Al
SecSludgeTI,irkeners
X
Spent Carbon "ank
'r
Virgin Carbar 31 c
Z
MLAerat;cn Basin
AA
Secondary Clarliers
80
WAS PLmp Sta
CC
Sec Scum Pump Sta
DD
Electrical Substab:m
EE
Effluent Filters
FF
Filter Backwash Basin
GG
Aux Sludge Ta^k
EE
Chlorine Contazi
East Burlington Wastewater
Treatment Plant
i`---,"
AP l u AA-;
Si
ua ua
u:
— ea
East Burlington WWTP, NPDES # NCO023868

Section I — Introduction
The East Burlington Waste Water Treatment Facility uses a 12 million gallon per day (MGD) Activated
Sludge -Activated Carbon system with carbon regeneration completed in 1980. The plant was originally
constructed in 1961 as a 6 MGD trickling filter plant. In 1993 the treatment plant was upgraded to
include chemical and biological phosphorous removal. The plant is situated on Quarry Rd. and is off
NC Highway 70 near the town of Haw River. The treated effluent is discharged into the Haw River.
Section II — Treatment Process & Operation
Treatment Process Summary:
The basic treatment process consists of the following elements and is explained in more detail later in
this section.
1. Pretreatment — including coarse manual bar screen, grit removal, mechanical bar screen, and
flow metering and recording
2. Raw waste water pumping, in -line flow equalization and equalized flow pumping
3. Chemical feed system that includes aluminum sulfate and sodium hydroxide (caustic)
4. Primary clarification
5. Activated sludge / Activated Carbon aeration (often referred to as the "P.A.C.T process" for
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment) including carbon makeup, polymer addition,
secondary clarification, and sludge recycling
6. Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) — including denitrification of the return sludge and
anaerobic phosphorus release
7. Tertiary filtration — including backwash storage and pumping
8. Chlorination & dechlorination, cascade -type post aeration, and non -potable water reuse
9. Primary sludge handling and disposal — including gravity thickening; aerobic digestion, lime
stabilization; and land application
10. Secondary/Carbon sludge handling and carbon regeneration — including carbon sludge
thickening; high pressure wet air oxidation for sludge destruction and activated carbon
regeneration, and odor control.
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc page 3 of 19

Raw sewage first passes through a grit and screening removal chamber. These facilities are designed to
remove coarse settleable solids, such as rags, paper and sand from the waste stream. This process is the
first step in wastewater treatment and helps protect pumps and other equipment. The raw wastewater
(influent flow) is pumped to an equalization basin, although a bypass to the primary clarifiers has been
provided for flexibility. The equalization basin flow is mixed and aerated by 5 floating mechanical
aerators.
Subsequent flow to the plant is controlled by a series of fixed -flow pumps. This smoothing of the
hydraulic load greatly enhances plant performance and reliability.
After the equalization basin, the wastewater flows to the primary clarifiers is where settleable solids are
removed. At this stage, the settleable solids, called primary sludge, is withdrawn and thickened in
gravity thickeners. The thickened sludge is then pumped to the aerobic digester (mechanically aerated)
that was converted from an anaerobic digester. The sludge is stored there until it is lime -stabilized to
meet 40CFR503C regulations. Finally, the lime -stabilized sludge is applied to State -permitted farmland
under an approved Land Application program.
The primary clarifier effluent flows to anoxic/anaerobic tanks for phosphorus release after which it is
treated in two aeration basins. An alternate flow scheme puts the primary clarifier effluent directly into
the aeration basins. These basins contain activated sludge and carbon. The sludge floc characteristics
under these conditions provide both carbonaceous BOD removal and nitrification of ammonia nitrogen
in the same tank. Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC), is an aid to wastewater treatment, has been
developed by both the system suppliers and the PAC suppliers and can be applied as needed.
Next, the activated sludge/carbon is settled out in four final clarifiers. A portion of the settled
sludge/carbon is recirculated to the anoxic/anaerobic tanks or the aeration basins via an intermediate
pump station. The remaining portion of the activated sludge/carbon is wasted (pumped) to the
secondary sludge thickeners. Polymer can be added to the aeration tank effluent to aid solids settling in
the secondary clarifiers. Alum can be added to the secondary clarifier effluent as the primary means of
chemical phosphorous removal.
Excess sludge from the activated sludge/carbon system is wasted to two gravity sludge thickeners. Then
the thickened sludge/carbon slurry is treated under high pressure (700 psig) and temperature (460' F) to
completely oxidize the sludge to an inert ash and at the same time, regenerate the active pores in the
carbon. The ash is dewatered in a plate frame press and disposed of at the landfill as cover material.
Since the PAC regeneration step destroys a percentage of the PAC, virgin PAC must be added to the
regenerated PAC in order to maintain proper levels of carbon in the activated sludge (1200 — 2500
mg/L). PAC (in slurry form) is introduced into the primary effluent flowing to the aeration basins.
The secondary effluent then flows through six deep -bed Dynasand upflow filter cells. Each cell
contains seven filter modules. The filters function to recapture activated carbon and remove additional
suspended solids and BOD. The filter backwash wastewater can be stored in a mechanically mixed
storage basin and pumped back to the aeration tanks for subsequent treatment although generally the
filter backwash water goes back to the plant influent. Alternately, the filter wash water is returned to the
main plant flow at the plant flow at the plant headworks.
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc page 4 of 19

Disinfection of the East Burlington treatment plant effluent is accomplished through chlorination. Two
solution feed, vacuum type chlorinators are used to supply chlorine solution to the chlorine contact
chamber. The chorine contact chamber is also the reservoir for the treatment plant's non -potable water.
Finally, the chlorinated effluent is dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide (S02) and receives post aeration by
cascading down a stair -step aerator. The final quantity of effluent is measured by an open channel
Parshall flume.
Nine (9) industries discharging to sewers leading to the East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant
are considered significant industrial users (SILT), and come under the City's pretreatment program. The
annual monitoring data is included in the Pretreatment Annual Report prepared for 2004. Some
information about these industries is included at the end of this report.
A special thanks is extended to all the people who have made the operation of the East Burlington
Wastewater Treatment Facility successful this past year. These individuals cannot be thanked enough
for their dedicated efforts to ensure that the facility is staffed continuously, operated effectively and
maintained properly.
NOTE: The East Burlington WWTP has two stationary emergency generators
on site. One is located at the raw sewage pump station and provides
power to the raw sewage pumps. The other is located at the Zimpro soli.
solids handling building and provides power to various points in the
plant. In addition, the flow equalization basin pump station and the p
plantopperations building have "quick connect" gear installed to
connect to a portable (trailor mounted) generator.
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc page 5 of 19

Design Criteria:
Average Flow to headworks and equalization basin
12 MGD
Peak Flow to headworks and equalization basin
18 MGD
Flow to Plant
12 MGD
Population served in 2004
30,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
300 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
150 mg/L
NH3-N (Ammonia Nitrogen)
20 mg/L
pH
6-9
Temperature
70 —120o F
Receiving Stream
Haw River
Process Arrangement
1. Pretreatment
An asterisk (') indicates a parameter that has changed since last year's report
1. Screens
a. Manual Bar Screen
Width (inches)
Spacing (inches)
b. Mechanical Bar Screen
Width (inches)
Spacing (inches)
2. Cyclone Degritter — Grit Screw
3. Parshall Flume
4. Raw Sewage Pumps
Number
RPM
Horsepower
Flow (gpm)
Head (feet)
5. Equalization Basin
Capacity (MG)
Aerators
Effluent Sewage Pumps
2 @ 4,200 gpm, 35 ft. TDH, 690 RPM
1 @ 2,800 gpm, 35 ft. TDH, 690 RPM
1 @ 2,100 gpm, 35 ft. TDH, 690 RPM
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc
page 6 of 19
48
2
36
0.75
181,
4
1180
250
5,250
116
4.0
5@40HP

Design Criteria (continued)
2. Primary Treatment
The two (2) primary clarifiers are conventional solids settling facilities having center feed, peripheral overflow, and
central driving mechanisms for sludge and scum removal. The combined design flow for the primary clarifiers is 12
MGD.
A. Primary Clarifiers
1. Number
2
2. Diameter (feet)
100
3. Depth (feet)
10
4. Weir length (feet)
314
5. Total Surface Area (ft2)
7,850
6. Total Volume (ft3)
89,000
7. Weir Overflow Rates (gpd/ft)
19,108 each at design flow
8. Surface Overflow Rate (gpd/ft2)
764 each at design flow
9. Hydraulic Detention Time (hrs)
2.7 each at design flow
3. Chemical Storage and Feed System
A. Bulk Storage Tanks
1. Alum
2 @ 15,000 gallons
2. Sulfuric Acid
1 @ 15,000 gallons
3. Liquid Caustic
1 @ 15,000 gallons
4. Diameter (feet)
12
5. Height (feet)
18
B. Day Tanks
1. Alum
1 @ 1,000 gallons
2. Liquid Caustic
1 @ 1,000 gallons
3. Diameter (feet)
5.5
4, Height (feet)
6
C. Chemical Feed Pumps
1. Alum
2 @ 120 gallons per hour
2. Liquid Caustic
2 @ 30 gallons per hour
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc
page 7 of 19

Design Criteria (continued)
4. Secondary Treatment
A. Return Sludge denitrification tank
1. Number 1
2. Diameter (feet) 110
3. Capacity (gallons) 800,000 (including 90,000+ gallon bottom cone)
4. Depth Sidewall —10' I Center —14'
5. Mixers (6 total) 6 @ 10 HP each
6. Recycle Pumps NA
7. Recycle Flow Meter NA
8. Drain Pump NA
B. Anoxic / anaerobic tanks
a.
Number of Cells
8
b.
Capacity (gallons)
150,000 each
c.
Length (feet)
40
d.
Width (feet)
32
e.
Depth (feet)
16
f.
Mixers (1 per tank)
8 @ 10 HP each
C. Aeration Basins (2 basins)
1. Basin
g. Number of Cells 2
h. Capacity (gallons) 1,500,000 each
i. Length (feet) 200
j. Width (feet) 75
k. Depth (feet) 13
2. Detention Time 6 hours each at design flow
3. Blowers 4 @ 300 horsepower 18,500 cubic feet per minute each
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc page 8 of 19

D. Secondary Clarifiers (4 Clarifiers)
1. Diameter
Flow Distribution at 12 MGD
1.
Diameter (ft)
2.
Weir Length (ft)
3.
Surface Area (ft2)
4.
Volume (ft3)
5.
Weir Overflow Rates (GPD/ft)
6.
Surface Overflow Rates (GPD/ft2)
7.
Hydraulic Detention Rate (hours)
E. Sludge Recirculation Pumps (4 total)
1. Type
2. RPM
3. Flow (gallons per minute)
4. Head (feet)
5. Final Treatment
Design Criteria (continued)
2 @ 100 feet, depth of 12.5 feet
2 @ 90 feet, depth of 10 feet
1 2 3 4
3.3 MGD 3.3 MGD 2.7 MGD 2.7 MGD
100
100
90
90
314
314
283
283
7,850
7,850
6,362
6,362
106,000
106,000
70,000
70,000
10,510
10,510
9,554
9,954
420
420
424
424
5.77
5.77
4.65
4.65
Centrifugal
705
2,875
25
A. Sand Filters (Dynasand) 6 cells (7 filter modules per cell — 42 Modules Total)
1. Design Flow 5,700 gpd/ft2
2. Filter Area 350 ft2 per cell / 2,100 ft2 total
3. Filter Media Sand
4. Depth of Media (inches) 78
5. Loading Rate Design: 4 gpm per ft2
6. Backwash Basin Pumps 2 @ 1,750 RPM, 500 gpm at 68 feet TDH
7. Backwash storage Basin (gallons) 378,675
8. Backwash storage Basin Mixer 20 HP surface aerator
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc
page 9 of 19

Design Criteria (continued)
B. Disinfection Chlorine Contact Basins (2 basins)
1. Length (feet) 31
2. Width (feet) 61
3. Depth (feet) 10
4. Capacity (gallons each) 141,450
5. Detention time (minutes) @ 12 MGD 33.9
6. Sludge Treatment
A. Primary Sludge - Sludge Thickeners (2)
1. Number 2
2. Type gravity
3. Diameter (feet) 26
4. Depth (feet) 10
5. Capacity 39,900 gallons each
B. Aerated Primary Sludge Storage Tanks
1. Number 2
2. Diameter (feet) 50 feet
3. Depth (feet) 28
4. Capacity (gallons each) 412,000
5. Mechanical Aerator (HP) 75
C. Stabilized Sludge Storage Tank
1. Number
1
2. Diameter (feet)
70
3. Depth (feet)
14.7
4. Capacity (gallons)
400,000
5. Mixers
Jet Mix (50 HP)
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc page 10 of 19

D. Secondary Sludge — Sludge Thickeners
1. Number
2. Type
3. Diameter (feet)
4. Depth (feet)
5. Capacity
E. Secondary Sludge — Wet Air Oxidation
Design Criteria (continued)
2
Gravity
40
12.6
118,375 gallons each
Wet air oxidation and regeneration unit — 70 gpm capacity at 6% solids. The purpose of this unit is to oxidize or "burn up" organic sludge
into an ash that can be disposed of at landfills and to regenerate the activated carbon for re -use by using high pressure (800 psig) and
heat (460,1F).
1. Instrument air compressors (3)
2. High pressure pumps (2)
3. Process air compressor (2 trains)
4. Heat Exchanger (3)
5. Reactor
6. Steam Generators (2)
7. Ash Removal
Air-cooled rotary screw
Bag -type, variable speed (24 —120 gpm)
300 HP rotary screw feeding a 250 HP reciprocating unit
Double pipe type
Vertical, cylindrical tank, constructed of heavy carbon steel shell lined with a
layer of stainless steel.
Gas -fired 100 Hp each
Filter press with 1 meter plate frame
F. Lime Stabilization (1 silo)
1. Capacity (ft3) 3,215
2. Mix Basins 2
3. Length (feet) 20
4. Width (feet) 20
5. Depth (feet) 13
6. Capacity (gallons) 38,900 (2,992 gallons per foot)
7. Number of Mixers 2
8. Mixer Size (top entering mixers) 10 HP
9. Pumps 2 @ 500 — 800 gpm
2004 EB Waste Operations NPDES.doc
page 11 of 19

East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Facility
Effluent Toxicity Analyses Summary
NPDES # NC 0023868
IWC: 36%
Analysis
Start Date
Organism
Type
Result
Certified Lab
Date Lab
submitted data
5/16/2001
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
R & A Laboratories, Inc.
5/23/2001
8/8/2001
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
R & A Laboratories, Inc.
8/15/2001
11/28/2001
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
R & A Laboratories, Inc.
12/5/2002
2/6/2002
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
R & A Laboratories, Inc.
2/13/2002
5/8/2002
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
R & A Laboratories, Inc.
5/15/2002
8/7/2002
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
8/20/2002
11/13/2002
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
11/26/2002
2/19/2003
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
3/3/2003
5/21/2003
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
5/29/9003
8/27/2003
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
9/9/2003
11/12/2003
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Simalabs International
11/25/2003
2/11/2004
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
2/19/2004
5/19/2004
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
5/27/2004
8/11/2004
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
8/18/2004
11/9/2004
Fathead Minnow
Chronic Multi Conc
Pass (ChV 62.4)
Meritech, Inc.
11/18/2004
11/10/2004
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
11/18/2004
2/15/2005
Fathead Minnow
Chronic Multi Conc
Pass (ChV >72)
Meritech, Inc.
2/24/2005
2/17/2005
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
2/24/2005
5/10/2005
Fathead Minnow
Chronic Multi Conc
Pass (ChV 44)
Meritech, Inc.
5/18/2005
5/11/2005
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
5/18/2005
8/9/2005
Fathead Minnow
Chronic Multi Conc
Pass (ChV >72)
Meritech, Inc.
8/18/2005
8/10/2005
Ceriodaphnia
Chronic P/F
Pass
Meritech, Inc.
8/18/2005

Sludge Management Plan
East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant, NPDES Permit No. NCO023868
The East Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant has two methods of disposing of treated
wastewater residuals (biosolids). Both of these methods satisfy the requirements of 40
CFR 503 regulations and state regulations for the disposal of wastewater residuals.
The East Burlington WWTP generates approximately 5.4 million gallons (2004) of Class
B lime stabilized biosolids annually for land application under non -discharge permit
number WQ0000520 issued by NCDENR to the City of Burlington NC. This product is
a mixture of hydrated lime and biosolids using primary sludge. This mixture averaged
3.6% solids during 2004.
The lime stabilization method involves the aerated storage (approximately 400,000
gallons of storage capacity) of gravity thickened primary sludge. As space becomes
available, this thickened sludge is transferred to lime stabilization contact tanks for
stabilization with hydrated lime to pH >12 for over 2 hours and pH >11.5 for the
remainder of the 24 hour process. This sludge is then stored (approximately 800,000
gallons of storage capacity) and maintained at pH 11.5 or higher until it can be applied to
permitted farmland. Application as a liquid sludge is by surface spray or subsurface
injection. The City has over 3000 acres permitted by the NCDENR for the sludge
management program. The City contracts with a biosolids management company
(Synagro) to perform the transportation and site application of the biosolids product.
Synagro also assists with the program recordkeeping and reporting. Annual reports are
submitted to the USEPA and to NCDENR.
Secondary sludge is thickened in gravity thickeners and processed through a Zimpro® wet
air oxidation unit at high pressure (840 psi) and temperature (4600F). The liquid waste
stream is processed to capture regenerated powdered carbon and return it to the activated
sludge process train. The "ash" or waste solids from the process are settled in a clarifier
and dewatered with a plate -frame press to about 65% solids. These residuals are hauled
to the Alamance County landfill or other lined landfills and incorporated as cover
material.
Approximately 10.5 million gallons (2004) per year are processed through the Zimpro®
process. The solids content of the sludge stream feeding the Zimpro unit averaged
3.7%.
TCLP testing of the land application biosolids and the Zimpro "ash" taken to the landfill
has been provided to the State in the annual reports. The 2005 data is attached to this
NPDES permit application.
East Burlington WWTP, Quarry Rd., Burlington, NC NPDES Permit No. NCO023868

/J lin .4,,�
34-0
�o /aInaC
COY -/r6 f s

NPDES/Non-Discharge Permitting Unit Pretreatment Information Request Form
NPDES OR NONDISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Date of Request 3/14/2006
Facility
East Burlington WWTP
Permit #
NCO023868
Region
WSRO
Requestor
Dawn Jeffries
Pretreatment A-F Towns- Dana Folley (ext. 523)
Contact G-M Towns- Jon Risgaard (ext. 580)
N-Z Towns- Deborah Gore (ext. 593)
COMMENTS TO PRETREATMENT UNIT:
PRETREATMENT UNIT COMPLETES THIS PART:
Status of Pretreatment
Program (circle all that apply)
1) the facility has no SIU's and does have a Division approved Pretreatment Program that is INACTIVE
2) the facility has no SIU's and does not have a Division approved Pretreatment Program
3) the facilit ha�(or is develo Ing) a Pretreatment Program
3a) is Full Program with LTMP or 3b) is Modified Program with STMP
4) the facility MUST develop a Pretreatment Program - Full Modified
5) additional conditions regarding Pretreatment attached or listed below
Flow
Permitted MGD Actual MGD STMP time frame:
Industrial_IV�Cyi7
most recent
Domestic
next cycle
Pollutant
L
Check List
POC due to
(S)
NPDES/Non-
STMP
LTMP
T
Discharge
Required
Required by
Frequency at
Frequency at
MP
Permit Limit
by EPA'
503 Sludge**
POC due to SIU"'
Site specific POC Provide Explanation)""
effluent
effimefol
BOD
✓
4
Q
TSS
✓
4
Q Itl
NH3
4
Q
Arsenic
✓
4
Q
q
Cadmium
4
Q
4
Chromium
4
✓
4
Q
4
Copper
4
4
Q
Cyanide
4
Q
4
Lead
✓
4
Q
Mercury
4
Q
Molybdenum
4
Q
�I
Nickel
4
Q
Silver
4
Q
Selenium
4
Q
Zinc
4
Q
o fa Q
4
Q 10
4
Q
4
Q
4
Q
4
Q
4
Q,...
'Always in the LTMP
all LTMP/STMP effluentdata
"Only in the LTMP if the POTW land applies sludge
on DMRs?
Only in LTMP while the SIU is connected to the POTW
— Only in LTMP when the
pollutant is a specific concern to the POTW (ex -Chlorides for a POTW who accepts Textile waste)
Yes
Q= Quarterly
No I/
(attach data)
M=Monthly
Comments:
L P� �z p
available in spreadsheet?
Yes
No
Aft v--kA
version 10/8/03
NPDES Pretreatment. request. form.0310081
Revised: August 4, 2000

Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)a3] from SR 3820 to 0.5 miles downstream of SR 2190 (1.6 miles) is
Impaired for aquatic life because of a Fair benthic community rating at site BB364. Turbidity
also exceeded the water quality standard in 10 percent of samples at site BA761. This segment is
Not Rated for recreation because fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at site
BA761.
The Brush Creek watershed drains large impervious areas from the Piedmont Triad International
Airport as well as residential areas west of the airport. Road construction along the I-85 corridor
has also impacted water quality in Brush Creek. DWQ staff noted several storm sewers draining
directly into the creek and evidence of very high storm flows. There is no riparian area on Brush
Creek as it flows through a golf course. A stressor survey conducted in 2003 found habitat
degradation caused by modified watershed hydrology resulting in streambank erosion and
sedimentation continues to stress the benthic community in Brush Creek.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in the Brush Creek watershed. DWQ recommends
that the City of Greensboro (Appendix V) continue to monitor water quality at site BA761 and
submit these data to DWQ. Construction of the FEDEX project should use and maintain BMPs
to minimize further disturbance to the Brush Creek watershed. DWQ will determine if intensive
sampling is needed to assess the fecal coliform bacteria standard in this creek (Appendix X).
Further recommendations to protect streams in urbanizing areas and to restore streams in existing
urban areas are discussed in Chapter 31.
Segments 16-11-4-(1)al and a3 will remain on the 303(d) list of Impaired waters. Segment 16-
11-4-(1)a2 will be removed from the 303(d) list because of the Good fish community rating.
TMDLs (Chapter 35) will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing.
2.3.2 Haw River [AU# 16-(1)d2, d3 and et
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basin plan recommended that a TMDL be developed for turbidity and fecal coliform
bacteria in this segment of the Haw River. The plan also noted that improvements to the
Buffalo/Reedy Fork watersheds were also needed.
Current Status
The Haw River [16-(1)d2] from the subbasin boundary to Service Creek (10.1 miles) is
Supporting aquatic life because no criteria were exceeded at sites BA59 and BA746, although
turbidity exceeded the standard in 9.8 percent of samples collected at site BA59. The fecal
coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded during the assessment period, but bacteria
levels were below the standard during resamples the following summer at sites BA59 and
BA746. This segment is Supporting recreation.
The Haw River [16-(1)d3] from Service Creek to NC 49 (2.1 miles) is Impaired for recreation
because the fecal coliform bacteria standard was violated at site BA74. Although this segment is
Supporting aquatic life, the turbidity standard was exceeded in 10 percent of samples collected at
site BA74. Turbidity violated the standard in two storm events monitored by DWQ.
Chapter 2 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 21

Waters in the following sections are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number
is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired
waters list and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of
the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-06-02 in the aquatic life, recreation,
fish consumption and water supply categories. All waters are Impaired on an evaluated basis in
the fish consumption category because of fish consumption advice that applies to the entire
basin. In the water supply category, all WS classified waters (4,201.1 acres and 182.3 miles) are
Supporting on an evaluated basis based on reports from DEH regional water treatment plant
consultants. Refer to Appendix X for a complete list of monitored waters and more information
on Supporting monitored waters.
There were 179.8 stream miles (45.7 percent) and 3,811.2 freshwater acres (88.4 percent)
monitored during this assessment period in the aquatic life category. There were 63.5 miles
(16.2 percent) of Impaired waters in this category. There were also 16.5 stream miles (4.2
percent) Impaired for recreation in this subbasin.
2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2000) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2006 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Refer to the overview for more _
information on AUs. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Appendix VII.
2.3.1 Brush Creek [AU# 16-11-4-(1)al, a2 and a3]
2000 Recommendations
.The 2000 basin plan recommended that Brush Creek be resampled and that DWQ work with the
City of Greensboro to improve water quality where possible.
Current Status
Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)al] from source to SR 2085 (2.4 miles) is Not Rated for aquatic life
because a benthic community rating could not be assigned at site BB93 because of the small size
of the stream.
Brush Creek [16-11-4-(1)a2] from SR 2085 to 0.3 miles downstream of SR 3820 (1.8 miles) is
Supporting aquatic life because of a Good fish community rating at site BF69.
Chapter 2 — Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 20

CAPE FEAR River Basin
Subbasin 03-06-01
Assessment Impaired Year
Waterbody and Description Unit (AU) Class Subbasin Use Listed Category and Reason for Listing Potential Source(s) Miles or Acres
Little Troublesome Creek 16-7a C NSW 03-06-01 6 3.5 FW Miles
From source to Reidsville WWTP AL 2000 6 Impaired biological integrity Impervious Surface
Little Troublesome Creek 16-7b C NSW 03-06-01 6 5.1 FW Miles
From Reidsville WWTP to Haw River
Troublesome Creek 16-6-(3) C NSW 03-06-01
From dam at Lake Reidsville to Haw River
CAPE FEAR River Basin
REC 1998 4a Standard violation: Fecal Coliform Agriculture
AL 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity Impervious Surface
Road Construction
MS4NPDES
AL 2006 5 Standard violation: Low Dissolved Unknown
Oxygen
Impoundment
1.8 FW Miles
Subbasin 03-06-02
Brush Creek 16-11.4-(1)al WS-III 03-06-02 6 2.4 FW Miles
NSW
From source to UT at SR 2085
Brush Creek
AL 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity
16-11-4-(1)a3 WS-III 03-06-02 6
NSW
1.6 FW Miles
From UT 0.3 miles downstream of SR 3820 to a point 0.5 mile downstream of AL 1998 6 Impaired biological integrity MS4 NPDES
Guilford County SR 2190
16-(1)d2 C NSW 03-06-02 6 10.1 FW Miles
From Subbasin 01/02 boundary to Service Creek 0 1998 ogit ittEBgrity $ MS4 NPDES
0 1998 W2A
Impervious Surface
Agriculture
fi*"*rMft&W6VVW-,st "North Carolina 3O3(d) List 2006 Tuesday, January 31, 2006
CAPE FEAR Basin 03-06-02 Page 2 of 126

Table 5 CAPE FEAR
Subbasin 03-06-02
AU Number Classification
Length/Area
Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation Assessment
Year/
Description
Al. Rating
Station Result Parameter % Fxc
RFC Rating Station
Result
Stressors Sources
MAW RIVER
16-(I)d2 CNSW
](),I I-\V',Hiles
S
13A39 NCL Turbidity 9.�
S BA59
NCL
Turbidity
ImperciousSurfac,
BA59
NCE
Turbidity
MS4 NPDES
BA746
NCE
Turbidity
Agriculture
From Subbasin 01/02 boundary to Service Creek
16-(I)d3 C NSW
2.1 FW Miles
S
BA74 NCE Turbidity 9.6
I BA74
CE
Fecal C
Unknown
BA74
NCE
Turbidity
Unknown
Fro ice Creek to a NC 49
16-(1)e C NSW
18.5 FW Miles
S
BAl17 NCE
NR* BA118
NCE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Unknown
BAI18 NCE
BA76
NCE
Turbidity
Unknown
BA76 NCE Turbidity 9.8
BA90 NCE Turbidity 7.3
From NC 49 to a point 0.4 mile downstream of Cane
BB220
GF
2002
Creek (South side of Haw River)
BB220
GF
'1998
Ilorsepen Creek
16-11-5-(0.5)a WS-Ill NS 1.8 FW Miles NR
From source to Ballinger Road
BB205
NR
2001
BB205
NR
'2000
BB369
NR
2001
BB369
NR
2000
16-11-5-(0.5)b WS-III NS 3.2 FW Miles
From Ballinger Road to U.S. Hwy 220 BB61 P 2000
16-11-5-(2) WS-III NS 1.8 FW Miles
From U.S. Hwy 220 to Lake Brandt, Reedy Fork BB427 P 2003
BB427 NR '2001
BB427 F '2000
BF71 GF '1999
BA90 NCE
m
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
NR* BA762 NCE Fecal Colifotm Bacteria Unknown
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
NR* BA759 NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Unknown
Habitat Degradation MS4 NPDES
CAPE FEAR Subbasin 03-06-02

TMDL, completed in 2004 and approved in January 2005, recommended a 61 percent
Ise
uction in Total Suspended Solids and a 77 percent reduction in fecal coliform bacteria fro
h point and nonpoint sources to meet the turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria standards i
two segments of the Haw River (Chapter 35).
The Haw River [16-(1)e] from NC 49 to Cane Creek (18.5 miles) is Supporting aquatic life
because of a Good -Fair benthic community rating at site BB220; however, the turbidity standard
was exceeded in 7 and 10 percent of samples collected at site BA76 and BA90. This segment is
Not Rated for recreation because the fecal coliform bacteria screening criteria were exceeded at
sites BA76, BA90 and BA 118.
2005 Recommendations
DWQ will work with nonpoint source agencies and local governments to identify funding
sources and BMP opportunities to implement reductions in TSS and fecal coliform bacteria as
recommended in the TMDL. DWQ will continue to monitor the Haw River.
Segment 16-(1)d2 will be removed from the 303(d) list of Impaired waters because the fecal
coliform bacteria and turbidity standards were not violated. Segment 16-(1)d3 will remain on
the 303(d) until water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria are met, although turbidity
will be removed as a cause of impairment based on data from site BA74. TMDLs (Chapter 35)
will be developed for identified stressors within 8-13 years of listing.
Water Quality Initiatives
The Ag Sediment initiative estimates that $650,000 is needed to install field agriculture BMPs
and livestock exclusion to reduce agriculture loading of turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria to
this segment of the Haw River. The survey also noted urban development, impervious surfaces,
and streambank erosion in addition to agriculture as sources of sediment.
In 1999, Graham received a $20,000 CWMTF (Chapter 34) grant to study the feasibility of a
greenway between I-85 and NC 54 along the Haw River [16-(1)e]. In 2001, Graham received a
$140,000 CWMTF grant to purchase 22 acres along the Haw River as part of the greenway
system. In 2001, Piedmont Triad COG (Chapter 34) received a $65,000 CWMTF grant to
develop a riparian corridor plan targeting 214 parcels along the Haw River.
2.3.3 Horsepen Creek [AU# 16-11-5-(0.5)a and b and 16-11-5-(2)] and Unnamed
Tributary at Guilford College [AU#16-11-5-1-(2)]
2000 Recommendations
The 2000 basinwide plan recommended that Horsepen Creek be resampled and that DWQ work
with the City of Greensboro to improve water quality where possible. DWQ, with the CWMTF,
conducted a detailed study of the watershed as part of WARP project to identify stressors and
recommend solutions to water quality problems.
Current Status
Horsepen Creek [16-11-5-(0.5)a] from source to Ballinger Road (1.8 miles) is Not Rated for
aquatic life because benthic community ratings could not be assigned at sites BB369 and BB205.
Amoco Greensboro Terminal (NC0003671) had significant violations of phenolics permit limits
Chapter 2 - Cape Fear River Subbasin 03-06-02 22

CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Subbasin
Stream Index Number
Map Number
Class
Goshen Swamp
CPF22
18-74-19
G25NE6
C;Sw
Governors Creek
CPF17
18-88-1-4
K27SW7
SC;Sw,HQW
Grape Branch
CPF22
18-74-19-18
G27SW6
C;Sw
Grassy Creek
CPF10
17-25.5
F20NE1
C
Graveyard Creek
CPF23
18-74-43
J27NE1
C;Sw
Grays Branch
CPF02
16-14-2
B21SW7
WS-II;HQW,NSW
Grays Creek
CPF15
18-35-(2)
H23NE4
C
Grays Creek (Rainey Pond, Rainbow Pond)
CPF15
18-35-(1)
H23NE4
B
Great Branch (Hussey Pond)
CPF21
18-74-11
G27NE8
C;Sw
Great Coharie Creek (Blackmans Pond)
CPF19
18-68-1
G25NW2
C;Sw
Green Channel
CPF24
18-87-16
J28SW4
SA;ORW
Green Oak Creek
CPF23
18-74-44
J27NE2
C;Sw
Greenbriar Creek
CPF12
17-43-5
D21SW1
WS-III
Greenfield Creek
CPF17
18-76
K27NW2
SC;Sw
Greenfield Lake
CPF17
18-76-1
K27NW2
C;Sw
Greens Creek (Holmes Pond)
CPF15
18-24-3-3
G23NW9
WS-IV,B
Gregory Creek
CPF23
18-74-41
I27SE7
C;Sw
Grey Run
CPF22
18-74-20.2
G27SW9
C;Sw
Griffin Lake
CPF14
18-23-12
G21NE3
WS-III
Grist Mill Branch
CPF17
18-65.5
J26SW3
C;Sw
Grove Creek
CPF22
18-74-21
H27NW1
C;Sw
Guffords Branch
CPF23
18-74-55-9-4
J26NE6
C;Sw
Gulf Creek
CPF07
18-5-(1)
E22SE6
WS-IV
Gulf Creek
CPF07
18-5-(2)
E22SE6
WS-IV;CA
Gully Branch
CPF15
18-31-20.7
H22NE2
B
Gum Branch
CPF15
18-31-6
G21SE2
C
Gum Branch
CPF20
18-68-18-2-1
I26NW9
C;Sw
Gum Creek
CPF03
16-19-7
C21SW4
C;NSW
Gum Creek
CPF05
16-41-1-13
D23NW8
WS-IV;NSW
Gum Fork
CPF07
18-4-7-2
E22SW6
WS-IV
Gum Log Branch
CPF17
18-88-1-3-1
L26NE6
SC;Sw,HQW
Gum Log Canal
CPF15
18-28-1
G23SE2
C
Gum Pudding Branch
CPF22
18-74-19-15-2
G27SW8
C;Sw
Gum Swamp
CPF13
18-20-13-3
F22SW6
C
Gum Swamp
CPF14
18-23-32-4-1
F23SE8
C
Gum Swamp
CPF18
18-68-12-6.5
H24NW2
C;Sw
Gum Swamp
CPF22
18-74-23-1
H27NE3
C;Sw
HAW RIVER
CPF01
16-(1)
C18NE6
C;NSW
HAW RIVER
CPF03
16-(1)
C18NE6
C;NSW
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(1)
C18NE6
C;NSW
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(28.5)
D21NE9
WS-IV;NSW
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(36.3)
D22SW9
WS-IV;NSW,CA
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(36.7)
D22SW9
WS-IV;NSW
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(37.3)
E22NE1
WS-IV;NSW,CA
HAW RIVER
CPF04
16-(42)
E22NE8
WS-IV
HAW RIVER
CPF07
16-(42)
E22NE8
WS-IV
HAW RIVER
CPF11
16-(42)
E22NE8
WS-IV
HAW RIVER (B. Everett Jordan Lake below
CPF04
16-(37.5)
E22NE1
WS-IV,B;NSW,CA
normal pool elevation)
HAW RIVER (B. Everett Jordan Lake below
CPF05
16-(37.5)
E22NE1
WS-IV,B;NSW,CA
normal pool elevation)
Hackett Lake
CPF03
16-19-3-1
C20SW7
WS-IV;NSW
Hairs Mill Creek
CPF15
18-36
H23NE8
C
Hall Branch
CPF17
18-64-9
J25SE6
C;Sw
Halls Marsh
CPF22
18-74-19-11
G27SW1
C;Sw
Hammond Creek
CPF16
18-50
I24SE4
C
Page 10 of 28

•l
POTW NAME City of Burlington East Plant
NPDESINONDISCHARGE PERMIT# NC002386B
SAMPLE LOCATION Effluent
Long Term Monitoring Plan Data Summary
12/01103-11/31/04
Sam le Date C anide i /
Phosphorus
Mercury iirtr
Lead
Nickel
Chromium
Cadmium
lAluminum
Zinc
Co er
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium
Mo
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
12I812003
0.005
0.7
0 00 00886
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.442
0.07
0.103
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.012
<0.0 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
1 /212004
0.005
0.8
0.00 00948
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.434
0.045
0.023
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.011
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
2/25/2004
0.005
1.2
0.00 00 86
0.005
1 0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.61
0.129
0.023
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.014
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
3/23/2004
0.005
0.7
0.000 1 4
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.417
0.09
0.027
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.011
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<.005
4/22/2004
0.005
0.7
0.00 006 1
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.387
0.097
0.019
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.0025
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
5/62004
0.005
1
0.00 1
0.013
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.713
0.099
0.034
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.007
<0.01
<0.01
a0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
6/23/2004
0.005
0.4
O.OD 00 2
0.013
0.005
0.0025
0.001
0.403
0.104
0.015
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
7282004
0.005
0.6
0.000 1
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.001
0.224
0.135
0.027
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.012
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
8252004
0.005
0.4
0.00 0 6
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.001
0.192
0.198
0.027
0.0026
0.005
0.005
1 0.014
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
9/15/2004
0.005
0.4
0.000 07 9
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
1.05
0.166
0.014
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.027
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
10/142004
0.005
0.9
0.000 1 6
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.001
0.572
0.137
0.024
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.014
<0.01
<0.01
10.01
<0.005
<0.002
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
11/17/2004
0.005
0.6
0.000 0003
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
1 0.4
0.123
0.037
0.0025
1 0.005
0.005
0.008
Total
0.0600
8.4000
0.0001
0.0760
0.0600
0.0425
0.0120
5.8440
1.3930
0.3730
0.0300
0.0600
0.0600
0.1425
# Values
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
12.0000
Average
0.0050
0.7000
0.0000
0.0063
0.0050
0.0035
0.0010
0.4870
0.1161
0.0311
0.0025
0.0050
0.0050
0.0119
Maximum
0.0050
1.2000
0.0000
0.0130
0.0050
0.0080
0.0010
1.0500
0.1980
0.1030
0.0025
0.0050
0.0050
0.0270
Minimum
0.0050
0.4000
0.0000
0.0050
0.0050
0.0025
0.0010
0.1920
0.0450
0.0140
0.0025
0.0050
0.0050
0.0025
� r
CIO
bK r0�(%
St1J-t,�
r
1

POTW NAME
City of Burlington East Plant
Long Term Monitoring Plan Data Summary
NPDES/NONDISCHARGE
PERMIT #
NCO023868
SAMPLE LOCATION
Effluent
Below Detection Limit Data (BDL) should be marked as "< and the detection limit",
i.e.<0.002.
Sample Date Flow =
BOD
TSS
Cyanide
Ammonia
Phosphoru
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Chromium Cadmium
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
3/22/2005
5.3
11.8
0.005
0.250
0.5
6.25
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.001
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
6/8/2005
3.5
7.6
0.005
0.250
0.4
8.88
0.005
0.005
0.0056
0.001
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.002
9/15/2005
2.5
4.2
0.005
0.250
0.8
4.22
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.001
<0.01
<0.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.002
11/9/2005
2.2
4.5
0.005
0.250
0.8
6.99
0.005
0.005
0.0071.;..
0.001
2/9/2006
7.24
Total
0.000
13.500
28.100
0.020
1.000
2.500
33.580
0.020
0.020
0.022
0.004
# Values
0.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
5.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
Average
#DIV/0!
3.375
7.025
0.005
0.250
0.625
6.716
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.001
Maximum
0.000
5.300
11.800
0.005
0.250
0.800
8.880
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.001
Minimum
0.000
2.200
4.200
0.005
0.250
0.400
4.220
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.001

Y i
Aluminum
Zinc
0.372
0.057
0.169
0.042
0.191
0.024
0.12
0.059
7/
✓
r
°'
Copper
Silver
Arsenic
Selenium
Mo
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
0.012
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.008
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.012
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.0025
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.027
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.0025
<0.005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.018
0.0025
0.005
0.005
0.0025
0.852
0.182
0.069
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.016
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
0.213
0.046
0.017
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.372
0.059
0.027
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.120
0.024
0.012
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.003

CITY OF urlington
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
P.O. Box 1358
Burlington, N.C. 27216-1358
STEPHEN R. SHOAF
DIRECTOR OF ITILITIES
November 21, 2005
Mr. Charles H. Weaver, Jr.
NCDENR/DWQ/ Point Source Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: NPDES Permit Renewal Application
East Burlington WWTP, NPDES No. NCO023868
Burlington, Alamance County
Dear Mr. Weaver:
The City of Burlington NC requests renewal of NPDES Permit No. NC0023868.
Enclosed are one original and two copies of the NPDES Form 2A. There are several
attachments to provide required information or explanation of items on the application.
The required TCLP sludge analyses and Priority Pollutant Analyses are included.
If you have questions concerning the application or need additional information,
please contact me at [phone] or email me at sshoaaci.burlin on.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Shoaf
Director of Utilities
Enclosures